oil gusher in california

[Mr. H.]

Looking for and, ideally, finding oil is a quest unto itself. Belive me, the two aren't mutually inclusive.

It's a fine balance between science and economics. Do you think that the people who embark on this quest give a flying fuck about peak oil?

Geoligists, geoscientists, geophysicists, financiers, money managers, project managers, contractors, drilling superintendants, drilling formen, and rig hands are one and all focused upon making a commodity squirt out of the ground and into the tanks.

A commodity. A money making, bill paying, get the groceries on the table clothes on my kids back pay the mortgage commodity.

Philsophise all you want to about peak shit. The men, women, and children of the world's petroleum industry will keep on keepin' on until there is no money to be made. When the market bounces high they do their thing. When it crashes (remember $10 oil just a decade ago?), they'll lose their shirts.

You all too easily discount the contributions of every single little mom and pop operator especially those in the U.S. of A. It adds up- get that? It may be a drop in the big bucket but it may mean a college education to Mr. and Mrs. Smith's kid in bo-hunk nowheresville.

There is no peak to the determination and fight down here in the trenches. There's only a desire to make a better life amid the never-ending acrimonious public and political idiocy that permiates a blind mindset.

For over 150 years you've been given a magic elixer that's benefited mankind to no end. Yet you derisively and continually scorn the hand that feeds you. Goddamn bunch of fucking idiots.

 

[mdn2000]

U.S. geologist M. King Hubbert, flawed analysis based on a basic mis-understanding of geology.

When U.S. geologist M. King Hubbert introduced his Peak Oil Theory he did not understand the geology of the earth. How much more evidense do we need that the theory is bad, anything based on a flawed understanding of geology will result in a theory with deep, irreconciable flaws.

 

[JiggsCasey]

The technical definition of peak oil is that the production rate of oil will one day reach a maximum from which it shall retreat, never to return. No one disputes that in a finite system, the production of any finite thing within it cannot increase forever (maybe some of the abiotic crowd would give you an argument with this one).

And there it is. ... But, just to be clear, several on your side of the "everything is fine" fence do indeed dispute that. Several.

The consequences tend to be where the rub is. Peak oilers want the world to die, yuppies in particular, Humvee owners if possible, and if you don't plan on becoming Amish...well....you don't believe enough yet.

This is laughably pretentious and grossly inaccurate. It is akin to pretending "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists." Speaking of dogma.

No one wants the world to die, drama. All we want is for the undeniable fact to be finally acknowledged by heads of state, transparent reserve figures put forth once and for all, and for open dialogue to be established between nations. People like you keep that condition from ever being realized, just like with how you've all effectively muddied waters on climate change.

Peakers consider themselves smarter, more analytical, in tune with the geosciences because of this "special" knowledge they have.

Dead wrong. Just more honest with ourselves based on the data, and not mired in denial.

Growing tomatos in their kitchen windows they dream of the day when the fuel stops, the mutant zombie bikers prowl the devastated suburban neighborhoods, and their ability to grow those tomatos and use their AR15's will save them.

More nonsense, in a desperate ploy to demonize people with a belief system that you ultimate agree is accurate. You're lying, because that's what you guys do when faced with an uncertain near future and the potential end of your free market gluttony.

Basically, they have just dressed up their own Rapture scenario.

Our own, to counter that of your RW camp? I don't see it that way, but at least ours is based on hard geological and economic data, rather than vague allegory in a funny book.

Of course, they react violently when you point these religious aspects out to them.

Not hardly. But you've just described Christian Fascists to a T.

To them it can't be a religion because they base it on the science as laid down by the Prophet Hubbert. He actually was a scientist, and a darn good one.

And the countless scientists who have followed who have all corroborated that his main thesis was dead-on correct, as you've conceded.

They use scientific sounding acronyms like EROEI,

Actually, the International Energy Agency and the U.S. Dept. of Energy uses them at the very crux of the net energy question, and we merely provide what they present. Good try, however.

they pretend to discuss the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (with the level of understanding of pre-schoolers),

The law of entropy? That energy only converts in one direction, from usable to unusable?LOL. Gosh, I'm sorry. What about it are we somehow getting wrong, or not fully understanding? School us.

Regardless, if we provide a full-on physics lesson, do you think your followers here will even read it? Heck, they don't even read the JOE or the IEA's latest report summing up our entire argument, so clearly something like thermodynamics has to be bullet-pointed for them in order to keep the discussion fluid.

But if you'd like, we can get into it with greater depth, and you can point out how we somehow "miss it" as it relates to our undeniable global energy crisis.

they convert Hubberts original hand drawn bell shaped curve into something of mathematical precision...and then genuflect at its symmetry.

Actually, scientists since have improved upon the model, and still come to the same basic conclusion, which you've conceded. We merely transfer the message.

Thats the basics.

Wrong. That's the pretentious pap you're trying to pass off in order to conjure up a straw man scenario and petty connotation that is not remotely accurate to the reality.

I could whip up the same smarmy narrative regarding the simplistic denialist camp of an ideology clinging desperately to market solutions, hope, and "the way it's always been," but considering you've essentially admitted we're right - and only disputed the ramifications - I don't really see a point.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Looking for and, ideally, finding oil is a quest unto itself. Belive me, the two aren't mutually inclusive.

It's a fine balance between science and economics. Do you think that the people who embark on this quest give a flying fuck about peak oil?

The men in this video who embark on that quest sure "give a flying fuck":

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd7QGbNKxoQ[/ame]

Geoligists, geoscientists, geophysicists, financiers, money managers, project managers, contractors, drilling superintendants, drilling formen, and rig hands are one and all focused upon making a commodity squirt out of the ground and into the tanks.

No one disputes this. Who are you arguing with?

A commodity. A money making, bill paying, get the groceries on the table clothes on my kids back pay the mortgage commodity.

But the problem is denialists believe nuclear and tar sands can maintain all those modern conveniences out of one side of their mouth, and then insist there's plenty of crude out the other.

Philsophise all you want to about peak shit. The men, women, and children of the world's petroleum industry will keep on keepin' on until there is no money to be made. When the market bounces high they do their thing. When it crashes (remember $10 oil just a decade ago?), they'll lose their shirts.

Not sure what your point is here. That oil industry workers are not recognized enough? I can assure you, those who recognize peak are far more aware of the work petrol insiders do and how important it is than those who deny global depletion is even happening, or those that insist the markets will cure all, regardless of how much is left.

You all too easily discount the contributions of every single little mom and pop operator especially those in the U.S. of A. It adds up- get that? It may be a drop in the big bucket but it may mean a college education to Mr. and Mrs. Smith's kid in bo-hunk nowheresville.

There is no peak to the determination and fight down here in the trenches. There's only a desire to make a better life amid the never-ending acrimonious public and political idiocy that permiates a blind mindset.

Again, not sure what the point is here, germane to the discussion, besides to shine a light on how important the industry is to their own personal well-being. That's kinda obvious.

For over 150 years you've been given a magic elixer that's benefited mankind to no end.

I've been saying that since contributing here. This is a point that denialists need to get their head around, not us. We're fully aware.

Yet you derisively and continually scorn the hand that feeds you.

Who? How? The argument here, at least from our standpoint, is "where is it?", not "stop doing it!"

Goddamn bunch of fucking idiots.

Nice... But, who?

 

[westwall]

Looking for and, ideally, finding oil is a quest unto itself. Belive me, the two aren't mutually inclusive.

It's a fine balance between science and economics. Do you think that the people who embark on this quest give a flying fuck about peak oil?

The men in this video who embark on that quest sure "give a flying fuck":

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd7QGbNKxoQ[/ame]

Geoligists, geoscientists, geophysicists, financiers, money managers, project managers, contractors, drilling superintendants, drilling formen, and rig hands are one and all focused upon making a commodity squirt out of the ground and into the tanks.

No one disputes this. Who are you arguing with?



But the problem is denialists believe nuclear and tar sands can maintain all those modern conveniences out of one side of their mouth, and then insist there's plenty of crude out the other.



Not sure what your point is here. That oil industry workers are not recognized enough? I can assure you, those who recognize peak are far more aware of the work petrol insiders do and how important it is than those who deny global depletion is even happening, or those that insist the markets will cure all, regardless of how much is left.





Again, not sure what the point is here, germane to the discussion, besides to shine a light on how important the industry is to their own personal well-being. That's kinda obvious.



I've been saying that since contributing here. This is a point that denialists need to get their head around, not us. We're fully aware.

Yet you derisively and continually scorn the hand that feeds you.

Who? How? The argument here, at least from our standpoint, is "where is it?", not "stop doing it!"

Goddamn bunch of fucking idiots.

Nice... But, who?

So tell us oh wise and wonderful. What is your plan?

 

[JiggsCasey]

So tell us oh wise and wonderful. What is your plan?

Thanks. I would be willing to write something up that loosely adheres to and expands upon the Rimini Protocol of 2003.

But if you're going to continue being a dick about the topic on a personal level, and sway the goal posts and distort the central issue, I don't really see a point.

Acknowledge the problem, then we can find/debate solutions.

 

[westwall]

So tell us oh wise and wonderful. What is your plan?

Thanks. I would be willing to write something up that loosely adheres to and expands upon the Rimini Protocol of 2003.

But if you're going to continue being a dick about the topic on a personal level, and sway the goal posts and distort the central issue, I don't really see a point.

Acknowledge the problem, then we can find/debate solutions.

Don't act like a juvenile calling people names and I will be quite happy to listen to you. You antagonise people endlessly which doesn't help you. I don't acknowledge the "problem" but your solutions might still be beneficial even without the "problem". If your solutions require a "problem" to be beneficial that tends to imply that your solutions are not beneficial overall.

 

[Old Rocks]

Superpowers like China and Russia are contracting with countries all over the world for more oil exploration.

They surely have. And this is the result.

Peak oil primer and links | Energy Bulletin

So when will oil peak globally?
Later in life M. King Hubbert predicted a global oil peak between 1995 and 2000. He may have been close to the mark, except that the geopolitically induced oil shocks of the 1970s slowed the growth of our use of oil.

As represented in the following figure, global oil discovery peaked in the late 1960s. Since the mid-1980s, oil companies have been finding less oil than we have been consuming.

So how many months are left before there is no oil?

So how many months left before you are totally senile? You know damned well that is not what the Hubbert Peak represents. Read the information, obviously you have never done so. Possibly the only 'geologist' in the world who has not. Hmm.....

 

[Old Rocks]

So tell us oh wise and wonderful. What is your plan?

Thanks. I would be willing to write something up that loosely adheres to and expands upon the Rimini Protocol of 2003.

But if you're going to continue being a dick about the topic on a personal level, and sway the goal posts and distort the central issue, I don't really see a point.

Acknowledge the problem, then we can find/debate solutions.

Don't act like a juvenile calling people names and I will be quite happy to listen to you. You antagonise people endlessly which doesn't help you. I don't acknowledge the "problem" but your solutions might still be beneficial even without the "problem". If your solutions require a "problem" to be beneficial that tends to imply that your solutions are not beneficial overall.

Now that is complete bullshit, Walleyes. You will not listen to anyone other than doped out radio jocks. You claim to be a geologist and a member of the AGU and the Royal Society. Yet you not only state that all of the other scientists that are members are lying concerning global warming, you are ignorant of most of what they have said. Your posts and level of replys surely do not support your claims of being a geologist.

 

[RGR]

Of the 65 largest oil producing countries in the world, up to 54 have passed their peak of production and are now in decline, including the USA in 1970, Indonesia in 1997, Australia in 2000, the UK in 1999, Norway in 2001, and Mexico in 2004.

What happens when some, or all, of those places peak again? Mexico, for example, has peaked on at least 3 separate occasions. So we wait around...some more countries peak...again....and we start the debate all over again when they do.

Hubbert's methods, as well as other methodologies, have been used to make various projections about the global oil peak, with results ranging from 'already peaked', to the more optimistic 2035.

Hubberts methods have been thoroughly discredited from several angles. Would you like a reference?

In response to the questionable reliability of IEA reports, several notable scientists have attempted independent studies, most famously, Colin Campbell and associates with the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO).

Good one...Colin predicted peak oil in 1989....I wonder if peakers talk about that "famous" prediction?

 

[westwall]

They surely have. And this is the result.

Peak oil primer and links | Energy Bulletin

So when will oil peak globally?
Later in life M. King Hubbert predicted a global oil peak between 1995 and 2000. He may have been close to the mark, except that the geopolitically induced oil shocks of the 1970s slowed the growth of our use of oil.

As represented in the following figure, global oil discovery peaked in the late 1960s. Since the mid-1980s, oil companies have been finding less oil than we have been consuming.

So how many months are left before there is no oil?

So how many months left before you are totally senile? You know damned well that is not what the Hubbert Peak represents. Read the information, obviously you have never done so. Possibly the only 'geologist' in the world who has not. Hmm.....

olfraud I was first aquainted with Hubbert in 1969! I have read his stuff many times over the years. Some I agree with and some I don't. So far the world is not aggreeing with him. So far regulation has been the greatest cause of lack of production. This is not to say that there may be indeed a peak oil. We honestly don't know.

The abiotic people actually did find oil where none should be, more importantly where none should ever have been. The fact that the Peak Oil adherents ignore that speaks volumes.

 

[RGR]

OK, dumb ass. Here it is again.

energybulletin.net/primer--- Energy Bulletin

Oh yes, almost forgot to mention. Propaganda. Try referencing real science on the topic sometime, these guys certainly don't count.

 

[westwall]

Thanks. I would be willing to write something up that loosely adheres to and expands upon the Rimini Protocol of 2003.

But if you're going to continue being a dick about the topic on a personal level, and sway the goal posts and distort the central issue, I don't really see a point.

Acknowledge the problem, then we can find/debate solutions.

Don't act like a juvenile calling people names and I will be quite happy to listen to you. You antagonise people endlessly which doesn't help you. I don't acknowledge the "problem" but your solutions might still be beneficial even without the "problem". If your solutions require a "problem" to be beneficial that tends to imply that your solutions are not beneficial overall.

Now that is complete bullshit, Walleyes. You will not listen to anyone other than doped out radio jocks. You claim to be a geologist and a member of the AGU and the Royal Society. Yet you not only state that all of the other scientists that are members are lying concerning global warming, you are ignorant of most of what they have said. Your posts and level of replys surely do not support your claims of being a geologist.

My gosh but you are full of crap. I have said repeatedly that the LEADERSHIP of the organizations is in the pocket of the AGW mafia for a variety of reasons. The general memberships are not. Get your facts straight before you hit me with your mock outrage!

 

[westwall]

Of the 65 largest oil producing countries in the world, up to 54 have passed their peak of production and are now in decline, including the USA in 1970, Indonesia in 1997, Australia in 2000, the UK in 1999, Norway in 2001, and Mexico in 2004.

What happens when some, or all, of those places peak again? Mexico, for example, has peaked on at least 3 separate occasions. So we wait around...some more countries peak...again....and we start the debate all over again when they do.

Hubbert's methods, as well as other methodologies, have been used to make various projections about the global oil peak, with results ranging from 'already peaked', to the more optimistic 2035.

Hubberts methods have been thoroughly discredited from several angles. Would you like a reference?

In response to the questionable reliability of IEA reports, several notable scientists have attempted independent studies, most famously, Colin Campbell and associates with the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO).

Good one...Colin predicted peak oil in 1989....I wonder if peakers talk about that "famous" prediction?

Yes I would like a reference please.

 

[RGR]

Since the mid-1980s, oil companies have been finding less oil than we have been consuming.

I can't believe people are still falling for this one. Is this really the ignorance level on this topic around here?

Mid 80's? Fine.

In 1985 the EIA says that the world reserve inventory was approximately 699 billion barrels. Humans have been using between 20-30 billion a year from then till now. Lets call consumed barrels to be approximately 25 billion* 20 years means we used about 500 billion of those through 2005 or so ( no desire to update for most recent numbers, the effect is the same ), which means in 2005 we should have 199 billion remaining if we replaced NONE. If we replaced ALL we consumed, we would still have 699 billion remaining. In 2005, we had 1250 billions in reserve inventory.

So not only did we find barrels for EVERY barrel we used, but just for fun and giggles, the industry found not just 1 to replace it with, but 2!

This is good.

 

[RGR]

U.S. geologist M. King Hubbert, flawed analysis based on a basic mis-understanding of geology.

Hubberts concept isn't based on geology, its based on trendology. Two completely different things.

When U.S. geologist M. King Hubbert introduced his Peak Oil Theory he did not understand the geology of the earth.

Yes he did. Hubbert was a great scientist with multiple contributions to the geosciences. Peak oil was not what he is famous for in the geoscience community, and I think he might have found it amusing, the religion people have built around his trendology.

 

[RGR]

The consequences tend to be where the rub is. Peak oilers want the world to die, yuppies in particular, Humvee owners if possible, and if you don't plan on becoming Amish...well....you don't believe enough yet.

This is laughably pretentious and grossly inaccurate. It is akin to pretending "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists." Speaking of dogma.

Quite true. And its what peakers do. And your implication that this attitude of peakers resembles a religion is reasonable because...they are one.

Dead wrong. Just more honest with ourselves based on the data, and not mired in denial.

Denial? Its a cornerstone of the peaker religion.

I don't see it that way, but at least ours is based on hard geological and economic data, rather than vague allegory in a funny book.

Most peakers do not understand geology. Most peakers can't add 2+2 and get the same answer twice in a row. And Hubberts trendology wasn't presented as an economic effect at the time, economics are where peakers tried to take the idea after the world suffered through global peak oil....in 1978.

And the countless scientists who have followed who have all corroborated that his main thesis was dead-on correct, as you've conceded.

Dead on accurate? Hubbert predicted that US natural gas production in 2010 should be approximately 4 TCF or so. We produce 20+. So now peakers think that 300%+ margins of error are "dead-on"? Like I said earlier...what does 2+2= ?

But if you'd like, we can get into it with greater depth, and you can point out how we somehow "miss it" as it relates to our undeniable global energy crisis.

Sure. Pick a single point you like the best, or consider the easiest to defend. Its not like peakers have much of value to discuss in their Sunday school level geoscience discussions, but I'm always game for yet another example of "pin the tail on Amish wanna-be's".

 

[bigrebnc1775]

oil gusher in California

There's so much oil oozing out of the ground in the Santa Barbara area, that you could strike a gusher if you chunked your approach shot at the local golf course.

But even propose drilling more wells there and the granola heads would collectively poop themselves.

I wonder if those granola heads know exactly what it is that moves those luxary cars they own and are driven around in?

 

[RGR]

So tell us oh wise and wonderful. What is your plan?

Thanks. I would be willing to write something up that loosely adheres to and expands upon the Rimini Protocol of 2003.

It might have credibility if Campbell wasn't involved. Got anything from someone who hasn't been claiming peak oil happened since 1989? Deffeyes got started late, does he have a scare mongering routine you can lay down instead?

Acknowledge the problem, then we can find/debate solutions.

Everybody acknowledges the problem, our President was telling us we were running out back in 1977. Didn't you notice? The solution was.....we ignored his geologically ignorant butt.

 

[westwall]

So tell us oh wise and wonderful. What is your plan?

Thanks. I would be willing to write something up that loosely adheres to and expands upon the Rimini Protocol of 2003.

It might have credibility if Campbell wasn't involved. Got anything from someone who hasn't been claiming peak oil happened since 1989? Deffeyes got started late, does he have a scare mongering routine you can lay down instead?

Acknowledge the problem, then we can find/debate solutions.

Everybody acknowledges the problem, our President was telling us we were running out back in 1977. Didn't you notice? The solution was.....we ignored his geologically ignorant butt.

That is the universal problem isn't it. The Peakers assume that there must be a problem for their solutions to work. It's kind of like medicine, if you have to believe in it for it to work, it ain't medicine. It's a belief system.