oil gusher in california

Read slower next time. I mentioned oil transporting nations.

Oh. You mean...like a nation grows wheels...and...transports itself? Silly me, not understanding that one, can't say I've ever seen a nation doing this so my experience with them is limited.

Jiggscasey said:
About all you have is innuendo.

Well, that and past peaks, claims of peak decades ago, and countries which don't give a whit about Hubbert's method for NOT predicting their production rates. Its usually called "reality".

Jiggscasey said:
You danced around every passage, and ignored the ones you could not spin (the ASPO video). You're not fooling anyone here, Drebbin.

ASPO Utube videos as a reference? You do understand what footnotes are for don't you? And why scientists use them in peer reviewed science journals? And how ASPO video's don't have any? Do you even know what science is, or are you really so intellectually limited to think that a VIDEO is somehow relevant? Want me to put together a video saying peak is a religion, and posting it on utube? Then I can quote it as an authoritative reference? Will you believe me then, heck, I would have a video!

Jiggscasey said:
It's hysterical that you would dismiss the conclusions reached by our own Joint Chiefs and U.S. Dept of Energy as part of some vast conspiracy.

It's because I am aware of their history. The military was scared spitless of predicted peak back during WWI, you act like them doing this routine all over again is new to you. Why? Don't they teach basic history at Peaker Seminary? And you haven't provided the reference for the DOE position on peak oil...why not? You keep whining about everyone else needing references, and then you can't provide an easy, taxpayer funded and undoubtedly listed on a website somewhere one yourself?

Jiggscasey said:
The entire executive summary explains their conclusion, but there, in one sentence, the IEA has finally waved the white flag and admitted we are AT peak.

Why are you surprised? We were at peak in 78/79, went on for more than a decade. So we've got another one? Or yet ANOTHER one in the future? Cool....think anyone will notice any of them either?

[quote="JIggscasey]
I'll let you scramble to "the Google" now to desperately try and discredit the IEA. Commence epic Fox Newslike spin in 10... 9... 8... [/quote]

Why would I do that? Last year they said we were good to go until 2030. This year we're still good to go to 2035, you provided the information in your own graph. What are you whining about? Peak oil happened, yeah! Now bring on all the other stuff growing oil production to 2035. Certainly I'll take IEA's word for those volumes over a peaker any day of the week. Thanks for the graph.

IEA%20Press%20Release%20-%20Slide%208.png


Jiggscasey said:
You guys don't really know where that gap is going to come from.

Sure we do. Same place its been coming from for decades. Are you really this ignorant about where future oil supply comes from? Here's the next 30 or 40 years. Take a second, learn something.

JPT: The Next Trillion: Anticipating and Enabling Game-Changing Recoveries April06

JiggsCasey said:
As to your confusion regarding sands/shale belonging in the equation I put forth.... well, I'd bring be happy to engage in the topic of net energy, and the EROEI terminology that you dickishly pretend we don't understand ....

I haven't seen you list an equation yet, and I certainly don't presume you even know the difference between sand and shales. I also doubt you know anything about EROEI. I'll even bet that if challenged you will come back with another advocacy link, like that video, and when asked to defend it yourself, will change the subject. Your interest in being a parrot for the cause, while admirable, hardly does you credit. You already asked someone else about discoveries not replacing consumption and when EIA information can be used to demonstrate otherwise, you don't mention that particular point again. Hoping we'll forget are you?

JiggsCasey said:
You seem rather hopeless, for all your arrogance.

Of course I'm hopeless, from a parrots point of view. Parrots aren't designed to have conversations on a topic, all they can do is...parrot. You can't even DEFEND the idiot statements made by your sources, like I said, I won't even presume you know the difference between sand and shales. Take up a hobby....go read a book. Start with Oil Panic and The Global Crisis by Gorelick, it has footnotes and everything.

JiggsCasey said:
Thus, we get back to the irony of your post above. Do you have any idea what you're talking about at all on this topic?

Oh, and P.S.: Carter wasn't really wrong.... Neither was the 1970s report "Limits to Growth." ... Do better.... Mmm-kay, straw man champion?

Carter didn't base his running out in the 80's on the Limits to Growth. And of course Carter was wrong, do you know what the Fuel Use Act was? And why it proves Carter was wrong? Or isn't that Carter in Peaker U. either?

And if you can't do anything but parrot peaker dogma, I'm not about to explain the use of exponential growth in ANY model, and what a natural outcome to such modeling might be.
 
Why would we occupy one of them for 10 years and not leave without taking all their oil? And why would we invade the other which has none? Certainly neither of these have anything to do with peak oil either.

Read slower next time. I mentioned oil transporting nations. Try absorbing a book since 1995 on the Caspian Basin. We've had designs on the TAPI for decades. The oil/gas kinda has to pass through Afghanistan, ... or at least, that was their plan before Chevron revised their Caspain reserve estimates... you know, downward ... again.

Do you know anything at all about this topic, or is the sort of "proof through innuendo" routine common in your peaker congregation?


LOL... Irony, DUCY? About all you have is innuendo.

You danced around every passage, and ignored the ones you could not spin (the ASPO video). You're not fooling anyone here, Drebbin.

It's hysterical that you would dismiss the conclusions reached by our own Joint Chiefs and U.S. Dept of Energy as part of some vast conspiracy. A conspiracy you can't really bring yourself to flesh out, just that you're sure there is one. Too funny. All these entities are apparently lying and wrong. Gosh, who CAN we believe any more? :cuckoo:

Your empty cartridge is most transparent in your shanked punt regarding the IEA question. Claiming unawares, and suggesting the International Energy Agency is somehow "undermanned" is painfully lame, and really exposing your weightless agenda here.

Denying or minimizing global peak production for years, the global energy watch dog finally gave in and acknowledged it all with their latest annual report, "World Energy Outlook 2010"

"Crude oil output reaches an undulating plateau of around 68-69 mb/d, by 2020, but never regains its all-time peak of 70mb/d reached in 2006.”
The Oil Drum | IEA World Energy Outlook 2010 Now Out; a Preliminary Look

See the "never regains" part? The entire executive summary explains their conclusion, but there, in one sentence, the IEA has finally waved the white flag and admitted we are AT peak. Not coming soon, but AT peak. Period. ... All that follows after this plateau is the terminal decline of global light crude production, the stuff complex societies are utterly built upon. ... I'll let you scramble to "the Google" now to desperately try and discredit the IEA. Commence epic Fox Newslike spin in 10... 9... 8...

It's the light blue wedge on this graph where the burden falls on your camp. That is the "as yet unknown" capacity required, going forward, just to maintain statis.

IEA%20Press%20Release%20-%20Slide%208.png


You guys don't really know where that gap is going to come from. All you think you know is what you hope will somehow emerge. Perhaps some vast field beneath the North Pole? Yah. ... Meanwhile, the yellow part? Sands and shale? Not nearly enough, and I'm pretty sure you know it.

As to your confusion regarding sands/shale belonging in the equation I put forth.... well, I'd bring be happy to engage in the topic of net energy, and the EROEI terminology that you dickishly pretend we don't understand .... but considering you seemingly can't make the basic distinction between the investment ratio of heavy and light crude, and it's affects on growth, I don't really see a point. You seem rather hopeless, for all your arrogance.

Thus, we get back to the irony of your post above. Do you have any idea what you're talking about at all on this topic?

Oh, and P.S.: Carter wasn't really wrong.... Neither was the 1970s report "Limits to Growth." ... Do better.... Mmm-kay, straw man champion?




I hate to tell you Jiggs, but this is the definition of bloviating. So answer the question, are RGR's numbers correct?
 
Read slower next time. I mentioned oil transporting nations.

Oh. You mean...like a nation grows wheels...and...transports itself? Silly me, not understanding that one, can't say I've ever seen a nation doing this so my experience with them is limited.

Jiggscasey said:
About all you have is innuendo.

Well, that and past peaks, claims of peak decades ago, and countries which don't give a whit about Hubbert's method for NOT predicting their production rates. Its usually called "reality".



ASPO Utube videos as a reference? You do understand what footnotes are for don't you? And why scientists use them in peer reviewed science journals? And how ASPO video's don't have any? Do you even know what science is, or are you really so intellectually limited to think that a VIDEO is somehow relevant? Want me to put together a video saying peak is a religion, and posting it on utube? Then I can quote it as an authoritative reference? Will you believe me then, heck, I would have a video!



It's because I am aware of their history. The military was scared spitless of predicted peak back during WWI, you act like them doing this routine all over again is new to you. Why? Don't they teach basic history at Peaker Seminary? And you haven't provided the reference for the DOE position on peak oil...why not? You keep whining about everyone else needing references, and then you can't provide an easy, taxpayer funded and undoubtedly listed on a website somewhere one yourself?



Why are you surprised? We were at peak in 78/79, went on for more than a decade. So we've got another one? Or yet ANOTHER one in the future? Cool....think anyone will notice any of them either?



Why would I do that? Last year they said we were good to go until 2030. This year we're still good to go to 2035, you provided the information in your own graph. What are you whining about? Peak oil happened, yeah! Now bring on all the other stuff growing oil production to 2035. Certainly I'll take IEA's word for those volumes over a peaker any day of the week. Thanks for the graph.

IEA%20Press%20Release%20-%20Slide%208.png




Sure we do. Same place its been coming from for decades. Are you really this ignorant about where future oil supply comes from? Here's the next 30 or 40 years. Take a second, learn something.

JPT: The Next Trillion: Anticipating and Enabling Game-Changing Recoveries April06



I haven't seen you list an equation yet, and I certainly don't presume you even know the difference between sand and shales. I also doubt you know anything about EROEI. I'll even bet that if challenged you will come back with another advocacy link, like that video, and when asked to defend it yourself, will change the subject. Your interest in being a parrot for the cause, while admirable, hardly does you credit. You already asked someone else about discoveries not replacing consumption and when EIA information can be used to demonstrate otherwise, you don't mention that particular point again. Hoping we'll forget are you?

JiggsCasey said:
You seem rather hopeless, for all your arrogance.

Of course I'm hopeless, from a parrots point of view. Parrots aren't designed to have conversations on a topic, all they can do is...parrot. You can't even DEFEND the idiot statements made by your sources, like I said, I won't even presume you know the difference between sand and shales. Take up a hobby....go read a book. Start with Oil Panic and The Global Crisis by Gorelick, it has footnotes and everything.

JiggsCasey said:
Thus, we get back to the irony of your post above. Do you have any idea what you're talking about at all on this topic?

Oh, and P.S.: Carter wasn't really wrong.... Neither was the 1970s report "Limits to Growth." ... Do better.... Mmm-kay, straw man champion?

Carter didn't base his running out in the 80's on the Limits to Growth. And of course Carter was wrong, do you know what the Fuel Use Act was? And why it proves Carter was wrong? Or isn't that Carter in Peaker U. either?

And if you can't do anything but parrot peaker dogma, I'm not about to explain the use of exponential growth in ANY model, and what a natural outcome to such modeling might be.




:lol::lol: "footnotes and everything". That was funny. Of course I don't think Jiggs even knows what a "journal" is. He'll no doubt reference the "Ladies Home Journal".
 
So answer the question, are RGR's numbers correct?


Sure they are...but he won't ever be able to admit it. See, it would violate one of the central dogmas of Doom. Peakers continually claim that to first produce oil, you have to find it, and then they flourish a graph which purports to show decreasing discoveries with respect to time. However, what they don't mention are two things the graph does immediately, 1) it hides the effect which has been supplying the world with new oil for decades now and 2) counts only a limited subset of the total oil humans have already found.

Basically...its a rigged graph. Manipulated data. Rarely is it properly annotated. Here is one not properly annotated.

normal_world%20discoveries%20decline.jpg


Notice how it doesn't mention that this is only a certain type of oil, with certain density and chemical properties, only in certain places. This is called "the hook". See the consumption, climbing? The discoveries, falling? What is the only conclusion we can draw from this, if we are ignorant, and take peakers at their word for using honest data?

OH NOES!!! THE END IS NIGH!!!

But those figures I posted earlier from the EIA were quite accurate. How can this be! someone might ask. Easy. The effect that this graph is hiding in the past is reserve growth. Each of those bars in the past gets higher, year over year. A little here, a little there. This effect is actually at LEAST as large in size as the new discoveries continuing forward, and as of late, even larger. This reserve growth was studied by Hubbert in his work starting in about 1967, and there is a great story by Larry Drew (another colleague of Hubbert who actually IS in the same game, unlike Deffeyes) in his book where Hubbert actually stopped one of his own publication's because he hadn't properly accounted for it in his projections.

A little professional story, more than a few years ago there was a conference where someone got up and did a talk on reserve growth, and then another speaker got up and reeled off what I would call a "peaker lite" story, and when it came time for questions for the second speaker, the first question was..."But Mr Speaker, where in your talk did you account for the future additions to reserves from field growth?" and I swear the Peaker-Lite guy literally turned red in the face. He couldn't answer because, unlike Hubbert worrying about it 3 decades earlier and facing it honestly, this guy had simply blown it off. It irritated the crap out of him that the others in the room weren't going to let him get off with such a ridiculous hole in his story.

Anyway, the moral of the story is, this game the peakers are running is like claiming the world only has a 2 month supply of shoes...and then putting in the fine print....only if we count red ones, in ladies size 5.5, with no laces, and a small heel...oh yes...and if humans decide to never make any more again.
 
So answer the question, are RGR's numbers correct?


Sure they are...but he won't ever be able to admit it. See, it would violate one of the central dogmas of Doom. Peakers continually claim that to first produce oil, you have to find it, and then they flourish a graph which purports to show decreasing discoveries with respect to time. However, what they don't mention are two things the graph does immediately, 1) it hides the effect which has been supplying the world with new oil for decades now and 2) counts only a limited subset of the total oil humans have already found.

Basically...its a rigged graph. Manipulated data. Rarely is it properly annotated. Here is one not properly annotated.

normal_world%20discoveries%20decline.jpg


Notice how it doesn't mention that this is only a certain type of oil, with certain density and chemical properties, only in certain places. This is called "the hook". See the consumption, climbing? The discoveries, falling? What is the only conclusion we can draw from this, if we are ignorant, and take peakers at their word for using honest data?

OH NOES!!! THE END IS NIGH!!!

But those figures I posted earlier from the EIA were quite accurate. How can this be! someone might ask. Easy. The effect that this graph is hiding in the past is reserve growth. Each of those bars in the past gets higher, year over year. A little here, a little there. This effect is actually at LEAST as large in size as the new discoveries continuing forward, and as of late, even larger. This reserve growth was studied by Hubbert in his work starting in about 1967, and there is a great story by Larry Drew (another colleague of Hubbert who actually IS in the same game, unlike Deffeyes) in his book where Hubbert actually stopped one of his own publication's because he hadn't properly accounted for it in his projections.

A little professional story, more than a few years ago there was a conference where someone got up and did a talk on reserve growth, and then another speaker got up and reeled off what I would call a "peaker lite" story, and when it came time for questions for the second speaker, the first question was..."But Mr Speaker, where in your talk did you account for the future additions to reserves from field growth?" and I swear the Peaker-Lite guy literally turned red in the face. He couldn't answer because, unlike Hubbert worrying about it 3 decades earlier and facing it honestly, this guy had simply blown it off. It irritated the crap out of him that the others in the room weren't going to let him get off with such a ridiculous hole in his story.

Anyway, the moral of the story is, this game the peakers are running is like claiming the world only has a 2 month supply of shoes...and then putting in the fine print....only if we count red ones, in ladies size 5.5, with no laces, and a small heel...oh yes...and if humans decide to never make any more again.




Yes I know he won't answer truthfully but I want to give him the opportunity to answer, 'tis only fair. And I had allready addressed the fact that only light sweet crude is considered for the peak BS which was to say the least disingenuous.
 
Notice how the Libtards barely post in energy, its harder for them to get away with their bullshit here.

I bet if everyone quit posting for a few days the retards would show up and start a whole bunch of bullshit threads.
 
Notice how the Libtards barely post in energy, its harder for them to get away with their bullshit here.

I bet if everyone quit posting for a few days the retards would show up and start a whole bunch of bullshit threads.




That's their MO.
 
There is so much fail in your latest response, RGR, I hardly know where to begin. But it is clear your goal here is to just throw as many pins in the air for me to juggle, while dancing around the central question.

The ultimate challenge put to you is "where is the oil, going forward?"

And your pathetic answer is "same place it's always been!"... Which is about as mature and intellectually honest as replying with "if it was up your ass, you'd know it," or "it's where you left it!"... For all your blather, and your own denialist dogma, you are utterly unable to answer the question. That's because no one knows.


Oh. You mean...like a nation grows wheels...and...transports itself? Silly me, not understanding that one, can't say I've ever seen a nation doing this so my experience with them is limited.

You knew exactly what I was talking about - nations through which land-locked energy is transported. Unfortunately, it's a common practice of you to both feign ignorance in order to stall, AND proclaim intellectual superiority, simultaneously.

Well, that and past peaks, claims of peak decades ago, and countries which don't give a whit about Hubbert's method for NOT predicting their production rates. Its usually called "reality".

OK, well, I'll call your latest bullshit extrapolation bluff. Quantify that claim then. Link to what was actually said back then, by whom, about what? Global supply/demand shortfall? Or regional? Did it take into account exponential demand growth? Was the claim the exact same as today, or conditional? Most important, how much of the planet was explored back then compared to today, where the seismology reports have pretty much scoured the entire planet, and the USGS and IEA have a much firmer grasp of remaining global reserves?

If your argument simply rests upon "that's the way it's always been," you've already lost. Tell me, flat-earther: When 16th century ships kept getting lost at sea, was that further proof they fell off the edge of the world?

ASPO Utube videos as a reference? You do understand what footnotes are for don't you? And why scientists use them in peer reviewed science journals? And how ASPO video's don't have any? Do you even know what science is, or are you really so intellectually limited to think that a VIDEO is somehow relevant? Want me to put together a video saying peak is a religion, and posting it on utube? Then I can quote it as an authoritative reference? Will you believe me then, heck, I would have a video

Also, your tactic of attempting to dismiss ASPO based on nothing, while ignoring the direct quote of the former chief geologist of British Petroleum in an ASPO interview is rather transparent. It's a little like saying "I was not convinced the markets were crashing in Sept. of '08, because I had to watch coverage of it on MSNBC."

Oops. You're gonna need to work a bit harder. Objecting to the production of the story is not the same as the source of the story. You understand how that works, do you not, junior Friedman? You're not countering what Jeremy Gilbert has said in the opening statement of that video, you're merely punting to "ASPO can't be trusted!".... LOL.

FAIL!

You're more than welcome to present a video denying peak. And I'll go ahead and focus on what they actually said, not my surface beef with the producers who interviewed them.

Here it is again, pumpkin. How are these industry insiders wrong or lying? Try to focus on what these independent sources say, not your pretentious narrative regarding ASPO.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUVY2qrEfd8[/ame]

It's because I am aware of their history. The military was scared spitless of predicted peak back during WWI, you act like them doing this routine all over again is new to you. Why? Don't they teach basic history at Peaker Seminary?

Ok, again. Support that claim. In what context? Who in the military? Did they claim global shortfall of 10 million barrels per day within 5 years? Did they put out a report on the ramifications of such a condition? Somehow I doubt it, but far be it from you to extrapolate something you "heard" emanating from 95 years ago.

Regardless, here's what they are saying today, from the PDF provided before on the JOE:

"During the next twenty-five years, coal, oil, and natural gas will remain indispensable to meet energy requirements. The discovery rate for new petroleum and gas fields over the past two decades (with the possible exception of Brazil) provides little reason for optimism that future efforts will find major new fields.

At present, investment in oil production is only beginning to pick up, with the result that production could reach a prolonged plateau. By 2030, the world will require production of 118 MBD, but energy producers may only be producing 100 MBD unless there are major changes in current investment and drilling capacity.

By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 MBD.

Must just be baseless fear mongering by people in our military who don't understand geology as awesome as you claim to. :doubt:

"Nothing to see here!!! Please!! Stand back!!"

And you haven't provided the reference for the DOE position on peak oil...why not? You keep whining about everyone else needing references, and then you can't provide an easy, taxpayer funded and undoubtedly listed on a website somewhere one yourself?

You're still kinda new here, so I'll forgive you for not having a clue of my post history, which includes several links to the U.S. Dept. of Energy's corroboration. Nevermind that a simple user search would give you the information you're pretending doesn't exist.

Do you prefer the Hirsch Report of 2005, or the more recent April 2009 DoE round-table, entitled “Meeting the Growing Demand for Liquid (fuels)?" (pdf)

Either way, here's a LeMonde story covering the issue. Undoubtedly, you'll find fault in LeMonde, and pretend the facts can't be trusted because it's LeMonde. It's what you guys do:

The DoE April 2009 round-table, untitled “Meeting the Growing Demand for Liquid (fuels)“, was semi-public. Yet it remained unnoticed and unjustly, as it put forward forecasts that are far more pessimistic than any analysis the DoE has ever delivered.

Page 8 of the presentation document of the round-table, a graph shows that the DoE is expecting a decline of the total of all known sources of liquid fuels supplies after 2011.
The graph labels as “unidentified” the additional supply projects needed to fill in a gap that is expected to grow after 2011 between rising demand and decline of known sources of supply that the DoE supposes will start that year. The declining production foreseen by the DoE concerns the total of existing sources of liquid fuels plus the new production projects that are supposed to come on-stream before 2012.

The DoE predicts that the decline of identified sources of supply will be steady and sharp : - 2 percent a year, from 87 million barrels per day (Mbpd) in 2011 to just 80 Mbpd in 2015. At that time, the world demand for oil and other liquid fuels should have climbed up to 90 Mbpd, according to the presentation document.

And here's the graph in question, the "as yet unidentified" future supply portion of which you punt to "it's where it's always been" emptiness. ... :rolleyes:

eia-graph.jpg


Now, surely, if you bother to read it, you'll cling to the passage in the story that offers a contingency that says this will come true "if investment is not there," which is what they have to say or face putting world markets into immediate panic. But with the world in perpetual recession, anyone being honest with themselves is well aware that the trillions in needed investment to maintain this growth is NOT there, and won't be.

Here's some more reading on the subject for you to pretend says something else, or merely can't be trusted:

Why The EIA?s Energy Outlook For 2010 Reveals Some Disturbing Figures

Why are you surprised? We were at peak in 78/79, went on for more than a decade. So we've got another one? Or yet ANOTHER one in the future? Cool....think anyone will notice any of them either?

Straw man. Who said that? In what context? They said we were at global peak? Please link to where you're making your claim. I have little doubt it can easily be put into proper perspective, and NO DOUBT it's completely irrelevant to today's data.

"Limits to Growth" never gave a date for peak, only that is was coming. What some groups erroneously derived from "Limits to Growth" does not make that paper wrong in the least.

Do better.

Why would I do that? Last year they said we were good to go until 2030. This year we're still good to go to 2035, you provided the information in your own graph. What are you whining about? Peak oil happened, yeah! Now bring on all the other stuff growing oil production to 2035. Certainly I'll take IEA's word for those volumes over a peaker any day of the week. Thanks for the graph.

IEA%20Press%20Release%20-%20Slide%208.png

LOL!!!! Are you sure you're reading it correctly, genius? How does it say we're "good to go" until 2035? Once again, what represents the light blue portion? Surely the IEA and Big Oil as a whole would love to hear from you. Unfortunately, you don't have an answer. Because no one knows.

Hope is not a policy. Pragmatism is, based on known mathematics and geology. You claim you're such as esteemed analyst of geology, but when challenged to provide where the oil is going to come from going forward to fill that ever-expanding wedge, your awesome answer is: "where it's always been!"

EPIC FAIL.

:eusa_shhh:

Sure we do. Same place its been coming from for decades.

Most of the places it's been "coming from for decades" are all in decline. This is not disputed. At least not by anyone with any data and weight behind their claim. You would know this if you watched the video of industry insiders saying so, including the chief consultant from Saudi-Aramco, the source of your denialist claim below.

The U.S., North Sea, Russia, Indonesia, Venezuela, Kuwait, Iran, and on and on and on. About the only major country claiming to have surplus production capacity is Saudi Arabia, and that's impossible to verify, considering they don't allow independent field analysis. But that won't stop you from resting your entire tired premise on their claims:

Are you really this ignorant about where future oil supply comes from? Here's the next 30 or 40 years.

JPT: The Next Trillion: Anticipating and Enabling Game-Changing Recoveries April06

It's interesting that you would question ASPO, yet take Saudi Arabia's word as bond. Unlike you, I'm happy to list the many specific reasons your source sucks. Nevermind that your link forwards all inquiries to a Halliburton e-mail address. LOL.

Look at your link. You know, beyond the headline. ... What do you see there in their claim of some "next trillion?" Half of it is heavy, unconventional oil. The kind that is enormously expensive to extract and refine, and will NEVER sustain 5-7% growth, upon which the global economy must have to run in it's current form. Heck, he references the USGS survey from 10 years ago!!! FAIL!

In fact, from your own link, here's a wonderful passage that really puts your link of choice in perspective:

The point is not so much to argue for the veracity or the feasibility of these figures. Instead, the intent is to highlight vast possibilities...

Well, hooray for everything!! Let's just pull a figure out of our ass, and wonder at the possibilities!

There are no hard figures here of proven reserves. Not even a comprehensive analysis of technically recoverable reserves.

What your link essentially says is: "Trust technology." ... But again, hope is not a policy. ... and tar sands will not save us. Neither will shale gas. The industry, knowing this day would come, has been trying to perfect unconventional oil production for decades, and have made about a 1-yard gain. Well, it's 4th-and-25, and goofy people like you insist an inside run is the way to go.

So, your essay there, by a Saudi-Aramco executive, comes from a company that has been telling the world "everything is fine" for 15 years, but their actions tell a different story from their press releases, altogether. They haven't proven they can ramp up production capacity, only claimed they can, and no one can see their data. Meanwhile, they're injecting sea water into their biggest fields in a desperate attempt to maintain pressure - the death knell of any field. They're also pouring investment into vastly-more-expensive offshore infrastructure (surely the sign of "plenty" of the abundant stuff onshore :rolleyes: )

Linking to the Saudis claiming "there's plenty" is about as convincing as the U.S. government investigating itself and announcing to its citizens "we found nothing nefarious."

In short, do better.

Take a second, learn something.

Rich irony here, DUCY?

I haven't seen you list an equation yet, and I certainly don't presume you even know the difference between sand and shales. I also doubt you know anything about EROEI.

Here you are, sunshine:

eroi_tarsands.PNG


I'll even bet that if challenged you will come back with another advocacy link, like that video, and when asked to defend it yourself, will change the subject.

That's a lot of pre-emptive guessing on your part. Based on how pathetic your earlier pap is, it's completely ineffectual. Punting to your guess of my grasp of EROEI is doing nothing for your flat refusal to quantify the central question.

Anyhow, "I'll play along," as you so arrogantly put it:

It's energy returned on energy invested. How much energy it costs to find, extract, refine and deliver that energy to market vs. how much energy is actually brought to market. It's a basic ratio figure that anyone can grasp, and no one needs to have an advanced physics degree, whatsoever, like you arrogantly act as if you have.

Light crude? The kind our empire is utterly built upon? That stuff returned anywhere from 200:1 down to 20:1 today.

Unconventional, heavy oils, the kind that you are squawking will save us all? About 2:1 or at best, 5:1. Now, how is that return going to maintain growth? That's right, it's not.

Here are the best known assessments of tar sands EROEI, and oops... it's not pretty:

Tas_sands_EROI-Table.PNG


But of course, if we listen to drones like you and select executives at Saudi-Aramco, the technology will be along any day now to improve those paltry figures. We need only invest and wait patiently :rolleyes:

Your interest in being a parrot for the cause, while admirable, hardly does you credit.

Poetic irony here, DUCY?

You already asked someone else about discoveries not replacing consumption and when EIA information can be used to demonstrate otherwise, you don't mention that particular point again. Hoping we'll forget are you?

That's because you've painfully straw manned my statement. You will not move the goalposts and demand I kick through it or else you "win." ... LOL.... Tool.

What I said was discoveries are not keeping up with dying existing capacity. Not unless you can magically find a way to flat-line the exponential growth curve in demand. And even if you did manage to halt demand growth (via war, depression, disease, etc.), you've merely underlined the ramifications of peak, you have NOT refuted it.

It's interesting that your epic spin on that discoveries chart said nothing of demand growth going forward, which is ever expanding, like a snowball rolling down hill.

Hubbert said peak production comes roughly 40 years after peak discovery. That was the case for U.S. peak, that is the case for global peak. Discovery of global finds peaked in the mid 1960s. It is axiomatic, and in fact global production has flat-lined since 2004.

If you can show how global liquids production somehow hasn't flatlined since roughly the middle of the last decade, I'd love to see how you're arriving at your figures.

I'm quite confident you can't.

Of course I'm hopeless, from a parrots point of view. Parrots aren't designed to have conversations on a topic, all they can do is...parrot.

Witty. Spin it back, when clearly your argument is treading water badly, and represents nothing different from the legion of drones before you who also can't allude to where the energy is going to come from while maintaining necessary growth for the global economy that is dying before our very eyes.

You can't even DEFEND the idiot statements made by your sources, like I said,

Actually, I defend every one of them. It's just that you change the game and yell "see!!!?" Grow up.

I won't even presume you know the difference between sand and shales.

One yields bitumen, the other kerogen. Both have exceedingly slow flow rates, and are grossly expensive and no where near being economically viable. Nevermind their destructive affects on the environment, which ALSO factors into EROEI, even though you clowns wish to deny it.

Take up a hobby....go read a book. Start with Oil Panic and The Global Crisis by Gorelick, it has footnotes and everything.

As does "Twilight in the Desert" by Simmons. I have little doubt I possess a far more versatile reading library on this subject matter than you do.

Evidenced by your juvenile and empty response to the ultimate question, "it's where it's always been!!"

Carter didn't base his running out in the 80's on the Limits to Growth. And of course Carter was wrong, do you know what the Fuel Use Act was? And why it proves Carter was wrong? Or isn't that Carter in Peaker U. either?

First, I'll need to you expand on what you believe Carter was wrong about. Surely, you'll take one sentence and extrapolate it to represent his overall premise, but I'm willing to take that challenge.

Overall, the man was quite correct. And you conceded it the moment you joined this forum.
No going backwards now.

And if you can't do anything but parrot peaker dogma, I'm not about to explain the use of exponential growth in ANY model, and what a natural outcome to such modeling might be.

More irony. You've provided nothing but denialist dogma, and short-sighted graphs representing half the equation.

I have little doubt you'd fail regarding "exponential growth model" as well, spinning it into some convenient irrelevancy. You appear to be learning about this stuff as you go along, evidenced by your pathetic link to a Saudi-Aramco essay with a Halliburton email address.

You can run your mouth as long you want with personal insinuation that makes up some 90% of your material. The rest of your blather is nothing we haven't handled before by much better posters than you at ToD and CapitalHillBlue. But your central argument is both vague, and floundering.

To you, apparently, unconventional oil will somehow fill the gap and maintain stasis for complex societies, and/or technology will save the day. But every model provided by international energy monitoring entities (oops, not dogma) shows unconventional oil will represent no more than a tiny fraction of what is needed. More important, technological advances are painfully slow and require substantial investment. But peak is here now.

I'll give you the opportunity to man up and show once more, beyond "where it's always been!"

- If there's plenty of light crude, where is it going forward? What region? In what proven amount? Under land or deep water? How has the oil industry somehow "missed" this enormous new series of fields the past 100 years?

Or have you given up the light crude component of this debate? If you're now just retreating to the tar sands/shale gas/shale oil albatross, please say so. In fact, if you could even flesh out what you even mean overall, after conceding oil is a finite resource, that would be helpful. Hiding behind personal jabs of how dumb everyone is on our side of the fence is doing ZERO for your position here.

Plenty of your allies have tried that already, and ultimately retreated from the forum.

Where is the oil for our 86 million barrel per day appetite? If everything is seamless as your guys insist, that appetite will soon be 95 million, 100 million, 110 million each and every day ... in OUR lifetime. Where is that going to come from?
 
Last edited:
normal_world%20discoveries%20decline.jpg


Notice how it doesn't mention that this is only a certain type of oil, with certain density and chemical properties, only in certain places. This is called "the hook". See the consumption, climbing? The discoveries, falling? What is the only conclusion we can draw from this, if we are ignorant, and take peakers at their word for using honest data?

OH NOES!!! THE END IS NIGH!!!

But those figures I posted earlier from the EIA were quite accurate. How can this be! someone might ask. Easy. The effect that this graph is hiding in the past is reserve growth. Each of those bars in the past gets higher, year over year. A little here, a little there. This effect is actually at LEAST as large in size as the new discoveries continuing forward, and as of late, even larger. This reserve growth was studied by Hubbert in his work starting in about 1967, and there is a great story by Larry Drew (another colleague of Hubbert who actually IS in the same game, unlike Deffeyes) in his book where Hubbert actually stopped one of his own publication's because he hadn't properly accounted for it in his projections.

Again, the statement I made, straw man champion, was that current discoveries are not keeping up with demand needs amid existing dying capacity.

But, reserve growth? Versus initial estimates of 20- 30-, 40 years ago? Seriously? This is about known current capacity, INCLUDING such reserve growth.

Any way you wanna slice it, even factoring in modest reserve growth, capacity is down:

According to EIA's 2004 Annual Report on U.S. oil and natural gas reserves, the United States had 21.4 billion barrels of proved oil reserves as of December 31, 2004, the eleventh highest in the world. ... U.S. proven oil reserves have declined more than 17 percent since 1990, with the largest single-year decline (1.6 billion barrels) occurring in 1991.
The Oil Drum | Reserves Growth and Production Flows


and

Reserves have declined more than 17% since 1990. In 2001, the EIA said that the US had 21.8 Gb of reserves and that reserves had declined 20% since 1990. Since we have produced about 6.148 Gb in the 2002 to end 2004 period and reserves differ by only 400 million barrels fewer, it appears that reserves have grown 5.748 Gb since 2001 while production has fallen from 5.746/mbd (2002) to 5.419/mbd (2004, cited above), a percentage drop of approximately 5.7%.

Citing reserves accounting (growth in Gb) and production flows (barrels per day) yields two different results. A final word about R/P ratios. If there is reserves growth that nearly covers production as in the 2002 to end 2004 period in our example just above, the R/P ratio is not a good indicator of what's going on. In 2001, reserves were 21.8 and the R/P ratio was 10.4. However, in 2004, reserves were 21.4 and the R/P ratio was 10.8. Reserves growth occurred, the R/P ratio went up and production dropped 5.7%. What's wrong with this picture?

In summary, this is why some of us regard production data as a more important indicator of problems in the oil supply than reserves accounting. Reserves growth can obscure production declines. Although the world may not have reached peak production yet, it has been in a plateau since the spring of 2004. This is a worrisome trend.

Here's a bit more perspective on epically convenient "reserve growth," coolio.

You'll pretend it's baseless, because it didn't come from Saudi-Aramco, but whatever:

500px-OPEC_declared_reserves_1980-now_BP.svg_.gif


First, OPEC countries — which include Iraq, Iran and Kuwait — are on the honor system when it comes to reporting their reserves. There is no independent audit to confirm whether their reported reserves are accurate or not.

Second, OPEC nations sell their oil according to quotas, which are based partially on their reported reserves. The more reserves a nation reports, the more oil it is allowed to sell. This particular quota system went into effect in the 1980s, and almost immediately all OPEC nations’ oil reserves jumped significantly. These nations have a direct, vested interest in exaggerating their reserves, not only to make more money, but because petroleum income directly translates into regional power. The chart below is well known to those who follow peak oil issues, but everyone should be aware of how this works when OPEC countries start announcing big new finds or growth in existing reserves.​

No doubt, you're the kind of denialist who dotes on every word OPEC spews forth. You know, while conceding that oil is a finite resource. Just not now.
A little professional story, more than a few years ago there was a conference where someone got up and did a talk on reserve growth, and then another speaker got up and reeled off what I would call a "peaker lite" story, and when it came time for questions for the second speaker, the first question was..."But Mr Speaker, where in your talk did you account for the future additions to reserves from field growth?" and I swear the Peaker-Lite guy literally turned red in the face. He couldn't answer because, unlike Hubbert worrying about it 3 decades earlier and facing it honestly, this guy had simply blown it off. It irritated the crap out of him that the others in the room weren't going to let him get off with such a ridiculous hole in his story.

Cool unfalsifiable story, bro. Someone somewhere at some conference couldn't talk about reserve growth? Who gives a shit?

I'd be able to answer it. But it would be interesting to see you stammer all over yourself in response to "how much reserve growth has there even been?"

Anyway, the moral of the story is, this game the peakers are running is like claiming the world only has a 2 month supply of shoes...and then putting in the fine print....only if we count red ones, in ladies size 5.5, with no laces, and a small heel...oh yes...and if humans decide to never make any more again.

Witty. Of course, the game you clowns are running is like insisting that everyone can afford the most EXPENSIVE of shoes, so there's really nothing to worry about and the shoe industry will be fine as a result.
 
Last edited:
The ultimate challenge put to you is "where is the oil, going forward?"

New discoveries, field growth, unconventionals. Throw in some substitution, and we're good for a century or so.

I'm not going to write a book in response to your rhetorical questions. Think you have a single valid point ANYWHERE in peaker mythology? Pick it. Make sure you can defend it without asking ridiculous rhetoricals. We'll start with one and see if you have more than 4 neurons firing through a synapse. If all you have is peaker mythology, give up now.

I will not reference homemade videos of peaker experts reciting mythology. I will not reference ASPO advocates except as examples about how little they know, and why they are position advocates and not scientists involved in resource depletion. I will use peer reviewed research and properly footnoted literature. I will not quote ex-cops, violin players, accountants, or other unqualified fruitloops. I am happy to explain or refute not only ex-cops, violin players, accountants and unqualified fruitloops, but Campbell, Laherrere, Deffeyes, Duncan, or even Hubbert's work.

I will not use the IHS database, domestic or international,or any proprietary data I possess.

But start with one, because keeping track of your ridiculous attempts to substitute quantity for quality won't fly. While I recognize that on the internet idiots win because they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience, you can play that game with others.
 
Last edited:
There is so much fail in your latest response, RGR, I hardly know where to begin. But it is clear your goal here is to just throw as many pins in the air for me to juggle, while dancing around the central question.

The ultimate challenge put to you is "where is the oil, going forward?"

And your pathetic answer is "same place it's always been!"... Which is about as mature and intellectually honest as replying with "if it was up your ass, you'd know it," or "it's where you left it!"... For all your blather, and your own denialist dogma, you are utterly unable to answer the question. That's because no one knows.


Oh. You mean...like a nation grows wheels...and...transports itself? Silly me, not understanding that one, can't say I've ever seen a nation doing this so my experience with them is limited.

You knew exactly what I was talking about - nations through which land-locked energy is transported. Unfortunately, it's a common practice of you to both feign ignorance in order to stall, AND proclaim intellectual superiority, simultaneously.

Well, that and past peaks, claims of peak decades ago, and countries which don't give a whit about Hubbert's method for NOT predicting their production rates. Its usually called "reality".

OK, well, I'll call your latest bullshit extrapolation bluff. Quantify that claim then. Link to what was actually said back then, by whom, about what? Global supply/demand shortfall? Or regional? Did it take into account exponential demand growth? Was the claim the exact same as today, or conditional? Most important, how much of the planet was explored back then compared to today, where the seismology reports have pretty much scoured the entire planet, and the USGS and IEA have a much firmer grasp of remaining global reserves?

If your argument simply rests upon "that's the way it's always been," you've already lost. Tell me, flat-earther: When 16th century ships kept getting lost at sea, was that further proof they fell off the edge of the world?



Also, your tactic of attempting to dismiss ASPO based on nothing, while ignoring the direct quote of the former chief geologist of British Petroleum in an ASPO interview is rather transparent. It's a little like saying "I was not convinced the markets were crashing in Sept. of '08, because I had to watch coverage of it on MSNBC."

Oops. You're gonna need to work a bit harder. Objecting to the production of the story is not the same as the source of the story. You understand how that works, do you not, junior Friedman? You're not countering what Jeremy Gilbert has said in the opening statement of that video, you're merely punting to "ASPO can't be trusted!".... LOL.

FAIL!

You're more than welcome to present a video denying peak. And I'll go ahead and focus on what they actually said, not my surface beef with the producers who interviewed them.

Here it is again, pumpkin. How are these industry insiders wrong or lying? Try to focus on what these independent sources say, not your pretentious narrative regarding ASPO.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUVY2qrEfd8[/ame]



Ok, again. Support that claim. In what context? Who in the military? Did they claim global shortfall of 10 million barrels per day within 5 years? Did they put out a report on the ramifications of such a condition? Somehow I doubt it, but far be it from you to extrapolate something you "heard" emanating from 95 years ago.

Regardless, here's what they are saying today, from the PDF provided before on the JOE:

"During the next twenty-five years, coal, oil, and natural gas will remain indispensable to meet energy requirements. The discovery rate for new petroleum and gas fields over the past two decades (with the possible exception of Brazil) provides little reason for optimism that future efforts will find major new fields.

At present, investment in oil production is only beginning to pick up, with the result that production could reach a prolonged plateau. By 2030, the world will require production of 118 MBD, but energy producers may only be producing 100 MBD unless there are major changes in current investment and drilling capacity.

By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 MBD.

Must just be baseless fear mongering by people in our military who don't understand geology as awesome as you claim to. :doubt:

"Nothing to see here!!! Please!! Stand back!!"



You're still kinda new here, so I'll forgive you for not having a clue of my post history, which includes several links to the U.S. Dept. of Energy's corroboration. Nevermind that a simple user search would give you the information you're pretending doesn't exist.

Do you prefer the Hirsch Report of 2005, or the more recent April 2009 DoE round-table, entitled “Meeting the Growing Demand for Liquid (fuels)?" (pdf)

Either way, here's a LeMonde story covering the issue. Undoubtedly, you'll find fault in LeMonde, and pretend the facts can't be trusted because it's LeMonde. It's what you guys do:

The DoE April 2009 round-table, untitled “Meeting the Growing Demand for Liquid (fuels)“, was semi-public. Yet it remained unnoticed and unjustly, as it put forward forecasts that are far more pessimistic than any analysis the DoE has ever delivered.

Page 8 of the presentation document of the round-table, a graph shows that the DoE is expecting a decline of the total of all known sources of liquid fuels supplies after 2011.
The graph labels as “unidentified” the additional supply projects needed to fill in a gap that is expected to grow after 2011 between rising demand and decline of known sources of supply that the DoE supposes will start that year. The declining production foreseen by the DoE concerns the total of existing sources of liquid fuels plus the new production projects that are supposed to come on-stream before 2012.

The DoE predicts that the decline of identified sources of supply will be steady and sharp : - 2 percent a year, from 87 million barrels per day (Mbpd) in 2011 to just 80 Mbpd in 2015. At that time, the world demand for oil and other liquid fuels should have climbed up to 90 Mbpd, according to the presentation document.

And here's the graph in question, the "as yet unidentified" future supply portion of which you punt to "it's where it's always been" emptiness. ... :rolleyes:

eia-graph.jpg


Now, surely, if you bother to read it, you'll cling to the passage in the story that offers a contingency that says this will come true "if investment is not there," which is what they have to say or face putting world markets into immediate panic. But with the world in perpetual recession, anyone being honest with themselves is well aware that the trillions in needed investment to maintain this growth is NOT there, and won't be.

Here's some more reading on the subject for you to pretend says something else, or merely can't be trusted:

Why The EIA?s Energy Outlook For 2010 Reveals Some Disturbing Figures



Straw man. Who said that? In what context? They said we were at global peak? Please link to where you're making your claim. I have little doubt it can easily be put into proper perspective, and NO DOUBT it's completely irrelevant to today's data.

"Limits to Growth" never gave a date for peak, only that is was coming. What some groups erroneously derived from "Limits to Growth" does not make that paper wrong in the least.

Do better.



LOL!!!! Are you sure you're reading it correctly, genius? How does it say we're "good to go" until 2035? Once again, what represents the light blue portion? Surely the IEA and Big Oil as a whole would love to hear from you. Unfortunately, you don't have an answer. Because no one knows.

Hope is not a policy. Pragmatism is, based on known mathematics and geology. You claim you're such as esteemed analyst of geology, but when challenged to provide where the oil is going to come from going forward to fill that ever-expanding wedge, your awesome answer is: "where it's always been!"

EPIC FAIL.

:eusa_shhh:



Most of the places it's been "coming from for decades" are all in decline. This is not disputed. At least not by anyone with any data and weight behind their claim. You would know this if you watched the video of industry insiders saying so, including the chief consultant from Saudi-Aramco, the source of your denialist claim below.

The U.S., North Sea, Russia, Indonesia, Venezuela, Kuwait, Iran, and on and on and on. About the only major country claiming to have surplus production capacity is Saudi Arabia, and that's impossible to verify, considering they don't allow independent field analysis. But that won't stop you from resting your entire tired premise on their claims:



It's interesting that you would question ASPO, yet take Saudi Arabia's word as bond. Unlike you, I'm happy to list the many specific reasons your source sucks. Nevermind that your link forwards all inquiries to a Halliburton e-mail address. LOL.

Look at your link. You know, beyond the headline. ... What do you see there in their claim of some "next trillion?" Half of it is heavy, unconventional oil. The kind that is enormously expensive to extract and refine, and will NEVER sustain 5-7% growth, upon which the global economy must have to run in it's current form. Heck, he references the USGS survey from 10 years ago!!! FAIL!

In fact, from your own link, here's a wonderful passage that really puts your link of choice in perspective:

The point is not so much to argue for the veracity or the feasibility of these figures. Instead, the intent is to highlight vast possibilities...

Well, hooray for everything!! Let's just pull a figure out of our ass, and wonder at the possibilities!

There are no hard figures here of proven reserves. Not even a comprehensive analysis of technically recoverable reserves.

What your link essentially says is: "Trust technology." ... But again, hope is not a policy. ... and tar sands will not save us. Neither will shale gas. The industry, knowing this day would come, has been trying to perfect unconventional oil production for decades, and have made about a 1-yard gain. Well, it's 4th-and-25, and goofy people like you insist an inside run is the way to go.

So, your essay there, by a Saudi-Aramco executive, comes from a company that has been telling the world "everything is fine" for 15 years, but their actions tell a different story from their press releases, altogether. They haven't proven they can ramp up production capacity, only claimed they can, and no one can see their data. Meanwhile, they're injecting sea water into their biggest fields in a desperate attempt to maintain pressure - the death knell of any field. They're also pouring investment into vastly-more-expensive offshore infrastructure (surely the sign of "plenty" of the abundant stuff onshore :rolleyes: )

Linking to the Saudis claiming "there's plenty" is about as convincing as the U.S. government investigating itself and announcing to its citizens "we found nothing nefarious."

In short, do better.



Rich irony here, DUCY?



Here you are, sunshine:

eroi_tarsands.PNG




That's a lot of pre-emptive guessing on your part. Based on how pathetic your earlier pap is, it's completely ineffectual. Punting to your guess of my grasp of EROEI is doing nothing for your flat refusal to quantify the central question.

Anyhow, "I'll play along," as you so arrogantly put it:

It's energy returned on energy invested. How much energy it costs to find, extract, refine and deliver that energy to market vs. how much energy is actually brought to market. It's a basic ratio figure that anyone can grasp, and no one needs to have an advanced physics degree, whatsoever, like you arrogantly act as if you have.

Light crude? The kind our empire is utterly built upon? That stuff returned anywhere from 200:1 down to 20:1 today.

Unconventional, heavy oils, the kind that you are squawking will save us all? About 2:1 or at best, 5:1. Now, how is that return going to maintain growth? That's right, it's not.

Here are the best known assessments of tar sands EROEI, and oops... it's not pretty:

Tas_sands_EROI-Table.PNG


But of course, if we listen to drones like you and select executives at Saudi-Aramco, the technology will be along any day now to improve those paltry figures. We need only invest and wait patiently :rolleyes:



Poetic irony here, DUCY?



That's because you've painfully straw manned my statement. You will not move the goalposts and demand I kick through it or else you "win." ... LOL.... Tool.

What I said was discoveries are not keeping up with dying existing capacity. Not unless you can magically find a way to flat-line the exponential growth curve in demand. And even if you did manage to halt demand growth (via war, depression, disease, etc.), you've merely underlined the ramifications of peak, you have NOT refuted it.

It's interesting that your epic spin on that discoveries chart said nothing of demand growth going forward, which is ever expanding, like a snowball rolling down hill.

Hubbert said peak production comes roughly 40 years after peak discovery. That was the case for U.S. peak, that is the case for global peak. Discovery of global finds peaked in the mid 1960s. It is axiomatic, and in fact global production has flat-lined since 2004.

If you can show how global liquids production somehow hasn't flatlined since roughly the middle of the last decade, I'd love to see how you're arriving at your figures.

I'm quite confident you can't.



Witty. Spin it back, when clearly your argument is treading water badly, and represents nothing different from the legion of drones before you who also can't allude to where the energy is going to come from while maintaining necessary growth for the global economy that is dying before our very eyes.



Actually, I defend every one of them. It's just that you change the game and yell "see!!!?" Grow up.



One yields bitumen, the other kerogen. Both have exceedingly slow flow rates, and are grossly expensive and no where near being economically viable. Nevermind their destructive affects on the environment, which ALSO factors into EROEI, even though you clowns wish to deny it.



As does "Twilight in the Desert" by Simmons. I have little doubt I possess a far more versatile reading library on this subject matter than you do.

Evidenced by your juvenile and empty response to the ultimate question, "it's where it's always been!!"

Carter didn't base his running out in the 80's on the Limits to Growth. And of course Carter was wrong, do you know what the Fuel Use Act was? And why it proves Carter was wrong? Or isn't that Carter in Peaker U. either?

First, I'll need to you expand on what you believe Carter was wrong about. Surely, you'll take one sentence and extrapolate it to represent his overall premise, but I'm willing to take that challenge.

Overall, the man was quite correct. And you conceded it the moment you joined this forum.
No going backwards now.

And if you can't do anything but parrot peaker dogma, I'm not about to explain the use of exponential growth in ANY model, and what a natural outcome to such modeling might be.

More irony. You've provided nothing but denialist dogma, and short-sighted graphs representing half the equation.

I have little doubt you'd fail regarding "exponential growth model" as well, spinning it into some convenient irrelevancy. You appear to be learning about this stuff as you go along, evidenced by your pathetic link to a Saudi-Aramco essay with a Halliburton email address.

You can run your mouth as long you want with personal insinuation that makes up some 90% of your material. The rest of your blather is nothing we haven't handled before by much better posters than you at ToD and CapitalHillBlue. But your central argument is both vague, and floundering.

To you, apparently, unconventional oil will somehow fill the gap and maintain stasis for complex societies, and/or technology will save the day. But every model provided by international energy monitoring entities (oops, not dogma) shows unconventional oil will represent no more than a tiny fraction of what is needed. More important, technological advances are painfully slow and require substantial investment. But peak is here now.

I'll give you the opportunity to man up and show once more, beyond "where it's always been!"

- If there's plenty of light crude, where is it going forward? What region? In what proven amount? Under land or deep water? How has the oil industry somehow "missed" this enormous new series of fields the past 100 years?

Or have you given up the light crude component of this debate? If you're now just retreating to the tar sands/shale gas/shale oil albatross, please say so. In fact, if you could even flesh out what you even mean overall, after conceding oil is a finite resource, that would be helpful. Hiding behind personal jabs of how dumb everyone is on our side of the fence is doing ZERO for your position here.

Plenty of your allies have tried that already, and ultimately retreated from the forum.

Where is the oil for our 86 million barrel per day appetite? If everything is seamless as your guys insist, that appetite will soon be 95 million, 100 million, 110 million each and every day ... in OUR lifetime. Where is that going to come from?





Is there actually a point in any of this crap? BTW this is the DEFINITION of bloviating!
 
The ultimate challenge put to you is "where is the oil, going forward?"

New discoveries, field growth, unconventionals. Throw in some substitution, and we're good for a century or so.

Vague and unquantifiable much?

Where? How much field growth? How will "unconventionals" maintain global economic growth with an EROEI ratio of 3:1? Even if they expand production tomorrow, those new "unconventionals" won't be ready for 12-15 years.

"A century or so." LOL. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If you said 20-30 years, I'd have at least met you half way. But to assert "we're good" for 100 years shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you're completely lost on the realities happening in the world regarding the global petroleum economy.

I'm not going to write a book in response to your rhetorical questions. Think you have a single valid point ANYWHERE in peaker mythology? Pick it. Make sure you can defend it without asking ridiculous rhetoricals. We'll start with one and see if you have more than 4 neurons firing through a synapse. If all you have is peaker mythology, give up now.

I will not reference homemade videos of peaker experts reciting mythology. I will not reference ASPO advocates except as examples about how little they know, and why they are position advocates and not scientists involved in resource depletion. I will use peer reviewed research and properly footnoted literature. I will not quote ex-cops, violin players, accountants, or other unqualified fruitloops. I am happy to explain or refute not only ex-cops, violin players, accountants and unqualified fruitloops, but Campbell, Laherrere, Deffeyes, Duncan, or even Hubbert's work.

I will not use the IHS database, domestic or international,or any proprietary data I possess.

But start with one, because keeping track of your ridiculous attempts to substitute quantity for quality won't fly. While I recognize that on the internet idiots win because they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience, you can play that game with others.

Nice punt. You recognize it because you ARE the idiot engaging in the very tactic.

The first man in that video is the former chief petroleum geologist at one of the 3 biggest oil conglomerates in the world. When you pretended he's merely a "reciter of Mythology," I knew for sure you didn't have the slightest idea what you've been talking about this whole time.

I mean, besides admitting you're an arrogant prick.

With 28 posts, mostly here, you clearly browsed the web, found this topic, and joined this site to tackle a subject so passionate for you - surface denial of basic Olduvai theory. What you found was a denialist camp here floundering to come up with answers for how peak is "wrong" or "not happening." So you stepped into the ring.

Unfortunately, all you've shown in your arsenal is to conjure up a witty, yet fictional narrative of personal ridicule to assign to your opponents, and an ability to duck statistical data. Mature.

None of my central questions - which you're avoiding again - were rhetorical, liar. You were presented with very specific, falsifiable challenges. You were asked to qualify your ridiculous, unsupported statements, conflating viewpoints from 35 years ago with today. And, most transparent of all, when I've responded to your challenges (such as the Dept. of Energy claim), you never follow up and instead pretend you can't be bothered, and hope it's forgotten. Clearly, "never give an inch" is your bull-headed strategy, even when you're shown the DoE's acknowledgment of imminent peak, which you deny ever happened. :lol:

So, pick one? OK, ... The U.S. Dept. of Energy-sanctioned Hirsch Report -- clearly not "peaker mythology" ((whatever that is supposed to mean :rolleyes: )) -- is one big, fat valid point.

The following esteemed individuals, which you're sure you're smarter than, are all convinced peak is here between 2006 and 2016:

- Ali Bakhitari, Oil Executive (Iran);
- Matthew Simmons, Investment banker (U.S.)
- Chris Skrebowski, Petroleum journal editor (U.K.)
- Kenneth Deffeyes, Oil company geologist (ret., U.S.)
- David Goodstein, D. Vice Provost, Cal Tech (U.S.)
- Colin Campbell, Oil geologist (ret., Ireland)
- Pang Xiongqi Petroleum Executive (China)
- J. Laherrere, Oil geologist (ret., France)

Other entities you're somehow smarter than include the Pentagon, U.S. Dept. of Energy, the IEA, Oxford Univ., Lloyd's of London, and the German and British governments.

How are they wrong? That's not a rhetorical question. I'd be delighted to hear your narrative for how all these entities, certain that peak is here, have it incorrect. And, are they lying, or just dumb? If they're lying, then for what purpose? If they're just dumb, why would our top military brass write a report based on their models?

As arrogant and confident as you try to portray, you should have no problem writing up a short essay refuting a condition you've already conceded in your first post about Hubbert.

If you like, just quantify two things: Reserve growth, and unconventional (low quality oil) production, going forward. How much can you show (not hope) there is?

We can discuss cost, timeline, demand pressures and logistical feasibility later. I'm merely asking how much you feel can be produced before, say, 2020 if investment is there (and it largely won't be).
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to write a book in response to your rhetorical questions. Think you have a single valid point ANYWHERE in peaker mythology? Pick it. Make sure you can defend it without asking ridiculous rhetoricals. We'll start with one and see if you have more than 4 neurons firing through a synapse. If all you have is peaker mythology, give up now.

I will not reference homemade videos of peaker experts reciting mythology. I will not reference ASPO advocates except as examples about how little they know, and why they are position advocates and not scientists involved in resource depletion. I will use peer reviewed research and properly footnoted literature. I will not quote ex-cops, violin players, accountants, or other unqualified fruitloops. I am happy to explain or refute not only ex-cops, violin players, accountants and unqualified fruitloops, but Campbell, Laherrere, Deffeyes, Duncan, or even Hubbert's work.

I will not use the IHS database, domestic or international,or any proprietary data I possess.

But start with one, because keeping track of your ridiculous attempts to substitute quantity for quality won't fly. While I recognize that on the internet idiots win because they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience, you can play that game with others.

So, pick one? OK, ... The U.S. Dept. of Energy-sanctioned Hirsch Report -- clearly not "peaker mythology" ((whatever that is supposed to mean :rolleyes: )) -- is one big, fat valid point.

What part of the Hirsch report would you like to discuss? Perhaps we can start with Hirsch's prediction of energy crisis...in 1987? I assume you are familiar with his history at seeing oil crisis around every corner?

Do you wish to discuss the similarities between his 1987 work and his 2005 DOE sponsored report (which is not the position of the DOE I might add)?

Or do you wish to focus on only the 2005 report and what he said in there that was reasonable, and unreasonable? You decide sometime today, and when I'm home this evening I will tackle any piece of it that you would like.
 
What part of the Hirsch report would you like to discuss?

Whatever you feel you can best spin. The ball is in your court, and you've countered with more rhetoric, and still zero data. I grow confident that you're hoping this exchange goes away.

You don't need me to steer the discussion any further. Here is your chance to distort the conclusions of Hirsch's report, and the best you can do is punt to 1987 and suggest the DoE doesn't necessarily agree.

Perhaps we can start with Hirsch's prediction of energy crisis...in 1987? I assume you are familiar with his history at seeing oil crisis around every corner?

Enough with the pretentious posturing by way of vague rhetoricals. Just get on with it then. Qualify your assertion. You have plenty of rope now; Hang yourself with vague apples to oranges comparisons to 24 years ago. I can't wait.

Do you wish to discuss the similarities between his 1987 work and his 2005 DOE sponsored report (which is not the position of the DOE I might add)?

Take your pick, spin-master. If the DoE objected, it would have disavowed the findings from a report it facilitated. Worse, if the DoE objected, why then do its officials follow up with corroboration?

Dept of Energy Acknowledges Possibility of Peak Oil Production After 2011 | HeatingOil.com

In contrast to its official stance on a global production peak, comments by DOE secretary Glen Sweetnam in an exclusive interview demonstrate that the department is considering whether a swift and unexpected decline of oil supplies is close at hand.

LOL. No, it's not "considering" ... It's softening the American public for a condition it's certain of by 2016.

"Once maximum world oil production is reached, that level will be approximately maintained for several years thereafter, creating an undulating plateau. After this plateau period, production will experience a decline." - Lauren Mayne, DoE.​

Oops, production has been at that undulating plateau since 2004.

"A chance exists that we may experience a decline [of world liquid fuels production between 2011 and 2015] if the investment is not there." - Glen Sweetnam, DoE, secretary

"A chance exists ... if" we don't pour money into it. :rolleyes: That's about as alarmist as a government official is allowed to get, especially after years of denying to the American people that the problem exists at all.

Or do you wish to focus on only the 2005 report and what he said in there that was reasonable, and unreasonable? You decide sometime today, and when I'm home this evening I will tackle any piece of it that you would like.

You didn't need to wait, cool guy. I served you a softball, and you responded with obfuscation.

Just the fact that the U.S. Dept. of Energy has finally acknowledged imminent peak speaks volumes, and it's going to be really tricky for you to maintain your Frank Drebbin routine in the wake of multiple statements, even if coded, by our own government, in lock step with the Pentagon, IEA, Oxford, Lloyd's, Total, ASPO, Post Carbon Institute, British and German governments, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Even if you do conjure up yet another new spin-tacular narrative regarding Hirsch that maintains the doubt platform that your disciples here are so desperate to cling to, you can not account for the fact that 1) world conventional production has flatlined for seven years while world demand continues to skyrocket, and 2) there have been no new finds of conventional crude in excess of 500 million barrels in 8 years anywhere on God's green Earth.

Reserve growth is vastly offset by OPEC and non-OPEC accounting gimmicks, and no one can show where the new oil is going to come from going forward.

Unconventional oil will not save us. And despite your lame attempts to sneak piddly oil-from-dirt production totals into the overall equation, I'm quite confident you know sands/shale won't save us.
 
Last edited:
What part of the Hirsch report would you like to discuss?

Whatever you feel you can best spin. The ball is in your court, and you've countered with more rhetoric, and still zero data. I grow confident that you're hoping this exchange goes away.

Grow as confident as you would like. Its not like I'm scared of parrots. As per your request, here is where I wish to start.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/oil_peaking_netl.pdf

Hirsch, R.L., Bezdek, R., Wendling, R., 2005, Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management, NETL Publications at NETL Publications


Page 33, Section V. Hirsch complains that there is a dramatic example of the risks of over reliance on geological resources projections, as related to US natural gas. He goes on to say "The North American natural gas situation provides some useful lessons relevant to the peaking of conventional world oil production.

Page 36, under "Current Natural Gas Situation", he says in summary that "forecasts of a decade of high prices and shortages are credible." On that same page, he says, "If the experts were so wrong on their assessments of North American natural gas, are we really comfortable risking that the optimists are correct on world conventional oil production, which involves similar geologic and technological issues?"

Do you know what happened after that report was released Jiggs? Those geologic assessment people turned out to be RIGHT. Natural gas supplies from shale gas exploded, and cratered the price of natural gas.

In other words, those who used the geology to determine resources were correct, and those who made claims of shortages and prices increases, like Hirsch, are wrong.

By Hirsch's own words, he is wrong for the EXACT same reasons for conventional oil production. To whit, he ignores the geology. And now that the geology turns out to be an honest predictor of resource in his example, by extension it is also the best way to calculate future conventional oil resources. His argument, which he says doesn't work...except it does. He is incorrect, and has proven it himself. Geologic estimates trump his ridiculous triangles and trendology.

Seems like a good place to start, and it reinforces a critical notion which must never be forgotten when dealing with Hirsch. You see, from Fort Worth in 2005 he could have thrown a rock from a tall building and hit a shale gas rig drilling nearby. He could have counted drilling rigs from a rental car with no more than a single trip to the area and a pencil and paper. Instead, he choose to ignore the geology, he ignored the activity which was being trumpeted from every office tower in Dallas/Fort Worth, and because he didn't even take the time to do some basic background work, now his report looks stupid. Its one thing to miss a future trend, quite another to ignore the one you can literally go out and put your hand on.

Feel free to parrot some peak mythology in his defense.
 
Jiggs is getting his butt kicked so bad I feel like changing sides and helping Jiggs but I only speak of things I know and have not the time to take on a new subject.

Just rubbing it in. Its obvious one who attempts to learn from a cut and paste is at a severe disadvantage.
 
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.


FYI

The Ellwood Oil Field contained approximately 106 million barrels of oil, almost all of which has been removed, to the degree possible with the technology available until the early 1970s.

The field now has been abandoned.

The South Ellwood Offshore field, on the other hand, has been estimated by the U.S. Department of Energy to hold over one billion barrels of oil [3] and approximately 2.1 billion barrels by Venoco, Inc., most of which is in the undeveloped portion of the field.[4]

In 1995, the Oil and Gas Journal reported 155 million barrels of proven reserves.[5]


Oil from the Ellwood field was generally light and sweet, with an API gravity averaging 38 and low sulfur content (making it "sweet" in petroleum parlance). Oil from the offshore field is medium-grade, ranging from API gravity 25 to 34, and has a higher sulfur content, requiring more processing than the oil from the decommissioned onshore field.


Several pools have been identified in the South Ellwood Offshore field, in three major vertical zones. The upper Monterey Formation contains a large pool in a zone of fractured shale at an average depth of 3,350 feet (1,020 m) below the ocean floor. Beneath that, a separate pool exists in the Rincon Sand, 5,000 feet (1,500 m) below the ocean floor, and yet another in the Vaqueros Formation at a depth of 5,900 feet (1,800 m). The deepest well drilled to date is 6,490 feet (1,980 m) into the Rincon Formation: age and strata information are still company-confidential to Venoco, the current operator.

source

I find it more than just a tad confusing how estimates regarding the reserves can be so wildly different.

Three different organziations give us three different estimates:

1 billion, 2.1 billion or 155 million?

Now what's a layman supposed to think when the ranges of estimates are so wildly different?

So while you EXPERTS here are debating the PEAK OIL issue, I cannot help but wonder how YOU GUYS decide which expert to believe.

How DO you decide who YOU believe?
 
Last edited:
Jiggs is getting his butt kicked so bad I feel like changing sides and helping Jiggs but I only speak of things I know and have not the time to take on a new subject.

Just rubbing it in. Its obvious one who attempts to learn from a cut and paste is at a severe disadvantage.

Thou Shalt Not Be Afraid of Parrots.
 

Forum List

Back
Top