oil gusher in california

[JiggsCasey]

I think that the vast majority of people who follow modern catastrophism if I may be so bold to use that august term, are wrapped around the axle of these things because it makes them feel important. They don't really produce much if anything, and they are too smart to actually attend school and get an advanced degree, and mommy and daddy allways told them how smart they were so they actually believe it. But now as they get older and all the dullards are making more money and having enjoyable fullfilling lives they just can't stand it. So they adopt the "world is ending" mantra and try to convince everyone that they are the only ones who can understand it all.

Kind of like climatologists.

LOL. Cool story, bro'.

The most transparent reason you're completely out of bullets is that you've punted on the data, and have resorted to 100% hopeful guesswork concerning the education level of your opponent.

FAIL.

When you're done creating straw man, I'll be over here waiting for you to explain how shale and/or sands will provide the same that light crude does, or better, where the new pools of light crude actually IS going forward.. Still waiting.

Until you man up, and actually engage in the debate, and stop relying on nothing but ineffectual trolling, you remain painfully irrelevant to the discussion. Perhaps you and your new hero here, RGR, can point to a new location of low grade uranium in shale, or pretend that Prudhoe Bay contains "centuries of oil!"

We don't want this reality. It's just that we're not in denial about it like you guys are. We recognize symptoms. You guys, however, act like blood in the toilet, re-occuring seizures, and headaches don't require a doctor's visit.

Unfortunately, less and less people buy your nonsense with each passing month. And that enrages you all. Because then you'd actually have to confront the problem you've been arrogantly denying for years. You have too much invested in your narrative to ever go back now. THAT is what we enjoy, not the condition.

 

[westwall]

I think that the vast majority of people who follow modern catastrophism if I may be so bold to use that august term, are wrapped around the axle of these things because it makes them feel important. They don't really produce much if anything, and they are too smart to actually attend school and get an advanced degree, and mommy and daddy allways told them how smart they were so they actually believe it. But now as they get older and all the dullards are making more money and having enjoyable fullfilling lives they just can't stand it. So they adopt the "world is ending" mantra and try to convince everyone that they are the only ones who can understand it all.

Kind of like climatologists.

LOL. Cool story, bro'.

The most transparent reason you're completely out of bullets is that you've punted on the data, and have resorted to 100% hopeful guesswork concerning the education level of your opponent.

FAIL.

When you're done creating straw man, I'll be over here waiting for you to explain how shale and/or sands will provide the same that light crude does, or better, where the new pools of light crude actually IS going forward.. Still waiting.

Until you man up, and actually engage in the debate, and stop relying on nothing but ineffectual trolling, you remain painfully irrelevant to the discussion. Perhaps you and your new hero here, RGR, can point to a new location of low grade uranium in shale, or pretend that Prudhoe Bay contains "centuries of oil!"

We don't want this reality. It's just that we're not in denial about it like you guys are. We recognize symptoms. You guys, however, act like blood in the toilet, re-occuring seizures, and headaches don't require a doctor's visit.

Unfortunately, less and less people buy your nonsense with each passing month. And that enrages you all. Because then you'd actually have to confront the problem you've been arrogantly denying for years. You have too much invested in your narrative to ever go back now. THAT is what we enjoy, not the condition.

The problem with your argument jiggy, is it pre-supposes a worldview that is not supported by fact. You live in a cause and effect world now. Religion of your ilk has been supplanted. When you decide to enter into the modern world feel free to participate, right at this moment you have nothing. Nothing at all. And, you're now just getting boring. I don't like boring.

 

[JiggsCasey]

The problem with your argument jiggy, is it pre-supposes a worldview that is not supported by fact.

What the fuck are you talking about, desperate poster? My entire argument drowns you in fact. If world liquids production has somehow NOT flatlined since 2004-2005, please show how that pre-supposes anything.

You live in a cause and effect world now. Religion of your ilk has been supplanted. When you decide to enter into the modern world feel free to participate, right at this moment you have nothing. Nothing at all. And, you're now just getting boring. I don't like boring.

Could you be more empty? "Right at this moment," I've been slapping you around with everything from your irrelevant Thomas Gold abiotic punt to heavy vs. conventional oil comparison. You don't know what you're talking about, and your vague, hollow narrative is the very DEFINITION of boring.

YOU are the one who has nothing, cool guy. Make no mistake about that.

 

[westwall]

The problem with your argument jiggy, is it pre-supposes a worldview that is not supported by fact.

What the fuck are you talking about, desperate poster? My entire argument drowns you in fact. If world liquids production has somehow NOT flatlined since 2004-2005, please show how that pre-supposes anything.

You live in a cause and effect world now. Religion of your ilk has been supplanted. When you decide to enter into the modern world feel free to participate, right at this moment you have nothing. Nothing at all. And, you're now just getting boring. I don't like boring.

Could you be more empty? "Right at this moment," I've been slapping you around with everything from your irrelevant Thomas Gold abiotic punt to heavy vs. conventional oil comparison. You don't know what you're talking about, and your vague, hollow narrative is the very DEFINITION of boring.

YOU are the one who has nothing, cool guy. Make no mistake about that.

Sure dreamer, whatever you say.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Sure dreamer, whatever you say.

Emotes and short quips of projection. It's official. You have nothing left.

You have no answer for the fact that liquid fuels production has been flat for 7 years. Oops.

Run along.

 

[westwall]

QUOTE=JiggsCasey;3228951]

Sure dreamer, whatever you say.

Emotes and short quips of projection. It's official. You have nothing left.

You have no answer for the fact that liquid fuels production has been flat for 7 years. Oops.

Run along.[/QUOTE]




Sure jiggy baby, sure!

 

[RGR]

What the fuck are you talking about, desperate poster? My entire argument drowns you in fact.

Refute my explanation of the Hirsch's report.

I dare you. Try out one of these new found facts which we haven't seen in action yet. Heck, pick a fact, just one, and we'll see if it's a fact or just another assertion/speculation/arm-waving exercise.

Do you even know what a fact IS?

 

[RGR]

You have no answer for the fact that liquid fuels production has been flat for 7 years. Oops.

Run along.

Oh...is THAT all you want refuted? Will you go away if we peak...yet again?

Early Warning: Prospects for a New Peak in Crude & Condensate

 

[JiggsCasey]

You have no answer for the fact that liquid fuels production has been flat for 7 years. Oops.

Run along.

Oh...is THAT all you want refuted? Will you go away if we peak...yet again?

Early Warning: Prospects for a New Peak in Crude & Condensate

LOL. Leave it to you to FAIL to recognize what that graph shows. It's a post that refers to monthly fluctuation, not annual averages. Leave it to you to point at one month in one year and squawk "see?!! see!? a new peak!!!" that's barely quantifiable over the course of 6 years. Tool. Look at the EIA portion (green line) of this graph. The end EIA line is exactly where it was in 2005.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7327

Get back to me when you can show a pattern of production growth of any significance since late 2005. Peak began then, and continues today. It's called "the bumpy plateau," and it's well established.

All you're doing is ignoring the long term trend (which is quite flat) and flapping your parrot wings over short-term blips that have more to do with storage capacity fluctuation and geopolitical conditions than any new upturn in global liquids production.

Anyhow, sunshine... Here's the central graph by the EIA, the very same entity you're desperately trying to pass off as somehow saying the opposite:

Note the tan, blue and red portions all sliding downward. Ooops. Unfortunately, that white wedge is the part that your camp has to account for, and are failing miserably. But that's OK... The Pentagon and U.S. Dept of Energy don't have any idea where that's going to come from either, so you're not alone.

That enough "fact" for ya? GFY

 

[westwall]

What the fuck are you talking about, desperate poster? My entire argument drowns you in fact.

Refute my explanation of the Hirsch's report.

I dare you. Try out one of these new found facts which we haven't seen in action yet. Heck, pick a fact, just one, and we'll see if it's a fact or just another assertion/speculation/arm-waving exercise.

Do you even know what a fact IS?

Demonstrably no.

 

[RGR]

You have no answer for the fact that liquid fuels production has been flat for 7 years. Oops.

Run along.

Oh...is THAT all you want refuted? Will you go away if we peak...yet again?

Early Warning: Prospects for a New Peak in Crude & Condensate

LOL. Leave it to you to FAIL to recognize what that graph shows. It's a post that refers to monthly fluctuation, not annual averages.

You were no more specific in your question about how YOU define peak than clear in what density of oil you will, or won't, count.

I recommend going back, asking the Priests what you are supposed to think, and come back and tell us that. Undoubtedly they are more capable in understanding the basics.

It's called "the bumpy plateau," and it's well established.

Please reference any work by Hubbert where he converted his peak concept into a "bumpy plateau" concept. Just one will do. Show us all how he imagined this bumpy plateau would work? Redeem yourself from past moronic statements and assertions which can't survive even a cursory examination...here is your chance to SHINE!

The Pentagon and U.S. Dept of Energy don't have any idea where that's going to come from either, so you're not alone.

That enough "fact" for ya? GFY

What is "fact" is that you continue to claim that the DOE said something, and when I walk you through what the DOE Hirsch report actually SAYS, it doesn't back up your "Santa Claus / Oil" assertions.

Stop creating appeals to authority which don't say what you claim. Or, better yet, show us the part of the report which backstops your position. If you can.

 

[mdn2000]

Another Oil Discovery, I guess that is good news for some of us.

New Oil Discovery Reported in Southern England - Yahoo! Finance

LONDON, Jan. 18, 2011 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Alamo Energy Corp. (OTCBB:ALME - News) is pleased to report that a new oil discovery reported by BBC confirms Alamo Energy's strategy and expansive pursuit of nearby oil and gas prospect in Southern England

For Alamo Energy, this latest local discovery provides added belief that the company is on the right course on its own nearby Wessex / Weald Province oil lease in southern England. This lease contains 4 onshore license blocks with a total oil-resource potential up to 236 million barrels. BP, Nexen Energy and Star Energy, a subsidiary of Petronas are among the growing number of major producers pursuing development leases in this new rapidly emerging oil and gas region

 

[JiggsCasey]

I'm away for a week, and this is what you respond with? More squawking about your shale gas punt regarding the Hirsch Report, coupled with pretentious posturing and "you're dumb" ineffectual ridicule? FAIL!

You were no more specific in your question about how YOU define peak than clear in what density of oil you will, or won't, count.

Actually, I've been quite specific. Contrary to you flat-earthers, peak does not have to be a specific date set in stone. A ballpark assessment is plenty adequate. One need merely to take a look at total liquids production over a period of 10-15 years to see, unequivocally, that liquids have essentially flat-lined for the past 6 years, with some short blips up and down along that 6-year axis.

To the encyclopedia's definition, peak is the point at which world light crude production reaches its highest point before terminal decline. Whether it plateaus for 1 hour, or 10 years, isn't really the point -- because longterm decline is all that follows.

The more refined definition of peak is the general price point at which (harder to reach) energy becomes too expensive for investment and consumption, and thus, impossible to maintain growth. The ramifications of that end of growth ARE the residuals of peak. When one recognizes that demand can be crushed with raised prices, thereby extending (or flattening) Hubbert's curve, he hasn't debunked peak at all, he has simply underscored it.

That is what we are seeing today, as the price of just about everything rises WITH the price of oil. Or, did you want to dispute that fact as well, in your never-ending snake oil ploy to remain obtuse, despite joining this forum by admitting it's a finite resource?

You can't go back on that assertion now. You didn't deny peak, you simply insisted it wasn't here "yet." Hopefully, your loyal disciples here remember that fact, especially the idiots who still insist that oil is abiotic.

I recommend going back, asking the Priests what you are supposed to think, and come back and tell us that. Undoubtedly they are more capable in understanding the basics.

Look at you. So adorable, maintaining the charade due to belligerence, while your argument crumbles all around you. Keeping swimming upstream, little salmon. You'll get there.

Richard Heinberg is no priest. Neither is Michael T. Klare, Dr. Albert Bartlett, Chris Martenson, Chris Skrebowski, Jeremy Leggett, Saddad al-Husseini, Jim Buckee or Jeremy Gilbert. ... Oops, wrong again, flat eather. In fact, they're all either former Big Oil CEOs, chief petroleum engineers, or energy/economy analysts, no doubt far more informed than your pretentious nay-saying ass.

It's called "the bumpy plateau," and it's well established.

Please reference any work by Hubbert where he converted his peak concept into a "bumpy plateau" concept. Just one will do. Show us all how he imagined this bumpy plateau would work? Redeem yourself from past moronic statements and assertions which can't survive even a cursory examination...here is your chance to SHINE!

Straw man creatiion 2.0!! Here, I'll be a perpetual douche like you: Please reference where I suggested that term comes from Hubbert!!! Just one will do. You won't find it, and you know you won't, but far be it from the latest ass clown to make up claims of claims of the other side.

His raw model has been refined. Despite your desperate attempts to pigeon hole every aspect of this debate, no one on our side of the discussion has asserted that every specific angle of Hubbert's model has held up 100%. That's YOUR desperate straw man.

Ultimately, Hubbert's theory is correct, even if the apex of the curve has flattened slightly due to slowed demand growth and very expensive alternatives.

What is "fact" is that you continue to claim that the DOE said something, and when I walk you through what the DOE Hirsch report actually SAYS, it doesn't back up your "Santa Claus / Oil" assertions.

Nice side-step. You didn't "walk" me through anything. You merely punted to shale gas as evidence that Hirsch report was flawed. Then, when challenged to acknowledge shale gas capacity so far in this country, you couldn't, and continued the "you're just dumb" litigation. LOL.... FAIL!

The DoE not only funded and facilitated the Hirsch report, which insists peak is here by 2015, it also is represented by longtime peak denier Glenn Sweetnam's assessment:

The U.S. Department of Energy admits that “a chance exists that we may experience a decline” of world liquid fuels production between 2011 and 2015 “if the investment is not there”, according to an exclusive interview with Glen Sweetnam, main official expert on oil market in the Obama administration.​

Gosh, here's the DoE's 2009 round table discussion report, chaired by Sweetnam above. Note page 8!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.eia.doe.gov/conference/2009/session3/Sweetnam.pdf

But nah... The DoE isn't SAYING peak is here, it's JUST saying it's not here if we invest the necessary trillions in maintaining the doomed fossil fuel addiction! LOL!

Washington considers a decline of world oil production as of 2011 - Oil Man - Blog LeMonde.fr

Glen Sweetnam’s warning comes after a long set of warnings dealing with possible troubles ahead on the supply side of the world oil market. Those warnings have been emitted over the last years through a range of sound sources such as The Wall Street Journal, The Houston Chronicle (main daily newspaper of the world capital of crude oil trade), the CEO of Brazilian oil company Petrobras, a former n°2 of Saudi national oil company Aramco, an International Energy Agency ‘whistleblower’, the chief economist of the IEA himself, the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil & Energy Security, or legendary-wildcatter-turned-renewable-tycoon T. Boone Pickens.​

Stop creating appeals to authority which don't say what you claim. Or, better yet, show us the part of the report which backstops your position. If you can.

LOL!!! Such a dick.

It's telling watching you desperately attempt to keep me from citing sources you can't spin. Oops, not gonna happen. Unfortunately for your floundering position, "authority" on this topic is almost entirely in my camp, not yours, flat-earther. Not only is authority on my side, but so are world events -- everything from food riots to full-blown revolutions.

Watching the events unfolding in Egypt, are ya? Yeah...Guess what? It conveniently coincides with Egypt's growing oil consumption finally colliding with declining oil output. ... That's not "made up" either, that's assessed from BP's own statistical data. Food subsidies become kinda hard to maintain when you suddenly haveta increase oil subsidies. Get it yet?

Look, RGR. If all you have left in your BB-gun arsenal is to pretend the Hirsch Report is wrong due to shale gas, assert that we somehow adhere to every word of Hubbert's model, and embark on long pretentious narratives of personal insinuation that make you look really insecure, you lose badly. Oh, I forgot... You still have plenty of "reserve growth" claims.

Your entire argument here is like saying Joe Torre was never worthy of being a manager because he could never throw a curve ball. LOL.

Now, I'm sure you'll fire back with another unctuous rant about how I'm a "parrot" and don't know anything, cherry-picking what you can spin while ignoring the main rebuttals... That's to be expected... But I'm going to keep my boot on your throat on a few main contentions, and hopefully you'll man up and respond one of these times:

- How much annual gas from shale has the U.S. successfully produced so far?
- When comparing different energy sources, what is a better measurement for relative energy efficiency than basic EROEI, and why do the following entites and individuals continue to use this "useless" measurement? (tar sands, in this example)

 

[JiggsCasey]

Another Oil Discovery, I guess that is good news for some of us.

Hooray! Four days of energy found!!!

 

[Synthaholic]

Buy your Peak Oil at Amazon.com

Spend $25 and it ships free!

 

[mdn2000]

Another Oil Discovery, I guess that is good news for some of us.

Hooray! Four days of energy found!!!

Another bold faced lie, expected, how about Israel's recent discoveries as well as the recent discoveries in Egypt, Egypt will now export energy. The opposite of what you post. How about a Microsoft paint type graph, I cannot argue with those, Jiggs.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Another Oil Discovery, I guess that is good news for some of us.

Hooray! Four days of energy found!!!

Another bold faced lie, expected, how about Israel's recent discoveries as well as the recent discoveries in Egypt, Egypt will now export energy. The opposite of what you post. How about a Microsoft paint type graph, I cannot argue with those, Jiggs.

Dude, your own fucking link said 200 something million barrels in England. Don't blow a gasket when I remind the forum that the world uses 86 million barrels every single day. Perspective, denial monk. Gain some.

It doesn't matter, though, drama queen. You can link to a new "find" like that each and every day. Total them up, and they won't compare to the rate of dying existing capacity. ... To say nothing of the cost to build new infrastructure at each of these piddly little kiddie pools you arrogantly declare victory over. LOL.

Brazil's ultra-deep water "finds" have been put into proper perspective. If you wanna support your Egypt claim, man up and link.

Again, I can claim I've found 5000 years of crude on the moon. But if it bankrupts my company trying to get to it, doesn't really mean much, does it?

 

[mdn2000]

Hooray! Four days of energy found!!!

Another bold faced lie, expected, how about Israel's recent discoveries as well as the recent discoveries in Egypt, Egypt will now export energy. The opposite of what you post. How about a Microsoft paint type graph, I cannot argue with those, Jiggs.

Dude, your own fucking link said 200 something million barrels in England. Don't blow a gasket when I remind the forum that the world uses 86 million barrels every single day. Perspective, denial monk. Gain some.

It doesn't matter, though, drama queen. You can link to a new "find" like that each and every day. Total them up, and they won't compare to the rate of dying existing capacity. ... To say nothing of the cost to build new infrastructure at each of these piddly little kiddie pools you arrogantly declare victory over. LOL.

Brazil's ultra-deep water "finds" have been put into proper perspective. If you wanna support your Egypt claim, man up and link.

Again, I can claim I've found 5000 years of crude on the moon. But if it bankrupts my company trying to get to it, doesn't really mean much, does it?

Blow a gasket, get a grip, Jiggs, I think I may have to send Old Red out there to extinquish that fire of yours. Drama queen? Denial Monk?

He, I am sorry, actually not, that your getting your ass kicked up and down the posts.

Build new infrastructure?

Gee, what exactly do you do for a living, bury your head in the sand.

Four days of oil that will take the next 40 years to pump out of the ground, economics and profits say it is worth pumping oil from one well for 40 years or more, Jiggs claims its not, based on a man that was educated before computers were invented. By a guy who had to rething everything that Hubbert ever learned.

Of course Jiggs, your biggest failure in my eyes is your continued refusal to post the theory your such an expert in, I forget, where exactly did you post that PDF of the actual theory of peak oil instead of a tertiary source of little detail, at best?

 

[Mr. H.]

I'd be overjoyed with a 2 bbl/day well.

$170/day... $5,000/month... less 12.5% royalty... less 30% lifting costs = about $3,000/month.
$36k a year (Only $28,000 of it taxable if you figure depletion allowance).

Not too shabby.

 

[RGR]

I'm away for a week, and this is what you respond with? More squawking about your shale gas punt regarding the Hirsch Report,

Hirsch's ignorance of shale gas is not what discredits his report. His ignorance of a geologic basis is. Try reading what I wrote instead of filling in whatever gibberish is closest to hand.

Actually, I've been quite specific.

Actually you haven't. You haven't referenced a single word from Hirsch, or anyone else, wrote to rebutt what I wrote.

To the encyclopedia's definition, peak is the point at which world light crude production reaches
its highest point before terminal decline.

From idiots who wrote the peak oil wiki....

"Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached,
after which the rate of production enters terminal decline."

Would you care to revise your claims of what the encyclopedia says, or stick with your even more ignorant definition of peak oil than Wiki has?

Richard Heinberg is no priest. Neither is Michael T. Klare, Dr. Albert Bartlett, Chris Martenson,
Chris Skrebowski, Jeremy Leggett, Saddad al-Husseini, Jim Buckee or Jeremy Gilbert....

Do you realize that you lump actual industry professionals in with amateur violin players as though they have the same credibility in the geosciences? And your ignorance of the basics of this name calling game you are playing is ridiculous.

Here...let me play, except I'm going to use actual experts...

Hubbert...Root...Arps...McCabe...Gorelick....Charpentier...
Duncan (no, not the Olduvai Gorge nutbag)...Singer...Drew....Magoon...Ahlbrandt...

See how easy that was? The difference being I didn't reference anyone who's claim to fame is playing a violin.

It requires more than memorizing a list of names, and throwing it down as though every word they have ever said verifies the utterly ridiculous claims you are making. To date the only piece of work you seem to have been willing to pretend to understand is the Hirsch 2005 DOE report, and it is becoming more obvious by the minute that not only didn't you read it, when you are pointed to EXACTLY the page and text I used to discredit it, you don't even know WHY the reference discredits it.

Straw man creatiion 2.0!! Here, I'll be a perpetual douche like you: Please reference where I suggested that term comes from Hubbert!!! Just one will do

Hubbert was a scientist. Upon which the religion of peak oil is based. Because peak oil is infested with amateur violin players pretending to be oilmen, it is necessary to weed out the actual experts, and to check out their ideas. Hubbert was one such person. If you have an actual expert of his caliber who wrote a paper on this plateau concept...fine...I will wait until you can find them. Your word, culled from the mythology of peak, is utterly worthless on this topic. You interchangably confuse industry experts and violin players for Christs sake, change the definition of peak oil to play bookkeeping tricks with oil, and can't even parrot back an EROEI example I can't become John
D. Rockefeller with.

It's telling watching you desperately attempt to keep me from citing sources you can't spin.

So far, the only thing you've claimed to have read is the Hirsch report (your posting to the contrary), and you contradict that claim evert post you
make on the topic.

Maybe we need to start out at even a more basic level. Do you even know what oil IS?