$5 a gallon oil in 2012

[RGR]

1970's oil reserves 690 billion barrels. Today the reserves are estimated at 1025 billion barrels of oil.

Typical. Blind assertation, nothing at all to back it up. Anyone knows that there are reserves and there are 'reserves'. Recoverable at what price is the whole point.

Hey, you don't like EIA data I suggest you blame Jimmy Carter, he's the guy who fired those boys up. And I must ask, with a little giggle, you wouldn't happen to be able to quantify the difference between "reserves" and "reserves" would you?

Certainly I've never had any of mine reversed during audit, and I'm curious how many times you think an auditor demanded of the engineer doing the reserves "no, not THOSE reserves! I demand those OTHER reserves!" and received anything but that same little knowing giggle.

 

[westwall]

Link to what you're asking please. I may have missed it.

I'll be happy to take a look.

1970's oil reserves 690 billion barrels. Today the reserves are estimated at 1025 billion barrels of oil.

Typical. Blind assertation, nothing at all to back it up. Anyone knows that there are reserves and there are 'reserves'. Recoverable at what price is the whole point.

Just following your lead there olfraud. You do it all the time so I wanted to see what it was like.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Proven reserves, EIA, 1980, 644 billion barrels.
Proven reserves, EIA, 2007, 1317 billion barrels.

Approximate consumption between 1980 and 2007, 716 billion barrels.

In 27 years we consumed 716 billion, and found not only that 716 billion, but another 601 billion to boot.

Sure we find more than we consume. Doing it all the time. And of course reserves have nothing to do with demand growth, exponential, hyperbolic, harmonic, in either a positive or negative direction. Go find someone who knows something about this topic, and at least parrot THEM instead of whatever ignorant peaker you listened to to come up with this nonsense.

Again, you arrogant asshat... Link your claim. Why is that so troubling for you guys?

I do apologize. I assumed even a parrot knew how to find the EIA website, what with all of 3 letters to enter into google. My bad for assuming you were a smart parrot.

Energy Information Administration - International Petroleum (Oil) Reserves and Resources Data

Intellectually dishonest much? You know why I asked, just as much as you know exactly why you punted to the vague main page. Your claim wants to make a specific allegation, so get specific in defense of it and cut and paste the figures you're referring to. Instead, you link us to a main page of multiple enormous pdf hyperlinks and xls downloads, expecting us to hunt down the data and verify your specific claim for ourselves, ... or just silently accept it as fact. LOL. The one html link on that page says NOTHING about 1980. ...

Do better. Do the work.

Was the 1,317 billion figure all there ever was, or what's left going forward? Is it proven reserve totals which later became "technically recoverable" reserve totals? ... Do both dates consider ultra-expensive oil fracked from dirt as part of world reserves? Or just the newest figures? ... I doubt you're reading the figures correctly. Still, trying to pretend 200% reserve growth in global capacity has occurred in 27 years is really funny though, and confirms further that you don't know what you're ultimately talking about. Just another reminder: Unconventional oil is not light crude. Mmm-kay?

Ah well, at least we know this, from your own link:

Important Note on Sources of Foreign Reserve Estimates


Reserve estimates for oil, natural gas, and coal are very difficult to develop. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) develops estimates of reserves of oil, natural gas, and coal for the United States but does not attempt to develop estimates for foreign countries. As a convenience to the public, EIA makes available foreign fuel reserve estimates from other sources, but it does not certify these data. Please carefully note the sources of the data when using and citing estimates of foreign fuel reserves.​

Reserve growth does not support your "peak is far off" platform any more than shale gas goes. Pretending overall models were wrong 30-50 years ago because they weren't 100% to the letter accurate says nothing about the symptoms of today. The overall diagnosis is clear. The debate about peak is over. You lost.

 

[RGR]

Do better. Do the work.

I do. But I already told you, I wouldn't use the IHS international database against you, it wouldn't be fair.

Was the 1,317 billion figure all there ever was, or what's left going forward?

Understand what reserves are, and that question answers itself. Would you like me to round up the SPE definitions so you can read them at your leisure?

Is it proven reserve totals which later became "technically recoverable" reserve totals? ...
Do both dates consider ultra-expensive oil fracked from dirt as part of world reserves? Or just the newest figures? ... I doubt you're reading the figures correctly. Still, trying to pretend 200% reserve growth in global capacity has occurred in 27 years is really funny though, and confirms further that you don't know what you're ultimately talking about. Just another reminder: Unconventional oil is not light crude. Mmm-kay?

You are incorrect in the above paragraph for several reasons, beyond your obvious confusion as to what reserves versus resources actually are. Ask single specific question and I will be happy to explain any piece of it. But my response to the intertwined and confused paragraph above is: Don't confuse reserves and resources, ultra expensive is a relative concept, it isn't used in dirt, and is as inherent to modern oil and gas operations as steel pipe, unconventional oil such as the Bakken shale oil is a perfectly wonderful conventional 42 degree API fluid, and you haven't even attempted to answer the question which was....how is it that parrots say we don't find as much as we consume when obviously we do? And have?

Reserve growth does not support your "peak is far off" platform any more than shale gas goes. Pretending overall models were wrong 30-50 years ago because they weren't 100% to the letter accurate says nothing about the symptoms of today. The overall diagnosis is clear. The debate about peak is over. You lost.

I did not say anything about reserve growth, I listed the EIA numbers showing that for every barrel consumed we find more, which disputes one of the central parables of the Peak Oil religion.

The Peak Oil religion is all about trying to limit the debate to some tiny subsection of what is oil, or only certain cost categories of oil, or using only certain techniques to produce it. Proclamations by parrots that THE DEBATE ABOUT PEAK IS OVER is just as stupid as saying THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED and reveals more about the ignorance of who says those words than anything resembling the reality of the situation.

Please tell us why peak oil priests say we don't discover as much as we consume when obviously we do.

If you think the EIA inaccurately counted the numbers, please, tell us why. Do you have information showing they counted something which doesn't exist?

Come on Jiggys, fire off a random neuron already, put down the peaker bible and THINK about this stuff.

 

[Big Fitz]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The former president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister, says Americans could be paying $5 for a gallon of gasoline by 2012.

In an interview with Platt's Energy Week television, Hofmeister predicted gasoline prices will spike as the global demand for oil increases.

"I'm predicting actually the worst outcome over the next two years which takes us to 2012 with higher gasoline prices," he said.

Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst with Oil Price Information Service says Americans will see gasoline prices hit the $5 a gallon mark in the next decade, but not by 2012.

$5 for a gallon of gasoline in 2012 - Dec. 27, 2010

Easily countered by a few simple steps.

1. Re-open domestic oil production/development.

2. Drop oppressive restrictions on domestic coal production

3. Continued RESEARCH into improving alternative energies and Fusion, but not production.

4. Restart building nuke and coal power plants.

5. Promise to protect budding domestic oil production with tariffs or other trade protection if OPEC collapses the oil market to destroy the domesitic industry... again... for a short period of time.

6. End all global warming bullshit legislation.

Do those 6 things and our future brightens up tremendously

 

[JiggsCasey]

Do better. Do the work.

I do. But I already told you, I wouldn't use the IHS international database against you, it wouldn't be fair.

Was the 1,317 billion figure all there ever was, or what's left going forward?

Understand what reserves are, and that question answers itself. Would you like me to round up the SPE definitions so you can read them at your leisure?

Is it proven reserve totals which later became "technically recoverable" reserve totals? ...
Do both dates consider ultra-expensive oil fracked from dirt as part of world reserves? Or just the newest figures? ... I doubt you're reading the figures correctly. Still, trying to pretend 200% reserve growth in global capacity has occurred in 27 years is really funny though, and confirms further that you don't know what you're ultimately talking about. Just another reminder: Unconventional oil is not light crude. Mmm-kay?

You are incorrect in the above paragraph for several reasons, beyond your obvious confusion as to what reserves versus resources actually are. Ask single specific question and I will be happy to explain any piece of it. But my response to the intertwined and confused paragraph above is: Don't confuse reserves and resources, ultra expensive is a relative concept, it isn't used in dirt, and is as inherent to modern oil and gas operations as steel pipe, unconventional oil such as the Bakken shale oil is a perfectly wonderful conventional 42 degree API fluid, and you haven't even attempted to answer the question which was....how is it that parrots say we don't find as much as we consume when obviously we do? And have?

Reserve growth does not support your "peak is far off" platform any more than shale gas goes. Pretending overall models were wrong 30-50 years ago because they weren't 100% to the letter accurate says nothing about the symptoms of today. The overall diagnosis is clear. The debate about peak is over. You lost.

I did not say anything about reserve growth, I listed the EIA numbers showing that for every barrel consumed we find more, which disputes one of the central parables of the Peak Oil religion.

The Peak Oil religion is all about trying to limit the debate to some tiny subsection of what is oil, or only certain cost categories of oil, or using only certain techniques to produce it. Proclamations by parrots that THE DEBATE ABOUT PEAK IS OVER is just as stupid as saying THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED and reveals more about the ignorance of who says those words than anything resembling the reality of the situation.

Please tell us why peak oil priests say we don't discover as much as we consume when obviously we do.

If you think the EIA inaccurately counted the numbers, please, tell us why. Do you have information showing they counted something which doesn't exist?

Come on Jiggys, fire off a random neuron already, put down the peaker bible and THINK about this stuff.

It's official then. Your entire, arrogant, smarmy argument rests on the "wonders" of unconventional oil.

At least, finally, you've outed your elusive agenda. It's taken a bit of prodding, as you punted to reserve growth and "it's where it's always been" goofiness. But now, we all see that your entire platform here hides behind the laughable assumption that oil-from-dirt and oil-from-clay and gas-from-rock offers the same kind of return on investment that light sweet crude has for decades. It's the same tactic of your little cheerleader there, Westless, before you. I mean, after he finally came off the abiotic vs. biotic irrelevancy.

You're both quite wrong: The heavy stuff is not remotely close to being as cost effective as your hope-based argument desperately wants it to be... And I'm fairly content that you KNOW shale and tar sands don't measure up. All it's doing right now is plugging short-term leaks in supply/demand shortfall. As that gap widens, unconventionals will not keep up. Everyone knows this, especially Robert Hirsch, the IEA and all the other sources you desperately try to spin.

I especially like your Bakken claim. There's a lot more to oil extraction feasibility than mere API, but being intellectually dishonest like you are, you didn't mention porosity, permeability nor water saturation. But if you're going to pretend 3.7 billion barrels of technically recoverable, vastly more expensive oil in S. Dakota is doing much for your argument, well you keep at it. ... LOL. Bakken... Good one. More denialist dogma. Will it be Prudhoe Bay next, Lindsey Williams?

If the dirty stuff was cost effective, we'd have made significant progress in perfecting it years ago, and be producing far more of it today. Meanwhile, investors are bailing from Tar Sands (China's CNOOC, among others), and shale gas investment is tepid at best, because no one is comfortable with the environmental costs. Fortunately, our current leaders are not yet ready to expand a shale gas industry that exists by manufacturing mini-earthquakes all over our nation, and poisoning our water table to shake loose a bit of gas that will represent perhaps a twentieth of what our energy appetite demands.

So for all your blabber, the core of your argument is to insist that a 3:1 return on investment process (unconventionals) can magically and seamlessly become a 20:1 return on investment (as is light crude), as well as provide ever-increasing rates of volume. And do all this in short order, so as to maintain stasis for complex societies already rapidly dying. ... Riiiiight.

But Oops!!! It doesn't work that way. The world is waking up to that reality, and our global liquids production has flat-lined for 7 years now, while demand continue to rise. That's an equation you can't counter, so you dance around the central question, and pretend I'm guilty of your own laughable dancing steps.

You're not fooling anyone here, denialist.

Oil-from-clay and gas-from-rock is not gonna save our empire that can NOT survive in its current form without 5-7% annual growth. Sorry. It doesn't.

You arrogant, well-off types may not feel peak will affect you much, but most of America, already feeling it, sure will. It will get worse, and, out of bullets like you are, you'll all disappear from this forum, and/or continue to pretend the global economy's systemic crash is being caused by something else - you know, like libruls, communists, OPEC, gays, speculators, or whatever boogeyman of the week you all try to diagnose in your infinite ignorance.

I'm going away for a few days, pumpkin. I know you'll miss me, but I'll be back to deal with the avoidance game you played in the other threads regarding the EIA figures.

 

[Douger]

I'll go out on a limb here and predict $125 a barrel by July 1.

 

[JiggsCasey]

I'll go out on a limb here and predict $125 a barrel by July 1.

Very possible. But I try to avoid short-term price predictions. Crushed demand (recession, depression, war, famine, etc.) can bring the prices right back down.

I try to focus on global production and export rates, and the behavior and investment desperation of oil companies.

 

[RGR]

Please tell us why peak oil priests say we don't discover as much as we consume when obviously we do.

If you think the EIA inaccurately counted the numbers, please, tell us why. Do you have information showing they counted something which doesn't exist?

Come on Jiggys, fire off a random neuron already, put down the peaker bible and THINK about this stuff.

It's official then. Your entire, arrogant, smarmy argument rests on the "wonders" of unconventional oil.

I certainly did not say that. And you appear to be dodging the question. Why don't you just take an honest crack at answering the question?

Everyone knows this, especially Robert Hirsch, the IEA and all the other sources you desperately try to spin.

Spin? So far I have examined a single report you referenced, and I have done so to demonstrate why it contradicts the idea you assign to it. I recommend reading the reports prior to misrepresenting them.

So for all your blabber, the core of your argument is to insist that a 3:1 return on investment process (unconventionals) can magically and seamlessly become a 20:1 return on investment (as is light crude), as well as provide ever-increasing rates of volume. And do all this in short order, so as to maintain stasis for complex societies already rapidly dying. ... Riiiiight.

I assume you don't even know what heavy oil is with a wiki cut and paste to fake it, or what IRR is for that matter. Your last "I'll trade you 2 barrels for 5" routine went horribly wrong, do you really want to demonstrate your mathematical abilities again?

I'm going away for a few days, pumpkin. I know you'll miss me, but I'll be back to deal with the avoidance game you played in the other threads regarding the EIA figures.

Good. Try and read something.Come back with an answer this time instead of this make believe "produce oil from dirt" routine...which strikes me as nearly nonsensical and just an attempt to avoid confronting the answer. To whit: Why do peakers insist that the world consumers more than it discovers when such a statement is patently untrue?

 

[Big Fitz]

RGR, don't bother with King Chicken Little the Last. His goalposts move so often, you can't tell what sport you're playing. If it's not 'light sweet crude' it's not oil in his book and therefore can never be used. But he's all for the fantasy of solar, wind and other fanciful forms of energy that have been proven to be utterly incapable of picking up the load for centuries.

Don't bother even responding to him. I think he's cut and pasting all the meat of his 'arguments' for the last few months. If it weren't for you quoting him, I couldn't have confirmed it. But save yourself the waste of time and just let him howl in lunacy alone.

 

[RGR]

Don't bother even responding to him. I think he's cut and pasting all the meat of his 'arguments' for the last few months. If it weren't for you quoting him, I couldn't have confirmed it. But save yourself the waste of time and just let him howl in lunacy alone.

Yeah, I did notice the strong profile of a parrot in the way he responds. He certainly dances away from single individual questions by just name calling everyone else who hasn't "seen the light" as it were.

 

[Mr. H.]

Well, there's always that $3 gas thread.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/energy/150706-3-a-gallon-gas-is-an-outrage-or-is-it-a-miracle.html

 

[JiggsCasey]

Please tell us why peak oil priests say we don't discover as much as we consume when obviously we do.

When talking about light crude, the kind with the highest EROEI, the statement is most certainly true. When you're desperately trying to do is add technically recoverable reserve totals and heavy oils to the energy total.

In other words, when discussing oranges, you're desperately squawking "we're not running out of oranges!! just look at all these apples!!!"

At some point in this discussion, you'll actually get your head around that fact.

I certainly did not say that. And you appear to be dodging the question. Why don't you just take an honest crack at answering the question?

And yet, when challenged to present just what kind of liquids the EIA is referring to in that equation, you ignored the request and just kept repeating "answer the question!! <bacaw!!>

Parrot, indeed.

The additional reserves the EIA is talking about includes far less efficient unconventional "finds" that will not sustain economic growth. This is about cheap energy, or net energy. Not the trillions in "oil from clay" that people like you try to conflate into the equation.

So, like I said pages ago: You can not point to a new find of light crude in excess of a few billion barrels anywhere on Earth for decades. What we are surviving on is the existing fields, the discovery for which peaked in the mid 1960s. Most of those fields are dying... Rapidly.

Spin? So far I have examined a single report you referenced, and I have done so to demonstrate why it contradicts the idea you assign to it. I recommend reading the reports prior to misrepresenting them.

I've read every word of the Hirsch Report. You, clearly, have not. You haven't demonstrated anything at all, champ. Besides pretending heavy oil deserves to be included and can sustain societies.

So for all your blabber, the core of your argument is to insist that a 3:1 return on investment process (unconventionals) can magically and seamlessly become a 20:1 return on investment (as is light crude), as well as provide ever-increasing rates of volume. And do all this in short order, so as to maintain stasis for complex societies already rapidly dying. ... Riiiiight.

I assume you don't even know what heavy oil is with a wiki cut and paste to fake it, or what IRR is for that matter. Your last "I'll trade you 2 barrels for 5" routine went horribly wrong, do you really want to demonstrate your mathematical abilities again?

You "assume" every aspect of this discussion. It's hardly surprising you'd "assume" what you think I don't know. LOL.

I'll let you keep arguing with that straw man, even though you lamely tried to pass off Bakken oil extraction as feasible by referring only to its end yield API. FAIL.

You're not fooling anyone here, snake oil salesman. Well, maybe the parroting disciples in your own camp who don't know any better.

I'm going away for a few days, pumpkin. I know you'll miss me, but I'll be back to deal with the avoidance game you played in the other threads regarding the EIA figures.

Good. Try and read something.Come back with an answer this time instead of this make believe "produce oil from dirt" routine...which strikes me as nearly nonsensical and just an attempt to avoid confronting the answer. To whit: Why do peakers insist that the world consumers more than it discovers when such a statement is patently untrue?

At this point in this exchange, it's clear I have a far wider range of reading material on the subject than you're faking.

The world consumes more light crude than it discovers. That most definitely IS true.

U.S. production = past peak and dying.
Venezuelan production = dying.
Mexico production = dying.
North Sea production = dying.
Indonesia production = dying.
Russian production = dying.
Kuwaiti production = dying.

Saudi production = probably dying, considering they're keeping it secret, yet injecting sea water into their biggest fields.

"It's where is always been!"

 

[westwall]

When talking about light crude, the kind with the highest EROEI, the statement is most certainly true. When you're desperately trying to do is add technically recoverable reserve totals and heavy oils to the energy total.

In other words, when discussing oranges, you're desperately squawking "we're not running out of oranges!! just look at all these apples!!!"

At some point in this discussion, you'll actually get your head around that fact.



And yet, when challenged to present just what kind of liquids the EIA is referring to in that equation, you ignored the request and just kept repeating "answer the question!! <bacaw!!>

Parrot, indeed.

The additional reserves the EIA is talking about includes far less efficient unconventional "finds" that will not sustain economic growth. This is about cheap energy, or net energy. Not the trillions in "oil from clay" that people like you try to conflate into the equation.

So, like I said pages ago: You can not point to a new find of light crude in excess of a few billion barrels anywhere on Earth for decades. What we are surviving on is the existing fields, the discovery for which peaked in the mid 1960s. Most of those fields are dying... Rapidly.




I've read every word of the Hirsch Report. You, clearly, have not. You haven't demonstrated anything at all, champ. Besides pretending heavy oil deserves to be included and can sustain societies.



You "assume" every aspect of this discussion. It's hardly surprising you'd "assume" what you think I don't know. LOL.

I'll let you keep arguing with that straw man, even though you lamely tried to pass off Bakken oil extraction as feasible by referring only to its end yield API. FAIL.

You're not fooling anyone here, snake oil salesman. Well, maybe the parroting disciples in your own camp who don't know any better.



At this point in this exchange, it's clear I have a far wider range of reading material on the subject than you're faking.

The world consumes more light crude than it discovers. That most definitely IS true.

U.S. production = past peak and dying.
Venezuelan production = dying.
Mexico production = dying.
North Sea production = dying.
Indonesia production = dying.
Russian production = dying.
Kuwaiti production = dying.

Saudi production = probably dying, considering they're keeping it secret, yet injecting sea water into their biggest fields.

"It's where is always been!"

The only thing that is clear is that RGR has handed you your ass with every stupid assertion you have uttered. You clearly know as much about the reserves of oil as you do about the English language and I believe I handed you your ass on that one. So, thanks for playing and the elementary school is on the next corner, maybe you can impress them with your factual posturing.

 

[JiggsCasey]

The only thing that is clear is that RGR has handed you your ass with every stupid assertion you have uttered. You clearly know as much about the reserves of oil as you do about the English language and I believe I handed you your ass on that one. So, thanks for playing and the elementary school is on the next corner, maybe you can impress them with your factual posturing.

Oh, hey there track obstruction! The pack lapped you long ago, that's why no one responds to your goofiness any longer.

Once again. Where is the light crude going forward? Or, that's right... It's in the shale and tar sands.

You did better when you parroted Thomas Gold theory. Run along, Westward.

 

[westwall]

The only thing that is clear is that RGR has handed you your ass with every stupid assertion you have uttered. You clearly know as much about the reserves of oil as you do about the English language and I believe I handed you your ass on that one. So, thanks for playing and the elementary school is on the next corner, maybe you can impress them with your factual posturing.

Oh, hey there track obstruction! The pack lapped you long ago, that's why no one responds to your goofiness any longer.

Once again. Where is the light crude going forward? Or, that's right... It's in the shale and tar sands.

You did better when you parroted Thomas Gold theory. Run along, Westward.

Uhhh, the parrot is you. Why do you only count light saweet crude? I've asked three times and you have yet to get back to me on that question. So like I said, the elementary school is on the next block. Enjoy

 

[RGR]

When talking about light crude, the kind with the highest EROEI, the statement is most certainly true. When you're desperately trying to do is add technically recoverable reserve totals and heavy oils to the energy total.

Oil is not measured by, defined by, given the go ahead to drill for or value calculated on by using EROEI. Ever. In the history of the oil business.

Please do not introduce your religious concepts into a perfectly nice conversation about oil.

The additional reserves the EIA is talking about includes far less efficient unconventional "finds" that will not sustain economic growth. This is about cheap energy, or net energy. Not the trillions in "oil from clay" that people like you try to conflate into the equation.

You yourself have claimed that you would trade me your5 barrels of crude in exchange for my 2. Please explain how this ridiculous claim of how EROEI work does anything else other than make me as rich as Bill Gates?

Most of those fields are dying... Rapidly.

Please reference your knowledge on dying fields. For example, when will the Spraberry field be dead?

I've read every word of the Hirsch Report. You, clearly, have not. You haven't demonstrated anything at all, champ. Besides pretending heavy oil deserves to be included and can sustain societies.

Please refute the points I quoted from Hirsch. The ideas expressed were his, I simply pointed out how he has been disproven by reality. And how, if he had used the geologic evidence he ignored prior to publication, he might not now look so foolish.

At this point in this exchange, it's clear I have a far wider range of reading material on the subject than you're faking.

At this point in the exchange we know you can't google up EIA information without someone telling you what to google. We know you aren't capable of debating Hirsch's incorrect geologic basis for his oil or natural gas prediction. We know you don't know anything about the use of EROEI within the oil industry in the past century and a half. And we know that you can't even get a 2:5 ratio of oil exchange worked out to be in your favor.

Did I miss anything?

The world consumes more light crude than it discovers. That most definitely IS true.

Womens shoes...red....size 5.5....with a buckle...and only if the factories stop producing them.

As far as oil goes...we've got the quarter century long example already provided. But since you obviously don't get out much...

2010 Crude Oil: 50 Billion Barrels Discovered, 30 Billion Barrels Used | Oil Price.com

Now run off and consult your Bible....there is bound to be another parable in there which you haven't tried out yet.....

 

[boedicca]

$5 GAS IN 2012!?!?!!!!!!


This must be why GEORGE LUCAS things the world will end in 2012.

Famed "Star Wars" creator George Lucas fears 2012 will mark the end of the world.

At least, that's what Seth Rogen is reportedly saying.

The "Green Hornet" actor is quoted by the Toronto Sun as relaying a story during which he was treated to a 25-minute yarn by Lucas about why the world will end next year -- which did not include the Death Star.

"George Lucas sits down and seriously proceeds to talk for around 25 minutes about how he thinks the world is gonna end in the year 2012," Rogen is quoted as saying. "Like, for real. He thinks it."...

George Lucas fears world will end in 2012, at least that&#39;s what Seth Rogen may think

 

[JiggsCasey]

Oil is not measured by, defined by, given the go ahead to drill for or value calculated on by using EROEI. Ever. In the history of the oil business.

But then, straw man champion, we're talking about the comparison of energy efficiency between oranges (my charge) and apples (your extrapolation). Thus, EROEI is quite relevant when comparing very different sources of energy. Tool.

Regardless, as a CEO, if you feel you can get rich spending a barrel of inputs in order to get a mere three to market, by all means, please do bankrupt your business trying to do so.

Obviously the oil industry DOES consider the rate of return before drilling, otherwise it would have exploited said shale/sands reserves YEARS ago, rather than depend on far cheaper LIGHT CRUDE for decades. What do you still fail to understand about this very easy-to-understand discussion?

Please do not introduce your religious concepts into a perfectly nice conversation about oil.

LOL. Religious concepts? Irony. What's your own excuse, Drebbin?

Regardless, this conversation hasn't been "nice" since you entered it, and immediately started acting like an "arrogant prick," to use your own words. At what point in this exchange do you stop lying?

The additional reserves the EIA is talking about includes far less efficient unconventional "finds" that will not sustain economic growth. This is about cheap energy, or net energy. Not the trillions in "oil from clay" that people like you try to conflate into the equation.

You yourself have claimed that you would trade me your5 barrels of crude in exchange for my 2. Please explain how this ridiculous claim of how EROEI work does anything else other than make me as rich as Bill Gates?

What in God's name are you talking about? Link to where I said exactly that.

Please reference your knowledge on dying fields. For example, when will the Spraberry field be dead?

There you go, changing the goalposts again. I said dying production of nations/regions. Of course, in your perpetual fraud, you wanna switch the discussion to individual, specific tiny fields, including one you can spin.

Do you want to talk about individual fields? Very well... How about super giants like Ghawar, Burgan and Cantarell? All in decline. Romashkino? Samotlor? Same.

I can verify those giants if you like (via the IEA/EIA), or you can squawk about piddly pools in west Texas some more, if you prefer, and pretend it does much of anything for your greater argument.

Please refute the points I quoted from Hirsch. The ideas expressed were his, I simply pointed out how he has been disproven by reality. And how, if he had used the geologic evidence he ignored prior to publication, he might not now look so foolish.

LOL. You did absolutely no such thing. All you did was conflate heavy, far-more-expensive oils with light crude. Oops.

At this point in this exchange, it's clear I have a far wider range of reading material on the subject than you're faking.

At this point in the exchange we know you can't google up EIA information without someone telling you what to google. We know you aren't capable of debating Hirsch's incorrect geologic basis for his oil or natural gas prediction. We know you don't know anything about the use of EROEI within the oil industry in the past century and a half. And we know that you can't even get a 2:5 ratio of oil exchange worked out to be in your favor.

Did I miss anything?

You're an excellent dancer, denialist. But none of those things have been demonstrated at all. You're not fooling anyone here.

Again, please link the 2:5 reference you're alluding to.

You increasingly look like a coward who ducks specific challenges, and instead proclaims "you can't answer me!!!" over and over again.

You suck at this, and your only ploy is to pretend vastly more expensive oil and gas shale can be injected into the fundamental equation. It can't.

Because what we're covering here is net energy, and you are well aware that heavy oils do not yield abundant net energy.

 

[Old Rocks]

When talking about light crude, the kind with the highest EROEI, the statement is most certainly true. When you're desperately trying to do is add technically recoverable reserve totals and heavy oils to the energy total.

Oil is not measured by, defined by, given the go ahead to drill for or value calculated on by using EROEI. Ever. In the history of the oil business.

Please do not introduce your religious concepts into a perfectly nice conversation about oil.

The additional reserves the EIA is talking about includes far less efficient unconventional "finds" that will not sustain economic growth. This is about cheap energy, or net energy. Not the trillions in "oil from clay" that people like you try to conflate into the equation.

You yourself have claimed that you would trade me your5 barrels of crude in exchange for my 2. Please explain how this ridiculous claim of how EROEI work does anything else other than make me as rich as Bill Gates?



Please reference your knowledge on dying fields. For example, when will the Spraberry field be dead?



Please refute the points I quoted from Hirsch. The ideas expressed were his, I simply pointed out how he has been disproven by reality. And how, if he had used the geologic evidence he ignored prior to publication, he might not now look so foolish.

At this point in this exchange, it's clear I have a far wider range of reading material on the subject than you're faking.

At this point in the exchange we know you can't google up EIA information without someone telling you what to google. We know you aren't capable of debating Hirsch's incorrect geologic basis for his oil or natural gas prediction. We know you don't know anything about the use of EROEI within the oil industry in the past century and a half. And we know that you can't even get a 2:5 ratio of oil exchange worked out to be in your favor.

Did I miss anything?

The world consumes more light crude than it discovers. That most definitely IS true.

Womens shoes...red....size 5.5....with a buckle...and only if the factories stop producing them.

As far as oil goes...we've got the quarter century long example already provided. But since you obviously don't get out much...

2010 Crude Oil: 50 Billion Barrels Discovered, 30 Billion Barrels Used | Oil Price.com

Now run off and consult your Bible....there is bound to be another parable in there which you haven't tried out yet.....

Crude Oil Supply - The Oil Age: World Oil Production 1859?1950., Oil and Gas Journal, Le Monde, Scientific American

Especially compelling is the history of discoveries versus production rates for the world (Figure 1). Since the 1970s the rate of discovery has fallen steadily, while production (use) has continued to climb at nearly 2% per year. The gap between the two, when projected beyond 2005 with the assumption of no major discoveries, leads to a peak in production in the year 2010

Read more: Crude Oil Supply - The Oil Age: World Oil Production 1859–1950., Oil and Gas Journal, Le Monde, Scientific American Crude Oil Supply - The Oil Age: World Oil Production 1859?1950., Oil and Gas Journal, Le Monde, Scientific American