energy

[RGR]

LOL... that's a terribly pretentious way of admitting you can't allude to a single find.

I didn't say I couldn't list the information requested, only that an ignoramus wouldn't already know the answer. Like you.

Global discoveries are not keeping up with consumption. Haven't for quite some time now. Just admit you were wrong, and STFU.

In 1980 we had some 600 billion barrels in oil reserves. Sometime during the last decade we had used all of that 600 billion barrels. Except now we have some 1400 billion barrels in reserves. Of course we have found more than we consumed you halfwit. Otherwise I couldn't fill up my Hummer down at the corner gas station because there wouldn't be any crude to distill it from.

Either that, or explain how Jeremy Gilbert et al are somehow misleading us. For what purpose?

Your inability to differentiate real information from religious propaganda is not my problem. I recommend evolving to something higher up the intelligence food chain than a parrot. Let us know how it goes.

 

[Mr. H.]

Only idiots dismiss marginal production or marginal discoveries.

The notion of "peak" anything is an abysmal exercise, a defeatist attitued reserved for losers.

It's in our human nature to make, to produce, and to discover - no matter the so-called trivial contribution. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one idiot.

 

[RGR]

Only idiots dismiss marginal production or marginal discoveries.

Stop talking about Jiggsy The Parrot that way! We should not discriminate against him because of technical incompetence given to him by his religion.

The notion of "peak" anything is an abysmal exercise, a defeatist attitued reserved for losers.

Now hold on! Jiggsy may be gullible, and dumb as a stump (which made him ripe for the picking among the peaker oiler recruiters), but he might not be a loser. Certainly he hasn't shown us anything intellectually to convince us otherwise, but maybe he is sandbagging us by just appearing to be a know nothing windbag.

It's in our human nature to make, to produce, and to discover - no matter the so-called trivial contribution. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one idiot.

True. Or one parrot.

 

[Douger]

the whole world drills for oil ---- amerika builds useless 10th. century wind mills

The world drills for oil to sell to you and the Chinese. The smart countries do solar, wind, geo and hydro as their energy so they can rape you assholes on the petroleum.

 

[editec]

Windmills are a joke. They had to rig a Cape Cod windmill to run only at a speed that didn't work because the vibration and the hummmmm was driving people crazy.

Link, or GTFO.

I'm intimately knowledgeable about the CapeWind project and the political nonsense surrounding it, so you'd better bring your A game.

Good.

I'd like to hear your take on that project, then, JIggs

We have a similar project on the drawing board for the gulf of Maine, and frankly I have my doubts about the economic viability of it.

What do you know that we ought to know, amigo?

 

[Mr. H.]

Energy is groovy.

 

[RGR]

I'm intimately knowledgeable about the CapeWind project and the political nonsense surrounding it, so you'd better bring your A game.

Good.

I'd like to hear your take on that project, then, JIggs

We have a similar project on the drawing board for the gulf of Maine, and frankly I have my doubts about the economic viability of it.

What do you know that we ought to know, amigo?

Oh come on, you are just baiting the poor parrot! Now he has to go off and find some reports, pretend like he read them, hope that they are on topic, and then will endlessly cut and paste their authors or organization's names in the hope that no one will actually hunt them up, read one, and realize that he is indeed a parrot! AGAIN!

 

[flacaltenn]

Ultimately you are correct of course. Infinite oil growth won't work in a finite oil environment. Unfortunately, people were predicting the end of oil prior to your grandparents birth, and recycling it every generation or so. Once you learn this, it puts all these claims of running out in a different perspective.

The only real answer is to collect the best people, let them study the problem, and offer up the best estimates. Certainly the religious peak oil twerps don't qualify in this regard. They claim all peaks as though they are THE peak, and move on to the next every time they are proven wrong.

Again, you perpetual liar, barely anyone claimed peak would arrive in the late 70s. The "Limits to Growth" report back then -- if you actually read it rather than take fossil fuel industry talking points as gospel -- pointed to the decade that just passed as the time when peak would hit. Just as Hubbert predicted (always 40 years after peak discovery), and just as it DID hit. Conventional crude production has flat-lined for 6-7 years now. The implosion of world credit markets in the wake of that reality was always inevitable. (oh, but wait... you're not an economist)

The best possible people HAVE studied it, and their unanimous conclusion is that peak is here. That includes a number of entities far smarter than goofy, smarmy you (including our own military brass), and a number of entities who are completely unrelated to one another and have no agenda to forecast such a dire scenario.

If you could name a new discovery of proven, recoverable conventional crude in excess of 30 billion barrels anywhere on God's green Earth the past 30 years, have at it. You seem to have slinked from that challenge some dozen times now since you started your internet trolling campaign.

No one that I know claimed peak would hit all those decades ago. Because everyone I know considers DISCOVERY rates into the equation. Period. They were still discovering massive new oil fields back then, but they're simply not today. Your retarded response to that fact? "Existing fields are magically filling back up!!!!"

So attributing some "chicken little" syndrome to misinformed people back then does not translate to us. Try try as you might. Again, we have a glacier of evidence on our side, from socio-economic to geological to academic. ... You have... shale gas claims.

Sure Jiggs -- you ask, I provide. And this is just ONE company. The same FOREIGN company that both China and the Obama Administration are attempting to shower with nearly free loans.

In November 2007, Petrobras announced a discovery of a major new oil field off the coast of Rio de Janeiro. The Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin had an estimated reserve of 5 billion to 8 billion barrels. The figure would put Tupi as the world's largest oil reserve since the discovery of Kashagan in Kazakhstan in 2000. The country's reserves would increase by 62 per cent, and Tupi's reserve would be on par with Norway’s 8.5 billion barrels of proven oil reserves .[31]
The Financial Times listed Petrobras as one of the world's 50 largest companies in 2007.[32]
On January 21, 2008, Petrobras announced the discovery of Jupiter, a huge oil field which could equal the Tupi oil field. It is located 37 km (23 mi) from Tupi, 5,100 m (16,730 ft) below the Atlantic Ocean, 290 km (180 mi) from Rio de Janeiro.[33]
On April 14, 2008, a second massive oil field was announced in the same region as the Tupi oil field with reserves estimated at 33 billion barrels of oil.[34]
On May 21, 2008, Petrobras announced the discovery of a third megafield, located on the coast of the State of São Paulo.

Part of the reason for the confusion over reserves is that this is considered proprietary information. Sometimes the company share everything under the kilt, sometimes they don't.

But anyway -- There is always confusion in these threads about "energy independence" rather than "oil independence" . And I think that subtle but important diff is propagated on purpose to extend the confusion.. Oil has VIRTUALLY NOTHING to do (today) with electrical generation. Natural GAS does -- but oil doesn't. Therefore with our "today" paradigm - solar, wind, and any other "alternative" choices do NOTHING for "oil independence"..

Now if you make the transistion to electric vehicles and spend the neccessary money for infrastructure upgrade and figure out how to utilize the spikey not so reliable flow from wind and solar --- THEN -- you make a dent using those tech. as peaker sources for charging vehicles and make a dent in "oil independence"

Right now -- the regulations that REQUIRE utilities to PREFER taking wind power (when it's available) over other baseline generation sources is actually DELAYING the neccessary engineering and development to properly integrate them into the grid.

I also doubt that a technology like wind that's absent for days at time is TRUELY gonna put a dent in the "oil independence" EVEN IF WE MADE that investment. What the Danish have done for instance is install massive electrical boilers to scavenge the extremely flaky and peaky wind electricity and "burn off" those peaks to preheat the water. So much expense and inefficiency in that method (plus the need to back-up the complete grid for large segments in time) are gonna limit the contributions by wind and solar as peaker sources to about 20%.
That's nnot a figure out of a personal orifice --- but based on analysis of the variability of sources and what the actual grid demand curves look liike..

 

[JiggsCasey]

Ultimately you are correct of course. Infinite oil growth won't work in a finite oil environment. Unfortunately, people were predicting the end of oil prior to your grandparents birth, and recycling it every generation or so. Once you learn this, it puts all these claims of running out in a different perspective.

The only real answer is to collect the best people, let them study the problem, and offer up the best estimates. Certainly the religious peak oil twerps don't qualify in this regard. They claim all peaks as though they are THE peak, and move on to the next every time they are proven wrong.

Again, you perpetual liar, barely anyone claimed peak would arrive in the late 70s. The "Limits to Growth" report back then -- if you actually read it rather than take fossil fuel industry talking points as gospel -- pointed to the decade that just passed as the time when peak would hit. Just as Hubbert predicted (always 40 years after peak discovery), and just as it DID hit. Conventional crude production has flat-lined for 6-7 years now. The implosion of world credit markets in the wake of that reality was always inevitable. (oh, but wait... you're not an economist)

The best possible people HAVE studied it, and their unanimous conclusion is that peak is here. That includes a number of entities far smarter than goofy, smarmy you (including our own military brass), and a number of entities who are completely unrelated to one another and have no agenda to forecast such a dire scenario.

If you could name a new discovery of proven, recoverable conventional crude in excess of 30 billion barrels anywhere on God's green Earth the past 30 years, have at it. You seem to have slinked from that challenge some dozen times now since you started your internet trolling campaign.

No one that I know claimed peak would hit all those decades ago. Because everyone I know considers DISCOVERY rates into the equation. Period. They were still discovering massive new oil fields back then, but they're simply not today. Your retarded response to that fact? "Existing fields are magically filling back up!!!!"

So attributing some "chicken little" syndrome to misinformed people back then does not translate to us. Try try as you might. Again, we have a glacier of evidence on our side, from socio-economic to geological to academic. ... You have... shale gas claims.

Sure Jiggs -- you ask, I provide. And this is just ONE company. The same FOREIGN company that both China and the Obama Administration are attempting to shower with nearly free loans.

In November 2007, Petrobras announced a discovery of a major new oil field off the coast of Rio de Janeiro. The Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin had an estimated reserve of 5 billion to 8 billion barrels. The figure would put Tupi as the world's largest oil reserve since the discovery of Kashagan in Kazakhstan in 2000. The country's reserves would increase by 62 per cent, and Tupi's reserve would be on par with Norway’s 8.5 billion barrels of proven oil reserves .[31]
The Financial Times listed Petrobras as one of the world's 50 largest companies in 2007.[32]
On January 21, 2008, Petrobras announced the discovery of Jupiter, a huge oil field which could equal the Tupi oil field. It is located 37 km (23 mi) from Tupi, 5,100 m (16,730 ft) below the Atlantic Ocean, 290 km (180 mi) from Rio de Janeiro.[33]
On April 14, 2008, a second massive oil field was announced in the same region as the Tupi oil field with reserves estimated at 33 billion barrels of oil.[34]
On May 21, 2008, Petrobras announced the discovery of a third megafield, located on the coast of the State of São Paulo.

Part of the reason for the confusion over reserves is that this is considered proprietary information. Sometimes the company share everything under the kilt, sometimes they don't.

But anyway -- There is always confusion in these threads about "energy independence" rather than "oil independence" . And I think that subtle but important diff is propagated on purpose to extend the confusion.. Oil has VIRTUALLY NOTHING to do (today) with electrical generation. Natural GAS does -- but oil doesn't. Therefore with our "today" paradigm - solar, wind, and any other "alternative" choices do NOTHING for "oil independence"..

Now if you make the transistion to electric vehicles and spend the neccessary money for infrastructure upgrade and figure out how to utilize the spikey not so reliable flow from wind and solar --- THEN -- you make a dent using those tech. as peaker sources for charging vehicles and make a dent in "oil independence"

Right now -- the regulations that REQUIRE utilities to PREFER taking wind power (when it's available) over other baseline generation sources is actually DELAYING the neccessary engineering and development to properly integrate them into the grid.

I also doubt that a technology like wind that's absent for days at time is TRUELY gonna put a dent in the "oil independence" EVEN IF WE MADE that investment. What the Danish have done for instance is install massive electrical boilers to scavenge the extremely flaky and peaky wind electricity and "burn off" those peaks to preheat the water. So much expense and inefficiency in that method (plus the need to back-up the complete grid for large segments in time) are gonna limit the contributions by wind and solar as peaker sources to about 20%.
That's nnot a figure out of a personal orifice --- but based on analysis of the variability of sources and what the actual grid demand curves look liike..

Look at what I asked for, and then remember what you provided.

"Estimated reserves" are not proven recoverable reserves. Even the resident snake oil salesman - RGR - can tell you that. Nevermind that the entire region you're alluding to is deep water fields that are enormously difficult (thus, expensive) to extract from.

Even if it contains all the oil the industry "estimates," it's not nearly enough for what this dying global economic paradigm needs to sustain itself.

 

[RGR]

Even if it contains all the oil the industry "estimates," it's not nearly enough for what this dying global economic paradigm needs to sustain itself.

Dying? So a correction in the stock market got you nervous Jiggsy? Or are you surprised that a double dip recession is a possibility? Read a history book, we had a double dipper after the global peak oil in 1979 as well.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Even if it contains all the oil the industry "estimates," it's not nearly enough for what this dying global economic paradigm needs to sustain itself.

Dying? So a correction in the stock market got you nervous Jiggsy?

You think this is all just a mere correction? That's a good indicator of how far out of reality you are on this topic, despite a glacier's worth of evidence pointing at systemic market failure very soon.

Or are you surprised that a double dip recession is a possibility? Read a history book, we had a double dipper after the global peak oil in 1979 as well.

Now there's some irony. I'm not only unsurprised, I predicted it was imminent beginning in 2006 - you know, when conventional oil production had clearly flatlined, just at the time Limits to Growth said it would 32 years earlier.

 

[RGR]

"Estimated reserves" are not proven recoverable reserves.

You have already established you don't know the definition of either, making it difficult to believe anything coming from your keyboard on the topic.

Don't you have a revival meeting of some sort to attend, with the accompanying hymn singing and whatnot to boost your self esteem after getting caught in repeating the same nonsense here?

Even the resident snake oil salesman - RGR - can tell you that.

Of course I can tell them that, I was doing SEC reserves and guiding them through IRS audits before your mommy let you borrow her 'puter for the first time to attend online peak oil religious propaganda distribution classes.

Even if it contains all the oil the industry "estimates," it's not nearly enough for what this dying global economic paradigm needs to sustain itself.

Can you explain why this statement of yours is any different from Jimmy Carters in 1977 when he declared the world would be running out of oil by the late 80's? It gets sort of tiresome to hear the same crap over and over again, maybe your entire congregation is full of parrots?

 

[JiggsCasey]

"Estimated reserves" are not proven recoverable reserves.

You have already established you don't know the definition of either, making it difficult to believe anything coming from your keyboard on the topic.

Don't you have a revival meeting of some sort to attend, with the accompanying hymn singing and whatnot to boost your self esteem after getting caught in repeating the same nonsense here?

Even the resident snake oil salesman - RGR - can tell you that.

Of course I can tell them that, I was doing SEC reserves and guiding them through IRS audits before your mommy let you borrow her 'puter for the first time to attend online peak oil religious propaganda distribution classes.

LOL!!!! when all else fails, appeal to unfalsifiable claim!

Can you explain why this statement of yours is any different from Jimmy Carters in 1977 when he declared the world would be running out of oil by the late 80's? It gets sort of tiresome to hear the same crap over and over again, maybe your entire congregation is full of parrots?

I don't have to follow your straw man creation. I know that untucks your shirt, but too bad, loser.

For the 15th time: How are the men in this video lying or wrong? Perhaps at some point you'll grow some balls and attempt to explain what they apparently miss:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZp-OxZuflE]Acknowledging Peak Oil, featuring Sadad al-Husseini - YouTube[/ame]



if you still can't, do yourself a favor and STFU and GTFO

 

[RGR]

For the 15th time: How are the men in this video lying or wrong? Perhaps at some point you'll grow some balls and attempt to explain what they apparently miss:

Why would I watch a utube video which you probably haven't watched, and if you did, you didn't understand any better than you did the Hirsch report?

Tell you what, pick a quote from a specific time frame inside those videos, tell us the quote and time it is said (proving your parroting skills, which is beyond dispute, but verifying you actually watched these things) and then tell us why that particular quote matters.

Just one quote, because certainly we wouldn't want to confuse you by requiring you to walk and chew gum at the same time.

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd workin' on a song called Energy...

... he say it gonna sound like Jon Meyer's Gravity...

... onlyst it gonna have different words...

... `bout energy.

Granny says he can sing it to his fat g/f's.

 

[flacaltenn]

Again, you perpetual liar, barely anyone claimed peak would arrive in the late 70s. The "Limits to Growth" report back then -- if you actually read it rather than take fossil fuel industry talking points as gospel -- pointed to the decade that just passed as the time when peak would hit. Just as Hubbert predicted (always 40 years after peak discovery), and just as it DID hit. Conventional crude production has flat-lined for 6-7 years now. The implosion of world credit markets in the wake of that reality was always inevitable. (oh, but wait... you're not an economist)

The best possible people HAVE studied it, and their unanimous conclusion is that peak is here. That includes a number of entities far smarter than goofy, smarmy you (including our own military brass), and a number of entities who are completely unrelated to one another and have no agenda to forecast such a dire scenario.

If you could name a new discovery of proven, recoverable conventional crude in excess of 30 billion barrels anywhere on God's green Earth the past 30 years, have at it. You seem to have slinked from that challenge some dozen times now since you started your internet trolling campaign.

No one that I know claimed peak would hit all those decades ago. Because everyone I know considers DISCOVERY rates into the equation. Period. They were still discovering massive new oil fields back then, but they're simply not today. Your retarded response to that fact? "Existing fields are magically filling back up!!!!"

So attributing some "chicken little" syndrome to misinformed people back then does not translate to us. Try try as you might. Again, we have a glacier of evidence on our side, from socio-economic to geological to academic. ... You have... shale gas claims.

Sure Jiggs -- you ask, I provide. And this is just ONE company. The same FOREIGN company that both China and the Obama Administration are attempting to shower with nearly free loans.

In November 2007, Petrobras announced a discovery of a major new oil field off the coast of Rio de Janeiro. The Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin had an estimated reserve of 5 billion to 8 billion barrels. The figure would put Tupi as the world's largest oil reserve since the discovery of Kashagan in Kazakhstan in 2000. The country's reserves would increase by 62 per cent, and Tupi's reserve would be on par with Norway’s 8.5 billion barrels of proven oil reserves .[31]
The Financial Times listed Petrobras as one of the world's 50 largest companies in 2007.[32]
On January 21, 2008, Petrobras announced the discovery of Jupiter, a huge oil field which could equal the Tupi oil field. It is located 37 km (23 mi) from Tupi, 5,100 m (16,730 ft) below the Atlantic Ocean, 290 km (180 mi) from Rio de Janeiro.[33]
On April 14, 2008, a second massive oil field was announced in the same region as the Tupi oil field with reserves estimated at 33 billion barrels of oil.[34]
On May 21, 2008, Petrobras announced the discovery of a third megafield, located on the coast of the State of São Paulo.

Part of the reason for the confusion over reserves is that this is considered proprietary information. Sometimes the company share everything under the kilt, sometimes they don't.

But anyway -- There is always confusion in these threads about "energy independence" rather than "oil independence" . And I think that subtle but important diff is propagated on purpose to extend the confusion.. Oil has VIRTUALLY NOTHING to do (today) with electrical generation. Natural GAS does -- but oil doesn't. Therefore with our "today" paradigm - solar, wind, and any other "alternative" choices do NOTHING for "oil independence"..

Now if you make the transistion to electric vehicles and spend the neccessary money for infrastructure upgrade and figure out how to utilize the spikey not so reliable flow from wind and solar --- THEN -- you make a dent using those tech. as peaker sources for charging vehicles and make a dent in "oil independence"

Right now -- the regulations that REQUIRE utilities to PREFER taking wind power (when it's available) over other baseline generation sources is actually DELAYING the neccessary engineering and development to properly integrate them into the grid.

I also doubt that a technology like wind that's absent for days at time is TRUELY gonna put a dent in the "oil independence" EVEN IF WE MADE that investment. What the Danish have done for instance is install massive electrical boilers to scavenge the extremely flaky and peaky wind electricity and "burn off" those peaks to preheat the water. So much expense and inefficiency in that method (plus the need to back-up the complete grid for large segments in time) are gonna limit the contributions by wind and solar as peaker sources to about 20%.
That's nnot a figure out of a personal orifice --- but based on analysis of the variability of sources and what the actual grid demand curves look liike..

Look at what I asked for, and then remember what you provided.

"Estimated reserves" are not proven recoverable reserves. Even the resident snake oil salesman - RGR - can tell you that. Nevermind that the entire region you're alluding to is deep water fields that are enormously difficult (thus, expensive) to extract from.

Even if it contains all the oil the industry "estimates," it's not nearly enough for what this dying global economic paradigm needs to sustain itself.

Well that's a farce then Jiggs.. Because to get to "PROVEN" you pretty much need to tap a new field for YEARS to get from "estimated" to "proven". In which case, the only thing that REALLY matters is how often you're rolling the dice to tap new fields -- doesn't it?

Or is your "PROVEN" only when you've tapped the field for 30 years? If that's the definition, a field has only been proven when it's virtually tapped out. No wonder you're such a pessimist.

 

[JiggsCasey]

For the 15th time: How are the men in this video lying or wrong? Perhaps at some point you'll grow some balls and attempt to explain what they apparently miss:

Why would I watch a utube video which you probably haven't watched, and if you did, you didn't understand any better than you did the Hirsch report?

Tell you what, pick a quote from a specific time frame inside those videos, tell us the quote and time it is said (proving your parroting skills, which is beyond dispute, but verifying you actually watched these things) and then tell us why that particular quote matters.

Just one quote, because certainly we wouldn't want to confuse you by requiring you to walk and chew gum at the same time.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!

Translation: "Well Jiggsy, ... For all my bluster on here, and the time I waste with my incessant trolling in your wake, I can't be bothered to watch either 7-minute video. That might stick a fork in my rapidly dying, 'nothing-to-see-here' argument that already holds no water."

So on top of being a self-described "arrogant prick," you're also an unrivaled coward. It's probably a good thing you engage in self-preservation like that and shield yourself from those very-easy-to-understand and unmistakable assertions in those videos. Afterall, those are men WAY farther up the energy production hierarchy chain who are rather succinctly putting your retarded premise on its ear.

White flag accepted, then, little free market Texan. Run along now.

But, just for completeness, here's a guy who undoubtedly knows far more than you about global flow rates in the video you're too chicken-shit to actually watch:

Interview with Sadad al Husseini—“The Facts Are There”
by Dave Bowden and Steve Andrews
This interview was filmed in London by ASPO-USA’s Dave Bowden, with Steve Andrews along on his own time and dime to ask some questions.

Sadad: I’m a geologist by training and a reservoir engineer—production engineer—by actual work experience. I started with Aramco back in 1970 and retired in 2004. Most of my time was spent with exploration and production activities but also in project management. I’ve carried on after that as a consultant.

Question: Assume for the moment that declines in demand have flattened and that we resume modest growth in demand in a year or so. Are there adequate new oil projects in the pipeline to meet rising demand for a few more years?

Sadad: I’ve been tracking the number of projects, globally, for a long time both in the Middle East and elsewhere—Russia, Brazil, west coast of Africa, and others. A lot of this information is in the public domain, so there is no mystery there. The International Energy Agency recently reported on the same numbers. The bottom line is that there are not enough projects. There is not enough new capacity coming on line, within say the next five to six years, to make up for global declines. And that’s assuming a very moderate level of declines—6% to 6.5% for non-OPEC, perhaps a 3.5% to 4% decline rate for OPEC.

Even at these modest decline rates, we are basically going to see a shortage of capacity within two to three years. We’re being lulled by this current excess capacity, which has more to do with lower demand than anything to do with supply. So we do have a problem in the near term. In the longer term it’s even worse because in the longer term the lead time to discover, develop and put on line production runs into 10 years. And there isn’t enough being done in the long term as well. So it’s both a short and a long-term problem.​

 

[RGR]

I repeat. Reference a single idea from one of your propaganda videos, tell us at what time if happened in the video to verify you actually watched it (as opposed to just passing around propaganda handed to you by your peak priest in the hopes that others are more gullible than even you) and then offer an opinion based on that piece of information, verifying you are not a parrot specializing in cutting and pasting the propaganda provided you by your religion.

Thinking for oneself isn't all that difficult Jiggsy, give it a try. You might like it, powering up a neuron or two.

 

[editec]

the whole world drills for oil ---- amerika builds useless 10th. century wind mills

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=963o0wHwhEU]Everything Old Is New Again - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[JiggsCasey]

I repeat. Reference a single idea from one of your propaganda videos, tell us at what time if happened in the video to verify you actually watched it (as opposed to just passing around propaganda handed to you by your peak priest in the hopes that others are more gullible than even you) and then offer an opinion based on that piece of information, verifying you are not a parrot specializing in cutting and pasting the propaganda provided you by your religion.

Thinking for oneself isn't all that difficult Jiggsy, give it a try. You might like it, powering up a neuron or two.

I just DID reference it. That very segment is from the ASPO videos linked above, you lawyerish moron.

Whatever crap you try and pass off in your alternate reality, skip pretending I haven't read/seen the subject material I present. You can rest assured I've absorbed every minute of those videos. So, take your pick. Every passage assaults your "nothing to see here" falsehood, from men WAY further up the industry chain than goofy, denialist you.

But if you really must pretend you need to be led by the hand in your perpetual requirement to stall and avoid, then scroll to the last two minutes of the first video. Here it is again:

starting at 5:03 with Sadad Al Husseini, former Saudi Aramco VP

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZp-OxZuflE&feature=player_embedded]Acknowledging Peak Oil, featuring Sadad al-Husseini - YouTube[/ame]

Question: Why do you think there is so much denial that world oil production is approaching or has reached a plateau?

Sadad: There is a push-back to the notion that there is a plateau in world oil supplies which is largely based on lack of information or lack of research. ((RGR for example)) ... In fact, if you look at published information—for example, British Petroleum’s annual statistical report—it very clearly shows that from 2003 forward, oil production has hardly increased. So the information is there. If you look at some of the advertising that Chevron has been putting out for years now, they clearly say we’re half-way through the world’s reserves. The information is there. The facts are there. Oil prices did not jump four-fold, (or) three or four times in the last five years for any reason other than a shortage of supply. Yes, there may have been some recent volatility in 2008, but the price trend started climbing way back in 2002-2003. So, these are realities and the push-back is a sense that somehow the market is not able to deal with these realities, that somehow people can’t cope with these realities.

On the other hand, if you don’t talk about them, you never will fix the situation. This is not going to get any better. This is going to get worse because you have population growth all over the world, you have a standard of living that is improving all over the world, you have aspirations across the globe for a better quality of life, and people want energy, so it’s actually important to talk about the facts and come up with solutions rather than act as if these issues don’t exist and then wait for some solution to materialize out of nowhere ((like some of the geniuses on this forum believe)). That’s a role of government—to highlight these issues and to fix them, or at least take a stand and try to fix them. So I think the push-back is probably ill-advised.​

((emphasis mine))

There, pumpkin. Was that clear enough for you?

So again, for the 37th time, why are these men lying? Where did they meet to coordinate their great conspiracy?... Or, if they're not lying, are they just dumb? Perhaps at some point, you'll actually answer the question being asked. I know it's awkward for you at this point, but give it a try. I'd love to see you try and pretend al Husseini, or Gilbert, or Buckee, or Skrebowski don't know what they're talking about. Replete with perhaps another boast about how awesome you are as a wildcatter.

Peak is here. These men know it. Why don't you? Odd that you know everything, yet these guys get paid WAY more than you do to advise on energy matters.