Spare capacity of several million barrels a day in 2010.
The Oil Drum: Europe | OPEC's Spare Crude Oil Capacity - Will it Disappear by the End of 2011?
From your own fucking link, genius:
In this post, I use the same definition of OPEC spare capacity as the IEA. This is capacity that can be reached within 30 days and sustained for 90 days.
What the above diagram illustrates is that OPEC crude oil supplies for all practical purposes remained on a moderately bumpy plateau between July 2004 and late 2008. During this period, crude oil prices grew from around $40/Bbl to more than $140/Bbl. The steep rise in prices are now thought to be the combined result of physically tight supplies and speculators detecting these tight supplies
$70 - 80/bbl oil suggests a redistribution of spending within several economies; that is more money is used for oil/energy and less for spending on other things. If this is so, then this will show up in statistics from retailers, restaurants, car sales and other service industries. Reduced availability of credit and higher unemployment (amongst other factors) most likely also play a major part in declining discretionary spending.
The fact that prices have remained as high as $70 to $80 a barrel with only a modest rise in global oil demand/consumption suggests that as supplies become even tighter in the future, prices will rise even higher yet. This analysis suggests that we may continue to see strong oil prices as long as all the wheels stay on the major economies.
Thanks for linking that one. Gonna save it, as it winds up doing far more for my argument than it does yours.
Spare capacity (for OPEC alone!) from 2003 through 2009?
The Oil Drum: Europe | Oilwatch Monthly September 2009
This excellent link is also supreme fail for your premise, as using it again shows you miss the point and are attempting to change the discussion from a over-arching supply concern to one of short-term emergency production capability. Worse, your chart relies almost entirely upon Saudi Arabia's spare capacity claims and Saudi Arabia alone.
Again, you are not actually challenging what al Husseini actually said. Sorry, you're just not. If you think you are, you had better work harder, and write more clearly.
Regardless, the world had better damned well have some wiggle room in our ability to adjust for production disruptions (war, disaster, civil unrest, etc.) Else there'd already BE global systemic chaos. So your punt to "spare capacity" claims isn't really saying much about what al Husseini is referring to. Fail. Confirmed further by your reluctance to quote anything from either link.
Further, from what I've read, I'd suspect all spare capacity is just high water cut at around 70-85%, and inflated to calm markets. There's 3 million barrels of oil they claim they COULD crank out? Even if true: Big deal.
Address his point. Do better.
Seems a bit difficult to declare there isn't enough supply when there have been millions of barrels a day laying around, just waiting around, doesn't it Jiggsy?
Maybe in retarded land, where "spare capacity" apparently equates to storage glut? I dunno what you're trying to say here, but we knew months ago you're a lol-tastic writer anyway.
It's "laying around?" Where? What oil are you talking about? Already extracted, sitting in tankers? Or in the ground and "ready" to be extracted at an increased rate for a few weeks/months if needed? ... WTF are you even trying to claim?
If it's the latter, so what? That does absolutely nothing to counter the argument of overall supply shortage.
Perhaps his concern was more specific to the 2008 price spike? And he didn't really mean the more moderate, and less than the last great running out of the 70's time period, in terms of real oil prices?
Another poorly written paragraph. But I'll try to guess what you were
trying to say, anyway. The 600% rise in price the past 12 years has been rather monotonous, so if you're pretending al Husseini is referencing just the 2008 spike, that's laughably obtuse. Especially considering I quoted the man saying:
"Yes, there may have been some recent volatility in 2008, but the price trend started climbing way back in 2002-2003."
I love how you just randomly toss in some link about speculation, without even attempting to flesh out what you think that means in relation to the underlying debate here. That's what I mean by you being both dishonest AND lazy.
You can slap lipstick on it is you like. Ultimately, the speculators are "speculating" that there will be supply problems. So what's your point? Any way you wanna slice it, the relentless long term price increase indicates supply constraints for a world that needs ever more of it each year.
So now Jiggsy, I figure we have a choice. We talk about 1) why it was so easy to contradict your source, 2) why the contradicting information isn't as contradictory as it seems or 3) you call me names and change the subject ...
ROFL. Toolbox, you're still not fooling anyone here.
1) you didn't contradict my source in the least, and he would be laughing at you if he saw your rationale, just like I am.
2) I just did above.
3) you mean like you've been doing since you first engaged me on the topic?
Obviously, based on your past behavior I expect you to choose 3.
And as always, you spike the ball at the 5-yardline, thinking you're in the end zone. Spare capacity and year-over-year production totals are two different areas of discussion.
As for name-calling. you lit that fire a long time ago. Don't act all BUTT-HURT about getting it right back.
However, it seems fair to offer you choice #4. Pick another question, one which perhaps you are more comfortable defending on your own without mindlessly cutting and pasting your church's propaganda.
LOL. Logic-fail!
You didn't even deal with the first question. I can only imagine the spin you'll attempt to put on the next challenge from those videos.
Again, men WAY higher up the oil production food chain than goofy you, and all of them raping your fluffy cornucopia ignorance with each passage.
It is clear at this point that you're learning as you go along.
But because you write so horribly, and have now become so lazy as your argument erodes, it remains unclear whether you're attempting to portray the former VP of Saudi Aramco as a liar, or just not very smart. You would be dead wrong either way.
And being wrong (and being evasive) is something you've got to be quite used to by now.
I sense a smarmy fisking retort of one-sentence quips coming as soon as your text alert clears and you scramble to the site to hammer out another round of irrelevant, miss-the-mark rationalization and goal-post shifting. You know, within the hour as you usually do.
... And of course, consumers and small business will easily be able to afford the new price points. 
