energy

[RGR]

The peak that I was speaking of was here in the USA. And it has never come back, or reached that peak again, and it will not.

Oh..THAT peak. Versus the other ones which happened...like say global peak oil production in 1979...and which then happened AGAIN? How about Hubbert's claim of peak natural gas in the US, that one did come back again....40 years later...any chance he provided a method letting us amateurs know which peaks we are supposed to pretend are real, versus the ones which aren't? Such a clue might be helpful, don't you think? Would have come in pretty helpful when Colin Campbell was predicting global peak oil in 1989, don't you think?

How many decades do we have to wait, post peak, to determine that the most recent peak is in fact THE peak we are supposed to worry about? 4 decades? 5? A full century?

 

[RGR]

I sense that Flat doesn't know much about anything related to energy.

No different than peak oilers then. They let them in the door here, why not all the other people who believe in things just as ridiculous?

 

[Old Rocks]

The peak that I was speaking of was here in the USA. And it has never come back, or reached that peak again, and it will not.

Oh..THAT peak. Versus the other ones which happened...like say global peak oil production in 1979...and which then happened AGAIN? How about Hubbert's claim of peak natural gas in the US, that one did come back again....40 years later...any chance he provided a method letting us amateurs know which peaks we are supposed to pretend are real, versus the ones which aren't? Such a clue might be helpful, don't you think? Would have come in pretty helpful when Colin Campbell was predicting global peak oil in 1989, don't you think?

How many decades do we have to wait, post peak, to determine that the most recent peak is in fact THE peak we are supposed to worry about? 4 decades? 5? A full century?

Yes, that peak. The one that actually happened.

File:Hubbert US high.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RGR]

Yes, that peak. The one that actually happened.

File:Hubbert US high.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Versus the ones which didn't..or did...waited awhile...and peaked again?

Do you even know how many times oil production peaked in the US (not even were claimed, but actually happened?) prior to the 1970 or thereabouts peak? Or is that another one of those little details which peakers would prefer to pretend didn't happen?

Just because you weren't alive during some of those other peaks doesn't mean you can just wave a wand and make them disappear to validate whatever the most recent claim is.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Do you have any coherent response at all to the multiple sources disputing your single source, or are you just going to concentrate on distracting others from how easy it was to find references contradicting your propaganda?

My entire previous response was completely coherent. Playing dumb doesn't change the fact that your multiple sources were put in proper perspective. Squawking about spare production capacity says absolutely nothing about refuting global reserve decline. Tool.

What's telling is your increasing propensity to truncate my posts, and sweep under the rug the dozens of points that take your tired argument behind the woodshed. Especially the passages from your own link that contradict your own claims. I guess you figure if you don't acknowledge them, they were never actually brought to your attention, and you don't have to deal with the fact that you didn't even read your own links.

You're a desperate industry cheer-leader hoping to extract yourself from these challenges. That much was clear months ago.

Fail.

The claimed shortage of supply did not exist, there was surplus capacity around the entire timeframe in question. You are welcome for being so ignorant of your own sources that you are appreciative of me finding them for you. The price spike was not caused by these imaginary shortages. How difficult is it for even an oiltard like you to understand the basics involved?

Once again, you thought-addled inbred: "Spare capacity" refers to nothing more than the ability to increase production a bit for a short period of time. It says nothing about overall reserve totals.

When you're done patting yourself on the back and chirping "you're welcome" for your retarded apples-to-oranges comparison, perhaps you'll stop long enough to process what's been relayed to you some 6 times now.

It is amusing, however, seeing that your final fall back position is one whereby you attempt to pretend that the former VP of Saudi Aramco was lying about shortage of supply....

You are an unrivaled fraud of epic proportions. Holy crap, do you ever suck at this.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Your charts are from a hack propaganda site. Note: there is no source listed for them. They were obviously made up from whole cloth by a gang of leftwing agitators.

Genius, it says right under the charts "Source: ASPO" ...

But, just to placate another angry con: If you dispute the figures in the chart showing "negligible" production expectation, then please feel free to present your own linked data for just how much unconventional production is expected by the international entity of your choice. Can't wait.

 

[RGR]

Do you have any coherent response at all to the multiple sources disputing your single source, or are you just going to concentrate on distracting others from how easy it was to find references contradicting your propaganda?

Squawking about spare production capacity says absolutely nothing about refuting global reserve decline. Tool.

The point you chose to defend was that the price runup was due to lack of supply. Spare supply means that you can't blame lack of it on the price runup. Secondary references demonstrated that speculators in the market were also driving up the price. Both points you chose to defend, refuted.

Pay attention halfwit, the point had nothing to do with "global reserve decline" which, A) hasn't and B) you don't know what it means anyway.

Engage brain already, and do try and understand that these are points you chose to defend. If you can't, be a man, and just say so. Or be a parrot, and continue doing what it is you do.

Once again, you thought-addled inbred: "Spare capacity" refers to nothing more than the ability to increase production a bit for a short period of time. It says nothing about overall reserve totals.

Your reference, and the point you chose to defend, didn't say anything about overall reserve totals either. Parrot. Fire off a neuron already. Ask a first grader to explain it to you. Go to church and pray for a functioning brain, or have them send an adult over here to discuss these topics.

It is amusing, however, seeing that your final fall back position is one whereby you attempt to pretend that the former VP of Saudi Aramco was lying about shortage of supply....

You are an unrivaled fraud of epic proportions. Holy crap, do you ever suck at this.

Read what I wrote. I didn't say he was lying parrot. I referenced other people who had alternative explanations for why the price increased, and why there wasn't a lack of supply. Is English your first language?

 

[JiggsCasey]

And right on queue, RGR scrambles to USMB within minutes, as soon as his text alert clears. Loser.

The point you chose to defend was that the price runup was due to lack of supply. Spare supply means that you can't blame lack of it on the price runup. Secondary references demonstrated that speculators in the market were also driving up the price. Both points you chose to defend, refuted.

LOL!!!!!!!!!

So now you've changed your claim from "space production capacity" to "spare supply." You're such a fraud. Your escape hatch on this one isn't opening. Sorry.

Pay attention halfwit, the point had nothing to do with "global reserve decline" which, A) hasn't and B) you don't know what it means anyway.

The point has everything to do with it, and your profound debate dishonesty. His words were rather clear:

"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 you fired back with some squawk about spare production capacity (which you obviously didn't even read).

Engage brain already, and do try and understand that these are points you chose to defend. If you can't, be a man, and just say so. Or be a parrot, and continue doing what it is you do.

Kicking your ass all over this forum? Yes, I'll continue to do that. Enthusiastically so with every attempt at snakeoil sales you try and pass off.

Not only did I defend the points by linking to industry men WAY higher up the oil production chain than goofy you who all say the same thing, but I reminded anyone reading that your lame attempts to refute have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what the man said.

Dick.

Once again, you thought-addled inbred: "Spare capacity" refers to nothing more than the ability to increase production a bit for a short period of time. It says nothing about overall reserve totals.

Your reference, and the point you chose to defend, didn't say anything about overall reserve totals either.

That's because hundreds of my previous posts here on the matter DO, replete with links from international entities. Do I need to include the entirety of my post history each time so that you can't fake your way out of it?

This is why you're a dishonest debate opponent. You're a liar, and you fake ignorance to what's been asserted already.

It is amusing, however, seeing that your final fall back position is one whereby you attempt to pretend that the former VP of Saudi Aramco was lying about shortage of supply....

You are an unrivaled fraud of epic proportions. Holy crap, do you ever suck at this.

Read what I wrote. I didn't say he was lying parrot. I referenced other people who had alternative explanations for why the price increased, and why there wasn't a lack of supply. Is English your first language?

I asked you three or four times to say whether you felt the man was lying or just wrong.

You appear to be hopping back and forth, depending on what adheres to links you didn't actually read.

So now you're back to trying to claim the man has it all wrong. Doing so by oddly alluding to claims of production capacity capability. Of course, you ignore claims of declining production rates for existing reserves - the crux of both those ASPO videos.

Once again, for your retardation rehab: The "spare capacity" is the ability to increase production in order to mitigate a supply shock elsewhere. It has NOTHING TO DO with the greater picture of dying existing capacity over the longterm.

It was clear a long time ago, you have no idea what you're talking about. You already admitted you're an "arrogant prick," so it follows that you'd try dishonest games to extract yourself from the corner you've backed yourself into.

 

[RGR]

Pay attention halfwit, the point had nothing to do with "global reserve decline" which, A) hasn't and B) you don't know what it means anyway.

The point has everything to do with it, and your profound debate dishonesty. His words were rather clear:

"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.
​

Please reference in your quote where he said anything about global reserve decline.

That's because hundreds of my previous posts here on the matter DO, replete with links from international entities. Do I need to include the entirety of my post history each time so that you can't fake your way out of it?

Only if you include your classic about trading me 5 barrels if I give you 2 in return. A display of your basic math skills won't help you out of this one Jiggsy.

Read what I wrote. I didn't say he was lying parrot. I referenced other people who had alternative explanations for why the price increased, and why there wasn't a lack of supply. Is English your first language?

I asked you three or four times to say whether you felt the man was lying or just wrong.

Ask whatever you wish. Stick to one point at a time, as you haven't been able to do in two different examples now (Hirsch report and this Saudi dude) and I will probably answer. Scattershot nonsense everywhere, and you get what you get.

So now you're back to trying to claim the man has it all wrong. Doing so by oddly alluding to claims of production capacity capability. Of course, you ignore claims of declining production rates for existing reserves - the crux of both those ASPO videos.

Perhaps you missed the part where I mentioned you should just stick to one point at a time? I choose, at your request, one from a quote of the Saudi dude. Not some of the academics at ASPO (like the President and Secretary) who haven't done anything to an oil field in their entire lives. You like references who don't know anything about oil, don't you Jiggsy?

It was clear a long time ago, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Come see all us know nothings in April Jiggsy. Didn't I ask you this question last spring, and it seems you were a no show?

AAPG Annual Convention & Exhibition - Long Beach 2012

we can tour the tar pits, I'll introduce you to some actual geologists, so then you can parrot people who know what they are talking about?

 

[JiggsCasey]

Please reference in your quote where he said anything about global reserve decline.

Well, if he's talking about price points over a 10-year span, how in the world could have NOT been referencing global shortfall when he mentions "shortage of supply?" ... Clearly your strategy is to 1) not watch the videos, so as to even acknowledge the rather obvious claim being made about global decline, and 2) pigeon hole one quote, while willfully refusing to acknowledge the man's message as a whole.

This is why you're 1) a dick, and 2) a completely dishonest poster. There is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind - among those being honest - that Sadad al-Husseini, former VP of Saudi Aramco, believes strongly that world conventional oil reserves are past peak.

Oops, sorry that claim contradicts your "nothing to see here" platform. But you're gonna need to do a little better than pretending that's not what he meant.

Only if you include your classic about trading me 5 barrels if I give you 2 in return. A display of your basic math skills won't help you out of this one Jiggsy.

Once again, that's not at all what I said, and you're hoping that if enough time passes, and you repeat the falsehood enough, that you can re-write forum history. Either that, or you have a serious reading comprehension problem. The statement was about heavy oil's net energy, or EROEI... A concept that you alternatively fail to understand, as well as pretend is not important. This is how utterly retarded you make yourself out to be throughout this discussion.

Ask whatever you wish. Stick to one point at a time, as you haven't been able to do in two different examples now (Hirsch report and this Saudi dude) and I will probably answer. Scattershot nonsense everywhere, and you get what you get.

LOL. Sticking to one point is precisely what I have accomplished each time, as you weasel your way out of one corner after another. You've been pinned down a number of times, and have been left punting.

In fact, every direct challenge asked of you has been met with evasion or deflection.

Q: where's the new oil going to come from enough to meet new demand and counter dying existing capacity?
A: "where it always has"

Q: can you show how much unconventional production has even amounted to so far?
A: <crickets> ...

Q: can you show some data by any entity asserting how much unconventional production is expected to amount to going forward?
A: <crickets> or "I don't need to, halfwit." ... LOL

Q: Is Sadad al-Husseini, and others in these videos you're too chickenshit to watch, lying or just wrong? (asked 4 or 5 times)
A: "spare capacity is good... speculators are to blame for prices... please focus, Jiggsy."

I mean, seriously. You're such an obviously beaten opponent at this point, I might start feeling bad for you if you weren't such a prick.

So now you're back to trying to claim the man has it all wrong. Doing so by oddly alluding to claims of production capacity capability. Of course, you ignore claims of declining production rates for existing reserves - the crux of both those ASPO videos.

Perhaps you missed the part where I mentioned you should just stick to one point at a time? I choose, at your request, one from a quote of the Saudi dude. Not some of the academics at ASPO (like the President and Secretary) who haven't done anything to an oil field in their entire lives.

Well, coward, when the same question is asked of you multiple times, and it's clear you continue to run from it, some of us have to move on to other lines of questioning you might actually be able to handle. You know, just to keep the discussion fluid. Perhaps if you addressed a point directly for once, we could have some closure on a topic you're so desperate to maintain a fraudulent position on.

You were originally challenged to explain how all those men were wrong (or why they might just be lying). You complained you couldn't be bothered, and to focus on one quote. One quote was focused on, and - in successive turns - you have attempted to paint the man as 1) lying, 2) wrong, and now 3) somehow not actually saying what he's in fact saying.

LOL!!!!!

You like references who don't know anything about oil, don't you Jiggsy?

You wouldn't last 5 minutes successfully disputing any man in those videos. They're WAY further up the oil production chain than goofy you are, and each of them completely contradict your "plenty of oil" hubris. You hate that, so you are left having to pretend they're all just dumb. Including the former chief petroleum geologist at BP. You're such a laughable narcissist, you believe you know more than these men.

My God, do you ever suck at this.

It was clear a long time ago, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Come see all us know nothings in April Jiggsy. Didn't I ask you this question last spring, and it seems you were a no show?

AAPG Annual Convention & Exhibition - Long Beach 2012

we can tour the tar pits, I'll introduce you to some actual geologists, so then you can parrot people who know what they are talking about?

Ah yes, when all else fails, challenge me to come to your house of fraud where your associates can back you up and handle the clear-cut inquiries you can't seem to find an answer for.

Maybe one of them can explain to you how spare capacity has nothing to do with the question of overall reserve totals. You seem to have profound difficulty with that notion.

Meanwhile, I'll be at the annual ASPO conference. It's coming up in a few weeks in D.C. Bring your friends, and present your "facts."

Maybe you can try the "spare capacity" angle on the panel. You know, replete with ironic theoildrum.com links you didn't actually read.

 

[RGR]

Please reference in your quote where he said anything about global reserve decline.

Well, if he's talking about price points over a 10-year span, how in the world could have NOT been referencing global shortfall when he mentions "shortage of supply?"

Reserve decline isn't shortage of supply. There is a huge difference. You should learn it if you want to discuss oil topics without looking like..well...a parrot.

... Clearly your strategy is to 1) not watch the videos, so as to even acknowledge the rather obvious claim being made about global decline, and 2) pigeon hole one quote, while willfully refusing to acknowledge the man's message as a whole.

I asked you to choose a point you understood, and could defend. You haven't done that yet on the two points referenced, 1) how Hirsch's 2005 report can be used to refute his own statements and B) there were no shortages of supply in the referenced time period and speculators were involved as much as market constraint during the 2008 price run up.

If you don't like the points you choose, and aren't capable of defending them without more cutting and pasting and not a single independent thought, I recommend you take up drooling on yourself as a profession, if that is all you are capable of.

You wouldn't last 5 minutes successfully disputing any man in those videos.

Your propaganda can't fight back. Apparently, neither can you, when given every opportunity.

Maybe one of them can explain to you how spare capacity has nothing to do with the question of overall reserve totals. You seem to have profound difficulty with that notion.

Learn the difference between production and reserves, and you can trip over your inadequate knowledge on this topic next. Do try and find someone to quote however, and then read up a little on the difference, certainly at this point in time you don't realize even what the differences are between them.

Meanwhile, I'll be at the annual ASPO conference. It's coming up in a few weeks in D.C. Bring your friends, and present your "facts."

They aren't allowed to attend. You see Jiggsy, peak oil believers, even ones with functioning brains who aren't parrots, can't dispute the facts of this case any better than you can at the end of the day, their more advanced understanding of church dogma notwithstanding. And this is because you all suffer from the limitations of your belief system, rather than confronting the science and facts of resource depletion.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Reserve decline isn't shortage of supply. There is a huge difference. You should learn it if you want to discuss oil topics without looking like..well...a parrot.

Considering the entirety of his entire interview, and his numerous other statements on the matter, it's inferred rather clearly that he's referring to both. Reserve decline most certainly will lead to supply shortage. And considering conventional production has flat-lined for 7 years, and the global economy has been collapsing for the past 4, it's obviously become a problem.

I asked you to choose a point you understood, and could defend. You haven't done that yet on the two points referenced, 1) how Hirsch's 2005 report can be used to refute his own statements and B) there were no shortages of supply in the referenced time period and speculators were involved as much as market constraint during the 2008 price run up.

LOL. Quite the contrary. Every point I've beaten your tired ass with I've understood, and the two you're squawking about above were defended effectively. You spun the first one, and deflected from the second. The price points have been rising rapidly for over 10 years, so to pretend speculation has much to do with long-term pricing confirms again that you have no idea what you're talking about.

If you don't like the points you choose, and aren't capable of defending them without more cutting and pasting and not a single independent thought, I recommend you take up drooling on yourself as a profession, if that is all you are capable of.

Every point I've chosen has left you looking more and more foolish. Every time I offer personal perspective, you truncate the post, pretend you don't understand, or spin the intent. You're just a dishonest fraud who continues to dance around a topic that's become completely untenable for you.

Your propaganda can't fight back. Apparently, neither can you, when given every opportunity.

Oh, so it's propaganda again? We're back to asserting the men I've presented, way further up the oil production chain than your fraudulent ass, are all lying?

Maybe one of them can explain to you how spare capacity has nothing to do with the question of overall reserve totals. You seem to have profound difficulty with that notion.

Learn the difference between production and reserves, and you can trip over your inadequate knowledge on this topic next.

Poetic irony here. I'm not the one trying to pretend spare capacity is an indication of long term reserve health. That would be you, toolbox.

Do try and find someone to quote however, and then read up a little on the difference, certainly at this point in time you don't realize even what the differences are between them.

More irony. You're the one who needs to read up on the difference.

Meanwhile, I'll be at the annual ASPO conference. It's coming up in a few weeks in D.C. Bring your friends, and present your "facts."

They aren't allowed to attend. You see Jiggsy, peak oil believers, even ones with functioning brains who aren't parrots, can't dispute the facts of this case any better than you can at the end of the day, their more advanced understanding of church dogma notwithstanding.

Yes, you keep parroting this mantra over and over again. Hasn't helped with your horrible gameplan of fail. Every challenge you've been presented with, you've pussied out of.

Where's the oil going to come from to meet future demand? How much unconventional oil has anyone claimed can be attained going forward? How much already is produced? Why is net energy not important in accessing the end of growth?

Every time, you punt. You suck at this, because your argument has no where to go, and yet you must keep your chin up and maintain the pattern epistemic closure that your team is so famous for.

And this is because you all suffer from the limitations of your belief system, rather than confronting the science and facts of resource depletion.

LOL. What "science and facts" do you think you have presented that shows peak oil is decades away? Still waiting for it.

When you get done patting your arrogant self on the back for a job not well done, do roll up your sleeves and, for once, get to the "science and facts" part of your piss poor overall argument.

In the meantime, if you can't find a way to attend the latest ASPO conference, please do STFU about me attending your fraudulent industry circle jerk.

Ah well, here's a primer for you... You know, where you pretend all these men are lying and not as smart as your goofy self, despite challenging cornucopians to show how they arrive at their data:

DOE OIL & GAS SUPPLY FORECASTS DANGEROUSLY MISLEADING

Global Economy Threatened As World Oil Production Stalls For Seventh Year
The Oil Drum | ASPO-USA Conference, November 2 - 5; Letter to Secretary Chu

&#8220;Despite rising demand and a large increase in oil prices, world oil supply has been on a plateau; it has stayed relatively constant since 2005,&#8221; said Robert L. Hirsch, co-author of The Impending World Energy Mess. &#8220;Simultaneously, production from existing world oil fields is declining at a high rate. Both of these developments are unprecedented, yet DOE and EIA [Energy Information Administration] have dismissed them as not being of major concern.&#8221;

&#8220;We are not running out of oil. But we appear to be running out of oil that we can afford.&#8221;
Jim Baldauf, president and co-founder of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas-USA

Tom Whipple, a former CIA analyst and chief editor of ASPO-USA&#8217;s Peak Oil Review, said, &#8220;There are literally dozens of reports and analyses appearing every week around the world pointing to the fact that the world is facing major challenges in maintaining, much less growing, the global supply of oil in next few years.&#8221; He added, &#8220;Our concern here today is the growing disconnect between the solid evidence of serious troubles ahead and the Department of Energy&#8217;s benign projections concerning the availability of fossil fuels in the next 30 years.&#8221;​

We understand, Mr. Whipple. We deal with the same frauds right here on our little forum who have a psychological blockage when it comes to basic understanding of the Earth's natural limits (and the data that bears those limits out, plain as day).

 

[RGR]

Reserve decline isn't shortage of supply. There is a huge difference. You should learn it if you want to discuss oil topics without looking like..well...a parrot.

Considering the entirety of his entire interview, and his numerous other statements on the matter, it's inferred rather clearly that he's referring to both.

You don't know what you are talking about. Reserves are not supply. I recommend you read something, learn something, do something other than repeat nonsense. Your reference didn't say what you are claiming, and the reason why is he does probably know the difference between reserves and production. Go learn something, or go back to your church and send us someone with a functioning brain.

And this is because you all suffer from the limitations of your belief system, rather than confronting the science and facts of resource depletion.

LOL. What "science and facts" do you think you have presented that shows peak oil is decades away? Still waiting for it.

I never said peak oil was decades away halfwit. Try actually reading what people write rather than making up straw men as you go along. I said it has happened before, and am perfectly willing to stipulate as fact that the most current peak is yet another one. Right until it is not, and peak oilers decide to start pretending it is off in the future. Again.

In the meantime, if you can't find a way to attend the latest ASPO conference, please do STFU about me attending your fraudulent industry circle jerk.

The ASPO conference is happening the same week that the SPE National is. There are more professionals in the restrooms at that SPE meeting then there are participants at ASPO conferences. Going to ASPO instead is like singing the ABC song with pre-schoolers instead of taking graduate level engineering courses at CSM. Get real you moron.

We understand, Mr. Whipple. We deal with the same frauds right here on our little forum who have a psychological blockage when it comes to basic understanding of the Earth's natural limits (and the data that bears those limits out, plain as day).

Go back to your church and send us Mr Whipple then, at least I'm pretty sure he has a functioning brain. He can explain how peak oil way back in 2005 has been so horrible that we are suffering through yet another production increase to yet another peak oil.

Look ma! Only peakers are dumb enough to think that the lines in 2011 are lower than the ones in 2005!

 

[JiggsCasey]

I asked you before: Is that C+C only, or all liquids? Please provide a link to the chart you so arrogantly stand behind.

Either way, a 2 M/BD increase in six years? You think that rate is maintaining 3-4% annual growth needed to power the machine of rapacious capitalism?

How are global net exports faring? Oops, down ~10% or so since 2005. That means nations are consuming ever more of their own product, but also a clear indication that flow rates are not keeping up.

The global economy is contracting due to decreasing net energy. Just admit when you're wrong.

 

[RGR]

I asked you before: Is that C+C only, or all liquids? Please provide a link to the chart you so arrogantly stand behind.

If I thought you knew what the differences were between various crude types, or would listen when someone like me expained it to you, I might answer that question. Instead, I shall simply reinforce the point most relevant to discrediting your religious beliefs.

Another peak oil coming!! Let the fear mongering begin for the imagined consequences of it...again!!!

 

[JiggsCasey]

I asked you before: Is that C+C only, or all liquids? Please provide a link to the chart you so arrogantly stand behind.

If I thought you knew what the differences were between various crude types, or would listen when someone like me expained it to you, I might answer that question. Instead, I shall simply reinforce the point most relevant to discrediting your religious beliefs.

Another peak oil coming!! Let the fear mongering begin for the imagined consequences of it...again!!!

So when challenged to source your work, you bail.

It was a pretty simple question, coward. Is that crude and condensate only in that chart, or all liquids? Don't chicken out. Stand behind your assertion.

Seems like a ripe opportunity to show how smart you are, but you seem to be hoping it goes away again. Seeing a pattern with you when backed into a corner.

Ah well. I'll take your latest end-around as your Roberto Duran "no mas" moment. Cheap oil flow rates have barely moved since 2005. The shortfall to meet demand has been made up by far more expensive, heavier oils, to the detriment of the world economy. That IS peak oil. You know it's true.

Douche.

 

[RGR]

So when challenged to source your work, you bail.

I source my work all the time. And you ignore it, because the factual basis of such information reveals you for the oiltard you are.

The question is, are you an oiltard parrot, or just a stupid one? Why are you here at all, considering how little you know about this topic? Were you assigned as a missionary to this particular forum? To convert others, that you might build your own self esteem, having found others as gullible as yourself?

 

[JiggsCasey]

LOL! At this point, your argument has obviously been stripped down to "na, na... i know you are, but what am I?"

You've been asked 3 or 4 times now whether the chart you provided was C+C only, or all liquids. Each time, you've run from that fundamental challenge.

So when challenged to source your work, you bail.

I source my work all the time.

Except for half the time when you don't, of course ... like this latest example.

And you ignore it, because the factual basis of such information reveals you for the oiltard you are.

The irony here is rich. I read ALL your links, the few times you provide them. And when I do, most of the time there's a passage or three that completely undermines your assertion. Which you're clueless to, because YOU don't even read your OWN links, let alone mine.

The deflection is, are you an oiltard parrot, or just a stupid one?

FYP...

Is this ploy supposed to affect me at this point? Pretending I'm the dumb one when your argument has run out of hot air? LOL

Anyone still reading this is painfully aware that for all your bluster, you're a coward when challenged to support your work. That's because you know you've backed yourself into a corner.

Why are you here at all, considering how little you know about this topic? Were you assigned as a missionary to this particular forum? To convert others, that you might build your own self esteem, having found others as gullible as yourself?

I'm here merely because when I see unabashed fraud like yours, I thoroughly enjoy holding it accountable. You don't know what you're talking about, and nothing confirms that better than your routine dance away from any direct challenge put to you.

This shouldn't be that difficult. My claim is that conventional oil flow rates have leveled off for 6 years now. Your claim is that it has risen steadily. Source the chart, be transparent about what it represents, or shut the fuck up.

In the end, if you're showing that needed global production growth has kept up due to the expansion of ever more expensive net energy (industries that you work in, what a surprise), you haven't debunked that peak oil is upon us. .... you've only supported the conclusion. I know you're just now coming to grips with that fact and are embarrassed by how unwittingly you've backed yourself into a corner, but at least be a man about it.

Here, I'll get your obligatory empty prep work done for you ahead of time:

"Parrot, parrot, dimwit... oiltard, halfwit, parrot parrot, oiltard... cult parrot, religion halfwit, ... parrot, parrot, dimwit.... oiltard sect, parrot, halfwit... you're dumb."

Now try some substance for once.

Source the chart, ... don't be a pussy.

 

[Old Rocks]

Interesting. 2002, 76.5 million barrels of oil, three years later, 2005, 84 million barrels of oil. But, in 2011, 87.5 million barrels of oil. So, an increase of 7.5 billion barrels of oil, 2002 to 2005. But an increase of 3.5 billion barrels of oil, 2005 to 2011. In spite of the technologies developed during that time. 7.5 in 3 years versus 3.5 in 6 years. Something is changing for sure.

 

[whitehall]

Global warming is a religion. When the theory doesn't make sense you gotta have faith. The messiah came by just in time with his hope/change sermon and he told us (with a straight face) that America will be weaned off oil dependency if you have faith. Under Barry Hussein's leadership the US invested in solar energy with taxpayer dollars whether we liked it or not and a year later Solindra went belly up. Solar energy don't work. What ever happened to Boone Pickins who broke into the 2008 campaign with a national windmill scenario? Windmills use fossil fuels and kill birds and the freaking things don't work. You gotta have faith though. The democrat senate majority leader told Americans (with a straight face) "oil makes you sick" but now we are considering bombing Iran into the stone age because cutting off the oil supply might kill Americans. You gotta have faith when you see the greatest Nation in the world sliding into ruin because democrats kiss the asses of every two-bit dictators like Hugo Chevez and Moody Imademagogue while they lie to their own people.