Here's Warren Buffett admitting peak oil

[CrusaderFrank]

starting at 1:00 mark...

Warren Buffet - talk about oil depletion on CNBC. - YouTube

"most fields are depleting at a pretty good rate ... who knows what the equilibrium price will be."

Add Buffett to countless economists, geologists and consultants who have admitted the condition so many here continue to deny is happening.

All morons and all wrong in the trillion column

 

[signelect]

It is Pickens not Pickett and these so called experts don't know a lot. If Aramco had not discovered oil in Saudi Arabia most of what we are facing now would not be happening. The export demand for Camels is pretty low.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's Saturn's Moon Titan. The blue colorized areas are lakes of liquid hydrocarbons. Since the Moon is only a few clicks above absolute zero and presents no evidence of biological activity, we can assume that the massive amounts of hydrocarbons form as a result of geological activity.

Please forget "Fossil Fuels" Hydrocarbons form as a result of geological activity on every other moon and planet in our solar system, Earth is not an exception

 

[JiggsCasey]

LOL... so funny watching RGR create countless straw men, claiming "because they were 'wrong' yesterday, you must be wrong today!!!' "

His argument took a flogging several months ago already, and he's been reduced to acting like a frat-house punk.

For the 12th time, no one that we cite ever claimed peak oil for 1979. The MIT "Limits to Growth" report from the 70s pointed to the middle of the 2000s as the peak point of conventional crude production, and that's exactly when it hit.

Global production of conventional crude has barely budged since 2005. The surplus to meet demand has been "met" by producing ever-more expensive oil from ever-more difficult to reach reserves. This is all well documented.

That trend will slowly continue. As will the global debt crisis that goes along with it.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Here's Saturn's Moon Titan. The blue colorized areas are lakes of liquid hydrocarbons. Since the Moon is only a few clicks above absolute zero and presents no evidence of biological activity, we can assume that the massive amounts of hydrocarbons form as a result of geological activity.

Please forget "Fossil Fuels" Hydrocarbons form as a result of geological activity on every other moon and planet in our solar system, Earth is not an exception

Ah yes, long-debunked Soviet Cold War science rears it's ugly head, as the defensive rallying point of free market cons. The irony.

There's traces of alcohol in space. That must mean it rains Duff beer on the surface of Saturn? LOL.

Ah well. I'm sure the legions of Western scientists had some agenda for their 150-year conspiracy to lie to the world regarding the origins of fossil fuels. No one can explain that to me, nor how any of them didn't leak the great conspiracy after all this time ... but who needs to when those pictures from Saturn obviously show it's all a big "lie."



Regardless, even if you're right.. (and you're not): where IS IT, going forward then? Exxon, Chevron, BP and all the rest would love to hear from you.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's Saturn's Moon Titan. The blue colorized areas are lakes of liquid hydrocarbons. Since the Moon is only a few clicks above absolute zero and presents no evidence of biological activity, we can assume that the massive amounts of hydrocarbons form as a result of geological activity.

Please forget "Fossil Fuels" Hydrocarbons form as a result of geological activity on every other moon and planet in our solar system, Earth is not an exception

Ah yes, long-debunked Soviet Cold War science rears it's ugly head, as the defensive rallying point of free market cons. The irony.

There's traces of alcohol in space. That must mean it rains Duff beer on the surface of Saturn? LOL.

Ah well. I'm sure the legions of Western scientists had some agenda for their 150-year conspiracy to lie to the world regarding the origins of fossil fuels. No one can explain that to me, nor how any of them didn't leak the great conspiracy after all this time ... but who needs to when those pictures from Saturn obviously show it's all a big "lie."



Regardless, even if you're right.. (and you're not): where IS IT, going forward then? Exxon, Chevron, BP and all the rest would love to hear from you.

Please explain how it is that Earth is the only planet in the entire solar system that needs velicoprator carcasses to produce trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and billion of gallons of oil. Go!

The very mention of the phrase "Fossil fuels" tell me your thinking cap is locked in the Off position

 

[JiggsCasey]

Here's Saturn's Moon Titan. The blue colorized areas are lakes of liquid hydrocarbons. Since the Moon is only a few clicks above absolute zero and presents no evidence of biological activity, we can assume that the massive amounts of hydrocarbons form as a result of geological activity.

Please forget "Fossil Fuels" Hydrocarbons form as a result of geological activity on every other moon and planet in our solar system, Earth is not an exception

Ah yes, long-debunked Soviet Cold War science rears it's ugly head, as the defensive rallying point of free market cons. The irony.

There's traces of alcohol in space. That must mean it rains Duff beer on the surface of Saturn? LOL.

Ah well. I'm sure the legions of Western scientists had some agenda for their 150-year conspiracy to lie to the world regarding the origins of fossil fuels. No one can explain that to me, nor how any of them didn't leak the great conspiracy after all this time ... but who needs to when those pictures from Saturn obviously show it's all a big "lie."



Regardless, even if you're right.. (and you're not): where IS IT, going forward then? Exxon, Chevron, BP and all the rest would love to hear from you.

Please explain how it is that Earth is the only planet in the entire solar system that needs velicoprator carcasses to produce trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and billion of gallons of oil. Go!

The very mention of the phrase "Fossil fuels" tell me your thinking cap is locked in the Off position

So your tactic is to ignore the direct challenge put to you, and instead punt to unfalsifiable claim and false dichotomy.

No wonder I don't need to even acknowledge you any more. You're completely irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ah yes, long-debunked Soviet Cold War science rears it's ugly head, as the defensive rallying point of free market cons. The irony.

There's traces of alcohol in space. That must mean it rains Duff beer on the surface of Saturn? LOL.

Ah well. I'm sure the legions of Western scientists had some agenda for their 150-year conspiracy to lie to the world regarding the origins of fossil fuels. No one can explain that to me, nor how any of them didn't leak the great conspiracy after all this time ... but who needs to when those pictures from Saturn obviously show it's all a big "lie."



Regardless, even if you're right.. (and you're not): where IS IT, going forward then? Exxon, Chevron, BP and all the rest would love to hear from you.

Please explain how it is that Earth is the only planet in the entire solar system that needs velicoprator carcasses to produce trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and billion of gallons of oil. Go!

The very mention of the phrase "Fossil fuels" tell me your thinking cap is locked in the Off position

So your tactic is to ignore the direct challenge put to you, and instead punt to unfalsifiable claim and false dichotomy.

No wonder I don't need to even acknowledge you any more. You're completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The space program killed the stupid "Fossil Fuel" notion. It you and your friends don't see that, that's your loss.

 

[JiggsCasey]

The space program killed the stupid "Fossil Fuel" notion. It you and your friends don't see that, that's your loss.

When you're done patting yourself on the back, and running from the challenge put to you, read up on causation vs. correlation.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The space program killed the stupid "Fossil Fuel" notion. It you and your friends don't see that, that's your loss.

When you're done patting yourself on the back, and running from the challenge put to you, read up on causation vs. correlation.

What challenge? That you guys are devoid of any common sense?

Again: Why is Earth the only planet in the solar system that requires velicoraptor carcasses processed over geological time to make hydrocarbons? Do you know how stupid you'd sound if you had to describe this process to some alien civilization?

"Yeah, see, Saturn's Moon Titan's, Saturn, Jupiter a dozen other places including Pluto all have hydrocarbons, but see on Earth, it's like complicated. We need to take these velicoraptors, billions of them and squeeze them together, stop laughing at me, this is our theory, anyway, the Earth crushes them and magically converts them over hundreds of million of years into light sweet crude oil...why are you laughing?"

 

[RGR]

Their worries weren't lies. The lies are on this board.

I have recommended that peak oilers stop telling them.

You think all Hubbert did of value was slap bell shaped curve on some production data and declare "EUREKA!"?

I think what he did was to quantify the concept allowing for broad prediction of when regional peaks would be achieved. It's still not perfect, because there are unpredictable factors at work both in oil technology and (more importantly) in the fluctuations of the oil market, but it represents a considerable advance over anything that preceded it.

Again incorrect. Hubbert created a top down analysis which has failed more often than not (making a coin toss a better predictive method) and fails in perhaps 75% of the worlds oil provinces when weighted by volume.

I am being generous in my preceeding paragraph, and notice I did not say anything about natural gas, an arena where Hubbert failed not a little, but spectacularly.

There is TREMENDOUS confusion about the definition of peak oil, because peak oilers

Stop there. Those two words, "peak oilers," are the core of your dishonesty here. You are lumping together environmental shock-jockeys without credentials and more serious geologists who know what the subject is, and that is the only basis on which you can claim that there is any confusion about the definition of peak oil.

Incorrect. Peak oilers exist, have formed a particular little religion, and try and peddle it in places like this. They exist as a group, have a professional organization where they tell each other that even if their predictions have been wrong for a few decades, people should still take them seriously. Join them in DC this November, the sky is falling, haven't you heard?

2011 Peak Oil, Energy & the Economy Conference | November 3-5, 2011 | Washington, DC

Among geologists, there is no disagreement about the definition of peak oil.

Of course there is. They can't even agree on which oil to count, as evidenced by Colin Campbell using one set of definitions for unconventional resources, and the U.S. Geological Survey using another. Maybe when they agree on definitions that basic you could convince me that they agree on how to add it up, estimate a flowrate from it, but until then, it is definitively impossible.

Take the first paragraph of the wiki for example. How many misrepresentations of actual oil production in that single paragraph exist? (Hint: The answer is a number greater than zero )

No, if you're referring to the Wikipedia article on peak oil, the number of misrepresentations of oil production in the first paragraph is in fact zero.

You sir, are an oil incompetent.

peak oil- "This concept is based on the observed production rates of individual oil wells, projected reserves and the combined production rate of a field of related oil wells."

Individual oil wells do not produce in the form of a bell shaped curve, Hubbert certainly never said it, and only an ignoramous who has never produced, predicted, extrapolated or quantified a producing oil well would say such a thing. Hubbert did not predict his aggregation by grouping wells or fields, but geographical regions. He knew better than to extrapolate wells or fields, because fields aren't bestowed by any magical properties which require them to produce as bell shaped curves either. Even Colin Campbell wrote this correctly in his book, although he screwed it up badly in his 1998 Scientific American article (or at least the one we can find on the web).

The seminal work on this topic was complete, again probably before you were born. Peak oil propaganda is no substitute for knowing something about this topic.

Arps, J.J, (1945); Analysis of Decline Curves, Transactions of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, 1945, 160, 228-247.

I would venture a comment on Fetkovich, but I'm betting you don't know any more about his work than Arps, to fall for such a ridiculous piece in Wiki.

I've snipped everything else in your post because it consisted of nothing but empty rhetoric.

An excellent way to avoid answering questions which reveal your ignorance of the topic, as demonstrated above. Would you like another clue? The number of errors in the first wiki paragraph aren't limited to just 1. Care to take another crack at it?

 

[RGR]

For the 12th time, no one that we cite ever claimed peak oil for 1979.

Your inability to use google, the EIA website, or to think about a topic before spouting church dogma aside, peak oil happened in 1979 because of the definition used by your poor cousin Dragon. Production peaked, and then it declined. Just like the profile that peak oil was supposed to cause according to Hubbert. He certainly never called for a plateau, that was assembled only after peak happened in 2005 and it turned out to not be the prayed for peak. The ensuing scramble to remove egg from face created plateau oil to distract from peak oil..not..being...a ...peak. (I put in periods to slow your reading in the hopes you would understand if you had just those extra 10 seconds to think for yourself)

You need to learn your own religious dogma better than I do parrot.

The MIT "Limits to Growth" report from the 70s pointed to the middle of the 2000s as the peak point of conventional crude production, and that's exactly when it hit.

No. They didn't. And it wasn't even a report, it was a model. Which they used to demonstrate anything they wished using multiple scenarios. I would whip out a Box and Draper quote, but then you would parrot it as though you had read their text and someone might mistake you for a smart parrot.

 

[RGR]

So your tactic is to ignore the direct challenge put to you, and instead punt to unfalsifiable claim and false dichotomy.

What's the matter parrot, don't like it when someone plagiarizes your usual routine?

 

[JiggsCasey]

"The peakists have won ... to the peakists I say, you can declare victory. You are no longer the beleaguered small minority of voices crying in the wilderness. You are now mainstream. You must learn to take yes for an answer and be gracious in victory".

- James Schlesinger, former US secretary of Energy

(and former peak denialist... they all come around sooner or later)

 

[RGR]

"The peakists have won ... to the peakists I say, you can declare victory. You are no longer the beleaguered small minority of voices crying in the wilderness. You are now mainstream. You must learn to take yes for an answer and be gracious in victory".

- James Schlesinger, former US secretary of Energy

(and former peak denialist... they all come around sooner or later)

Sure. Schlesinger was around for the 1979 global peak oil, after you have been through a few of these things it becomes difficult to deny their existence.