now, it's the IEA admitting peak

[JiggsCasey]

You might want to keep up on current events, the space program has totally demolished the notion that hydrocarbons come from dead dinosaurs because they even found lakes of the stuff on Saturn's Moon Titan

Yes, you keep trying this ploy. They've also found traces of alcohol in space. Will it be raining Duff beer any time now?

Even if you're right, and oil is abiotic, where is it enough to meet 110 million bpd by 2020? And why is oil price up 600% in 12 years?

 

[RGR]

He is your source, not mine. I doubt the guy has ever picked up a pipe wrench in his life, let alone drilled a horizontal well or found an oilfield or interpreted a seismic line.

Which is it parrot?

He doesn't work for the IEA any longer. He retired.

Really? You should change his Wiki.

Fatih Birol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps he retired somewhere between the beginning of this month when he had his job, and some time since then when you think he retired?

International Energy Agency's Top Economist Says Oil Peaked in 2006 - Environment - GOOD

Regardless, I have little doubt he's quite competent.

Excellent. Then which is it? Was he making up the 2006 peak as a member in good standing to your religion, or does he just ignore his own agencies information? Not because of incompetence perhaps, but because the peak ciultists don't like to admit how many peak oils there has actually been over the years?

Which is it parrot? Try thinking for yourself if your dogma doesn't cover the answer to this one for you.

Instead, peak is a rounded-off plateau, somewhat flat at the apex, which we're experiencing now.

Please reference any equation Hubbert ever published, anywhere, which has a flat apex for any length of time at the peak. I dare you parrot.

The decline hasn't really begun in earnest yet.

That is because production has started increasing again parrot. Just like it has the other times oil peaked I might add. Feel free to observe the graph and try thinking for yourself. Those lines...the ones going UP....isn't called a decline you nitwit.

Wow, RGR. You really are a whole big sack of fail.

check out the chart parrot. Even a parrot should know that when a line goes UP, only a crackpot confuses it with a DECLINE.

 

[RGR]

And why is oil price up 600% in 12 years?

And yet cheaper than it was in 1864.

Great great granddad had a tough time fighting the civil war, what with the high price of crude and all!

 

[JiggsCasey]

That's total liquids, tool box. Conventionals have peaked. The difference in maintaining EXTREMELY modest overall production growth is the far more expensive crap. Get it yet? Also, a minor blip at the top of the plateau due to minor market corrections isn't evidence that he was wrong. Conventionals peaked in the middle of last decade. I know that butt-rapes your entire "nothing to see here" platform, but too bad.

Ah well, here's the British Government, again, "wasting money" on peak oil contingency planning. LOL:

British Government Faces Up To Peak Oil - Energy Source - How we power the world - Forbes

You keep swimming upstream, little salmon. That's noble work you're doing, desperately trying to dispute the word of pretty much everyone, yet sounding more and more retarded with each shifting excuse.

 

[RGR]

That's total liquids, tool box. Conventionals have peaked.

Again. How many more times do you think they'll peak Jiggsy? Do you even know how many decades can pass in a large geographical area between one peak and the next? Or did they not teach you that factoid in peaker sunday school either? (For the record, the answer as best I have been able to determine is about 80 years or so, maybe 90)

And remind me again, when you put those "liquids" in your gas tank, can you tell at the pump where the gas came from? And if you can't, and obviously you know you can't, can you please explain why it matters at all to the average gas pumping consumer if their gasoline purchase of 87 octane unleaded comes from crude, natural gas condensate, heavy oil, or bitumen?

The difference in maintaining EXTREMELY modest overall production growth is the far more expensive crap. Get it yet?

It isn't more expensive parrot. Pay attention. The real price of crude was higher in 1864 when great great grandpappy was riding a horse than it has been so far this year. So crude is CHEAPER now than it was then. Get it? Only dumbass peakers, who avoid the basics of economic theory at all costs, use nominal prices because then they can cherry pick a time frame and scream, "OMG! OIL HAS INCREASED 200% IN XX YEARS!!".

Just more peaker scare mongering, you guys can't even come up with something more original than cherry picking your data.

So lets stick with the basics...crude oil now is cheaper than it was at the end of the Civil War. It has gone down in price since then....so it isn't more expensive, it's cheaper than great great grandpappy had to pay for it. Beyond showing that you are ignorant of real crude prices, what is your point? That crude prices becoming cheaper since the Civil War creates more parrots in our society because thinking has become more difficult in this year of cheap oil?

Ah well, here's the British Government, again, "wasting money" on peak oil contingency planning. LOL:

The US government, and the US Navy, was doing contingency planning for peak oil and shortages before the Great Depression started. Does that mean peak oil happened back then as well? (hint hint...it did..but parrots who aren't taught that as part of their religious indoctrination don't know it).

 

[JiggsCasey]

That's total liquids, tool box. Conventionals have peaked.

Again. How many more times do you think they'll peak Jiggsy? Do you even know how many decades can pass in a large geographical area between one peak and the next? Or did they not teach you that factoid in peaker sunday school either? (For the record, the answer as best I have been able to determine is about 80 years or so, maybe 90)

And remind me again, when you put those "liquids" in your gas tank, can you tell at the pump where the gas came from? And if you can't, and obviously you know you can't, can you please explain why it matters at all to the average gas pumping consumer if their gasoline purchase of 87 octane unleaded comes from crude, natural gas condensate, heavy oil, or bitumen?

He won't have to. His $5, $7, $9 per gallon cost will tell him all he'll need to know.

Provided demand isn't crushed via double-dip recession once again. And it will.

Of course, if it ain't affecting well-to-do Texans, it's all a big myth.

The difference in maintaining EXTREMELY modest overall production growth is the far more expensive crap. Get it yet?

It isn't more expensive parrot. Pay attention. The real price of crude was higher in 1864 when great great grandpappy was riding a horse than it has been so far this year. So crude is CHEAPER now than it was then. Get it? Only dumbass peakers, who avoid the basics of economic theory at all costs, use nominal prices because then they can cherry pick a time frame and scream, "OMG! OIL HAS INCREASED 200% IN XX YEARS!!".

Just more peaker scare mongering, you guys can't even come up with something more original than cherry picking your data.

So lets stick with the basics...crude oil now is cheaper than it was at the end of the Civil War. It has gone down in price since then....so it isn't more expensive, it's cheaper than great great grandpappy had to pay for it. Beyond showing that you are ignorant of real crude prices, what is your point? That crude prices becoming cheaper since the Civil War creates more parrots in our society because thinking has become more difficult in this year of cheap oil?

Ah well, here's the British Government, again, "wasting money" on peak oil contingency planning. LOL:

The US government, and the US Navy, was doing contingency planning for peak oil and shortages before the Great Depression started. Does that mean peak oil happened back then as well? (hint hint...it did..but parrots who aren't taught that as part of their religious indoctrination don't know it).

It's telling that you have to go back to the Civil War era, before the industrial age was ever available on a mass commercial scale, to find a price point that vaguely supports your claim.

This discussion is about today. And the edifice built TODAY on cheap energy. Not 160 years ago, when petroleum man was in his infancy.

I'm sorry that you have such a visceral reaction to the end of the "infinite growth" myth you small-minded consumption whores have desperately tried to maintain for decades. But, you lost. Get over it.

The world is aflame because of shrinking resources. The EU is splintering because it can't pay it's debts. MENA is tearing itself apart because it can't afford the cost of food any longer. You have no plausible narrative that explains the realities unfolding simultaneously all over the planet.

All you morons can cling to is "well, I'm safe behind my gated community, and I can afford $5 gas, so it's obviously not happening... You're dumb!! You're a parrot!!! ."

Tool.

 

[RGR]

And remind me again, when you put those "liquids" in your gas tank, can you tell at the pump where the gas came from? And if you can't, and obviously you know you can't, can you please explain why it matters at all to the average gas pumping consumer if their gasoline purchase of 87 octane unleaded comes from crude, natural gas condensate, heavy oil, or bitumen?

He won't have to. His $5, $7, $9 per gallon cost will tell him all he'll need to know.

Price has nothing to do with whether or not the average consumers fuel comes from conventional crude or natural gas condensate. If you drive in the northeast US, you have already put natural gas condensate derived fuel in your tank, and you did not pay $5-$7-$9 a gallon for it.

The US government, and the US Navy, was doing contingency planning for peak oil and shortages before the Great Depression started. Does that mean peak oil happened back then as well? (hint hint...it did..but parrots who aren't taught that as part of their religious indoctrination don't know it).

It's telling that you have to go back to the Civil War era, before the industrial age was ever available on a mass commercial scale, to find a price point that vaguely supports your claim.

Pay attention halfwit...I didn't go back to the Civil War because I had to, I did it to make a point. If I wanted something where crude was more expensive in my lifetime, I would just refer to periods of the 70's and early 80's when the real price of crude was more expensive than it is today as well.

I used the Civil War example to make a point or two, A) you obviously didn't know that the real price of crude was that high that long ago and B) you cherry picking time periods and nominal pricing was just that...cherry picking data.

This discussion is about today. And the edifice built TODAY on cheap energy. Not 160 years ago, when petroleum man was in his infancy.

And peak oil is not about peak energy. They are not synonymous. Cheap crude ended in about 1969/1970 and has been trending more expensive ever since, you were RAISED in a time period of increasing crude prices. Didn't stop you from being a parrot, and certainly hasn't required everyone to become Amish, or whatever else peak oilers advocate in the name of their religious beliefs nowadays.

The world is aflame because of shrinking resources.

A) the world isn't aflame and B) people wanting basic human rights and the kind of freedom we enjoy in America has nothing to do with shrinking resources. You need to get out more.

All you morons can cling to is "well, I'm safe behind my gated community, and I can afford $5 gas, so it's obviously not happening... You're dumb!! You're a parrot!!! ."
Tool.

Of course I can afford $5 gas....so could you if you only used a gallon a week..heck, you could even do that collecting aluminum cans along the roadside. Listen Jiggsy, if you think $5/gal is an unfair price to fuel your 50cc powered skateboard, there is an easy solution...DON'T BUY ANY. Don't like the price of gasoline? Modify your lifestyle to not use any and then stop harping on it like a shrill schoolgirl. Even a parrot should be able to figure this one out, no one requires you to drive an SUV to work or to haul little Billy to Little League practice in it...40 miles away from your home. You don't NEED your monster truck to cruise the mall hoping young women will overlook your lack of intellect and vehicular overcompensation for it and...other things....just change your damn behavior and stop whining already.

 

[KissMy]

Saudi is bringing 2 entirely new oil fields on-line. Just one of these new oil fields contains more oil than the entire USA. Saudi Aramco is using the USA's horizontal drilling techniques that now allow them to extract 10 times more oil from their oil reservoirs & formations than they ever could before. They & the rest of the world will not peak in oil production for many, many years. Likely 50 years or more according to Saudi Aramco's Ali Al Naimi.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP6DhKGDzek&feature=fvwrel"]The Oil Kingdom: Part One[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1t4ue-WmlU&NR=1&feature=fvwp"]The Oil Kingdom: Part Two[/ame]

 

[sparky]

Saudi Aramco is using the USA's horizontal drilling techniques that now allow them to extract 10 times more oil

much Saud oil is salinated , not as pristine as it once was.

they wouldn't be looking at techniques like sideways drillage if they were lousy with oil......


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt3dGOTyGaE&feature=player_detailpage]‪If You Don't Understand Peak Oil Or Think It Is Not For Real - See This Video‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[editec]

Energy used to be relatively cheap. That is not a theory, this is a fact. I know because I was THERE as an adult buying that cheap energy (as were many of us over 50 years old)

The price of gas used t to be about 1/5 of minimum wage per hourly rate. Now its more like 1/2 minimum wage per hourly rate

So energy isn't cheap anymore by comparison to say the late 60s.

Whether that's the result of diminishing reserves or market manipulations I am not qualified to say.

But to dismiss that rising cost as not important?

That POV is just quite simply put -- stupid as hell.

 

[RGR]

Saudi Aramco is using the USA's horizontal drilling techniques that now allow them to extract 10 times more oil

much Saud oil is salinated , not as pristine as it once was.

they wouldn't be looking at techniques like sideways drillage if they were lousy with oil......

Oh. Really? So if I produce 2 million barrels a day of fluid, all of which is oil, or 4 million barrels a day, 2 million of which is water, 2 million of which is oil, this is confusing to the average ignorant peaker mind is it? The oil is worth less is it? Us ptroleum engineers aren't smart enough to separate the two? (I'll give you a hint, you let them sit in a tank, and they do all the work for you!)

A quick hint, don't reference Colin for the basics of what petroleum engineers do for a living, wheel him out, let him totter around to make another peak oil call, or two, tell a Zionist story or two, and then wheel him back into a corner before the actual professionals can ask questions which pin down his engineering experience on the basics of oil and gas production. Which is none, if I recall. Colin is an explorationist, I doubt he has ever swung a pipe wrench in anger in his life.

 

[editec]

Saudi Aramco is using the USA's horizontal drilling techniques that now allow them to extract 10 times more oil

much Saud oil is salinated , not as pristine as it once was.

they wouldn't be looking at techniques like sideways drillage if they were lousy with oil......

Oh. Really? So if I produce 2 million barrels a day of fluid, all of which is oil, or 4 million barrels a day, 2 million of which is water, 2 million of which is oil, this is confusing to the average ignorant peaker mind is it? The oil is worth less is it?

If it is MORE EXPENSIVE to pump out of the ground, then YES it is less valuable becuase it COSTS MORE relative to the energy it provides.

Jesus christ on a crutch, where did YOU study economics?

Wherever it was you ought to demand your money back.

 

[RGR]

So if I produce 2 million barrels a day of fluid, all of which is oil, or 4 million barrels a day, 2 million of which is water, 2 million of which is oil, this is confusing to the average ignorant peaker mind is it? The oil is worth less is it?

If it is MORE EXPENSIVE to pump out of the ground, then YES it is less valuable becuase it COSTS MORE relative to the energy it provides.

"Less valuable" meaning, "I don't make as much money on it", sure, the rules of economics apply to the oil and has business. It is the asshats who think that mixing water with oil is some insurmountable barrier I have a beef with.

And in the realm of "everything is relative", a waterflood in the Cow Run at 400' of depth in Ohio is still cheaper than just the operating costs of a single 16,000 producing well in the GOM. You need a more apples to apples example when worrying about the separation or injection costs.

I should also point out that peak oil theory is about aggregated production rates and it is only when the internet pinheads try and pretend they know something about the business do they confuse the costs involved with their religious beliefs.

Jesus christ on a crutch, where did YOU study economics?

Fortunately, I am not an economist. But I think I understand the simplistic example you mentioned well enough. And why even the generalization you made is dangerous when the pinheads mistake it for a truth.

 

[JiggsCasey]

I am not an economist.

That was evident months ago. Considering you dismiss EROEI as a basic measurement of net energy, you're not much of a geologist or mathwiz either.

Dow's down 8% in a week. I'm sure all this market volatility lately has nothing to do with the fear of world energy supplies. The credit/debt bubble has nothing to do with abundant cheap energy, or anything.

Afterall, according to our very own "Jerome Corsi" here, the IEA, the Pentagon, the IMF, the German and British governments, Total Oil, Oxford Univ., and countless other unrelated entities are all "lying" in proclaiming supply/demand shortfall of global energy reserves.

We all wonder where they met to get their story straight.

 

[RGR]

I am not an economist.

That was evident months ago.

Not that a parrot would know.

Considering you dismiss EROEI as a basic measurement of net energy, you're not much of a geologist or mathwiz either.

I dismiss EROEI as a measure of value in the exploration, development, distribution or use of crude oil and natural gas. Your reading comprehension hasn't improved in your absence. I recommend you rent a first grader to read what I write, and explain it to you. Then you can parrot him/her, with the corresponding advantage of appearing more intelligent.

Afterall, according to our very own "Jerome Corsi" here, the IEA, the Pentagon, the IMF, the German and British governments, Total Oil, Oxford Univ., and countless other unrelated entities are all "lying" in proclaiming supply/demand shortfall of global energy reserves.

Parroting only the most recent studies which you haven't read, but think support your religious beliefs, does not change the quality of your reading comprehension, or the incoherence of those religious beliefs.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Parroting only the most recent studies which you haven't read, but think support your religious beliefs, does not change the quality of your reading comprehension, or the incoherence of those religious beliefs.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that, loser. I've read every word of their reports. It's you who hasn't. If you had a real angle to dispute their unanimous findings that supply/demand shortfall is imminent, you would flesh it out rather than this latest round of surrender.

Anyhoo.... That's the Pentagon, the IEA, the IMF, the US DoE, and on and on and on who disagree with you.... Meanwhile, you're sure you're smarter than all of them. But, you just can't put your finger on why. LOL...

Once again, just to review: Mankind reached a peak of world conventional oil production somewhere between 2004-2006. Discovery rates the past 40 years do NOT indicate any real increase there, only a decline. We are resorting to far more expensive, heavier oils in order to make up the difference. ... The global markets - buoyed by fiat currency and inflated stock values on the promise of abundant cheap energy - are now panicking in advance of that absolute certainly.

Period. End.

But I'm sure you'll fire back with the promise of magically replenishing oil fields, shale gas expansion, and the wonders under the polar ice cap. Those silver bullets should be along any week now, just in time to stave off the DOW's free fall.

 

[RGR]

If you had a real angle to dispute their unanimous findings that supply/demand shortfall is imminent, you would flesh it out rather than this latest round of surrender.

Surrender? Is that what it is called when the single report you claimed to have read could be refuted by the same report, in a single paragraph I quoted?

And since then you have wisely decided to not choose another.

Once again, just to review: Mankind reached a peak of world conventional oil production somewhere between 2004-2006.

Sure. Just like we did in 2000. 1991. 1979. 1973. I forget the others, I calculated them back to 1920 once, and it turns out they average about 9 years between peaks over the past century.

Discovery rates the past 40 years do NOT indicate any real increase there, only a decline.

600 billions barrels in reserves around 1980. 600 billion barrels consumed since 1980. 1400 billion barrels in reserve now. Fortunately, while not discovering any oil, we sure discovered alot of oil!

But I'm sure you'll fire back with the promise of magically replenishing oil fields, shale gas expansion, and the wonders under the polar ice cap. Those silver bullets should be along any week now, just in time to stave off the DOW's free fall.

Not even a parrot is dumb enough to confuse their religious beliefs with what the DJIA did this week. You must be Jiggsy!

 

[JiggsCasey]

If you had a real angle to dispute their unanimous findings that supply/demand shortfall is imminent, you would flesh it out rather than this latest round of surrender.

Surrender? Is that what it is called when the single report you claimed to have read could be refuted by the same report, in a single paragraph I quoted?

Sorry, no it did not refute anything. That's just you re-writing history and hoping onlookers buy your latest round of fraud.

And since then you have wisely decided to not choose another.

Actually, liar, I confirmed the conclusion with several other reports... Including the Pentagon's 2010 JOE:

"By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 MBD. ...

A severe energy crunch is inevitable without a massive expansion of production and refining capacity. While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China and India.

At best, it would lead to periods of harsh economic adjustment. To what extent conservation measures, investments in alternative energy production, and efforts to expand petroleum production from tar sands and shale would mitigate such a period of adjustment is difficult to predict. One should not forget that the Great Depression spawned a number of totalitarian regimes that sought economic prosperity for their nations by ruthless conquest."

Gee, sounds about what we've increasingly seen since early 2010, and getting worse.

Oops, here's a few more who must all be in on "the conspiracy:"

A think tank of military experts close to the White House published a study in October that emphasized the necessity for the American armed forces to exit from petroleum between now and 2040. The Center for a new American Century explicitly makes reference to a near-term decline in the world's production capacity in black gold.

Must all be lying, or dumb. But why?

Once again, just to review: Mankind reached a peak of world conventional oil production somewhere between 2004-2006.

Sure. Just like we did in 2000. 1991. 1979. 1973. I forget the others, I calculated them back to 1920 once, and it turns out they average about 9 years between peaks over the past century.

Gosh, all my adversary here can cling to is to straw man past alleged "peaks" that no one in this discussion has ever claimed. Nevermind that the guy kicked his ass all over this sub-forum has reminded readers that the difference between then and now? Discovery rates have plummeted. But never fear, Drebbin here can just play fun with numbers!:

Discovery rates the past 40 years do NOT indicate any real increase there, only a decline.

600 billions barrels in reserves around 1980. 600 billion barrels consumed since 1980. 1400 billion barrels in reserve now. Fortunately, while not discovering any oil, we sure discovered alot of oil!

Cooked 1980s OPEC books and heavy oil reserves notwithstanding, of course. The depth of your fraud and obfuscation is boundless.

But I'm sure you'll fire back with the promise of magically replenishing oil fields, shale gas expansion, and the wonders under the polar ice cap. Those silver bullets should be along any week now, just in time to stave off the DOW's free fall.

Not even a parrot is dumb enough to confuse their religious beliefs with what the DJIA did this week. You must be Jiggsy!

LOL.... There is absolutely no doubt in any rational person's mind that the credit bubble is directly related to the end of cheap energy. Only a contributor here with absolutely no idea of energy's relation to the global economy (population: you) with insist otherwise.

Ah well, toolbox... Here's another "conspirator" fleshing it all out for you:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNLMdE8pm_A]Peak Oil - David Strahan BBC Newsnight Interview - YouTube[/ame]

Let's see how many times RGR here can ironically type the word parrot over and over again while consistently missing the underlying point.

STFU and GTFO

 

[BoycottTheday]

Exxon, U.S. Government Duel Over Huge Oil Find - WSJ.com

 

[RGR]

There is absolutely no doubt in any rational person's mind that the credit bubble is directly related to the end of cheap energy. Only a contributor here with absolutely no idea of energy's relation to the global economy (population: you) with insist otherwise.

No rational person confuses a peak oilers religious beliefs with the overall topic of energy. Energy isn't just cheap, it is free you halfwit. Stick your hand outside the window on a sunny day and experience it for yourself.

Just because your religion has forced you to accept that some particular subset of the energy story takes precedence over all others doesn't mean your priests are right, only that you are stupid enough to have fallen for the propaganda.

Stop parroting and think for yourself already. Stop pretending oil is synonymous with energy. Don't you have a church meeting somewhere missing one of the gullible?