I'm away for a week, and this is what you respond with? More squawking about your shale gas punt regarding the Hirsch Report, coupled with pretentious posturing and "you're dumb" ineffectual ridicule? FAIL!
You were no more specific in your question about how YOU define peak than clear in what density of oil you will, or won't, count.
Actually, I've been quite specific. Contrary to you flat-earthers, peak does not have to be a specific date set in stone. A ballpark assessment is plenty adequate. One need merely to take a look at total liquids production over a period of 10-15 years to see, unequivocally, that liquids have essentially flat-lined for the past 6 years, with some short blips up and down along that 6-year axis.
To the encyclopedia's definition, peak is the point at which world light crude production reaches its highest point before terminal decline. Whether it plateaus for 1 hour, or 10 years, isn't really the point -- because longterm decline is all that follows.
The more refined definition of peak is the general price point at which (harder to reach) energy becomes too expensive for investment and consumption, and thus, impossible to maintain growth. The ramifications of that end of growth ARE the residuals of peak. When one recognizes that demand can be crushed with raised prices, thereby extending (or flattening) Hubbert's curve, he hasn't debunked peak at all, he has simply underscored it.
That is what we are seeing today, as the price of just about everything rises WITH the price of oil. Or, did you want to dispute that fact as well, in your never-ending snake oil ploy to remain obtuse, despite joining this forum by admitting it's a finite resource?
You can't go back on that assertion now. You didn't deny peak, you simply insisted it wasn't here "yet." Hopefully, your loyal disciples here remember that fact, especially the idiots who still insist that oil is abiotic.
I recommend going back, asking the Priests what you are supposed to think, and come back and tell us that. Undoubtedly they are more capable in understanding the basics.
Look at you. So adorable, maintaining the charade due to belligerence, while your argument crumbles all around you. Keeping swimming upstream, little salmon. You'll get there.
Richard Heinberg is no priest. Neither is Michael T. Klare, Dr. Albert Bartlett, Chris Martenson, Chris Skrebowski, Jeremy Leggett, Saddad al-Husseini, Jim Buckee or Jeremy Gilbert. ... Oops, wrong again, flat eather. In fact, they're all either former Big Oil CEOs, chief petroleum engineers, or energy/economy analysts, no doubt far more informed than your pretentious nay-saying ass.
JiggsCasey said:
It's called "the bumpy plateau," and it's well established.
Please reference any work by Hubbert where he converted his peak concept into a "bumpy plateau" concept. Just one will do. Show us all how he imagined this bumpy plateau would work? Redeem yourself from past moronic statements and assertions which can't survive even a cursory examination...here is your chance to SHINE!
Straw man creatiion 2.0!! Here, I'll be a perpetual douche like you: Please reference where I suggested that term comes from Hubbert!!! Just one will do. You won't find it, and you know you won't, but far be it from the latest ass clown to make up claims of claims of the other side.
His raw model has been refined. Despite your desperate attempts to pigeon hole every aspect of this debate, no one on our side of the discussion has asserted that every specific angle of Hubbert's model has held up 100%. That's YOUR desperate straw man.
Ultimately, Hubbert's theory is correct, even if the apex of the curve has flattened slightly due to slowed demand growth and very expensive alternatives.
What is "fact" is that you continue to claim that the DOE said something, and when I walk you through what the DOE Hirsch report actually SAYS, it doesn't back up your "Santa Claus / Oil" assertions.
Nice side-step. You didn't "walk" me through anything. You merely punted to shale gas as evidence that Hirsch report was flawed. Then, when challenged to acknowledge shale gas capacity so far in this country, you couldn't, and continued the "you're just dumb" litigation. LOL.... FAIL!
The DoE not only funded and facilitated the Hirsch report, which insists peak is here by 2015, it also is represented by longtime peak denier Glenn Sweetnam's assessment:
The U.S. Department of Energy admits that “a chance exists that we may experience a decline” of world liquid fuels production between 2011 and 2015 “if the investment is not there”, according to an exclusive interview with Glen Sweetnam, main official expert on oil market in the Obama administration.
Gosh, here's the DoE's 2009 round table discussion report, chaired by Sweetnam above. Note page 8!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.eia.doe.gov/conference/2009/session3/Sweetnam.pdf
But nah... The DoE isn't SAYING peak is here, it's JUST saying it's not here if we invest the necessary trillions in maintaining the doomed fossil fuel addiction! LOL!
Washington considers a decline of world oil production as of 2011 - Oil Man - Blog LeMonde.fr
Glen Sweetnam’s warning comes after a long set of warnings dealing with possible troubles ahead on the supply side of the world oil market. Those warnings have been emitted over the last years through a range of sound sources such as The Wall Street Journal, The Houston Chronicle (main daily newspaper of the world capital of crude oil trade), the CEO of Brazilian oil company Petrobras, a former n°2 of Saudi national oil company Aramco, an International Energy Agency ‘whistleblower’, the chief economist of the IEA himself, the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil & Energy Security, or legendary-wildcatter-turned-renewable-tycoon T. Boone Pickens.
Stop creating appeals to authority which don't say what you claim. Or, better yet, show us the part of the report which backstops your position. If you can.
LOL!!! Such a dick.
It's telling watching you desperately attempt to keep me from citing sources you can't spin. Oops, not gonna happen. Unfortunately for your floundering position, "authority" on this topic is almost entirely in my camp, not yours, flat-earther. Not only is authority on my side, but so are world events -- everything from food riots to full-blown revolutions.
Watching the events unfolding in Egypt, are ya? Yeah...Guess what? It conveniently coincides with Egypt's growing oil consumption finally colliding with declining oil output. ... That's not "made up" either, that's assessed from BP's own statistical data. Food subsidies become kinda hard to maintain when you suddenly haveta increase oil subsidies. Get it yet?
Look, RGR. If all you have left in your BB-gun arsenal is to pretend the Hirsch Report is wrong due to shale gas, assert that we somehow adhere to every word of Hubbert's model, and embark on long pretentious narratives of personal insinuation that make you look really insecure, you lose badly. Oh, I forgot... You still have plenty of "reserve growth" claims.
Your entire argument here is like saying Joe Torre was never worthy of being a manager because he could never throw a curve ball. LOL.
Now, I'm sure you'll fire back with another unctuous rant about how I'm a "parrot" and don't know anything, cherry-picking what you can spin while ignoring the main rebuttals... That's to be expected... But I'm going to keep my boot on your throat on a few main contentions, and hopefully you'll man up and respond one of these times:
- How much annual gas from shale has the U.S. successfully produced so far?
- When comparing different energy sources, what is a better measurement for relative energy efficiency than basic EROEI, and why do the following entites and individuals continue to use this "useless" measurement? (tar sands, in this example)
