Read slower next time. I mentioned oil transporting nations.
Oh. You mean...like a nation grows wheels...and...transports itself? Silly me, not understanding that one, can't say I've ever seen a nation doing this so my experience with them is limited.
Jiggscasey said:About all you have is innuendo.
Well, that and past peaks, claims of peak decades ago, and countries which don't give a whit about Hubbert's method for NOT predicting their production rates. Its usually called "reality".
Jiggscasey said:You danced around every passage, and ignored the ones you could not spin (the ASPO video). You're not fooling anyone here, Drebbin.
ASPO Utube videos as a reference? You do understand what footnotes are for don't you? And why scientists use them in peer reviewed science journals? And how ASPO video's don't have any? Do you even know what science is, or are you really so intellectually limited to think that a VIDEO is somehow relevant? Want me to put together a video saying peak is a religion, and posting it on utube? Then I can quote it as an authoritative reference? Will you believe me then, heck, I would have a video!
Jiggscasey said:It's hysterical that you would dismiss the conclusions reached by our own Joint Chiefs and U.S. Dept of Energy as part of some vast conspiracy.
It's because I am aware of their history. The military was scared spitless of predicted peak back during WWI, you act like them doing this routine all over again is new to you. Why? Don't they teach basic history at Peaker Seminary? And you haven't provided the reference for the DOE position on peak oil...why not? You keep whining about everyone else needing references, and then you can't provide an easy, taxpayer funded and undoubtedly listed on a website somewhere one yourself?
Jiggscasey said:The entire executive summary explains their conclusion, but there, in one sentence, the IEA has finally waved the white flag and admitted we are AT peak.
Why are you surprised? We were at peak in 78/79, went on for more than a decade. So we've got another one? Or yet ANOTHER one in the future? Cool....think anyone will notice any of them either?
[quote="JIggscasey]
I'll let you scramble to "the Google" now to desperately try and discredit the IEA. Commence epic Fox Newslike spin in 10... 9... 8... [/quote]
Why would I do that? Last year they said we were good to go until 2030. This year we're still good to go to 2035, you provided the information in your own graph. What are you whining about? Peak oil happened, yeah! Now bring on all the other stuff growing oil production to 2035. Certainly I'll take IEA's word for those volumes over a peaker any day of the week. Thanks for the graph.
Jiggscasey said:You guys don't really know where that gap is going to come from.
Sure we do. Same place its been coming from for decades. Are you really this ignorant about where future oil supply comes from? Here's the next 30 or 40 years. Take a second, learn something.
JPT: The Next Trillion: Anticipating and Enabling Game-Changing Recoveries April06
JiggsCasey said:As to your confusion regarding sands/shale belonging in the equation I put forth.... well, I'd bring be happy to engage in the topic of net energy, and the EROEI terminology that you dickishly pretend we don't understand ....
I haven't seen you list an equation yet, and I certainly don't presume you even know the difference between sand and shales. I also doubt you know anything about EROEI. I'll even bet that if challenged you will come back with another advocacy link, like that video, and when asked to defend it yourself, will change the subject. Your interest in being a parrot for the cause, while admirable, hardly does you credit. You already asked someone else about discoveries not replacing consumption and when EIA information can be used to demonstrate otherwise, you don't mention that particular point again. Hoping we'll forget are you?
JiggsCasey said:You seem rather hopeless, for all your arrogance.
Of course I'm hopeless, from a parrots point of view. Parrots aren't designed to have conversations on a topic, all they can do is...parrot. You can't even DEFEND the idiot statements made by your sources, like I said, I won't even presume you know the difference between sand and shales. Take up a hobby....go read a book. Start with Oil Panic and The Global Crisis by Gorelick, it has footnotes and everything.
JiggsCasey said:Thus, we get back to the irony of your post above. Do you have any idea what you're talking about at all on this topic?
Oh, and P.S.: Carter wasn't really wrong.... Neither was the 1970s report "Limits to Growth." ... Do better.... Mmm-kay, straw man champion?
Carter didn't base his running out in the 80's on the Limits to Growth. And of course Carter was wrong, do you know what the Fuel Use Act was? And why it proves Carter was wrong? Or isn't that Carter in Peaker U. either?
And if you can't do anything but parrot peaker dogma, I'm not about to explain the use of exponential growth in ANY model, and what a natural outcome to such modeling might be.