LOL....

- Oil won't go to $50 barring a major global recession crushing demand.
- No, those flights aren't coming back at any price. That's paste out of the tube.

Both of those statements underscore peak oil. Do you have a point, beyond unwittingly supporting mine?

Well, fake liberal painting with broad brush, that would depend on the entirety of his credentials, not just the fact that he WAS an investment banker.

Cept that's not what I do at all. I show the causation, trolls like you don't read it, and then come back later crowing "i'm not convinced, show your work." ... This is why you're reaching irrelevant levels of trolldom.

It is funny watching you try to save face after your ******ed assertion that airline downsizing was caused by mergers. But not as funny as you trying to pretend that NOCs can pick up the slack where IOCs are bailing.

You were warned that energy discussion was beyond your meager capacity, and to focus on other topics, and yet you keep stumbling into the ring like Randall "Tex" Cobb, embarrassing yourself every time.

Gambool... I'll ask again, until you attempt to answer:

what was the root cause of all those major airline mergers the past 6-7 years?

Lol Jiggs.

How did you get the mod position, troll?

You challenged me to answer what I see happening within 5 years. I convey uncertainty at best, and suggest a slightly wider timeframe would bring more assurance of degrowth. Then you loltroll, even though you just asserted growth couldn't possibly be worse than the previous 5 years... (even though it certainly could be).

You've taken a real beating the past dozen posts, JJ. ... You might wanna refine your message, and at least attempt to get mine straight before firing at it.

Wait, so do you admit I didn't strawman you then?

Edit: But by all means, keep asserting how awesome you're doing. Nothing more entertaining than the crazies talking about how awesome they are at debating people.

And what I actually said:

Lol Jiggs.

The presentation argues there are missing flights due to high oil prices. That's false, the reason is industry consolidation. Fuel costs were a factor in airline mergers, but not the only factor or the primary one. The industry has lost money basically forever, consolidating made sense whether prices were $20 or $200

First line is funny, can you find a single post where I self-identify as a liberal?


No, you don't show the causation actually. That's why you get tens of posters on a message board full of smart people scratching their heads when you post.

First is undoubtedly true, second isn't an accurate depiction of my argument.

Sure, if JiggsCasey was the arbiter of record that's probably true. Unfortunately for you, just like the time you tried to arbitrate your own exile bet, that's not how the world works.

I just provided links showing it was undoubtedly the primary cause.

To suggest an industry has been "losing money since basically forever," yet grew for decades is an amusing contradiction. If you want to qualify a date since all the major airlines started operating at a deficit, let's start there. I'm confident it began after oil price began spiking way ahead of normal inflation.

Again, they consolidated due to high costs, most every one of them associated with the high cost of oil, and everything that comes with the high cost of oil. Do better.

Can't really find a single post where you self-identify as anything. You're completely out of your element admitting anything about what you believe or predict, Borges. However, your body of work here and the things you rail against and defend depicts you as a left-leaning moderate with no real stomache for anything radical or unsafe. Fraud.

LOL... Yes, I do... The links, the testimony, the data charts, etc. etc. ... It's not my fault trolls like you pretend they didn't see it, or routinely punt to "tl;dr" over and over and over again. ... See, this is where your troll responses undermine your ability to comprehend later when you actually make an effort to counter my thesis.

You at first glance: "No, that's not the reason. TL;DR"
You later: "Well, that's part of the reason. But here are some others, so it's not the main one."

Oh bull****.

You responded suggesting the drawdown in Capex spending by the majors said nothing of the spending for nationally-owned companies. The clear implication there is that you're not convinced the majors' stepping back a bit can't be atoned for by NOCs and/or smaller companies.

LOL... no, that would be you trying to arbitrate YOUR own exile bet, which you lost. You initiated the bet, got shown up, and then tried to re-write the bet to suit your lame assertion.

ITT Jiggs argues airlines have been a profitable industry historically

Meanwhile in reality, 40 years of cumulative zero operating profit and negative net income (numbers look worse ex Southwest LDO)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...f_failure.html

TY for admitting you were strawmanning.


Posting a statement that says "peak oil caused x" doesn't prove that peak oil caused x.



The implication is you've shown data that doesn't show anything, as you like to do. It doesn't contradict your argument, it just doesn't say much about it.


False. I never tried to arbitrate it and I explicitly said that we needed a neutral third party to arbitrate it. The internet saves your work Jiggs.

Oh, since the mid 70s!!!... You mean right around the time that U.S. production peaked and prices spiked?

Again, how are my links wrong when they claim airline consolidation was caused by jet fuel increase? Again, where are your links showing the other "primary" case of airline consolidation?

No, I admit you sure seem like you lean left, but have no actual sack in supporting left causes. Of course, you could shut me right the hell up by coming out of the closet on where you stand. But being the sideline critic and coward that you are, you refuse to do so, as it would leave you vulnerable in the wake of all the horrible trolling (for the sake of trolling) you've done in the past.

What's safe to say is that you don't really stand for much of anything... Besides supporting failing BAU and yelling "racist!" a lot.

But then, truncating my message and ignoring 90% of what I provide has been standard operating procedure for you, huh fraud?

LOL... it shows oil majors spending more and producing less up through 2012. It also shows them saying "no more," and dumping assets since then. So not only does it not contradict my argument, it also leaves you scrambling to quibble and imply NOCs can pick up the slack.

Still waiting for you to explain how the best and brightest somehow aren't indicative of the industry as a whole.

Anyhow, like I said, ... Growth is already slowing. Conventional production is flat for 9 years. Oil majors are downsizing. Average decline for shale wells is 70% per year. Foreign investors bailing. Cash injection has run its course.

It's requiring more and more tortured logic and ear plugging for your "no problem" narrative to hold water.

It's become more geopolitical, Jiggs.
AFAIK, ISIS/ISIL/whatever the f**k the black-flag guyz call themselves these days have not let up on their grey-market 35-40$/barrel sales.
Of course, no one's copping to actually purchasing it.
[likely suspects: Israel, Japan, China, Russia, USA, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, hell, maybe even a couple sleezebags in Kazakhstan, where they're hiding it under massive piles of pubis.]

But, reselling on the legit markets [67$/barrel @ close, 11/4/14] brings windfalls of the major cha-ching variety.
The volume [estimated @ 3million$/day net for teh caliphate] might be insignificant, however, it exerts what my former mentor, Jim Cramer, refers to as "downward pressure".

Keep in mind that there's a huge consensus that there ain't enough f**king tanks to store all the crude.
Jiggs, from a geological standpoint, yeah, we're either closer or past peak.
But, for all we know, North America might end up being the overwhelming majority of extractables.

A good time to buy Prius's and Cree light bulbs ahead of the curve.

meanwhile...

Is there really an oil glut?
http://www.resilience.org/stories/20...ly-an-oil-glut

The oil industry has been using the term "abundance" for years as a public relations ploy to prevent people from realizing that oil is neither cheap nor abundant anymore. But the word "glut" has produced night terrors in the minds of oil executives. "Glut" implies that investors should stay away from a market that cannot make them any money. "Abundance" is okay for industry television ads aimed at lulling the public and policymakers to sleep. But, "glut" is bad for business.

The real problem is that it is costing more and more to get the oil that remains out of the ground. Consumers will buy oil depending on their ability to pay, not on the price which the oil companies need to charge in order to cover the cost of producing it.

Ironically, the swoon in oil prices could easily lead to renewed price spikes as the price falls below the cost of producing the most expensive barrels of oil. Under such conditions, the industry will stop producing these barrels and supply will decline--leading to another price spike when demand picks up. ...

This is peak oil. This was always peak oil. ... It was never about "running out." ... It was about maintaining global flow rates, and the public's capacity to afford the price needed to do so. Always. ...

Conventional (low-cost) production hasn't budged in 9 years. The oil producers increasingly need the price per barrel much higher than it is today, and even much higher than it has averaged the past four years. ... Consumers will never buy it at the price the producers need it to be, and global growth will increasingly suffer as a result. ... That is peak oil in a nutshell.

Economists can't stand this, because to an economist, no challenge is insurmountable when enough money can be thrown at it. ... Unfortunately, physics insist otherwise.

wat

Jiggs, do you really understand what Economics is about?

Have you been reading this thread?

Jiggs just on a little bit of election night tilt after his prediction of a D controlled Congress came up a hair short.

I should have said "capitalists can't stand this, because to a capitalist... "

But then, those are the pitfalls of dealing with a contingent that ignores 99% of your message, and puts 100% of their effort into the 1% they can suspend all nuance for and quibble with.

A consistently wrong poster here ignored the charts in post#36 and tried to insinuate that as long as overall CAPEX is increasing, there's nothing to worry about. Even if it were true that global CAPEX is increasing (it isn't), it's an assertion that doesn't appear to understand the law of diminishing returns.

As one former petrol engineer put it recently in the PCI forums: "In the eyes of Wall Street, a declining asset base is a death sentence." ... And the oil majors are dumping assets; have been since last year.

If you're spending more and more capital on a lower-grade energy source that doesn't burn as efficiently, you have to harvest that much more of it to do the same amount of work required to maintain growth. Instead, total liquids is barely budging upward, annually, while production costs continue to rise some 10% per year, and global growth is consistently revised downward. And some here continue to wonder what ails the global economy.

Meanwhile, "replacements" and "alternatives" remain in the test phase, and none are ready to trot out on a mass commercial scale any time soon. We continue to throw $ trillions exploring, extracting, refining, protecting, securing, and delivering our hydrocarbon product despite massive increases in cost. There's an obvious reason: Nothing provides what oil and gas does, and (sadly) no one is serious about subsidizing alternatives to the degree needed.

The free market isn't working in this regard, certainly not swiftly enough to insist "peak oil isn't happening," like 99% of this forum has maintained all along ... That's a reality that puts classical econ cultists on tilt, throwing bad bets of denial into the pot over and over again.

Energy dictates to the markets. Not the other way around.

Not sure who you are talking about, but I didn't assert that on CapEx. I would like to establish what the actual facts are before discussing what they mean.

Jiggs, are you aware that operators often refrac shale? Have you seen post-refrac production charts and are you familiar with the costs? I've scanned your citations but do not recall seeing this mentioned.

I've seen the charts. I wouldn't say it's "often,", and it's not producing a significant amount - at $2 million per effort - to offset a 40-60% annual production decline rate.

But the bigger issue: Each time you refrac a well, you use (and pollute) more water than you originally did, which was already devastating (exponentially more with horizontal fracturing). ... And ongoing water shortage - an enormous problem in Texas, Calif., and Colorado already - is a pillar of this topic that we haven't even covered.

In short: 1) Not sustainable. 2) Will not make up for existing decline. 3) Pollution is a cost input the industry perpetually ignores.

There is an economic bloodtrail miles long of people who bet against markets and said "...but X sector is different!" But since Jiggs needs a specific and recent example in the energy sector, check out the battery case. People were saying we could never make an electric car because of fundamental battery capacity limits. It's worth noting, mind you, that there was no incentive to invest in innovation because conventional energy prices were so low. Then cell phones go mainstream and presto battery capacity triples.

Shale reserves and middle eastern volatility is built into current prices. I'll bet on markets doing what they do gradually rather than waking up to a sudden apocalypse of previously unrecognized supply and demand crisis.

Yeah, not sure who was saying we could never make an electric car. Straw man much?

Meanwhile, too bad a battery isn't an energy source ... and a battery won't power a jetliner, nor a ship, nor an 18-wheeler. It also won't fertilize crops or lubricate gears. ... Find a better example, please.

Not really.

You guys just can't focus on what's being discussed, huh? Who said anything about waking up to a sudden apocalype? I mean, besides you?

Ironically, this IS a gradual descent to degrowth, and your market solutions still aren't making much tangible progress. Oh, wait. Fusion and fission, right?

You're either smart enough to know what I was getting at (hint: not refuting any hypothetical point you made about electric cars) and are deflecting, or you're too dumb to engage further. I'm pretty sure it's the former.
So battery powered ships and 18 wheelers are unimaginable to you? You know, as I mentioned previously, electric cars were given similar skepticism in the not too distant past. I think this is a problem with your imagination, not with the potential for bigger battery powered vehicles. The example is a bulls eye.
Oh, well nevermind then! Well played.
Electric car sales have doubled each of the last three years. Hybrid car sales are steadily increasing. I'd call that progress.

And as a bonus treat:

"Diesel fuel is the largest variable cost in trucking, with Class 8 trucks alone consuming more than 19 billion gallons of diesel fuel annually, noted Axion Power Chairman and CEO Tom Granville. It is estimated that the ePower hybrid system, utilizing PbC batteries, will be able to reduce fuel consumption by some 35% going forward."

http://www.axionpower.com/profiles/i...&Category=1562

An electric-propelled class of destroyers for the US Navy.

http://www.defensereview.com/raytheo...-hyper-lethal/