First, you weren't right about conventional peak.

But even if you were, you miss the point. The super simplistic part of this argument is that we're not talking about a specific thing like what you define as 'conventional oil'. The argument against peak oil has never been that a finite resource can't be used up. It's that economic and technological forces will mean that as we use up one finite resource (your narrowly defined conventional oil) we'll find ways to get things done with a different resource. And that's exactly what's happened every year so far.

I doubt you'll find anyone that would bet a sizeable amount of money against production declining next year and prices rising again.

The problem is you can't seem to think past one step. When prices rise, production will start again. And yes, there may be short-term periods of some economic pain when oil spikes, but that's also offset by short-term periods of some economic gain (like what'll happen now with prices so low).

Anyway, let's make some sort of quantifiable guess for 5 years out.

I'm going to say by the start of 2020, the advanced economies will experience an average annual growth of 1% or more.

Sigh so this, but jiggs is ghana jiggs.

LOL!!!!!!!!!! ... the $16 trillion in global bailouts and QE since the 2008 crash kinda says otherwise, dip****

http://www.forbes.com/sites/traceygr...nder-reported/

Sure does, deep thinker.

It costs about $16 to produce a barrel of Middle East crude.
It costs somewhere between $50-100 to produce a barrel of oil from shale formations...

I was being kind.

Neither is climate change. But the tendency is around the same.

You're the worst poster in the forum, and your work the last dozen or so posts has you right in line with your sub-Mendoza batting average.

jiggs it doesn't take 50-100 to produce a barrel of oil in shale. It takes, at most, 42/barrel for the Bakken formation to remain profitable, not just the cost of producing. And you're making **** up about it being twice as easy to burn.

Seriously bro, go the **** away and peddle your failed theories elsewhere.

Oh, and lets make another thing clear. Jiggs just said that shale oil needs prices between 50-100 per barrel. Ok, whatever. These lower prices still need shale to be sustainable. So guess what is going to happen Jiggs? This is like the reverse of why peak oil won't work.

If prices break shale oil those sources will stop being used, and then, SHOCKER, start being used when the price rebounds. Either way, prices are low. Meanwhile, jiggstard used to say that oil could go over 200/barrel because we were going to run out of oil.

It's important to remember exactly how ****ing stupid this guy is and what he used to say.

Yup, sure was. We reached the plateau of conventional production in 2005, and haven't budged since (in fact, it's actually down slightly since then).

No, that would be you.

The super simplistic part of your argument is that you appear to have no concept of varying production costs.

"Economic and technological forces" haven't kept the price of oil down, and in fact it's still up some 400-500% in 20 years.

I see what you're trying to claim, but it just doesn't pass the sniff test. It's the same default rationalization from you free marketeers. Global crude consumption hasn't waned. Price hasn't come back down and stayed there. Wages haven't kept up with this kind of energy inflation, either.

Despite all this economic hardship, NOTHING is in sight to replace fossil fuels despite decades of trying. Quite the contrary, the very best we've come up with is pouring hundreds of billions in investment into far less-efficient (and far dirtier) forms of the crude we're already addicted to.

That depends entirely on how high their borrowing ceiling can be raised. Our guess is that's at its limit, and the economic fallout will kick into higher gear next year. A lot of these leases are paid for already, so some drilling will obviously continue. But new projects at this price? Nope. Total liquids decline is inevitable by 2020, and likely sooner.

The irony here is priceless.

Cool story.

I guess you envision these companies that default and/or dump CAPEX will just mothball their infrastructure until the price is right, then spring back to life and get back to work again? And sure, the price will stay high THIS time around? The consumer will be able to afford $100 THIS time? ... lulz

At several junctures here, I have discussed the well-known term "bumpy plateau" used by sustainability proponents to describe the era we've faced since conventional production flattened out.

- Prices rise until a ceiling is met and economies begin to buckle
- Previously uneconomical oil is overproduced for a while, creating an assumed "glut"
- Prices drop as demand is crushed due to high energy prices
- Marginal oil fields become uneconomic again
- Demand regains traction with prices down
- Prices rise until a ceiling is meet and economies begin to buckle

rinse, repeat... It's happened several times now the past 10 years. This is little different than what happened in late 2008, when the same "traditional economist" disciples like you insisted there was no supply problem because prices where back down to $40 in short order.

If demand returns, of course prices will rise again, and your heroes (or new heroes) will - in theory - get back to producing. And then we'll see the results that a whole new round of $100 oil will do to the global economy.

It's quite the paradox, isn't it? (This cycle will continue until it doesn't -- when conventional decline begins and quickly outpaces unconventional gains.)

The problem is each time around, the industry has to procure way more investment.

CN: In 2005, we reached 73 million barrels per day. Then, to increase production beyond that, the world had to double spending on oil production. In 2012, we’re now spending $600 billion. The price of oil has tripled. And yet, for all that additional expenditure, we’ve only raised production 3 percent to 75 million barrels per day [since 2005].

Are we talking about GDP? For the U.S.? Half what it is today, which is less than ideal already? ... If so, not good enough. And you haven't really refuted the affects of peak oil pointing to that paltry level of growth. You've underscored it.

This was already covered. Bakken is Bakken, not the industry as a whole. Further, 42 likely refers to the best plays in the first year of production. The vast majority of literature on the subject insists on a price above $80.

Read more, asshat. You don't know what you're talking about.

It's not a theory any more than water freezing at 32F is a theory.

Tell you what, excitable worst poster ever: If/when mankind gets up to, say, 97 million barrels per day of total liquids production (without changing the definition again), I'll go away. If, however, annual production levels off or starts going backwards, you go away, never to return to the 2+2 forum as a whole.

Fair?

*edit: the crux of your other dumb, hissy-fit post was covered above*

lulz water's freeze point can be at any temperature between 0 and -20 C jiggs. You're not better at science than me. None of that post actually refutes anything said by me.

Classic hand-wave.

I guess you won't take the bet then, will you, coward?

Ofc not. I don't care jiggs. The total amount of production is not key to why you're wrong. If production goes way down, it will be because we aren't demanding as much oil, not because of peak oil.

LOL!!! ... This is a little like saying an AIDS patient didn't die of AIDS, he died of pneumonia. Well, OK.

The only (ONLY) reason demand would go down is because of deteriorating economic conditions. It won't be due to "innovation," champ. Because alternatives ain't here yet, and likely won't ever be.

Anyhow, run along then, angry con. You're badly outmatched again.

Alternatives don't have to be available, we can simply use oil better (and well, natural gas too). Of course, you ignore facts like the USA is still growing at a comfortable clip while oil use 'peaked' around 2005.

Well, no... not really "comfortable," and definitely revised downward most every quarter.

But you ignore facts that it needed $85 billion of monthly cash injections for years in order to get "comfortable."

I do love when a con trumpets the virtues of Keynesian economics, however.

Peak oil!

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ame...1-26?link=sfmw

lol you look at revisions instead of the total numbers? Nice.

LOL... fail journalism.

If OPEC were being crushed, they would have agreed Thursday to lower output. It's the shale industry that just took a kick in the balls.

You don't get how this works, do you?

No OPEC, at least parts of OPEC, and russia are getting crushed.

lol ok Jiggsy, just hand wave. Winning move.

Venezuela, for sure. But not the "swing" producers. Not Saudi.

Anyhoo.... here we are:

OPEC move puts US shale in tight spot

"OPEC is all in and will continue to flood the globe with oil in an effort to bury the US shale oil producer," said Phil Flynn, senior market analyst at the Price Futures Group.

OPEC head plays down US shale threat

"I think the American press is exaggerating this quantity," he said. "That's the message I am trying to get across: please be cool, don't exaggerate the production of tight oil (in North America) because it will decline."

Oil Tanks After OPEC Fails to Cut Production; US Shale Gas Targeted?

An open question is how many banks have high exposures to energy companies. Keep in mind, as many banks learned to their woe in the early 1980s oil rout, that it isn’t just the direct exposures that wind up counting. Being a lender to real estate developments in oil boom towns also puts one at risk.

clearly you need a better grasp of what the term means...

But in reality, it's only burying venezeula and russia.

you only mentioned one member of OPEC, which I already conceded... In any event, your irrational hatred of leftist nations aside, be very careful what you wish for.

Again, the marketwatch story is horrible. ... OPEC as a whole has U.S. shale by the balls. That's because their product is simply better, and cheaper.

Jiggs you're a moron.

http://m.seekingalpha.com/article/27...?source=feed_f

venezuela, libya, iran and others. shut up jiggs, gradation how does it work?

LOL... Seeking Alpha has a long-standing history of acknowledging peak oil. Your author there is unaffiliated with them.

In any event, I don't think the story means what you think it means in terms of OPEC being in more trouble than the U.S. shale industry. Read it again.