You sound like a poster frustrated with embarrassment after being shown you don't understand what unconventional refers to, and instead pretended I have my own definition.

I asked you to clarify your understanding of certain aspects before we advance... You're apparently unwilling to do that, likely because your entire argument is based on hope and faith, and you just put that faith in a real bind. With that post (294), you just admitted (perhaps tacitly) the fundamentals of my argument are sound. It's just not gonna affect our bubble economy because technology, because America. Got it.

It's likely you don't understand what net energy is either (EROEI), just said you did and then refused to follow up ... because even when you scrambled to teh Googlez to find out, you still couldn't get your head around the concept. ... You wouldn't be the first person to reject the idea that, yes, it actually costs energy to get energy to market, and that ratio has been shrinking for decades with no end in sight.

So, what you people do is shift away from your own contradictions and shortcomings, and instead you demand concrete predictions (for an extremely complex and uncertain future) so you can latch on to something, ANYthing, to shoot holes in.

I don't have to paint a hi-def picture of the future for you in the face of the billions of different variables in play for how complex societies will respond to shrinking net energy (from war all the way down to a slow and steady unraveling of global markets). Now, you can stomp your feet, fall to the ground and have a hissy fit over that if you like. But it doesn't change the fact that, again, global net energy has been shrinking for decades, and growth is slowing as a result.

If your final punt is to just "skim through that," and not reciprocate in the ongoing give and take, then I guess we can add you to the pile of trolls (See Keed, Gambool, etc.) who ran out of "yeah, but" and prefer to lurk and boo from the stands. ... That's fine, and in the meantime, I'll continue to provide the endless industry news confirming the diagnosis.

What give and take? You haven't given me a single objective prediction. I asked and you've refused, hand waved, and strawmanned what I was asking for. Now once again you're trying to change the subject.

You're a joke.

I love "confirming the diagnosis", you haven't even explained what your diagnosis is in any meaningful way.

Founding Father of Fracking Boom Is Crying the Blues

Billionaire oilman Harold Hamm, referred to by Bloomberg as “the founding father of the U.S. shale boom” who helped drive the discovery and development of North Dakota’s oil-heavy Bakken shale formation, lost half his fortune in the last three months, the publication reports.

You might want to hold those tears for Hamm, who was Mitt Romney’s energy advisor when he ran for president in 2012. Half his net worth still amounts to about $10 billion dollars.

“A huge chunk of the shale oil boom can be traced back to Wall Street, where years of low interest rates have encouraged energy companies to fuel their growth by tapping eager investors in the bond and loan markets,” reports The Financial Times in an article headlined “U.S. Shale Lenders Caught in Energy Sell-Off.” “Massive investment by oil drillers and exploration companies in U.S. energy and shale gas projects in recent years has been partly financed through cheap borrowing in the capital markets as well as loans from banks.”

"So, what you people do is shift away from your own contradictions and shortcomings, and instead you demand concrete predictions (for an extremely complex and uncertain future) so you can latch on to something, ANYthing, to shoot holes in.

I don't have to paint a hi-def picture of the future for you in the face of the billions of different variables in play for how complex societies will respond to shrinking net energy (from war all the way down to a slow and steady unraveling of global markets). Now, you can stomp your feet, fall to the ground and have a hissy fit over that if you like. But it doesn't change the fact that, again, global net energy has been shrinking for decades, and growth is slowing as a result."

Yup

No, that would be you at this point. ... Mmmkay, run along then.

JIIGGSSSS!!!!!!!!!!

... "Yes. And if by 'unconventional' you mean not what you call conventional - I suspect those hard limitations are far far away"

LOL

More than 30%

what happens between world powers at that point is anyone's guess...

Gee, this doesn't bode well for 2015 total liquids production quotas...

Shale Liquidations Begin? Sub-$50 Oil Appears In North Dakota

Oil market analysts are debating if oil will fall to $50. In North Dakota, prices are already there.

…

The cheaper price for North Dakota crude underscores how geographic and logistical hurdles can amplify the stress that plunging futures prices have put on drillers in new shale plays that have helped push U.S. oil production to the highest level in 31 years. Other booming areas such as the Niobrara in Colorado and the Permian in Texas have also seen large discounts to Brent and U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate.

“You have gathering fees, trucking, terminaling, pipeline and rail fees,” Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates LLC in Houston, said Dec. 2. “If you’re selling at the wellhead, you’re getting a very low number relative to WTI.”

“To a producer in Wyoming, if Brent’s $70 then I’m at $50, then I have to start asking does it economically make sense to keep drilling,” Auers said yesterday. “They might start reallocating capital, you might see projects slowed or shut down.”

I wonder if this kind of news story will permeate over to Gambool's lawlVenezuela thread. Probably not.

Then production will go down, prices will rise, then production will go up, prices will go down..... lol jiggs

I can't believe I'm still addressing you, considering you've revealed yourself to be one of the most limited participants in this kind of subject matter. Ah well.

This shoulder-shrug above shows you have no concept of what goes into the process of investing, exploring, applying for land leases, extracting, producing, securing, delivering, refining and delivering again vital oil and gas to the masses. To say nothing of the insane levels of debt currently leveraged upon shale investment, that could far surpass sub-prime. If you had a meager understanding of energy production, you wouldn't dare type something this stupid. Because it is. ... Are you one of those who insisted 2008

Tell us you have zero exposure to energy-related markets, anywhere. Ever.

loooool jiggs

you:



lol ikes, forum's absolute worst poster, as voted by his peers...

jiggs me being voted 'worst poster' has nothing to do with me being wrong here. Everyone thinks you're a ****ing idiot. You really should appeal to popular opinion.

(also, you're not my peer. you're a dumbass with a keyboard)

Well, no. You being wrong stands on it's own. Your WoaT title is mere amusing relevancy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

I kill you every time you make the latest dumb mistake of contributing. Good job hand-waving the affects of volatile oil price, though. Shows you're a sharp one.

Bet idea to spice up this debate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simmons...%93Tierney_bet

30% drops in the market aren't that rare. And given that we're at record highs - isn't a particularly brave assessment.

So right now you claim:

1. All prices of oil indicate disaster.
2. We're going to experience a market crash that could easily be coming regardless of peak oil.

Gotcha.

Edit: So no, you don't get credit for this measurable prediction because it isn't really a prediction of your peak oil views.

Buffalo meat is expensive but there is no problem with supply. This actually supports Ike's point about supply and demand. I eat buffalo meat far more often than I eat beef. Your cartoon is silly and pointless.

Prices crashing indicate an oversupply. Peak oil is about lack of supply to meet demand. Micro economics tells us that producers will not automatically cease production when an activity becomes unprofitable. Jiggs is pretty much telling here I guess.

Oh, you came back. Great.

Never mind that I said "more than 30%." But while market dips of 30% may not be "that rare," they will be particularly painful when most fundamentals (which never really improved) are fairly awful already, and the rest of the world is already slowing precipitously.

LOL... No, you clearly don't "gotcha." You have it wrong again. It would help if you stopped using Ikes' terminology ("disaster") as if it were mine, but whatever.

1. The prices don't indicate "disaster." The critically analyzed forecast of future production indicates "disaster." The industry, and investment in it, are what is going to take a massive hit regardless of the price, because the reserves they claimed are in fact mostly fictional (see Monterey's 96% downward revision, among others). The only way there is no painful shortfall is if the price grows to $150 and the masses can magically afford that for years, or the price dips to, say, $30, and the industry can magically afford that for years. (Those dollar points are rough estimates for the sake of argument, please don't waste time quibbling as if it were used as a specific measuring stick) ... Safe to say, neither of those things is going to happen, and anything in between hurts both ends of the scale to varying degrees. This is because all the cheap oil has been found and drilled. What's left are vast deposits of crap-grade synthetic "oil" which simply don't extract, refine, flow or burn as easily.

2. The market crash (just like the last one), at its root, has everything to do with the decline of net energy. It's not exclusive of it. It's mind-boggling how you could possibly miss that assertion at this point.

Nor was it an accurate assessment of what I've ever said. I've now repeated my position for perhaps the 24th time. Please do better.

We can add you to the long list of poasters who completely underestimates how leveraged the markets are on investment in empty shale oil promises. Considering everything else in the tank already, this is aligned to dwarf sub-prime defaults.

Prices crashing indicate a depressed level of demand. There is no "oversupply," certainly not for what mankind was forecast to need by now. OPEC simply refused to cut what it was producing already. And before you offer a word salad slathered in "fuel-efficient cars" and "effortless conservation," the decrease in demand has WAY more to do with reduced purchasing power across the globe.

Peak oil is about maximum flow rates needed to maintain forecast consumption. The peak occurs when production levels hit an apex and begin to decline. While we are there for (much more efficient) conventional oils, and feeling the affects of that already, we are not yet -- but soon about to be -- there for the unconventionals. This is well documented... pretty much by everyone except those desperate to maintain investment in this ponzi scheme.

Breaking each jiggs post down

Jiggs, you've spent years of your life ranting about this, but the closest we've come to actually finding out what you think will happen is:

1. A fairly standard (non-disastrous) 30% drop in the stock market sometime in the next 4 years.
2. An average annual growth of less than 1% in the G7 nations over the next 5 years.

5 years ago you talked a bit about how we needed to make a massive investment in alternative energy. But if the predictions you're making are on the order of the above: Why would we take a massive hit to our way of life to avoid a not-very-bad outcome?

So obviously you believe it's going to be worse than the two predictions you made above. But you won't actually tell us how bad. And when we use a word like "disaster" you get all whiny that we're putting words in your mouth.

It's like you're bursting into my house and telling me I have to pack up and leave now - without telling me what will happen if I don't.

You're like a 6-year-old changing the subject to deflect shame. You got my position wrong (or were dishonest about it), and aren't big enough to admit it. So you shift away from the line of discussion.

LOL

Once again, I don't have to tell you how bad it's going to be. No one knows how bad it's going to be. And you'll have to take the best course of action for you (or not), based on your exposure, etc. You're welcome to sit right there and maintain BAU in your own personal sphere of finances. ... But yes, I envision a fallout likely worse than the two scenarios you posited (and still got wrong) above.

Do you believe a 30-50% drop in market volume would be "fairly standard" amid the most heroic period of ZIRP and NIRP and the grandest experiment with money printing in global history? Start being honest about the current health of the global economy, please.

You don't have a stated position to misrepresent. After all this time I still have no idea how important you actually think this problem is. You certainly act like its a HUGE deal, but the closer you get to specific consequences the more you hedge, hand wave, and deflect - and the less of a problem you make it seem.

Edit: I think I asked you this before, but let's say you've convinced me and the majority of the public that you're right about the state and future of oil. What now? What do you want us to do?

Still ignoring direct questions put to you and punting to this. Still demanding that final score.

My position is clearly stated, no matter how many times you squawk that you don't see it.

Again, I don't much care what YOU do. I'm not here to convince YOU. I merely enjoy countering dumb BAU logic.

As for society, I've answered this question many times, including that thread where we were asked what we'd do if president. I'd implement many of the steps included in the Rimini (or Uppsala) Protocol, but not all.

I don't have a much faith that leaders of modern industrial nations will start being honest about the data and start making ethical choices, because then those won't be based on corporate profits. Much like climate change, the denial is firmly entrenched while the symptoms continue to grow and widen all around us.

Now please answer my question at the end of post 323.