Lol. Sure it is Jiggs. Sure it is.

I'll answer your question when you answer mine. Seems fair since I asked first.

Already did... numerous times now.

Anyhow, I guess you don't have the courage to put a rosie spin on how you envision the affects of such a drop amid a global economy already slowing down. For some reason, you don't seem willing to "quantify" your prediction of a "fairly standard" market drop of 30-50%.

Run along then. In the meantime, do brush up on crucial definitions like EROEI and unconventional oil before next time.

I envision the affects of such a drop will be similar (in order of magnitude) to past instances as will the subsequent recovery.

My point is that you have 'a position' that you consider axiomatically true (based on the price of oil) and that only has one prediction - which is an event with a decent probability of happening even if your position is completely ridiculous.

Like I could literally say "My dog shat three times today so I think there'll be a market crash in the next 4 years", but a market crash happening isn't proof of my position.

You don't have a single prediction implied by your actual beliefs. The only thing like it was 5 years ago when you predicted a 10 million bpd shortfall in oil by 2015. And look how that turned out. No wonder you refuse to make those predictions anymore.

And, in terms of conventional oil production, I don't see how that is wrong. Flat for 9 years, there IS a shortfall of 20:1 crude, and the world is very, very ill as a result.

But then, you don't understand the difference between actual oil and oil derived from synthetics, so I'm not really surprised.

You can point to unconventionals maintaining overall production growth all you like, but it's killing the global economy and its near-term future is doomed, both from geological and economic standpoints. It's also horribly inefficient in terms of BTUs per unit of volume, devastating to the environment and requiring hockey-stick like levels of investment.

This is like putting a gauze pads over a deep laceration, and pretending I was wrong in saying that it needed to be stitched up all because you don't see blood anymore.

Jiggs, Jggs, Jiggs: Your argument wasn't about conventional oil. It was about total oil production. You even made jokes about how there was no way oilsands or shale would make it up. Nice try though.

And you're STILL missing the point. When you're trying to convince people to make a drastic change to their lifestyle - you need to explain what the cost of not making that change is.

I don't see a conventional in:

Yeah, that quote is in reference to the EIA's own graph:



Because that's what the EIA forecast, not me. What they got "wrong" was missing the capacity for ponzied investment dollars to maintain the white wedge of "unidentifiable projects" for a few years. Do you believe the industry can maintain production growth despite a 10% annual cost increase? If unconventionals make up roughly 6M bpd today, are you confident it can be some 60M bpd in 15 years?

The more telling aspect of that graph is the downward sloping red and light blue wedges, which subscribe to a 5% annual decline rate of existing conventional fields. This has held up, and will only get worse.

There is absolutely no way unconventionals can keep ramping up enough to 1) make up for that loss, nor 2) maintain overall production growth on top of that loss. This is the part where it's mentioned they have to keep running perpetually faster in order to just stay in place.

You're essentially lolling over the wonders of very short-term junk investment that is already showing major cracks. In short, your heroes of finance delayed the inevitable for a few short years.

Just admit that you were wrong and now tried to lie about it.

What's the "oil shortfall" going to be in 2020? I'm sure future jjshabado will still enjoy a good laugh.

Again, that was the EIA.

But you just revealed the entire reason you demand concrete predictions... Just as I thought.

You can't counter the fundamental proponents of the discussion, so you focus 100% of your effort on whether or not I'm 100% accurate in anything I've offered about an uncertain future. You don't have the courage to answer my questions of you, because you know the trend of production can't continue. ...

The trend of you dodging any meaningful discussion? I'm pretty sure that trend will continue.

I don't think I've ever hidden my justification of laughing at you. At least not since long before in this thread when I pointed out you don't understand basic supply/demand economics.

So just to be clear, my focusing on your lack of meaningful predictions is two-fold:

1. Without you explaining what you think the consequences of not acting are, there's no point discussing whether we should act or not. You're crippling the most meaningful part of the discussion of peak oil. (Like I said, nobody disagrees with the fundamental idea of a finite resource running out as we use it. The disagreement is on when/how that happens/works).

2. Since I'm extremely confident your logic and arguments are flawed, you making predictions means I believe I'll be able to mock you in the future. If you had true confidence in your predictions you'd make them - so that you in turn could use those to mock future me (and convince other people you were right all along).

Similar to how I view you... The reality is I at least attempt to answer your questions. You, however, completely ignore most of mine. From now on, every time you ignore a challenge put to you, I'll go ahead and put you down as not disputing the point within.

No, that would be you. Because in order for that to work, you'd need to allude to a replacement. Saying "see, as prices rise, people used less!" without identifying what they switched to in order to maintain growth doesn't really show how peak isn't happening. In fact, it's underlining that peak is happening by conceding reduced buying power.

So don't act. Again, I don't need to convince you. I'll just continue to show that it is happening, as $16 trillion in TARPs and QEs and other bailouts help confirm, along with shale liquidations and majors' CAPEX reduction. At that point, it's up to people like you to either accept it, or soothe your vulnerable, sensitive BAU mindset with a counter-narrative as to what is really causing all of that. (still waiting to here about it)

LOL... You don't even understand some basic terms involved in this discussion, so your "extreme confidence" is pure hubris. Still waiting for you to admit you didn't understand that unconventional oil refers to a specific definition.

We're hundreds of posts in here, and you haven't really countered anything that I've said. All you've done is hand-wave, pretend alternatives (that you can't actually identify) exist, show one entry where I cited the EIA missing on unconventional production, and shout "you're wrong" a whole lot. That's it. ...Then, when I ask questions that might get you to actually flesh out what I'm fundamentally wrong about, you ignore them and shift gears to something else. That's the extent of your efforts in this thread.

So like I said: ... If I say take the points on a game, I don't need to give you the final score. You can jump up and down and act like a toddler all you like. But you can't say I haven't given a prediction.

In any event, do keep your money right where it is, JJ... I'm sure the next 20 years will be as smooth as the last 20, only bigger! And better! Because alternatives!!!

Bull****. I know you're delusional, but come on. You haven't told me the consequences a single time.

Not to mention I answered like 8 of your questions. You know, the questions you said if I answered you'd then answer my question - which of course you didn't.

Once again, dip****: Market volume crash of 30-50% within 4 years (due to shrinking global net energy production).

How the F can I spell out the "consequences" of that scenario for goofy, arrogant you? I don't know you, or anything you're invested in.

And half of which you agreed with my position, the other half you kind of did, while either not understanding the terms or admitting "it's complicated."

Jiggs,

You have said nothing in this entire thread other than we are too dumb to understand the gravity of the problem and how it will affect society. JJ says: Assume you are right about Peak Oil, enlighten me on how it will affect society. You say: I have no idea.

Rinse. Repeat. Do you see how this can be frustrating?

Considering you're clearly talking about me without addressing me, I'll respond here:

1. Never suggested such a scenario
2. It already is to expensive to extract (and shale liquidation has begun) for the purposes of producing any higher, so production growth is maintained only by debt (until it isn't)
3. Never said civilization would end. There are substitutes for some small aspects of what oil/gas provides, but none that can be ramped up on a mass commercial scale.
4. We already are. Post 36 indicates how it's too cheap for producers to maintain free cash flow.
5. Soooo, we extract the hardest stuff first and come back to the easy stuff later? Cool story, bro. Oh, wait. I know what you mean: New technology will arrive wicked soon to trump physics and make it super efficient to get oil and gas to the masses!!

So, 40% of the "issue" you have is based on straw man arguments... Another 40% is based on conditions that already exist... And the last 20% is that you have an issue with anyone accepting the basic law of diminishing returns. Got it.

condensed jiggs

'Peak Oil' Debunked, Again. http://www.wsj.com/articles/peak-oil...ain-1417739810

I don't have a WSJ login anymore, since they're essentially a mouthpiece for ... well, Wall St. ... But considering they're quoting long-discredited Daniel Yergin as a basis for their article, I can rest assured it's not worth reading. This is a man who insisted the price of oil was destined to fall throughout the 2000s. One could easily lose a fortune by following CERA's advice on oil bets throughout the 2000s.

I don't see U.S. production passing Saudi next year, considering all the news reports that puke in the face of this one. But even if we do pass Saudi in actual barrel count, we're still trumpeting crap-grade oil that burns about half as efficiently, and doesn't provide many of the roles that sweet crude oil provides.

It is amusing watching people like DiB here fawn over the rare article that supports his work-backwards-from-a-conclusion strategy, while ignoring the 12 others that tell quite the opposite.

But not as amusing as watching CERA and the WSJ insist star-spangled America is gonna keep right on increasing production while report after report asserts droves of companies are already cutting back on spending.

Surely that means nothing, however, and the drilling that's already paid for will more offset that loss, and then some!!

*edit: how is Gambool's thread doing since I gave him the nudge he needed to provide desperately needed content? Did someone come save it?

Just to be sure I understand you here, are you seriously - seeeeeriously - suggesting Peak Oil is well supported and widely accepted, and that those who are incredulous are in the minority with little evidentiary support?

summarized jiggs

is this where we discuss how record-high oil prices b/ of peak oil are impacting out lives, and the fate of civilization as we run out of energy?

Among the scientific community? Absolutely
Among cultists of finance? Not as much, no

In any event, good job completely ignoring the rest of my post... Because you have to.

No, this is where we discuss how global net energy has been plummeting for decades and how production rates are already not meeting capitalism's growth needs, regardless of price.

This is also a place for cornucopians to argue how replacements will ease us into transition smoothly because free markets ... while also arguing we don't need replacements because fracking.

for those not understanding why net energy is important:

lol jiggs

if that was true weird how prices are coming done. You don't get to cite charts that are directly contradicted by facts.