bump

Jiggs, you're right, I am wrong.








And there are more! These are just a few of your posts I got to by searching for `2015` from your posts in descending date order. I could quote more but I got tired of dealing with quoting your long, ranty, indented posts.

But sure thing Jiggs, you were always focused on 2020...

And just to wrap a bow on it. Let's go back a few posts...

Hmmm... notice in those quotes of yours above how you mentioned multiple times how THERE WAS NO WAY WE'D HAVE ENOUGH OIL IN 2015. IT WOULD TAKE MORE SAUDIA ARABIAS!!!!!!!!!!!! You literally called it an impossibility... and yet here we are...

I wouldn't take their actions seriously as representing environmental concerns. I think they are an energy company and if they think the renewable sector will grow and the fossil fuel sector will shrink then they will invest accordingly. And that's with the understanding that corporations are horrible at long term investments. Any shifts in investments (other than for greenwashing) are about current changes and those in the relatively near future.

If these investments drop away it wouldn't be the first time though and not even for Shell. Shell bought Siemens Solar in 2002 and sold it to SolarWorld in 2006. ARCO solar was the biggest manufacturer in the world in the late 70s and early 80s. I think though that the oil companies knew renewables were a niche market in those days and they had little incentive to be competitive and some incentive not to. At this point it'd be crazy to invest in renewables and not intend to get to scale immediately as it's incredibly competitive.

jjshabado, you are re-writing forum history by not using alternative facts.

JJ... still unclear on a striking difference between conventional oil production, and much higher production-cost unconventional oil supported 100% by unsustainable levels of debt that will never be paid off.

Standard.

Of course, I'm dealing with an individual who once insisted the difference was trivial.

There IS an existing shortfall of conventional oil, the kind that actually allows industrial economies to thrive.

Bro my SUVs don't care what kind of oil they eat

Jiggs, the posts I quoted of yours are about global supply. The only time you mentioned "conventional" in what I quoted was when you wrote:

Any other lies/delusions you've got for us?

Edit: I'd explain to you again the point about conventional vs. unconventional - but you still wouldn't get it, and you'd just take it as an opportunity to run away from this discussion. So please stay on topic and come up with your next crazy-ass rationalization about how everything is going exactly as 2010 Jiggs predicted.

I can't tell who Jiggs is roleplaying. Edgar Cayce? Nostradamus?

Are you capable of saying that you are wrong and peak oil isn't here and hasn't been here yet?

At that time, unconventional tallies that I cited didn't include oil form shale formations, which simply are not making any money. We didn't predict that, because we didn't think the industry would be willing to bury itself in debt with $100 oil price still about $50 less than they needed it to be.

So, like I've said about 100 times: Sure they can (could) maintain tepid production growth for a while by expanding debt, but Wall St. has caught on. The investment capital won't be there, going forward.

Meanwhile, as predicted, the four major shale oil plays (the only thing maintaining production growth since the time period you cite) peaked in 2015, and have been in steady decline since.

LOL... projection much? You're the one who runs.

It's not that I don't get your point, it's that it is irrelevant to what I'm challenging you with.

We absolutely are at peak. Tiny upticks and dips in total liquid production between quarters don't change the longer-term pattern. Today, global production can only "grow" by throwing empty dollars after a net loser. That bill will come due very soon. It already is starting, as the tight oil industry bloodbath makes painfully clear.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia's oil giant is so desperate, it is resorting to an IPO to raise cash.

bump

Exactly. You were wrong.

"The rationale also assumes Saudi oil, due to last about 73 years if pumped at the existing pace, will be viable for decades even if global warming curbs the world’s appetite for crude."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...market-reality


BUTTTTT JIGGGGS knows something more than people who actually make a living reporting or researching the subject.

Lol Jiggs

Such a troll... No, we're right... Because we didn't include a wildly uneconomic substitute, the borrowing for which can never be paid back.

I had hoped at some point you would acknowledge this huge tumor in your "no problem" argument. But I should have known better that you don't have the character, and you'd need cling to any technicality you desperately found.

Unconventional oil doesn't fix the peak oil dynamic... It merely delayed it some 5-10 years, while making the coming crash landing much, much worse.

So once again LOL... your "yeah, but" is past peak. Sorry.

You really are a special kind of stupid. It's the reason I don't really need to bother acknowledging you, and stopped a while ago. But the fact that your story conveys 100% the opposite of what you're trying to claim was too much to pass up this time around.

Read it again, genius. Yeah, I'll be saving this.

Jiggs, this little conversation started with me pointing out that your predictions keep being wrong.

I don't care what delusional reason you think you have for being wrong. I'm happy that you've acknowledged that your predictions WERE wrong. Fees like you could have saved us both some effort.

Has model that predicts X will happen.

X doesn't happen.

Either 1) the model is wrong or 2) reality is wrong.

Time to bump this again.

It clearly refutes your vacuous delusions that have you acting like a douche bag on the internet. You know the delusions jj quoted.

Just remember this Jiggs. You can say whatever you want and act however you want. It doesn't change how stupid you present yourself when your narrative gets disrupted by reality.

No, it doesn't. Read the story. It's a report about Saudi Arabia's No. 1 corporation being less than half as valuable as it wants everyone to believe it is. It's a link that supports my original assertion that Saudi is at peak. The passage you cite literally says "that rationale assumes... etc. etc. etc."

Did you read it while drunk? Or did you just skim it and your arrogant confirmation bias took over?

Why do I waste time with you? You can't even follow the thread exchange.

Projection at its finest. Change definitions, and pretend that's the new reality.

The "reality" you're ignoring is that total liquids growth is only supported by unsustainable, uneconomic alternative technology. Unfortunately for your world of delusion, that mind-numbing level of borrowing has to be paid back.

No, it isn't projection Jiggs. Your refusal to admit you are wrong and then proceed to act like an asshat to people when presented facts that dispute your claim is the reason I laugh at you.

You can say whatever you want. At the end of the day you need to present a case. Which you haven't. When there's journalism that solidly refutes your case you get nasty. As much as you use the word fascism, you have the mentality when it comes to your favorite topic.

Peak earrllllllllll isn't here and won't be while you're alive and you're mad about it.

bump

Lol, Jiggs, I see you just stopped replying to me when I pointed out your web of lies.

LOL.... It's the same arrogant, ignorant argument from each of you in the "no problem" tribe. So, consider my response to Pill D the same as responding to goofy you.

It's completely unsustainable. Pretty basic equation here. You have to actually make more money than you're borrowing and paying dividends out for.