this is my favourite part of this whole thread by a long way

masterful use of the inverted commas

Every passage of this post is laughably wrong and easily dismantled. You are ripe. I especially love the bolded, where you're basically saying, "let the rest of them eat cake." ... LOL ... You literally have zero idea how crucial affordable crude oil is to the global economy you worship so fervently.

If you don't have the guts to create the continuation of your dumb premise of a thread in UC (or at least the science subforum), I guess I'll go ahead and do so. But it is notable you preferred to run your mouth in there, and leave it there, even after you learned I couldn't respond.

If so, hopefully this time I can get a clear definition of what that actually means as they see it. Not have it be unspoken, then "violated" when I enter a thread mulling the origins of Iraq invasion, and curiously remind the forum we just might have invaded for oil, and provide the vast evidence to support it.

Funny.... But see, I would never do that, and never have. Let me repeat that to just to be clear: In none of the threads where global net oil depletion isn't related did I (unsolicited) tie them to global net oil depletion. Never happened. It's a dishonest notion, and you're perpetuating the myth.

Now, if some troll offered a snarky oil-market-related question in a thread about, say CIA atrocity, and I responded? How is that my fault? I didn't initiate the detour, and don't deserve to be banned for it.

But see, I don't need to ever do that - make specific claims about a very volatile and uncertain future. I know that frustrates certain posters here, salivating for an errant throw they can attack. But all I need to do is show how it's already happening. Because it is.

The testimony of countless petrol geologists, a 500% increase in world crude price in 12 short years and widespread energy/food/water conflicts across the globe are all the evidence I really need.

Peak oil is here, just like Hubbert and the Club of Rome said it would be. It may be 5-10 years late due to abundant cheap credit financing the delay, but they were right all along. No one said the affects of peak would be evident overnight. It's called "the long emergency" for a reason. ... The push back on this geological (and economic) inevitability stems from a variety of emotions, most of it fear.

This seems like a strange time to be claiming that peak oil is here. You've managed the hard to accomplish 0-year prediction fail.

Only by the pollyannas' goal-post-shifting definition of the term. But global production of conventional crude remains flat some 9 years running, or slightly below 2005 levels. When conventional (cheap, efficient) crude begins to rise again, the denialists my have an argument. But nine years in, and meager production growth is only maintained by 4x-as-expensive unconventional (and unsustainable) crap-grade oil.

I am unfamiliar with the posting that got you banned.

I'll toss this out there to your critics as a challenge: find the post where you think JiggsCasey's insertion of peak oil into the debate was the farthest from the subject matter being discussed.

Without trying the OP seems like a good candidate.

Yeah jiggs peak oil was never simply about production. It was going to send the world into chaos because the price would get so high. No one ever thought there would be limitless production. Every sane person realized that there was not going to be a malthusian catastrophe because only malthusian idiots predict those.

Not if you use a very specific definition that let's you dismiss half of the oil ever created on earth, boom game set match.

LOL... no, it was and remains about affordable production.

Well, it's up 500% in 12 years, and as a result, we've suffered the worst market correction in 75 years, global wages have stagnated for over a decade, and your heroes are praying for continued Arctic melting to get at more of it. I'd say the BAU approach is in great peril.

there isn't. ... Unless you wanna pretend oil is abiotic. Please try.

Not sure where I predicted a malthusian catastrophe, but the world does need to adjust radically.

It is interesting that this thread has gone just as one's of the past, whereby the usual suspects from Team No Problem can't really defeat the premise, so they shift gears to personal ridicule.

LOL... it is interesting how you keep coming back to this forum to check on me.

How about I let you out of your lost bet of self-exile, and you man up and bring your routinely short-sighted views and arrogant straw man creation to UC on this discussion?

Jiggs, what was the price 12 years ago and what's the price today?

Also, any particular reason you're using the number 12?

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/Lea...et&s=rbrte&f=m

Because that's (1998-2002) when prices began to spike, when it was clear the North Sea had entered terminal decline. Obv. there have been dips here and there, but the longer-term trend has been up, up, up... Of course, most analysts see $100-110 as a ceiling the public can no longer afford.

I've seen you state 500% twice and 4x once ITT. Just wondering what math you're using for that because from your chart I see:

Sept 2002: $28.4
Sept 2014: $97.09

And of course the October 2014 price is going to be even lower.

And your use of 12 years is obviously just because its the date that best serves your purposes. Any date less than 12 years significantly decreases the percentage increase and any date greater than 12 years barely changes the percentage increase.

If you want to know why nobody takes you seriously its because you're disingenuous.

Edit:
If I pick 14 years I see it hasn't even gone up by 3x.
If I pick 6 years I see the price hasn't changed at all!
If I pick 3 years I see the price has dropped 33%!

And what you're doing right now isn't best serving your own "no problem" purposes?

Yeah, your position might have some merit if this wasn't a short-term and very temporary dip in prices. Of course, if we were having this discussion in June, you wouldn't be quibbling over 300% vs. 500%, would you? It's only noteworthy for your spin because demand is crushed (for now) and price has dipped, just like it did at the end of 2008. Meanwhile, it's still blown way up since the North Sea began its death knell. Do you have a counter explanation for that, or are you going to argue that's just normal inflation?

It's annual average that matters here.

Are you quite serious? I could have used numerous dates beyond 12 years that make it closer to a 1,000% increase in price ... Look again.

Meanwhile, I feel precisely the same about people like you. The difference being the verifiable data supports my argument, not yours.

JFC... are we quibbling about time frame here? If I pick 25 years ago, Brent averaged $18. For the last full year of data, 2013, Brent averaged $108.

Wanna go back further? In 1970, the year U.S. production peaked, it was $9.75. That's, what, 1,100%??? I think I did you a favor by picking 500% ... I was just referencing a point in time when peak oil became undeniable and Bush League energy policy utterly confirmed it. ... The point here, semantics champion, is that the price of oil is WAY up since the glory days, meanwhile production volume has barely budged. At what point do you guys ever stop and wonder if that's a sustainable track for a world utterly dependent upon cheap crude?

So I'll go back to what I said, and use the relatively softer 500% claim: Shouldn't such an enormous increase in price lead to a big increase in supply? Because it hasn't. Oil companies aren't maintaining free cash flow, and are beginning to bail out, sell assets, and lose investment capital rather rapidly.

Want links? I've got tons.

Barring recession (which crushes demand and ALSO underscores my argument), price will go right back up. Try not to get too overconfident with this temporary dip. It's not a good sign at all.

The point is that picking arbitrary points is ridiculous for something as volatile as the price of crude. Which is why you do it. I wasn't posting those other numbers to make some grand point of not being at peak oil. I was posting them to show how if you're picking arbitrary dates its easy to find some time period that underscores the point you want to make.

If you want to make a point about price changes you should be using something like average annual % change or average 10-year % change over a moving window.

Edit: And you don't get to "go back to" your 500% claim when the actual numbers for your date range show something less than 350%.

Just not when you do it, got it.

I just told you precisely why I picked that time frame. Stop lying about my position.

Which is why I referenced annual oil price, not Sept. vs. Sept.

Which is basically exactly what I did, and continue to reference. Annual average. It's YOU who's picking the arbitrary date of Sept. 2002 vs. Sept. 2014.

Once again, $25 for the full year 2002... $108 for the full year 2013.

So, not only do I get to claim that oil price is way, way up in 12 short years since the spikes began, I get to note your incapacity to actually dispute the fundamentals of what I'm claiming, while you instead nit on arbitrary time frames that suit your hollow premise.

To review:

That's 1) oil price WAY up ... 2) conventional production growth flat since 2005 ... 3) oil companies dumping CAPEX ... 4) growth forecasts revised downward.

Really? I admitted its not valid when I do it. Thats. The. Point.

Bull****. Or at least disingenuous to not use a real metric showing what you want to show.

The same problem. I want to see something like the 5-10 year % change over time is significantly increasing. That's how we see that we're approaching something really bad.


Um... You're the one that said 12 years ago. While I guess technically that's Oct 2014 to Oct 2002, there's no numbers from Oct. 2014 yet.


2013 - 2002 = 12?

$25 => $108 = 500% increase?

I regret posting in this thread now that this keeps showing up in my tapatalk feed.

I also regret it. So I'll probably drop the issue unless it moves somewhere else.

We haven't even talked about PEEEEEAAAAAKKKKKK LIHOP, bro.

Nope. Not bull****. See chart below. Show how it's not a big increase since North Sea decline. Thanks.

Up 430% since 2002.

Up 1,100% since U.S. production peaked.

"That's how we see that we're approaching something really bad."

LOL.... Let me try this once more: I'm referencing annual averages. Why aren't you?

Yeah... See, the full year of 2002 kinda counts. How do you not understand this yet?

OK, 430% ... Do you have a point? It's WAY up.



Now, regarding my fundamental 1-4 at the end of my previous post, do you have anything you wanna dispute there, or will you be spending 100% of your energy quibbling about timeframes and demanding exact percentages to the .00001%?

I'm done with the minutia within this forum. The tally is 18-6 for of my return. Vindication.

So, when I create that thread in UC, will I be able to ban you from it for consistently using word salad to avoid admitting that world crude production is unsustainable? Or is it different when you do it, just like when you arbitrarily reference dates?

Arguing about whether Jiggs should get back into politics is like arguing about whether we should or shouldn't throw a glass of water at a tidal wave.

What happens if you move all the peak oil talk here to a separate thread in Politics but don't unban Jiggs?