Which fossil fuel subsidies would you like to see the candidate propose scaling back?

I wouldn't eliminate nuclear from future plans and the details matter on everything (particularly the carbon tax), but I would look pretty favorably on a candidate giving this response.

As an aside, confused by what you mean about the return of Sarbanes-Oxley and how you think derivatives trading fits in here. Assume you mean Glass-Steagal?

Lol, that's a ridiculous comparison.

I guess I mean a re-buttressing of the Act. Sarbox has been chipped away from the original spirit of the Act by 12 years of corporate lobbyist meddling and the insulation of C-Suite officers. Obama's JOBS Act hurt it further. ...

Derivatives trading is a $11 trillion market for unregulated gambling, in essence. It lowers capital standards, raises ambition for risk-taking, and helps (indirectly) balloon the value of toxic assets.

Some have called it a financial weapon of mass destruction. In my view, playing accounting tricks and gambling with people's money is not responsible monetary behavior.

This.

I bet if we looked at Jiggs' family tree we would see a lot of people worrying about the US economy because "we don't make stuff anymore" and further back we would see others worrying that we would all starve to death because nobody is a farmer anymore.

Dear candidate... what if I have a 7-10 split?

A true d*** response.

You should focus less on guesses about my personal history, and more on an actual response to what we'll adapt "to."

None of you ever do that, because you can't. Because the truth is, there is no alternative remotely ready to replace what crude provides, nor at the scale at which it will deplete.

While some of us will "adapt" on a local level by consuming far less, on a global finance level it will seize up the engine of fraud that is modern capitalism. It already is.

Will jiggz have a complete meltdown when the US (which supposedly reached peeeeek oil like 40 years ago) becomes the leading worldwide producer of oil? Will be fun to watch

In before "but but but THAT oil doesn't count!"

Dear candidate,

What if jiggz is committed to an insane asylum?

Oh wait that's actually plausible, never mind

He'll adapt. Next question.

Dear candidate,

What will happen to Jiggz's ten year stockpile of food and ammunition once he gets committed? Can I have it?

Let's go back to the 7-10 split question.

I possess neither, and don't need to. Nonetheless, it is good to see the forum's second most useless troll back in the ring here.

It is amusing watching you guys pretend the messenger is somehow the crazy one, while you all willfully dismiss empirical evidence and world symptoms on a daily basis. I suspect such a future 5-10 years from now will effect your type the hardest. And you'll probably still be blaming regulations, real estate, Arabs, or communists... even then.

Meanwhile, here's the kind of "adaptation" you're undoubtedly referring to:

U.S. officials cut estimate of recoverable Monterey Shale oil by 96%
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...521-story.html

The new estimate, expected to be released publicly next month, is a blow to the nation's oil future and to projections that an oil boom would bring as many as 2.8 million new jobs to California and boost tax revenue by $24.6 billion annually.

The Monterey Shale formation contains about two-thirds of the nation's shale oil reserves. It had been seen as an enormous bonanza, reducing the nation's need for foreign oil imports through the use of the latest in extraction techniques, including acid treatments, horizontal drilling and fracking.

LOLfail.... Only off in their over-optimism by 96%, that's all.

Another tally we were right about all along, and trolls were dead wrong. And that's just one of many, many re-writes, as the economics of shale oil/gas just aren't there.

Where do the Baaken shale reserves currently stand versus original estimates?

The bolded should be his under-title.

well, in 2006 the EIA stood by a report claiming 413 billion barrels (as a mean)...

http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/0...fe+GNW20130401

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) an agency within the U.S. Department of Energy reported and stated already in November 2006 that:

"With new horizontal drilling and completion technology taken into account, the technically recoverable resource base for the entire Bakken Formation is potentially much larger. A draft study by the late organic geochemist Leigh Price provides estimates ranging from 271 to 503 billion barrels (mean of 413 billion) of potential resource in place. This certain knowledge that 413 billion barrels of in-place oil exists in the Bakken source rocks in the Williston Basin
presents the oil industry with an unparalleled exploration opportunity," said Geologist J.W. Price, the Denver-based geologist who conducted the field assessment for the USGS (United States Geological Society).

Oops... Nope... Two years later, the USGS had it at 3.6 billion...

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article...1#.U4zMmPldVho

North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation.

Of course, in 2011 ... it's down even further.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_formation

The US EIA reported that proved reserves in the Bakken/Three Forks were 2.00 billion barrels of oil as of 2011.[31]

Jiggs, are you deliberately trying to fool people or do you actually not understand your source material? Those aren't comparable numbers.

Wikipedia from 2011 as an accurate estimate? Cmon son. Wonder why you didn't use this estimate from two years later.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...0DH26020130430

What does this tell us about peak oil? About as much as that Monterrey Shale headline, namely close to nothing.

Pretty terrible effort on that one Jiggs. Like Im honestly a little bit sad for you if you think that in 2006 people were saying we'd get 413 billion barrels of oil out of the Bakken. That estimate....not really any different today and much different from proven reserves or technically recoverable oil.

No, that would be you, fraud. You thought you had something, and didn't realize the original estimates. LOL....

Don't act like you've found something because the government originally claimed 413 billion barrels, had to go down to 3.6 billion, and then doubled it to over 7 billion. That's not a win for you. Any way you slice it, 7 billion is just not a lot of oil.

Troll.

The one that claims 7 billion? LOL... Yeah, we use 90 million barrels each day, idiot.

You can lol-wiki all you like, but their source is your source - the U.S. government. And the government shows it's not a big field at all.

If you want to claim some savior pool of oil, you'd better start talking about 50-100 billion barrels in a new find.

Otherwise, you're overplaying your hand. You probably call down top pair, top kicker in deep stack NL.

It tells us that some 2/3 of claimed U.S. oil reserves from shale actually don't exist in any economically feasible process. That may be "close to nothing" for a troll like you learning about the topic as you go along, but it's ruin for an industry that assured the nation's biggest state of almost 3 million jobs.

Irony, considering how sad it is that you believe 7 billion barrels in Bakken is a big deal of any kind, whatsoever. Nevermind the waste-water pollution, the refinery and transportation cost, the inefficiency of the fuel source, and... oh yeah, the triple-digit price point that's wrecking the global economy.

But you're probably one of those geniuses that believes we can export oil and gas to Europe, even though we're still a net importer of both.

please do double-down and hitch your wagons to the Bakken formation, Gamfool.

I can't wait for your next round of inadequate understanding of the process involved. This should be fun.

Your desperation for loljiggs deflection is showing, and all you wind up doing is exposing how dumb you have always been even after 2-3 years of this debate.

Oh Jiggs, you do really think those estimates are comparable numbers

Actually had thought you were a pretty smart dude who was just really deep down the peak oil rabbit hole. Oh well.

No, I don't think 413 billion barrels (EIA) and 7 billion barrels (EIA) are very comparable at all.

Unfortunately, it's the ever-inflated numbers that the industry initially sets up to fool idiots like you into believing "it's all happening!" Lemming.

I'll ask again: Do you believe 7 billion barrels is very large in the scope of this predicament?

No, the 413 billion number was not an official EIA estimate.

No, estimating there is a barrel of oil under the earth isn't the same as estimating a barrel of oil that is recoverable isn't the same as estimating it is a proven reserve (I know you know this, which is why I know you aren't being honest throughout this whole exercise). No, an EIA informational document referencing a third party estimate isn't a government estimate.

No, I don't think changing estimates of oil available in a single shale formation changes things very much. Obviously you do, and its lol, which was my point.

No, dwindling oil supplies are not the existential threat that you think they are.

I am glad that you have learned and adjusted your peak oil pitch in the BFI thread from "consistently increasing oil prices" to "consistent triple-digit oil prices". Starting to incorporate factual accuracy is a positive step for you Jiggs.

Also, no, QE is no longer $85 billion a month

Are you just an elaborate long con troll? That's pretty awesome if you are.

Interesting. So even though the EIA cited it in 2006, it's not official. You sound like someone who fell in his own trap, Gamfool.

What's more interesting is that you can't bring yourself to admit, nor deny, that 7 billion just isn't a lot of oil at all, and your bid at deflection fell flat on its face. This is why you're the forum's most clever and consistent liar.

Of course I know the difference between in place and proven reserves, which is why the Monterey claim was always so laughable. You, meanwhile, are just now learning as you go along. If you wanted to get into a semantics argument about what the EIA cites and stands by, you should have refined your dumb question. Either way, leaning investment advice toward what's down there rather than what you can actually produce is the epitomy of industry dishonesty. Of course the meager total of 3.6 billion will rise a bit to a slightly less meager total of 7 billion if the price of oil per barrel is "right." That says nothing of what that elevated price does to the global economy.

It's as I've always said: I can claim I've found a trillion barrels behind the moon. But that says nothing of our capacity to bring it to market, nor the public's ability to afford the price. This IS peak.

So, yeah, there's plenty. IF everyone could afford $150+ oil. People like you rest their entire "no problem" platform on this vague assumption.

Is this your tortured effort to admit 7 billion doesn't really amount to much, and that your ploy at deflection bit you in the ass?

LOL... They already are. Unfortunately for people just like you, you can't muddy the discussion any longer. The symptoms are plain and clear, even though you don't feel it yet behind your gated community.

Not sure that I ever adjusted anything, but putting a floor under oil prices doesn't really change the fact that it's too expensive for capitalism to hum on.

Factual accuracy, though, is something I crush you on, time and time again.

OK, so its clear that you know that you are lying when you say "the government said there were 413 billion barrels of oil but now say there are 7 billion" but do so anyways. Why? I have no idea.

http://throughthesandglass.typepad.c...al-e-mail.html

Basically, Jiggs did some combination of a) pulled a bahbah and got fooled by a conservative chain email b) doesn't understand the subject matter and is trying to compare the 413 billion with the lower estimate (the link explains why this is silly c) is just blatantly lying.