I posted them in PU a couple of months ago. I think in the bad posters thread.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ostcount=21772

The whole thread I'm quoting from is "fun" to read though. Can't wait to read it again in 2020.

LOL... like I said, you made a whole gang of misguided presumptions in the thread in question, where you asserted that "algaeoil" just needs unlimited funding and it will be sure to eventually work. And like I said to you in the thread, "Technology advancement doesn't change the net energy equation any more than hubris for some new energy sink can change the basic laws of thermodynamics." ... It's a net energy loser, so you got taken behind the woodshed there. You then made a short "I'm bored" punt and got the thread locked down.

Pretty sure you suggested there that your pet energy source "doesn't get much federal subsidy." No, just a billion per year, not including the $19B ethanol receives. Not much.

"Anything is possible, in the world of straw man creation!"



So no link then? Thought so.

Yes, he did, you fraud. You referenced 1971, and tried to pass it off as his assessment for world peak. He predicted U.S. domestic unconventional peak for 1970-71. Look it up, or STFU and stop doubling down when called on your obv. falsehood. Wiki:

Hubbert, in his 1956 paper,[3] presented two scenarios for US crude oil production:

• most likely estimate: a logistic curve with a logistic growth rate equal to 6%, an ultimate resource equal to 150 Giga-barrels (Gb) and a peak in 1965. The size of the ultimate resource was taken from a synthesis of estimates by well-known oil geologists and the US Geological Survey, which Hubbert judged to be the most likely case.
  
• upper-bound estimate: a logistic curve with a logistic growth rate equal to 6% and ultimate resource equal to 200 Giga-barrels and a peak in 1970.

Oh, no? LOL... He also did models for the "local" areas of Norway, Mexico and Indonesia, among others.

Now that we've covered how dishonest you've been about Hubbert, I'll examine the rest of your misguided hand-wave.

You'll need to flesh that out a bit. I don't see them as mutually exclusive. Unless you can show how oil is infinite.

Yeah, see, it's not a pyramid. ... You've already shown you either don't know what peak theory entails, or you're going to perpetually lie about it what it means via your own curious definition. All models of peak depict some kind of plateau at the top before the bell begins decline on the other side. We are currently at that peak, and no one said it couldn't last a few years.

Total liquids are "growing" in the same way that crawling is technically "moving forward" in a marathon. So, give yourself a trophy if you like, but it's not gonna win anything. Meanwhile, here's what the oil majors are facing:



Pouring 5x more billions into extraction costs than you did 15 years ago only to see a production decrease. Fail.

Again, we are at the top of the bell curve. Technology and higher prices can't save your narrative any longer.

Holy crap, dude. Delusional much? Pro tip: Less Fox Business, more BBC World News.

Right, it was precipitated by the end of global conventional liquids growth. Fortunately, fracking and money printing kicked the can down the road a while.

Cool story. Too bad the world has already dick-slapped that empty assertion by showing it absolutely ISN'T willing to pay $100, let alone $200, and never will be. That's the illusion you seem to be missing: Supply has barely changed. It's DEMAND that's been crushed. There's your "glut." And that's reflected in most every world nation that isn't printing up monthly billions. It's not doing "quite fine." Might want to take a more honest and thorough look at the world outside your special gated community.

LOL!!!!! No, it doesn't. And nothing shows more clearly that you don't have a clue what peak oil actually refers to. Read the thread, get up to speed.

Peak only "requires" the apex of the production curve, with no reasonable (logistical, economic, otherwise) way to show how it can keep increasing further as new discoveries continue to rapidly dry up.

Irrelevant. You don't appear to understand what those previous oil shocks entailed. Not surprising that people like you would slap a financial term on what seems like a pattern. In the early 80s, we weren't facing the decline of aggregate conventional fields. Today, we are. It's only a "cycle" when you can show how there's plenty of affordable oil and happy times are guaranteed. Right now, the available reserves data does not indicate we can ever get to the 95M bpd we were supposed to be at by now, and certainly not the 100M bpd we were supposed to be at by 2020.

Troll. Not "everything," but certainly the climate for Ponzi-scheme energy investment borrowing, as well as bailouts for inflated multi-national banks whose toxic assets all went belly up when commodity prices spiked. Is that part of the normal "cycle?"

I'll ask you the same question I've put to countless other "no problem" cornucopians here:

Where do you think we'd be today without the $16-18 trillion in QE, TARP and monthly bond purchases since the crash? I doubt you'd have an ISP to spew your baseless peak oil denial mantras, which would be poetically ironic.

Jiggs, this is why people keep asking you to explain your prediction more. This sounds to me like you're saying peak oil will lead to DOOMSDAY scenarios (assuming we can agree that the widespread loss of basic services like the internet count as DOOMSDAY scenarios).

Liar, Juggz isn't saying it will lead to DOOMSDAY scenarios, he's saying it will lead to doomsday scenarios.

Liar troll mod.

Jiggs,

First off, where the hell do you get 16-18trillion for qe? Second off that qe has given us a strong dollar, record corporate profits, almost non existent inflation, massive job growth, and historically low interest rates. I think they got it right with qe. At least more right than your peak oil theory.

Hell, forget about all of that. If Jiggs believes the alternative to QE+Tarp+Bond Purchases was to have a societal melt down that destroyed the backbone of our economy and society - it's pretty clear that they got it right.

I didn't get it locked down. You are going to have to cite this "net energy equation" that you are concerned about. Do you know the theoretical maximum net energy ratio that can be attained from the various biofuels? Don't forget to subtract out the portion that can be obtained from solar panels!

Do you know the amount of fossil fuels it takes to produce ethanol? Hint: it ain't much nowadays. Are you highly concerned that we are going to use up all the sunlight? Peak sun theory?!?

Get your argument types correct. What I was doing is called a reduction to absurdity.

This is the one where he remembered that Alaska is indeed part of the US of ****ing A, right? The one where he predicted that we would have a short-term top due to an oil glut, and then another top 30-something years later due to an oil glut.

No. That must have been a different Hubbert. The one we are talking about predicted that the US would have a PERMANENT top between 1965 and 1970 and a terminal decline because it would become unfeasible for us to find new oil. Maybe it was the one who lived in a cupboard.

LO ****ing L. A "local low" is a mathematical term, not a term to describe a locality on the earth. I'm starting to remember why I got bored last time.

I said nothing about whether or not it was the right/wrong decision to print money at unprecedented rates... I'm simply reminding those who deny peak oil is a big deal as to the extremes they had to go in order to mitigate its affects.

In any event, it truly is breathtaking watching so many of you junior economists insist that the world economy is currently doing splendidly. Great, great stuff.

Things are pretty awesome in my gated community, don't really give a **** what's happening outside bro

Ummm, peak oil theory isn't just a fancy way of saying that oil is a non-renewable resource. Everyone already knows that.

Peak oil is the theory that oil production will rise to ONE peak then go back down just as quickly as it went up due to the price of oil going up and up and up. You would be able to tell that the theory is correct by looking at a graph of oil production and whether we have gone back to living in caves since the peak in 1970.

Commodity cycle is the theory that oil production will rise and fall and rise and fall. You can tell it is correct by taking a look at how oil production has actually behaved.

Usually, when presented with a theory that made incorrect predictions and one that made correct predictions, it is best to go with the one that made correct predictions.

It would look like a normal curve. Hubbert was even kind enough to draw exactly what the curve would look like. Given that you missed the day in class when they mentioned what a "local low" is, please note that a "normal curve" is a specific shape of a curve that you'd find on a graph. This shape of curve does not go up and down and back up.

That isn't a graph of extraction costs.

So, you are actually saying that we are at the top. I will be looking forward to checking back with you in ten years to see if you were correct and that I am living in a cave.

Fox is the one that complains that we are all going down in flames.

Yes. Finding new sources of liquids and doing some substitution and not being as energy reliant in the US as we once were is cheating! If you back out the things that are actually done by real peoples in the real world, your model works great!

Really?!? The world has ALREADY shown that it isn't willing to pay $200 in the future?

It has shown that it is quite willing to pay $100 if there is an undersupply. Not so much right now given that there is an oversupply.

Demand hasn't been "crushed" and supply hasn't "barely changed." We are producing about 10% more worldwide than we were a decade ago. What has happened is just normal commodity cycle stuff. The producers increased production because demand was growing and it takes a long time to develop supply capacity and eventually they got a bit more supply than demand.

The decline in demand is mostly from Russia's economy falling off a cliff. Peak oil isn't the reason why its economy has fallen off a cliff, btw.

Reading this thread is almost exactly the opposite of what one would want to do if one wanted to learn about peak oil. It is an actual theory about oil supply that makes actual specific predictions about oil suppy. It has either gotten those predictions correct or it hasn't. Again, when choosing between whether reality has it correct or the theory has it correct, it seems wiser to think that reality is more correct.

No. That isn't how theories work. Either a theory makes correct predictions about the real world or it doesn't. That is the ONLY test of whether a theory is correct.

I was there for the previous oil shocks. They didn't happen because of peak oil.

That question has absolutely nothing to do with peak oil. It is the typical, "but I'd have been correct if it weren't for x."

Of course, that is exactly the same as being wrong with an excuse that you weren't smart enough to have foreseen x.

Jeebus, I cannot believe you guys. You apparently didn't read my last post where I explained this for Jiggs. I told you all to pay attention so this time DO IT!

Even though the Fed can fix the economy next time they won't be able to because

Quote:

THE PEOPLE WHO RULE THE WORLD WiLL PROHIBIT THE FED FROM DOING THAT NEXT TIME.

I don't know how much clearer the Jiggs position can be.

UMMMM, still confused between that U.S. peak and global peak, I see. Maybe at some point, you'll get it. But the U.S.'s ability to exploit other nations for their oil for 35-40 years since their own peak doesn't discredit the overall thesis. Neither does it's ability to harvest synthetic oil with triple the extraction costs for a short while. Mmmmkay, deep thinker?

Forecasting global peak isn't an exact science, but we can be reasonably certain based on the rate of discovery, as well as being honest about what constitutes recoverable (affordable) reserves. All that has changed is that people like you are now changing the definition of what constitutes "oil" and pretending formations that are an energy sink are still "affordable."

You really possess only a rudimentary level of understanding for this discussion topic, don't you?

... and, of course, you can make it look any way you like by suddenly insisting plentiful <25 API gravity oil is still part of the definition you're trying to pass off.

But then, cart-before-horse people like you can't be bothered with acknowledging that a barrel of oil from Saudi Arabia has a significant BTU advantage over a barrel of oil from North Dakota.

And yet, that's exactly the opposite of what you're doing regarding U.S. peak, which was correct. Here's a newsflash, deep thinker: Even if you include unconventional production from shales, U.S. C+C production is still not yet back above 1971 levels. Your heroes still have about 1M bpd to go, and it's not looking good.

Your entire limited argument that this is some "cycle" relies on 1) pretending EROEI for different kinds of fossil fuels somehow doesn't matter, and 2) insisting that painfully low EROEI unconventionals still burn the same and provide the same value to advanced societies. Oops, they don't.

It is amusing watching you remain stuck on Hubbert's original study for a theory that has been refined and improved over the years. I guess to geniuses like you, if the peak doesn't perfectly resemble the profile of the liberty bell, it must not be happening. LOL

Here are a whole bunch of crucial nations' production curves that 1) exclude unconventional crap, and 2) represent the spirit of what Hubbert was getting at:

Mexico


Norway


United Kingdom:


Indonesia:


We could go on and on and on

But, OMG!!! They definitely go up and down, but that's not a perfect bell curve!!!

No, their CAPEX. But I'm quite confident you know exactly what I'm getting at, evidenced by your reluctance to actually dispute the fact that rising costs yielding lesser results is a huge blockage for your perpetual "no problem" argument.

Classic straw man, and signature of someone who doesn't really understand what he's arguing against. Did I say anything about you living in a cave?

... yeah, but for all the most dishonest reasons (evil regulations!!!).

You're still having a problem understanding net energy, I see. Let us all know when any volume equivalent of "new liquids" provides as much power as the same unit of conventional oil does.

Another intellectually dishonest troll. Very well. ... No, see the world has already shown is can't handle $100 oil, so it stands to reason that unless wages skyrocket, it won't ever be able to handle $200 oil.

But that's not a worry. Oil will never get to $200 before demand is crushed beyond all recognition long before then, anyway.

Once again: There is only an "oversupply" due to demand destruction. So obv., it DIDN'T show that the world was willing to keep paying at all.

Of course, if you want to show how the world has suddenly produced significantly more oil since last summer to as to produce some "glut," have at it. ... But China's (and others) slowing growth means less buyers for the same levels of production.

Classic handwave from a junior economist completely removed from the reality of the global economy. It really is breathtaking watching you clowns rationalize how this all works.

Nevermind that the cost for that 10% increase has tripled, but the reality is that producers increased production because their capacity to borrow was essentially limitless. We're now beginning to see how that worked out. It was never sustainable, and it never followed sound economic fundamentals.

LOL... Right, it must all be the Russians. When all else fails, blame Putin and his nation's "flawed" ideology. Any evidence that China is much more the cause has no merit at all.

... And yes, in the end, Russia's failings have a whole lot to do with sustained high global prices, as a result of the peak of conventional oil production. That, and their very OWN domestic peak, which is growing more evident with each passing month. ... But then, you probably think Eastern Europe's difficulty to pay their gas bill has nothing to do with the Earth's natural limits, either.

But only 100% because of ignorant pushback from cart-before-horse narratives like yours.

Correct about the U.S., correct about Norway, correct about Mexico, correct about Indonesia, correct about the UK, correct about Oman, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Denmark, Kuwait, Iran, Australia, Libya, Argentina, Colombia, Yemen, Vietnam, Nigeria... and dozens more. Maybe not to the day/hour as people like you demand before you'll ever listen, but certain correct that they'd peak and begin decline roughly 40 years after their peak discovery period. (just for perspective, global discoveries peaked in the mid-60s)

That's a lot of correct predictions for trolls like you to maintain your laughable level of denial.

Who said they did, straw man champ? Is this where another one of you finance cultists presents the classic false equivalency? Once again: Global peak was always maintained as 2015, by everyone from the 2008 Pentagon JOE report (and again in 2010), Virgin Group, PFC Energy, Dr. Jeremy Leggett, Charles Maxwell, and many others.

It has absolutely everything to do with it, as has been demonstrated many times over since. In any event, it's notable that you don't have an answer for where we'd be without such levels of money printing. That's because you know damn well you wouldn't be able to maintain your "no problem; the world is doing splendidly" without it. Even with it, you still sound rather naive re: the health of the world economy.

You mean like how you sugarcoated your claim that "algaeoil" only suffers from a lack of investment? It IS interesting that you put so much energy into singing the praises of biodiesels, yet don't seem to think there's an oil emergency in the first place. Which is it?

You won't watch, Brian, because it's a threat to your "so? just throw more money at it" platform...

but you're free to educate yourself and learn what net energy actually entails:

http://www.peakprosperity.com/video/...peak-cheap-oil

Four posts in a row to respond?!?

I'm looking for actual points to respond to. It might take me a bit to slog through. This one is quite easy. You might as well have posted a video from a Christian website as proof that your theory that Christ is the son of God as proof that Christ is the son of God.

And, no, I won't watch because I am worried about being right. I won't watch for the same reason that I read peer reviewed journals rather than watch videos.

EDIT: I can't find the bit where you responded to me telling you what a "local low" is. Where is that part?

EDIT 2: I couldn't find any new arguments. Rehashing the exact same things is boring. I guess I could search back and cut and paste my previous responses, but that isn't much fun. It would be appreciated if you made a new genuine argument that had nothing to do with your opinion of me.

Well, the first three were just one, broken up, in response to your wordy straw-man of Hubbert's original curve (as if that straw man relates to my argument ). The last one was just a bit of education re: what constitutes net energy... Yeah, that was Chris Martenson there, macro economic researcher and Phd (Duke), MBA (Cornell), who you refused to watch in a telling rejection of knowledge. At this point, you're not much different than a red state tea party voter who champions ignorance and maneuvers to alter school texts.

Take your time. There's plenty in there. Including the parts where I corrected your dishonesty re: Hubbert, peak oil theory overall and the health (see, lackthereof) of the global economy.

FYP

Yeah, because a ratio of return on energy investment and basic physics concepts are akin to religious dogma. Nice hand-wave.

Cool story. But at this point, you've revealed yourself. It's the former, without a doubt.

Well, considering you've glossed over and hand waved some 95% of my argument, I figured I had room. Regardless, your straw man that peak oil only refers to a perfect bell curve shape "or it's not true!" didn't really require much of a response. You already displayed you can't grasp the difference between U.S. domestic peak, and global peak, and you're stuck on the literal bell curve shape.

In order to engage with new arguments, you'll need to honestly address the original ones, not just say "that's not happening" a whole lot, before moving on to your next fraudulent straw man creation and semantics-fest.

Here are the points made that you can't/won't dispute:

• "lol-algaeoil" won't save us (even if we don't need it to, according to your rather curious "plenty of regular oil" assertion), because it suffers from net energy shortage and mind-boggling logistical bottlenecks
  
• Hubbert's peak hinges on the hypothesis that peak production occurs some 40 years after peak discovery rates, for which the global peak for discovery of conventional resources (i.e. the BEST of the stuff) occurred in the mid 1960's... Sure enough, global conventional peak arrived in 2005-2008.
  
• rising costs yielding ever lesser returns does not support your "just throw money at it" axiom
  
• crude under 25 API gravity does not do all the same work that light crude provides, despite 3x-4x the cost to extract and refine
  
• pretending oil from shale is the same as oil from Saudi Arabia utterly ignores the central net energy factor, which is the ultimate reason you refused to watch the video
  
• pretending lower demand comes mainly from Russia's "downfall" is a real tell, and likely lies at the heart of your overall zealotry for capitalism and empty support of "limitless innovation" as the solution to everything.

So once again:

Correct about the U.S., correct about Norway, correct about Mexico, correct about Indonesia, correct about the UK, correct about Oman, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Denmark, Kuwait, Iran, Australia, Libya, Argentina, Colombia, Yemen, Vietnam, Nigeria... and dozens more. This is true regardless of whether the downside of the curve spiked back up for a short while or not.

Jiggs, could you explain to me what exactly constitutes conventional oil production?


If you take a metric like total cost to produce some standard post-refining unit of oil, isn't it true that various oil production locations/methods will exist along a pretty continuous spectrum of values for that metric?

For example Saudi 'conventional' oil is obviously at the low end and really ****ty tar sands oil would be much further to the right.

Jiggs,

You know the US grew at 5% annualized GDP last report, right?

Also, job creation was pretty good in the US last year, ya know?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...y-2008/381083/

Energy density though....

I already did, back when you suggested "unconventional" oil was a subjective term and I referred you to very specific API gravity density.

As for the rest, you lost the benefit of amicable back and forth when you called me a "doomsaying wacko." Acting as if you "like" and "admire" me in the bad poster thread? You're not fooling anyone.

LOL... We've been here before, cherry picker. Snow in April isn't a sign of climate change hoax, either. How are the other fundamentals working out? It's what, 80 million Americans that are so far behind on some of their debt payments that their account has been put "in collections." More than half of Americans can't afford their own house. ... The wealth of the “typical American household” has fallen by 36 percent over the past decade. More than 37 million Americans now being served by food pantries and soup kitchens.

But forget domestic realities. Try and examine the global economy next time. Not just one empire that can borrow from itself and print money to the tune of $85 billion per month,and change the definition of "employment" as they go along.

I don't think I called you a "doomsaying wacko". I stand by what I said in that thread, although it certainly wasn't intended as a compliment to you.

So you're going to run away from defining conventional oil? That's cool. I'll just continue to assume you just mean it to mean the oil that was economically viable at a certain point of time in the past.

Which of course is the only way your statements about 'conventional oil' make sense. And its also why nobody but you doomsaying wackos care about using it as a definition. The rest of us actually care about the current and future economics of oil extraction.

Yeah, here we are... troll. Or are you going to hang on the technicality that you only said "doomsday wacko?"

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=228

Try and remember better, especially on definitions you continue to deny exist.

WTF are you talking about? I told you I already informed you what it refers to. Are you smoking pot all day while modding again? Pay attention.

You can "assume" it any way you like. That's what trolls do. Doesn't change the reality that you were given the definition RIGHT HERE.

FYP

Cool story. In "caring," please try and do a better job absorbing what's already been relayed to you.

Ok, great! Doomsday wacko seems much more my style. Sorry I forgot you gave me that definition of conventional oil. It is a large thread... (And I might add if you had just linked to it you would have saved us each a post).

Anyway, back to what I was getting at before. Do you accept that all liquids production falls on this spectrum of cost per some comparable unit? I totally accept that you know more about industry terms so you can define that in whatever way makes the most sense.

So the point being, in terms of 'peak oil', shouldn't the amount of oil that you're concerned about be the amount of oil below a given price of oil? You say consumers need oil less than $80/barrel so shouldn't the oil we care about be any oil that can be extracted for less than $80/barrel?