LOL... If you could qualify what you feel I'm specifically "wrong" about, you would.

There's no "conspiracy" web sites here, troll. Unless you'd like to describe the USGS and EIA data that way. It's YOU who doesn't know what you're talking about, because you don't have the capacity to explain what's "wrong" about mine.

JIIIIGGGGGGGSSSSSS I DIDN'T EVEN READ YOUR STUPID ****

I started out with "suppose" as the whole thing is more speculative about a possibility than trying to say I've proven something.

Oil prices peaked in July 2008 at $147/barrel. That could be the first "peak oil" start of economic cycles caused by oil prices. (1973 too, but that was more artificial) I would think the jury is still out on really whether or not growth/prosperity has increased. But, it could be that the boom/bust marriage of oil prices and the economy doesn't tend all the way back to zero. It could just be a serious damper on prosperity. Oil is huge, but it's not everything.

except the high oil price was caused by the roaring economy, and the drop was caused by the drop in the economy, not the other way around.

People that think our dependency on oil could be a hamper on growth don't strike me as crazy. Depending on how you define it it's almost certainly true.

It's funny that both peak oil proponents and oil companies would be on the same side against ethanol.

The economics of ethanol vary quite a bit based on local conditions. Ethanol is an energy sink? It's more of an energy storage medium. A lot like gasoline. It takes 4-7.5 kwh of electricity to refine a gallon of gasoline. That's enough to drive an average electric car 16-30 miles just on the energy to refine a gallon of gas, not including getting and transporting the oil. Oil refineries are the largest industrial consumers of power in California.

The total picture is quite complicated. There are varying local conditions and there are also many byproducts in ethanol and gasoline production to consider. In fact, ethanol is available itself as a byproduct of the animal feed industry.

http://www.wired.com/2011/06/five-et...yths-busted-2/

The source of energy to produce ethanol (or gasoline) is of course relevant to how sustainable/unsustainable it is.

then you should probably STFU about what they're saying, so you can stop embarrassing yourself.

When you're the absolute worst, you can only improve. Pro tip: One building block strategy might be to either read what's being conveyed, or stop lying about what others are saying.

LOL... demonstrably wrong.

ignoring stupid ****s proven wrong is a point in my favor, not a point against

Cool story. Prove it wrong first and you might have that point.

Meanwhile, you've been wrong at nearly every turn.... Including your most recent assessment that a "roaring economy" is what brought elevated oil prices. LOL

It's been proven, you're just unable to admit it. It's why you're a peak oiler and a troofer.

LOL... No, it actually hasn't. Only your straw man version of my argument has been "proven wrong."

Tell me, deep thinker: If U.S. production is the only thing that has maintained global production growth for 5 years now, and yet U.S. rig count is suddenly down 50% since last summer, what do you think that means for global production rates in the next 12 months?

http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.asp...aph=production

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_...c_mbblpd_a.htm

The US accounted for about 1/2 the growth from 2009-2013.

You can't just look at production. The Gulf states still basically have a spigot they can turn on and off.

Like we used to have. This was in Signal Hill - next to (actually an enclave) Long Beach - Los Angeles in 1923.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/global_oil.cfm

LOLJiggs

LOLPaul. Still having trouble admitting there's a striking difference between conventional and unconventional production, huh Capt. Butthurt?

Production slows down in the face of surpluses. Which makes your above statement about production lolzy.

ps the Only butthurt person itt is you. You fling around ad hominems against anyone who disagrees with you. Again you are nothing more than a troll and a dumb ass for not knowing wtf they're talking about to begin with.

which one of your links is supposed to show that claim?

I suppose I should have said North America accounts for almost all production growth since 2005, adding actually more disgusting tar sands from Canada. Same basic equation: They're both - bitumen and kerogen - unsustainable unconventional crude from source rock that require prices much higher than the public can afford.

Saudi can ramp it up perhaps 1-1.5 million barrels, for a short while, using very risky water injection methods. Not the Gulf States as a whole. Such a decision only moves them toward their own domestic peak faster, however. Still, North American unconventional production is around 7M per day, all of it in great jeopardy with prices this low. Saudi won't be able to offset that, let alone all the rest of the conventional declines all over the world.

Iran could cushion the blow, provided they allow Western industry meddling immediately. And that's unlikely.

WCS is sour heavy crude and is now about $47/barrel
WTI is sweet light crude and is now about $60/barrel

Is that what you're talking about Jiggs?

You are seriously stupid Jiggs. It doesn't matter how much production ability Saudis or Gulf states have when there is a surplus. lol.

Huge fundamental changes in the economy obviously would have to happen if there were no oil.

Would huge fundamental changes be required if the only oil came from more expensive tar sands and deep fracking wells and such? I hope so, otherwise the planet is pretty ****ed.

Where "slows down" is cornucopian code speech for bankruptcy and the padlocking of wells. Yeah, that must be it. They're doing "so well" that they're willfully "slowing down" by not paying back their loans. Cool story, bro.

No, again, you. You act like an infantile jackass at every turn, and you don't understand the dynamic at play. All you have in your weaksauce arsenal is "econ 101, bro."

More like I return ad hominems in a language that only arrogant jaggovs like you understand.

Projection at it's finest.

Tell us again how "economics 101" moves us seamlessly to some magical alternative you can't seem to identify.

Jiggz confirmed mad

It does when you're trying to project production beyond 6 months, dip****.

Do you even understand how much "storage" exists? There is no actual "surplus" beyond what you can point to up until U.S. production begins its decline (i.e., later this year). That's the real blind spot for morons like you.

Lol. And this is exactly why you are a conspiratard.