Depends on why it's decreasing, dip****... Not that you're ever honest about the real reason.

Is it decreasing because demand has been crushed by these astronomical 50 dollar oil prices?

No, because of years of triple-digit prices. ... You might wanna get your flat head around the concept of lag time.

Right now, you sound like a climate change denier due entirely to a snowy day in April.

Lol seems legit

Remember the jiggs playbook. Economy in a recession? GLOBAL ECONOMY CRUSHED BY OIL PRICES!!! Economy maybe going into a recession but oil prices have been low for eight months? ECONOMY CRUSHED BY OIL PRICES! Oil price goes up? PEEEEEEEEEKKKKK OIIIIILLLLLLL!!!! Oil price goes down? PEEEEEEEEEKKKK OIIIILLLLLLL!!!

Rinse and repeat for nearly a decade and you have peeeeek jiggggzzzzzz

This is the same Jiggs who screamed at me that oil prices were going higher because of peak oil and had been going higher for three years when they had been basically flat. I told Jiggs oil would be as likely to go lower as it was higher, Jiggs told me I was ******ed because peeeaaak oiiiiil was going to drive the prices higher. Now oil is at 50 and whatdo you know peeaaak oiiil.

He also specifically said "anything over $50-$60 slows global growth". So guess things are fine now that we're at $50 or w/e.

lol Jiggs, always and forever.

Pretty sure I'm on record saying that ultimate evidence of peak oil is not the price, but the sobering data confirming lackluster production capacity going forward. Whether the short-term price is too high for consumers or too low for producers (or both), the equation is the same: Net energy is rapidly declining and all capacity growth since roughly 2008 is now produced at a loss. While there is (was) time for easy credit to maintain the industry's illusion for a while (as we've seen), the bill is coming due across the industry.

Now, you and Drool can tard up that message all you like. But your straw men will not change my stated position any more than it will change the laws of physics. I know that makes you cultists of finance blanch, but you can only rely on cherry-picked data and accounting tricks for so long as the world continues its slow, relentless march to degrowth.

Is it fair to say that you believe in 10 years our global economy will be smaller than it is today?

awww.... so close to the old peak... but nope, that Nov. 1970 mark will remain the peak of U.S. production. But don't worry. Perhaps your heroes can get the definition of crude oil changed again.

Lolooooool at expecting jiggs to actually answer this question

It will be smaller. If its smaller, Im right. If not, Im still right, its just not smaller because of the technicality that the global economy is smaller. Im still right. Peeaaakkkk oilllllll.

Peak Oil!

http://globalnews.ca/news/2192619/fu...-gas-stations/

And this is adorable. None of us care if the US reached peak production. What the extremely rapid rise of production shows is that oil production isn't, as you like to pretend, immune to the laws of economics. When price goes up more oil will be produced. This will ensure an orderly transition to more sustainable forms of energy in the coming decades, as the people arguing with you have been saying for the past six years.

I really enjoy how Jiggs thinks that graph helps his peak oil arguments.

relevant

And round and round we go, where I reference global net energy decline and you guys fire back with your addiction to the Pollyanna Principle.

This passage above demonstrates with exceeding clarity how you and your ilk get this so wrong from start to finish...

When price goes up and stays up more oil might be produced, for a little while ... Provided enough of those companies who once produced oil are still in business and haven't sold off all their infrastructure after over extending on a business model that needs WTI prices even higher than they were (see post #36). They won't be.

What's "adorable" about the recent spike in that chart is that it 1) is ultimately produced at a loss; 2) was entirely enabled by unsustainable credit, and 3) represents some 90% of global production growth since conventional oil production peaked 8-10 years ago. Now that the spike has seized - as predicted - the carnage has only begun. To pretend investors will all return to the shale oil patch after this bloodbath is the fatal flaw in your empty argument.

Meanwhile, if prices DO return, you're still IGNORING the knock-on effects high oil prices have had on the macro economy, causing this deflationary spiral in the first place.

LOL... yes, just where is this "orderly transition" to this point? What "sustainable forms" of energy provide transportation fuel or fertilize crops?

I'm acutely aware of the cornucpian model you drones have been arguing the past six years. It's just that it has no basis in reality.

BTW.... I never said oil production is "immune" to the dismal science in the short term. What I said was, ultimately, energy dictates to the economy because it's energy that does the actual work that enables growth. And in order for your "orderly transition" theory to work, you have to actually show an alternative energy source that can in fact DO THE WORK that hydrocarbon liquids currently provide complex societies. You've yet to accomplish that goal, which is part of the overall reason why your entire "no problem" outlook has no basis in fact.

Maybe BriantheMick can come along and save you all by trumpeting the "limitless wonders" of oil from algae. Surely technology is on to SOMEthing that will allow this "orderly transition" any time now.

relevant

Jiggs?

What energy sources can slowly replace oil? Solar seems most likely. It's been growing exponentially for decades. But since jiggs doesn't understand exponential growth he can't see the energy revolution that is unfolding in slow motion all around him.

It's like you don't actually read .... Solar can't do the same work that hydrocarbon liquids provide. Try and get your flat head around that fact. Or don't, and keep parroting the same dumb talking point. Your choice.

By what metric?

Of course solar can do the same work that hydrocarbons can. The only possible exception is aircraft, but hydrogen would probably work.

Translation: as long as I get to make up my own numbers there won't be growth. Those lying Jew economists will obviously come up with their own fantastical definition of "growth"

Inflation adjusted GDP? What metric do you like?

Not some energy based metric that totally discounts alternative fuels or more efficient use of energy.