We are at the peak in world oil production...

You do realize that there is more to energy production using the sun than just the sun, do you?

Actually, the point of Malthusianism is resource scarcity. The opposite view involves imagining that the sun shining will suddenly lead to the creation of cars and components needed for wind and solar.

So what happened to your first point about the sun shining?

You explained earlier that the correlation presented was incorrect. Please explain why.

But I didn't argue that I learned from LATOC. As I said, all of the data presented to you came from EIA and the IEA.

 

I remember the oilmen and geologists laughing about Hubbert in the mid 1950s..

Domestic production in Texas and Oklahoma was too costly and couldn't compete with oil from the ME.... but, imports were regulated by the Texas Railroad Commission.. who also controlled most domestic production.

Reserve is determined by the quality of the crude... the difficulty of extracting and refining that crude, market demand and the ppb.. Its not about measuring a "pool" of crude underground. Determining "Reserves" is actually an art form.

 

Don't confuse bell shaped curves with models of predictive ability.

 

Fine. Here is the "data" LATOC was providing to the world. Which piece did you participate in the creation of? Or did you just nod wisely when such things were discussed, what with all the DATA LATOC processed...you know...those unemployed lawyer wanna be astrologer types who claimed that YOU and your fellow forum groupies were religious fanatics?

Members decided that the draft was coming. And 50% yearly inflation. And their LEADER, the guy you received permission from to POST there, said that YOU and the other forum members were religious nutjobs. Are you saying he didn't use the same data, and experience with YOU and other forum members, to generate this conclusion on your analytic abilities?

That is because they CAN'T come from LATOC, the place where you diligently "gathered data" has already been discredited by the forum owner and astrologist. So of course you are forced to selectively choose information from other sources...and just as diligently ignore information that does not agree with your preconceived notion. And certainly you can't be bothered to pick up the phone and talk to the references you mention, let alone visit them at conference, take them to lunch, sit down and DISCUSS anything because...lets face it....you aren't looking for DATA, Savinar pegged all of you folks as religious nutjobs. You are just using a slightly modified Bible now, designed to forget about all your earlier wrong sources (Deffeyes, Campbell, Hubbert, Savinar, Ruppert, Duncan) and try and substitute in the major energy clearing houses of information...EIA and IEA.

 

I recommended you read up on his political affiliation. Did you do that? Because if you did, you would have found the exact quote.Thomas Alhbrandt certainly did, and I referenced WHEN as well. Two different hints, and you can't even be bothered to follow the breadcrumbs. Want a new hint? I didn't say anything about Hubbert writing a paper about his 1938 claim of peak in the US on or before 1950.

Better yet, why don't you ask the priests of your religion to explain why they kept this information from you? It doesn't look good, sending you out looking for converts without understanding the full history of your Prophet.

Because you have incomplete information on Hubbert, not even knowing his earliest calls for peak in the US, who says we would even agree on what his last kick the can argument even was?

His 1938 guess of peak in 1950 in the US was wrong. Of his two oil scenario guesses in 1956, one was wrong, one was pretty close. Of his world oil guess in 1956 it was hysterically wrong, as was his 1956 guess on US natural gas production.

Please let me know what predictive model is worthy of consideration, that when it is employed, it is right only 1 in 5 guesses?

Sure.....as soon as you pick up the phone and call Thomas Ahlbrandt, and ask him why he knows this and you can't find it in his work even when it has been provided to you. Prove you can do the legwork on ANY of this and maybe I'll take your halfassed research seriously enough to help you out.

Because for those of poor reading comprehension, I've been attacking the validity of his method, upon which your religion is based.

 

The word "availability" isn't even written in the idiot version on page 2.

Let me know how well your next reserve audit goes, genius. I can just see the cackle of laughter if I were to try this with the auditors, "well, what I meant when I said 'available' was...well...there is this guy on the internet who pretends the word was there......"

 

Let us know how your next reserve audit goes when you are making up the words as you go....and you think we are so confused that for a second you know any more about extraction industries or the economics thereof than the same sort of religious halfwits that populated your data source, LATOC?

 

As an oil and gas professional across pieces of two centuries and 4 decades now, I know far more about what it takes to find, produce, estimate the size of, borrow money from the bank based on those estimates, distribute, and sell, then some religious refugee, upset that his church was pillaged by the reality created by the industry I have been participating in now for longer than the world has been claimed to be peaking by the likes of your religion.

I use it when some moron makes some claim about ENERGY, versus geologic waste products like hydrocarbons. Us early adopters to using solar and wind to power our transport find it funny, how religious nuts think everyone is required to use only fuels manufactured from long chain hydrocarbons, produced in shallow and discrete pools under politically stable regions, with no water on top of them, natural solution gas or water drives, are allowed to be counted.

Sure. As soon as you prove you know more about statistics than you do oil and gas production. You seem to not understand, that you can't TEACH a bot anything, let alone a religious groupies from LATOC.

 

a Picasso of reserves...I like it!!

 

His forecasts for crude oil production for the U.S. and for the world have been confirmed. More details can be found in my previous messages.

- - - Updated - - -

Hubbert's forecast for U.S. and world crude have been confirmed. More details in my previous posts.

 

None. Also, the data I've been presenting to you comes from the EIA, not LATOC.

No, the views were varied. I remember that because many argued that it would either be a slow decline or demand hitting a supply ceiling.

And I did not give any predictions.

As for my analytical abilities, I proved that in this thread by proving all of my points and countering all of yours.

Exactly. So why do you keep referring to LATOC?

Again, the historical data presented to you comes from the EIA. The forecast for shale oil comes from the EIA and IEA.

You've not countered any of my arguments.

 

No, you raised the argument, so you need to prove it. Explain the 1938 claim and then show how it negates the 1956 forecast.

No, you explain it. It's your argument, not mine.

That point is useless, unless you are insisting that what he said earlier negates his 1956 forecast.

One more time: the first post I gave in this thread refers to EIA data on global crude oil production until October 2013, not natural gas.

The 1956 data from Hubbert I am referring to is crude oil production for the U.S., not natural gas.

The 1976 interview refers to global crude oil production, not natural gas.

Crude oil production, which is what I've been discussing from the start. Pay attention.

It's your argument, remember? Don't ask me to prove it for you.

You still need to do that. That is, challenge the argument that U.S. crude oil production peaked in 1970. Also, disprove EIA data showing that world crude oil production is in a 73.4 Mb/d plateau as of October 2013.

The reason why I am asking you to do this is because that's the topic of my argument, not natural gas.

 

"Available" means it's ready to use. That makes it commercially recoverable in contrast to the types of resources given on page 3 onward.

I'm only using the definition from the organization that you referred to in your previous post.

- - - Updated - - -

The definition of recoverable reserves was stated very clearly to you using the same organization you used in your previous message. Why are you now countering your own evidence?

 

Yes, but you still haven't countered any of my points or backed up any of yours. The questions are found in my previous posts.

You are not countering my arguments. If any, you are only reinforcing my views.

In fact, the IEA recommends the same move to renewable because of peak oil and global warming. See for yourself by reading the 2010 report linked earlier.

Again, you asked for information showing a correlation between oil and GDP, and that was presented to you. You argued that the correlation is incorrect, and you were asked to prove your argument several times. You have not been able to do so.

 

Ask that question while looking in the mirror.

 

Then YOU Ralfy, understand NOTHING about the data showing otherwise, and are just another zealot who not only can't do the research, but can't compare actual world production rates in 1956 to what Hubbert claimed they should have been in that same paper. Nor do you understand that oil production in the US did not peak on or before 1950 as predicted. Nor...so on and so forth.

Matt thanks you for continuing his zealotry, although he probably wishes you wouldn't make peak oilers look so ignorant in the process.

 

We know. You have already mentioned how discredited it would look if you used the same data from back then as you use now...now that you know how full of horse(*)(*)(*)(*) you were when you pulled this nonsense back then.

So that others might understand the religious nature of your zealotry.

Parrots don't make arguments, they do what you do. Post endless links, cutting and pasting, and can't think their way out of a wet paper bag. Exactly what you would have learned at LATOC.

Why don't you go and preach to the existing congregations at Hubbert Arms, Silent Country and PeakOil.com, they ban all those who don't believe, and relish your kind of parroting to the choir...they make even make you a priest rather than just pulling a missionary assignment to the thinking world.

 

Those who participated in the definitions rewrite back in the mid-2000's for SPE, a group that I am positive didn't include YOU, didn't use this word for a reason. Next time we rewrite the definitions for idiots who don't know anything about reserves, we'll be sure to dial 1-800-DUMBASS to invite you.

- - - Updated - - -

Dingo, you don't have to be upset that you did such a poor job thinking out your position. Try it again, and I promise to give it the same once over I do any other scientists work I am peer reviewing...except I'll be nicer this time when I thought experiment it into the ground.

 

An educated fool is still a fool. Sorry, it's really a matter of treating a topic seriously not preening to an audience.

 

The latest claim by Hubbert was in a TV interview from 1976. The clip was linked in my earlier message. He stated global crude oil production peaking in 1995 + 10 years because of the '73 oil shock.

The IEA acknowledged that global crude oil production peaked in 2010 (not in 2006).

The EIA data until October 2013 in my first post confirms this: crude oil production has been in a 73.4 Mb/d plateau since 2005.

You countered none of these points.

 

Actually, the data I have been presenting to you comes "from back then," i.e., crude production data figures reported by the EIA until October 2013.

But the arguments that I've been presenting to you come from EIA data on crude oil production.

That's not parroting. It's evidence. You should try presenting that for your arguments.

Or I can present the same data that you acknowledge, which is what I've been doing in this thread from the start.

 

First, you argue that my interpretation of the definition is wrong. Now, you're arguing that my definition is right and that new definitions were given. You can't even make up your mind on that point.

Finally, the definition as of 2011 is given on p. 7 here:

http://www.spe.org/industry/docs/PRMS_Guidelines_Nov2011.pdf

and as far as I know it supports what I wrote.

 

He had already been playing kick the can since 1938. Is there any reason you place credibility in ANY method that requires endless recycling of an answer until said answer is achieved?

Fatih Birol has already been quoted as claiming that peak oil happened in 2006, reference previously provided. Him, or the IEA, playing the same kind of kick the can game as Hubbert only means that neither of them have a method that is predictive in nature. You, being a cut and paste parrot, might not understand what "kick the can" means within any modeling system.

YOU now playing kick the can, versus all that "data" you acquired from LATOC mentioning the peak (in 2000) or the draft being instituted (which wasn't) or $7/gal gasoline (that didn't happen), is really no different.

There is no point to counter. You do not have the ability to go off the script provided by your religion. You can't find common references to Hubbert's work because you can't be bothered to put down your hymnal and LEARN.

It is why you are a perfect missionary. No ability to question the dogma spoon fed to you, no ability to learn when conflicting information is presented, worse yet no DESIRE to think critically about the meme you are sent forth to pimp.

I have provided references to locations that will nod vigorously at every repetitive, kick the can, cut and paste operation you employ. Why aren't you there, selling peak oil (of whatever vintage) to those who will worship your cut and paste abilities...you could be the next religious leader, now that Matt has stepped down.

 

Avoiding even trying to restart this one, eh Dingo? It is a bit intellectually dishonest, proposing a question that as soon as someone wiggles out of and demonstrates the holes in it, you just want to avoid ever discussing it again for fear of everyone else noticing.

 

Cutting and pasting isn't an argument Ralfy. It is a simple demonstration of your ability to read from your script.

You really need to learn the difference between an argument, and just trying to discover if you even have the ability to THINK. Do you even stop to ask ANY question about the script you have been handed? Do you even THINK about the difference of the pimping you were doing when you were at LATOC, versus the pimping you are doing now? Do you even understand why this matters, that you are now reading a DIFFERENT script than you did back in the day, and it contradicts the LAST script you were pimping?

Do you even understand that you ARE pimping for your religion? Did they even tell you that they had changed your script, that when you run into someone who has been watching the changes in the dogma, the changes in your references and sources, that when you finally ran into someone with more experience WATCHING your missionary dogma, you were supposed to THINK for yourself? Or have they really forbidden you from doing just that?