Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

New High of Liquid Fuel Production?

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.
Post a reply

Re: New High of Liquid Fuel Production?

Unread postby seenmostofit » Fri 29 Jun 2012, 20:27:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dsula', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seenmostofit', ' ')in my past 22,000 miles of driving to both coasts, and from the Canadian border to southern Arizona

You drive too much, man, too much. It's not good for the planet.


compared to what? The people who use coal fired electricity to heat their homes, take an occasional jet plane ride, or breath?

And besides, every 2000 miles or so, I stopped and planted a seedling near the road to make my trip carbon neutral. Good enough for Al Gore, good enough for me!
seenmostofit
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon 02 Apr 2012, 12:19:50
Top

Re: New High of Liquid Fuel Production?

Unread postby Graeme » Sun 01 Jul 2012, 20:54:06

A new energy report from Harvard makes unsupportable assumptions

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t is therefore pertinent to begin with examining where the study (which was prepared with BP assistance) anticipates that the growth in supply will come from.

It is instructive, in reading this plot, to first recognize that it is a plot of anticipated production capacity rather than projected actual production. The reason for this can perhaps be illustrated by an example.

Within the current production capacity that Saudi Arabia claims adds up to 12 mbds, is the 900 kbd that will come from Manifa as it is further developed and comes on line within the next few years. However, at that time. the increase in production will, to some degree, offset the declines in existing wells and producing fields that will become more severe as more existing horizontal wells water out. Manifa is not currently in significant production, and is unlikely to be at such a level for at least another 18 months, with production being tied to the construction of the two new refineries being built to handle the oil. It is not, therefore, a currently instantaneously available source of oil.

At a relatively normal 5% per year decline in production from existing fields, Saudi Arabia will have to bring on line (and sustain) at least 500 kbd per year of new production. While it is likely that it can do this for a year or two more, betting that it will be able to do this plus raise production 2 mbd or more in 2020 is on the far side of optimistic. Just because a reserve exists does not mean that it can be brought on line without the physical facilities in place to produce it.


energybulletin
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand
Top

Re: New High of Liquid Fuel Production?

Unread postby dsula » Mon 02 Jul 2012, 07:10:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seenmostofit', '
')And besides, every 2000 miles or so, I stopped and planted a seedling near the road to make my trip carbon neutral. Good enough for Al Gore, good enough for me!

:-D
User avatar
dsula
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Wed 13 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: New High of Liquid Fuel Production?

Unread postby meemoe_uk » Sat 28 Jul 2012, 11:07:01

The IEA have publically released their July world oil production figures.
And on page 60 they announce that in the 2nd quarter 2012, the world set a new quarterly oil production record of 90.83Mbpd average.
http://omrpublic.iea.org/omrarchive/12jul12full.pdf
Great eh? Nice to live in an oil and CO2 cornucopian society i think, just as the cornies said we would.

As for the members on this website?
Funny. At least 2 years ago, I began sticking the link to the best data ( the IEA and EIA ) under the noses of all members here. You lot are spose to be enthusiastic about oil figures.
Yet out of the dozens of active peakers here, I still don't see a single one of you whose got the guts to independently look at and post the new oil figures on this forum. It's like none of you have any interest in them what so ever.
And guess what? That's exactly what was said of you years ago.
Doomers and peakers have no interest in peak oil. They are only interested in doom.
User avatar
meemoe_uk
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue 22 May 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: New High of Liquid Fuel Production?

Unread postby Pops » Sat 28 Jul 2012, 14:31:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('meemoe_uk', 'G')reat eh? Nice to live in an oil and CO2 cornucopian society i think, just as the cornies said we would.

Actually no, in 05 the head corny Yergin said we could produce over 100 million barrels a day by 2010; a 20% increase in 6 years. Then in 06 his partner said a 20% increase in 9 years, and last year Yergin said a 20% increase in 20 years. Since 05 we've increased from 85 to 91 Mbd: 1%/yr. Finally he seems to have come to grips with past reality, his forecasts are rapidly depleting, wonder what his next will be?

In the period that all liquids production has been barely increasing 1%/yr, price has been increasing 20%/yr (?). Does that really imply a cornucopian surplus to you?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')oomers and peakers have no interest in peak oil. They are only interested in doom.

And you are interested in what? Poking PO doomers in the eye? You obviously are interested in peak oil at least as much as any admitted peaker. If you were uninterested you'd not be here, just like all the other uninterested people are not here. If PO is a non-event why waste your time on a bunch of doomers? Do you frequent Chupacabra sites to disprove the Chupacabra Doomers?

The only reason I can think you come here is that peak oil scares the crap out of you and as long as you can say nanananana you don't need to consider your fear or your vulnerability. That's all right, you posting the latest "oil" production figure when they suit your argument proves or disproves nothing – just as the fact that last month's decline and essentially flat first quarter production - at a record price - (which you and OF2, et al conveniently forgot to post) likewise proves nothing. Earlywarning:

Image

The point of peak oil is that production will rise, 'till it falls or stalls and can't get up. A month or a quarter or a year is noise on a 200-300 year curve. Your Gish gallop reflects the flimsiness of your denial.

The fundamental longer term trends are that new discovery has slowed to a crawl, conventional reservoir production has plateaued or very near, long term real prices average higher than at any time in history, dirty coal usage is increasing at twice the rate of any other fossil fuels and though "New" oil and EOR is all the rage in the investor-fleecing and whistling past the graveyard blogosphere: it isn't new, and isn't a replacement.

Those are what matters, not last months production.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
Top

Re: New High of Liquid Fuel Production?

Unread postby meemoe_uk » Sat 28 Jul 2012, 15:39:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('meemoe_uk', 'F')unny. At least 2 years ago, I began sticking the link to the best data ( the IEA and EIA ) under the noses of all members here.

That Crazy! meemie, because in the other post you just said that EIA and IEA are crazy doomers and their data lies. MEEMIE SAYS EIA AND IEA ARE CRAZY DOOMERS AND THEIR DATA LIES!!!!


Not quite pstarr.
There are 2 components to IEA and EIA reports

the data
the projections

My position on IEA and EIA publications has always been the same.

The data is accurate.
The projections are inaccurate.

But since you aren't smart enough to know any difference between data and projections, and don't have attention span long enough to read my posts properly, you think I'm contradicting myself when i say the data is accurate and the projections are inaccurate.
Sorry I can't help you.
User avatar
meemoe_uk
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue 22 May 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: New High of Liquid Fuel Production?

Unread postby TheAntiDoomer » Sat 28 Jul 2012, 15:52:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he fundamental longer term trends are that new discovery has slowed to a crawl, conventional reservoir production has plateaued or very near, long term real prices average higher than at any time in history, dirty coal usage is increasing at twice the rate of any other fossil fuels and though "New" oil and EOR is all the rage in the investor-fleecing and whistling past the graveyard blogosphere: it isn't new, and isn't a replacement.


I see you are conviently avoiding OF2 discovery thread. Typical pops. :roll:
"The human ability to innovate out of a jam is profound.That’s why Darwin will always be right, and Malthus will always be wrong.” -K.R. Sridhar


Do I make you Corny? :)

"expect 8$ gas on 08/08/08" - Prognosticator
User avatar
TheAntiDoomer
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed 18 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: New High of Liquid Fuel Production?

Unread postby meemoe_uk » Sat 28 Jul 2012, 16:41:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('meemoe_uk', 'G')reat eh? Nice to live in an oil and CO2 cornucopian society i think, just as the cornies said we would.

Actually no, in 05 the head corny Yergin said we could produce over 100 million barrels a day by 2010; a 20% increase in 6 years. Then in 06 his partner said a 20% increase in 9 years, and last year Yergin said a 20% increase in 20 years. Since 05 we've increased from 85 to 91 Mbd: 1%/yr. Finally he seems to have come to grips with past reality, his forecasts are rapidly depleting, wonder what his next will be?

I addressed this in recent post
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('meemoe', 'd')oomer method to discredit skeptics and cornys:
step 1 : cherry pick a skeptic prediction that's gone wrong
step 2 : extrapolate from that one prediction from one corny and insinuate that all cornies make wrong predictions all of the time and that the general corny hypothesis ( plenty of oil , no energy crisis ) is wrong.
step 3 : add in a complete lie ( " World oil production has been flat since 2005. " )

step 4 : repeat steps 1~4, for hundreds of years, regardless of any data to the contrary. ( e.g. the IEA or EIA data )

Thanks for following my method on how to discredit skeptics.
I don't follow or respect Yergin's outlook.
The failure of Yergins prediction doesn't falsify the general cornucopian prediction - " plenty of oil for hundreds of years, no peak any time soon, no horrible crash when oil peaks "
So far all these predictions are holding out just fine.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n the period that all liquids production has been barely increasing 1%/yr, price has been increasing 20%/yr (?). Does that really imply a cornucopian surplus to you?

The same type of argument could be shot at the 1970s hike in oil prices. As it turned out the 1970s oil price rises were due more to the maxing of oil production capacity at the time, the need for massive funding for new oil infrastructure, and political upheaval. It wasn't due to a geological limit being reached. After the 1970s came 80s 90s and 2000s all with plenty more oil.
There's no reason to doubt that exactly the same thing is happening now as in the 1970s crisis.
So yes it does imply a Copernican surplus to me, for 30 years to come as well.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')oomers and peakers have no interest in peak oil. They are only interested in doom.
And you are interested in what? Poking PO doomers in the eye? You obviously are interested in peak oil at least as much as any admitted peaker. If you were uninterested you'd not be here, just like all the other uninterested people are not here. If PO is a non-event why waste your time on a bunch of doomers? Do you frequent Chupacabra sites to disprove the Chupacabra Doomers?
'fraid so. I've a commitment to the truth, that is to point it out to people who are wrong.
Peakers have been insisting TEOTWAWKI is imminent for decades, well if they had right any time in the past, it should have happened by now. It hasn't. But there's always some scare and hype story in the media to be interpreted as ' the first crack in the dam ' to keep the myth alive. When oil production figures say everything's ok, doomers have gone elsewhere for their PO doom. I think is only sensible and reasonable to keep peakers attached to their base postulate - immiment PO will cause doom - by pointing out the data doesn't agree with the hypothesis.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he only reason I can think you come here is that peak oil scares the crap out of you and as long as you can say nanananana you don't need to consider your fear or your vulnerability.
It doesn't scare me because I know its not true.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat's all right, you posting the latest "oil" production figure when they suit your argument proves or disproves nothing – just as the fact that last month's decline and essentially flat first quarter production
Are you going to weigh in on this with your PO is now conviction?
This is what peakers used to do here 5 years ago.
They'd find the peak in the data, and assert that it was the all time peak.
So now we have record oil production back in April 2012.
The problem this original peaker game was the record kept getting broken, and peakers got wise to it. For many, this broke the whole game. The peakers left are somehow ok with believing peak oil is now but at the same time don't have the confidence to call any high point THE peak. The only way I can wrap my brain round that is to think you are deluding yourselves.
Since it became clear the record oil production was going to keep getting broken, the job of a POer was to create alternative goal posts, such as oil production only counts if its 1970s technology production, and a certain grade of oil, with a certain minimal EROEI, or a oil production divided by world population.
I'm just here to remind you of the original assertion -peak oil is now. Not any of these other peaks in other measures.

- at a record price - (which you and OF2, et al conveniently forgot to post) likewise proves nothing. Earlywarning:
I've already posted my thoughts on oil prices. Oil is dirt cheap at $120 a barrel.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he point of peak oil is that production will rise, 'till it falls or stalls and can't get up. A month or a quarter or a year is noise on a 200-300 year curve. Your Gish gallop reflects the flimsiness of your denial.
We've now got 7 years past 2005 which was the favorite year for the 1st internet forum generation of peakers. If we had a graph of oil production to year 2305 and we could see a peak at 2012 then this arguement of being just a small bit off would be valid.
But we don't.
By the best error margin we've got, peak oil being roughly 2005 is wrong, and every month year and decade of new record highs is strengthening that falsification.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he fundamental longer term trends are that new discovery has slowed to a crawl,
This is totally false. OF2 threads and posts assert from oil companies that much more oil than we've consumed to date has been discovered. Discovery hasn't slowed to a crawl, its rocketed into the cosmos.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')conventional reservoir production has plateaued or very near,
Yesterdays convention always peaks yesterday. A well drilled today will on average employ better technology than the one drilled the year before. This truth has never caused the PO doom dieoff with the peaking of old conventions, and it won't for the present or future conventions. Conventions don't matter. But I see conventions are now a immovable staple diet of one wing of the PO religion, they'll still be singing about some old oil convention peaking 100 years from now.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')long term real prices average higher than at any time in history,
Nah, The cost was higher in 2008. At short times in the 1970s oil broke the markets, you couldn't buy it for any price.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')dirty coal usage is increasing at twice the rate of any other fossil fuels and though "New" oil and EOR is all the rage in the investor-fleecing and whistling past the graveyard it isn't new and isn't a replacement.
So what? Are you saying the only reason for increasing coal production is because oil is about to peak? That's absurd. A growing world industrial society is bound to increase coal production, regardless of oil.
User avatar
meemoe_uk
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue 22 May 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: New High of Liquid Fuel Production?

Unread postby copious.abundance » Sat 28 Jul 2012, 18:51:21

Back to that Early Warning blog, here's the latest longer-term graph. You can see all-liquids has clearly surpassed the "bumpy plateau" which everyone was talking about until recently, in spite of the stall the past few months.

Image

It's also obvious the production graph follows the price graph. No surprise there.
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia
Top

Re: New High of Liquid Fuel Production?

Unread postby dorlomin » Sat 28 Jul 2012, 21:00:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheAntiDoomer', '
')I see you are conviently avoiding OF2 discovery thread. Typical pops. :roll:

Cut and paste of unverified press releases that has on occasion double counted the oil it claims it is finding.
User avatar
dorlomin
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: New High of Liquid Fuel Production?

Unread postby Pops » Sat 28 Jul 2012, 21:14:47

Just randomly,
A high reserve number implies nothing about the rate of recovery possible, rate and price is what peak is about.

OF2s posting oilco press releases is great, auntie but they are public relations, advertising, self promotion. See my point?

Yergin is the head corny, mee, no cherry picking needed, if you'd rather not use Yergin's forecasts, OK, don't blame you, who are the cornies you do want to use? You?

I think you (as head corny) said oil is cheap at $20,000,000/bbl (or some silly number) so it doesn't matter how expensive oil is. Of course that on its face ridiculous, I feel silly even mentioning it, much smarter people than me believe oil at $150 or maybe even $100/bbl it's too expensive for our economy. Whether or not it is cheap by any other measure (or in your imagination) makes absolutely no difference to the economy we inhabit.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '&')gt;long term real prices average higher than at any time in history,<

Nah, The cost was higher in 2008.

As has been pointed out to you over and over, yearly average oil prices in real terms have been higher recently than at any time in the past. In 2008 and the late '70s the average was just under $100 in 2011 dollars, today the 52 week average for Brent is $113.81 in current dollars - so even a little higher in 2011 dollars. The calendar average has been over $100 (nominally) since november of 2010.

And before you go into some gallop about PPP, I'll point out that the formula for measuring PPP is exactly the same as that for inflation: Price1/Price2. PPP however is designed to measure the relative value of one currency to another, inflation measures the relative value of commodities at one time vs another. Since we aren't comparing the oil price in pesos vs dollars when we say oil is more expensive now vs any other time in the past, PPP is not relevant. But I'm sure relevance is never the point, the hand wave, that's the point.

I'll just stop there. No sense in repeating myself when your entire modus is to ignore the most basic facts at a Gish gallop, as has been pointed out elsewhere.
--


OF2, that chart shows about .8mbd average yearly increase over the last 4 years - 7 years actually - again at historically high prices. The prior 10 years between '95 and 05 the volume increased 15mbd, twice the recent rate at a fraction of the price - see the problem?

Image
http://scitizen.com/future-energies/tim ... -3714.html

But it is off the 84-88 plateau, you're right.

<Edit for link, twice>
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
Top

Re: New High of Liquid Fuel Production?

Unread postby meemoe_uk » Mon 30 Jul 2012, 14:54:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'J')ust randomly,
A high reserve number implies nothing about the rate of recovery possible, rate and price is what peak is about.

Your mate Hubbert asserted rate of recovery depended on reserves. Get the reserve, then you can draw a bell curve of recovery rate, he said. Glad to see you are smashing your idols.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')F2s posting oilco press releases is great, auntie but they are public relations, advertising, self promotion. See my point?

Yes : peaker rule on press releases :
If press releases support cornies : its baseless self promotion
If press releases support peakers : its as good as the word of god
If for the last 100 years oil companies have been cooking up fictional oil reserves, just whats been pumped into cars all this time? holy water?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ergin is the head corny, mee, no cherry picking needed, if you'd rather not use Yergin's forecasts, OK, don't blame you, who are the cornies you do want to use? You?

I'd never heard of the freak until you put him on a pedestal. Who picked him as the leader? I don't remember voting him in. Probably peakers voted him in.
Me? Sure, I'm certainly better than Yergin.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think you (as head corny) said oil is cheap at $20,000,000/bbl (or some silly number) so it doesn't matter how expensive oil is.

You'll need to find a quote of me on that. I don't recall saying that. Bear in mind you don't read my posts, it doesn't surprise me you don't know what I've written.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')much smarter people than me believe oil at $150 or maybe even $100/bbl it's too expensive for our economy.
As a PO moderator you should bring up a case with admin to get Matt Simmons removed from PO leader history. He was pretty good at arguing how cheap oil was at $100-$150 a barrel. We've been around this price for years now, and no problem with the economy here. Same as usual - boom and bust - same as for last 500 years.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Whether or not it is cheap by any other measure (or in your imagination) makes absolutely no difference to the economy we inhabit.
True. When there's no food in the supermarkets, no cars on the roads, I'll know its broken the economy. That's a pretty good measure. In Europe, with its high oil taxes, oil products for the end consumer cost the equivalent of more than $400 a barrel. We're doing fine here.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s has been pointed out to you over and over, yearly average oil prices in real terms have been higher recently than at any time in the past. In 2008 and the late '70s the average was just under $100 in 2011 dollars,
You don't, and don't want to, understand money inflation. The value of the dollar decreases with time. The cost of oil in 2008 was >$140 a barrel. Today its around $90 ( side note : peakers when confronted with falling oil prices of the last few years began jumping around the oil market looking for the most expensive oil , so you'll find some oil more expensive than $90pb ). 2008 dollars are worth more than 2012 dollars so $140 in 2008 is worth more than $90 in 2012, so the cost of oil today is cheaper than in 2008.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'ll just stop there. No sense in repeating myself when your entire modus is to ignore the most basic facts at a Gish gallop, as has been pointed out elsewhere.
Yeah, lets just cut to the point. Your gang have been saying PO doom doom doom for over 100 years.
We've had no PO doom.
Your gang is wrong.
You can't figure it out, details or no details.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')F2, that chart shows about .8mbd average yearly increase over the last 4 years - 7 years actually - again at historically high prices. The prior 10 years between '95 and 05 the volume increased 15mbd, twice the recent rate at a fraction of the price - see the problem?
Yes. The problem is resolved without PO when you consider the oil wars and need for investment in the oil industry in the 90s was orders of magnitude lower than 2003-2012.
User avatar
meemoe_uk
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue 22 May 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: New High of Liquid Fuel Production?

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 30 Jul 2012, 23:15:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'A')nd you are interested in what? Poking PO doomers in the eye? You obviously are interested in peak oil at least as much as any admitted peaker. If you were uninterested you'd not be here, just like all the other uninterested people are not here. If PO is a non-event why waste your time on a bunch of doomers? Do you frequent Chupacabra sites to disprove the Chupacabra Doomers?
+1

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'M')eemie, all you do is insult people, create "doomers" and demons out of forum participants, antagonize everyone (except a tiny little coterie of other trolls and self-described debunkers) and make your posts, mostly angry rants, unreadable. If you job is to stress people out and ruin this discussion then you are succeeding. I have trouble when I see you name. I don't like that or you. Your data is suspect, and sometimes completely nutzoid (oil at $10,000 barrel is cheap!!. EIA/IEA is either a conspiracy or EIA/IEA is irrefutable God) to the discussion. We are not idiots meemie, we see your errors constantly.

The mission here is to understand oil depletion, its timing, consequences, and possible mitigation. A difficult subject at best as oil depletion covers a vast number of interrelated inter-disciplines, hard and soft science, economics, politics and international relations. Only a complete fool or religious nut believes in Unicorns and endless planetary resources. Are you one of those? Most of us here are not nuts, just want to understand what is going on. Your constant derogatory barrage, rambling thoughts and sentences, and unrelated attacks contribute little. I am not being particularly elitist or exclusionary when I say you are a waste of time and energy. Do yourself a favor and grow up, straighten out, or get the f*ck out of here.
+1

Your posts here Meemoe come off like your are here just to poke PO doomers in the eye. We have our share of cornys here but you seem more interested in insulting your fellow posters. You don't have to act like a colossal prick to get your message across. Unless of course, that is your only goal here.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: New High of Liquid Fuel Production?

Unread postby meemoe_uk » Tue 31 Jul 2012, 06:24:21

>You don't have to act like a colossal prick to get your message across. Unless of course, that is your only goal here.
My posts don't usually directly ad-homien anyone personally, (although I reserve the right to fire back at someone if they directly insult me and the mods have ignored it. )
What they do is point out wrong statements made by peakers. Most people take it as an insult if someone points out they're wrong. To say someone who points out you're wrong is a prick is equivalent to saying the teacher is a prick for teaching kids.
A lot of people think teachers are pricks, but then a lot of people fail at school.
User avatar
meemoe_uk
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue 22 May 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: New High of Liquid Fuel Production?

Unread postby dsula » Tue 31 Jul 2012, 06:59:28

meemoe, is that true? You believe that oil is infinite?
User avatar
dsula
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Wed 13 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: New High of Liquid Fuel Production?

Unread postby meemoe_uk » Tue 31 Jul 2012, 14:39:11

>meemoe, is that true? You believe that oil is infinite?
no
User avatar
meemoe_uk
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue 22 May 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: New High of Liquid Fuel Production?

Unread postby copious.abundance » Fri 14 Dec 2012, 01:41:26

Time for another update! :-D

After stalling out for several months this year, liquids production the past month or two has rocketed to ... another new high! :shock:

Image

Even on the longer-term chart, that oft-heralded-by-the-doomers bumpy plateau is history.

Image
LINKY

Image
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests