[ennui2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'B')ut not Europe or Asia's BAU. Their BAU barely supported $40 oil. That is why the world economy crashed in 2005. It lost its BAU lol

[ennui2]

2008 was not our greatest depression.

BTW, this is what REALLY should be etched on your tombstone.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')where does it end adam?

[ennui2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')You have no feeling for those who lost their homes? That is so mean.

[ennui2]

PStarr, you're the troll, Mr. "I'm just here for the yuks".

The yuks are on you.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/201 ... /87388482/

[ennui2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'e')nnui $50 dollars is not cheap.

[ROCKMAN]

"It's cheap. I was paying $4 gas in 2008 and thinking it was the end of the world. Now it's almost half price all these years later. It's cheap." No, it isn't "cheap"...it just cost less. Just as it cost even less then today in 1998 when the inflation adjusted price was $1.48/gallon.

This back and forth debate about expectations of future rates and prices brings me back to the point I made recently about preductinghpredicting the unpredictable. So again I'll use the commonly misunderstood interpretations of what Hubbert did and didn't predict. We've had this chat many times and I think I finally came up with an explanation most can understand. And those that can't I now derclare as hopeless and should be ignored in the future. LOL.

What Hubbert predicted was the ultimate cumulative oil production of the known producing trends he used in his analysis. His model does not include new plays such as the shales and offshore trends. Common sense should tell one that a prediction of recover from trends not yet discovered cannot be made. The same is true today.

This is why no one in the late 1800's (during the oil production boom in PA) could have predicted the huge oil trends in Texas (which Hubbert used in his model) simply because they had not been discovered yet. PA was the oil producing capital of the US long before Texas earned that title.

IOW US oil production PEAKED in the late 1800's. And then it PEAKED again in the 1970's. And then it almost PEAKED again a couple of years ago. And no one could have predicted those moments in time decades before they happened. So again during the late 1800's no one could have predicted the US PO in the 70's because those trends had not been known at the time. Just as Hubbert was not aware of the trends that almost led to a new US PO. And as far as global PO the prolific ME oil trends weren't even fantasized about when Hubbert built his model.

But here's the problem cornice haved today: while they might propose future unknown trends there are some hard limits that are known. Such as the depth/temperature limits: oil breaks down when the rocks get to hit. Stratigraphy...the nature of the rocks themselves. About 99%+ of all fossil fuels have been produced from sedimentary rocks. But the vast majority of the world is void of such rocks when you includer the oceans. Offshore production has come from the relatively limited areas at the edges of the continent. Even the Deep Water rocks (such as in the GOM and Brazil) were known to exist many dercades before those trends began developing.

Likewise the hydrocarbon accumulations in shale was well established more then 60 years ago. What wasn't available were the tech and higher oil prices needed to use that tech. But as been shown most shales have very limited value which is why more then 80% of oil production from a shale has come from just two formations...the Bakken and Eagle Ford. On from a g!oval perspective they cover a very small area. Many other shale formations were evaluated when oil was $100+/bbl and none developed production comparable to the B and EFS. Shales are not productive...shales with relatively rare internal frameworks are commercial.

Which is exactly why gasoline/oil prices, while lower today then they were a few years ago, are still significantly higher then they were during the vast majority of the petroleum age.

[ennui2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')o, it isn't "cheap"...it just cost less. Just as it cost even less then today in 1998 when the inflation adjusted price was $1.48/gallon.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'T')hose folks with their big SUV's and stupid RV's are just plain dumb. You're smart, right? You have an EV, especially after lecturing everybody within your earshot how stupid they are not to have an EV. Have your EV?

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', '
')What Hubbert predicted was the ultimate cumulative oil production of the known producing trends he used in his analysis. His model does not include new plays such as the shales and offshore trends. Common sense should tell one that a prediction of recover from trends not yet discovered cannot be made. The same is true today.

[ennui2]

Did you have a point to make besides your usual long George Carlin stand-up routine that leads to a nonexistent punch-line?

However oil makes its way from its original form to the gas tank, it's currently cheap. And that's all that matters at present.

Inventing terms like "dicktunery" doesn't constitute an argument. It's not funny and it's not informative. It's just empty mockery that attempts to preach to the converted.

In fact, the more upset you become, the more incoherent your words are, much like Yosemite Sam's incoherent tirades.



"Dagnabbit dicktunery corn liquor fracting obama lyin saudi america"

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')o be concise: EIA has recently included all sorts of non-petroleum hydrocarbons (corn ethanol comes to mind) in its definition of crude oil . . . to inflate the amount of oil supposedly produced in the US.