Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

100 mb/d ?

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

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby Zarquon » Sun 15 Jan 2017, 20:19:38

AdamB wrote:I happen to be the inventor of, and chief advocate of, the new sine wave of oil production prototyped by the US over the past decade or so. Yo-yoing indeed, methinks the bell shaped curve needs MAJOR revision, in lieu of what Rockman and his fellow industry folks have demonstrated for the world to see.


The problem with your model is that it applies to the US and it added some 5 mb/d to global supply, as a result of unprecedented amounts of money being pumped into commodities. Enough to offset the declining production of conventional fields for a few years. There has been a learning curve as to the application of existing technology, i.e. longer laterals and more fracking stages, which allow draining these fields faster and make more of them profitable.

It does not address the other 90 mb/d of global production, nor the additional production required to reach 100, 110 or 120 mb/d. According to the EIA, there are an estimated 418 billion technically recoverable barrels in shales worldwide. 75 billion in the US, others worth mentioning in Russia (75) and China (32). The Vaca Muerte sees some limited production, a lot of which is gas. And companies are not exactly falling over each other to invest in Libya and Chad. Where is your prototype being replicated on any meaningful scale?

The global shale revolution didn't happen when oil traded for $100. That price triggered only the US shales. On a larger scale it might happen when oil trades for $100+ again - and when the US sweet spots have all been drilled. Otherwise the costs and risks appear to outweigh the benefits.
Zarquon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri 06 May 2016, 20:53:46

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby kublikhan » Sun 15 Jan 2017, 21:00:35

ROCKMAN wrote:And actually go back far enough and there should be a third peak from the PA boom in the late 1800's. I've seen a number of estimates but not sure of the credibility with the lack of records.
US oil production in the late 1800s seems pretty small compared to later production. This graph is PA, NY, WV, and OH combined(around 90% of US oil production at the time). It does show a peak in the 1890s:
Image
Figure 5. Combined annual crude oil production (in thousands of barrels per year) from the states of Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, and Ohio.
Peak Production for U.S. Oil-Producing Regions

But compared to later production it's barely a blip:
Image
Figure 9. Annual crude oil production (in thousands of barrels per year) from entire United States, with contributions from individual regions as indicated.
Peak Production for U.S. Oil-Producing Regions
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5002
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby AdamB » Sun 15 Jan 2017, 23:43:43

sparky wrote:.
the peaks rise are dependent on a new economic reality bringing new extraction in play .
what come after fracking and shale ?
....moonshine ?


Changes in incremental recovery factors worldwide...

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20155091

The other 400+ billion barrels of shale around the world.
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/

500+ billion barrels in the Orinoco...

https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3028/

The 500+ billion of oil still out there folks are looking for..

https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3042/fs2012-3042.pdf

Canadian tar sands...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_oil_sands

and after all of that gets developed over the next century, I suppose we just all begin converting methane to syncrude and use that?

"As natural gas from shale becomes a global energy "game changer," oil and gas researchers are working to develop new technologies to produce natural gas from methane hydrate deposits. This research is important because methane hydrate deposits are believed to be a larger hydrocarbon resource than all of the world's oil, natural gas and coal resources combined."

http://geology.com/articles/methane-hydrates/

It surprises me that every peak oiler in the world isn't familiar with these basic references if only so they can count the number of potential cycles of development, having heard about the new sine wave model of oil production here first!
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby AdamB » Sun 15 Jan 2017, 23:55:24

ROCKMAN wrote:Adam - And actually go back far enough and there should be a third peak from the PA boom in the late 1800's. I've seen a number of estimates but not sure of the credibility with the lack of records.


You want to know a REALLY neato fact? Hubbert used Ohio as an example of a region that had peaked in 1956. Pete McCabe of the USGS used it as an example of a region that peaked again, smaller, twice, half a century later, demonstrating the multi-peak/sine wave profile back in 1998 in the best science ever published outside of Hubbert's original ideas. And at the EIA conference in Washington this past summer, the Ohio folks showed up and showed the new peak in oil production, larger than all the peaks that came before. Call it cycle number 4 of the sine wave oil production theory.

Slide 17.

https://www.eia.gov/conference/2016/pdf ... s/kell.pdf

More than a little amusing that I didn't run into any peak oilers there, learning from the people documenting the downfall of single bell shaped curves, particularly those from regions used by Hubbert himself. Why don't peak oilers continue to hit the Washington circuit like they did back in the ASPO days? But for those who do go to these things, you can talk to Mike Lynch there, and some other folks of interest, turns out that the Administrator himself is quite a nice guy and available for discussions with whomever walks up to him and introduces themselves!
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby ralfy » Mon 16 Jan 2017, 00:04:17

That's what happens when one imagines that the U.S. = the world.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5569
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby sparky » Mon 16 Jan 2017, 00:23:47

.
@ AdamB big thanks for the links , I started chewing through it , big meal !

@ Rockman , I quite like the sinusoidal or "many camel humps" model ,
I think the Hubbert curve is a bit simplistic but probably a good overall image of the crude oil extraction

as for calling gooey rubbish "oil" , I'm just having some revulsion there .
That's ain't oil ....no sir !
maybe we could call it "refined products precursors" or carbon resources ,
after all where is the boundary between coal and tar sand , viscosity ?
why does it matter if diesel come out from the tap anyway
User avatar
sparky
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3587
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 16 Jan 2017, 01:05:33

Adam - Actually when you get down to the nut cutting Hubbert's model was for the most part based on Texas production and not that of the entire country:

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi ... o_2005.png

And not really the entire state but just two regions: the Gulf Coast Basin and the Permian Basin (including that portion in New Mexico.:

http://www.utpb.edu/ceed/energy-resourc ... d-reserves

Which explains why his model doesn't include the shale plays or the offshore trends including the Deep Water. And while the Eagle Ford Shale might be in the Gulf Coast Basin his data base actually included only the fields developed in the Tertiary sandstone fields.

Other peaks: the great Spindletop discovery - 1902. The great East Texas Oil Field - late 30's/early 40's.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby AdamB » Mon 16 Jan 2017, 11:57:46

ralfy wrote:That's what happens when one imagines that the U.S. = the world.


The US isn't the world. But what is learned in the US will be applied in the world, the same way we have exported drilling technology, production technology, seismic technology, and everything else we Americans have proven here first, prior to the rest of the world adapting it after us exceptional folks figured it out for them.

Mass produced and publicly available EVs seem to be the next thing we are prototyping for the less exceptional (fortunate?) countries as well. Private spaceflight being another.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby AdamB » Mon 16 Jan 2017, 12:21:43

ROCKMAN wrote:Adam - Actually when you get down to the nut cutting Hubbert's model was for the most part based on Texas production and not that of the entire country:

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi ... o_2005.png



Ohio was used as an example by Hubbert of regional areas that had developed, peaked, and declined. By its design the construction of Hubbert's model on the upswing would have been based on wherever most of the production came from, so sure, Texas would have been strongly represented. Texas production at its peak was a tick over 100 million barrels a month, it declined away to about 31 million a month during the peak oil scare days of 2005/2006, before reversing and reaching its current level of around 100 million barrels a month. Texas having just recently joined the "peaking yet again" club. Of course, it reached its recent repeak far faster than the first time, industry folks having become far more efficient at what they do nowadays.

Ohio was used by scientists as having been a peaked area that unpeaked itself, and as of recently, didn't just repeak a little bit, but all over again. More than a century later. This is critical because if the oldest areas of an old producing province like the US can repeak a century later, and the US as a whole can do the same thing 40+ years later, and if Texas (largest producing state in the country) can repeak itself 44 years later, nobody can honestly say that single peaked bell shaped curves have anything to do with oil production rates.

Rockman wrote:Which explains why his model doesn't include the shale plays or the offshore trends including the Deep Water.


We have discussed this before. He included shale oil production going back to at least 1880 because that oil was in his historical figures. And he included offshore trends (not sure what his depth cut off was because it wasn't his cut off, he used the resource work of the USGS and other named geologists) in his undiscovered projection, so of course he included both the concrete production from existing shale fields and the unknown in his time offshore.

Rockman wrote:And while the Eagle Ford Shale might be in the Gulf Coast Basin his data base actually included only the fields developed in the Tertiary sandstone fields.

Other peaks: the great Spindletop discovery - 1902. The great East Texas Oil Field - late 30's/early 40's.


He did not project from only the data he had. He also projected from fields and discoveries he didn't have. It was really a simplified version of modern discovery process modeling. The USGS uses a similar, but far more modern technique, in how they do their conventional estimates to this very day.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby AdamB » Mon 16 Jan 2017, 12:31:12

sparky wrote:.

why does it matter if diesel come out from the tap anyway


Quite true. Consumers don't demand oil, the only gang that demands oil are refineries, and refineries are factories. They can be made to take in oily sand, tar, oil of all densities and colors and impurities, natural gas, and give consumers what they DO want...gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. The only thing that matters to the end user consumer is how the costs for their manufactured products are affected by the type of input to the factory. If making their gasoline, diesel and jet fuel is twice as expensive because the refineries have to make those products from natural gas instead of something cheaper, some consumers will naturally seek a less expensive alternative. That point has already been reached, back in the 2005/2008 peak oil days, and the alternative is here, and costs my wife about $0.025/mile for her new fuel costs rather than $0.09/mile for gasoline. And her work now provides her with free fuel as well. Other people can have all the expensive $2/gal gasoline they'd like, my wife has severed that cord already and is happily saving money hand over fist to boot.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby sparky » Tue 17 Jan 2017, 17:22:35

.
Let's talk about crude+condensates ( and I have my doubts about "condensates" )
it seems that any extraction of a finite resource will lead to a depletion of the deposits

While it's possible to synthetize hydrocarbon products from pretty much any suitable source ,
including CO2 and water ,that's not really what we are talking about ,

I take Hubbert curve as an hypothesis ,
global crude oil production will reach a maximum , then decrease .
it's not holly writ or dogma , the way he came about his curve are important only to prove/disprove its basic idea
User avatar
sparky
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3587
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 17 Jan 2017, 23:06:27

Sparky - "Let's talk about crude+condensates ( and I have my doubts about "condensates" ) it seems that any extraction of a finite resource will lead to a depletion of the deposits."

Way past time to still be confused, buddy. Condensate is OIL. It may be lighter gravity then some OILS but it is still OIL. We don't have a special name for low gravity OIL...we still call it oil. "Condensate" does not describe the character of the liquid hydrocarbon, its gravity or its composition. An "oil" might have a lighter gravity then a "condensate". The condensate tag is based on the physical state of the liquid hydrocarbon IN THE RESERVOIR. I can show you a bbl of liquid hydrocarbon with a 40° API gravity and you would be unable to tag it as oil or condensate. You would have to know its physical state of that hydrocarbon in the reservoir: is it in a liquid phase or dissolved in the gaseous phase?

As explained many times: when you look at Texas production you can find two categories: oil and condensate. And that distinction is based solely on the physical phase as it exists in the reservoir. Which is why a particular well's production could be classified as condensate for the first few years of its life but then in the later years when the reservoir pressure declines so much that the oil CONDENSES from the gaseous phase to a liquid phase while still in the reservoir. Then when that liquid is produced it is classified as oil by the TRRC. And that LEGAL distinction is a very critical aspect determining how a field is produced. And the calculation is a rather involved engineering exercise. The company does not get to choose the classification...the state does.

It also explains why you offen see numbers tagged as "C+C": because once the liquid hydrocarbon leaves the lease one cannot distinguish CRUDE from CONDENSATE. Of course one can still catergorize any liquid hydrocarbon by its API gravity. Or use general tags like " light", "medium" or "heavy". And those distinctions become unimportant when you get to the refining stage since virtually all liquid hydrocarbons cracked are "oil blends" typically in a very narrow range: 31° to 33° API.

And lastly you can just go with the EIA definition: Condensate (lease condensate): Light liquid hydrocarbons recovered from lease separators or field facilities at associated and non-associated natural gas wells. Mostly pentanes and heavier hydrocarbons. Normally enters the crude oil stream after production.

IOW a LIQUID hydrocarbon commonly referred to as oil.

BTW US refineries really like blending the condensate oil with heavy oils because the condensates tend to have much more gasoline chains in them.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 18 Jan 2017, 12:32:29

sparky wrote:.
Let's talk about crude+condensates ( and I have my doubts about "condensates" )
it seems that any extraction of a finite resource will lead to a depletion of the deposits

While it's possible to synthetize hydrocarbon products from pretty much any suitable source ,
including CO2 and water ,that's not really what we are talking about ,

I take Hubbert curve as an hypothesis ,
global crude oil production will reach a maximum , then decrease .
it's not holly writ or dogma , the way he came about his curve are important only to prove/disprove its basic idea


Interesting that this was NOT the argument made back when peak oil was happening, and everyone was debating what needed to be in a bug out bag, or how to avoid the resulting fedghettos. It seems to have only been spoken after the US, and the world after peak oil was declared in 200-,2005, 2006,2008 (pick your druthers) decided not to, in the US, terminally decline and instead come within a hairs breadth of repeaking, or in the world, ignored claims of peak, and hence this thread, some 15 million barrels a day higher than the peaks claimed in advance, or as fact, from a decade ago.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby sparky » Wed 18 Jan 2017, 18:57:08

.
@ Rockman , thanks for the condensate highlight , the shift of the classification when the reservoir pressure decrease is quite telling

@ AdamB , I've been struggling with the basics of this site
are we talking of the peak extraction of a natural resource or the input /output of the hydrocarbon industry

in the first case , are we sticking to a narrow "conventional "
or do we include some pretty much solid deposits being reworked , I would include them , some might not

IF we only consider any input , coal to liquid , gas to liquid , that OK but it stretch the Peak Oil toward the "anything go"
as long as diesel come out somehow

I believe that whatever standard we use , the output of products cannot grow forever ,
a different definition shift the timeline , but it will still follows a curve ,
though maybe not a nice ,smooth, symetrical one , those hardly exist outside a theoretician mind
doesn't means it is incorrect , beside the bumps
User avatar
sparky
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3587
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Wed 18 Jan 2017, 19:12:00

Sparky - "I believe that whatever standard we use , the output of products cannot grow forever". Which is why I occasionally try to shift the conversation from PO to PHP...Peak Hydrocarbon Product. We've discussed it befors: the consumers don't consume oil...the consume gasoline, diesel, etc. How those commodities are created are unimportant to the people: all they care about is price and availability.

BTW the decreasing reservoir pressure aspect is so common we actually have a name for it: retrograde condensate reservoir. And it's not something new: 50+ years ago millions of bbls of light oils have been produced from conventional retrograde condensate reservoirs. Why the TRRC had to come up with that classification system in the first place.

I'll explain later why it was the basis for a very critical financial aspect.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 19 Jan 2017, 16:40:09

sparky wrote:.
@ AdamB , I've been struggling with the basics of this site
are we talking of the peak extraction of a natural resource or the input /output of the hydrocarbon industry


Peak extraction seems to be minority topic of this site, it appears to be climate change stuff. My theory is that when peak oil didn't crash the system as expected, those looking for another mechanism latched onto climate change. Unfortunately, climate change just doesn't have the same kick as waking up one morning and there being no way to get to work, or bring food to the local markets. And the hydrocarbon industry input is $$, and its output is the same. But in greater amounts. Hopefully. Doesn't always work out that way.

sparky wrote:in the first case , are we sticking to a narrow "conventional "
or do we include some pretty much solid deposits being reworked , I would include them , some might not


I don't know what a narrow "conventional" is. Ghawar was once unconventional, until it became otherwise. Same with the heavies in California, Canadian tar sands, US offshore, then deep offshore, then full scale shale development, and so on and so forth. All once impossible, but ever since easy oil disappeared at the end of the 1800's, humans had to do SOMETHING.

Sparky wrote:IF we only consider any input , coal to liquid , gas to liquid , that OK but it stretch the Peak Oil toward the "anything go"
as long as diesel come out somehow


Consumers don't care what you make their diesel from. We make diesel from this and they don't mind in the least. The whole conventional/unconventional thing is just proof of yet another transition in human capabilities of transmutation when it comes to carbon and hydrogen molecules.

Image

sparky wrote:I believe that whatever standard we use , the output of products cannot grow forever ,
a different definition shift the timeline , but it will still follows a curve ,
though maybe not a nice ,smooth, symetrical one , those hardly exist outside a theoretician mind
doesn't means it is incorrect , beside the bumps


For those who have transitioned away from liquid fuels for transport needs, it really becomes an irrelevant argument. My wife commutes here and there, collects free fuel at work, beebops all around and town and doesn't give a care in the world about the availability of liquid fuels, let alone their cost.

The good news being that as more sine waved modeled oil production rate cycles take place, the more people will put aside their CO2 spewing monstrosities and join the driving silently and smoothly, with wonderful torque curves and without harming any crude oil molecules, into the world's personal transport future.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby sparky » Thu 19 Jan 2017, 20:57:18

.
My personal definition is
"a fossil deposit , liquid at normal pressure and temperature which float on water and will sustain combustion "

It's not very original but it just work for me ,

As for the Climate change things , most of those posters have no interest in the crude oil extraction ,
there is the porn-doomers hankering for the day the zombies will roam the streets
and the greens bigots , both are largely ignorant and cut paste from doggy sites ,
both have latched on this site because it give them a shouting platform.
their thread are to communication what my lonely teenage nights were to entertainment
they are akin to some parasite infestation , feeding off the host
more worrying they have chased away some pretty reasonable and less confrontational posters with their invectives
User avatar
sparky
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3587
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby ralfy » Thu 19 Jan 2017, 22:38:38

Or we might be looking at multiple crises (including peak oil and global warming) amplifying each other and leading to a "perfect storm."
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5569
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby sparky » Fri 20 Jan 2017, 16:54:41

.
@ Ralfie , most certainly , a broad mind bring a lot of wrinkles , my biggest concern is world food production .
It tie plenty of other issues together .
however , this is an oil peak site , trying somehow to stay on the topic , even in a peripheral way , is proper .
User avatar
sparky
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3587
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby AdamB » Fri 20 Jan 2017, 22:12:38

sparky wrote:.
My personal definition is
"a fossil deposit , liquid at normal pressure and temperature which float on water and will sustain combustion "

It's not very original but it just work for me ,


I like the idea of oil being made of long chain carbon and hydrogen atoms, maybe a reflection of one too many organic chemistry courses.

Liquid, gas, solid, as long as the manufacturing facility can turn it into the things we all want and use, it just doesn't matter how it starts out at all.

Which do you think is more important to the end user, that the chemical feedstock for their fuel is derived from something that comes from a gas or doesn't float on water, or that they are sold their liquid fuels at a reasonable price?

I think we both know what is important here.

Sparky wrote:As for the Climate change things , most of those posters have no interest in the crude oil extraction ,
there is the porn-doomers hankering for the day the zombies will roam the streets
and the greens bigots , both are largely ignorant and cut paste from doggy sites ,
both have latched on this site because it give them a shouting platform.
their thread are to communication what my lonely teenage nights were to entertainment
they are akin to some parasite infestation , feeding off the host
more worrying they have chased away some pretty reasonable and less confrontational posters with their invectives


Sounds like a reasonable description.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests