[OutcastPhilosopher]

When refusing to reply to the voice of credible data and sanity and math and science and experience in oil is a "waste of time", that says ALL that needs to be said for you or your ilk.

Good luck with your loony bin postings. Over time, you'll need it.

There was nothing credible, sane, mathematical, scientific or experienced in any of that... it was just a chart without a clear explanation as to it's relevance. I can't be arsed playing guessing games... it's childish and neither will I be led on a wild goose chase, because someone doesn't like what I'm saying and then deciding to use a traditional trolling technique to derail my thread.

For the record Peak Oil is defined as " Peak oil refers to the hypothetical point at which global crude oil production will hit its maximum rate." Synthetic oil (fossil fuel derivatives) are not crude oil. Likewise, there ARE NOT multiple peak oils as was suggested, there is just one and that was around 2005-8.

If you're able to make a succinct on-topic point in a friendly manner, I'll reply, if not - I won't.

Warpig there is no point in even bothering a reply to Adam or Outcast. If you state something other than there worldview they want to claim you are a fast crash doomer or something of that ilk. These dudes are dependent on the shale oil scheme and the financial industry, both are scams.

[JuanP]

When refusing to reply to the voice of credible data and sanity and math and science and experience in oil is a "waste of time", that says ALL that needs to be said for you or your ilk.

Good luck with your loony bin postings. Over time, you'll need it.

There was nothing credible, sane, mathematical, scientific or experienced in any of that... it was just a chart without a clear explanation as to it's relevance. I can't be arsed playing guessing games... it's childish and neither will I be led on a wild goose chase, because someone doesn't like what I'm saying and then deciding to use a traditional trolling technique to derail my thread.

For the record Peak Oil is defined as " Peak oil refers to the hypothetical point at which global crude oil production will hit its maximum rate." Synthetic oil (fossil fuel derivatives) are not crude oil. Likewise, there ARE NOT multiple peak oils as was suggested, there is just one and that was around 2005-8.

If you're able to make a succinct on-topic point in a friendly manner, I'll reply, if not - I won't.

Warpig there is no point in even bothering a reply to Adam or Outcast. If you state something other than there worldview they want to claim you are a fast crash doomer or something of that ilk. These dudes are dependent on the shale oil scheme and the financial industry, both are scams.

I have AdamB, Outcast Searcher, and REAL Green on my ignore list, their noise to signal ratio is too high. If you learn to use the ignore list function your experience on this site will be more enjoyable.

This is what their comments look like after you put them on your ignore list.

"This post was made by AdamB who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post."

[AdamB]

"Time for record global oil demand may have already passed, Russia says"
https://www.rt.com/business/508826-reco ... nd-russia/

The Russians seem to be calling Peak Oil. Will this website become popular again if people become aware that Peak Oil is already here?

It has happened or been called like 5 times this century so far. Will this website become more popular if we begin speculating on how many more there might be?

[AdamB]

Warpig there is no point in even bothering a reply to Adam or Outcast.

Certainly true if you can't support anything you say, and get called out on it. Warpig wants to claim the military is backing up his end of world scenario, but he won't also include when they said these things might happen. Some of them claimed his wet dream collapse scenario should have happened years ago, and he would rather not admit to having referenced yet another discredited end of the world pundit as the best he can copy and paste.

Hence my opinion that you don't ask the military resource economics questions any more than you do run of the mill doomers playing in the doom fantasy league games.

[AdamB]

I have AdamB, Outcast Searcher, and REAL Green on my ignore list, their noise to signal ratio is too high.

Particularly when, you know, they know facts and stuff and it doesn't work in the doom fantasy league games where such things are unnecessary.

Some of us enjoy our ideas being challenged...but then we deal with facts and reality and such. Those who want to hide from dissenting opinions however, well, tit is usually because they want nothing to do with facts and reality and such.

[OutcastPhilosopher]

When refusing to reply to the voice of credible data and sanity and math and science and experience in oil is a "waste of time", that says ALL that needs to be said for you or your ilk.

Good luck with your loony bin postings. Over time, you'll need it.

There was nothing credible, sane, mathematical, scientific or experienced in any of that... it was just a chart without a clear explanation as to it's relevance. I can't be arsed playing guessing games... it's childish and neither will I be led on a wild goose chase, because someone doesn't like what I'm saying and then deciding to use a traditional trolling technique to derail my thread.

For the record Peak Oil is defined as " Peak oil refers to the hypothetical point at which global crude oil production will hit its maximum rate." Synthetic oil (fossil fuel derivatives) are not crude oil. Likewise, there ARE NOT multiple peak oils as was suggested, there is just one and that was around 2005-8.

If you're able to make a succinct on-topic point in a friendly manner, I'll reply, if not - I won't.

Warpig there is no point in even bothering a reply to Adam or Outcast. If you state something other than there worldview they want to claim you are a fast crash doomer or something of that ilk. These dudes are dependent on the shale oil scheme and the financial industry, both are scams.

I have AdamB, Outcast Searcher, and REAL Green on my ignore list, their noise to signal ratio is too high. If you learn to use the ignore list function your experience on this site will be more enjoyable.

This is what their comments look like after you put them on your ignore list.

"This post was made by AdamB who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post."

Awesome. Thank you for the info.

[dcoyne78]

When refusing to reply to the voice of credible data and sanity and math and science and experience in oil is a "waste of time", that says ALL that needs to be said for you or your ilk.

Good luck with your loony bin postings. Over time, you'll need it.

There was nothing credible, sane, mathematical, scientific or experienced in any of that... it was just a chart without a clear explanation as to it's relevance. I can't be arsed playing guessing games... it's childish and neither will I be led on a wild goose chase, because someone doesn't like what I'm saying and then deciding to use a traditional trolling technique to derail my thread.

For the record Peak Oil is defined as " Peak oil refers to the hypothetical point at which global crude oil production will hit its maximum rate." Synthetic oil (fossil fuel derivatives) are not crude oil. Likewise, there ARE NOT multiple peak oils as was suggested, there is just one and that was around 2005-8.

If you're able to make a succinct on-topic point in a friendly manner, I'll reply, if not - I won't.

warpig,

Can you define "conventional oil"?

I define it as all crude plus condensate except extra heavy oil (API gravity less than 10 degrees) which is mostly from Orinoco belt in Venezuela and Canadian oil sands in Alberta (XH oil) and light tight oil (aka LTO).

For World conventional oil as I define it the annual output peak was 2016 at 73.2 Mb/d see chart below.
Also note that I expect as tight oil output decreases after 2028 and oil prices rise, that conventional oil will see a new peak at about 74 Mb/d in 2032 or 2033.



Conv with scenario for 2020 to 2040 below