Renewable Revolution

Quote

AG: Palloy cannot handle the truth, so he claims the Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) numbers are "fake news". 

No, since 2003 when I realised Peak Oil was real and urgent, CERA has been out there trying to bamboozle people with briefings and stats on why Peak Oil isn't true.  Why does AG quote them and the stupid journos that believe CERA's BAU future?  Because he is a shill for the fossil fuel industry, or is so ignorant on physics he doesn't know what is true.  His disbelief of Hess's Law is PROOF of that. His insistence that I am a shill for the the FF industry, or ignorant of his "biosphere math" (which he made up and doesn't exist in anyone's scientific view).

CERA is a FF industry fake news source.  No need to use fake figures.

Quote

Don't hold your breath waiting for Palloy to ever use hard numbers to base his Confirmation Bias on

Quote

So with the world's consumption running at 33.6 billion barrels per year, [do] you think it's good to have discovered 330 million barrels, with a hope to find 1 billion?

Answer my question, AG.

I never said I "disbelieved" Hess's Law, BULLSHIT ARTIST. I SAID, over a year ago, that Hess's Law enthalpy numbers INCLUDE WASTE HEAT, which makes them faulty when applied to ENERGY RETURNED in a combustion chamber, DUMKOFF! Now, if you consider that "proof of my ignorance", that's fine with me. Just don't say I doubt that the energy needed to boil water with an open flame is incorrect in Hess's Law numbers. It's correct, as far as that goes. So, you can take all the words you are putting in my mouth to discredit my knowledge of this issue and put them where the sun doesn't shine, Einstein.

As to your question, let me remind you that the subject HERE is the alleged "collapse" that "PEAK OIL" will trigger. It's a pretty silly question you are posing, because you know damned good and well that I do not consider ANY new oil or gas find to be "good". It is BAD for the biosphere. THAT is why in bends me out of shape when ANOTHER big find (yes, Einstein, it IS a big find! - not all the 33.6 Billion BOE is one place - nice try, though  ) is announced. Have you ever heard about the Biosphere Camel's back and the straws? That new find is a big assed STRAW!

Tell me WHY a new find does not erode the Peak Oil Meme? Spare me the bullshit that because the find is "less than world annual consumption", it is not relevant. We've been down this road before. You always want to isolate each and every bit of evidence of increased global producton by claiming it is not "valid" in the overall trend towards collapse. That is the kind of "logic" that refuses to connect the dots because those dots undermine your Confirmation Bias.  👎

Tell me why the billions of BOE that are NOT being exploited until the price is right is "evidence" of looming collapse? And YEAH, THAT's why all those oil rigs hither and yon shut down massively in 2014 and stayed that way for about three years. "Peak oil" did not have JACK SH IT to do with reduced production. Now that the price is gettin' better, the FF upstream maniacs are going out to get oil and gas like gangbusters, and YOU KNOW IT (or should).

Please answer the question NOW.

Tell me, Mathematician, how much BOE of all the world's fossil fuels from coal, oil, tar sands and gas we MUST have to prevent a collapse? You really need to state a number and stand by it, you know.   If you think we MUST HAVE 35 billion BOE a year to prevent the collapse of civilization, SAY SO.

If you do not want to give a number, then you are playing fast and loose with the concept of peak oil. I will call you a bullshit artist if you do not answer, NOW, what the minimum amount of FF (available to be sold and  burned on the market AFTER they have been extracted) ARE REQUIRED ANNUALLY in order to prevent the collapse of civilization.

If you say it is 35 billion BOE, I will laugh in your face, with hard data from, among other sources, the Rocky Mountain Institute. They will really get your drawers in a bunch because they are so "irrationally optimistic", from your fascinating point of view, that they make the "outrageous" claim that the world can run on 80% LESS FOSSIL FUELS, annually, than we use now, WITHOUT a drop in our current standard of living. Yeah, sure, SCOFF all you want. That's how you roll.  👎

Regardless of your habit of scoffing and sniping quips, you NEED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION about minimum FF needed annually to prevent a collapse, or you have ZERO credibility in your "collapse will save us" pitch.

Why do you refuse to address all the other real increases in FF production out there?

Answer the question with DATA, not a negative quip, please.

Why are you fixating on this ONE story, that, whether you want to believe it or not, is symptomatic of a much broader trend? This is not the first story I have posted that you tried to yawn about. I jumped because, unlike you, I DO research a few times a week what the fossil Fuelers are up to. Right now the workers on some of the ocean platforms are calling for a strike. They want more money. Expect the price to go up pronto. I like that. Maybe you do, and maybe you don't. For me, the higher the price, the BETTER. Yes, that will bring MORE FF exploitation activity as they try to cash in, but they still will have to compete with that clean renewable energy technology that Palloy is ALWAYS quick to claim (a TOTAL FABRICATION, by the way) is "ERoEI negative". I've tried to show you how wrong you are on that and you just will not listen. Fine. Others here do know how to add and subtract in Energy math, never mind the Biosphere Math you avoid like the plague, where POLLUTION costs need to be SUBTRACTED from energy returned.

I've been a bit long winded here so I will repeat the question:
 
Why are you fixating on this ONE story, that, whether you want to believe it or not, is symptomatic of a much broader trend? 

Answer the question with DATA, not a negative quip, please.

Why do you refuse to adress the present trend of increased production and consumption?

Answer the question with DATA, not a negative quip, please.

What is your evidence that ZME is not a reputable news site and CERA is a FF industry fake news source?

Answer the question with DATA, not a negative quip, please.

Why did you not address the part of the February 2018  article that stated the following?

In fact, this week we learned the U.S. topped 10 million barrels a day in oil production in November, a level not reached since 1970.

If you do not want answer, then STFU about Peak oil, please.