This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Past Peak Oil - Why Time Is Now Short

Tyler Durden's picture





 

Submitted by Chris Martenson

Note:  With so much going on with Europe's debt crisis, the continuing disaster and economic contraction in Japan, and the potential for a very hard landing in the Chinese growth miracle (which is in the running as my favorite "black swan candidate" for 2011), I am going to return our attention to oil in this report.  The next report will assess the developing and unfolding debt crisis that will drag down most of the developed economies at some point, and this report will provide essential context for understanding why this result is inevitable and when it will occur.

The Next Oil Shock

The only thing that could prevent another oil shock from happening before the end of 2012 would be another major economic contraction.  The emerging oil data continues to tell a tale of ever-tightening supplies that will soon be exceeded by rising global demand.  This time, we will not be able to blame speculators for the steep prices we experience; instead, we will have nothing to blame but geology.

Back in 2009, I wrote a pair of reports in which I calculated that we’d see another price spike in oil by 2010 or 2011, based on some assumptions about global GDP growth rates, rates of decline in existing oil fields, and new projects set to come online.  Given the recent price spike in oil (Brent crude over $126, now at $115) and recent oil supply data, those predictions turned out to be quite solid (for reference, oil was trading in the low $60s at the time). 

One part I whiffed on was in my prediction that the world community would have embraced the idea of Peak Oil by now and begun adjusting accordingly, but that’s not really true except in a few cases (e.g. Sweden).  Perhaps things are being differently and more seriously considered behind closed doors, but out in public the dominant story line concerns reinvigorating consumer demand, not a looming liquid fuel crisis.

How the major economies can continue proceeding with a business-as-usual mindset given the oil data is really quite a mystery to me, but that’s just how things happen to be at the moment.

At any rate, with Brent crude oil having lofted over $100/bbl at the beginning of February and remained above that big, round number for four months now, we are already in the middle of a price shock.  It may not be a perfect repeat of the circumstances of the 2008 oil shock, but it's close enough that the risk of an economic contraction, at least for the weaker economies, is not unthinkable here.  Japan, now in recession and 100% dependent on oil imports, comes to mind.

Looking at the new data and reading even minimally between the lines of recent International Energy Agency (IEA) statements, I am now ready to move my ‘Peak Oil is a statistically unavoidable fact’ event to sometime in 2012, which tightens my prediction from the prior range of 2012-2013.

Upon this recognition, the next shock will drive oil to new heights that are currently unimaginable for most.  First, $200/bbl will be breached, then $300, and then more.  And these are in current dollar terms; any additional dollar weakness will simply be additive to the actual quoted price.  By this I mean that if oil were to trade at $200 but the dollar lost one half of its value along the way, then oil would be priced at $400. 

Stampeding Into a Box Canyon

In 2009, I wrote a special report on oil that explored the interplay between energy and the economy.  At that time, the stock market was in the tank, global growth was in a freefall, and things looked gloomy.

But I knew that thin-air money is not without its charms and that we’d experience a rebound of sorts.  Here’s what I wrote:

I am of the opinion that these trillions and trillions of dollars, which, along with their foreign equivalents, are being applied to “ease the credit crunch,” will eventually find their mark and deliver what feels like a legitimate rebound in activity.  All those trillions have to eventually go somewhere and do something. 

For now, debts are defaulting faster than the various central banks and governments can inject new money and borrowing activity into the system.  Banks aren’t lending because there are very few compelling loans to make, especially if future losses have to actually be carried by the bank making the loan. 

But this won’t be true forever.  Sooner or later, all the trillions of new dollars will trot out of the barn, begin to gallop, and then thunder off, creating the appearance of a healthy advance.

It will be a cruel illusion, though, as this stampeding herd of money is headed straight into a box canyon.

Money is only one component of growth.  As we’ve strenuously proposed, energy is a necessary prerequisite for growth.

(Source)

Well, here we are a couple of years later, with those trillions and trillions out of the barn and stampeding off trying to create some real and lasting economic growth.  As we score these efforts, it appears to us that the amount and type of growth that has been achieved is underwhelming, to say the least. 

Housing remains in a serious slump, wage-based income growth is poor, Europe remains mired in a serious debt crisis, Japan has slumped back into recession, and the US fiscal deficit is a structural nightmare.  Worse, GDP growth is relatively tepid and would be negative, deeply negative, without all the deficit spending and liquidity measures. 

As predicted, all that thin-air money, once released into the wild, had a mind of its own and created a serious bout of commodity inflation, especially in food and fuel, which is now seriously impacting the poor and middle classes. 

So it’s hard to call the trillions and trillions ‘well spent.’  I was hoping for better results.

Yet we can’t call the re-flation efforts a complete failure, as we are not in a serious, destructive deflation, and we’ve all been granted a bit more time to get ourselves prepared in whatever ways make sense. The gift of time has been invaluable, and for that I am grateful.  But in terms of creating a true and lasting economic miracle?  It turns out, once again, that 'printing' money electronically is no more effective than calling in the silver coin of the realm, making each unit slightly smaller, and then re-issuing it.  Real economic growth has not been created.

What has happened is that false demand, spurred on by trillions in thin-air money, has also spurred on renewed demand for oil, hastening the day that a geologically inspired supply/demand mismatch will finally arrive. 

We are driving at a high rate of speed into a box canyon.

World Crude Supply

Before we get into the specifics of where I think the immediate trouble lies in the world oil data, let's take a moment to look at the big picture.

There are a number of ways to look at the petroleum data.  The one I prefer to look at is something called 'crude + condensate' (C+C), which leaves out things like ethanol and natural gas liquids, both of which are converted to 'barrel of oil equivalents' (BOE) and added to the C+C to yield total liquid fuels.  The reason I like to focus on C+C is that this is mainly conventional oil, the cheap and easy stuff, and it gives us a better idea of where we are in the Peak Oil story.

Note:  This next cluster of charts comes from data from the U. S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) that I am, frankly, uncomfortable with, so take them all with a grain of salt.  The EIA upwardly revised the data for 2010 and added between 750,000 and 800,000 barrels per day of production to each month.  This is the largest upward revision of which I am aware, and it's not yet clear to me why this occurred.  Further, the EIA obtained some of that data from IHS, which is the parent company of CERA, the organization that best qualifies for the 'influential Peak Oil deniers of the decade' award. 

And somewhat ominously, as suspect as the data may be, it has been an important source for decades for analysts, myself among them.  Quite recently, the EIA has announced that, due to budget cutbacks, it will immediately terminate the collection and distribution of international energy statistics -- right at the exact moment they are needed most.  Ugh.  Very disappointing, and all due to a $15 million budget cut. (Source). This echoes the loss of the M3 monetary statistic, which turned out to be a perfect gold-buying signal.  If this is a parallel event, it means that now is a great time to take Peak Oil more seriously.

A chart of C+C reveals that the world has been bouncing along in a channel roughly between 72 and 74 mbd since 2005:

Yes, a new high was made in December 2010 and was exceeded in January 2011, offering hope that the world could break out of this limiting band of production, but then production fell back in February due to the Libyan conflict.  I have added a purple dotted line to reflect where the data will most likely be for March after subtracting out the Libyan losses and the Saudi cutbacks.  As you can see, we will be right back in the 72-74 channel.  

Some will be tempted to write this off to a temporary setback due to the unrest in North Africa, but such unrest has always been part of the equation: Iraq, Nigeria, Kuwait, and many other countries have experienced supply disruptions along the way due to war and/or civil unrest.

Note also in this chart that oil production fell off by more than 2 mbd as a consequence of the global recession between 2008 and 2009.  From the lows in August 2009, it has since climbed more than 2.4 mbd to its current level.

Where did those gains come from?  Can we expect more? 

There's a very interesting story in here if we dig down one more layer. This next pie chart shows each region's relative contribution to the gains of 2.4 mbd that happened between August 2009 and February 2011: 

In the above chart, I had to include negative percentages for two regions, which is an odd way to display things (how does one draw a negative pie wedge?), but it still all sums to 100%.  I've included the negatives for comparison purposes and because they are important to keep in view.  It's clear that the Middle East is the most important region; no surprise there. North America is about evenly split in gains between the US (Bakken) and Canada (tar sands), and Russia and China are the major players in their respective regions.

Taking the analysis one level deeper, here are the seven major countries that contributed 88% of the August 2009 to February 2011 gains (in thousands of barrels per day): 

Saudi Arabia is the hands-down leader, being responsible for 700,000 barrels per day, or 29%, of the entire gains logged in that period.

There is a variety of interesting sub-stories that could be told across each of the other countries, but it's time to focus on the big fish.

Saudi Arabia – Where There's Smoke, There's Fire

Something is seriously wrong with the signals coming from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and I am of the opinion that KSA is having geological difficulties that are preventing it from pumping more oil.  Said plainly, I am of the mind that the KSA is already at peak.

One troubling bit of information is that Saudi Arabia justified its lowered oil output for March by claiming that the oil markets are oversupplied, even as Brent crude was perched above $120/bbl. There are several possibilities here:

  1. There really is an oil glut, and the KSA is being truthful.
  2. There is an oversupply, but only of the heavier, poorer grades of oil that the KSA has in relative abundance.
  3. The KSA can produce more, but doesn’t want to, preferring to withhold oil production in the interest of receiving higher prices.
  4. The KSA is already past peak and cannot pump more, despite its best efforts, and the oversupply issue is really just a cover story for the fact that the KSA cannot pump more even if it wanted to. 

Let’s start at the beginning of this odd tale.  Early in May, the KSA said this:

Saudi lifts April oil output to 8.5 mln bpd-sources

May 01, 2011

DUBAI/KHOBAR, Saudi Arabia, May 1 (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia's crude oil output edged back up in April to around 8.5 million barrels per day (bpd) from roughly 8.3 million bpd in March as demand picks up, Saudi-based industry sources said on Sunday.

The kingdom slashed output by 800,000 bpd in March, due to oversupply, oil minister Ali al-Naimi said last month, adding that he expected production in April to be a little higher than March's level. 

So the story here is that the KSA claims to have 12.5 mbd of total capacity.  Therefore, meeting the Libyan shortfalls of 1.3 mbd should be simple enough; just open the taps and let it flow.  Yet the KSA barely cracked the 9 mbd mark, briefly, before falling back to 8.3 – 8.5 mbd, telling the world that this was a purposeful response to markets that were oversupplied.  That's one possibility.

Several analysts thought that perhaps the KSA was simply gaming the markets and trying to obtain the best possible prices:

Saudi unlikely to lift oil output quickly

May 3, 2011

WASHINGTON — Saudi Arabia is unlikely to boost oil production quickly to ease the rise of crude prices, because it needs high prices for its own increased spending, analysts at an international banking think tank said Tuesday. 

After producing 8.6 million barrels a day in 2010, the world's leading oil supplier will only kick up production to about 8.9 million barrels this year, said analysts at the Washington-based Institute of International Finance. 

"So far the production of crude oil in Saudi Arabia for the first quarter was around 8.7, 8.8 (million barrels a day). And recently some unconfirmed reports said that production dropped in March," said Garbis Iradian, the IIF's deputy director for Africa and the Middle East. 

"So we don't expect crude oil production in Saudi Arabia will rise over nine million barrels a day," he said.

While it's possible that the KSA production limitations are a matter of trying to engineer higher prices, one person I trust is Sadad Al-Husseini.  The former Aramco engineer, who has a lot of credibility in these matters, thinks that the production limits have more to do with the grades of available oil rather than any mercenary market tactics on the part of KSA.

Saudi Sweet Oil Supply Too Low to Offset Libya, al-Husseini Says

May 17, 2011

Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest crude exporter, won’t be able to produce enough low-sulfur blends to replace lost Libyan output for refiners in Europe, said Sadad al-Husseini, a former Saudi Aramco executive. 

The country doesn’t have enough Arab Super Light to create sufficient amounts of low-sulfur, or sweet, oil similar to Libya’s grades, al-Husseini, Aramco’s former executive vice president for exploration and development, said today by e-mail.

The basic problem is that each refinery is geared for a specific and relatively narrow band of crude oil feedstocks, with the specific gravity and sulfur content being the most critical factors.  So it is not as simple as the KSA pumping more heavy sour crude to offset the lost Libyan production.  This is yet another possible explanation, and it is far more believable to me than either oversupplied markets or a pricing strategy.

The somewhat shocking news that followed just a few days after the above article was the begging by the IEA for OPEC to lift production.  Such a frank admission or plea has never been made before.  Reading between the lines, we can suspect that a serious supply shortage is looming if more oil does not find its way to market soon.

International Energy Agency Urges Oil Producers to Lift Output

May 19, 2011

PARIS — Expressing “serious concern” about elevated crude prices, the International Energy Agency on Thursday called for an increase in world oil production. It was an unusual move that highlighted consumer countries’ frustration at the failure of oil-producing nations to lift output in the face of rising demand and tighter supply.

(...)

The agency’s monthly Oil Market Report, respected by industry practitioners, has recently been warning about tightening market conditions as supply has not caught up with strong demand.

Despite commitments from Saudi Arabia, the biggest producer, to use its spare capacity to increase output and replace the supplies lost because of the uprising in Libya, the cartel’s production is now running 1.3 million barrels a day below the level seen before the crisis, according to the I.E.A.

Although the New York Times has positioned this unusual call by the IEA as perhaps a bit of political maneuvering, I feel they missed the real picture by not spending more time characterizing the mismatch between supply and demand.  If that's true, then we have a near-perfect repeat of the 2008 situation, where, in the six quarters preceding the oil price spike, demand exceeded supply in five of those quarters.

Confirming this view recently was Goldman Sachs' energy division, which said:

While near-term downside risk remains as the oil market negotiates the slowdown in the pace of world economic growth, we believe that the market will continue to tighten to critical levels by 2012, pushing oil prices substantially higher to restrain demand.

Events in the Middle East and North Africa are having a persistent impact, which leads us to increase our oil price targets. We expect that the ongoing loss of Libyan production and disappointing non-OPEC production will continue to tighten the oil market to critically tight levels in early 2012, with rising industry cost pressures likely to be felt this year.

We are now embedding in our forecasts that Libyan production losses will lead to the effective exhaustion of OPEC spare capacity by early 2012. Consequently, we are raising our Brent crude oil price forecast to $115/bbl, $120/bbl, and $130/bbl on a 3, 6, and 12 month horizon.

(Source)

There’s a lot in there, including the idea that the unrest in the Middle East will be persistent, that non-OPEC production will continue to disappoint (which it should, as nearly every non-OPEC country is past peak), and that the more globally relevant Brent contract is the right one to quote now when discussing oil, not the US-centric WTIC contract.

So count Goldman Sachs among those that are now calculating an imminent supply-demand mismatch.

The End of Easy Oil

The really big news is that the Wall Street Journal finally ran an oil piece (on the front page, no less) acknowledging the difficulties involved in Saudi Arabia regarding oil production and the extraordinary efforts that are now underway to boost production by unlocking their remaining heavy oil reserves. 

The critical parts in this story revolve around the costs of getting this oil out of the ground (in terms of both energy and money), the decades it will take to get the oil out, and the clear implication that going after such oil tells us everything we need to know about where we are in the Peak Oil story in general (and specifically in Saudi Arabia).  All the better, easier, cheaper grades are already drilled and in production.  This is what's left:

Facing Up to End of 'Easy Oil'

WAFRA, Kuwait—The Arabian Peninsula has fueled the global economy with oil for five decades. How long it can continue to do so hinges on projects like one unfolding here in the desert sands along the Saudi Arabia-Kuwait border.

Saudi Arabia became the world's top oil producer by tapping its vast reserves of easy-to-drill, high-quality light oil. But as demand for energy grows and fields of "easy oil" around the world start to dry up, the Saudis are turning to a much tougher source: the billions of barrels of heavy oil trapped beneath the desert.

Heavy oil, which can be as thick as molasses, is harder to get out of the ground than light oil and costs more to refine into gasoline. Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have embarked on an ambitious experiment to coax it out of the Wafra oil field, located in a sparsely populated expanse of desert shared by the two nations.

That the Saudis are even considering such a project shows how difficult and costly it is becoming to slake the world's thirst for oil. It also suggests that even the Saudis may not be able to boost production quickly in the future if demand rises unexpectedly. Neither issue bodes well for the return of cheap oil over the long term.

The whole story is worth a read.  I’ve excerpted quite a bit because there’s so much important information in there that I wanted you to see.  Most importantly, the mainstream media in the US is finally waking up to the idea that all of the cheap and easy oil is gone.

They’ve not yet gotten to the appreciation of the idea of Net Energy, which is the real key to understanding why the future will not resemble the past, but they are edging ever closer. And they are beginning to circle around the idea that depletion in the fields that have driven the world’s economy for the past 50 years is a critical reality.

It’s not much of a hop, skip, and a jump from there to seeing it finally named for what it is:  Peak Oil, otherwise known as the geological reality that will resist all efforts at human ingenuity and technology because it is a matter of finite limits, not of willpower or optimism.

One thing I thought the article did an especially good job of was actually delving into the engineering realities involved in the project.  The article continues:

The Wafra project, however, is far more of a challenge than traditional steam projects. As in most of the Middle East, the oil at Wafra is trapped in a thick layer of limestone that also contains minerals that can build up inside pipes and corrode equipment.

An even bigger challenge is getting the two crucial elements for generating steam: water and a source of energy to boil it. Most successful steam projects are in places with easy access to relatively pure water and a cheap fuel source, usually natural gas. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have little of either.

With no fresh-water sources in the Arabian desert, Chevron has been forced to use salt water found in the same underground reservoirs as the oil. That water is full of contaminants that must be removed before it can be boiled and injected into the ground.

Finding the energy to boil the water will be even tougher. Chevron could use oil instead of natural gas—literally burning oil to produce oil—but that would burn profits, too. So the company likely will be forced to import natural gas from overseas, an expensive process that involves chilling it to turn it into a liquid, then shipping it thousands of miles.

Some experts are shaking their heads.

The hurdles include mineral buildups, corrosion, water impurities, and the energy costs of heating all that water into steam.  In short, getting this stuff out of the ground is going to be far more difficult and costly than prior efforts.  End of story.

The reality involved in getting at the non-conventional oil is really just a story of declining net energy; the red curtain will extend down into the luscious green space that represents the surplus energy available to society. Less net energy means less economic activity and complexity.  It means less growth.  Below a certain level, it means no growth at all.  And eventually it means persistent negative growth, a possibility not yet priced into any financial markets.

In some cases I have my concerns about whether these heroic efforts are worth the trouble at all.  Perhaps we should invest the same amount of energy, talent, and expertise in energy conservation efforts and technological development.

At this point in the timeline, it's imperative for each of us to ask ourselves: how well prepared are we for this post-Peak Oil future? Part II of this report: How To Position for the Next Oil Shock explores the probable impact the next energy crisis will have on key asset classes, employment, and society in general. As we've shown above, we likely have little time left. Use it wisely.

Click here to access Part II: How To Position for the Next Oil Shock (free executive summary; paid enrollment required to access).

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 05/27/2011 - 13:38 | Link to Comment kito
kito's picture

certainly agree with the former, not so gung ho on the latter....

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 13:59 | Link to Comment flacorps
flacorps's picture

The Dymaxion's handling was deadly.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:19 | Link to Comment tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Bucky ball Buckminster. Never knew he was so nutty. Thanks for Ephermeralization tip.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:38 | Link to Comment Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

The most brilliant crazy man ever. He also argued that dolphins evolved from human beings. At least his ideas about geometry have proven to be pretty descriptive of reality. Cars, architecture and economics - not so much.

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 11:39 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

we named our first son flipper. Could never get that little guy out of the pool

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 15:37 | Link to Comment Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

dup

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 13:34 | Link to Comment Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

>global warming

Someone needs to brush up on their pseudoscience. It's called "global climate change" now.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:03 | Link to Comment malek
malek's picture

Talking about conveniant. So even if it turns out to be global cooling, the doomer's can still claim told ya so!

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:34 | Link to Comment espirit
espirit's picture

Seems to be the current fad now, blame it on an uncontrollable factor - the weather.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 17:50 | Link to Comment Slim
Slim's picture

Hopefully we don't cause the next ice age due to our industrialization.  Those damn sabertooths and mamoths blew their entire civilization the last time.  You'd think with the multiple ice ages we've had going on that people would realize we are in anything but a stable climate.  Hell, coastal north carolina (or equivalent) was a tropical rain forest at one point before the ice ages started.  I'm not going to say humans have zero impact but I'm going to say that humans are afraid of change and uncertainty - something Mr. Gore has exploited to profit from. 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:01 | Link to Comment Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Why are you bringing climate change into this?  You can not use one false set of logic to prove a whole nother set of issues wrong!  Horrible post.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:45 | Link to Comment Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

>Why are you bringing climate change into this?  You can not use one false set of logic to prove a whole nother set of issues wrong!  Horrible post.

Actually there is a connection.

The oligocene period had 20x current atmospheric CO2 concentrations yet was the same exact temperature as today. This shows how ridiculous "global warming" theory is. I hope we can boost our CO2 that high, so that this negligible greenhouse gas and beneficial plant food can restore Earth to its former state of lush flora and fauna.

And clearly if we haven't extracted enough hydrocarbons from the Earth to multiply the current atmospheric CO2 concentration by a factor of 20, then we probably aren't anywhere near Peak Oil either. The marginal costs of extraction have a LONG way to go.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 15:07 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

did you not read what he just wrote???!?!

GFD, this was an idiotic post you just wrote.

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 02:03 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Ok, to start, Trav wants Eugenics to be practiced.  He wants to "save" us from starvation caused by peak oil.  This is why he will NEVER accept the fact that new technology can every be implemented, and will deny facts that  are shoved right in his face (ie ionic liquids), or acknowledge the possibility of any form of nuclear, wind or solar application--even with another 20, 50, 100, 1000, or a billion years of research.

 

 

 

Fri, 02/18/2011 - 15:49 | 

trav7777 (Total Score:1)

 

wtf is wrong with eugenics?  Why should we condemn the cretins to a future of starvation?  Likewise, humanity as an institution, cannot afford to have itself breeded back into the stone ages by cretins.

genocide of inferior populations is in fact an evolutionary MANDATE

 

link: http://argo.zerohedge.org/news/guest-post-beyond-false-dawn-global-crisi...

 

More eugenics bullshit:

 

 

 

by trav7777 

on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 22:18

#1024940

 

You're an idiot...you should not reproduce.

 

The SB IQ test was not in ANY WAY intended to promote eugenics.  IQ tests have literally nothing whatsoever to do with a DESIRE to promote one type of person over another.  Some people may have seized on them in order to justify such a promotion- in case you didn't figure out by what I said earlier, moron, I AM ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE.  I pretty clearly stated as much, so if you think you are going to say OMG RACISSS EUGENICIST and I am going to, what?  I'm gonna fuckin deny it when I JUST SUGGESTED IT?

 

Does it occur to you that east asians have the HIGHEST average score on these exams?  WTF, reality shits on you again.  I am not east asian, btw.  But it doesn't matter, as a general case does not speak to a specific one. 

 

Besides, the low IQ races underperform in every test of cognition, not just SB.  Pick a test.  The reality of subsaharan Africa is that intelligence there is exceptionally low, which is why people walk miles for water instead of building pipes and why it has no history of even the indigenous written word.

 

My race or sex has nothing to do with me; I am an individual.  It is a matter of fact that whites and males have substantially higher sigmas to their IQ distributions than other groups...so what?  You may be a white male and you are still an idiot.  Being a white male doesn't endow you with the genius IQ of other white males by the virtue of the irrelevant color of your skin.  That skin covers an idiot.

 

NO race norming would be performed for a reproduction threshold; the tests are race-blind.  The reason africans average lower scores is because africans have lower average cognitive capacity.  This is just simply the way it is.

 

Math and abstract reasoning are not racist, you sniveling idiot, and IQ tests are not crafted to reflect memorization.  JFC, they give these tests the world over.  Do the world a favor and attempt to become educated.

 

For you to claim that there is a "white" and "european" intelligence is utterly absurd.

 

reply flag as junk (0) 

 

 

 

by trav7777 

on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 22:25

#1024972

 

the vast majority of people cannot understand geometric compounding.

 

So maybe we need to set the bar at 140; whatever.

 

The population needs to decrease and get smarter.  If at that point, we have to craft a BNW type outcome, fine.

 

Grow OR die leads to death because growth CANNOT continue forever.  I am a bacteria at 10 minutes to midnight sounding an alarm.

 

link: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-there-are-no-good-outcomes

 

___

 

Now, he brings up the fact that blacks have low IQs.  Funny, considering that was the explicit distinction he picked for forced sterilization.

 

 

 

by trav7777 

on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 23:52

#839016

 

YES, some races are BETTER than others, if you want advanced medicine, electricity, the written word, the computer, the lightbulb and all the rest of that shit.

 

WTF is wrong with you people?  Especially that uncle tom apologist with his "RACISSSSS" epithet in the previous post?  I mean what.tha.fuck??

 

Look at HISTORY.  Which race is it that the people who invented EVERYTHING AROUND YOU came from?  And in the sickest of ironies, people from that race actually feel GUILT over the fact that it wasn't brown people who did everything!

 

They welcome multiculturalism...wtf?  ALL cultures are NOT EQUAL.  I don't LIKE cultures of destruction and misery, of primitivity, like all throughout the brown world.  I don't WANT the ghetto culture of murder and criminality.  I don't WANT african culture that didn't possess the written word until it was oppressed by white people with it or the native american culture that ALSO lacked the written word and the fucking wheel.

 

WTF is the matter with people these days that they think all cultures are equivalent?  Multiculturalism is a SICK JOKE and a crime against human progress.

 

The more mexicans we get, the more we are like mexico.  The more the diversity, the lower the average IQ.  DO THE MATH, shit just keeps getting worse.  Diversity is a FRAUD and pretending that all races are equal is a crime.  For example, we continuously hear how bad the US is globally in terms of aptitude tests, but if you examine AT ALL the demographics breakdowns, you see that the bad aggregate score we have as a nation is ENTIRELY DUE to hispanics and blacks!  Yet NOBODY can mention these "hate facts" without having a white uncle tom condemn him as a RACIST.

 

People who refuse to accept reality as it IS are suicidal fools.

 

 

 

 

 

Thu, 12/30/2010 - 22:44 | trav7777 (Total Score:1)

 

AWSUMZ...I mean taking philosophy and guidance from a fucking wal mart cashier.

 

I truly WANT genes in my bloodline with average IQs of 85, I mean who wouldn't?

 

99/100 would choose to have sex, wtf?  And get knocked up by some ghetto thug who will end up in prison and pass on his criminal and idiot genes to the little mulatto offspring who then grow up with a trash mom and no dad?  Sounds like a recipe for technological progress to me, right?  I mean, think of ALL THE INVENTIONS by the brown people over the centuries...all one of them.

 

WOW...great advice wal mart.  99/100 would choose to doom their kids because they are incapable of constraining their sexual urges; what a fucking catastrophe.  Bunch of freakin whores.  When they can't throw on a pantsuit and go sit behind a desk and pretend to work but still get paid, more selectivity will be employed in mating patterns.

 

Login or register to post comments

 

link: http://188.126.66.67/article/guest-post-if-we-close-our-eyes-monster-wil...

 

___

 

More racism: 

 

 

 

by trav7777 

on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 14:09

#1012036

 

huh?  Average brain size of blacks IS smaller.

 

This is what we call a "hate fact."

 

Oh and while I'm up, STFU you uncle tom racebaiting fuckstick

 

reply flag as junk (3) 

 

 

link:http://www.zerohedge.com/article/and-defense-secretary-gates-just-uttere...

 

___

 

So, basically, this sociopath's whole thesis is "kill the darkies, and anyone I don't like because anyone who disagrees with me is clearly stupid".  He wants to sterilize/murder between 50 and 97% of the population, with the explicit goal of exterminating all blacks.  

 

Can anyone really take this guy seriously with all the shit he has posted?  All he is doing is presenting a one sided argument to try to stir up sentiment in his favor so he can exterminate a bunch of people.  Basically, the guy is a petite Hitler, a fucking monster, waiting for an audience.

 So now the mystery as to why this guy so aggressively attacks anyone who denies peak oil, or indeed any of the garbage he spouts, is attacked VICIOUSLY, and without relent.  He will say literally ANYTHING, whether slight fudging of the truth, a half truth, outright lie that seems plausible, or a lie completely out of left field.  I have never seen such a dark purpose behind a series of posts, and the fact that these posts have been made over the course of more than a year is absolutely CHILLING.  This guy is a mass murderer looking for a victim.

And Trav, so you know, I will post this response to every post I see from you from now on.  You're fucking dead to me, save for this post.

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 18:54 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

And I always thought you were smarter than this.... I guess you are just being disingenuous...

Re: CO2, it is all about the coal, and there is a lot of coal that will never be mined because it is not economic...

You might want to chew on this:

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/20593576/885722944/name/Patzek+and+Croft+2010+-+Peak+Coal+2011.pdf

If you don't like his analysis, write a paper showing that he is full of shit, go ahead, I dare you..

Sun, 05/29/2011 - 00:55 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

good to see you Flak

Sun, 05/29/2011 - 01:56 | Link to Comment tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Yeah, Flak, come back, I'd rather debate these issues with you. I know how to track the conversations now too so I can go back to old ones.

Sun, 05/29/2011 - 09:11 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Guys, wasn't really gone... picked a bad time to take a day off I guess...

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 16:08 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

I love how you can't see that Peak Oil is the same religion as Global Warming, with both possessing the same goals by the same means, and both containing the same fallacies, and leading to the same ends (inevitable death for humanity).

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 16:15 | Link to Comment Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Peak oil means oil is finite.  What does that have to do with climate change?  Climate change is trying to tell me that the volcano that just pumped more CO2 into the air than America does driving in a decade has little to do with the climate changing.  That is stupid.  Peak oil has to do with the fact that resources are finite, and we have yet to find a cheap replacement for oil.  Stop it with the name calling.  It is childish to label people.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 16:55 | Link to Comment Nikola Tesla
Nikola Tesla's picture

I believe tmosley means both are made up by the TPTB, to reduce economic output and the global population. Personally I see the climate change debate as a cover for the actual problem of peak oil, a way to reduce consumption of oil whilst not creating a panic in the markets. I am very interested in the ionic liquids tmosley spoke of, as I hadn't heard about that yet. Will it still require as much fresh water to convert the bitumen into oil, and what type of oil is created. Low sulphur or oil only suitable for roads? I believe the quality of the oil is quite important. I certainly hope peak oil isn't true, but with the current state of the north sea oil fields and Englands government and economic situations I'm betting on a difficult future for this 24 year old.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 17:14 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Sadly, it isn't magic.  It only extracts the oil from the sand/micropores in the well.  The oil is what it is, the solvent can't change that.

But the astronomical energy requirements that stem from heating the sand to release the organics is totally sidestepped, greatly reducing the energy invested.

Genetically modified fuel producing microorganisms will look a lot more like magic.  Imagine airports producing much of their own fuel in house.  Perhaps a 50,000 gallon tank in each person's back yard that produces the fuel that they use to drive and heat their homes in the winter.  It's not that far out there.  It just takes a little imagination, some engineering work (both genetic and civil/environmental), and some capital investment.

The key is preserving your capital.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 17:39 | Link to Comment Nikola Tesla
Nikola Tesla's picture

Anything that reduces the demand of natural gas to heat that viscous tar sand sludge is good with me, so long as it doesn't also cause any externalities that are even worse for the actual environment, obviously I don't expect this to be the case or you probably wouldn't have supported it as much.

I had heard about the genetically engineered micro-organisms; as a microbiologist I believe you are from reading your previous posts, (please correct me if I'm wrong) would you hazard a guess as to when we will likely see these farms scaled up to an industrial level?

 

Thanks for the information, I'll do some more research into it soon.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 20:13 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Ionic liquids do have some toxicity concerns, due to their extremely potent abilities as solvents, though many are supposed to be easy to deal with.

I am a chemist by training, though I work in a field where the lines are highly blurred between chemistry and microbiology.  I don't know ANYTHING about the inner workings of those companies that are developing such microbes, though from my own experience dealing with clients, I would think that it is merely a matter of getting a proof of concept completed and attracting investors.  This is very difficult to do during an economic recession, though high fuel prices SHOULD make it easier on them.  My own company has gotten funding from exploration companies along similar lines (they want our anti-microbial tech to block fouling by iron oxidizing bacteria in wells in order to extend their lifetime).  From my experience, genetic engineering is very simple (we have to do it fairly regularly--we insert genes that code for production of fluorescing proteins for visualization of antimicrobial efficacy).  I don't do this myself, but the experts get it done pretty damn fast, like within a couple of weeks under a heavy load of other projects.

As always for research purposes, I like to start at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionic_liquids

But sometimes, for the really bleeding edge stuff like this, it is tough to find material there.  Google works quite well for things that have made it into the media: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=ionic+liquid+oil+san...

From which I found this site, which has an EXCELLENT youtube video: http://www.matse.psu.edu/news/ionicliquids

 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 23:32 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

a recent development by ONE set of researchers in a fuckin lab

You are no chemist, you are no biologist.  You are a fuckin postal worker.  Cliff

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 00:46 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

lol, yeah, lets throw out all the technological advances ever made by individuals.

You'd like that, wouldn't you, you fucking sociopath?

Sun, 05/29/2011 - 02:10 | Link to Comment tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Cloning GFP into a strain is very simple and straight forward (you know when you've succeeded when the thing glows). The genetic engineering to get a bug to produce a complex hydrocarbon while surviving even relatively low concentrations of that product is a lot more to ask. And you have to produce it relatively efficiently. I'm a little skeptical. Don't bank on that happening.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 23:38 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

You freaking ridiculous retarded ASS.

Peak oil HAPPENED ALREADY to the USA.  Where the fuck have you been the past 40 years, you idiot?

It has nothing whatsoever to do with Global fucking Warming.  ZERO.

Global warming wasn't even an itch in Algore's pants when Hubbert elucidated the FACT that oil wells, fields, regions, nations, planets peak.

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 02:03 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Ok, to start, Trav wants Eugenics to be practiced.  He wants to "save" us from starvation caused by peak oil.  This is why he will NEVER accept the fact that new technology can every be implemented, and will deny facts that  are shoved right in his face (ie ionic liquids), or acknowledge the possibility of any form of nuclear, wind or solar application--even with another 20, 50, 100, 1000, or a billion years of research.

 

 

 

Fri, 02/18/2011 - 15:49 | 

trav7777 (Total Score:1)

 

wtf is wrong with eugenics?  Why should we condemn the cretins to a future of starvation?  Likewise, humanity as an institution, cannot afford to have itself breeded back into the stone ages by cretins.

genocide of inferior populations is in fact an evolutionary MANDATE

 

link: http://argo.zerohedge.org/news/guest-post-beyond-false-dawn-global-crisi...

 

More eugenics bullshit:

 

 

 

by trav7777 

on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 22:18

#1024940

 

You're an idiot...you should not reproduce.

 

The SB IQ test was not in ANY WAY intended to promote eugenics.  IQ tests have literally nothing whatsoever to do with a DESIRE to promote one type of person over another.  Some people may have seized on them in order to justify such a promotion- in case you didn't figure out by what I said earlier, moron, I AM ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE.  I pretty clearly stated as much, so if you think you are going to say OMG RACISSS EUGENICIST and I am going to, what?  I'm gonna fuckin deny it when I JUST SUGGESTED IT?

 

Does it occur to you that east asians have the HIGHEST average score on these exams?  WTF, reality shits on you again.  I am not east asian, btw.  But it doesn't matter, as a general case does not speak to a specific one. 

 

Besides, the low IQ races underperform in every test of cognition, not just SB.  Pick a test.  The reality of subsaharan Africa is that intelligence there is exceptionally low, which is why people walk miles for water instead of building pipes and why it has no history of even the indigenous written word.

 

My race or sex has nothing to do with me; I am an individual.  It is a matter of fact that whites and males have substantially higher sigmas to their IQ distributions than other groups...so what?  You may be a white male and you are still an idiot.  Being a white male doesn't endow you with the genius IQ of other white males by the virtue of the irrelevant color of your skin.  That skin covers an idiot.

 

NO race norming would be performed for a reproduction threshold; the tests are race-blind.  The reason africans average lower scores is because africans have lower average cognitive capacity.  This is just simply the way it is.

 

Math and abstract reasoning are not racist, you sniveling idiot, and IQ tests are not crafted to reflect memorization.  JFC, they give these tests the world over.  Do the world a favor and attempt to become educated.

 

For you to claim that there is a "white" and "european" intelligence is utterly absurd.

 

reply flag as junk (0) 

 

 

 

by trav7777 

on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 22:25

#1024972

 

the vast majority of people cannot understand geometric compounding.

 

So maybe we need to set the bar at 140; whatever.

 

The population needs to decrease and get smarter.  If at that point, we have to craft a BNW type outcome, fine.

 

Grow OR die leads to death because growth CANNOT continue forever.  I am a bacteria at 10 minutes to midnight sounding an alarm.

 

link: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-there-are-no-good-outcomes

 

___

 

Now, he brings up the fact that blacks have low IQs.  Funny, considering that was the explicit distinction he picked for forced sterilization.

 

 

 

by trav7777 

on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 23:52

#839016

 

YES, some races are BETTER than others, if you want advanced medicine, electricity, the written word, the computer, the lightbulb and all the rest of that shit.

 

WTF is wrong with you people?  Especially that uncle tom apologist with his "RACISSSSS" epithet in the previous post?  I mean what.tha.fuck??

 

Look at HISTORY.  Which race is it that the people who invented EVERYTHING AROUND YOU came from?  And in the sickest of ironies, people from that race actually feel GUILT over the fact that it wasn't brown people who did everything!

 

They welcome multiculturalism...wtf?  ALL cultures are NOT EQUAL.  I don't LIKE cultures of destruction and misery, of primitivity, like all throughout the brown world.  I don't WANT the ghetto culture of murder and criminality.  I don't WANT african culture that didn't possess the written word until it was oppressed by white people with it or the native american culture that ALSO lacked the written word and the fucking wheel.

 

WTF is the matter with people these days that they think all cultures are equivalent?  Multiculturalism is a SICK JOKE and a crime against human progress.

 

The more mexicans we get, the more we are like mexico.  The more the diversity, the lower the average IQ.  DO THE MATH, shit just keeps getting worse.  Diversity is a FRAUD and pretending that all races are equal is a crime.  For example, we continuously hear how bad the US is globally in terms of aptitude tests, but if you examine AT ALL the demographics breakdowns, you see that the bad aggregate score we have as a nation is ENTIRELY DUE to hispanics and blacks!  Yet NOBODY can mention these "hate facts" without having a white uncle tom condemn him as a RACIST.

 

People who refuse to accept reality as it IS are suicidal fools.

 

 

 

 

 

Thu, 12/30/2010 - 22:44 | trav7777 (Total Score:1)

 

AWSUMZ...I mean taking philosophy and guidance from a fucking wal mart cashier.

 

I truly WANT genes in my bloodline with average IQs of 85, I mean who wouldn't?

 

99/100 would choose to have sex, wtf?  And get knocked up by some ghetto thug who will end up in prison and pass on his criminal and idiot genes to the little mulatto offspring who then grow up with a trash mom and no dad?  Sounds like a recipe for technological progress to me, right?  I mean, think of ALL THE INVENTIONS by the brown people over the centuries...all one of them.

 

WOW...great advice wal mart.  99/100 would choose to doom their kids because they are incapable of constraining their sexual urges; what a fucking catastrophe.  Bunch of freakin whores.  When they can't throw on a pantsuit and go sit behind a desk and pretend to work but still get paid, more selectivity will be employed in mating patterns.

 

Login or register to post comments

 

link: http://188.126.66.67/article/guest-post-if-we-close-our-eyes-monster-wil...

 

___

 

More racism: 

 

 

 

by trav7777 

on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 14:09

#1012036

 

huh?  Average brain size of blacks IS smaller.

 

This is what we call a "hate fact."

 

Oh and while I'm up, STFU you uncle tom racebaiting fuckstick

 

reply flag as junk (3) 

 

 

link:http://www.zerohedge.com/article/and-defense-secretary-gates-just-uttere...

 

___

 

So, basically, this sociopath's whole thesis is "kill the darkies, and anyone I don't like because anyone who disagrees with me is clearly stupid".  He wants to sterilize/murder between 50 and 97% of the population, with the explicit goal of exterminating all blacks.  

 

Can anyone really take this guy seriously with all the shit he has posted?  All he is doing is presenting a one sided argument to try to stir up sentiment in his favor so he can exterminate a bunch of people.  Basically, the guy is a petite Hitler, a fucking monster, waiting for an audience.

 So now the mystery as to why this guy so aggressively attacks anyone who denies peak oil, or indeed any of the garbage he spouts, is attacked VICIOUSLY, and without relent.  He will say literally ANYTHING, whether slight fudging of the truth, a half truth, outright lie that seems plausible, or a lie completely out of left field.  I have never seen such a dark purpose behind a series of posts, and the fact that these posts have been made over the course of more than a year is absolutely CHILLING.  This guy is a mass murderer looking for a victim.

And Trav, so you know, I will post this response to every post I see from you from now on.  You're fucking dead to me, save for this post.

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 03:38 | Link to Comment Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

by Mr Lennon Hendrix
on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:01
Why are you bringing climate change into this?  You can not use one false set of logic to prove a whole nother set of issues wrong!  Horrible post.

You can not use one false set of logic to prove another set of false logic, but the theories as currently advanced BOTH RELY ON FALSE LOGIC.   Just as geocentrism was built on the earlier incorrect scientific assumptions of Ptolomy (and reflected in dogma), before it was attacked by Copernicus & Galileo- the correlation between carbon dioxide and global warming was built on the incorrect scientific assumptions of Arrhenius, and is now defended as dogma from attacked by current research- even though any dumb redneck with a greenhouse can point the literally genocidally fatal flaw the aims of the current Inquisitors.  Peak Oil "science" (that production has peaked and the earth is running out of oil) is predicated similarly incorrect  assumptions- namely that the Earth's geology can be accurately depicted on a flat map with lots of lines drawn on it telling Oil producers where they can and can't drill.  Peak Oil historically, now, and for the foreseeable future, is flat earth science- at some point it may become a reality but the whole abiotic debate will then be resolved one way or another, or cost effective alternatives developed long before. 

The US is going broke, oil priced in USD will be more expensive in the future, even if Saudia Arabia increased its daily capacity to 25mbpd.  The tree huggers green jobs government-subsidy-dependent-spending-diahrea-fantasies will not be sustainable.  Necessity is the mother of invention, and Americans will be forced to innovate again.  On a long enough timeline- 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:00 | Link to Comment kito
kito's picture

the only junk here is the theory behind this article. what a crazy thought--that humans innovate and create new means by which to survive and prosper. rumor has it that right before edison invented the light bulb, there was also a "peak kerosene" scare... 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:34 | Link to Comment gorillaonyourback
gorillaonyourback's picture

in some sense smoking your happy pills is beneficial, because you don't have to prepare.  But if you are wrong, you probably will be the first slimy slug groveling at the feet of the people who did prepare

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:38 | Link to Comment kito
kito's picture

maybe you can send me a manual on how to smoke pills....

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:40 | Link to Comment gorillaonyourback
gorillaonyourback's picture

in some sense smoking your happy pills is beneficial, because you don't have to prepare.  But if you are wrong, you probably will be the first slimy slug groveling at the feet of the people who did prepare

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 13:26 | Link to Comment minsky4ever
minsky4ever's picture

Commodity inflation affecting fuel and food causing serious problems for poor and middle class people hasn't been acknowledged by the agency that administers Social Security. While the GOP and Obama try to destroy Social Security, for the past two years, as oil prices and food prices have skyrocketed, the multiplier used to determine inflation has remained at close to zero so that people who depend on Social Security to, say eat or buy gas at inflated prices, aren't able to keep up.

And when the worst president ever tried buying the votes of Social Security recipients for the midterm elections, he said he'd give $250 to each person on Social security as a way of easing the burden of two years with no COLA. Another broken promise, more hope and even less change.

At least Republicans let you know how they're going to fuck you over and they put the knife in your chest. This prick in the White House drives it right into your back like the coward he is.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 13:30 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

No energy, no economy.  It really is that simple.  

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:50 | Link to Comment Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

Your platitudes couldn't be more inane or irrelevant.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 15:02 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Hey Doc, do us all a favor and take in less energy than your body consumes for a year. 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 13:28 | Link to Comment SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture
Guest Post: Past Peak Oil - Why Time Is Now Short

I agree; time IS getting short for the peak oilers.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 13:29 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Yes, because the supply of oil is infinite. < sarc off >

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 13:50 | Link to Comment SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

Take a look at the price of a gallon of gas in 1920, and the price of a gallon of gas now, measured in silver or gold.

Then get back to me.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:00 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

You can have all the gold you want.  Won't do you any good when there is no supply.  Moreover, I predict that demand destruction will result in humans abandoning oil long before the supply is gone.  

Here is another comparison for you, look into the amount of energy that had to be used to extract a barrel of oil in 1920 and compare that with today.  Then get back to me.  NO one will invest ANY gold if the return on that investment is negative.  Now what do you have to say?  If you will make that investmest, I have some bridges for sale.

 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 22:41 | Link to Comment SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

You can call yourself "lawsofphysics" but that doesn't make you smart.  It doesn't mask the fact that you're not, either (smart, I mean).

Try it the easy way: in 1920 two dimes bought a gallon of gas.  Today, the same two (silver) dimes will buy a gallon and a half of gas.  How's that for peak oil?

More like peak (and worthless) money.  And now, peak morons.  Lawsofphysics that can't do arithmetic.  We're freaking doomed.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 13:58 | Link to Comment CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture

Gold is not measured in dollars.  It is measured in civilization's alpha asset, oil.

You have to address the infinite supply point explicitly.  Not toss out irrelevant issues of currency.  A barrel of oil is a barrel of oil.  It is a quantity of BTUs.  It is not a quantity of ounces of shiny metal or a quantity of dollars.

Talk in terms of BTUs and ONLY in terms of BTUs, because that's all that keeps you alive.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:13 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Yes, energy is all that matters.  See my comment above regarding the investment side of things.  Energy is indeed ALL that matter.  The "money" being used is irrelevant.  if you body burns more energy than it takes in, you are dead.

Better back up and explain to this moron the difference between alpha and beta investments and assets.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:54 | Link to Comment Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

>Energy is indeed ALL that matter.

Yet you continue to expend it on posting here!

 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 15:00 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Like yourself.  Troll.

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 03:52 | Link to Comment Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

Yes, demand destruction will occur for those who buy in fiat (esp. US fiat), those who have have a currency more desirable to oil producers  will have the option of oil or what comes next for everyone else.  It's not just precious metals that are used as currency, there are OTC oil-for-food swap contracts being entered into now, in addition to mineral-for-oil swaps. 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:59 | Link to Comment Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

>Talk in terms of BTUs and ONLY in terms of BTUs, because that's all that keeps you alive.

Actually, air is even more crucial. Without air to breath, you will die within minutes. I recommend investing in air futures.

No air, no economy. It's that simple.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 16:20 | Link to Comment Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

Air is finite.  Are we reaching 'Peak Air' (tm)?

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 16:40 | Link to Comment Nikola Tesla
Nikola Tesla's picture

Come now, how much energy is required to bring air into your lungs? How long does it take for plants to convert the CO2 we breathe out into oxygen?

How much energy is required to: extract, transport, refine and transport the petroleum required for the trucks which transport (again) all the goods in the global economy?

A barrel of oil has the energy equivalent of 20,000 man hours of labour (I believe) and can be extracted in Iraq for around $2. That's so cheap its basically free energy. Without that, and the other issues facing us we don't have a very bright decade ahead imo.

By the way, I'm aware you were being sarcastic, I'm English after all.

Anyway, your point stands, without air we are fucked!

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 16:41 | Link to Comment css1971
css1971's picture

kWh, not BTUs.

 

Thank you very much.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 17:47 | Link to Comment BigJim
BigJim's picture

How about the price of a gallon of gas 1970, and the price of a gallon of gas now, measured in silver or gold?

Actually, now that I think about it, I'm serious. Where can I find such a graph?

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 22:49 | Link to Comment SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

You have to put it together yourself

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2005/fcvt_fotw364.html

http://www.stocks-for-beginners.com/silver-investing.html

Or, try it the easy way: in 1920 two dimes bought a gallon of gas.  Today, the same two (silver) dimes will buy a gallon and a half of gas.  How's that for peak oil?

More like peak (and worthless) money.  And now, peak morons.

Peak oilers are demonstrably the silliest bunch of halfwits I've ever encountered.  Someone give that fool Martenson an IQ test and see if he's still breathing.  So many sad people are incapable of understanding what "productivity gains" are.  Make all the seemingly logical arguments you want, as long as you can tell me why it's cheaper now than it used to be, if we're running out of it.  If we're running out of it, shouldn't it be getting really expensive in real terms?

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 23:41 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

so oil is infinite?

Peak doesn't mean that we RUN OUT, for the fifty MILLION BILLIONTH time.

JFC, weren't you told that the LAST TIME you said this same stupid as shit statement about PO on the LAST thread?

WTF is the matter with you?  Can't you freakin understand this?

By the way, silver and gold are finite as well and are subject to production peaks, JUST LIKE OIL

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 00:52 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

The only reason you scream at people like that is because the simple facts they present stop you from carrying out you sociopathic goal of sterilizing between half and 95% of the human population (mainly the blacks, since you have pointed out so many times how low their IQs are).

I'm on to you, you fucking sociopath.  You're done here.  I'll never let ANYONE forget what you are.

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 11:28 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

ROTFL...what a LOSER you are.

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 10:16 | Link to Comment SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

so oil is infinite?

Strawman, dumbass.

JFC, weren't you told that the LAST TIME you said this same stupid as shit statement about PO on the LAST thread?  WTF is the matter with you?  Can't you freakin understand this?

What's stupid about it?  My statement is true, and that's the part that drives you peak oil lunatics absolutely batshit crazy .  Can you disprove it, or do you just want to scream obscenities? (That's a rhetorical question, I already know the answer...)

Can you answer the question: if we are past peak oil, why is it historically cheaper? Include in your answer the economic terms "substitution," "productivity gains," and "efficiencies."

See also: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/human-race-doomed-deutsche-bank-one-mos...

 

 

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 10:49 | Link to Comment Zedge Hero
Zedge Hero's picture

petrodollar

 

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 10:58 | Link to Comment Zedge Hero
Zedge Hero's picture

petrodollar

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 06:43 | Link to Comment buzzard
buzzard's picture

Like the've been trying to tell you, money for energy is irrelevant. When the oil is gone my entire stash of silver won't create any more.

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 09:34 | Link to Comment SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

money for energy is irrelevant

I'm just replying here to preserve the lunacy on display here in your statement.  This is a really important glimpse into the mindset of the peak oil crowd, and evidence of how they do not understand anything about economics, at all.

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 11:57 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

"Peak oilers are demonstrably the silliest bunch of halfwits I've ever encountered. Someone give that fool Martenson an IQ test and see if he's still breathing. So many sad people are incapable of understanding what "productivity gains" are. Make all the seemingly logical arguments you want, as long as you can tell me why it's cheaper now than it used to be, if we're running out of it. If we're running out of it, shouldn't it be getting really expensive in real terms?"

are you sugggesting the most vital raw resource operates on completely free market principles? That the holders don't lie? That all the costs of our wars and other inconveniences do not factor in? That the exchange and trading markets are straight up? You're working from a text book and ironically ignoring other real "economic" principles  

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 16:26 | Link to Comment SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

I'm not suggesting any of those things.  Nothing, sadly, operates "on completely free market principles," and certainly not oil.  Not gold and silver, either.  All of those other things are distortions, granted. 

One of the greatest distortions is the phony baloney pile of leveraged fiat currency chasing oil.  Peak oilers never seem to discuss the distortions, they bleat about peak production while completely ignoring inflation, failing to factor in gains in production and other important "principles." 

Do you wish to make a case to defend the statement "money for energy is irrelevant"?

 

Sun, 05/29/2011 - 01:27 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

I didn't make that statement in fact my point is that a lot of resource is indeed chasing oil because it's getting harder to reach. That's an economic phenomenon isn't it? Are you agreeing with me that the cost of our wars should be factored in? We don't exactly pay for that at the pump but those incredible costs which then breed more enemies which then breed even more costs are helping destroy the value of our currency. Since we now have the medical technology to keep our dramatically injured soliders alive, we pay fantastic costs and will continue to pay them as these eighteen year olds with half a brain, limb or other vital function live out their life. Indeed the collapse of our fiat is pricing this stuff up but we could spend all day in a chicken and egg debate on how our wars and our less that brilliant policy approach to oil has helped move our currency in its dangerous direction.  Nothing changes the naked fact that this stuff is getting harder to reach and we are spending significantly more resource to get it. Some efforts to get the stuff are on the up and up, some aren't. That's how vital the stuff is. We are also very late in the game working on the substitutes. Other countries are doing a better job, we're too busy invading and working a cover story. In the end I agree with you, if we had applied textbook, upfront economic principles to this problem, we'd be in a hell of a better position. Unfortunately we did not.     

Sun, 05/29/2011 - 10:58 | Link to Comment SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

Are you agreeing with me that the cost of our wars should be factored in?

Yes, because the wars keep the price of oil higher than it otherwise would be.  What happened to the price of oil when we attacked Iraq?  What happened to the price of oil when we attacked Libya?

Facts are pesky things.

Tue, 05/31/2011 - 11:09 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

a moment in the market proves that causation? If anything our less than above table approach to Libya proves we will do anything to get the stuff, even if it's an economically dumb approach 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 13:28 | Link to Comment the rookie cynic
the rookie cynic's picture

Welcome to the capital scarce, food scarce, energy scarce future, where monetary inflation meets resource depletion. http://therookiecynic.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/your-lethal-education-par...

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 13:55 | Link to Comment AZSovreign
AZSovreign's picture

Isn't scarcity a propaganda tool of fear used by the powers to control?

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:07 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Scarcity is the wrong argument.  Think of it this way, how much energy do you have to use to extract a barrel of oil.  Who would invest an ounce of gold if the return on the investment is negative?  We will stop using oil long before the supply is gone.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 17:12 | Link to Comment KinorSensase
KinorSensase's picture

Agreed.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 16:18 | Link to Comment Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

"Isn't scarcity a propaganda tool of fear used by the powers to control?"

Yes.  It can also be used to excuse the utter failure of the current 'managers'.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:24 | Link to Comment gmj
gmj's picture

You forgot about rare earth elements scarce, fertilizer elements scarce, fresh water scarce, and human population exploding.  Jeffrey Sachs says that Nigeria's population will grow from 150 million now to over 700 million by 2100, if the present growth rate continues.  He doesn't think it will, and neither do I.  We are running out of everything.  Our single-minded obsession with growth will not end well.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 13:25 | Link to Comment Ben Probanke
Ben Probanke's picture

the writer of this story obviously knows very little about oil, imho

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 13:35 | Link to Comment g
g's picture

Superb article once again by CM. Read his new book if so inclined, great discussions for EROEI, exponential growth/compounding, among other informative topics.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 19:36 | Link to Comment Hook Line and S...
Hook Line and Sphincter's picture

"How the major economies can continue proceeding with a business-as-usual mindset given the oil data is really quite a mystery to me, but that’s just how things happen to be at the moment."

Well, yes, but this statement leaves out that the U.S. is currently in the swindle the light sweet crude (and Au) from Libya mode, has completed the Iraq rock n roll viscosity tour (and FRN insurance plan), and has successfully fired up their Afghan pipe (line).

True, there are a few economies who haven't seen what's a coming... U.S MIC and the Oilgarch compadres aren't one of them.

Considering peak, and FRN devaluation, just imagine what the price (in real and nominal terms) of oil would be if they hadn't splattered the blood of foreigners!

And to think we hear some of our fellow a-holes saying, 'I'm O.K. with the U.S. going into Iraq for oil. Why can't they just admit that they did it for oil. I'd accept it. But hey, where's my cut? Where's my cheap oil, Goddamn it?'


Fri, 05/27/2011 - 13:31 | Link to Comment Amish Hacker
Amish Hacker's picture

Agree with author's basic claims about supply/demand imbalance. Not sure about predictions of $300-$400/bbl oil. It seems like demand would be crushed long before we got to that high a price. Price won't go to its highs overnight, and long before it gets there, most US consumers will be priced out, not adding to demand.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 13:35 | Link to Comment mirac
mirac's picture

I am in the Total Economic Collapse camp. Especially China.   Having said that, Libya will resume shipments.  Iraq and the Former Soviet Satellites have gobs of oil.  Brazil has oil now.  Cuba has some oil and looking for more.  Canada has tar sands as far as a moose can see.  North Africa, like Sudan etc have lots-thus the wars.  Didn't Israel find some oil or gas of the Palestinian coast? Should we break out into WWIII there could be a nasty spike but it won't laast because of demand destruction via price.  And I beleive there is a lot more oil in the US of A, on land.  If I will the Mega Millions, I'll prove it!

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 13:39 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Demand destruction will come much sooner, in fact, even before the supply is even remotely gone.  Remember, if the amount of energy required to extract the oil is greater that the energy that the oil itself can provide then no one will go get it.

What I think people fail to realize is the vast uses for oil in modern society.  As we use oil less (whether it be peak oil or demand destruction is fucking irrelevant) drastic and very uncomfortable changes will occur and no number fucknuts with economics degrees from harvard will be able to stop that.  Possession (much like the squatters across America right now) will be the only law that matters (as it quickly became in the post collapse society of the USSR in the late 90's).  Now get back on the wheel all you hamsters!

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 13:33 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Nice quote Rookie! - "Idiocy, it seems to me, would be to continue to pray at the altar of growth and perpetual profit in a vain hope that the earth and it’s resources would somehow magically, eternally replenish themselves."

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 13:38 | Link to Comment Piranhanoia
Piranhanoia's picture

The algae>oil solution is in progress, but darn it, it won't benefit big oil as much as it will people. I guess we can kiss that goodbye.  The report said they could create 20% of our petrol requirement.  

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 13:45 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Are you really stupid enough to think that the likes of Cheveron and Exon are not developing "Algae to biodiesel".  I guess my company is consulting with imaginary people then.  Wake up, who do you think is going to bring the technology to you! 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 13:53 | Link to Comment AGuy
AGuy's picture

Algae production requires significant fertializer inputs, especially phosphates. Algae production will never substitute oil production. Would needs about 75 to 80 mbpd for BAU. No way Algae can even provide even a small fraction of that amount. Algae to oil will be limited to miltary or special industrial use. It will never be used in Joe Six packs car/SUV.

 

 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:22 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

"Algae production requires significant fertializer inputs, especially phosphates"

Wrong.  Without giving away too much IP, the problem is solved by growing the algae with the appropriate diazotrophic organism (in fact some cyanobacteria are diazotrophs - i.e. they fix their own nitrogen) and recycling all the biomass (less the oil).  The phosphates and the nitrogen are returned to the reactor.  You only have to make the initial investment once.  The REAL problem is photon adsorption, as in the Algae need to adsorb more.  The photons that they do get to the reaction centers are all converted into low potential electrons (100% efficient) however.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:58 | Link to Comment AGuy
AGuy's picture

"The phosphates and the nitrogen are returned to the reactor. You only have to make the initial investment once."

Uh-huh. Did you also buy into the turkey fat plant in PA, when all those dozen of scientists absolutely confirmed that it had a positive EROI? Algae also also requires trace element fertializers, which like phophates are not commerically recyclable.

"The photons that they do get to the reaction centers are all converted into low potential electrons (100% efficient) however."

chlorophyll efficiency is only about 7%. Its is no where near 100% efficient. Even solar panel are much more efficient.

Let me put it another way. The world currently consumes about 400 years of stored biomass every day in the form of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, oil, peat, wood, etc). if you want one days worth of global fossil fuel production it would take 400 years to grow enough algae to meet current demand for a single day.

 

 

 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 15:06 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

"Algae also also requires trace element fertializers, which like phophates are not commerically recyclable."

trace elements are cheap and no at a high concentration, hence why they are called a "trace" element.  chlorophyll efficientcy is NOT the same as photon adsorption at the reaction centers.  You better check you chlorophyll:RC ratio again.  I think you continue to miss the point, I never said the scale would be sufficient, I only argue that algae from biodiesel is coming, and big oil will have a lot to do with it.  Get back to work.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 16:28 | Link to Comment Nikola Tesla
Nikola Tesla's picture

I assume you mean biodiesel from algae is coming, rather than the reverse, I'd agree with that statement and the current lack of scale to offset oil extraction.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 13:44 | Link to Comment CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture

I don't know if Martenson is the overall writer of this article.  One of the charts was attributed to him, and in the past I have made clear that I have no sympathy with subscription pimps on other websites -- and ALSO Martenson's past oil work has been poor -- but I have to say this is a very good article.

There is a lot correct and very little wrong.  Its most powerful phrase is the most important one that people on ZH simply have to stop denying:

"The emerging oil data continues to tell a tale of ever-tightening supplies that will soon be exceeded by rising global demand.  This time, we will not be able to blame speculators for the steep prices we experience; instead, we will have nothing to blame but geology."

In the end, this tells the tale.  Geology is going to win this war and there is nothing we can do about it.  For there to be advance of human civilization, 6/7ths of it need to die and quickly.  If you're an American, you have to support use of nuclear weapons to make that happen.  

 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 16:33 | Link to Comment css1971
css1971's picture

Seems to be martenson. He's doing a good job of making the subject understandable to people, and simultaneously making some money.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 18:08 | Link to Comment Gordon Freeman
Gordon Freeman's picture

Crash, you are certifiably insane--get some help.

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 04:04 | Link to Comment Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

I also have NO SYMPATHY for subscription pimps who make statements like "The emerging oil data continues to tell a tale... free executive summary; paid enrollment required to access..." and do not provide data to support their claims.  Until Martenson provides the analysis (and which includes oil fields currently off limits to production- both domestically and internationally) he remains full of shit when it comes to Peak Oil.      

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 13:51 | Link to Comment AGuy
AGuy's picture

Keep in mind that the price of oil will not go to $150 - $200 - $300 in a straight line. We will almost certain endure the wipesaw effect as high oil prices cause rapid and sudden demand destruction and economic recession. This has always been the case. Consider the Oil shocks of the 1970's, 1990-1991, and 2008.

 I would imagine the first economic casulity will be commerical airline travel. Loss of global airtravel would free up probably 10 to 20 mbpd of worldwide production. While airtravel will still continue, there will be significantly fewer flights and the cost will significantly higher. Most airlines will go bust, leaving just a few carriers. Instead of daily flights between continents, they will be reduces to weekly or perhaps even monthly. Loss of airtravel would increase the supply to consumers and reduce conumer prices for a period. Over time, demand will rise will supply contracts to depletion causing the price to soar again.

So don't assume that we won't see oil prices back into the $60-$70 per bbl.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:08 | Link to Comment CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture

Of course the price of oil will fall to $70.  

It will do so when there are 3 flights from NYC to LA per day, total, because that's all that have enough people to fill 1/2 the seats.

It will do so when unemployment is 20%, with the additional 10% not driving.  Gasoline consumption is not dropping because of that grand total of 500 Chevrolet Volts were sold (out of 10 million cars).  It is dropping because 10% of the workforce is unemployed and does not drive to work.

It will do so when the cities are rioting with random snipers on rooftops, and people are afraid to go out and drive anywhere to buy anything.

Don't celebrate the prospects of low oil price.  You won't like the reasons it gets that low.  It won't be from a sudden black flood out of empty fields.

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 04:14 | Link to Comment Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

Your argument assumes that US will remain the center of the economic universe - if Ben doesn't stop printing USD it doesn't matter if the LA-NY flights only run once a week, oil won't be available at USD $70 if it isn't drilled and refined within the US, and even then might require government subsidy to be available $70 (for military and agricultural consumers).

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 15:54 | Link to Comment pitz
pitz's picture

Air travel is pretty efficient; indeed, most commercial airliners burn half the fuel of a typical car on the road. 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 23:44 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

passenger-mile per gallon or mile per gallon?

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 02:01 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Ok, to start, Trav wants Eugenics to be practiced.  He wants to "save" us from starvation caused by peak oil.  This is why he will NEVER accept the fact that new technology can every be implemented, and will deny facts that  are shoved right in his face (ie ionic liquids), or acknowledge the possibility of any form of nuclear, wind or solar application--even with another 20, 50, 100, 1000, or a billion years of research.

 

 

 

Fri, 02/18/2011 - 15:49 | 

trav7777 (Total Score:1)

 

wtf is wrong with eugenics?  Why should we condemn the cretins to a future of starvation?  Likewise, humanity as an institution, cannot afford to have itself breeded back into the stone ages by cretins.

genocide of inferior populations is in fact an evolutionary MANDATE

 

link: http://argo.zerohedge.org/news/guest-post-beyond-false-dawn-global-crisi...

 

More eugenics bullshit:

 

 

 

by trav7777 

on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 22:18

#1024940

 

You're an idiot...you should not reproduce.

 

The SB IQ test was not in ANY WAY intended to promote eugenics.  IQ tests have literally nothing whatsoever to do with a DESIRE to promote one type of person over another.  Some people may have seized on them in order to justify such a promotion- in case you didn't figure out by what I said earlier, moron, I AM ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE.  I pretty clearly stated as much, so if you think you are going to say OMG RACISSS EUGENICIST and I am going to, what?  I'm gonna fuckin deny it when I JUST SUGGESTED IT?

 

Does it occur to you that east asians have the HIGHEST average score on these exams?  WTF, reality shits on you again.  I am not east asian, btw.  But it doesn't matter, as a general case does not speak to a specific one. 

 

Besides, the low IQ races underperform in every test of cognition, not just SB.  Pick a test.  The reality of subsaharan Africa is that intelligence there is exceptionally low, which is why people walk miles for water instead of building pipes and why it has no history of even the indigenous written word.

 

My race or sex has nothing to do with me; I am an individual.  It is a matter of fact that whites and males have substantially higher sigmas to their IQ distributions than other groups...so what?  You may be a white male and you are still an idiot.  Being a white male doesn't endow you with the genius IQ of other white males by the virtue of the irrelevant color of your skin.  That skin covers an idiot.

 

NO race norming would be performed for a reproduction threshold; the tests are race-blind.  The reason africans average lower scores is because africans have lower average cognitive capacity.  This is just simply the way it is.

 

Math and abstract reasoning are not racist, you sniveling idiot, and IQ tests are not crafted to reflect memorization.  JFC, they give these tests the world over.  Do the world a favor and attempt to become educated.

 

For you to claim that there is a "white" and "european" intelligence is utterly absurd.

 

reply flag as junk (0) 

 

 

 

by trav7777 

on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 22:25

#1024972

 

the vast majority of people cannot understand geometric compounding.

 

So maybe we need to set the bar at 140; whatever.

 

The population needs to decrease and get smarter.  If at that point, we have to craft a BNW type outcome, fine.

 

Grow OR die leads to death because growth CANNOT continue forever.  I am a bacteria at 10 minutes to midnight sounding an alarm.

 

link: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-there-are-no-good-outcomes

 

___

 

Now, he brings up the fact that blacks have low IQs.  Funny, considering that was the explicit distinction he picked for forced sterilization.

 

 

 

by trav7777 

on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 23:52

#839016

 

YES, some races are BETTER than others, if you want advanced medicine, electricity, the written word, the computer, the lightbulb and all the rest of that shit.

 

WTF is wrong with you people?  Especially that uncle tom apologist with his "RACISSSSS" epithet in the previous post?  I mean what.tha.fuck??

 

Look at HISTORY.  Which race is it that the people who invented EVERYTHING AROUND YOU came from?  And in the sickest of ironies, people from that race actually feel GUILT over the fact that it wasn't brown people who did everything!

 

They welcome multiculturalism...wtf?  ALL cultures are NOT EQUAL.  I don't LIKE cultures of destruction and misery, of primitivity, like all throughout the brown world.  I don't WANT the ghetto culture of murder and criminality.  I don't WANT african culture that didn't possess the written word until it was oppressed by white people with it or the native american culture that ALSO lacked the written word and the fucking wheel.

 

WTF is the matter with people these days that they think all cultures are equivalent?  Multiculturalism is a SICK JOKE and a crime against human progress.

 

The more mexicans we get, the more we are like mexico.  The more the diversity, the lower the average IQ.  DO THE MATH, shit just keeps getting worse.  Diversity is a FRAUD and pretending that all races are equal is a crime.  For example, we continuously hear how bad the US is globally in terms of aptitude tests, but if you examine AT ALL the demographics breakdowns, you see that the bad aggregate score we have as a nation is ENTIRELY DUE to hispanics and blacks!  Yet NOBODY can mention these "hate facts" without having a white uncle tom condemn him as a RACIST.

 

People who refuse to accept reality as it IS are suicidal fools.

 

 

 

 

 

Thu, 12/30/2010 - 22:44 | trav7777 (Total Score:1)

 

AWSUMZ...I mean taking philosophy and guidance from a fucking wal mart cashier.

 

I truly WANT genes in my bloodline with average IQs of 85, I mean who wouldn't?

 

99/100 would choose to have sex, wtf?  And get knocked up by some ghetto thug who will end up in prison and pass on his criminal and idiot genes to the little mulatto offspring who then grow up with a trash mom and no dad?  Sounds like a recipe for technological progress to me, right?  I mean, think of ALL THE INVENTIONS by the brown people over the centuries...all one of them.

 

WOW...great advice wal mart.  99/100 would choose to doom their kids because they are incapable of constraining their sexual urges; what a fucking catastrophe.  Bunch of freakin whores.  When they can't throw on a pantsuit and go sit behind a desk and pretend to work but still get paid, more selectivity will be employed in mating patterns.

 

Login or register to post comments

 

link: http://188.126.66.67/article/guest-post-if-we-close-our-eyes-monster-wil...

 

___

 

More racism: 

 

 

 

by trav7777 

on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 14:09

#1012036

 

huh?  Average brain size of blacks IS smaller.

 

This is what we call a "hate fact."

 

Oh and while I'm up, STFU you uncle tom racebaiting fuckstick

 

reply flag as junk (3) 

 

 

link:http://www.zerohedge.com/article/and-defense-secretary-gates-just-uttere...

 

___

 

So, basically, this sociopath's whole thesis is "kill the darkies, and anyone I don't like because anyone who disagrees with me is clearly stupid".  He wants to sterilize/murder between 50 and 97% of the population, with the explicit goal of exterminating all blacks.  

 

Can anyone really take this guy seriously with all the shit he has posted?  All he is doing is presenting a one sided argument to try to stir up sentiment in his favor so he can exterminate a bunch of people.  Basically, the guy is a petite Hitler, a fucking monster, waiting for an audience.

 So now the mystery as to why this guy so aggressively attacks anyone who denies peak oil, or indeed any of the garbage he spouts, is attacked VICIOUSLY, and without relent.  He will say literally ANYTHING, whether slight fudging of the truth, a half truth, outright lie that seems plausible, or a lie completely out of left field.  I have never seen such a dark purpose behind a series of posts, and the fact that these posts have been made over the course of more than a year is absolutely CHILLING.  This guy is a mass murderer looking for a victim.

And Trav, so you know, I will post this response to every post I see from you from now on.  You're fucking dead to me, save for this post.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 15:54 | Link to Comment pitz
pitz's picture

Air travel is pretty efficient; indeed, most commercial airliners burn half the fuel of a typical car on the road.  And the infrastructure for airports is dramatically less hydrocarbon intensive than building/maintaining roads. 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 20:03 | Link to Comment pitz
pitz's picture

delete, dupe :(

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 15:55 | Link to Comment pitz
pitz's picture

Air travel is pretty efficient; indeed, most commercial airliners burn half the fuel of a typical car on the road.  And the infrastructure for airports is dramatically less hydrocarbon intensive than building/maintaining roads. 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 17:56 | Link to Comment Slim
Sat, 05/28/2011 - 05:11 | Link to Comment Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

UH - NO.  Air travel is not efficient. Econ 101

SHIPS are most efficient, RAIL reasonably efficient, TRUCKS not really efficient, PLAINS not efficient at all.

Suppose after covering the frozen OJ contracts they shorted Valentine & Winthorpe want to take delivery in order to transport several hundred shit tons of frozen OJ from exchange licensed warehouse in Florida to the starving masses in New York suffering from Bernanke printing induced poverty.  What method do you think Valentine & Winthorpe will use to move several hundred tons of physical product to New York City?

A   a single ship up the east coast to the port of New York

B   a single direct UNP/UP train

C   a convoy of big brown UPS package vans

D   several Fed-Ex flights from MIA to JFK via BNA

 

If you are looking at the smaller picture of transporting individual persons from point A to point B- I don't know very many who walk to airport with their suit cases in hand, so there has to be a second form of transportation involved for both the departure and arrival airport. 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 13:48 | Link to Comment Zymurguy
Zymurguy's picture

Read:  The Long Emergency by James Howard Kuntsler

Oil is a finite compound, no doubt, and it will eventually cost more and more to acquire it.  Whether we're getting unbiased intel' from OPEC, our government, etc. is another story.

Combine all this with the devaluing of our dollar (look up the term "petro dollar") and it's quite hard to get any straight facts about oil.

There are countries pressuring OPEC to unhook their oil sales from our currency.  Many middle eastern countries are also discussing a unified currency.  We benefit tremendously from oil being purchased with our dollars.

 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:04 | Link to Comment Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

The Party's Over by Richard Heinberg is the best one.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:04 | Link to Comment chistletoe
chistletoe's picture

Tyler, and everybody:

 

the EIA is to oil statistics as the BLS is to unemployment.

Unfortunately, EVERYBODY lies about their own reserves and their own production, so accurate information is impossible.  The best anyone can do is to estimate how much everybody might be lying.

 

You might want to look at

http://www.theoildrum.com/

 

they are to oil, what ZeroHedge is to finance and Wikileaks is to, well, we won't go there.

 

and you might want to start with this article:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7949#more

 

The bottom line here is that there's very strong evidence that peak oil actually occurred already, in 2006-2008.  Production may have since fallen off quite a bit.

Note that even the EIA admits that consumption in the USA has diminished since then by about 1 million barrels/day.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:09 | Link to Comment Arnolds Love Child
Arnolds Love Child's picture

Why on Earth does CM put any stock in IHS data? They're partisan hacks, devoted to covering up the reality of oil depletion. Ditto for accepting at face value EIA data being suspended because of budgetary concerns. Sure. Just like M3 data. You've got to think like a criminal, and these criminals will stop at nothing. Of course, he knows that, he used to work for SAIC.
As for what's behind the paywall, just run a weekly chart of $silver:$WTIC and skip it.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:11 | Link to Comment flacorps
flacorps's picture

Oil has been a relatively easy and cheap way to get, store and transport energy (keep in mind that the latter two considerations bedevil many other energy sources). When it stops being that, humans will find and exploit other ways. It's certainly easy to predict what some of those ways will be based on the alternative energies currently in use.

Other methods are unpredictable. The Large Hadron Collider could have a surprise or two for us, and anybody who doesn't know the names Focardi and Rossi really ought to look into how they are NOT Fleischmann and Pons.

I don't foresee gangs of mohawked bikers beseiging makeshift desert fortresses to pillage their gasoline. But of course, I could be wrong.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:19 | Link to Comment CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture

Technicopia.  

There is no law of the universe that says there has to be a solution.

The mohawked motorcycle riders?  That's a ridiculously optimistic scenario.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:23 | Link to Comment schizo321437
schizo321437's picture

There`s a lot of slack still in the system. 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:27 | Link to Comment AGuy
AGuy's picture

Focardi and Rossi are frauds. Prior to their "Cold fusion" Experments they pulled a financial scam. Their objective is to separate investors from their money. Particle accelerators have nothing to do with energy production research. There perpose is to understand the force fours of our universe. Its extremely unlikely that they will lead to a breakthough of energy production.

Second, lets suppose next week, that someone found a proven\clean source of nuclear energy next week. It took the would 140 years to build the infrastructure we have today. It would take many decades to switch it to something else. Using electricity to produce chemical fuel is extremely energy intensive. It would take all of the worlds nuclear fission plants dedicated just to offset a few mbpd of oil production. The problem isn't just energy production, there are significan issues with water supplies, rare elements for electronics, and even phophates for agraculture use. The world only has about 20 years of phosphate reserves left. After that is gone there will be world wide famine (assumping other issues don't happen before then). There is no way to manufacture phosphate.

 

 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 18:46 | Link to Comment Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

>there are significan issues with water supplies, rare elements for electronics, and even phophates for agraculture use.

Oh noes! It's Peak Atoms now.

Everyone is going to be dead because all of the atoms on Earth will be consumed!

 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:12 | Link to Comment chartcruzer
Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:15 | Link to Comment slewie the pi-rat
slewie the pi-rat's picture

supply + demand = world's oil suppliers setting the price

with the PPT's advise & consent, of course.  checks and balances are important, and it is always good to crush speculators who don't own wells, too. 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:15 | Link to Comment I_ate_the_crow
I_ate_the_crow's picture

Quite recently, the EIA has announced that, due to budget cutbacks, it will immediately terminate the collection and distribution of international energy statistics -- right at the exact moment they are needed most.

Is my milk radioactive?

"We would tell you, but, alas, we stopped measuring the radiation. And don't worry anyway, there are safe levels of radiation, which we raised, so you're fine. Keep eating that California produce, their economy is crucial to our GDP."

Is the price of energy going to collapse the world economy soon?

"We would tell you, but, due to budget cutbacks, we won't be able to measure the health of the world's blood. Sorry."

Are silver and gold in a bubble?

"Yes. Get off the computer and sell your physical right now. Also, buy an Ipad."

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:23 | Link to Comment aerojet
aerojet's picture

2008 was total bs, so any comparison to what happened then is also total bs.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:21 | Link to Comment NERVEAGENTVX
NERVEAGENTVX's picture

Can't wait until we start stoking the boilers with the bodies of the mindless masses.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:21 | Link to Comment Gordon Freeman
Gordon Freeman's picture

Peak Oil!! Booga-booga! Disco Apocalypse!!!

Who gives a shit if anything goes price-parabolic?  It is what it is--and everyone adjusts: people, economies, etc.  It's called a market...

 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:37 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Yep, just won't be on wall street anymore.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:34 | Link to Comment CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture

People don't adjust well to no food on the shelves at Albertson's because the trucks can't carry it with no fuel.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:56 | Link to Comment Gordon Freeman
Gordon Freeman's picture

On the contrary, they adjust extremely well--being hungry concentrates the mind.

I am not being flip, and I'm not messing with you.  Personally, I don't like the thought of our world of plenty gradually morphing into a world of scarcity, but I don't have much control over it.

What I am opposed to is the notion that difficulty and change are things to be dreaded and feared, that we humans simply can't  survive the end of the petroleum era.  This is utter nonsense, and this author is a preposterous, reprehensible peckerwood for trying to advance these "ideas".

 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 15:16 | Link to Comment topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

Of course we will survive.  Humans are quite adaptive although recently the first world has been pussified.  Actually humans are healthier and adapted to optimal living in mild caloric scarcity.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:38 | Link to Comment CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture

People don't adjust well to no food on the shelves at Albertson's because the trucks can't carry it with no fuel.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 15:14 | Link to Comment topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

we can survive quite well on five barrels of oil per year per person average. We ate quite well back in those times. It will be a major adjustment

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:25 | Link to Comment Smokey1
Smokey1's picture

Nice read. Thanks.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:25 | Link to Comment kito
kito's picture

breaking news, GE, the company that invented the self cleaning oven (thank heavens for that, as i heard there was peak "elbow grease" just before its introduction), says in 5 years solar advances will make electricity from the sun, yes that big fiery ball in the sky that gives us oodles of energy, more competitive than fossil fuel!!!! imagine that, HUMAN INNOVATION!!! HOLY CRAP!!!! 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-26/solar-may-be-cheaper-than-fossil-power-in-five-years-ge-says.html

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:30 | Link to Comment fuu
fuu's picture

Bullish for silver.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 15:09 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Bullish for silicates and rare earths.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 17:04 | Link to Comment epwpixieq-1
epwpixieq-1's picture

Technically fossil fuel is suns energy again, everything is suns energy and start dust, the difference is that it has been storred, for some millilon of years, and now we will exaust that resources in around 150 years ... approximately.

As Nikola Tesla mentioned 120 years ago, the biggest probem humanity faces in the future is it source of energy.

He found solution to this problem, 100 years ago, no one listenend, or more correctly to say, the people in power who lissened were afraid of the solution. Soon the game will be up, as we are living on borrowed time. For 100 years we had time to make good invesetments and we did not, now we will pay. As we all know there is no free lunch, lunless of course you work for the banksers industry. But there is defintely energy all around us, and "it is just a matter of time ... "

For now, invest in low tech energy saving solutions, this will come to be the best investment in your life.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:31 | Link to Comment proLiberty
proLiberty's picture

We do not buy crude oil to burn in our cars, trucks or airplanes, we buy a very technically specific product, gasoline, diesel fuel, or Jet-A.  These products are made by breaking down the hydrocarbon molecules in a feedstock and reassembling them into the exact molecular configuration the final product needs to have.

The only thing that matters to the retail purchaser of these fuels in a free market is price.  The ONLY thing.  This is because when the market is allowed to operate, supply and demand will always be in balance at the free market price

When our great-great grand parents used hydrocarbon fuel to burn in their reading lamps, at one time the feedstock for the product's refining process was the blubber of whales.  At some point, this was replaced in the market by an oil made by refining coal.  You can still find coal oil lamps in antique stores.  Gradually this oil was replaced by a lighter hydrocarbon called kerosene made from crude oil.  You can't buy whale oil today and even if you could, who would want to burn it to read a book?  Electricity has replaced all these hydrocarbons for this purpose.  Even Coleman camping lanterns that burn a special form of gasoline, are being replaced by high efficiency LED lamps.  And every one of these long-cycle transitions has been for the better, and most importantly were accomplished peacefully and without having to resort to government coercion, which always implies the credible use of deadly force.  (sorry to mention that raw truth) 

Our great-great grand parents didn't worry about peak whale and we shouldn't worry about peak oil.  If the price of fuel made from refining crude oil gets higher than the price of fuel made by refining some other hydrocarbon feedstock like coal, switchgrass, sewage sludge, soybeans or algae, then the market will adopt to the new source as the economics indicate, that is if government does not intrude to forbid, coerce or distort.  The free market will do it peacefully, too.  How will the market know it should move to a new feedstock source?  The price of the retail product is the only signal it needs. 

If someone is still worried about where these hydrocarbons will come from to be used as feedstocks, the short answer is that the world is almost literally awash in hydrocarbons. 

Dr. Theodore K. Barna published a study done for the Defense Department on the topic of where these hydrocarbons will come from.  His conclusion?  The US has over 2x the hydrocarbon resources as all of Arab OPEC combined.  Here is the link to the presentation:

http://www.westgov.org/wieb/meetings/boardsprg2005/briefing/ppt/congress...

If you are still worried, then consider a future source of hydrcarbons: methane hydrates trapped under the sea floor. 

The U.S. Geological Survey publised a summary about this energy source, Gas (Methane) Hydrates -- A New Frontier.  It stated:

"The worldwide amounts of carbon bound in gas hydrates is conservatively estimated to total twice the amount of carbon to be found in all known fossil fuels on Earth."

see:
http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html

Still worried about energy?  We have plenty of uranium to power our nuclear reactors, but if we ever run low, reactors can also be powered with thorium.  Thorium is present in abundant deposits.  Some estimates have stated there is enough thorium to power the entire world for a thousand years.

see:
http://www.adrianforbass.com/pages/policy/nuclear/policy_nuclear_thorium...

And speaking of powering vehicles, if you buy a Nissan Leaf or any other battery-powered vehicle, you should know that 52% of the electrity that will recharge its battery will come from burning coal. 

"Peak Oil" is not any more about high priced petroleum-based fuels than "global warming" is about summer being too hot.  Both are agendas that either further the fretting of fretful people, or are the basis of agendas rooted in self-loathing designed to destroy our prosperity and liberties.

If you are still worried about energy, maybe you need to really, really have a long talk with yourself about what the hell you are thinking.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:44 | Link to Comment CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture

>>

The only thing that matters to the retail purchaser of these fuels in a free market is price.  The ONLY thing.  This is because when the market is allowed to operate, supply and demand will always be in balance at the free market price

>>

You don't seem to understand . . . life, there, proL.

If I put you in a closed container and tell you I'm taking your oxygen away in 3 minutes, your appeal to the universe of supply and demand isn't going to mean a thing.  All your demand will mean nothing to the hose I disconnect.  The hose doesn't hear your demand.  It doesn't care.

But see, there IS a difference in the scenarios.  You might bribe me into reconnecting the hose.

You won't bribe rock porosity and permeability.  Geology is immune to bribes.  Geology is like the hose; it has no ears to hear them, and God isn't going to refill those rocks.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 17:27 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Uh-huh.  Yeah, no.

Take away the hose.  I'll bring in a few trees.  

You Malthusians are utterly unable to use your brains.  This is why you have the title of "Death Worshipers".  Death is all you know, want, or understand.

Further, you idiots LOVE using air as an analogy for oil, but air is the exact OPPOSITE of oil.  It is an OXIDIZER, not and ENERGY SOURCE.  The correct analogy is being locked in a box with no food.  Of course, with a few boxes of supplies, some dirt, and some seed, I can plant a garden and live off of my stored food until it starts producing.

But you don't want that.  You want a situation where the is NO CHOICE.  Because you are weak and stupid.  

Sorry :(

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 23:44 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

yes, yes...food is a good analogy.

At some point, you reach your maximum rate of production of food.  You do not "run out" of food, everybody does not die.  You simply no longer grow.

Now get to your meeting.

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 02:06 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Honestly, I'm amazed that Trav even acknowledged this argument, as it destroys his.  Food production doesn't "peak".  It plateaus.  But then, he failed third grade geography, and clearly can't tell the difference.  But that distracts from the fact that he is a fucking bloodthirsty monster.

Ok, to start, Trav wants Eugenics to be practiced.  He wants to "save" us from starvation caused by peak oil.  This is why he will NEVER accept the fact that new technology can every be implemented, and will deny facts that  are shoved right in his face (ie ionic liquids), or acknowledge the possibility of any form of nuclear, wind or solar application--even with another 20, 50, 100, 1000, or a billion years of research.

 

 

 

Fri, 02/18/2011 - 15:49 | 

trav7777 (Total Score:1)

 

wtf is wrong with eugenics?  Why should we condemn the cretins to a future of starvation?  Likewise, humanity as an institution, cannot afford to have itself breeded back into the stone ages by cretins.

genocide of inferior populations is in fact an evolutionary MANDATE

 

link: http://argo.zerohedge.org/news/guest-post-beyond-false-dawn-global-crisi...

 

More eugenics bullshit:

 

 

 

by trav7777 

on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 22:18

#1024940

 

You're an idiot...you should not reproduce.

 

The SB IQ test was not in ANY WAY intended to promote eugenics.  IQ tests have literally nothing whatsoever to do with a DESIRE to promote one type of person over another.  Some people may have seized on them in order to justify such a promotion- in case you didn't figure out by what I said earlier, moron, I AM ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE.  I pretty clearly stated as much, so if you think you are going to say OMG RACISSS EUGENICIST and I am going to, what?  I'm gonna fuckin deny it when I JUST SUGGESTED IT?

 

Does it occur to you that east asians have the HIGHEST average score on these exams?  WTF, reality shits on you again.  I am not east asian, btw.  But it doesn't matter, as a general case does not speak to a specific one. 

 

Besides, the low IQ races underperform in every test of cognition, not just SB.  Pick a test.  The reality of subsaharan Africa is that intelligence there is exceptionally low, which is why people walk miles for water instead of building pipes and why it has no history of even the indigenous written word.

 

My race or sex has nothing to do with me; I am an individual.  It is a matter of fact that whites and males have substantially higher sigmas to their IQ distributions than other groups...so what?  You may be a white male and you are still an idiot.  Being a white male doesn't endow you with the genius IQ of other white males by the virtue of the irrelevant color of your skin.  That skin covers an idiot.

 

NO race norming would be performed for a reproduction threshold; the tests are race-blind.  The reason africans average lower scores is because africans have lower average cognitive capacity.  This is just simply the way it is.

 

Math and abstract reasoning are not racist, you sniveling idiot, and IQ tests are not crafted to reflect memorization.  JFC, they give these tests the world over.  Do the world a favor and attempt to become educated.

 

For you to claim that there is a "white" and "european" intelligence is utterly absurd.

 

reply flag as junk (0) 

 

 

 

by trav7777 

on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 22:25

#1024972

 

the vast majority of people cannot understand geometric compounding.

 

So maybe we need to set the bar at 140; whatever.

 

The population needs to decrease and get smarter.  If at that point, we have to craft a BNW type outcome, fine.

 

Grow OR die leads to death because growth CANNOT continue forever.  I am a bacteria at 10 minutes to midnight sounding an alarm.

 

link: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-there-are-no-good-outcomes

 

___

 

Now, he brings up the fact that blacks have low IQs.  Funny, considering that was the explicit distinction he picked for forced sterilization.

 

 

 

by trav7777 

on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 23:52

#839016

 

YES, some races are BETTER than others, if you want advanced medicine, electricity, the written word, the computer, the lightbulb and all the rest of that shit.

 

WTF is wrong with you people?  Especially that uncle tom apologist with his "RACISSSSS" epithet in the previous post?  I mean what.tha.fuck??

 

Look at HISTORY.  Which race is it that the people who invented EVERYTHING AROUND YOU came from?  And in the sickest of ironies, people from that race actually feel GUILT over the fact that it wasn't brown people who did everything!

 

They welcome multiculturalism...wtf?  ALL cultures are NOT EQUAL.  I don't LIKE cultures of destruction and misery, of primitivity, like all throughout the brown world.  I don't WANT the ghetto culture of murder and criminality.  I don't WANT african culture that didn't possess the written word until it was oppressed by white people with it or the native american culture that ALSO lacked the written word and the fucking wheel.

 

WTF is the matter with people these days that they think all cultures are equivalent?  Multiculturalism is a SICK JOKE and a crime against human progress.

 

The more mexicans we get, the more we are like mexico.  The more the diversity, the lower the average IQ.  DO THE MATH, shit just keeps getting worse.  Diversity is a FRAUD and pretending that all races are equal is a crime.  For example, we continuously hear how bad the US is globally in terms of aptitude tests, but if you examine AT ALL the demographics breakdowns, you see that the bad aggregate score we have as a nation is ENTIRELY DUE to hispanics and blacks!  Yet NOBODY can mention these "hate facts" without having a white uncle tom condemn him as a RACIST.

 

People who refuse to accept reality as it IS are suicidal fools.

 

 

 

 

 

Thu, 12/30/2010 - 22:44 | trav7777 (Total Score:1)

 

AWSUMZ...I mean taking philosophy and guidance from a fucking wal mart cashier.

 

I truly WANT genes in my bloodline with average IQs of 85, I mean who wouldn't?

 

99/100 would choose to have sex, wtf?  And get knocked up by some ghetto thug who will end up in prison and pass on his criminal and idiot genes to the little mulatto offspring who then grow up with a trash mom and no dad?  Sounds like a recipe for technological progress to me, right?  I mean, think of ALL THE INVENTIONS by the brown people over the centuries...all one of them.

 

WOW...great advice wal mart.  99/100 would choose to doom their kids because they are incapable of constraining their sexual urges; what a fucking catastrophe.  Bunch of freakin whores.  When they can't throw on a pantsuit and go sit behind a desk and pretend to work but still get paid, more selectivity will be employed in mating patterns.

 

Login or register to post comments

 

link: http://188.126.66.67/article/guest-post-if-we-close-our-eyes-monster-wil...

 

___

 

More racism: 

 

 

 

by trav7777 

on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 14:09

#1012036

 

huh?  Average brain size of blacks IS smaller.

 

This is what we call a "hate fact."

 

Oh and while I'm up, STFU you uncle tom racebaiting fuckstick

 

reply flag as junk (3) 

 

 

link:http://www.zerohedge.com/article/and-defense-secretary-gates-just-uttere...

 

___

 

So, basically, this sociopath's whole thesis is "kill the darkies, and anyone I don't like because anyone who disagrees with me is clearly stupid".  He wants to sterilize/murder between 50 and 97% of the population, with the explicit goal of exterminating all blacks.  

 

Can anyone really take this guy seriously with all the shit he has posted?  All he is doing is presenting a one sided argument to try to stir up sentiment in his favor so he can exterminate a bunch of people.  Basically, the guy is a petite Hitler, a fucking monster, waiting for an audience.

 So now the mystery as to why this guy so aggressively attacks anyone who denies peak oil, or indeed any of the garbage he spouts, is attacked VICIOUSLY, and without relent.  He will say literally ANYTHING, whether slight fudging of the truth, a half truth, outright lie that seems plausible, or a lie completely out of left field.  I have never seen such a dark purpose behind a series of posts, and the fact that these posts have been made over the course of more than a year is absolutely CHILLING.  This guy is a mass murderer looking for a victim.

And Trav, so you know, I will post this response to every post I see from you from now on.  You're fucking dead to me, save for this post.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 23:51 | Link to Comment samsara
samsara's picture

Haven't you heard about abiotic air?

Mosley's raiders will be pouncing in 5,4,3,2,1 seconds to tell you about it

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 00:51 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

There are plenty of chemical reactions that produce oxygen.

But you don't want to hear about anything that doesn't point to immanent death, do you, Death Worshipper?

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 02:07 | Link to Comment samsara
samsara's picture

Man,  The amount of things your little brain can extrapolate out of thin air is amazing.

Death Worshipper?

Wow.  Take your meds for gods sake.

 

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 09:47 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

I've got your high priest on the run, bitch.  And you have already been shown to be an idiot.

Funny that I can "extrapolate" genocidal desires from outright statements of such.

Tell Ba'al I'm coming for him.  There won't be any extinction on my watch.

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 11:13 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Nope he is just checking in.... seems I picked the wrong night to go out...

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 14:33 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

"your watch," Cliff?  LOL

You are nobody and nothing.

You are off the wagon again

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:58 | Link to Comment Gordon Freeman
Gordon Freeman's picture

ProLiberty:  Thank you!

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 15:10 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Er, perhaps, but what are the consequences of increasing the CO2 levels ad infinitum? 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 17:03 | Link to Comment KinorSensase
KinorSensase's picture

So we can keep growing forever still?  And of course no other aspects of infinite growth will have negative feedback effects...correct?  That's good, because the laws of thermodynamics were pissing me off anyway.  BTW, what drugs are you on?  I want some thanks in advance.

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 07:08 | Link to Comment buzzard
buzzard's picture

In recent years I have occasionally wished that I could "think" like you. I used to refer to it as getting stupid for a while. It would relieve me of all those nasty anxieties brought on by intrusions of reality brought on by looking out at the real world. I envy you your innocent naivete. What bliss.

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 10:46 | Link to Comment epwpixieq-1
epwpixieq-1's picture

Agreed. There are many wasy to BURN things that are all arownd us just to make us moving forward. But do we want to continue going in this way is the question. Dig something out of the ground and burn it when it finishes find more to dig out and finishit it and so on. What a MARVEl of numan enginity and forard sivilzational thinking!!!

On the matter of thorium, I seems to have some research knowledge on that.

Did you ever think what pushed the powers to decide to go with uranium based fuel for the nucliar power plants instead of thorium. Because there was such a cross road at some point between the poposals for nuclear power gneration of Enrico Fermi and the team of Eugene Wigner and Alvin Weinberg at ORNL. Make your research and you will find for your surprize that is NOT the free market. And have that idea when you speak of "a free market". It is free for the vested insterest to decide, if there are no such intersts something may come to be optimal/economical, otherwise is always sub optimal. If you need I can devise a mathematical structure to prove it. But hey, anyone can prove whatever they want given the right, or not so, ASSUMPTIONS.

 

 

Sat, 05/28/2011 - 16:17 | Link to Comment epwpixieq-1
epwpixieq-1's picture

And by the way. Whenever there is a discussion about energy it is highly unprudent to be spoken of "a free market". Nothing that is The underlying the base for the entire world conomy will ever be allowed to be free, unless revolution from the masses acheaves this status.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:57 | Link to Comment Rusty Shorts
Rusty Shorts's picture

For once, this is on topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF4i7JEOzzM

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 23:45 | Link to Comment samsara
samsara's picture

Gesus Rusty,  Haven't you read the comments this topic brings out?

These people believe in Unicorns and abiotic oil for crips sake.

People come out of the woodwork to troll for fun or profit(Pay) it seems.

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 15:11 | Link to Comment waterdog
waterdog's picture

Who wrote this? It says guest post. All of the fancy charts and predictions have been hashed out during 2009. Gregor Macdonald and Richard Heinberg have been writing about peak oil for years. There is nothing new here but the date of peak oil-2012 or abouts. Peak oil will occur during 2015- at the time the economy begins to move forward. Gasoline will be very expensive.

Buy gold, buy silver, buy oil. Stop buying things you do not need with money you do not have.

 

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 15:22 | Link to Comment topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

I just bought a mazda MX 5 power hard top special edition.  I'm going to outcorner road warriors in the hills and valleys where I live.  A maserati can beat me on a straight away but it can't out turn me.  I have the cheapest real racing car available.

If I'm going down.  I'm going down in style!

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 17:04 | Link to Comment hardcleareye
hardcleareye's picture

Enjoy it while you can TCT...  happy for you I am!!!!

If you can't be good be careful....

ps my old 1979 (gray market) 930 Turbo Porsche sitting in my barn will kick your butt and it's currently a cheaper ride!!!!

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!