This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Peak Denial About Peak Oil
Submitted by Jim Quinn of The Burning Platform
Peak Denial About Peak Oil
It is par for the course that with oil hovering between $70 and $80
per barrel Americans have continued to buy SUVs and Trucks at a rapid
pace. Politicians don’t have constituents screaming at them because gas
is $4.00 per gallon, so it is no longer an issue for them. They need to
focus on the November elections. It is no time to discuss a difficult
issue that requires foresight and honesty. It is no time to tell the
American public that oil will be over $200 a barrel within the next 5
years. Anyone who would go on CNBC today and declare that oil will be
over $200 a barrel would be eviscerated by bubble head Bartiromo or
clueless Kudlow. Bartiromo filled up her Escalade this morning for $2.60
a gallon, so there is no looming crisis on the horizon. The myopic view
of the world by politicians, the mainstream media and the American
public in general is breathtaking to behold. Despite the facts slapping
them across the face, Americans believe cheap oil is here to stay. It is
their right to have an endless supply of cheap oil. The American way of
life has been granted by God. We are the chosen people.
A funny thing happened on our way to permanent prosperity and
unlimited cheap oil. The right to prosperity was yanked out from
underneath us by the current Greater Depression. The worldwide economic
downturn has masked the onset of peak cheap oil. Therefore, when it hits
America with its full fury, it will be a complete surprise to the
ignorant masses and the ignorant politicians who run this country. A
Gallup Poll in August asked Americans about our most important problems.
Where is the concern about future energy supplies? It isn’t on the
radar screens of Americans. They are probably more worried about whether
The Situation will hook up with Snookie on the Jersey Shore reality
show.
It is not surprising that the American public, American politicians,
and the American media don’t see the impending crisis. The organizations
that have an interest in looking farther than next week into the future
have all concluded that the downside of peak oil will cause chaos
throughout the world. The US Military, the German Military, and the UK
Department of Energy have all done detailed studies of the situation and
come to the same conclusions. Social chaos, economic confusion, trade
barriers, conflict, food shortages, riots, and war are in our future.
http://www.acus.org/docs/051007-Hirsch_World_Oil_Production.pdf
The U.S. was warned in 2005. Its own Department of Energy
commissioned a report by Robert Hirsch to examine peak oil and its
potential consequences to the US. The introduction stated:
“The peaking of world oil production
presents the U.S. and the world with an unprecedented risk management
problem. As peaking is approached, liquid fuel prices and price
volatility will increase dramatically, and, without timely mitigation,
the economic, social, and political costs will be unprecedented. Viable
mitigation options exist on both the supply and demand sides, but to
have substantial impact, they must be initiated more than a decade in
advance of peaking.”
The main conclusions reached by the experts who worked on this report were:
- World oil peaking is going to happen, and will likely be abrupt.
World production of conventional oil will reach a maximum and decline
thereafter. - Oil peaking will adversely affect global economies, particularly the
U.S. Over the past century the U.S. economy has been shaped by the
availability of low-cost oil. The economic loss to the United States
could be measured on a trillion-dollar scale. Aggressive fuel efficiency
and substitute fuel production could provide substantial mitigation. - The problem is liquid fuels for transportation. The lifetimes of
transportation equipment are measured in decades. Rapid changeover in
transportation equipment is inherently impossible. Motor vehicles,
aircraft, trains, and ships have no ready alternative to liquid fuels. - Mitigation efforts will require substantial time. Waiting until
production peaks would leave the world with a liquid fuel deficit for 20
years. Initiating a crash program 10 years before peaking leaves a
liquid fuels shortfall of a decade. Initiating a crash program 20 years
before peaking could avoid a world liquid fuels shortfall. - It is a matter of risk management. The peaking of world oil
production is a classic risk management problem. Mitigation efforts
earlier than required may be premature, if peaking is long delayed. On
the other hand, if peaking is soon, failure to initiate mitigation could
be extremely damaging. - Economic upheaval is not inevitable. Without mitigation, the peaking
of world oil production will cause major economic upheaval. Given
enough lead-time, the problems are soluble with existing technologies.
New technologies will help, but on a longer time scale.
The Hirsch Report clearly laid out the problem. It urged immediate
action on multiple fronts. It is now 5 years later and absolutely
nothing has been done. In the meantime, it has become abundantly clear
that worldwide oil production peaked between 2005 and 2010. The Hirsch
Report concluded we needed to begin preparing 20 years before peak oil
in order to avoid chaos. We are now faced with the worst case scenario.
http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/joe2010.pdf
The US Military issued a Joint Operating Environment report earlier
this year. They have no political motivation to sugarcoat or present a
dire picture. This passage is particularly disturbing:
A severe energy crunch is inevitable
without a massive expansion of production and refining capacity. While
it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and
strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce
the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds.
Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions,
push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse,
and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China and India. At
best, it would lead to periods of harsh economic adjustment. To what
extent conservation measures, investments in alternative energy
production, and efforts to expand petroleum production from tar sands
and shale would mitigate such a period of adjustment is difficult to
predict. One should not forget that the Great Depression spawned a
number of totalitarian regimes that sought economic prosperity for their
nations by ruthless conquest.
Here is the summary of their analysis:
To generate the energy required worldwide by the 2030s would require us to find an additional 1.4 MBD every year until then.
During
the next twenty-five years, coal, oil, and natural gas will remain
indispensable to meet energy requirements. The discovery rate for new
petroleum and gas fields over the past two decades (with the possible
exception of Brazil) provides little reason for optimism that future
efforts will find major new fields.
At
present, investment in oil production is only beginning to pick up,
with the result that production could reach a prolonged plateau. By
2030, the world will require production of 118 MBD, but energy producers
may only be producing 100 MBD unless there are major changes in current
investment and drilling capacity.
By
2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as
early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 MBD.
Energy
production and distribution infrastructure must see significant new
investment if energy demand is to be satisfied at a cost compatible with
economic growth and prosperity. Efficient hybrid, electric, and
flex-fuel vehicles will likely dominate light-duty vehicle sales by 2035
and much of the growth in gasoline demand may be met through increases
in biofuels production. Renewed interest in nuclear power and green
energy sources such as solar power, wind, or geothermal may blunt rising
prices for fossil fuels should business interest become actual
investment. However, capital costs in some power-generation and
distribution sectors are also rising, reflecting global demand for
alternative energy sources and hindering their ability to compete
effectively with relatively cheap fossil fuels. Fossil fuels will very
likely remain the predominant energy source going forward.
Just this week, the German magazine Der Spiegel obtained a
confidential study about peak oil that was done by the German military.
According to the German report, there is “some probability that peak oil
will occur around the year 2010 and that the impact on security is
expected to be felt 15 to 30 years later.” The major conclusions of the
study as detailed in Der Spiegel are as follows:
- Oil will determine power: The Bundeswehr
Transformation Center writes that oil will become one decisive factor in
determining the new landscape of international relations: “The relative
importance of the oil-producing nations in the international system is
growing. These nations are using the advantages resulting from this to
expand the scope of their domestic and foreign policies and establish
themselves as a new or resurgent regional, or in some cases even global
leading powers.” - Increasing importance of oil exporters: For
importers of oil more competition for resources will mean an increase in
the number of nations competing for favor with oil-producing nations.
For the latter this opens up a window of opportunity which can be used
to implement political, economic or ideological aims. As this window of
time will only be open for a limited period, “this could result in a
more aggressive assertion of national interests on the part of the
oil-producing nations.” - Politics in place of the market: The Bundeswehr
Transformation Center expects that a supply crisis would roll back the
liberalization of the energy market. “The proportion of oil traded on
the global, freely accessible oil market will diminish as more oil is
traded through bi-national contracts,” the study states. In the long
run, the study goes on, the global oil market, will only be able to
follow the laws of the free market in a restricted way. “Bilateral,
conditioned supply agreements and privileged partnerships, such as those
seen prior to the oil crises of the 1970s, will once again come to the
fore.” - Market failures: The authors paint a bleak picture
of the consequences resulting from a shortage of petroleum. As the
transportation of goods depends on crude oil, international trade could
be subject to colossal tax hikes. “Shortages in the supply of vital
goods could arise” as a result, for example in food supplies. Oil is
used directly or indirectly in the production of 95 percent of all
industrial goods. Price shocks could therefore be seen in almost any
industry and throughout all stages of the industrial supply chain. “In the medium term the global economic system and every market-oriented national economy would collapse.” - Relapse into planned economy: Since virtually all
economic sectors rely heavily on oil, peak oil could lead to a “partial
or complete failure of markets,” says the study. “A conceivable
alternative would be government rationing and the allocation of
important goods or the setting of production schedules and other
short-term coercive measures to replace market-based mechanisms in times
of crisis.” - Global chain reaction: “A restructuring of oil
supplies will not be equally possible in all regions before the onset of
peak oil,” says the study. “It is likely that a large number of states
will not be in a position to make the necessary investments in time,” or
with “sufficient magnitude.” If there were economic crashes in some
regions of the world, Germany could be affected. Germany would not
escape the crises of other countries, because it’s so tightly integrated
into the global economy. - Crisis of political legitimacy: The Bundeswehr
study also raises fears for the survival of democracy itself. Parts of
the population could perceive the upheaval triggered by peak oil “as a
general systemic crisis.” This would create “room for ideological and
extremist alternatives to existing forms of government.” Fragmentation
of the affected population is likely and could “in extreme cases lead to
open conflict.”
Even the International Energy Agency, which has always painted a rosy
picture of the future, has even been warning about future shortages due
to lack of investment and planning.
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2009/WEO2009_es_english.pdf
Americans think that the discovery of oil on our soil in 1859 has
entitled us to an endless supply. It is not so. We account for 4.3% of
the world’s population but consume 26% of the world’s oil. As China,
India and the rest of the developing world become economic powerhouses,
they will consume more and more of the dwindling supply of easily
accessible oil. As the consumption curve continues upwards, the
production curve will be flat. The result will be huge spikes in prices.
It will not be a straight line, but prices will become progressively
higher. As the studies referenced above have concluded, the result will
be economic pain, social chaos, supply wars, food shortages, and a
drastic reduction in lifestyles of Americans. They won’t see it coming,
just like they didn’t see the housing collapse coming or the financial
system collapse coming. They’ll just keep filling up those Escalades
until the pump runs dry.
»
- 23015 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Whale oil Bitchez!
Add Peak Baby Boom Spending to this:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/baby-boom-age-wave.asp
and we get a terrible downdraft in the markets coming in the next 10 years.
Oh I forgot the next Peak we're currently climbing Peak Debt. We've just begun the long ascent up that mountain.
Ooo boy, I'm tickled pink to think of the blood on the sidewalks on Wall Street.
This recovery summer has been so dull with all the green shoots sprouting everywhere. I can't wait for recovery fall. I'll be in the army and they're gonna pay me in recovery dollars and I'll save my recovery dollars in recovery winter and maybe I'll go to recovery Afghanistan and then when I come home to recovery summer 2011 I'll take that big step of buying a recovery Mustang and maybe go recovery officer candidate school. Now if you recovery excuse me I'm gonna go get some recovery orange juice for my recovery hangover and prepare for a recovery concert at Comerica park featuring Eminem and Jay z. I need recovery lunch; my stomach is recovery upset.
Recovery. Just had to say it once more.
Recovery, bitchez.
hey can i go to the concert with you, bro? love MnM & Z.
There are trillions of barrels of shale oil in the Western United States and Canada. More than in Saudi Arabia. Peak oil isn't here yet.
JLee yes, all time record oil and gas reserves already on hand, what theyre bitching about is a carbon tax and total control by a very few.
GFD, you idiots are the entire problem.
You're not sufficiently intelligent to understand Peak Theory, yet you feel compelled to speak on it.
Reserves have NOTHING to do with production rates.
Holy God Batman.....this guy don't give up.
Hey....come to NY, I have this bridge I would to sell you...We ain't building anymore,,,,so it must be PEAK BRIDGE time in NY too!!!!
Well, please do explain what's incorrect about his statement.
Ultimately recoverable isn't equal to original oil in place, which means every time some uninformed moron spouts "oh there's trillions of barrels in the Bakken formation", only very little can actually be extracted and put to use.
And the production rate decides at which pace you can extract it.
Stop commenting on something you clearly know nothing about.
Your post makes me think of a person in the 1880's standing on a street corner distributing pamphlets about the dangers of peak whale oil.
Only a little oil can be extracted from the Bakken formation NOW. Bump up the price enough, and someone will come up with a method that allows it to be extracted, possibly even cheaply.
Further, once the US is in economic ruin, NIMBY problems will disappear, and we can start drilling much closer to shore, and in a lot of on-shore reserves that are now accessible with newly developed technology.
Think about gold mining in China. Gold was mined there for thousands of years, but mining was halted under Mao. Fast forward to the last decade, when gold mining starts up again, suddenly China has become the world's largest gold producer, despite having been mined "dry" for thousands of years. New technology made a lot more of that gold recoverable, and that is only with 60 odd years of technological advance.
You guys just keep dreamin, whydontcha?
US production peaked in 1970. USSR in 1989.
Some 58 out of the top 65 oil producing nations have peaked and are now in decline.
Get the fuck OVER IT already. It happens, it is fact, there's no way you can invent your technomiracle in the future that is going to reverse it when FORTY YEARS worth of dreaming hasn't done shit to the US's production curve.
Just hope "someone" comes up with something. So, in other words, you are high on Hopium.
There is still plenty of room for zeros on the dollar, too.
Why worry, right?
Recoverable at the current technology. The steering tools get better and better. Soon enough, they will be able to follow a spaghetti noodle.
Well, yes, actually, they do. Production rates are limited by factors other than reserves, however. Namely political pressure, government regulations, and NIMBY. You could look at the output of nuclear power in this country and claim that we have reached peak uranium, but that is far from true. NIMBY and regulations have simply shut down all new production. New oil production isn't completely shut down, but it has shifted away from areas where the combination of political and geographical features makes economical recovery difficult or impossible.
The thing about political hinderance is that it is not permanent.
Please, shut up.
You could only claim peak uranium when the amount of uranium being produced from the ground hits a maximum, then declines.
This WILL happen.
Gold production peaked long ago in RSA. And in the US...our production now declines. Helium globally peaked in 2002, Gold in 2000. Look, man, the evidence is all around you and is incontrovertible.
Even WATER will peak...yes, it will! Despite the fact that water cannot be destroyed or consumed. Water peak will be when we cannot extract water for use any faster. Water won't go into supply decline, however, thank god for that. Oil will because oil gets burnt or turned into plastics.
BULLSHIT. What counts is the NET energy. You can be making a million dollars annually, but what counts is the NET salary you get. If your tax rate is 99pc, you only get peanuts. Same thing with energy, the tar sands and shale oil have never been really viable as they have very, very low NET energy. There might be a lot of GROSS energy available but what society has to use is the NET. In that regard Saudi oil produced a 100:1 surplus, while current Tar sands and shale oil surpluses are around 3-6:1.
Our entire civilization was built on net energy surpluses in far greater excess than 25:1. It's not the Gross energy availability that counts, it's the NET and extracting shale and tar sands is very, very inefficient and energy intensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI
However, you can't teach physics to a dog, eventhough it can catch a frisbee in mid air.
Thank god some people get it.
I've been considering a "Create Content" to try to explain to the morons how peak works, but I often wonder if it's a lost cause.
NET production is all that matters. Reserves do not.
For example, the tarsands have roughly equivalent URR to the fields in KSA. However, the expected maximum PRODUCTION from these reserves is dramatically different.
Not ALL reserves are the same. The tarsands are a 4-5mbpd resource, KSA's fields can or did produce probably 12 at peak. Same reserves, 1/3 the NET production from tarsands (not even including the massive NG they burn to mobilize the bitumen).
There are fields in deepwater, such as Tupi, containing 8Bbbl URR...yet this field is expected to produce around 500kbpd at peak. There were shore fields in this reserves class that produced at 3x that rate at peak.
Also to consider is that the deeper the water, the sooner the fields peak and the steeper the decline rate is from peak. Given that all of our recent big finds were in deep water, we're facing a potentially catastrophic production decline globally.
Imagine how the mexicans felt when Cantarell, formerly the world #2-producing field, had a 34% YoY decline in production and now is a minor field, falling from 2.1mbpd to 500kbpd in the span of only a few years.
That's all well and good, until some new technology comes along and makes it 90+% recoverable.
Remember Malthus? He didn't predict the Green Revolution, and thus his idea of a peak carrying capacity of Earth was proven wrong. All it takes is a little technology. People are smarter than you seem to give them credit for. Take a second to reflect upon technological advance before you resume running around screaming that the sky is falling, Chicken Little. You're playing into the wolves' (Gore and Co) hands by doing so.
Well Malthus was right for 58/60 centuries. Today's agriculture is entirely powered by fossil fuels, petrochemicals and petrofertilizers. Every North American requires 10 calories of fossil fuel to consume 1 calorie of food. The energy is spent all along the supply chain - production, distribution, storage etc.
ZeroHedge and other financial sites are warning about the coming depression/ collapse and yet the MSM refers to them as chicken littles, yet we on ZH know that the shit is hitting the fan as we can analyze the fundamentals. In some ways, peak oilers are similar to those sole voices calling for the financial crisis before it hit and who were ignored by the mainstream or laughed at.
Just because the world population has gone to 7 billion now without crashing doesn't mean the underlying fundamentals aren't dangerously bad. There are limits everywhere, we live on a finite planet with an economic system built on infinite growth. It doesn't compute. The founder of the green revolution himself Norman Borlaug had deep regrets on what he'd done as it only kicked the can down the road.
With the financial crisis, we refer to the end as the Keynesian endpoint, where we can't kick any further. Same thing with peak oil and especially NET energy. The end point is where we simply can't sustain EROEI's of greater than X:1 that civilization requires to function before downshifting dramatically.
I fixed it for you. I and mine are far, far below this number, thanks be to God.
When you and yours can feed the hungry scavenging hordes, then you're on to something.
Agreed, but there is more than one way to skin that cat. You dig?
In my garden, yes, I do. And I am guessing that you know growing food without the aid of oil or natural gas derived nutrients or pesticides is labor and time intensive. Still, it is productive enough to provide for the laying-up of some over-winter food stuffs, albeit on the small familial scale.
Peace be with you.
Peak oil discussions tend to lead to the idea that "we" (ie the government) should impose artificial restrictions on consumption.
Such measures are not needed, and are counterproductive. Let people use their ingenuity to come up with a solution when it becomes economical. Shouting about the end of the world, and claiming that the only solution lies in granting power to some centralized authority is a sure way to collapse your civilization.
Wolves used Chicken Little's fearmongering to seduce animals into the wolves' den, where it was "safe" from the falling sky. They were subsequently devoured.
Keynesianism, AGW, and similar schemes fail because they demand that a centralized authority control the actions of the people, which is impossible. They see all these "problems" which need their "solutions", which only wind up harming everyone. LET THE MARKETS WORK.
First off, to go from the current peak of ~55% recoverable with tertiary extration methods to 90% is more than a little optimistic.
As far as new technology - granted. Something COULD turn up. But you're essentially gambling on it turning up, when in actuality, we have researched this topic for quite some time by now, and absolutely no realistic replacement of oil has been located.
Technology advances systematically when it has to, and not before. Why devote the resources to extracting tar from sand when you can get a greater return for now from another source AND you don't have to pay Canadian taxes?
The easiest resources are used first. Once they are gone, other resources will be accessed. It will go on like this until a renewable resource becomes the cheapest, at which point the cycle slows or stops. If other, cheaper resources are discovered, there will be a transition to utilize those. This is the way markets work. Government interference is perfectly capable of taking the most accessible resource in the world and making it unprofitable, which is what has happened in this country, and on a much more widespread basis than jsut oil, or even just energy. This is the same reason our industrial base has fled for the third world.
That doesn't consider the fact that a move from one resource quality to the next best might cause issue during the transition. It also fails to consider going to an economy entirely based on electricity would require the grid to be seriously upgraded.
In the Western World, I believe the figure of overall energy we have the capacity to transport in our existing electricity grid is somewhere in the region of 12% of total energy consumed. The upgrade would cost trillions, and go through natural resources (copper, especially) like there's no tomorrow, causing prices to skyrocket.
If it is done naturally, the cheapest method will be employed. If trillions are required, it won't be done. If it cost that much to upgrade the grid, solar panels will simply be deployed throughout the nation at a much lesser cost (systems that use organic components and no rare materials are available).
There may be a transition period, but it won't be like they have to cut the power to the whole world, build the new infrastructure, and then turn it back on 50 years later. You can have roads that are shared between electrical and gas power vehicles. You can have homes that have a couple of solar panels, or even a solar water heater, while still being hooked to the grid. The people will convert themselves if energy goes too high. All YOU and the government have to do is stay out of the way. Don't try to subsidize utilities, or green power manufacturers, or anyone else. Then the most efficient system will be the cheapest, and will be naturally selected by the market. There is no need to run around like your hair is on fire screaming about peak oil, any more than there was a need for the person in the 1800's to do the same screaming about peak lumber. Lumber is pretty well done as a power source, but the world didn't freeze to death in the transition, did it?
But it wasn't. You're using textbook solutions not reality. We spent a lot of transition money and oil on wars, whores and bankers drawers
It keeps going until the price won't justify the decreasing marginal returns that keep coming back. Scientific revolutions do happen - but betting our future that we'll always come up with something will end up being a losing bet someday. To believe otherwise is to, once again, believe in perpetual growth.
Listen, bub, I can't pretend to respect the commentary of ignorants like you.
Let's reflect on technological advance, then.
The US peaked in 1970. FORTY YEARS' worth of technological advance has not and CANNOT reverse that.
You don't have a fucking clue why 90% vs 50% URR is UTTERLY and COMPLETELY irrelevant to what I just said, so do us a favor and shut up!
Fuck Malthus, Fuck Gore, fuck the AGW people, and while I'm up, fuck you too!
Peak oil has ZERO to do with Al fucking Gore. Peak was theorized by HUBBERT in the 1950s, you douche.
All it takes is a little technology...fuck, man, in the face of this kinda cornucopian dreamworld fantasizing, what the fuck can REALITY do? How bout we all just simultaneously wish upon a fucking star?
People are not smarter than I give them credit for, as I do not suffer from the Downing Effect. I can give a highly accurate estimate of intelligence and find yours sorely wanting...sad, but true. Leave the hard things like thinking and coming up with that "technological miracle" that permits infinite exponential growth to us big brains, okie?
Smooches
Simultaneous star wishing.
Lets do this!!
Dale, is that you?
wolves are also the ones who assure the children that everything is fine. Here have some candy
I rarely make comments of a personal nature but perhaps sir, you would get more positive attention if you weren't such a putz to others.
Please do. Your informative posts are presented so offensively that they're entertaining and memorable. Although I don't have the math skills of many here, I do know that
Informative + Entertaining + Memorable = Effective
trav7777,
I understand peak oil but would like to read more of your thoughts on the topic. Your efforts would be welcomed.
Over the last few years, the largest oil finds ever were discovered. They just want full control of it all and prices set, with massive new taxes on you. Hey if youre so worried about peak oil go ride a fuking bicycle.
Peak oil discovery occurred in 1964. Today we use 4-5 barrels for every barrel we find.
Just fucking google it.
'Today we use 4-5 barrels for every barrel we find'...
Oh yea then explain maximum oil storage capacity glut!
Easy. Crowded trade.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1I7GGLD_en&q=leasing+tankers+to+store+oil&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
Data is a mother fucker:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_fields
Sorted by size, descending order. We must have different understandings of the words, "over the last few years."
Ghawar Field Saudi Arabia 1948[4] 1951[4] 2005[5], disputed[6] 75-83[7][8] 5[9] 8% per year[citation needed]
Oseberg Norway 1979 1988 2.2 3.78
Bolivar Coastal Field Venezuela 1917 30-32[8] 2.6-3[8]
Fyodorovskoye Field West Siberia, Russia 1971 1974 11 1.9 (197x)
Burgan Field Kuwait 1938 1948 2005[10] 66-72[11][8] 1.7[12] 14% per year[citation needed]
Rumaila Field Iraq 1953 17[18] 1.3[18]
Prudhoe Bay United States, Alaska 1969 1998 [23] 13 0.9 11% per year[citation needed]
Samotlor Field West Siberia, Russia 1965 1969 1980[21] 14-16 .844 [22] (cum. depletion: 73%) [22]
Ahwaz Field Iran 1958 1970s[19] 10.1 .700[20] Expected to surpass original peak due to new gas injection.[2]
Priobskoye field West Siberia, Russia 1982 2000 13 0.680 (2008) 14% depleted, Production rapidly expanding.[24]
Cantarell Field Mexico 1976 1981 2004[15] 35[8], 18 billion recoverable .580 [16] peaked in 2004 at 2.14 million barrels per day (340,000 m3/d)[16]
Tengiz Field Kazakhstan 1979 1993 2010 15-26[8] .53[8] Expanding from 285k to 1.3 m bpd[1]
Majnoon Field Iraq 11-20[18] .5[18]
Kirkuk Field Iraq 1927 1934 8.5 .480
Abqaiq Field Saudi Arabia 12 0.43[25]
Romashkino Field Volga-Ural, Russia 1948 1949 in decline 16-17 .301 (2006) [22] cum. depletion: 85% [22]
Agha Jari Field Iran 1937 8.7 .200
West Qurna Field Iraq 15-21 [18] 0.18-.25 (pot.)*civil war [18]
Lyantorskoye field West Siberia, Russia 1966 1979 13 0.168 (2004) [22] cum. depletion: 81% [22]
Ishpingo-Tiputini-Tambococha Field Ecuador (Yasuni National Park) ~ 1 [3]
Ferdows/Mound/Zagheh Field Iran 2003 7-9 (38 Gb resource)[13]
Sugar Loaf field Brazil 2007 25-40[14] Not yet developed
Azadegan field Iran 2004 26[17]
Tupi Field Santos Basin, Brazil 2007 5-8
Safaniya-Khafji Field Saudi Arabia/Neutral Zone 1951 30
Esfandiar Field Iran 30
Shaybah Field Saudi Arabia 15
Serir Field Libya 1961 12 (6.5 billion recoverable)
Chicontepec Field Mexico 1926 6.5 [16] (19 certified)[26]
Berri Field Saudi Arabia 12
Zakum Field Abu Dhabi, UAE 1965[27] 1967 12
Rueters June 10, 2009
...Guará offshore discovery could have two billion barrels of crude and gas. When this is added to the Tupi and Lara fields recently found by the Brazilian oil giant Petrobras, the total yield could be close to 12 billion barrels. It has been years since deposits of this size have been found anywhere.
Read more: Brazil Finds The Largest New Oil Fields In The World - 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/2009/09/10/brazil-finds-the-largest-new-oil-fields-in-the-world/#ixzz0yUSONOFA
Does this count?
Only time will tell. And that is the problem, time. How long until the first billion is produced (2013 at the earliest), and then how much can be produced per month to meet ongoing demand? Not nearly enough, and not nearly fast enough; it is like a company with a solid balance sheet, but will never have a positive cash flow.
http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/guaraoilfield/
Sorry, I didn't invent the math.
Yes, use a billion barrels per year, discover three billion-barrel fields in the last 42 years. This ends well.
I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT ON ASITE LIKE ZH,
WITH AN ARTICLE WITH CLOSE TO 200 POSTS NO ONE HAS MENTIONED THE MOVIE COLLAPSE WITH MICHAEL RUPERT.
NOMINATED FOR DOCUMENTARY OF THE YEAR.
All should Watch: http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/50078/Collapse__part_1_/
Math error. we use a billion barrels of oil every 11.74 DAYS...
Thank goodness, you showed up. What took you so long? Us Cretins have been holding off the horde for hours, with Trav7777 on point, of all people!
LOL, you cretins were doing a great job! Trav has always been my point man! The building oil crisis is going to make the financial crisis look like a tip toe through the tulips. WASS (we are so screwed)
Exponential increase in the number of oil rigs , over past 10 years, in order to keep oil production flat should scare the shit out of everyone...
You're starring in a bukkake here, dude, and you don't even know it...plz STFU about things you know nothing about
I see you getting all worked up about this and I'm not sure why.
To me peak oil Vs no peak oil is pretty fucking simple. Anyone grappling with whether or not peak oil is 'real' just needs to ask themselves the following questions.
1) Is oil a finite resource?
2) Does it matter that it's a finite resource?
Most people would answer yes to (1), some seem to think that there is so much available/yet to be discovered that the answer to (2) is no. Others think that as oil prices go up, alternatives will be found/developed, so we'll be fine as it runs out.
Personally, I think we're pretty f'ed (yes to both 1 & 2), but I'm not going to get all pissed off at someone that's more optimistic than I am. Instead I'm just long oil exploration/production and veggie gardening.If they're right and I'm wrong I'll just have to make do with the nice dividend on XOM. If I'm right and they're wrong, at some point in the near future the price of oil will go through the roof (regardless of inflation vs deflation), I'll get a nice return and will be a little better prepared for the oncoming calamity.
I really think oil is so ridiculously undervalued even at $150 a barrel. You've just got to look at some of the things we do with oil, then ask yourself how much you'd have to pay someone to do it manually, or to develop an alternative energy source that could power machinery to do the job.
Holy fucking shit, god damn you're a moron. You walk right into a discussion, clearly knowing NOTHING about Ghawar, and claims we have "just discovered the biggest oil field EVAR!!11"
You're wrong on every count.
Your statement is completely, 100% false. The largest oil fields in the world were all discovered between 30 and 70 years ago. And they are all reaching their respective peaks or have already passed their respective peaks. Further, the top 1% of oil fields (in total size), provide over 66% of all oil produced each year. That should tell you how important the giant oil fields are to our energy situation.
Your false statement either indicates massive ignorance or deliberate falsehoods.
Peak oil is precisely why we need to move hard and fast on nuclear power, because while solar and wind are attractive, they cannot provide baseline loads. Further, swapping transportation over to electrical options also removes dependence on jihadist fundamentalists who fund their wars on us with our own export dollars.
Peak oil is not about a carbon tax. In fact, peak oil is proof of why a carbon tax is irrelevant - carbon production will get phased out without the tax just due to massively increasing costs.
For your information, the United States peaked in production in 1971, decades before environmental regulation really impacted oil production. And further, Alaska didn't even come close to returning us to the 1971 peak. All that Alaska did was slow down the decline. At its peak, the US produced over 10 million barrels per day, much as Saudi Arabia or Russia do today. But now the US produces just over 4 million barrels per day yet consumes 19-21 million barrels per day (depending on the economy). Likewise, the North Sea peaked in 1999 and every year since, Britain has claimed production was going to rise, yet it has fallen instead.
Peak oil is a chance for the US to shine at what it has done best in the past - to innovate. Instead, we have fools like you who want us to remain mired in a past that is soon to become completely obsolete. People like you are precisely why the decline of global oil production will cause havoc, wars, and social collapse. People like you will get exactly the kind of world that your ignorance deserves.
flag as excellent (1)
flag as excellent (2)
great post!
You are a far more patient person than I. I have had this argument now for, shit, 7 years?
I've struggled to get people with IQs over 130 to understand Peak...it seems like a truly lost cause.
love the last paragraph.
+3 Good stuff.
+6
and without oil, what will your tires be made of? pure natural rubber? I think Peak Rubber was around a century ago, when Leopold II made human hands a form of currency http://www.cracked.com/funny-1219-congo-free-state/ // my point is that oil is very vital for far more things than internal combustion, and Peak <resource> is just about consumption exceeding production, not about running out.
No!
Peak is when the production rate hits its maximum, and NOTHING else
peak charcoal, from the rain forests.
VK: The oil is the same once extracted. The issue is the technology, percentage of recovery, and cost of such. Right now it's cheaper elsewhere. Yes, you can recover 100% of pools of oil while a lower 3-6% of shale. The new horizontal drilling and rock fracking techniques should double or better that.
"percentage of recovery" summer. Recovery summer. Dumbass.
j/k.
No, it's not about recovery. It's about JOULES. The unit of energy. It's not about technology also, it's about thermodynamic limits. For every unit of energy expended in the oil shales and tar sands, you get about 3 to 6 joules on energy in return. Our entire civilization was built on energy surpluses in excess of 25:1 (meaning, 25 units of energy for every unit of energy invested in manpower, equipment, infrastructure, transportation, distribution, storage etc). Shale oil and tar sands are very, very poor NET energy wise. Solar and Wind have much better NET energy characteristics but are intermittent sources while Nuclear has a 15:1 NET energy output.
For more on this, please take a look at the work of Professor of Charles Hall at Syracuse University.
Thank you
+ 1
VK.. you have put alot of energy into this thread.. and I for one appreciate it. Very good info supporting the idea of peak cheap, aka peak "net energy" oil.
Try to design a solar panel manufacturing plant that only uses solar energy for power. Now try a vertically integrated supply chain. This is what happens when your engery has a low EROEI. Try the same experiment with wind power, etc. and you'll quickly see why the alternatives to oil are all insufficient to maintain our current economy.
Manged decline will be the new "growth."
Sorry, triple post. Deleted.
baleeted double post. Bitchez!
.
"pools of oil" - please list a single case of "pools of oil" having been located underground?
Oh right, you won't be able to, because oil doesn't exist in "pools". It exists in creaks of rock. Read up on permeability and porosity and come back when you comprehend the information.
And with tertiary extraction methods, we can get up to 55% of OOIP, if we're lucky. But often, it's a lot less than that.
Net energy...if that was the case why are we concentrating on Solar and Wind. They are horrible producers of NET energy. In fact, solar energy is one of the least efficient forms out there.
Solar energy has a NET energy output of 20:1 or 5:1 depending on the location, wind is actually the best, with a ratio of 20:1 or more. The fact is that we aren't really concentrating on wind and solar much at all, they only produce the equivalent of 76,000 barrels per day for the US, while total US energy consumption is the equivalent of 46 million barrels per day. China now consumes more energy than the US as well. So solar and wind contribute less than 1/2 pc of US energy needs.
Solar and Wind are highly intermittent, the solution for these is the use of smart grids and off grid solutions, Europe is far more advanced in their implementation of these smart grids to account for the fact that the sun don't shine all the time and the wind don't blow all the time. But smart grids require huge investments and also the US and Canadian grids are much larger i.e. dispersed over a much larger area. Hence it is very difficult to implement smart grids and very expensive.
Solar technology is the greatest wealth destroying technology ever devised by mankind...
but passive solar design and architecture to fit the environment makes sense
Absolutely!
We needed a Manhattan Project on this in the 1990s, when we had the chance. Like Hirsch and others said.
Instead we got Bill Clitton, SUVs, and twin .com and housing bubbles. Worst.President.Ever.
The Mars Rover has $1M/panel voltaics that deliver 2-3x the efficiencies of commonly-available panels. Where's the investment? We invested in granite countertops and deadwood real estate. No Child Left Behind and stupid shit like this, irrationally kvetching and wasting our resources and time on kids who simply lack the aptitude to ever be good at cognitive tasks.
There are technologies out there, thorium cycle nuclear, PBMR, etc...still no liquid fuels. Air travel requires the energy density of gasoline, but ground transport can live with H2 or ethanol. And yet where did our investment go? We printed money to liquify BANKS for a fucking credit bubble that built shit with NO RETURN.
All of our national spending is sunk cost, dead assets.
Can I subscribe to your energy related newsletter? I find your level of disinformation really rather amusing.
It can be found at www.oilforsuckers.com
But I thought you were already a card carrying member...
No, I'm afraid it wasn't me you recognized at their latest gathering.
Gotta put something in the Hopium pipe...
You must be a boomer as evidenced by your inside-the-box thinking. When things get desperate, people get inventive. Extract the oil from the shale by building a nuclear reactor on the site.
Anyways, once the Boomers are all dead, peak usage will slow down, too, since they're the last generation of assholes who think muscle cars and Harleys are so fucking important.
Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple. Nuclear takes years to build, and requires access to huge volumes of fresh water, which cuts down on potential construction sites.
Not to mention that you need to store the damn waste properly for 10,000 years!!
MYTH
Very Well Put!
May I introduce you to the idea of EROEI. Yes we have lots of shale oil. It's just a lot more expensive than $80 a barrel to get it.
There are trillions of barrels of shale water, used to frack the shale oil.
EROI
Biophysical economics
Emergy
Peak energy return is impending. Peak biological limits are here too.
Doesn't matter how much is locked up - it matters how fast you can get it out and at what cost.
The amount of oil isn't the issue - it's the availability of Cheap Oil.
Oil prices are running well behind inflation, though for a time, it was the main speculative gas:
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$WTIC:$GOLD&p=M&st=1995-01-01&en=(today)&id=p99744927421&listNum=2&a=207760336
Peak cheap oil yes, but when you don't extract 50-70% of the hydrocarbons in a given reservoir because of current production techniques, it means there is still plenty of oil out there. We just need to find a way of extracting it.
Peak oil my ass.
Yes what the world control oil companies are trying to create is cheap production for themselves, massive new taxes and regulation on us! Still PLENTY of oil and gas, hell right now we're sitting on all time high storage capacity!
I was coming from a purely scientific angle. Most conventional wells are drilled over-balance (weight of the mud column greater than reservoir pressure) and bypass many smaller sands to produce the largest. Also when you drill over-balance your drilling fluids intrude into the formation clogging and sealing off much of the porosity hindering permeability and thus production.
Tapping into smaller resources - that's the whole point of Maximum Reservoir Contact drilling. What you said might have been true for US drilling, pre-1980, but that is no longer the case.
Do you even vaguely understand how what you JUST SAID in fact validates peak oil?
that's why he compared the debate to his own rectum
peak cheap oil will do wont it? as I understand it once we get to $5 or $10 a gallon (like much the rest of the developed at the moment btw) suburban America becomes a death-trap and the population starts the long-awaited thinning process anyway?
thats good enough for me.
- particularly if those with a little understanding and foresight are a little better prepared it'll be like filtering out defective genes by intelligence, modern day Darwinism at work
Peak scam of the century you should say.
Duh, we have about 5 billion barrels in the oilsands doh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We only have another 2 provinces to explore.
Stop trying to create a short or long where there isn't one.
If anything US peak power was 5 years ago more like it. Now you are a banana republic
Bueno dias and adios
I agree mogul rider! This is OBVIOUS BS driven by the oil companies themselves to create total monopoly and price control!
EROEI. Oilsands is lower quality oil, resulting in less net energy.
You know because it doesn't cost more to pump oil from the middle of the Golf of Mexico than from Texas.
Maybe 1.1/1 energy return positive. I am recalling that Canada's experience with Athabasca was that it used 1% of the world's natural gas per year to produce 100K bpd, plus brown water that is practically unrecoverable.
Not to mention that there maybe isn't enough water in the Colorado for Shell to operate it's shale project AND provide agricultural water for much of the Western United States. Choices, choices, choices.
http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/
http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_5438123
ZeroHedge T-Shirt to anyone who can get Craig to let us know what they are doing?Craig Burbage
5400 Beach Rd.
Bow Mar, CO 80123-1508
(303) 795-5400
colorado has it's HEAD up it's ASS. just now in western colorado are the landowners raising hell. they leased out their land or had the land they thought they owned, being exploited. look at a lot of the deeds of trust documents, rights, underground are already owned, grandfathered in, by these gas companies, get to come in, use all the water they want to explore for minerals, gas whatever. they are ruining the colorado river with this run off, and their health. they thought they wouldn't mind having the rigs set up in their backyards for money exchange. OH yeah, sure, NO cause and effect, ying or yang, Murphy's Law. brilliant thinking, people. money for nothing and the returns for free.
They're not "oil sands", they are "tar sands". At least up North; in the Gulf Coast you might find some oil in the sandy beaches...
EROEI.
Peak scam of the century, right, and the sheeple lap it up! 'Ooo please regulate me and control me more and korn hole me, govt'!
The world consumes about 30 billion barrels per year. The US consumes almost 7 billion barrels per year. We are not discovering 30 billion new barrels each year. Does this sound familiar? Does it sound like the US government spending $3.6 trillion each year but only taking in $2 trillion each year? What happens in financial circles when you spend more than you make? So what happens in the real world when you burn more oil than you are discovering? In both cases, you burn your savings and then you are broke (out of money or out of gas). The key difference is in the financial world you might find some fool to loan you money even after you are broke, but in the real world, physics, thermodynamics, won't let you "spend" negative energy.
Mother Nature always bats last. And Mother Nature is a bitch who carries a 2x4.
+1
$2.60 to fill the Escalade, more like $3.25 here on the west coast
Which illuminates the fact we could preserve some of this oil by mandating $7.50 gallon of gas, with the excess above the actual cost to go into some trust fund for future beneficiaries, such as the SSTF. That way there will be a trust fund accumulating all those tax dollars.
Or, ummm, ok, no.
Peak oil until oil rises to higher levels.
Then it will be economically feasible to mass produce alternative
fuels or increase investment in traditional sources.
The market will find a way to make this transition profitable.
The "intellectuals" or the choosen ones think we need to centrally plan this.
The market wont find a way to make this profitable for the same reasons drinking heavily and not waking up with hangover is impossible.
Government.
You guys don't get it, do you?
Money is irrelevant.
profit is irrelevant...no matter how profitable it might be to break the laws of physics, they cannot BE broken.
If oil rises to some insane price, it will be because energy is SCARCE. The monetary "profitability" of some other activity vis a vis oil won't make the energy any less SCARCE.
I was being sarcastic dude?
I don't care about peak oil i got other concerns.
Are venereal diseases addictive? I just cannot seem to stop getting these things.
I wasn't replying to you, dude?
Note the lack of indent on my post with respect to yours
What's the alternative? NatGas? If we try to run everything that runs on oil now on NatGas - supplies would be decimated quickly. Check out the depletion curves on NattyGas. F'n things fall off a cliff.
That's the big 800lb. gorilla: There is no substitute for cheap oil.
People will ride bikes, downgrade, start new small business (local). This will be good for our fat ass country.
Hey you first man! Trade in the BMW and buy a mountain bike! Set the trend!
the single drop doesn't blame itself for the flood.
If we had a smooth downward transition already going, maybe we could pull it off. Instead we've set the stage for rationing and food riots. That's the whole point of the Hirsch Rept.
Can we get Matt Simmons current opinion on this?
I guess not.
Yep Matt Simmons also said peak oil is BS, lets get his comments on this Big Oil produced article...oh wait they drowned/heart attacked him already.
Er, Matt Simmons was one of the biggest proponants of Peak Oil there has ever been.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkzETN8qfzw
you really crowned your ignorance with that one
You can, he wrote an entire book on peak oil called Twilight in the Desert.
http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=rlcfvVhb24cC&dq=twilight+in+the+deser...
I am aware of his book.
The power and intent of the message slowly dies with the deceased.
Regardless of the manner of his death, his message will be altered and diluted.
Jose: Well, all's well that ends well. Though that's easy for Shakespeare to say... he'll be around for another millennium. But what of our own millennium? Will it all end well? No one can know, but that of course doesn't stop anyone from guessing. And the nature of those predictions always revolve around the usual suspects: salvation and/or self-satisfaction. With that in mind, I humbly add my own prophecy of what the dawn of the new millennium shall bring forth: one thousand more years of the same, old crap
Right, we're in for the same old crap because only a couple hundred people control billions of people, who are to spinless and sheepish to do anything about it. Its the failed human experiment, humans- the most worthless thing God ever created.
I hear Leo is already starting up his seashell and bead trading hedge fund! He's ahead of the curve.
You people dont have to worry about peak oil! The TPTB are ready to depopulate 80% of the worlds population soon, as planned, so just buy a bike and trade bananas or something!
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
Abiogenic petroleum originAbiogenic petroleum origin is an alternative hypothesis to the prevailing theory of biological petroleum origin.
The abiogenic hypothesis argues that petroleum was formed from deep carbon deposits, perhaps dating to the formation of the Earth. Supporters of the abiogenic hypothesis suggest that a great deal more petroleum exists on Earth than commonly thought, and that petroleum may originate from carbon-bearing fluids that migrate upward from the mantle. The presence of methane on Saturn's moon Titan is cited as evidence supporting the formation of hydrocarbons without biology.
Gully, even if abiotic oil was real. How long is the timeframe? Does it take millions of years to replenish? How about centuries? Or decades? Because even 1 decade of a prolonged energy crunch and we are fucked. Everything in the world economy depends on energy. Even if new oil was being formed at an annual rate, if ever our rate of extraction exceeds the replenishment rate, we have effectively peaked. As we'd need to downshift all our economic systems and way of life. Liebig's law of the minimum.
RIGHT, VK! What we need is $15 gasoline, permission slip to buy from the gubmint, and massive new BS carbon tax! Youre a FINE gubmint sheeple, you believe 'we' need to massively downgrade OUR lifestyles, while those feeding you this BS massively UPgrade theirs!
They'll downgrade their lifestyles. There won't be a choice. Complex societies are built on energy surpluses and over time the marginal returns of civilization fall and their marginal costs rise. The collapse of civilizations has been well documented by Jared Diamond and Joseph Tainter.
One of the most interesting examples of collapse came from 4th century Britain, in archaeological digs, they have found that peasants in the 1st century had better pottery and dinner ware than the King in the 4th century, as Britain in the 1st century had been a part of the Roman empire, and thus were able to import fine pottery from Spain and other parts of the Kingdom due to well established roads and a mechanism for exchange of those goods. Post collapse of the Roman empire, the skills to make fine pottery were non-existent and thus only rudimentary pottery and dinner ware was found in the King's remains.
So no, the elites are not exactly going to prosper when peak oil hits as global complexity will be in decline, we call that collapse. Try spending some time in failed state to see how far you can enjoy yourself with 10 million dollars, you might be the richest man but can you get anything for it?
OH sure VK, the elite will downgrade their lifestyles, what a complete gulifoyle.
History teaches us a different lesson. The elites might still manage to remain top dogs but they won't be able to maintain their previous lifestyles as society simply breaks down. It's called catabolic collapse.
Oil has been discovered to REPLENISH, and its not a finite resource at all? SHHHH youre letting the genie out of the bottle! Everyone wants to believe we NEED $100 oil, $15 gas, permission slips from the gubmint to fill your tank, and massive new taxes!
Ah, the theory of abiotic theism. I hear that from the religious wingnuts that own RV dealerships too. Gawd will provide.
Abiotic oil you say?
*Takes pipe out mouth*
Very well. Let's say it replenishes. Then the question that is of outmost importance is: At what rate does oil replenishes? A barrel a month? A million? A billion? A trillion?
*Points the pipe at SheepDog*
What have your sources, that we'll assume are reliable, told you, dear SheepDog? Also, I would like to know what implications you think this has, that virtually infinite amounts of carbon are to be extracted from the earth and burned. At what levels of O2 and CO2 do you think human life is still sustainable? Both are important, as the carbon binds the oxygene, n'est pas? And we all know we need oxygene.
*draws a round circle in the air with the pipe*
Please, indulge us is this new exciting model of how the Earth might work, and of how our future might play out!
LOL! How many bullshit theories will you spawn in a single thread alone.
Anyway, please educate us as how the North Sea is NOT a largely tapped resource, and Cantarell has in fact NOT collapsed in terms of production profile.
Of course all Zerohedgers can do is marvel at their captors anyway, Ive been writing for months we should do something. Pool resources to interrupt their volumeless pumping...but NAH lets just bask in our USA Stockholm Syndrome some more, and bathe in admiration of the criminals destroying the country day after day...YEA thats it!
"Pool resources to interrupt" sounds pretty commie to me. j/k
I enjoy basking in my own unwarranted attention of self importance with all my diggs, tweets, facebooks posts, stumbls, /b/awing, linkedin updates, and myspace bands. That was the best gift my grandpa gave to me after we won WW2, notice how I said we and not they.
As I sip on my vodka and orange mocha frappachino (sp?) latte purple drank I can't help but wonder if Snooki actually blew Vinny with his "it's like putting a watermelon through a pin hole" man meat.
As I anticipate that tonight's concert will consume lots of energy I know that deep down inside that I don't care about the people who work to make this happen as I am only concerned about my own selfish needs and means.
I care about most people in the same way that I want to learn the taco bell waitress's name. I don't. I want her to make my taco which I will drunkenly consume and then fart out within 24 hrs of the purchase.
As I reflect on these thoughts I fart out my nacho laden bell grande of yesterday and I continue to slurp on my alcoholic beverage and not giving a damn about the world beyond my windows because that where the poor people live; outdoors and I hate poor people, because they smell and don't have money.
However, I do enjoy people with little clothing like dancing women who have "tramp" stamped above their butt, sometimes their kid's names. It's fun to call her by her kid's name when doing it doggie style because I forgot her name as I drank it all away while I slipped green debt tickets into her crotch because really the pleasure is mine not hers, I'm scoring and putting debts on others to repay to uncle ben or uncle sam.
in the famous words of Ram burps* "I am all that is man."
OH! Its now 'COMMIE' to say 'HEY, why dont we all pool together about $10 million bucks to slam the volumeless pump' like they did on Monday? Thats COMMIE? What a total waste of space all of you are, youre not brainiacs youre full-on retarded sheeple.
God damn are you some idiot to not see I wrote j/k after that remark?
Talk about "full-on retards" but look in a mirror dude.
besides I fail to think that having a masters at 22 makes me retard. Maybe not the best decision in the world, but talk to me about finance and I'll show you up.
- what are you, 11, maybe 12 years old?
Does anybody know how much oil has been swapped for sea water, theoretically? So much that it could affect the sea level?
Peak wack jobs.......
I love this wackiness for lunch. Gives me a good laugh over my soup.