This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Jim Rogers: "Saudi Arabia Is Lying About Being Able To Increase Its Oil Production"
Jim Rogers joins Zero Hedge in being highly skeptical about just how credible Saudi's call for a 1MM + boost in its oil supply is: "Saudi Arabia has been lying about the reserves for decades. Saudi Arabia the last two times said they are going to increase production and they couldn't increase production. Don't fall for that. The reason oil is going up is the world is running out of known reserves of oil." Of course, then there is the question of does one trust the Quantum fund creator who retired at 37, or does one go with the sellside lemming brigade of monkeys with typewriters who will groupthink anything and everything to death, just to get paid another completely unwarranted bonus. As to those who are concerned that the commodity "bubble" is about to pop, Rogers says: "It's still years away." And some reinforcement for the gold and silver bulls: "Gold will certainly go over $2,000 by the end of the decade, and silver will pass $50." And as a hedge to his great commodity bull market call, Rogers continues to be short Nasdaq stocks. His thesis: "If the economy gets better I am going to make money in commodities, if it doesn't get better, I am going to make money in commodities cause they are going to print huge amounts of money." Call it the adjusted Tepper call. Rogers is also holding a contrarian all on the dollar: "I own some dollars now because there was a huge drop in the dollar. I do sometimes like to buy things when they collapse, and sometimes I don't. Sometimes I lose money." We assume this is merely a short-term revulsion trade as all the near-record USD shorts get flushed out as we highlighted in the latest Committment of Traders update.
Full interview:
»
- 44967 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
I never said they did.
I specifically did not associate diamond (pure carbon) with coal or oil (already constructed hydrocarbons). You did. This is clear and blatant conflation of product with process on your part. Your smears are weak and sad.
The example was to demonstrate the significant phase changes that occur to one element under heat and pressure, namely the extreme conditions that surround inorganic chemical reactions about which we are only now duplicating.
I will leave to others to examine the link above to see the importance of understanding elemental changes at high pressure to get a better picture of the netherworld we don't understand rather than dogma you blindly accept or knowingly sell.
You are clearly purposeful about your defense and the questionable rewording of my propositions given your understanding of the science makes you a disingenuous broker for honest discussion.
Perhaps you are a BOT after all...is it really that simple?
Hmm. No I'd say you just aren't very educated. Science isn't dogma, it's just how the world works (within reasonable margins of error). Most people understand that, your arguments against common sense become silly very quickly. Useful for entertainment, an interesting look into the dark recesses of human ignorance, but little more.
good posts
Classic. I guess then you have some carbon credits you want me to buy to avoid AGW...
LOL. Commercial science is completely permeated by the hubris and arrogance of egotistic and dogmatic turf protection. It’s called politics or in extreme conditions religion...and we all know lucrative religion can be as demonstrated by the fraud of climate change. It’s just how the world works.
Why would Peak Oil be any different when there is so much money at stake?
As a note on your commenting for future reference, your contemptuous tone smacks of insecurity. It’s very telling.
My apologies for my tardy response to your scintillating polemical retort but my avatar is not constantly in play 24/7 on this site like some persona. I work for a living...lol
P.S. Look around. Despite your little lapdog above, you’re losing.
The greatest irony is that you have played academic poseur with people that actually did science as a livelihood. Pure academic research that had no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. And you have only shown that you understand nothing about science. The first trait of a good scientist to doubt, then through the process of veryifying, arrive at something you can build on. You don't even know what is the right thing to build a foundation on.
Every scientific point you have brought up has been refuted. If you are so gifted as to see beyond us mere mortals, write a paper, get serious, get your hands dirty. Show us the the way. But you can't... Sorry.
The sad thing is that on the whole the knowledge of the oil industry here is quite limited, a few of us are reasonably conversant. The thing is that we do know when to shut up and listen to someone who really knows their stuff. You can't even outwit us, let alone real geophysicists, petroleum and reservoir engineers and their ilk.
Try your schtick at the oildrum, they welcome reasoned arguments, but you will have to do better than quote Lindsay Williams. Better yet, stick to the Yahoo boards, there are enough fools there that you may convince them that you are the messiah of oil salvation.
You BOTs are very resourceful in both your propaganda surveillance and the rapidity of your response. ? Do you even sleep ?
You typically overplay things. Offense is the best defense when you’re losing I guess.
There is no outwitting a review or discussion of an earth science theory practically applied with success in Russia and elsewhere and continues to be investigated with objective considerations.
http://www.gasresources.net/Introduction.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/why-does-abiotic-oil-theo...
https://www.gl.ciw.edu/node/sloan_deep_carbon_cycle_summary_report
http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/400230-vinod-dar/47079-abiotic-oil-and...
[snip]: From seekingalpha.com Feb 3, 2010
Abiotic Oil and Gas: A Theory That Refuses To Vanish
"The most recent attempt at gaining credence for the abiogenic idea was only a few months ago. A research team at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, led by Vladimir Kutherov, demonstrated that animal and plant fossils are not necessary for producing oil and natural gas. The team simulated the thermal and pressure processes that occur in the inner layers of the earth to generate hydrocarbons, the chief component of oil and natural gas. The team also noted that oil and gas has been found 7 miles below ground in Texas and fossil oil and gas could not, via, gravity have seeped down to such depths.
According to the Prof. Kutherov all types of bedrock can serve as reservoirs of hydrocarbon energy and their method of discovery can enhance exploration success rates from 20 % to 70 %. The research team has developed a new technique for locating oil and gas resources. It consists of dividing the globe into a fine grid, which corresponds to underground fissures or migration channels. Hydrocarbon resources will be found wherever migration channels intersect, predicts the team.
An abiogenic theory of petroleum is not new, dating from the 16th century .In the 19th century two very accomplished scientists, Alexander von Humboldt and Dimitri Mendeleev( of the Periodic Table fame) advanced the concept. In the 20th century the Russian- Ukrainian School of geology emerged in the Soviet Union to vigorously formulate the modern theory of abiogenic oil and gas. In the West, the most eloquent and determined proponent was the famous astronomer Thomas Gold. After his death, Jack Kenney of Gas Resources Corporation has become the leading Western exponent."
The more you respond with such alacrity, vigor and timeliness the more obvious on this site it is that you are waging a propaganda war...and then people begin to really look for themselves and start to ask why?
Peak Oil Theory or Prop Oil Scarcity...?
Keep em’ fearful and in the dark...Now where have I seen that before?
P.S. I never quoted Lindsay Williams. Time for you to take your disinfo elsewhere.
Mea Culpa re: Williams... confused you with another troll...doesn't change a thing.
Follow this carefully Cougar the BOT, heard of Titan, a moon of Saturn?
It is covered in oil, at a temp of -290 degrees F, please explain to this forum how your bullshit JPM derived theory that oil comes from plants, is how oil came to be on Titan lol.
I love destroying BOTS, IT'S SO FUCKIN EASY.
There is no oil on Titan. There is frozen methane, CH4. It's the simplest carbon compound and can be produced via very simple chemistry. Methane is also found on comets of no particular size and is suspected to ocurr throughout the universe. Methane is not however a carbon chain, only living things (as we know them on earth) can produce carbon chains in any quantity, and living things produce a lot of them. Oil is entirely carbon chains, they are so long that oil has to be chemically cracked to make them small enough to use as a quality fuel that doesn't produce a lot of soot.
You are 40 years too soon and a couple college degrees short of demolishing a creature such as myself.
Titan still operates under our laws of physics. Methane is low molecular weight and less dense, so naturally it would be expected to be on the surface and atmosphere of Titan.
The existence of methane on the surface merely suggests there very well may be heavier chain hydrocarbons (oil) deeper in Titan. This is exactly how methane separates as a gas and is constantly and spontaneously being released into Earth's atmosphere from deeper heavy carbon chains. And there is no evidence whatsoever that there are no other hydrocarbons or oil on Titan.
Your comet theory of methane on Titian is just silly. It's unlikely comets would repeatedly target Titan to concentrate methane in abundance there instead of being drawn in by the massive gravity of Saturn. Sans Saturn, the comet methane phenomenon is not found to be evenly distributed in the solar system.
Hydrocarbon chains in oil aren't that long and don't require biologic enzymatic assistance. Octane = 8 chain carbon, get it? We can make it in a lab. They're not like proteins or DNA at all. We only use the hydrocarbons 1-19 carbons long. Cracking of the sulphur links in these hydrocarbons is due to the existence of the element sulphur. Sulphur is abundant and native to conditions found in Earth's core and volcanoes which are the conditions we're talking about.
Another phenomenon you overlook, or are unaware, is that the element Helium is found in abundance in much of the Earth's oil which is strong evidence for the abiotic theory. This is what led to a Russian over 100 years ago to come up with the theory. Helium is one of the lightest elements and would not migrate downward with prehistoric cabbages and dinosaurs. Helium rises like the methane on Earth and Titan.
Great, you are clearly underestimating your talents. Go write a paper on Extra-terrestial geology and hydrocarbon formation. Hell you can even submit to online archive at Los Alamos.
Helium is proof that there are radioactive isotopes in the Earth's interior. Nothing more, nothing less. Use the diffusion equation, taking into account the helium can "flow" through just about anything and add in convective currents in the mantle....
Finally, if by some remote chance there is abiotic oil, it does not make a whit of difference to our current energy situation.
"The existence of methane on the surface merely suggests there very well may be heavier chain hydrocarbons (oil) deeper in Titan."
interesting proof
"...there very well may be..."
It's a proposition not proof. It's part of a theory, like The Peak Oil Theory.
Is the world finite? Yes or No?
If Yes then any resource will have peak... quod erat demonstrandum
---- here's a few more
Theory as in "Theory of Relativity", Newton's "Theory of Universal Gravitation"...
I knew gravity was a conspiracy. It takes two or more bodies to agree
You mean the Plateau Oil Theory...yeah that Peak is coming...any year now...probably in several hundred years if The Abiotic Theory is proven correct and we are able to access petroleum resources that will bridge us to cleaner alternatives without going into a synthetically engineered dark age.
Wow you've been reduced to parsing semantic technicalities. Just keep redefining that curve.
I think you've peaked.
It's methane not oil. Both are hydrocarbons but not equivalent.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18410
Your point of abiotic creation of this hydrocarbon is well taken.
Stay on point as to specifics or your BOTS will bleed you out and you will only serve to butress their weakening argument.
They have enough strawmen already ;)
Yes, should have used the term "surface organics",
Benzine, and large +/- ions were found as well, along with tholins, my interest is the fact these building blocks were present in earth's earliest phase.
Yoda says, "Getting closer to finding out how oil is abiotically created , we are"
We'll be getting closer when you can outline the chemical and atomic reactions required for this miracle to take place given conditions in the earth and the composition of the mantel and crust. Otherwise, you just sound like a bunch of loons.
The oil and hydrocarbons have already been recreated in the lab.
So, Bullshit Operational Tactitian (BOT), go find it and put it on the market, then everything will be just rosy.
This Abiotic crap came up last time oil spiked, as I recall.
I repeat: GO FIND IT AND PRODUCE SOMETHING OTHER THAN ARRANT BULLSHIT!
I guess you have a magic flying car that runs on bullshit, right?
If oil is cheap there is no reason to incur costs of going 40,000 feet. The physical properties are different drilling that deep and technology has to be stepped up. Rocks at extreme depth are like putty.
If the rocks are like putty, what do think any putative oil would look like?
WOW, YOUR RIGHT [sic]
Titan has probably infinite reserves...literally megabazillions of cf of gas. So what do you expect our production rate of those reserves to be?
IOW, STFU MORON
Stick to the point numbnuts. Once again, let's talk about refineries.......if you can't, we know who the fucking moron is, it's smell my ass finger emoticon.
Good point. The fundamental laws of thermodynamics are key and apply.
Energy from the Earth's core is the source of energy. Oil has been reproduced in the lab recreating the conditions. In fact, one rationale/proof for abiotic oil is that only deep abiotic oil (not fossil) is produced under those pressures and temperatures. Oil is found at depths too deep to explain fossil fuel theory. Oil is just not dense enough to be found at those depths (>20k ft.) coming from pehistoric dead plants from above.
To the other poster's concerns about reserves: if abiotic theory is true it means there is a nearly inexhaustible supply of oil -- that's why we should take it seriously. Some existing/spent oil fields are refilling from a deep source (not lateral pockets) and the new oil profile compositions are distinctly different than when first tapped years earlier.
Abiotic oil is not a new or crackpot theory. It's been around for over 100 years. In the last 60 years the Russians got serious about it and have produced over 2000 papers on the subject, ignored by the West. They have been drilling based on this theory and they came from nowhere in the oil world to being the #2 producer and the #2 exporter.
I'm not an advocate, I'm just saying the science demands that we take it seriously and check it out.
There are two things I like to do. One is to curse at idiots. The second is to use analogies.
So let's try #2 here...Titan's reserves are most probably abiotic in origin. HOWEVER, expected rate of production of those reserves is all that matters to us.
So as to the origin of oil, WHO GIVES A SHIT? I don't care, nor SHOULD I, wtf the RESERVES are! ALL barrels are NOT the same!
The one thing, the ONLY thing, that matters is the RATE of production. It is what distinguishes massive deposits in saudi arabia from even MORE massive deposits on Titan.
So you dont believe "science and technology" will be able to create a pipeline to Titan to magically suck those reserves up?
Oh gee , i was holding out for the "science and technology" hail mary mantra to cure our energy problem.
Looks like we'll have to wait for Bernanke to re-calibrate his magical unicorn to shit out barrels of oil instead of dollars.
Maybe we could sew all the dollars into a string. That might reach
Of course they are lying. Most likely a delay tactic to support markets until soldiers invade Libya and "democratize" it.
Now King wants to buy twitter.com. Valuation of 150 billion?
http://dawnwires.com/politics/king-abdullah-to-buy-twitter-after-facebook-spurned-his-offer/
Lloyd Blankfein to be whipped 40 lashes? Ha Ha
http://dawnwires.com/politics/king-abdullah-to-buy-twitter-after-faceboo...
Has someone mentioned that the obvious takeaway from all this is simply:
Ghawar has peaked.
Those with eyes to see know why that is now obvious, and also what that means for the future of global oil production.
Those that don't see, never will see, because their conception of the world is wrapped up in strictly Human terms and they lack either the intellectual capacity, or the courage to make the effort required to apprehend the complexities of oil depletion and so walk the hopeful path that some technological deus ex machina will arrive in the nick of time to save the day.
Can you trust Scientists as a class? Well, no the only person you can trust is yourself. You know when you're lying, don't you. Well, sometimes ... not even then. But this science is not unintelligible ... surely any graduate of high school can divide 1 billion by 84 million and thus calculate that a billion barrels of oil will only last 12 days? Well ... no they can't apparently, and so, being fools, they will believe what a fool believes.
I have learned that Logic is futile. Fools will believe that which provides them the comfort to continue believing in a world of Justice and ... the Vanity Trap ... their own relative Goodness in a world gone mad with the machinations of illusory Power. And they can't get beyond their Vanity to see what fantastic fools we ALL are.
And so, as always, are we doomed to learn the really important lessons as we always have ... the HARD way.
I mean, it's really so fucking obvious ... don't you get it?
GHAWAR HAS PEAKED!
Ok, we get it; go to sleep. Take your medicine first.
What's wrong, too long for you?
That's what she said
And no. You don't get it and that you use the editorial "we" indicates a cliqueish presumtion that marks you as a yet another of the legion of fools. Welcome to the club fellow fool.
This whole economic conundrum is all about the nature ... and the very existence of ...
TRUTH. Get it?
Nicely done.
Really?
I've searched this thread and found not one reference to Ghawar.
Those with eyes to see will know what the peaking of Ghawar ... the King of Kings - the Elephant of Elephant oilfields ... in production since 1951 and producing NOT heavy sour ... see, I have to put the clues together so the clueless who swarm, even on the ZH board will know what I'm talking about.
Gahwar is the twawki, get it?
do we really need to reference Ghawar to have a discussion as to PO? In fact, this is not the first PO thread this week, much less ever.
In previous ones, I discussed production decline rates at Burgan and other supergiant fields vis a vis Cantarell, among others, to attempt to get idiots to understand the potential range of outcomes when Ghawar peaks. It fell on deaf ears...well, more precisely, it fell on stupid as fuck ears, but I digress...
Ghawar is 5mbpd in a sea of 85 of them. Surely a game changer as to KSA's status as swing producer but not TEOTW
Parallax error: you really do think I should take my medicine and go to bed.
As regards the former: Fuck You, dude.
As regards the latter: perhaps you're right.
Hello Liquid Courage BOT, what, you mean peaked, just like we did in 1973, and just like Eugene Island supposedly did? The only thing that has peaked waaay back is your intelligence, and your nappy.
You have been discredited by every poster you have attacked. Now go away, you are only making yourself look even more pathetic.
Well well.. a disgruntled BOT, tell me, was it your constant bullshitting that eventually caused you to behave like a petulant child caught with their hand in the cookie jar?
Lol you'll have to try a lot harder then that BOT, to get under my skin.
Your comments are beyond stupidity and beyond repetition. They're just pathetic lies. 73 was American peak. You know that because you never cite authority to counter it.
Another idiot BOT....check eugene island for starters.....you lazy c#nt, prove to us here 73 was the peak.. waiting....
Eugene Island: that is old hat, you aint in the minor leagues here.
Both deposits had biological markers, game, set match....
The oil field is best known for the controversy surrounding its depletion rate. According to a 1999 Wall Street Journal article:
However, Richard Heinberg provides his own figures:
The source of additional oil was analyzed as migrating through faults from deeper and older formations below the probable Jurassic and Early Cretaceous age. The oil contains biomarkers closely related to other very old oils which were long trapped in deep formations.[6]
Eugene Island 330 has been cited[7]
as an example of abiogenic petroleum origin, which holds that petroleum reservoirs are continuously replenished from inorganic sources deep within the Earth. However, Eugene Island 330's fame comes from its status as an unusual anomaly. Most petroleum scientists believe that the depletion profile is adequately explained by replenishment from deeper reservoirs of normal biologically derived petroleum.In regard to oil depletion concerns, while the rate went up again in the early 1990s along with the overall estimated recoverable petroleum, the rate has since declined.[clarification needed]
As of 1987[update] June 30 the cumulative production of Eugene Island 300 was 481 million barrels (76.5×10^6 m3) of oil equivalent,[2] which is equivalent to an average of about 82,000 barrels per day (13,000 m3/d), taking 1971 as start of production. Oil and condensate production alone totaled 271 million barrels (43.1×10^6 m3) with a maximum daily production of 95,290 barrels per day (15,150 m3/d) in 1977.[2] Oil is exported through the Shell Pipeline Co LP operated Eugene Island Pipeline System.[8]
As of 1999[update] the owners of the block leases (numbers in parentheses) are Chevron Corporation (313), ExxonMobil (314 south half and 332), Royal Dutch Shell (331), Ecee, Inc (330), Palo Petroleum (337), and Tenneco Oil (338).[2]
BTW, asshole, the US peaked in 1970... Just STFU and go way, or I will have to bitchslap you again. You are a loser.
Ha Ha roflmao!, Dear oh dear BOT, you now trot out a prick that supports white separatism openly, and has been making a motza out of telling the world the sky is falling, along with oil supply? Old, old ploy BOT. See, us simpletons, that is the "sheeple", can see that the US Military machine, amongst others, don't give a rat's about Ritchard theories, nor do the airlines for that matter, or do you possess knowledge that no-one else has, that the US Military and airline companies are secretly running all their machines on water?
I love it when BOTS get personal, makes my day.
nice eugene island comeback
Ah, the ass-licking of another fellow BOT approach, yet another one for the ages.......
Tell me, who's the bitch, is it you or flakmeister? You poor dumb bastard, Google has you screwed, there are so many articles on what is really happening at Eugene Island, that completely fucks up BOTS revolving bs rhetoric, it's getting harder and harder isn't it BOT, to bullshit the sheeple, you'll need to know how to line up for foodstamps shortly lol.
you have no talent as a liar, you are however skilled in contradicting yourself:
"google has you screwed, there are so many articles on what is really happening"
Then there's this:
Eugene Island, Gulf of Mexico, US Territorial Waters
Eugene Island is one of the darlings of abiotic theorists. Cornucopians point to Eugene Island as proof that oil reserves are mysteriously refilling. There have been many bold and unreliable claims about the amount of oil held in these reserves, and the rate of recharge. These claims fall flat upon examination. Here we will stick to reserve data as reported by the Oil & Gas Journal (OGJ) and the Minerals Management Service (MMS), two reliable sources of information.
In 1978, the OGJ reported estimated reserves of 325 million barrels (Mb). The figure was increased to 388 Mb by 1998, due to the standard US practice of initially only reporting proven reserves and neglecting the probable reserves. This practice evolved due to Security and Exchange Commission rules on the reporting of oil reserves, but is a boon to US company profiles because it allows them to regularly add to their reserve numbers over time, making it appear that they are discovering more oil. Jean Laherrere has said that the noted explorer Klemme estimated 500 Mb in 1977.16 The MMS estimated reserves at 464 Mb in 1986, and at 416 Mb in 1998, which would mean that reserves declined. Production peaked in 1996 at around 30,000 barrels/day (b/d)-28,000 b/d reported in OGJ, and 33,000 b/d reported by MMS.
Jean Laherrere created the following graph. It shows monthly production in relation to total production, and demonstrates quite clearly that Eugene Island is in decline. It also shows two distinct periods of recharge, both of them minor in relation to the overall graph.
Courtesy of Jean Laherrere.
That some recharge of the reservoir is occurring is not to be denied. 4D seismic studies suggest migration along Red Fault (one of the best studied faults in the world).17 But refilling is considered to be minor, reflected in a strong decline, then a slight rebound due to refilling followed by a new decline.
In the early 1990's an ambitious investigation of Eugene Island was undertaken through the joint auspices of the Global Basins Research Network, the Department of Energy and the oil industry.18 The purpose of the project was to develop new technologies to extract hydrocarbons from the streams which feed reservoirs instead of merely draining the reservoirs themselves, or to enhance the streams so that they will better feed the reservoirs. The study focused on Eugene Island and on the Gulf of Mexico in general because newly migrating hydrocarbons were well documented in this region, and migration approached rates of extraction. The project first had to determine the pathway of the migrating hydrocarbons and their origin.
The study determined that hydrocarbons were indeed migrating along the Red Fault. They concluded that as oils at depth are over-cooked and cracked into gas, this results in an increase of pressure. This is due to the expanding volume of gas produced from the more compacted volume of oil. When the pressure grows to hydraulic fracturing stress, the faults open and release a stream of oil and gas upward toward the surface. The migration pathways seem to branch from what appear to be three primary source areas at depth.19
The migrating hydrocarbons contain biomarkers, heavy metals, and sulfur isotopes which indicate a carbonate marine source of Cretaceous age. The three sourcing depobasins are believed to be turbidite sands: organic detritus rich sands stirred up and deposited by deep sea turbidity currents. These turbidites were capped by a salt sheet and then buried beneath 3 million years of deltaic sands, resulting in the geopressures and temperatures necessary to transform the organic detritus into oil and gas.20
Anderson, et al., concludes that a conservative estimate might place undiscovered hydrocarbons in the Northern Gulf at 20 billion barrels. The report suggests that a concerted effort to explore the entire U.S. Gulf of Mexico for similarly situated reserves might result in the discovery of greater than 50 billion barrels of unrecovered hydrocarbons.
There is no doubt that the hydrocarbons of Eugene Island are of organic origin. The recharging of Eugene Island reserves is simply the result of complicated geological structure.
-
Dale Allen Pfeiffer
Heh you're funny BOT, why don't you disclose that good ol' dale used to be paid by that great peak oil shill Michael C Ruppert of FTW fame? You're scraping the "bottom of the peak oil barrel" now lol.
and that discredits peak oil? Once again, once we discredit your content, you use no content as a retort. Ruppert simply happened on peak oil while researching Iraq / 911. He then studied and talked to all those who researched it before him. Now, even though you've done nothing to discredit Ruppert other than your grade school insults, try discrediting every other oil expert who's said the same. And this time, and I know you're afraid of them, try to use facts
Oh happy days, an upset BOT! You've discredited nothing, your good ref was being paid by ruppert, then had to distance himself lol! And who are the "experts" BOTS keep trotting out? All I see are paid shills, why don't you be a good little BOT, and trot off to russia, and se how you go talking to the drilling crew who found oil in 2 billion year old rock, you know, that awkward period that was around BEFORE life began? See, it works this way BOT, the evidence is there, and your JPM contrived BS about fossil fuel origins, doesn't wash with the sheeple anymore, what's your new line of shit going to be, it comes from God? Gee the chief of GS will pay you well if you can get a plausible argument going on that one!
you have yet to back up anything
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/13650
ROFLMAO! fuck me, is this some kind of a bad joke? You are now falling back onto lawyers /come stock touters for a reference? You must be a in the janitor section of BOT Central surely?
another great piece of evidence. Whining, abbreviations and insults are not proof
Oh dear, a defensive BOT, c'mon, chin up, keep bringing your empirical evidence, so I can shoot you down lol
Gold bars will fuel power plants how? Coal.
Hi my friends.
Watch out for those angry trolls who jump to
post every time there is a news related to Peak
Oil.
This is truly an inconvenient truth, the type of
one that the powers that be don't want you to
discuss in important forums or main stream
media.
For those universally ignorant that says we are
not running out of oil since there is deep
drilling in Russia that probes the otherwise, I
tell you one thing.
We are not running out of oil, we are just
running out of the oil that we can "afford" to
burn
In order to have this non conventional form of
oil coming and flowing we need a type of
economics that allow you to invest millions and
millions of dollar to get that energy, it means
that triple digit oil prices has to happen in
order to maintain the flowing of the black stuff.
Those tripple digit oil prices are the ones who
produce energy shocks, therefore the
produce economic recessions.
Yawn, and here we have yet another kind of BOT attack, the philosophical one.
Telling us we NEED to have triple digit oil prices, because we NEED to invest squillions more.
Tell us poor Sheeple BOT, again, why there are no new refineries being built en masse?
Oh, that's right, TO CONSTRICT SUPPLY.......
pathetic logic (and incompetent lies)
http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2011/02/how-is-an-oil-shortage-like-a-missing-cup-of-flour/
Lol your first line for self reference is spot on BOT.
you're obviously paid by the post, not the content
Sorry BOT, not part of your business model.
why don't you debate on the oildrum and show us your amazing abilities. What a joke
Yoda says " BOTS spruiking now, they are". Shame on you BOT, touting BS forums on ZH...then again, totally expected lol