[RE]

Really, you are tiresome.  On the one hand you claim deficits matter, then say we had deficits in WWII and they didn't matter.  You talk out of both sides of your mouth all the time like this.  There's plenty of oil, but oil debt doesn't matter.  But you recommend not investing in them neertheless.  This is just complete nonsense meant to be confusing.  You don't use your CC to fill your tank, which is nice and shows you live within your means, but obviously since Amerikans have now worked up $1T in CC debt, they're not as good at keeping to a budget.

If you feel you need data to show that pumping the oil left underground isn't profitable at the current price, you are free to go find this data, I am not going to bother.  For me, it's just common sense that if there was profit to be made financing it, some banker would float a loan and somebody would go frack for it.

Far as the reason the EIA was created, that's no different than why the SEC was created.  The concept is to have a goobeermint watchdog.  In practice, both the SEC and EIA are fabulous examples of regulatory capture and the revolving door of private sector employees who take jobs with the government and vica versa.  The ratings agencies are the same way, Moody's, Fitch etc.  How they rate the bonds should tell the risk, but they just follow what the underwriter says.  If you haven't seen The Big Short, I suggest you watch it.

Honestly, I have nothing more to say to you.  You are convinced of your beliefs, and you ignore what's going on all around us. Your success rate convincing folks here of this belief is having zero success, so I suggest you try another website.

RE

[RE]

A corollary to the price & profitability of oil and where it's located also explains both the current conflicts Ukraine and Israel.  Ukraine has little to do with ethnic Russians in Donetsk and Israeli bombing of Palestinians only slightly more about the animosity between Jews and Muslims.  In both cases it is about 2 neighborhoods critical in bringing Oil and NG to Europe at affordable prices.

Oil gets to Europe by 2 routes, either by tankers across the Mediterranean or by pipeline coming from Russia of from Turkey.

 

In the case of the tankers on the Mediterranean, that oil has mostly left from ports in North Africa, but sadly the Algerians, Libyans and Moroccoans are thin these days in their oil supply. Oil coming out of Iran will for the most part go through Turkey, and Saudi Oil cab go that way or it has to get to the Mediterranean.  Either it goes on a tanker and transits the Suez canal, or it goes out through Israel.  It crosses Gaza, and whoever controls that territory controls the transit fees.


Same is true for oil coming up from Turkey or from Russia.  Both transit the pipeline through Ukraine.  Whoever controls Ukraine controls those transit fees as well.  Which explains why Putin would much rather see Trump elected than Biden.  The Bidens are financially tied to Ukrainian interests.

Germany and the rest of Europe was solidly with the FSoA when they thought this would keep cheap oil flowing through Ukraine with a quick win, but the war has been expensive and sanctions against Russia has made oil expensive too.  They are now less worried that Putin will overprice his oil if he has Ukraine than Biden would.

Back when Kissinger Inc killed the USSR by underpricing the Russians with Saudi and FSoA oil, this side was in the catbird seat with the most cheap oil available.  Now the situation is reversed, Mother Russia is in the catbird seat.  Europe's loyalty to NATOs is only as strong as who will provide them oil at the cheapest price.  Thus the Ukrainians are running out of ammo.

The great geopolitical chess game of oil goes into the endgame. Henry is probably rolling over in his grave.

RE

[K-Dog]

Is it because by simply assembing them together in one place all the conspiracy angles and peak oil claims would be dispatched and we would know WAY more about remaining oil volumes than we should?

You think there is a conspiracy to prevent Peak Oil claims from being dispatched?  That seems highly unlikely, to be polite.

RE

Oil companies compete with each other.  It is our capitalist system.  All companies must pump oil and generate revenue.  The more they pump, the more money they make.  There absolutely is a bias to suppress depletion data and exaggerate reserves.  Pump today because tomorrow you can't.  Somebody else will get the oil if you don't turn it into money first.  Capitalism is the institutional manifestation of the parable of the tribes.

1920's tech could not get todays' oil.  By the standards of 1920 we are completely out of oil.  The oil fields of that time by themselves could not keep one US state going.  Pick your state. 

The vicious circle principle keeps things going with advanced tech until oil production can't keep up with demand.  This is key.  Oil company executives are cheerleaders of the technical solution.  Technology bedazzles them.  Their business is all about tech.  They are the worst purveyors of hopium on the face of the earth.  On top of which they lie.  On top of which they own government.

When civil disruption DESTROYS the ability to use the advanced tech we already have, the world literally runs out of oil all at once.  Once billions start dying oil will not be pumped.  Chaos will rule.

Extinction baby, the Seneca cliff, and you did not think it could happen.

* That fucking talking chicken says more oil will be pumped in 2050 than is pumped now.  Natural gas condensates from fracked shale rock will give boundless new energy. 

How do you kill a cartoon?   The chicken has no accountability.

[RE]

Extinction baby, the Seneca cliff, and you did not think it could happen.

So you are now in the Extinction camp?  How long do you project it to take to get down to ZERO Homo Saps walking the earth?

RE

[K-Dog]

Extinction baby, the Seneca cliff, and you did not think it could happen.

So you are now in the Extinction camp?  How long do you project it to take to get down to ZERO Homo Saps walking the earth?

RE

Not zero.  North Sentinel Island survives.

[RE]

Extinction baby, the Seneca cliff, and you did not think it could happen.

So you are now in the Extinction camp?  How long do you project it to take to get down to ZERO Homo Saps walking the earth?

RE

Not zero.  North Sentinel Island survives.

Then why did you write "Extinction baby, the Seneca cliff"? As long as there is a population somewhere with enough breeding pairs, rebound is possible.  Simply because this place is more isolated with stone age people than most doesn't make it the only possible location either.   There are numerous isolated stone age tribes sprinkled in remote places around the world, primarily in Africa, Indonesia and the Amazon.

Once all the ammo runs out and it gets down to primitive weapons, you'll end up with pockets of survivors who scavenge and find food sources. I highly doubt the whole of North America could go to ZERO in under a century, probably 2 is minimum.  You are becoming as alarmist as Dr. McStinksion.

RE

[K-Dog]

"Extinction baby, the Seneca cliff"

From the point of view of someone who died in the middle of the siege of Leningrad humans were going extinct.  No difference.  Humanity as we know it teotwayki -> teohawki.  The End Of Humanity As We Know it.

The house burns down.  Some smoking embers remain, and things will never be the same.  The house still burns down. 

Obsession with absolute extinction is narcissism.

[RE]

Well, to me the word "extinction" is not a relative term.  It's not "from the POV of the peoople who died off", it's a biological term that means there are no organisms of a species left.  Calling this an extinction is overly dramatic and alarmist.  It's a Population Knockdown, likely a very large one.

Civilizations don't go extinct.  Civilizations COLLAPSE.  That's the accurate term for TEOTWAWKI.

RE

[K-Dog]

If all humans are extinct there is no concept of being extinct since there are no humans brains left to think about what being extinct is.  Therefore, humans can only ever be in the process of becoming extinct.  Which we are. 

We can not ever be extinct because that would require a human to contemplate the reality of being extinct, which is not possible.  It can only ever be a relative term when extinction is applied to humanity.

Humanity is going extinct.

[RE]

The definition exists whether people do or not.  Humanity exists as long as humans do.  It may be different humanity than contemporary humanity, just as Indonesian cannibals are different.  They are still humans though.

We can agree to disagree here.

RE

[K-Dog]

The definition exists whether people do or not.  Humanity exists as long as humans do.  It may be different humanity than contemporary humanity, just as Indonesian cannibals are different.  They are still humans though.

We can agree to disagree here.

RE

No the definition does not exist if everyone is dead.  Definitions do not have an independent existence apart from thinking brains.

[RE]

No the definition does not exist if everyone is dead.  Definitions do not have an independent existence apart from thinking brains.

Everyone isn't dead, we already agreed on that. Who says there are no thinking brains? Are you saying the people living on North sentinel Island can't think?  Can you read the mind of a Dolphin?  A Bonobo?  A Dog? How about the rest of the universe?  No thinking life anywhere?  What about the soul, reincarnation, other dimensions?  The concepts exist regardless of humans present to think about them.  Raccoon archaeologists may evolve if they don't go extinct, dig up human fossils and say "this species went extinct."



RE

[K-Dog]

Everyone isn't dead, we already agreed on that.

The North Sentinel Islands are at extreme risk.  The process of extinction is still at work.  The sea is rising as Antarctica continues to melt.  A fatal wet-bulb heat wave could wipe them out.  A bat flu pandemic could wipe them out if they leave the island.  The human bottleneck is sixth extinction tight.

The process of becoming extinct continues.  And considering the small number of islanders and the limited number of paths through the forests of their intellectual landscape, the notion of extinction might all ready be extinct.

* Thinking raccoons will think the same way we do is projection.  Their concepts will be different.  The probability of having the same concepts humanity had is next to zero. Human concepts do not exist without humans present to think about them.

[RE]

Of course the PROCESS of extinction is still at work.  Just as a person begins to die as soon as they are born, species begin to become extinct as soon as they evolve.  Nothing lasts forever.  The only question is how LONG before you die or go extinct?  Thus I asked the question of you on how long once you began to equivocate on the concept and said North Sentinel Islanders will survive.  You still haven't answered that question.

I am projecting nothing.  Math concepts are the same no matter what species comes up with them.  The extinction question is just binary math, 1 or 0 are the only choices.  There is no "partially extinct", either you are or are not.  0=Extinct, 1=not extinct.  End of story.

RE

[K-Dog]

You think concepts have an independent existence apart from humans.  That is classic utopian thinking.  I say we have no free will are no more than the sum total of our personal experiences.  All our ideas are no more than abstractions of experience.  There is no independent universe of ideas, and we have no free will.  Learning is the communication of experience but, without a human to learn there is no learning.
 

Without humans there are no ideas.