Ap the point was more some here are quick to latch onto Rockman because you agree with him but trash maddog when he tells you about decades of cheap natural gas.

Yes I read the other posts.

Here is why he was obviously being sarcastic.

First, he says:

He said that in response to steverio's post, but he didn't actually respond to what steverino said, he was just kinda rambling off on another point.

Then later, in response to Gail, he says:

So, if he knows no one could offer any more accuracy of more than a few percent, why would he accuse someone of being incompetent for not knowing the decline rate was 5.1% instead of 5.0%? Obviously he was mocking the Petrobras guy for even bringing up the 5.0 vs 5.1 thing in the first place.

I thought he was cheesed because of "false precision", something engineers are often accused of, which can be confused with "significant digits" in calculations.

His 100.0000% comment struck me as right up that sort of intellectual alley. When an answer is probabilistic, its deterministic version is wrong a vast majority of the time.

MD202/20 could not stand the heat

He didn't need to, given the pedigree of the chart

Last edited by pstarr on Sat Feb 13, 2010 6:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

What? The guy is geologist, not a PR flack hired by the Lulo commie government to spin an inadvertent admission of truth.

Are you a commie?

MD20/20 is not a geologist. He is an accountant.

I do not believe there is any one time you can point to where I trashed maddog about anything.

I do not believe there is any one time you can point to where I trashed maddog about anything.

Ya trash one cornie, ya trash another cornie, it's all the same.

Allowing him to make you look like a depressed true believer, stunned by the turnaround in how peak oil has been going, your hallucinations defeated by real industry information and practices from this reality ( versus the one where you are )....yeah...you sure showed him Pee!

Admit it shorty. You are alone. Your beyoch-boy abandoned you. Now all you have is your silly doggie Anti and that spinster auntie Oily.

While I've been gone I see pstarr is continuing with his practice of telling outright lies.
You know I'm not an accountant.
Some things never change on peakoil.com

Mr Maddog! Nice to see you back! Still drilling shale wells, or waiting for higher gas prices?

And yes, your observation on the veracity of certain posters is quite correct.

Like I stated when I was here before we hedged %70 of our production at 6 bucks and that is enough to keep us going strong despite the naysayers like farmerjimmcgowan and others.

We are ramping up again as are many other n.g. producers.
A new rig starting next month in my area and I've been assisting our new Op. Manager get his team together to kick off in the Marcellus. We will have 4 rigs running there shortly and most likely 4 more by the end of the year.
Many other n.g. producers are picking up the rigs they laid off last year.
I know service providers like Halliburton etc. are bringing back many of the people they laid off.
Seems like a lot of people have decided they can make money at 6 bucks.


I just popped in to see how I did on the oil price prediction thread.
2nd. Not bad. The ol' cornutroll showed the doomers how it's done.

Sorry short, I don't plan to stick around. I've been very busy and it was getting pretty boring refuting some of the more extreme peakers and doomers on this board.

So since oil is in no danger of peaking cornies (or hasn't already), when do we get back to oil prices of 1998 when the averaged around $12/bbl?

On the contrary, prices have been rather stable with the exception of several specific events, 1973 OPEC embargo, the 1979 Iran/Iraq war, and the 2005-2008 peak.


This is a tautology, circular reasoning. And besides, the very term "demand destruction" was created by the Peak Oil community to describe a situation where the supply/demand balance is so disturbed as to create an otherwise permanent discontinuity. There comes a point when too much energy goes into to energy acquisition rather than productive work (general infrastructure, consumer products, personal property and maintenance, etc.) It appears that such a point was reached in the US with petroleum purchases at 7% of GDP.

Actually, ever since the US stop being swing supplier, the trend, based on whichever geopolitical events which once wouldn't have budged oil prices, now swing it wildly, has been upward.

Certainly it isn't difficult to see at all....once...oil was cheap and stayed that way. Then...it was neither cheap, nor consistent in its pricing at all. You site specific events without mentioning the "non cheap" era from the early 80's right on through the late 90's, when a different event, the Asia crisis, stopped oils real price march...for a year.

While you may assign significance where you wish, the nature of the volatility, and real price, prior to about 1970 is self evident. THAT is when cheap oil ended, and except for a single, specific and short term crisis late in the 90's, it has ALWAYS been higher.

Short, nice try, but by all measures except for that period around 79 and the blips during the first Gulf War, and the recent volatility, oil has been extremely cheap. Coloring it some other way is obfuscating the facts. The chart doesn't lie. Since 1947 on that chart..60 years.... you have only a few years where the price was above 40$/bbl until the recent climb which started after 2000 or so.

Good thing I'm not doing it then. Notice the price of oil before 1970. Notice what happens afterward. That isn't an "except for that period", that is a "EVERYTHING after that period EXCEPT".

Would you like me to calculate some rolling averages to prove what even the untrained eye can see? Perhaps a standard deviation across multiple year groups, maybe a decent ANOVA test in 5 year bins? 10 year bins? 2 year bins? You venture a statistical test and I'll run it for you, assuming you actually believe what you say.

And "extremely cheap" is nonsense, according to the graph provided (unless you perfer another? I find this one acceptable) extremely cheap is defined by the time period just prior to 1970 plus a single downward spike during the Asia crisis, everything else since 1970 is "less cheap".



Quite true. Pick a statistic measure and I'll be more than happy to show you how much it doesn't lie.



If you misjudged an artificial horizon by that much on your Cessna do you think your landing would be a nice 3 pointer? Or might it make passengers a mite nervous to get back in it with you?

Interesting article. The most striking slide is page 7, where it says that the world decline in existing fields is equivalent to one Saudi Arabia every two years.

Well, the document is very long, but another interesting point is the creation of a spin-off company, called Petro-Sal, which will take care of the new fields found in RIo de Janeiro's coast in the "Pre-Sal" area. In simple terms, all new concessions are cancelled from now on. Everything will be owned and explored by Petro-Sal. Looks like Brazil will keep 72% of the area to itself.

Even though I am living in Australia, I have been to Brazil just a few weeks ago, to Rio, and I saw at least three oil rigs in Guanabara Bay, plus one being towed to sea in front of Copacabana beach. There has been a lot of activity and in the press you only see Petrobras. Interesting as well is that this is an election year there and if the right-wing party wins (which I doubt), there will be a push to privatize Petrobras. There has been some right-wing newspapers (O Globo, mostly), posting very negative articles about Petrobras, uncovering supposedly corruption scandals, and "demonstrating" how Petrobras is inneficient, etc. Well, anyway, if the right wins, this issue will fire up quickly.

As a Brazilian/Australian, I would like Petrobras to be kept as a state-owned company. It is perhaps the only example of a well-run state company in Latin America.

Walking on the streets you see a lot of "O Petroleo e nosso" stickers on cars, windows, light poles, throughout the city etc. (Translation: The Oil is Ours)