/lit/ - Literature

>>23406404
Generally, it's futile arguing with low IQ dullards like you, but I'm going to reply in case someone else learns something useful.

> it's funny how there's a huge jump in production in the mid-2000s, when the "long term trend" had been down since what, 1970?

What's funny about it? That "huge jump" was shale. The problem with shale is that its EROI is horrible compared to conventional oil. It also has extremely high decline rates.

>While Hubbert’s predictions look ridiculous when considering total US liquids production, focusing only on conventional crude production suggests Peak Oil is alive and well. Last year, the US produced 3 m b/d of conventional crude oil – 7 m b/d or 70% below the peak reached 52 years ago. In other words, the shales bailed out total US production but did nothing to change the forces underpinning Peak Oil and depletion. On a global basis, conventional oil production (total production ex shale and Canadian oil sands) has exhibited no growth in 17 years.

>https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/the-end-of-abundant-energy

We hit a global peak in 2018. It's over for you. IDK if you're coping because you're a retarded zoomer, but your future is finished. You will experience a terrible future, I'm sorry.