U.S. Oil Companies Have Increased Drilling By 60% In One Year
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2022/03/27/oil-companies-have-increased-drilling-by-60-in-one-year/?sh=53db61331556

Rig Count Overview & Summary Count
http://rigcount.bakerhughes.com/

Heaps of new oil is being discovered.
http://www.ogj.com/exploration-development/discoveries/article/14284772/exxonmobil-makes-two-new-oil-discoveries-offshore-guyana

http://www.offshore-energy.biz/a-new-dawn-for-namibia-as-shell-finds-oil-in-deepwater-well/

http://www.rigzone.com/news/adnoc_breaks_world_record_for_longest_well-21-oct-2022-170795-article/
"Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) has broken a world record for the longest oil and gas well at its Upper Zakum Concession.

Stretching 50,000 feet, the well is around 800 feet longer than the previous world record set in 2017 and supports ADNOC’s efforts to expand the production capacity of its lower-carbon oil and gas resources to help meet the world’s growing demand for energy."

Armchair - you've put up some interesting links. But what do you think you've shown? Next time it would be great if you could copy and paste the most relevant paragraph or data summarising how your links prove your point. (Or at least why you *think* they do - your opinion on these matters has proved to be less than compelling!) Otherwise it just looks like a "Gish Gallop" - an American Creationist routine!

"The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

The internet forum version of a Gish Gallop is just submitting a load of crappy links proving nothing.

And guess what? If you bothered to actually read and UNDERSTAND your own links, you've proved my point for me, not the point you think you've made. Which is why I've stopped bothering to discuss stuff with you.

If you couldn't grasp the data I submitted about the immense energy in the Haber-Bosch chemistry, and just came up with the most dumbass metaphors about animals pooping bigger things than themselves, then why on earth would I discuss oil reserves with you?

I'm no scientist - but at least I'm humble enough to admit when I need help and go ask the experts how these things work. You think you're smarter than the experts. You shout your opinion down the internet, slap your Armchair Arms in self-congratulatory praise - and don't realise how much other people who know a BIT about anything else are actually *cringing* with embarrassment for you.

Sadly, you seem to have this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Somebody please give Maxie a Tonka truck to play with.

Max, been following your posts on this, thanks for some decent info, you really know your stuff, unlike ttbn the "nasty little grub" as he likes to refer to others.

Hi Paul,
thanks - but don't hold anything I say without verification too high. I'm really NOT a scientist - and come at all this from a sociology background. It's just I respect the scientists enough to ask questions and try to comprehend what they're ACTUALLY saying.

I make mistakes. EG: Until this year I just didn't believe the peer-reviewed science showing we could do 100% renewables. I knew the concepts and never thought it was technically impossible. I just thought it was too expensive to overbuild wind and solar to reduce storage required during winter. To be fair, even Dr James Hansen said that only nuclear could do the job.

“Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110729_BabyLauren.pdf

What all this has taught me is that the average person is REALLY bad at estimating cost curves. This year a few things provoked my thinking on all this and solar is now 4 times cheaper per unit of electricity delivered to the grid than nuclear. Now nuclear is totally different because it is reliable during the darkest, quietest winter month. But 4 times cheaper? That lets you build out THREE TIMES the entire Australian grid just to cope with winter - and then you have 2 times the grid sitting spare say 10 months of the year. What could we do with all that extra power?

Things have changed. This stuff is hard. I'm not a scientist - but the potential economic disruptions coming to energy, transport and food in just the next decade are truly awesome.

People into this climate/renewables/electric vehicle nonsense like to glean statistics and 'facts' that they like. Here's one they won't like, and will probably deny:

In world terms, the expenditure of $55 trillion on renewables over the last 2 decades has reduced dependence on fossil fuels from 86 per cent to 84 per cent. Whacko! What a result!