We are at the peak in world oil production...

now there's ever more irony.... i read constantly, you clearly don't at all.

you continue to punt to overall liquids, which is padded by dirty unconventionals and shale gas.

C+C production is flat... 7 years running. That's a problem. You don't understand why, because you're just not very smart.

You understand capitalism requires 3%+ growth to properly function, right? The world is contracting since 2008. Not expanding.

You're an idiot. Cool story though, denialist.

 

Note that Brent is down and OPEC is hovering at 84...

 

It going up and the excuse will be the tropical storm in the Gulf.

her name is Debby.

 

I haven't paid much attention to Debby so far, but the Motiva refinery has to be shut down for repairs so that could also raise the price of gas.

 

It will probably affect gas prices in the Southeast but i am not sure about the price per barrel in world markets.

I am going to fill my gas tanks just in case. The last storm was a mess... gas stations ran out quickly.

 

The ppb is down everywhere.. OPEC is cooperating to squeeze Iran.

 

Your ability to read isn't in question, only your ability to understand.

which people put in their fuel tanks every day, and motor off into the sunset, not even needing to understand WHERE their fuels come from, only that they DO come from somewhere. Including you, unless you live in a land where they label the gas pumps with "gasoline from dirty unconventionals" versus "gasoline from conventional light sweet crude only"? Tell us how this works when you fill up your car Jiggsy, we are dying to hear about how this type of system works in Jiggsy Land.

I understand you are trying to change the topic because incessant, whining hysteria about peak oil hasn't gotten you anywhere. The topic isn't what you think about capitalism (not that you know anything on that topic either) but about peak oil happening. Again. And you not even knowing why, or how, or if it is the LAST peak oil, or even how to explain how it might matter to the average consumer putting fuel in their tank not needing, or wanting, to know the distinctions you PRETEND are important.

 

That's interesting. I question your ability on both accounts.

well, let's see if you'll get it the 57th time I've presented the concept: ... because those unconventionals cost a whole lot more.

Cost. Say it with me. Slowly. Cost. ... it kinda matters.

LOL... there's no whining nor hysteria here. More like sated amusement watching you members of "Team No Problem" deny the data to the end of time. If anything, it's you guys who are hysterical. ... You probably have a ton of exposed liability out there, I can usually tell the type.

I had almost forgotten I had an account here. Which explains almost a full year away. I now remember why I got on with things. This little sub-forum is utterly trolled up by a contingent of denialists who 1) just refuse to get it, 2) have an endless array of straw men that buffer their lack of understanding. After a while, it gets boring.

But I'm back now, you adorable Koch Bros. loyalists.

So let's see, the last ten years has given mankind, what? A meager 4% increase in global production to show for ... a 400% increase in price? Sound sustainable?

Have modern industrial nations suddenly just gotten "more efficient" and reduced consumption trends willfully? LOL ... nope. Sure looks like the great engine is seizing up amid the "new normal" of triple-digit oil prices. Regardless of what the Dow says.

You are horrible at this. Sorry. If you still think basic supply/demand fixes this equation, in spite of all the data staring you in the face, it's pretty hopeless for people like you. ... But, by all means, keep your money right where it is and don't hedge any bets. Growth is infinite!

Hope you're still around. I got tons of new links for you to misrepresent or conveniently ignore.

 

zOMG, Hi !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lol... noted. ... and what's Brent at now a year later? Up another 4%. More like up 10-20% most of the year since you offered this beauty above on 6/23/12; that is until weak economic data crushed demand the past 2 months. (volatility in price being yet another indicator of unstable crude markets)


http://marketrealist.com/2013/06/brent-crude-had-strong-rally-on-the-back-of-inventories-us-economy/

So, yeah. This is the new normal. And lately the only way it ever dips down (slightly and temporarily) is hard times. But no, "shale is here!"

You guys stay right there dwelling on today's weather. We'll be over here looking at trends.

 

more noise from the low info sheep I see

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/early_production.cfm

 

Shall we review the EIA's track record? It's not very good. In 2004, it said oil price would be in the $40 range right about now. Oops.

Here they are slashing their original shale gas reserve prediction by 42%

For the entire United States, the EIA cut its “unproved technically recoverable resource” shale gas estimate from 827 tcf to 482 tcf, a 42 percent reduction. Against our 2010 consumption rate, that gives us just a 20-year unproved supply which may or may not be economically recoverable.

Such large reductions in estimates are normal for a new, unproved resource. Estimates generally start out low, when very little is known about the resource, then are revised much higher, as euphoria develops over initial results, then are cut back as the resource is slowly proved out. But you won’t see that pattern if you just read the headlines, because the press gives top billing to upward revisions, then tends to ignore the later downward revisions. Everybody loves a happy story.​

Anyhow, back here in reality:

Everything you know about shale gas is wrong

Do better. Though, it is amusing seeing a Paul Ryan supporter trumpeting the bold predictions of government. Great stuff.

 

So are the tar sands. And we're paying for them and happily motoring around because the world didn't end when your religious event didn't cause the problems you had hoped for.

Translates to.... waited awhile hoping world would end yet another year deep into my religious event, poked out from underneath rock to see if anyone notices. And who knew, I noticed! Are you looking for a better rock, or has the recent EIA report forced your priests to send forth the parrot to try and keep up the faith?

Sustainability is an illusion of time...you need to get out more and learn some stuff.

Yeah, we can't have a growing economy because...Jiggsy says so! Is that really your puppet masters have this many years into peak oil? Weren't the Walmart trucks supposed to have stopped running by now?

Not only am I not around, but I've changed professions. No longer a working scientist, I took a promotion to global analyst, specializing in...you guessed it! Unconventionals, marginable field economics, economic modeling, lots of cool stuff.

Looks like you popped out from under the rock just in time for the EIA to be declaring yet more shale oil and gas...don't worry, I won't expect you to read it any more than you did the last "favorite report" you tried to pretend you were familiar with. If I find the Cliff Notes version, I'll forward it along to, knowing how little interest you have in pesky details unless they point to doom, right Jiggsy?

http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/

 

Any chance you can send some of "them" over next time? You not understanding what they send you over here to parrot is getting a bit old, can't you round up some of the smarter ones and send them over instead? At least some of them aren't going to offer to trade me 3 barrels if I promise to give them 2 back and pretend it is an example of how EROEI works....

 

And Hubbert said that peak oil in the US would happen before 1950....oops! And the EIA is a government agency, hardly the prophet of your religion, so it isn't a surprise you wouldn't want any competition for sainthood. Is ASPO getting ready to anoint one?

Still irritated that when peak oilers applied their idiot ideas to natural gas in the US and proclaimed The Natural Gas Cliff in 2005 turned into...ABUNDANCE! That'll learn ya to pay attention better while in the pews trying to figure out how to explain resource ignorance next time!

Sounds like a perfect explanation for what YOU know, but then, they don't send you out here to talk for yourself because, lets face it, your religion can't afford to look that bad.​

 

Ha! I knew you were "RGR" over at USmessageboards.com ... Some arrogant asshattery, same consistent misrepresentation of anything I've ever said.

You may be the biggest fraud I've ever encountered on this issue. It will be a joy to kick you around once again.

 

Actually no. He predicted 1970, and that's exactly when it happened. Tool.

If you have a link claiming he made the assertion for 1950 (even though his study was published in 1954), please present it. If not, you just got caught talking out your sphincter once again. Holy crap, do you suck at this.

Gas is not oil, genius. Doesn't provide 1/10th the uses. And "abundance" doesn't mean squat when you can't get it out of the ground fast enough, nor cost-effective enough.

And for all that investment capital, what does your industry have to show for it? A 4% increase in production over the last 10 years. Oops. Still sprinting in order to desperately stay in place. Still failing. Still lying to the public.

 

Again, no one here said the world would end, liar. Only a slow descent into revolution. And the only people "hoping for" anything are you "burn everything" technocrats desperate to maintain the status quo.

In any event, your practice of pretending everything is peachy just because the richest 2% of the world aren't yet feeling the pinch doesn't really do anything for your laughable overall argument. It just makes you look like a ungrateful, privileged (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*). Meanwhile, over here in reality, the global economy continues to hang on by a thread, while government plays with unemployment numbers and corporations sever wages and benefits due to ever-increasing operating costs.

Must all be a "liberal spending problem." Couldn't possibly be a net energy problem or anything. ... LOL.

Not hoping for anything, besides you frauds going bankrupt before you kill the planet. .... But it IS amusing watching you flat-earthers in the "hope is a policy" contingent suggesting it of anyone else.

LOL... I crush you each time I engage with you, and you're left looking more and more retarded.

Ah, no... Because basic arithmetic says so. If you had a clue how energy affects the economy, you'd understand that falling net energy leads to falling economic growth. The correlation and causation has been established for centuries, actually.

I see you still maintain the straw man as the main part of your tired arsenal. Yawn.

No one set any dates that I'm associated with. However, the Pentagon AND the IEA see global production decline by 2015, and that's been the assertion since 2008 at least. Nothing has changed from that position, including this shale mirage that you're pumping. Shall we review once again?

Considering you're perhaps the worst (or most ethically compromised) scientist in history, my confident guess is you got asked to leave. But as a "global analyst," you'll likely be even worse. Well, you'll probably be great for the profit share of your pump/dump company, but utterly horrible for the prospects of mankind's relationship with his natural surroundings. Just another Koch Bros., burn-everything cultist.

When you get around to being honest about acknowledging the cliff-like decline rates of shale gas/oil wells - either here OR over at usmessageboards - it'll be the first time. You don't talk about that reality because you know it throws your entire perpetual "no problem" screed on its head.

Irony. ... Unlike you of mine, I read all your links. Including that laughable one from when we first started this that suggested technology alone was the cure-all and would be ready whenever we needed it. LOL .... You quickly shifted gears to the dirty oil narrative when you couldn't quantify what that actually meant up against surging demand.

If you're now gonna trumpet your awesomeness on the foundation of "technically recoverable" reserve totals suggested by the government, my work here is on auto pilot. Please do continue to hang yourself.

Your employers might want to renegotiate your "technically recoverable" pay level. You're getting schooled by a mere journalist.

 

we better hope there is at least a 50 year supply of NG because there sure isn't anything to placer carbon yet That is unless you want to have a fiasco like the UK has on it's hands. They are building thousands if windmills which have to be supplemented by diesel generating stations because the windmills are insufficient to provide the power the cola stations generated and telling people to turn off their electricity 6 hours a day

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...your-lights-off.-A-shame-no-one-told-you.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-22845487

while people are dieing due to fuel poverty brought on by the energy prices triggered from the "green incentive'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-204541/Deaths-cold-hit-2-500.html

 

That isn't why you fled the other place in disgrace, and came here looking for converts to your religion. Once it became apparent you hadn't read your own sources, didn't understand them, and they were easy to use against you, and then those MATH errors on EROEI...well....I wasn't the only one openly giggling at whatever you were parroting from your betters.

Which is why I asked for them instead of you...I don't suppose you would like to round some of them up, you are more than stale, you are repetitive.

 

You are unaware of his US pre-1950 peak then. Tool? Isn't it embarassing when someone else knows the references for your side of the debate better than you do? And we do need to be specific here, because details mess you up every time. He didn't predict 1970, he offered two years, and not BETWEEN those years, just those years. 1965 and 1970.

His "peak prior to 1950 for the US" claim was made in 1938. The study I think you are referring to started out as a talk, in 1956. The publication of the initial idea, as best I am aware, was in 1949. May I suggest you collect copies of these things so you don't look like an ignoramus when discussing them?

Are you sure you want to "run to stupid" this quickly in your most recent comeback? Not only does natural gas overpower oil in all categories except transportation, it is quite capable of being made into synthetic oil and then even those who don't understand HOW this can happen (like you) would pull into a convenience store, fill up your car, and wouldn't even know it from the extra heavy crude based, shale oil based, light sweet or heavy sour based crude. Come on Jiggsy, please tell me you didn't waste the entire past year and not learn ANYTHING?

So we refer to the IEA for the sizes and cost (and rate being a function of capital investment, we'll leave that up to the markets to decide). If the next 7 or 8 trillion ain't abundance, I would only venture that obviously your public school teachers must not have shown you how needing all those fingers and toes to add after the first number means REALLY BIG to even the future oil ignorants.

 

Incorrect. Jan Lundberg (as just one example) said the walmart trucks would stop running within days or weeks after peak oil happened. And for the record, Ruppert just told a TV reporter that obviously peak oil happened in 2005, so the walmart trucks have had 8 years to quit running. But they didn't stop running, and this revolution claim is just revisionist history as yet another year passes (while you were back under your rock, the world still used oil, I can assure you). Here is Lundberg's peak oil consequences. How many can you pick out which happened 8 years back?

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2005-02-18/here-comes-nutcracker-peak-oil-nutshell

The last time you tried to explain net energy, you decided that it was the equivalent of you giving me 3 barrels, and me giving you 2 back. While riotous in what it says about your EROEI knowledge, just because you don't know how to explain it does not invalidate it right out of the gate. The work of Cleveland and Cutler would handle that part.

Hall, Charles A. S., Cleveland, Cutler J.,1981, Petroleum Drilling and Production in the United States: Yield Effort and Net Energy Analysis, Science, Vol. 211, pp. 576-579.

Feel free to try and learn something rather than just being a parrot. I warn you however, the last time you choose the Hirsch report as your reference you wanted to discuss, by the time you realized how much egg you had on your face and why you couldn't wipe it off your only recourse was to flee the website. Unlike you, I do tend to read these things and find them fascinating. As anyone really wanting to understand both sides of the issue should.

If you insist. Here is the IEA projection for everything you can put into a fuel tank going forward to about 2030. In the school I went to, what it does at 2015 isn't called "a decline". And you did say 2008, so that is the date of this particular projection. Better luck next incorrect claim?

Being promoted away from one organization into another is not confused with doing poor work, in my experience.

Cliff like decline rates on shale wells? I prefer the science on the topic of course, how about the figures contained in this particular science? I recommend Figures 5,6,7 and 8 if you are honestly interested in what a "cliff" looks like. 4 different groupings of Bakken/Three Forks wells.

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20131109

Schooled? You mean someone who doesn't know what a decline is when they look at it, doesn't know the published work on amounts of resource to qualify something as abundant, can't calculate correctly and doesn't know the history of net energy, and in general has to run and hide for a year at a time while just hoping that something bad oil-like will happen so he doesn't look like a blithering idiot the NEXT time he comes out from under a rock? Oh my yes, you've found me out.

 

Natural gas is not a global macro level problem for quite some time into the future. The stuff is everywhere, and it is primarily a matter of how much at what price, the resource constraints on a century scale are minimal.

 

read what I wrote, slow kid... I said "no one here said" it. ... You don't get to assign my argument to some random analyst who predicted hard dates. That's called a straw man argument, the kind you're famous for, and the kind I grew bored with destroying at the other site.

My God are you horrible at this.

No, that's not at all what I said. And as you've been challenged a number of times: link the exchange or do yourself a favor and shut up. You can't find the exchange, because it never was worded that way at all.

I don't expect you to start being honest about anything we've talked about. You have a new audience here. It's easier for you to rewrite history. Liar.

You're the one who neither understands EROEI nor thinks it's important at all in this debate topic. There's how retarded your premise is at even a fundamental level.

This is what you do. I see nothing has changed. You attempt to reference me to some periodical I have to go hunt down at the library, or pdf I have to download. Not an internet link we can all verify.

In any event, Mr. Cutler recognizes peak, so it is amusing watching denialists like you use him as a reference.

LOL... is that what you still tell yourself? That I fled goofy you? Do get over yourself.

No, back here in reality, you attempted to suggest Hirsch was wrong because he didn't properly take into account oil and gas reserves from shale. I then challenged you to quantify just how much the industry suggests it can produce up against existing decline and YOU avoided the challenge. Like you always do.

Cost kinda matters, and will affect production capacity going forward... especially when the shale boom shoots its wad within the next few years. Hirsch was ultimately correct. No amount of 3:1-6:1 junk synthetic oil and front loaded NG capacity changes that score. Sorry.

LOL, I love it. I believe I've used that same graph a few times, as it does far more for my argument than it does yours.

Your straw man aside, what that graph absolutely shows is:

1) the blue wedges - the good stuff - declining within the next few years
2) a red wedge that is an amazing and unsupported ASSUMPTION of hope
3) an immutable increase in reliance on much more expensive liquids (the green and yellow sections)

All three being points that utterly destroy your "no problem" narrative, but No. 1 being all I really need

Thanks.

If I've learned anything covering your industry, it's the long line of technical experts being paid oh so very well to pump investor share with the frilly stories about reserve growth and technological advances that are the wave of the future ... and always will be.

I'm hardly surprised a person like you has carved a nice niche for himself by being a charlatan and promoting precisely what your masters desire. But you're still dishonest about the fundamental truths, and left flailing and spinning against year-over-year arithmetic that laughs at you.

Finally you show some manhood and actually link a claim. That's progress I guess.

Your charts show even worse rates than I've seen previously of 25-35% first year decline. Yeah, I'd say that's pretty abysmal average rate. Jeezus, the average well goes from 8,000 bpd down to 4,000 within 12 months?

And at, what, $11.6M per well? ... Are you still trying to spin this as a sustainable business model? LOL

Yup

Whatever you need to tell yourself, Francis. LOL. ... You're the one denying known arithmetic at every turn in this exchange. Not me.

No, I grew bored waiting for you to actually answer the fundamental questions put to you. I visited every few months, only to watch you dance and posture some more. Now you've FINALLY rolled up your sleeves and attempted to respond, only to wind up punching yourself in the face some more.

Anyhoo, here's the reality facing the most successful Bakken driller, Continental Resources:

The Real Bakken Shale Well Decline

The idea is simple. All shale wells are in steep decline. Thus as the producers put new wells into production, a considerable portion of the new production merely compensates the decline of existing wells.​

What do you think a -0.2% daily decline rate translates to for annual decline rate? LOL... I'll let you quibble with semantics for what constitutes "cliff-like" all you like. You've already backed yourself into check and mate.

This passage seems to sum up people like you quite perfectly:

I discovered that as producers tend to over-estimate the EURs and over-estimate the life span of shale wells, they end up armortizing the cost way below the fair amount of armortization they should calculated. Thus, as they under-estimate the costs, they end up over-estimate the profitability of the operations.

But one thing they could not hide is that in quarters after quarters, the producers have consistently spend several times higher on capital spending, than the revenue they take in. Producers continue to borrow more and more on debts in order to continue their well drilling programs.

Is a business profitable, if it continues to borrow more debts quarter after quarter, and it continue to spend several times more on capital spending, than the revenue it takes in? This is neither profitable, nor sustainable. I can see that when the banks get suspicious and stop lending money, then the shale industry will collapse.

As I stated many times. The shale gas and oil adventure is deeply un-profitable. The "cheap natural gas replacing coal" is a pipe dream. Investors should bet their money on the rebound of the coal sector, not on the false promise of shale gas or shale oil.

Full disclosure: I have no vested interest in CLR but I may consider a short position in the near future. I have heavy long positions in coal stocks like James River Coal (JRCC), Alpha Natural Resources (ANR), Arch Coal (ACI) and Peabody Energy (BTU).​

Your industry won't save a world utterly reliant on cheap energy. That's because 1) your industry itself is, ultimately, not profitable, and 2) reliance on your industry results in increased global price per barrel (far ahead of normal inflation). I suspect people like you know this, but you have to keep the ponzi scheme going, so you utilize some fun with math and pretentious technical jargon so as to avoid the basic premise fail.

 

Your inability to do proper research on YOUR topic is not my problem.

The particular pew Mr Cutler sings hymns from in your church is not relevant. His poor extrapolation over what EROEI will do is.

Your memory is as bad as your knowledge of EROEI. I attempted nothing, I showed in the Hirsch report where he made a wrong assumption, said assumption then effecting his other conclusions. I knew this. You did not. It was the report you chose to defend, allegedly being familiar with it. I was. You were not. If I recall correctly, my conclusion then (prior to your tuck tail and flee routine) was that you actually read the reports you want to pretend to know something about.

 

Be a man and link something anyone can easily verify with a click. Don't set up an obstacle course in order to hunt down your vague claim. You look like you're hiding behind something, as always.

Uh-huh. Cool story. Don't get butthurt because you used a energy depletion advocate in a desperate ploy to muddy the waters on a basic ratio equation that puts your junk oil/gas industry into proper perspective.

Well, that's one way to spin it. Your entire grade-school "nah-nah" schtick centered around his dismissal of your junk, unsustainable industry. You're so beaten.

You're also familiar that oil and gas from shale is not a sustainable economic model, nor will it make up for dying existing capacity of far-more efficient crude. You argument is like pointing at a sack of Joe Montana in order to insist Bill Walsh was overrated. LOL.

Where yawning over your continued fail translates to "tuck tail and flee." ... Could you be more self-important, oh great charlatan of the oil and gas industry? Like I said, whatever you need to tell yourself.

It's interesting how you truncate my unassailable post into only what you can spin. You're a beaten poster.

Anyhow, after stealing your lunch yet again, I don't really see a need to pile on any longer ... that is until you acknowledge the unsustainable model of your pet industry, or dispute it. Considering you had nothing to say, I'll accept your white flag again and accept your surrender.

Or, as you call it, I'll "flee." ...