Integration of the Doomstead with Dogchat is under construction.

Main Menu

Recent posts

#91
Resources / More on Jeffery Brown
Last post by K-Dog - Apr 09, 2024, 12:42 PM
I found this but have not watched it yet.  Scanning it is seems strange.  Graphs and slides but no human.  I will find out later.  I need to go outside.


And I found this ==>   To Understand The Oil Story, You Need To Understand Exports

A lot to chew on.
#92
Resources / Some seriously spooky shit.
Last post by K-Dog - Apr 09, 2024, 12:20 PM
QuoteTo put all this in perspective, I contacted Jeffrey Brown, an independent petroleum geologist who has analyzed global net exports for the past 15 years.

I am shadow banned on You Tube and other places.  A targeted, cancelled individual.

If I watch a video and leave a comment below a You Tube Video everything looks fine (to me).  But if I use a VPN.  I discover I do not exist.  I am shadow banned.  So I flipped G. W. Bush the bird once.  What's the big deal.  He is a war criminal.  The shoe fit.

It seems Jeffrey Brown may have something in common with me.  He appears to have been disappeared.  Articles removed and only a title remains.  A Wikipedia Entry about his Export Land Model.  BUT HE IS NOT LISTED IN THE REFERENCES and references to the Wikipedia entry give dead links. 

Something happened.  I found a geologist in Fort Worth with the same name on Linked-In.  I sent him a note.  But that is odd too.  A name and picture, but no resume or details beyond 'geologist'.  Maybe being careful with this rabbit hole would be a good idea.

#93
Resources / The Road To Clean Energy Is Me...
Last post by K-Dog - Apr 09, 2024, 11:46 AM
The Forbes article referenced above.

The Road To Clean Energy Is Messier Than We Thought

Loren Steffy, UH Energy Scholar

The fracking boom is now officially in the rearview mirror.

On Oct. 6, U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm told a Financial Times conference that reinstating a ban oil exports was "a tool" that the Biden Administration could use to stabilize soaring oil prices. She also hinted at the tired old saw of releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, another political tactic pulled straight from 2008.

Reinstating the export ban, which was lifted in 2015, may seem a logical response with oil prices rising 125 percent in the past year and topping $80 a barrel for the first time since 2014. But it also fits a pattern that raises concerns about the cost and difficulty of moving away from fossil fuels too quickly.

While the fracking boom created a lot of talk about energy independence, financial reality has put the brakes on the "drill, baby, drill" mentality. Quite simply, the U.S. can produce a lot of oil, but it can't produce it profitably.

That realization resulted in a 34 percent production decline from U.S. shale plays by the middle of last year as companies pulled back on expansive drilling program, pledged financial discipline and vowed better returns for investors. This year, U.S. oil output is about 11.4 million barrels a day, down from 12 million in 2019, and the Energy Information Administration predicts it will fall another 100,000 barrels by year's end.

To put all this in perspective, I contacted Jeffrey Brown, an independent petroleum geologist who has analyzed global net exports for the past 15 years.

An analysis by Hart Energy found that total U.S. oil production fell by 34 percent before the pandemic. Given the high decline rate of shale plays – which account for about 70 percent of U.S. production — Brown estimates the U.S. needs about 3.8 million barrels a day of new production just to maintain pre-pandemic output  — roughly the equivalent of a new North Slope of Alaska every six months. That's about 15 times as much oil as producers needed to generate in 2008 to offset production declines.

It's not a new phenomenon. Production from shale wells declines much faster than from conventional ones, as the more we drill, the more we must drill just to maintain the same level of output. In the industry, it's referred to as the "Red Queen effect," a reference to the character in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass who tells Alice that "it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place."

That realization resulted in a 34 percent production decline from U.S. shale plays by the middle of last year as companies pulled back on expansive drilling program, pledged financial discipline and vowed better returns for investors. This year, U.S. oil output is about 11.4 million barrels a day, down from 12 million in 2019, and the Energy Information Administration predicts it will fall another 100,000 barrels by year's end. 

To put all this in perspective, I contacted Jeffrey Brown, an independent petroleum geologist who has analyzed global net exports for the past 15 years.

An analysis by Hart Energy found that total U.S. oil production fell by 34 percent before the pandemic. Given the high decline rate of shale plays – which account for about 70 percent of U.S. production — Brown estimates the U.S. needs about 3.8 million barrels a day of new production just to maintain pre-pandemic output  — roughly the equivalent of a new North Slope of Alaska every six months. That's about 15 times as much oil as producers needed to generate in 2008 to offset production declines.

It's not a new phenomenon. Production from shale wells declines much faster than from conventional ones, as the more we drill, the more we must drill just to maintain the same level of output. In the industry, it's referred to as the "Red Queen effect," a reference to the character in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass who tells Alice that "it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place."

That's not even the scariest part of the equation. As Brown sees it, if the U.S. decides to ban exports once again, it will be following a global trend. Brown's specialty is tracking something he calls "net export math," or "resource nationalism." Basically, it means that a country's exports decline as domestic demand rises. Countries can maintain their export rates only if they cut their domestic consumption at the same rate or faster than the decline rate of their production. That, of course, doesn't happen because as oil wealth grows, economies expand and domestic demand increases.

"It's a mathematical certainty that the rate of decline in net exports will exceed the rate of decline in production and that the rate of decline in next exports will accelerate with time," Brown said.

Mexico is a good example. From 2004 to 2019, its production fell by 50 percent — from 3.8 million to 1.9 million barrels a day. During the same period, net exports fell by 90 percent, from 2 million to 200,000 barrels a day.

Even in Saudi Arabia, skyrocketing domestic demand triggered a 5.7 percent drop in net exports between 2005 and 2019, although the kingdom's total production rose by 9.3 percent. As oil-producing countries channel their petrodollars into economic development, their internal need for energy rises, leaving less oil and gas to export.

Meanwhile, two of the world's most populous countries, China and India, have had a massive surge in energy demand since 2005. Their combined net oil imports rose to 14.8 million barrels a day in 2019 from 5.1 million in 2005.

Brown has tracked the combined net exports of the world's 33 oil exporting nations since 2005. That year, global net exports peaked at 45 million to 46 million barrels a day, and they haven't exceeded that level since. Instead, the amount of oil available for export worldwide has steadily declined. He estimates it has fallen to about 30 million barrels a day.

That's a concern for the U.S., because we're still importing about 5.9 million barrels, and our import needs could rise if the U.S. shale producers continue to sit on the sidelines.

We can't expect much from the Oil Patch these days. Scott Sheffield, chief executive officer of Pioneer Natural Resources PXD +0.2%, the biggest shale operator, recently told the Financial Times that it doesn't matter how high prices for the Brent crude, the global benchmark, go.

"Everybody's going to be disciplined, regardless whether it's $75 Brent, $80 Brent, or $100 Brent," he said. "All the shareholders that I've talked to said that if anybody goes back to growth, they will punish those companies. I don't think the world can rely much on U.S. shale."

While some private companies may begin breaking ranks and expand drilling programs, it's unlikely they can produce enough oil to offset the decline rates. Keep in mind the other thing the Red Queen told Alice.

"If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"

Quite simply, there's less and less oil available in the world. That's a short-term worry because we still need oil and gas to power most things, and higher commodity prices put a drag on the economy.

Renewables, of course, are touted as a solution, but unless we all get electric cars and rooftop solar panels by the end of the week, that switch isn't going to protect our wallets from higher energy prices while we make the shift. That's why the IEA called on energy companies to move away from oil to fight climate change, then a few weeks later implored OPEC to pump more crude.

The road to a cleaner energy future, it seems, is marked with conflicting road signs. Getting to our destination is going to be more costly — and more complicated — than it seemed even a few years ago.

"Short term, the transition to renewables is going to be vastly messier than people had been hoping," Brown said.

The article is over two years old (Oct 14, 2021) and is full of links.  Follow the link to the author for the original.  I am not in a mood to add links from a Forbes article.
#94
Past Peak / - Peak Oil 101
Last post by K-Dog - Apr 09, 2024, 11:04 AM
Quote from: RE on Apr 09, 2024, 08:17 AM
Quote from: jupiviv on Apr 09, 2024, 03:13 AMHe doesn't count natural gas and light-tight shale and thinks they aren't as 'useful' as diesel. Which is highly debatable. Not my field so idk.

Well, when his latest suspension finishes, I'm sure MKing(Tddos) will drop in his expert opinion on these calculations.  If he can manage to do it without insulting us or violating one of the other conditions of his participation on this forum, I might even leave it up.

RE

Yes, he hosed himself good.  Got his foot real wet. 

After his juvenile insults got his ass banned, half a dozen things he would like to deny were posted.
#95
Resources / The End of Net Oil Exports
Last post by K-Dog - Apr 09, 2024, 10:59 AM
#96
Past Peak / - Peak Oil 101
Last post by RE - Apr 09, 2024, 08:17 AM
Quote from: jupiviv on Apr 09, 2024, 03:13 AMHe doesn't count natural gas and light-tight shale and thinks they aren't as 'useful' as diesel. Which is highly debatable. Not my field so idk.

Well, when his latest suspension finishes, I'm sure MKing(Tddos) will drop in his expert opinion on these calculations.  If he can manage to do it without insulting us or violating one of the other conditions of his participation on this forum, I might even leave it up.

RE
#97
Past Peak / - Peak Oil 101
Last post by jupiviv - Apr 09, 2024, 03:13 AM
Quote from: K-Dog on Apr 08, 2024, 03:14 PM
QuotePeople need to believe in the oil market, which in turn requires assuming it will last til they and preferably the next couple generations are dead.

Or at least everyone has to believe the can can get kicked down the road for a while.  Enough time for green tech and space aliens to rescue humanity and change the game.  Roll the dice one more time.


I was OBSESSED with this song after hearing it in the Sopranos finale. Every hipster prestige drama nowadays is 'ummm capitalism is bad actually?' but that's the only one that somewhat got it right. Like all great art it shows, doesn't tell.

The book/paper I mentioned https://archive.org/details/oil-exports.-34odt-1/Oil%20exports.95odt.odt%285%29.pdf

It's five editions of the same 'book' so just download the last one. Dude's 36, a little older than me and already a cranky old prepper living in the woods lol.

If we take a very conservative, linear approach, and project a global oil production decline of 1,2% upon the future, ten, fifteen years from now, then the decline of global net oil exports is at least the double of that (3), i.e. a 2,4 % yearly decline, which is 2,4 mbd lost per year (if we fix the amount of decline, because in percentage declines the amount of decline slows down with time, which it doesn't do in our case), which gives us almost 13 years if we begin with 30 mbd of global net oil exports (which is a very conservative estimate. Oil geologist Jeffrey J. Brown said we were at 30 in the end of 2021, but there has been a sharp recovery in oil production since, therefore I think we are still at 30 mbd), which brings us to the year 2036.This year must be the absolute upper limit in our calculations.

If we then go to the decline of "ANE" ("Available Net Exports"), which is "GNE" ("Global Net Exports", the totality of global net oil exports) less the Chindia (China and India) region's combined net oil imports, then the decline goes a lot faster, by at least 3 % per year, conservatively estimated. So 3 % of global oil production is ~3 mbd. We have 30 mbd of global net oil exports left, at most (we might in fact be already at 28, 27 or even 26 mbd, which takes us to the end point a bit sooner). This give us only 10 years of "ANE oil". And this brings us to the fall of 2033 (or to 2030-2032 if we are now at 26-28 mbd of global net oil exports, which we very well could be).

This, 2030-2033, is pretty much the best case scenario for the end of global net oil exports, and has been the result of professional licensed oil geologist Jeffrey J. Brown's net oil export calculations. Observe that I have not taken into account that the real decline of both global oil production and global net oil exports is exponential (it's a mathematical certainty), i.e. have an accelerated rate of decline, goes faster and faster. With that in mind, the end of available global net oil exports (ANE) could very well happen well before 2030, which is the thesis in my book on the end of global net oil exports. I could certainly have been a bit too radical in my calculations in this book, but I think the core of it is solid and valid. It will be interesting to see how it all will play out, if there is any out there who tracks these things, which I think we should do.

But this, that we lose at least 3 mbd of "ANE oil" this year, is staggering, unfathomable. And I would also like to add to my book, that if I'm wrong in my predictions, I'm then not wrong by a lot of years, not by a decade, maybe only by one year or two, three at most, five to six years if miracles happen, which is not much in the grand scheme of things (as I said, 2030-2033 is the best case scenario). This should be clear to all who have studied my calculations. Do not shoot the messenger too easily. "The wolf came at last" (read the story I allude to here).


He doesn't count natural gas and light-tight shale and thinks they aren't as 'useful' as diesel. Which is highly debatable. Not my field so idk.
#98
Guest Posts / Umbrage over injustice. Doom ...
Last post by K-Dog - Apr 08, 2024, 09:22 PM
American Workers are Being Screwed by Both Parties

Dave Lindorff
Mar 13, 2024
Work life hasn't changed that much in the US over 100 years. Neither has the pay. The political system keeps it that way, with a pro-capitalist duopoly party of Republicans and Democrats funded by corporations and the rich.

According to the the Pew Foundation, one-fifth of of people over 65 are working. That's the first time such a high percentage of American elders were working since the early 1960s.  That same study paints a rather rosy picture of those working elders — at least the white ones who represent the majority of such graying or balding elder laborers, whom the Pew study claims are earning more than young workers, often get better benefits and retirement accounts, and often actually enjoy their jobs.

  Now, it might make sense that older workers who are receiving Social Security benefits could be making out well.  After all by combining the wages they get for continuing with or finding a new job, and those monthly SS checks, some may be earning more than they were earning before retiring. But for many of those retirees, the Social Security benefits can be woefully low Consider those who were laid off or had to quit hard jobs they could no longer handle, often in their early '60s when their benefit checks, for example if claimed at the age of 62, will forever be 75% lower than if they had waited until age 70.

As for workers being happy about working longer, I got a good object lesson on that earlier this week from a 63-year old white floor clerk at a big-box store. I had gone in to buy a large box of 60-watt equivalent LED light bulbs to cut down on our electric bill. I was looking, but not finding GE bulbs, which I've turned to because the other companies' bulbs, when they fail well before the absurdly long advertised 5-10 years, make it hard to get them replaced or the cost refunded, while GE makes good on the bulbs when they fail cease to work. 

The older white guy found the bulbs I wanted and I thanked him, as he had initially told me he actually worked in a different part of the store. He assured me that he was happy to help, saying, "This job gets pretty boring, but I do it because I need the money. And when I can help people, it least makes it less boring."  He explained that he was working part time because he had to quit the job he used to do until age 62 because of the physical strain of it.  His retirement check of about $1000 a month from the Social Security Administration was not enough to live on, but with the part-time work, he was at least getting by.

I told him it was true that for most people, Social Security was inadequate for living decently on, and that it had never been intended when it was created to be more than a supplement to savings and company retirement plans. (The original intention was to replace about 40% of Ann average worker's pre-retirement income). Meanwhile, with the ups and downs of the US economy, the decline of unions and company pensions, and the refusal of many employers to even contribute to 401(K) plans if they even offer them at all. And, as I pointed out, the benefits paid to retired workers by Social Security have declined by 36% over the past 24 years due to inflation which Congress — primarily Republicans, but also conservative Democrats too— has never adequately adjusted for in a kind of stealth cut-back in funding.

Is that really what's happened?" He asked in shock. "Yes I assured him."  It's easy for them to do. Most people don't know what their parents were getting in their monthly checks a quarter of a century ago, and they did, you they likely wouldn't know what it was buying them. So it's really a sleight-of-hand go enable these advocates of higher corporate profits and less for elders and current workers.

"That's outrageous!," he said.

I told him about Finland, where when their social security system was under strain in the 1990s because of increasing numbers of older people and fewer children becoming workers to pay for their benefits, the parties in the government— socialists, liberals and conservatives— came together to fix it. But instead of just cutting benefits and adding years to the time people had to wait to collect benefits, they instead first conducted a study to see how much income replacement in retirement should be in order that most people could retire without taking a hit in their standard of living. When they concluded that magic number was 60% of final salary in one's retirement year, they set about figuring out how to come up with that money, and ended up  significantly increasing the employer contribution to the fund, and only tweaking how much workers paid into it (the payroll tax per FICA) for Social Security is locked in at 50% paid by workers and 50% paid by the employer). The system is solvent now and elderly Finns live very well on their savings and their benefit checks. (Of course they don't have to blow their retirement money on putting their kids through college because not only is college free there, but students get a monthly stipend of about $700 while attending university.)

His eyes widened. "I'm booking a flight there," he said, although I had to warn him it's not an easy country to immigrate to.

From there I took my bulbs to the payment area. Seeing a young black woman at an empty cash register, I happily passed the self-checkout line. "You look like you might need a  customer." I said as I set my bow of bulbs on her counter. "Oh, I'm happy doing nothing," she said, running them over the scanner. "This is less boring, but I work two jobs, so not having anything to do occasionally is okay by me."

"Two jobs eh?  So how many hours do you work a week?   She sighed and said, "About 70, forty here and 30 on another job."

"Wow, that's a lot of hours!" I replied.

"Tell me about it," she said. 

I called the situation "disgusting" and said that workers should be paid a living wage, noting that Pennsylvania's Republican legislature refuses to raise the state's hourly wage above the $7.25 it was set at in 2009, 15 years ago.

I thought about how the narrowly Democratic House in Harrisburg here in Pennsylvania had just passed a bill to raise that minimum gradually to $15 an hour by 2026 by a vote of 103-100 with all but one Democrat voting for the measure and only two Republicans ignoring their party's position and adding their votes. The bill will still probably not become law because the Republican-led Senate would have to approve it, and that body will probably narrowly vote it down. And consider this: In 1968, the year Richard Nixon was elected and began an era in which Republican and neo-Liberal Democrats took over Congress and the Whitehouse and began dismantling New Deal programs for workers, the federal minimum wage reached its peak, $1.60/hour, in terms of inflation-adjusted buying power. Since then, Republicans and even Democrats in thrall of neo-Liberal pro-corporate economic theories, have resisted adequately adjusting the minimum for inflation. Had they simply adjusted the base hourly wage annually for inflation since 1968, the federal minimum wage today would be $14.27/hour, as the cost-of-living over those 55 years has been 792%. A $15 per hour minimum today would be accurate for today. But in any case, even if it were raised to $15/hour tomorrow, that action would not compensate for the lost wages and pocketed profits of capitalist owners over that two generation period.

"You really should have a union here," I offered. 

"Yeah," she replied, but her weary tone of voice (it was 5 pm, the end of a long day), made it clear that with another job to go to, she was thinking someone else would have to do that organizing.

"The worst thing about it," she said, "is that I used to work at the IRS until I was laid off."

Republicans in Congress have for years been forcing cuts in IRS staffing, playing to the basic anti-tax ideology of their base, though that base, many of whom are low-income and not particularly well educated, don't realize that when the IRS isn't auditing and getting the real taxes due from rich people who use artful accountants and high priced lawyers to whittle their taxes, sometimes down to zero like "Biden's predecessor,"  the taxes fall instead on the middle and low-income worker.

So I said, "Oh, you work. At the IRS?  So you probably saw how the rich get away without paying their share of taxes."  She rolled her eyes and said, "Oh yeah!"

I left the store thinking how pathetic it is that the Democratic Party and their octogenarian standard bearer, President Joe Biden, as well their professional campaign-managed House and Senate candidates, most perched safely in the "moderate" category, are about to blow this election in favor of a crooked, lying, sexual abusing, racist, xenophobic and psycho-narcissist because they cannot bring themselves to go to war over the domination of federal and state government policy by capitalist greed-heads, the 'billionaire class," and the neoliberal "think tanks" that always tout the wonders of unregulated capitalism, instead of blowing a bi-partisan trillion a year or more on arms and solders to promote war and chaos abroad.

Whether young or old, American workers are being screwed, and many of them don't even know it. Or if they do, they don't know whom to blame and are easy to lure into blaming "immigrants." The American people need to wake up and demand that the Democratic Party fight for them, and not the monied class.  The Democratic Party is using them, not fighting for them.

I know two workers I bumped into in a store are a tiny sample, but when the only two people I talked with — one an elderly white man and the other a twenty-something black woman —  turn out to be smart and angry about what is happening to them, I tend to believe  they are representative of something important.
#99
Past Peak / - Peak Oil 101
Last post by RE - Apr 08, 2024, 06:36 PM
Quote from: K-Dog on Apr 08, 2024, 03:14 PMWhat is the point. -- Only that the truth of our predicament will not have a day in the sun anytime soon.

Well, we can still stay out of the sunlight and sleep during the day in coffins like Vampires.  >:(

We are the Undead, Doomer Vampires sucking blood out of the neck of Capitalism.



RE
#100
Past Peak / - Peak Oil 101
Last post by K-Dog - Apr 08, 2024, 03:14 PM
QuotePeople need to believe in the oil market, which in turn requires assuming it will last til they and preferably the next couple generations are dead.

Or at least everyone has to believe the can can get kicked down the road for a while.  Enough time for green tech and space aliens to rescue humanity and change the game.  Roll the dice one more time.


NO, an agency that curates truth for and funded by governments will give a truth that is half snake oil, but with the credentials of hard science to bounce the can one more time.

This is where most men of my demographic make themselves irrelevant.  Ultimately their fame and fortune depends on the system.  Their esteem and identity comes from the system.  The system made them what they are, yet they imagine themselves unique.  That is a contradiction that sanity must ignore. Consequently an ability for such made men to look within, at themselves.  Is not easy to cultivate.  As it is said in 'A few good men' - They can't handle the truth.


They can't give up faith in the system.  The system has given them special papers which say they know stuff and are special.  Somehow they get money.  They are threads in the fabric who imagine a system integrity that was never there.  They will hear no talk about how sausage is really made and what the ingredients are.  New truth must be documented in books before it can become real to such men.  They must continue to be deceived.

They cannot howl on the wild side.

What is the point. -- Only that the truth of our predicament will not have a day in the sun anytime soon.