Doomstead

OK, this is not coming from a Peak Oil nutter.  This prediction from the CEO of Occidental Petroleum.

The question is, who will take it in the shorts?  How will the oil be divied up by country?  What will happen to the price?  Will there be a bidding war?

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/05/oil-market-will-face-supply-shortage-by-end-of-2025-occidental-ceo-says.html

Oil market will face supply shortage by end of 2025, Occidental CEO says

RE

I say we harken back to the good ol' days of peak oil. Far more names in this video than just one source, making far more interesting claims, why don't we just edit all the dates on this video and start puttig it out there again?

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 05, 2024, 05:15 PMwhy don't we just edit all the dates on this video and start puttig it out there again?

Because that's the kind of falsification Faux Newz does.  This is current newz, not old newz.

RE

I will go on record and say I disagree with the CEO of Occidental Petroleum and say I do NOT think that we  will be a Short on Oil in 2025.  This because I think we will be in a deep Global Recession by 2025 and Demand will drop faster than Supply.  This will hit the economies of China and India hardest and may even lead to cheaper gas here in the FSoA.

You heard it here first.  ;D

RE

Quote from: RE on Feb 05, 2024, 05:30 PM

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 05, 2024, 05:15 PMwhy don't we just edit all the dates on this video and start puttig it out there again?

Because that's the kind of falsification Faux Newz does.  This is current newz, not old newz.

RE

Well, yes it would be falsification, pretending it was just made, but no it isn't old news. It is the same news your reference makes, only instead of some small time CEO from a company with a billion or two barrels of oil equivalent on the books, the video I provided has like the Iranian oil minister selling the same idea, with credibility of 100X 1000X more oil to back up his credibility.

So yes, it is the same news, with a far more credible source, but yes it is irrelevant that the news is the same and close to 20 years old, the readers will never notice. They never noticed all the other times, (let alone one of the first in 1886 from J.P. Lesley, a man of far more credibility at that time in terms of oil globally than about anyone else) resembling nothing so much as a proverbial anterograde amnesia patient, and each of these pronouncements can invigorate them anew. Think of it as a public service, getting the word out 6 years after the last global peak oil in 2018 so when the worm finally starts to turn (i.e. people notice peak oil in some way and begin looking around for someone to blame), the world will be just that much more ready.

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 05, 2024, 06:11 PM

Quote from: RE on Feb 05, 2024, 05:30 PM

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 05, 2024, 05:15 PMwhy don't we just edit all the dates on this video and start puttig it out there again?

Because that's the kind of falsification Faux Newz does.  This is current newz, not old newz.

RE

Well, yes it would be falsification, pretending it was just made, but no it isn't old news. It is the same news your reference makes, only instead of some small time CEO from a company with a billion or two barrels of oil equivalent on the books, the video I provided has like the Iranian oil minister selling the same idea, with credibility of 100X 1000X more oil to back up his credibility.

So yes, it is the same news, with a far more credible source, but yes it is irrelevant that the news is the same and close to 20 years old, the readers will never notice. They never noticed all the other times, (let alone one of the first in 1886 from J.P. Lesley, a man of far more credibility at that time in terms of oil globally than about anyone else) resembling nothing so much as a proverbial anterograde amnesia patient, and each of these pronouncements can invigorate them anew. Think of it as a public service, getting the word out 6 years after the last global peak oil in 2018 so when the worm finally starts to turn (i.e. people notice peak oil in some way and begin looking around for someone to blame), the world will be just that much more ready.

No, it's not the same news, because it's a conclusion drawn from the current conditions, not the conditions as they were 20 years ago.  Those conclusions were drawn before the fracking and tight oil plays were added to the supply.  They are no longer present to add to the supply again, at least not in that kind of quantity.  Different starting conditions change the situation, so you are comparing apples to oranges.  Or better, an apple tree with some apples left to an apple tree that has been picked for 20 years.

RE

Quote from: RE on Feb 05, 2024, 06:26 PMNo, it's not the same news, because it's a conclusion drawn from the current conditions, not the conditions as they were 20 years ago.

Correct. Same conclusions. 20 years apart. Different starting conditions. How many times can the same conclusion be drawn (end of oil, peak, etc etc) each with varying current conditions of the time going back through time to 1886 before anyone is allowed to ask the current claimant...."ah...excuse me please...but we've heard that one XX times before, how have you corrected for why all those claims went wrong in order to be sure that you aren't just another discredited toad 5 years from now?"

It is logical that the answer to that question is "Well I couldn't see into the future then, but NOW I've got it figured out!"?

It is a logical and fair question, considering how the Groundhog Day effect has infiltrated this particular topic. Anyone capable of critical thinking can see the logic of the ask, it is clear as a bell. Did the CEO of Occidental answer it? Or is this just another Ground Hog day exercise?

Quote from: REThose conclusions were drawn before the fracking and tight oil plays were added to the supply.

In 1886, sure. When Hubbert in 1936 predicted US peak by 1950? Ok. When he declared US peak in 1970 in 1956? Nope. Fracking had been rolling for a decade, and tight oil, that had been known in Pennsylvania since between 1880-1900, and according to the USGS some of those wells were still producing in the 1990's.

Quote from: REThey are no longer present to add to the supply again, at least not in that kind of quantity.

Two things. Both easy to miss in the post 2018 turmoil I suppose. The first are estimates, or estimate, from at least one organization cutting something loose very hard to find in the wild. Hard to find because it is valuable, and answers questions in an additional dimension that few bother to ask, but is critical.

The first is here. (https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/weekly/archive/2022/220803/includes/analysis_print.php) Details just how much more there is in a single small area. But more importantly, how much it costs to get it, and how much you get it for each dollar, all this always a component missing within the peak oil argument with such rigor.

The second is all the other countries besides the US (some already at work on theirs, China and Russia spring to mind) are sitting on their hands. (https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/) With more LTO than the US.

Quote from: REDifferent starting conditions change the situation, so you are comparing apples to oranges.

And all the changing starting conditions lead to the same, and wrong, conclusion, then what? Just give up and allow the "Groundhog Day Analysis" to continue ad infinitum rather than trying out that critical thinking thing? Is the world really that short of folks willing or capable of this rare act?  

Quote from: REOr better, an apple tree with some apples left to an apple tree that has been picked for 20 years.
RE

Or now standing at 138 years. Or 68 if we want to allow Hubbert's knowledge of all technologies and rock types in 1956 to be the starting point. How about we just guess at how many more Groundhog Day routines might we expect? I can name 6 this century, including the one not predicted but occurred in 2018. So do i hear a 2025? Thank you Mr Small company CEO. Anyone want a 2027? a 2031? Here here, do I have a 2035!

I think if Groundhog Day is the operative idea, then recycling The End of Suburbia makes perfect sense. Without folks asking those critical questions, peak oilers will never know, they'll be happy at being told what they want to hear, again, and again and so on and so forth. It is fitting in a way, that peak oil and this proposed Groundhog Day idea fit together so well.

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 05, 2024, 08:18 PMSo do i hear a 2025? Thank you Mr Small company CEO. Anyone want a 2027? a 2031? Here here, do I have a 2035!

Small company CEO?  Occidental Petroleum has a market cap of $50B.  It's not Exxon, but it's hardly a small company.

Maybe she's not gonna hit it perfect, but at least she's got the stones to make a prediction.  We don't have long to wait anyhow.

She might have to eat crow predicting an oil shortage. I might have to eat crow on my prediction for a global recession.  You might have to eat crow if one of us gets it right and BAU goes south.  Only one will be right on.

Diners can place bets now.

RE

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 05, 2024, 05:15 PM

I say we harken back to the good ol' days of peak oil. Far more names in this video than just one source, making far more interesting claims, why don't we just edit all the dates on this video and start puttig it out there again?

Because it has James Howard Kunstler in it and Kunstler kicks dogs.  Specifically me.  That video started a chain of events that highlighted (from my point of view) with me being gang stalked by the FBI and other homeland security agents because  I compromised the operational security of a troll farm run on Kunstlers website with his permission. 

I was able to track visitors on Kunstler website and in commemoration of my discovery this website has a tracking ball in the upper right corner.  True fucking story, and that is half the reason why I have my own website and the Diner is where it now is.

I bought the video after I saw it at a Capital Hill Showing in Seattle.  A small theatre on 11th avenue.  The group discussion after the video was disrupted by an agent provocateur who wanted to sell leather kilts.  'Because the real reason for the worlds problem is the boys don't swing and get enough air'.

That video changed my life.  It still does.

Here is the CEO of Occidental Petroleum from RE's link, I snagged the video.


Two minutes in, she says everything but PAST PEAK.

Quote from: RE on Feb 05, 2024, 10:33 PM

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 05, 2024, 08:18 PMSo do i hear a 2025? Thank you Mr Small company CEO. Anyone want a 2027? a 2031? Here here, do I have a 2035!

Small company CEO?  Occidental Petroleum has a market cap of $50B.  It's not Exxon, but it's hardly a small company.

You have decided to forget about who I compared this small time CEO to? Which then defines her...yes...small time CEO. Mouselike when compared to an OPEC NOC. Repeat after me....order of magnitude larger is....BIGGER. TWO orders of magnitude bigger is...REALLY...bigger.

Quote from: REShe might have to eat crow predicting an oil shortage.

She certainly wouldn't be the first. Or 100th.

Quote from: REI might have to eat crow on my prediction for a global recession.  You might have to eat crow if one of us gets it right and BAU goes south.  Only one will be right on.

I never said BAU isn't going south. I've been waiting for the consequences of govenment spending during covid, inflation, out of control federal spending and borrowing to hit like a hammer. For at least a year now. I am probably as surprised it hasn't happened as those discredited peak oilers bleating how they REALLY meant global peak in 2018 instead of all those other years they brain farted on..

Thank you for validating the near impregnable quality of the Groundhog day idea. I thought it would be difficult to refute as well, based on the facts of peak oil history, it seemed a good analogy.

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 05, 2024, 11:40 PM

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 05, 2024, 05:15 PMI say we harken back to the good ol' days of peak oil. Far more names in this video than just one source, making far more interesting claims, why don't we just edit all the dates on this video and start puttig it out there again?

Because it has James Howard Kunstler in it and Kunstler kicks dogs.  Specifically me. 

Well, sounds unfortunate. Sounds like a good reason to not like the little weasel. I always thought Kuntsler (sic) was just a gadfly tool type, run of the mill Y2K doomer who went fishing for more notoriety after his technical ignorance in computer land was revealed, and went for something more...opaque.

Quote from: K-DogThat video started a chain of events that highlighted (from my point of view) with me being gang stalked by the FBI and other homeland security agents because  I compromised the operational security of a troll farm run on Kunstlers website with his permission. 

So Kuntsler was fronting a troll farm with all his idiot nonsense on Y2K and peak oil? Would you have any reason why the FBI would front someone generally foolish and easily dismissed, rather than someone useful to clicks and popularity and whatnot, like whomever the Taylor Swift of the day might have been? Michael "Jesus Juice" Jackson?

Quote from: K-DogI bought the video after I saw it at a Capital Hill Showing in Seattle.  A small theatre on 11th avenue.  The group discussion after the video was disrupted by an agent provocateur who wanted to sell leather kilts.  'Because the real reason for the worlds problem is the boys don't swing and get enough air'.

Agent provacateur? Or a peak oiler trying to make some coin on the side, selling prepping gear for those who fell for the theme it was trying to sell?

Quote from: K-DogThat video changed my life.  It still does.

I caught it only after Matt Savinar began hawking it, either on peakoil.com or his original website. Certainly in the moment it had to be taken seriously.

Quote from: K-DogTwo minutes in, she says everything but PAST PEAK.

Well, she is exactly right. Today. Global peak oil was 6 years ago now. Don't know about you but gasoline is $2.30/gal locally, you can buy it by the tanker truck load if you've got vehicles to use it all, and cosidering peak oil consequences were supposed to arrive within weeks/months. (https://www.resilience.org/stories/2005-02-18/here-comes-nutcracker-peak-oil-nutshell/)

If $2.30 gallon is what peak oil looks like 6 years in...well....I've got bigger things to worry about. Federal deficit, government borrowing, homelessness showing up locally and spreading, including on the local rail service, etc etc.

Global peak oil circa 1979 went 15 years, everyone who claimed it was in the past for those 15 years was completely correct. And then...one day...as RE said...the original conditions changed and presto! Another peak oil dispatched by more oil.

QuoteSo Kuntsler was fronting a troll farm with all his idiot nonsense on Y2K and peak oil? Would you have any reason why the FBI would front someone generally foolish and easily dismissed, rather than someone useful to clicks and popularity and whatnot, like whomever the Taylor Swift of the day might have been? Michael "Jesus Juice" Jackson?

You seriously ask why, as if 'The War On Terror' is logical?

Actually it is: The mission remains (you think it is over , take a peek, but you can look up the web address on your own) to identify people who could be potential terrorists, and put them on a list.  That is all there needs to be to it.  Cross referencing people is the way dissidents are controlled.  Basic Stazi methods used paper records.  Now A.I. is doing much of the work.  It is all about identifying the connections between people.

Come on, Kunstler has that many commenters, really?  If you think he does, grow a brain.  I don't have to think about it.  I touched the sky.

A pop figure site is not a good place to put a troll farm.  Dissidents in general do not follow pop figures.  There are exceptions:

(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.cfSGIBxVxpOrrFsKr557hQHaJj%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=9a8bc7936f21e95f0641b1dbf949e53e7e684b6b33a595f8a3b013722eb4a185&ipo=images)  Yes  (https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.J7CqcEeJRSJNTKHFzvF2HAHaHz%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=80a74b26f23dbe1485a0a2e505945ef4a67da8b62ee59e8f0b8e2ee9800917f0&ipo=images)    No

QuoteAgent provacateur? Or a peak oiler trying to make some coin on the side, selling prepping gear for those who fell for the theme it was trying to sell?

No, the delivery did not match your guess.  The personality expressed was similar to Jed Clampet from the Beverly Hillbillies.  The intent to break up the discussion was clear.  After the fact that is.  Some of the blue haired liberal ladies left speechless.  Like I told you, the boys needed air, and needed to swing free.  He made it very clear.  He was wearing one of his kilts and used hand signals.  He was not trying to sell anything, but he was pretending he was. 

Talking about your balls is not a good way to sell stuff.

Do you disagree?

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 06, 2024, 02:55 PMThank you for validating the near impregnable quality of the Groundhog day idea. I thought it would be difficult to refute as well, based on the facts of peak oil history, it seemed a good analogy.

It's an analogy, yes, but that is not what you said.  You said it was the same.  An analogy is when 2 things have similarities, but they are not the same thing.  You wanted to use the same news story over again.  Not correct. If you learn the proper use of the English language, we won't have a problem.  Some writing lessons might be helpful for you to be more precise in the use of language when writing to avoid confusion.

RE

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 06, 2024, 03:51 PM

QuoteSo Kuntsler was fronting a troll farm with all his idiot nonsense on Y2K and peak oil? Would you have any reason why the FBI would front someone generally foolish and easily dismissed, rather than someone useful to clicks and popularity and whatnot, like whomever the Taylor Swift of the day might have been? Michael "Jesus Juice" Jackson?

You seriously ask why, as if 'The War On Terror' is logical?

No. I didn't seriously ask anything about the war on terror. Was Kuntsler a war cheerleader or something?

Quote from: K-DogTalking about your balls is not a good way to sell stuff.
Do you disagree?

To be honest I have no idea. Porn stars might do it, in order to sell jock straps or something? :o

Quote from: RE on Feb 06, 2024, 05:49 PM

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 06, 2024, 02:55 PMThank you for validating the near impregnable quality of the Groundhog day idea. I thought it would be difficult to refute as well, based on the facts of peak oil history, it seemed a good analogy.

It's an analogy, yes, but that is not what you said.  You said it was the same.  An analogy is when 2 things have similarities, but they are not the same thing.  You wanted to use the same news story over again.  Not correct. If you learn the proper use of the English language, we won't have a problem. 
RE

So you are saying that you will happily argue the semantics because you can't refute the analogy I used? Ummm...ok. You win.

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 07, 2024, 04:19 PM

Quote from: RE on Feb 06, 2024, 05:49 PM

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 06, 2024, 02:55 PMThank you for validating the near impregnable quality of the Groundhog day idea. I thought it would be difficult to refute as well, based on the facts of peak oil history, it seemed a good analogy.

It's an analogy, yes, but that is not what you said.  You said it was the same.  An analogy is when 2 things have similarities, but they are not the same thing.  You wanted to use the same news story over again.  Not correct. If you learn the proper use of the English language, we won't have a problem. 
RE

So you are saying that you will happily argue the semantics because you can't refute the analogy I used? Ummm...ok. You win.

There's no reason to refute the analogy, because it's irrelevant.  It's ancient history. What is important is the current situation, not the situation as it existed 20 years ago.  So far, the Global Peak Energy Consumption (including Peak Oil) figure reached in 2018 has not been exceeded.  Until and unless that figure is surpassed, that marks the date for when Peak Oil was reached.    Most of the analysis I have read since indicates it will not be surpassed, so Peak Oil is history now, not a projected future date.

We can return to arguing about Peak Oil if/when this figure is surpassed.  As of data available today, we have the date for Peak Oil established already. 2018.

(https://transportgeography.org/wp-content/uploads/world_energy_consumption2.png)

RE

Quote from: RE on Feb 07, 2024, 06:06 PMThere's no reason to refute the analogy, because it's irrelevant.  It's ancient history. What is important is the current situation, not the situation as it existed 20 years ago.

I see. Well, while I am unaware of the number of times the Groundhog Day effect can continue, I am forced to admit that even in the movie of the same name, it did in fact one day stop being the Groundhog day.

Quote from: REMost of the analysis I have read since indicates it will not be surpassed, so Peak Oil is history now, not a projected future date.

Could be. Although it seems to me there was far more robust analysis written on the first 4 occurred or claimed peak oils this century. #5 and even moreso unpredicted #6 seemed to sneak in the door unnoticed, unpredicted and both quite unremarkable. 

Quote from: REWe can return to arguing about Peak Oil if/when this figure is surpassed.

Of course. Just as I said, the Groundhog Day and Peak Oil, hand in hand, marching through time, discrediting legions of gurus all along the way. The King is Dead! Long Live the King! 

The good news for now is that we can bask safe in the knowledge that 6 years after it occurred, gasoline is running perhaps $2.40/gal in my neighborhood, and is available by the tanker truck load...should someone want to buy that amount.

Quote from: REAs of data available today, we have the date for Peak Oil established already. 2018.

Absolutely. <yawn>

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 09, 2024, 03:32 PMAbsolutely.

Your capitulation has been duly noted and filed.  :)

RE

Quote from: RE on Feb 09, 2024, 05:29 PM

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 09, 2024, 03:32 PMAbsolutely.

Your capitulation has been duly noted and filed.  :)
RE

Good. Also note my capitulation on ALL peak oils this century. Hence the need to number my capitulations same as the peaks themselves.

Such is the connection between peak oil and the Groundhog Day.

Now that we've etablished the validity of the Groundhog Day effect within the many peak oils, do you have any estimate on the question asked previously? When do you think the Groundhog Day effect will finally end? Yes yes..I know.... 6 Groundhog Days might be the answwer....but then again.....that's what was said all the other times as well.

Groundhog day ends when there are no people to experience days or we finally learn from our mistakes.  Groundhog day is every day, just like in the movie.  No two days were ever the same in the movie, each day Bill Murray changed something and learned from it, until by the end he finally learned enough so Andie McDowell would fall in love with him, and that broke the calendar date loop.  I have no idea how many iterations it will take for Homo Sap to learn or if we will ever learn.  Just have to see how it plays out.

RE

Quote from: RE on Feb 10, 2024, 03:38 PMGroundhog day ends when there are no people to experience days or we finally learn from our mistakes.  Groundhog day is every day, just like in the movie.  No two days were ever the same in the movie, each day Bill Murray changed something and learned from it, until by the end he finally learned enough so Andie McDowell would fall in love with him, and that broke the calendar date loop.  I have no idea how many iterations it will take for Homo Sap to learn or if we will ever learn.  Just have to see how it plays out.

RE

We only ever had funding for one season of the show.  Our days have run out.  We're getting cancelled.

We're #1!  We're #1  We're #1!

(https://33.media.tumblr.com/7c4f92973e310efffeab97c98e765acc/tumblr_nh9l9r0YUX1tge8hro1_500.gif)

Smashing new records every month!  Amerika, the Land of Good & Plenty!


What a country!

(https://cf.eip.telegraph.co.uk/illustrator-embed/content/cae7deadf787d2f1626d5d86713f32b632a7850b/1702480499596.jpg)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/25/usa-oil-gas-production-world-record-level-energy-security/

The triumphant USA is now producing more oil and gas than any nation ever has

Quote from: RE on Mar 27, 2024, 07:49 PMWe're #1!  We're #1  We're #1!
Smashing new records every month!  Amerika, the Land of Good & Plenty!

PLEASE!! AND IMPOSSIBLE!!

As we all know, Hubbert was right, an unmatched geologic genius, and posters on this site have vouched this to be good and true. We have been informed by those with knowledge on this topic that the EIA are a bunch of oil industry cast offs and sympathizers, probably cooking the books while looking for additional funding to continue their errant propaganda.

Nothing to see here, no need to hype the propaganda of the optimists flooding the world, you are encouraging them! I say we just move along, resist the urge to trumpet their ignorance from the rooftops (or in small web forums of 3 or 4 people who know these truths!), refuse to let the simple addition of data and resulting sum get in the way of warning the world about peak oil and the cataclysms to follow!  And if they dare to mention that global peak happened 6 years ago, we dispute that to the end, using Hubbert's outstanding analysis showing it happened in the mid-90's!

Since this sad attempt at sarcasm was fully expected and predictable, I'll permit it as your response to the OP in the interest of  fairness and allowing you to continue turning yourself into a silly caricature of an internet troll.  Further expansion on the theme will not be necessary, your opinion has been duly noted and filed.

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/05/02/sports/throw-illo/throw-illo-articleLarge-v2.gif?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale)

RE

M King Hubbert was spot on and oil depleted exactly as he predicted.

It is a troll move to compare CONVENTIONAL Hubbert OIL that came out of the ground if you stuck a drinking straw in the right place to HARD ROCK OIL which is an entirely different resource.

Conventional oil depleted in the 70's exactly as Hubbert predicted.

The new fossil fuel resource currently funding the FSOA will follow the same pattern.  The math is no different.  And sooner, rather than later.  Considering the dunce caps in charge of foreign policy.

Quote from: K-Dog on Mar 28, 2024, 01:15 PMM King Hubbert was spot on and oil depleted exactly as he predicted.

Copy that. In the spirit of BlackWhite, problem solved for the US oil production problem! Feel free to refer anyone to it in its proper form.
(https://i.imgur.com/wP51B3D.jpg)

Quote from: K-DogIt is a troll move to compare CONVENTIONAL Hubbert OIL that came out of the ground if you stuck a drinking straw in the right place to HARD ROCK OIL which is an entirely different resource. Conventional oil depleted in the 70's exactly as Hubbert predicted.

DAMN straight. Fig 21 in Hubbert's seminal work appropriated notated....unfortunately Hubbert never says conventional in the entire paper, so a slight add in seemed best to not make stuff up he didn't say directly. If a troll can't figure out how to put the correct words in a genius geologist's mouth, we can certainly do it for them on the charts that matter!
(https://i.imgur.com/jQe7aPy.jpg)

Need guidance from the Blackwhite committee though....how do we solve the "spot on" problem with his world estimate in Figure 2? We're short about 50 mmbbl/d in 2024....what do you think about a slight mod like this to hand out, should anyone find the original and not understand that the scale was just off by a little?

(https://i.imgur.com/V36X4ur.jpg)

Has all of the endless argument over Hubbert just been about 25 years on a projected curve of oil discoveries?  Given Industrial Civilization is about 275 years in the making, we're talking <10% off on the timeline, which while it's very significant if you only have maybe 20 years left in your personal timeline for staying above ground, it's pretty insignificant as far as other people who have a life expectancy with 50+ years still left on it.

Besides that, the precise timeline of how much oil is left to be discovered and possibly extracted, refined and burned is only one factor among many that impinge on the timeline of civilization collapse.  Population size and growth, age demographics, migration patterns, water resource availability, infrastructure breakdown, economics and debt, wealth distribution, geopolitical balance of power and climate change each provide their own individual problems and timelines, and then on top of that you have interactions between factors that further complicate the situation.

For that reason, the Doomstead Diner has never been a referendum on predictions made by M. King Hubbert or Peak Oil.  When a oil story relevant pops up in the newz, I'll post it, but this was just one story among many on other topics like the Moscow bombing, Ukraine, Trumpovetsky, EVs, Cuban Food rationing and my personal favorite in the area of Social Collapse, idiots who think you can be whatever you want to be, so if you were born with a penis but want to hang out with girls, all you need to do is check the box labeled Female on your application for a job as security guard at the Lolita Memorial Reform School for Wayward Sluts and POOF, you qualify!  Compared to this insanity, the dispute over 25 years and what constitutes as conventional oil is missing the forest because you keep staring at the same tree for the last 20 years or so that Peak oil started regularly popping up on Google searches. There are many more interesting trees growing out in the Collapse Forest which are much more interesting to discuss than an old fire that has long since burned out, except in the mind of obsessed one trick ponies who just can't let go of a dead horse they have been beating for so long the bloody pulp is like a toddler's favorite bwanky he  doesn't want to give up, because despite the fact its tattered and torn and stinks of sour milk, puke, piss and shit, it's a warm cuddly old friend he just can't let go of.

Find a new blanket and buy a new horse.  Grow a little.  There's more to Collapse than just Hubbert and Peak Oil.

(https://gifdb.com/images/high/stick-man-beating-a-dead-horse-m01gfkp1knb7r0uw.gif)

RE

It is a troll move to compare CONVENTIONAL Hubbert OIL that came out of the ground if you stuck a drinking straw in the right place to HARD ROCK OIL which is an entirely different resource.

And I too will no more beat this dead horse.

Well, maybe we can finally be finished with Peak Oil prediction arguments since the Big Kahuna organization of the IEA has dropped on their prediction that demand will peak before 2030.  :)

"Many large organisations think Peak Oil Demand will happen this decade or the 2030s. This includes the International Energy Agency (IEA), which has predicted demand for oil will peak before 2030."

It will be a relief to finally finish the 15 year beating of that dead horse.  ::)

Peak Oil Production on the other hand appears to have passed its all-time global peak back in Nov of 2018.

Obviously your production can exceed demand, in which case the excess could be put into storage, but demand can't exceed production by very much or for very long, because you'll run out of the oil in storage.  Any demand greater than what you can produce has to be DESTROYED.

So, what the IEA is telling us with their prediction is that inside the next 6 years there will be enough Demand Destruction for Oil that further increases in production will be unnecessary.  Thus by this logic New Zealand should not waste taxpayer money to incentivize further oil production.

The question is of course, how do you continue to have economic GROWTH if the demand for oil is being destroyed?  The article answers this question by telling us that renewables and electrification will be replacing the oil as the demand destruction moves forward.

The government's decisions go against projections by many sources, including the International Energy Agency, that demand for oil will decline soon as we electrify the global transport fleet. Consequently, investment in oil exploration is projected to decline too.

Are we really electrifying the transportation fleet fast enough that it will destroy enough demand so that the wheels can keep rolling as the oil stops pumping?  While also producing enough electricity to supply all those AI powered Data Centers the Billionaires want to build?  By 2030?

Since this seems unlikely, how else can we destroy the demand for oil before 2030 as the EIA predicts?  Answer, we stop driving and turn off enough lights so the demand goes away!  IOW, what the EIA is predicting is a global recession before 2030.  Because that's really the only way the oil demand will disappear that fast.

So who and where gets to stop driving and dim the bulbs to achieve this is the problem, and if Kiwis don't want to be one of the lucky countries that sees gas shortages and blackouts because they can't import enough FFs they would be well advised to try and keep pumping their own supply locally.  Unfortunately they have the same problem we have here with Cook Inlet NG, the wells aren't producing enough anymore.  Like us also though, it will take a while to get new wells producing even if they start looking now.

Any countries which are not Net Exporters of FFs are going to be the lucky ones who lead the 600 of the Light Brigade into lights off in the Valley of Death, because the importers are all going to be competing for the diminishing supply first.  This is going to make situations in many 3rd world countries go from already really bad to much, much worse.  That means more refugees and more conflicts.  The long awaited consequences of Peak Oil.

https://theconversation.com/global-demand-for-oil-could-peak-soon-nzs-plan-to-revive-offshore-exploration-doesnt-add-up-232154

Global demand for oil could peak soon – NZ's plan to revive offshore exploration doesn't add up

RE

Quote from: RE on Jun 13, 2024, 06:15 AMWell, maybe we can finally be finished with Peak Oil prediction arguments since the Big Kahuna organization of the IEA has dropped on their prediction that demand will peak before 2030.  :)
RE

I find the IEA and their oil prognostications fascinating. In 2010 they predicted global peak oil 4 years earlier in 2006. Did it after the fact just to be sure. Now it is peak demand, which means supply can outrun demand by 2030? And until then both will continue to grow, even past Peak Oil #6 this century in 2018? Okay I guess. I imagine Fatih Birol is still in charge, and is responsible for both claims. How...flexible....economists can be.

You are the one who always uses IEA data because their scientists are such recognized experts.  Now you say they're idiots.  You can't have it both ways chief.  The subject is now closed, the top experts funded by the oil industry itself at the IEA have spoken.  You have been outranked.

RE

Quote from: RE on Jun 13, 2024, 05:49 PMYou are the one who always uses IEA data because their scientists are such recognized experts.

I've never used IEA data. Read their reports mostly,like everyone else. And their "scientists" that I've been in meetings with, discussed things with, were mostly on the working engineer side, as opposed to scientist types. No geologists that I recall when they came calling, about a decade or more ago now.

Occasional interaction with their economists, but not qualified to know if they were top notch professionals, recognized experts or something else. I presume Fatih is considered top notch, economics wise, which might explain why he led them to screw the pooch back in 2010 with their 2006 call. Some of their 2011 report (if memory serves) was quite voluminous and quite a bit of it was reasonable.

The USGS has the scientist types, dime a dozen. The Texas BEG is more a 50/50 split I'd say, scientist types and working professional types, post-grad students as well, those related to the TORA project anyway.

Any other groups I've worked with, had meetings with, have come and visited me you'd like an opinion on? Sloan foundation folks? EIA? State Surveys and geologists? Mike Hohn was a good one, Love of the PA Survey, Tinker of Texas? Australia CSIRO? Jordan? Iraq? The British Geologic Survey? Canadian Energy Board, or the AEB? 

Quote from: RENow you say they're idiots. You can't have it both ways chief.

I don't. And I didn't say they were idiots. I said their stuff was fascinating. Reading comprehension...you must be way out of practice dealing with story telling to addled geriatrics who don't have the ability to understand..you know...words and stuff. Bullshitting your way through conversations doesn't usually work with folks possessing functioning brain pans.   

Quote from: REYou have been outranked.
RE

You don't know who I am, and have no clue where I do, or do not rank. 

Quote from: TDoS on Jun 13, 2024, 08:15 PMYou don't know who I am, and have no clue where I do, or do not rank. 

Which is why you are outranked.  I do know who the IEA is, so they have credibility.  You don't.  Of course, just a couple of weeks ago you insisted that I DO know who you are.  Again, you try to have arguments both ways depending on what is expedient.  One day you argue I know you, the next you argue I don't.  How convenient.  One day you explain to me how the IEA is the most accurate information in the industry, the next day you argue how they got it wrong back in 2006 or wheenever so they're wrong now.  How convenient.

You don't have to use the word idiot for the meaning of your post to be clear, your implication by reviewing old predictions is that since those didn't pan out as predicted, neither will these.  The subtext is quite obvious.

The basis of all your arguments is Appeal to Authority (you being the authority), but then when presented with opposing opinions from real, recognized authorities who are not anonymous trolls skulking around the collapse blogosphere, your argument is that those authorities are wrong.  YOU purport to be the only authority who can be believed!  It's like the cross examination scene from "Inherit the Wind" where the Clarence Darrow character is cross examining the William Jennings Bryant character (named Brady in the play) about Evolution as an Expert on the Bible and what people should believe.  "God tells Brady, and Brady tells the World.".

You are a self-important, self-obsessed narcisstic blowhard with a huge chip on your shoulder because you grew up as poor white trash in Appalachia.  You get some sort of catharsis by insulting people anonymously over the internet.  It's just pathetic.

RE

Not unexpectedly, more experts have surfaced to dispute the IEAs prediction of Near Term Peak Oil (NTPO), which they have apparently rolled back from 2030 to 2029.  This comes in a new report, where they ALSO predict it will result in a SUPPLY GLUT for the next decade!!!  :o  :o  :o

"This report's projections, based on the latest data, show a major supply surplus emerging this decade, suggesting that oil companies may want to make sure their business strategies and plans are prepared for the changes taking place," IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said.

Seems counter intuitive doesn't it, the demand will drop off while there's still plenty of oil, right?  The only way that happens is if people can't afford to buy it, which IOW means recession.

In general if that happens to any commodity, they simply lower the price to sell more of it.  Supply-Demand, Econ 101.  The problem for Oil is they are at their ROCK BOTTOM price now for selling it and still turn a profit.  So instead of selling it at a loss, they'll stop pumping it.  The capacity is there to produce more, but not at a cheap enough price that people can afford to buy it.  That's what they mean by supply glut.  In this sense, that glut will always exist.

Also predicted here is not to worry about a Seneca Cliff, it will be a slow decline.

"It's important to keep in mind that a peak does not necessarily mean a rapid precipice. It much more likely looks like a slow decline, and that, you know, if it is a slow decline, is much easier to manage than a precipice," he said.

So, it looks like we'll have at least 4 MOAR years of battle until 2030 to see when the demand drops off. Except what you get in your graphs is not a demand curve, but a supply curve, which is generated after each quarter and they tally all the barrels that were produced globally.  The supply curve already hit the peak in Nov 2018.  The most up-to-date graph I can find on that goes to only Jan of 2023.  Still under Nov 2018.

(https://peakoilbarrel.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/World-1.jpg)

So all we can do here now is watch the production graph, which if the Slow Catabolic Collapse JMG scenario is correct will have a gentle downward slope, and if the Ugo's Seneca prediction is right will go south in a hurry.  It will take a while to get back the production numbers to see how fast it actually does fall off.  That will depend on how deep the recession gets.  Stay tuned to the Diner for up-to-date reporting as the Collapse gets rolling in earnest!  ;D

https://www.marketplace.org/2024/06/13/iea-opec-global-oil-demand-peak-predictions/

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-demand-set-peak-by-2029-major-supply-glut-looms-iea-says-2024-06-12/

RE

OK, this article gives us a little info on the assumptions made by the IEA in coming up with their prediction of Peak Demand by 2029.  Here's the critical assumptions that could turn things around and keep the oil pumping:

   The IEA cautioned its forecast for shrinking oil demand could be derailed by "relatively minor changes" in events. For example, a 0.3 per cent annual increase in the world's GDP growth, a $5 annual drop in real oil prices, or a 15 per cent slowdown in the rollout of EVs would each be enough to swing oil consumption back to growth by the end of the decade.


Let's go through these possibilities.

1- +0.3% World GDP increase over expected.-  The number they plugged in here was +3%.  This is the critical number.  A Recession would give a negative growth number.  So a global recession isn't even necessary, just a growth rate under 3%/year.  A recession at any point over the next 3 years bakes the cake, and it's highly likely.

2-  A $5 drop n "real" oil prices -  Not sure what constitutes real prices, but you can find an interactive chart here:

https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart#google_vignette

Looking at the 2024 YTD chart it's hanging around $78/bl.  So, it just needs to come down to $73.  A recession would do that, so those 2 numbers get to fight it out.  The deeper the recession, the more the oil price has to drop to keep selling it.  How low can they go with the price to keep pace?  Unknown.  During Covid the chart going back to 2012 shows $40 prices.  How much oil are they willing to sell for $40?  Not much I suspect.  They would hold and wait for the price to come back up.

3- 15% slowdown rolling out EVs-  Well, they're pretty slow already, really the only direction EVs have to go is up. lol.  The Chinese are making and selling most of them to their own population.  Over here, Tesla has nowhere to go but up, right now they can hardly even give them away on the used market.  However, a recession would alsso slow down EV sales, so that also proviides a counterbalance.  The question is though how important really are EVs to the oil consumption market right now?  I don't think it's that much, so it would take areally big slowdown to push the needle much.

So basically, it all comes down to the state of the economy, and like me, the experts at the IEA are betting on a recession by 2029.  I actually expect it sooner, like beginning this quarter or next, but in any case an annualized growth rate much above 2% would be lucky, or good numbers manipulation.  To get a 3% average over the next 3 years, you'll need some high 3s or a 4 in there to compensate.  That's even less likely.

So the demand will fall with the economy, the question is will it ever return so more oil is produced than that last heady Fall before Covid in Nov of 2018?, because the only chart you get is after the fact of how much was produced.  Demand charts are just future projections.  If the oil wasn't produced, if the demand was there it didn't get filled.

We'll just have to wait and see.  Maybe we can turn up the chart of production thru Jan 2024 soon to see how things went through 2023.

https://www.ft.com/content/cfb97534-b71b-490f-b626-6dc3487f595d

RE

All previous peak demand scenarios have been proven wrong, the top OPEC official said in his column.

Got it!  Tdos is a top OPEC official!  lol.  OK...maybe not...  Twins separated at birth?

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ucxen4x_uV0/maxresdefault.jpg)

Clearly, this prediction bugs the House of Saud as much as Tdos.  At least they have the balls to go on record an aren't anonymous trolls crawling the collapse blogosphere.

So how far will the Towel Heads go to make sure this doesn't happen?  Well, all they need to do according to the IEA is keep the price down by $5 and they'll be able to sell as much as they want!  So, are the Saudis ready to take it in the shorts for Team Oil?  start a price war and undercut the Ruskies and the Frackers.

Back in the day when Ronald Rayguns ran the show, the Saudis pumped hard enough to bring down the old Soviet Union.  Hell, if they make the price low enough, they could hold off the recession!

Sadly of course, this is not 1980 anymore and the Saudis cannot single handedly flood the market with cheap oil.  Basically all suppliers have to pump full out to meet demand.  When the market price drops lower than it cost the producer to bring to market, they'll leave it in the ground or in storage on a tanker.  So as the price drops, one by one they'll drop out, the most expensive wells first to shut down.

One thing is for sure, the House of Saud does NOT like Peak Oil talk.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/OPEC-Slams-IEA-for-Dangerous-Forecast-of-Peak-Oil-Demand-by-2030.html

RE

An oil glut, that should put everyone's head in the sand.

(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.shopify.com%2Fs%2Ffiles%2F1%2F1568%2F8443%2Fproducts%2Fa5n_es_o92_layout_3_horizontal_three-monkeys-3-piece-wall-art.webp%3Fv%3D1668547572&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=7d947c40e33049ef29ce0602392dac5e502d400edd6e28a42ef30e6e6baaa327&ipo=images)

Nuttin to worry bout.

If Carbon Fee and Dividend were implemented there would also be an oil glut.  But it would be planned.  And it would not hurt anybody.

Net Zero Fret Zero, whatever.  It gives YOU the power to spend YOUR money on a low carbon lifestyle of YOUR choice. 

(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Fd0%2F76%2F0c%2Fd0760cf0ede7f637e57f2316c826d27e.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=7e86afa19891d636b562f7c6577585b586af17ca064642a7c5a66c428758573c&ipo=images)

I repeat, YOUR choice.  Or you can leave the choice to Big Brother as you have been known to do.  Part of the reason you got into this mess.

(https://energyinnovationact.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Billinfographic_042121_1153x4393.png)
H.R.2307 at the top of the graphic was yesterdays news.

H.R.5744: Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2023 is the most recent scrimmage line skirmish.  Remember in the Matrix, Zion was rebuilt three times.  Neo was not the first.  As usual the bill is referred to committee.  Another dog pile on the scrimmage line.

Socialism is not sneakin in this back door, no sirree.

Quote from: K-dogAn oil glut, that should put everyone's head in the sand.

It's definitely an interesting way to present the situation to J6P, because it makes it APPEAR that there's plenty of oil and once the economy recovers, all will be well again.

The reality is there will only be a glut as long as they keep the price up above around $70.  Thiss is why the IEA is pitching out its warning to the producers for their future planning.  It's telling them to get ready to start shutting down production from wells which have higher production costs or they will lose money.  If the companies heed the advice, they'll begin to shut in production next year to keep the price up.  So no real "glut" will actually appear.  Unless of course they don't believe the IEA, keep pumping and the recession hits.

It takes a while to shut down production, longer than it takes for a buyer to call up and say "I am cancelling my order for that supertanker" anyhow.  When recession hits, the trucks stop moving so much freight and use less diesel.  So inside a month or two, the truckstops don't need their regular delivery of diesel as often.  The demand is getting destroyed.

So, for as long as the producers are behind the curve of the economy, waiting for the orders to be cancelled, there will be a glut.  Once there is sufficient glut all the storage is taken up, they have to lower prices to get rid of inventory.  Better known as a "Clearance Sale",  "Everything must go! 50% off!"  lol.



The way they estimate the demand is on the Futures Market.  Traders who think the price will go up buy future contracts at today's price, believing when they take delivery they'll be able to sell at a higher price.  Traders who think the price will drop go Short on Oil.  This is why the Saudis stepped up to the plate, because if too many traders believe the IEA, they will short the living shit out of the futures market.  If the IEA prediction comes true, those who did not believe the IEA will take a bath.  Depending how deep and how fast the recession sets in, it could be a blood bath.  The Saudis are trying to reassure the traders and keep the futures contract price high.

The way to see who is believed is by watching the futures price for delivery of oil in 2029.  Traders who believe the IEA will short the contracts and drive the price down.  Then the question is, how low a price will a Saudi Prince take for a contract for 2029?  They still have legacy oil fields that produce pretty cheap oil, so they can go pretty low and not actually lose money.  Tight Oil producers can't go that low, so they won't sell a contract below their production cost.  They have to wait, hope the IEA is wrong and then sell high when 2029 rolls around.  If the IEA was right, they are stuck with the oil on a tanker and have to sell it for whatever they can get.  It costs money to keep it on the boat.

Watch the futures market to see who is believed here.  It will be pretty volatile I bet.  Probably hear a good bit of cheerleading from both sides.  Should be entertaining.  ;D   There's a winner and loser in every trade.  I'll bet with the shorts.  Here's some current  prices on the futures market as a benchmark.



RE

QuoteIt's definitely an interesting way to present the situation to J6P, because it makes it APPEAR that there's plenty of oil and once the economy recovers, all will be well again.

Exactly, the promise of good times is more veiled.  The public is no smarter but the reality of limits requires that deception be more nuanced.  This is important since the danger the public could realize they have the power to demand change is real.  The sheep must be kept snoozing.

Knowing that good times are coming increases tolerance for the wars.

This is interesting, the report gives numbers, which with enough thought could be put into a model and run through Dynamo to gain insight on how much rubber is on the road regarding this oil glut claim.  I don't know enough to do this now.  Being concerned as I am to get Dynamo working, the use side of things is not my priority yet.  It will be a priority when Dynamo is finished.  The users manual will tell me when I have 100% functionality.

But : OILSTOCK.K=OILSTOCK.J+(DT)(OILPUMPED.JK-OILBURNED.JK)

is a Dynamo equation. The stock of oil in the next time increment denoted by the 'K' suffix on the variable is equal to the stock at the present time, ('J' suffix) minus the difference between oil pumped out of the ground and oil used up multiplied by the time increment.  DT is the time increment.  In an oil glut model setting the time increment to a day would make sense.

The stock of oil influences price.  This affects the OILBURNED.KL rate calculation which Dynamo already computed in the model equations.  I can say this because I know how it works.  OILBURNED is the rate of use with its own defining equation.

One equation is something we do not need Dynamo to understand.  But with a few dozen equations which properly designs a model for a given situation, the Dynamo equation calculator is used to see what the consequences of assumptions are.  It evaluates feedback.  In this case we could figure out what the IEC ASSumptions might be that results in their prediction.

Dynamo evaluates feedback, so watch out Guy McPherson.  I'll be coming for you.  Seriously.  A Dynamo model can tell us how Venus we might get.

Or not!

I may be exaggerating, I do not know.  I have Dynamo on my Brain since I managed to get the engine running in my concept car version night before last.  Time will tell.

There should be a go fund Keith for my efforts.

Quote from: RE on Jun 14, 2024, 10:14 PMAll previous peak demand scenarios have been proven wrong, the top OPEC official said in his column.

Got it!  Tdos is a top OPEC official!

Ouch..bad guess from someone who has my identity from IP tracking and conference lists.  8)

Quote from: K-Dog on Jun 15, 2024, 08:43 AMIn this case we could figure out what the IEC ASSumptions might be that results in their prediction.

Lots of stuff could be in there, they might even shuffle in or out different variables at different times.

I would definitely have a variable for the Baltic Dry Index, the Prime Lending Rate, Weather forecasting for el Nino/Nina, hurricane forecast, Bankruptcies in the trucking industry, Renminby-Dollar exchange rate to name a few.

If it made a couple of accurate predictions, you wouldn't need a Go Fund Me site.  The model would be worth a fortune.

RE

Quote from: K-Dog on Jun 15, 2024, 08:43 AMThere should be a go fund Keith for my efforts.

Get the thing to kick out the answers with accompanying uncertainty and you wouldn't need to do a Go Fund stunt, someone would pay you for it outright.

This comment presumes that they've upgraded the original model to account for why it didn't work so well in original form of course. And then you'd need to test it against a current and more proven one (https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/weps/documentation/).

Quote from: TDoS on Jun 15, 2024, 02:23 PM

Quote from: K-Dog on Jun 15, 2024, 08:43 AMThere should be a go fund Keith for my efforts.

Get the thing to kick out the answers with accompanying uncertainty and you wouldn't need to do a Go Fund stunt, someone would pay you for it outright.

This comment presumes that they've upgraded the original model to account for why it didn't work so well in original form of course. And then you'd need to test it against a current and more proven one (https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/weps/documentation/).

What you be doin tellin me what to do.  Nobody has ever ported the Dynamo Compiler to Javascript.  It could have been done in the Trash-80, Apple-Two days but it was just enough outside the average hackers intellectual league apparently.  It happens that I have the abilities to crack this nut.  And it will take many hours to get this project done.

Fortunately I can work a magnitude of order faster than the original developers (six of them) because the users manual defines the task without ambiguity or at least not more ambiguity than I can handle.  Regardless this amount of work deserves funding because the original effort took 6 man years over several years, and generated 10,000 lines of IBM assembly line code which in a modern JavaScript black box translation will generate 3000 lines of code or more.  If you wonder if I know what I am talking about I have a Masters Degree in software engineering and a fuck of a lot of experience.

My time is valuable.  It is not for you to say what level of effort deserves compensation or not.  If enough people thought it valuable enough maybe I could stop the part time warehouse job and do this sort of thing full time.

My goal is to bring a tool like this to the general public and not to have it inaccessible like your link.  Inaccessible and useless shit no matter how high-falutin it is.  You sir, are a motherfucker.

* if you think I exaggerate the task.  Read the users manual.  The details are there.