Doomstead

The company argues a rapid decline in production, especially from unconventional sources like shale, could lead to severe energy shortages and price hikes.

As predicted, the low prices are making the fracked oil uneconomic, so the oil companies are trying to jawbone up more investment.  Sadly, it's Econ 101 here, and if the price goes up, you get recession and demand drops off.

f course it's true that electric vehicles aren't really cutting into demand for FFs, and as long as oil is cheap enough, people will buy it. But you can't bleed money from stone, and globally the Konsumers are tapped our and in debt.

At some point in the not too distant future, Rock will meet Hard Place.  Stay Tuned.

Exxon Joins OPEC in Warning of Looming Oil Supply Crisis

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Exxon-Joins-OPEC-in-Warning-of-Looming-Oil-Supply-Crisis.html

RE

Quote from: RE on Aug 29, 2024, 12:07 AMThe company argues a rapid decline in production, especially from unconventional sources like shale, could lead to severe energy shortages and price hikes.

As predicted, the low prices are making the fracked oil uneconomic, so the oil companies are trying to jawbone up more investment.  Sadly, it's Econ 101 here, and if the price goes up, you get recession and demand drops off.

f course it's true that electric vehicles aren't really cutting into demand for FFs, and as long as oil is cheap enough, people will buy it. But you can't bleed money from stone, and globally the Konsumers are tapped our and in debt.

At some point in the not too distant future, Rock will meet Hard Place.  Stay Tuned.

Exxon Joins OPEC in Warning of Looming Oil Supply Crisis

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Exxon-Joins-OPEC-in-Warning-of-Looming-Oil-Supply-Crisis.html

RE

QuoteAccording to the supermajor, global oil production is facing a natural decline at a rate of some 15% annually over the next 25 years. For context, the IEA sees the rate of natural decline at 8% annually. Exxon points out, however, that the faster decline rate is a result of the shift towards shale and other unconventional oil production, where depletion happens faster than it does in conventional formations.

Our troll will likely say Exxon does not know anything about oil.  How many times has he ignored my demands that he acknowledge that light sweet crude is not the same product as fracked oil.  More times than I can count.  His reason is the same as other deniers who refuse to acknowledge that peak oil happened.  By claiming all oil products are the same they can fudge numbers.




At 15% a year, the only vehicles who will still have gas in a decade are the vans that pick up bodies.  In a decade oil production will be one fifth of the current rate if 15% is true.

For Americans 15% a year is game over.

Quote from: RE on Aug 29, 2024, 12:07 AMThe company argues a rapid decline in production, especially from unconventional sources like shale, could lead to severe energy shortages and price hikes.

As predicted, the low prices are making the fracked oil uneconomic, so the oil companies are trying to jawbone up more investment.

LTO exploded in the US starting in 2010 or so... at $75/bbl wti through $100/bbl in 2014. Then prices collapsed. And then the 2nd wave of LTO kicked off in the Permian in particular post 2015 and that was all an explosion at <$70/bbl.

So...as $50/bbl doesn't make LTO uneconomic, and some of the only available research on the topic (https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/weekly/archive/2022/220803/includes/analysis_print.php) sure seems to indicate that while with more price there is more oil, there is no sharp break in activity at one price or another, matter of fact it is a typical economic scale...less price certainly should generate less supply, as higher price generates more.

There is no on/off switch, it is a graduated scale of more, or less, economic.

Quote from: REAt some point in the not too distant future, Rock will meet Hard Place.  Stay Tuned.

Been tuned in since alt.newsgroups and ROE...."not too distant" has been going on for decades now...we can all continue to hope and pray that "not too distant" isn't another 20 years or all us old farts might miss the excitement!

Quote from: K-Dog on Aug 29, 2024, 01:52 PMOur troll will likely say Exxon does not know anything about oil. 

Why would anyone who knows Ken Hood (https://www.linkedin.com/in/kenneth-hood-63304249?challengeId=AQHSfwx-4_m4YQAAAZGgIzzJnUDORlAZFuHyBRSx6HimsjIqWvVht8Q0y3cW6j_7GZOZaxFSBB4HepRkdbTKrZ3nYwhb_hIdXA&submissionId=f4430391-c151-f017-c878-6627656b546c&challengeSource=AgGrLqGDB05R3QAAAZGgI6qoOUAHNZjqtAEaBytpNtWSXkq5pibt26vGRsL011s&challegeType=AgELl5fYpmMpSQAAAZGgI6qrYwxSEitFYK8Ih12JAXk1vuQzAIeGwJo&memberId=AgGV9k-3lzxfGQAAAZGgI6qumuK4itOhKxh1N21VmhudXsA&recognizeDevice=AgFADg_50YbtXQAAAZGgI6qy0xc9In79gR8H6PHOGMO7qPO4cuxH) and paid close attentin to everything he wrote say that?

He is a geo genius. We did a Hedberg conference in Vail 2005 and had similar methods on how to figure out shales, although at the time I was more interested in geostats. He asked for a team of mine to review his newest geomethods he was teaching his geologists on shale resources a couple years later, in a Canadian CSPG meeting he already was finishing up this paper and mentioned it, it was sheer brilliance and a decade ahead ahead of the method the EIA created AFTER collecting a bunch of data and doing it the eays way.

Please...he as the head of some of their best geoscience work knows what he is doing.

As for the business types? Who knows.

Quote from: K-DogHow many times has he ignored my demands that he acknowledge that light sweet crude is not the same product as fracked oil.

How many times have I pointed out that light sweet crude comes from wells that are fracked, and those that aren't? Any geoscience lab that does this work can confirm it in minutes.

Remember, personal experience is really valuable here, you said so yourself. You tell me how many oil samples you've tested over the years, fracked wells, other kinds of completed wells, in-situ from coring runs, provided by refineries or pipeline drips, and if I haven't done or supervised 5 orders of magnitude more, I promise not to use my decades of personal experience, lab experience, production experience, drilling experience or industry knowledge against your lack of any ever again.

Looks like the traders are siding with the EIA and betting against the House of Saud predicting an Oil Glut and low. low prices for gas every day at your neighborhood convenience store.  Perhaps they'll escalate  the wars to boost prices.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Oil-Net-Short-For-First-Time-in-History.html

Oil Net Short For First Time in History

RE

Quote from: RE on Sep 14, 2024, 04:49 PMLooks like the traders are siding with the EIA and betting against the House of Saud predicting an Oil Glut and low. low prices for gas every day at your neighborhood convenience store.  Perhaps they'll escalate  the wars to boost prices.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Oil-Net-Short-For-First-Time-in-History.html

Oil Net Short For First Time in History

RE

So finally peak oil 6 years ago FINALLY has generated some good, if counter-intuitive results? Doomers should be cheering on the burning of fossil fuels at yet higher volumes and lower prices because it will accelerate the climate change which might finally cause doomer wet dreams! Climate wet dreams though, as opposed to political, oil or societal based dieoff though, climate change not being particularly sexy in the  sometime between now and the end of the current century.

Quote from: TDoS on Sep 15, 2024, 07:21 PMSo finally peak oil 6 years ago FINALLY has generated some good

At least you acknowledge we hit Peak Oil 6 years ago.  ;D

RE

Quote from: RE on Sep 15, 2024, 08:21 PMAt least you acknowledge we hit Peak Oil 6 years ago.  ;D
RE

Absolutely. There is no disputing that 2018 is the most recent global peak oil. #6 of this century, claimed or occurred. Only the rest of the price/demand relationship can dictate if it holds though.

Currently a lack of increasing demand seems to have brought this particular boogey man to heel for 6 years. Quite a surprise to some of those claimed industry experts if they are still alive I imagine.

Quote from: Jan Lundberg vintage 2005The scenario I foresee is that market-based panic will, within a few days, drive prices up skyward. And as supplies can no longer slake daily world demand of over 80 million barrels a day, the market will become paralyzed at prices too high for the wheels of commerce and even daily living in "advanced" societies. There may be an event that appears to trigger this final energy crash, but the overall cause will be the huge consumption on a finite planet.

EIA link:
https://www.eia.gov/international/data/world/petroleum-and-other-liquids/annual-petroleum-and-other-liquids-production?pd=5&p=0000000000000000000000000000000000vg&u=0&f=A&v=mapbubble&a=-&i=none&vo=value&&t=C&g=00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001&l=249-ruvvvvvfvtvnvv1vrvvvvfvvvvvvfvvvou20evvvvvvvvvvnvvvs0008&s=94694400000&e=1704067200000

An interesting aside is that, some 19 years later, the world is still making about  81 mmbbl/d (according to the 2023 annual number from the EIA). So if you wanted to discuss a peak, the one in 2018 (about 82.9 mmbbl/d) in the context of the 2005 vintage hysteria, it seems like you could call it all 20 years of plateau, +/-, if someone wanted to.

In either case, its a good thing that the world hasn't been needing much oil because the environment will only be a better place as we continue to grow population, and obvious now need much less oil per person!

Quote from: RE on Apr 09, 2024, 06:31 PM

Quote from: K-Dog on Apr 09, 2024, 06:22 PMThese guys make for an interesting conversation.

2 hours?  Can you give us a brief synopsis of this marathon talk fest?  Maybe give us the time on a coupe of highlights?  Last time I listened to Simon I was not impressed.

RE

Simon knows his stuff. Not on the petroleum geology side, as demonstrated by prior work related to oil in his Geologic Survey of Finland writeup. Screwed that pooch pretty badly on the reference side, but he might not know any better, as his work was mostly internet based, and the internet tends to provide the information you want, as opposed to the full spectrum answer you think you've gotten. Makes sense though, Finland doesn't have dick for oil, it isn't like he interviewed the USGS folks who do inside and out. But he has interesting credentials and experience on the hard rock side.

But the one you REALLY missed was IVER!!! Mr. Lofling if you want to be formal. School art teacher, built an electric car on his own during the pre-2005 peaker days, was around peakoil.com (THE place to be for awhile) and has been a consistent declarer of every peak oil that came down the pike for decades now. An artist by trade, not a technical thought in his head so he was naturally behind the curve, but a born sucker for the idea for decades since his Peace Corp work, if not longer.

We have some friends in common, in that he runs his art shop on Swan island I believe, and I know homeowners there who occasionally hang with Iver. His wife passed recently, he still declares peak oil every time some new internet person tries to fire up the idea, and he ran for a seat in the Maine state legislature last election cycle. Lost.

But an interesting guy, and yet another of us geriatrics.

Quote from: TDoS on Sep 16, 2024, 10:05 AMBut an interesting guy, and yet another of us geriatrics.

Demographic result of the collapsing birth rate in industrial civilization.

RE

Quote from: RE on Sep 16, 2024, 12:53 PM

Quote from: TDoS on Sep 16, 2024, 10:05 AMBut an interesting guy, and yet another of us geriatrics.

Demographic result of the collapsing birth rate in industrial civilization.

RE

Iver doesn't care about that much. I tihnk he is another of those childless types lacking the experience of raising, caring for, dealing with and turning crying little sleep destroyers into college educated productive adults.

He was just another hanger on of peak oil with a better story than most. Got it wrong, as usual, and then moved on. Bought an ICE car later after his wife passed. Still has the art shop on the island I think.

Good newz for a change.  :) Demand Destruction at work!

https://marcellusdrilling.com/2024/11/ceo-of-pa-fracking-company-says-frackers-idle-hitting-rock-bottom/

CEO of PA Fracking Company Says Frackers Idle, Hitting Rock Bottom

RE

Quote from: RE on Nov 07, 2024, 09:10 AMGood newz for a change.  :) Demand Destruction at work!

https://marcellusdrilling.com/2024/11/ceo-of-pa-fracking-company-says-frackers-idle-hitting-rock-bottom/

CEO of PA Fracking Company Says Frackers Idle, Hitting Rock Bottom

RE

I recall you once claiming that for fun you and some of those smart New Yorkers chosen by the Illuminati or the Ivy League or somebody once sat around and played out economic scenarios proving like illogical outcomes for fun?

This one is easy. How much fracking do you think SHOULD be taking place when the net back commodity price to the producer is <$0/mcf?

Quote from: TDoS on Nov 07, 2024, 07:16 PMThis one is easy. How much fracking do you think SHOULD be taking place when the net back commodity price to the producer is <$0/mcf?

That's the reason it's Good Newz.  As I said when the IEA projections came out if the oil price on the futures market dropped further (it was $75 at the time) the frackers would have to shut down production because below $70 there's little orofit in it.  Price currently is $71.80, it was briefly below $70 today and a few days ago it went below $69.

The FSoA has become the world's biggest producer as a result of the fracking boom.  But once the fracking isn't profitable, the export will dry up.  Cheap oil producers can still sell, namely the Saudis, Iranians and Ruskies.

Even at $70, many countries can't afford the oil and they are dropping out of the market, on their way back to 17th Century living.  Cuba's well on the way, and I'll bet Greece is having trouble keeping the lights on too.  As these countries lose access to the credit markets, they lose access to the money to buy the oil.  Unless the IMF helicopters in new loans, they're fucked.  The Cubans are sanctioned, so they're fucked.  Greece maybe gets another round of generosity from the IMF.  The Chinese have their own economic problems so their oil demand is down too.

All in all, the economics don't look too good for the frackers.  This would have been fun to screw with in the Blackboard Contests in the basement of Havermeyer Hall while smoking hash with the other elves & stoners from the physics and math departments.  I think that's what you were referring to.

RE

Quote from: RE on Nov 07, 2024, 09:38 PM

Quote from: TDoS on Nov 07, 2024, 07:16 PMThis one is easy. How much fracking do you think SHOULD be taking place when the net back commodity price to the producer is <$0/mcf?

That's the reason it's Good Newz.  As I said when the IEA projections came out if the oil price on the futures market dropped further (it was $75 at the time) the frackers would have to shut down production because below $70 there's little orofit in it.

The "fracker" in the article is a service company. E&Ps make the decision to drill, complete, and produce oil and gas. The fracker makes his money off providing a service, the E&P decides if it wants to drill any more wells because of a given price.

And obviously all plays have higher and lower quality geology, so even at $70/bbl, there is money to be made. Just in a more limited geographic area.

Price is then linked directly to the estimated amount of additional oil available across a given area. More price, more oil, less price, less oil, and service companies living or dying off of the activity at any given momeent along the way.

(https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/weekly/archive/2022/220803/article_images/twip220803fig1.png)

Quote from: REPrice currently is $71.80, it was briefly below $70 today and a few days ago it went below $69.

So on the chart, looks like there is some 3 billion barrels available at $68/bbl in the Eagle Ford. All US shale plays obviously have charts like this, they are hard to find though. They answer too many questions that folks would rather speculate on.

Quote from: REAll in all, the economics don't look too good for the frackers.
RE

Service companies certainly lay people off far faster than those who own and sell the oil do. Of course, they also hire far quicker when the price increases.

Quote from: TDoS on Nov 08, 2024, 02:59 PMService companies certainly lay people off far faster than those who own and sell the oil do. Of course, they also hire far quicker when the price increases.

Sure.  The issue is how long does the low price persist?

If it's short term, say a couple of months, the worker goes on UE and takes a vacation in Vegas until the price rebounds and his old boss calls him up and says "Hey Joe, we need you to leave the hookers and bring your 6-pack here to Eagle Ford to destroy a little more of the environment for your old salary of $100/hr.", or whatever the going rate is for expert Frackers.

If the EIA projections are right though of a decade long Glut and persistently low prices. well Joe's UE runs out after 6 months and he's blown all his savings at the blackjack table and on cheap hookers, so he's either found some other type of work that pays decently or he's flipping burgers at Mickey Ds living in his retired parents basement mooching off their social security, or he's homeless living on skid row in LA in a cardboard box with a 6 pack of used needles next to his sleeping bag.

Far as how much oil is available at what price, this impacts the finance drones who dish out a pile of money so a given service company will start up again to offer J6P Fracker his old job back.  If the prediction is for high prices with plenty of oil available at said prices, the drone sees big profits and $$$ signs flash before his eyes and happily dishes out the money.  If on the other hand the prediction is for low prices with only 3 billion measely barrels available to frack up at a profit, he's not so willing to fork over the money for Joe's salary and leases on equipment etc etc etc.

Thus you get guys like this service company CEO moaning about the price and trying to figure out how he's going to keep his company going ad pay the mortgage on his $1M McMansion and the Tuition for his kids private school.  I feel really bad for him. lol.

RE

Quote from: RE on Nov 09, 2024, 02:33 AM

Quote from: TDoS on Nov 08, 2024, 02:59 PMService companies certainly lay people off far faster than those who own and sell the oil do. Of course, they also hire far quicker when the price increases.

Sure.  The issue is how long does the low price persist?

Always the question that professional economists will pontificate on endlessly. The good news being that if the EIA knows how much oil is available for a given price from a resource perspective, they know all the others in the US, and possibly the world (based on a paper they released some 7 or so years ago).

So then all their economists pontificate like all the other economists, the only difference being they seem to have a better geologically based foundation to match with it.

Quote from: REIf the EIA projections are right though of a decade long Glut and persistently low prices. well Joe's UE runs out after 6 months and he's blown all his savings at the blackjack table and on cheap hookers, so he's either found some other type of work that pays decently or he's flipping burgers at Mickey Ds living in his retired parents basement mooching off their social security, or he's homeless living on skid row in LA in a cardboard box with a 6 pack of used needles next to his sleeping bag.

I was laid off for a year during low prices. I didn't do any of the things you have speculated on. And then a call came in one day and it was just back to the races. Only layoff in my entire career. Many of those I worked with when we were called back had similar circumstances. The game is known, and it doesn't involve the behavior of gamblers and addicts. 

Service company folks already know what the future holds for them with lower prices. Because it happens all the time. Covid for example. Happens to drill rig crews same as completion crews, dozer operators, landmen, only when it gets really bad do the owners of the oil themselves start to cut jobs. The number of people, including myself, who left the field for an office job paying 50% less, is innumerable.

When the opportunity presents itself, you make a choice. Leaving the field was the smartest thing I ever did, my paycut was 65%. But it opened up entirely new career paths.

Quote from: REFar as how much oil is available at what price, this impacts the finance drones who dish out a pile of money so a given service company will start up again to offer J6P Fracker his old job back.

Halliburton doesn't "start up again". It never stopped. It just shrunk. Schlumberger sold all its assets to Liberty. Smart cookie, the guy who runs that one, I've had meetings with him in his local office. And Liberty will be doing the same thing. The only question is how fast and thoroughly a company battens down the hatches. Work doesn't STOP....there is just less of it. Hence the layoffs, and occasionally they'll sell off equipment that is multi-use/ Dozers, trucks, cranes, etc etc.  They can always buy more when activity fires up.

Quote from: REIf the prediction is for high prices with plenty of oil available at said prices, the drone sees big profits and $$$ signs flash before his eyes and happily dishes out the money.  If on the other hand the prediction is for low prices with only 3 billion measely barrels available to frack up at a profit, he's not so willing to fork over the money for Joe's salary and leases on equipment etc etc etc.

The industry doesn't function on predicted prices from others, they are quite capable of doing their own crystal ball reading. And then they prepare for it. They also use some of those quite sharp tools of stochastic modeling to decide when and how much to cut/sale/buy/hedge  as they have been taught by certain industry experts.  ;D.

Quote from: REThus you get guys like this service company CEO moaning about the price and trying to figure out how he's going to keep his company going ad pay the mortgage on his $1M McMansion and the Tuition for his kids private school.  I feel really bad for him. lol.
RE

Perhaps I need to contact him to help him through tough times, as it sounds as though he really hasn't reached the level of major operator yet.

Quote from: TDoS on Nov 09, 2024, 07:30 AMI was laid off for a year during low prices. I didn't do any of the things you have speculated on.

Of course you didn't.  World class experts like yourself can shift gears, take a desk job, lecture at a college for a year, take a sabbatical and cruise the Grand Canyon on your Harley with your genius kids before sending them off to college, the world is your oyster!  You really should give the  poor despondent CEO a call and tell him how this is probably the greatest thing to ever happen to him, he can be just like you and be a big success in any career at all!  Your greatness and resilence knows no bounds!  Yellowstone could blow and you would forge a new career as a volcanic ash salesman.  ::)

Really, is there any topic you can't turn into an opportunity to brag about how great you are?

You are back in the cooler for violating the no bragging rule.

RE

(https://d32r1sh890xpii.cloudfront.net/news/718x300/2024-11-11_k5rbgy8tyg.jpg)

Currently at $68.  I wonder who still makes a profit when the price drops into the $50s?

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/WTI-Breaks-Below-70-as-Demand-Concerns-Drive-Bearish-Sentiment.html

WTI Breaks Below $70 as Demand Concerns Drive Bearish Sentiment

RE

Quote from: RE on Nov 11, 2024, 11:14 AM(https://d32r1sh890xpii.cloudfront.net/news/718x300/2024-11-11_k5rbgy8tyg.jpg)

Currently at $68.  I wonder who still makes a profit when the price drops into the $50s?

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/WTI-Breaks-Below-70-as-Demand-Concerns-Drive-Bearish-Sentiment.html

WTI Breaks Below $70 as Demand Concerns Drive Bearish Sentiment

RE

Socialization for the rich.  Taxes will subsidize the extraction of every last drop.  The crisis of 2008 showed what the FSOA is willing to do to keep the gravy train of our elite going.  As long as there are proles too stupid to wonder about the big picture, and rich narcissists to exploit them.  The game goes on.

Global fossil fuel subsidies on the rise despite calls for phase-out (https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-rise-despite-calls-phase-out-2023-11-23/https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-rise-despite-calls-phase-out-2023-11-23/)

It is capitalism and die.  The decision has been made.  Fundamental changes that could save the day will not be made.

Old newz.

https://www.dw.com/en/what-is-peak-oil-and-when-will-we-reach-it/a-70645124

What is 'peak oil' and when will we reach it?

RE

Quote from: RE on Nov 23, 2024, 01:57 PMOld newz.

https://www.dw.com/en/what-is-peak-oil-and-when-will-we-reach-it/a-70645124

What is 'peak oil' and when will we reach it?

RE

A collection of opinions without science of any kind.  Feel good propaganda.

Renewables are not replacing fossil fuels, all you have to do to blow these dumfucks away is cite this.


Atmospheric CO2

October 2024     422.38 ppm
October 2023     418.82 ppm

Annual change:     +0.85%

Fossil fuel use is accelerating.  This article is propaganda to put the sheep asleep.

Quote from: K-Dog on Nov 23, 2024, 10:51 PMRenewables are not replacing fossil fuels...

Fossil fuel use is accelerating.  This article is propaganda to put the sheep asleep.

Indeed.  The collective Energy Jones of the Post-Industrial AI Dependent Techno-Futuristic Billionaire Wet Dream* society is so insatiable in its demands for ever more gigajoules of energy it requires not only every drop of oil that can be fracked out of rock but also paving over entire ecosystems with PV panels and wind turbine arrays turning flocks of geese into airborne sushi.  The idea that there really are limits to energy consumption on a finite planet still is not grasped by the smartest guys in the room as they lead the sheeple on the yellow brick road to inevitable collapse and Everlasting Doomnation*.

Each day now as we move forward, there's some location where the city looks like it just had a fly-by Close Encounter of the Third Kind.


It won't be long before were all Cubans.

*- I'm claiming Coinage on these phrases.  You heard 'em here first.  8)

RE

Not many frackers making a profit at those prices.

https://www.investing.com/news/commodities-news/brent-to-average-65-wti-to-average-61-in-2025-bofa-3742319

Brent to average $65, WTI to average $61 in 2025: BofA

RE

Quote from: RE on Nov 27, 2024, 08:31 AMNot many frackers making a profit at those prices.

https://www.investing.com/news/commodities-news/brent-to-average-65-wti-to-average-61-in-2025-bofa-3742319

Brent to average $65, WTI to average $61 in 2025: BofA

RE

I won't call the article interesting, that is too generous. To me it is a large mathematical equation put into words.  It this happens, that happens and so on.  No real info.

Quote from: RE on Nov 27, 2024, 08:31 AMNot many frackers making a profit at those prices.

https://www.investing.com/news/commodities-news/brent-to-average-65-wti-to-average-61-in-2025-bofa-3742319

Brent to average $65, WTI to average $61 in 2025: BofA

RE

+6 years, about to be +7 years past peak oil....and DAMN are low prices not part of the Happy McPeakster program!!

But those kinds of prices will likely bring about lower drilling activity, lower US production...and we'll all get to revel in another US peak oil!

Good thing all us geriatrics probably don't need to worry about it much, having lived through all the other peak oils it is just a bit difficult to get excited about yet another one. 

(https://d32r1sh890xpii.cloudfront.net/news/718x300/2024-11-29_7owchjdsy4.jpg)

Well, that's a good deal higher than the BoA estimate.  Who is closer to the mark?  $74.53 for Brent according to the Reuters pol of expert analysts or the BoA analyst's price of $65 for Brent?  That's nearly a $10 difference. WTI @ $70.69 or $61?  Since we have our own world class expert, finally here's something we can hear a worthwhile opinion from him about.  ;D

A difference this big obviously has a huge impact on how many holes will get drilled and how much money the banksters will dish out.  If BoA thinks the price is gonna be $65, they're not gonna float loans to anyone who needs $75 to make money.  This indicates that the Reuters experts are the SUITS sitting on the driller's side of the loan officer's table and the BoA expert sits next to the loan officer on his side of the table. The expert the driller's hired has to convinmce the loan officer that the expert they hired is wrong. lol.

Or more likely, they don't even bother going to BoA for a loan, because BoA has telegraphed to everyone what price they will loan money for, so if you can't come in with oil at that price, don't bother coming in for a tet a tet.

In any event, at least we can leave the Peak Oil question behind at last, although I'm sure the term will still pop up from time to time.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Analysts-Cut-2025-Oil-Price-Forecasts-Again.html

Analysts Cut 2025 Oil Price Forecasts Again

RE

Quote from: RE on Nov 29, 2024, 08:47 AMIf BoA thinks the price is gonna be $65, they're not gonna float loans to anyone who needs $75 to make money.  This indicates that the Reuters experts are the SUITS sitting on the driller's side of the loan officer's table and the BoA expert sits next to the loan officer on his side of the table. The expert the driller's hired has to convinmce the loan officer that the expert they hired is wrong. lol.

Only lol to those who have never played the game perhaps. Both sides pay well, but obviously those with a widely known reputation and past performance to back it up tend to be taken more seriously than Joe Expert. Because not all suits are created equal.  ;D 

So who's expert do you think is closer to the target?  You're supposed to be the best suit at the table according to you.  Inquiring minds want to know.   If you don't answer or equivocate, you get cooler time.  What good is having an expert here if we don't get expert opinions?

RE

Quote from: RE on Nov 29, 2024, 12:07 PMYou're supposed to be the best suit at the table according to you.

I am not a suit. Money handlers, insurance salesmen, bankers and financiers, lawyers. Never done any of that in life.

Quote from: REInquiring minds want to know.  If you don't answer or equivocate, you get cooler time.

But of course.

So..here we go.

The standard 6 variable model used to do this type of projecting involves 7 main components, requiring they are ranked in order from most important in terms of overall uncertainty for a given scenario to least. Each of the 7 are then assigned a weighting range, the sum of which on any iteration must equal 1.0. This means that in any given run, by the time the probabilities are calculated from most to least uncertain, if that number exceeds 1.0 on any given run, the remaining 1 or 2 might be entirely eliminated from the calculations.

Brent prices in US$ and all underlying variables examine data from both prior model runs and now historical results and project from them forward. One of the most important of the 7 inputs is the squared deviation from the past 12 model runs compared to what is now history...when running the current month and moving forward in time. High detail information like country level production is grouped into logical regions in order to improve overall run times of the simulation. Some parts of the model are data, some are derived more from a delphi approach, for example expectations of world oil balances in terms of production based on data and expectations of demand based on historical patterns which result in forward looking world storage balance changes. Changing storage balances act as a overall gauge of the supply/demand balance. Stated OPEC guidance is within the model, as are what is called "unstated" guidance which is designed to match actions as oposed to just words. Exogenous events can work their way into now and future casting as well using similar modifcations to the appropriate category among the 7. The weighting and order for the 7 can be adjusted as necessary. Expected forward year oil intensity of national economies is a relatively new addition with the growing offset of energy once hydrocarbon based now something else (renewables, substitution of non-hydrocabon based fuels, etc etc).

Prices are the changing variable to reach a required equilibrium point on each iteration. Iteration results in terms of price required to balance all weighting and other conditions results in a single output, 5000 iteration is usually reasonable for the resulting distribution to stabilize.

These are the monthly expectations of price and probability for 2025.

(https://chasingthesquirrel.com/doomstead/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCWg1b6B.jpg&hash=fdbf72ded6f25a44f5a8ca1be843a9483df94045) (https://imgur.com/CWg1b6B)

If you look carefully, of note is that the thin white line across the middle (or close to it) of the box part of the plot is a median, and the eye should be able to pick up naturally that more than 50% of the date tends to reside on the lower side of the medium Brent price for any month. Downside risk is more apparent over the coming year than upside. 5% of the data is above and below the visible data, but 90% of all prices lay between the maxima and minima vertical lines. Also of note is the tendency for late next summer after demand tends to slacken as it does seasonally, prices do not look to recover to the same levels as they are expected to enter 2025. Because all the fractiles of these probability constructs are known, they can be compared directly at each 1$ point, and the odds then calculated as to the over/under at any point in time between months if there was an interest.

The question you asked wasn't about sochastic model results for 12 months in 2025, but what is the average price for the entire year. To plenty of people this is a single number. A single number for those who can't handle sharp objects is pretty standard. I'm betting that folks don't show you what is being provided here because I know I am not the only one doing it. But we all dumb it down to single numbers for internet denizens, newspapers, 2nd grade readers and suits and whatnot.

In order to create a reasonable annual average from 12 distinct distributions of probability, you use all 12 monthly distributions to create a single annual average, and just run 5000 iterations to populate another distribution for the annual answer. And then you present that distribution as the answer for annual oil price....while keeping the proper uncertainty contained within all of the 12 months.

So my answer for the most likely price of oil (in this case a mean) in 2025 based on all the individual months and their accompanying uncertainty is $65.83, give or take. Using that as a reference point on the graph you can then eyeball for yourself the accompanying range and probability of 90% of most outcomes for 2025. Only a 3% chance of the price being more than $70, but it does exist.

(https://chasingthesquirrel.com/doomstead/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fw5PlHxe.jpg&hash=6f8f05f4322e48d160439868237351eaed37aea3) (https://imgur.com/w5PlHxe)

What are the variables and how do they relate to each other.  Can you write the relationship as an equation?

Quote from: K-Dog on Nov 30, 2024, 10:41 AMWhat are the variables and how do they relate to each other.  Can you write the relationship as an equation?

A) Indeed. The Word document of documentation has 127 pages. 42374 words. Pages 94 to 127 are a detail of the more important variables. The file management of outputs chapter is about 6 pages long. All variables are not contained in that document, but more the concepts of their use. 

B) To which relationship do you refer? Because when it comes to the producing nations of the world, grouped into regions with assumptions of correlation, across the required product streams, demand/price relationships in the sectors, forward looking assumptions in changing variables with different rates of change, using various statistic techniques to create the best fit probability density functions to most of these moving parts, and so on and so forth. So...which relationship do you have in mind? But generally, no, equations are not utilized for relationships....probability density functions are.

As there are often no analytic solutions to the multiplication/division/addition/subtraction of disparate probability functions, a simulator is the only way to put them together to form a master output distribution of price from all of these underlying uncertainties, relationships and correlations.

As just one simple example, if you take two distributions, 1) a shifted, truncated lognormal of oilfield occurrence probability of field sizes classes and 2) a trianglular distribution of potential number of fields remaining generated from another process, you can't analytically solve for 3) the mean expected field size distribution of the resulting multiplicative combination of the two. 

Probability work is just so cool, but once the engineers bump into the non analytic nature of some of these types of statistics issues, they just want to spit. You can't blame them, they are designed for precision. Amusingly, even though they themselves are tied up in the certainty, they can't avoid the uncertainty and are absolutely affected by it.

Have you ever heard of the asymmetrical stop-loss function?

True story. Being introduced around the office one day back when I started, the boss introduced me to the engineering group. The head cock of the walk was detailing how his refinery calculations had turned out to be within 0.2253546% of optimal, and the others were going around the room introducing what they did and doing the standard chest puffery of engineering precision and accomplishment, and then, me being the new guy, they offered the expected..."so...what do YOU do...?" and then 6 pairs of eyes are all just daring you to be a bigger stud then them.

I glanced around, couldn't resist the urge I display so often online and said..."well....I'm a DAMN good guesser". There were 3 snickers, fury from the eyes of Mr Cock of the walk, and the guy beside me burst out laughing. He then said...you guessed it...."well....isn't that why when we draw up the perfect bridge design  to hold the designed weight....WE DOUBLE EVERYTHING when we're done!"

The asymmetrical stop loss function.

True story.

Quote from: TDoS on Nov 29, 2024, 08:58 PMI am not a suit.

Do you wear a suit when you go to work?  If you do, you're a SUIT.  Since you advised me to wear a suit when I go lawyer shopping and you undoubtedly wear one yourself at any of the meetings where you do a power point with your stochastic models, I give it a high probability you meet all the criteria for being a suit.

Quote from: RE

QuoteInquiring minds want to know.  If you don't answer or equivocate, you get cooler time.

But of course.

So..here we go.....

So my answer for the most likely price of oil (in this case a mean) in 2025 based on all the individual months and their accompanying uncertainty is $65.83, give or take.

Fortunately I have good scanning skills and was able to skip reading the verbal diarea for the number, which is in close agreement with the expert hired by BoA.

So now the question is, WTF are the experts being polled by Reuters and pumped by OilPrice.com?  Clearly they are people trying to jawbone the price higher, since it's $10 higher than the model says is likely.

RE

Quote from: RE on Nov 30, 2024, 03:09 PM

Quote from: TDoS on Nov 29, 2024, 08:58 PMI am not a suit.

Do you wear a suit when you go to work?  If you do, you're a SUIT. 

I love your definition. I accept it. The last time I wore a suit was about 2-1/2 years ago. One of those big presentation deals that I'm not allowed to talk about. For the same reason I recommended you wear one when you pitch your big idea. Will wearing a suit for that presentation make you a "suit"? Because if it doesn't make you a "suit" by your definition, it doesn't make me one either.

Quote from: RESince you advised me to wear a suit when I go lawyer shopping and you undoubtedly wear one yourself at any of the meetings where you do a power point with your stochastic models, I give it a high probability you meet all the criteria for being a suit.

Except for the one I just mentioned. Prior to wearing my last suit for a business meeting, I think the last time before that would have been...ummm....slightly pre-Covid. Call it January 2020. So, if someone wears a suit twice in 4 years, does that make them a suit?

Quote from: REFortunately I have good scanning skills and was able to skip reading the verbal diarea for the number, which is in close agreement with the expert hired by BoA.

Who gives a shit. I don't do work to validate anyone else's work unless someone pays me to. Or asks nicely.  ;D Oh yeah, and what was their estimate of uncertainty around the number they provided?  8)

Quote from: RESo now the question is, WTF are the experts being polled by Reuters and pumped by OilPrice.com? Clearly they are people trying to jawbone the price higher, since it's $10 higher than the model says is likely.
RE

The results as provided from my system allow for a low probability above $70.  A whiff of chance close to $80/bbl for the year.

Quote from: TDoS on Nov 30, 2024, 03:43 PMWill wearing a suit for that presentation make you a "suit"? Because if it doesn't make you a "suit" by your definition, it doesn't make me one either.

Yup, it would make me a suit as soon as I drop on the uniform.  Just like you are a Cop as soon as you wear a cop uniform, even if you're just a security guard.  It means you take on the expected behavior and role of that type of uniform.  Which as I said was one of the reasons I quit the banking biz.  In that biz, you have to wear the suit every day, and it better not be a cheap one if you want to climb the corporate ladder.

Will I wear a suit when I go shopping for lawyers?  No, but I will go so far as to do "Business
Casual" with a collar shirt and tie and I'll wear real pants instead of my usual pajama bottoms, plus I'll wear the prosthetic leg under them and I'll put in my dentures too.  I clean up fairly well, and the "look" I will have would probably best be called Disabled Academic. lol.  I'll look like somebody's Calculus professor, which should work fairly well to convince the suit that I'm reasonably intelligent.

Quote from: TdosThe results as provided from my system allow for a low probability above $70.  A whiff of chance close to $80/bbl for the year.

Yes, I know and I agree.  The question is, who are the "experts" polled by Reuters that are quoted in the OilPrice.com article?  Who would make a prediction nearly $10 north of what seems likely?

RE

Quote from: RE on Nov 30, 2024, 05:44 PM

Quote from: TDoS on Nov 30, 2024, 03:43 PMWill wearing a suit for that presentation make you a "suit"? Because if it doesn't make you a "suit" by your definition, it doesn't make me one either.

Yup, it would make me a suit as soon as I drop on the uniform.

Well if that is how you allow a simple clothing choice to make the man as it were, then we are both asshole pricks and all the rest of it on your bad people connotation list. Welcome to the club!

Quote from: REI'll look like somebody's Calculus professor, which should work fairly well to convince the suit that I'm reasonably intelligent.

Confusing ones appearance with character, intelligience, honesty etc etc sounds like it falls within the scope of a solid stereotyping plan for sure. Were you taught this perspective by someone, or did you learn it on your own?

Because from one suit to the other, I went in exactly the opposite direction myself.

Quote from: RE

Quote from: TdosThe results as provided from my system allow for a low probability above $70.  A whiff of chance close to $80/bbl for the year.

Yes, I know and I agree.  The question is, who are the "experts" polled by Reuters that are quoted in the OilPrice.com article?  Who would make a prediction nearly $10 north of what seems likely?

Don't know. Don't care. Not my dog in their fight. Might know some of the BOA names...I've gone round with some of them before, folks in England, maybe a year or two back. Smart, knowledgeable, knew their way around analysis, seemed informed. 

But I'm not paid to match up against what newspapers print. They "know" as much stupid shit as the internet does with it comes to the intersection of science, analytic thought, analysis and econometric modeling. Throw in appropriate expression of outcomes and the playing field is relatively thin.

Quote from: TDoS on Nov 30, 2024, 06:04 PMWere you taught this perspective by someone, or did you learn it on your own?

Learned it over the years observing all the folks my dad hung out with, then the ones I met in HS, college and working world.  Each uniform accompanied a certain typical personality type.  Of course there are variations, and some people will change their behaviors depending on how they dress.  So they act one way when they dress to go to a party, another way when they dress for work.  Then what they become over the years tends to depend on how much time they spend dressed one way or the other.  Somebody who spends every day in a Suit and works 12 hour days that way becomes more like that uniform behaviorally than another who only does it periodically.  Same thing if it's a Cop uniform or a Nurse uniform or whatever.  Each uniform has a set of behaviors that accompany the uniform, and the people wearing it expect that.  It's why they wear uniforms, it telegraphs that information.  This is basic psychology.  The Fashion industry is built on this.

QuoteDon't know. Don't care. Not my dog in their fight. Might know some of the BOA names...I've gone round with some of them before, folks in England, maybe a year or two back. Smart, knowledgeable, knew their way around analysis, seemed informed. 

But I'm not paid to match up against what newspapers print. They "know" as much stupid shit as the internet does with it comes to the intersection of science, analytic thought, analysis and econometric modeling. Throw in appropriate expression of outcomes and the playing field is relatively thin.

It's an important detail because it's worthwhile to know who is pitching out clearly bad predictions.  Who are they and why does Reuters poll this particular set of experts, then publish the poll which a rag like OilPrice.com goes and reports?  They must be trying to influence investors, I can't think of another reason to do that.  So in effect somebody is perpetrating a fraud although you couldn't prove that legally.

RE

Quote from: RE on Nov 30, 2024, 06:42 PM

Quote from: TDoS on Nov 30, 2024, 06:04 PMWere you taught this perspective by someone, or did you learn it on
But I'm not paid to match up against what newspapers print. They "know" as much stupid shit as the internet does with it comes to the intersection of science, analytic thought, analysis and econometric modeling. Throw in appropriate expression of outcomes and the playing field is relatively thin.

It's an important detail because it's worthwhile to know who is pitching out clearly bad predictions.

"Bad" is a relative concept. $10 +/- in a given future year probably doesn't qualify.

Quote from: REWho are they and why does Reuters poll this particular set of experts, then publish the poll which a rag like OilPrice.com goes and reports?  They must be trying to influence investors, I can't think of another reason to do that.  So in effect somebody is perpetrating a fraud although you couldn't prove that legally.
RE

You presume intent where none may exist. If you aren't a big name (you seriously think Gail The Actuary is a name?) you might write for some of these rags because you get name recognition. The information they work with? Unlikely to be raw data. Scrape websites of companies and state web pages maybe? Might not have the skills to use it if they did. So they take free EIA/IEA/OPEC reports and data and weave a story as best they can. No rigging of market desires or anything else, just best efforts.

What do you think their information budget might even be? Next to nothing? Which is why they use all the free stuff, and oftentimes themselves read the writings of others, mix in some personal take or spin, call that "research" and write it up.
 
There are analysts out there who are just doing the best they can with what they've got. "Influence" investors? You don't think the investors who are good at what they do? I say those BCG folks are damn shitfire on top of things. And they know the difference between Gail telling them we are all doomed...because of high oil price...oops...no...because of low oil prices...oops...its about ALL energy....ad infinitum...and those worth top dollar for their work. And you don't find them handing that out for free.

Quote from: TDoS on Nov 30, 2024, 08:59 PMYou presume intent where none may exist. If you aren't a big name (you seriously think Gail The Actuary is a name?) you might write for some of these rags because you get name recognition. The information they work with? Unlikely to be raw data. Scrape websites of companies and state web pages maybe? Might not have the skills to use it if they did. So they take free EIA/IEA/OPEC reports and data and weave a story as best they can. No rigging of market desires or anything else, just best efforts.

What do you think their information budget might even be? Next to nothing? Which is why they use all the free stuff, and oftentimes themselves read the writings of others, mix in some personal take or spin, call that "research" and write it up.
 
There are analysts out there who are just doing the best they can with what they've got. "Influence" investors? You don't think the investors who are good at what they do? I say those BCG folks are damn shitfire on top of things. And they know the difference between Gail telling them we are all doomed...because of high oil price...oops...no...because of low oil prices...oops...its about ALL energy....ad infinitum...and those worth top dollar for their work. And you don't find them handing that out for free.

I never mentioned Gail Tverberg nor is her name associated with this article, which was written by the Ruskie girl over there, Tsvetana Paraskova.  WTF do you bring up Gail?  She's not involved in this at all.

Nothing exists in a vacuum, so I don't buy no intent as plausible.  Plus nobody asked for advice, they merely polled a bunch of "experts" who are anonymous and took an average from their responses.  So the question remains of who these anonymous experts are and why a poll is published with a number that is more than 15% off to the high side.  Reuters is a huge newz organization with plenty of money and resources to do research.   That's a huge difference for anybody who invests of course.  Big institutional investors with their own in house experts probably don't pay attention to this but these guys who pitched out those numbers are selling to somebody.

RE

Quote from: RE on Nov 30, 2024, 11:03 PMI never mentioned Gail Tverberg nor is her name associated with this article, which was written by the Ruskie girl over there, Tsvetana Paraskova.  WTF do you bring up Gail?  She's not involved in this at all.

I brought up Gail as an example because she the prototype of the "analyst" opinion written up in these articles...and her insipid analysis (https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Looming-Oil-Shortages-Could-Fuel-Global-Conflicts.html) continues to this very day. Tsvetana I have been watching for awhile as her articles show up there fairly often. She doesn't do pesudo oil/energy "expert" charade like Gail does, she sticks more to mainstream titles and ideas and just appears to fall into "normal writer without direct experience" type.

You were not specific about whom you presumed was trying to rig the markets, but Gail would certainly not be one of them obviously.

Quote from: RENothing exists in a vacuum, so I don't buy no intent as plausible.

Of course you don't. You have your way of figuring out problems, it has worked for you since you were 4 and smarter than everyone around you. You've decided you are correct, therefore you are correct. All quite self referential.

You asked a question and I answered it. Not from your position of believing in some macro level idea, but from direct experience. In your world, there is no reason to incorporate people with decades of experience in the undersanding of a thing, if you happen to believe it otherwise.

Quote from: REPlus nobody asked for advice, they merely polled a bunch of "experts" who are anonymous and took an average from their responses.  So the question remains of who these anonymous experts are and why a poll is published with a number that is more than 15% off to the high side.  Reuters is a huge newz organization with plenty of money and resources to do research.  That's a huge difference for anybody who invests of course.  Big institutional investors with their own in house experts probably don't pay attention to this but these guys who pitched out those numbers are selling to somebody.
RE

I know Reuters has money and resources. As does most everyone else in my arena of interest. So what? My job isn't to make money off of whomever speculating in the markets. My job is to do solid analysis upon which to make decisions, short the market, go long in the market, whatever. Renewable folks are also asking questions in my area of expertise.

It has been quite a change. I made a career starting out explaining why peak oil 20+ years ago was a crock, being right about that morphed into explaining how big shale resources could be and quantifying it as it was happening, and now the renewables folks are asking questions about flattening US production and the geologic and cost limitations, to find the point for renewables in various forms to undercut fossil fuels. And to some extent trying to figure out the next US or world peak oil to "pile on" as it were.

Quote from: TDoS on Dec 01, 2024, 08:31 AMOf course you don't. You have your way of figuring out problems, it has worked for you since you were 4 and smarter than everyone around you. You've decided you are correct, therefore you are correct. All quite self referential.

First you drag Gail Tverberg into this out of the blue and now you get all huffy because I find it unlikely there is no agenda underlying this poll?  None of this has anything to do with the article or the mismatch between the BoA numbers and the Reuters poll numbers.  You're just cluttering this up with irrelevancies to confuse the issue.  Enjoy the cooler.

RE

What does the argument about peak oil have to do with real world conditions?


The bailer is lowered into a slurry of oil and mud 1000 feet down.  Holes on the end are opened by a plunger that is pushed up when the bailer hits bottom.  An old engine from a dumptruck lifts the bailer up and it is dropped onto the retaining pond.  The plunger opens the holes when the bailer is dropped and oil squirts out like the money shot in a porn movie.  The oil slurry is put into 55 gallon drums, and the oil is collected from the top after it separates from the mud.

Another 55 gallon drum boils oil for distillation into diesel fuel and gasoline.  The Diesel is used to run the well.  The gas is used in motorbikes.

Saying all this is a bit messy is an understatement.  Local farmland is destroyed and the best minimum wage job around is working the oil.  There are no good jobs for the locals.  The locals do not know what peak oil is.  All they know is that they are screwed.

The Dutch started this clusterfuck over 100 years ago.

more:

The article leads with this:

Offshore oil projects are experiencing a resurgence due to higher prices

What higher prices are they talking about?  Today's price is $68, and it's been under $70 since mid November.  The EIA predicted a glut a few months back. The last time it was over $80 was in mid July.  This reporter is a tad behind the times.

It is of course not just the frackers that have high costs and relatively expensive oil, the same is true for the deepwater drillers.  At under $70 they aren't profitable either, so the wells will be shut in.

The oil also isn't really expensive, as I pointed out in a prior post.  Taking into account inflation, oil is actually cheaper now than it was in the 80s.  The problem is that everybody's credit line has been maxed out.  Industrial enterprises never really are profitable, theey basically just burn energy and turn natural resources into waste products.  Nothing of lasting value is ever created no "wealth" is produced.  Even the most durable goods end up as landfill eventually.  Skyscrapers eventually get demolished and replaced.  Carz and planes go to junkyards.

All of this is paid for with credit, the Petrodollar being the primary credit instrument for the last 50 years.  Every country and every corporation has borrowed against the future, and now just payin interest on all they borrowed before consumes their income.  So new credit is not being issued, the money supply iss not growing, and thus the oil price cannot go up.  Is there oil down there?  Sure, plenty.  It's just not profitable to pump it up or frack it out of the rock.

Credit is now being dished out to build renewable" energy production facilities.  Just as once the TBTF banks loaned money to drill oil wells, now they make loans to cover the desert in solar panels or floating windmills in the North Atlantic.  These so called "endless" energy production facilities are not in fact endless, they will be junk in 50 years time also unlessconstantly maintained and replaced.  Will people be able to afford the energy they produce to pay off the debt incurred to build them and the annual maintenance costs?  I doubt the credit scheme works anywhere near as long as it did for fossil fuels.  If you begin it with John D. Rockefeller, Standard Oil and Chase Manhattan, the Dollars-Oil credit scheme lasted about 150 years.  I'll be surprised if they get 20 years out of the renewables scheme.

As I mentioned in a prior post, the way the Energy Crisis is manifesting itself in the capitalist economy is as a Credit Crisis, and what we are beginning now is the Greatest Depression, one that will not end until Industrial Civilization has completely collapsed and at least 90% of the current population has bought their ticket to the Great Beyond.  Kuntsler called it the Long Emergency, which is a good way to describe it.  JHK is a jackass, but he's quite good at turning a phrase.

Cuba is the Canary in the Coal Mine, and over the next few years we'll see Cubas popping up all over the globe as various sovereign states lose their access to the international credit markets.  Where this is going to be most interesting is in Europe, because European countries are far more dependent on the industrial economy than Cuba.  Lights out for hours every day can be handled in Havana,  lights out in London, Paris or Berlin for hour every day will be anarchy.  No way will those goobermints last very long, nor will the EU.  This is why they are advising their populations to prep up.

Collapse has entered a new phase.  2025 will see big changes in many locations around the globe.  Break out the Popcorn.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/CyunwvfBIyohcttywatIZSx5_bnXC92h38vMe6DlRdtr4h_3EHak0IZSAERCCKFscTQ62W2ZN__1rewDYvZHIec-Aeg2RqL4tjrFJKLkl0YD)

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/A-Looming-Supply-Glut-Could-Undermine-the-Offshore-Oil-Boom.html

A Looming Supply Glut Could Undermine the Offshore Oil Boom

RE

Down to $67/bbl today!  Can we make it to the $50s?  How low can they go?

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-prices-dip-extended-opec-supply-cuts-highlight-weak-demand-2024-12-06/

Oil prices fall on supply glut fears despite OPEC+ output cut extension

RE

Quote from: RE on Dec 07, 2024, 07:21 PMDown to $67/bbl today!  Can we make it to the $50s?  How low can they go?

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-prices-dip-extended-opec-supply-cuts-highlight-weak-demand-2024-12-06/

Oil prices fall on supply glut fears despite OPEC+ output cut extension

RE

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/BTL/2024/01-brentprice/article.php

Quote from: K-Dog on Dec 07, 2024, 10:11 PMhttps://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/BTL/2024/01-brentprice/article.php

$79?  That's $14 over the price BoA came up with and Tdos came up with also in his analysis as most likely.  So it seems improbable because of that, and seems improbable also because of weak demand in China and the political mess in Europe.  The House of Saud is also slow with production cuts, so about the only thing propping up the price is fear of Vlad the Impaler and the usual Israeli-Palestinian nonsense.

I'm in the camp with BoA and Tdos.  It will be in the $60s IMHO.  Although it might touch 50s at some point, I din't think it can possibly stay that low very long.  We'd need a full on depression for that.  Which isn't impossible either, but I think it's still too soon for that.

Exciting times tho.

RE

Quote from: RE on Dec 01, 2024, 01:53 PM

Quote from: TDoS on Dec 01, 2024, 08:31 AMOf course you don't. You have your way of figuring out problems, it has worked for you since you were 4 and smarter than everyone around you. You've decided you are correct, therefore you are correct. All quite self referential.

First you drag Gail Tverberg into this out of the blue and now you get all huffy because I find it unlikely there is no agenda underlying this poll?

Gail was referenced as a specific example of the kind of "expert" that supplies articles to places that can't get their hands on the experts, or afford them, to get the quality of answers similar to the one I provided.

I don't get huffy. Ever. Has no place in the legal system as a defendant, doesn't work in the harsh reality of the oilfield, certainly scientific research cares NOTHING about emotion of any kind, and the obvious origins on your thoughts on market manipulation I've already explained.

Quote from: RENone of this has anything to do with the article or the mismatch between the BoA numbers and the Reuters poll numbers.

You asked for something specific from me, and I provided it, and to an order of magnitude of more precision than the ones you pulled from the press. You're welcome.

Quote from: TDoS on Dec 11, 2024, 05:19 PMGail was referenced as a specific example of the kind of "expert" that supplies articles to places that can't get their hands on the experts, or afford them, to get the quality of answers similar to the one I provided.

Well maybe, but she wasn't referenced here by name and I doubt she was one of the people polled by Reuters.  You already agreed Reuters has plenty of money and resources to afford quality experts also, so it's not a question of insufficient funds.  Therefore, there must be another explanation underlying the motive for publishing such a poll.

QuoteI don't get huffy. Ever.

You should read your own prose for tone.

Quote from: TdosOf course you don't. You have your way of figuring out problems, it has worked for you since you were 4 and smarter than everyone around you. You've decided you are correct, therefore you are correct. All quite self referential.

Huffiness in extremis. lol

RE

Quote from: RE on Dec 11, 2024, 07:46 PM

Quote from: TdosOf course you don't. You have your way of figuring out problems, it has worked for you since you were 4 and smarter than everyone around you. You've decided you are correct, therefore you are correct. All quite self referential.

Huffiness in extremis. lol
RE

Indeed. My observation of this personal characteristic of yours is now more than a decade old. And as it has been carved into your psyche from an early age, it is a powerful characteristic of how you work. Once that fact is established it can then be taken advantage of. If you can just be led to the point where YOU convince yourself you know the answer, it becomes immutable.

It isn't as though this hasn't been known forever.

1) "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake"
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Of course, you observe I know how smart I am and I observe you get huffy about it.  Has nothing to do with the reasons behind the publication of a Reuters poll that is so out of line with other easily found estimates of what the price will be.  Far as mistakes are concerned, we seem to agree Reuters made a mistake with their numbers and you made a mistake dragging Gail Tverberg in out of the blue and I admit to making a mistake trying to hold a civil conversation with you.  Otherwise I'm not sure how Sun Tzu's strategy is particularly helpful here.

RE

Quote from: RE on Dec 12, 2024, 09:40 AMOf course, you observe I know how smart I am and I observe you get huffy about it. 

I have no objection to your intelligience.Stupid people are far more likely to be uncertain in their thoughts and actions, and therefore more random in their responses to stimuli. Less predictable.  I revel in your certainty because of your intelligience. I've been working with people at least as smart as you since I graduated college and ran into my first Harvard grad oil company owner. And his CalTech cousin. And his Harvard law roommate. And the BCG folks who came up with the money to buy bankrupt oil companies which were then handed off to me to manage. 

Quote from: RE... I'm not sure how Sun Tzu's strategy is particularly helpful here.
RE

Indeed. Which is the entire point. 

Quote from: TDoS on Dec 12, 2024, 03:24 PMIndeed. Which is the entire point. 

No, the entire point is that we are being fed a bunch of bullshit in the dissemination of this Reuters poll.  Your predictable response to that is to distract from the point by making this about your strategic application of ancient Chinese war strategy to a personal war where I represent the enemy.

The distraction doesn't illuminate the topic, so there's no reason to further pursue the discussion.  However, you did manage to make it through this one without violating any rules seriously enough to warrant cooler time, which is some progress.  You may eventually make some kind of worthwhile contribution to a discussion.  Keep up the good work!   :)

RE

Quote from: RE on Dec 12, 2024, 07:25 PMNo, the entire point is that we are being fed a bunch of bullshit in the dissemination of this Reuters poll.
RE

Please provide your proof for that statement.

Other than you believe it to be true of course.

Oh good grief.  It's $15 more than your own analysis, the analysis from BoA and the analysis from the EIA of a glut in supply that will extend for a decade.  Then there is the current dogshit state of the Chinese economy and the economic basket cases of France and Germany.
                                                                                                                                                                   
That's enough evidence to convince me it's crap.

RE

Some folks from the old days are still around.  Gail Tverberg is still producing her actuarial charts and basically repeating old newz here, that we're on the per capita energy downslope and 2025 will see recession and an oil glut.

Her last chart seems to predict Nuke energy will take over and produce everything necessary when the FFs run out.  This does not seem likely.

(https://i0.wp.com/ourfiniteworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/hubbert-_nuclear_fossil-fuel-to-50001.png?resize=640%2C348&ssl=1)

RE

QuoteThere is no question that, in stark contrast to the climate-focused Biden administration, the people Trump is surrounding himself with will carry out the fossil fuel industry's wish list to juice oil production and demand for its products. They are poised to roll back regulations that favor electric vehicles and fuel-efficient hybrids and approve Gulf Coast projects to liquefy and ship natural gas abroad.

(https://chasingthesquirrel.com/public/pics/monopolybythedeed.png)

The 43 million is inaccurate but that is Ok.  I am not going to take the time and modify the card.  I am only expressing my feelings.  As I wonder about how the cosmos will deal with those who kill our future and ensure our demise.

Quote from: RE on Jan 06, 2025, 11:10 PMHer last chart seems to predict Nuke energy will take over and produce everything necessary when the FFs run out.  This does not seem likely.
(https://i0.wp.com/ourfiniteworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/hubbert-_nuclear_fossil-fuel-to-50001.png?resize=640%2C348&ssl=1)
RE

That isn't Gail's chart. It is Hubbert's chart. Are us old farts so challenged nowadays that we forget the work of great scientists and assign it to retired actuaries who predicted global peak oil in 2008 and were so embarassed by their oily ignorance they had to create another website to hide from the laughter that ensued as to the exact level of "oil knowledge" that actuaries have?

Come on folks! We might be geriatric but we aren't REQUIRED to let our brains atrophy as well!

Gail didn't create oilprice.com, she's not even on staff there.  They just pick up her articles occassionally.  She still runs her blog Our Finite World.

RE