Quote from: RE on Feb 12, 2024, 06:17 PM

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 12, 2024, 03:51 PMIs it because by simply assembing them together in one place all the conspiracy angles and peak oil claims would be dispatched and we would know WAY more about remaining oil volumes than we should?

You think there is a conspiracy to prevent Peak Oil claims from being dispatched?  That seems highly unlikely, to be polite.

The full quote is:

QuoteData on one of those plays contained here. So the interesting point is...obviously some folks know quite well how much oil there is for a given price...but these constructs are HARD to find.
Is it because by simply assembing them together in one place all the conspiracy angles and peak oil claims would be dispatched and we would know WAY more about remaining oil volumes than we should?

First, I demonstrated that the capability of one government agency to know both size and profitable cost of some resource.  Could it be that they aren't worried about peak oil, exactly because they know just what is needed to make these calculations? And are softly giggling in their white tower over the nonsense spewing out over the internet, dating back 20+ years? Call it a conspiracy of the experts, in plain sight. They put their peak oil date out there back in 2005 or thereabouts, called it for 2037 with a scenario or two depending on those USGS estimates, if memory serves. They did this AFTER the USGS (Hubbert's world class geologic buddies) published their estimate of world oil resources in 2000. Combine the expertise of Hubbert's coworkers and best geologists in the country if not the world with the one government agency collecting all sorts of information allowing them to figure out costs for those resources and presto....the one gang that knew 20 years ago about all the peaker nonsense and just kept their mouths shut except for that one study. To date..the only gang from back in the early 21st century not discredited. Not the primarily internet based amateur hour folks and random academics looking to make a doom name for themselves (Guy "can I grief counsel you with sexy talk after scaring you my dear" McPherson) with cool website names. Or warmed over ex employed geologists from the 90's trying to make a name for themselves after their consulting gig with PetroConsultatns fell through?

Goverment secret? Or all us lunkheads too stupid to realize they already have revealed enough to prove their estimate of 2037 exists for a reason?

Quote from: REDrillers don't publish data on how much oil there is for a given price because they don't want other drillers to know how much a given spot has until AFTER they secure financing to lease it and start drilling it themselves.

US oil and gas companies report all sorts of things to the EIA. By law. Do you know everything they are required by law to report? Particularly the pieces that are propritary in the interest of national secuity? Do you think they would tell any of us if they did? Energy security for the country was the reason the place was stood up in the first place. I certainly don't know any of those answers. Do you think they would even tell any of us if they did? You look for the hints that they know plenty. I provided one. You'll notice that none of the information in the link I provided said WHERE the oil was. Just the overarching answer that peakers couldn't assemble with 20 years to do it. How much..and FOR how much. And they just casually roll it out in some publication as though "no big deal". For them, it might be just that compared to the amateur hour everyone else was getting hysterical over. 

The EIA doesn't give a crap about financing and whatnot, they aren't drilling for oil. They just collect info that allows them to say something that I've never seen a peak oil advocate kick out. You've been around for awhile, have you? The only one I can remotely think of, and containing orders of magnitude less detail, was put out by the IEA some decade or more ago. Other than that, none of the internet talking heads have anything to match that one, let along the one I referenced.

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 13, 2024, 03:31 PMOil prices look to have been assimilated pretty readily into the current economic conditions

If you consider exponentially increasing debt load to be assimilation everything is just peachy.  If drillers can borrow money they can't pay back to drill, then go BK and leave the bad loans to the banks and then the banks are bailed out by the government, you have a virtuous economic cycle!

Sorry Charlie, all that is happening here is kicking the can down the road a piece.  I'm living OK, but it costs $16K/mo for me to live in splendor.  This princely sum is paid by Medicare and Medicaid, which is being paid by debt financing.

So, if you are among the people who believe that deficits don't matter and you can live on credit forever then we have no problem at all.  I don't buy this economic bullshit.  You can beelieve whatever you want.

RE

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 13, 2024, 05:26 PMThe EIA doesn't give a crap about financing and whatnot, they aren't drilling for oil. They just collect info that allows them to say something that I've never seen a peak oil advocate kick out. You've been around for awhile, have you? The only one I can remotely think of, and containing orders of magnitude less detail, was put out by the IEA some decade or more ago. Other than that, none of the internet talking heads have anything to match that one, let along the one I referenced.

EIA information is only as good as what the oil companies give them, and the agency serves the industry.  Regulatory capture on steroids there, just like the SEC and investment banks.  The information they publish gets regularly revised later, usually in the negative direction.

Now, let me try to explain this in classical terms.  If you assume that shale oil and tar sands are distributed out globally in similar proportion to the NA continent, there should be even more of this stuff under the dirt of 4 other continents than under this one.  Then, given both the energy majors and the TBTF Banks are multinational, if there was profit in extracting this oil, the banks would still be loaning out money to them to pump it up.  But they are not.  Why?  Because they weren't making money on it here when they did it!  Lots of drillers went BK and wells were shut in.  They won't star lending money for this type of extraction again anywhere unless and until the market price goes up to $100 or more and holds there without the economy cracking.  There's no conspiracy here, it's just not profitable.

RE

Quote from: RE on Feb 13, 2024, 05:43 PM

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 13, 2024, 03:31 PMOil prices look to have been assimilated pretty readily into the current economic conditions

If you consider exponentially increasing debt load to be assimilation everything is just peachy.

I don't borrow to buy liquid fuels, and increasing debt load at the US government level doesn't have much to do with fuel costs as much as entitlement programs.

Quote from: REIf drillers can borrow money they can't pay back to drill, then go BK and leave the bad loans to the banks and then the banks are bailed out by the government, you have a virtuous economic cycle!

No, you have shareholders and investors who lost their shirts. Drake borrowed money to finish his namesake well in America. ARCO bet the company on the development of Prudhoe Bay.
If you can't withstand what it takes to be or invest in the oil business...I recommend taking up knitting or something.

Quote from: RESorry Charlie, all that is happening here is kicking the can down the road a piece.  I'm living OK, but it costs $16K/mo for me to live in splendor.  This princely sum is paid by Medicare and Medicaid, which is being paid by debt financing.

So good thing debt financing is keeping you in okay shape. Worked out okay for WWII in the US as well, selling debt to citizens in the form of war bonds and such.

Quote from: RESo, if you are among the people who believe that deficits don't matter and you can live on credit forever then we have no problem at all.  I don't buy this economic bullshit.  You can beelieve whatever you want.
RE

Deficits and debt have been with the US how many decades/centuries now? I believe they matter. And I believe they didn't end the world in WWII with wartime borrowing any more than in the 70's when the US came off the gold standard or the various recessions across your working career or mine, etc etc, borrowing continuing all along the way. The history to date of debt or financing or how oil companies work and have worked for centuries doesn't require anyone's belief..it just is. That history includes oil companies and their investors paying the price for their screwups and whatnot. Those consequences haven't hit the government because they make the rules, and can change them along the way. No reason to think if pressure moounts enough, they'll chanage them again to their own advantage, and not the citizens. Citizens will ultimately pay for those bad decisions, one way or another. Oil company debt is irrelevant in the greater game, has always been there, will always be there. I recommend not investing in them, can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen, etc etc.

Quote from: RE on Feb 13, 2024, 06:11 PMEIA information is only as good as what the oil companies give them, and the agency serves the industry.

Good thing the information no one else can get is put to good use then. And  no, the EIA wasn't created to serve industry, but lawmakers and the markets with inventory and good energy information and analysis when Jimmy Carter realized he wasn't getting it, during the 1979 global peak oil.

Quote from: REThe information they publish gets regularly revised later, usually in the negative direction.

Or not. They haven't revised their peak oil estimate, and it is the ONLY one still standing from all the early 21sst century bloviating on the topic. And they do revise estimates on information as it happens. Like ALL US estimates of oil and gas produdction back in 2010...oops...sorry but those were almost all revised upwards. Until the US became the world's largest producer of crude oil anyway.

Quote from: RENow, let me try to explain this in classical terms.  If you assume that shale oil and tar sands are distributed out globally in similar proportion to the NA continent, there should be even more of this stuff under the dirt of 4 other continents than under this one.

No need to assume...why would you when the last evaluation was done almost a decade ago? It was going on even before that. Turns out Russia, they are maybe even better off than the US when it comes to the conventional oil from shales needing pumpjacks as K-Dog has previously mentioned.

Quote from: REThen, given both the energy majors and the TBTF Banks are multinational, if there was profit in extracting this oil, the banks would still be loaning out money to them to pump it up.  But they are not.  Why?

Russia is under sanctions and has plenty of dicrete accumulations. Just as the US produced most of its oil from discrete accumulations before getting around to more expensive shale oil, Russia can certainly do the same. It isn't as though anyone is up to US standards of oil development since inception.

As far as profitable, the EIA reference showed exactly how much is profitable. And might know far more...but the thing we know for certain? You have claimed things aren't profitable...do you have any data similar to the link I provided showing how much was available per unit price, or did you just say that without any information such as that I provided?

Really, you are tiresome.  On the one hand you claim deficits matter, then say we had deficits in WWII and they didn't matter.  You talk out of both sides of your mouth all the time like this.  There's plenty of oil, but oil debt doesn't matter.  But you recommend not investing in them neertheless.  This is just complete nonsense meant to be confusing.  You don't use your CC to fill your tank, which is nice and shows you live within your means, but obviously since Amerikans have now worked up $1T in CC debt, they're not as good at keeping to a budget.

If you feel you need data to show that pumping the oil left underground isn't profitable at the current price, you are free to go find this data, I am not going to bother.  For me, it's just common sense that if there was profit to be made financing it, some banker would float a loan and somebody would go frack for it.

Far as the reason the EIA was created, that's no different than why the SEC was created.  The concept is to have a goobeermint watchdog.  In practice, both the SEC and EIA are fabulous examples of regulatory capture and the revolving door of private sector employees who take jobs with the government and vica versa.  The ratings agencies are the same way, Moody's, Fitch etc.  How they rate the bonds should tell the risk, but they just follow what the underwriter says.  If you haven't seen The Big Short, I suggest you watch it.


Honestly, I have nothing more to say to you.  You are convinced of your beliefs, and you ignore what's going on all around us. Your success rate convincing folks here of this belief is having zero success, so I suggest you try another website.

RE

A corollary to the price & profitability of oil and where it's located also explains both the current conflicts Ukraine and Israel.  Ukraine has little to do with ethnic Russians in Donetsk and Israeli bombing of Palestinians only slightly more about the animosity between Jews and Muslims.  In both cases it is about 2 neighborhoods critical in bringing Oil and NG to Europe at affordable prices.

Oil gets to Europe by 2 routes, either by tankers across the Mediterranean or by pipeline coming from Russia of from Turkey.

 

In the case of the tankers on the Mediterranean, that oil has mostly left from ports in North Africa, but sadly the Algerians, Libyans and Moroccoans are thin these days in their oil supply. Oil coming out of Iran will for the most part go through Turkey, and Saudi Oil cab go that way or it has to get to the Mediterranean.  Either it goes on a tanker and transits the Suez canal, or it goes out through Israel.  It crosses Gaza, and whoever controls that territory controls the transit fees.


Same is true for oil coming up from Turkey or from Russia.  Both transit the pipeline through Ukraine.  Whoever controls Ukraine controls those transit fees as well.  Which explains why Putin would much rather see Trump elected than Biden.  The Bidens are financially tied to Ukrainian interests.

Germany and the rest of Europe was solidly with the FSoA when they thought this would keep cheap oil flowing through Ukraine with a quick win, but the war has been expensive and sanctions against Russia has made oil expensive too.  They are now less worried that Putin will overprice his oil if he has Ukraine than Biden would.

Back when Kissinger Inc killed the USSR by underpricing the Russians with Saudi and FSoA oil, this side was in the catbird seat with the most cheap oil available.  Now the situation is reversed, Mother Russia is in the catbird seat.  Europe's loyalty to NATOs is only as strong as who will provide them oil at the cheapest price.  Thus the Ukrainians are running out of ammo.

The great geopolitical chess game of oil goes into the endgame. Henry is probably rolling over in his grave.

RE

Quote from: RE on Feb 12, 2024, 06:17 PM

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 12, 2024, 03:51 PMIs it because by simply assembing them together in one place all the conspiracy angles and peak oil claims would be dispatched and we would know WAY more about remaining oil volumes than we should?

You think there is a conspiracy to prevent Peak Oil claims from being dispatched?  That seems highly unlikely, to be polite.

RE

Oil companies compete with each other.  It is our capitalist system.  All companies must pump oil and generate revenue.  The more they pump, the more money they make.  There absolutely is a bias to suppress depletion data and exaggerate reserves.  Pump today because tomorrow you can't.  Somebody else will get the oil if you don't turn it into money first.  Capitalism is the institutional manifestation of the parable of the tribes.

1920's tech could not get todays' oil.  By the standards of 1920 we are completely out of oil.  The oil fields of that time by themselves could not keep one US state going.  Pick your state. 

The vicious circle principle keeps things going with advanced tech until oil production can't keep up with demand.  This is key.  Oil company executives are cheerleaders of the technical solution.  Technology bedazzles them.  Their business is all about tech.  They are the worst purveyors of hopium on the face of the earth.  On top of which they lie.  On top of which they own government.

When civil disruption DESTROYS the ability to use the advanced tech we already have, the world literally runs out of oil all at once.  Once billions start dying oil will not be pumped.  Chaos will rule.

Extinction baby, the Seneca cliff, and you did not think it could happen.

* That fucking talking chicken says more oil will be pumped in 2050 than is pumped now.  Natural gas condensates from fracked shale rock will give boundless new energy. 

How do you kill a cartoon?   The chicken has no accountability.

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 19, 2024, 11:10 AMExtinction baby, the Seneca cliff, and you did not think it could happen.

So you are now in the Extinction camp?  How long do you project it to take to get down to ZERO Homo Saps walking the earth?

RE

Quote from: RE on Feb 19, 2024, 11:21 AM

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 19, 2024, 11:10 AMExtinction baby, the Seneca cliff, and you did not think it could happen.

So you are now in the Extinction camp?  How long do you project it to take to get down to ZERO Homo Saps walking the earth?

RE

Not zero.  North Sentinel Island survives.

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 19, 2024, 11:28 AM

Quote from: RE on Feb 19, 2024, 11:21 AM

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 19, 2024, 11:10 AMExtinction baby, the Seneca cliff, and you did not think it could happen.

So you are now in the Extinction camp?  How long do you project it to take to get down to ZERO Homo Saps walking the earth?

RE

Not zero.  North Sentinel Island survives.

Then why did you write "Extinction baby, the Seneca cliff"? As long as there is a population somewhere with enough breeding pairs, rebound is possible.  Simply because this place is more isolated with stone age people than most doesn't make it the only possible location either.   There are numerous isolated stone age tribes sprinkled in remote places around the world, primarily in Africa, Indonesia and the Amazon.

Once all the ammo runs out and it gets down to primitive weapons, you'll end up with pockets of survivors who scavenge and find food sources. I highly doubt the whole of North America could go to ZERO in under a century, probably 2 is minimum.  You are becoming as alarmist as Dr. McStinksion.

RE

Quote"Extinction baby, the Seneca cliff"

From the point of view of someone who died in the middle of the siege of Leningrad humans were going extinct.  No difference.  Humanity as we know it teotwayki -> teohawki.  The End Of Humanity As We Know it.

The house burns down.  Some smoking embers remain, and things will never be the same.  The house still burns down. 

Obsession with absolute extinction is narcissism.

Well, to me the word "extinction" is not a relative term.  It's not "from the POV of the peoople who died off", it's a biological term that means there are no organisms of a species left.  Calling this an extinction is overly dramatic and alarmist.  It's a Population Knockdown, likely a very large one.

Civilizations don't go extinct.  Civilizations COLLAPSE.  That's the accurate term for TEOTWAWKI.

RE

If all humans are extinct there is no concept of being extinct since there are no humans brains left to think about what being extinct is.  Therefore, humans can only ever be in the process of becoming extinct.  Which we are. 

We can not ever be extinct because that would require a human to contemplate the reality of being extinct, which is not possible.  It can only ever be a relative term when extinction is applied to humanity.

Humanity is going extinct.

The definition exists whether people do or not.  Humanity exists as long as humans do.  It may be different humanity than contemporary humanity, just as Indonesian cannibals are different.  They are still humans though.

We can agree to disagree here.

RE