Demand destruction and economic fragmentation are the most likely outcomes.  That is the correct framework.

Can the global economy can survive the spike without triggering a cascade of defaults, policy errors, and de-globalization that permanently then lowers the oil price ceiling for years to come.  A market where people could buy oil products if they had money.  Which they do not as it has been all vacuumed to the top.

Your criticism of Berman is accusation without substance.  You have found no fault with his argument.  It appears your dislike of him seems personal.  Are you jealous?  You have not refuted the structural bull market critique, you only offers a reason to ignore the person making it.  But you do it without any bonafides of your own.  Making your criticism worthless.

Engage with the actual argument.  That a wartime spike in a debt-saturated economy will destroy demand before supply can respond.  Or admit you have nothing to add.

Quote from: K-Dog on Mar 31, 2026, 08:13 PMYour criticism of Berman is accusation without substance.  You have found no fault with his argument.

Maybe. But I have found fault with the pofessional mistakes he has made in public, in front of hundreds of people, or just tens, in national conferences.Or however many were on TOD and knew someone selling an amateurs perspective when it was announced.

What is your experience with his professional mistakes and their magnitude, to believe nothing more than his AI generated argument?

As I have mentioned, folks BELIEVE things they want to believe, first and foremost. Why? Because the scientific training and experience to test out a hypothesis is rare. I can name PhDs who lack such an ability.

Art is a history major for starters. And I caught him at a SIPES meeting not knowing that when it comes to the oil and gas industry as well.

In your world K-Dog, someone who claims to know something about electricity and doesn't know the different between voltage and amps, you take their word for wiring a circuit to your satisfaction do you?

Quote from: TDoS on Apr 01, 2026, 03:19 PM

Quote from: K-Dog on Mar 31, 2026, 08:13 PMYour criticism of Berman is accusation without substance.  You have found no fault with his argument.

Maybe. But I have found fault with the pofessional mistakes he has made in public, in front of hundreds of people, or just tens, in national conferences.Or however many were on TOD and knew someone selling an amateurs perspective when it was announced.

What is your experience with his professional mistakes and their magnitude, to believe nothing more than his AI generated argument?

As I have mentioned, folks BELIEVE things they want to believe, first and foremost. Why? Because the scientific training and experience to test out a hypothesis is rare. I can name PhDs who lack such an ability.

Art is a history major for starters. And I caught him at a SIPES meeting not knowing that when it comes to the oil and gas industry as well.

In your world K-Dog, someone who claims to know something about electricity and doesn't know the different between voltage and amps, you take their word for wiring a circuit to your satisfaction do you?

Past mistakes or a history degree don't automatically apply now. If his current argument is 'AI-generated' or logically thin, point to the specific place where it is wrong.  And what do you have against history degrees.

Quote from: K-Dog on Apr 01, 2026, 04:24 PMPast mistakes or a history degree don't automatically apply now. If his current argument is 'AI-generated' or logically thin, point to the specific place where it is wrong.  And what do you have against history degrees.

I agree that past behavior demonstrating a lack of critical thinking, consistent logical misfires and no discernable experience in the field of international anything combined with AI could certainly generate a conclusion some might believe is reasonable. Dr Campbell, Dr Hall, and Dr Bardi demonstrate that even advanced degrees are no defense against sometimes tripping over ones past conclusions, so there is no shame for a history major turned geologist to suffer the same.

I have nothing in particular against history degrees. As I have aged, a knowledge of history has struck me as evver more useful, and even in my field of expertise, occasionally critical. After all, if you don't know the history of a particular field of endeavor, how can you even know where to begin trying to advance an understanding in a particular field?

Can you imagine some almost PhD somewhere discovering e=mc^2 and getting all excited over the discovery, just KNOWING he/she would win a Nobel for it? Such a thing could easily happen except....then you learn some history and its an "aw-shucks" kind of moment.

Apparently though Art didn't learn much about the history of oil, or take to heart much from petroleum geologists either before making his proclamations.

Do you have your own evidence and logical assembly to support his claims (you not having the known history he does of screwing the pooch regularly), or do you just agree with his conclusions? You have your own history of course, but I haven't seen you do the embarassing nonsense and claims I've personally watched him commit.

However, to be honest, in your case there is a definitive history of political belief and action that indicates you are a deep down believers in certain concepts. Not that it interferes with your overall brain function, but lets say it might be accused of occasionally....coloring.....the certainty of your conclusions.

QuoteDr Campbell, Dr Hall, and Dr Bardi demonstrate that even advanced degrees are no defense against sometimes tripping over ones past conclusions, so there is no shame for a history major turned geologist to suffer the same.

You are preaching to the choir here, we all know the difference between highly educated and intelligent in the Diner, but that argument still suffers from logical fallacy.

Doctors (Campbell, Hall, Bardi) all having advanced degrees are presumably at the peak of rigorous expertise yet they still trip over past mistakes. Then it is expected and reasonable that a mere historian also trip over mistakes.  So no shame for someone with a different background to experience the same failure as experts.

QuoteDo you have your own evidence and logical assembly to support his claims.

I do not agree that it is my responsibility to do so in this argument as the burden to refute or defend :

QuoteEngage with the actual argument.  That a wartime spike in a debt-saturated economy will destroy demand before supply can respond.  Or admit you have nothing to add.

Is still on you.  The rest is gossip.

Quote from: K-Dog on Apr 01, 2026, 06:42 PM

QuoteEngage with the actual argument.  That a wartime spike in a debt-saturated economy will destroy demand before supply can respond.  Or admit you have nothing to add.

Is still on you.  The rest is gossip.

He can't.  Art is just making the same argument as Krugman & El-Erian.  PK has a Nobel in Economics and M E-E was CEO of fucking PIMCO.  Those guys have unassailable credentials.  TDos merely takes every opportunity he can to bash anyone else in the Peak Oil community with a different spin than his.  He always resorts to Ad Hom attacks to try and undermine their credibility.  At least Art isn't an Anonymous Troll poaching collapse  websites though, regardless of what he majored in at university, so his credibility here is orders of magnitude higher than TDos.  Besides  Art's analysis is the same as PK & M E-E, so it's 3 recognized, non-Anon experts vs 1 annoying Anon Cyber Troll.  I'll side with the 3:1 opinion as an Unrecognized Multi-disciplinary Visionary Genius Autodidact (UMVGA), making it now 4:1. 😁

RE

Quote from: K-Dog on Mar 31, 2026, 08:13 PMDemand destruction and economic fragmentation are the most likely outcomes.  That is the correct framework.

For you. Because as I've mentioned before, some folks start with an angle they like, and when someone like an Art is espousing a similar view, he is easy to agree with, and to defend his view regardless of demonstrable professional hiccups demonstrating a distinct lack of knowledge or prognostication abilities on his part.

"Most likely" is a great hedge. I'll bet you a years salary he couldn't calculate what the fractile of probability is for that statement. But is sounds like it is quite certain to be bad, doesn't it?

Quote from: K-DogYour criticism of Berman is accusation without substance.

My criticism of Art is based on facts, evidence, and his own long discredited OTHER claims, more in line with his masters degree if not his history one. Past bad acts on the part of a felon doesn't mean they commited their most recent crime, but it does factor into the odds of residicisim. History might not repeat itself, but when it comes to people and their habits, it most certainly can rhyme.

If a person demands you accept that 2+2=5 is that accusation without substance?

Quote from: K-DogYou have found no fault with his argument.

An argument it is indeed. He uses WORDS. Here are some at the beginning of the article.

"Oil is more likely to peak with the crisis and then follow a weakened global economy into a longer period of softness."

Not sure what peak he is referring to, certainly not the ones he was declaring almost 20 years ago now in World Oil. But a weakened global economy and a period of softness? I can buy that. But notice how it progresses to this.

"In a world constrained by debt, weak growth, and systemic instability, it is unrealistic to assume that capital cycle dynamics from decades past will repeat."

He doesn't prove the world is constrained by debt, he states it as fact. What is "weak" growth? Sure sounds like....GROWTH.....just not.. robust growth. Gee....weak growth before has certainly brought on the Apocalypse. Systemic instability! That one has me quivering in my boots! And all of this is mentioned...why? Because he has a strawman from others to attack, in order to sell what he has been selling for decades...some semblance of Doom!

There is a reason why the rubes love this guy. Have you seen how someone who doesn't know what his masters degree taught him pimps himself? His website is much better than it used to be. You think he makes much coin off pretending to just be the nitwit that declared the world ending and didn't know that the US could produce oil from shale? Nope..he is. ART BERMAN!


"World-renowned consultant? Check. Stellar keynote speaker? Undoubtedly. But above all, he's the energy world's unfiltered voice, seeing past the haze to what truly drives our global system: Energy is the economy."

Stellar keynote speaker! Every time I've heard him do a room he READS HIS SPEECH. He can't do off the cuff for shit, and when he tries, he gets facts wrong! Important ones!

Quote from: K-DogIt appears your dislike of him seems personal.  Are you jealous?

It is personal! It isn't as though geologists get much attention, but when they do, does it have to be some nitwit who doesn't know there is oil in US shales as opposed to the next Hubbert? At least Deffeyes had a functioning brain.

Quote from: K-DogMaking your criticism worthless.

Of course. Because believers do what they do, and if he was sucking his thumb and picking his nose while giving his talks while mumbling, it doesn't matter as long as they BELIEVE the words. Similar to religion I might add, belief is a tricky thing, and the first person it usually tricks is the person doing it.

I prefer science. If Art wants to collect a crowd that can think, he at least ought to throw the economic charts out there the way S&P and Rystad do. That's where the real money is....doing something right. Flashy websites though, well, the rubes go for that 9 times out of 10. The believers? 10 out of 10.

You admitted it's personal, which explains the focus on Berman's speaking style instead of the math.

You claim Berman didn't 'prove' the world is constrained by debt. Global debt is currently sitting at over 315 trillion That is roughly 3.30 times global output. Explain how a system carrying that debt survives a wartime energy spike without demand collapse.  Finding that ratio was not hard.  Perhaps it was your responsibility to find out how much debt there is.

Weak growth is growth lower than the cost of the debt. If the debt grows faster than the economy, the system goes tits up.

Pointing out that Berman was wrong about shale in the past doesn't change the current laws of thermodynamics,  compound interest, or the laws of the universe.

Engage with the actual argument.  That a wartime spike in a debt-saturated economy will destroy demand before supply can respond.  Or admit you have nothing to add.

You have not engaged with the argument.

Quote from: K-Dog on Apr 02, 2026, 04:25 PMYou admitted it's personal, which explains the focus on Berman's speaking style instead of the math.

Berman didn't do math. None. As I said...he only did argument, and appeared to change the severity of his argued claimed from the beginning of the article to the end.

If he tried, well, the last time I recall he got a petroleum engineer to help him out to make a Barnett argument. I forget the argument, only that he needed help to do decline curve analysis 101. DId that as an intern in college, extremely difficult. <giggle giggle>

Yes....Art....math.....things that make you want to go......hmmmmmm....

Quote from: TDoS on Apr 03, 2026, 03:43 PM<giggle giggle>

Really?   Behaving like a Jr High girl is going to enhance your credibility? 🙄

RE

Quotehe needed help to do decline curve analysis 101

You would know that how ?

Quote from: K-Dog on Apr 04, 2026, 06:32 PMBut did Trump ever read Heinlein?
When he could read.[/color]

I thought it was common knowledge that Trump doesn't read, so the most likely answer is, even though he can, he doesn't in general.

But such designed ignorance isn't a surprise, recently we discussed folks with PhDs who can certainly read, and do, but then demonstrate they can't think their way out of a wet paper bag.

Some can read, some can't. Either of these skills don't preclude someone from being able to think, critically, with purpose, to solve a problem or find a correct solution. 

Trump does not think critically, and considering he is the president of the US, and has functional illiteracy he can't understand what he needs to for the job.
If a president can't do more than understand 'See Jane Run" that means he can't read.

Your wording suggests that because he can't read he can think critically.  That makes no sense, and in fact reading enhances one's ability to think critically.  In general readers have larger intellectual worlds than non-readers.  There is a relationship.


Saying "some can read, some can't, but either can think critically" is misleading, because the ability to comprehend complex written material is prerequisite for most forms of informed, analytical thought.  Especially in areas like policy, law, international affairs, and being chief executive of the United States.

Someone who can only read "See Jane Run" has extremely limited cognitive inputs for decision-making at the presidential level.  Just being able to read Heinlein does not cut it at the presidential level, and I doubt Trump can even read Heinlein.  If he ever could, those days are behind him.

Quote from: K-Dog on Apr 05, 2026, 11:13 AM

Trump does not think critically, and considering he is the president of the US, and has functional illiteracy he can't understand what he needs to for the job.

Seems to me to be a given demonstrably seen in his behavior for awhile now. Like Biden there towards the end, but worse in weirder ways.

Quote from: K-DogYour wording suggests that because he can't read he can think critically. 

I had to leave that presumption in, yes. But not necessarily for HIM of course. Critcal thinking is a tricky thing, I'm working with someone right now who is probably near genius at coding and whatnot, mathematics, and can't for a second check their own work to realize that second order effects visible in her answers could be spotted by a first year engineering student. 3 Masters degrees this one has for crying out loud. The computer folks say her code is great...and creates 2+2=5 issues all over the place. Refuses to see it even after a 6 page memo with charts and examples. Weird.

Quote from: K-DogThat makes no sense, and in fact reading enhances one's ability to think critically.

All the reading necessary to get 3 Masters Degree's hasn't done it for my coworker, so I'll stick with my original implication. That and extensive experience studying the PhD's who "studied" peak oil.

Quote from: K-DogIn general readers have larger intellectual worlds than non-readers.  There is a relationship.

I can agree there would be a correlation. But that correlation certainly isn't 1.