[TDoS]

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

Copy that. In the spirit of BlackWhite, problem solved for the US oil production problem! Feel free to refer anyone to it in its proper form.

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

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


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

[RE]

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

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

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

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



RE

[K-Dog]

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

And I too will no more beat this dead horse.

[RE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE

[TDoS]

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

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

[RE]

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

RE

[TDoS]

You are the one who always uses IEA data because their scientists are such recognized experts.

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

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

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

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

Now you say they're idiots. You can't have it both ways chief.

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

You have been outranked.
RE

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

[RE]

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

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

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

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

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

RE

[RE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

RE

[RE]

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

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


Let's go through these possibilities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE

[RE]

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

RE

[K-Dog]

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



Nuttin to worry bout.

[K-Dog]

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

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



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


H.R.2307 at the top of the graphic was yesterdays news.

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

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

[RE]

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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



RE

[K-Dog]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or not!

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

There should be a go fund Keith for my efforts.