Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby shortonoil » Sun 12 Nov 2017, 19:14:43

Quite an interesting supposition. Reflecting mostly that your idea doesn't appear to hold any water at all.


Obviously, your propensity for missing the obvious is resolute. No one put the oil that was pumped out back into the ground. It is gone! Human civilization squandered its one time allotment of wealth on war, and mobile tanks for soccer moms. The AdamBS of the world are the epitome of centuries of human stupidity and hubris, and this civilization is failing as the result!
User avatar
shortonoil
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 5082
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 12 Nov 2017, 19:33:59

Yes, thanks Short and Hills group for being at the vanguard of the truth as it relates to the state of the planets principal energy source. It is far from surprising that someone like Rockdoc would be skewering the truth. A whole career in the Oil Industry may be reason enough or continued participation etc. The same thing is and has been happening with regards to global warming. Much cover ups and obfuscation of the truth. The powers that be see no good reason to inform the masses and certainly have reasons not to. Perhaps they are willfully or not ignorant themselves. Whether a fast crash happens soon or not , our species is on a downward spiral that seems will see little to no respite
“"If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while counting your money"”
User avatar
onlooker
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7964
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby asg70 » Sun 12 Nov 2017, 21:01:41

donstewart wrote:The term 'addiction' is no exaggeration. The average consumer checks his or her smartphone 150 times a day


That may be true, and I have concerns about what the Internet is doing to our brains also (i.e. the shallows) but I don't see how this links up with the sort of topics relevant to this forum.

BTW, I would also attribute blind doomerism to the Internet as well. Note the degree of cherry-picking (typicaly zerohedge) that doomers do. People handpick their reality, whether it's overly optimsitic or overly pessimistic. The actual reality is somewhere in the middle.
Hubbert's curve, meet S-curve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby donstewart » Sun 12 Nov 2017, 21:53:26

@asg70
somebody posts the topic 'fast crash'. I don't know if they intend to limit the discussion to the geology of oil, the price of oil, the thermodynamics of oil, the geopolitics of oil, and so forth...or if they intend a broad discussion of things such as finance. In the real world, everything is connected to everything else.

If there is a turn away from the unicorns in the stock markets, then a lot of financial wealth will disappear. Or maybe the central banks will just increase the amount of stocks and bonds they are buying in order to keep the market rising?

The other connection is the provocative suggestion that, if one counts output the way Kuznets thought it should be counted, it hasn't been increasing in the OECD countries since about 1980. If one accepts that suggestion, even provisionally, then it requires changes to a lot of the mental models people have about what has been going on.

Don Stewart
donstewart
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri 16 Sep 2016, 03:37:24

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sun 12 Nov 2017, 22:14:22

Maybe you should bone up on some reservoir engineering. Take a look at the Stiles and Welge approaches to reserve estimation. They apply to before and after breakthrough. Then again maybe your supposed expertise is BS. Without even being aware of the importance of the Buckley-Leveret equation to reserve engineering you are obviously just another ignorant internet troll with excellent cut and paste skills. 


I’ve said this before dipshit. Each of these methods for estimation require inputs regarding various properties in including all of what I’ve pointed to above. Given no two reservoirs have the same mobility ratios or permeability, initial Sw, permeability anisotropy etc, etc. there is no common rule as you are trying to suggest. In fact you do not even know what the Buckley-Leverett equation is used for….it has squat to do with water drives but is used to calculate water injection efficiency in immiscible systems, not the same thing at all. And probably the one thing that Buckley=Leverett or Dyktra-Parsons or similar formulas used to predict water injection efficiency tell us is the overriding factor that determines the outcome is heterogeneity. And as I’ve said no two reservoirs are the same and heterogeneity in reservoirs means they can’t possibly behave the same. It is complete BS what you are spinning here. You’ve found a paper that you don’t understand and then misuse it to make a projection and an overriding assumption that is completely false and not supported by the paper you mention. In fact the paper you mention has absolutely nothing to do with natural water drives but is a paper studying water injection using dispersive gels in order to distribute injected water more uniformly throughout all reservoir layers. This is absolutely classic, you are suggesting to everyone here you are an expert in oil reservoirs and you don’t even know the difference between a natural water drive and water injection.

You do say the stupidest things. Of course, an oil formation comes with a gas cap. That does not make them a combination drive unless water injectors are put in place. They are then a water drive with a gas cap; just like almost every other field in the world. 


Are you a frigging idiot? You know nothing about this. A classic combination drive is an expanding gas cap with a bottom or edge water drive. Or a solution gas drive with an edge or bottom water drive. The energy in the pool is derived from both water support and gas expansion, this is classic basic reservoir engineering. Where do you get this crap? It is completely wrong. Every other field in the world? What kind of stupid statement is that? There are absolutely hundreds of fields that have no gas cap initially nor do they have pressure support from a bottom or edge water drive. Again ignorance of the subject but for some reason it doesn't keep you from spouting off nonsense.

You have to be kidding. Any ignoramus could conclude that if all that is coming out is water, there is no oil. As water cut goes up, oil production is going down


Here is what you said idiot.
Most of the world’s producing formations have already pasted their point of maximum production; that is water breakthrough


And that statement is complete crap. What about fields that have no water drive? What about the shale reservoirs? I can list off numerous fields in South America that reached their peak oil production with almost no water being produced. This statement is completely incorrect.

So lets add this all to the list of things you do not know about oil and gas
1. You don’t know the difference between a natural water drive and a water injection program
2. You seem to think all fields have water drives which is not the case, in fact the majority are a combination of gas cap expansion and gas depletion or gas depletion and water support. Natural Water drives are not common, everyone wishes they were as ultimate recovery is higher
3. You have this idea there is some magic rule of thumb for reservoir behavior. Nothing could be further from the truth.

So lets see I have 30+ years working with reservoirs and you have what? Some experience as a mining engineer? I guess people can believe your nonsense but it pretty much tells me the whole ETP thing is based on flawed understanding of the entire system.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5504
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Sun 12 Nov 2017, 22:19:11

donstewart wrote:The other connection is the provocative suggestion that, if one counts output the way Kuznets thought it should be counted, it hasn't been increasing in the OECD countries since about 1980. If one accepts that suggestion, even provisionally, then it requires changes to a lot of the mental models people have about what has been going on.

Don Stewart

And if we pretend like bogus alternate ways of measuring things are "better" if they imply doom, then we should use things like Shadowstats, and pretend like the US standard of living has retreated 75% in the past 50 years.
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4034
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby AdamB » Sun 12 Nov 2017, 22:40:00

shortonoil wrote:
Quite an interesting supposition. Reflecting mostly that your idea doesn't appear to hold any water at all.


Obviously, your propensity for missing the obvious is resolute.


Are you kidding? I spotted the nature of your random number generator in seconds, including your own reference that regression equations aren't predictive. I found all that obvious quite quickly. And now that the reviewers kicked your paper out for lack of validity, who might be reviewing it now?

shortonoil wrote: No one put the oil that was pumped out back into the ground. It is gone!


Quite true. And as long as peak oilers don't quantify the amount of oil in the ground correctly, they will continue to be caught unawares when their prognostications run afoul of reality for obvious reasons. You know, like your past claims for both peak oil and the resulting high prices and scarcity it was supposed to deliver?

Until you began using the random generator anyway.

shortonoil wrote:Human civilization squandered its one time allotment of wealth on war, and mobile tanks for soccer moms. The AdamBS of the world are the epitome of centuries of human stupidity and hubris, and this civilization is failing as the result!


Yes...you said that before when it was supposedly happening a decade ago. Do you have any equation to estimate how many more kick the can exercises will be required when your newest claims don't work out any better than the others?
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3156
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby Yoshua » Mon 13 Nov 2017, 02:56:36

The Model predicts world peak oil production from conventional oil reservoirs in 2005. World conventional peak oil took place in 2005.

Europe peaked in in 1995, reached a plateau and started its decline in 2000.



Image

US peaked in 1970 and started its decline the next year.

European and American conventional oil production history actually looks quiet similar to each other.

Image
Yoshua
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 05:45:42

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby Yoshua » Mon 13 Nov 2017, 03:52:44

Canada reached conventional peak oil in 1973 and the increase in production is coming from unconventional resources.

Image

Since a lot of heavy and unconventional oil production is today reported as conventional oil, there is no telling if conventional oil production is still on a plateau or if it's in decline.
Yoshua
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 05:45:42

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby Yoshua » Mon 13 Nov 2017, 04:01:24

The Model predicts the energy half way point in 2012 and falling oil prices from that point. The oil price remained high after 2012 but then started to collapse in 2014.

Image
Yoshua
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 05:45:42

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby shortonoil » Mon 13 Nov 2017, 09:04:24

With China now entering a credit crisis, and the spread between what the futures market is quoting for oil. and what refineries are willing to pay growing daily, the forward price of oil has no place to go but down. Plains all American is quoting a price that is almost $4/ barrel under today's market quotes.

China's unstable banking system, and huge debt (debt to GDP - 320%) means that Chinese growth is about to come to a sudden halt, and their ever increasing demand for petroleum will go with it.

CBB forecasts that either China will experience a significant slowdown in 2018, which will have ripple effects on world growth, or else it will face an even bigger debacle down the road. Both outcomes are bad news for the global economy.


https://dailyreckoning.com/warnings-china-beige-book/


The Middle East is reeling under the financial pressures caused by the already low price environment, and the oil wars continue. Tribal heads with ultra modern weaponry battle over the scraps of the remaining oil wealth as populations starve:

Image


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... s-blockade
User avatar
shortonoil
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 5082
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby asg70 » Mon 13 Nov 2017, 10:11:21

1) China slowdown = more oil for the rest of the world.
2) Oil producer countries suffering due to cheap oil? They made their bed. Now they get to sleep in it.

Either way, BAU rolls onward as always.
Hubbert's curve, meet S-curve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby BahamasEd » Mon 13 Nov 2017, 10:25:09

asg70 wrote:1) China slowdown = more oil for the rest of the world.
2) Oil producer countries suffering due to cheap oil? They made their bed. Now they get to sleep in it.

Either way, BAU rolls onward as always.



I hope so, I could use another year of BAU
BahamasEd
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Sun 17 Jul 2016, 19:44:57

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby shortonoil » Mon 13 Nov 2017, 11:08:03

It is almost a certainty that there will be weakness in demand from the largest economy in the world.

"US corporate leverage is abnormally high for this stage in the cycle and a handful of cash-rich mega caps are masking significant problems elsewhere."


To be fair, Lapthorne picks up on a point that was brought up by the IMF back in April, when it not only warned that over 20% of US corporations are at risk of default should rates rise even modestly,  but that the generous use of an average distribution when instead median is more appropriate, is masking some substantial problems below the surface, including the risks to US corporate from rising interest costs and possibly a reduction in
interest cost tax deductibility.


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-1 ... hey-appear

The economic malaise is spreading around the globe, and the price of oil will follow.

I hope so, I could use another year of BAU


The race is on! Either the petroleum industry collapses, or the monetary/ financial system. There must be an ETF that covers that eventuality. If there isn't, one will be coming soon.

http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_022.htm
User avatar
shortonoil
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 5082
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby donstewart » Mon 13 Nov 2017, 11:12:04

Short Term Outlook
https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com
A Spike to Puncture the Bubble?

Tim Morgan added his graphs of consumption and purchasing at the bottom of the article. You will note that the purchasing leads the consumption...which isn't much of a surprise. Morgan notes that purchasing is about to fall off its seasonal cliff. He thinks, based on his past experiences, that the phenomena may be important this time around...a regular seasonal effect amplified by financial effects.

Don Stewart
donstewart
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri 16 Sep 2016, 03:37:24

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby Yoshua » Mon 13 Nov 2017, 12:39:47

"The reduction of the dividend, really, is a product of where we are as a company right now," Flannery said during Monday's meeting. "We had a path of industrial cash flow that we thought would grow into that dividend, but it hasn't unfolded that way."

Instead, the manufacturer has, for a number of years, "been paying a dividend greater than our free cash flow," he said.

GE dropped 3.6% to $19.76 in New York trading early Monday. The company's shares had previously fallen 27% since Flannery's appointment, compared with a 6.3% gain on the S&P 500. 

GE had previously lowered the dividend only twice in its history, once during the Great Depression in 1938 and again in 2009 as Immelt shored up the company's cash buffers amid the global financial crisis. That reduction, from 31 cents a quarter to 10 cents, saved about $9 billion a year, GE said at the time."
Yoshua
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 05:45:42

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby shortonoil » Mon 13 Nov 2017, 12:42:03

2) Oil producer countries suffering due to cheap oil? They made their bed. Now they get to sleep in it.


Predators have no mercy for their prey! How is that some day I'll be a human thing coming?
User avatar
shortonoil
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 5082
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby asg70 » Mon 13 Nov 2017, 13:17:22

shortonoil wrote:Predators have no mercy for their prey! How is that some day I'll be a human thing coming?


I remember not so long ago you licking your chops over the prospect of "ragheads" or "camel-jockeys" or whatever racist terms you used getting what's coming to them when the house of Saud fails. So don't pretend to be a humanitarian. You want to see the world burn like most doomers.
Hubbert's curve, meet S-curve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby donstewart » Mon 13 Nov 2017, 15:53:07

Tim Morgan: Will Things Go Bang Soon?
https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com

Morgan's reading of the economy/energy history reads a lot like the ETP model...everything peaks around the turn of the century. From that initial agreement, there are divergences. The ETP model assumes that high oil costs will reduce the amount of economic activity, reducing the ability of consumers and producers to pay for oil, which reduces the price of oil, which results in the bankruptcy of oil companies and oil-dependent nations. Morgan seems to think that, similar to the run-up to 2008, oil prices will spike and then fall. Morgan seems to think that the central banks are starting from a weaker position than in 2008, so their ability to rescue the world is restricted. You will find a detailed analysis, using data from his SEEDS database.

As I write this, there are 3 comments, which outline various predictions, which, I think, illustrates that when it comes to crashes, they are, like the future, very hard to predict.

Don Stewart
donstewart
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri 16 Sep 2016, 03:37:24

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby pstarr » Mon 13 Nov 2017, 17:04:34

There will be a momentary oil-price spike (it won't disrupt the mean Etp curve). The world's economy has been skating on thin ice, is perilously close to an unacceptable $70/barrel crude cost that destroys demand and crushes growth. Lest we forget, $50/barrel oil is above the historical healthy $30/barrel regime that grew the world's economy for a century.

Now the only thing propping up demand has been the credit bubble, a call on future earnings and infrastructure repairs that won't ever be made.
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26304
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests