[ennui2]

adam/ennui does not consider ideas. adam/enniu spews

"I'm just here for the yuks."

--Pstarr.

[dashster]

The book is now out. It has the crazy pricing of the digital age. They will print out and mail you a copy for $48. Now if you only need to access it on the web, they are willing to give you a discount $2.40. And 10 years from now used copies of the hardcopy will be available for $0.01 + $3.99 shipping, while the Kindle version will still be $45.60.


Contents
Figures and Tables
Forward by Leonardo Maugeri
One: The End of (Oil) Days
Two: Deja vu All Over Again
Three: Going Wrong with Confidence
Four: Abundance and Its Enemies
Five: The Hubbert Curve Ball
Six: Get Thee to a Statistics Class
Seven: Reserve Growth: From Small Acorns Grow Mighty Trees
Eight: The Strange Controversy over Saudi Oil Production
Nine: The Track Record of Peak Oil Theorists: Missed It By That Much
Ten: She Blinded Me with Science
Eleven: This Is Science? Poor Research Quality
Twelve: Motivations
Thirteen: Real-World Problems
Fourteen: The Red Queen: Running Faster to Stay in Place
Fifteen: Resources
Sixteen: The Cost of Production
Seventeen: How High Were My Prices?
Eighteen: Tipping Point for Prices
Nineteen: The Shale Revolution
Twenty: In Vino Veritas: Conventional Oil Production Outlook
Twenty One: The Design and Interpretation of Oil Supply Curves
Twenty Two: Lower Energy Prices: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Twenty Three: Assessing the Viability of New Energy Technologies
Twenty Four: Conclusions
Notes
Index

[spike]

Just curious, did anyone actually read my book? Mike Lynch

[spike]

Ha, ha! I apologize for the delayed publication of the book, but because it was very data intensive and with a large number of citations, production was difficult. And when prices fell, I had to revise the chapter about when prices would fall.

[ROCKMAN]

"...that rich oil man boss of yours? He has a price path in the future, he has to." He, like almost every company I've worked for over 4 decades, uses what the current oil/NG price might be with little or no future adjustment. He, like the Rockman, knows exactly what he doesn't know. BTW for those not aware US public companies don't get to pick the oil prices they use to calculate their book value...the govt via the SEC does that.

So the EIA is great at making 10 year forward price predictions. So in 1998 when oil was under $20/bbl they were predicting $145/bbl in 2008? And what exactgly were they predicting oil prices would be in 2018 back in 2008 when oil was $145/bbl. But tell me: let's try a 6 month projection: in late 2008 when oil was around $130/bbl did they predict the $38/bbl price we were getting just a half year later?

Looks like someone needs to work on their Internet search skills. LOL.

[AdamB]

Just curious, did anyone actually read my book? Mike Lynch

You know where you posted this, right Mike? Facts, data, opinions from actual experts, and worse yet a BOOK! But that means they would need to READ, and that sounds pretty serious and all...as compared to the general food fights that internet forums more closely resemble.

[ennui2]

I'm shocked that Mike Lynch has a membership on this site, let alone feels it's worth his time to post here, considering how few posters are left, assuming that guy isn't an imposter.

[StarvingLion]

considering how few posters are left

That other place (peakoilbarrel.com) isn't much interested in oil either:

Petroleum Thread: 43 posts
Non-Petroleum Thread: 289 posts

There all too busy debating how to best implement communism so that everything can be free.

[spike]

Actually, I was invited to debate people on this website some years ago, which is how I have membership on the site. And Pstarr, you rightly criticize my many failed short-term price predictions (which are included in my book), but don't discuss oil supply or any of my long list of research. Earlier on this thread you said of my book "I wouldn't give the book much credo. It can have no spine, no data, nothing" Essentially, you have beliefs and don't let facts get in the way. And yes, this is "that" Mike Lynch.

[Tanada]

Actually, I was invited to debate people on this website some years ago, which is how I have membership on the site. And Pstarr, you rightly criticize my many failed short-term price predictions (which are included in my book), but don't discuss oil supply or any of my long list of research. Earlier on this thread you said of my book "I wouldn't give the book much credo. It can have no spine, no data, nothing" Essentially, you have beliefs and don't let facts get in the way. And yes, this is "that" Mike Lynch.

Welcome back Mr. Lynch, on behalf o the owner, staff and members we like to have a broad range of viewpoints to stimulate good discussion.

[ennui2]

I mocked Lynch in one of my animated videos. I'm not exactly one of his groupies.

That being said, Lynch (and Yergin, who was the real whipping boy) had a role to play in countering Mad Max end-of-nighism. Considering that we're in a glut, the big problem isn't so much peak-oil denial as it's GLUT denial. You can't accurately forecast the future unless you're willing to see the present for what it is.

[spike]

Can I see the video? Mike

[ennui2]

Can I see the video? Mike

I took it offline and I don't think I have a backup copy. It was a response to one of your editorials that was flogging unconventional. Turns out you were right all along. It takes a certain level of maturity few here possess to admit being wrong, and only when you're capable of admitting being wrong is it possible to learn.

It's a lesson so few here understand.

Suffice to say, it was part of a channel I had called Business as Usual in which an uber-doomer "comes out" in the workplace. It was a way for me to say what I wanted to say to my peergroup without having to face ridicule. So the opening line went something like this:

"Hey, we're going to In-and-out Burger, wanna come? It's so tasty. How does that sound?"

And my doppleganger would say:

"Sounds kind of tragic to me" (his buzzkill catchphrase)

"Tragic considering that industrial meat production wastes so much arable land. And that's to say nothing of the methane emissions. We'll all have to go vegetarian or eat bugs to delay the inevitable die-off due to peak-oil, global warming, and population overshoot."

[pregnant pause]

...

"Hey, have you seen Bruno yet? I hear he pulls out his schlong. Can you believe that?"

That was a good 7+ years ago.

Since then there is more public engagement with some of these issues. During the Paris GW summit some of it bled into the office discussion, but the talking points always shift towards "It's just a way for the libs to control us" and "It's not as bad as they think it will be" and "the climate's always changing anyway" or (the final stage) "Yeah, we're screwed. (laugh) Eat drink and be merry." The one thing absent from any of these brief interchanges was the idea of anyone changing their lifestyle to tread lighter on the planet. All of these responses are meant to rationalize doing nothing.

[ROCKMAN]

"I'm not exactly one of his groupies." Oh, that reminds me I haven't done a head count in a while: all Rockman groupies please raise your hand. After all that's the only reason for anyone posts here, right? I know peripato is the second biggest attention slut here. Damn, probably going to put me on ignore for that. LOL

"Considering that we're in a glut, the big problem isn't so much peak-oil denial as it's GLUT denial." IMHO two sides of the same coin flipped by those who find the POD too complex to discuss. LOL

[ennui2]

POD isn't too complex to discuss. It's just erroneous.

[rockdoc123]

Spike. We had a number of discussions back when you posted here previously.

I pay little attention to price predictions simply because their are so many factors that come into play, many of which can't be quantified that it really comes down to guessing..a mugs game at best.

For all of pstarrs BS about failed predictions there were a couple you made back in a presentation from 2005 I find interesting:

SHALE OIL COULD BECOME IMPORTANT BY 2015

I had some involvement in shale E&P from 2004 onwards and back in 2005 it was largely viewed by most in the industry as an interesting distraction that would always be too costly. Your prediction was correct albeit about 3 years too late.

HIGH INVESTMENT NOW IS THE SEED FOR LOWER COSTS, HIGHER VOLUMES IN NEXT DECADE – HIGH PRICES FOR 2 MORE YEARS COULD BE BIG TROUBLE FOR OPEC LATER

Well you were right on this one, only it took a bit longer for it to happen. It took until 2013 for Saudi to see a lot of loss of market share, they of course reacted and we are where we are now.

I think an interesting discussion topic would be around your latest post at Forbes:

Why You Should Be Skeptical Of Consensus That Long-Term Oil Prices Will Bounce Back

My first question would be ...do you not believe in supply/demand balance and it's control on pricing? That is to say are you suggesting that once demand and supply come back into balance (sometime n 2017 I suppose) that price will not rise?