[jeromie]

I think a great deal of gas production will result from shale gas, tight sands and coal bed methane. Around 40 % of current US gas production is from these sources. The near term problem will be gluts that simply put off much of the gas production until GTL production is put in place.

I suspect gas will be second fiddle to oil itself unless demand increases. Just as an example, a lot of investments are being put into Bakken Formation oil. With a lot of success under the difficulties of tight shale production. However, just beneath Bakken might be the real bonanza. That is the Three Forks- Sanish Formation .
There is talk of a second Bakken of much easier to produce oil. Three Forks- Sanish will become a major producer.

Both taken together look like a double shot at production for any given well.

My view is, when necessity compels it, the US will produce what ever it has available.

[shortonsense]

As to unconventional gas, obviously only the " Sweet Spots" will be produced first. That alone would provide generations of gas. I speak here again of North America. Certainly other nations will do the same.

We had a conversation about just this point recently. You should look it up, it was interesting, particularly the part where UberDoomers claimed that it couldn't possibly be true, the reversal of Hubberts decline for American natural gas rates, that prices didn't mean anything because its the economies fault, and so on and so forth.

I quite agree with you about natural gas, the stuff is everywhere, and its been obvious since the 80's. Don't let the UberDoomers get you down...

[Tanada]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP6DhKGDzek

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1t4ue-W ... re=channel

Two very interesting youtube videos on Saudi's reserve.

I just rewatched these two videos from 2007 and find myself somewhat amused. Even nine years ago the MSM was pushing the idea that the oil age was over not because oil was near peak, but because people were conserving oil and driving less.

In Reality,
in 2007 the world was consuming 86.22 million/bbl/d
in 2015 the world was consuming 93.88 MM/bbl/d

Yet here again in fourth quarter 2016 certain sources are still pushing the idea that world oil demand is in terminal decline and within a few years the oil producers will all be destitute.

[Newfie]

It's truly amazinging. To me it seems so logical that webs e finite resources. I recall considering this as far back as high school in the 60's.

How stupid can people be?

Never mind!

[AdamB]

I just rewatched these two videos from 2007 and find myself somewhat amused. Even nine years ago the MSM was pushing the idea that the oil age was over not because oil was near peak, but because people were conserving oil and driving less.

In Reality,
in 2007 the world was consuming 86.22 million/bbl/d
in 2015 the world was consuming 93.88 MM/bbl/d

Yet here again in fourth quarter 2016 certain sources are still pushing the idea that world oil demand is in terminal decline and within a few years the oil producers will all be destitute.

Going back through this thread, it seems to me interesting that the OP, one of those who knew the location of where additional supply would come from, was banned for...being right?

Mr reserve, along with Mr Rockman and Mr Copious, have all had a piece of the puzzle as to why peak oil turned into something completely different than expected, and it would seem they all need to be feted for having resisted the near mindless adherence to the dogma of the time? Why is it that folks who knew, in advance, that peak oil would turn into such a bust (which also includes Spike I believe), aren't held up as fine examples of critical thinking and strength of character, to resist the poorly considered and now proven wrong ideas of the advocates?

[ROCKMAN]

T - "Why is it that folks who knew, in advance, that peak oil would turn into such a bust...aren't held up as fine examples of critical thinking and strength of character...". Perhaps because of "us" (the oil patch) not wanting the sheeple to truely understand the dynamics until "we" had sheared our fair share of the wool.

Much easier to point out the flaws of the plan AFTER those stock options get cashed in. And for those of us that weren't on board that gravy train we had to suffer being tagged "doomers". I still occasionally cry myself to sleep over those bad memories. (Do I even have to add an LOL?)

And thanks for the " critical thinking" but it didn't take much thinking to remember the 80's bust when the Rockman was driving a Yellow Cab at 3 am in Houston. Same ole sh*t...just a different decade. LOL.

[rockdoc123]

Why is it that folks who knew, in advance, that peak oil would turn into such a bust (which also includes Spike I believe), aren't held up as fine examples of critical thinking and strength of character, to resist the poorly considered and now proven wrong ideas of the advocates?

my posts are some of the first in this thread back a decade ago. I was always a proponent of the peak bumpy plateau based on my understanding of the complexity of the situation which included uncertainty with regards to reserve growth, timing of commissioning of new discoveries, political impacts on production and outside influences that could drive both price and investment amounts. That being said you have to remember that back when this thread started there was only a very few people who would have thought that unconventional production in the US could end up being as significant as it has turned out to be. I was working for a company heavily invested in the early days of shale E&P in Canada and the US and there wasn't anyone there who thought that. Maybe Aubrey McClelland had that view but I doubt it. In any event it was the shale impact that has largely changed the view of peak (coupled with the recession which drove away investment from ultra deep water). There were other impacts both political and economic that no one would have predicted back then either. So anyone who actually predicted we would be where we are now is almost surely suffering from the broken clock syndrome....right twice a day but for the wrong reasons.

[ROCKMAN]

"In any event it was the shale impact that has largely changed the view of peak...". Hopefully at a minimum more folks understand the relatively unimportance of the date of global PO. And additionally realize that on that date oil might be selling for $100/bbl or $30/bbl.

IOW moving further away from the bumper stick mentality of such a complex dynamic.

[AdamB]

"In any event it was the shale impact that has largely changed the view of peak...". Hopefully at a minimum more folks understand the relatively unimportance of the date of global PO.

Those are the folks saying it happened a decade ago Rockman. But those of us who see the prices at the pump understand, it was so unimportant, that real gasoline prices in my neighborhood are back to what they were in early 1970's. Unimportant indeed.

And additionally realize that on that date oil might be selling for $100/bbl or $30/bbl.

No, they don't realize that. When oil cracked $40/bbl a decade or so back people were crapping in their pants over what was claimed to be peak oil pricing signals. Peak oil wasn't supposed to be about low prices Rock, ever. That claim only came about when it happened a decade ago, and people suffered from a near meltdown of cognitive dissonance when prices went down from oversupply.

IOW moving further away from the bumper stick mentality of such a complex dynamic.

It isn't complex, to them, Rockman. Just slap a bell shaped on..anything...and then read doomer porn from the usual suspects while denying whatever reality presents itself when the expected happens...you didn't do it right. How many times has this pattern repeated itself? Peak oil was once cool...it caused grown men to bravely state how brave they were, preparing for their role in the fun horrors to come!

THE FIRE HAS BEGUN!!!!

(otherwise known as the supply response to price resulting in glut, and people of low tolerance for being laughed at taking the easy way out)

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/w ... corp.shtml

[Tanada]

Michael Lynch weighs in on the oil drivers with the incoming Trump Administration.

“The market is the elephant in the room,” said Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy & Economic Research, an industry consulting firm. “All this other talk about access to public lands and such for oil and gas, it’s a pretty minor issue.”

Although the Obama administration is often criticized by the fossil fuel industry, it presided over a boom that saw domestic oil and gas production soar.

The administration allowed a broad and controversial expansion of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which infuriated many conservation groups while it transformed parts of North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas and the Rockies into meccas for energy workers, and the United States became a powerful new global energy player.

“For a Democrat, he’s really been pro-oil,” Lynch said of Obama. “He’s been a lot nicer to oil than some Republicans.”

But the boom helped deflate itself by driving up supply and driving down prices for oil and gas. Around the same time, the administration began paying more attention to climate change — limiting emissions from power plants and methane from oil and gas production, removing certain public lands from energy development and rejecting or withholding decisions on projects such as the Keystone XL and Dakota Access oil pipelines.

Those efforts, which intensified in 2015 before the Paris climate talks, came to define the Obama administration in the minds of many in the industry.

Federal approval processes do take longer than state processes, which the energy industry often cites as sufficient. But complaints over regulatory delays have persisted for decades, through Democratic and Republican administrations.

“Twenty years ago, someone said, ‘The best day of your career is when you get a lease on federal lands and the worst day in your career is when you get a lease on federal lands,’ because it’s such a pain,” said Lynch, who favors a faster federal process.

Sarp Ozkan, a manager of drilling analytics for Drillinginfo.com, said with benchmark oil prices currently well below $60 per barrel, companies are inclined to focus on known sources such as the Permian Basin of West Texas rather than explore public lands.

But Ozkan did say Trump could make a difference. Should he approve a project such as the Dakota Access pipeline, for example, that could make drilling in western North Dakota more profitable at lower prices because transporting oil by pipeline is cheaper than by rail.

“You’re going to be focusing on what makes you the most money, what gets you the quickest return on your capital,” Ozkan said of industry.

This month, the global energy company BP announced plans to open an office in Denver. At first glance, the move might seem like evidence of the exuberance Sgamma described.

In announcing the move, BP, which will transfer 200 people from Houston to a new building in the city’s trendy Lower Highlands area in early 2018, said the decision was driven by its desire “to be closer to its substantial asset position in the Rocky Mountain region and an important energy hub of the future.”

But the company says that future took shape long before Trump stunned the world with his victory in November, that the move was motivated by the changing energy market not a changing administration and that it reflects a broader awareness that dependence on fossil fuels will decline as the world fights climate change.

“There’s an abundance of natural gas in the Rockies,” David Lawler, chief executive of BP’s Lower 48 division, said in an interview. “As a company, our strategy is to grow more toward gas. We see it as an environmentally friendly bridge fuel to the future as renewables become more important. It has a lower carbon footprint, and that’s part of our strategy as we go forward.”

Lawler, who grew up in Denver and graduated from the Colorado School of Mines, said BP was optimistic about the Trump administration but uncertain of what might change.

“We worked well with the Obama administration, and we look forward to working with the Trump administration, as well,” he said. “We don’t really see a red wellhead or a blue wellhead. We think it’s energy that’s vital to America and we want to provide that energy to America and do it in a way that protects the environment.”

http://www.greeleytribune.com/news/indu ... t-changes/

[Subjectivist]

Eight years of being ignored has not stopped him from making a pretty good living. He might be wrong in all the details but clearly he knows how to sell his opinions to people with money, including those in government.

[AdamB]

Eight years of being ignored has not stopped him from making a pretty good living. He might be wrong in all the details but clearly he knows how to sell his opinions to people with money, including those in government.

Are you suggesting that he called the bluff of peak oil advocates and got it right because he was paid to offer that opinion? As opposed to just being a pretty good energy analyst/economist and figuring it out for himself?

[Subjectivist]

Eight years of being ignored has not stopped him from making a pretty good living. He might be wrong in all the details but clearly he knows how to sell his opinions to people with money, including those in government.

Sounds like you admire the sleazebag?

I can fully admire someones accomlishment without thinking they are a good or moral person I should mdel my life after. Stalin and Kim il Sung made some wonderful accmplishments, but they slaghtered millions to make those goals happen.

[Subjectivist]

WHo would you say he is most like Pstarr? Not a world leader, I mean like analyst wise. I see him askind of the anti-CHris Skrebowski.

[Cog]

The good thing about the ETP doomers is they are predicting doom right away, instead of the usual ten years down the road doom. This gives us ample opportunity to point out their flawed predictions within a natural life span.