Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

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

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby AdamB » Fri 06 Oct 2017, 11:46:39

StarvingLion wrote:You're all 6 months away from your new careers:

Rock Throwers


That is what you were claiming a year ago when you said money was worthless. And then ran away and hid when I was able to prove it by trading it for an automobile. You wouldn't happen to be part of the Harold Camping group of predicting the end would you? It would explain why it doesn't phase you in the least, always saying things that aren't true, and predicting things that don't happen. As Rockman would say, LOL
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby AdamB » Fri 06 Oct 2017, 11:48:52

Outcast_Searcher wrote:There you go again. Speaking of broken premises (or claims) WHERE ON EARTH do you get this 342% debt to GDP ratio you keep citing?

If you're going to toss out such statistics, without meaningful definitions or credible sources as "facts" to base your arguments on, why should any aspect of your arguments be trusted?


You need to trust him because spreadsheet told him it was true. Until he finds out that the problem is really he can't do math and get it into the spreadsheet, in which case you just need to wait a year before even he can't keep up the facade any longer and admits that he doesn't know math, but it is the spreadsheet's fault, and just wait till he makes up something else.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby AdamB » Fri 06 Oct 2017, 11:53:17

ralfy wrote:It's not a doom spin but common sense.


Name any LATOCian, EVER, that could do common sense. Just one.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby AdamB » Fri 06 Oct 2017, 12:23:55

StarvingLion wrote:BW Hill is at least 40 years late in calling the End of the Oil Age.


128 to be precise, based on J.P. Lesley calling it in 1886.

But doomers don't discuss (most likely because they never bothered to learn, or re forbidden by dogma..see etp) the history of their religious beliefs.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby AdamB » Fri 06 Oct 2017, 12:34:31

shortonoil wrote:
Presently I find it hard to imagine oil at 26 dollars a barrel in 2019.


It wasn't long ago (Feb. '16) that people found it hard to image that oil would hit $28. Our imaginations have been a little unreliable over the last few years.


In March of 2015 the San Joaquin chapter of the API had one of their nice monthly meeting dinners, and we had invited this speaker who was an upstream analyst from the EIA. He was directly asked this question, and after a moment's thought, decided that yep, oil could make it into the $20's, and he explained why.

Folks knew this a year before you even thought they did. Interesting that the experts know these things, but the excel spreadsheet incompetents hiding under a rock won't even come out from under it to learn these things. Same as your tuck tail and run routine when the real life energy modelers come to your town, right short? Heaven forbid they do the expected (riotous laughter) when you explain how your system, if it excludes data you don't like, uses old data when it is more agreeable than updated data, and excludes the right time sequence, and is run by your spreadsheets that can't understand basic units, delivers a result you designed it to deliver. 2+2=5 being the most succinct way to explain your system.

I recommend some meatspace interaction Short. You know...you come out from under the rock..learn...STUFF...and then you wouldn't say such ridiculous things all the time. I've got a number for a newbie intern PR flack at the EIA, you can give them a call, they undoubtedly know more than you do about oil field units, and probably can even give advice on how to do equations inside of Excel without bollixing everything up.
Last edited by AdamB on Fri 06 Oct 2017, 13:01:15, edited 1 time in total.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby StarvingLion » Fri 06 Oct 2017, 12:39:24

The Physics Collapse is preempting the Oil Apocalypse.

Remember over 10 years ago that Scam called Intel said the world would go multicore. 10 years later and there is no point going past 4 cores. They have been stuck at 4GHZ clock rate forever. This POS called Intel Heat Generating Corporation is the biggest scam in the history of mankind.

*Consumer* processor: i9-7980XE = $2000
Barrel of oil = $50

I guess those shit heads in the commerical banking "Industry" must no only be riding to work in an oxcart but are eating Intel microchips.

Then there is the Nuclear Scam that never goes anywhere except ("we will keep on burning a tiny percenttage of uranium and put the waste is dry casks). What a bankrupt sham.

Other than information storage, Physics has been a total goose egg for the last 50 years.
At least 6 Billion dumbshits will die in The Oil Apocalypse.
StarvingLion
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 929
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby pstarr » Fri 06 Oct 2017, 12:44:18

This post was made by AdamB who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
Top
This post was made by AdamB who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
Top
This post was made by AdamB who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
Top
This post was made by AdamB who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
Top
This post was made by AdamB who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

You need friends to talk to. Sadly, you are not our own friend :cry:
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26069
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby AdamB » Fri 06 Oct 2017, 13:08:27

pstarr wrote:
This post was made by AdamB who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
Top
This post was made by AdamB who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
Top
This post was made by AdamB who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
Top
This post was made by AdamB who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
Top
This post was made by AdamB who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

You need friends to talk to. Sadly, you are not our own friend :cry:


Thanks for demonstrating EXACTLY how your brain works as well.

Pstarr glance around. Spots information. Information involves logic, math, anything involving science or thinking, and brain instantly substitutes "mmmmmmmmmm", and pstarr happily goes along his way, secure in having not only NOT learned anything, but doesn't even recognize that anything NEEDED learned. So now the software does it for you, so you don't even need pattern recognition in your brain to activate before ignoring all the things you can't figure out or understand. In either case, sorry to have your daily routine of triumphant victory signs and happiness over local sea mammals, or spectating at todays forest clear cutting event.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby onlooker » Fri 06 Oct 2017, 13:14:45

Tick tock, White Lion you forgot the biggest scam Renewable. The Oil age gets closer to meltdown and with it the faintest chance of any mass transition
“"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: 7737
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby shortonoil » Fri 06 Oct 2017, 13:20:08

China is already a very large oil importer. The peak and subsequent decline that the government funded study predicts would make them ever more dependent on the cooperation of foreign countries. So you can see the logic behind China's current initiatives toward Russia and Saudi Arabia.


China must increase its imports because its largest field Daqing is in serious decline. Daqing was in serious trouble in the early 2000's with a water cut of 95%. It was brought back to life by a program of massive injection of emulsifiers. Like Saudi Arabia, China is now dependent on a Giant that can no longer be produced economically.

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/c ... nt-losses/

From Venezuela, China, the North Sea, and Saudi Arabia the Giants can no longer supply crude at a low enough cost to make them economical. This will become ever more evident in just the next few years. The oil age will not end for a lack of crude, it will end for a lack of economically produce-able oil. With a total process production energy cost of 57% of the energy content of the oil the future of oil is now cast in stone. Expect increasing stress in the industry, and the continual failure of oil producing states. We are now witnessing petroleum's final days.

http://www.thehillsgroup.org
User avatar
shortonoil
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4967
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby StarvingLion » Fri 06 Oct 2017, 13:36:33

"We are attempting an energy transition"

In the scam world of "Renewables", nobody pays any bills. Even in communist china the masses of junk windmills sit there with no use.

The Banking Swindles is going to "transition" from Coal to Coal but without the oil to dig it up and move it. So that doesnt work either.

Coal is going to power the trains and bikes.

Thats the transition. From cars to trains to bicycles.

First, have to bulldoze about 5 billion people into pits because they lost their sole income from oil. All those worthless phds from the useless universities...Neuroscientists...lol...there already is a boatload of failed professions.

Physician - Yeah the random glucose test scam ,,, these deadbeats may as well just give it up already
Physicist - they are probin the universe while the slums they inhabit are interested in facebook.
Engineer - Scamerica don't need no engineers because it demands an engineer free energy system.

Deep learning - that scam is for the useless gpus you need because the multicore scam never took off.
Airline pilot - ZZZZt
Bourbaki Mathematician - these retards see symmetries everywhere because thats the only methodology that can solve PDE's. Too bad nature doesn't care.

EconoDunce - Thats what BW Hill wants to be.

Slumlord - Now there is a profession for the 21st century.
Last edited by StarvingLion on Fri 06 Oct 2017, 13:40:40, edited 1 time in total.
At least 6 Billion dumbshits will die in The Oil Apocalypse.
StarvingLion
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 929
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby donstewart » Fri 06 Oct 2017, 13:36:44

China and Community Party Congress
There is another headline floating around 'China Oil Consumption Up Sharply From Year Ago'.

I am curious if the timing of the study has something to do with the upcoming Community Party Congress. If they plan to announce some different direction, now is a good time to have some data put in front of the party members and publicized. The physicist Robert Ayres has been in China in the last few years and views their massive road building projects as a waste of capital.

https://ruayres.wordpress.com/2017/02/0 ... for-china/
In my last post I explained why (private) investment the automobile industry was a huge win-win for the US in the early years of the 20th century, for reasons that do not apply to 21st century China. In fact, there are strong arguments that the overall impact of still more cars (and highways) in China will be more nearly a lose-lose proposition, the only winners being the foreign auto manufacturers.

You will also see a longer article explaining why the automobile related investment is a bad idea for China...in contrast with the situation ins the US in the 1920s.

Don Stewart
donstewart
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 673
Joined: Fri 16 Sep 2016, 03:37:24

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby StarvingLion » Fri 06 Oct 2017, 13:43:25

"Waste of Capital"....LOL

More like Capital Waste.

This shitfest isn't one bit different than the Albanian Pyramid Schemes. What killed that? liquid fuel shortage.

Thats all we are waiting for before this Gong Show Collapses. The stuff that comes out of your ass has more monetary worth than Bain Capital.
At least 6 Billion dumbshits will die in The Oil Apocalypse.
StarvingLion
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 929
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby shortonoil » Fri 06 Oct 2017, 15:24:33

I am curious if the timing of the study has something to do with the upcoming Community Party Congress. If they plan to announce some different direction, now is a good time to have some data put in front of the party members and publicized.


There is a good chance that China's imports are up because their own production is down. Daqing has had one foot in the grave for a very long time. It is also likely that they never completed filling their SPR. China's increased demand for oil (if it's true) is more likely a combination of factors than a growing economy.
User avatar
shortonoil
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4967
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby dirtyharry » Fri 06 Oct 2017, 15:25:20

WTI back below $ 50 . All those cheering when it was $ 51 ,please get some Viagra. :lol:
dirtyharry
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri 07 Apr 2017, 09:53:43

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby onlooker » Fri 06 Oct 2017, 15:34:25

dirtyharry wrote:WTI back below $ 50 . All those cheering when it was $ 51 ,please get some Viagra. :lol:

Yes, what truly counts is at the end of the year what the average from over the entire year has been for the WTI relative to the Etp MAP
“"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: 7737
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 06 Oct 2017, 15:56:33

Saudi Arabia the Giants can no longer supply crude at a low enough cost to make them economical. This will become ever more evident in just the next few years. The oil age will not end for a lack of crude, it will end for a lack of economically produce-able oil.


Perhaps you can back this up with numbers that support such nonsense.

Of the top ten giant fields in the world Ghawar, Abqaiq, Safaniya are in Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia has a breakeven (capex plus opex) cost per bbl of $9.90 (Rystad Energy). Kirkuk is a Giant located in Iraq has full in breakeven is $10.70/bbl, Burgan is in Kuwait where breakeven costs are $8.50/bbl and Gachsahran, Maru and Agha Jari are in Iran where breakeven costs are $12.60/bbl. Given Brent is trading around $56/bbl currently It is hard to imagine how this production from Giants is somehow uneconomic. Lets see at 5 MMBbl/d and a net return of ~$46/bbl Saudi Arabia is pulling in $230 MM USD/d from Ghawar. Perhaps a positive free net cashflow of $230 MM USD/d is not favorable economics in the ETP world but the story is a bit different in the real world. :roll:
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5415
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby pstarr » Fri 06 Oct 2017, 16:08:15

Saudi Arabia is broke. It produces 6.889 mbpd for exports and income. The rest of its production 3.181 mbpd is used up getting oil.

So the country has no money left over for debt payment, infrastructure repair or its vast military empire. SA is done.
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26069
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 06 Oct 2017, 16:57:09

Saudi Arabia is broke.


Yeah, right. Lets see their current foreign Federal reserves are at the same level as they were in 2011 and higher than they were when oil was at it's all time high in 2008. The drop in reserves is not all due to budget deficit either, a lot is said to be sale of foreign assets to invest in local financial companies that are intended to diversify the economy. And the country is now starting to take on debt instead of drawing down foreign reserves further and that debt is a measly 13% of GDP compared to the US where it is a whopping 106%. With the IPO of Aramco there is an ultimate potential to raise another $2 trillion or so.

If you think this is somehow "broke" you probably need a remedial course in basic economics.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5415
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby pstarr » Fri 06 Oct 2017, 17:02:11

How is SA not broke if it must plow all its oil revenue back into oil production? No money left over for crowd control and wahabanist education. Gotta drape the Burka's.
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26069
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Previous

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests