Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on April 23, 2015

Bookmark and Share

Overview of Our Energy Modeling Problem

Overview of Our Energy Modeling Problem thumbnail

We live in a world with limits, yet our economy needs growth. How can we expect this scenario to play out? My view is that this problem will play out as a fairly near-term financial problem, with low oil prices leading to a fall in oil production. But not everyone comes to this conclusion. What were the views of early researchers? How do my views differ?

In my post today, I plan to discuss the first lecture I gave to a group of college students in Beijing. A PDF of it can be found here: 1. Overview of Energy Modeling Problem. A MP4 video is available as well on my Presentations/Podcasts Page.

Many Limits in a Finite World

We live in a world with limits. These limits are not just energy limits; they come in many different forms:

2 We are reaching limits in many ways

All these limits work together. We can work around these limits, but the workarounds are higher cost–for example, substituting less polluting energy resources for more polluting energy resources, or extracting lower grade ores instead of high-grade ores. When lower grade ores are used, we need to process more waste material, raising costs because of greater energy use. When population rises, we must change our agricultural approaches to increase food production per acre cultivated.

The problem we reach with any of these workarounds is diminishing returns. We can keep increasing output, but doing so requires disproportionately more inputs of many kinds (including human labor, mineral resources, fresh water, and energy products) to produce the same quantity of output. This creates higher costs, and can lead to financial problems. This phenomenon is one of the major things that a model of a finite world should reflect.

Economists Views

Economists developed their views of the economy long ago, when limits seemed to be far in the distance. Thus, the models they built do not reflect the expected impact of limits. They are missing variables that would be needed to adjust for changes in the economy’s behavior as limits are reached.

3 Economists put together models

4 Economy will adapt

The story in Slides 3 and 4 tends to be true if we are far from limits, but is it really true when we are close to limits? Perhaps diminishing returns as we approach limits changes the results.

5 What is the real story

World Oil Situation as We Approach Limits

Perhaps we can get some indication of how diminishing returns are affecting the economy by looking at historical oil supply and prices. Up until 1970, US oil production grew quite steadily.

6 US oil production

After 1970, oil production suddenly began to decline. Oil companies did not expect such a decline; they assumed that oil production would rise endlessly. Once oil production began to decline, oil companies quickly began trying to find ways to fix their problems. One of these approaches was quickly to ramp up production in areas that they knew contained oil, but hadn’t previously been drilled. These included Alaska (northern United States), Mexico, and the North Sea. Oil production in these areas is now in decline.

Several ways were also found to reduce oil usage. These included change from oil to alternate fuels for electricity generation and home heating, and offering smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. With this combination of approaches, oil prices were brought down, most of the way to the $20 level (Slide 7).

The inflation adjusted level of oil prices is important because oil is the single largest source of energy use in both the US and world economy. If oil prices are cheap, it easy to grow food cheaply, and manufacturing and transport can be done cheaply. Because of this, the economy tends to grow. If oil prices rise, economic growth tends to slow, because the cost of many types of goods (including oil products, food, and building new homes) tends to rise faster than wages. It becomes more expensive to replace infrastructure such as roads and pipelines as well. The higher cost of oil effectively acts as a “tax” inhibiting economic growth.

7 World oil supply

Oil prices again reached a high level in the early 200os as we again began to reach limits of the amount of oil that could be extracted at the then-available price. This time we weren’t able to cut back on world demand, so prices tended to stay high. Instead, the big change made was in oil supply, with higher oil prices enabling (after a several years time-lag) greater production both from US oil from shale formations (called “tight oil” in Slide 6 above) and from the oil sands in Canada.

The question becomes: can the economy really function adequately on $100+ barrel oil? Or do the negative feedbacks from these high oil prices have too adverse an impact on economic growth?

8 Now oil price is too low

Slide 8 shows more detail regarding production and prices for recent years. We see that oil prices were generally rising up until mid 2008, and then dropped steeply. Prices rose again after several types of economic stimulus were added. More government spending was added, interest rates were dropped to very low levels and a program called quantitative easing (QE) began.

Prices stayed at a level a little over $100 barrel from January 2011 though mid-2014. More recently, oil prices have dropped to a little more than half of their previous level. This decline in oil prices appears to correspond to a time when world debt is not rising as rapidly: the US stopped its QE program, and China’s debt no longer rising as rapidly. Thus, some of the economic stimulus that helped hold oil prices up is disappearing.

The problem we are now encountering is not the high price problem that economists thought would bring on more supply. Instead, we are encountering a problem with oil prices that are too low for oil producers to make a profit. Such low oil prices can quite possibly bring down world oil production, because investment in oil production is no longer profitable. A person might ask: Is the low price situation we saw in 2008 and are encountering again in 2014-2015 what diminishing returns really looks like? Is the problem we encounter as we reach limits one in which oil prices drop too low, rather than rise too high?

In 2008, huge stimulus efforts were required to bring oil prices were brought back up to the $100+ level. Perhaps one point raised by economists (Slide 3) was correct: Maybe there is a connection between economic growth and oil demand. Perhaps the issue as we reach limits is that world economic growth sinks too low, and it is because of this slow growth that wages stagnate, debt stops rising quickly, and oil (and other commodity) prices drop too low.

Now let’s look at what some early energy researchers have said.

M. King Hubbert 

Many believers in Peak Oil theory consider M. King Hubbert to be the originator of their theory. It seems to me, though, that Peak Oilers have inadvertently picked up some of the economists’ theories, and mixed them with Hubbert’s theories.

9. M. King Hubbert

10 M. King Hubbert Model

11 Model applies when there is perfect replacemnt12 Hubbert understood need for perfect replacment

13 Believers in peak oil

It seems to me that the only way a Hubbert Curve might happen is if oil prices stay high, as we approach limits. That way, as much oil as possible can be extracted. If oil prices fall too low, then the decline may be much quicker. If low oil prices are a problem, above ground problems such as governments of oil exporting nations collapsing, or rising debt defaults leading to bank failures, may be a problem.

Dennis Meadows and Donella Meadows

Dennis Meadows led early computer modeling efforts at MIT regarding limits of a finite world. His wife, Donella Meadows, led the write-up effort regarding this model in a 1972 book called “Limits to Growth”. The model looked at physical quantities of resources, expected amounts of pollution, and expected population trends. The base model suggested that the world would start reaching limits in roughly the current timeframe.

16 Meadows Limits to Growth

In fact, more recent analyses suggest that the base model is more or less on track.

I don’t think that we can count directly on this analysis, however.

18 How will the situation work out

Charles Hall

Prof. Charles Hall has been one of the recent thought-leaders with respect to oil limits and how they might play out. He started work in the early 1970s as an ecologist, studying the energy patterns of fish. When he read about the possibility of energy shortages that might occur in the 1972 book Limits to Growth, he tried to adapt an approach used for studying energy patterns of fish to the world of energy production. The result was new way of measuring the efficiency of a particular energy product, called Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI).

20 Energy Return on Energy Invested

This idea was an advance when it was first developed, but it has a number of practical difficulties. One of these difficulties is that its usefulness is tied to a particular view of how oil limits will affect us, namely that prices will rise, and this will allow a slow transition to alternative fuels that are less favorable in terms of EROEI. On Slide 21, this is Item (2).

21 Two different modelsAt this point, it is my view that the EROEI approach to analyzing energy products can be misleading and needs updating. Energy extraction is much more complicated than the energy use of fish swimming upstream. The EROEI approach, besides being tied to the Peak Oil view of how limits will occur, is difficult to calculate. Different researchers get quite different answers, when analyzing the same energy product.

Furthermore, EROEI looks at a piece of energy costs (those involved with production at the well head), but how this piece relates to the total varies from one type of energy to another. It lumps together cheap energy and expensive energy. There are several other issues as well, with the result being that in practice, low EROEI doesn’t necessarily correspond to expensive to produce, and high EROEI doesn’t necessarily correspond to low cost to produce.

I should point out that the same problem exists with a wide range of similar metrics including Life Cycle Analysis, Energy Payback Period, and Net Energy. In practice, what seems to happen is that if an energy type is high-priced, the use of one of these metrics is used to justify its production, anyhow. Low EROEI (for example, of biofuels) does not seem to be a barrier to production, even though it was the hope of Prof. Hall and other EROEI researchers that this would be the case.

My Involvement in Energy Analysis

25 What exactly is the story

26 Correctly forecast 2008 collapse

I became acquainted with Prof. Lianyong Feng in 2009, when he attended the Biophysical Economics Conference in Syracuse, New York, held by Prof. Charles Hall, and heard me speak.

27 Photo of Gail Tverberg, Charles Hall, Prof. Feng

How Do Oil Limits Really Affect the Economy?

This is the question I have been working on. I will try to explain some of my findings in the next several sessions.

Early researchers were handicapped because the issue of oil limits crosses many different fields of research. They took approaches from their own areas of study, and worked with them. These approaches offered partial insight into the problem, but didn’t completely answer what might happen in the future.

It was not obvious to early researchers which parts of economists’ theories were wrong. I have had the benefit of seeing how the system works in practice in several periods: in 1973-1974, in 2008-2009, and now in 2014-2015. I have also been fortunate enough to find a number of recent studies that add new insights as to how the system really works. So I have taken a step back and developed at the least the start of a new theory, which is different from EROEI theory. This is what I will discuss in the next few sessions.

A little explanation behind this series of lectures and my four week stay in China is perhaps in order. When I was in China, Prof. Feng discussed with me some of his intent behind asking me to give this series of lectures. Prof. Hall is now retired, and there is no obvious replacement for him. Prof. Feng would like me to take a more active role is figuring out in which direction energy research should now be headed, both for his own staff, and for others around the world. A better understanding of how the system works could theoretically help researchers everywhere.

Our Finite World



38 Comments on "Overview of Our Energy Modeling Problem"

  1. Plantagenet on Thu, 23rd Apr 2015 6:59 pm 

    Actually Economists DO model in resource limits. Economic models hold that when a resource is exhausted or becomes too expensive, it is replaced with a lower quality but more abundant resource.

    When you look at oil depletion, economic models might suggest that when the oil glut is over and oil production peaks and then oil starts to decline in importance, it will eventually be replaced with natural gas.

  2. Makati1 on Thu, 23rd Apr 2015 8:24 pm 

    Waste of time to read. Another person trying to justify their income. Running around the world trying to entertain like minded dreamers with guesses and ‘suggestions’ that have no more validity than those of 1,000,000+ other ‘ivory tower’ intellectuals.

    No one wants to see the truth. That the end of BAU is near. That nothing is going to change that. And, that humans may be extinct by 2100 at the current rate of events. Or, if they are lucky ( which is questionable), a few remnants will survive in a much depleted and ruined world.

  3. Bandits on Thu, 23rd Apr 2015 9:15 pm 

    Mak you need to read it again. Tverberg sees “the truth” far more clearly than the vast majority. She offers no way out of the predicament, in fact she maintains there is none.

  4. justeunperdant on Thu, 23rd Apr 2015 9:30 pm 

    I stopped reading her 8 months ago because of what she writes on page 25: In 2008, I correctly forecast the collapse that took place.

    I am still amaze at the extreme vanity and narcissm of bloggers and human beings. I stop reading her because I thought she was just another vain and
    narcissist person blogging to satisfy her narcissism and moneys needs.

    I also disagree with her, i don’t believe the system will collapse because of debt, debt is a human concept that does not exist in real life like water, earth and plants.
    The system will collapse because of the lack of enegy to power the supply chain. Eventually shortage of gazoline and all kinds of goods such as car pars, potable water, chlorine will create chaos similar to what you see in Ukraine, Venezuela and Argentina. Japan has been in deflation for 20 years and they are still going because money is not real, it is a human concept. Banks are bankrupt since the collapse of 2008 and are still opreratioing by lying about their finances. I would not be surprise to see the Dow Jone going to 40 000 point while at the same shortage of gaz becoming the norm.

  5. dissident on Thu, 23rd Apr 2015 9:41 pm 

    And what would the more abundant lower quality energy source be? Economics is a pseudo-science. It does not conform to any physical laws. Physical laws are not optional and apply to all human activity, including our thinking and “creativity”. Economists also engage in grossly excessive simplifications. It is routine to ignore transients and pretend that equilibrium is basically instantaneous.

    Economists assume that the market chooses the best options and only the best products are on the market. The opposite is true since in the real world profit and power come before quality and value. The average consumer schmuck will swallow whatever trash is peddled as long as it is packaged right and he thinks he has choice.

    The world is sleepwalking into oblivion. The market isn’t some magic fairy that will solve fundamental problems that lie outside its existing mode of operation. This is something many worshipers of Mammon do not understand. It takes effort and decades of it applied on an epic scale to change the economy to stop using oil. This transition cannot happen in a few months or a few years.

    At least Tverberg is trying to wake people up.

  6. Energy Investor on Thu, 23rd Apr 2015 11:40 pm 

    Juste…

    I also forecast the 2008 bust. It was fairly obvious if one watched the procession of non-viable investment propositions that had triple A ratings and worked back from that to find out what was going down.

    But we all need to understand that it will be people like Gail who have the analytical skills and clarity of expression to explain the issue to the world’s decision-makers.

    The relationship between oil and the cost of running our society is complex. Those folk who look on oil as an energy source have gotten it wrong. It is as a fungible store of energy that it has critical importance. That is the reason why we depend on it.

    There are plenty of energy sources but only one high density portable energy provider.

    I enjoy Gail’s posts and I am grateful she takes the time.

  7. steve on Fri, 24th Apr 2015 12:32 am 

    @Juste yes debt is a concept just like fiat money is a concept…just like confidence in the system is a concept…but what happens when you lose it?…Panic and chaos and that is what we are coming closer to each day in the end you..they will not be able to control the fear…it has happened so many times throughout history and you will see it happen again my friend very soon. …..

  8. steve on Fri, 24th Apr 2015 12:35 am 

    that being said ..yeah Gail is on an Ego trip!

  9. theedrich on Fri, 24th Apr 2015 2:00 am 

    There is a serious blind spot in the Peakist arena that is rarely mentioned:  the fact that most Peakists are also leftists.  Their “solution” is for Whites to commit genosuicide by any means available.  Then all will be well, and the lion will lie down with the sheeple.

    Another item carefully avoided is the fact that nature abhors vacua.  When a powerful hegemon or dictator — however brutal — is destroyed, the result is seldom good (e.g., Iraq, Libya, Syria, …).  Moreover, democracies are beholden to their constituents:  both Democrat and Republican legislators mostly know the essential facts about the limits to growth, but (except for eye-glazing platitudes) dare not admit them to their respective electorates.  In addition, our own government, while making hay with identity politics and victim cards, is stealing the populace blind through all kinds of subterranean deals.  (Sometimes not even the New York Times will conceal them.)  Abroad, in the Mohammedan world, few jihadists (or their sympathizers) could care a fig about maintaining a Western lifestyle, no matter what their cowering subjects want.  And then there is Putin.  Et cetera, ad nauseam.

    Given realities such as these, mathematico-computer models of Peak and Decline would seem to be of moderate value in determining the precise time or manner of disintegration.  Their main advantage is in letting us guesstimate when the weakest link(s) in Liebig’s chain might give way.

  10. jimmy on Fri, 24th Apr 2015 6:23 am 

    @theedrich

    You’ve obviously never taken a physics course. Or any post secondary most likely. You’re obviously insane.

  11. Nony on Fri, 24th Apr 2015 7:09 am 

    Yawn. I wouldn’t trust Gail to make a basic Excel cost model of a paint shop. She’s a nut on the Internet. Babbling to other losers.

    She doesn’t know the most basic aspects of supply and demand (and shows it). She doesn’t know Hotelling’s rule.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling's_rule

  12. Davy on Fri, 24th Apr 2015 7:50 am 

    Gail is a great lady with a worthy message that normal people can bite into. How many people can taste Davy’s word salad doom and feel their hunger for the truth satisfied? The difference between her and I is she fits into the classic peer reviewed scientific discussion environment. I am just a loon on the margins preaching doom and prep. This allows me to say things she can’t. I have no reputation nor position to pursue. I am just another asshole flatulating a disturbing message.

    I did not predict 08 crisis but I was preaching the message of others predicting it from 05 onward. I was in serious doom and prep mode then. It was a big learning experience for me. I made significant changes in my life in preparation for a collapse. The collapse was averted and many of those changes I can look back on now as foolish and rash. Yet, they were a learning experience. I also gained some respect from family and friends for alerting them to these events. Few made changes but after the fact I had some consolation.

    Now many years into the new normal and possible new approaching crisis those cries of danger are lost in the noise of BAU. How easy it is to fall back into BAU’s spell. I personally feel it is my duty as a father, son, husband, brother, and friend to say something now. It is my nature to stick my neck out and expose my stupidity to alert people of the impending dangers ahead. These leaves one exposed to ridicule and derision but these things slide off me. I am insular in that respect being an introvert and self-confident.

    How can one ignore danger to one’s family, friends, and community? I am here now on this forum instead of sending monthly doom memos to family and friends as I did leading up to the 08 crisis. I am still ever vigilant and will alert family and friends when the time is right. I have toned down my volume. I am a maturing doomer and prepper. You can never prep enough and if you try hard enough there is endless doom out there. The message I give to prep novices be careful to not burn yourself up in such a passionate subject. Take it slow and within relative sacrifice to your place in life. Doing too much too fast is almost never the right way but anything is better than nothing.

    What I am trying to do now is just preach relative sacrifice and prep. I am saying doom and prep is legitimate. Doing something is profoundly important even if you are not sure about what you are doing. Having some momentum in the direction of preparation is so much more advantageous then being caught flat footed.

    I am saying this because we have little idea how these events are going to unfold. If you have some preparations you have some critical time to make some choices and more likely to make good decisions. I am also preaching a more spiritual life returning to what is IMHO a truer human nature as opposed to the BAUtopian mechanization and duality of false exceptionalism.

    Gail is preaching a good message for the mainstream and the academic circle. It is redundant for me because I read this poop daily. Yet, I am daily elaborating the same Davy doom salad in various tossed salads of doom to you all. Some of you I am sure have no more interest in doom salad but again I feel this is about committed, being consistent, and honest engagement. That is how messages get out and evolve. You folks have given me valuable insight that is why I am here every day. I hope I am helping some of you.

  13. Makati1 on Fri, 24th Apr 2015 7:56 am 

    Gail is not going to explain anything to anyone that cares, after the fall, as she will not likely survive the coming bottleneck. Too old and no useful skill in a world where money is just paper and trade is in physical necessities.

    Economists are no better then the charlatans of old. Making a living off of preaching pseudoscience to the ignorant masses instead of producing a necessary physical product. The new world will have no need for economists as there will be no economy to talk about and no method to get the word out to more than tribal members.

  14. Davy on Fri, 24th Apr 2015 8:28 am 

    Makster, she is younger than you. Did you just accidently fart out your future?

    “Too old and no useful skill in a world where money is just paper and trade is in physical necessities.”

    What do you know about Gail’s life? More cat piss from the P’s nutter.

    I would put my money on Gail before you. She is first of all a woman. That gives her a big leg up on you being a male at 70. Gail has friends and family and I am sure has invested in some prep. She probably has a nice nest egg to fund this prep. What do you have Makster an itty bitty social security check most of which goes to pay for a cheap Makati apartment? You deserted your family. Your friends are your pool buddies.

    Sorry, Makster, More anti-Agenda of anyone who may be doing better than you. You have to bash and trash anyone who may have the appearance of doing better than the nutter of the P’s. Go back down to the pool and drink some more San Miguel and day dream on that wanna-be farm over across the mountains.

  15. American Idiot on Fri, 24th Apr 2015 10:55 am 

    The real problem is, 99% of American Idiots don’t understand Peak Oil. Even most economists don’t understand Peak Oil. They have any clue what’s happening to them at all.

    It’s really funny when you see these idiots on TV talking about how we can GROW out of this economic mess.

    There is no growth, there is no future. They can’t face reality.

  16. Nony on Fri, 24th Apr 2015 11:59 am 

    Peak oil is in the trash. We are knocking on 80MM bpd world consumption up from 74 from mid 2000s. According to Campbell and Ace and Deffeyes and the like we were supposed to be dropping at 2% per annum since the mid 2000s. Sure has not happened. Peakers screwed up and refuse to admit it.

  17. shortonoil on Fri, 24th Apr 2015 12:46 pm 

    With production at 91 mb/d, selling for $57/b, the world’s petroleum producers are losing $1.3 trillion per year. The average cost to produce a barrel of oil is now in the $100/barrel range, and it is increasing with every new barrel added to the world’s accumulated production.

    To aggravate an already bad situation the economy’s ability to pay for oil is going down:

    http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_022.htm

    Oil production, and processing, distribution is the second largest industry on the planet contributing $13.8 trillion per year to world GDP. There is no doubt that the petroleum sector is in the worse position it has ever experienced, and that is not likely to be improving!

    http://www.thehillsgroup.org

  18. apneaman on Fri, 24th Apr 2015 12:57 pm 

    Nony, thanks for describing the PEAK.

  19. Makati1 on Fri, 24th Apr 2015 7:12 pm 

    Davy, I have life skills to share and am still able to dig a garden and tend it. I have done that for many years and don’t have a ‘learning curve’ to survive through. I can shoot to kill, if necessary (11 years military). Carpentry, plumbing, electrical, masonry, all skills learned to make a living over 50 years of employment. I can teach those to others. I can design and build a septic system, build a cistern, gut a chicken, fish, or animal. Cook over an open fire, make charcoal from trees, and do basic first aid. (military training again, as medical officer) My life has not been spent in some office or sheltered education system. I’ve even tended sheep on a sheep ranch and plowed fields with huge diesel equipment.

    Yes, I am 70 but I am not dead. Not even close. My family males all lived to be in their late 80s and two are over 90 and still living on their own. So, I think I will get to watch and experience a lot of our ‘future’. Duck & Cover!

  20. steve on Fri, 24th Apr 2015 9:37 pm 

    Look Gail used to talk about the collapse now she is working on BAU in China? She is now constantly talking about how brilliant China is….China is screwed in a PEAK oil scenario….so what is it Gail? She is no better than Chris Martenson…laughing all the way to the bank.

  21. Davy on Fri, 24th Apr 2015 9:52 pm 

    Mak, like I have said multiple times we could be drinkin buddies if you would lighten up. You have allot to contribute but you choose to trash and bash and talk yourself up. That is a classic description of a butt breath. Mellow out Mak and focus all that negative energy towards the positive

  22. Davy on Fri, 24th Apr 2015 10:03 pm 

    Steve, somehow I don’t think Gail is making much money. I imagine she has a nest egg from years of being a good employee. Personally I think Gail has an important place in the doom movement. I imagine she is doing some prep but I have not read anything from her.

    She appeals to those people that are squeamish with the subject of doom. Frankly it is not a particularly inviting article especially with all the BAUtopian training we all have with TV, movies, and culture. We have been trained to be optimists with faith in technology and progress.

    Doom is failure of all we have been taught. Doom is about ugly, pain, and less with less. Doom is sacrifice and acceptance of death. That is so far from what BAU preaches. Gail is touching on these subjects without being too offending. Davy doom on the other hand is vulgar, offensive, and in your face rude. It has to be at this point. It is like the guy that panics about jumping into the water from a flaming ship. Sometimes you have to slap people to get them out of their mental paralysis.

  23. Makati1 on Fri, 24th Apr 2015 11:58 pm 

    Davy, we have no idea what Gail’s net worth is, but I bet she is not hurting or even close.

    I made my decision on where to ride out the storm, as did you. That I talk positive about my location only explains my reasons for being here. I would not even go back to the States if my 89 year old mom was gone. There is nothing that would make me want to be caught there when the SHTF.

  24. rockman on Sat, 25th Apr 2015 3:56 am 

    “There is a serious blind spot in the Peakist arena that is rarely mentioned: the fact that most Peakists are also leftists.” Every geologist and reservoir engineer I know believes in PO including in 1975 when my first mentor at Mobil Oil explained the PO path he saw us on then. And I don’t know a single oil patch hand I would describe as a “leftist”.

  25. rockman on Sat, 25th Apr 2015 4:00 am 

    BTW not only didn’t say the oil production rate curve wouldn’t be symmetric he specifically said it would have a long tail. In fact symmetric distribution of any metric in the oil patch is very rare.

  26. rockman on Sat, 25th Apr 2015 4:26 am 

    I was referring to Hubbert. He also specifically said his projection of US oil production rates did not include yet to be developed trends. His stat applied only to those mature US oil trends he analyzed.

    Much of that attributed to Hubbert is incorrect mostly because folks are reading what others tell us he said instead of reading his actural report.

  27. marmico on Sat, 25th Apr 2015 5:56 am 

    His stat applied only to those mature US oil trends he analyzed.

    Interesting ex-post rationalization. The Bakken (shale oil) was already producing in 1956 and he was aware of the oil shale (kerogen) and tar sands. Hubbert’s paper. He got a lot predictions wrong.

  28. Davy on Sat, 25th Apr 2015 8:34 am 

    Mak, your idea of a positive personal message would be braggart by my definition. I have found so many times in life people that are braggarts in combination with harsh criticism for others to be hiding bones in the closet. These people have a core of insecurity and resentment from a life of failure. They often do as you have done starting a new life and then brag about how wonderful their life is and how smart the move was.

    Mak, life is about trade-offs. Your high praise for the P’s hides multiple negatives that are typical of any location. I know my location has multiple negatives and I talk about them in a fair and balanced way along with the many positives. You on the other hand extol the Philippines with high praise without acknowledging the many downsides. You discount any negative reports on the Philippines as propaganda.

    Mak, why would anyone be concerned about propaganda in regards to an insignificant third world country? I acknowledge propaganda with Russia or China but the P’s. I think what is going on is an anxiety for the obvious situation of population overshoot in the P’s coupled with environmental destruction. Your forest and fisheries are nearing collapse. The P’s are barely covering food and fuel per the population size. This is not a picture of a solid refuge. I see you in cognitive dissonance for your move. Your braggart personality is psychological repression of failure and resentment.

  29. Nony on Sat, 25th Apr 2015 9:02 am 

    Rock:

    Not in 1956, he sure didn’t.

    Oh…and if peaker predictions have such caveats, how useful are they? After all cornies say, “we’ll invent something, we always do”.

  30. Nony on Sat, 25th Apr 2015 9:04 am 

    Oh…and look how Hubbert SCREWED the pooch on natural gas. He blew that way, way WAY UNDER the total production. HE’s biased. HE’s a Malthusian. A weirdo socialist too, who belived in forceful population control. Nutter.

  31. Nony on Sat, 25th Apr 2015 9:08 am 

    Oh…and it kind of makes me laugh how Rock says there’s no new technology or geology and that it’s ‘all just price driving getting the hard barrels of known prospects’*, when we have the mighty Marcellus CRUSHING other production, including pushing Rock out of the Gulf. And just wait for that takeaway capacity to get built out. Marcellus has already pushed out the barrels that were coming in. Now she’s gonna start sending net production out of the NE. She’s coming at ya, Tejas. Be afraid! And she’s got her little brother the Utica backing her up!

    🙂

    *A pretty bizarre claim, given people who have WAY more recent and relavent experience than Rock’s Austin Chalk blabla say that there was improvement of both completion techniques and shale mapping.

  32. steve on Sat, 25th Apr 2015 10:01 am 

    @ Davy….I remember one night I could not sleep I typed peak oil into my phone to listen to a podcast..I found one with Chris Martenson on the Porter Stansbury show….Long story short Stansbury went on to explain how wrong Martenson was on peak oil and Martenson agreed and did not argue peak oil at all!! I hold these people up to a higher standard..Gail has shot down every prepper as a fool because in a collapse she believes that no human will live. She criticizes the idea of bicycles etc…in her comments sections she is much..much…much more of a doomer than you! She is mixing her messages when she extols the virtues of China……..What is it Gail are going to fall so low that all humans die? No Gail is not using her “government trust fund” to survive but she is loving the royalty treatment in China. Bottom line China is a plague on society and they will be just like the United States…raping and killing to survive but in the end they are in a much worse position the the United States. Gail has lost credibility in the last few years IMHO….look at the commentators they change every six months….she is definitely not the rock star she thinks she is…

  33. marmico on Sat, 25th Apr 2015 10:10 am 

    she is definitely not the rock star she thinks she is…

    Is she still the Director of Energy Economics of The Space Solar Power Institute? ROTFLMFAO. She’s a nutter.

  34. Davy on Sat, 25th Apr 2015 12:18 pm 

    Fair enough Steve, I don’t follow Gail as close as you have. I appreciate your input.

  35. Davy on Sat, 25th Apr 2015 12:21 pm 

    Marmi, I am proud of the nutter label. Please when addressing me use Doomer Davy the nutter.

  36. Dredd on Sat, 25th Apr 2015 1:21 pm 

    We live in a world” that we have not arrived at yet (You Are Here).

  37. Nony on Sat, 25th Apr 2015 2:43 pm 

    http://www.stansberryradio.com/Porter-Stansberry/Latest-Episodes/Episode/63/0/Science-and-the-Economy

    Here is one padcast with Martenson. The guy is actually pretty bright and likeable. Minor comment that I have is that he screwed up his understanding of Texas RRC lag. It is VERY well documented that there is a lag in production and EIA estimates have been validated. Roger Blanchard made the same screwup in 2013. Ron at POB made the screwup in 2014 (and took forever to understand it, but now does). More recently Rock screwed it up in 2015, after calling me an idiot…and realized his mistake, but lacked the guts to come back to me and admit it.

  38. Nony on Sat, 25th Apr 2015 2:57 pm 

    http://www.stansberryradio.com/Porter-Stansberry/Latest-Episodes/Episode/367/0/Ep-104-Chris-Martenson-Re-Thinking-Peak-Oil

    Here is Martenson again. Really the guy is one of the smarter peakers (you know, said in the tone of smart…for a Marine).

    Conversation is interesting with the discussion of price drop and both of them foreseeing it. Neither was on that bandwagon 18 months before. All the talk was about increase in price then. So seems like they were already counting shale as a real factor in 2013.

    Discussion of gas is interesting too, but they both seem very off predicting 6-8/MCF, even post oil crash. We are nowhere near that and the futures markets don’t foresee it happening, even with demand continuing to increase.

    Chris still needs to learn/admit his mistake in terms of RRC having a notable lag in their numbers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *