Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:52 am Post subject: Re: Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil
LastViking wrote:
This week both the IEA & EIA have reported new monthly records of 86-mbd. Both (& the quarterly records about to fall) are charted at TrendLines: http://www.trendlines.ca/monthlyreport.htm
Now that the "it's been three years of Peak" camp has been dismissed, perhaps we can rejoin regular programming...
LastViking, if these 'records' hold, (and both organizations continually revise their numbers) it is all but meaningless in the larger scheme of things. Peak oil in the US was declared years after a bumpy plateau. It is pointless to speak of monthly changes in much longer geologic, economic, and oil-field production time frames. And don't forget, peak liquids includes ethanol, unconventional's, ngl's etc. that are in many ways merely recycled crude.
I wouldn't rush out to buy a Hummer just yet _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Joined: Oct 23, 2004 Posts: 5899 Location: New Jersey
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:29 pm Post subject: Re: Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil
Granted Lynch's long term forecasts have gone terribly wrong this year, and muddles along through an essay here making vague comments. Just posting this for posterity, although I think in a year or so Lynch and what his ilk say will become almost irrelevent as events sweep past them.
Quote:
A Hard Rain is Gonna Fall on Oil Prices (Probably)
Since I am renowned (perhaps infamous) as an oil market bear, it is somewhat daunting to write about next year’s price declining when everyone is now waiting for $100 oil. In the past few years, my price forecasts have been undone (in my opinion) by events ranging from Katrina to the ethnic unrest in Nigeria.
The past several years have seen an enormous flow of capital from investment funds into energy derivatives, which has definitely raised prices above what the fundamentals would justify. The recent push towards $100 oil seems to have been driven more by hedge funds and traders – that is, speculators, not investors – (over)reacting to relatively unimportant news. However, while a short-term reversal (taking prices back to $70 to $80 per barrel) is probable in the next few weeks as speculators sell off, the “investors” who have been buying energy derivatives for several years are less likely to pull out.
Let's check back in several weeks to see if the $70 to $80 prediction is correct. _________________ It's already over, now it's just a matter of adjusting.
Joined: Jul 21, 2004 Posts: 1287 Location: Suburban tar sands
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:04 am Post subject: Re: Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil
Quote:
A Hard Rain is Gonna Fall on Oil Prices (Probably)
An increase in non-OPEC supply would also go a long way towards convincing many investors that the oil sector is not experiencing a paradigm shift. Although over the past decade non-OPEC producers have performed poorly, growing only very slowly – excluding the former Soviet Union (FSU) – after rising rapidly in the 1990s, it seems that this is not a permanent condition. Our research at SEER suggests that growth should resume over the long-term.
It's really hard to take this seriously, Mike. Can't you give us some hint where we will find this bonanza to more than offset the collapse of Mexican and North Sea exports?
"SEER" seems an apt name for this kind of "research".
Joined: Jun 03, 2005 Posts: 216 Location: New Jersey
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 5:40 am Post subject: Re: Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil
He meanders through a number of irrelevant statements about speculators and political unrest, but stripped down, his argument rests nearly completely on the hope that non-OPEC supply will gush.
He has another argument, but it is one peak oilers subscribe to as well:
Quote:
However, while a short-term reversal (taking prices back to $70 to $80 per barrel) is probable in the next few weeks as speculators sell off, the “investors” who have been buying energy derivatives for several years are less likely to pull out.
What could cause a reversal of that? First, a sense that the commodity boom is largely over. This would happen if, say, a significant economic slowdown occurred, particularly if it affected the Chinese economy and its commodity consumption.
We peak oilers conflate the cause and effect: peak oil IS a significant economic slowdown (or more correctly, economic slowdown is an aspect of peak oil). Don't these guys get it? Sure, demand destruction will have some effect on price, but the more effect it has, the more it means that peak oil is here.
The price goes down because oil shales and tar sands become much cheaper due to the lower cost of energy for extraction.
We don't have an oil problem. We have a thinking problem.
So you are suggesting experimental fusion technology is going to make the extraction and processing of oil shales profitable?
You appear to be new so i'll try to point out a few reason why you a wrong:
1) Time - Oil will likely peak within the next 10 years, if it hasn't peaked already. Mitigation efforts from alternatives such as oil shale, coal and gas to liquids will require 5-10 years to get built and ramped up to a reasonable level. this will not happen while the mainstream political and business community still do not accept peak oil.
2) Scale - Crude is a energy dense high energy return on energy invested (EROEI) source. Replacing the decline in crude production requires a massive amount of infrastructure.
3) Production Flows - Despite the tar sands in canada possibily having 300 billion barrels, they only produce 1 billion barrels per day. This might increase to 3 million or so by 2015. Compare this to Saudi Arabias production of circa 10 million barrels. Shale oil and tar sands will never get to the same production flows of oil due to its long and expensive extraction and processing procedures.
The bottom line is the official study into peak oil, The Hirsch Report, found we need a 20 year lead-in period to avoid any problems with peak oil. We may have between -2 and 10 years.
I suggest you keep reading my friend. I would recommend 'The End of Oil' by Paul Roberts. It is a balanced and informative book on the problems we face.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1988 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 4:10 pm Post subject: Re: Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil
mkwin wrote:
The bottom line is the official study into peak oil, The Hirsch Report, found we need a 20 year lead-in period to avoid any problems with peak oil.
I think the report essentially tried to find an approach and time scale that would enable society to get to a new mix of, largely fossil fuel, resources once oil peaks. I don't think it addressed how long that changed mix would enable to society to continue as normal. I very much doubt that, had there been enough time and foresight, even Hirsch's plan would "avoid any problems with peak oil" long term.
However, this thread is about Lynch, not peak oil mitigation. The last quote I saw from him was in this article on Bloomberg:
Quote:
"Refiners are really cranking up fuel output,'' said Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy & Economic Research in Winchester, Massachusetts. "The drop in crude supplies is a minor concern. The product builds are more important and should weigh on the market as we move into the future.''
Joined: Oct 15, 2004 Posts: 2196 Location: Arkansas
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:11 pm Post subject: Re: Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil
After all these years of following Michael Lynch, even having him on here for awhile, we have learned a couple of things about him and about economist in general. Basically, he has confirmed what we suspected about economist all along.
His predictive ability is worse than those he criticizes. As we all know, he criticized Campbell for years saying Campbell didn't know what the hell he was talking about, bc Campbell's estimates always change. Well, Lynch, the economist, ultimately proved he couldn't predict oil prices one year out (the year he said oil prices in 2005 would drop to $30 a barrel, but rose to over $50). Then, more recently, he said oil prices would drop in a few weeks, meaning right now, to about $70-$75 barrell, and they are in the $90s. So, Lynch is no better than any he criticizes, but even worse in my opinion, bc he says prices are determined by economics, not geology, yet he the economist can't use his economics to predict crap, confirming he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about and further, confirming what Campbell and the others have said, that economist don't understand anything about oil.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1988 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 3:27 pm Post subject: Re: Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil
Keith_McClary wrote:
World consumption = 30 billion barrels/year
I think it's more like 31 billion now. The IEA are reporting about 86.5 mbpd production and forecasted, quite recently, demand of 87.1 mbpd for the 4th quarter 2007 (estimates of actual not yet in). This all points to a consumption that is running at well over the 31 billion mark now.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1988 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 3:34 pm Post subject: Re: Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil
seahorse wrote:
After all these years of following Michael Lynch, even having him on here for awhile, we have learned a couple of things about him and about economist in general. Basically, he has confirmed what we suspected about economist all along.
His predictive ability is worse than those he criticizes. As we all know, he criticized Campbell for years saying Campbell didn't know what the hell he was talking about, bc Campbell's estimates always change. Well, Lynch, the economist, ultimately proved he couldn't predict oil prices one year out (the year he said oil prices in 2005 would drop to $30 a barrel, but rose to over $50). Then, more recently, he said oil prices would drop in a few weeks, meaning right now, to about $70-$75 barrell, and they are in the $90s. So, Lynch is no better than any he criticizes, but even worse in my opinion, bc he says prices are determined by economics, not geology, yet he the economist can't use his economics to predict crap, confirming he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about and further, confirming what Campbell and the others have said, that economist don't understand anything about oil.
Exactly. Economists rely on the supply demand equation to predict prices. So Lynch, in predicting prices, assumes certain levels of supply and demand. Since he got the price prediction wrong every time, he clearly got the supply and/or demand prediction wrong every time. So he has no credibility in criticising the predictions of others on those factors.
For those dipping into this thread, it is worth noting that I have never been able to find any kind of prediction, from Lynch, about when oil production would actually peak, not even a ball park figure. From his responses, I get the impression that he thinks oil production will never peak. I think the closest we got to a peak prediction was an implication that it wouldn't peak for at least another 60 years.
Joined: Jul 21, 2004 Posts: 1287 Location: Suburban tar sands
Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 1:20 am Post subject: Re: Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil
TonyPrep wrote:
Keith_McClary wrote:
World consumption = 30 billion barrels/year
I think it's more like 31 billion now. The IEA are reporting about 86.5 mbpd production and forecasted, quite recently, demand of 87.1 mbpd for the 4th quarter 2007 (estimates of actual not yet in). This all points to a consumption that is running at well over the 31 billion mark now.
OK, 31 billion/year, I just mentioned the number so MSimon could compare it to the off-limits reserves when he gets around to telling us how big they are.
We've had a few topics about Bussard's projects if you're interested, msimon. You related to Julian S? Seems like you're cut from the same cloth:
Quote:
His 1984 book The Resourceful Earth (co-edited by Herman Kahn), is a similar criticism of the conventional wisdom on population growth and resource consumption and a direct response to the Global 2000 report. For example it predicted that "There is no compelling reason to believe that world oil prices will rise in the coming decades. In fact, prices may well fall below current levels".
With respect to oil, the price just now (2008) reaches the 100$ peak it reached (inflation adjusted) before 1880. In line with Simons predictions it had fallen after the 1970ies oil shortages to comparably low levels in the 1980ies and should do (so predicted as well 2006 by then BP CEO Lord Browne) so in the near future again.
_________________ Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
I will not abide another toe.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1988 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:45 pm Post subject: Re: Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil
Another poster found this quote from Lynch:
spike wrote:
A peak could occur due to depressed demand (technological innovation or taxes, etc.) but I don't anticipate it any time soon. I think there will be no peak due to geological reasons until at least 2030 and probably 2050, which assumes some "unconventional oil" such as gas to liquids and tar sands, and maybe shale oil.
After many attempts in this discussion, without getting him to acknowledge a peak at all (though he once implied not within 60 years), this is a marked diversion from that line, even though it is in guarded terms and dates from the middle of 2005.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap 
