Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on March 29, 2016

Bookmark and Share

Norwegian Crude Oil Reserves And Extraction per 2015

Norwegian Crude Oil Reserves And Extraction per 2015 thumbnail

In this post I present actual Norwegian crude oil extraction and status on the development in discoveries and reserves and what this has now resulted in for expectations for future Norwegian crude oil extraction.

This post is also an update of an earlier post about Norwegian crude oil reserves and production per 2014.

Norwegian crude oil extraction peaked in 2001 at 3.12 Million barrels per day (Mb/d) and in 2015 it was 1.57 Mb/d, growing from 1.51 Mb/d in 2014.

The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate’s (NPD) recent forecast expects crude oil extraction from the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS) will decline to 1.53 Mb/d in 2016.

Figure 01: The chart shows the historical extraction (production) of crude oil (by discovery/field) for the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS) with data from the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) for the years 1970 - 2015. The chart also includes my forecast for crude oil extraction from discoveries/fields towards 2030 based on reviews on individual fields, NPD’s estimates of remaining recoverable reserves, the development/forecast for the R/P ratio as of end 2015. Further, the chart shows a forecast for total crude oil extraction from sanctioned discoveries/fields (green area, refer also figure 02) and expected contribution from Johan Sverdrup (blue area) [at end 2015 estimated at 1.76 Gb; [Gb, Giga (Billion) barrels, refer also figure 06] and this development phase is now scheduled to start flowing in late 2019.

Figure 01: The chart shows the historical extraction (production) of crude oil (by discovery/field) for the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS) with data from the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) for the years 1970 – 2015. The chart also includes my forecast for crude oil extraction from discoveries/fields towards 2030 based on reviews on individual fields, NPD’s estimates of remaining recoverable reserves, the development/forecast for the R/P ratio as of end 2015.
Further, the chart shows a forecast for total crude oil extraction from sanctioned discoveries/fields (green area, refer also figure 02) and expected contribution from Johan Sverdrup (blue area) [at end 2015 estimated at 1.76 Gb; [Gb, Giga (Billion) barrels, refer also figure 06] and this development phase is now scheduled to start flowing in late 2019.

Sanctioned Developments in Figure 01 represents the total contributions from 7 sanctioned developments of discoveries now scheduled to start to flow between 2016 and 2019.

My forecast for 2016 is 1.50 Mb/d with crude oil from the NCS.

My forecast shown in figure 01 includes all sanctioned developments and not discoveries (refer also figure 08) and contingent resources in the fields. The forecast is subject to revisions as the reserve base becomes revised (as discoveries pass the commercial hurdles) which likely will fatten the tail of the presented forecast post 2020.

My forecast assumes some reserve growth, but does not include the effects from fields/discoveries being plugged and abandoned as these reach the end of their economic life.

Discoveries sanctioned for development and Johan Sverdrup (with an expected start up late 2019) is expected to slow down the decline in Norwegian crude oil extraction.

The forecast in figure 01 shows that the Norwegian crude oil extraction will be in a general decline in the coming years. Norwegian oil consumption is now around 0.2 Mb/d, and with what is known about Norwegian crude oil reserves, Norway will remain a net exporter of crude oil for another 20 to 30 years.

Discoveries under development and scheduled to start to flow during 2016 – 2019

Figure 02: The figure above shows a forecast of crude oil production from NCS sanctioned fields which is scheduled to start to flow during the years 2016 to 2019. Any changes to the scheduled startups could affect the forecasts as shown in figures 01 and 02.

Figure 02: The figure above shows a forecast of crude oil production from NCS sanctioned fields which is scheduled to start to flow during the years 2016 to 2019. Any changes to the scheduled startups could affect the forecasts as shown in figures 01 and 02.

It is now expected that around 0.05 Mb/d (Mb; Million barrels) on an annual basis will be added during 2016 from start ups of sanctioned developments.

Norway extracted, sold and delivered around 572 Mb of crude oil in 2015. The 7 sanctioned developments are now estimated to add around 640 Mb of crude oil reserves for extraction in the years 2016 – 2019.

Some developments/discoveries are reported under other business areas and are included in these.

My 2015 forecast

In the spring of 2015 I forecast that crude oil extraction from NCS in 2014 would become 1.47 Mb/d and it became 1.57 Mb/d. The reasons for this deviation are several.

Fields that have been in the extraction phase for more than 10 years added more than 40 kb/d, primarily in the Snorre and Visund area while a decline of 25 kb/d for these was expected. It is believed that there is a combination of causes for this like infill drilling where there is a time lag from approvals (during the period with high oil price) until flow.

kb/d; kilo (1,000) barrels per day

The above describes most of the deviations from my 2015 forecast, refer also figure 03.

A closer look at actual crude oil extraction

Figure 03: The figure above shows development of crude oil extraction from NCS sanctioned fields that started to flow prior to 2002 and by vintage since 2002 (rh scale) together with the (nominal) oil price (lh scale).

Figure 03: The figure above shows development of crude oil extraction from NCS sanctioned fields that started to flow prior to 2002 and by vintage since 2002 (rh scale) together with the (nominal) oil price (lh scale).

Note the recent years slow down and temporary reversal in crude oil extraction from discoveries starting to flow prior to 2002.

In 2015 around 57% of the crude oil was from discoveries that started to flow prior to 2002.

There is reason to believe that the high oil price in recent years allowed for more infill drilling. Infill drilling allows both for accelerated depletion and increased recovery. Inasmuch as infill drilling has been widely used in recent years, a period with significantly lower oil prices may materialize itself through higher decline rates.

Figure 04: The figure above shows development of crude oil extraction from sanctioned NCS fields by vintage since 2002 (rh scale) together with the (nominal) oil price (lh scale).

Figure 04: The figure above shows development of crude oil extraction from sanctioned NCS fields by vintage since 2002 (rh scale) together with the (nominal) oil price (lh scale).

The characteristics of “small” deepwater discoveries/fields (here defined as having less than 100 Mb of recoverable crude oil) are a fast build up, followed by a short plateau (typically 2 years) succeeded by steep declines, typically at annual rates of 15 – 20%, refer also figures 09 and 10.

Several of the recent NCS developments that were sanctioned after the increase in the oil price have after the price collapse been subject to considerable financial and reserves write downs which weakens the companies’ balance sheets and affects their financial capacities for future investments.

The R/P ratio reveals the future trajectory for NCS crude oil extraction

A simplistic description of the R/P ratio (Reserves at year end divided by the Production for that same year) is the (theoretical) number of years the extraction/production level may be sustained using that year as a baseline. In the real world it works somewhat differently, as the reservoir depletes the extraction will (normally) decline. This may result that the R/P ratio remains fairly constant during the decline/tail phase as the reservoir depletes and the extraction declines.

Figure 05: The chart above shows cumulative NCS crude oil extraction versus the R/P ratio for fields/discoveries in the extraction phase at end 2015 plotted against the right hand scale [black dots connected by a black line]. The red line, plotted against the left hand scale, shows the cumulative portion of the crude oil extraction versus the R/P ratio.

Figure 05: The chart above shows cumulative NCS crude oil extraction versus the R/P ratio for fields/discoveries in the extraction phase at end 2015 plotted against the right hand scale [black dots connected by a black line]. The red line, plotted against the left hand scale, shows the cumulative portion of the crude oil extraction versus the R/P ratio.

For all NCS discoveries/fields in the extraction phase their R/P ratio was 7.0 at end 2015.

Figure 05 illustrates that about 50% of the NCS crude oil extraction in 2015 was from 45 fields/discoveries with an R/P ratio of 5 or less.

Broadly speaking reservoirs with an R/P ratio of less than 5 for crude oil should be expected to be subject to steep depletion induced declines in extraction, and year over year declines in the range of 15 – 20% has been observed.

Development of Norwegian crude oil reserves

Figure 06: The figure shows the history and the status of the total discoveries by year (stacked columns) since oil exploration started on the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS) and as of 2015. The light green columns show what has been extracted, sold and delivered. The dark green portion of the columns is total remaining reserves. The yellow portion of the columns shows reserves in discoveries under evaluation. Furthermore, in the chart is also shown annual production (thick black line) for extraction of crude oil since it began in the 1970s. The chart has a table that shows the year of discovery for fields estimated to hold more than 1 Giga barrels (Gb) of recoverable crude oil. (Gb; G = Giga, Billion barrels)

Figure 06: The figure shows the history and the status of the total discoveries by year (stacked columns) since oil exploration started on the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS) and as of 2015. The light green columns show what has been extracted, sold and delivered. The dark green portion of the columns is total remaining reserves. The yellow portion of the columns shows reserves in discoveries under evaluation. Furthermore, in the chart is also shown annual production (thick black line) for extraction of crude oil since it began in the 1970s. The chart has a table that shows the year of discovery for fields estimated to hold more than 1 Giga barrels (Gb) of recoverable crude oil.
(Gb; G = Giga, Billion barrels)

Figure 06 illustrates that the biggest NCS discoveries were made early and these discoveries continues to contribute a big portion of total NCS crude oil production.

Figure 06 also illustrates that the growth in the oil price above $50/b in 2005 allowed for increased exploration activities resulting in several successful discoveries with the most prominent being the Johan Sverdrup discovery in 2010.

The chart above is based upon Norwegian Petroleum Facts.

(A site operated by the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy [MOE] and the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate [NPD].)

Figure 07: The chart above shows the development of total NCS crude oil discoveries since exploration began and as of end 2015 [data from NPD Resource Accounting at end 2015]. The chart is often referred to as a “creaming curve”. The light green portion of the columns shows the development in total extracted, sold and delivered. The dark green portion shows the development in estimated remaining recoverable reserves. The yellow portion shows the development in total estimated reserves in discoveries that are under evaluation and that has not been sanctioned at end 2015.

Figure 07: The chart above shows the development of total NCS crude oil discoveries since exploration began and as of end 2015 [data from NPD Resource Accounting at end 2015]. The chart is often referred to as a “creaming curve”.
The light green portion of the columns shows the development in total extracted, sold and delivered. The dark green portion shows the development in estimated remaining recoverable reserves. The yellow portion shows the development in total estimated reserves in discoveries that are under evaluation and that has not been sanctioned at end 2015.

The chart illustrates that a major portion of the NCS reserves was discovered in an early phase and the effect from the recent years higher oil price encouraged increased exploration and  testing of new exploration models resulting in new discoveries of which many are expected to be commercialized.

Figure 08: The chart above shows NCS discoveries in various evaluation phases, their estimated recoverable crude oil reserves versus year of discovery. In the chart is also shown development in the nominal oil price (Brent). Green circles: Resource Category 4F, in planning phase. Yellow circles: Resource Category 5F, development likely, but not clarified. Red circles: Resource Category 7F, not evaluated. NOTE; For reasons of scaling Johan Castberg (discovered in 2011, Category 4F, 540 Mb) in the Barents Sea and above 72 degrees North is not shown.

Figure 08: The chart above shows NCS discoveries in various evaluation phases, their estimated recoverable crude oil reserves versus year of discovery.
In the chart is also shown development in the nominal oil price (Brent).
Green circles: Resource Category 4F, in planning phase.
Yellow circles: Resource Category 5F, development likely, but not clarified.
Red circles: Resource Category 7F, not evaluated.
NOTE; For reasons of scaling Johan Castberg (discovered in 2011, Category 4F, 540 Mb) in the Barents Sea and above 72 degrees North is not shown.

Figure 08 illustrates how a higher oil price unleashed a wave of exploration and the results from this. Commercial developments of these discoveries are dependent primarily on the oil price, technological innovations, cost developments and also access to host facilities (processing and utilities support from existing installations) which make some of them time critical with regard to development.

The green dots represent discoveries closest to passing the commercialization hurdle.

Depletion rates

A closer look at the depletion of two deepwater fields show the rapid depletion and high decline rates, which are typical for discoveries/fields with about 100 Mb of recoverable crude oil.

Figure 09: The chart above shows the development of relative depletion (black line and left hand scale), annualized yield (red line and right hand scale) and the annual moving average of the depletion rate (blue dotted lines, right hand scale) for crude oil extraction from the Skarv discovery/field. At end 2015 NPD estimated Skarv to have contained 112 Mb with original recoverable crude oil.

Figure 09: The chart above shows the development of relative depletion (black line and left hand scale), annualized yield (red line and right hand scale) and the annual moving average of the depletion rate (blue dotted lines, right hand scale) for crude oil extraction from the Skarv discovery/field.
At end 2015 NPD estimated Skarv to have contained 112 Mb with original recoverable crude oil.

The past high crude oil  depletion rate for Skarv now suggests a high decline for the near future extraction.

Figure 10: The chart above shows the development of relative depletion (black line and left hand scale), annualized yield (red line and right hand scale) and the annual moving average of the depletion rate (blue dotted lines, right hand scale) for crude oil extraction from the Vilje discovery/field. At end 2015 NPD estimated Vilje to have contained 84 Mb with original recoverable crude oil.

Figure 10: The chart above shows the development of relative depletion (black line and left hand scale), annualized yield (red line and right hand scale) and the annual moving average of the depletion rate (blue dotted lines, right hand scale) for crude oil extraction from the Vilje discovery/field.
At end 2015 NPD estimated Vilje to have contained 84 Mb with original recoverable crude oil.

In general and with oil prices above $100/Bbl the oil companies’ net cash flows and profits was, and have been struggling from bringing the more expensive barrels to the market. It appears the oil companies, encouraged by the prospects from a sustained high oil price, assumed more debt to go after the costlier oil. This was likely rooted in the expectations that consumers would continue to assume more debt and/or draw down their savings to afford the higher price that would meet the oil companies’ return requirements, assure the health of their balance sheets and enable debt retirements.

The collapse in and the sustained low oil price has hurt the oil companies’ cash flows, returns and balance sheets, prompting all along the line drastic cut backs to their near and medium term capital expenditures (CAPEX) in pursuit of maintaining dividend payments to please the investors, improve financial performance and heal their balance sheets.

In general, future developments of discoveries on NCS require a high breakeven price (above $60/b) and the effects of the oil companies’ CAPEX reductions will impair the pace of developments of discoveries and infill drilling (affecting contingent resources) under evaluation and thus future extraction developments.

 “The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.”

– John Kenneth Galbraith

FRACTIONAL FLOW by Rune Likvern



32 Comments on "Norwegian Crude Oil Reserves And Extraction per 2015"

  1. geopressure on Tue, 29th Mar 2016 4:15 pm 

    The Johan Sverdrup Production Facility is being designed to handle a 500,000 BOPD Production rate – the highest I have ever heard of… So the very first chart is incorrect, the Production from Johan Sverdrup should be twice as thick…

  2. AJY on Wed, 30th Mar 2016 2:49 am 

    Johan Sverdrup flow of 500 kbopd is for two phases – only phase I has so far been approved – and includes a significant proportion from gas export (i.e. is barrels of oil equivalent) which would not be in the charts above.

  3. shortonoil on Wed, 30th Mar 2016 6:53 am 

    Reserve Production ratios, R/P, are only significant if the reserves are known. Reserves are a function of production cost, and price. The author has apparently cleaned up his crystal ball and is able to judge what that price will be? At $10/ barrel Norwegian P/R ratios would be zero.

    More, “if pigs had wings”!

  4. PracticalMaina on Wed, 30th Mar 2016 9:06 am 

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-massachusetts-climatechange-exxon-mob-idUSKCN0WV24K

    http://www.madinamerica.com/2016/03/air-pollution-exposure-during-pregnancy-linked-to-emotional-and-behavioral-problems-in-childhood/

    I have a feeling things are going to heat up very soon. The climate change debate will be settled. If the government can force Exxon Mobil to publicly admit it lied, and then implement fines that are then spent on mitigation, some good may be done.

  5. Davy on Wed, 30th Mar 2016 11:20 am 

    “Trump’s New Russia Adviser Has Deep Ties to Kremlin’s Gazprom”
    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-30/trump-russia-adviser-carter-page-interview

    “A globe-trotting American investment banker who’s built a career on deals with Russia and its state-run gas company, Carter Page says his business has suffered directly from the U.S. economic sanctions imposed after Russia’s escalating involvement in the Ukraine.”

    “Over the course of his campaign, Trump has been a contrarian on Russia, floating the idea of reducing the American commitment to NATO and calling Russian President Vladimir Putin a “strong leader.” “I think I would have a very good relationship with Putin,” he said last year. So it makes sense that Trump tapped Page for his foreign-policy team.”

  6. Truth Has A Liberal Bias on Wed, 30th Mar 2016 11:43 am 

    @short… yeah but it’s still a better read than your eTP crap. Futilitist say’s you gave him a copy for free. Is that true?

    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-etp-model-has-been-empirically-confirmed.152487/

  7. marmico on Wed, 30th Mar 2016 12:04 pm 

    You can view this ETP Model for free. 🙂

    Let’s see the maximum consumer price fuctard sue for intellectual property infringement. 🙂

  8. GregT on Wed, 30th Mar 2016 1:10 pm 

    “You can view this ETP Model for free.”

    Don’t bother. There is nothing intellectual about an article that advocates a “low carbon future” as a solution to the problems associated with the accumulation of CO2 in the environment.

    More of the same ignorance, denial, and sheer stupidity that got us to this point in the first place. Less heroin is not the solution for a dying heroin addict.

  9. PracticalMaina on Wed, 30th Mar 2016 2:03 pm 

    GregT that seems like one solution for heroin dependence, cold turkey could be liable to kill someone. No carbon future means we better all asphyxiate ourselves now. Even with a cold I am still runnning my mouth pumping out co2

  10. Truth Has A Liberal Bias on Wed, 30th Mar 2016 2:38 pm 

    this is the ETp model I’m talking about.

    http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_015.htm

    short on oil sells it. It’s a ‘report’. Futilitist says he got a copy fr free and has empirically proved it.

  11. Apneaman on Wed, 30th Mar 2016 2:51 pm 

    Truth, this Futilitist guy you’re obsessed with, does he know you’re sweet on him? Why not just blow him and get it over with?

  12. shortonoil on Wed, 30th Mar 2016 2:55 pm 

    <i?"this is the ETp model I’m talking about.

    http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_015.htm

    short on oil sells it. It’s a ‘report’. Futilitist says he got a copy fr free and has empirically proved it."

    Correlation is not proof of causation, but it can provide strong support.

  13. marmico on Wed, 30th Mar 2016 3:20 pm 

    THALB, Oh you mean this report.

  14. Davy on Wed, 30th Mar 2016 4:22 pm 

    Truth is sceered his penny stock portfolio is going to rupture and he will have to take up honest living. Truth and marmi are our two board corn clowns who obsess over even the hint of doom because their elaborate make-believe world is a facade of denial and shame. Two assholes made for each other need to hitch up and share your investment secrets that make you think you are so smart. You just road a wave of good fortune courtesy of criminals and thieves. You yourselves are thieves and liars.

  15. GregT on Wed, 30th Mar 2016 5:55 pm 

    Practical,

    “Even with a cold I am still runnning my mouth pumping out co2”

    I’m sure that you understand exactly what I’m talking about. You don’t normally come across as clueless.

  16. dooma on Wed, 30th Mar 2016 7:06 pm 

    Davy, I never thought I would be defending Trump but what is wrong with him stating that “Putin is a strong leader”?

    He is only saying the obvious. Look what he achieved in Syria compared to NATO’s incursions.

    I am sure if you check under your bed, you will find that there are no “reds” under it.

    We all know Putin is a black belt and ex KGB. That qualifies him has a person who I would not like to meet in a dark alley.

  17. dooma on Wed, 30th Mar 2016 7:09 pm 

    I know you are only quoting but I get the feeling you don’t like Putin?

    I retract my post if this is not the case.

  18. shortonoil on Wed, 30th Mar 2016 7:50 pm 

    “Don’t bother. There is nothing intellectual about an article that advocates a “low carbon future” as a solution to the problems associated with the accumulation of CO2 in the environment.”

    The world has hit very high levels of CO2 in the past and survived. Maybe as high as 1500 ppm; of course the dinosaurs didn’t come out of it very well, but Earth got mammals out of the bargain. You’ve got the whole thing backwards, Earth is not dying, we are!! But the average duration of a species is only about 3.5 million years anyway, about the time of Homo halibus; so this specific breed of monkey has had a pretty good run. Let’s just hope we don’t decide to go out in one big flash, and make the planet permanently uninhabitable for anything. It would be an awful waste of a pretty good planet!

  19. Davy on Wed, 30th Mar 2016 8:16 pm 

    Dooma, Just putting out some news. Did I make a comment positive or negative? No. I guess you just perceive me as anti-Putin. What I am is anti-extremist, anti-anti-Merikan, and anti-Putin worship. I am not anti-Putin when he is looked at as a human and not a god/man.

    Now that you have poked me as an anti-Putin here is my stand. I find it refreshing that a potential leader would critically look at the current NATO and the Russian relationship. The issue is more subtle than a pro or con on either but most here would agree the current policy is a failure. The current policy is dangerous and counterproductive. It is basically a neocon driven anti-Russian initiative. NATO is a cash cow that far too many vested interest are bought into. A potential leader that would call either into question has gonads.

  20. GregT on Wed, 30th Mar 2016 10:14 pm 

    “The issue is more subtle than a pro or con on either but most here would agree the current policy is a failure. The current policy is dangerous and counterproductive. It is basically a neocon driven anti-Russian initiative. NATO is a cash cow that far too many vested interest are bought into.”

    Spoken like most of the rest of the so called anti-Mericans here. Good job Davy! You’re finally coming to your senses. Although I’m sure you’ll turn back into the extremist pro-Mercian rather quickly.

  21. Davy on Thu, 31st Mar 2016 6:17 am 

    Greg, I am against extremism. It is the tone, the delivery, and the excessiveness of anti-merikanism that is wrong. It is the embellishing and the distortions that are lies by deception. It is what is left out of the conversation. It is a failure by those who preach anti-merikanism to own up to their guilt directly and by association. Excessive American patriotism is a failure is for the same reasons. I have seen so much message failures in the past few years. It is the extremist message that has failed on both sides. Extremism works like that because it goes against reality. It is not tasty and popular because it is often boring and uneventful. Humans love fantasy and drama and extremism is a perfect fit.

  22. joe on Thu, 31st Mar 2016 9:53 am 

    Davy is such a stooge, im sure hes a NATO bot, always turns everything into an talk about Russia. We get it Davy, Russia bad, Rambo good.
    Now in the real world where America commits just as much war-crime as anyone the world is not blind. Did 19 hijackers do what they did because America was nice to the world? Did Iraq get a Caliphate in its north because America did nothing?
    Yes Russia bomb many cities flat. So has Germany, Spain, France, Britain, Turkey, China and Japan. America used nukes! The only country ever to nuke anyone had stars and stripes on it. Lotta kids vaporised under that mushroom.
    Sorry Davy, not everyone is guilty, and not everyone is right. America has more wrong in its ledger than right though.
    Get over it.
    Putin at least hasnt been the cause of the rise of an Islamic State, and he doesnt support al Nusrah Front via proxies called the Free Syrian Army.

  23. Truth Has A Liberal Bias on Thu, 31st Mar 2016 10:11 am 

    @marm- Thanks for the link to the report. I’m def not paying $28 to look at a 65 page explainstion of decreasing EROI with a few words like ‘dead state’ and ‘entropy’ thrown in for drama. There are plenty of much better articles available on the topic of EROI. Dr Charlie Hall has much better stuff out there.

    http://www.thehillsgroup.org/petrohgv2.pdf

    Over time Short has been making a lot of statements like ‘our report shows that _______’ blah blah blah that simply aren’t true. For example not long after oil rallied to almost $40 short said. ‘Our report shows that oil should be $50’. I don’t see evidence for that in the report. It’s worth noting that short said this not long after short said oil was gonna go to $20 and that the oil industry was about to collapse globally. Short seems to be blowing a lot of smoke.

  24. Truth Has A Liberal Bias on Thu, 31st Mar 2016 1:36 pm 

    @ Davy- I’m not a corn clown. I assume by corn you mean cornucopian. I’m a hard-crash-peakist-doomer. I do however recognize that the peak oil scene is infiltrated with all kinds of idiots, shills, snake oil salesmen and mountebanks. Short and his $28, 65 page report is one of them. Tom Whipple and his low energy fusion bullshit is another. Perhaps you confuse anyone who criticizes a peakist as a corn but that is a very shallow analysis. You me friend are a fucking retard.

  25. Davy on Thu, 31st Mar 2016 4:33 pm 

    Liberal dumbass from Montreal, I don’t like people like you that want me dead. You are just a bag of shit. No need to elaborate on that.

  26. dooma on Thu, 31st Mar 2016 4:59 pm 

    Once again Davy, as I said in my second post, I realise that you were just quoting not commenting. And I said that I would retract my comment because I read it the wrong way.

    But thanks for your comments anyway. I do appreciate and understand your position now.

    Very pragmatic.

    Oh, and I would never try to poke you unless you were a hot looking chick lol.

  27. shortonoil on Thu, 31st Mar 2016 5:21 pm 

    “@marm- Thanks for the link to the report. I’m def not paying $28 to look at a 65 page explainstion of decreasing EROI with a few words like ‘dead state’ and ‘entropy’ thrown in for drama.”

    In this era of advanced global warming; just the thing we need… another bag of hot air!

    As soon as you learn to use a spell checker “explainstion”? you can advance to more recondite subjects like “entropy”. In the meantime – why don’t you do yourself a favor and take a break from making a complete, total ass of yourself!

  28. GregT on Thu, 31st Mar 2016 5:36 pm 

    “THALB, Oh you mean this report.”

    “@marm- Thanks for the link to the report.”

    Hmmm, last time I checked there were strict laws governing the distribution of intellectual property without consent.

    I’d be firing off a couple of e-mails if I were you short.

  29. Davy on Thu, 31st Mar 2016 6:01 pm 

    Thanks dooma, I appreciate someone seeing me as pragmatic considering what others think.

  30. Practicalmaina on Thu, 31st Mar 2016 6:01 pm 

    2 guys who brag about their investments stealing a report for a free edge, typical. I am so rich but 28$, guys are tighter than bark on a tree. I thought I was cheap.

  31. shortonoil on Thu, 31st Mar 2016 6:51 pm 

    “I’d be firing off a couple of e-mails if I were you short.”

    We have a new version coming out that includes advanced pricing projection capabilities; we have found some new, and very powerful correlation factors that can be theoretically derived.
    So thanks for the promotion “dick head”. You are such a fool. This one will be gone as soon as our server maintenance is completed, probably tomorrow! We will contact Google, and get who ever put that link up black listed from future service.

  32. GregT on Thu, 31st Mar 2016 10:06 pm 

    “So thanks for the promotion “dick head”. You are such a fool.”

    Hope you weren’t referring to me short.

Leave a Reply

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