[dcoyne78]

Keith – In another thread I was teasing one of our cohorts about using one decimal place in his estimate..

Yes that was me.

I stand by using two decimal places, despite what others think. I was taught that you want to present one extra decimal beyond where you are confident. The reasoning is simple. If his estimate was 2.49 or 1.51, Rockman would say his answer was 2, I believe it would convey more information to say 2.5 or 1.5, and allow the reader to realize that the estimate is between 1 and 2 or between 2 and 3. The idea is that by dropping too many decimal places you throw away valuble information ,YMMV.

DC

[TheDude]

Hi Pops,

A long time ago I gave up on charting every last point, no one is really interested in how oil production in New Zealand is coming along, and adding it to a chart just pulls down the resolution; with your big graphs it's very hard to tell which nation is which, even the largest ones. The answer is to fold all the bit players into "others" or "minor producers" or "<100 kb/d" or whatever you please. Matt often has graphs of incremental production, where all nations shown start from a common point and the lines illustrate how they've evolved since that date, that's a nice way of teasing out growth. Also you can sort producers by size and then make dedicated graphs for groups of whatever size.

I've tried labels on charts but that gets messy pretty quickly too. Sometimes there's a way. Also I haven't really messed about with charts in a few years and the software is always getting better; and some programs are good for a certain approach, Excel has bubble charts for instance while Open/Libre Office don't...I think...IIRC. Like I said, been a while!

Stacked charts especially can be misleading here; I find it more instructive to show simple lines usually, and to make sure the Y axis has enough fine resolution to show what's going on. You could for instance set your Y from 70 to 75 mb/d with a 500 kb/d grid and neatly show how tight oil is pushing the world above 74 mb/d. Again, stacked graphs can lead one astray, is tight oil really what's pushing production up, or are other sources doing the grunt work? Showing YOY gains/losses with a Y of +/- of ca. 2 mb/d would illustrate who is actually contributing to any production gains, as well as who is falling behind.

[ROCKMAN]

DC - " I was taught that you want to present one extra decimal beyond where you are confident." And thus the subjectiveness: how do you know what your confidence level should be? Sometimes 2 + 2 = 1. And sometimes it's equal to 6. So if you confident it falls between 3 and 5 you could be very wrong.

Granted to a degree it's a silly point I'm making. But it my model you assume 2 = 2. But as I've pointed out sometimes production history proves that 2 doesn't always equal 2. Sometimes it's equal to 1...or less. So is 2 + 2 = to 4 if the first 2 is really 1 and the second 2 is equal to 2? In that case 2 + 2 = 3. Yes...silly. But as I explained: once 25 million bo was actually equal to 1 million bo and 125 bcf = 25 bcf. After 30 some years that one still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. LOL.

[Keith_McClary]

I refused? maybe we should review that.

Here's a chart of how little difference in peak a big difference in URR makes:



But I think the bigger point is not that a trillion barrels or 2 only makes a decade or 2 difference in the peak ...

Perfect - but I don't see it in "10 Basic Facts of Peak Oil".

[Pops]

Thanks Dude, I was mainly trying to illustrate the long plateau and show the size relationship of US tight production to the total, the one showing only US tight and rest of world. I'm not as interested in the month to month or country by country as the larger picture.

I do like Matt's "incremental" charts that show just the change in production. For those who haven't been there it's www.crudeoilpeak.info

These are from open office, btw, which is becoming a pretty good alternative to msoffice, excel doesn't play well with my Mac, it has a problem with my font collection I think.

[TheDude]

I have LibreOffice going on my Windows 7 machine at the moment, it's the open source version of OpenOffice, but I'm damned if I can really tell much of a difference between it and OO. Both are free, I've always used OO and now LO, they're good programs all around although files take a while to load and sometimes they crash a bit as well.

Rune Livkern makes terrific displays and he told me used Excel.

I'll make a chart showing the YOY change, am curious what will show up now. The shale bonanza in 2011-2012 btw is about the largest YOY gain in US history, I posted the top 10 in some OF2 thread. There were some major contractions too but that was often just TX doing their prorationing thing in the good ol' days. As you say all this new oil is in the greater scheme of things a drop in the bucket, but hey, think of it as some huge new field coming online. For now.

It's sobering to think of the 3.6+ mb/d we have to fire up every year to just overcome declines. I'll never wrap my head entirely around that one!

[Loki]

Pops, some months ago I considered starting a thread designed to coax you into posting all the great charts you've made, plus all the other charts you've linked to over the years. This thread is a start. Don't suppose you could expand and create a dedicated "Pop's Greatest Charts Thread"

They really do give the lie to the BAU narrative (forward ever, backwards never, etc.). It's amazing how a single chart can falsify hours of spew by the likes of JohnDenver/John_A, OF2, et al.

The plateauing of stuff you can actually pump into your gas tank is one of my favorite charts, and yours is the best I've seen. Only the hopelessly innumerate (and shills) could discount evidence like this.

Two more of my favorite metrics are US labor participation rates and median income. And this chart plots both:


Labor force participation ranks tank, median income tanks, 3 out of 4 of the world's largest economies (US, Europe, Japan) are stagnant or in decline, oil prices are at record highs yet global production struggles to achieve even the tiniest blip up. Etc., etc., etc.

All clearly proof that peak oil theory is a bunch of hooey.

[Pops]

Matt @ crudeoilpeak .info does a better job at these than I do and he's updated his here. Lots of crude charts by region.



h/t po.com front page

[Pops]

PS thanks Loki

[Pops]

Some more charts from Matt, take a look, he does these very well:
http://crudeoilpeak.info/world-crude-pr ... 005-levels

[Loki]

Some more charts from Matt, take a look, he does these very well:
http://crudeoilpeak.info/world-crude-pr ... 005-levels

http://crudeoilpeak.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/World_without_US_shale_oil_Jan2001_Oct2013.jpg

Great chart. Says it all.

[Subjectivist]

Pops, that one chart says it all, and yet you have advising us that we should sell off the strategic petroleum reserve to "hurt Russia".

It never ceases to amaze me the number of adults on this planet and in my country who can not do even the most basic mathematical reasoning. At a tate of well under 2 million barrels a day the SPR would be empty in about 18 months, and the world market would soak that amount up without blinking. In effect you would be steering 2 million barrels a day of imports to other markets, even draining the reserve that fast would not turn the US into a net exporter.

Somehow the Saudi America meme is still active, I wish we could kill it like a vampire, stake through the heart, beheaded and cremated lol, just to be sure. So long as people would rather believe the myth than the reality we will keep making really stupid decision following our vision of the world like you wrote somewhere recently.

[Pops]

Pops, that one chart says it all, and yet you have advising us that we should sell off the strategic petroleum reserve to "hurt Russia".

I think you're mistaking me for someone else, LOL, I'm pretty sure I've never said anything like that.

I don't really care what the old soviet does in it's last-gasp death throes as long as the dust it kicks up stays in it's own neighborhood. For that matter, I'm not all that interested in any of the little squabbles erupting in the leftovers of previous empires. All those folks need to sort out their little turf battles and we need to tend to our own knitting.

I'm more of a protectionist actually. Not that it matters to the long run of the FF curve of course, but limiting trade would force us to re-localize to an extent and reinvest at home. We'd be less dependent on global transport and we'd conserve our resources to boot. Continuing the sham of exerting influence we no longer have is a delusional squandering of our remaining resources for no long term gain.

So if you read that I'd favor "hurting Russia" with the SPR, either I mistyped or you misread.

[Subjectivist]

Pops, that one chart says it all, and yet you have advising us that we should sell off the strategic petroleum reserve to "hurt Russia".

I think you're mistaking me for someone else, LOL, I'm pretty sure I've never said anything like that.

I don't really care what the old soviet does in it's last-gasp death throes as long as the dust it kicks up stays in it's own neighborhood. For that matter, I'm not all that interested in any of the little squabbles erupting in the leftovers of previous empires. All those folks need to sort out their little turf battles and we need to tend to our own knitting.

I'm more of a protectionist actually. Not that it matters to the long run of the FF curve of course, but limiting trade would force us to re-localize to an extent and reinvest at home. We'd be less dependent on global transport and we'd conserve our resources to boot. Continuing the sham of exerting influence we no longer have is a delusional squandering of our remaining resources for no long term gain.

So if you read that I'd favor "hurting Russia" with the SPR, either I mistyped or you misread.

Sorry for the confusion Pops, I was refering to the expert commentary on the Financial Times that Graeme quoted over in th Russia thread here,
post1186215.html

I have never seen you give that kind of bad advice, but I sure find it disturbing when the experts people look to for advice in the financial and investment industry do. People like the author of that story have influence over large numbers of the movers and shakers of our culture.

[Pops]

Ah ha, I see.

[Tanada]

Pops a few months back you posted a chart somewhere I can't seem to find showing that when oil prices dipped below $100.00/bbl in the 4Q 2013 American fuel consumption spiked.

Given that here at the start of 4Q 2014 prices have again fallen well below $100.00 I was wondering how American consumption is responding this time around? Any idea or is it too soon to tell?

[Pops]

T, it looks like distillate is up a little but gasoline is still off.

This is "product Supplied"

product supplied 14 9.png

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_ps ... blpd_m.htm

Products Supplied Approximately represents consumption of petroleum products because it measures the disappearance of these products from primary sources, i.e., refineries, natural gas processing plants, blending plants, pipelines, and bulk terminals. In general, product supplied of each product in any given period is computed as follows: field production, plus renewable fuels and oxygenate plant net production, plus refinery and blender net production, plus imports, plus net receipts, plus adjustments, minus stock change, minus refinery and blender net inputs, minus exports.

[Pops]

I also included feedstocks which continues down - I thought that cheap oil was causing a manufacturing renaissance - or was that nat gas?

[Pops]

Here are a few charts from my tinypic account.
First the update of the world is flat chart by quarters through the first of this year (sorted by descending increase '05-'14:




Next is the breakdown of US oil production by weight - most of the gain in LTO has been 40-45 API crude - I'm not sure but most definitions I've seen is the very light oils, the condensates, are over 50 API or 45 at the lowest. I still stand to be corrected on this.




This is the jiggered up combination of the underlying drop in US conventional and the proposed steep decline in LTO once the sweet spots are plumbed:




A little different, this shows the declining "velocity of money" since the '90s and the relation to consumer confidence. Velocity shows how dynamic, how "hot" the economy is, it relates directly to inflation/deflation.




And of course, the wedge




and the dreaded shark fin