[AdamB]

what the real live experts with proprietary data think on the topic.

Those guys have been badly wrong in the past, too.

True. They underestimated the crap out of US oil production, starting right about the time certified peak oilers announced to the United States in 2011 that there was no oil of significance in the light, tight oil formations of the US.

Predicting the future is hard. The main difference is, as the EIA themselves have demonstrated, is that some learn why they were wrong, and do better next time. Peak oilers haven't' figured that one out yet, if you don't believe me, just check out the same speculation happening in this forum right now on how everything ends, but compare it to the archives from 15 years ago. You can even find some of the same posters, saying the same things they said 15 years ago...still saying the same things!!!

The EIA looked at what was happening...said..."CRAP!!! We are underestimating US oil production! Lets learn something and do better next time!!"

Seems like a more reasonable approach. Maybe because it takes experts to know this learning thing, and around here we have just doomers?

Similar to doomers, just in the opposite direction. I'm wondering why you put so much trust in them?
Are you one of them predictors?

Not quite. Uni-directional predicting is a dead giveaway for the faith based. The Sun is rising...we are doomed! The Sun is setting...we are doomed! The Sun is rising again....but we are still doomed! Peak oilers are like Harold Camping...except with oil.

[mousepad]

Predicting the future is hard. The main difference is, as the EIA themselves have demonstrated, is that some learn why they were wrong, and do better next time.

The EIA does it the easy way. Extrapolation of past trend into the future. Easy, boring and correct most of the time. And if still wrong, they adjust the curve a bit lower or higher.
Doomers try to predict major changing events. That's hard (=impossible), but exciting. It's 2 different types of prediction.

The EIA predicts that you're going to be alive next year because you're alive this year. The doomer predicts you be dead next year.

[REAL Green]

The EIA predicts that you're going to be alive next year because you're alive this year. The doomer predicts you be dead next year.

I would adapt that a bit. I am a doomer of sorts so my position is not that you will be dead but that your journey is one of death. We (individual and civilization) are going to die and the planet is in succession with evolution and extinction. They key to dooming is learning of limitations and traps. Knowing anything about the end is really useless and more for entertainment.

[REAL Green]

“Shale boss says US has passed peak oil”
https://www.ft.com/content/320d09cb-8f5 ... 08a9e233c8

“US crude production has already peaked, according to one of the country’s leading shale executives, as producers battered by the price crash shun new output growth and start trying to become profitable. Matt Gallagher, chief executive of Parsley Energy, one of Texas’s biggest independent oil producers, said the record output level struck earlier this year would be the high-water mark. “I don’t think I’ll see 13m [barrels a day] again in my lifetime,” the 37-year-old Mr Gallagher told the Financial Times. “It is really dejecting, because drilling our first well in 2009 we saw the wave of energy independence at our fingertips for the US, and it was very rewarding . . . to be a part of it.”

[AdamB]

Predicting the future is hard. The main difference is, as the EIA themselves have demonstrated, is that some learn why they were wrong, and do better next time.

The EIA does it the easy way. Extrapolation of past trend into the future. Easy, boring and correct most of the time. And if still wrong, they adjust the curve a bit lower or higher.

Supply side NEMS isn't a trend predictor. It is a wild, open source, competition of resources against resources scheme. The short term outlook uses legacy information and legacy well drilling with some price relationship, so has some trends involved. DPR not so much, but it does use current information. The newer supply side model of the IEO has nothing to do with trends. Resource based and terribly intriguing. They did a demo of it back in 2017 at an international conference. Did you get this silly idea about simple trend analysis from them, or did you just make it up? They do presentations on this stuff, they even used to have conferences. Met Mike Lynch there a few years ago, when he was..you guessed it!...yucking it up over the quality of trend analysis of those using bell shaped curves.

Any reason you decided not to check before making a blanket statement that is mostly wrong?

Doomers try to predict major changing events. That's hard (=impossible), but exciting. It's 2 different types of prediction.

Sounds like you know as little about doomers as you EIA models. Doomers spew nonsense continuously, hoping that sooner or later it comes true. That isn't predicting, it is just the broken clock routine. Simmons, Ruppert, Savinar, Heinberg,Armie,Shorty, etc etc.

The EIA predicts that you're going to be alive next year because you're alive this year. The doomer predicts you be dead next year.

The EIA doesn't predict much of anything about mortality. But here is an interesting fact....of all the pre-2008 peak oil claims made for when peak oil would happen, the only one not discredited by reality at this point is the one done by the EIA. Of all the geologically ignorant doomers of the world proclaiming the end that never came, during the peak oil heyday, the EIA still has a number off in the future. So much for using trends the way the half wits fell for, right?

[JuanP]

"US shale oil output to drop to two year low of 7.5 Mbpd in August: EIA"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... 4E2K1?il=0

"Shale CEO: US has passed Peak Oil"
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News ... ews+Update)

[mousepad]

Did you get this silly idea about simple trend analysis from them, or did you just make it up? They do presentations on this stuff, they even used to have conferences

I just made it up. And I'm sure they have presentation and conferences on it.
There's even presentation and conferences on the latest and greatest knitting technique developed by grandmothers worldwide. Everybody has conferences. I think they even have doomer conferences.

Any reason you decided not to check before making a blanket statement that is mostly wrong?

Yeah. The reason I didn't check was because this is just a forum for leisurely discussion and chatter. Fun most of the times, interesting and informative sometimes, and obnoxious once-in-a-while. But mostly fun.
You on the other hand seem to take this expert-prediction business very seriously.
The way you defend the experts, you seem to be one of them yourself.

You don't have to justify your job with me. Thank you for doing a fine job predicting. No, sorry, modelling.

[AdamB]

"US shale oil output to drop to two year low of 7.5 Mbpd in August: EIA"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... 4E2K1?il=0

"Shale CEO: US has passed Peak Oil"
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News ... ews+Update)

US has passed peak oil! AGAIN!!!

Any opinion on how many more there could be?

[AdamB]

Any reason you decided not to check before making a blanket statement that is mostly wrong?

Yeah. The reason I didn't check was because this is just a forum for leisurely discussion and chatter.
[/quote]

Fair enough.

[jedrider]

Plenty of oil here:

Massive Floating Time Bomb': Warnings of Ecological, Humanitarian Disaster as Tanker Risks Dumping Four Times More Oil Than Exxon Valdez
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/07/16/massive-floating-time-bomb-warnings-ecological-humanitarian-disaster-tanker-risks

[Outcast_Searcher]

Predicting the future is hard. The main difference is, as the EIA themselves have demonstrated, is that some learn why they were wrong, and do better next time.

The EIA does it the easy way. Extrapolation of past trend into the future. Easy, boring and correct most of the time. And if still wrong, they adjust the curve a bit lower or higher.
Doomers try to predict major changing events. That's hard (=impossible), but exciting. It's 2 different types of prediction.

The EIA predicts that you're going to be alive next year because you're alive this year. The doomer predicts you be dead next year.

First, unless you have sufficient reliable data or information to predict that the trend in place is going to rapidly change -- predicting the trend in place is rather reasonable. Kind of like Occam's Razor.

Second, given the doomer's track record, and the (analogy considered) odds that person X under, say, 90 years old lives another year vs. dies next year (especially due to random predictions without meaningful evidence), I'll take those who use actual credible historical data/trends EVERY SINGLE TIME, until "expert doomers" PROVE why I shouldn't.

[mousepad]

Predicting the future is hard. The main difference is, as the EIA themselves have demonstrated, is that some learn why they were wrong, and do better next time.

The EIA does it the easy way. Extrapolation of past trend into the future. Easy, boring and correct most of the time. And if still wrong, they adjust the curve a bit lower or higher.
Doomers try to predict major changing events. That's hard (=impossible), but exciting. It's 2 different types of prediction.

The EIA predicts that you're going to be alive next year because you're alive this year. The doomer predicts you be dead next year.

First, unless you have sufficient reliable data or information to predict that the trend in place is going to rapidly change -- predicting the trend in place is rather reasonable. Kind of like Occam's Razor.

No doubt. But it's do damn boring. I prefer exciting doomer predictions. I mean, what's life without some excitement?

[Outcast_Searcher]

Predicting the future is hard. The main difference is, as the EIA themselves have demonstrated, is that some learn why they were wrong, and do better next time.

The EIA does it the easy way. Extrapolation of past trend into the future. Easy, boring and correct most of the time. And if still wrong, they adjust the curve a bit lower or higher.
Doomers try to predict major changing events. That's hard (=impossible), but exciting. It's 2 different types of prediction.

The EIA predicts that you're going to be alive next year because you're alive this year. The doomer predicts you be dead next year.

First, unless you have sufficient reliable data or information to predict that the trend in place is going to rapidly change -- predicting the trend in place is rather reasonable. Kind of like Occam's Razor.

No doubt. But it's do damn boring. I prefer exciting doomer predictions. I mean, what's life without some excitement?

I suppose it depends on what the purpose is. Is it learning something or meaningful investment information? Or is it getting undeserved attention, endlessly, as SO MANY of the fast crash doomers seem to be all about?

For me, the "attention getters" aren't AT ALL impressive, and are increasingly going into my "ignore" bucket, as having a signal to noise ratio all too near zero.

Occasionally I still respond to their nonsense, when someone else quotes them, or occasionally, I try looking at a post or two, to see if they've grown up a bit.

The ONE thing I'll give most of them credit for, is being persistently wrong. If only that were a good thing, but like incorrigible criminals, NOT SO MUCH.

[REAL Green]

EIA
PETROLEUM & OTHER LIQUIDS
Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20
12,802 12,755 12,746 12,737 11,990 10,001
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/PET_CRD_CR ... BLPD_M.htm

[jedrider]

Fracking was always a bad deal. It hid peak oil for the last decade.

The Bakken Boom Goes Bust With No Money to Clean up the Mess
https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/08/08/bakken-fracking-oil-boom-bust-hess-cleanup

[AdamB]

Fracking was always a bad deal. It hid peak oil for the last decade.

The Bakken Boom Goes Bust With No Money to Clean up the Mess
https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/08/08/bakken-fracking-oil-boom-bust-hess-cleanup

Peak oil is peak oil. Making MORE than the last peak oil doesn't hide anything,it creates a new peak oil.

As far as a single 70+ year old completion technique being a bad deal, tell it to the domestic and international consumers who have benefited heartily from all the new oil and natural gas production. Not that they care of course, but they do care about the abundance and price at which it was provided.

[coffeeguyzz]

Over the past several years, I have read umpteen articles on 'peak oil' (many on this site) that were so ridiculously bereft of accurate facts that it would make a sincere truth seeker just fall down laughing (or cringe at the degree of journalistic ineptitude).
That referenced article from Desmog on the Bakken is SO inaccurate regarding facts that anyone relying upon it is simply discrediting themselves from being taking seriously.

On a sentence by sentence level, fully one half that presentation is simply wrong.
Little wonder that that site has gets so little credibility from serious observers.

[sparky]

.
On the phenomenology of "Peak Oil"
it should be kept in mind that any given well , a fields , a province of production will (and has ) experience Peak Production
the global Peak metric remain the same however absolute number of liquid hydrocarbon which will be distributed after extraction

for a long time I had this idea that the Peak
- would be around 100Mb/d more or less
- that it would be due to production problem
- and that one of the first indicator would be a decrease in Air Transport

Time will tell

[jedrider]

That referenced article from Desmog on the Bakken is SO inaccurate regarding facts that anyone relying upon it is simply discrediting themselves from being taking seriously.

I'm glad it's inaccurate. It was very one-sided. I'm glad they did not flare as much natural gas as the article would seem to indicate. If there was that much NG, it would make sense to build electrical supply so the energy could be easily transported. I presume the flaring is just of trace amounts.

[AdamB]

.
On the phenomenology of "Peak Oil"
it should be kept in mind that any given well , a fields , a province of production will (and has ) experience Peak Production
the global Peak metric remain the same however absolute number of liquid hydrocarbon which will be distributed after extraction

Interesting. And known since slightly after the dawn of the oil field. Isn't it amazing that such a simple, known thing could be spun into the phenomenology of doomerology spanning decades now (if not longer!).

for a long time I had this idea that the Peak
- would be around 100Mb/d more or less
- that it would be due to production problem
- and that one of the first indicator would be a decrease in Air Transport

Time will tell

Have a link to when you announced these conditions?