NovaVeles wrote:First time poster, might as well start it with a good one.
https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/news/c ... net-zero/#
Shell have announced that they are now passed peak production and are anticipating a 55% decline in output by the end of the decade. Never expected it to be announced in such a blunt way, and yet, here we are.
OutcastPhilosopher wrote:Shell had 21.7 Billion in losses in 2020.
Adam......ITS ALL GOOD.
LOL
aadbrd wrote:The term may be the same but the meaning has long changed to peak oil demand (as well as regulatory pressure due to climate change). It's been a long time since I've read credible threats to oil supply due to geologic depletion from the MSM.
AdamB wrote:OutcastPhilosopher wrote:Shell had 21.7 Billion in losses in 2020.
Adam......ITS ALL GOOD.
LOL
I don't know if Shell employees would be thinking that, but certainly peak demand has quite a few benefits to everyone else. Back in the day peak oil via scarcity had been configured as doomer porn, and peak demand just doesn't have that ability, except for oil company employees anyway. I wonder if schools will ever again crank out petroleum engineers? The academic training of them almost died out back in the late 80's with cheap and plentiful oil after the 1979 global peak oil, and higher prices brought them back in this century, but this could be the end for these engineers and petroleum geologists.
OutcastPhilosopher wrote:Shell laid off 9000 employees in 2020. How many of them were petrol engineers?
OutcastPhilosopher wrote:Exxon laid off 14,000 in 2020. Chevron laid off 6,000 in 2020.
Oil is failing along with the ponzi scheme.
OutcastPhilosopher wrote:Oil is failing along with the ponzi scheme.
Global oil demand is still set to flatline rather than peak in the coming two decades, the International Energy Agency said Oct. 13, despite growing expectations that the pandemic could trigger a rapid shift away from oil to cleaner energy.
"The era of global oil demand growth will come to an end in the next decade," IEA head Fatih Birol said. "But without a large shift in government policies, there is no sign of a rapid decline."
https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/mark ... y-2040-iea
Pops wrote:Global oil demand is still set to flatline rather than peak in the coming two decades, the International Energy Agency said Oct. 13, despite growing expectations that the pandemic could trigger a rapid shift away from oil to cleaner energy.
"The era of global oil demand growth will come to an end in the next decade," IEA head Fatih Birol said. "But without a large shift in government policies, there is no sign of a rapid decline."
https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/mark ... y-2040-iea
Soooo, 2% decline in supply here, 2% there
but 0% reduction in demand?
AdamB wrote:Supply has no near-term requirement to decline
Pops wrote:AdamB wrote:Supply has no near-term requirement to decline
Shell just said their supply will decline 2% per year. I think I'll take their word on this at least.
Pops wrote:But just as you and others go on about all the previous peaks that weren't, I was harping on perceived peak demand in 2011 and before. Price was causing demand to fall and peak demand first hit the headlines in the oughts.
Pops wrote:However, if 2% per year from today turns out to be industry standard decline it is not going to be happy motoring, especially on top of elective destruction. And of course that doesn't count the LTO rate.
Pops wrote:Can EVs replace the fleet at that clip? I don't know.
AdamB wrote:Tony Seba was laying it out years ago. Can't say I agree with everything he says, but he demonstrates he has thought about it more than us normal folk.
NovaVeles wrote:a declining energy resource/higher price energy resource.
NovaVeles wrote:AdamB wrote:Tony Seba was laying it out years ago. Can't say I agree with everything he says, but he demonstrates he has thought about it more than us normal folk.
My issue I have have with Tony Seba's analysis is that it seems to founded almost entirely in economics theory without any regard for the fundamentals of actually doing this stuff.
NovaVeles wrote:All the extrapolation is well and good but it seems to be on the idea that most of this progress is in an exponential fashion rather than the typical S-curve these things run on. The idea of hard physical limits just doesn't seem to apply.
NovaVeles wrote: Look at Moore's law, it has been dead and done since about 2010 because of hard limits and yet it is not really addressed by many folks, especially in economics circles, pushing for these brighter futures.
NovaVeles wrote:I really hope Seba is correct on a lot of these things but I wouldn't put much money on it.
NovaVeles wrote: It has been a long time since I saw Seba's talk but didn't he put the total conversion date at about 2030? If so that is an astoundingly tall order and one that will have to be achieved with a declining energy resource/higher price energy resource.
Shell said its oil production has now peaked and will decline by up to 2% each year, with “traditional fuel” output expected to fall 55% by the end of this decade.
aadbrd wrote:Where is the declining resource and higher price regime coming from? We don't see it reflected in your OP, which is about peak oil demand rather than supply.
Adam wrote:Tony Seba
Pops wrote:Just to recap, one of the largest oil companies in the world just announced its oil production is in decline, not that nobody wants its product
Pops wrote:they're setting around thanking god for GW because it gives them cover.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests