[Plantagenet]

Biden administration announces clever plan to boost US oil production by buying oil to refill the strategic petroleum reserve after they sold the oil in the SPR

US aims to spur oil production by refilling emergency crude stockpile

The Biden administration has been selling oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for months in an attempt to lower gasoline prices and boost Biden's poll numbers . This is a monumentally stupid idea because (1) its against the law to use oil from the SPR to lower gasoline prices and/or boost a President's poll numbers. By law, the SPR is designated for the sole purpose of relieving oil shortages and supply disruptions (2) The US can't control oil prices with release from the SPR because the global oil market is too big and (3) After months of sales, the oil price hasn't gone down as the Biden administration promised, so the whole program has obviously failed.

With the failure of its program to lower oil prices now clear to all, the Biden administration is now claiming that by selling off oil from the SPR they now can boost US oil production by buying the oil back to refill the SPR after they sold off the oil.

If the Biden administration is right, then they have the answer to peak oil. If the Biden people can make US oil production go up by buying oil to refill the SPR, then all they have to do is sell off the oil in the SPR and then rebuy the oil to refill the SPR and oil production will go up, i.e. we'll never reach peak oil.

Hoo-RAY!!!! The Biden administration has done it again!


More orders from the Biden administration! Get out there and increase oil production NOW!!!!!

Cheers!

[AdamB]

Hoo-RAY!!!! The Biden administration has done it again!

You've got this one right, it is one of the dumber things a President has done. But not the worst. So far this is what we've got for that.

[Doly]

its against the law to use oil from the SPR to lower gasoline prices and/or boost a President's poll numbers. By law, the SPR is designated for the sole purpose of relieving oil shortages and supply disruptions

Well, the difference between lowering gasoline prices and relieving oil shortages is mostly academic, I think. Since gasoline prices go up when there is an oil shortage. So Biden can legitimately say that the SPR was used for its purpose.

[Plantagenet]

the difference between lowering gasoline prices and relieving oil shortages is mostly academic, I think.

So you support using the SPR to try to lower gasoline prices at the pump in the US right now, even though there is no gasoline shortage?

Why, exactly?



Given that just about everything is inflating in price right now, it seems kind of silly for the Biden administration to imagine that gasoline wouldn't increase in price as well.....particulary when the price of gasoline has gone up anyway even after the Biden administration started selling off the SPR.

Another curious aspect of this is that the Bidenistas themselves seem to believe that by selling oil from the SPR they may have caused US frackers to hold back on increasing their own oil production.....hence the curious announcement that the Biden administration thinks they can convince frackers to increase domestic US oil production if they begin buying huge amounts of oil for the SPR to replace the huge amounts of oil they just sold from the SPR......

Cheers!

[_sluimers_]

Indeed. Good thing peak oils have never had the relationship to price that is claimed.

I had to read that ten times before I understood what you mean by that.
Peak oils have never had the relationship!? You make it sound like peak oil is some type of creature.

The claims were that as oil peaks, prices would be going up and production would be going down.
Well what is currently happening right now is a bit different from the original prediction that world oil production would follow a bell curve.
Nevertheless, the current situation has already shown that at the very least self-sustaining fossil fuel production is coming to an end before mid 21th century,
as each time there's a new peak, some shoddier quality of oil or fossil fuel will be drilled or mined for, until that shoddier quality peaks as well.
This turns the bell curve into a multi-bell curve in which each peak has massive geopolitical and cultural consequences.
The 1970s US peak caused a rise in power of the Middle Eastern nations, the oil for dollars scheme with Saudi Arabia,
causing the eventual downfall of the Soviet Union.
The 2008 peak caused the rise in power of China.
As 2020 is yet another likely peak is now causing the rise of Russia
and a downfall of US allies and perhaps even the US itself.

After the 2008 peak, the EROI of oil and coal became so low,
that solar panels and wind turbines are running faster and faster circles around them.
Only natural gas is keeping the two renewables from exploding into the scene,
instead of having just skyrocketing growth year in year out.

The US shale oil and shale gas have only been profitable at current high prices,
and the only thing that's happening is that shale companies are paying back their investors without increasing production.
Meanwhile, US natural gas companies are selling their NG in Liquid form to Europe and Asia, driving up natural gas prices for the average US consumer.

That's very very far removed from what 'anti-peak oil' people like Michael Lynch predicted would happen.

[AdamB]

Indeed. Good thing peak oils have never had the relationship to price that is claimed.

I had to read that ten times before I understood what you mean by that.
Peak oils have never had the relationship!? You make it sound like peak oil is some type of creature.

Well that is interesting. Most people would react poorly to the explicit implication that there are more than one peak oils.

The claims were that as oil peaks, prices would be going up and production would be going down.

That was the claim, yup.

Well what is currently happening right now is a bit different from the original prediction that world oil production would follow a bell curve.

Well, what happened now also has happened before, during other peak oils. The late 1970's are a perfect example, skyrocketing prices, and a global peak that stoof ro 15 years. Except prices went down afterwards of course. And production doesn't follow a bell shaped curve except under certain limited conditions.

Nevertheless, the current situation has already shown that at the very least self-sustaining fossil fuel production is coming to an end before mid 21th century,

There are no facts in the future. The claim you just made was also made by the President of the United States circa 1977 or so, with a prediction that oil would be coming to end by the end of the 1980's. And that was the PRESIDENT!! Who are any of us to question him? Except...oil production ignored his claim...and Jimmy then became yet another discredited oil doomer. There are many, particularly after the spurt of claimed peak oils in the first decade of the 21st century.

as each time there's a new peak, some shoddier quality of oil or fossil fuel will be drilled or mined for, until that shoddier quality peaks as well.

"Shoddier" is a poor descriptor. And is irrelevant in the sense that just by answering this question, you'll know the relevance of the idea. Here is the question. When you go to fill up your car, presumably in America, do you pay less for the gasoline derived from "shoddier" oil, versus the gasoline made from the "old not shoddy" stuff? Because if you don't, you are arguing for a distinction without a difference. You can thank chemical engineers for making this possible.

This turns the bell curve into a multi-bell curve in which each peak has massive geopolitical and cultural consequences.

The world has certainly had cycles of development. Peak oilers didn't notice until the same reality that discredited both Hubbert and Jimmy Carter gob-smacked them one afternoon, and they began scrambling for reasons why.

The 1970s US peak caused a rise in power of the Middle Eastern nations, the oil for dollars scheme with Saudi Arabia,
causing the eventual downfall of the Soviet Union.

Oh, I think you've got your order somewhat out of whack. The US peak was going to happen then regardless, and between the timing of that and the Middle Eastern wars and resulting embargos, the thing became what it has largely remained to this day.

The 2008 peak caused the rise in power of China.
As 2020 is yet another likely peak is now causing the rise of Russia
and a downfall of US allies and perhaps even the US itself.

So far peak oil #6 this century was 2018, not 2020. And power in China isn't based much on oil but military, economy and owning supply chains vital to the rest of the world. I wouldn't worry about the US too much, we haven't been beaten yet. Lest we forget, that 1970 peak oil in the US was supplanted by Americans doing the exceptionalism thing, it isn't as though we new to that.

The US shale oil and shale gas have only been profitable at current high prices,

Those of us profitably doing this development back in the 80's and 90's at $20/bbl and $2/mcf would disagree.

That's very very far removed from what 'anti-peak oil' people like Michael Lynch predicted would happen.

There are no facts in the future. What Mike knew way back when was that peak oil circa back then was a crock. The poor logic, ignorance of the core disciplines involved needed to tackle the problem, wild eyed doomers turning it into a religion, folks made it way messier than it needed to be.

[_sluimers_]

I had a a long reply to AdamB.
Unfortunately this site is designed to wipe your post if it thinks you're taking too long
to write when you press preview or submit.
So I am going to say that this forum needs an update or replacement for technical reasons.

Short answers:

- You're right that there are no future facts, but there are certainties.
The sun will rise on planet earth every 24 hours for the next 100 years is not an assumption I would hedge bets against.
- By shoddier I mean an oil type with a lower EREOI. The order should be going something like this: crude -> deep sea -> heavy crude -> tar sands -> tight oil aka shale oil -> oil shale.
- I am from the EU and I would say I'm paying around 40% more, the US can't afford shale oil to fail and the cost is 20% higher than the price of oil, the other 20% comes from the war in Ukraine and I blame that on shale oil as well with EU being vassals of the US really thought they could cheaply buy shale gas from the US. They can't.
- I was talking about peak shale oil of the US for 2020. I might be wrong there, like you said, there are no future facts. But it's fairly certain that if it's not a peak, it certainly is a plateaupoint where shale oil will stop growing at higher than 3% rates, unless recovering from steep declines.
- Michael C. Lynch thought that oil was abiotic and oil would replenish itself. That fantasy has flown.

[Newfie]

I use phones almost exclusively, often with poor coverage. Then, as now, the keypad will simply stop responding. Very aggravating.

I have come to compose longer text in Notes and then copy paste.

With so little traffic I is unlikely the site will recieve an upgrade, this is not a commercially viable operation. I am just grateful it is supported at all.

[AdamB]

I had a a long reply to AdamB.
Unfortunately this site is designed to wipe your post if it thinks you're taking too long
to write when you press preview or submit.
So I am going to say that this forum needs an update or replacement for technical reasons.

Short answers:

- You're right that there are no future facts, but there are certainties.
The sun will rise on planet earth every 24 hours for the next 100 years is not an assumption I would hedge bets against.

There are PROBABILITIES. Most likely the Sun will continue to rise every 24 hours. Except for the odds of a planetoid hitting the earth and there being nothing for the Sun to rise above. A hiccup happens within the Suns core and it decides to go supernova early. A wandering black hole would do nicely, as would a gamma burst erasing all life on earth and making the Suns rising irrelevant to our non-existent species.

Most people don't think in terms of probabilities, particularly high impact low probability ones. Scientists do it all the time of course, and those with a geologic background don't even think about the continents as stable things, because, you know, they aren't.

- By shoddier I mean an oil type with a lower EREOI. The order should be going something like this: crude -> deep sea -> heavy crude -> tar sands -> tight oil aka shale oil -> oil shale.

Oil types aren't measured by EROEI. Ask any of us who have industry experience. API gravity, color, market price, impurities, etc etc. No EROEI. Never. We don't do it in the decision making process, we don't use it to measure economic value, none of it.

Your list doesn't appear to line up with even costs, which are a measure of effort. You understand that tight oil is in fact crude, right? Just flows slower because of generally lower permeability. And heavy crude is easier to produce and handle than deep offshore? Probably not. And tar sands can be either a mining operation (hard and more expensive), and a secondary recovery technique (sorta hard and less expensive) and aren't even the same thing.

And the way we measure effort in industry for any of these resources is cost. Per unit, per project, discounted cash flow, tax benefits, etc etc. You say "EROEI" and folks won't even know what it is to giggle at you for suggesting such a silly thing.

I am from the EU and I would say I'm paying around 40% more, the US can't afford shale oil to fail and the cost is 20% higher than the price of oil, the other 20% comes from the war in Ukraine and I blame that on shale oil as well with EU being vassals of the US really thought they could cheaply buy shale gas from the US. They can't.

The US doesn't have much to do with shale failing or not, we don't do NOC's in this free market. The US E&Ps choose to produce. Or not. Their call, not the US. And I haven't seen anyone conflate the development of light tight oil going back into the late 1800's (yes, shale oil has been produced for that long) with the war in Ukraine. Wouldn't you rather blame WWI on it or something?

As far as shale gas, the more natural gas becomes a globally fungible commodity like oil, it will sell everywhere except captured markets for global spot prices. So no, you won't ever get US cheap natural gas, and already some folks in the US aren't getting it any more either. Producers want to build pipe as fast as they can to get their natural gas to the export locations here in the US to get top dollar for their product. Simple market economics, predictable, and those of us who were talking about this a decade ago have just been waiting to say "I told you so".

- I was talking about peak shale oil of the US for 2020. I might be wrong there, like you said, there are no future facts. But it's fairly certain that if it's not a peak, it certainly is a plateaupoint where shale oil will stop growing at higher than 3% rates, unless recovering from steep declines.
- Michael C. Lynch thought that oil was abiotic and oil would replenish itself. That fantasy has flown.

Well, growing at rates <3% is still growing, and therefore not a peak. As far as peaks, it isn't as though the US hasn't done it all before right? So if there was one Covid induced in 2020, maybe it is the final one, or maybe not. It is mostly irrelevant in the scheme of peak oil dogma, as said dogma doesn't want to discuss economic factors. Which, as it turns out, can cause new peaks. Happy McPeaksters don't like letting economics into the calculation, which is amusing, because you can't solve peak oil without some of that science's basic precepts.

I've never heard Mike Lynch once claim abiotic oil. He did think Colin Campbell didn't know what he was talking about, in the way he calculated peak oil and his poor logic on the topic. Having spoken to the guy and exchanged information with him on this topic before, could you please provide a reference validating that claim? Because the man isn't silly or stupid, and one of those would seem to be a requirement for the folks making the abiotic oil claim.

[_sluimers_]

Oil types aren't measured by EROEI. Ask any of us who have industry experience. API gravity, color, market price, impurities, etc etc. No EROEI. Never. We don't do it in the decision making process, we don't use it to measure economic value, none of it.

First of all I'm quite sure that solar voltaic industry never uses the NREL Best Research-Cell Efficiency Chart for anything either,
yet it's a good first chart to see which solar voltaic technology will be dominant in the future.
That's is mostly because, just like EROEI, the trend is extremely enduring.
Cell efficiencies constantly go up and for EROEI it generally goes up for renewables and down for non-renewables.
Second of all EROEI can be used across multiple energy industries.
Unless you're a disney cartoon figure called Pocahantas, you don't think color has any use in the wind industry.

And for market price...

The market price, which also depends on growth rates.
They can be extremely volatile, especially when the EROEI of non-renewable resource,
is already quite low.

It has been low enough that for US shale oil producers,
they were not able to pay back their investors,
during the entire or almost almost the entire run up in
US shale oil production output until it (will) hit peak production.

Well, growing at rates <3% is still growing

The 3% is max and decellerating quickly, because it's going to hit peak production.
It's growth has gotten extremely fragile.
One cold spell, one big earthquake and those potential gains are gone in a flash.
And I'm going to say, it has already happened.
The US is having a cold spell.
The US is having oil shale related earthquakes.

The consequences of this (and the Ukraine war) I can tell you are not small.
Because due to the Ukraine war, my country and
the whole of the EU has decided on the dumbest decision in history,
or at the very least since a certain German decided to conquer Russia where Napolean had failed,
and decided to join the US in a campaign to have where the Russian president is told that "this man must go",
help blow up it's own most profitable gas pipelines from, and to fully rely on LNG imports, mainly from the US and the Middle East,
but not before fully insulting the Middle East as well, so mainly from the US and in particular US shale gas,
something that's clearly running out and whose overproduction is extremely likely to be short-lived.

I've seen at least one discussion* on the oilprice forum that this gas shale from the US was going to be
just as cheap as Russian pipeline gas.
Well gee, we're now and I've recieved an e-mail this week that I'm
going to have to pay a 100% increase on gas bills starting next year.
100% PERCENT!!!!
And I'm just a regular citizen doesn't work in any kind of industrial company that uses natural gas,
with a fixed contract.
And yes, I have to pay 100% percent extra while having a fixed contract.
And I should consider myself lucky, because people without a fixed contract,
are telling me that they're paying 300% more for their gas bills,
all due imported US shale gas and the war.

All because our politicians turn out that they care more about subservience to the US than
not just their citizens, but even themselves.

Since this is happening during a debt high inflation crisis as well,
I can say that the people here in the EU are slightly not amused by this.
Strikes are happening, people are turning their heaters to max 12 degrees celcius to save money,

The age of cheap fossil fuels in the world, at least for the EU, is gone.

-----

P.S. I could have sworn Micheal C. Lynch was a oil in abiotic supporter
from watching a youtube video on a peak oil debate twenty years ago where he was in,
plus an article published on the subject matter.
I never heard of the abiotic oil theory before that, but I must be mixing up things from twenty years ago,
because I can't find him supporting abiotic oil theory anywhere on any time.

* I'll try and find the oilprice forum discussion where someone claimed it would be just as cheap.

[AdamB]

Oil types aren't measured by EROEI. Ask any of us who have industry experience. API gravity, color, market price, impurities, etc etc. No EROEI. Never. We don't do it in the decision making process, we don't use it to measure economic value, none of it.

First of all I'm quite sure that solar voltaic industry never uses the NREL Best Research-Cell Efficiency Chart for anything either,
yet it's a good first chart to see which solar voltaic technology will be dominant in the future.
That's is mostly because, just like EROEI, the trend is extremely enduring.
Cell efficiencies constantly go up and for EROEI it generally goes up for renewables and down for non-renewables.
Second of all EROEI can be used across multiple energy industries.
Unless you're a disney cartoon figure called Pocahantas, you don't think color has any use in the wind industry.

You claimed it applied within the development of oil and gas. I claimed from experience in oil and gas that we don't even know what it is unless we hang out with doomer types who have been using it as a red herring to distract from their early 21st century peak oil claims. Who cares if it works elsewhere, unless you want to use it for peak renewables or something. In which case knock yourself out, I won't deny it. I'll only deny it within my area of expertise, which isn't renewables.We've got others around here who seem to know quite a bit about that though, we'll see if they chime in.

And for market price...
The market price, which also depends on growth rates.
They can be extremely volatile, especially when the EROEI of non-renewable resource,
is already quite low.

Market price depends on the interaction of supply and demand. EROEI isn't explicit in this calculation either.

It has been low enough that for US shale oil producers,
they were not able to pay back their investors,
during the entire or almost almost the entire run up in
US shale oil production output until it (will) hit peak production.

Not only are they paying them back in the form of dividends, they are paying off their debt, and still managing to keep oil production rising in the US.

US E&Ps smadhing records for proft

And the extraction of non-renewables will peak just as Hubbert said they would, it is a mathematical fact. But you can see why you don't ask the WHEN from folks who have been claiming they know the when for 32 years now (starting with Colin Campbell and his 1990 global peak claim).

Well, growing at rates <3% is still growing

The 3% is max and decellerating quickly, because it's going to hit peak production.

Could be. And certainly one day it will peak. Remember how oil in the US peaked back in 1970 and doomers were all agog about it being an immutable principle or something? Turns out, it was just their basic ignorance of geologic resources. What level is your understanding to geologic resources, in the US or globally, to not fall into the same trap?

The consequences of this (and the Ukraine war) I can tell you are not small.
Because due to the Ukraine war, my country and
the whole of the EU has decided on the dumbest decision in history,
or at the very least since a certain German decided to conquer Russia where Napolean had failed,
and decided to join the US in a campaign to have where the Russian president is told that "this man must go",
help blow up it's own most profitable gas pipelines from, and to fully rely on LNG imports, mainly from the US and the Middle East,
but not before fully insulting the Middle East as well, so mainly from the US and in particular US shale gas,
something that's clearly running out and whose overproduction is extremely likely to be short-lived.

The Old World has had some exciting adventures, I can't disagree. And being so stupid as to pin their energy future on Russia over the past decade or two is certainly one of them. I recommend you apply some good ol' fashion New World exceptionalism and get to drilling and developing and windmill building and nuke building in order to not be toady to other fascist powers in Europe. And without some understanding of that geologic resource thing I mentioned previously, you can't make any claim of US shale gas "clearly running out".

I've seen at least one discussion* on the oilprice forum that this gas shale from the US was going to be
just as cheap as Russian pipeline gas.
Well gee, we're now and I've recieved an e-mail this week that I'm
going to have to pay a 100% increase on gas bills starting next year.
100% PERCENT!!!!

Find yourself some bootstraps to pull on, get a drilling rig, and try and channel American exceptionalism. The Old World decided being a energy toady to Putin was a great idea. The Old World made a choice...welcome to the consequence.

All because our politicians turn out that they care more about subservience to the US than
not just their citizens, but even themselves.

Well, I can't cure Old World government inaction and incompetence for you. Emmigrate to the land of the free and home of the brave and leave the Old World behind?

The age of cheap fossil fuels in the world, at least for the EU, is gone.

Well...I understand that there are times where things look that way. The oil prices circa 2011-2015 certainly looked that way. But events like Putin revealing his true intentions can be game changers, I imagine the Old World will be building nukes and windmills and solar panels as fast as they can. There is a reasonable chance that this type of fossil fuel shock is exactly what the Old World needed to kick a paradigm shift into high gear.

P.S. I could have sworn Micheal C. Lynch was a oil in abiotic supporter
from watching a youtube video on a peak oil debate twenty years ago where he was in,
plus an article published on the subject matter.
I never heard of the abiotic oil theory before that, but I must be mixing up things from twenty years ago,
because I can't find him supporting abiotic oil theory anywhere on any time.

I hadn't ever heard even a hint of Mike being that way, I've worked with him or spoken to him at conferences on 3 different occasions on energy topics and this one never came up in any form or fashion. Which is why I asked for a reference, having never seen hide nor hair of it in his work or words myself. I collect references, as you never know when the need for a good footnote to make a point could come in handy.

[theluckycountry]

It seems this peakoil thing is a load of crap, Western Canadian Select crude is at $5 a barrel, same price for a bigmac meal. WTI $20 same price as in 2002

99% of the Peakoil community got it wrong, myself included. They assumed prices would simply climb higher forever until none but the really wealthy could afford it. But men like Ken Deffeys pegged it right. Expect price volatility as we go over the peak and down the long slope of decline. Each year though people on average drive less and less, the global lockdowns, obviously a strategy to break the consumer's love of driving, worked. It's just tough if you have a long commute to your place of employment.

Many of my neighbors still work and drive 100km+ a day. It's killing them too, these higher prices @ $80-barrel. In the third world many ride small crappy motorcycles but it's all relative and I bet they are feeling the pinch as well. It's clear $150 crushes economies so they will just have to manage it, keep it well below that as the world slowly grinds to a halt. It will take decades too, just as it did on the way up.

[Newfie]

Exactly, one things humans are really bad at is integrating mulit-generational changes into our mind set.

[mousepad]

But men like Ken Deffeys pegged it right. Expect price volatility as we go over the peak and down the long slope of decline.

Price volatility has nothing to do with peak and down the slope.
In order to understand this we have to understand stability of a closed loop system.
http://jingweizhu.weebly.com/uploads/1/ ... ystems.pdf

To make it short. A closed loop system is stable if there is enough positive phase margin between input and output of the system.
What does that mean for oil price?

1. Market demand of oil drives price of oil
2. change in price signals change in demand to oil company
3. depending on this market signal, production is increased or decreased.

There can be a significant delay from 2 to 3 above. The lag can be so large, that the pricing system can become unstable (not enough phase margin in control theory parlance)
How? If the price rises, new oil projects are being considered and implemented. It can take several years of development before oil from such new projects becomes online. By that time, demand destruction already worked its magic and oil prices stabilized at a higher level. Now comes the new oil project online, and oil supplies increase, resulting in a tumbling of prices. Hence, volatility.

Contrast this with oil being pumped into or released from the strategic reserve. This system has practically no delay from 2 to 3 above. Meaning on oil price hike the reserve can be tapped immediately to stabilize the system. This works because there's very little delay (and therefore a lot of phase margin) which makes the price/demand system stable.

It's all control theory, baby. No doomer magic needed.

[AdamB]

It seems this peakoil thing is a load of crap, Western Canadian Select crude is at $5 a barrel, same price for a bigmac meal. WTI $20 same price as in 2002

99% of the Peakoil community got it wrong, myself included. They assumed prices would simply climb higher forever until none but the really wealthy could afford it. But men like Ken Deffeys pegged it right.

Peak oil did not happen on Thanksgiving Day 2005. Deffeys [sic] was wrong.

[theluckycountry]

Exactly, one things humans are really bad at is integrating mulit-generational changes into our mind set.

I wonder if it's true what they say about the Chinese, that they think long term, think like decades ahead? Some of the actions they have taken in the past decade seem to make no sense to the western mind, like the massive stockpiles of copper and iron ore they have been building.

11 years ago:
Analysis: China's towering metal stockpiles cast economic shadow
QINGDAO, China (Reuters) - When metals warehouses in top consumer China are so full that workers start stockpiling iron ore in granaries and copper in car parks, you know the global economy could be in trouble.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chin ... 9E20120518

6 years ago:
Ports in China have enough iron ore to build 13,000 Eiffel Towers
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chin ... SKBN1720UO

Oh yeah, there is a movement these among the young working class, basically many have woken up to the fact that they are not going to get rich like the West got rich. So it's tools down, "Let it rot".



Not long after, memes related to ‘Let it rot’ began circulating the internet and became embraced by the masses. bailan let it rot ‘Let it be,’ reads the sticker

Bubbly 27-year-old Shanghai resident Erica Liu works in education and described herself as someone who isn’t easily self-defeated. In recent times, however, she has identified more and more with the ‘let it rot’ mentality and frequently uses the expression when chatting with her friends. “When my company set impossible goals for me to meet, I just felt like the only thing I could do was to bailan,” Liu tells RADII.

[_sluimers_]

Could be. And certainly one day it will peak. Remember how oil in the US peaked back in 1970 and doomers were all agog about it being an immutable principle or something? Turns out, it was just their basic ignorance of geologic resources. What level is your understanding to geologic resources, in the US or globally, to not fall into the same trap?

You don't need a degree to see the obvious happening all around you.
The 1970 peak was the US conventional oil peak.
The 2005 peak was the world conventional oil peak.
Electricity derived from natural gas and solar is already taking over
from gasoline derived from oil all around the world
and it would NOT have happened if oil had the same EROI as 50 years ago.
The price would simply not have allowed it.

You're talking about predictions when it's already in the rear view mirror.
You're simply living in an outdated empire that hasn't gotten the memo yet.

The Old World has had some exciting adventures, I can't disagree. And being so stupid as to pin their energy future on Russia over the past decade or two is certainly one of them.

That was cheap energy.
The colossal mistake made is trying to end that.
This is ruining the EU and the UK to the point that it'll be poorer than Russia and China by the end of the war.
It also saved the US shale oil and gas industry, because European leaders are total toadies to the US,
so they bought US LNG and forced the public to cough up the outrageous costs.
EU citizens are now absolutely getting fed up with having to pay for all of this
and it's leading towards further political chaos here.

I recommend you apply some good ol' fashion New World exceptionalism and get to drilling and developing and windmill building and nuke building in order to not be toady to other fascist powers in Europe.

The only fascist power in Europe is the uniparty oligarchy of the US.
Windmills and nuclear power plants are being build around the clock, but most of all solar panels.
Made in China of course.
Putin is a conservative christian with a social democratic flavor to please the communists.

And without some understanding of that geologic resource thing I mentioned previously, you can't make any claim of US shale gas "clearly running out".

The EROEI has already been quite low and historically they only go down from there.
Bleeding US allies dry through war coercion is not a sustainable way of propping up the industry for long.

Find yourself some bootstraps to pull on, get a drilling rig, and try and channel American exceptionalism.

You live in lala land.
Conventional oil has dried up.
Channeling Anglo-American exceptionalism can't be done when shale oil is located under populated areas.
Even conventional natural gas is causing earthquakes these days, slowing down it's production to almost a halt.

The Old World decided being a energy toady to Putin was a great idea. The Old World made a choice...welcome to the consequence.

Again, you live in lala land.
Putin was the energy toady to the EU
while fixing the country from the disastrous
economic policies of Yeltsin and Gorbachev
and our moronic leaders decided that any leader
that's not a complete US toady needs to be offed.

The consequences are going to be extremely dire for these EU leaders
and it's supporters having chosen this path and for the US as well.

Well, I can't cure Old World government inaction and incompetence for you. Emmigrate to the land of the free and home of the brave and leave the Old World behind?

You mean Russia?
Why emigrate there if the EU is going to switch sides anyway.

Well...I understand that there are times where things look that way. The oil prices circa 2011-2015 certainly looked that way. But events like Putin revealing his true intentions can be game changers, I imagine the Old World will be building nukes and windmills and solar panels as fast as they can.

Solar panels and windmills made in China are being installed in record time,
which helps China create even more windmills and solar panels for themselves.
They made a record amount last year,
around 200GW for 2023 for domestic use and I believe around 100GW for export?
So they produce enough panels to power 8% of the US per year and accelerating in the double digits.

China is really benefiting from this war.

Building nuclear power plants take so much time that they can only play a supportive role to renewables.
This will only help the inevitable political collapse of the EU towards China/Russia.

There is a reasonable chance that this type of fossil fuel shock is exactly what the Old World needed to kick a paradigm shift into high gear.

Yeah, towards China/Russia.
But I'm looking forward to it.

I hadn't ever heard even a hint of Mike being that way, I've worked with him or spoken to him at conferences on 3 different occasions on energy topics and this one never came up in any form or fashion. Which is why I asked for a reference, having never seen hide nor hair of it in his work or words myself. I collect references, as you never know when the need for a good footnote to make a point could come in handy.

I have collected references, just not this particular one.
It's not controversial enough. Peak oil hardly has any serious critics against it.
It's like christianity, looking at living fossils in funny looking clothes.
Other topics have given me far more a headache.

[ralfy]

Also, world oil production per capita peaked back in 1979. More oil per capita is needed to allow for industrialization.

[mousepad]

Also, world oil production per capita peaked back in 1979. More oil per capita is needed to allow for industrialization.

Not at all.

[ralfy]

Not at all.

Stop being an idiot.

https://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/20 ... k-oil.html