[AdamB]

As for fracking, there's more than enough evidence to suggest that there's enough recoverable oil left to fuel a 2nd wave of fracking after the frackers get wiped out and prices creep back to where it's more profitable to drill again.

But enough to close the gap by then? Evidence says no.

Same claim was made before, and it turned out that drill-baby-drill Sarah Palin got it more right than most others.

So the real question is, now that we know drill-baby-drill works, how well will it continue to work, and at what price?

[MonteQuest]

But enough to close the gap by then? Evidence says no.

Same claim was made before, and it turned out that drill-baby-drill Sarah Palin got it more right than most others.

That wasn't the claim made. The claim was that LTO couldn't close the gap between projected demand and projected supply. It didn't. It closed the gap between the actual demand and supply. We consumed roughly 94.5mbpd in 2015. Normal growth had us projected at consuming 110mbpd in 2015. That's a 15.5mbpd reduction due to demand destruction via the high prices that made LTO viable and the consequences of the 2008 financial crash.

So the real question is, now that we know drill-baby-drill works, how well will it continue to work, and at what price?

Or, that how much will new demand expand the gap between supply and demand due to cheap oil and gasoline? By the time fracking returns, will there be enough companies still standing to ramp up production? Will investors, bitten by the LTO low ROI, pony up the funds to drill? Will the decline of mature fields accelerate due to lack of investment in EOR to the point of negating any LTO return? Even at that, LTO is projected to peak in what? 4 years?

[ralfy]

It only works if it leads to lower production cost.

[ennui2]

The problem Ennui, is you want their to be some kind of epiphany that this is the moment of Doom. Their is no one moment. What their is an ongoing process.
You say their that BAU is continuing like before.

Sorry, I have to do this, because that's just too many incorrect uses of 'their' in a row.

Oil prices has dropped considerably

You're listing this out as a sign of doom, though. I see it as the reverse. The inversion of doomer logic from high to low oil prices is something I have a really hard time with, and yet the group-think of doomers have gotten behind this.

You do not want to see signs and yet they are all around of a strained sputtering economy.

My opinion is that two-fold. A) it could be a lot worse, and B) it HAS been a lot worse in the past due to non-peak-oil factors (like the great depression) and we recovered.

You are correct if you say that we could be on the tip of the long descent, but so far really it's not that bad.

Mcdonalds doing poorly

This is due to a generational shift and people finally realizing it will kill you (Supersize me). Cognitive dissonance because overeating at Subway will kill you too, but still, it's just the ebb and flow of brands.

Again, their is no moment. Their is a downward spiral and you have failed to see it or you do not want to see it.

Please re-read.

[onlooker]

Yikes I feel I am in elementary school again. I so hated grammar. haha.

[ennui2]

As for fracking, there's more than enough evidence to suggest that there's enough recoverable oil left to fuel a 2nd wave of fracking after the frackers get wiped out and prices creep back to where it's more profitable to drill again.

But enough to close the gap by then? Evidence says no.

Probably not, but it's still a buffer. I think the upside of the world starting to at least turn the corner on acknowledging AGW (outside of the Trump faction) is that it at least puts more emphasis onto renewables than was the case, let's say, 10 years ago when "The Big One" was supposed to have happened.

The main difference in my viewpoint vs. most others here isn't that I think peak-oil-doom isn't going to bite. I just think the can's been kicked further than others do.

It's just that the difference is magnified by virtue of people digging in their heels and doubling down on their short-term crash predictions. One way or another we'll get to the same place. It's only a matter of time. That's about the limit of my attempt to join hands with everyone and sing kumbaya.

So I would resist equating my position as corny. It's not. It's just more of a medium-crash scenario.

[MonteQuest]

Probably not, but it's still a buffer.

A buffer to what? If the ropes too short, it's too short when it has to reach.

[ennui2]

Probably not, but it's still a buffer.

A buffer to what? If the ropes too short, it's too short when it has to reach.

It could change how fast the acrobat falls.

Do you really want to keep going down the analogy angle, BTW? We're not talking about circus performers.

[MonteQuest]

Do you really want to keep going down the analogy angle, BTW?

Yeah, you still miss the point.

[AdamB]

But enough to close the gap by then? Evidence says no.

Same claim was made before, and it turned out that drill-baby-drill Sarah Palin got it more right than most others.

That wasn't the claim made. The claim was that LTO couldn't close the gap between projected demand and projected supply. It didn't. It closed the gap between the actual demand and supply.

And I, and you, and everyone else around here gladly accepts that it did, and did it so well we are now paying far less for our fuels. Old models are interesting in some sort of backcasting way to determine how smart their authors were, and how well their assumptions held up, and no one really cares anyway, because we have in front of us the very reality of what happened, as opposed to all those claims so long ago of 120+ million barrels a day by the likes of the IEA. But what DID happen is what the economists said happened, in terms of conservation, new supply because of increased prices, substitution, efficiency, new types of transport so that the consumer isn't chained to the liquid fuel paradigm.

We consumed roughly 94.5mbpd in 2015. Normal growth had us projected at consuming 110mbpd in 2015. That's a 15.5mbpd reduction due to demand destruction via the high prices that made LTO viable and the consequences of the 2008 financial crash.

Good thing that the economists have all this substitution, conservation, and new amounts of supply coming on with new price figured out then. Another way of thinking about it is that, we really didn't need as much as we thought we did, and if we really did that to the tune of 15 million barrels a day, imagine how much MORE we can not use if we were serious about it!

So the real question is, now that we know drill-baby-drill works, how well will it continue to work, and at what price?

Or, that how much will new demand expand the gap between supply and demand due to cheap oil and gasoline? By the time fracking returns, will there be enough companies still standing to ramp up production? Will investors, bitten by the LTO low ROI, pony up the funds to drill? Will the decline of mature fields accelerate due to lack of investment in EOR to the point of negating any LTO return? Even at that, LTO is projected to peak in what? 4 years?

Fracking never left, so there is no need for it to return, and sure, why not let demand and supply come into a better balance, allowing it to happen even faster? Give those oil field folks $50, and lets see how things work out, certainly we don't need it NOW with all the oversupply, and expected over supply through 2017:

2/3's of the way down, that graph on expected inventory

https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/repo ... al_oil.cfm

[MonteQuest]

Good thing that the economists have all this substitution, conservation, and new amounts of supply coming on with new price figured out then.

Utter nonsense. $60 trillion in new debt and violently imposed austerity was the substitution. Read what I have been posting in the Eye of the Storm thread. Might wake you up.

[ennui2]

Yeah, you still miss the point.

All I ask is that you be more direct rather than poetic, like when you posted the debt to GDP chart.

[MonteQuest]

All I ask is that you be more direct rather than poetic, like when you posted the debt to GDP chart.

Noted. Just seemed being direct went over your head or something. I don't mind being asked for clarity.

[AdamB]

Good thing that the economists have all this substitution, conservation, and new amounts of supply coming on with new price figured out then.

Utter nonsense.

Not according to the modeling results you are comparing to, and the reality that then happened. You don't live in some place that isn't benefiting from the low fuel prices are you? A country that taxed away the difference to punish its citizens perhaps? Because here in the US, in quite extensive parts of the country including Hawaii, are.

$60 trillion in new debt and violently imposed austerity was the substitution. Read what I have been posting in the Eye of the Storm thread. Might wake you up.

I didn't see a single person complaining at the austerity showing up as cheap tanks of gasoline here in the States? Are you referring to those who borrowed and cannot repay (we call them deadbeats here in the States) and they can be individuals, or countries. Greece for example. Borrow without a means of repayment and I would agree that your life might soon stink. I recommend against it.

As far as waking up and reading your stuff, I must ask, have YOU? Not the economic speculation you are putting out NOW, about tomorrow, but the stuff you put long ago, about today? Can you point me to where you mentioned, back then, that the US would grow its oil production faster than at any time in its history? Created two of the largest producing fields in the western hemisphere in just a few short years? Took control of the marginal barrel and created so much new oil production that they scared the Saudi's into defending market share, rather than price? I mean, did you mention record new auto sales back then? Real gasoline prices as low as they were in the early 70's? Because if you did...really..ANY of these things, then Sir, my hat is off to you, and when you decide to give a class oil economics or just economics in general, tell me when and sign me up, because that kind of talent must be learned from.

[ralfy]

Based on significant levels of debt, with half-a-trillion in debt repayments that have to be made during the next five years:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... to-survive

[MonteQuest]

As far as waking up and reading your stuff, I must ask, have YOU? Not the economic speculation you are putting out NOW, about tomorrow, but the stuff you put long ago, about today?

Don't know if I have really made any economic predictions or oil production predictions that were based on today. Most of what I wrote was about the consequences post-peak or the indicators leading up to the peak, and the parameters dictated by physics and environmental limits. Quote me about the predictions you think I made and am now ignoring.

Can you point me to where you mentioned, back then, that the US would grow its oil production faster than at any time in its history? Created two of the largest producing fields in the western hemisphere in just a few short years? Took control of the marginal barrel and created so much new oil production that they scared the Saudi's into defending market share, rather than price? I mean, did you mention record new auto sales back then? Real gasoline prices as low as they were in the early 70's? Because if you did...really..ANY of these things, then Sir, my hat is off to you, and when you decide to give a class oil economics or just economics in general, tell me when and sign me up, because that kind of talent must be learned from.

You mean did I imagine the world would use cheap money to dig the hole they were in deeper so the coming fall will be from an even higher place? Yes.

Sure, we increased oil production, but it came at a huge cost. Yet, even with more new oil produced in one yr (2013) it wouldn't have been enough to close the gap had the economy really recovered. The high price of oil may have spurred new production, but it took us deeper in debt, and destroyed many economies, driving down demand. 25 to 30% of new auto sales are subprime loans to buy Lexus, BMV, EV's. So, don't use that as an example, it's actually a worsening sign. Market share or budget demands for SA?

When you hear that the last spike in oil prices was due to market speculation, it’s a bit ironic that the $3 trillion cash infusion by the FED was jumped on by the US shale producers for a speculative investment, that, like the oil price has come back to earth.



Ever increasing debt to grow, and sometimes destroy GDP, is not a "talent" one wants to learn, or embrace, nor should it be heralded, as you do, as economic superior thinking.

[MonteQuest]

Are you referring to those who borrowed and cannot repay (we call them deadbeats here in the States) and they can be individuals, or countries. Greece for example. Borrow without a means of repayment and I would agree that your life might soon stink. I recommend against it.

Yet, you go on to herald the decision by the US to borrow money they can't ever repay as ok, as look what we did for the price of gas, oil production, car sales, etc. That $60 trillion was not just the PIGGS and debeats, China, Japan, and the USA are also included.

So, if we take your statement Borrow without a means of repayment and I would agree that your life might soon stink.as an educated position, life in America is soon going to stink. Now we are in agreement.

[MonteQuest]

Based on significant levels of debt, with half-a-trillion in debt repayments that have to be made during the next five years:

From your link.

At a time when the oil price is languishing at its lowest level in six years, producers need to find half a trillion dollars to repay debt. Some might not make it.


So, Adam, should we go for it? What's another half trillion of borrowed debt we can't repay?

[MonteQuest]

Not the economic speculation you are putting out NOW, about tomorrow, but the stuff you put long ago, about today?

And just what economic speculation have I been making NOW? Showing charts of the actual situation and explaining the shrinking options we have before us, is now called speculation? What I am "speculating" is that we are going to have a hard time priming the pump, given the facts at hand.

[EdwinSm]

priming the pump

While I understand the image (which you seem to be using a lot), I have a hand pump on a well near the house that is a nice modern design that does not need priming - so if needed I could drink all the water I pump

There are other problems with the flow to the well in that the previous owners found it was not enough for a family and so connected to the town supply, but I think the flow will be enough in an emergency if water is carefully used!

ps. this pump is one of the benefits of having had an extra 10 years to prep in (it beats using a bucket to get the water out!).