Peak Oil News and Message Boards

We have attacked 3 Houthi radar sites in retaliation.

http://gcaptain.com/u-s-strikes-yemen-m ... navy-ship/

ROCKMAN wrote:d - "...from 13% to 33% (approximate 150% increase) in 4 years". A minor point but that's about a 250% increase.

I believe we state increases as 100% less than the "times" as the existing amount is removed. That is if something doubles (times 2) , say from 13% to 26%, we say that it was a 100% increase, not 200%. 13% to 39% is 3 times, but I think is stated as a 200% increase.

d - No big thing but you said 150%. But you're correct otherwise

I was strolling down through Memory Lane and ran across this doozey here. Not surprisingly, westexas seems to have disappeared.

Score:
Micheal Lynch 1
westexas 0

westexas wrote:Following is an excerpt from an OpEd that Lynch wrote in August, 2009, where he predicted that oil prices would soon be back down to close to $30. Note that Brent averaged $80 in 2010 and $110 for 2011 to 2013 inclusive–for a four year average price in excess of $100 for 2010 to 2013 inclusive.

Based on Lynch’s track record and based on his current revised forecast for a $50 to $60 price (about twice his previous prediction), I suppose that we should expect an average Brent price of about $150 to $180 for 2016 to 2019 inclusive.

'Peak Oil’ Is a Waste of Energy
By MICHAEL LYNCH
Published: August 24, 2009

“Oil remains abundant, and the price will likely come down closer to the historical level of $30 a barrel as new supplies come forward in the deep waters off West Africa and Latin America, in East Africa, and perhaps in the Bakken oil shale fields of Montana and North Dakota. But that may not keep the Chicken Littles from convincing policymakers in Washington and elsewhere that oil, being finite, must increase in price.”

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/opinion/25lynch.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&emc=eta1

It's amusing watching someone call someone a "quack" who was proven to be right.

Peak oil doomers prefer not to be reminded of their past prediction failures. Copious reopened the memory hole where bad predictions go to die. Shame on him. LOL

an average Brent price of about $150 to $180 for 2016 to 2019 inclusive.

Well, we're at the end of 2016, 2017-9 are still to come, 180USD for Brent is still a real possibility at the end of 2019 if quotas are held and the economy booms well enough to cause a supply shortfall in 2018, the average price being up there looks quite unlikely now.

But according to the ETP peak oil doomers, the price of oil can never rise, but only go down to zero. Pstarr told me this himself not long ago.

Cog wrote:But according to the ETP peak oil doomers, the price of oil can never rise, but only go down to zero. Pstarr told me this himself not long ago.

There was your mistake right there.

pstarr wrote:The idiot was right regarding Bakken, for a few precious years. But the rest, deep water and Arctic were/are a complete bust. So much for the $million dollar con man.

I've spoke with him twice this year, and he didn't seem like a con man. What about discussing these issues with him makes you think otherwise?

Not to worry AdamB. When the price of oil rises over the next few years, the ETP doomers will come up with some reason. Or maybe they will chase the next new chart, graph, or construct that will suit the new reality. I'm just here to watch the endless excuses of why they are wrong yet again.

Starman - The DW GOM is a bust? So the definition of a bust, based on the EIA stats, is now defined as 3,400+ wells in 210+ fields that have produced a cumuilative 7 BILLION bbls of oil and is still producing about 400 million bbls of oil. Makes me wonder what a success would look like.

pstarr wrote:Here you go, a piece of b@llshit propaganda from that oil-company trash Lynch Peak Oil’ Is a Waste of Energy

Oil remains abundant, and the price will likely come down closer to the historical level of $30 a barrel as new supplies come forward in the deep waters off West Africa and Latin America, in East Africa, and perhaps in the Bakken oil shale fields of Montana and North Dakota. But that may not keep the Chicken Littles from convincing policymakers in Washington and elsewhere that oil, being finite, must increase in price.

Once again I am pretty sure p-the-starr has been smoking too much of that wacky weed again, since he offered us a quote and link - as if it were new information! - the exact same quote and link myself and westexas above had already quoted and linked!

dolanbaker wrote:

an average Brent price of about $150 to $180 for 2016 to 2019 inclusive.

Well, we're at the end of 2016, 2017-9 are still to come, 180USD for Brent is still a real possibility at the end of 2019 if quotas are held and the economy booms well enough to cause a supply shortfall in 2018, the average price being up there looks quite unlikely now.

Dolan, respectfully, I don't understand this possibility being realistic, at all.

1). Even if the US economy becomes VERY strong (which is very much in doubt), that doesn't mean the global economy will follow suit.

2). If events transpire to bring the global oil price much above $70 for any length of time, the consensus of informed commentators seems to be that the US oil fracking industry will ramp up. A price over, say, $100 would cause it to ramp up a LOT (moderating prices again).

3). Even if the global economy grows moderately, as much as short term doomers hate to admit it, efficiency gains will continue. This will continue to have a significant downward impact on the total number of gallons of gasoline, diesel, etc. burned.

So while I agree that for the balance of the decade, I'd expect global oil prices to trend upward, and at least average higher than they are currently, that's a HUGE difference than having Brent end much higher than oil was at the 2008 peak.

Barring something big geopolitically (like a major attack on Iran resulting in nuclear strikes or closing the Persian Gulf, which seems more likely with someone as volatile as Trump at the helm, IMO), I just don't see oil staying over $100ish very long from ANY realistic global economic demand.

....

And as always, I could easily be wrong. Care to share how strong a global growth number you think it would take to sustain Brent prices over, say, $150, for a meaningful amount of time? (I LIKE sharing "The Wisdom of Crowds"! I think it's the best overall benefit of this site.)

pstarr wrote:

AdamB wrote:

pstarr wrote:The idiot was right regarding Bakken, for a few precious years. But the rest, deep water and Arctic were/are a complete bust. So much for the $million dollar con man.

I've spoke with him twice this year, and he didn't seem like a con man. What about discussing these issues with him makes you think otherwise?

Lynch is a narcissist like you.

He didn't strike me that way at all. Did you even discuss anything with him, to come to this conclusion? Or are you just getting "carried away"..again?

pstarr wrote:Attention starved con man for the industry. But at least that loser was paid.

Adam, you need to show us your paycheck. Otherwise you are just another poser.

I'm quite happy being just another poster, thank you very much.

ROCKMAN wrote:Starman - The DW GOM is a bust? So the definition of a bust, based on the EIA stats, is now defined as 3,400+ wells in 210+ fields that have produced a cumuilative 7 BILLION bbls of oil and is still producing about 400 million bbls of oil. Makes me wonder what a success would look like.

That has already been accomplished, and is easy to show.