Peak Oil News and Message Boards

asg70 wrote:

AdamB wrote:He did. Several versions. And then erased them all along with the 2 alternate web forums he attempted to migrate to, as LATOC 1 imploded under the weight of the neediness of its posters.

I just discovered this reply. Do you happen to have a copy of Matt Savinar's farewell manifesto? I'd really like to read it.

Wish I had done screen shots that night, it was classic. He changed his response at least 3 or 4 times, foul language at first, and then the juicy rant against his followers. By about the 5th edit it was more bland and he had removed the evidence of his ire, whatever happened that weekend (it was implied that as technical problems mounted in the forum, his psycho-religious groupies looking for a daddy figure took to Facebook to express their need for him, and he exploded over it) wasn't fully explained.

asg70 wrote:Probably the hardest thing human beings find to do is to admit to being wrong, and in the age of the internet, seeing someone, anyone, admit to being wrong is as rare as hen's teeth.

Oh, he didn't admit being wrong, only that he couldn't take the groupies anymore. Interestingly, on this website, he was accused of basically just being a peak oil profiteer, which looked to be true. On his original website, he often asked people to use his Amazon affiliate ID or something, so he would get some credit or something when they bought whatever he was pimping (at one point he was pimping those facial masks because of the CIA released bird flu thing, remember that conspiracy theory?).

He landed in astrology, he still uses his peak oil cultology in his resume at his astrology publishing site. Quoted on the floor of Congress he was!

Ever read his book? He attempted to sell it at one point, but it is out there for free now, as a testament as to why you don't ask an unemployed ambulance chaser questions about science. Or math. Or anything that isn't conning people into buying solar ovens so Amazon will give you a cut.

asg70 wrote:
That, I think, is why these people just sort of quietly pack their bags and walk to the exit rather than making some sort of statement to address what all their mis-spent activism/commentary really means. This is really disappointing when some of these people wrote entire books on the subject (like Greer). They're writers.
They're not at a loss for words unless it's to admit to having wasted a portion of their lives fixating on an imperfect vision of the future.

I really think that explains everything. The more time and energy you invest in an endeavor the more reluctant you are to accept failure. That's why these people have sort of tried to rebrand themselves so they can shake off their old followers and pick up new ones who have no memory of their prior selves so they never have to answer any awkward chicken little style questions.

The number of peak oil websites where absolutely ridiculous claims were made, are pretty much gone. You are right, having to face their own ignorance at a later date isn't something they are intellectually capable of handling. Probably a common characteristic even outside of the peak oil world, but you see it stamped all over this topic on the web.

Looker - "...is not the heavy lending going on in those shale fracked areas a testament to the unprofitable nature of those reserves..." Since when does borrowing money to expand a business AUTOMATICALLY indicate that venture isn't profitable? Right now all the big shale players are still in business, still servicing debt, still paying salaries (at least to the employees they didn't lay off) and still paying dividends to shareholders. Exactly how does that equate to those companies not being profitable?

Of course many smaller companies did file Chapter 11 bankruptcy because the decline in oil prices rendered them unable to service debt and carry on operating. And according to some of our "armchair" experts the industry has borrowed $1 to $2 TRILLION. Yet at last count the amount of debt dismissed by the court is less the $100 Billion. But how many would have carried on operating profitably if oil were still $90/bbl?
IOW if developing the shales were losing money for most companies why were there many bankruptcies filed when oil was $90/bbl? Borrowing capex per se didn't make most of those companies unprofitable and push them into bankruptcy... $45/bbl oil did.

As far as EROEI is matters not if a company was using borrowed money or its own cash flow to drill. Once the EROEI fell to around 5 or 6 the economic analysis killed a prospect. I get the impression that you think companies make riskier investments or accept lower rates of return if the capex were borrowed. I don't know what businesses you worked in but I've been in the petroleum industry for more then 40 years. And not only has every company I've worked with was more frugal with borrowed money then free cash flowed but typically required a higher ROR investing borrowed capex to offset the interest payments. And much to long to explain but many of the financial institutions lending monies (especially to small pubcos) actually have significant control over how that money is spent. Many times I made presentations to such money lenders which provided credit lines to a company I represented. If they didn't like the project the would not FUND it. To fund a project is a very specific process. My company might have a $50 million line of credit but in many cases I couldn't borrow $2 million to drill a well unless the lender agreed to fund it. Where a lot of bond players got burned is when they essentially gave some companies blank checks. They did so because they were greedy and wanted those high interest rates.

Now that you have me thinking about it in 40+ years of doing and reviewing economic analysis of drilling projects I don't recall once the subject coming up in the decision making process. Typically such financial matters are handled by the CFO and his staff with not much communication with the geologic and engineering departments. Back in the 70's bust a very poorly run company I worked for had a $100 million balloon note come due and didn't have $1 to pay. And none of the geology and engineering staff had a clue. We kept evaluating projects as if we had money. LOL.

vt - No big secret: one of the mud pumps seized up. They thought it was a bearing and were still breaking it down when I left. The contractor said he would just drill with one pump. I told him that was OK but my engineer would be sending him an email notifying him that he would be off our insurance if he did. Really pissed him off because he was going to have to eat the day rate.

About 30 years ago thought I was about to have a very bad night when a driller lost a pump, didn't tell the company man and kept drilling. And then took a kick and the young night pusher over reacted and f*cked up the other pump. Stood there next to the escape capsule waiting to see if we were going to get dumped into the Gulf at 0200. Such memories stay with you. LOL.

So came home. I didn't need to be there anyway. On weekends I might swing by and have a cup with my consultant just to be sociable. And let them know I might drop by anytime. LOL.

onlooker wrote:With all due respect to your knowledge Rockman, is not the heavy lending going on in those shale fracked areas a testament to the unprofitable nature of those reserves and thus by connection the marginal EROEI of many of these plays?

So...they have been unprofitable since tight oil / shale gas production began in the 19th century, and since hydraulic fracturing started in the late 40's, and only NOW you've noticed they are unprofitable? Or should I say, someone else claimed to notice and you repeat it because you don't know how to refute, or don't want to.

asg70 wrote:

AdamB wrote:He did. Several versions. And then erased them all along with the 2 alternate web forums he attempted to migrate to, as LATOC 1 imploded under the weight of the neediness of its posters.

I just discovered this reply. Do you happen to have a copy of Matt Savinar's farewell manifesto? I'd really like to read it.

In case you were interested in Matt's original drivel, I found this online copy of his book, back when he was trying to get famous.

http://www.wermac.org/pdf/oilage4.pdf

AdamB wrote:

onlooker wrote:With all due respect to your knowledge Rockman, is not the heavy lending going on in those shale fracked areas a testament to the unprofitable nature of those reserves and thus by connection the marginal EROEI of many of these plays?

So oil producers, which make many $billions in profits over time collectively, have no idea what they're doing, and piling into fracking to make giant losses in the fullness of time? And the global oil glut, built on the back of the extra crude production from American oil fracking doesn't exist? Because of course, it couldn't, due to all the losses?

So do you really think you know more about economics than a large proportion of the oil industry -- when you repeatedly show that you know almost nothing about economics?

And of course, you know for a fact, that oil prices will never rise (making existing resources more profitable), even as global demand continues to rise each and every year the world isn't in a deep recession?

It's beyond dubious. What color is the sky in your world?

AdamB wrote:

asg70 wrote:

AdamB wrote:He did. Several versions. And then erased them all along with the 2 alternate web forums he attempted to migrate to, as LATOC 1 imploded under the weight of the neediness of its posters.

I just discovered this reply. Do you happen to have a copy of Matt Savinar's farewell manifesto? I'd really like to read it.

In case you were interested in Matt's original drivel, I found this online copy of his book, back when he was trying to get famous.
http://www.wermac.org/pdf/oilage4.pdf

lifeaftertheoilcrash.net is on the archive.org wayback but so far I've been unable to access the forum through there, but I now have an itch I can't scratch as far as dredging up any public statements Matt made on his way out of the scene.

I also wonder how angry he might get if he were approached about this today.

BTW, this is the soundtrack that must have been going underneath the doom-blogosophere when oil prices tanked, shale took over, the economy recovered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imamcajBEJs

pstarr wrote:global demand has not risen in a decade.

Someone really should log every time you say something that is patently wrong.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/20 ... 200563ec03

pstarr wrote:Have at it I'm all for it

Sure you are, because every time your factual errors are exposed you just wait a short while and repeat yourself.

That's basically your whole "demand dearth" nonsense in a nutshell. Just simple repetition.

And you're the last one who should be schooling anyone over their post-count.

The oil producers know exactly what they are doing. They are bilking you, your retirement/pension, CD's, everything and your children's future and whatever it is you hold dear.

The oil industry know all about economics . . . the kind that make them money and will leave you in the poor house. They even figured out how to put a President in office.

I guess you should call up all the people at Credit Suisse, Royal Bank of Canada, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase & Co, Citigroup, Scotiabank and tell them that all the billions of dollars they have made in their oil and gas investments weren’t real. Or better call up the private equity firms like Goldman Sachs, Blackstone, Riverstone, Macquarie, Limerock, Kern Partners, First Reserve etc and tell them that they never really made billions of dollars on oil and gas over the past few decades, it was all in their imagination. And while you are at it you should tell all the Mom & Pop investors who invested $100,000 in Exxon Mobil back in 2000 that the extra $100,000 they made as the shares appreciated was really just in their imagination, as was all the money they made in dividends and distributions. And you better tell their neighbors who took the same $100,000, accepted more risk and invested in EOG Resources back in 2000 that the $9 MM dollars they made since then as the share price appreciated wasn’t real

And you also need to check your facts regarding oil and gas company investment in the last election. They were overwhelmingly in support of Ted Cruz (around a million dollars in direct donations). And Donald Trump apparently received a total of $10,763 from oil and gas companies compared to Hilary Clinton who received $307,561and John Kasich who received $115,082. Indeed, Jeb Bush had received $503,902 and Marco Rubio had received $374,489 before they suspended their campaigns. So apparently they absolutely do not know how to get a president elected.

global demand has not risen in a decade. Only US demand. We are forfeiting our own future

You really are a dolt….perhaps you should actually reference some data for a change? Global demand in 2006 was 85.8 MMbbl/d and in 2016 it was 96.6 MMbbl/d an increase of 11%. Just look at the BP annual report on Energy.

pstarr wrote:half of that production is used by the oil producers to actually produce oil.

Prove it.

rockdoc, you confuse demand with production. Not the same, since half of that production is used by the oil producers to actually produce oil. It's neither a market demand or supply. It's an expense on a ledger book.

complete and utter horse crap. Those of us in the industry know that we used as much energy (if not more) to drill a well to 4000 m back in 2000 as we do today. Better engines today, some of them hybrid and better drillbits, mechanical toolpush etc have cut down on the days to drill which means less energy expended. For example, an MRC well in Saudi Arabia with total reservoir contact of 20,000 feet takes on average 40 days to drill. That means that the maximum consumption of diesel is 80,000 gallons. Each barrel of oil produces about 11 gallons of diesel so that means the total oil equivalent consumption is 7272 bbls. These wells are all producing on average over 5000 bbls per day which means they have paid for all the diesel they will ever consume in 1.5 days of production. If you think that is half of what will be produced they you really are an idiot.

And I am not confusing demand with production. Demand is consumption by definition which has been rising globally steadily. If we were using half of that oil to produce we would all have been out of business long before I retired.

rockdoc123 wrote:These wells are all producing on average over 5000 bbls per day which means they have paid for all the diesel they will ever consume in 1.5 days of production. If you think that is half of what will be produced they you really are an idiot.

So, um, PStarr, how long before this information flows in and back out your empty skull and then you will again repeat your 50% nonsense?