Page 13 of 13

Re: U.S. proved natural gas, crude oil reserves soar - EIA

Unread postPosted: Fri 09 Jun 2017, 12:19:52
by shortonoil
Its uninformed comments such as this that substantiate the viewpoint that the whole ETP idea is complete nonsense.


Completely uniformed people masquerading as experts seems to be the problem

Do a search for "EIA reserve estimates USGS"

You will get about 100 of them. The EAI has used USGS estimates since its inception 1974, and still do.

The Energy Information Administration estimates US undiscovered, technically recoverable oil resources to be an additional 198 billion barrels.[2][3]

Since 2000 the USGS has been re-assessing basins of the U.S. that are considered to be priorities for oil and gas resources. Since 2000, the USGS has re-assessed 22 priority basins, and has plans to re-assess 10 more basins. These 32 basins represent about 97% of the discovered and undiscovered oil and gas resources of the United States"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reser ... ted_States

Your insistent attempts to cover up what anyone with an iota of mining expedience would see in an instant is getting to be "complete nonsense". The industry can no longer replace its reserves, its revenue has fallen by more than half in the last 3 years, and its profit margin has vanished. The petroleum industry is a dying industry. King oil has now become the Poor Cousin.

Re: U.S. proved natural gas, crude oil reserves soar - EIA

Unread postPosted: Fri 09 Jun 2017, 12:54:34
by marmico
Image

Re: U.S. proved natural gas, crude oil reserves soar - EIA

Unread postPosted: Fri 09 Jun 2017, 15:09:15
by rockdoc123
You will get about 100 of them. The EAI has used USGS estimates since its inception 1974, and still do.

The Energy Information Administration estimates US undiscovered, technically recoverable oil resources to be an additional 198 billion barrels.[2][3]

Since 2000 the USGS has been re-assessing basins of the U.S. that are considered to be priorities for oil and gas resources. Since 2000, the USGS has re-assessed 22 priority basins, and has plans to re-assess 10 more basins. These 32 basins represent about 97% of the discovered and undiscovered oil and gas resources of the United States"


When the EIA refers to Reserves and especially recoverable Reserves they use the data that is supplied to the US and State authorities from reporting companies and State regulators (example RRC in TX). They do not use the USGS numbers (which are derived in a totally different fashion for completely different reasons) for anything other than a reference to Resources (which are what technically recoverable reserves are). Read the the page I linked to at EIA, it tells you what they do. The USGS does not talk about the term Reserves (which by definition refers to that which is economically recoverable under the average price of that year) other than it all gets wound up in their over view of what might be recovered eventually from the various basins they inspect. So pull your head out of your backside. You have been instructed numerous times as to what the official terms Reserves, Proven, Probably, Possible, Contingent Resource, Possible Resource etc mean and that Technically Recoverable Reserves is a USGS only term that refers to ultimate recovery irrespective of current price. Not sure why you don't get the fact that Reserves do not disappear....they become Resources when the price drops below their economic level and then they are elevated back to Reserves once the price returns or moves ever higher. I repeat the EIA numbers on Reserves are derived from in their own words:
(EIA) starts with the data filed on Form EIA-23L, Annual Report of Domestic Oil and Gas Reserves, which was submitted by 450 of 467 sampled operators of U.S. oil and natural gas fields. EIA then estimates proved reserves for the U.S., states, and state subdivisions.


The industry can no longer replace its reserves, its revenue has fallen by more than half in the last 3 years, and its profit margin has vanished. The petroleum industry is a dying industry. King oil has now become the Poor Cousin.


IT amazes me how a "dying industry" can still keep paying salaries, drilling wells, pay rent, a large part of the tax revenue you mooch off of, provide the materials for all the countless toys you play with, etc, etc. If you knew how to read a balance sheet and understood how the oil and gas business worked you might be dangerous....you aren't however. Lets look at XOM as an example. If you look at their 2016 filings you would see that the only reason liquid reserve replacement fell below 100% (which it has been above since 2007) was because of a write down in some of their heavy oil holdings. That write down does not constitute lost oil but rather reserves which have been demoted to resources but which will return to reserves again at average prices above $50. When that happens XOM will show a full reserve replacement once again. That is the way it works.

US EIA cuts 2018 world oil demand growth forecast

Unread postPosted: Thu 14 Dec 2017, 22:09:35
by AdamB
The U.S. Energy Information Administration on Tuesday cut its 2018 world oil demand growth forecast by 40,000 barrels per day to 1.62 million bpd. In its monthly forecast, the agency raised its oil demand growth estimate for 2017 by 80,000 bpd to 1.39 million bpd. reuters


US EIA cuts 2018 world oil demand growth forecast

EIA Bashers Should Check Their Own Numbers

Unread postPosted: Thu 14 Dec 2017, 22:12:06
by AdamB
Summary Empirical data does not support multiple recent allegations that the EIA's reporting or forecasts are "wrong." The wave of frivolous accusations against the EIA in the blogosphere preys on the least protected category of investors. A competent, independent, bias-free EIA must be safeguarded. This idea was discussed in more depth with members of my private investing community, Zeits OIL ANALYTICS. Bashing the EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration) has become trendy of late among a certain category of bloggers. However, the allegations that the agency's analytics are "wrong" often turn out to be without substance or even without demonstrated understanding of what the EIA does. Disappointingly, the outbreak of the "can't trust the EIA" fever among sensation-seeking amateur writers has coincided with less-than thought-out criticisms by some respected industry insiders and weak coverage of the subject by major financial news outlets. Unmerited attacks on the agency


EIA Bashers Should Check Their Own Numbers

Re: EIA Bashers Should Check Their Own Numbers

Unread postPosted: Thu 14 Dec 2017, 22:15:13
by AdamB
I think it is worth mentioning that the EIA is one of the few energy organizations that didn't fall for the peak oil of a decade ago. No Happy McDoomsters there, just experts in many (if not all) facets of energy, with who knows how many man-centuries of experience.

Re: THE EIA Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Thu 26 Sep 2019, 11:16:55
by tita
I was looking at the last "International Energy Outlook" from the EIA, with projections to 2050.

It's quite astonishing that, under the "High oil price" scenario, growth is higher and energy consumption/production is also higher while the "low oil price" scenario see lower growth and lower primary energy consumption and production.

I guess the EIA didn't have the memo from the ETP crowd.

Re: THE EIA Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Thu 21 Nov 2019, 22:52:17
by Scottie
tita wrote:I was looking at the last "International Energy Outlook" from the EIA, with projections to 2050.

It's quite astonishing that, under the "High oil price" scenario, growth is higher and energy consumption/production is also higher while the "low oil price" scenario see lower growth and lower primary energy consumption and production.

I guess the EIA didn't have the memo from the ETP crowd.


The odds of the EIA paying attention to the kind of pseudo science used by the ETP crowd is somewhere between zero and none. I mean really, would they even have read something that couldn't make it through a peer review, in order to not suffer further embarrassment had to remove the entire website and is currently in the process of claiming that the MAP nonsense really wasn't something they thought was a good idea...while using it to lose bets and then welsh when they lost?

My bet is that if they even heard of it their would have been a crooked grin, a chuckle, and then completely forgotten about 5 seconds later.

Re: THE EIA Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Fri 22 Nov 2019, 18:08:25
by ralfy
Scottie wrote:
tita wrote:I was looking at the last "International Energy Outlook" from the EIA, with projections to 2050.

It's quite astonishing that, under the "High oil price" scenario, growth is higher and energy consumption/production is also higher while the "low oil price" scenario see lower growth and lower primary energy consumption and production.

I guess the EIA didn't have the memo from the ETP crowd.


The odds of the EIA paying attention to the kind of pseudo science used by the ETP crowd is somewhere between zero and none. I mean really, would they even have read something that couldn't make it through a peer review, in order to not suffer further embarrassment had to remove the entire website and is currently in the process of claiming that the MAP nonsense really wasn't something they thought was a good idea...while using it to lose bets and then welsh when they lost?

My bet is that if they even heard of it their would have been a crooked grin, a chuckle, and then completely forgotten about 5 seconds later.


Shouldn't it be the other way round? Consumption is lower when price is higher, and consumption goes up when price is lower?

Re: THE EIA Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Sun 24 Nov 2019, 11:15:32
by AdamB
ralfy wrote:
Scottie wrote:
tita wrote:I was looking at the last "International Energy Outlook" from the EIA, with projections to 2050.

It's quite astonishing that, under the "High oil price" scenario, growth is higher and energy consumption/production is also higher while the "low oil price" scenario see lower growth and lower primary energy consumption and production.

I guess the EIA didn't have the memo from the ETP crowd.


My bet is that if they even heard of it their would have been a crooked grin, a chuckle, and then completely forgotten about 5 seconds later.


Shouldn't it be the other way round? Consumption is lower when price is higher, and consumption goes up when price is lower?


By the very act of hearing of it, thinking about it, and chuckling, is itself an answer as to the value of the etp idea. It received as much attention as it deserved. Just as I was able to write down why it was wrong years ago, I didn't require reality to prove me out. I knew in advance it would, because it was just flat out wrong. Anyone spouting that 2+2 must equal 5 can be easily dismissed, and some of us knew it years ago.

Do the science, and what follows is a step forward. Make up silly ideas that can't make it through peer review, need hidden because otherwise they are hung by their own petard, that has nothing to do with doing the science.