[mustang19]

Show me the $0 claim.

Go read what Pops wrote in response to your sock puppet. No need for me to repeat his use of the wayback machine against your claptrap.

He didn't write anything.
The image I gave seems accurate.

[AdamB]

Go read what Pops wrote in response to your sock puppet. No need for me to repeat his use of the wayback machine against your claptrap.

He didn't write anything.

Pops had you clocked from the get-go. I LOVED the attitude you had back then though, absolutely certain on one of the dumbest ideas I had ever seen. Educate yourself at length, I've spent an hour this morning just going back to the beginning and comparing your claims to what happened instead.

The image I gave seems accurate.

The image you have given is how to be an intellectual coward. Nothing more.

[Pops]

Pops had you clocked from the get-go.

One thing you gotta say, etp prolonged the interest in PO.com for 7 months, 12 days and 42 minutes, EXACTLY.
If you're interested in the details I'll sell you my report.
But I was in good form, I admit. LOL

[dcoyne78]

Pops said:

Thanks Dennis, I appreciate you posting here.
I also appreciate your considering oil price in your calculations.
Have you done a model with prices higher that $100? Or without a late fall in price?
I wonder what might happen in the case of a near term onset of decline in "conventional" extraction that drives the price above $100
Thanks

The Scenarios I call "TRR" scenarios use the AEO 2019 high oil price scenario, with an assumed decline in oil price after 2050. My guess is that by that time we will see much of land transport oil demand replaced by electrically driven transport.

See figure 4 from

https://peakoilbarrel.com/permian-basin ... aggerated/

The oil price scenario used for that scenario is in the chart below.

[mustang19]

Go read what Pops wrote in response to your sock puppet. No need for me to repeat his use of the wayback machine against your claptrap.

He didn't write anything.

Pops had you clocked from the get-go. I LOVED the attitude you had back then though, absolutely certain on one of the dumbest ideas I had ever seen. Educate yourself at length, I've spent an hour this morning just going back to the beginning and comparing your claims to what happened instead.

The image I gave seems accurate.

The image you have given is how to be an intellectual coward. Nothing more.

I don't see it.

Dcoyne your silly loopy thing is about to be falsified, in 1 month eia will release the annual report.

Your are assuming a 6% annual well productivity decline and that's it, but ignoring that decline accelerates over time. If it went from nothing to 6% in a decade then it will be 100% gone by 2029 and the tiny growth you project is gone.

[mustang19]

Pops said:

Thanks Dennis, I appreciate you posting here.
I also appreciate your considering oil price in your calculations.
Have you done a model with prices higher that $100? Or without a late fall in price?
I wonder what might happen in the case of a near term onset of decline in "conventional" extraction that drives the price above $100
Thanks

The Scenarios I call "TRR" scenarios use the AEO 2019 high oil price scenario, with an assumed decline in oil price after 2050. My guess is that by that time we will see much of land transport oil demand replaced by electrically driven transport.

See figure 4 from

https://peakoilbarrel.com/permian-basin ... aggerated/

The oil price scenario used for that scenario is in the chart below.

By the way that graph is totally wrong and oil is nowhere near 100.

None of your predictions contain confidence intervals but they are already bad.

[AdamB]

He didn't write anything.

Pops had you clocked from the get-go.

I don't see it.

Because you don't know how to click on the provided link, or can't read the posts within it? You know, the words where Pops pointed out obvious things, and you pretended that the world's silliest equation wasn't?

[AdamB]

By the way that graph is totally wrong and oil is nowhere near 100.

Yeah, some reading was required to know where he got that price path. Try it sometime, you might like it.

[mustang19]

He didn't write anything.

Pops had you clocked from the get-go.

I don't see it.

Because you don't know how to click on the provided link, or can't read the posts within it? You know, the words where Pops pointed out obvious things, and you pretended that the world's silliest equation wasn't?

Hill group said 0 in 2020, it happened, dont see the issue.

[AdamB]

Hill group said 0 in 2020, it happened, dont see the issue.

Sock puppet named Baduila told us that numbers are annual, not instantaneous. Hill Group graph # 31 on page 34 (by the way, graphs in publications are supposed to be sequential, whomever did your editing has lower numbered graphs AFTER higher number graphs....maybe part of why it got laughed out of the most basic review?) would seem to validate that claim, one data point per year. And the average price looks to be $12/bbl or so in 2020. Not $0. 2021 is when the yearly average would appear to be $0/bbl.

You do understand the difference between an average yearly price and an instantaneous one, don't you? And that the average Brent price was $41.61 in 2020? Duh.

In 2019 graph #31 on page 34 said that average oil should have been about $26/bbl. It was $64.34, according to info on same link from above.

Do you know that $41.61/bbl isn't $12/bbl? Or has retirement cost you 30 or 40 IQ points? I mean really Short, you can't even read your own graphs to get the numbers?

[mustang19]

Hill group said 0 in 2020, it happened, dont see the issue.

Sock puppet named Baduila told us that numbers are annual, not instantaneous. Hill Group graph # 31 on page 34 (by the way, graphs in publications are supposed to be sequential, whomever did your editing has lower numbered graphs AFTER higher number graphs....maybe part of why it got laughed out of the most basic review?) would seem to validate that claim, one data point per year. And the average price looks to be $12/bbl or so in 2020. Not $0. 2021 is when the yearly average would appear to be $0/bbl.

You do understand the difference between an average yearly price and an instantaneous one, don't you? And that the average Brent price was $41.61 in 2020? Duh.

In 2019 graph #31 on page 34 said that average oil should have been about $26/bbl. It was $64.34, according to info on same link from above.

Do you know that $41.61/bbl isn't $12/bbl? Or has retirement cost you 30 or 40 IQ points? I mean really Short, you can't even read your own graphs to get the numbers?

That sounds fine...

[AdamB]

That sounds fine...

The Hill Group didn't caveat their claim on that graph by putting confidence intervals around it Short.

So sure...it might sound fine to someone who doesn't mind being WRONG. By A BUNCH.

Who were the other members of this "group" anyway? Did they go uncredited because they knew this piece of work might discredit every word they wrote or said for the rest of their professional lives and wouldn't be caught dead with their names on it?

How about this part? The folks who wrote that report, both the named and the smart unnamed ones? Middle of page 3, right before the "Theory" (yuck yuck giggle giggle...right!) section? When you want to make stuff up, what is the first thing you do? Rewrite the definitions!! Gotta love that stunt. Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of petroleum:

Definition of petroleum
: an oily flammable bituminous liquid that may vary from almost colorless to black, occurs in many places in the upper strata of the earth, is a complex mixture of hydrocarbons with small amounts of other substances, and is prepared for use as gasoline, naphtha, or other products by various refining processes.

Compare that to the amateur hour one recrafted in the report. It says...paraphrasing..."Hey guys!!! We are going to redefine petroleum to make darn sure we exclude all that other oil in the world so we can declare the end of the universe tomorrow afternoon!". Presumed intent added for illustrative purposes by me.

Classic kindergarten level publishing stunt. Sort of like saying...."Everything I am about to tell you is true, if we first assume 2+2=5".

[Pops]

The Scenarios I call "TRR" scenarios use the AEO 2019 high oil price scenario, with an assumed decline in oil price after 2050. My guess is that by that time we will see much of land transport oil demand replaced by electrically driven transport.

See figure 4 from

https://peakoilbarrel.com/permian-basin ... aggerated/

Thanks!

[Tanada]

The Scenarios I call "TRR" scenarios use the AEO 2019 high oil price scenario, with an assumed decline in oil price after 2050. My guess is that by that time we will see much of land transport oil demand replaced by electrically driven transport.

See figure 4 from

https://peakoilbarrel.com/permian-basin ... aggerated/

Thanks!

Fascinating graph! If I am reading it correctly the "worst case" scenario for Permian is a peak at roughly 5 billion bbl/d in about 2027, a "most likely" scenario of 7.3 Billion bbl/day circa 2033 and a "most optimistic" scenario of 9.3 Billion bbl/d at 2037.

The interesting graph to compare this to would be the decline of other oil resources between now and 2037. She we can always dream and hope someone will come up with a cheap efficient scrubbing technology to get the remaining oil in place out of all those depleted fields out there but personally I think Fracking is the last hurrah in terms of getting liquid crude oil out of source rock in a big way.

From time to time I ask about Mexico fracking their end of the Permian Basin but it has been at least a year since I last asked. Anyone know if Pemeco has decided to finally cash in on the basin? We all know their production has been falling for years and it has destroyed their government revenue stream as a result leading to lots of bad things. If they cash in on their third of the Permian that could all change at least for a while.

[AdamB]

From time to time I ask about Mexico fracking their end of the Permian Basin but it has been at least a year since I last asked. Anyone know if Pemeco has decided to finally cash in on the basin?

They aren't. They talked about it for awhile, but haven't been able to pull the trigger. For the same reasons they haven't been able to reverse their overall oil production decline.

We all know their production has been falling for years and it has destroyed their government revenue stream as a result leading to lots of bad things. If they cash in on their third of the Permian that could all change at least for a while.

To "cash in" on their continuous resources requires cash up front first. Foreign currency cash as well, no doubt, and that outlay can hurt when all they want to do is use the gas domestically. North Americans can only hope they don't fall all the way down the "Venezuelan trap" as it were. The government needs revenue from oil sales, but the less they invest to maintain or grow, the less they make, the less they make, the less they can afford to invest and maintain and presto....the Venezuelan trap.

Throw in the normal ups and downs of global commodity prices, and it becomes quite the crapshoot. Particularly with the current scenario being peak oil demand.

[mustang19]

Permain production peaked at 4.7 per DPR. Dcoyne implied it would never go below 4.3 this year and its already 4.2. So dcoynes thing is already optimistic and will continue to be more wrong

[AdamB]

So dcoynes thing is already optimistic and will continue to be more wrong

Being wrong is usually what happens to those of us who spend our time imagining and modeling events and timing and volumes in the future. The good ones learn from being wrong. Dennis certainly has displayed this type of advanced ability. You have not.

[Pops]

If I am reading it correctly the "worst case" scenario for Permian is a peak at roughly 5 billion bbl/d in about 2027, a "most likely" scenario of 7.3 Billion bbl/day circa 2033 and a "most optimistic" scenario of 9.3 Billion bbl/d at 2037.

The problem with the low TRR forecast is early peak happens because of low price. But if other areas are constrained or declining the price will not stay low—unless the Great Reset outlaws ICEs in the next 2 weeks. Peak demand is an illusion right now.

If I were to guess I'd say LTO will come roaring back sooner than Dennis predicts. They may have trouble rounding up enough Greater Fools to foot the bill but I have faith they'll succeed! The TRR of gullible fools is far greater than I ever imagined, LOL

[dcoyne78]

If I am reading it correctly the "worst case" scenario for Permian is a peak at roughly 5 billion bbl/d in about 2027, a "most likely" scenario of 7.3 Billion bbl/day circa 2033 and a "most optimistic" scenario of 9.3 Billion bbl/d at 2037.

The problem with the low TRR forecast is early peak happens because of low price. But if other areas are constrained or declining the price will not stay low—unless the Great Reset outlaws ICEs in the next 2 weeks. Peak demand is an illusion right now.

If I were to guess I'd say LTO will come roaring back sooner than Dennis predicts. They may have trouble rounding up enough Greater Fools to foot the bill but I have faith they'll succeed! The TRR of gullible fools is far greater than I ever imagined, LOL

Pops,

Note that all three oil price scenarios are covered with low TRR scenario, it is an assumption not related to the price of oil.



Certainly is possible (very likely infact) that none of my scenarios will be correct. My guess is that there is a 90% probability a actual output will fall between the low TRR, low price scenario, and the high TRR, high price scenario (ERR from 25 Gb to 100 Gb with a best guess of 60 Gb).

Note that the USGS low TRR estimate has about a 95% probability of being exceeded by the USGS, it is a so called F95 estimate.

[mustang19]

So dcoynes thing is already optimistic and will continue to be more wrong

Being wrong is usually what happens to those of us who spend our time imagining and modeling events and timing and volumes in the future. The good ones learn from being wrong. Dennis certainly has displayed this type of advanced ability. You have not.

It's the opposite, he correctly predicted peak oil then tried a totally different model.that is wrong