Petroleum Supply Monthly, Texas C+C estimate, Permian, and Eagle Ford

This post was written by Dennis Coyne and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Ron Patterson.

I have considered an alternative way of estimating Texas oil (C+C) output using the Drilling info data provided in the EIA’s 914 monthly production reports.


The Texas estimate is a weak part of the EIA’s estimate for US C+C output. In the chart above I show the EIA’s most recent monthly estimate from the Petroleum supply monthly and compare with an alternative estimate that substitute’s my best estimate for EIA’s TX C+C estimate. The slope of the trend line needs to be multiplied by 366 to give the decline at an annual rate, for the EIA estimate it is 528 kb/d per year, and for the alternative estimate it is 364 kb/d per year.

The decline of 222 kb/d in April 2016 was due to a 66 kb/d decline in North Dakota, a 58 kb/d decline in Federal Offshore, a 47 kb/d decline in Texas, and a 22 kb/d decline in Alaska, the total for these three states plus offshore accounted for 87% of the decline in US output. Those same areas produced about 71% of US C+C in April 2016 based on EIA estimates.

New Texas C+C Estimate

I have downloaded EIA 914 data from June 2015, May 2016 and June 2016 only and have used those sets of data to estimate Texas oil output. Two methods were used and the average result of the methods is my “corrected” estimate. This corrected estimate was combined with the average of Dean’s corrected estimates from March and April 2016 (most recent two months), which I call the “2 mo” estimate. The combined estimate is my “best” estimate for TX C+C. Further details on the estimation method are provided in an Appendix for those interested.


In the Chart above Dean’s estimate and the EIA estimate are shown for comparison and my corrected estimate and the 2 mo average estimate using Dean’s correction factors from March 2016 and April 2016 are shown with dashed lines. I expect the final Texas C+C values will be somewhere between these two estimates and the “best” estimate is simply the average of those two estimates. More data will be needed to refine these estimates further. The slope of the linear trend must be multiplied by 366 to get the annual rate of decline, which is 158 kb/d per year or 4.6% per year for the best estimate. If we only consider the past 12 months, the decline rate is 2.7% per year.

Permian and Eagle Ford Output

Many experts believe that Texas output must be decreasing rapidly, my non-expert opinion is that Texas output has been declining relatively slowly over the past 12 months.

One confirmation of this thesis is found by considering RRC data for the Eagle Ford and Permian basin.

I estimate the percentage of statewide Texas C+C from the Permian basin and Eagle Ford using RRC data. I then multiply the percentage of total output by the EIA estimate and by my “best” estimate to find the Eagle Ford (EF) and Permian estimate of C+C. Those charts are below.



Some have argued that the fall in the number of oil well completions in Texas must have led to a fall in output.

I agree in principle, but the question is how much has output fallen and how have the number of oil completions changed in the Permian and EF. The chart below shows the number of oil completions in the Permian (districts 7C, 8 and 8A) and the Eagle Ford (districts 1, 2, and 3). Note that in March 2016 about 89% of Texas output was from the Permian and Eagle Ford and in Jan 2015 86% of Texas C+C output was from the Permian and EF (output was between these two levels for all months in between).

Chart below shows oil completions in the two plays.


Looking at the chart above we would expect that oil output should have been relatively flat in the EF through April 2016 and that Permian output should have fallen dramatically from Sept to Dec 2015.

Instead we see EF output falling and Permian output rising. How can this be?

I propose that the dramatic decrease in completions in the Permian was mostly vertical well completions. If the level of Permian oil completions fell from roughly 650 oil completions to about 450 oil completions and 200 of the 650 completions had been vertical completions and at 450 oil well completions there were zero vertical completions, this would be similar to a drop of 50 horizontal completions.

This is because on average in the Permian basin, a horizontal completion produces about 4 times as much oil as a vertical completion. This explains why there would be less of a drop in output, but not an increase in output.

An increase in output would be explained by a drop from 300 vertical wells and 350 horizontal wells in the case when there were 650 completions to zero vertical wells and 450 horizontal wells. The 300 vertical wells would have produced about as much as 75 average horizontal wells, so the net for 450H wells would be similar to an increase of 25 horizontal wells compared to the 300V + 350H well scenario.

Also worth considering is that the flatter output curve for the Eagle Ford using the “best” estimate rather than the EIA estimate matches better with the completion history for oil wells in the Eagle Ford.

Appendix- New correction method using Drilling Info data.

What follows will be of little interest to those who do not care for mathematics, and those who are adept will find the presentation appalling. It is intended for people with little math(s) background, basic algebra would be plenty, in fact only arithmetic might be enough.

Correction Method 1

The first method is similar to the method Dean introduced, but uses Drilling Info Data instead of RRC data, the primary difference is that the Drilling info data includes “pending file” data that is not included in the freely available RRC PDQ database. The EIA claims this data is within 0.5% of the final value within 5 months. A snippet of the spreadsheet is shown below.


The correction factors (T, T-1, … , T-4, T-5) are added to the June 2016 Drilling info data (DI Jun16) data column to get a correction1 estimate. T is added to Mar16, T-1 to Feb16, etc. This only gives us an estimate through March 2016, for April 2016 we assume the difference between the EIA 914 estimate and the corrected estimate in March will be the same in April. The EIA 914 survey estimate is 2958 kb/d in March 2016 and the corrected estimate is 3056+356=3412 kb/d, the difference is 3412-2958=454 kb/d. The April 2016 EIA 914 data point is 2901 kb/d and our corrected estimate is 2901+454=3355 kb/d. Chart below shows the “corrected 1” estimate as well as the EIA estimate, Dean’s estimate and the June 2016 Drilling Info data (DIJun16).


Correction Method 2

The second correction method uses Drilling info data from June 2015 and compares with the average of the May and June 2016 drilling info data. This was done because the difference between the May and June 2016 data fluctuates from positive to negative differences over time so that it is not clear which is the better estimate from June 2013 to June 2015 so the average was used. Chart below shows data and initial correction factors.


In this case the initial correction factor is the difference between May and Jun 2016 average and the June 2015 data. These initial correction factors are applied to both the May and June 2016 data to see how they compare, in this case 15 correction factors are used (instead of only 6 correction factors in method 1). Chart below shows correctedJun16 and correctedMay16 and the difference between the corrected estimates on the right axis.


The differences are small, between -20 kb/d and +20 kb/d except for the final month where the difference becomes quite large (135 kb/d). The correction factor for month T is adjusted to account for this anomaly by increasing it by 135 kb/d.

The “new” correction factors are applied to the May and June 2016 data in the chart below with the difference shown on the right axis.


The “newJun16” and “newMay16” corrected data agree well and similar to in method 1 we assume the difference between the March 2016 corrected data and EIA 914 survey data (462 kb/d in this case) remains the same for April 2016, the April 2016 corrected estimate is 3363 kb/d.

The average of the newMay16 and newJun16 corrected estimates plus the April 2016 estimate above are the corrected 2 estimate. The method 1 and method 2 corrected estimates are then averaged to find an “average” estimate as shown in the chart below.


I rename the “average” line in the chart above to “corrected” and this is combined with the March 2016 and April 2016 average correction factors using Dean’s method (RRC data only) which is labelled “2 mo” on the chart below. The average of the 2 mo estimate and the new “corrected” estimate using the DI (drilling info) data is the “best” estimate. Dean’s estimate and the EIA estimate are included for comparison. The slope of the trend line for the best estimate from May 2015 to April 2016 is 92 kb/d per year about 2.7%/year. (Slope needs to multiplied by 366 to get decline in kb/d per year, average output for past 12 months for best estimate is 3441 kb/d.)


This entry was posted in Texas and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

562 Responses to Petroleum Supply Monthly, Texas C+C estimate, Permian, and Eagle Ford

  1. Duncan Idaho says:

    Another Amazon oil spill puts Peruvian communities at risk – ‘We don’t drink river water any more. It gives us diarrhea and stomachaches’

    • R DesRoches says:

      43,000 was killed in the U.S. by cars in 2015. Maybe we should ban the cars. Fuel use will also drop.

      • GoneFishing says:

        The 300 million people that use cars might have something to say about that. The loss rate is 0.014%.
        Don’t worry though, autonomous cars will save the day and reduce road deaths to passengers dramatically. Since in the US machines replace people all the time, the autonomous cars will be driving robots around. No death in cars then.
        Pedestrian deaths will increase, mostly joggers who run in the road, but every improvement has a downside. Safer to sit home in front of the TV and ignore it all anyway. Until the oil spill or rogue autonomous car gets you.
        Smile, your on Candid LIDAR.

        • me says:

          A technical solution where none is required. All you need to do is legalize corner stores, so people don’t have to drive to get to work or buy stuff.

          Another great idea is making corner pubs legal, so people can walk home drunk instead of driving. Most American cities not only encourage drunk driving, they require it and have laws requiring minimum numbers of parking places for establishments that sell liquor by the drink. They should have minimum distance to public transportation laws instead (or minimum number of apartments within walking distance).

          Oh, and if people didn’t have to drive to out of the way places to get drunk, they would need less gas.

      • me says:

        No need to ban cars. Just fix the lousy infrastructure, which is designed to kill people, as far as I can tell.

        There are easily 20,000 unnecessary traffic deaths every year in the US, and the numbers are growing. Pedestrian fatalities were up 10% last year. Sheer stupidity, if not to say criminal negligence.

        Same applies to this situation.

  2. Overthinking is fun says:

    Or instead of spending a crazy amount of time trying to use the EIA data to figure all of this out you could have just checked with the RRC and gotten an actual number for free. FYI the DrillingInfo data comes from the RRC

    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Hi Overthinking,

      That was already done by Dean as covered in the last post. The Drilling Info data includes data from the “pending file” which is not released for free on the RRC website. So using the EIA 914 report is the only way I can get free access to drilling info data. Have you seen similar estimates of the Eagle Ford and Permian elsewhere?

    • Nick G says:

      From the article:

      Murray said in a prepared statement that the layoffs are caused “the ongoing destruction of the United States coal industry” by the Obama administration

      A tiny bit of propaganda. They don’t mention the 18 cents per kWh cost of conventional pollution: mercury, asthma, black lung, etc., etc.

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        Hi Nick,

        A couple of days back I accused you of being a pro when it comes to staying on message,”like a damned old politician”.

        “A tiny bit of propaganda ” you say? True enough. Propaganda works both by omission and commission.

        Of course everybody has an agenda, the question is WHAT’s on the agenda, lol.

        To be fair, this is the quote from the article.

        “the ongoing destruction of the United States coal industry” by the Obama administration and “the increased utilization of natural gas to generate electricity.”

        All of us, even OFM, are guilty of cherry picking.

        Except them there damned old fossil fuel producers have disrupted the climate to the point I don’t HAVE any cherries this year. Frost got’em, due to incredibly warm late winter weather, and a normal spring frost.

        And all the rest of us in this forum,except maybe Caelan, have happily gone along with them, burning all we can pay for. I am not sure exactly how he stays warm up in Nova Scotia. Never been there, but it’s my impression it gets cold up that way. 😉

        Possums are smarter than naked apes.

        “We have met the enemy, and they is us.”

        Coal is on its way out, at least here in the USA. Elsewhere, especially INDIA, ChINA, etc, people will be burning it right along twenty thirty forty years from now.

        My heart goes out to the miners, I know that sort of people. There aren’t more than a couple of other regulars here who KNOW people who have lived and worked all their lives this way, or some analogous way, and lost their livelihood.

        Passing thru is not the same as being a community member.

        BUT you are right, it’s time we go renewable, and past time.

        The old fat xxxx who made the announcement will be living like an oriental prince with personal servants, flying first class, riding in a top of the line Caddy limo, sending his kids to the Ivies, regardless of his former employees being on food stamps.

        • SW says:

          I am in favor of destroying the coal industry. But I am also in favor of an activist government. When people are thrown out of work as a consequence of government policy there should be redress. Strong unions used to have provisions that if a worker’s job was eliminated due to technological progress, that worker with certain stipulations, would be eligible for early retirement. The only retirement vehicle for the working class in the United States that works is Social Security. Displaced workers, those who have been displaced due to public policy and are of a certain age should be immediately eligible for their full SS benefits.

  3. Oldfarmermac says:

    Robert Rapier is known to most of us here as a pretty smart guy.

    He has a byline at Forbes today, which is an excellent piece to use as a training aid if anyone is trying to explain the difference between an oil resource and an oil reserve, etc, to a newbie to the peak oil discussion.

    • Reno Hightower says:

      My simple definition of reserves. The oil you pull out of the ground.

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Hi Reno,

        That would be produced oil, no longer a reserve.

        • Reno Hightower says:

          Point is. Don’t look at the flowery numbers companies or the USGS put out about reserve estimates. Reserves are what come out of the ground or can come out of the ground.

          • Dennis Coyne says:

            The company reserve data is pretty good in OECD nations. For OPEC nations we don’t know.

            USGS gives resources not reserves.

            Also the best number for reserves is proved plus probable. That number is at least 50% higher than proved reserves.

            Proved plus probable has a 50 % probability that the total will be higher or lower. It is also called the best estimate.

            • Reno Hightower says:

              Missing my point. I was not trying to give a text book definition of reserves. It is the question I ask myself when I drill a well

              • GoneFishing says:

                I found Rapier’s logic flawed in this one. 3 percent EV’s is not enough to make a significant difference and he chose a country with a rapidly expanding population, meaning more demand for cars overall. His leap of logic that Norway was the trend when as he said, the rest of the developed world was decreasing in fuel demand, seemed our of sync with a logical conclusion.
                A better conclusion to be arrived at was that other factors such as increasing population can overcome decreasing fuel individual demand when EV’s are a small proportion of the total amount of vehicles.

          • texas tea says:

            “Reserves are what come out of the ground or can come out of the ground.” Perhaps we should add, “Reserves are what come out of the ground or can come out of the ground” at specific price point and technological level combined with a favorable and enduring political climate.🇺🇸

    • Hickory says:

      It would be more useful to have a phrase like ‘Proved Reserve50’, or ‘Proved Reserve100’ –
      with the number indicating the dollar price.
      This would still be an estimate, but I bet some chart/data wizards like Dennis or Dean would be real good at developing a graphical form of the data.
      The big question is how do you get any meaningful entry data for such a project.

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Hi Hickory,

        Maybe Dean could do it, his skill is light years beyond mine. The Reserve numbers are probably not that precise, but your point is valid. If prices remained at $50/b (in 2016$) forever, then reserves would be less than at $100/b, and as Texas Tea points out politics and technology will also influence reserves at any given price level. No doubt there are many other factors as well such as the price of alternative forms of energy, development of electric cars and batteries.

        Bottom line, oil price is one of many factors which affects oil reserves, nailing it all down is not really possible, so we estimate.

        • texas tea says:

          The Rapier link in Forbes chose to highlight price for the main reason in a dramatic reduction in the worlds recoverable reserves, while barely mentioning the predictable failed economic policies of the socialist regime. I thought is was a bit misleading to do so. With respect to Venezuela I would imagine the more important factor would be politics and shelf interest over price.

    • Rapier doesn’t have his facts right. The huge step jump in Venezuela’s oil reserves around 2005 was caused by a series of bookings by PDVSA of a large portion of the Orinoco oil belt reserves, which resulted from an oil in place estimate prepared in a project office they called “Magna Reserva”. This project included drilling extension or delineation wells in (addition to hundreds of existing wells).

      The Magna Reserva studies teams were a motley crew. Chavez was heavily influenced by Cuban advisors, whose mindset and education were mostly Soviet. This led him to order PDVSA to sign agreements with over a dozen nations to study the Orinoco “virgin sectors” (outside the sectors or blocks already licensed to pdvsa or to the existing strategic ventures). These nations included Vietnam, Iran, Cuba, India, Brazil, etc.

      Most of these nations didn’t really sign agreements, they wee actually signed with companies. They lacked expertise, some simply farmed out the study agreement and theoretical follow up negotiating rights to private outfits.

      Eventually, most of the study area was assigned an oil in place figure by block. And they proceeded to use a 20 % recovery factor for the oil in place estimated in these studies. In other words, the recovery factor was an arbitrary figure. Pdvsa got a consultant to sign off on the studies and the 20 %, and they proceeded to book the number.

      It is true that corrections were made to some proved reserves booked in the conventional fields, but most of those were already overbooked, so in many cases the oil price increase simply served to cover for the previous over bookings (some of which were as old as 1980-86 bookings).

      Thus the increase in reserves was mostly due to the Magna Reserva massive booking. Because the 20 % recovery factor was somewhat arbitrary, and there were no development studies used to set the figure, the number is very weak, and would never pass a serious review.

      When we discuss Venezuela we also have to remember it’s quite large, and has a large number of fields, with very different settings, ages, reservoirs, and development schemes. In some cases (for example the Furrial trend) pdvsa has been destroying reserves by mismanagement (they don’t inject enough or in the right places with the right fluids, and have been pushing the wells too hard, which leads to near well reservoir damage). I have already cautioned here that pdvsa methods are also destroying reserves in the Orinoco oil belt (the subject is too complex to explain here), therefore we are in a very fluid environment, with depletion plus destruction, plus a changing oil price environment, changing costs, and the high probability that commercial and tax terms will change over time.

      I think one item to keep in mind is that when we read articles in business magazines by these gurus we have to remember they are limited in their technical or historical know how, they really can’t grasp nuances, and they have writing deadlines.

      A while back I wrote a very rough estimate of Venezuela’s oil reserves. I had to prepare different cases, but the overriding factor was the government. The current government is corrupt, incompetent, abuses human rights, has allowed the crime rate to increase enormously, and lately it has been using food as a weapon to make the population submit to its will. In other words, the Maduro regime has crossed into crime against humanity territory, and I just don’t see those reserves being even 1/3 of what’s booked given the reality on the ground.

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Hi Fernando

        So let’s say 90 Gb currently.

        Imagine a US or European democracy in Venezuela would 2p reserves be 250 Gb under those optimistic assumptions?

        • That requires $160 per barrel in the longer term. And it’s looking increasingly iffy as Maduro and Raúl Castro continue the destruction process. Venezuela seems to be headed into the irreversible destruction process suffered by Cambodia under Pol Pot, Uganda under Idi Amin Dada, or Cuba under the Castro Dinasty.

          The problem I see is the enormous reservoir damage taking place, coupled to irreversible brain drain and destruction of the educational system.

        • My reply went into the trash.

    • I wrote a comment but it went into the Narnia folder. Summarizing: Rapier doesn’t have his story right.

  4. robert wilson says:

    Would it be less accurate if the word necessarily was inserted between not and reflect?
    “This post was written by Dennis Coyne and does not reflect the opinion of Ron Patterson.”

    • Dennis Coyne says:

      No it would not.
      I was pretty sure Ron would not agree. But the necessarily would be better.

  5. Petro says:

    Oil, data and colourful graph lines are always fun…..but has anybody noticed that at the end of June, Jet Stream Crossed the Equator … for the first time ever…?

    …and that is why we had snow in June in Maine and New York….and frost/snow in the sub-tropical Australia….

    Man, I am going to miss our Seasons as we have known them….and wheat bread, also…..

    But again, Texas oil/gas and EVs and Tesla(s) are important too.

    …living the “bonus time” guys…enjoy it responsibely.

    Be well,


    • Synapsid says:


      That claim about the jet stream OHMIGOD was shown to be way off by an article in the Washington Post, of all places. The author actually went out and asked people who work with atmospheric dynamics.

      I was astonished at how well done the article was. Robert Scribbler has published a sort of correction/retraction.

    • It wasnt the first time ever.

  6. Paulo says:

    For Fred:

    Headline From CNN Money: “The Tesla driver killed in a crash while in autopilot mode happened to be a huge proponent of autonomous driving.”

    Apparently he was watching or playing a Harry Potter game instead of driving.

    It reminds me of the Darwin awards, specifically, the guy who used a .22 LR in place of a buss fuse.

    (Couldn’t resist this, Fred. ) regards….

    • GoneFishing says:

      We put them in control of large vehicles with high kinetic energies and potentially deadly destructive capability. Then they get drunk, talk on the phone, fall asleep, get distracted, read the newspaper, put on makeup, and who knows what else. All that before the autonomous vehicle showed up.
      We better get the autonomous vehicles up to full level quick to save the rest of us from the percentage of incompetent uncaring nutty drivers out there.
      I do wonder how LIDAR is going to handle snow and ice. Maybe they could program in a warning system to other cars, the first car that slides on ice will immediately report the problem to all other cars in the region, giving it’s location. The probe principle.
      Snow must be very confusing to LIDAR computer systems, covers up the road markings and makes the whole scene look different.

      • Survivalist says:

        I don’t understand why self driving cars are so much hype. Perhaps it’s what Kunstler would call a technosis externality clusterfuck. Personally I don’t mind driving. I’d rather drive than be a passenger. And I don’t hear masses of consumers crying out for self driving cars. If you thought the taxi driver industry had a collective hissy fit over Uber wait until self driving taxis come out and self driving transport trucks. All those drivers can be unemployed. Yeah, that’s great news for the economy. Maybe all we need to do is send a bunch of self driving cars to Syria and Iraq and then all the folks there will hold hands and sing campfire songs. Or maybe Facebook will get the most awesome facial recognition software ever and technology will be one step closer to saving humanity.

        • Fred Magyar says:

          And I don’t hear masses of consumers crying out for self driving cars.

          “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”

          ― Henry Ford

          • Caelan MacIntyre says:

            How would Henry know? Did he take a poll? It would have been the right thing to do.
            Also, how often do we take a look and discuss mass-production in general? Investing in large-scale industrial mass production ventures seems to often, if not always, necessitate equally-massive mass consumption… and therefore, also, mass disposal into the environment.

            “Maintaining and operating this global system requires a lot of energy and, because the fixed costs of operating it are high, it is only cost-effective if it is run at near full capacity. As a result, if its throughput falls because less energy is available, it does not contract in a gentle, controllable manner. Instead it is subject to catastrophic collapse.” ~ David Korowicz

            That might be an issue with some oil production as well… turning it off or lower and ramping it up again as per demand. That might be why gluts happen… or business-cycle swings, or large-ship steerage, etc…. some things seem very difficult to turn on a dime.

            That said, I wonder how you square Gigafactory with that kind of thing? Maybe Gigafactory has been built with this in mind.

            • Fred Magyar says:

              How would Henry know?

              Simple, unlike you, he actually understood human nature!

              But that really wasn’t my point! My point was that disruption happens even if people aren’t clamoring for it, usually it happens despite it.

              Now whether or not a particular disruption is good, bad, or indifferent or whether or not it has unintended consequences, like driverless trucks eliminating the last vestiges of so called middle class lifestyle for workers without college educations and therefore profoundly impacting the current economic paradigm, it doesn’t stop disruption from occurring.

              Now all your babbling about how much energy it takes to run the global system, is pretty much preaching to the choir. Everyone here already knows that. This is a peak oil blog. Try telling us something we don’t know.

              It is precisely because most here are mathematically and scientifically literate that your constant proselytizing about how permaculture can save the world, tends to falls on deaf ears. To provide food for 7 or 8 billion humans isn’t possible with permaculture teqhniques. So either you are advocating for an immediate hard population crash or dieoff or you are profoundly ignorant of physical, biological and chemical reality!

              BTW, in case you still don’t get it I am not an advocate for solar or wind nor am I against fossil fuels. I just see what is happening in the world today. While BAU isn’t quite dead yet, things are changing pretty darn fast. If humanity is going to survive it isn’t going to happen because of permaculture, it is going to take a hell of a lot of innovation and new technology. Let’s hope BAU lasts long enough to get us there.

              • texas tea says:

                geez fred, that was a lucid, intelligent, well thought out argument 😜

                • Dennis Coyne says:

                  Hi Texas tea

                  Yours too.

                  Typically I have the same assessment of all of Fred’s comments, that is they are intelligent.

                • Caelan MacIntyre says:

                  “😜” ~ texas tea

                  Yup. ‘u^

                  Fred’s comment sounds like an Oldfarmermac rant.

                  You’ll notice too that there was more than one appeal to consensus. Gotta get everyone on-board you know. Mindless disruptive crony-capitalist corporate technology waits for no one.

                  I am just trying to remember where I’ve babbled about how much energy it takes to run the global system, though.

                  I wonder what Fred will think about my ‘Hypothetical Fred’ in another comment.

                  • Petro says:

                    “I am just trying to remember where I’ve babbled about how much energy it takes to run the global system, though.” ~ Caelan

                    just a friendly reminder:

                    the key to remembering is not to babble much…
                    …just a thought, just a thought.

                    Be well,


                  • Caelan MacIntyre says:

                    Let’s see it then, Petro.

                    One key to making a claim would seem to be backing it up.

                    In any case, and just a friendly reminder in kind: This is a peak oil blog. So energy is, in large part, the mix.

              • Caelan MacIntyre says:

                “The problem isn’t permaculture!” ~ Fred Magyar

                Make up your mind.
                You mention permaculture about as much or more than I. What’s up with that? Cognitive dissonance?
                Hey, it’s ok, it won’t bite.

                Also, why do you keep mentioning (techno-) ‘disruption’ by the way? Do you think it’s a good thing? Do you think a self-crashing car or one that spontaneously bursts into flames will feed and self-empower people? Do you think people want more disruption in their lives?
                Is there a poll for that?

                Hypthetical Fred (on phone): “Excuse me, but I am conducting a poll and would like to ask you one question and then you can get back to your supper.”

                Person at home (swallowing some food): “Ok ok, quickly please, as I have a baby to feed and then I have to go back to work at my second part time job to make ends meet and so bring it to nightcare. I coudn’t find a babysitter in time and am recently divorced. My ex-husband lost his job in the fracking industry.”

                Hypothetical Fred: “Would you be ok with some disruption in your life?”

          • I want a disintegrator ray like the one the Martians used. It would be located on a small turret on the roof, and destroy any annoying drivers who tailgate, cut in front, and give me the finger. I think I would use it more with motorcyclists.

        • wimbi says:

          unemployed! Why in the world does income depend on “having a job”? What if we all found ourselves on a lovely island with anything we wanted sitting right there for anybody to pick up, and some guy comes along and says we can’t have any of it because we don’t have a job!

          What we need is shares of what’s there, not a job. In a sane world, the less jobs, the better.

          • Caelan MacIntyre says:


            Unless Fred’s solar-paneled mud hut natives have a ‘job’, how do they pay for their ‘free’ solar panels? (‘It’s on the house.’ har)

            And the natives might ask, “Job? What’s that?”

            Fred might likely step in and inform that the land that is being ‘expropriated’ is no longer theirs anymore but that’s ok, because they get to work– wage-slave for some asshole owner/CEO/professional/suit etc.– for what’s on it now. Isn’t that great?!

            Hypothetical Fred: “And you have a solar panel now too! And it’s technology! So it improves your life! Look at it on that mud hut of yours there! And it’s not just any technology, either, but disruptive technology! So you’re a rebel by your use of it! You like that, don’t you? So get rid of your holier than thou attitude and start learning about how to prepare a resume and lick a few company boots! Like everyone else! Or we’ll take your solar panels off and withhold your free medicine! And then you will be without solar panels, medicine or land! Or a job! How do you like that, ay? Didn’t think so!”

            Primitive accumulation is the process by which precapitalist modes of production, such as feudalism and chattel slavery, are transformed into the capitalist mode of production. Marx was not the first to consider the way in which feudal production was transformed into capitalism.” ~ Google Dictionary

            Primitive accumulation is happening right now, not just historically. It happens in Sudan Africa for example, where oil companies/pseudogoverments and/or dictatorships (generally, one-and-the-same, but sometimes international and local, respectively), grab the land that was once the general populations and often despoil it– badly.

            This kind of thing should be taught to children as soon as they can understand it. So that, in part, at the very least, when they grow up, they have a better understanding of what still goes on under their noses.

            Kid: “Dad? Why are there rich people?”
            Dad: “What do you mean by rich? You mean like in spirit?”
            Kid: “No-o-o-o-o… Like they have lots of big houses and cars and money!”
            Dad: “Ohhh, you mean those kinds. Well, you see, sweetie, our society allows some people to make more money than other people, working no harder than anyone else. Society then allows those with more money to acquire more land than others. Over time, this creates the dynamic for most, if not all, problems we have in society today, like landlessness/homelessness/poverty, social unrest/war and collapse.”
            Kid: “Why does society allow that?!”
            Dad: “Corruption. Society uses force to uphold undemocratic/unethical laws that say that one person with more money can have more land than another with less money.”
            Kid: “Why can’t we stop that!?”
            Dad: “Corruption again: This setup is upheld by people with guns and weapons, or access to them, like police, security guards and military people– people (among many others) who often don’t understand this basic & very simple immoral core of our society.”
            Kid: ” 🙁 ”
            Dad: “Ya; 🙁 “

            Delta Boys explores the untold stories of the Niger Delta militancy

            …rebels who band together in the face of corrupt government oppression in this oil-rich region of Nigeria…

            The personal stories of Chima, Ateke, and Mama reflect a broader global struggle between entrenched power and corporate interests and an underserved population.

            Nigeria is the fifth largest supplier of oil to the United States. Yet, despite this natural wealth, the majority of Niger Deltans live in poverty.”

            Something to think about, especially perhaps if you live in the US; live a life of relative opulence; (want an energy-cannibalizing buildout of electric cars and solar panels and figure, what with lithium in limited supply in the future, that only a select global few may benefit from the resources); and have a conscience.

            • Fred Magyar says:

              Hypothetical Fred: “And you have a solar panel now too! And it’s technology! So it improves your life! Look at it on that mud hut of yours there! And it’s not just any technology, either, but disruptive technology! So you’re a rebel by your use of it! You like that, don’t you? So get rid of your holier than thou attitude and start learning about how to prepare a resume and lick a few company boots! Like everyone else! Or we’ll take your solar panels off and withhold your free medicine! And then you will be without solar panels, medicine or land! Or a job! How do you like that, ay? Didn’t think so!”

              Grow up Caelan and stop putting words in my mouth you are completely misrepresenting what I think and have been saying.

              Maybe you should spend a few years doing community service in Africa so you could see first hand how some people live. Guess what, they need food, shelter, clean water, medicine and yes, even electricity and smart phones for access to knowledge and being able to communicate. None of which is possible today without full access to technology.

              Here’s an example of entrepreneurship in Africa that couldn’t happen without access to technology.
              Yes, knowledge and technology empower people and allow them to thrive.


              • Caelan MacIntyre says:

                “The more globally connected the economy has become, the less relevant community strategies — especially those funded by governments or the World Bank — are to addressing the structures that create poverty and exacerbate its worst effects.

                Unfair trade rules, border controls, and ecological disaster — none of that is news. Yet it helps place small-scale development in perspective. If elites in rich countries truly wanted to help poor people and were willing to sacrifice some of their share of global resources to do so, they wouldn’t need to bother searching for the right blend of technical fixes and participatory openness in their aid policies. They could simply reverse their self-interested policies.

                In a context in which rich nations continue to rig the international system to ensure that wealth accrues to certain places, lock poor people out of those places, and then consume resources at a rate that will probably render much of the planet uninhabitable, there is something bizarre about the current obsession with helping poor people help themselves. Fostering local solidarity seems beside the point.” ~ Daniel Immerwahr

                Incidentally, Gramps, it’s my contention that part of being a healthy, well-rounded adult is embracing one’s ‘inner-child’. What’s that quote? ‘We are all the ages we ever were.’?

                Anyway, me and my inner-child are pretty serious about our Hypothetical Fred, though, right kiddo?

                Inner-Cae: “You bet!” ^u^

                …Do you have a song for us?

                Inner-Cae: “Friday!

    • Oldfarmermac says:

      Hi Paulo,

      I’m sure you are knowledgeable concerning guns, considering your life style and merely mention the Darwin Award story, instead of actually believing it.

      I have burnt twenty two’s in a camp fire a hundred times,at LEAST, to show people cartridges don’t explode like grenades, except when confined inside a gun. Back then , they were a penny apiece, so you could just throw the whole box in for fifty cents, lol.

      It’s sort of funny, watching people who have no actual real knowledge of guns run for their lives. A couple of them are still mad at me thirty or forty years later. But one of them, my Big Apple sweet pea, got over it and married me,lol.

      In my KNOWLEDGEABLE opinion, there isn’t one chance in a billion that a 22 lr will ever kill anybody, except if actually fired from a gun.Eating a few on a regular basis might give you lead poisoning via the digestive tract. They don’t even pop in a fire like a paper bag smashed between your hands. The bullet and the brass rarely separate by more than four or five feet.

      I will gladly put them in a fire, at my feet, a handful at a time, for good union wages, say forty bucks an hour,all day long. lol. All the safety gear I want is jeans over my shoetops, and safety glasses. Little specks of hot charcoal are not comfortable in the shoe or eye.

      • Paulo says:

        Hey there OFM,

        Yeah, it is a pretty good urban myth, isn’t it? When I was a kid I used to swipe some of my Dad’s shotgun shells for the gunpowder. My experiments came to an end when I blew one of my contraptions/firecracker off in the bathroom. My ears are still ringing, as well as my ass. (How did my parents ever survive?) It all started when my brother would not share his firecrackers with me. Now, it is just one of those family stories.

        My point on the Tesla was twofold. Firstly, I simply wanted to tease Fred. Secondly, I hoped I made the point (as in the past) that more complexity will not be our solution to the decline of FF. Perhaps I am off a few generations, but I do not believe we will see very many ‘fuel efficient self-driving cars’ ferrying people to their jobs or favourite places to shop/hangout. I do not believe the ‘masses’ will code and program machines to do our work for us. Instead, as this decline continues the pie will shrink for most with a few insider bandits grabbing even more. Perhaps Brexit/Trump is a reaction and attempt to right the ship, but that won’t do much in a world of decline. And unless I have been missing something, we are truly in decline, with debt attempting to goose things forward. This is a PO blog, as pointed out above.

        Instead of Teslas and imitators driving unnecessary journeys, we will see more conservation and reductions. Look for loaded up motorcycles, more bikes with small trailers, small mini-trucks with 650cc motors, and more transit options. Carpooling. Walkers everywhere, but the ‘no go’ neighbourhoods. Look for older cars kept on the road longer than they should be, because it is still better than trying to carry everything. Think Cuba, not Singapore. For me this is not a depressing image of decline. I never did believe those old Popular Mechanics articles on planes in every garage, with fold-up wings. That is what Tesla selfs are. A new version of the old Popular Mechanic fantasies. Of course they exist. So do planes with fold-up wings.

        Why do I say these things? Well, $30,000 – $50,000 is a helluva lot of money for a car. People are already taking out 7 year car loans right now. They can’t afford the (avg price) $33,000 car, today. Does anyone really think this will improve? We all know the energy story and decline trends. Our machines of today are incredible, as it is. Modern cars are already complex, and quite fantastic. My ’86 Toyota PU does not burn oil!! Unbelieveable, the machining and tolerances of stuff even from the ’80s. Today’s vehicles are already so precise and complex they cannot really be fixed. Instead, they are analyzed and defeciencies are simply swapped out. Probably thrown away when the parts are too much.

        Up here in BC there is much anger about the new dam being built up on the Peace River. It is called site C. When I hear the protesting I think, “Bring it online, asap. It is electrical energy…renewable. We’re going to need it”. Not for our cars, but for some cars/scooters, plus our heat and lights. But then again I live an hour away from a town in what many people would think of as nowhere. If you see the tv show ‘Alone’, that is what it is like around here. Except in reality, crusie ships go by everyday and motorhomes and trailers clog the Island Hwy. It’s pretty weird.

        In 3 weeks I start putting salmon away for the year. That’s my future. 🙂


        • Brian Rose says:


          I suspect that the explosion in 7 year vehicle loans has 2 causes:

          1. People who, as you said, CANNOT afford the vehicle on a shorter loan term and stretch out the payments to 7 years to make it affordable.

          2. People who CAN afford the vehicle on a shorter loan term, and know it is financially prudent to take a 7 year loan at a 2% interest rate, and invest the savings (stocks, on average, return 7-10% per year). This yields a net 5-7% profit on the saved money.

          I only mention this because I planned on doing a 3 year loan when I purchased my used Chevy Volt. Upon seeing the 2% interest rate I settled on the 7 year loan, and put the monthly savings from lower payments into an investment account.

          I’d imagine your statement is the reason most people choose these 7 year vehicle loans, but the low interest rate environment does drive demand toward longer term loans in any and all products.

          The rise in SUV, CUV, and truck sales indicates the average person isn’t very forward thinking.

          Although, there has been an uptick in child birth since the recession delayed many people’s baby plans, so even the uptick in SUVs and CUVs can be partly written off.

          I know a number of people of varying age groups that have never had an SUV/CUV, but after recently having children it is the only vehicle type they will consider. To top it off, several are searching for a new vehicle only because hauling kids in a car is apparently pretty frustrating.

          There are so many contributing factors to any given trend it is hard to tell how much influence each holds, and what their synergies are (if gas was $6 gallon I bet many would reconsider how essential that SUV/CUV is).

          • Ves says:

            Here is again example how mind is logical and it can get you in big trouble.

            You say: “1. People who, as you said, CANNOT afford the vehicle on a shorter loan term and stretch out the payments to 7 years to make it affordable.”

            Your MIND tells you that if you sign up for 7 year loan is affordable??!!!! Who tells you that is affordable? Wall Street? What is the difference in paying $30k car at the time of the purchase and paying 30K car on 7 year with 0% interest? Only on the surface paying the car over 7 year loan looks more affordable due heavy propagandization from your TV. But it is not, because at the year 6th of the term your car is “underwater”. You car is worth less then outstanding loan on that car. So what looks “affordable” with 7 year term in the beginning, it is not “affordable” on the end by having a contract obligation with asset that is upside-down.
            It is very simple people are forced in 7 year terms because they are not paid in “money” but they are paid in “debt”.

            You say: “2. and know it is financially prudent to take a 7 year loan at a 2% interest rate, and invest the savings (stocks, on average, return 7-10% per year). This yields a net 5-7% profit on the saved money.”

            That is another brain fart of the MIND. 2% interest on the car loan is GUARANTEED for the duration of the term. Your stock market return 7-10% per year is NOT GUARANTEED. So it is another propagandization from your TV so that MIND can compare apples and oranges and thinks it is the same.

            • Brian Rose says:


              I certainly agree.

              Paying off a loan is a guaranteed return where any kind of investing isn’t.

              It’s a risk proposition where you weigh a guaranteed 2% savings vs. a historically likely 7% savings.

              I paid off student loans at a 5% rate instead of investing because the risk differential made the guaranteed savings more lucrative in my mind.

              A more glaring example was given to me by my neighbor: He did a cash out refinanced of his house at a 4% interest rate. He’s paying 4% interest on the money he took out, but because of the way a cash out refinance is phrased it doesn’t FEEL like he’s borrowing the “cash out” at any interest.

              He used that “cash out” money, that he pays 4% interest on, to pay off his car loan… which was a 2.5% interest rate.

              I see this as the most ideal example because no matter what way you cut it he LOST money by doing that. It’s like using a credit card at 17% interest to pay off your mortgage… it’s obvious how ludicrously stupid it is.

              But, sure enough, he thought he was winning cause, hey, no car payment!

              • Oldfarmermac says:

                People who are economically literate and smart enough to understand money and investments usually wind up well off in the USA , if they are reasonably lucky in terms of health and employment, etc.

                One of my semi literate relatives who started with NOTHING but is a multimillionaire today UNDERSTANDS money as well as people and has this to say.

                Take every dime in the country, and divide it all evenly , same amount to everybody, and in twenty years, the people who have plenty now will mostly have plenty again, and the people who are broke now will mostly be broke again.

                There is no doubt in my mind he is right.

                Most people who buy new cars,especially expensive new cars, are motivated by the relatively low payment, and by keeping up with the neighbors.

                Naked apes were not “designed ” by our evolutionary background to think long term. Five years down the road is forever. So long as the car is shiny and nice………..

                Most of the cars will outlast the payments, and that’s about all the buyer is concerned with, living as WELL AS POSSIBLE THIS MONTH.

                Ever notice how cynics these days always talk about management in big biz doesn’t a damn about results except for the current and next quarter?

                Women say they are looking for MR RIGHT, not MR RIGHT NOW. But they select men on the basis of physical and economic beauty, almost every time.

                There are many tens of millions of people who are making decent money in this country who will always be broke, because life to them is all about RIGHT NOW.

                The world’s most capable psychologists, linguists, artists, writers, speakers, thinkers, are grossly over represented in the advertising industry.

                As Lord Chesterfield put it some generations back, when men quit believing in God, they do not henceforth believe in nothing.

                Our most popular religion these days is hedonism.

                GOTTA HAVE IT NOW!! GIMME IT!!

                Back in my younger days, when I was without a wife, part of the time, it was discouraging as hell how many hot young blossoms just couldn’t see my GOOD points because I drove an old car, and dressed simply, and didn’t have all the hot toys of the day.

                I run into lots of them these days, and they are all ready to throw themselves at me NOW,because the flashy guys they threw themselves at then are long gone, but I’m still around. I still drive an old car, but they know the farm is PAID FOR, and that there are some collectable cars in the barns, also paid for, and if I do say so myself, it’s a pretty line little place, since I have been adding on to it over the years.

                Human being are just naked apes, and most of us, given the choice, take the little candy bar today, rather than the bigger one tomorrow.

                “Against stupidity ( or ignorance) the gods themselves contend in vain.”

                • GoneFishing says:

                  Flowering plants are the cause of all this, so next time you appreciate a pretty flower, think of all the crap and horror it caused.

        • texas tea says:

          Hello Paulo,
          I spent some time in northern BC last fall camping with grizzly bears, resulting in some tremendous footage, you have some beautiful country and very nice people in your neck of the woods. I hope I get the opportunity to explore some more of your rivers and country side in the future.

          • Paulo says:

            Stop in, anytime and I’ll take you fishing. I used to fly float planes from Iskut as far north as Norman Wells NWT, and west over to Atlin. Have to watch for those grizzlies!! I know two people who have been chomped and many who have been chased away. For the last 10 years or so, Grizzlies occasionally swim across Johnstone Straits and have moved on in to our area. (just a few) Since I live on the river in a direct line to where they have been spotted and from where they swim across, I assume they wandered through our property.

            re: Loans…What chokes me is the low interest rate for purchases, often as low as 0%, yet sellers never reduce the price of a vehicle if you pay them cash. But I still pay cash because I do not and cannot stomach debt, even though on paper it often makes sense. Intellectually it makes very good sense, but being in debt is a freedom issue for me. If you are in debt, you are beholden to make payments, pure and simple. You are in chains. Property taxes are bad enough!!

            • Nick G says:

              sellers never reduce the price of a vehicle if you pay them cash.

              That’s no accident: those loans are much more profitable than they look, because a percentage of borrowers default, and when the vehicle is repossessed they lose whatever equity they built up on the loan.

            • Nick G says:

              sellers never reduce the price of a vehicle if you pay them cash.

              That’s no accident. Those loans are very profitable: a percentage of borrowers default, and lose the equity they’ve built up.

              • Oldfarmermac says:

                Of course EVERYBODY can’t buy used, but anybody who is not already comfortably rich, meaning in context that they can afford to spend maybe ten to thirty or forty thousand on status, rather than INVEST that money, surely ought to buy used.

                You can get two nice older cars, and tag and insure both of them, and make repairs as necessary, and have a hell of a lot of money left over, compared to buying ONE new car,over any extended period of time.

                The difference is enough, invested in the stock market, on average, over a working lifetime, to retire rich. Not super rich, but country club rich in most places.

                I used to have a paper that laid out the return in the stock market of the price of ONE pack of cigarettes a day, for forty seven years, starting at age eighteen for a sixty five year old, no withdrawals, the money just reinvested, and kept in capital gains mostly.

                The end value came up to something like three million bucks. This was based on the actual historical price of cigarettes , and actual historical stock market returns.

                • Nick G says:


                  It’s funny – in my experience, even very large vehicle fleet managers can have a very hard time understanding how depreciation works, and why the lowest cost option is to keep cars for their full functional life, which is much longer than they think (they won’t buy used).

        • Caelan MacIntyre says:

          The first thing I ate once I arrived in Nanaimo for the first time ever was a Nanaimo bar.

      • Joe Clarkson says:

        The bullet and the brass rarely separate by more than four or five feet

        Sometimes they do go a bit farther.

        I was once watching a house burn down from about 200 feet away when the owner’s ammo supply started going off. I felt a sharp tap on my chest and looked down to see a 30 caliber bullet settling to a stop on the ground. I reached down and picked it up and showed it to the reporter from the local paper standing next to me. This event actually made the front page of the Port Townsend Leader- “Man of Steel Survives Bullet to the Chest”. The picture with the article showed me holding the bullet between my fingers in front of my chest.

        It wasn’t until some time after this incident that I wondered whether the owner of the burning house might have left cartridge in the chamber of one of his rifles.

  7. Indirect impact of shale oil on Asia

    Peak oil in Asia and Oil Import Trends (part 2)

  8. Energy security question asked 1 minute to 12 in Australian 8-week long election campaign


    Malcolm Farr from
    ……. As a Prime Minister, what sort of risk-management measures would you consider for a country that relies on others for refined petroleum, relies on others for vehicles, might be down to one steel plant, is seeing all sorts of resource refineries close down?

    ….. innovation blah blah….

    These are very exciting times, believe me. There has never has been a more exciting time to be an Australian businessman or woman because you know that your future lies in being fast and agile and innovative.


    It would get pretty exciting, Prime Minister, if our trade routes are cut off because I think the point Malcolm was going to, was that we have 50 days supply of oil. We don’t innovate that here. How do you deal with that risk, given particularly that China now is militarising islands in the South China Sea?


    Well, we secure our security – energy security is covered by our own resources here and of course, by diversity of supply.

    That is of course incorrect. Australia is in terminal decline

    3 refineries have closed because IOCs have peaked and this hits the weakest and smallest first

    Why the closure of BP’s Brisbane Bulwer refinery reduces Australia’s energy security

    Geelong refinery sold as Shell’s oil production continues to decline

    Fifth chimney stack at Sydney’s old Clyde refinery brought down after several demolition attempts

    Chevron’s oil production, sales decline by 5%

    Australia’s fuel import vulnerability increases as Sydney’s Clyde refinery is closing

    So the problem is 5 years old and politicians still haven’t understood what is going on


    Peak oil in the South China Sea (part 1)

    • Oldfarmermac says:

      If I were an Aussie, I would be doing everything I could to make damned sure Yankees continue to guarantee my country’s military security. Beyond that, Aussies, in historical terms, are probably dead men walking. Part of somebody’s colonial empire. That somebody is desperately overpopulated and apt to move a few tens of millions of excess people that way just to get them out from underfoot at home.

      Given the small population, and limited industrial base, there is no way the country will ever be able to defend against a super power.

      What the world needs worse than anything else right now TODAY is for some small rogue outfit of genetic engineers to create an incurable, super contagious, otherwise harmless disease that renders women sterile after having one baby. Sounds sexist I know, but doing the men wouldn’t help much, one young man can keep a couple of dozen young women pregnant.

      To be fair, the men ought to catch it too, but the problem with a man catching it is how to allow the man his opportunity to father his one child.

      I presume a few women will be naturally immune, and that within a generation or two, somebody will create an effective vaccine, lol.

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Genetically test the babies find the dad and infect the father.

        A simpler approach is free education of women through university and free birth control universally available.

        • Oldfarmermac says:

          Hi Dennis,

          Sometimes I post over the top stuff hoping for replies that are less polite and less well reasoned than your own, which are always models of good thinking and good citizenship.

          But they aren’t the sort of replies that will push the hot buttons of readers of my book to be, lol.

          “A simpler approach is free education of women through university and free birth control universally available.”

          You solution is for sure the best existing option we have for now, and it IS technically simpler than inventing my hypothetical disease, but it won’t stop the world wide population from growing for another twenty or thirty years, maybe longer.

          Desperate situations sometimes call for desperate solutions. Just how dangerous the current overshoot problem IS , IS a question hotly debated, with a lot of serious environmental scientific types convinced that the situation is desperate indeed.

          I am more toward the middle of the road, myself, and think maybe only half or two thirds of us, collectively, planet wide, are at high risk of dying a horrible death due to overshoot before this century is out.

          The BAU type thinkers have been winning the argument, so far, in general terms, but my professional opinion is that hard resource limits are going to wipe out most of humanity before we make it to the technological sustainable promised land.

          It’s gonna be a horse race between depletion and environmental destruction on the one hand, and technical progress on the other. Most of the poor people in the world are too severely handicapped by their poverty, in my opinion, to pull thru, barring technical and social miracles.

          • Hickory says:

            You bring up a neglected topic young FMac.
            How to gracefully downsize?

            Some of the bad ways- machetes, ethnic cleansing, Inquisition, Crusade, pox or plague, starvation and or freezing, radiation poisoning, black lung, or simply the slow strangle of poverty.

            Good ways? Maybe none.
            Less births through education, taxation or other form of government mandate, or self-motivated discipline (yeh keep dreaming) is a fairly slow glide path down, and will take many decades to achieve meaningful results.
            How about shorter life spans. At age 50?, 60?, 70? just take a couple weeks to record all your wisdom (OFM cornbread for example), and hang with friends. Maybe one last trip to _____,
            and then adios.
            Just remind yourself- it will be for the common good.
            After all, we are all one team right?

            • Oldfarmermac says:

              WHOA UP there old buddy Hickory!

              Old farmers past reproductive age consume very little, and there is NO DOUBT in my mind AT ALL that I am worth more alive than dead, as a teacher and leader, once the shit is well and truly in the fan. 😉

              This remark is intended as self directed HUMOR.

              My trusty old double barrel twelve gauge will be directed at anybody who wants me to depart sooner than necessary, so long as I can hold it in my arthritic old hands, and that’s NOT humor.

              Given the nature of life, all solutions are temporary , and the best I can offer is Gandalf’s advice.

              All we have to do is to decide what to do with the time given us.

              We must deal with the problems confronting us NOW as best we can, and leave the far future to the inhabitants thereof, if any.

              When my time to go gets short, I hope for courage enough to GO, rather than spend all my assets, and a lot of the assets of society, on living a few more weeks or months. In times to come, society will NECESSARILY be making harsh decisions about old people.

              We are already spending enough on the last few weeks of millions of oldsters lives to ensure that tens of millions of impoverished kids would have a DECENT shot at a decent life, if it were wisely spent on their welfare.

          • Nick G says:

            More convenient or stealthy contraception, and training in how to use it. That’s all you need.

            50% of births are unplanned IN THE US!. Think what the rate is in most of the world.

            Reduce the birth rate by 50%, and you’re all set.

      • Brian Rose says:


        Recent findings on the 1918 Spanish Flu epidemic are pretty startling when taken into perspective.

        It was a unique confluence of events:

        1. Soldiers’ immune systems were weakened by malnourishment and environmental stresses.

        2. We now know that it began at Etaples, France at a hospital camp during a major troop staging in that city, so there was both a high density of people, AND the ill were not secluded from the healthy.

        Allow me to speculate for just a moment.

        There is strong evidence that the severe drought that sparked Syria’s civil war was driven by climate change and water scarcity:

        The HBO documentary series “Years of Living Dangerously” have a full in-depth episode on this.

        Population growth, water scarcity, and climate changes impact on regional farming conditions, are only JUST NOW starting to create severe stress points on the global geopolitical stage.

        Syria is a prime example of how these dynamics will likely lead to failed states, and massive movements in refugees.

        The 1918 Spanish Flu epidemic was made possible by a combination of high density (easy vector transmission), poor living conditions (weakened immune systems), and the ill being in contact with the healthy.

        Our political systems can sustain a certain threshold of yearly refugee flows that prevent these 3 conditions from occurring, but this one crisis in Syria has already pushed that system past its capacity.

        As the probability for failed states and massive flows of refugees increases by means of climate change and population growth we will see many areas with the ideal conditions for a pandemic to develop.

        Without these 3 conditions global pandemics still occur, but they are less deadly and kill mostly the old and young.

        I think a growing global refugee crisis could very well be the spark that allows for the development of the next Spanish Flu.

        We’re due for a good pandemic!

        We just haven’t had the right combination of conditions to make a truly devastating one possible. Swine flu, Ebola, Zika, bird flu… they are all missing the convergence of rapid transmission and high mortality because they didn’t develop with the necessary conditions.

        There’s a lot more to it, but that’s the abbreviated rundown we learned in our Epidemiology course. That was all before Syria, and the refugee crisis, so I am being speculative on how climate refugee camps will be the birthplace of the next truly deadly global pandemic.

        It’s all probabilities, and certainly not guaranteed. Those probabilities are just increasing, which is unfortunate.

        • Javier says:

          There is strong evidence that the severe drought that sparked Syria’s civil war was driven by climate change and water scarcity

          No, there is not:
          Drought, Climate, War, Terrorism, and Syria
          This article by Roger Andrews goes into detail about the water situation in Syria with the conclusion that the drought was not unusual.

          Syria went from 5 M people to 23 M people in just 60 years. Oil production peaked and was insufficient for exports in 2008, so the economy started to tank. The Syrian government reduced the fossil fuel subsidies that could no longer afford with the result that fuel prices increased a lot. Farmers could no longer afford the necessary fuel to run the pumps for irrigation and wheat production started to drop. Bread prices went also up. Revolution started. Revolution devolved into civil war when Qatar and Saudi Arabia supported the rebels, and the Arab League, European Union, United States and Turkey imposed economic sanctions on Syria.

          It is a very old story, only that now we have a boogeyman to blame: Climate change. The truth is that our own governments have contributed a lot more to the Syrian civil war than climate change. Now we pay the Turkish to keep the Syrian immigrants at bay from a situation we contributed to create. Obviously this is difficult to explain to the electorate so it is best to say that it is human-made climate change’s fault. Most people will believe it. Most people tend to believe their government and their civil servants, despite past experiences.

          P.S. The Spanish flu was not Spanish.

        • Javier says:

          There is strong evidence that the severe drought that sparked Syria’s civil war was driven by climate change and water scarcity

          No, there is not:
          Drought, Climate, War, Terrorism, and Syria
          This article by Roger Andrews goes into detail about the water situation in Syria with the conclusion that the drought was not unusual.

          Syria went from 5 M people to 23 M people in just 60 years. Oil production peaked and was insufficient for exports in 2008, so the economy started to tank. The Syrian government reduced the fossil fuel subsidies that could no longer afford with the result that fuel prices increased a lot. Farmers could no longer afford the necessary fuel to run the pumps for irrigation and wheat production started to drop. Bread prices went also up. Revolution started. Revolution devolved into civil war when Qatar and Saudi Arabia supported the rebels, and the Arab League, European Union, United States and Turkey imposed economic sanctions on Syria.

          It is a very old story, only that now we have a boogeyman to blame: Climate change. The truth is that our own governments have contributed a lot more to the Syrian civil war than climate change. Now we pay the Turkish to keep the Syrian immigrants at bay from a situation we contributed to create. Obviously this is difficult to explain to the electorate so it is best to say that it is human-made climate change’s fault. Most people will believe it. Most people tend to believe their government and their civil servants, despite past experiences.

          P.S. The Spanish flu was not Spanish.

        • Oldfarmermac says:

          Hi Brian,

          I couldn’t agree more.

          Every thing you have said is consistent with what agriculture pros learn as undergrads in classes devoted to the control and management of pests of all sorts, epidemic diseases, blights, etc. I never took a dedicated epidemiology class, but courses in the field were mandatory if you majored in animal science when I was an undergrad. The bare bones were mentioned in just about every class, at some point. Control measures were taught in all specialties, but not in deep detail.

          Stress turns loose the dogs. People in countries stressed passed tolerable limits are going to be dying and emigrating, and nothing less than brute force is apt to stop them at national borders.

        • Ulenspiegel says:

          “It was a unique confluence of events:

          1. Soldiers’ immune systems were weakened by malnourishment and environmental stresses.

          2. We now know that it began at Etaples, France at a hospital camp during a major troop staging in that city, so there was both a high density of people, AND the ill were not secluded from the healthy.

          That is wrong. The origin was China and the desease was crried by Chinese workers who were used by the allies in France. There were actually two waves and the fact that most of the elder survided means that at least the strain that caused the first wave was similar to previous strains, i.e. the people had developed some kind of resistence in previous years.

          Many victims in the USA were young and well fed men and women, not only exhausted soldiers in France, that was one of the strange issues. The secondary infections were of course much more dangerous for malnourished people in Europe.

          A very detailed discussion of the observations made in many countries and IMHO very good interpretation is found in one of the issues of “War in History”, a peer-reviewed journal on military history.

          • Fred Magyar says:

            More to the story than that. See my link…

            • Ulenspiegel says:

              Thanks a lot. The genetic interpretations fits very well with the observations from China, North America and France described in the “War in History” paper.

              As the professor said in his amazing talk (he has a talent to educate people ouside his field), the biological interpretation has still to explain the 1916/17 waves in the hospitals in France, which were IIRC mirrowed by infections in the camps of the Chinese workers, the different intensities for the Chinesee workers may indeed point to a change of the virus between 1916 and 1918.

      • GoneFishing says:

        Okay OFM, what happens afterward with that population that is maybe down to one-quarter the size of what was previously? Since the virus was planted there would be no consensus to reduce population and it would be looked upon as a tragedy to be corrected by many.
        So a few generations later with large families (4 to 6 children) we are back about where we started.
        Unless massive collapse of civilization and the food supply occurs, I doubt if population will fall rapidly or stay down. Just not the nature of the animal.

        • Oldfarmermac says:

          Hi GF,

          Excellent points on your part.

          All possible solutions appear to be temporary and it is well accepted among cynics that solutions are the primary source of NEW problems. I tend to agree with the cynics on this point.

          • GoneFishing says:

            Just playing devil’s advocate. Man following his nature and all that. We really have no clue what is going to happen in the future with population, so many variables in play. Probably a lot lower, but one never knows.
            I would like to see E. O. Wilson’s solution of half-Earth come into play but don’t know how to implement anything on that large of a scale right now. Too many humans in the way!! 🙂

            I do see the trees, bushes and weeds around here just chomping at the bit, taking over any space that we even turn our backs on for a little while. They are incessant. Makes me feel good about much of nature surviving.

            Nature produced us and we are just following our natural ways, strange as they may seem. Interestingly enough, we are both part of the evolutionary process and are the evolutionary process at the same time. But we are not the first to transform the earth environment and the atmosphere, plants did it a long time ago and tend to keep doing it. We just seem to have the ability to ponder what we do and possibly change course as we go.

            Was just reading in Scientific American how this branch of mammals survived the asteroid cataclysm at the end of the Cretaceous. Apparently the evolution of our teeth had a lot to do with it. Gave certain mammals a real edge on accessing a wide variety of food. The dinosaur eating mammals with just sharp teeth died out. Those with molars stayed alive, at least enough of them.

        • hightrekker23 says:

          The estimated population of England between the years 1800 BC and 1700 CE, averaged 3 million people, but was less than 2 million for 3000 years. At the time of William the Conqueror’s Census, this population was 1.7 million people. Add 1 million people for Ireland and Scotland, each, and one may obtain an estimate of about 5-6 million people, who could be sustained by the U.K. If people in the near future will want to live on more resources than a 1000 years ago, the number of supported individuals will drop proportionally.

          • WelshFarmer says:

            Factor in the facts that i) the costal waters around UK have lost nearly all their fish and that ii) our soil is greatly eroded and impoverished, and I think you will find the that the current carrying capacity of the UK is much lower than that 5-6 million estimate.
            90 percent of UK inhabitants owe their existence to fossil fuel-based agriculture and an overvalued currency that is (still) accepted by poor producer nations.

      • SatansBestFriend says:

        With regards to Peak Oil and Australia…Something I hold dear to my heart since I moved to Australia from USA and I read this website

        I think I have some opinions that are relevant.

        Australia has advantages and disadvantages with regards to Peak Oil.


        1) Small 20 million population and could probably legally kick out about 5 million “temporary” residents who are just here for a good job. So much food for the population, that china is trying to buy the farms.

        2) Population is focused in 2 areas: Sydney and Melbourne.

        3) Lots of coal and natural gas reserves. This country might be the poster child for CTL and GTL. Country consumes 1mbpd, one 500k CTL plant would basically solve the countries internal energy demands. CALL SASOL!!!!

        now the bad news:

        1) China, India, Indonesia, Japan, etc are all energy hungry neighbors that may see Australia as an attractive target.

        I think Canada is the best spot on the planet to be….but only stochastically.

        Lots of sleepless nights for a father of a young one…..


        • Paulo says:


          Last Sat went to a ‘cricket match’ put on every year by our Aussi friends. There were a bunch of us old farts drinking beer, slapping around at murdering cricket, a roast pig to eat, and a celtic band. I prefer baseball, but what the hell? Anyway, I find in interesting how Canada and Australia seem to swap people back and forth. Commonwealth roots, and all that. Rural ‘nucks are pretty much the same in bigot level although we treat our women better, for sure. Mind you, the aussies at this event were all retired university types so they were pretty civilized.

          They are both good countries to be in. A good life is all about attitude, prep, and luck. You are in a good place to do the right things.


    • Brian Rose says:


      I’ve never understood this profligate theory that “As long as we get our oil from Norway instead of Saudi Arabia or from Canada instead of Venezuela it gives us energy security”.

      It’s a globally traded commodity that goes to the highest bidder.

      Diversity of supply means nothing.

      Global supply/demand balance is what matters economically.

      The diversity of supply argument only matters if trade routes are cut and supply seized, which is a mild way of saying it only happens if the situation is so dire that oil is at $300 barrel and China or whoever is willing to GUARANTEE a hot war with NATO to get a resource so scarce that war is the best possible option.

      Diversity of supply didn’t mean diddle in 2008 when stagnant supply culminated in $147, and, coincidentally, the worst global recession in living memory.

      I can never tell if that argument, promulgated by politicians and accepted by the masses, is intentionally deceiving or just a reflection of widespread ignorance. I lean toward ignorance because all political parties in all countries accept modern economic theory that basically concludes all products are infinite in supply and the price mechanism will allow for technology and substitution to preserve the economic system.

      The high prices and unlocking of higher cost LTO resources as well as the development of electric vehicles is, to pretty much every citizen and politician the world over, a confirmation of that economic theory.

      It is not WRONG – that is what happened. It just doesn’t take into account the physical reality that energy is the source of all activity in the universe, and if any systems primary source of energy experiences a permanent decline before substitution can reach an inflection point, then the system as a whole will collapse.

      If we get to the point that “diversity of supply” is a countries winning hand due other nations cutting off trade routes and seizing oil, then the collapse is already guaranteed and it is not a winning hand in any sense.

      • Nick G says:

        Diversity of supply means nothing.

        I agree. It’s just a talking point created by legacy industries to defend BAU.

        if any systems primary source of energy experiences a permanent decline before substitution can reach an inflection point, then the system as a whole will collapse.

        The primary source of resiliency in the oil-consuming sphere is the vast amount of “waste”: uses that are just barely worth the current price of $50 per barrel. single occupancy SUVs, etc. This kind of consumption can go away pretty quickly if prices rise, with very little harm to anybody.

        • texas tea says:

          “Diversity of supply means nothing.

          I agree. It’s just a talking point created by legacy industries to defend BAU.”

          WOW, please explain why we need: 1) Wind power, 2) solar power
          3) hydroelectric power: Talk to the Venezuelans about that . Pick one 🔆

          By that line thinking you do not need multiple sources for food, water, medicine, transportation or income either. Do either of you run a business or are you responsible for any body other than your selves. It is not obvious that you would be successful. I won’t say this marks a new low in naive statements I have seen on the forum, but its darn sure going to make the list👎

          • Nick G says:


            Think a little before you make aggressively disrespectful comments.

            In this case we’re not talking about diversity of electrical generation, we’re talking about diversity of geographic supply, specifically about oil, and in the context of national security vs the cost and availability of oil exports.

            It’s also worth mentioning that the US has spend trillions of dollars to protect the “stability” of M.E. oil supplies (for all of it’s importers around the world – not just for the US), and it has been an incredible waste.

            The US would be far, far better off to have reduced it’s consumption far more than it has – greater efficiency and electrification and use of alternatives such as trains would have been far more cost effective both in terms of consumer and military costs, trade balances, exportable tech, and in terms of national security.

            • texas tea says:

              I completely understood what you what were talking about.

              “It’s also worth mentioning that the US has spend trillions of dollars to protect the “stability” of M.E. oil supplies (for all of it’s importers around the world – not just for the US), and it has been an incredible waste.”

              a waste to compared to what, the entire global economy, food chain etc being held hostage by some anti west religious zealots, like those poor folks in the orlando night club? I would suggest it is not I that needs to think a little.👎Redundancy is a key component in all successful ventures. Perhaps we should not protect shipping lanes either? I think it has been discussed before, the technology that exists today, did not exist 20 years ago and even as it has advanced the time to roll out any type of framework to replace the over 90% of our energy requirements will take decades and the continuation of technological development.

              You say “The US would be far, far better off to have reduced it’s consumption far more than it has”.
              I say, world oil demand has never been higher and continues to grow.

              I understand, you do not like your ideas challenged, to the point you wish to ban other opinions. Trust me when I say this, your ideas need to be challenged rather forcefully because they are dangerous to your fellow americans and frankly the world. Utopia does not exist, it is a figure of your imagination, just ask your everyday Venezuelan🇺🇸

              • Nick G says:

                the entire global economy, food chain etc being held hostage by some anti west religious zealots

                That’s the point. Why allow ourselves to be held hostage?

                Redundancy is a key component in all successful ventures.

                Sure, in the very short term. In the medium and long term, oil is fungible.

                the technology that exists today, did not exist 20 years ago

                It existed 100 years ago. It’s been greatly improved in the last 20 years, but trains and EVs have been here for more than 100 years. Europeans use 18% as much liquid fuel for personal transportation, without much high tech. If oil were properly priced to take into account it’s very high security and pollution costs, we’d be far, far less dependent on it.

                The US could have prevented it’s dependence on imports, that started right after WWII. If we’d paid attention even a little.

                world oil demand has never been higher and continues to grow.

                Sure. It’s not properly priced. People will always overconsume things that are heavily subsidized, like oil.

                you wish to ban other opinions

                You’re thinking of someone else. I think a good blog moderator will apply good judgement and delete really obnoxious comments, but I find most of your opinions a very handy opportunity to clarify things. A “teachable moment”.

                Utopia does not exist

                Who said anything about utopia? I’m talking about proper accounting, which would greatly reduce the consumption of overly expensive, risky oil.

                • Dennis Coyne says:

                  Hi Nick,

                  The oil problem will mostly solve itself as resources deplete, oil becomes very expensive and people move to other sources of energy for transportation.

                  Better to focus on coal which is much dirtier, and riskier from a climate change perspective.

                  Once we have reduced coal use as far as is practical we can move on to natural gas. There will be some uses of oil for farming and air transport that will be more difficult to replace. Oil will not be a problem as far as having too much supply, possibly too little for a smooth transition.

                  • Nick G says:

                    I broadly agree, with some modest differences:

                    The oil problem will mostly solve itself

                    Beyond PO and pollution is a big problem: security and corruption. We’re in the middle of a “war on terror” which has cost trillions. Saudi Arabia has caused enormous harm to the world by subsidizing the harshest and most intolerant of relious schooling.

                    It would be very, very nice to reduce our dependence on oil sooner rather than later.

                    There will be some uses of oil for farming and air transport that will be more difficult to replace.

                    Actually, synthetic liquid fuel is very, very straightforward. It’s old chemistry and it’s very affordable – in the range of $5-10 (probably $5-7 per gallon. The thing is, that’s completely non-competitive with oil currently, so it’s just not going to happen in the current environment. But…it’s perfectly viable and affordable.

                    Aviation and farming will be just fine.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi NickG,

                    The point was that oil will continue to be used in those areas. Whether the World economy will be affected by $8/b oil in those sectors is not known. Not all transitions happen with no difficulties, assumptions that no difficulties will be encountered are highly unrealistic in my view.

                    This does not mean these difficulties cannot be overcome, it will take serious work to accomplish, in my more optimistic moments I believe humans may be up to the task, but considering some of the dumb things humans have done in the past, perhaps such a view is unrealistic.

                    I remain hopeful that humanity will muddle through.

                  • Nick G says:


                    I agree: all transitions take very hard work and will have many difficulties, and many winners and losers. There’s always a great deal of pain for some people.

                    It’s all a matter of the relevant context. For instance, for aviation, there’s a big difference between the above statement and “it’s likely that aviation will disappear as an industry.”. That’s highly unrealistic. When oil prices rose dramatically in 2004-2008 there were many bankruptcies in the aviation industry, and many investors and employees were badly hurt. But…at the end the industry overall was doing just fine, with more passenger miles than ever.

                    Similarly, farming is a brutal business, with a certain percentage always going under. A transition away from oil will certainly cause hard times for some. But there’s really no reason to think that in a post-oil environment that the farm sector, overall, won’t be perfectly successful at producing very affordable food in the same or larger quantities as today.

                  • texas tea says:

                    Dennis says, “Once we have reduced coal use as far as is practical we can move on to natural gas.”
                    goodness, perhaps we can start with some facts:
                    your dreams of a command and control will have to wait, for a man who claims to support free markets you have some very strange ideas.👎

                  • Nick G says:

                    A reckless disregard for free markets is the only thing keeping coal alive.

                    Healthy free markets depend on good, honest accounting for costs. You have to account properly for pensions, stock options and many other costs that may seem a bit intangible, but are very, very real.

                    Pollution is one of those costs. Any good libertarian, conservative economist will tell you that pollution is serious theft of property and health. Good government protects against theft.

                    Coal has costs of about 18 cents per kWh which aren’t currently accounted for. 14 of those 18 cents have nothing to do with climate change: mercury, sulfur, particulates, NOX, radioactivity, sludge, black lung, etc., etc., etc.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Texas tea,

                    Coal has a lot of externalities, neoclassical economic theory suggests pollution taxes are the most efficient way to solve this problem.

                    I said nothing about a command economy. This is the proper way to deal with that problem in a free market economy.

                    Climate change will be a problem if we burn too much coal.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Texas Tea,

                    I suggest we focus on reducing coal use because it creates a lot of pollution. I agree we use a lot of natural gas at present.

                    Do you believe the EIA estimates for future natural gas supply?

                    I don’t and I have presented my estimates for natural gas elsewhere, see:


                    Natural gas is the best fossil fuel for energy output per unit of carbon emissions, we should use it as efficiently as possible and try to supplement with wind, solar, hydro, geothermal and nuclear energy.

                    I know you have faith that free markets will lead to a seamless transition when natural gas supply and coal supply run short.

                    I do not share in your faith, a carbon tax or fee and dividend plan is needed to push the economy in the right direction, though politically the US is not ready, when peak oil arrives perhaps we will be.

                    Do the EIA petroleum projections seem realistic to you?

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        Hi Brian,
        Depending on the size of the box you have in mind, I believe your thinking is sound.
        You are in my opinion right, that once diversity of supply becomes the fall back argument for energy security, the horse is out of the barn, the fat is in the fire, however you want to express it, the shit will probably be hitting the fan hard and fast within a few years for such countries.

        But there are such things as treaties and alliances, and they do say that possession is nine tenths of the law, as a practical matter, lots of times.

        It is for this reason that I think the environmentalists and the D party as a whole made a SUPER MAJOR mistake in snubbing Canada, and refusing to allow the Keystone pipeline to be built. This gave certain Asian super powers to be a free pass to make a little love to our northern neighbor, and maybe arrange FIRST DIBS on that neighbors production.

        Ditto our foreign policy in respect to Venezuela and the rest of the western southern hemisphere has been incredibly inept since I was a kid, and even before.

        But hopefully when the shit hits the fan hard and fast, and it WILL, eventually, we Yankees, and a few more powerful and influential countries that are closely allied with us, and maybe a few little hangers on countries, WILL get preferential access to whatever oil IS traded in international commerce.

        It’s hard for me to imagine that if the chips are all on the table, Canada would take a chance on us not defending her and SNUB US by sending a few million barrels of oil to Asia every day if those barrels would keep our economy functional.

        It’s also hard for me to imagine that HRC wouldn’t send the Marines, followed on by rest of our MIC, on a mission to export a little democracy down Venezuela way, in case doing so meant the difference between being reelected, or another D elected in eight years, and her keeping her wall street cronies happy.

        For the record, my opinion of TRUMP is even worse.

        In the last analysis, destroyers and tanks and planes and men with rifles, trump treaties and markets, at least temporarily.

        We need to be pedal to the metal on efficiency and renewables. Otherwise we are charcoal black burnt toast for sure, even here in the USA.

        But if we put enough resources into efficiency and renewables, we just MIGHT pull thru, skinny but more or less whole. Some of us anyway.

        Note that I am hoping for contradictory remarks, especially any that are realistic, rather than just wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is wonderful, if one’s luck holds, and the wishes come true. Otherwise………..

        • Paulo says:


          Despite political posturings and Canada’s complex about the size of the US economy, plus general US ignorance about Canada (and most other countries), we are pretty good friends and allies. In a downturn it makes very good sense to sell to a neighbour at transportation advantage/discount. Having said this, if the newly expired softwood lumber agreement is retooled to once again punish Canadians for their efficient forest industry and protect the US forest industry, all bets are off in the west. Last go around I advised my sister it would be a good idea not to park her car around here with her WA plates visible. Seriously.

          Play nice gets nice. For the most part, I believe both countries value our relationship. Due to the recent surge in real estate prices around here, plus sign and language issues, there are some hard feelings about Chinese buying and/or selling anything around here. It has become quite an issue. Myself, I always try and buy North American.

          A downturn will encourage and support localized trade, imho.

          • Oldfarmermac says:

            Hi Paulo,

            I am in complete agreement with you. Snubbing Canada on timber was a mistake,a huge one, but maybe it will blow over. Maybe we won’t make the same mistake twice , and pay a big price for doing so down the road.


            That mistake made ME a good bit of money, sometime back, when it caused the price of local timber to spike up rather sharply. Just being honest, lol.

            Whether we make it again will mostly depend on who successfully argues his case in front of the relevant politicians, who must balance their need for campaign money against the possibility of losing their next election. Sad but true.

            Such snubs are seldom forgotten, and fester for a long long time.

            There are many practical reasons why we should work together as closely as possible, as neighbors and nations, not the least of which is our common interest in our long term physical and economic security.

            We North Americans are the luckiest people in the world, in that we have a huge, diverse, extremely rich continent not yet too badly plundered, and a population that is not yet so big as to be a major danger to our future.

            Geographically we are super lucky too, with the Arctic and Atlantic and Pacific between us and any enemies that might at some future time contemplate a physical, boots on the ground war on our home turf.

            It bothers me and amuses me to hear all the holier than thou preaching about for example nuclear waste and the future of humanity thousands of years into the future, when those doing the preaching have their heads up their butts so far they will never see daylight concerning the gravest of existential problems facing us in the short to middle term.

            Just felt like ranting a little , there in that last paragraph, about how most people fail to think things thru.

            Sometimes I think maybe I will be like the old guy with the lantern, searching forever for just one man who is solely interested in telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, lol.

            The punch line is that most of what we naked apes think of as truth is nothing more than our own personal opinion, sometimes excepting matters concerning the hard or physical sciences, and our opinions are mostly determined by our cultural and political affiliations, rather than objective facts.

  9. R Walter says:

    I want a self-driving car so I can stay home. The car can drive itself to the grocery store, the order of groceries was ordered via the internet, loaded into the electric powered car, the car drives back to the garage. In the meantime, you can return from a ride through the woods on your favorite horse to take the groceries in from the car. har, rhyme time, har.

    Nobody drives the highways anymore, they’re too crowded. All deference to Yogi Berra.

    You can save a lot of money by eliminating the interior of a self-driving car, use cameras, telemetry, you can stay home and travel from your couch. Wouldn’t even need a trunk. Make it fly, no wheels needed. A drone, just stay at home and fly the drone to charging stations, you could fly the drone around the world from the comforts of home.

    Don’t need no stinkin’ self-driving car, drones can handle the grocery shopping too. Wouldn’t need a garage, automobiles would be obsolete. har

    • Fred Magyar says:

      I want a self-driving car so I can stay home. The car can drive itself to the grocery store, the order of groceries was ordered via the internet, loaded into the electric powered car, the car drives back to the garage.

    • Hickory says:

      Good points R Walter.
      I’m starting to rethink my priorities. I may just cancel my order for the Self-Driving Ford-Tesla.
      And I think I’ll back off on those training courses I’ve been attending-
      the “Self-Living Life”. I thought it would be good to just be on auto-pilot, and basically just sit back and observe. I’d be blameless.
      What was really starting to bother me was all the prayers that you had to learn. And then they wanted money too.
      I guess I’ll just go back to actually living life without a ‘readers digest’ guide, and make my own prayers if I ever see the need (unlikely).
      I may cancel that order for ‘self-Permaculture’ kit too. Caelan- do you do refunds? I’ll send back my wall plaque.

    • Oldfarmermac says:

      Ronald,you KNOW better.

      Any self respecting right thinking man will build an aircraft hanger to house his shiny new drones.

  10. DaShui says:

    I’m rigging my self driving ghetto car so I can do drivebys from the comfort of my home, y’all better duck! Hahaha

    • Brian Rose says:

      There is a fellow who rigged a regular car to be autonomous!

      It’s actually a very, very intriguing story:

      George Hotz is universally regarded as a sort of software savant.

      It’s all in the article, but Elon Musk is hoping to hire Hotz and buy his IP to make Tesla vehicles the first truly, fully Level 4 autonomous vehicles in the world.

      The story is in-depth and very well written.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        In the past I have posted links on AI development that give reason to believe that it is already way past time to start seriously preparing for a world with societies where nobody has a ‘JOB’ in the traditional sense.

        Sitting cross-legged on a dirty, formerly cream-colored couch in his garage, Hotz philosophizes about AI and the advancement of humanity. “Slavery did not end because everyone became moral,” he says. “The reason slavery ended is because we had an industrial revolution that made man’s muscles obsolete. For the last 150 years, the economy has been based on man’s mind. Capitalism, it turns out, works better when people are chasing a carrot rather than being hit with a stick. We’re on the brink of another industrial revolution now. The entire Internet at the moment has about 10 brains’ worth of computing power, but that won’t always be the case.

        To that I would have added that the industrial revolution needed one other major component for its ultimate success, namely the access to cheap easily accessible and very energy dense fossil fuels.

        One of the things I see happening is exponential leaps in overall energy efficiency in just about every kind of technology in use today. So we are on the brink of another very different kind of energy revolution as well. Despite being often criticized for posting information on disruption and things like very small scale distributed energy generation with solar and wind by previously poverty stricken Africans and other under privileged people around the world…

        Tim Minchin – Hello/Happy Little Africuns (2007 Comedy Gala)

        I think it important to learn from the lessons of distribution of telephone communication. When I was a young boy in Brazil a copper phone line extended to a home or a business was only available to the very wealthy. Today even the the poorest Brazilians have smart phones. We can debate the pros and cons of that technology some other time, I will say only that I am in the camp that thinks the benefits far outweigh the negatives.

        My point being, that providing the infrastructure necessary. if everyone still depended on copper lines would be so incredibly expensive in terms of resources and energy that it simply would never have been possible.

        I most certainly do not claim to know where we are headed but from my perspective this is not the time to stick our heads in the sand or retreat in isolationist fashion to our comfort zones as neoluddites. Now is the time to stick our necks out and even risk failing by embracing the rapid disruptive change happening all around us.

        Good Luck to All! And may that Star Spangled Banner yet wave upon the early morning light of a new world. A world connecting people to people with all the benefits of technology and helping us better understand and help each other.

        Happy Fourth of July!
        P.S. The Brits and Donald Trump are wrong!

        • scrub puller says:

          Yair . . .

          FRED MAGYAR.

          Can you give any details as to how poor folks are able to afford smart phones and plans?

          I see clips of people even in refugee camps with the damn things and tribal folks sitting outside a mud hut in Africa or in a palm frond shack in Ecuador.

          Retired on a fixed income here in Australia we are barely able to afford a slow and dodgy thirty five dollar a month wireless internet connection let alone a smart phone.

          Our land line phone costs about fifty bucks a month and my wife keeps about twenty dollars of credit on her car flip phone which lives in the glove box for emergencies.

          Any insights?


          • Toolpush says:

            Scrub Puller,

            One point, the poor refugees are not poor. How do you think they can afford the $10-$12 k to pay for their transport across the world?

            On another point, when working in Angola, the company decided to give away a mobile phone per month as a safety award. The manager selected a few models to see test the reaction on the rig. The response from the boys was, “you will never pick up a girl with that”.
            In other words, phones are now the new status symbol. Just like a fast flashy car used to be.

          • notanoilman says:

            Your land line is expensive, ours is about 28 aussie includine 10 Mb internet, all fibre to the home.


          • Fred Magyar says:

            Any insights?

            Lots actually, at least for what happens in Brazil! I don’t know much about the financial situation of refugees in Europe but I suspect that would be comparing apples to oranges. See Toolpush’s comment…

            For one, the very poor in Brazil don’t own cars and they live in shacks which they hand build on land they do not own. They live in a parallel underground economy and a smartphone is their sole means of connection to the world.

            • R Walter says:

              Grant a cellphone and a solar-powered battery charger to anyone 12 years and older. 4,000,000,000 new cellphones and 4,000,000,000 new solar chargers will generate economic activity. Cars will be far down on the priority list. Oil will be a distant memory. Electrons do the job.

              One percent of your income for service charges. If you make 1,000,000 dollars per month, your cellphone cost is 10,000 dollars each month.

              If you earn $10.00 per month, your cellphone cost will be 10 cents.

              It’s only fair.

              If you earn 5000 dollars in one month, your cellphone service plan will be $50.00 to call your Mom. Your call will be to beg your Mom to bring popcorn to your basement digs at your house which happens to be her house too. har

              Not everybody has to live in a makeshift dwelling and have a cellphone, Mom’s basement is a better place to live like a refugee.

          • Wake says:

            In parts of Africa anyway I can say that the build out of wireless towers was a whole lot cheaper than running towers and wire to a lot of small villages

            My last visit predates smartphones but even then people were starting to have cell phones

            Texting could save a dollar cost trip to market and cost almost nothing, and phones were shared

            You can get a cheap phone for $15 that allows for texting

            In Brazil I can’t answer not for smartphones but with my shallow knowledge of Brazil I suspect the answer is the same as for everything else…on credit

          • Oldfarmermac says:

            When portable transistor radios were first marketed, they were as big as bricks, picked up only stations within a few miles, and cost a farm hand over a weeks gross wages.

            You can buy a far superior radio that is no bigger than a pack of cigarettes today for one or at the most two hours earnings at minimum wage.

            You can get a pretty decent smart phone, at MalWart for well under a days minimum wage, and a very good flip phone for three hours minimum wage. Good used phones are selling for as little as five bucks,sometimes even less, at local flea markets.

            Cell phones will soon be affordable to ALMOST ANYBODY at all, if the local government makes sure the carrier service is priced to allow only a moderate , reasonable profit, and doesn’t use the cell industry as a tax cow. This assumes plenty of customers.

            Providing cell service in remote areas with few people may never be cheap.

            • GoneFishing says:

              Just as a comparison, the Voyager transmitter was 26 watts and we are receiving data way past Neptune. Both Voyagers are still operating and are at 130AU and 107AU distance.
              I used to listen to a 50,000 watt radio station about 40 miles away on a crystal radio.
              Big difference in technology (and cost).

  11. Pingback: Petroleum Supply Monthly, Texas C+C estimate, Permian, and Eagle Ford | Energy News

  12. Longtimber says:

    Of Interest: Some Logical Info/trends accounting for both Supply and Demand factors. You can see how critical US LTO supply is to the whole shooting match.

  13. texas tea says:

    US’ Largest Private Coal Miner To Layoff 80% Of Staff Due To “Obama’s Ongoing Destruction”

    • HuntingtonBeach says:

      Good, why would anyone in their right mind want to burn coal ?

      • Coal is pretty good to generate electricity.

      • Hickory says:

        In some places- like Helsinki, Toronto, Warsaw, Minneapolis, Edinburgh, Seoul, Spokane, Boston, Vladivostok, among others- it can get cold in the winter. You can get so cold that your blood will turn to a solid form inside your body, and you die. Your kids too.
        Burning coal will keep you warm, especially once you have burned all the wooden furniture, and cut down all the forests within 3 days horse ride.

  14. Enno Peters says:

    Thanks for the post Dennis.

    I just published a new update on total US LTO production, until March, here.

    • shallow sand says:

      Thanks yet again Enno!

      Some tidbits:

      Q1 2015 wells in March, 2015: 2,791 wells produced 836,266 barrels per day.
      Q1, 2015 wells in March, 2016: 2,789 wells produced 284, 955 barrels per day.

      Decline of 551,311 barrels per day year over year.

      Q1 2014 wells in March, 2014: 2,487 wells produced 670,126 barrels per day.
      Q1 2014 wells in March, 2016: 2,481 wells produced 131,647 barrels per day.

      Decline of 538,479 barrels per day over 2 years.

      So, more of a decline (from about 300 more wells, I note) in one year from 2015 wells than in two years from 2014 wells.

      Finally, Q1 2016 wells in March, 2016: 1,014 wells produced 378,092 barrels per day.

      Almost 500,000 barrels per day less added, year over year. Have to keep the treadmill at full throttle if you want to resume US production growth, no time for breaks. In two years the average 2014 well is down to 53 barrels per day, just 13 above what North Dakota considers a low volume well.

      Note the average well is producing more in those first three months. Will that result in more cumulative oil in the first 60 months?

      Lastly, all those wells completed in 2014, 2015 and 2016. The majority will struggle to payout in five years. Multiple billions of $$ of capital destroyed.

  15. texas tea says:
    The Berliner Kurier reports that the PIK scientists foresee a weakening of the sun’s activity over the coming years. “That means that conversely it is going to get colder. The scientists are speaking of a little ice age.”

    According to the PIK scientists, the reduced solar activity will, however, not be able to stop the global warming and only brake the warming up to 2100 by 0.3°C.

    Given the extreme warnings of warming and sea level rise put out by the Potsdam Institute in the past, this still represents an extraordinary admission, one that has us suspecting a major climate turnaround may be ahead – despite all the efforts by the Potsdam Institute to play it all down. Here we see them possibly setting up a global warming postponement of a couple of decades. The sun plays a role after all.

    The source of the Berliner Kurier report is the Austrian weather site here. The site writes that some solar physicists suspect the current solar inactivity may be “the start of a new grand minimum” like the one the planet saw in the 17th century and left Europe in an ice box.

    – See more at:

    • GoneFishing says:

      I posted the expected graph of the expected Grand Solar Minimum and it’s effect upon global warming in the previous post.

      The drop of 0.3C from solar irradience decrease against the rise of 2C to 3C in the near future will not be noticeable. In fact, if one takes into account the clearing of the atmosphere as we reduce fossil fuel usage it will be overcome very quickly and have no noticeable effect at all on rising temperatures, since it is less than the global dimming caused by particulates and aerosol pollution.

      There will be no ice box, there will be no little ice age. Weather will vary in certain locales as the Jetstream shifts and the AMOC changes in magnitude, but overall it will get warmer and warmer. Don’t be fooled by weather, when one adds energy to a system it becomes more variable and chaotic.

      • Javier says:

        That is all hypotheses, and since we were not able to predict the slowdown of the warming trend for the past 15 years, not very good hypotheses. The truth is we have no clue how temperatures are going to be 15 years from now. They could be higher, lower, or the same.

        Your confidence in that you know how the climate is going to be in the future is the mark of a fool. Our capacity to correctly predict climate or weather for over more than a few days is lame.

        • GoneFishing says:

          The solar numbers are based on historical records and the warming is extrapolated from current pollution trends.
          Javier, you consistently keep proving you are an ignorant zealot with no real understanding of science or how the world works. I highly suspect you are driven by the fear of God not being in control and mankind becoming a force in nature. Anything that does not fit into your little box of preconceived notions is immediately attacked and crucified. You would have fit in very well in the Spanish Inquisition. Burn any witches lately?

          • Doug Leighton says:

            Gone Fishing, you can view Javier as a clown, one who provides silly entertainment, but it’s easier to ignore his comments and move on. That’s what most of us do.

            • GoneFishing says:

              You are right. Debating clowns is not good form.

            • Oldfarmermac says:

              Once in a while I have made a mistake or two myself, for example about peak oil.

              Back in the old TOD days, I concluded that peak oil would have crashed the world economy well before now.

              Now my personal belief is that forced warming is baked in, but it IS possible that Javier just barely conceivably MIGHT be right. The climate MIGHT not warm up as much as predicted, and it might take longer than predicted for such warming to take place.

              It is not IMPOSSIBLE for instance for most of the extra heat being trapped by the atmosphere to find its way into the world ocean, and from the upper layers to the lower deeper layers of the ocean.I am not predicting that this will actually happen, but merely acknowledging that it MIGHT. If it did happen, then warming would be minimized, and the fossil fuel age would be over before the heat made it’s way back into the atmosphere.

              There might yet be some unknown negative feed back mechanisms that will come into play that will offset CO2 forcing. The odds that this is so are exceedingly slim, but not mathematically zero.

              In any case, Javier has demonstrated that he knows a hell of a lot about the environment , etc, and generally is ” on board ” except for being a climate skeptic.

              If a man is with you eighty percent of the time, he is your friend.

              Without skeptics, we tend to get too comfortable with our beliefs, whether accurate or not. Political prejudices may be substituted for facts after a while, leading to the formulation of bad policies that take generations to reverse. Consider the drug wars.

              If I were running this forum, and insisted on chasing off everybody who is opposed to GMO foods, then I would NEVER have the opportunity to win some anti GMO partisans over to my side of the issue.

              Ditto the climate issue.

              • GoneFishing says:

                You misinterpret the problem Old Farmer. It is one of abuse not one of science. Javier is not a skeptic. He is a zealot when it comes to his ideas about global warming and climate. He verbally attacks those who support mainstream science and hounds them. He acts as if he is superior to the best and most experienced experts in the field. Fringe science is fine, but if you actually look at the magnitudes of the energies involved in his ideas they can have nowhere near the effects that are being seen. The ignoring of actual magnitudes is a known ploy of deniers.

                I understand skepticism. But when it is a cover word for abuse and agenda I respond appropriately.

                As to the negative forcings, they are well known. The one big variable about which little is known is predicting future cloud formation, and that can play a large role in both negative and positive feedbacks. So far it’s role has been minimal, since it acts in both directions, but that does not mean it can’t change in the future.

                • Oldfarmermac says:

                  I haven’t encountered Javier any where except in this forum, and while he IS pretty cocky about insisting HE is marching to the actual music while the REST of the band is out of step, ……..

                  Well, the big boys of the climate science establishment are used to worse. The R party for instance. The Koch brothers for instance. That idiot R who chairs one of the more important congressional committees dealing with the environment.

                  For what it is worth, I ignore Javier’s climate opinions, since I personally believe the establishment consensus is more or less correct.

                  But I am smart enough to understand that there IS a chance, a very slim chance to be sure, that he might turn out to be RIGHT. I have had to change my mind about a number of things that were taught to me in academic settings as holy writ over the last half century.

                  Just over the last few years for instance I have come to the conclusion, based on extensive recent research, that butter is MUCH better for me than margarine, and that a diet high in natural fats is WAY better for me than a diet based on low fat foods crammed with sugar and salt.

                  I consider everything else Javier has to say, because in my opinion , everything else he says is worth listening to, if only for perspective.

                  The audience here consists almost entirely of technically literate adults. A few contrarians and zealots won’t do us any harm.

                  Banning them or driving them out will actually REDUCE the value of this forum as an educational resource. If contrary opinions and values are arbitrarily blocked or banned, open minded but as yet poorly informed potential visitors will never become regulars.

                  Just a few rants about how nice HRC is , and how big a scumbag Trump is, are more than enough to drive away a social conservative who might be technically literate, and open minded about climate. This works both ways of course, as liberals seldom ever visit sites dominated by conservatives.

                  I have personally convinced half a dozen technically literate hard core social conservatives that resource depletion , climate change, etc are heart attack serious issues.

                  I do this in part by studiously avoiding confronting them about some of my personal liberal positions , such as supporting single payer health care.

                  Now as to whether Javier is a skeptic or a zealot, that is a matter of opinion…..

                  We DO have our differences of opinion, personally and collectively. Maybe fifty million people in this country believe HRC is a crook, and Trump is a gentleman, and another fifty million believe HRC is a lady and Trump is a scumbag.

                  Hardly anybody in either camp will change their mind, unless they are hit upside the head , hard, with a sharp brick. Dyed in the wool R types will never believe or at least admit that Trump is a con man, and dyed in the wool D partisans will never believe or at least admit that Clinton set up a secret personal server, and kept it secret, for any reason other than her convenience.

                  Maybe a hundred million believe both of them are less than upright characters. I am one of that hundred million myself.

                  The last hundred million don’t even know this is an election year.

                  Hardly any of us are going to change our minds, because these things are matters of opinion.

                • GoneFishing said:
                  ” Javier is not a skeptic. He is a zealot when it comes to his ideas about global warming and climate. “

                  Good way of putting it. Argumentative without being able to move the ball forward wrt science.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Everyone,

                    Javier is always pretty polite, especially considering how others attack his views and often use ad hominem arguments rather than address the argument itself.

                    His message is mainly that many people overstate the case for climate change, and that there is a great deal of uncertainty in climate science. That argument is basically sound.

                    He is in the habit of using alarmist to characterize anyone who believes that climate change might be a problem in the future. Keep in mind that most people here do exactly the same with anyone who claims that climate change might not be a problem by calling them “deniers”.

                    We do not know what the future will bring.

                    There are many unknowns:

                    is equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) 2C, 4C, or 3C?

                    how much fossil fuel will be burned in the future?

                    will clouds, aerosols and their interaction change in the future and will this increase or decrease the ECS?

                    We do not know the answers to these questions.

                    In my opinion, the uncertainty is reason to be cautious, but Javier’s assessment that we do not know how climate will change in the future is objectively correct in my view.

                    The CSALT model by Webhubbletelescope gives a pretty good indication of future climate change in my view, if we knew the proper inputs to the model after 2015. We don’t, we can only guess.


                    A very simple model using the natural log of atmospheric CO2 vs Best land temperature data and future atmospheric CO2 assuming my medium scenarios for fossil fuels are correct and that as much fossil fuel as is available is burned until 2080 and then fossil fuel use is radically reduced to zero by 2100 with no further emissions (a simplification). The model (also an oversimplification) suggests land temperatures will increase by about 2.7C over 1850 temperatures and 2.2C above 1950-1980 average temperatures. The air temperature over the ocean will change less keeping global temperature change lower (between 2C and 2.5C).

                    Note that Marcott’s analysis of temperature proxy data suggests global temperatures were about 0.35 C above the 1950-1980 average from 10,000 BP to 5500 BP.

                    The temperature range for global temperatures has been between -0.2C and 0.4 C from 10,000 BP to o BP (where “the present” is 1950) and BP is years before the present.

                  • Nick G says:

                    but Javier’s assessment that we do not know how climate will change in the future is objectively correct in my view.

                    Not really, because that’s not his argument – his argument is that uncertainty in the science completely invalidates the science. This is completely contrary to the normal practice of science, which always has some uncertainty. Heck, a recognition of uncertainty is a hallmark of good science.

                    This is a standard tactic used by cigarette and creationist apologists – the “argument from controversy”. The idea is that uncertainty can be used to discredit the science for cigarette harm, evolution, and climate change.

                    Don’t let such tactics succeed.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Nick,

                    Javier has said he agrees that increased CO2 will tend to warm the planet, his criticism is that many of the models do not predict future temperature very accurately and that there is much further research needed.

                    If I interpret him correctly, I agree with his assessment. The policy conclusion he comes up with is different from mine.

                    I think we should minimize carbon emissions due to the fact that we do not know what the ECS is, the transient climate response (TCR, which ignores the thermal lag due to slow ocean warming over 400 years) is about 2.34 C based on BEST land-ocean data and a CSALT model.

                    My medium scenario for fossil fuel URR and reasonable assumptions for cement production, natural gas flaring and land use change result in a maximum atmospheric CO2 concentration of 510 ppm. The combination of a TCR of 2.34C and a CO2 level of 510 ppm results in about 2 C of warming over pre-industrial levels (5000 BP to 1850 CE).

                    With proper policy we can keep carbon emissions below these levels.

                  • Nick G says:

                    Hi Dennis,

                    Well, to my way of thinking, it’s intellectually dishonest to acknowledge global warming, and then not acknowledge that this creates significant risks. We can disagree on the size of those risks, but to suggest that there is no significant risk at all? That, as the British say, is rubbish.

                    When you pair that with an assessment of renewables that is highly unrealistic, you have a picture of someone who is defending BAU, not truly seeking out a realistic assessment of our energy problems.

                    Now, I wouldn’t have volunteered that opinion to Javier, is it’s not likely to change his mind. But, you ventured an opinion, and these thoughts seemed highly relevant to you, and anyone else thinking about the larger picture.

                  • If we ignore RCP8.5, as any right thinking person should, then the climate doesn’t pose such a significant risk. The main risks are fossil fuel depletion and high prices, nuclear or biological terrorism which induces economic collapse, overpopulation and epidemics, and the rise of terminators.

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    Dennis, all this started because Javier called me a fool. He has done similar in the past and if you support that, then that is the way it is.
                    He is no way polite and is often quite nasty, attacking the person instead of the science.

      • texas tea says:

        Gone fishing says
        “In fact, if one takes into account the clearing of the atmosphere as we reduce fossil fuel usage it will be overcome very quickly and have no noticeable effect at all on rising temperatures”

        do you actually live on your own outside of a full care facility?
        who is the “we” in the above sentence, it aint those living and working on planet earth🌺
        I chose a source sympathetic to your ridiculous claims regarding climate predictability and they insist:

        “Despite the urgency to cut greenhouse gas emissions as climate change bears down on the globe, fossil fuel use is not likely to change much in the coming decades. Though renewable energy will grow quickly though 2040, gasoline and diesel will still move most of the world’s vehicles, and coal will still be the largest single source of carbon emissions.” and “That growth means that by 2040, renewables, coal and natural gas will each generate about 30 percent of the world’s electricity, with nuclear power and petroleum accounting for the rest.” “In other words, electricity generation from renewables will equal that of coal in 25 years.”

        most sources including the BP report referenced on this site have very similar predictions. Word wide fossil fuel use is not going down over the next several decades.
        IF you disagree with that and wish to retain any credibility (it is clear to me credibly is not your strong suit) please inform us just how we will reduce fossil fuel usage before the effects of the ideas regarding global cooling related to solar activity, will not be tested in real life⛄️

        • GoneFishing says:

          No I live on my own, no pretty nurses to take care of me. Darn! Are you in a full care facility, how is it?

          We means humanity. You do not have to be included if you don’t want to be.

          You are allowed your own opinions, no problem there.
          I can tell you have not read the scientific literature or articles on the subject. That’s OK, no problem If you want to, you can search Google or Google Scholar. Start with “global dimming”.

          I would like to know how natural gas fields are going to last 30 more years at the current rates let alone increased ones.

    • GoneFishing says:

      From video boards to autonomous cars, tech is everywhere now.
      A lot of the young people I know are going into robotics design and programming. I would not count out the autonomous car as well a robots and autonomous machinery. Chips may end up being so cheap they will be like paper.
      Despite the possibility of a near future energy crisis, civilization is going ahead like gangbusters on developing high tech control and AI. We already have pocket computers that translate spoken language into text at a very low price. We may not have flying cars in the near future, but Robocop might show up soon. Heck I just got fined by a computer, erroneously, but heaven knows if I can win against that one. Needless to say, I would not mind frying those circuits.
      Prepare for the future, it may not be very nice, but it will be electronic and the governing systems will hide well behind the firewalls. Maybe future terrorists will blow up and machine gun computer systems rather than people.
      Justice and governance by AI, be warned. The cameras and sensors will be everywhere.

  16. SatansBestFriend says:

    Off topic, but definitely relevant.

    If Ron’s 2015 prediction is correct ( I think it is, and I never get this kind of stuff wrong … lol)
    These are the types of articles we should be seeing.

    “The world is seeing ever-stronger competition for resources, and some players try to disregard all the rules, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said, adding that potential for conflict is growing worldwide. ”

    If there was any doubt what Putin was thinking, I don’t think there should be any more.

    Even AlekS can’t disagree with this.

    • Watcher says:

      The new release of BPs data on oil statistics is getting too little focus.

      Consumption globally was UP last year. 1.9%. 1.9ish million bpd.

      Lotsa talk about global reductions in production . . . sometimes. Other times we hear about new records from someone.

      But pay heed here. THERE IS NO DELAY IN THIS. If production falls under consumption (as opposed to demand) then the result is not a shrug and the price goes up. The result is someone doesn’t get the oil they ordered.

      Cushing has about 100 million barrels of capacity. If there were 1 million bpd shortfall on US imports, you got basically 3 months before . . . someone . . . some truck driver at a gas station . . . doesn’t get the diesel he ordered. The SPR would be another few months, but tapping it for such an emergency would pretty much announce to the world . . . there ain’t enough.

      • Petro says:

        “…If production falls under consumption (as opposed to demand) then the result is not a shrug and the price goes up. The result is someone doesn’t get the oil they ordered…” ~Watcher


        WWlll…here we come….

        Be well,


        • Dennis Coyne says:

          Hi Petro,

          So how are prices determined in your world. In Watcher’s they are set arbitrarily and have no relationship whatsoever to supply and demand for the god or service.

          There are no perfectly competitive markets in the real World, but there are some that approach that simple model fairly closely.

          The current World oil market (where OPEC essentially is acting like a price taker) actually fits the perfectly competitive price model fairly well, unless OPEC decides to cut back output to increase the price of oil.

          • Petro says:

            “So how are prices determined in your world” ~ D. Coyne

            -That is probably the most interesting question you have asked me.
            The complete and thorough answer to it is long and complicated … perhaps if I decide to do that post on debt, money and energy, I will answer it in detail.

            But for now let me say that:
            when you write “There are no perfectly competitive markets in the real World, but there are some that approach that simple model fairly closely” …. I agree with you 100%…nothing more to add.
            That is practically speaking, very accurate.

            However, that is (was) correct until 1998-2000. “Supply-demand” was large and in charge until then!
            From 1998 -2007 , the “invisible hand” subconsciously realized that we had reached “peak”…..and it reacted (“inertialy” so, more than anything) by taking the price to… oh, what was it: $150/brl?

            Since 2008-2009, price is the function of (in synthetic, metaphorical terms):
            credit/debt crashing – derivative/leveraged bets unwinding – CB/government “band aid”/ICU therapy.

            Energy (oil in particular) is the MASTER resource… the thing that guides our society/civilization above and far from EVERYTHING else.
            Energy however, is utterly dependent on our financial system…and everything is being done to keep our financial system alive (even though is dying!).

            One of the ways/means the system is kept alive is by lowering input costs to the economy and thus – “increasing” discretionary spending of the average Joe (in order for him to borrow and spend more).
            That means (among other things) energy/oil will “neander” here (at around $30-$60/brl) for as long as the system will hold…….
            It will oscillate wildly and “en ensemble” with the bond yields and other things at the “kaboom” moment…
            (I explain what “kaboom” means in a below thread reply to Watcher)

            …. and that is the end… WWlll extremely likely.
            “when everything else fails, they (read: ruling elites) take you to war”

            You wrote:
            “…The current World oil market (where OPEC essentially is acting like a price taker) actually fits the perfectly competitive price model fairly well…”

            It does and it will…as long as the system holds!

            Pray that Yellen, Kuroda, Draghi…and all other “Lucifers” patch it and hold it together in one piece for a little while longer…..
            I do pray every day …. and I do not have a god…..

            Be well,


            • Fred Magyar says:

              I do pray every day …. and I do not have a god…..

              No problema! Just pick a new one every day. That’s what I do. Sooner or later one of them is bound to answer your prayers… 🙂


              Welcome to Godchecker
              We have more Gods than you can shake a stick at.

              Our legendary mythology encyclopedia now includes nearly four thousand weird and wonderful Gods, Supreme Beings, Demons, Spirits and Fabulous Beasts from all over the world.

              Deity of the day

              Hero God from Native American mythology
              Son of an Earth Maker, he had a long on-going tussle with the Great Eagle, who hated humans and was trying to decimate them.


              • Petro says:

                …good therapy for one of them “godless” days…

                You made me laugh Fred, thanks!

                Cheers to you too brother and,

                Be well,


            • Nick G says:

              Energy (oil in particular) is the MASTER resource… the thing that guides our society/civilization above and far from EVERYTHING else.

              That’s so unrealistic, it takes my breath away.

              There was no industrial society 110 years ago, when oil was insignificant?

              An EV won’t get you to work just as well as a Chevy Tahoe? The factory that builds the EV can’t get it’s supplies from an electrified train system and electric short range trucks?

              • Petro says:

                I am certain that your “beef” is with that dreaded 3 letter word in parenthesis and NOT with the sentence’s meaning.
                If you indeed disagree with energy being the master resource – which I wholeheartedly doubt, for you seem to be a fairly intelligent fellow – than I strongly suggest you rethink your education and ask for your schooling’s money back!

                Now, among others (have a business), I own a Prius, a Volt and a Leaf and I LOVE them!!!
                I sincerely hope that you, the Islander and a few others here are right and I am going to be proven wrong!
                -I really do!
                …but I read the numbers and I know better/different…

                I am not this crazed oil nut as you think… au contraire!
                I hope we have that “smooth” transition to a cleaner and more sustainable future.
                Physics, thermodynamics and economy on the other hand, DICTATE us differently.
                That’s what you and a few others here fail to understand … and that is why I am the bad boy in your eyes, for I point it out.
                You apparently did not read my reply to you on fathers’ day, so here it is (I was a little “licquered”, so bear with me):
                At no fault of yours, you are late and the party is ending….we shall have to deal with the hangover and trash left behind…..

                Be well,


                • Dennis Coyne says:

                  Hi Petro,

                  Give me your assumptions for how EROEI of all energy sources have changed over time (to keep it simple, I want the average EROEI of all energy sources in 1965 compared to today). EROEI is not very well measured, but you seem to think you know what EROEI is and how it has changed over time, please enlighten us.

                  Energy is important, but not the master resource, we would not do well without soil or water.

                  • Petro says:

                    contrary to what you might think, I have high estime for you….but this short comment of yours is extremely disappointing!
                    Now I see where your shortcomings and ill-judgement originate from….

                    Genus “Homo” is 2-3 million years old, Homo Sapiens (aka: us) are roughly 200-250 thousand years old.
                    Soil and water were there for other “chimps” before us for millions of years, yet they did not do what we did(are doing).
                    The ONLY reason for that is that we were able to use SUPPLEMENTAL energy (fire).

                    Einstein and just about everybody who is who in modern Physics disagrees with you!
                    Read Ron’s genial:
                    “The Competitive Exclusion Principle”

                    …you greatly, greatly disappointed me!
                    I will try to forget what you wrote….
                    only if I could….

                    Be well,


                    P.S.: soil and water IS energy!!!

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Petro,

                    Yes matter can be converted to energy, but generally humans don’t do this very well without creating other problems.

                    If humans become so numerous that clean water and/or fertile soil become scarce, while energy is plentiful, then energy is no longer the master resource. In fact all resources are necessary, there is no master resource.

                    The simple E=mc^2 (which applies only to objects at rest), is true in theory. From a practical perspective it is quite difficult to convert mass to energy except with certain materials (uranium being a common example in fission reaction which can be controlled in a nuclear reactor) or by fusion reactions which are difficult to control.

                    Imagine a world of energy and no matter, as far as I know we do not have a practical way to create matter from energy.

                    So perhaps matter is the master resource because it can be more easily converted to energy than energy can be converted to matter.

                    There is plenty of solar energy, so we will have to disagree, not only is energy not the master resource, there is no master resource.

                    Note the full special relativity energy momentum equation is:
                    E^2=m^2c^4+(pc)^2, where p is the momentum of a moving particle and m is the mass of the object at rest, c is the speed of light. When the object is at rest p=0 and the equation reduces to the familiar E=mc^2.

                  • R Walter says:

                    Petro, the most abundant element in soil is oxygen. Soil becomes depleted of nitrogen, phosphorus, etc. Fertilizers, anhydrous ammonia guarantees germination and a nice green start to your crop.

                    These days, an air seeder plants the canola or wheat, one quart of Roundup per acre, precision application, along with some fungicide maybe later, no more field work until the combines arrive. Saves diesel fuel, a lot. Farmers use four and five combines in today’s world of commercial agriculture or hire custom cutters. A whole new world of farming, 1975 practices are obsolete.

                    Without air, you get no combustion.

                    Air is the master resource!

                  • Petro says:

                    …..I feel sorry for you…
                    …and myself for OVER-estimating your gray matter….

                    Be well,


                • Caelan MacIntyre says:

                  “(I was a little ‘licquered’, so bear with me)” ~ Petro

                  Maybe that explains this comment of yours…
                  And now I read about your ‘overestimation of someone’s gray matter’, your ‘disappointment’ in someone and/or their comment, your ownership of electric cars and being liquored while commenting? WTF, Petro?

                  What were, or are, you liquored with, incidentally? LOL

            • Dennis Coyne says:

              Hi Petro,

              I am assuming the system will hold together with occasional crises like the GFC or possibly a Great Depression 2. I think we know how to minimize economic crises better than we did in 1930 and perhaps something was learned during the GFC and its aftermath about the wisdom of fiscal austerity in the face of a severe economic shock. Time will tell.

              • Petro says:

                Ubermensch Nietzsche once said:
                “…hope is the worst of all evils, for it prolongs the torments of men…”

                Although I and numbers/data fully agree with Nietzsche, I wholeheartedly hope that – as you write: “time will tell”- you and Nick G will be proven right and I wrong!

                …boy, how I hope you are right….!

                Be well,


                • Stan says:

                  You are already objectively wrong Petro. There is no need for additional time. A number of objectively true statements provided by both Dennis and Nick above prove your belief wrong beyond doubt. Your belief simply prohibits you from accepting that fact.

                  Oil is useful, but it isn’t nearly as special as you’ve come to believe. Given time it is completely replaceable. And, due to the low efficiency with which we use oil, we can replace it at no economic cost. In fact, it’ll actually make the economy bigger. The only issue is how quickly we must adjust.

  17. robert wilson says:

    Whatever became of the open posts. I note that on this thread one poster had more than a dozen long posts not dealing with Petroleum Supply Monthly or Texas C+C.

  18. The 2014-15-16 El Niño is fading. The tropical pacific Niño 3-4 sector is at 0.4 degrees C below average, and is likely to drop into La Niña cooling phase by August.

    The huge amount of energy released by El Niño is still spreading around the planet, but temperatures by say October should be back to the 2005-2012 average. The question in my mind is whether the planet sheds the energy released by the ocean in 2014-16 or some of it stays trapped. By 2019 we should have a better answer.

    Meanwhile, the latest model data I have shows Arctic ice extent will be 4.2 to 4.6 million square km by mid September: it will higher than the record low seen in 2012. And Antarctica is still showing a cold temperature anomaly.

    • GoneFishing says:

      Yes, September Ice Volumes are losing 3.2 x 1000 km3 per decade. Last year’s Sept ice volume was 6000 km2. With an annual range of around +- 3ooo km3, that leaves a strong potential for the first ice free Arctic September within the next decade. 2012 ice volume was as low as 3000 km3. This year’s might be similar or less.

      May Arctic temperature anomaly was 6C.

      • George Kaplan says:

        Yes, this week looks likely to be a big loss from the comments at the Arctic Ice Forum, where the knowledgable amateurs seem to hang out most.

        Andrew Slater at NSIDC seems to get the predictions closest most years and has extent at 5 million square kilometres for about the first week in September and going down fast with 2 or 3 weeks melting still to go, so a possible new record, and if not then the ice will be in pretty bad shape during the refreeze as there is almost no multiyear ice left now.

        • Trace Gunnar says:

          Well it could always be worse you know. Remember about 6 or 7 years back when Al Gore, King of Global Warming, proclaimed the polar ice caps would all be melted away and gone in the summer by now? Now who’s the fool, the scientists or the thinkers?

          • aws. says:

            Could you provide references for your statement from reputable sources?

          • George Kaplan says:

            Everything that makes my life substantially different from a hunter gatherer came originally from scientists of some kind – are you suggesting they did this without thinking? (Note I am not suggesting advancement to industrial civilization compared to hunter gatherers is absolutely a good thing, there are contradictory arguments, although I would certainly have died in childhood without modern – at the time very modern – medicine).

            Most suggestions for accelerated climate change impacts are couched something like “could be as soon as X” – depending on circumstances, usually I take that to mean a) definitely not before X, b) there is a lot of uncertainty, c) things are going faster than previously thought. Much as I dislike Gore’s shiny smugness I think he got all that correct.

            Those scientists referenced by the IPCC with models showing Arctic ice in summer out to 2100 look like they need to rework their models so the theory and observations match better, but that is pretty much the definition of science. They’ll be doing so continuously anyway but the cycle time can be much longer than laymen and politicians can easily understand or work with.

        • George Kaplan says:

          That should be 3rd week in August, not the 1st in September.

  19. R Walter says:

    The yen is at 102.5 to a dollar. 30,940 yen for a metric ton of oil, works out to 41.35 per barrel.

    Must be paying cash on the barrel head

    In March of this year, two tankers raced to Japan to be the first to deliver crude oil from Texas:

    • GoneFishing says:

      Are oil tankers forced to return to their origination point empty or do they just go to the nearest oil source and load up for a new destination? Running back empty would seem a waste if there were other nearby opportunities.

  20. George Kaplan says:

    How many countries are there that are not past peak now. I think Canada, Thailand and Turkmenistan and a few new countries, with low production, like Guyana and Uganda as they get going. Possibly Russia and Brazil depending on how things go over the next few months. Note this doesn’t necessarily mean a global peak, some of the countries have had a previous high peak and are now increasing production after a dip but haven’t reached the previous maximum (and probably won’t in most cases).

    • AlexS says:

      Brazil C+C production, kb/d

      data source: Agência Nacional do Petróleo

      • George Kaplan says:

        Brazil up 200,000 bpd in May based on yesterday’s report (still below peak, but a couple of more FPSOs due this year).

      • AlexS says:

        The decline in the first months of the year was due to maintenance at some of pre-salt platforms and delays in new project start-ups.

        Total C+C production was up 8.6% in May vs. April, but still 2.4% below August 2015 record levels.
        Average output for the first 5 months was down 3.2% year-on-year.

        Pre-salt production in May reached new all-time high of 929 kb/d and was up 25.2% in January-May 2016 vs. same period of the previous year.
        Post-salt output is rapidly declining: it was down 14.5% year-on-year in the first 5 months.

        Production is expected to increase in 2H16 and 2017.

        From June IEA Oil Market Report:

        “Maintenance and production problems early this year look set to stymie Brazilian output growth in 2016, with production now expected to inch up only 40 kb/d from the 2015 average. As issues are resolved and new production units progressively ramp up, growth is expected to resume in 2017, adding 270 kb/d, to reach 2.8 mb/d.
        Output is expected to recover quickly as maintenance is terminated and production ramps up from new units. At the end of May, the newly converted Cidade de Saquarema FPSO was heading for the Lula field. The FPSO, which has oil-processing capacity of 150 kb/d, is set to start producing from the giant field in the Santos basin in 3Q16.
        By the end of 2017, Petrobras is scheduled to add another seven FPSOs in the Santos basin, including three in the Lula field, two in the Buzios field, one in the Lapa field and one at the giant Libra area. Reports suggest that four of these floaters — the replica FPSOs meant for Lula South and Lula Extreme South plus the P-74 and P-76 destined for Buzios — experienced major problems during their construction phase suggesting commissioning of some of the units could well be delayed beyond 2017.”

        Brazil C+C production in january 2014 – May 2016, kb/d

        data source: Agência Nacional do Petróleo

    • AlexS says:

      U.S. crude oil production in 2 cases
      Source: EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2016

  21. Caelan MacIntyre says:

    Permaculture: Regenerative – not merely Sustainable

    “Scenario three is ‘Earth Stewardship’…
    Within this framework, Holmgren places permaculture as a design path toward Earth Stewardship. There is a resemblance between the early phases of both the Green-Tech Stability and Earth Stewardship scenarios, but then they diverge massively, so that over centuries, a more likely symbol for the solar economy is a tree, rather than a photo-voltaic panel. We cannot make choices between the four scenarios, and indeed all of them exist in the world today: as time progresses, they will be manifest in greater or smaller degrees, and in alternative forms in different regions of the world. Critical drivers will be resources, especially of energy, but ultimately it seems likely that Earth Stewardship is the only sustainable scenario, and indeed the only one that is regenerative of renewable resources.”

    Organic Farming Could Feed The World, If Only We Would Let It
    A new report argues against critics who claim industrial agriculture is the only way to meet the nutritional needs of a growing population.

    “Research consistently demonstrates that world hunger is not a problem of supply, but rather of poverty, lack of democracy and unequal access to land, water and other resources.” ~ Christopher D. Cook, Kari Hamerschlag, Kendra Klein, PhD

    UN: Only Small Farmers and Agroecology Can Feed the World

    “Governments must shift subsidies and research funding from agro-industrial monoculture to small farmers using ‘agroecological’ methods, according to the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. And as Nafeez Ahmed notes, her call coincides with a new agroecology initiative within the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation.”

    Natural Farming, or ‘Do Nothing Farming’ is

    …a philosophy born out of Masanobu Fukuoka’s life experience as a trained agricultural scientist and microbiologist who turned away from Western industrial agriculture after a spiritual transformation.

    His philosophy rejects tillage of the land by machine (some even reject any disturbance, including the use of hand tools), rejects the addition of fertilizers (even the making of compost is seen as unnecessary), rejects the removal of plants considered to be ‘weeds’, rejects pruning, and of course rejects the use of biocides.

    Fukuoka’s seminal work, ‘The One Straw Revolution’ was published in 1975 and continues to influence readers worldwide (translated into more than 25 languages) with its deeply spiritual and practical accounting of ‘Do Nothing Farming.’

    His life work has deeply influenced the permaculture movement as well as the organic and agroecology fields at large…

    permaculture is an ethical design system. As such, you will not find ‘permaculture’ advocating for anything other than Earth Care, People Care, and Fair Share/Return of Surplus…”

    • Oldfarmermac says:

      You can prove damned near anything you want, if you control the terms of the debate.

      Fukuoka is worth reading, but most of what he has to say cannot be described as bullshit, because calling it bullshit reflects so poorly on real bullshit, which is a truly valuable substance,albeit sort of messy and smelly.

      Ya can learn to like the smell of it,and to wear rubber boots that you leave outside the house, and you eventually get to be quite fond of bullshit if you are into gardening and farming.

      Tell ya what.

      Go out and plant some corn, or green beans, or rice or onions or wheat or damned near anything else in a grass sod, and come back a few weeks later and tell us how your garden is doing.

      “His philosophy rejects tillage of the land by machine (some even reject any disturbance, including the use of hand tools), rejects the addition of fertilizers (even the making of compost is seen as unnecessary), rejects the removal of plants considered to be ‘weeds’, rejects pruning, and of course rejects the use of biocides.”

      And if you do manage to get a few plants started, by a miraculous accident, then tell us a few weeks after that how well they are doing in competition with the GRASS and WEEDS which shouldn’t be REMOVED.

      There is a Russian chick, awesomely attractive in a twisted sort of way, due to lots of plastic surgery, who is often referred to as the “human Barbie”.

      She tells us she no longer needs to eat, that she has moved on to another plane,or dimension, or something, and now just lives on AIR.

      She coulda took lessons from the one straw man.

      Hey, it’s not that you CAN’T produce some food without cultivation, without manures, without weed and pest control. Mother Nature provides for her undomesticated creatures without these things.

      The problem is that Mother Nature doesn’t mind any excess population problems correcting themselves via starvation, disease, and or violence.

      And she provides a VERY large landscape for relatively few creatures.

      In my area, for instance, one or two whitetail deer are about all the natural landscape can support per square mile. Of course we have about five times that many, because they get plenty to eat browsing open fields and lawns and roadsides, etc.

      If we could rediscover and perfect the necessary skills, humans could live like deer in this area.It would support a couple of people per square mile, probably, without disturbing the soil, except maybe to dig up some turtle eggs, or a groundhog, once in a while.

      So- we Yankees have about four or five million square miles, a great deal of it rather inhospitable habitat for hunters and gatherers, and three hundred million plus people.

      HOUSTON , we got a problem.

      OFM has a solution.

      It won’t work forever, the way we do it today , but maybe it will work until we can figure out something that works BETTER.

      Maybe. I call it farming.

      If it doesn’t, then a hell of a lot of sweet little boys and girls are going to cry until they are too weak to cry anymore, and then they will DIE.

      Their mothers will be trying to sell themselves for bread for their babies, and their fathers will be lying in wait to rob anybody who appears to have bread , or anything else edible.

      Mother Nature creates a lot of beautiful things, but she ain’t a nice lady, no siree, NOT nice at ALL.

      Technology got us into this fix, no doubt about it.

      And technology will either get us OUT of the mess we are in, or else damned near ALL of us are going to die hard.

      • Paulo says:

        Two years ago I converted some pasture to a potato field of 1/4 acre. I tilled and tilled it, and still the wire worms were so bad almost 1/2 spuds had to be tossed. Last year was better, but not by much. This year, I tilled the snot out of it and have mulched heavily with wood chips. I will need to till as late as I can, October anyway, just before the fall rains in order to keep the grass and weeds down. Otherwise, the wire worms increase. Everyone who lives here knows this fact. Wire worms live in undisturbed pasture, pure and simple. They live on eating roots and tubers. The chips will be tilled into the soil to replace natural occuring organics, (like grass/fall rye, etc.)

        “Wireworm Control

        Thorough cultivation makes conditions unfavorable to the egg laying adults and exposes all stages of the pest to weather and natural enemies.
        Potatoes make great wireworm traps. Cut a potato in half and run a stick through the middle. Bury the spud about one inch deep so that the stick stands vertically as a handle. Pull the traps out after a day or two and discard wireworms.
        Apply beneficial nematodes when planting to attack and destroy insect pests in the soil.
        Pyrethrin drenches are also recommended, but should only be used as a last resort.

        Now, we don’t use chemicals to kill ‘bugs’ that eat our food. As a result, crops like our apples have spots. Plus, sprays that kill wire worms kill other things like earthworms, as well as getting into the food and possibly hurting us. I hope within 2 more years the wire worms will be mostly gone. We will still mulch/hill with chips.

        Tilling brings wire worms to the surface and birds are then able to eat them. Anyone who argues that it is possible to grow enough food without tilling must be talking about their pots on their condo balconies. For God’s sake, plows and discs were invented for a reason. I don’t see any difference between tilling up some soil and using a couple of pigs to root the field beyond the 1-2 litres of fuel it takes for the entire year. I would have pigs do it but for the cougars that eat our livestock, and I would still have to buy commercial feed as I have no inside restaurant/store food source connection.

        I am 60 years old and have been heavily gardening since my teens. The idea of people simply growing crops by simply planting in fields that are undisturbed is absolutely ludicrous. Within two years those ‘fields’ will be chest high in red alder and salmon berries. Within 5 years the ‘fields’ will be impassible.

        These guys are freaking idiots.

      • farmboy says:

        OFM I’m not a Fukuoka expert but I’m under the impression that he seeded rice into standing clover, which is quite different from a grass sod. How he kept a stand of cover from being taken over by quackgrass without soil disturbance goes beyond my imagination. Anyways, lets not throw out the baby with the bath water.

        Some soil health principles that coincide somewhat with Fukuoka’s ideals is. 1 Keeping the soil covered for as much time as reasonably possible with solar energy capturing plants will enhance soil health and with time lessen the need for chemical fertilizers. It will also help to reduce runoff and keep the soil cooler in the summer to reduce evaporation losses, and allow for soil biology to thrive.

        2 Incorporate diversity wherever you reasonably can. Legumes fix nitrogen, grasses fix carbon, C4s love heat C3s love cool, buckwheat makes P available, and mustards inhibit bad nematodes.

        In practice this calls for more crop rotating, interseeding, covercrops, bringing the livestock out of confinement and back on to the land.

        10 year trial at MSU Lake city research station shows that pasture grasses with clover produce equal yields as pure grass with 200 units of N. Texas AMU trials showed that Bermuda with clovers and ryegrass interseeded were economically superior to straight Bermuda with all the different levels of N tried.

        So did farmers or ranchers start doing that as soon as that info became available. Of course not.
        You have a point that farmers need to crunch their numbers or they will be booted out. Most farmers today, are the last remnants and survivors from all the culling that has happened as cheap energy and the technology that comes with it, has taken it’s toll. But some context is in order.

        1 A farmer only needs to do a little better than the worst one. 2 they all listen to the seed, fertilizer, and pesticide salesmen, because these salesmen have been right. But I will venture to say that as cheap energy is no more that the tables have shifted and a lot of what used to be profitable no longer is. And most of them will go bankrupt long before they change their ways.

        Another example where farmers refuse to change even though the economics are very much against them is in making and feeding a high percentage of hay. This was one of the first to become a money loosing practice but it seems to continue none the less. It used to make economical sense in the 60’s with good prices for beef and cheap machinery and fuel, but since the early 2000’s the costs for feeding a brood cow hay for 6 months will eat up the majority of the income from her calf. Read the book Kick the hay Habit by Jim Gerrish

        Farming or may I say food and fibre production from our planet’s lands and waters, has usually been an extractive business. Once the hills of Greece became eroded down to bare rocks, Civilisation moved on. Once the soil was eroded or depleted in the New England states the Pioneers moved on to the Ohio river valley and on to the Great plains. My Grandfather moved from upstate New York to South America where we helped to clear the vast jungles and turned them into vast soybean, wheat, and corn fields in year round farming. Where we once had to fight the weeds with tillage and cultivators and by hand, today its all taken care of with No-till and plenty of herbicides. Wow what a relief, its so much easier. Except for, now we have such awfull problems with insects, and fungus, and now resistant weeds that it is estimated that any given hectare gets at least 10 spray applications per year and many of these are cocktails of different chemicals. The soil test on one particular farm with a CEC around 7 calls for 4 tons/hectare of dolomite limestone, but with the price of comodities who can afford that much. Some of the land that was cleared 35 years ago only produced 800 Kgs of soy/hectare while later cleared areas on the same farm still yielded 3,800 Kgs of soy/hectare.

        So now there are no more frontiers to clear and farm, while our soils are being destroyed and depleting at ever faster rates, with all the machinery and chemicals that we abuse them with. Technology and cheap energy have allowed us to destroy and deplete faster than we ever could before. So many similarities to the coal and oil situation that this site is all about.

        Rejenerating depleted soils is no easy task, as none other than George Washington himself, experienced, when he made the decision to stay and improve the soil on Mount Vernon instead of heading west. My experience in restoring depleted farmland to a vibrant grass based farm using minimal outside inputs has taught me that it takes some years and it is extreemly difficult to make the trasition while competing with the extractive based farming systems.

        So could agriculture make the transition to the lower levels of chemical inputs that will most certainly be forced on us? If we would have 20 years or so and humans would turn into strategic group planners and workers, I believe it could be done. But those are 2 requirements that I’ll not be betting on.

        Since a very small portion of the grocery bill goes to the farmer I am of the opinion that if farmers could sell their sustainably produced products for twice the price society would come out ahead in the long run say 10 to 20 years, due to the lowered price that will have to be payed from somewhere, of disease, polution, and social/mental ills.

        Since you have been involved in teaching AG you might want to check out some of the presentations from the burleigh County Soil conservation district in North Dakota.

        • R Walter says:

          In 2014 the work load was too heavy so I quit mowing a large section of yard. Probably mow 4 acres of brome, poa, some gramma grass, crab grass, pigeon grass, a plethora of grass species. The bluegrass grew more than five feet tall. I was amazed how tall it grew. It was a very busy year.

          You don’t want skunks, snakes and voles invading your farmyard, that is why you mow. Got to have a power mower that burns fuel or a horse to pull and drive a sickle mower, a gas powered mower is the preferred choice. Let’s hear it for oil and all of the usable energy it provides. Otherwise, an unmowed yard will quickly revert to a natural state and a balanced ecosystem, which is Verboten, must have cultivars to live and to pay the bills. Voles and skunks aren’t the first choice on the menu. Going hungry is not an option.

          One more time, three cheers for oil and hip hip hooray for coal!

          Your life has been made a walk in the park with fossil fuels and that’s the truth.

          Like it or lump it, oil has been a blessing in disguise.

          Those dadblasted wind turbines have polluted the natural landscape, will become a blight on humanity and provide little use.

          The propaganda machine has brainwashed gullible knotheads to believe they’re a good thing. They’re worthless and useless, obsolete now.

          Oil and coal trump wind turbines by a country mile.

          It’s the Fourth of July, so happy day anyways.

        • Caelan MacIntyre says:

          Great and refreshing comment, farmboy.

          Priorities, like hierarchy of needs and so forth, suggest potable water, good food, clothing, shelter and stuff like that and the personal knowledge and skills behind them, as opposed to solar electric panels or electric cars and the relative lack of fundamental life skills and knowledge required to use them.

          AFAIK, you can’t grow cars or solar electric panels around the home from seed, nor can you eat them, but I supposed you can deliberate about them at length, such as if you’re part of the parasitic privileged that relies on legalized, weaponized theft of land, labor and resources.

          I just got back from the corporate grocery store and on some of the display fridge door windows were signs that said that the local food bank organization was running dangerously low on food. While I’ve often seen food bank drop-in boxes at grocery stores, I’ve never seen signs like that before– certainly not in the middle of summer when food should be plentiful– and I wonder if it’s one of the many subtle signs, among other, not-so-subtle signs, of societal decline/collapse.

          • islandboy says:

            “Priorities, like hierarchy of needs and so forth, suggest potable water, good food, clothing, shelter and stuff like that and the personal knowledge and skills behind them, as opposed to solar electric panels or electric cars and the relative lack of fundamental life skills and knowledge required to use them. AFAIK, you can’t grow cars or solar electric panels around the home from seed, nor can you eat them.”

            Well that just depresses me even more. I am currently sitting in the main room of my late father’s homestead with the sound of buzz saws cutting down some Cedar and Blue Mahoe trees (lumber). Gotta make space for the 70 or so Mahogany and Mahoe seedlings I got a couple weeks ago. I really don’t know how the world is going to cope with a decline in oil production if “solar electric panels or electric cars” don’t scale up very, very quickly. Very few people I know give a rat’s ass about how their water gets to them, how far their food comes from, how their clothes are made or the fact that, a tree from which you can harvest 300 board feet of lumber (equivalent to a 300 foot long 1×12 plank), might take 25 years to grow to that size.

            Most people just want a job or some other means of producing income so that they can go to the store and buy what they want or pay a tradesman to build/fix whatever they want. Most of the (young) people I see around are not the least interested in “the personal knowledge and skills behind” the stuff they consume. Many of the young men around the small town close by where I am right now, seem far more interested in kneading some cannabis in the middle of one palm as they prepare to roll their next joint (Maybe they will smoke the joint and then eat mangoes and run around naked before making love to some buxom babe but, I have my doubts about the mangoes and the running around naked!).

            There are more than seven billion of us sharing this planet and if most of us are to die of old age, I fear there is not enough oil left for that. If some reasonably effective substitute does not emerge over the next couple of decades, I might not make it to the biblical three score and ten, not to mention millions of other folks.

            • Caelan MacIntyre says:

              Islandboy, your comments and comments like it– which I nevertheless get– seem to rest on the assumption that solar panels and electric cars will be what ‘replaces’ fossil fuels and what a smooth transition looks like. From my perch, this seems like an ill-thought-out and potentially dangerous and reckless assumption.

              Besides, we both know that most of the energy we use is wasted.

              Our discourse, therefore, needs to be more focused on resilience, on basic needs, and learning them, like growing mangoes and other food and therefore, on agro. If everyone is a farmer, then no one is a farmer in a sense, because it becomes a meaningless specialization if everyone is doing it.

              Solar electric photo-voltaic panels and electric cars don’t cut it and if we keep talking about them to the exclusion of the basics, then, yes, your worry may become a self-fulfilling prophesy and people will drop off the map as decline digs in.
              Solar panels and electric cars are not self-empowerment. Knowing how to farm is.

              In Jamaica, I doubt very much you need to worry too much about clothes or even much in the way of shelter.

              Naturally, the hemp plant happens to have every good fiber and ganja is apparently good for various ailments.

  22. Oldfarmermac says:

    This article is well written, which is a surprise in and of itself these days, and goes into some depth concerning the way the state of California expects to deal with providing electricity over the next ten years or so.

    Maybe Californians can build renewable capacity fast enough that they can hold their consumption of gas steady, or even decrease it. But I wouldn’t want to place a big bet on their doing so quickly.

    • me says:

      The whole discussion is a bit overblown. The plant is old, and won’t be shutting down for nine years. Renewables are growing fast in California. Nobody knows what gas prices will looks like when the shutdown comes. Finally, California wastes vast amounts of energy, and f worst comes to worse, thee could start trying to be energy efficient.

  23. texas tea says:

    Now, for the “bad news” – if you are dreaming of a ‘low-carbon economy’…according to BP’s projections:

    Fossil fuels, currently about 89% of global energy supplies, will provide around 60% of the additional energy and still account for 80% of energy supplies in 2035.
    Oil demand will increase by almost 20 million barrels per day over the Outlook.
    The increase in world energy consumption will be driven by the growing economies of Asia. China and India, followed by Southeast Asia and eventually Africa will drive energy and fossil fuel use significant higher. Total energy consumption will increase by 34% between 2014 and 2035.
    Natural gas is the fastest growing fossil fuel; its share in primary energy use will rise gradually over time.
    The growth in coal consumption will slow sharply, as the share of coal used in electricity generation declines from 43% to around 33%. Overall, however, coal consumption continues to rise at the rate of about 0.5% per year throughout the period.
    Oil, now about 97% of transportation energy demand, will constitute 88% by 2035; natural gas will provide 8%.
    Transportation energy demand declines in the OECD because of significant improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency, but the growth in vehicle ownership and use in the non-OECD area more than offsets this.
    The global vehicle fleet (commercial vehicles and passenger cars) more than doubles from 1.2 billion today to over 2.4 billion by 2035.
    While the rate of carbon emissions growth declines, the level of emissions continues to grow, increasing by 20% between 2014 and 2035.
    By 2035, global carbon dioxide emissions are projected to be about 38 billion tonnes, far above the targets set by the European Union and COP21.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Now, for the “bad news” – if you are dreaming of a ‘low-carbon economy’…according to BP’s projections:

      Um, did you really expect BP to say that we are now entering the end of the age of oil, or something to that effect?

      Of course there are plenty of people even in the supposedly growing economies that you mentioned that strongly disagree with that view…

      This perspective from India:

      End of the oil age
      It will diminish in significance in a reconfigured energy system

      Decades hence, 2015 might well be seen as the year the oil era entered the phase of terminal decline. For during this period, there was a convergence of action and sentiment against oil products and oil companies. The Paris summit on climate change heralded a multinational effort to shift the global energy system away from fossil fuels. The props on which petroleum companies have built their vast businesses eroded if not fell away. “Clean energy” products and technology made their way to the forefront of the policy agenda. And public sentiment called for a weakening of the nexus between economic development and carbon-intensive energy demand.

      Historic moment: Saudi Arabia sees End of Oil Age coming and opens valves on the carbon bubble

      Most analysts believe Saudi Arabia refuses to cut production because it wants to shake out its higher-cost competitors or because it wants to punish Iran and Russia. There may be some truth in those theories, writes Elias Hinckley, strategic advisor and head of the energy practice with international law firm Sullivan and Worcester, but they miss the deeper motivation of the Saudis. Saudi Arabia, he says, sees the end of the Oil Age on the horizon and understands that a great deal of global fossil fuel reserves will have to stay underground to avoid catastrophic global warming. “That’s why it has opened the valves on the carbon asset bubble.”

      Instead of asking BP about the future of of fossil fuels why not ask someone like Tony Seba, you might get a very different perspective 🙂

      Despite knowing that old Yogi told us it was difficult to make predictions, especially about the future my money is heavily against BP being right!

      • texas tea says:


        get real, get a life, eat meat🇺🇸

        • Fred Magyar says:

          get real, get a life, eat meat

          Hey, why not try some crunchy locust pizza instead 🙂

          The guys you cite say these guys are wrong. OK we’ll see what happens after the fat lady sings!

        • Petro says:

          not only it will not by 2050, but judging by the way our economy and society REALLY works, it never will!

          To be true to science (theoretically speaking), there is no such thing as “renewable “energy.

          Practically speaking, there is such a thing (“renewable”), but if one takes into account EVERYTHING that goes into making “renewable” energy a reality – an energy truly capable of powering our civilization the way that FF indeed do, including all the infrastructure that it needs and goes with it – “renewable” and “clean” turn out to be dirtier than coal….not to mention a truly uneconomical EROEI.

          …and even if so, to what goal…
          …making India and China join the ranks of the consumer zombies of the West?
          And then what?
          Needing another SUN to produce the “renewable” energy we will need at that point?

          Complex, interconnected, dissipative systems do not have “soft” landings, or “smooth” transitions.
          They either grow, or crash.
          That’s why “permaculture”, or ANY so called “steady” and “harmony with naturte” civilizations (which neither grow, nor die), cannot exist and are trumped up by people who are truly ignorant of things such as:
          physics and mathematics….among others.
          We have reached our growth limits…. in every and any meaning of that word.

          We may be able to buy time here (not very much in my opinion), but we cannot defy nature and its laws.

          There will be no 2050 and “smooth transitions”. Crash we must….if one believes in science, that is.

          -Meat, wine and cigars are going to be my friends tomorrow.
          Happy Independence Day to you and all.

          Be well,


          • Oldfarmermac says:

            Hi Petro,

            Obviously there are no guarantees that we will manage a successful transition to a renewable energy economy, or that we we can ever create a truly sustainable society.

            Such an economy will not look much like today’s economy, and such a society will not look much like today’s societies.

            Now as to whether we can do it, well, that’s a matter of opinion. LOTS of scientists and engineers believe that renewable energy technologies can be scaled up to the point necessary.

            Given sufficient energy, damned near every finite resource can either be recycled or substituted.

            We don’t have to giterdone between now and 2050, or even between now and 2100. There’s a hell of a lot of fossil fuel left, and as it gets to be ever more expensive, we will make ever better use of it.

            Personally I don’t have any problem imagining a couple of hundred square miles of our southwestern desert covered with solar panels, and a quarter million big wind turbines on the high plains and else where, and an extensive HVDC grid tying it all together.

            Expensive? Yes, outrageously so , but nevertheless doable, if we put our minds and will to it over a few decades.

            There’s no REAL reason that just about EVERYTHING can’t be made to last a VERY long time.

            It would be as simple as falling off a log to build a car that would last fifty years, or even longer. We know how already. Sure, it will need a new battery once or twice in that time frame, but we know how to recycle the batteries.

            And I don’t have any problem with contraception, either. It’s dirt cheap, and there plenty of reason to believe that the population will peak within the next few decades, at least in the richer and more advanced countries.

            • texas tea says:

              I would not normally engage your ideas, but you state: “Obviously there are no guarantees that we will manage a successful transition to a renewable energy economy, or that we we can ever create a truly sustainable society.”
              To the degree a sustainable society can be managed it will only be in a earth with a warm or warming climate comparable to what we enjoy today, not a cold and getting colder climate as our ancestor endured. As a farmer one would think you could look past the forest and see the trees (what is so freakin obvious). 🌲

              • Oldfarmermac says:

                Speaking as a PROFESSIONAL , in the sense the word is used to mean someone with at least university level training in his field, rather than a practitioner of a business, my OPINION is that I do see the trees, very clearly indeed.

                ( As an aside, I have an expired professional license to actually TEACH forestry in public schools in my home state. So I know a LITTLE bit about literal trees,lol. I also have about enough credits accumulated over the years in the life sciences to constitute a bachelor’s degree in biology, but most of them are too old. )

                Over a long period of time, we naked apes can no doubt adapt to a warming climate. But we are currently adapted to climate as it IS , today, and if it gets a lot warmer, globally, within the next century, we are going to have to pay a hell of a price, short to medium term. It’s true that Siberian farmers will be more productive, but it is also true that farmers in many tropical or temperate locations will be RUINED. There aren’t many people in Siberia, but there are about seven billion in tropical and temperate zones.

                Being a REAL professional , my knowledge extends FAR beyond what actually happens within the agricultural industry as such.

                I KNOW what coal mining does to water supplies, what happens to forests in places where mountain top removal mining takes place- within an easy drive of my home. I KNOW about air pollution, and the effects it has on public health.

                I KNOW the history of agriculture, and how it has changed over time, and how vulnerable the industry is TODAY as the result of looming shortages of mined minerals such as phosphate ores. I know how long life as we know it today would last if we were actually OUT of oil. A couple of hours, maybe less, would be long enough for the riots to get well underway.

                If I ever finish it, I will give you a free copy of my book to be, and I assure you it will be mostly about the BIG PICTURE, with half a dozen chapters on the agricultural picture, with tons of references from the scientific literature as well as major newspapers and books.

                It is “freaking obvious” in MY OPINION that you know a lot, but not nearly ENOUGH to understand the big picture.

                It is my OPINION that that shortages of fossil fuels and other one time gifts of nature such as easily accessible iron ore will cause us some REAL trouble within the very near future.

                You are as intelligent as most people, no doubt in my mind, but your thinking in my estimation is limited because you are intellectually confined inside the fossil fuel paradigm box, and can’t see over the sides.

                Think about this. In the OPINION of just about every professional authority, historical, economic, or scientific,WWI and WWII were in the last analysis RESOURCE WARS- wars started and fought in an attempt by the aggressors to seize the resources of their intended victims.

                Hitler himself made no secret of the reasons for his war.He was all about empire, meaning control of resources.

                Getting rid of Jews, Gypsies, etc, was just a side issue. I know, having read his own words, and many books written by historians.

                We have a generation, or maybe two or three generations, to get away from fossil fuels, before they get away from us, and do such catastrophic harm to the planetary environment that it might be thousands of years before we humans can live easily again.

                Personally I believe we CAN manage a successful transition to renewable energy and sustainable societies, but I also believe that the transition will take at least most or all of the rest of this century.

                Fortunately renewable energy technologies are now scaling up fast enough that I am personally cautiously optimistic that at least a few countries, such as the USA and Canada, have a fair to good shot at success.

                The most important roles of renewable energy for now, and for the next few decades at least, in my opinion , will be to EXTEND the life of our depleting endowment of fossil fuels, SLOW DOWN forced climate change, REDUCE the odds of resource wars,and buy precious TIME for us to change our energy hog ways.

                Improving energy efficiency will be as important as generating renewable energy.

                We will individually and collectively learn to live on less energy because we will have no other choice.

                Of course your political and economic camp MIGHT be right. Fossil fuels MIGHT always be plentiful, and cheap. There might never be any more resource wars.

                The health care profession might be WRONG about air pollution and the connection with heart and lung and other diseases. The biologists might be WRONG about a the streams with no fish in them.

                The oligarchs who have been telling the people of West Virginia, some of them relatives , that coal will make them rich, instead of killing them and leaving their state one of the most backward in the union, MIGHT be telling the truth. But methinks they have been lying their asses off. That’s just my OPINION , of course.

                There were a LOT of coal miners in my family at one time. There may be a few yet, but most of us pulled out, excepting the ones buried forever in the mines, and took up farming by hand. Daylight to dark in the fields and woods with an axe , a plow, and a mule was MUCH to be preferred to the mines.

                OK-We simply CAN’T get by without coal, oil, and gas for now, and we won’t be able to get by without them for at least another half a century or so in my opinion.

                But we CAN and we will work on getting by with less and less of them, and we will be much better off, short term, for doing so.

                Long term, we have NO real choice but to give them up.

          • Dennis Coyne says:

            Hi Petro,

            We can use energy more efficiently as it becomes scarce. Gradually fossil fuels can be replaced with wind, solar, geothermal, hydro and nuclear power. In 2015 BP estimated that total World Primary Energy Demand was 13,147 million metric tonnes of oil equivalent, where it was assumed that 62% of this energy was wasted on thermal losses (in fact thermal losses were probably more than this). Without those losses (which are mostly eliminated in a World with primarily wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower as energy sources), only 5000 million metric tonnes of primary energy would be needed. Currently about 14% of World primary energy is provided by non-fossil fuel, just 86% to go, and there is time to accomplish this, fossil fuels will decline at 1 to 2% per year and wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, energy efficiency improvememnts, and nuclear power will be able to fill the gap.

            No doubt there will be an economic crisis along the way, it could lead to World War 3 if humans are stupid, and I suppose that is the worry, the average human seems to be of below average intelligence. 🙂

        • Bob Nickson says:

          200 mile BEV’s will soon be at price parity with combustion cars.
          Solar PV is $2/watt installed in Germany.

          Those two facts seem likely to add up to a permanent governor of oil price in the future, and a long petroleum tail.

          Make a one time investment in solar of between $4k and $8k depending on need and latitude and be set for transportation ‘fuel’ for 25+ years. Amortize it in a home mortgage for that period at 4% APR and you are looking at $22-$45/month ‘gas’ cost (12k miles/year).

          Should be appealing to conservatives on self sufficiency and personal/national security grounds alone.

          I think we will leave a lot of oil in the ground, and not because of climate change policy.

          • Oldfarmermac says:

            “Should be appealing to conservatives on self sufficiency and personal/national security grounds alone.”

            Hi Bob, I have been making that very point for a LONG time now.

            And while I am at it, I generally also remember to point out that the R party is not actually about conservatism, except on a few social issues.

            Republicans in general are not REAL conservatives according to my own personal definition of the word.

            Both the R and the D parties are mostly about looking after our economic masters these days. Trump IS wall street, and HRC is peeking out of the vest pocket of wall street interests like one of Paris Hilton’s little doggies peeking out of her purse.

      • Elias Hinckley knows very little about the worldwide oil industry dynamics. And he knows even less about climate change.

    • islandboy says:

      Now, for the “bad news” – if you are dreaming of a ‘low-carbon economy’…according to BP’s projections:

      Fossil fuels, currently about 89% of global energy supplies, will provide around 60% of the additional energy and still account for 80% of energy supplies in 2035.
      Oil demand will increase by almost 20 million barrels per day over the Outlook.
      The increase in world energy consumption will be driven by the growing economies of Asia. China and India, followed by Southeast Asia and eventually Africa will drive energy and fossil fuel use significant higher. Total energy consumption will increase by 34% between 2014 and 2035.

      “The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.” – Albert Allen Bartlett, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

      Despite the urgency to cut greenhouse gas emissions as climate change bears down on the globe, fossil fuel use is not likely to change much in the coming decades. Though renewable energy will grow quickly though 2040, gasoline and diesel will still move most of the world’s vehicles, and coal will still be the largest single source of carbon emissions.

      Those are the conclusions of a forecast released by the federal government on Wednesday for how the world will use energy and what its carbon dioxide emissions will be over the next 25 years.

      “A disruption happens when there’s a convergence of technology, business model and innovation that helps to create a new market and at the same time destroys or radically transforms an existing market,” said Tony Seba, a lecturer at Stanford University and author of Clean Disruption of Energy and Transportation. Often it happens very quickly, “and it is usually the experts and insiders who will tell you it is not going to happen.”


      “The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.” – Albert Allen Bartlett, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

      Happy Independence Day to all the USA’ans out there!

      • Fred Magyar says:

        A disruption happens when there’s a convergence of technology, business model and innovation that helps to create a new market and at the same time destroys or radically transforms an existing market,” said Tony Seba, a lecturer at Stanford University and author of Clean Disruption of Energy and Transportation. Often it happens very quickly, “and it is usually the experts and insiders who will tell you it is not going to happen.”

        Here is another form of disruption that at least for now very few people are seriously thinking about! AI wasn’t really on my radar even 5 years ago. Now I sit up very straight and listen!

        You’ll just have to watch the talk to understand that reference… 🙂

        This “Optimal Stopping” is one of twelve subjects examined in Christian’s (and co-author Tom Griffiths’) book, Algorithms to Live By. (The other subjects are: Explore/Exploit; Sorting; Caching; Scheduling; Bayes’ Rule; Overfitting; Relaxation; Randomness; Networking; Game Theory; and Computational Kindness. An instance of Bayes’ Rule, called the Copernican Principle, lets you predict how long something of unknown lifespan will last into the future by assuming you’re looking at the middle of its duration—hence the USA, now 241 years old, might be expected to last through 2257.)

        Made me think about what the optimal stopping point with regards trying to maintain a fossil fuel based civilization and transitioning away from fossil fuels to our next best options might be…

        Happy 4th!

        • Doug Leighton says:

          Fred, I owe you a case of your favorite beverage. Apart from a talk by Feynman on Quantum Mechanics, that’s the best “lecture” I’ve ever heard. I’ll definitely order the book. About five years after we got married I asked my beautiful wife why she agreed to hook up with me of all guys she could have had and she said it might have been an e to the minus one kind of thing (e^-1). Until I saw “your” Algorithms to Live By video it never occurred to me what the hell she was talking about. I’ve been laughing ever since. Can’t wait to tell my kids and grand kids this story.

  24. Oldfarmermac says:

    Off shore on the west coast is all about deep water and floating wind farms, plus the usual political considerations and the money, as always.

    Something tells me that maybe California would be better off pushing hard for more solar and onshore wind power, perhaps by importing wind power from other states. Maybe it would be best to let some other countries pay the cost of the steep learning and scaling up curve associated with deep water wind power. We pay more than our share in some other respects.

    If we were actually RATIONAL, we would be putting most of the money we spend on renewable power into conservation and efficiency, for now, knowing full well that this delivers the biggest bang for the dollar,NOW, and that renewable power will be cheaper to build out later on.

    • nimbi says:

      FAR better a wind kite on the open ocean! Just a stubby tower and an alternator pulled by the high efficiency stiff wing from a cross country glider, modified to shed gusts like a bird does.

  25. Greenbub says:

    “Canada’s oil sands production will grow by 42 percent to 3.4 million barrels per day by 2025”

  26. texas tea says:

    This is interesting and I realize goes against many here who view LTO as a plague, I think the industry has it right, not the naysayers👍 this is not to say the economies are like the East Texas field, but it is to say given the alternatives best of class LTO played will be the focus of activity/development coming out of this depression.

    • Coffeeguyzz says:

      That article (the referenced Reuters story describing a lessening of the decline curve) is only the tip of the iceberg.
      Many of the operators are catching on to what EOG has been doing with their fracs, namely scouring/sandblasting the heck out of the near wellbore area with 100 mesh and then following up with larger proppant to maintain conductivity.

      In addition, the increased formation pressure induced by new fracs is increasing output in nearby, older wells. This process has been repeated over and over again in numerous older wells in the core of the Bakken now that the drilling has contracted to a fairly small, highly productive area full of the older wells.

      • Watcher says:

        Wait, what?

        There are guys here who have well by well data.

        Has anyone seen previously drilled wells get a flow increase because a new well nearby was fracked? And let’s have a pure experience on this, shall we? Let’s control for the choke, meaning let’s look for flow increase not matched by other wells of that company nowhere near a new frack.

        That should teach us if nearby fracking does indeed transmit its pressures elsewhere.

        • Coffeeguyzz says:


          Couple of points …
          I would suggest you go to the “search” box located in the uppermost, right side of this article.
          Type in “Martin Kodiak”.
          When the 6/28/2014 article appears – “North Dakota and Bakken by County”, click on it and scroll slightly past halfway down to Carl Martin’s comment, posted at 1:10, 7/1/2014.

          Martin quotes the CEO of Kodiak describing both the occurrence of pressure communication between closely spaced wells and the crucial distinction between hydraulic communication and proppant communication.

          Regarding data access to Bakken wells, I’ve just gotten the basic subscription to ND’s DMR site and can now easily, quickly pull up complete production history for all 13,000+ ND wells.
          For the more than 30 wells I’ve randomly targeted, EVERY single well has shown increase in both hydrocarbon output and produced water – ranging from doubling up to ten fold increases – coinciding when nearby wells are frac’d.

          I would strongly suggest any serious, or even just curious, follower of these matters to do this research for themselves. Takes very minimal time or effort.

          • Dennis Coyne says:

            Hi Coffeeguyz,

            If it is a temporary boost, it will not amount to much. If a well goes from 20 b/d to 40 b/d, it is not really that big a deal in the grand scheme.

            • coffeeguyzz says:


              I’m hoping, in the coming weeks, to engage Enno to take a more comprehensive look at this production data.

              The numbers are what they are.

              The wells I have looked at (about 50+ now), maintain an elevated output – double/quadruple pre fracs – for 8 to 10 months from their earlier levels (prior to nearby well being frac’d).

              In addition, several of the wells have repeated instances of this as more wells were frac’d over time.

              When I started checking this in detail, a few weeks back, I used the monthly production data (freely available to all on the DMR site). After four or five wells showed 100% correlation to output increase/nearby fracs, I went and got the subscription so the process of checking is infinitely faster and easier.

              As Enno has put WAY more time into this than I, I hope to explore this further with him.
              The key component is the closeness of the wells.

              No ’bout adoubt it, Dennis.

              • Dennis Coyne says:

                Hi Coffeeguyz,

                50 wells is a very small sample. I am not saying the effect is not real. Let’s say it is triple and lasts for 12 months, here’s the thing, there is only so much oil that is likely to be recovered profitably from the LTO plays. The effect you are seeing means more of the oil produced gets recovered early in the wells life, but it is not likely that there will be a significant boost to overall EUR. Perhaps this effect will lead to a couple thousand extra wells drilled over the next 20 years due to somewhat better profit per well (or smaller losses at current oil prices).

                The overall effect on URR will not be that great, maybe 5% at best.

                • coffeeguyzz says:


                  The 50 wells sure are too small a sampling to make sweeping statements. (That’s why I would love for others to jump in and do some checking).
                  However, the 100% correlation is no small thing at all.

                  Regarding the impact on overall output, you seem to be overlooking how this is repeatable when well after well come online nearby, existing wells.
                  There has been understandable, justifiable skepticism about this stuff as it has been not discussed by the operators … or, in fact, hardly even mentioned.
                  Some online commentary by knowledgeable industry participants indicate an amount of ignorance regarding the actual mechanisms involved and hence, an inclination towards confidentiality.

                  As for ultimate recovery, the exact opposite of your observation may, in fact, turn out to be the case as these wells are experiencing elevated pressure, hydrocarbon mobility, and – perhaps – even new fractures being formed.
                  Currently, less than 10% of the original oil is being recovered.

                  Up in Canada, a highly innovative company, Crescent Pointe, is installing casing with sleeves that both close as well as open, so they can manipulate hydrocarbon flow with different programs of water injections.

                  This whole approach (see TT’s linked site discussing EOG’s gas-focused EOR) actually has far reaching potential significance … if it works.

      • texas tea says:

        I am wondering if they will ever be able to get to the point of recycling gas to maintain pressure and increase EUR, I have little doubt well densities and frac designs will test that idea if it has not already been done. I can also say for a certainty that the wells that I have interest in that have been brought online in this price environment have been produced in a manner consistent with the article.

        • Coffeeguyzz says:


          It’s already being done up in the Alberta Bakken by Granie Oil.
          The geology is slightly different, but their website has some great graphics showing what they’ve been effectively implementing for a couple of years now.

          EOG caused a bit of a stir a few weeks back when they announced that they have successfully injected field gas into a few EF wells and boosted production in offset wells. They are now expanding the program to about a dozen more wells.

    • shallow sand says:

      LTO is not a plague. The plague is development of same out of primarily debt, as opposed to primarily out of cash flow.

      As I pointed out above, Q1 2016 wells were significantly more productive than Q1 2015 wells, in the wells’ first 90 days or less. As time goes by, we will get a clearer picture of how much more oil they will produce during the critical 36-60 months when the wells need to payout.

      $50 WTI looks to be a very hard ceiling last couple of months.

      More important is the money made available to drill, complete and equip them. The banks appear to be wary. Equity investors like the Permian and SCOOP/STACK.

      • Petro says:

        “LTO is not a plague. The plague is development of same out of primarily debt, as opposed to primarily out of cash flow.” ~SS

        while I tried with you for a long, long time, you still have fundamental and principial misunderstanding(s) of the LTO and energy situation at large.
        (…as far as inns and outs technical things of everyday practicality, very few people can match with you, so I will not go there!)

        Fracking-LTO (as I hope you know by now) is an old tech thingie (ca.: 1950).
        The ONLY reason it exists is DEBT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        If it was about cash flow and economic logic(as you think), it would have NEVER been……

        So, in simple terms for you (and anybodyelse)to understand:
        you either think that LTO is a “plague” and do your math according to cash flow logic……., ….or ACCEPT debt and LTO as NOT a plague and our time(s) necessity……!

        You CANNOT have both!

        Be well and Happy 4th of July,


        • shallow sand says:

          Petro: I think you are referring to LTO as the current situation, and I agree, it exists because of debt.

          My reference to LTO was the fact that it exists at all, not the reality of how much or how it came about (largely through massive amounts of debt).

          Much of my ire has been centered at the companies themselves. Unfortunately, I guess I expect more out of them than I do consumers who take on too much credit card debt, home owners who take on too much house, kids and parents who take on too much student loan debt, or auto buyers who borrow on a vehicle for 7-8 years.

          I guess all facets eventually get sucked in by Wall Street. Even the oil producers, who were laughed at by Wall Street for 20+ years, got sucked in when Wall Street finally came calling. Only difference, unlike the consumers I set forth above, the oil guys got in on the Wall Street game, they are still getting the big salaries. And, of course, they have always understood scale matters, the more et als you have, the more admin overhead you can make. So if we produce 10K BOEPD I can make $500K in salary and bonuses, but if we can produce 100K BOEPD, likewise my salary etc should now be $5 million. Everyone just wants their commission, even oil management.

          I have been watching interest rates. Geez. Looks like negative rates are coming.

          • Petro says:

            “I have been watching interest rates. Geez. Looks like negative rates are coming” ~SS

            Not in the USA.

            Maybe <5 year paper, but not 10-30 years.
            I strongly suspect we have much further to go….oh, probably .4-.7 on the 10 and 1.4 -1.7 on the 30 but that's about it…

            In all likelihood everything will go “kaboom” before we reach below those numbers…. and then rates will behave irrationally….possibly raise (spike will be the more correct word).
            But by then, as I have told you before on many, many occasions, is time to hide….literally…. with water, bread, a gun and our families….

            However, NEVER underestimate elites to surprise us (i.e.: retire debt, or force large pension funds to own it etc, etc….) so, negative rates here could be reality as well …… but as I said, I doubt it.

            As our economy and society/civilization stands today though, debt cannot be eliminated.
            In order for us globally to survive (for a little while longer) with the bounty we have, debt must grow in a form, or another….here, or elsewhere…
            There is no other choice!
            Whoever tells you otherwise (i.e.: honest money, and ponzi world bull…) knows nothing how today things work and read the wrong derivative books ….and/or read them incorrectly.

            Be well,


            • Watcher says:

              What does kaboom mean?

              Sovereign debt borrowed by a country with a central bank can never default, if that’s what kaboom means. This was the great evil of QE. It stepped out into the universe of monetizing deficit, and then went even further when securitized mortgages were added to monthly buys. If the deficit got too small to provide bonds to monetize, hell, just buy non govt bonds — all with whimsically created money.

              We’re seeing new problems in Europe, where the ECB is in the midst of QE. They are even sillier. They arbitrarily declared what quality bonds they would monetize, and are now discovering there ain’t enough of those. So the lesser quality paper (dare one suggest Greece?) wlll have to be bought, just to create money in the system.

              Why are rates crashing? Maybe scarcity of civilization’s lifeblood is deflationary. How’s that for an eyebrow raiser?

              And if you have the infinite source of money making it clear it (or they) will allow no defaults, then that is the place people will want to hide. They will be wiling to pay more for bonds, and price up means rate down.

              • Petro says:

                “Sovereign debt borrowed by a country with a central bank can never default…” ~Watcher

                Not quite!
                Argentina, Brasil, Mexico and Russia come to mind….. all sovereigns with central banks that defaulted (some more than once).

                While I am certain (somewhat…) that you have it correctly in your head, for the above sentence of yours to be correct 2 important conditions MUST be satisfied ( as well as a few minor ones):

                1.) the borrowing sovereign’s debt MUST be denominated in the same currency issued by the borrowing sovereign’s CB;

                and/or more importantly:
                2.) the borrowing sovereign’s CB MUST be the issuer of one of the World’s reserve currencies (aka: IMF’s SDR currency basket).
                Although not technically correct, we can include here to a far smaller effect, currencies such as:
                Canadian$, Aussie$ and a few others.

                What does kaboom mean?

                -While it is true that >95% of our money is ONLY digits on a screen, contrary to what most (and this includes highly accomplished economic/financial scholars) believe, our money is backed by one important factor: CONFIDENCE!

                “Kaboom” means loss of confidence… and is now accelerating frighteningly from periphery economies/sovereigns toward the core ones.
                The money is poring in Guilds, Bunds and Bonds and that is the REASON yields are crashing…

                As a “smarty pants” said:
                ” is not about the return on the money – is about the return OF the money!”.

                When confidence vanishes from the core CBs (i.e.: FED, ECB, BoE, etc), then and ONLY then the “kaboom” happens…

                I just think that we will reach “kaboom” point before >10year US paper goes negative…(although, as I wrote in my reply to SS above, never underestimate the CBs tricks to surprise us … so I could be wrong)

                We are saying pretty much the same thing…
                I just had to clarify a few “narrative, technical glitches”.

                Hope it helps.

                Be well,


                • texas tea says:

                  You hit the nail on the head, and while I think the monetary elites understand the role confindence plays, smaller players like grass roots community organizers and the political parties that abuse them are powerless without trampling all over that essential ingredient, the oil in the engine of our economy, and it goes much beyond confidence in our currency. The wheels of commerce continue to grid ever slower, and the answer is to enact more insane policies that continue to chip away at the confidence of those who actually can make a difference. I suspect you are correct in your analysis, much like peak oil, timing is the issue. Watching japan for multiple decades give me some hope that we can continue to churn for a bit longer. I am not sure WW3 is the only out come, but I like our odds in that event. Between our relative isolation and for now friendly neighbors, huge energy resources and military superiority, given the right leadership who knows, maybe we can make it🌺

      • texas tea says:

        Good morning SS,

        CLR has a new presentation out that I think validates the economic work you present here, at least that is my take;
        2016 Plan
        • Disciplined growth based on sustainable crude oil supply/demand fundamentals and price

        • $920 million CAPEX budget should be cash flow neutral at $37 WTI, with production averaging 205,000 to 215,000 per day

        • WTI above $37: Strengthen balance sheet first

        • Mid‐$40s: Consider working down Bakken DUCs and reduce debt further

        • At $60+: Consider retaining/adding drilling rigs

        also can add they show the May unit we discussed has not been completed but they will begin to complete this month. With regard to the Good Martin unit, what I noticed but cannot account for was a across the board drop in production from a relatively stable rate over several months of about 20% in all wells simultaneously, there are several possible explanations one of which was to choke back the wells in the extremely low price environment, but that is complete speculation. Marathon just finished drilling the 1st well on us and moved on to the second well last week. I have little doubt that Marathon has interest in both the oil increased density units, whatever the reason for the drop in production it has not altered their drilling plans in the immediate area.

        • shallow sand says:

          TT. I think increasingly for CLR, the gas price they need will be just as important.

          I am not sure about much re: OK resource plays, except that most are gas weighted. I suspect, and I think you mentioned it once, part of the attraction is there is a slug of liquids early, but more importantly there is a lot of gas that has a low LOE cost. I assume trying to make $$ on high volume gas wells that are assisted by the early liquids is why they are all there.

          My complaint centers around talk like “oil window” “oil play” “IP in BOE”. Really in all likelihood, my complaint is not directed so much at the companies, as it is the Wall Street bankers who direct them to use “oil play” as opposed to “gas play” for the equity issuance.

        • Mike says:

          Debt is a plague; Shallow is absolutely correct. Those that chose to ignore shale oil debt in their cheerleading routines do so because they don’t understand it, don’t have a clue how the shale industry is going to get out of debt, or simply think that when the LTO industry walks the check another half trillion (LTO up steam and mid stream), when added onto the 19 trillion or so we are already going to leave our kids to deal with, its not a big deal. Some people think debt is a good thing. Right.

          This is a dumb article written based on a few months of preliminary hearsay : In fact, according to Enno Peters data, it looks like UR from most of horizontal shaley-carbonate horizons in the PB will be worse than other shale plays and the economics just as dismal. Shale oil proponents get plumb giddy about something new, like SCOOP/STACK, and pre-frac scouring (LOL) …until the real data comes out over time. As to CLR’s self serving dribble:

          • Disciplined growth based on sustainable crude oil supply/demand fundamentals and price.

          Yes, CLR has 7.8 billion dollars of long term debt, interest and short term payables. It lost nearly a billion dollars 1Q2016. CLR is disciplined alrighty; it showed lots of “discipline” by not hedging it’s production the past 20 months.

          • $920 million CAPEX budget should be cash flow neutral at $37 WTI, with production averaging 205,000 to 215,000 per day.

          Any 4th grader with a # 2 pencil can figure out this statement is false. $37 dollar WTI is 30 dollars ND Sweet and after royalty, taxes, interest expense, G&A and incremental lift costs CLR’s net back prices are 7 dollars a barrel. That’s 565 million dollars of net income in 2016 and if CLR is going to piss off 920 more million dollars to drill more lousy wells, it is going to have borrow more money.

          • WTI above $37: Strengthen balance sheet first.

          I assume by strengthening it’s balance sheet it means deleveraging. Right. If net back prices get as “high as 15 dollars a barrel, and it uses all of that to deleverage, it will take a decade or more to get out of debt. While that is going on, CLR is not replacing it’s reserves and will be totally liquidated about the time in gets out of debt. Whoop !

          • Mid‐$40s: Consider working down Bakken DUCs and reduce debt further

          At “mid $40 WTI, mid $30 ND Sweet it will take CLR 240,000 BO and four years to payback a 4.5 million dollar frac. It has to borrow that 4.5 million dollars or take it out of net cash flow, which further erodes its cash “neutrality” position and increases debt, not reduce it.

          • At $60+: Consider retaining/adding drilling rigs.

          AT 50 dollar ND Sweet and 23 dollar net back prices it cannot deleverage and drill new wells at the same time to replace the reserve inventory it’s lost the past 2 years. It will have to borrow more money and it is already maxed out it’s credit cards. It’s debt to PV10 asset ratio is already over 100%, right Shallow?

          Color me a naysayer. Or someone, like Shallow sand, who ignores the internet dribble and thinks for himself. If you happen to be somebody who believes in the shale oil miracle then you need to put your money where your mouth is; there are several websites around that are selling, or trying to sell, working interest in the Bakken play. You can probably get those interests dirt cheap, then sit back and watch the price go up, up, up, then you and the operator can re-frac this and re-frac that and be on the receiving end of all those big juicy halos. Get your check book ready!

          • Synapsid says:

            Thanks for this, Mike. I read that article on Oilpro, with eyes getting wider by the second.

            • Mike says:

              I hope you are well sir; be glad you are not in Texas today. Its a hotun. Your friend, Mike.

          • texas tea says:

            Mike, perhaps Shell gets all their info from the internet also.
            Royal Dutch Shell PLC considers its shale holdings a growth priority for 2020 and beyond now that the major divested roughly half its US and
            Canada unconventional properties in recent years, executives told reporters during a June 20 media event at its West Houston offices. Greg Guidry, executive vice-president of unconventionals, noted Shell is concentrating its shale business in the Permian basin, Haynesville, the Marcellus and Utica in Appalachia, the Montney and Duvernay in Western Canada, and the Vaca Muerta in Argentina. “We have one-half the footprint that we did in 2013 but have a larger resource volume,” Guidry said. His division has emphasized cost reduction and improv…

            There is no point in arguing, Shell is but one of several companies that have been around longer than either of us who see LTO as an opportunity who play on a much larger field than I do and who are making massive investments in this space. And while that in and of itself would not get me to plunk down money, using my understating of our business cycles has been very rewarding over the last 4 months, and has made up for a great deal of lost income from production. There is more than one way to skin a cat, adapt or perish👍one thing for sure, no one ever made any money complaining on a blog🇺🇸

            Without quibbling about the exact break even cost for any company or play, my takeaway is that CLR who claimed to have substantial lease holdings in ‘the most economic plays” will “Consider retaining/adding drilling rigs” at above $60. That is the key point. We will not see an real increase in activity in any LTO play until prices are above $60 and I think I have made my position clear, it really needs $75 for the best plays. SS you are right with regard to nat gas prices being an important factor in SCCOP and STACK.

            • Reno Hightower says:

              cant speak to most those plays but why would SHELL get back in the Haynesville after getting out through their affiliate, SWEPI?

              • texas tea says:

                i had the same question when I read it? I can tell you what I think, in has much as the economics of the play are well established. They are bullish on nat gas domestically and/ or perhaps proximity to new LNG terminals. just a guess.

              • Ves says:

                “why would SHELL get back in the Haynesville after getting out through their affiliate?”


                Because that is standard modus operandi of crony capitalism with a message through financial media that “success is just around corner” and another message “It is your entire fault that you are not making money”.

                These two messages keep the public in deep delusion. So you can clearly see here on this blog that reaction to common sense posts by oil people are labelled as “whining” or “complaining”.

                But truth is financial system is rigged not just in oil market but in general. It favours certain players over other. So people who are labelling posts as “whining” & “complaining” don’t want to accept that system is rigged because it will prove that they don’t know a lot or think that fraud is not important if does not hurt them personally.

                • texas tea says:

                  US oil reserves surpass those of Saudi Arabia and Russia

                  why you ask, why do people rob banks…that is where the money is, has nothing to do with a rigged system.
                  there are those that do and there are those that complain, the doers are rewarded, the complainers marginalized and the world just keeps on moving on 🇺🇸

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    EIA says ”

                    In 2014, U.S. crude oil and lease condensate proved reserves increased to 39.9 billion barrels—an increase of 3.4 billion barrels (9.3%) from 2013. U.S. proved reserves of crude oil and lease condensate have risen for six consecutive years, and exceeded 39 billion barrels for the first time since 1972.1 Proved reserves of U.S. total natural gas2 increased 34.8 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) to 388.8 Tcf in 2014. This increase (9.8%) boosts the national total of proved natural gas reserves to a record-high level for the second consecutive year.”

                    I love the “undiscovered” part. Maybe it’s snake oil. Wonder if they are counting the oil shale again, more hokum, greasy rocks.

                  • Ves says:

                    texas tea,

                    You don’t look like you know much about oil business to me. I think you should just stick with climate debate topics and you were actually doing very well. Not due to your fault. Anyone can write anything FOR or AGAINST climate debate and will look really “smart”. That is a perfect topic to always look “smart”.

                  • texas tea says:

                    Ves, you can think what you want regarding what I may know or may not know about the oil and gas business. Just because I have been in it for over 30 years, have drilled 100’s of wells mapped mile after miles of data, slipped well logs until damned near blind, participated in multi dozens 3d seismic shoots including being part of a group who “brought” that technology on shore gulf coast USA in the nineties, raised millions of $$$ does not mean I know a damn thing, but it is to say I been very lucky getting by as well as I have being so damn ignorant😜

                  • Ves says:

                    What happened in the last 30 years in oil business is in the past. We live in present. Past is gone and it is useless to debate past.

                    You have to tell us which oil plays in NA make money on full cycle cost at $46 WTI (as of today), and a lot less at wellhead? If you are in oil business and know your numbers why you don’t share with us?
                    and please no msm propaganda hyperlinks, just your numbers and not “borrowed” numbers from msm.

                  • I can sell you mineral rights for a lower discorbis play in Louisiana very close to East Holly Beach, if you drill and find the prospect I describe in my PowerPoint slides you can develop it and make a bundle. Satisfaction guaranteed.

                • Mike says:

                  Ves, thanks, man. Shell jumped in head first into the Eagle Ford shale play in S. Texas, drilled some horrible wells, then could not wait to dump it. The company that bought it, Sanchez, is drilling the snot out of it and about ready to go belly up. I am pretty sure anybody not now totally aware of the failure of the shale oil business model has been in a coma for three years or is returning from a holiday on Jupiter. That would include the whiz kids at Shell, or Exxon, or anywhere else.

                  Short term gas prices appear to be headed up; that too will be over-drilled with borrowed money and then those prices will go down again; if Shell wants back in those lousy shale gas plays, bless their big corporate hearts.

                  The statements that CLR made about itself uphole are deceitful; it took all of 5 minutes to blow a hole in all those statements. Messages like those, repeated over and over again, are a disservice to people throughout the world as they paint a picture of shale oil abundance that is not conducive to making good personal investment decisions and most importantly, do not promote conservation of our remaining hydrocarbon reserves.

                  I am not complaining; of course not. I am rendering an opinion like everyone else does on POB. That is weak argument made in the absence of actual facts to refute me. People don’t like to be disagreed with when they have an agenda to promote. At to the anti-oil agenda here on POB and it’s agenda, they demand censorship.

                  Anyway, I am going to go substitute roughneck today, in 110 degrees temperatures, howdat for being a doer? Keep up the good work, Ves. Mike

                  • Ves says:

                    Agree Mike.
                    Everyone debates interpretations. Interpretations from this CEO and that CEO. And we are great interpreters. But interpretations are our enemy. The reality does not need any interpretation.

                    Yesterday (via Texas Tea Associated Press on POB) Shell CEO was interpreting their bright future with their shale plays and today an article that same Shell is cutting more jobs after laying off 12.5k last year.

                    Well of course job cuts interpretations for the confused public will be due to so called efficiency and improvements. Like it that oil business is some kind of Olympic sport so the faster drilling of holes is the name of the game.

                  • George Kaplan says:

                    Shell might be running out of options. Their exploration success has been very poor (not only lack of discoveries but some major accidents), they had negative reserve replacement last year, they have an increasingly bad name in Nigeria and Bonga SW not looking a go at the moment, they can’t sell the assets they want to offload, big decommissioning costs coming in the North Sea, the gains in Iraq seem to have stalled and they’ve down manned at Majnoon with the full field expansion on hold, three major projects are finishing over the next 18 months with nothing much coming behind, and the BG acquisition maybe not giving the returns in terms of growth that they had expected.

              • Cracker says:


                Because they have to do something, and there are very few options. George Kaplan pretty well nailed their situation in his comment.

                At least they can show investors they are doing something, with plenty of spin, buying time.


                • Reno Hightower says:

                  I think you are right.

                  Apparently Wall Street penalizes E&P companies more for drilling no wells than drilling money losing wells.

  27. Oldfarmermac says:

    The contents of the following link are apt to be hotly debated as a right versus left political question, or a question of religious freedom versus godless atheism, or on several other grounds.
    I prefer to think about it in EVERY possible context.

    And so far as I can see, the biggest, overarching most important context of all us the survival of the tribe versus the survival of the individual. When all the chips are on the table, the majority of “us” will find it expedient to throw one of “us” under the wheels of societies bus, once we are out of “thems”.

    Canada is one of the richest, most civilized countries in the world, but even in Canada, harsh decisions must be made. This one may be temporarily set aside, but it will be revisited, and before many more years pass.

    I am glad I am not the person who has to make them, because I have trouble enough sleeping already.
    Do we spend ten , twenty , thirty forty fifty thousand, or two hundred thousand, on keeping some old fart like me alive for a few more days, weeks, or months, or do we spend that same money keeping two , three, four or maybe a dozen kids alive and healthy to live most of a century?

    Such decisions are already being made, thousands of times a day, virtually always in favor of old farts. Sooner or later, the odds are close to unity that this situation will change. It won’t be little kids that win the argument, but rather grownups who themselves are not getting critical care. They will turn on us old farts. I say “us old farts” because something tells me most of the forum membership consists of older guys.

    There is a direct relationship between economic and social collapse and energy shortages.

    • Phil S says:

      Hi Mac, I’ll bite. We won’t turn on you old farts, we’ll just let what happened to most old farts for the last 10,000 years happen to you guys too.

    • R Walter says:

      It’s grilling time today in America. Propane supplies will be lower tomorrow.

      Canada is an indigenous language word that translates to big village.

      Dominion Day is July 1.

      An Anschluss of a sort, change the date for Independence Day to July 2 like one of the signers of The Constitution wanted, celebrate Dominion Day and Independence Day the same day.

      Have all maple leafs on the flag instead of stars. Call it all Canamerica, one big happy family in the big village.

      Of course, the original thirteen colonies will probably secede along with Québec. Such insolence can’t really be tolerated. Allow them to become a province, but can’t secede.

      Divide the US into 13 new provinces and that would be the end of it.

      Probably cut down on all of the fussing over much ado about nothing.

      Besides, Canada has all those resources that are for the taking, it even has Mt. Robson, which really should be in the United States.

      All your land to us belong. har

      Also, anyone who wants civilization to be free of fossil fuels can’t use them nor have electricity, so there.

      A favorite quote:

      It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. – Theodore Roosevelt

    • Paulo says:

      The new Canadian laws are about “Doctor Assisted Suicide”, which basically means if someone is of sound mind, has an incurable disease or lives in a world of unrelenting pain, (ALS, whatever), his/her family doctor will now be allowed (legally) to help that patient end their life. Protests abound, and it is held up in the Senate for final ratification because people do not believe it goes far enough.

      The Law will not allow others to make the decision for them. For example, my Mom is in late stages of slow developing Alzheimers. She is 95, and is still alive. On Saturday I took her into the garden of her care home and talked to her for awhile. She was unresponsive. I tried to help her drink apple juice using a straw. She was unable to ‘lift’ the fluid up into her mouth. One of these days her autonomous functions will no longer work. She will be either unable to breathe or unable to drink/swallow. Then she will die. There are strict orders NOT to prolong her life by any artifical means or life saving actions. (No hospital runs for respiration, etc). If she gets a chest infection, she will be on her own and will die. Her only medication is now tylenol for a worn out body. She has been in this state for many years. It is dreadful and she would be horrified. She was always very healthy and in good shape, thus, her ongoing condition.

      A more humane society would have acted on her behalf 10 years ago.

      Unfortunately, in almost all cases the disease has already destroyed decision making capabilities before diagnosis is confirmed.

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        HI Paulo,
        I am personally ok with the proposed law and the intent thereof, and mentioned it only as an indicator of coming troubles.

        We had resuscitate orders prominently posted for my Mom. I was able to keep her at home, CPD took her before her mind went except for memory. . Dad’s another story. I am afraid that eventually I will no longer be able to look after him due to mental decline.

        His DNR is in the works, but for now it looks as if he will live a LONG time yet.

        You have my sympathy. I wish I could offer more.

        I have put a great deal of time into the study of dementia since my family on both sides tends to outlive all the other usual old age issues.

        I fear the odds are pretty high that my own body will outlive my mind. I expect I will see it coming.

    • Hickory says:

      Oregon and California have Physician Assisted Suicide currently lawful, but the restrictions are very tight- in my opinion.
      The patient has to have an incurable disease and expected lifespan of under 6months.
      I ask- why the restrictions? Why should the government be able to stipulate that someone should need to have a 6 month terminal condition?
      I consider it cruel to force someone to live with severe chronic pain or disability (or even crushing poverty for that matter) if they choose not to.
      Ending ones own life should be legal, and easy.
      A basic human right. Freedom from religion. Freedom to die on ones own terms- without government or theocratic intrusion (no Pope or Iman welcome here).
      I refuse to submit. I will do my best to pick my own time and method as I see fit, unless it just happens first. I fully intend to do no lingering (maybe some 20 year old already thinks I am, but I don’t think we should let 20 year-olds decide these things for others).

  28. Oldfarmermac says:

    Renewable energy sourced from wind and solar farms requires very little water indeed. The amount of water saved might not be much in terms of the big picture, but it’s still significant in places subject to drought and water shortages. The amount of water saved at the margin can mean the difference between building more desalination plants, etc.

  29. Oldfarmermac says:

    This one is for Caelan.

    There’s not much to argue about, in terms of the facts as they are laid out by the author and the reviewer.

    The problem is getting from HERE to THERE.

  30. AlexS says:

    According to Russia’s Energy Ministry preliminary estimate, the country’s oil production in June rose slightly from the previous month to 10,799 kb/d (using 7.3 barrels/ton conversion factor), or 10,843 kb/d (7.33)

    The number for May was revised up by 9 kb/d to 10,791 kb/d (7.3) or 10,836 kb/d (7.33).
    Although output in May and June marginally recovered from April’s low, it remained below 1Q levels.
    The January 2016 local peak production was 10,866 kb/d (7.3) or 10,910 kb/d (7.33).

    The average C+C output for the first half of the year was 1.7% above the same period of 2015.

    • AlexS says:

      Russian oil production: Russia’s Minenergo vs. JODI data.

      Note that JODI accounts most of Russian condensate production as NGLs.

      The blip in JODI’s numbers for March is difficult to explain.

    • Greenbub says:

      “Russia could bump up crude oil production next year despite predictions to the contrary, Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich said Wednesday.”

    • Cracker says:


      Thanks for your posts. I’m thankful someone besides me is interested in hydrocarbons.


      • islandboy says:

        I cannot speak for anybody else but, as I am guilty of frequently posting about topics that are not directly related to hydrocarbons, I’ll take a bite.

        My academic qualifications are in the field of electrical engineering so I knew a hell of a lot more about electricity, how it is generated, how it is transmitted, how it can be stored and the requirements for using it safely, than I knew about hydrocarbons before I discovered As a result, I will always defer to the experts on this forum and try to absorb and learn as much as I can about this stuff that, provides a significant amount of the electricity I am so familiar with.

        Secondly, I live on an island that has precious little in the way of FF resources and yet, like many other islands, still generates the vast majority of it’s electricity using imported petroleum based fuels. When oil prices are high the effect on some nations, including mine, is that more is spent on importing petroleum and it’s products than the total foreign exchange income from goods and services. We have to borrow to buy oil.

        Thirdly, my entire adult life has been about experiencing change, one disruption after another, first hand. That has made it impossible for me to dismiss the chances of more disruptions out of hand and made it easy for me to accept the ideas of people like Tony Seba. I’ve seen it all before, disruption that is.

        So when I post about advances in solar PV manufacturing processes or technology, I hope that it is taken in the spirit of a person telling a saddler about that interesting new contraption being produced by the hundreds by this guy named Henry Ford. The saddler may not have been interested, may not have thought that it was any concern of his but, we all know what happened to the careers of saddlers. My father’s birth certificate lists his father’s occupation as “saddler” and one of my best friends grandfather was a blacksmith, both careers that basically vanished with that advent of the horseless carriage.

        If it would make everybody happy, I would keep my thoughts and information to myself and just listen to all the discussion on hydrocarbons without introducing any discussion of alternatives. Just as you thanked Alex for his post, I have on occasion been thanked for a post or two so, I guess it would not make everybody happy if alternatives were not discussed.

        That light at the end of the tunnel just might be a train.

  31. Chart Monkey says:

    Permian Midland, chart: rig count vs initial production rate
    I was wondering, how much >500 acreage have the drillers got ? (Any other comments?)
    chart found on on Reuters Twitter:

    Happy Holiday 🙂

  32. Duncan Idaho says:

    Daily CO2

    July 3, 2016: 405.71 ppm

    July 3, 2015: 401.75 ppm

  33. hole in head says:

    The US of A is no more what we have now is a US of CON . Only con´s as far as the eye can see .

    • Till says:

      But without that fooling the US oil production would be now at least 500kb/day lower, since with 20$ oil the most fracking companies would have been collapsed or just surviving without any drilling at all.

      Oil Rig count would be near 0, and all this expensive Equipment would rot somewhere ore even be discarded for scrap.

    • texas tea says:

      I enjoy reading Zero hedge, but you have to be very careful, they have been talking oil down the entire rally, missed the nat gas rally, they did the same thing as the stock market more than doubled. not to say this is wrong but not really sure it is right either.

      • jed says:

        Yeah I’m not sure I’d believe much ZH says on oil. The whole time production was declining last year they deliberately avoided posting production charts, the moment it started increasing up went the charts again, the moment the declines started again zip.

        They’ve started posting them again now it can’t be hidden any longer, but it was the same with Saudi Arabia. I don’t know how many times they’ve emphasized record SA production long after it peaked and declined. And let’s not forget how often Cushing was mere minutes from overflowing.

        You only have to read the comments in any oil post there to see it had the desired effect. “uh this is rigged, surely Cushing is flooding and the US is pumping 20 mbpd now”

        There were a few dissenting voices and I used to be one of them. I had 3 accounts banned there for pointing out actual figures and what’s been left out. Otherwise I was just an average boring user who at no other time posted nothing controversial or abusive.

  34. islandboy says:

    World’s First Electric Road (eHighway) For Electric Trucks Opens in Sweden

    Sweden has launched the world’s first electrified road – the eHighway, near the city of Gävle, which enables trucks to drive emission free on just electricity.

    The demonstration project utilizes a two-kilometer/1.25 mile strip of catenary (750 V DC) on the E16 motorway, developed by Siemens.

    Hopefully any systems that are developed will be flexible enough to make use of existing overhead power delivery systems that already exist is some cities. Wide compatibility would mean that the infrastructure to support this type of vehicle would already exist in some cities. Not so much of a leap of faith when looked at from that angle.

    • Oldfarmermac says:

      If oil had been very expensive and scarce, back at the beginning of the automotive age, we would probably have such trucks by the millions and such roads by the tens of thousands of miles.

      • Stilgar Wilcox says:

        Without cheap energy, how would those millions of trucks and tens of thousands of miles get paid for?

        • Oldfarmermac says:

          With coal providing the energy of course. My comment was about scarce and expensive OIL a century ago, hypothetically.

          Without coal, we would probably be a couple of centuries behind, in terms of industrial technologies.

          But with coal, even if there had never been a lot of cheap oil, progress would have continued from about 1900 onward, but not nearly as fast.

          • Nick G says:

            It seems to be hard to find data, but hydro appears to have been the primary source for electrical generation up to the post WWII period:


            • islandboy says:

              Interestingly, since you have brought up some history, one of the first hydroelectric plants built outside of North America in this hemisphere was built in Jamaica in 1898. Six years later, a hundred and twelve years ago a terrible accident happened at the facility that, was recounted by the following newspaper article:

              Pieces of the Past – Bog Walk Tube

              Today the Bog Walk Power Station stands closed. In the 1930s the tram car system was replaced by a bus system. The tram lines were uprooted and replaced with wider roads. Some lines, such as the one at Cross Roads, do still exist. The tramcars stopped running in 1948. As for the large pipe in which so many were drowned alive, only a shell remains, preserving the memory of the catastrophe on that June 24th morning.

              I find it fascinating that over a hundred years ago, the city I live in was served by what was then a state of the art public transport system, powered entirely by renewable energy! As stated in the above quote, the trams stopped running in 1948. The hydro plant ceased operations in 1966 but, a feasibility study has been done on replacing the hundred and eighteen year old dam with a modern facility.

        • Nick G says:

          Electricity is cheaper than oil.

          The average price of power in the US: 12 cents per kWh. At 3 miles per kWh, that’s 4 cents per mile.

          The average light vehicle in the US gets 22 MPG. At 4 cents per mile, it would need 88 cents per gallon to compete.

          • Hickory says:

            Hi NickG,
            I’m interested in learning more about the relative transport costs. Where does the 3 miles/kWh come from? Is that what the current electric cars on the market are achieving?
            In Calif, btw, residential electric rates are at about 25 cents/kWh. That is the actual cost to the user, and gas around here has been 2.50 to 3 dollars /gallon for the past 6 months (during this so-called glut).

            • Bob (not Nick) Nickson says:

              The Mercedes B class electric gets the worst mileage efficiency of current production electric cars at 40kWh/100 miles.

              The new 2016 Nissan Leaf with a 30kWh battery gets 30kWh/100mi.

              Interestingly, some Tesla Model S’ are actually more efficient than some Leafs.

              The Tesla SP90DL which will outrun a McLaren 650S in a 0-60mph sprint, still gets 34kWh/100mi.


              • Hickory says:

                I found a very good website for comparing vehicle fuel efficiency (including hybrids and electrics). It lets you plug in your own local electricity and fuel pricing, and it very comprehensive- US Dept of Energy

              • Ralph says:

                Fuel efficiency for electric vehicles is as variable as it is for ICEs. Low speed local travel in my Leaf returns 5miles/Kwh in ‘economy’ mode, with maximum regenerative braking. At 70MPH steady it returns about 3miles/KWh or less. As is only has about 22KWh usable energy at full charge, you spend longer recharging the vehicle than driving it at those speeds (even with a 50KW charging point).

            • Nick G says:

              Power prices vary widely. CA has high marginal prices for residential.

              Every utility must offer time of use pricing. They don’t advertise it – you must ask. It will get you cheap night time charging.

            • Ulenspiegel says:

              From a german perspective:

              A typical car with ICE consumes 7 liter of diesel per 100 km.
              1 liter diesel contains 10 kWh (thermal) energy.
              Or the car consumes around 1 kWh per 1.5 kilometer = 1 mile.

              As 2/3 of the energy is released as heat because the ICE is a Carnot cycle, one can estimate, that with 1 kWh electric energy a EV could drive around 3 miles.

  35. George Kaplan says:

    New estimate for reserves and resources from Rystad:

    The developed proved and probable is 655 Gb, which would equate to about 4.5% natural decay rate.

    There is supposed to be about 900 Gb undiscovered, which at last years rates would take about 300 years to find (and my guess is that if there is that much hydrocarbon it has a significant amount of gas).

    And there are 500 Gb discovered and undeveloped, I don’t follow that much but there is a country break down to check out, but the IOCs stopped development with prices at $110 per barrel so it’s probably going to cost more than $8 trillion to put that much on line.

  36. Survivalist says:

    Sorry if it’s a repost but here are a few good recent links

    And this article. Interesting point that Saudi Arabia will have a dilemma when they attempt to represent the interests of future shareholders in Saudi Aramco as well as be a cartel member and cooperate with OPEC interests.

    • Watcher says:

      The KSA sovereign wealth fund can be the buyer of the 5% of Saudi Aramco when it’s released to “the public”.

  37. Oldfarmermac says:

    We may be seeing some early indications of real trouble to come in the very political heart of Islam.

    It might not be too long before this sort of thing gets to be quite common in places that used to be safe.

    If the IS can get suicide bombers this close to sacred sites, it might be pretty easy for them to put a few bombs in trucks that will be entering the grounds of an oil terminal or other critical infrastructure.

    • Toolpush says:


      The story did not make sense, until I read the last line.

      The blast appeared to target a Shia mosque. The attacker was killed but no other casualties were reported.

      Strangely enough, IS don’t seem interested in destroying oil infrastructure. They are much happier killing infidels and Shiites. I suppose it is there form of natural selection.

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        It will get a LOT worse, in my opinion, before it will get better, because the oil revenues that have so far kept the locals in food and drink and (the local version) circuses will be running short within the easily foreseeable future.

        The royal family made a bargain with the devil, in the form of their clerics, by giving them a free hand and money to keep the peasants quiet and to export their product- religious fundamentalism. But that fundamentalism is growing from the bottom up, inside the country.

        The ruling class bought temporary peace and safety via the devil’s deal with the clerics. Now the clerics are thinking maybe they are powerful enough, or soon will be , to kick out the current rulers, and take over.

  38. islandboy says:

    Here’s a nice independence story as the 4th of July comes to a close:

    Sunshine Is The New Gasoline


    Julie and I completed our one year Driving to Net Zero energy challenge in May of 2015. (Article here) From the challenge we documented to the last kWh, the total miles and kWh’s used driving our two BMW i3’s for the year.

    Here is the cost (in the image below and here) of a solar PV system in San Diego California.

    For image, see original article.

    When you add the Driving to Net Zero Energy Challenge data to the cost of solar PV this chart is the result.

    For image, see original article.

    The purchase of a Solar PV system when used as transportation fuel, has a payoff of two years and an ROI of 50%. Simply take two years of gasoline cost and you arrive at the general cost of the solar PV system. It’s slightly higher than two years, however when Time Of Use Rates are factored in, it becomes slightly less than two years. Of course your results will vary depending on location and the type of EV you drive.

    Would love to hear the take of someone like Fernando on this, since it sounds almost too good to be true, except that it sounds pretty much like what wimbi has been saying all along. Even a guy that used to go by the handle “techsan” over at the old TOD used to say pretty much the same thing. The last sentence is the icing on the cake:

    Solar is getting less expensive, EV’s are getting better and less expensive, Range is going up across all models with 200 miles of range as a new standard. our homes are becoming our gas stations, our cost of fuel is getting lower.

    • HuntingtonBeach says:

      Hi Island,

      Thanks for the link. I have felt for a long time that SoCal is the perfect petri dish for EV’s. Most live in the LA basin or along the coast which is mostly flat, mild temperature and lots of sun.

      I read a lot of posts here from the naysayers trapped in their bubble and think they need to see the rest of the world. Solar panels on homes and EV’s are now the every day norm.

      Our economy is booming – check the “Scoreboard, bitches.” Enjoy the link

      but there is an old saying: “So goes California, so goes the Nation.”

  39. R Walter says:

    The final chapter for wind power has been written, the hand writing on the wall has yet to be read.

    In August 2014, power generation there almost came to a complete stall because of the rains. On some of the worst days, only 2 MW was generated from 5,300 windmills, each of which needs about half an acre of land, with the complete wind farm occupying more than 2,650 acres previously used for agriculture.

    While one can argue in favor of the little electricity these windmills produce, it remains to be seen how much loss has been incurred from their use of farm land, installation, and connectivity costs—and, of course, the costs of frequent disruptions from rain.

    The locals, though, are seldom impressed by the little power these windmills generate. They view them as a burden and prefer the reliable thermal and nuclear power in the state.

    Reflecting this sentiment, and to meet growing energy demand, the Indian government recently approved installation of a 1600 MW coal-based thermal power plant in Tamil Nadu at an estimated initial cost of $8.4 Billion. Unlike the windmills, projects like these will bring respite to factory owners and small industrial entrepreneurs who have been heavily impacted in the past decade because of energy deficiency.

    The landscape in Udumalpet is dominated by windmills, the darlings of environmentalists around the world, but its agricultural fields, homes, and businesses depend on affordable and abundant thermal power.

    Vijay Jayaraj (M.S., Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, England), Research Associate for Developing Countries for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, lives in Udumalpet, India.)

    Chalk one up for coal, the capacity it offers for reliable electricity generation and the power it can deliver. You just can’t beat it. 5300 wind turbines cannot do the job of one coal-fired power plant.

    You have to go with what works.

    • Strummer says:

      Depends on the location I guess… these are the ones I can see from my window, and they seem to work pretty well:

    • Greenbub says:

      “Persian scholar Rāzi (or Rhazes) was the first to distill kerosene in the 9th century”

      Kerosene worked real good for a time. Still use 1.2 million barrels a day. 1.2 million barrels a day divided by 365 R.Walter posts a year = ?

      • GoneFishing says:

        Ahh, the good ole days of walking through the woods to the lake, carrying a kerosene lantern at night to go catfishing. Didn’t give off much light, enough to not trip in the dark but not enough to see the bears at a distance like I do now with my LED headlamp. That’s what the dog was for.

    • Oldfarmermac says:

      The idea is to cut back as far as possible on coal, with the possibility of getting rid of it altogether at some future time.

      Have you ever SEEN the mess coal has made out of the land and the lives of my neighbors in West Virginia?

      It’s bad enough that it has made many a strong man cry.

      Of course wind needs back up.

      As far as farm land goes, I am willing to bet my own, knowing how things are done in backward places, that within one generation, that coal plant will indirectly result – by way of mining coal to feed it- ruin that much and more, as well as poisoning streams and wells for many miles around.

      And of course there are businessmen and politicians who will for reasons of their own build wind farms in places where they know goddamned well there will be near zero production at times.

      The same situation applies to the tight oil industry. The people RUNNING IT have been making out like bandits, in terms of salaries, bonuses, and bennies, at the expense of the people who are dumb enough to OWN it, or loan money to it.

      Having said this much, I would want the coal fired plant too, rather than be without power sometimes. India is entering the modern economic era, in terms of energy.

      She will run out of affordable coal within the easily foreseeable future, especially if the consumption rate continues to grow like a weed.

      But India will never run out of wind, except for a day now and then.

      Every kilowatt hour sourced from a wind farm is a kilowatt hour in the bank for another day , in the form of coal not yet mined and burnt.

    • GoneFishing says:

      Very funny. Wind power started in the 1980’s in India and they now get about 9 percent of their electric power from it, which is pretty good since there is a windy season and non-windy season in India because of the monsoons.
      The biggest operating wind turbines are now 8 MW. New flexible blade ones are in the works that will be on the order of 50 MW or more.
      The two coal power plants near me put out no power at all, 365 days per year, 24 hours a day. One is now flat and the other just sits there, cold for years. They took the coal pile away. The flat one was bad, poisoned a national scenic river for many miles, so they knocked it flat. It produces no power now. Even when they are working, it’s only half the time and fills the lungs with toxic crud, the land with toxic residue.
      There is nothing growing around the coal plants, a wasteland. I notice that lots of things grow around wind towers, producing oxygen, stopping soil erosion, providing food and habitat, nice.

      Tilting at windmills on a horse named Trumpster.

      Pennsylvania’s last anthracite coal breaker coming down
      “The site might one day give birth to something more productive. Not far away, the company that owns St. Nicholas transformed a defunct mining operation into a successful shopping center.”

      Here are some monuments to coal, dead and gone now.

      The river went down into the mines. Bad engineering brought the mines too close to the Susquehanna river bottom. Mines were linked together for 30 miles. Twelve men died, more escaped. Was near the end of mining in the region. Acid still pouring out into the river.

    • Bob Nickson says:

      It’s impossible to know when to take anything written by haR Walter seriously.

      But it’s indisputable that nothing renders farmland useless like planting a turbine.

      Or that coal power is cheap power:

      6.4G$ for a 582MW plant. Nearly $11/watt for plant cost (so far), and not yet firing. Investors are sure to be lining up for the next one.

    • wimbi says:

      Works real good to ruin the biosphere. The very best there is. Rahrah

  40. GoneFishing says:

    Here is a photo of a “clean coal” power plant in Pennsylvania. It never is running when I am there and only a few people seem to be there, maybe security.

  41. Caelan MacIntyre says:

    KunstlerCast 278 — Alice Friedemann — When the Trucks Stop Running

    Appreciate what you have while you still have it, ‘suggests’ Alice. 🍸

  42. Watcher says:

    Article splashed. Rystad says the US has more oil reserves than Russia or KSA.

  43. Survivalist says:

    Kemp on Saudi reserves

    I think that the future is greatly determined by what happens to Saudi oil production. I’m not an optimist.

  44. learner2 says:

    WTH is going on with WTI today? Down more than 5% !!

    • Greenbub says:

      Cushing showed a build, gasoline inventories are piling up? I am starting to wonder if there is any relationship at all between the production and inventories of oil.

  45. Oldfarmermac says:

    Sometimes it is possible to make a buck selling a waste product. I once worked for a construction company that out competed every body else locally on excavation jobs because they had a wizard of a salesman who virtually always had a customer for the excess soil removed, so that hauling it away brought IN money rather than costing money.

    Now this is a long shot, for sure, but it does seem possible that there might eventually be enough surplus wind and solar electricity at off peak hours to run an industry electrolyzing water for the free hydrogen, which just might be in very high demand, if fuel cells get to be cheap enough. So far as I know, there wouldn’t be enough demand for the oxygen for it to sell for very much , but supposing…..

    If it were used to burn coal, the exhaust stream would be nearly pure co2 which is useful for goosing oil fields. THIS co2 wouldn’t have to be separated from the predominant N2 in the exhaust of a normally aspirated burner. This would save some money on the separation, and also get more usable heat out of the coal, and the co2 is apparently worth some money, in large quantities.

    Has anybody run any estimates on schemes of this sort? Is there any real chance that H2 will someday be cheaper via electrolysis than by sourcing it from methane? How high would natural gas have to go to make electrolysis competitive with dirt cheap off peak wind and solar electricity?

    And why is CO2 the preferred gas to inject into oil fields, in laymen’s terms? I am guessing it acts as a solvent to help free up oil , whereas N2 is pretty much inert under the relevant conditions.

    Other than in the metal working industries, are there any major industrial markets for pure O2?

    Could it be profitably used directly in fuel cells along with the hydrogen? This might actually make fuel cells cheaper, overall, to build and run, compared to sourcing oxygen from the ambient air.

    Thanks in advance for any replies.!

    We don’t hear a lot about fuel cells these days, but sfaik , there are some major companies putting a LOT of money into fuel cell development, and one of them may figure out a way to make them a LOT cheaper.

    • Nick G says:

      Very cheap H2 is very, very likely.

      The US has about 1,200 GW of generating capacity. That’s about 2.5x as large as the average demand. That’s overbuilding, and it’s a very cost effective method of dealing with intermittency/backup, as well as peak demand. It’s very likely to be a primary tactic for handling wind/solar variation in output, which means that 90% of the time the grid would be flooded by essentially free electricity.

      The primary cost of electrolyzed H2 is the power input. If the power input is very cheap, then electrolytic H2 will definitely be cheaper than NG derived H2.

      BTW, fuel cells aren’t needed to generate power from H2 – cheap ICEs will do the job. ICE’s aren’t as efficient, but for some things cheap is far more important than efficient. That’s the case for rarely used backup power, like that one week in December with low wind and sunlight.

      And, expensive H2 storage isn’t needed, just very cheap underground storage. It’s already being done – see Wikipedia.

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        Agreed, IC engines will run on H2 just fine, but they will run just as well on methane, and methane or natural gas will almost for sure be cheaper and more readily available for the easily foreseeable future.

        I don’t know much about fuel cells, but it seems obvious that using H2 to run cars and trucks , if fuel cells get to be cheap enough, would be a better use for any H2 available. Having pure H2 as the fuel would simplify the fuel cell, making it cheaper to build and more reliable as well.
        And while batteries are not likely to be good enough to run heavy commercial trucks, farm machinery, construction machinery, etc, any time soon if ever, fuel cells can be easily scaled up, and hydrogen tanks would be infinitely easier and cheaper to swap out than batteries.

        I don’t personally see battery swapping being a viable undertaking, since batteries are so big, heavy, and expensive. And on the farm, they will never work even if we COULD swap them out, unless we build up the rural grid to industrial park standards. Most farms, even big ones , don’t have three phase power, or service at more than 240 volts.

        That’s nowhere near enough, especially when lots of farmers would be trying to charge several large batteries each, all at the same time. The existing lines would overload in a flash if every body out in farm country tried to pull even fifty EXTRA kilowatts simultaneously.

        This is not to say farmers can’t make good use of wind and solar power.

        But we need a LOT of horsepower, more or less continuously, during our busy seasons. Building the farm country grid up sufficiently to supply it for only two or three months out of the year would be damned expensive.

        • Nick G says:

          methane or natural gas will almost for sure be cheaper and more readily available for the easily foreseeable future.

          Yes, I imagine for the next several decades that will be true. Everyone gets fixated on how to manage a 100% renewable grid, but it’s a few decades away for places like the US. We have time to worry about that later…

    • Bob Nickson says:

      We could use it for weight training:

      or ice:

      Probably crazy, but could you use electric resistance heat to store excess power production in molten salt?

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        There are tens of millions of houses in this country with plenty of little used space where it would be feasible to install an ice storage system for cooling, and such a system could be tied into existing duct work and heat pumps. You wouldn’t need a new outside unit, the existing compressor could be used to freeze the ice.

        And running heating cables in a large container filled with gravel would be a piece of cake, technically. You could heat gravel up to several hundred degrees, so long as you pay attention to the usual fire safety rules.

        Bottom line, there ARE ways to effectively store a hell of a lot of intermittent renewably generated electricity.

        I just recently read about somebody determined to get by with the least possible amount of purchased juice running a home freezer on solar power to freeze gallon milk jugs filled with water. They put a couple of these in their conventional refrigerator,once a day, one that does not automatically run to defrost, and it hardly ever turns on. They keep some frozen food in the freezer, as well as the ice jugs. If the sun refuses to cooperate for more than three days, they plug the freezer into the house wiring, which is grid fed.

        I know a guy who is experimenting with using the batteries that come with portable power tools,a bunch of them hooked up in parallel, to run an electric bike. They are not real cheap, but they do have fairly long warranties, lol.

        Half a dozen of them fitted snugly together in a plastic box gets him to the nearest store and back,at five to ten mph, with plenty of charge to spare.

        He’s using a drill motor. All he did to make it work gearing wise was put a very large chain sprocket on the existing rear wheel, and weld a a very small sprocket to the drill chuck. It will free wheel if he releases the throttle. He did away with the chain to the pedals. It only goes about seven or eight mph on level ground but she will do fifteen or twenty coasting down hill. Five mph back up the same hill.

        He robbed the connectors off six old bad drill motors to make it easy to hook up the batteries. These are permanently soldered together in parallel, with some slack, so as to feed the motor, and this makes it easy to remove the batteries and plug them individually into the usual charger.

        So far his biggest problem is that side loading the drill motor causes the bearing in the chuck end to fail pretty quick, but battery operated drill motors are two bucks or three bucks apiece at flea markets. People buy new ones when the batteries go bad.

        He has no driver’s license, but so far the local cops haven’t said anything about his electric bicycle. They may not even realize it’s electric.

        Wimbi would be proud of him, lol.

        Not counting his time, he has very serviceable plain jane electric bike for only little over five hundred bucks, which is what the six new batteries cost him.

        • clueless says:

          “Not counting his time”
          OFM, just for kicks, why don’t we count his time. Count ALL of his time, including travel time etc. to find connectors from six old “bad” drill motors. Then put an estimate of a living wage that he would have been entitled to with his skill set [learned formally or informally] and cost that out. Include a return on any investment a beginner would have needed to make in order to have the equipment necessary to accomplish the task. Also, include the depreciation on transportation (a car?) that he would have needed in order to round everything up at flea markets, etc. Then add in a profit motive for someone like him to spend the rest of his life doing that.
          I would then be curious to what that total amount looks like compared to the cost of buying a new electric bike that goes 7 mph (5 mph uphill), delivered to your front door in 2 days, free of charge from Amazon Prime, with no sales tax.

      • Probably crazy, but could you use electric resistance heat to store excess power production in molten salt?

        No, not very efficiently anyway. You could probably recover one percent or less of the electricity you put into such a scheme.

  46. wimbi says:

    We need a new branch of econ. Strategy for oversupply of a good. There are quite a few days when myPV is pouring far more juice my way than I can handle with my low household/car load. So, I have 4 times as much as is needed even if used wastefully overheating my hot water supply. What’s best after all that?

    at the moment, I use it to heat my warm ground source (big cistern), and do those energy intense things I have deferred to that purpose. And of course, I could ship it back to the grid.

    For the whole town, could defer water tank fill and of course, fill any battery in cars or elsewhere.

    And, could use the extra juice to pyrolyse more fuel, filling the gas bag and the carbon pile.

    • Nick G says:

      California is developing a system to let people with EVs or PV sell their power back to the grid.

      • texas tea says:

        Three fossil fuels—petroleum, natural gas, and coal—have provided more than 80% of total U.S. energy consumption for more than 100 years. In 2015, fossil fuels made up 81.5% of total U.S. energy consumption, the lowest fossil fuel share in the past century. In EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2016 Reference case projections, which reflect current laws and policies, that percentage declines to 76.6% by 2040. Policy changes or technology breakthroughs that go beyond the trend improvements included in the Reference case could significantly change that projection.

        Now let’s just let that sink in, under current law and with all the hubbub regarding how “far” we have come, with all the hype and speeches over the next 24 freakin years, fossil fuels will still be 76.6% of US energy consumption. Good god I feel sad for you guys😢Now that is just US energy consumption, never mind the rest of the world and those countries who don’t print digital money hand over fist to promote such boondoggles🐤

        • Nick G says:

          Don’t be silly. It’s perfectly clear that EIA projections for fossils vs renewables aren’t worth the electrons they’re painted with. It’s easy to show that EIA projections have been remarkably, and consistently, inaccurate.

          I know it’s very, very, very hard to believe, when you’ve made a living with fossil fuels for decades, but…it’s obsolete. Dead industry walking. It’s Wiley E. Coyote, hanging over the cliff floor.

          It’s a Kodak moment.

          • texas tea says:

            you keep telling your self that, pick up a bottle of good whiskey or Colorado sweet weed and sit back and watch🌲

        • Fred Magyar says:

          In EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2016 Reference case projections, which reflect current laws and policies, that percentage declines to 76.6% by 2040. Policy changes or technology breakthroughs that go beyond the trend improvements included in the Reference case could significantly change that projection.

          First of all, based on what I have seen from past long term EIA projections, their track record, ain’t exactly what I would characterize as stellar. I wouldn’t put much faith in their predictions out to the year 2020, let alone the year 2040!

          Why Energy Forecasting Goes Wildly Wrong

          US Energy Information Administration (EIA)

          The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) is no better or worse in its forecasts than other organizations, but it serves as a prime example of the dubiousness of energy forecasting. A focus on the EIA’s 2005 long-term energy market for The EIA’s forecasts for year 2013 in its Annual Energy Outlook of 2005 were off by staggering margins in many cases. The forecasts are for every five years (2010, 2015, 2020, 2025, et al) but it’s easy enough to interpolate for an intermediary year, such as 2013. The International Energy Agency and other forecasting governmental institutions and companies faced similar problems (e.g., nobody was predicting the oil price spikes of the 1970s, the oil glut and price collapse of 1985-1986, or the price spike again in 2008) suggesting general problems with forecasting.

          Second, given that we are currently living in some very interesting times where disruption seems to be everywhere, even if their projections had always been on the money in the past, it would still be wise to remember the old adage, “that past results are no guarantee of future performance”.

          Last but certainly not least, the part of the text that I bolded, might be construed as the EIA hedging its bets and that policy changes and technology breakthroughs that would significantly impact the use of fossil fuels in such a way that they would create a much greater reduction in fossil fuel use by 2040 than they are currently predicting.

          In any case, I’m waiting until the Fat Lady sings!

          Edit: looks like Nick beat me to it 🙂

          • texas tea says:

            could not say it any better myself:
            Americans deservedly take pride in our ability to tackle and surmount the most daunting technical challenges: the Manhattan Project, the Apollo Program, the Hoover Dam, the interstate highway system. These are among the engineering bold strokes we point to as evidence that anything is possible with the right application of American ingenuity and persistence.

            Maybe you noticed that missing from this list is the federal government’s 40-year effort to make “renewable energy” mainstream and market ready. Why? Because when objectively weighed against many other U.S. achievements, this has been a costly and frustrating flop in which massive federal expenditures, over an extended period of time, have resulted in laughably meager results.

            • Oldfarmermac says:

              Hi TT,

              The average cost of wind and solar generated electricity appears to be falling by about half every five years or so.

              The average cost of large rechargeable batteries suitable for use in automobiles is falling at a similar rate.

              I am sort of proud of American workers myself, having been in the course of my rolling stone life a farmer, teacher, builder, commercial trucker, certified welder,factory hand,mechanic, and dabbler in various small businesses.

              But I note that German workers somehow manage to install pv systems turnkey for about half what we do here. It doesn’t do to get too comfortable with the idea we are always the best, cause it just ain’t so.

              Times are changing, and in five to ten years, most people will have gotten comfortable with the idea of buying a battery powered car. It won’t take much longer than that for everybody to realize that installing a pv system is a no brainer when they build a new house, if they live in a sunny part of the world.

              As a matter of fact, the ONLY reason I have not put in five to ten kilowatts worth of pv on my place is that the price of it is coming down so fast that delaying the purchase is a no brainer.

              Ditto buying an electric car. I don’t drive much anymore , and I expect electrics to be FAR more affordable in a few years.

              What are you going to say about wind and solar generated electricity five or six years from now, when new wind and solar farms are generating juice cheaper than coal and gas, in simple dollars and cent terms, and battery driven electric cars are SUBSTANTIALLY cheaper to buy and own and drive than comparable conventional cars?

              ( Without the current subsidies, Nick. )

              Do you actually believe that there is enough oil in the ground, that can be gotten out, delivered to refineries and sold, at prices which will allow the use of oil to grow for two or three more decades?

              The only reason I didn’t go to Alaska to work on the pipeline is that I had a hot young blossom wife who said she might wait for me to come back, and she might not.

              Production up that way is off about eighty percent. What does THAT suggest to you ?

              • GoneFishing says:

                Old Farmer said” But I note that German workers somehow manage to install pv systems turnkey for about half what we do here. It doesn’t do to get too comfortable with the idea we are always the best, cause it just ain’t so. ”

                I think the problem is greedy middlemen and contractors. A problem endemic throughout our society.
                Add to that the portion the local governments want and the cost savings are gone.
                I know the farmers are not getting much for food, but by the time it gets to me it’s quite expensive.

                • clueless says:

                  “I think the problem is greedy middlemen and contractors. A problem endemic throughout our society.”
                  That is why it is so easy to get rich in the US. It takes no intelligence at all to purchase shares of stock in the greedy middlemen and contractor companies that are making all of the money. Then just sit back and watch their stock prices soar and try to find inventive ways to spend all of your dividend income.
                  But, with all of the competition it seems as if it is really HARD to do that. Only a few succeed at doing that, and some commentators here call the successful ones lucky – since stocks are a gigantic Ponzi scheme. Maybe the greedy middlemen and contractors are not making all of the money.
                  Most people do not have a clue about economics.

                  • Longtimber says:

                    Not much margin in the PV Install business. much cost in Nonsense. We have to have a Mech PE do a system wind loading design. PV is Cladding in the IBC. International Building Code. Like a Shutter. PV Modules now are so cheap, the are most always mounted parallel to the roof, NO real wind load. They do not blow off in a hurricane. Making sure penetrations are flashed is critical and requires know-how. Every roof type has a unique system. When done right it will never leak. In a storm, you are glad they help protect your house from flying objects. Can be replaced in minutes. In the Summer they Block IR and can Dramatically increase comfort. There is an extra expense to re-roof.

                • clueless says:

                  Also, a lot of times you can cut out the middlemen if you want to.
                  In the early 50’s in Aberdeen, SD, farming country, my dad managed the JC Penney store. He knew a lot of farmers in the area. So dad and my 2 brothers would go out to a farm [pre major super market days] with a bunch of burlap bags (used for 100 lbs of potatoes). The farmer used a tree stump chopping block and would cut the heads off of like 60 – 80 chickens. Our job was to run them down, drain out the blood and throw them into the burlap bags. Mother was home boiling water.
                  We tossed them into hot water (made getting feathers off easier), gutted them, packaged them up (insides separately, gizzard, liver, heart – delicacies for us boys) and put them into the freezer for the winter. We also bought corn on the cob direct from farmers.
                  I always felt sorry for the farmers who had to pay income tax on the cash dad gave them. LOL

              • Nick G says:

                battery driven electric cars are SUBSTANTIALLY cheaper to buy and own and drive than comparable conventional cars?

                They already are, without subsidies. A Nissan Leaf is as cheap as a Nissan Versa even with unusually cheap oil, and a Leaf has much better acceleration and performance. A Chevy Volt has much better performance than a Cruze. A Tesla has performance comparable to half million dollar cars.

                So, if you match up EVs with comparable cars, they’re substantially cheaper to buy, own and drive. If you increase the cost of ICEs to account for their hidden subsidies (p0llution, security of supply, etc.), then EVs are much, much cheaper.

            • Longtimber says:

              #1 Energy Story of your Lifetime – Decline of Conventional OIl.
              #2 PV by the Pallet you can buy for under $1 per watt.
              Incentives -Indeed – Customer spends 5 figures on a System and are forbidden to switch on for weeks or even months until the Utility and Code Enforcement approves the Fu#@$%# paperwork. We shall not Forget Clinton’s anti Million Solar Roofs. The Foundation took millions from Utilities.. opps.

              Worth Posting from From Art’s Interview Above:

              “Conventional oil is declining: it’s in terminal decline. Nobody is investing in conventional oil projects that move the needle in terms of global supply. Not reserves that really matter. All of the investment that is going on today is in expensive oil.

              What we are going to have — and I don’t want to create any sort of sensationalistic fears or anything, but I’ve got to tell the truth — the truth is that we are going to see an absolute moon-shot in terms of oil prices sometime sooner than later, I think — let’s just say in the next five years. And I shudder to imagine the devastating impact that will have on the global economy. It’s going to be paralyzing.”

  47. texas tea says:

    For the oil fossils still cranking out a living keeping our country moving:

    • Nick G says:

      t we are going to see an absolute moon-shot in terms of oil prices sometime sooner than later

      Makes it clear that oil isn’t a very reliable source of energy.

      Better to invest in domestic sources of energy with declining prices.

      • texas tea says:

        Such idiocy is not even worthy of a reply👎

        • Nick G says:

          Well, sure, when you’re a producer. If the price skyrockets, you’re in good shape.

          It’s the consumers who should run, run as fast as they can, away from such a risky, unreliable product.

  48. R Walter says:

    95 percent of the world’s population resides outside the US and yet uses 75 percent of the world’s energy when they really should be cutting back 5 percent right now and use 70 percent with five percent left over for the other five percent of the world’s population that resides inside of the US. The Rest Of The World should really have a heart and show some compassion for those deprived Americans, they’re all brainwashed, the poor saps. har

    I will remind everyone that the world’s human inhabitants consumed twenty million tonnes of coal and ten million tonnes of oil all in one day and that day occurred today, it will happen again tomorrow. Without it, we’re toast. How can you get to Antarctica in the middle of the winter without some oil products? Build a sailboat and hope it makes it in and back out? Not a chance. In the post-modern world, a trip to Antarctica requires oil.

    Hells Bells, a trip to the gas station requires gas, if you’re out, you ain’t getting there.

    Too much Kool-aid being consumed up there in the rarefied air up there in the outer atmosphere. People think that pigs can fly. It’s somethun.

    Americans haven’t a clue these days of how lucky they really are.

    • 95 percent of the world’s population resides outside the US and yet uses 75 percent of the world’s energy…

      Well no, it’s 82 percent. Exaggeration, in this case, is just hyperbole.

      What is the United States’ share of world energy consumption?

      In 2013, world total primary energy consumption was about 543 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu), and U.S. primary consumption was about 97 quadrillion Btu, equal to 18% of world total primary energy consumption.

      And the US is eleventh in order of per capita energy consumption, or was in 2003.

      List of countries by energy consumption per capita

       photo Per Capita Energy Use_zpsln06vdaq.jpg

      • Fred Magyar says:

        Yeah, but doesn’t Iceland get most of it’s energy from sources like Eyjafjallajökull? 🙂

        • Frugal says:

          You should see the gas-guzzlers that Icelander’s drive — even bigger vehicles than what you see in the US.

          On the other hand, almost all of their electricity is from renewable sources, mostly hydro but also some geothermal. A large proportion of Iceland’s electricity is used in aluminium smelters. Even with the smelters, I think they can produce significantly more electricity than they use. The lack of an undersea power line prevents them from exporting electricity.

  49. GoneFishing says:

    I agree RW, many Americans are very lucky and many do not fully appreciate it. The 47 million in poverty are not that lucky and the homeless even less so. Maybe we should work on that.

  50. shallow sand says:

    Not than many here care, but for SEC purposes, the reference price for WTI is about $39. Last year was $50.

    Most LTO companies have declining production. Currently appears WTI will not break above $50 anytime soon.

    Still many months away, but likely that US E & P LTO will have 8 straight quarters of losses, and will end the year with more long term debt than PV10.

    • Longtimber says:

      But .. Forget not the US is #1 in Oil City ! Headlines say so.
      All the Talk at the Barber Shop – more wells than anyone. Run out and buy a F250
      and another poodle to ride in the bed.

      • GoneFishing says:

        Do you know if these numbers include the oil shale (kerogen) estimates as oil?

        • Longtimber says:

          Great Q. Includes peak peat bogs? Rystad should have a Breakout … somewhere. The report is headlines everywhere. Seems an act of desperation and likely cause both consumers and investors a field of pain. Who said “Oil Shales -Where money goes to DIE”

          • GoneFishing says:

            I just looked at the Rystad press release and it’s estimate for US proven is 29 billion barrels. 2P is 40 billion barrels. 3P is 109 and WildGuessP is 264 billion barrels.


            Even at 40 billion barrels that is only a decade at this rate of production, especially since much of it will not be produced.
            With descent of production it might be 20 to 30 years, but at much lower production rates.
            Of course there is always the undiscovered amounts, that might add a few years.
            So with current knowledge and not wandering into the highly improbable, we might have a decade of oil left to get the next set of energy sources developed. Or not. The military might start sequestering oil field production in the near future. Also, fuel will be allocated for agriculture, police and emergency vehicles, leaving not a lot for the rest of us.

          • Longtimber says:

            Cut the Pie into 3 pieces…
            “Rystad estimates total global oil reserves at 2,092 billion barrels, or 70 times the current production rate of about 30 billion barrels of crude oil per year. Unconventional oil recovery accounts for 30 percent of the global recoverable oil reserves, and offshore 33 percent. ”

            Now cut the pie in 2 pieces. A nibble slice for m Seven Sisters.
            “The seven major oil companies — BP, Exxon, Chevron, ENI, Total, Shell and ConocoPhillips — hold less than 10 percent of the total, Rystad said. ”

      • shallow sand says:

        I think this one tops EOG’s “we will compete at $30 WTI with Gulf OPEC!” which I note was soon pulled when a few of us cranky old farts pointed out that, using their own 2015 SEC 10K, at $30 WTI, EOG would have ZERO future cash flows.

        What a load of bull.

    • Toolpush says:


      Not too many people may reply to your posts, but many people read and take notice of them. So keep up the hunt.

      Have you seen any evidence of reduced booked reserves due to the lower SEC price?

      • shallow sand says:

        Toolpush. We will see what second quarter 10Q bring. I assume more losses.

        As I tried to get people to take notice of, but no one did, in order to have the PV10 they reported in 2015, LTO drastically cut estimates of future production costs and future development costs. While not cutting proved reserves all that much.

        Some of this was warranted, some of it not. I compared the cuts to XOM, who had a slightly lower percentage of write down of proved reserves, than it had reduced future production and development costs.

        CLR was the bell weather. 60% reduction in future production costs, only 9% reduction in proved reserves, year over year. It is magical.

        Just another big (I think huge) story that no one bothers to notice. Oh well.

        These guys are kicking ass at $50 WTI (which has not occurred since 7/15 BTW) and if you do not believe it, just ask an investment banker in New York or London. He/she will explain how it works.

    • Mike says:

      Shallow, I care. I think you are correct, however, there is only about 4-5 people that post here regularly that GET your analyses, and the ramifications thereof; the rest have their non-oil agendas. I think you should move your cattle to another pasture. I’ll open the gate for you.


      • shallow sand says:

        Mike: There are still enough here to make it worthwhile.

        Maybe I can stir up the rest.

        What the heck is going on with Elon Musk and Telsa????????

        I complain about the loss making LTO management still getting the big paycheck’s, but does not appear they can hold a candle to Mr. Musk.

        Mike: That post should get some comments. LOL!!

        (BTW: I read Oilpro daily)

        • Hickory says:

          Shallow Sand- there are likely many readers who very much read and appreciate your postings (like me for example), but do not reply because your area of expertise and knowledge is beyond them and any comment they may have would generally be irrelevant. Or perhaps more importantly they just agree.
          I tend to reply to a post when someone makes a comment that is seemingly half crazy to me. If it seems fully crazy I just tend to shake my head and remain quiet.
          And if I see wisdom or insight, I generally just quietly nod my head and try to digest it.
          Like many who read stuff here who have never had petrol products on their hands (other than gas as the pump or maybe vaseline) I say thanks for all the comments and analysis from guys who work in the industry.
          Most of us readers get how critical the petrol supply is to our every minute- and that is why we come here to this site.

        • Watcher says:

          The fundamental problem is Tesla loses money. Not profitable using GAAP.

          The crash occurred early May. They issued a 10Q in late March saying as a generic warning “we have cutting edge technology and should there be any potential lawsuit derived from some failure of that technology, the company could be at material risk in litigation.”

          And again the crash occurred in early May. They lose money. They had to do a “secondary” offering (issuing more stock to the public) to raise cash to keep the company going just that little bit longer . . . until they become a huge moneymaker.

          They notified the govt of the crash being possibly associated with their leading edge tech autopilot. They did so 3 days before their secondary, but the public was never told and the offering was brought forth and bought by the public.

          The excuse being floated now . . . “it was not material to the company’s prospects.” That’s contrary to their own March filing.

          They are in big trouble. All questions being posed to them about this are being met with claims that car deaths are going to plummet because of their magic. When asked why the matter was not material, the reply is . . . this technology is going to save millions of lives.

      • Doug Leighton says:

        Please count me among the 4-5. Hell, I wouldn’t be here without you and SS.

        • shallow sand says:

          Doug. Thanks!

        • Mike says:

          Roger that, Doug. I invited him, that’s all I can do.

          Shallow, Elon Musk and Telsa, never heard of ’em. They must be gas fields in Turkmenistan; I don’t have any wells in Turkmenistan, sorry.

        • Mike says:

          Copy that, Doug. Anyway, I invited him, that’s all I can do. Y’all pay attention to what he has to say.

          Shallow, Elon Musk and Telsa; never heard of ’em. Are they gas fields in Turkmenistan? Sorry, I don’t have any wells in Turkmenistan. If the economics of those wells over there are worse than STACK wells, shut ’em in.

          • John S says:

            Shallow & Mike

            I’m here for your comments & analysis. Also Ron , Dennis’ & Enno’s posts. There are others who I don’t agree with but I want to see what they have to say.

            Another benefit is the occasional link to another article or blog that I wouldn’t have found myself. There is valuable information to be found here but you have to sift a lot of material to get it.

          • Caelan MacIntyre says:

            “Elon Musk and Telsa; never heard of ’em. Are they gas fields in Turkmenistan?” ~ Mike

            Get with it, Mike: They are disruptive technology.

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          Hi shallow sand,

          I agree with your analysis, what the LTO companies have been doing does not make much sense to me, at some point banks and investors will stop lending them money and they will go belly up. Hopefully better companies will pick up the assets that are worth something and development will proceed in the proper way (wells financed with cash flow). This will not happen at less than $75/b in 2016$ in my view (it actually might be higher than this maybe $80 or $85/b).

          At some point supply decreases and oil prices increase, I do not know the date, and Mike is keeping it a secret. 🙂

          • Mike says:

            Dennis, low oil prices serve two purposes at the moment : they are disruptive to “disruptive technology,” and very disruptive to the LTO industry; so we’re trying to kill two birds with one rock right now. Then, on October 30, 2018, when oil prices get back to $85.13, briefly, I can sell all my production, buy an EV, and move to Maine. Are the black flies bad this summer?

            • Synapsid says:


              Wrong question. The correct question is “Are there black flies there?” If the answer is Yes, then you don’t go there at all, let alone think of moving there.

              • Mike says:

                Oh, I KNOW there are black flies there, the nasty buggars. I was just wandering how bad they were, if maybe climate change, or something, had wiped them out. Now that you mention it, maybe Maine is not such a good idea after all.

              • Dennis Coyne says:

                If you are in the deep woods they can be bad, most places where people live (towns and cities bigger than 1000 people) they are only bad for a couple of weeks out of the year.

                They are not much fun on fishing trips in May, but the fish luv them so the fishing is good.

            • Dennis Coyne says:

              Hi Mike,

              No not bad at all, have you ever been up this way.

              Let me know if you are ever in the neighborhood. Not a lot of oil here, but a good place to beat the heat in summer (about 60 F today with clouds and rain, but 85F with a nice breeze on the sunny days.

              That’s funny on the price prediction, my guess is that even you don’t know the future price of oil in Oct 2018, but your guess would definitely be better than my WAGs. 🙂

      • Longtimber says:

        We must eat. It’s ALL about ROI … and sometimes … Energy and Our Future.

    • islandboy says:

      “Not than many here care”

      My dear friend. methinks you misunderstand the dynamics of some of the conversation that happen here! I will speak for myself. As a resident of an island that got some 93% of it’s electricity from imported petroleum products a couple years back (limited bandwidth at the moment prevents me from digging up the source), I care very, very much about the analyses that you and the other “hands on” oil guys do around here. Although high oil prices wreak havoc on the economy of the island I call home and are especially hard on the many desperately poor people I share it with, I am not a fan of low oil prices.

      I believe in near term Peak Oil. Who knows? Ron may well be right with his call for the peak in 2015. It is not as Dubya said that “America is addicted to oil”, it’s that most of the world is addicted to oil and you can’t get a junkie to kick his habit by making his fix cheap. In 2008 I was literally in a state of panic, thinking we had come to TEOTWAWKI (old TOD hands will know what that means) and that all the mayhem that had been predicted in the Peak Oil documentaries I had watched, would shortly come to pass. Turns out 2008 was a bit of a false alarm where Peak Oil is concerned since, the shale oil guys came alone and threw themselves (or more like their investors) in front of the bullet for the rest of us and bought the world some time.

      From my perspective that time that was bought has allowed the possibility of another future to emerge in that, solar power has grown by a factor of more than a hundred and wind has grown as well. Electric cars returned to the market in 2010 and this time it looks like they are here to stay, with decent advances in battery cost/performance since 2008. The advances in batteries and electric propulsion have even started to extend their use to light aviation, with stories of battery electric, single seater planes that, can fly for about a hour, crossing the English Channel. LED lighting is becoming mainstream other energy saving technology is gaining steam.

      I know Ron disagrees but, IMO there is now a race on between depletion and substitution. While you guys focus on production and depletion, the supply side, I focus on alternatives and substitution, the demand side. I’m holding my breath, waiting to exhale!

      There is no contentious anti-oil agenda on my part so, please continue keeping us posted on developments from the supply side and I will do my best to keep you guys posted on developments from the demand side.

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        For all the hands on guys here,
        I read every word you post, very carefully indeed, but since I don’t know anything worth mentioning about the day to day business of producing oil, I don’t say much about it, other than asking questions.

        But you guys are a priceless resource, and the only way this blog lasts is if you continue to bring in your expertise free for the rest of us.

        Let it be known that I am VERY grateful for your free contribution to my education as a well informed citizen of the twenty first century.

        I’m with Islandboy in that I am most assuredly not a fan of cheap oil, even though cheap oil is currently allowing me to push on with some projects on the place that suck up diesel fuel.

        The really nasty problem, for my kind of people,the ones I see every day, is that cheap oil has allowed the auto industry into fooling them into buying larger and thirstier vehicles, and I am ” much afeared” , as the queen once said, and some of my older neighbors still say, that they will bitterly regret these purchases a long time before these gas hogs are ever paid off.

        In more general terms , just as I am not a cheap oil fan, I also do not have an anti oil agenda.

        I fully recognize, and often say, that we are utterly and absolutely dependent on oil in particular, and fossil fuels in general, and that we will continue to be utterly and absolutely dependent on them a long damned time after the hands on guys in this forum are retired or dead.

        My agenda in respect to this forum is , one , to use it as a resource to get my own facts and ideas into the most shipshape form possible, and two, to explore the ways the future will play out for all of us as fossil fuels inevitably deplete.

        I am perfectly willing to believe that electric cars may rule the new vechile personal transportation market within a decade or two, but in my opinion, we have about the same chance as a snowball on a hot stove of collectively giving up fossil fuels within the next three or four decades.

        But even today, various countries are displaying their teeth like a big bad wolf, letting their smaller and weaker neighbors know that when the time comes, the wolf WILL TAKE the oil, and the coal, and the natural gas, if TAKING it is necessary in order to get it.

        Guys like TT just refuse to see it.

        There’s a STATE PARK in State Park,Pennyslvania, rather than an oil biz, and I damned near went to Alaska myself to learn a little about oil HANDS ON, lol. (Would have, except I was still YOUNG and had a smoking hot wife at that time who wouldn’t promise to wait for me.)

        We all know the pipeline operators are having some real headaches with production down EIGHTY PERCENT.

        We better be praying to the gods of our choice, be they sky daddies, sky mommies, the almighty dollar, capital S science, or whatever, that the renewables industries scale up fast enough to prevent us from wiping each other out in hot resource wars within the next few decades.

        A successful transition to an economy and society based MOSTLY on renewable energy, supplemented with small amounts of fossil fuels, is technically doable, but it will be HARD to do, and it’s going to take a LONG time to do it, a generation or two or three.

        Fortunately we appear to have enough oil, gas, and coal to last that long, easily, if we use these one time gifts of nature carefully, wasting as little as possible. In that much time, a couple of generations, maybe we can figure out how to get by ENTIRELY on renewables. Maybe.

        For damned sure we will eventually have to get by with VERY little oil, compared to our current consumption rate.

    • Longtimber says:

      What about * long term debt exceeding PV10 * does the Investment “Industry” NOT understand?
      What about terminal decline of conventionals do we NOT understand? A lot!

    • Caelan MacIntyre says:

      Hi shallow sand,
      I appreciate your and others’ comments but also comments in general that attempt to speak in a language for as wide as possible an audience, and include attempts at broad systemic analyses and syntheses that transcend disciplines. This of course helps in the process of understanding how things fit together.

      Incidentally– and this is maybe more for Dennis Coyne– while some may appreciate and/or feel more comfortable in a more specialized ‘oil’ sandbox, chapel, echo-chamber or mirrored room, at least in this peak oil blog context, I was thinking of an ‘oil’ and ‘oil+’ forum or something like that, if two separations are going to be chosen, instead of ‘oil’ and ‘non-oil’, as this may lend itself better to the aforementioned.

      • Ves says:

        I think all posts should be included in one thread because everything is interconnected. Oil, Solar, Finance, Greed, Wars, Nature – all belong and exist together in totality called planet Earth. If the insight does not occur in totality, than it is divided and then it is almost impossible to get transformation.

        Dennis is doing very well with his balanced responses with some of the posters that go little over the line.

        I feel Shallow is more upset with absolute no critical thinking from the media, industry and society in general than from us, humble observers. But that is more result of inertia of the complex and interconnected economic system and when it is in motion it is very hard do anything unless it burns itself in the center and then we start again.

    • farmboy says:

      SS It’s been precisely 2 years since I found Ron’s site, and I read almost all the posts and most of the comments as well. Of course their are some commenters and topics ‘climate change for example’ that I usually ignore but not yours along with Ron, Petro, and many others. I come here to learn but have nothing to contribute unless I have an overwhelming compulsion to share some opinions on agriculture.

      Thanks to all of you for making this my go to site for the numbers on energy, its a tremendous privilege.

      • Petro says:

        Thank you, farmboy!

        I am happy that my comments are of interest to you.

        I for one, would be interested in reading what you have to write/say – if you indeed choose to do so, regarding agriculture and food sustainability in general.

        As a friendly advice though, if you indeed are a “FARM-boy” – I would strongly suggest you pay attention to climate change discussions (notice: NOT climate warming, but change!) …. the good, logical and science-based ones, anyway….

        Looking forward to what you have to say.

        Be well,


  51. Dana Gardiner says:

    Art Berman on Macrovoices: interview free with registration

  52. shallow sand says:

    One thing I will say, for those still interested in the US LTO story, I highly recommend looking over Loads of great data, all for free.

    I will also mention I have found some of the LTO proponents have become somewhat hostile when I refer to/mention that site. I find that very interesting. I have been told by them I should go to the state websites myself, and make my own conclusions. I find that very interesting, as I understand is data directly from the states.

    • Enno says:

      Thanks a lot Shallow!:-)

      I, like many others here, learn a lot from your well-informed comments and research.

      I’ve set up shaleprofile as a modern professional information system, the kind I used to design and sell. It allows you to answer questions much more directly, without combing through lots of raw data.

      On Seeking Alpha, it is quite common for several contributors to post slides from investor presentations, or present some thesis using raw, cherry-picked, well production data. They may lose some charm from readers who can compare these results easily with actual data.

      • shallow sand says:

        Enno: Too bad OK does not have data available for you to include on

      • Brian Rose says:

        Seeking Alpha is generally a good contrarian indicator.

        When a series of negative or positive assessments are published with little genuine insight (as is often the case) one can read the level of sentiment on a trade.

        Market valuations are formed by a combination of data and sentiment.

        The difference between value and sentiment is where profits are made.

        This is why Daniel Kahnemann won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2002.

        He was the first psychologist to win the Nobel Prize in Economics in history. It was an acknowledgment that valuations are priced on fundamentals AND psychological sentiment.

        The previous axiom was that markets are always perfectly valued. The idea that assessments of valuation can be skewed sentimentally on a market wide basis was ridiculed until research proved otherwise.

        This ties very well into the arguments of those who predict overshoot – market sentiment does not match what some are saying answers the quirkiness of our current global economic malaise.

    • John S says:


      I know of at least one PE consulting firm that works both US and international E&P who looks’ at Enno’s Shale Profile site. I have been told that Energent , a service similar to rig data provides a commercial service very similar to

      I owe a debt to Enno for his work. I just wish he would follow the Marcellus and Utica. But you can’t be everything to everyone.

      Others may already know about this but, I just found out about that Energent mines state regulatory well records and FracFocus to generate a well count for DUCs.

      If a well is shown as drilled and complete in state records but does not show up in FracFocus as being fracked then Energent counts it as a DUC. I don’t know how many in Industry use Energent for this info or what alternative methods exist. (For whatever it is worth)

      If a well is drilled but can’t be located in frac focus data base then it is considered a DUC.

  53. texas tea says:

    Hi Dennis

    I suggest we focus on reducing coal use because it creates a lot of pollution. I agree we use a lot of natural gas at present.

    Do you believe the EIA estimates for future natural gas supply?

    Dennis, the one thing that gives me some comfort based on my readings, is that many of the coal plants are not being torn down just idled, and the coal is of course left in the ground and can be accessed without to much fanfare in case the alarmist predictions continue to fail and the pie in the sky alternatives being rolled out do not lived up to the hype. If we waist some money that is not the end of the world it cost us nothing to print it 😊 It is my impression that EIA is better than nothing but are often wrong on a grand scale.
    Natural gas is the best fossil fuel for energy output per unit of carbon emissions, we should use it as efficiently as possible and try to supplement with wind, solar, hydro, geothermal and nuclear energy.

    I am not at all sure solar will ever have any real roll in the energy grid.
    I know you have faith that free markets will lead to a seamless transition when natural gas supply and coal supply run short.

    I have no faith that a government as corrupt as ours will be able to pick the “right direction” and at the same time foster new innovation and ideas. I believe that it is self evident disruptive technologies have not had problem gaining a foothold and creating a market on their own merits, but that is not the case with wind or solar. Next to NO one would be investing in these ideas without being paid or rewarded to do so by government and underwritten with coercion.
    I do not share in your faith, a carbon tax or fee and dividend plan is needed to push the economy in the right direction, though politically the US is not ready, when peak oil arrives perhaps we will be.

    The “right direction” to be determined by those who have political power, not unbiased science, not data, not facts; did you write speeches for Hugo Chávez? Because that is the kind of results you are setting yourself and your fellow citizens up for.

    Do the EIA petroleum projections seem realistic to you?

    I do not follow this stuff on any regular basis. What I can share is for the entirety of my career and life doom-days scenarios have made their way into the public debate, from pandemics, climate etc. They have been wrong 100% of the time. Within my industry we have always demonstrated the ability to find and produce energy that most never had any idea would come to market. Who predicted we would add 4,000,000BOPD here before it happened. IN the early 2000’s we had people building LNG IMPORT terminals because we were running out of nat gas only to reconfigure those terminals to EXPORT. So bottom line free markets always have a better chance at getting it right over a bunch self declared all knowing experts, this applies to all fields not just energy.👍

    • Fred Magyar says:

      I am not at all sure solar will ever have any real roll in the energy grid.

      Why the hell not?! Are you sure about that? BTW, forget the US government, here is a global forecast from Bloomberg Energy Finance. It looks like they aren’t betting big on fossil fuels anymore. Maybe a lot of investors have gotten burnt recently… (pun intended) 🙂

      Renewable energy will draw almost two-thirds of the spending on new power plants over the next 25 years, dwarfing spending on fossil fuels, as plunging costs make solar the first choice for consumers and the poorest nations.
      Solar power will draw $3.7 trillion in investment through 2040, with a total of $8 trillion going toward clean energy. That’s almost double the $4.1 trillion that will be spent on coal, natural gas and nuclear plants, according to a forecast from Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

      • Caelan MacIntyre: Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss says:

        It’s also about what should happen from ethical, democratic, true community and similar standpoints, as opposed to just what could happen, railroaded through, as it were, by elite monied interests, token-whitewash propagandized through such ‘promises’ as helping the poor, and propagated, such as through comments like, “Hey check out this awesome disruptive technology [that might change your already-disrupted existence]!”

        ‘Clean’ energy sounds like a greenwash from the elites (as they begin flirting with economic desperation) and I’ve already posted on how many– likely, most– of the investors in so-called green energy are coming from the fossil fuel industries (and the general tax-coerced populations, via their governpimps).

        It looks like the crony-capitalist plutarchy industrial mutant symbionts are going to cannibalize their own declining fossil fuel energy to railroad through pseudorenewables, come ecocide hell or high water (and to the exclusion of the global underprivileged/game-latecomers, such as for example, if, or more likely, when, lithium prices do a u-turn), and to do it with the help of some cheer-leading affiliates, such as hereon.

        We don’t get fundamentally workable results from a fundamentally unethical/corrupt/elite-based system, no matter how sparkly its promises and propaganda look, or how deeply some suck them up and exhale them out, blown like green smoke up people’s asses, to quote James H. Kunstler.

        Won’t Get Fooled Again

        “Meet the new boss
        Same as the old boss” ~ The Who

    • Bob Nickson says:

      Hi Texas Tea,

      Is it possible that you could use quotation marks, indents, or italics to denote text that you have not authored?

      It is difficult to parse when it is a mix of your words and others’ with no distinction between them.

      • texas tea says:

        some help, I copied and pasted that reply to Dennis’s questions way up thread, i italicized his questions and hit post, the italics did not transfer?

        • Bob Nickson says:

          I’m not sure what method you used to italicize that didn’t work properly, but the method that I know works is to use simple html code like in the example below.

          But even just a ” mark gets the job done.

        • Caelan MacIntyre says:

          Also, in Bob’s example, if you replace the i’s with the term, blockquote (within and keeping the less-than, greater-than and forward-slash signs), you will get italics but within an indented ‘block’, like this pair of nested blockquotes:

          “You often need money to change things. But most ways of acquiring it require you to compromise on your ideals. We can do better than that.” ~ Peter Sunde (The Pirate Bay co-founder)

          “It is just as difficult and dangerous to try to free a people that wants to remain servile as it is to enslave a people that wants to remain free.” ~ Niccolò Macchiavelli

          “The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.” ~ Albert Einstein

          “Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed.” ~ Herman Melville

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          Hi Texas Tea,

          You should use quotation marks, but if you want to Italicize see

    • HuntingtonBeach says:

      “I have no faith that a government as corrupt as ours”

      For the last month Tex you have been ending a lot of your post with the American Flag. Am I to assume your a supporter of a corrupt American government ? Was George W Bush Republican lead war in 2003 in Iraq on the lies of WMD that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent humans for oil part of that corruption ?

      “though politically the US is not ready, when peak oil arrives perhaps we will be”

      The current politically elected President Obama seems to disagree with you. I think you will find it is only the Republican party that is not ready. Which is lead by the oil industry and would prosper in an unprepared transition away from oil. I don’t find a government preparing for a future with limited fossil fuel corrupt. I find it wise.

      While your answering the questions above, I have a few more for you Tex. Shouldn’t the cost of importing oil include the governments military cost to procure it ? or the cost of lung cancer to others from burning oil be charged to the end user instead of the medical insurance companies ? or the environmental damage from drilling and refining oil be charged to the end user also ?

      • Dennis Coyn says:

        Hi Huntington Beach

        Texas tea included some of my comments without quotes.

        The part about not being politically ready for a carbon tax is me.

        In California it might pass. But the rest of the US is not ready. Just reality as I see it. I wish to be wrong on this point, even I am not that optimistic.

      • texas tea says:

        Huntington, I am really not going there, government of all strips are corrupt and all politicians are liars….that is my base case. It is only a matter of degrees. In general sometimes we get things right despite this.🇺🇸if I had a Texas flag in my emoji dictionary I would post it. I feel blessed to live in both. 🎉
        I refuse to be used like a condom for causes or movements by our politicians, it is clear many think it gives their life meaning😢

        • HuntingtonBeach says:

          Tex, how convenient for you not to answer the questions. God forbid the real cost of fossil fuel be exposed by an oilman. But, it is good to see we agree on at least one thing. George W Bush is a liar. Does posting the flag give your life meaning ? Just wondered because Republican politicians like to wrap themselves in it like a condom on a boy scout field trip to a whore house. But your above that right ?

        • Duncan Idaho says:

          “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
          –Sinclair Lewis

    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Hi Texas tea

      Neoclassical (aka mainstream) economic theory suggests that if externalities are not properly taxed so that business cost is not equal to social cost, that the optimal outcome is not achieved.

      Have you ever studied any economics?

      Try a search on externalities and taxes.

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Hi Texas tea

        I noticed you hedged on whether the EIA predictions will be correct.

        They won’t.

        For solar costs have fallen to 5 cents per kwh see

      • texas tea says:

        I have run a business for over 25 years, and yes I minored in eco. I will trust what I know rather than what you seek to teach me😊 With respect to mainstream economics…give me a freakin break. I highly suspect you would bow down and kiss the ring (if not other things) of Paul Krugman. (there is nothing wrong with that😍). We have made our collective decisions, they cannot be reversed, we will now live with what we have done until we get our reset. All we can do is prepare and I am thankful for everyday I have to make sure my family is in the best possible position for what I know is coming. It is not climate change that will be the biggest issue of our life times, I am very certain of that, if any thing it is a mere diversion kinda like TV. So sit back and enjoy today, real life will be coming to a theater near you soon enough🇺🇸 we will learn what we already knew and we will begin again👊

        • Oldfarmermac says:

          Hi TT,

          I am REALLY interested in finding out what is, in some detail, that you “know is coming”.

          Thank you so much. Really, I am not trying to be sarcastic.

          My own rough guesses are on record here already.

          • texas tea says:

            I think along of Petro, I believe the deregulation of the finance industry was a disaster, compound that with the finalization of damn near everything, technology rapidly replacing unskilled workers, while at the time importing as many non skilled as we can, building layers upon layer of ponzi fiancee schemes within the various pension, welfare and medical systems and the demographic challenges most western countries face at the same time our debt levels reach records each and every year. Add to that a culture built on materialism, greed, immediate gratification will lead to a great potential for the continued politicalization of everything to the point where common sense solution are no longer possible, where confidence in the system for the productive element of our society is reduced, continuing a feedback loop where our economy slowing grinds ever slower until the Kaboom moment. How that plays out will depend on way to many variables, one thing for sure the quality of life for many of our country men will be dramatically reduced along with our trust in each other, our trust in our institutions and government in general. When it gets bad enough perhaps we can revisit what actually works and begin anew. I think we are well along the road as describe above and i point to our choices for president, if things were working as they should the two individual we have running for president would be laughed off the political stage.😢

            • Bob Nickson says:

              One does still have the choice to vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.

              There are more than just two candidates.

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          Hi Texas tea,

          And what other things might I kiss, you will need to be more specific.

          They must be giving out economics minors for pretty limited economic coursework at some colleges.

          Refresh your memory or learn how taxation or subsidies are used to remedy the inefficiency of goods with positive or negative externalities at the link below:

          You may think that free markets are perfectly efficient, but only in a perfectly competitive market where all goods and services have no positive or negative externalities does neoclassical theory suggest that is the case.

          • texas tea says:

            Dennis, the issue is not about being perfect, the issue is once we let individuals or groups take the power of control over our markets and substitute themselves for the collective will and “judgment” of the market it never comes out as planed. Any “student” of economics would have that tattooed to his head. With respect to my other comment, it was a joke but I was referring to his A$$.😉

            • Dennis Coyne says:

              Hi tt

              Then say that there are other interpretationside of your comment that are less appealing.

              I agree the government should not choose winners. That is why pollution taxes are appealing and it is quite surprising that you are unaware of pigovian taxes, pretty basic stuff for even an econ minor.

    • clueless says:

      texas tea says: “If we waist some money that is not the end of the world”

      I can attest to that. I have waisted a ton of money on, ice cream, potato chips, donuts, etc. I have about an extra 6 inches of waist to show for it, but otherwise I am generally healthy.

      Sorry, I could not resist.

  54. Oldfarmermac says:

    Hi Fred,

    Life to most of us is more a matter of us and them than anything else.

    THEM THERE SOCIALIST DIMMERATS are utterly and absolutely convinced their girl didn’t NEVER do anything shady, underhanded, secretive, or maybe just at the edge of being technically illegal. They will NEVER believe she ever did any thing RECKLESS or STUPID. On the other hand, Trump is an upstanding gentleman who did his part to make America great.

    Ask ANY Trump supporter, he will gladly tell you so.

    And so far as those ignorant redneck gun nut fascist racist heartless republicans are concerned , well , we polite sophisticated, literate, kind, and tolerant liberals are concerned, we all know Trump and all his followers are at best no better than deluded racist peasants, with most of them no doubt no better than outright scumbags, like Trump himself. Ask ANY of us, we will gladly tell you so in no uncertain terms.

    It’s a pretty safe bet that hardly anybody in either camp will be changing their minds.

    Facts mean next to nothing to dyed in the wool partisans.

    Of course you already knew it, lol.

    • Dennis Coyn says:

      Hi oldfarmermac

      Elections are all about the independent voters in the US. The number is large, they don’the really decide until they enter the ballot box.

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        Hi Dennis,

        You are correct one hundred percent, presidential elections are decided in the middle in this country. I have made the same point here at at least a couple of times , and LOTS of times in other forums.

        It’s the key single most important point I considered in supporting Sanders.

        There is no question in my mind he could beat Trump as easily as falling off a log.

        HRC has negatives all the way up to her nose, but given that Trump is about as bad or worse, in the eyes of the general public, she has a good shot at winning, assuming no major unpleasant surprises.

        But just as the economy is entering a non linear phase where in the old rules no longer apply, and a new economic rule book is being written on the fly, the old political rule book is no longer reliable, and a new one is being written on the fly.

        Surprises are going to be the name of the game for years and years to come.

        Up until NOW, I would have bet twenty to one that BOTH major parties would not run their worst possible candidate in terms of public perceptions of trust, honesty, judgement, etc.

        Change is going to come faster than ever.

        Now here’s something to keep hard core D types awake at night. JUST SUPPOSE that Trump were to get really sick, or have a really bad accident, and he drops out. Just suppose that at heart he really is a redneck patriot, and drops out to keep Clinton out of the WH?

        ( No, I didn’t forget to take my meds, and it’s too early for me to be drunk. I’m just poking a little fun. )

        My comment addressed to Fred was written with the intent of poking a little fun at folks who believe we will always have plenty of affordable fossil fuel.

        I sincerely hope YOU are right, and that the production of oil, and likewise gas and coal, declines gently over a period of a couple of decades or longer.

        In that case, we have a VASTLY improved chance of transitioning to mostly renewable energy before fossil fuels run critically short. We will of course have SOME oil and gas and coal for a LONG time.

        Looking more than a generation or two into the future is no more than pure guesswork, but it’s probably a fair bet that within a couple of generations that we will know how to get along on ten or twenty percent of our current oil and gas consumption, if we HAVE TO.

        God help us if there really is a shark fin decline in oil production anytime soon. That would WRECK the BAU economy world wide and as likely as not destroy any chance of a successful transition to a renewable energy economy.

        Most people who are gung ho environmentalists apparently either don’t understand, or would prefer to forget that continued good health of the BAU economy is essential to making it to the hoped for renewable promised land.

    • Nick G says:

      There are some people who don’t care about whether George W evaded the draft, or Bill Clinton had an affair.

      There are some people who care about broad issues, rather than the minor sideshows that partisans use to whip up their followers.

      One other thought: yes, Ds and Rs are fairly close on many things. But…that’s because a progressive politician can’t allow much daylight to open but between them and their opponent. It’s the structure of two-party politics: it pushes both parties to the center. If one side strays too far to the edge, the other one will move into the vacuum and scoop up those voters.

    • Brian Rose says:


      Elections are decided by the marginal voter.

      The marginal voter has quite the pickle in front of them!

      Third parties will likely see a record in votes.

      The question that will decide the election is “which candidate disaffects the least marginal voters”.

      The candidate who lassos the most marginal votes will win.

      Minus the very large electoral college lead that purple state demographics gives the Democrats.

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        Yes, demographics are in favor of the D’s and as time passes, demographics will favor the D’s more than ever.

        The social glue that used to hold the R party together is fast disappearing. Part of the disappearance is due to the party selling out it’s foot soldier supporters, which is why the R foot soldiers are enraged to the point they mutinied and put Trump up top.

        The other part is that young people’s values are determined these days more by music, social media, celebrities of various sorts, etc, than in previous times.

        The D’s have won the demographic race, with the immigrant community putting them over the top a little sooner than they would have won it otherwise.

        In my estimation, the demographics have also moved the younger and more independent minded members of the D coalition well past the point that Clinton ACTUALLY represents. She is really pretty much of an old school system politician, and there are enough older D voters that she won the nomination, but only in my opinion because Sanders got started too late and because she OWNS the party machinery.

        The Sanders revolution soldiers fell a little short storming the barricades of the entrenched establishment candidate, this time, but they WILL be back, and in the future THEY will be the activists who control the future of the party and with it , the future of the country.

        If the Inspector General’ s report , and the FBI report on her email system had come out three or four months ago, Sanders could well have won enough delegates to win the nomination.

        There is some hope that the courts will have something to say about Trumps phony baloney investment university , etc, before the actual election, but not much.

        Everybody here has undoubtedly heard the story of how a kingdom was lost due to the lack of a horseshoe nail. Kingdoms and high offices really are won and lost sometimes on the basis of such seemingly trivial factors.

        They say Kennedy won back in the dark ages on the basis of a few thousand dead voters who loved him enough to arise from the grave long enough to get to the polls.

        They say Bush won on the basis of hanging chads and partisan officials.

        • clueless says:

          THE NY Times ran a complete recount of the Florida vote. I think that they ran the results on page 39, but their analysis showed that Bush won Florida under any scenario.
          What Bush did NOT do, was win the Nation Wide popular vote.

  55. Longtimber says:

    “I am not at all sure solar will ever have any real roll in the energy grid.”
    I designed and drove implementation of possibly the 1st Megawatt Statewide Distributed PV System of almost 2000 sites. Permitting was a CF. Each County Inspector HAD a different interpretation of the NEC Code Art 690, which we did Custom drawings for. Today we could do it for perhaps 37% of the cost 5 years ago. Little confusion 2-3 code cycles later. In the Code there was no “PV” it was P H O T O V O L T A I C S Like AC DC “PV” is now a term in the NEC Electrical Code. Equipment design tweaks made many parts of the codes not applicable.
    Expect explosive deployment as combined hardware cost for PV+Microinverter (MI) falls below 75 cents/watt, no reason to transfer that kind of Wealth to IOU’s with Wall Street overheads. Note that price goal has been met with String Inverters, but Installing PV with an MI is as simple as installing a light fixture. Cave men can do if not for Paperwork. Cost Reduction GOAL for the S300 Inverter:

    Accelerating Growth of Distributed PV has/is/will be Disruptive to Nat Gas/Electrical markets.
    But unlike Centralized – Revenue goes to the system owners – not the Manufacture/others ( well driller/Banker ). A big difference is that many can own a PV Panel/System. Oil has/is/will be Nationalized.

    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Hi Longtimber

      You seem far more knowledgeable than me on PV, so I won’t quibble on that.

      I disagree on oil being nationalized in US in the next 20 years if ever.

      • Longtimber says:

        Let’s hope it’s not Nationalized in US. US is so Unique in many ways – One is Private Ownership of Minerals. Perhaps more Global totals of Conventional Oil is Nationalized than not? But the new focus on US LTO by the Majors? Just don’t know what to think bout that other than what else is there?

      • texas tea says:

        they will nationalize oil about the same time they take our guns😜

        • islandboy says:

          Actually, it might help to look at things in the USA that are nationalized to get a perspective on what sort of activities are nationalized. You only need look as far as DART (Dallas Area Rapid Transit), then there’s New York MTA, BART, Caltrain, Florida’s Tri-Rail, many other mass transit providers in the US and in fact, mass transit all over the world.

          Municipal water supplies are usually owned and operated by state agencies and in some jurisdictions the electric utility is publicly owned. Outside of the US, most developed countries provide basic health care through government owned and/or operated facilities. Education in most countries, even poor ones, is heavily state funded.

          I guess I could say I have had the benefit of spending my teenage years growing up in the seventies under a leader who flirted with socialism and was getting extremely chummy with Fernando’s favorite dictator. This guy (Michael Manley) engaged in a lot of anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist rhetoric and was vehemently against capitalists raising prices for goods and services to the poor. As a result his administration introduced all kinds of mechanisms to interfere with free pricing in various markets. They also insisted that the country should get a “fair” price for it’s primary mineral resource, bauxite, from the “wicked capitalist exploiters” and that workers should continue to benefit from union membership to argue for “fair” wages from said “wicked capitalists” .

          Coupled with the oil price shocks of the seventies, this made the business environment in Jamaica extremely hostile so, many businesses and industries just closed up shop or threatened to do so. The government ended up nationalizing the municipal bus service, the national railroad, the telephone company, the electric utility, a nationwide bank (from Barclay’s), most of the sugar factories and most of the major bauxite refineries. They even set up a “State Trading Corporation” to import and distribute basic food items like rice, cornmeal and flour and got involved in low income housing construction because they thought the “wicked capitalists” were “ripping off poor people”. Talk about government taking over the commanding heights of the economy!

          This largely happened between 1972 when Manley was elected and 1980, when his party lost the election. During that time he scared the bejeesus out of many wealthy Jamaicans who emigrated, mostly to South Florida many never to return. Needles to say, the whole thing has been a colossal financial disaster and cost the country dearly, despite saving the jobs of thousands of people employed in some industries. Most of these enterprises have been sold back to private sector interests but, many of them are still struggling to make a profit.

          So from that perspective, nationalization can happen when the owners of a business or industry no longer find it profitable or feasible to continue the enterprise in the long term and choose to close down and walk away but, the government thinks that the enterprise is sufficiently important to the national interests to keep it going, despite an absence of profit.

          Anybody else see where that could happen to the oil industry in the US? If the choice is between the taxpayers footing the bill for oil extraction and the collapse of life a we know it, will the government acquire the assets of oil companies in order to “keep the oil flowing”?

    • Nick G says:

      I’d think that distributed PV might create a need to nationalize utilities, or the grid, rather than oil.

      • Longtimber says:

        It’s called De-Reg -Distribution and generation should be split. At Least like Nat Gas.
        But again who cares if you have local production and are set up for efficiency.

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          Hi Longtimber,

          In many places in the US generation and transmission/distribution are already split.

  56. George Kaplan says:

    Another article on non sustainable debt levels in oil companies, probably belongs in the shale discussion above:

    Few companies have escaped the trend. Net debt at Exxon, the industry’s gold-standard, ballooned by $56 billion, and cash flows dropped by $18 billion over the decade. The storied independent oil producer Anadarko reported a 400 percent increase in debt, to $15 billion last year, and a negative cash flow of almost $2 billion.

    “Everybody went after the shale plays,” Hirs said. Companies spent billions of dollars to join the fracking revolution. “But those wells, they needed $80 a barrel to make them profitable,” Hirs said.

    When oil prices dropped to $26 a barrel this winter, company cash flows dropped along with them.

    “Something is going to have to give,” Hirs said recently. “This is not a sustainable trend.”

    • shallow sand says:

      I agree with the author’s statement on price, or at least he is much closer than most of the media commenters.

      Thought I would throw out another set of well stats from Enno Peters’ This is for the Permian, March, 2016 production, unconventional:

      Wells with first production in 2010 produced an average of 17.06 barrels per day.
      Wells with first production in 2011 produced an average of 25.88 barrels per day.
      Wells with first production in 2012 produced an average of 28.80 barrels per day.
      Wells with first production in 2013 produced an average of 34.36 barrels per day.
      Wells with first production in 2014 produced an average of 77.58 barrels per day.
      Wells with first production in 2015 produced an average of 189.96 barrels per day.
      Wells with first production in 2016 produced an average of 441.19 barrels per day.

      25 BO per day = 9,125 BO per year.

      Has anyone ever figured out how many years are assumed in these company EUR calculations?

      • Toolpush says:


        In Oz, we have a saying. Paying on the Never Never. I think this is term can be used when calculating the URR for the shale plays.

        • Synapsid says:


          Paying on the Never Never–neat. I haven’t heard that one before.

          My father used to say “A dollar down, a dollar when you catch me.”

      • David Archibald says:

        That’s 300,000 barrels in the first seven years. If a well is $8 million, that is capex of $26.90 per barrel. The question is how many locations are left to go?

        • Is this the same David Archibald nutcase who asserts that global warming is due to sunspot changes?

          David Archibald says:
          07/06/2016 AT 6:45 PM

          • Geoff Riley says:

            Global warming is all cyclical based on the sun, sunspot activity, and the polar magnetic fields around our planet. That is already well known to be the truth of what’s going on with global climate if you follow the work of the scientists whose methods include study of the actual climate data as opposed to the scientists who follow political and ideological orders.

            In my time lurking here, I notice all you seem to do is try to pick arguments with those who don’t share the same beliefs as you do regarding climate change. Yet this is an oil and energy forum, not a forum specifically dedicated to the climate change theory. Perhaps you should reevaluate why you continue to visit here?

            • Nick G says:

              Well, ask yourself: what’s your purpose here?

              Do you agree that fossil fuels are depleting, have many external costs like pollution and security of supply, and that regardless of whether climate change is a serious problem we still need to move away from fossil fuels ASAP?

              If so, why put so much energy into fighting about climate change?

              If not, why not?

              • Geoff Riley says:

                As a free-market Libertarian, I let the markets decide on what I agree with. At this time, prices, supply and demand tell me that fossil fuels are neither depleting nor something we need to move away from ASAP.

                And the external costs of fossil fuels are still categorically better than the endless money pit of subsidies, confiscatory taxes and “lifestyle changes” associated with “green” energy.

                • Duncan Idaho says:

                  As they say in in the UK:
                  “You poor bastard!”

                • Oldfarmermac says:

                  Hi Geoff,

                  The breadth and depth of your ignorance are truly impressive.

                  If you knew doo doo from apple butter, you would know that fossil fuels come out of holes in the ground,and that they don’t grow back like potatoes.

                  To say that fossil fuels are not depleting is to label yourself as a NIT WIT.

                  You betray glaring and obvious ignorance of the causes of WWI,WWII, and all the recent hot little wars we have been involved in “over there” where it’s mostly all about OIL, plus of course a few more minerals. Everything else involving our Middle Eastern foreign policy is more or less just a distraction from the MAIN issue-OIL.

                  It’s equally obvious you know next to nothing, if you know anything at all, about the externalized environmental costs of fossil fuels.

                  If you have a personal physician, I suggest you ask him or her about the relationship between lung diseases and air pollution the next time you get a check up.

                  Here’s a good link to begin your education on the depletion of oil.


                  • clueless says:

                    You probably might consider giving Geoff a break. You and I both know that he is not referring to depletion of a single well. Rather, read posts up thread where Rystad and others say that the US has more “reserves” than Saudi Arabia. I cannot speak for him, but it seems to me he is referring to the increases in available oil due to technology coupled with higher prices.
                    But, maybe you know better than I do.

                • Fossil fuels always deplete when they are produced. If we can’t replace what we produce we sure have a problem. Several hundred billion barrels of very heavy, shale, EOR and deep water oil are included in total resources you see touted by the usual culprits. These resources require high oil prices to be turned into reserves. That’s the basics.

            • Fred Magyar says:

              Global warming is all cyclical based on the sun, sunspot activity, and the polar magnetic fields around our planet.

              Thank the Good Lord! Fortunately the sunspots are all but gone. I was beginning to wonder if this global warming would ever end. Frankly I can barely wait for the coming Ice Age!

              Hey Geoff, on a slightly different note, maybe you can convince WHT to visit this really good blog that is called TheOilConundrum, he might learn something about ‘Peak Oil’ there and stop making all these dumb comments about climate change!

              Heck, you could even visit it yourself…


            • Oldfarmermac says:

              What’s this blog all about, and who decides?

              There’s free speech to be considered when it comes to what is discussed in any forum, but beyond that , there’s the issue of OWNERSHIP of this blog, which is after all the personal property of one Ron Patterson.

              I am not speaking for him, but I know that he happy for us to discuss global warming , and any other topic that relates to fossil fuels, including economic and military security, renewable energy, government policies,environmental destruction, etc etc.

              He has commented on these issues quite often himself.

              Ron P is in the process of turning the blog over to Dennis Coyne, who is obviously doing a great job running it, with a little help from Ron, who is getting on in years and has announced that he wishes to take it a little easier.

              So far I have not noticed Dennis posting any rules or guidelines indicating he wants the forum members to stick strictly to discussing oil and nothing but oil.

              If he does, I will still read the new posts , but I will quit commenting except to ask an occasional question. My guess is that at least half of the people who comment will drop out as well, because there are only about a dozen or so hard core oil guys who never talk about anything BUT oil.

              Having said that, we all owe each and every one of that hard core a big debt of gratitude for freely sharing their professional expertise with us.

              Without them, the forum would DIE.

              But maybe they would be happy to have it all to themselves?

              • Geoff Riley says:

                My problem more specifically was with WebHubTelescope butting into a thread about oil company debt to call somebody a “nutcase” and bring up a topic unrelated to the original one. On most forums, I believe that’s called “hijacking the thread” and is usually forbidden. I don’t know how George Kaplan, shallow sand, Toolpush, or David Archibald feel, but if I were one of them, I would feel quite annoyed that the topic of the thread I posted in was completely flipped around.

                • GoneFishing says:

                  Geoff, reading back over the thread it appears as if you are the major component that “hijacked” the thread.

                • Mike says:

                  Peak Oil Barrel is no longer an energy, oil forum, Mr. Riley; as you can tell by the nastiness of responses you have received the blog is essentially controlled by a handful of folks with a very anti-oil agenda, often interlaced with far left political ideology. Take for instance some of the comments made by one, Huntington Beach up thread. Some pretty radical stuff. These folks are quite certain that if they can stop the use of all fossil fuels by Sunday, they will have saved the world. They are not afraid to call you names, like “dumb bastard,”tell you that you are stupid, or ignorant, for not believing the same way they do about batteries and sea ice, demand the blog moderator be “less tolerant” of comments that do not conform to their agenda, which of course is a demand for censorship, and otherwise will do what they can to run you off their blog, all under the guise of free speech.

                  You will end up leaving POB and not checking in anymore, like I have in the past, and am going to do again, for the last time. Most anyone with any oil knowledge has already left. The few that have stayed are essentially talking among themselves now, unfortunately. I know for a fact that a lot of big time, oily folks use to cruise thru POB for good data and analysis. Not anymore.

                  BTW, you did not “highjack” anything. You rendered an opinion that people did not like and you are being railed on for it. They are being protective of each other. You broke their rules. Good luck to you, sir.

                  • HuntingtonBeach says:

                    Hello Mike,

                    This is an internet blog. No one exchanges any currency or has any physical contact. What is exchanged are personal views, ideas and information. I more than welcome you to challenge anything I post here. I most likely would enjoy that. I’m not sure which comment above you are referring too. I could guess, but I would rather you be more specific. Maybe you could convince me to take a view more inline with your own.

                    “Peak Oil Barrel is no longer an energy, oil forum”

                    I couldn’t disagree with you more on this comment. But than again, that’s why we are both here to view our opinions. This website is a by product of TOD. Which was based on the idea we are running out of fossil fuel(oil) energy. Some that post on these kind of venues fear humanity is doomed for this reason. Others believe the world can successfully transform. And yet others want to just talk about sticking a drill bit into the earth and continue to deplete. The best part of PeakOilBarrel is that there is room for all of it thanks to Ron and Dennis.

                    Please give me your best on educating me

                  • HR says:

                    Please cough up a site or two without the environmentalists, leftists, global warming fanatics, and nasty comments directed at any other opinions, I’m all ears.

                  • Dave Hillemann (Texan) says:

                    The non-oil open forum threads were useful for filtering out a lot of the noise and nonsense you describe. On the other hand, those threads can probably only help so much. Historically most peak oil websites eventually get taken over by fringe activists who just wind up causing the website to decline and ultimately fail.

                  • “Historically most peak oil websites eventually get taken over by fringe activists who just wind up causing the website to decline and ultimately fail.”

                    That’s why I commented on David Archibald’s appearance. He is about as fringe as one can get — predicting that the earth will rapidly plummet into an ice age and asserting that the “bloodiest warfare in human history” will soon break out.

                    Do we want that kind of person commenting here? I would rather see this place turn into a mild-mannered forum devoted to mathematical modeling of earth sciences. 🙂

                • Geoff Riley, get a grip. I was just asking if David Archibald was the same nutcase that claims that global warming is due to changes in sunspot activity, and writes books about it.

                  “David Archibald is a Perth-based scientist working in the fields of oil exploration, medical research, climate science, and energy. A true polymath, his achievements include pioneering the study of how climate change is linked to the solar cycle. Through his work both in oil exploration, and as a stockbroker in Sydney, he has developed an intricate understanding of how climate, energy, and the economy interact. Archibald uses this knowledge to make predictions about how the forces already in motion in the global economy and climate will affect the future prosperity and security of the world.

                  David Archibald reveals the grim future the world faces on its current trajectory: massive fuel shortages, the bloodiest warfare in human history, a global starvation crisis, and a rapidly cooling planet. Archibald combines pioneering science with keen economic knowledge to predict the global disasters that could destroy civilization as we know it—disasters that are waiting just around the corner.”

                  I am not the guy that is writing that kind of doom-mongering. That’s so over the top!

                • Survivalist says:

                  Speaking of “hijacking the thread” where’s Javier at? He seems overdue.

            • Caelan MacIntyre, On Hit-And-Run Climate Cookers says:

              Anthropogenic climate change or anthropogenic global warming is caused anthropogenically.

              While scientists are still working on it, there may be increasing indications that it may especially be caused by a lot of hot air from those who drive by in their cars, such as to the headquarters of Peak Oil Barrel (POB), to suggest any and all possibilities other than human-caused.

              When they hit POB, they frequently leave their cars idling outside which aid in making a quick getaway, but also compound their own contributions of atmospheric C02.

              • GoneFishing says:

                The living world has been stable for nearly a billion years. It has been growing and changing in form, but it never disappeared and achieved new stability even after disastrous physical setbacks.
                Nature and the physical world tends toward stability. All these changes will reach a new stable position in the future. What that world will look like, what kinds of plants and animals will exist, we do not know.
                Today is not a good predictor of what the future will be. We can extrapolate, take into account possible changes and innovations, but we don’t really know what the future will be like in general. Because so many things change.
                We can however change ourselves, change our mindset and actions and end up with a different future.
                There is a percentage of people doing this now and even big business and government is changing. There is no one answer, there are billions of answers that come into play. The individual can change much faster than governments or businesses. And we can have a great time doing it and sharing the changes.

          • Doug Leighton says:

            “polar magnetic fields around our planet” What the hell does that mean exactly (or even approximately)?

              • Doug Leighton says:

                Really cool, thanks. I don’t miss much on the high energy physics front but hadn’t run into that.

                • Watcher says:

                  Not a big deal for the geosync recon vehicles, but there are still some LEO polar orbiting (high equatorial inclination on the Keplerian elements) assets and the earth spins under them and they get quite a dose several times a day.

              • GoneFishing says:

                I wonder if this is a result of the earth axis shift changing direction about 90 degrees in 2000.
                It has been proposed at JPL that the change in earth wobble is due to changes in water, such as ice melt and large movements of water in Eurasia.

                Maybe the shift in spin center and wobble has disturbed the core spin, causing magnetic anomalies.

                • Brian Rose says:


                  That is fascinating.

                  Thank you for posting that article. I never would have known otherwise.

                  As any new discovery in science it answers one question, and opens up a dozen new areas for investigation.

                  Makes me think more deeply about this: “The 100,000-year problem is that the eccentricity variations have a significantly smaller impact on solar forcing than precession or obliquity — according to theory — and hence might be expected to produce the weakest effects. However, the greatest observed response in regard to the ice ages is at the 100,000-year timescale, even though the theoretical forcing is smaller at this scale.”

                  Earth’s wobble has a stronger historical effect on climate than our current modeling accounts for.

                  There’s two solutions to this.

                  Either our understanding of physics is incorrect, or our data for historical changes in Earth’s tilt is off.

                  Our models for 1899-2015 were inaccurate until this new data was included. This seems to support the thesis that historical models are simply missing specific data points that would explain why Earth’s tilt/wobble has a stronger effect on climate.

                  I’m ignorant on this subject, but I’d presume the historical models are mostly based on physical cycles and estimates of changes in ice sheet mass, sea level, and their concurrent effects on tectonic plate elevation.

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    The small wobbles they are discussing are not the precession changes that occur over much longer periods of time. They are only on the order of a meter and are probably related to changes in aquifers around the world.
                    It has nothing to do with the orbital/precession changes linked to glaciations. Those are large changes, these are mere perturbations.

                  • Synapsid says:

                    Brian Rose,

                    Last I looked the 100 000-year timing was the result of the eccentricity forcing modulating the precessional forcing, not a direct effect of eccentricity changes themselves.

                    A good place to start is a text by William Ruddiman titled Earth’s Climate, Past and Future. It was in its second edition last I saw.

                  • Did you realize that when you climb the stairs you slow down the earth’s rate of rotation?

          • David Archibald says:

            It is the same. The reason why we had a pleasant warming in the second half of the 20th century was because the Sun was the most active it had been for 8,000 years. That is over and now it is getting colder. Colder, colder, colder. The greenhouse effect of CO2 at 400 ppm is tuckered out – miniscule. While increased CO2 in the atmosphere is wholly beneficial, the deep oceans are going to suck it down within a few hundred years and we will never see it again.

            • This David Archibald is a Larrikin. They are the Australian equivalent of pranksters or contrarians.

            • Dennis Coyne says:

              Hi David Archibald,

              No the carbon dioxide level will remain above 300 ppm for about 20,000 years even if we emitted no more carbon from fossil fuels after today. The total solar irradiance has changed very little over the past 200 years, carbon dioxide is the main story.

        • shallow sand says:

          How are u getting 300K BO in first 7 years?

          The oldest well in the 2016 category is 2 months, in the 2015 category is 14 months, etc.

          And, of course, you are leaving out royalty, severance, LOE, G & A.

          I guess I shouldn’t take the post seriously.

          • shallow sand says:

            I would note that, thus far, less than 1% of Permian Basin horizontal wells with a first production date of 1/1/2010 or later have produced 300,000 or more barrels of oil.

            71 of over 10,000.

            Granted, there will be more, but I suspect 300,000 BO from one Permian well in the well’s first 60 months will be a rare event.

            If one is lucky to hit such a well and has $50 WTI for the first 60 months, unfortunately, with a well cost of $8 million, the well still will not quite payout, assuming a 25% royalty, $7 LOE, $3 G & A, and TX severance.

            It comes close, but not quite.

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Hi shallow sand,

        Horizontal wells only?

        The quality of the average well changes as a higher percentage of wells become horizontal, I believe the average horizontal well will produce about 4 times the amount of the average vertical well in the Permian.

        Typically EUR is based on 30 years, I assume wells become unprofitable and are shut in when they get to under 7 b/d. For the Bakken this is at about 23 years and for the Eagle Ford at about 15 years. I have very little data on the Permian basin, but a reasonable assumption would be exponential decline at 7.5% after 6 years.

        Using those assumptions I get a EUR of 278 kb after 20 years, I took the average of 2016 and 2015 for year one etc, and assumed 7.5% decline after year 6. EUR is roughly 206 kb after 60 months and it is doubtful such a well pays out at 60 months at $50/b, but might at $75/b.

        As I have said before, it is not clear why these wells are being drilled, maybe they all think their wells will be better than average? 🙂

  57. Hickory says:

    What is the price of crude oil that will weed out the average persons frivolous use of energy?
    Or do people so value their frivolous uses (and thus consider the use as quality of life) that they will give up on other aspects of life (standard of living) so that they will still be able to afford the frivolous use?
    Ex- someone loves to drive in a pickup or SUV 120 miles to their local college to tailgate party before the games. Energetically this is very expensive with no practical value. Would they rather spend money on that, and give up on insulating their house better, or LED lighting, or purchasing durable clothing or emergency supplies, or emergency cash, or fixing there teeth for example.
    I’m sure we could collectively write a book with all kinds of examples.
    How expensive does oil have to get before people forgo the extravagant and non-functional uses of oil?
    Whatever that number is, I think we get there on the upswing from this current cycle.
    This will hit the ‘have nots” and marginal parts of the culture particularly hard.
    Watch out if your livelihood depends on average peoples optional use of fuel.
    2 years.

    • GoneFishing says:

      “What is the price of crude oil that will weed out the average persons frivolous use of energy?”

      When it becomes illegal to use.

      I think $6 a gallon for gasoline will make a big dent in demand.

      Much of the problem goes away if more people pile into the vehicles instead of taking several vehicles to places. So when you see that pickup stuffed front and back with young people throwing empty beer cans and whooping it up, give them a high sign.

  58. R Walter says:


    We have oil. We have coal. We have wood. We have nuclear.

    We have renewables! Hydro, wind, solar, geothermal.

    Really not problems, they do the job of providing energy.

    What more do we want or need?

    We analyze it all until the cows come home. Analyzed all to death. Financially, total amounts of all, everything.

    Also, there are too many people. Therein lies the rub.

  59. Enno Peters says:

    This is the first time I have a presentation about natural gas production, in the Marcellus (PA).

    • Toolpush says:

      Thanks Enno,

      We see and talk so much about oil, it is great to see some information on nat gas. The thing that hit me in the eye, is that the gas wells hold up much better than their oily brothers. 2010 wells are still producing at 20% of the original flow rate, and 2013, which showed a big improvement over 2012, is producing 25% of the orginal flow after 40 months.

      At first blush, the gas wells have much better long term prospects than oil. But having said that, there are plans for huge increases in supply for LNG, nat gas power, and increased industrial demand. The question is are the gas producers up to the job?

      2017, should be a very interesting year for the Nat gas market!

    • John Keller says:

      There is a study by Gary Swindell I read yesterday which looks at 3,800 Marcellus wells. Very interesting. The projected EUR’s (4.7 BCF) of those wells which have been producing a few years are no where near what has been touted. Hard to see how they will make money with $1.50 marcellus gas. Just google ” Gary Swindell Dallas Marcellus 3,800″

      • John Keller says:

        Also, look at fig. 10 on his study. It is quite clear where the sweet spots are. Those won’t last forever.

  60. Oldfarmermac says:

    Now here is something to really keep half witted R party types up at night.

    I am beginning to think that there is NO WAY Trump can be as stupid as he is ACTING, and still have any money, because we all know that fools and their money soon part ways.

    Maybe he is a D “sleeper” , and all those meetings and greetings and social visits over the years with the Clintons were cover for their REAL purposes.

    Maybe he is DELIBERATELY doing every thing in his power to make sure HRC is elected president, lol.

    This comment is intended as humor and sarcasm. I ought not have to point this out, but otherwise somebody will inevitably think I am serious.

    I AM serious when I say that the average R voter who supported Trump in the primaries is going to be VERY sorry he ever even THOUGHT about voting Trump if HRC wins. There were at least three or four R candidates who would have had a MUCH better chance of beating her.

    Ditto the D voters who could have supported Sanders are going to wish they had, if Trump wins, because if Clinton loses, it will be because so many people have a low opinion of her, rather than Trump running a winning campaign.

    • GoneFishing says:

      Trump as part of a democratic conspiracy?
      No need for conspiracy, the wide range of ability (inability) combined with delusional thinking covers anything that has happened so far.
      Trump is just a stronger, richer version of quite a number of people I have come across. I don’t think he has a problem developing rapport with a rather large contingent of our society, he knows what buttons to push.
      What we need now is a George Wallace type to throw the whole thing into the mix master. Taking votes from DT or HRC or both now would make the whole thing into a lottery.
      This is supposed to be a democratically based system, so why don’t we have four or five or even more strong candidates running for office. How did we end up with just two parties that seem to run the whole show? Why do we put up with it?
      They don’t have the answers and are not able to push forward their agendas.

    • clueless says:

      I love those pictures of community members in the garden. Anybody that lived 2000 years ago could wake up and feel right at home.

      • Duncan Idaho says:

        That is a feature, not a bug.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        That’s a pretty arrogant remark! There but for the grace of sky daddy go you! For that matter, any of us!

    • Left wing propaganda. Right now people are going hungry, they drink dirty water, there are no medicines, inflation is in the 200 to 700 % range (depends on who’s counting what). Crime is even worse than last year, the regime is in breach of human rights conventions, and it’s evolving into a dark brooding and pychopathic satrapy of the Cuban dictatorship.

    • Oldfarmermac says:

      I have the utmost sympathy for the PEOPLE of Venezuela, but I read the link, and Resilience as an organization ought to be ashamed for publishing such a blatant propaganda piece.

      It was obviously written by a dyed in the wool true believing socialist who went out of the way to interview only true blue Maduro / Chavisto partisans.

      Venezuela is in the sorry state it’s in today due to gross mismanagement, cronyism, incompetence, and a total lack of ethics on the part of the ruling party. Maduro is willing to do anything at all that he thinks he may be able to get away with in order to stay in power.

      This is not to say that in the early days, the Chavista regime didn’t do a hell of a lot of good. It did.

  61. daniel says:

    Does anybody know why oil tanked today. The eia numbers dont seem to warrant such a response..

    • dclonghorn says:

      Expectations were for a bigger draw in crude. Total crude and products added. Result is that traders cut longs or add shorts making prices lower.

    • Brian Rose says:


      It was a confluence of events.

      WTI had a double bottom at $46, which caused a rally extended by the after-hours API numbers. Basically, oil initially re-coiled on temporary technicals, then stretched further on API data.

      Now, keep in mind that at this exact time 1 year ago oil began its trend break and crash. That double bottom at ~$46 also had a strong downward triangle pressuring any rally to ~$48.60.

      With EIA numbers in line with API oil would likely have rallied to ~$48.60 before strong technicals lead to another test of $46. Again, remember that oil started crashing at this moment last year, and a descending triangle that formed on June 8th was a sign of what experts call “funky bad mojo”.

      Thing is, EIA numbers were not only far below API data, but also slightly below estimates. As a result, WTI never had a chance to hit $48.60, and plowed through multiple retracement lines – you can see where these are by looking at WTI charts here:

      Wherever it briefly stops the plunge is a technical hold point, which can be identified here:

      There’s dozens of these technical points with most being “pawns” on only a few being a formidable “rook or queen”.

      While oil was breaking down the DXY (dollar) was also on an upward rampage for several reasons – it had its own daily double bottom, and employment data was suggestive that future Fed action will make the dollar stronger, and some other stuff, but those two are the strongest factors.

      So here’s poor ol’ WTI hit with a slingshot set-up where it is bound to take out its double bottom $46 price point, and now has little technical support in the chasm below it. All the while the dollar is acting as a lead balloon to push WTI past whatever weak supports exist below $46.

      That’s the jist of it at least.

      Now that WTI sits in a no man’s land with few technicals “shepherding” it there will likely be higher volatility, and that volatility will come to define the range of the new technicals in it’s new range.

      Again, this is all still in the shadow of “this is exactly what happened last year, and it was a bloodbath for anyone who was bullish”, so expect a certain timidity to upward moves, which will be readily assailed by the still existing technical limits on the upside (technical upside limits that were, until today, downside limits).

      Lots of data next week on production and consumption around the world, so headline risk on both the upside and downside will reign supreme.

  62. learner2 says:

    In a ‘normal” world, a drawdown would lead to higher price. Bigger drawdawn, bigger increase, smaller drawdown, smaller increase, nevertheless. Why it fell 7% from high of today makes no sense to me. Its down because shorts want it down i guess !

    • daniel says:

      Crazy world. 2 months ago imports of over 8 million barrel per day, high refinery runs and a huge drop in production would be bullish news.
      The damage that is being done to conventional oil and our oil supply in the next years is mind-blowing

  63. Amatoori says:

    If EIA is keeping it’s accurate correlation with STEO and other revision todays drop i HUGE!
    Anyone know if there is any oil left in Alaska? Surprised maintenance took away that much. Any other explanations?

    Domestic Production: 8,428 Last week: 8,622 / -194
    Alaska: 340 Last week: 496/ -156
    Lower 48: 8,088 Last week: 8,126/ -38

    That 6% drop in oil was a bit to much I think. But since API had a 6,2 million draw yesterday that might explain the overreaction. Impressive they can still publish this guesses.

  64. The EIA’s Weekly Petroleum Status Report came out earlier today. US C+C production was down 194,000 barrels per day. But, by far, the most of that was Alaska pipeline maintenance. Alaska was down 156,000 bpd. US lower 48, including the Gulf of Mexico, was down 38,000 barrels per day. Still 38,000 bpd is huge for the lower 48.

     photo US Weekly CC_zpsurjnc9ea.png

    • Brian Rose says:


      There’s now a market wide knowledge that the models the EIA uses to estimate lower 48 production do not reflect data on the ground.

      I can honestly say it was noted here first by means of Dean and Dennis months ago, and it has recently become accepted wisdom that EIA production numbers aren’t worthy of consideration.

      There’s a growing concensus that production is higher than models state, and this is increasingly making the EIA’s weekly production numbers fall on deaf ears.

      In other words, according to the markets the production numbers are meaningless, and the inventory numbers are all that is taken into account.

      • There’s now a market wide knowledge that the models the EIA uses to estimate lower 48 production do not reflect data on the ground.

        Brian, I am totally ignorant of that “market wide knowledge”. I read every damn link on oil production that comes across the wire and I have not heard one damn peep about that. Why the hell is that?

        Do you have any links that talk about this “market wide knowledge”? If so please post them as I would just love to read a few of those links. If not, then just how wide is this “market wide knowledge”? Just who are these guys who hold this “accepted wisdom”? And how come they are are keeping all this “accepted wisdom” to themselves?

        • Heinrich Leopold says:


          There is some talk of a fire accident at BP’s Thunder Horse in the Gulf of Mexico. This will bring down another big chunk of production this week.

          Alaska and Thunder Horse are just temporary closures, yet Alaska shuts down some production every year during the summer. So, what is really counting is the annual change in production and it is definitely in an accelerating decline. This is confirmed by the net import numbers, but also by the trade numbers which showed accelerating US oil imports and the FED oil production index which stands at -8% decline for May.

          So, there there is very little evidence to question the EIA numbers.

          This is not a bad thing as this will bring oil prices up again, which is very beneficial for the whole oil industry on the long run.

  65. R Walter says:

    Oil price in Japan is 28,420 yen today. 101 yen to a usd.

    The math done has oil at 38.54 per barrel delivered to Japan.

    Looks like Japan has the cash money to pay the price at 38.54 usd per barrel, that’s what they will pay.

    Don’t drink water from municipal water supplies in the US.

  66. Chart Monkey says:

    Todays oil price drop. I’ve just been looking through the oil news. Apart from inventories not falling fast enough, these two stories stood out (I’m not an oil market expert)…

    July 7 (Reuters) – Royal Dutch Shell’s Nigerian division lifted a force majeure on exports of Bonny Light crude oil on Thursday, the latest sign that Nigeria’s oil production is recovering after being hit by militant attacks in its oil-rich delta region.
    Forcados and Brass River – remain under force majeure.

    Libya to Resume Oil Exports From Biggest Ports Within a Week
    Thursday, July 07, 2016

    (said to be worth an extra +200kb/day of exports)

    (This story on China’s SPR from last week might be worth reading too)
    Oil Bulls Beware Because China’s Almost Done Amassing Crude – June 30, 2016
    The bank assumes the capacity for the reserves is about 511 million barrels, based on government plans cited by state media. At the current rate of stockpiling, the storage would fill up by August, leading to a potential import drop in September.

  67. islandboy says:

    Electric Car Charging Market To Generate $8 Billion In Revenue By 2022

    As per a report by Allied Market Research, the “world electric vehicle charging system market would generate revenue of $8.02 billion by 2022″ and grow at a compound annual rate of 30.7% from 2016 through 2022.

    That’s quite an impressive figure given the relatively small size of the charging infrastructure today.

    This article got me thinking on a bit of a tangent and I submitted a comment about it. Oil & Gas industry revenues for the US alone were 220 billion U.S. dollars in 2014, before falling to 129.8 billion U.S. dollars in 2015. Looking up the global figure, the latest I could find in a hurry was $1.2569 trillion. Adding up the revenues for the top 22 from a Wikipedia page “List of largest oil and gas companies by revenue” gives a figure of $4.376 trillion. If the world electric vehicle charging system market would generate revenue of $8.02 billion by 2022, what does that tell us about the transportation fuels market?

    Gas pumps can fill a tank in minutes. The fastest EV chargers can give you 80% in half an hour. In the case of a Tesla, that’s between 160 and 240 miles worth of travel while for the rest, it could be around 80 miles. The gas pump will dispense at least $20 worth of fuel for a full tank while the Tesla Supercharger will dispense less than $12 worth of electricity for a full charge (70+minutes). A gas pump that spends say 10 hours a day dispensing fuel could net $240 ($20 every 5 minutes of use including processing payment etc.) while a Tesla Supercharger might dispense $100 over the same usage period. The Tesla Superchargers are the fastest out there at the moment so the numbers for all the rest are going to be far worse.

    It strikes me that, like the solar PV business, there is going to be a lot less money sloshing around in the EV charging business compared to the oil business. It lends credence to the idea that EVs could be disruptive in that, if EVs were to become mainstream, the amount of money spent on “providing fuel” could decline precipitously. Helps to explain why the Koch brother are spending millions to disparage EVs and why anybody who makes a living from oil would wish that EVs would just disappear from the face of the earth.

    It makes me wonder, would life be better for all of us if we could spend significantly less buying fuel for the same amount of travel, at the expense of all the good people in the oil industry? Would the world economy collapse as a result of the lost revenues (and profits?) from the oil industry or would it benefit from significantly lower transportation costs all round?

    • GoneFishing says:

      When I insulate and seal my house, do you think it’s fair to the providers of fuel for my furnace? When I drive just a few thousand miles a year with a high mpg vehicle is that fair to the oil companies and their associated companies? How about all those highly efficient furnaces or diet books. Was it fair to the kerosene producers when the electric light bulb came along?
      Of course it is fair. That is normal business practice.
      The real question should be “Is it fair to hang a whole civilization on a depleting resource?”

      • islandboy says:

        The question wasn’t “is it fair to the providers of fuel”? It is “would we be collectively better off spending less for transport, with a whole industry having shed jobs revenues and profits”? Would other sources of GDP make up for the losses from the oil industry?

        • GoneFishing says:

          Come on islandboy, you know already. Plenty things to do and keep people busy.
          Quick short list:
          Production of PV and wind power.
          Build out of PV and wind power.
          Upgrading and changing the grid system.
          EV production, distribution and maintenance.
          Increase in need for programmers and electronics.
          New carbon-free and low carbon building construction.
          New materials production.
          Conversion to hydrogen and/or synthetic liquid fuel technology
          Solar thermal
          Other energy storage systems
          Electric train and associated equipment
          Systems management
          Climate mitigation
          Building of levees and movement of infrastructure to higher ground
          Planting of trees
          White paint and other white coloring
          Reuse of products and materials
          Clean-up programs
          Biological reestablishment
          Possible nuclear energy if it uses nuclear waste from old plants
          Development of bio-energy systems
          Conversion of bedroom communities to actual communities
          Hydraulic hybrid vehicles
          New technology road building
          Advanced low fuel use aircraft (already in the testing stages)
          Low water use agriculture.
          Upgrading old buildings for low energy use.

    • islandboy says:

      Sorry folks. Major brain fart, I wrote;

      “A gas pump that spends say 10 hours a day dispensing fuel could net $240 ($20 every 5 minutes of use including processing payment etc.) while a Tesla Supercharger might dispense $100 over the same usage period. The Tesla Superchargers are the fastest out there at the moment so the numbers for all the rest are going to be far worse.”

      That should have been,” A gas pump that spends say 10 hours a day dispensing fuel could net $240 a hour ($20 every 5 minutes of use including processing payment etc.) for a total of $2400, while a Tesla Supercharger might dispense $100 over the same usage period. The Tesla Superchargers are the fastest out there at the moment so, the numbers for all the rest are going to be far worse.” I had a feeling the difference in revenues for gas pumps vs EV chargers should have been larger that what I wrote but, didn’t catch my mistake while I was still able to edit the above comment. More than twenty times the revenue, over the same period is more like what I had in mind.

      • GoneFishing says:

        The gas stations do not net $240 an hour per pump, that is the gross sales. They net about a nickel per gallon. As I explained above the charger net could be adjusted to make as much as a gas pump per minute and it would still be a lot cheaper than gasoline.
        You ignored quick battery changes for those in a hurry.
        Also, when the EV builders get smart and add high tech solar panels to the top of the car, they will hardly ever have to stop for a charge. Latest high tech multiple layer PV panels are 41% efficient. That is up to 60 miles per day just on average sunlight.

        A Tesla supercharger can deliver 2800 kWh per day. It needs no attendant, does not need large underground tanks, no mechanical pumps needed. At 20 cents a kWh that would mean up to $196 net for each charger per day. Considering the low overhead and a 15 or 20 charger station parking lot (for Tesla only at first) that is a take of up to $4700 per day after electric power costs. Could definitely afford a security guard/valet person on site.
        So a person gets dropped off at dinner or a play, or maybe a hotel, the car drives itself to the nearest charging station and comes back on demand from a smartphone or when it is done charging. All autonomous. The cars know where the nearest open charger is and goes there or queues up at the best nearby charging area. All while the owner and his date are out having fun or snoozing away in a hotel. Soon to be at a city near you, no people really needed.
        Robotics will take over. Fun isn’t it?
        Of course most of us will have lower end EV’s and just adapt to any inconvenience and roll in the money we save. 🙂

        • islandboy says:

          “The gas stations do not net $240 an hour per pump, that is the gross sales”

          Right you are! Boy, was I on a roll yesterday! 😉 I did mean gross and don’t know why I used the word net instead. The point is made though, how much revenue is generated by a gas pump versus an EV charger. This gross revenue will support a lot of economic activity from the tanker driver right back to the hands on the rigs with some for the marketing companies and let’s not forget the banksters. The EV charging station will not support nearly as many enterprises but, hopefully the reduced spending on transportation would produce a significant up-tick in discretionary spending, making it a wash.

          • GoneFishing says:

            I was just reading a book on radiation. Apparently the early researchers were far more afraid of the high voltage electricity they had to use than they were of the radioactive isotopes themselves. The electricity kills you immediately while the radioactivity often takes many years.
            I wonder how many amateur mechanics are going to end up with burns or no heartbeat by messing around with EV’s.

            • Longtimber says:

              Disconnects are required in the right locations. Ungrounded HV Cables are Orange. Much is double insulated. You may be able to make one contact, the second will blow you up. How many people get killed by moving Belts. I know of two.

          • Gas stations are usually convenience stores which happen to have gasoline pumps. Their managers worry more about having coffee ready and making sure the chips and suzieq displays are in strategic locations.

  68. islandboy says:

    Usually in lockstep, 20% jump in natural gas prices affects power prices little

    In a report on last year’s energy prices, FERC found wholesale electricity prices were down 27% to 35% across the nation compared with 2014, at major trading hubs on a monthly average basis for on-peak hours.

    Both PJM Interconnection and Southwest Power Pool reported declining power prices this month. Expanding renewables and cheap natural gas are to blame, according to reports.

    As natural gas prices declined, so has the country’s appetite for fuel. After decades of coal dominance, the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects gas-fired power’s share of the United States energy mix to edge out coal’s on an annual basis this year. While coal and gas wound up generating roughly equal amounts of energy last year, EIA says gas is expected to capture 33% of the market in 2016 while coal falls to 32%.

    • GoneFishing says:

      Still less than $3 MMBTU. Versus consumer cost of about $8.70. Plenty of maneuver room there.

    • Heinrich Leopold says:


      There are definitely environmental advantages for natural gas as coal:

      C + O2 = CO2

      converts nearly 100% to CO2 and natgas converts to a high percentage to water:

      CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 + 2H2O

      Natgas is coming as close as it gets to H2, which is a very clean fuel.

      For this reason alone the conversion to natgas should at least stick for a high degree, despite cost disadvantages at high natgas prices.

      In addition, many natgas consumers have hedged low prices until at least 2018. So, many natgas producers are stuck with low hedges and receive very low prices over the next two years. As they cannot increase production accordingly, spot prices will increase in my view enormously. We can see already that the natgas market moves slowly into backwardation where the cash market is higher than the futures market.

      • Phil S says:

        Hi Heinrich, I agree nat gas has environmental benefits over coal, but I think you need to find a better way of presenting your argument. The equations you give show that in both cases one carbon atom becomes one carbon dioxide molecule 🙁

        • Heinrich Leopold says:


          In the second equation energy yield is double than in the first equation. So CO2 emissions are half for the same energy yield in the case for natgas. Do you have any suggestions how to depict it?

          • GoneFishing says:

            Pounds of CO2 produced per million BTU of gross energy.
            Coal 205 to 228 (depending on type)
            Natural Gas 117
            Gasoline 157
            Diesel 161
            Solar zero
            Wind zero
            Considering that natural gas turbines are more efficient than thermal coal, natural gas produces less than half the CO2 per kWh compared to coal. Should be easier and cheaper to fit carbon sequestration to a natural gas plant than to a coal plant.

          • Don’t forget combined cycle gas turbines are much more efficient than coal plants.

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        The problem with discussing hydrogen as a fuel is that there is no H2 to be had, except by manufacturing it by various processes which consume energy, lots of energy.

        So – If you strip the hydrogen off a methane molecule, you are left with a carbon atom.

        You might as well just burn the methane, because sure as hell somebody is going to burn that carbon atom, or one just like it ANYWAY.

        Carbon atoms are FUNGIBLE, one pile of carbon works just as well as fuel as another when it comes to building a fire.

        If you incorporate left over carbon from hydrogen manufacture in the soil ( which is a good thing for the soil and environment) for every ton you bury, the actual real world result will be that somebody will just dig up another ton of buried carbon- aka COAL.

        It might eventually make sense to use any excess wind and solar power to break water down into hydrogen and oxygen, if enough off peak surplus juice ever becomes available. This would be a defacto way of storing the electrical energy for later use.

        • GoneFishing says:

          True, most of the hydrogen on this planet is in the form of water. Gaseous hydrogen escapes to space.
          No one is going to strip the hydrogen from methane to produce H2. Hydrogen will be made from water. Methanol will be made from CO2.
          Hydrogen is an energy storage medium. Pumped hydro is a storage medium. Batteries are a storage medium. Rock and salts are heat storage mediums.
          There are 4 kWh/day/m2 of sunlight hitting everywhere. One acre of land gets 14545 kWh/day of solar energy. If we can’t figure out how to use that and some wind power, we might as well just screw the future and keep burning. We are then just too dumb to be an intelligent species.

  69. Oldfarmermac says:

    The oil industry is going to have some trouble ramping up again, how much is impossible to say.

    It’s anybody’s guess how hard it will be to get a first rate crew together again once business picks up after such a LONG layoff. For sure some top guys have retired early, and some have no doubt found entirely new lines of work.

    Now I know that here in the good old USA, oil companies actually hire most of the hands on and a lot of the skull work out to contractors.

    But I don’t know how much work is typically done with by in house crews in the case of national oil companies.

    What’s the deal there?

    I doubt national oil companies have laid off a whole lot of their own employees.That’s not the way government and government patronage and back scratching works, unless things get really desperate.

    • jed says:

      Guess it means rates will go through the roof.

    • Eulenspiegel says:

      On the other hands, car sales in China goes through the roof – looks like a strong demand side. 10.8 million cars sold in the first 6 months, +9.5%, and not everyone is a replacement.

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        I haven’t seen any figures on the rate at which Chinese cars are scrapped, but my guess is that the scrappage rate is VERY low, because most of the cars in China are probably less than ten years old. And most of them probably aren’t driven all that much anyway.The Chinese haven’t yet had time to learn how live on the opposite side of town from their places of employment, lol.

      • GoneFishing says:

        China has set increased mpg standards, 47 mpg fleet by 2020. However, I would not take this too seriously as by 2020 we may see a doubling of range of EV’s and the mpg standards will seem quaint throwbacks by 2025. It will make meeting carbon emission standards so much easier that many large governments will jump on the EV bandwagon and relegate the ICE to special use vehicles, mostly as hybrids.
        Plus as Old farmer says, Chinese don’t travel very far yet, so EV’s will be an easy sell there.

        • Eulenspiegel says:

          If I drive fast, my Ford Focus uses 47 mgp, too. Normally I don’t drive as fast, so I am more at 50-55. With clima, all electronics turned on.

          They sell other engines here in Europe than in USA, it’s a 1 liter engine with 3 valves but 120 HP.

          I think the main problem in chinese cities are the endless traffic jams – you don’t want to drive there very far.

          • GoneFishing says:

            Yes, Europe is ahead of the US in energy conservation. We have a lot of easy work to catch up to Europe, then the hard work starts. If we are smart (optional) we will just leap frog into EV’s and forgo the middle ground. Probably not though.

          • Oldfarmermac says:

            I often wonder if our domestic regulatory authorities have not made a major mistake in NOT substituting European pollution regs for our own.

            True we would be emitting more nox with our cars, but we would be emitting a lot less co2 and drilling for and buying less oil.

            • Just don’t substitute a socialist mayor. Ever since we got one here the darned traffic lights are out of whack, garbage pickup is drooping, and we get way too many conflicts between the mayor and the regular tourist business community. This town lives off tourism and it really has to run like a Swiss watch to keep attracting the English.

      • Synapsid says:


        Car sales in India for April were a bit over 1 000 000. If that is characteristic then we can expect about 12 000 000 sales for the year.

        I’m mentioning this not for the numbers themselves, which will no doubt be quite different at the end of the year, but to point out the scale of car sales in India. We hear China China China but little or nothing about India in conversations here and elsewhere, and there are a lot of people in India and, it seems, increasing buying power. I’ve made this point here about coal consumption; now I’m pointing at car sales.

        Let’s keep India on the radar.

  70. R Walter says:

    Where to begin? For some history, start here:

    Yes, I know, it is kind of a propaganda piece, but it is an interesting read.

    • Ves says:

      Mr. Rockerfeller was unintentionally a slave as much as his employees. He is celebrated for his money-pinching…cut few cents here, and then cut few cents there. His “thinking” is futile. At the most, thinking can imagine new combinations, but it cannot know the unknown. The unknown remains beyond it.

      Thinking goes in circles, goes on knowing the known again and again, and again. Apple (via slave Foxcon Chinese employee) or Amazon (via slave US warehouse employees) does the same thing that Rockefeller did 150 years ago. Mainly it is thinking how to cut the cost. It goes on chewing the chewed. Thinking is never original. Apple and Amazon will have the same fate as Standard Oil.

      • R Walter says:

        Probably. We’re all slaves to ourselves. We must do something to be able to survive and stay alive, eating trumps everything. Everything you do is work there is no escaping it.

        The accomplishment of removing the skunk odor from malodorous oil is worth noting, however.

        Rockefeller purchased 40 million barrels of malodorous oil for fifteen cents per barrel. Nobody would buy the stinky stuff, they didn’t want it at all.

        He then hired, partnered with Hermann Frasch, Frasch was a chemist, the chemist who developed the process to remove sulphur from oil, as a result, the kerosene for lamps was made better.

        Can’t really argue with success.

        • Ves says:

          Yes it is success. But it is very important to understand how success happened. Rockefeller is only using his intellect = thinking. And that is just bean counting.

          On other hand, Herman Frasch did not use his intellect to develop that process of removing sulphur. He was just alert, aware. And when he was alert his intelligence showed up. When intelligence is present there is no need for thinking. The answer to develop process just showed up on its own. We all have intelligence but it cannot bubble to the surface because of too much thinking.

          If scientist is just using his intellect and it is not alert, aware in some meditative state then his work is useless. Intelligence will never show up. Then it is dull 9-5 job until retirement.

  71. Oldfarmermac says:

    More problems for the deep water guys and girls.

    IT AIN’T GOOD when your safety systems fail due to corrosion even before they are needed.

    Whoever wrote this article is quite confused about hardness, toughness, etc.

    Over tightened bolts aren’t at all likely to break UNTIL they are subjected to high loads such as pounding, vibration, shocks of some sort. If they are on safety equipment that is just basically SITTING THERE, not YET needed, you can just about bet that corrosion is the problem.

    Of course I don’t actually know diddly about blow out preventers. It could be that they ARE subject to shocks and strains during normal operation of the well.

    • Eulenspiegel says:

      And the 1 billion $ question is:

      Will the broken equipment be monitored more accuratly and be repaired more promptly at oil prices of 45$ or at 110$?

  72. GoneFishing says:

    Gasoline in my area is $1.989 per gallon. Certainly not much pressure to convert to EV, though it will probably put a number of them at bargain prices. Buy now, prepare for the rise in price of gasoline.

    • Eulenspiegel says:

      Here it’s converted $5.05 a gallon – that’s pretty cheap compared with 2 years ago.

      Still not buying a SUV – but still not profitable to buy a EV when just calculating prices.

      • GoneFishing says:

        Really? Never thought of buying a car as profitable, usually just four wheels to pour money into. 🙂
        So 12 years of fuel does not compensate for the extra cost of an EV? I assume the fuel will get more expensive with time.
        For me it is not an advantage until the fuel hits $4 or more a gallon. I don’t drive much but for the average US driver, it’s $12000 fuel cost versus $6000 electric cost for a savings of $6000 even at today’s gasoline prices. If the price of fuel doubles in the next few years, EV’s are a real bargain.

        • Oldfarmermac says:

          I am a big believer in electrification of automobiles, but we don’t yet know how long it will be before you can buy a truly comparable electric car for the same money, WITHOUT a tax break, for the same money as a conventional car.

          We don’t yet know how well the price of electric cars will hold up at trade in time.
          They may actually be worth MORE used but we just don’t KNOW.

          IF the batteries hold up really well, then electrics are going to be much cheaper to own and drive once they are priced the same as ice cars-IF they are ever priced the same.

          The big killer right now is opportunity cost. The extra ten grand or more you pay out up front could be put to a lot of potentially productive uses. If I had it to spare, I would be more likely to invest it in Tesla stock than in a new Tesla model 3, lol.

  73. The weekly Baker Hughes Rig Count is out. Oil rigs up 10, gas rigs down 1.

  74. The facility also supplies a wide array of assistive tools, tools, and
    materials at list prices.

  75. Being in the restaurant & bar business turns you into a perfectionist.
    The gate is reported to have been erected around
    1440 to control the comings and goings of merchandise in the
    Spanish capital. ABC Family: ‘The Secret Life of
    the American Teenager’.

Comments are closed.