Texas RRC Report, also The Seven Sisters

The Texas RRC has released their new monthly production report:
RRC Online System Oil & Gas Production Data Query

In the below chart I have posted last month’s data in order to show the revisions. The last data point for the April report is February, for the March report and the EIA data it is January. All data is in barrels per day.

Texas RRC

The revisions were considerable. I have charted the revisions in barrels per day in order to better show the magnitude.

Texas Revisions

Pertinent revisions go back to February 2012 which was revised upward by 1,145 bp/d. But of course the big revisions are in the most recent months with January revised up by 146,716 bp/d and progressively smaller after that. December was revised up by 86,856 bp/d.

I have come to the opinion that the EIA has their estimate pretty close. Perhaps a tad high but very close nevertheless.

I am still of the opinion that Eagle Ford is declining. (All the above data is for all Texas, not just Eagle Ford.) But Texas condensate does seem to have peaked or approaching peak at least.

Texas Condensate

Revisions prior to August 2013, if they continue at the same rate as the previous months, is not enough to reach the peak of May 2013.


One year ago Al Jezeera published a series of four videos called The Seven Sisters. I have no idea why I am just now hearing about them. It tells the story of the seven major oil companies, Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Gulf, Texaco, BP and Shell, who held 85% of the world’s oil reserves up until the late 60s. Each video is 47.5 minutes long. Apparently they were created for four one hour shows including commercials. But if they were ever broadcast in the USA I have never heard of it. Anyway thanks to Steve of SRSrocco Report for alerting me to these videos.

Some of the things revealed in these videos will startle you. I know, Al Jezeera has an agenda. But everyone has an agenda and the major oil companies, in all their press releases and advertisements, most definitely has an agenda.

In the last episode Al Jezeera travels to Irland to talk with Colin Campbell. They say “Everyone calls him Mr. Peak Oil”.

Secret of the Seven Sisters – EP1: Desert Storms

“The first part of a four-part series that reveals how a secret pact formed a cartel that controls the world’s oil. Throughout the region’s modern history, since the discovery of oil, the Seven Sisters have sought to control the balance of power.

They have supported monarchies in Iran and Saudi Arabia, opposed the creation of OPEC, profiting from the Iran-Iraq war, leading to the ultimate destruction of Saddam Hussein and Iraq. The Seven Sisters were always present, and almost always came out on top. Since that notorious meeting at Achnacarry Castle on August 28, 1928, they have never ceased to plot, to plan and to scheme.”

Secret of the Seven Sisters – EP2: The Black El Dorado

“At the end of the 1960s, the Seven Sisters, the major oil companies, controlled 85 percent of the world’s oil reserves. Today, they control just 10 percent. New hunting grounds are therefore required, and the Sisters have turned their gaze towards Africa. With peak oil, wars in the Middle East, and the rise in crude prices, Africa is the oil companies’ new battleground.

But new players have now joined the great oil game. China, with its growing appetite for energy, has found new friends in Sudan, and the Chinese builders have moved in. Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir is proud of his co-operation with China – a dam on the Nile, roads, and stadiums.

In a bid to secure oil supplies out of Libya, the US, the UK and the Seven Sisters made peace with the once shunned Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, until he was killed during the Libyan uprising of 2011, but the flow of Libyan oil remains uninterrupted. In need of funds for rebuilding, Libya is now back to pumping more than a million barrels of oil per day. And the Sisters are happy to oblige.”

Secret of the Seven Sisters – EP3: The Dancing Bear

“In the Caucasus, the US and Russia are vying for control of the region. The great oil game is in full swing. Whoever controls the Caucasus and its roads, controls the transport of oil from the Caspian Sea. Tbilisi, Erevan and Baku – the three capitals of the Caucasus. The oil from Baku in Azerbaijan is a strategic priority for all the major companies.

After World War II, President Nikita Krushchev would build the Soviet empire and its Red Army with revenues from the USSR’s new-found oil reserves. Decades later, oil would bring that empire to its knees, when Saudi Arabia and the US would conspire to open up the oil taps, flood the markets, and bring the price of oil down to $13 per barrel. Russian oligarchs would take up the oil mantle, only to be put in their place by their president, Vladimir Putin, who knows that oil is power.

Today, the US, Russia and China contest the control of the former USSR’s fossil fuel reserves, and the supply routes. A three-handed match, with the world as spectators, between three ferocious beasts — The American eagle, the Russian bear, and the Chinese dragon.”

Secret of the Seven Sisters – EP4: A Time for Lies

“The final episode of this series explores what happens when oil becomes more and more inaccessible, while at the same time, new powers like China and India try to fulfill their growing energy needs. At the same time, oil-producing countries have had enough with the Seven Sisters controlling their oil assets. Nationalisation of oil reserves around the world has ushered in a new generation of oil companies all vying for a slice of the oil pie. These are the new Seven Sisters.

Saudi Arabia’s Saudi Aramco, the largest and most sophisticated oil company in the world; Russia’s Gazprom, a company that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin wrested away from the oligarchs; The China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), which, along with its subsidiary, Petrochina, is the world’s secnd largest company in terms of market value; The National Iranian Oil Company, which has a monopoly on exploration, extraction, transportation and exportation of crude oil in Iran — OPEC’s second largest oil producer after Saudi Arabia; Venezuela’s PDVSA, a company the late president Hugo Chavez dismantled and rebuilt into his country’s economic engine and part of his diplomatic arsenal; Brazil’s Petrobras, a leader in deep water oil production, that pumps out 2 million barrels of crude oil a day; and Malaysia’s Petronas – Asia’s most profitable company in 2012.

Mainly state-owned, the new Seven Sisters control a third of the world’s oil and gas production, and more than a third of the world’s reserves. The old Seven Sisters, by comparison, produce a tenth of the world’s oil, and control only three percent of the reserves. The balance has shifted.”

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

107 Responses to Texas RRC Report, also The Seven Sisters

  1. yt75 says:

    Four your info, this documentary, “the secret of the seven sisters” is an English adaptation of below one :
    (from 2009, produced by sunset presse for France 5)
    It is also a bit adpated/edited (like in Colin Campbell interview, most pessimistic or “peak oil oriented” parts taken out.)

    There is another great doc “la face cachée du pétrole” which somehow I find better for the seventies crisis (and with more key people interviewed, and especially James Akins), in two parts :
    first part:
    second part :
    It also exists in German, as done for the franco german arte tv channel, but not in English to my knowledge.

    • yt75 says:

      Note : regarding the seventies, and especially the first oil shock and associated “common image” or “myth” : “first oil shock=Yom Kippour/Arab embargo = geopolitical story = nothing to do ith geologic constraints”

      Akins interviews in the second part of “la face cachée du pétrole” are really key :
      – he was the guy named by Nixon to go check what was going on after US 1970 peak (no to be told to the media, but national security question, real figures needed to be known)
      (results were bad, report done on “no additional capacity”, also presented to OECD)
      – he was then US ambassador in Saudi Arabia
      – Also the fact that the price had to go up for the majors after US peak : required to start Alaska, GOM, North Sea. And in fact Akins was already suggesting around $5 a barrel in a meeting in Algiers in 72
      – He also mentions that the “embargo” was never effective from KSA to the US (for the US army in Vietnam in particular) : tankers kept on going, through Barhain to make it more descrete. And in fact two senators, were starting to have strong voices about “doing something” : he asked the permission to tell them what was going on, got it, told them, they shat up an there was never any leak.

      For sure a big part of “current propaganda” still rests on this “first oil shock=Arab embargo” myth, and associated “corollary” which is mostly having completely skipped or “covered up” the US 1970 peak “event”.
      (and dropping Bretton Woods in 1971, with associated $ devaluation and switch to the petro dollar, is also a big part in this story).

      About Akins see below for instance :

      • Watcher says:

        “Mr. Akins, an austere Foreign Service officer whose Middle East experience included postings in the oil-rich countries of Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait and Iraq, served as the director of the State Department’s Office of Fuels and Energy from 1967 to 1973. ”

        State still has this office?

        • Watcher says:

          A corrupted version thereof:

          • Watcher says:

            That’s just scary. A fuels office has become green this and green that and now is there ANYONE there who is Mr. Oil?

            • yt75 says:

              Yes this thing was started (or restarted) by Hillary when secretary of State (and remember her hinting to energy a couple of time in her speeches as secretary of state), M Auzanneau mentions in one of his post (or comment) this being around 80 people in Washington now.
              But I find the first sentence still quite clear and direct somehow :
              “The Bureau of Energy Resources (ENR) will ensure that all our diplomatic relationships advance our interests in having access to secure, reliable, and ever-cleaner sources of energy. “

              • yt75 says:

                Note : about Akins, his April 73 (before the “embargo”) article “the oil crisis : this time the wolf is here”, is still a must read (and it would be interesting to check his projections numbers with what happened, never took the time to do it), he already talks about tar sands and shale ! (but in the kerogen sense) :

              • Watcher says:

                State’s selection criteria for diplomats screens out . . . not at all a party specific criteria, but they most assuredly do screen for mindset. There are lots of different categories for “diplomats”.

                A big one is consular affairs, which is a little bit like a glorified clerk. They go through applications for visas. They are still called diplomats, but they never negotiate anything, particularly. Despite this, they are still screened for the same non competitive, non confrontational, non mathematical mindset. It’s a blanket screen.

                Also, State doesn’t really have a career path that rewards advanced degrees, certainly not in consular affairs. So it’s probably very difficult in the “modern” State department to find someone who chose a technical background and has made oil his or her focus.

                FYI despite the absence of math mindset, it’s pretty typical for them all to own rental property around DC. They advertise it and rent it to other people from State who have to pass through for 6 months every few years.

                • yt75 says:

                  The problem in our time regarding oil and diplomacy, the way I see it, is that anybody serious looking at it can only consider the situation for what it is (global peak), and so in terms of diplomacy, either you turn your back from it, or end up discussing very agressive games painted under the propaganda relevant for the current day.

                  • Watcher says:

                    Indeed. I happened to catch a quote from an administration spokesman the other day (in response to a question about Russia’s position as Europe/Ukraine supplier) that went like this:

                    “As we have said before, we think it is inappropriate and unacceptable to use energy exports to advance an exporter’s geopolitical interests.”

                    Largely, that’s just hilarious.

    • SRSrocco says:


      Great comments. I appreciate the additional info.


  2. Arthur Berman says:


    I suppose that I am dense, but I do not understand your first graph at all–it’s probably because of the way it is labelled. Do the blue and orange curves represent the TX RRC March and April volumes as stated and the gray line the EIA as stated? If so, there is a huge discrepancy.

    Or, do the blue and orange represent the revised data or what?



    • Arthur, you had it right the first time. The blue represents what the Texas RRC reporded as all Texas C+C in March. The orange represents what they reported today, in April. And the gray is what the EIA reports as Texas production.

      Yes there is a huge discrepancy but there is a reason for that. Texas is, apparently, very lax in requiring the oil companies to report production on time. So some of the data comes in late and some very late. Some even comes in two years late. But the RRC does not estimate, except for the last month, what the production is likely to be. But the EIA does estimate. And that is why the huge discrepancy in the data. The EIA data is what they estimate Texas will report after all the data finally comes in.

      That is what I was attempting to show in my second graph, the magnitude of their revisions. And the revisions will look like this every month. Eventually they will be pretty close to what the EIA estimates.

      • wadosy says:

        on your first graph, the EIA and the RRC start diverging about two years agon…

        so it takes the RRC two years to get all the reports from the production companines… that’s what you’re saying, right?

        so, in two years, in april of 2016, the RRC reports for april 2014 will agree with the EIA reports of 2014…

        …and presumably, if everything stays the same, two years from now, in april of 2016, the RRC reports will still be lagging the EIA’s and it will take RRC two years to catch up…

        …so we assume that the EIA requires timely reporting and gets it, but some of the production companies wait two years to report to the RRC

        would that have anything to do with oil production taxes in texas…? …or is there even suck a thing?

        are some of these marginal fracking companies planning on going out of businees before they pay their taxes to texas?

        (“taxes to texas”?!? …is that a country song?)

        • Wadosy, only a very tiny fraction of Texas production will be delayed two years. The largest revision, by far, will be revised one month after the latest data. Then a much smaller revision will be made two months late. Then… Well you get the idea.

          The revisions two years late this month amounted to 1,145 barrels out of 1,711,970 barrels per day that was produced in January of 2012. That is .0652% or 6 one hundredths of one percent. That just ain’t much.

          But a man who knows about these things just emailed me with this:

          Ron … yes, an operator can get up to a 2-year waiver on reporting to the commission for proprietary reasons.

          That’s just the way they do things in Texas and there just ain’t much we can do about it.

          • wadosy says:

            okay, that’s what I thought you were driving at

            if your email guy is right, then can we assume the EIA is getting timely reports? …the oil companies are assi,omg that their production data is safe with the EIA?

            as ou pointed out, sometimes it looks like the EIA is just drawing a line with a ruler…

            there still might be a country song in here, somewhere, but in the meantime, we’ll have to make do with “lyin’ eyes”

            • if your email guy is right, then can we assume the EIA is getting timely reports?

              No, that is not correct. Companies follow the law and do not volunteer anything to anyone that is not required by law. There is no law that says they must inform the EIA of their production numbers.

              They pay royalties to the owners of the mineral rights and taxes to Texas. They must report barrels produced to Texas but there is no law that says they must report production numbers to the EIA. What they pay the government depends on their profit/loss, not barrels produced.

              The EIA gets their numbers from the individual states for all onshore production. However I don’t know about production on federal lands. You’ll have to ask someone else about that. But I suspect that is a per acre lease and not a per barrel lease… that is if they pay anything at all.

              • wadosy says:

                thanks for the info, gentlemen

                maybe there’s already a song about this…
                the railroad man

              • Watcher says:

                “They pay royalties to the owners of the mineral rights and taxes to Texas. They must report barrels produced to Texas but there is no law that says they must report production numbers to the EIA. What they pay the government depends on their profit/loss, not barrels produced.”

                Don’t live in Texas, but a quick search says one thing I knew and one I didn’t.

                I knew there is no individual income tax.

                I did not know there is no corporate income tax, so no profit/loss numbers are there.

                If leases are on Texas (not private) land, they owe royalty to Texas based on barrels and Texas has apparently been claiming they are shortchanged on that. There seem to be lots of oil well service taxes on service provided, but that company doesn’t get any revenue from oil output so it is I guess a different profit/loss thing.

                One would hope there is an independent compiler of royalty data, private and for the Texas owned land. No idea who it would be.

            • Coolreit says:

              “as you pointed out, sometimes it looks like the EIA is just drawing a line with a ruler…” Absolutely! As I recall, Ron said the EIA was adding 50k/month to Texas production. Is it justified? Time will tell, but it is highly improbable. I would like to see Texas RRC total state oil production as reported a year ago. Then I would like to see how it was reported 12 months later. If you follow EIA methodology, the oil production would have risen by 600k b/d (5k b/d * 12 months). I’m sure it did not.

              Are the Texas RRC reports available as originally reported 12 months ago available now?

              • As I recall, Ron said the EIA was adding 50k/month to Texas production.

                Yes two months ago they were adding 50 kb/d per month for the last ten months. But this last month they dropped it down to 48 kb/d per month for the last ten months. Perhaps they are getting a little less optimistic. 😉

              • Dennis Coyne says:

                Just look at Blanchard piece and compare with March data in my spreadsheet.

      • Arthur Burman just emailed me the below. I don’t think he would mind me sharing it with you guys. Bold mine:


        Thanks for the explanation. My experience as a working petroleum geologist looking at specific wells that I follow is that Texas does a fairly good job. I never pay much attention to the most recent month or two (for any state) but, generally, Texas gets it right after a few months.

        I am deeply suspicious of the EIA’s algorithm.

        All the best,


        • Coolreit says:


          Thank you for sharing your thoughts!


          A testament to your site: the likes of Arthur Berman and Jeffrey Brown posting/contributing to your site!


        • Coolreit says:

          “I am deeply suspicious of the EIA’s algorithm.”

          This is what I have been saying for 1-2 months!

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          Hi Coolreit,

          I have share this link before, but you may not have seen it.

          It is a link to a spreadsheet with data downloaded fro the RRC of TX (Railroad Commission of Texas) on various dates. Note that what Ron reports as March and April, I would have called April and May, I go by the data as reported on the 1st of the month, in other words the Data reported on March 22 or April 22 will remain the same as of April 1 or May 1, this is just to explain the discrepancy between Ron’s data for March in the chart above compared with the March data in my spreadsheet (which Ron would have labelled February data). Chart below.

          Link to spreadsheet below


          • Coolreit says:


            That is very helpful. Thanks!

            After I walk the dog, I will analyze the data.

            • Dennis Coyne says:

              Hi Coolreit,

              In Blanchard’s piece from March 2013 (link below)


              he reported for 2012, average annual output EIA=1986 kb/d,
              RRC=1632 kb/d a difference of 354 kb/d, this was from data collected on Feb 28 2013.

              The data in my spreadsheet labelled March 2014 corresponds to 12 months after Blanchard’s data. The RRC data has a 12 month average for 2012 of 1935 kb/d on March 1, 2014, so the 350 kb/d difference has been reduced to 50 kb/d after one year.

              The 2011 data for the EIA had an average of 1463 kb/d vs 1411kb/d for the RRC on Feb 28, 2013. On March 1 2014 RRC reported an average 12 month output for 2011 of 1444 kb/d.
              As of today the 2011 average output is 1445 kb/d for TX C+C according to the RRC, so the EIA estimate was about 1.2% too high 14 months ago and the RRC was 2.4% too low on the reported 2011 output.

              It is likely that if we do this exercise next year we will find that the RRC estimate for 2012 will be roughly the average of March 2014 estimates by the RRC and EIA. As of today the 2012 average output is 1953 kb/d according to the RRC, so already the difference between the EIA’s March 2013 estimate for 2012 TX C+C and the current RRC estimate is down to 33 kb/d or 1.7%.

              For Jan 2014 RRC currently estimates 2406 kb/d of C+C and EIA estimates 2874 kb/d. I am confident that the RRC reported data for Jan 2014 will rise to about 2800 kb/d by April 2016 and will likely be around 2700 (+/- 50)kb/d by April 1, 2015.

  3. Coolreit says:

    Arthur Berman:

    Do you believe the RRC’s reported Texas oil production will ever catch up to the EIA’s reported Texas oil production? The shortfall is now 462,000 b/d.

    I don’t!

    • Watcher says:

      One should not care too much about this. The numbers can be decreed to be whatever is needed. A little tweak to API definition, a little adjustment to barrel size (or temperature) and presto, you get the numbers you need, and you don’t have to tell a single lie.

  4. “In inverted totalitarianism, every natural resource and every living being is commodified and exploited to collapse and the citizenry are lulled and manipulated into surrendering their liberties…” ~ Wikipedia

    Lack of democracy.
    The fundamental of collapse appears to simply be a lack of democracy.
    People controlling their own lives for themselves.
    So it appears as though sustainable government is an oxymoron and that the logical conclusion is no government.
    And if people, worldwide, arrive at that conclusion, then we will see more anti-government action. They will probably not even have to consciously arrive at that conclusion.

  5. B says:

    The New Winners and Losers in the Shale Boom (behind paywall; Google the headline to get a link to full article)

    The companies at the forefront of hydraulic fracturing consistently have spent more cash leasing land and drilling than they made selling oil and gas.

    Now, with the U.S. shale boom in its ninth year, they are trying to end that streak. Value over volume—the idea that spending wisely is more important than pumping lots of fuel—has become the refrain on Wall Street and in board rooms across the oil patch….

    The economics of fracking are starting to improve, making positive cash flow attainable for some companies. The competitive—and expensive—sprint to lease land in promising shale formations has ended as the best prospects have been scooped up. A cold winter pushed natural-gas prices higher, helping producers generate more cash after several years of overproduction depressed prices. And the costs of fracking wells—injecting sand, water and chemicals to crack open shale and free oil and gas—is falling as companies have gotten better at it.

    Perhaps most important, investors and activist shareholders are putting pressure on executives to be more conservative about spending. In part that is because successful shale companies have matured from microcapitalization companies, those with teeny market values that are expected to be risky but hold the prospect of stunning growth, to midcap stocks, which investors expect to have more reliable value.

  6. Mike says:

    As an operator, and one that must comply with very strict production reporting to the Texas Railroad Commission every month, I can assure you it is not “lax” about anything. Delays are occurring in releasing production data I think for several reasons; one, within the past four years there have been 5000 new shale wells drilled and the TRRC’s old paper system simply did not work well at that rate of activity increase. Slowly the system is being changed to on-line digital reporting and I am told last week an enormous data base change was made the should speed up everything. Everybody is a little overwhelmed at the moment with all the new data down here. Also, a job at the TRRC pays less than teacher salary and the turnover rate there is about 15 months; in other words as soon as you learn how to process a form at the TRRC you leave and go to work for EOG where you make 4 times the money.

    By the way, I don’t report jack to the EIA.

    I agree with Mr. Berman, Texas does a good job. The entire world models its regulatory guidance for oil and gas operations after the TRRC. Every barrel and every mcf of gas is ultimately accounted for in Texas. If at the moment that does not happen fast enough for folks who have nothing better to do than plot curves all day long and make predictions, so be it. It’ll all come out in the wash soon enough.

    • As an operator, and one that must comply with very strict production reporting to the Texas Railroad Commission every month, I can assure you it is not “lax” about anything.

      North Dakota also has revisions… in barrels per day. Texas revisions are in thousands of barrels per day. If they are not lax then they have some very serious problems. After all, they could have updated their system of reporting just as well as North Dakota did. North Dakota has added a similar number of shale wells in the last four years as Texas. I know of no other state or nation who’s revisions, two years past, are in the thousands of barrels per day.

      If at the moment that does not happen fast enough for folks who have nothing better to do than plot curves all day long and make predictions, so be it. It’ll all come out in the wash soon enough.

      Nothing better to do? Do you think we do this because we have nothing better to do? Insults like this are not appreciated on this blog Mike. If you have nothing better to do than insult those who are trying to track the peaking of world oil production and warn of the grave consequences that will soon befall all of us, then you are truly uninformed as to the seriousness of the situation.

      Ron Patterson

    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Hi Mike,

      Is it possible that some of the “late” reporting of data to the RRC is just a matter of confidential wells.

      If that guess is correct and the data from the confidential wells is reported to the RRC but the RRC does not put it in the database until a well is no longer “confidential”, that would explain the difference between North Dakota’s data being timely and Texas data looking pretty bad.

      North Dakota does not report the individual confidential wells but rolls it into the state totals.

      Texas data would be much better if for the statewide totals they reported all confidential wells in a confidential well line so that at least the state totals would be more accurate.


      I think there may be a typo for the December revision, I assume you mean December 2013 and from your chart it looks like 79,000 barrels, but I am not sure.

    • Synapsid says:

      Thanks for this, Mike. It’s always good to hear from the field.

  7. Tim E. says:

    Ron – Thanks for posting The Seven Sisters video series, I just finished watching all 4. It’s a very interesting perspective from a view outside of the United States. The way it put together everything, was just eye opening.

    The overall message I took away was that The Seven Sisters will dominate the world in every way and use any means to do so. Will it go nuclear? It brings into my mind, a deeper understanding of what is happening between the US, Russia and China. Putin is being forced into a corner. If they manage to take him out without Russia going nuclear, what will the Chinese do? While the US threatens Putin, China threatens Japan. The US is being forced into a 2 front war. Meanwhile, there is turmoil in Saudi Arabia, with changes in it’s aging power structure, and likely a deep fear in the minds of those in charge of becoming the next Libya, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, etc, scheduled by The Seven Sisters for regime change. It’s frightening in it’s implications, but nuclear war seems inevitable.

    I live in the middle of the Chicago and Milwaukee corridor, and utility shutoffs have begun. The entire area is plagued by chronic and long term unemployment, corrupt politicians, high taxes and large numbers of abandoned factories, businesses, and homes. Easter weekend exploded in violence and crime. Is it a harbinger of things to come this Summer in the US?

    Depending upon the news source, over Easter weekend in Chicago there were 8 killed and 44 wounded, or 9 killed and 36 wounded. Racine, Kenosha, and Milwaukee had murders a few weeks previously, while shootings and robberies are on the rise. Racine has had a rash of armed robberies of Bars – 5 within the last few weeks alone. It’s early in the season for this amount of activity.

    You won’t read about this in our local news, it is found on Racine County Scanner (google it) which reports police calls and Racine Uncovered (google it) which reports unreported crimes and local news. What is so strange is that these are Racine Police Calls for April 21st! A Monday night when children have school the next day and Summer temperatures aren’t here yet. The Police Calls: Attempted Armed Robbery; Bullet went through house, found in closet; Apartment complex approx. 40-50 people fighting by the pool; Large Group of people fighting with guns and knives; 20 kids fighting with sticks; Female getting beat up by 8 males; Large group of people running from PD, Sheriff responding; 16 yo trying to get in house, parents don’t want him tazer deployed; Kids fighting with bats; Shots fired; Hit and Run; Multiple cars broken into and windows broken over large areas.

    This is Racine, on a Spring Monday night, not Chicago or LA. Will this be the Summer that chaos finally breaks out in American Cities?

    And while people try to cope with high energy prices, remember that the costs to Society from these criminal activities and placing an increasing number of people into America’s prison industry will economically exhaust Society as a whole. Compounding the problem is that the State keeps criminalizing more activities, thus criminalizing more people, which almost guarantees they become unemployable, and thus are forced back to criminal activity and the prison industry. It is a vicious circle that feeds upon itself.

    • wadosy says:

      whatever’s going on, the system seems to be hopelessly screwed up… but that’s the system and twe’re stuck with itt…

      and even if the system were working, we’d still be faced with the certainty of peak oil and the near-certainty of global warming… and the screwed-up system is deliberately degrading our ability to deal with both…

      so we’re flaring tons of natural gas while neocons are apparently ready to start a war with russia over natural gas

      the propaganda machinery says the US will be able to improve european energy security while russia tries to improve european energy security by building pipelines that bypass neocon trouble, but the necons block construction of new russian pipelines

      but we’re flaring gas… and by the time we round that gas up, build pipelines and liquefaction plants, liquefy the gas, build LNG tankers to haul the stuff to euorpe, it would cost way more than russian gas that’s already there

      sometimes i get the feeling the necons know they’ve lost the battle, the war, the whole works.. commonsense defeats propaganda, ideology, mindless ambition and stupidity

      …and now they seem to be willing to blow the whole goddamned thing up in a childish temper tantrum…

      …or maybe they’re only trying to terrorize us into knuckling under to their stupidity

      • wadosy says:

        maybe the main problem is this:

        with the internet, there’s no longer any way to commodify what-passes-for truth…

        …not when the real truth contradicts what-used-to-apss-for truth..

        thank god for “full spectrum dominance”… which undoubtedly will eventually limit the internet to what-passes-for truth

        “when the factory makes the people, their dreams will all come true”


    • yt75 says:

      “Meanwhile, there is turmoil in Saudi Arabia, with changes in it’s aging power structure, and likely a deep fear in the minds of those in charge of becoming the next Libya, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, etc, scheduled by The Seven Sisters for regime change. It’s frightening in it’s implications, but nuclear war seems inevitable.”

      Don’t forget that Saudi Arabia is the oldest US friend in the region, and in fact a rather reliable source told me about that the new heir just nominated :
      that this was also more or less the “U.S. choice”.

      And for sure the “seven sisters”(now 5 more or less) or U.S. diplomacy don’t want to mess around in Saudi Arabia, or with any “western friend major producer” in the region (like Qatar, UAE or Koweit, Iraq more or less in between the two status), and for instance when the mess started in Bahrain (major US navy base), you have had Saudi tanks crossing the bridge, and not heard much about it in the news (in 2011)

      But clearly everybody is playing with fire, like the Saudis financing jihadists in Syria, but the same ones could come back messing around in their countries … (or you also have the ones in Yemen, with regular drones attack on them), or the Saudis and Qatar now really being pissed of at each other (over Al Jazeera depiction of events, and Qatar supporting the muslim brotherhood in Egypt especially, while they are major Saudis “enemies”).

      As to Russia and the Ukraine story, clearly this could result in Russia and China getting much closer, and China will back up (or play Russia game) regarding “financial attacks” here for sure, not forgetting that the pipelines towards China are partly in place or on project, it’s not like Russia has a single customer for its gas …

      As to the propaganda “US gas to replace Russian gas in Europe” I just find it plain outrageous or hysterical, a good post from Gail on this for instance :
      And from a European perspective, the explanation about the US wanting to avoid a serious partnership between Europe (or the EU) and Russia is also becoming a quite strong explanation.
      Except that now, somehow a “transatlantic crisis”, as occured during the transsiberian pipeline construction for instance, appears more or less “impossible” :
      “The efforts by the U.S. pressure to prevent the construction of the pipeline, and its export embargo of supplies for the pipeline (1980–1984) constituted one of the most severe transatlantic crises of the Cold War.”

      But who knows how the whole thing will play out …
      (all this being also linked to the petro dollar, with CENTCOM as the main backing for it, and also major US/NATO strategic asset, towards China especially, in the ability to cut importing routes)

      Strange times for sure.

      • wadosy says:

        apparently the saudis signed on with the neocon project in syria because they think war with iran is inevitable

        war with iran would probably cripple saudis’ ability to export oil, so they figure they’ll rebuild those old pipelines through syria and lebanon to the med…

        that saves a long wasteful tnaker trip around africa, and avoids the chokepoints at hormuz, bab el madeb and suez

        not to mention the fact that VLCCs burn close to a hundred tons of oil a day, and a trip around europe takes an extra thrity days or so, compared to a trip from oil ports in the eastern med


        and audi was on the neocon hit list: “irag the tactical pivot, saudi arabia the strategic pivot, egypt the prize”… so maybe they decided to knuckle under…

        i spose the saudis know their days are numbered, anyhow… otherwise they wouldnt have spent all those billions building those causeways and drill pads at manifa

        • yt75 says:

          Yes for sure the Saudis are scared shitless by Iran (also because the Shia region in Saudi Arabia is almost a perfect match with the oil fields region), and also quite pissed at the US about them “mellowing” with Iran (in truth or not). There are for instance some wikileaks cables about them asking the US to “cut the head of the snake”.
          What I find these days also is that the U.S. has found quite a bit of different “usages” to the “US energy revolution” mantra. One clearly being :
          “ok people, very soon we won’t need any middle east oil anymore, but we are doing almost all the “securization” job over there, so maybe splitting the bill a bit more is in order”(and this towards major friend oil & gas producers in the region, but also towards Europe or OECD countries in general, like Kerry hinting at Europe need to rearm lately).
          But yes overall the basic peak mess is there for everybody anyway.

          • wadosy says:

            the main reason to deny peak oil is because peak oil was the reason the necons said they needed a new jpearl harbor

            then they got into power

            then it happened

            • yt75 says:

              Personally I don’t really go there, for sure 911 helped a lot in raising the case for Iraq, and Iraq was clearly a defined target before, but some ways would have been founded anyway.
              (and on the other hand yes the talibans and part of the jihadists were “sponsored” to attack Afghanistan at the soviet time, that’s very clear).
              Overall for me the Iraq story is a case of “American over optimism”(with also a very serious dose of cynism) from the U.S.
              A bit the same with all the “coloured revolutions” all around Russia around 2003/5, and also now the case with Ukraine and aiming at Russia. (with the added aspect of also using neo nazis this time, and not only “freedom seeking students”)

              • wadosy says:

                well, yes

                iraq was clearly the instigator of 9/11

                which is why we bombed afghanistan

                then, when we got around to iraq, we had to lie our way into the war

                • toolpush says:


                  I hope you were being sarcastic with the following statement?

                  “iraq was clearly the instigator of 9/11”

                  The excuse used for Iraq was weapons of Mass destruction, which they had a hard time making it stick. Though I remember Wolferwitz on the 12 Sep 2011 stating Iraq was the the problem, So the fix was in from just after 9/11, they just needed to build a case, whether it was true, relevant or not.

      • wadosy says:

        when it comes to “moral high ground”, it seems to be pretty scarce

        the brits departed the high ground in the early 1800s when they addicted millions of chinese to opium to prop up their empire… and the opium trade continues to this day

        israel, founded more-or-less by brits, was founded in ethnic cleansing, terror and injustice that continue to this day

        have russians turned over a new leaf? …ahve they learned anything from their history?

        maybe, maybe not

        but lately, putin occupies what little high ground there is

      • yt75 says:

        Yes I’m not so sure about the Brits wanting to reestablish their Empire … Somehow they now have a major money laundering operation (the top one in fact), and acting as a kind of switzerland with more connections might also be the direction …
        But for sure they were the major first “oil colonizers” typically after Churchill decided to switch the Royal Navy from coal to oil and more or less set up (or propped up) the anglo persian.
        One interesting point (I think it is in the “seven sisters doc” or in “la face cachée du pétrole ” for sure) is that the guy who “sold” British influence in KSA to the US (standard oil of california) was a Brit :
        (and also the father of Kim Philby, the famous double soviet agent from the cold war).
        As to the Neocons ““benevolent global hegemony”, the benevolent adjective might get tougher and tougher to get through in this story… (apart from the “global hegemony” aspect pissing off quite a bit of people …)
        But one also hear quite a bit about Saudis and Israelis getting closer these days.

        And still think these oil history aspects are key, especially with respect to peak oil (if there is some form of way out, which is highly doubtful), as when you discover the “peak oil story”, seems to me for many people, a reaction is also “how the fuck all this and the associated Omerta happened”.

        • yt75 says:

          Not sure, but they welcome the money from anybody having some from anywhere that’s for sure, be they sheiks, russian Oligarchs, or whatever. And BP and Shell (even if only half brit) are still major “oil majors”. And when you think about it, strange coincidence that the Thatcher years were also the major “UK oil exporter years” (Jonathan Callahan made a nice summary about that on the oil drum). And that for Reagan there was also the counter oil shock (due for a big part to Reagan admin (Bush the father) dealing with the Saudis for them to increase their prod and bring the USSR down …), but also resulted in the UK selling most of its oil at the lowest price..

        • yt75 says:

          And what would they use them for ?

          • yt75 says:

            Yes clearly the case this one, remember an interview with Tony Hayward saying something like “$100 a barrel is something, we should get more help from governments” no sure if I can find it back.

          • Coolreit says:


            The site has degraded to nonsense and not oil related.

            Do you monitor this trash?

            • Sorry Coolreit, I completely missed that. I have deleted the offending posts.

              Wadosy, do not use that term again. This is not the place to spout your bigotry.

            • wadosy says:

              it would be nice if we could avoid a nuke fimbulwinter, you know?

              maybe that’s the perfect storm… simultaneous wars with russia and iran that goes nuke… we use our nuke primacy, which touches off a global nuke war which throws unimaginable amounts of radioactive particulates into the air… which causes so much shade that we skip a summer or two

              it also destroys industrial civilization, which has, until now, made enough shade to slow down global warming

              so the shade from industry and the nukes settles out in a couple years, the co2 stays and asserts itself, and we cook

              so we got to deal not only with peak oil and global warming, but two-headed, three-legged kids, too

              it’s a wonderful world

              • Drk Horse says:

                Well don’t be to worried about “global warming” since it is a theory that is quickly becoming increasingly desperate. Remember science always works off theories that can only be proved in a controlled environment, not the “facts” that actual apply to those of us who live in the real world outside of the ivory towers of ignorance.
                Just as “evolution” is a theory, “global warming” is a theory. Here is the process by which this theory has been peddled.
                1) Attempt to tax industry and individuals with a scam called “global warming”
                2) The climate doesn’t warm for 18 years
                3) Call it “climate change” despite the climate changing for thousands of years
                4) Attempt to tax industry and individuals again
                5) Start forcibly silencing and arresting anybody who doesn’t buy into the scam
                6) Collude with the UN to take away all none-believers homes, cars, and guns and forcibly relocate the people who don’t believe onto communes

                • Flakmeister says:

                  Go away troll….
                  Take your lies and halftruths elsewhere….

                • Dave says:

                  Yep, it’s all just a scientific conspiracy that the benevolent oil companies are trying to save us from.
                  Climate change is just like all the other great scientific conspiracies such as:

                  * Microbes cause disease.
                  * Smoking causing lung cancer.
                  * The Earth being round.
                  * The Earth being older than 2000 years.
                  * The Earth not being the center of the universe.

                  Now lets burn those text books and embrace ignora… opps I mean enlightenment!

                • Doug Leighton says:

                  Drk Horse,

                  I think you forgot to mention the earth-is-round theory. More nonsense, right?


              • Wadosy, that is sheer nonsense. I don’t know how likely a nuclear war is but this is not the blog to post scare propaganda. Do it somewhere else.


                • TechGuy says:

                  Not take I agree with wadosy’s nonsense, but the US is definitely on a war path.

                  US sends troops to Poland:

                  US orchestrated the crisis in the Ukraine:

                  leaked Recording about false flag attack in Syria:

                  SA supplied Chemical Weapons used in syrian chemical Weapons attack:

                  FWIW: The Ukraine and Syria events are related. The US and the Middle east want to build a gas pipeline to Europe to remove Russia as it sole source for natgas. Russia is blocking this effort. FWIW: This applies to the “Seven Sisters” article, Its gov’ts working behind the scenes for control and manipulation of energy resources.

                  As I stated many times, as resources become constrainted there will be an every increasing global belligerence as the industrialized nations fight to secure resources for their economies. Sooner or later rationing will begin and the people will demand that their gov’t take action. There will be nut-job politicians that will use war as a means to secure resources, first through proxy wars (already happening, Syria, Libya, etc) and later with direct wars. At some point the all of the resources will be controlled by nuclear powers, which will lead to a full scale nuclear war. The fact that the US is bring a proxy war (Ukraine) right to Russia’s door step so early is very disturbing to me.

                  I am rather disturbed that other readers do no see this happening and don’t believe a full nuclear war is going to happen.

                  • TechGuy says:

                    Russia ups-it-notch:


                    UPDATE: Dutch fighter jets were scrambled after Russian bombers approached Dutch airspace; the Russian planes turned away


                    This is quickly morphing into another Cuban Missile Crisis, only this time its off the coast of Russia not the US.

                  • Watcher says:

                    Ukraine oil consumption — 320K bpd. A good chunk of that is Crimea, so that number is no longer valid.

                    Production is about 80K bpd, all of it from the eastern, pro-Russia provinces. The remainder comes from Russia.

                    The 60K bpd refinery in Odessa got cut off by the Russians in January for non payment. The biggest refinery in the country has a 380K bpd capacity and it is located in the East pro Russia portion of the country, but not the far eastern portion. It’s on the north-south flowing river on the east side of it.

      • Tim E. says:

        @ yt75

        This item was reported on 16 April 2014

        Saudi intelligence chief Bandar bin Sultan removed

        Prince Bandar, King Abdullah’s nephew and a former ambassador to the US, recently returned to Riyadh after two months abroad for medical treatment.

        The 65 year old has been replaced by his deputy, Gen Youssef al-Idrissi.

        His departure comes months after he was quoted warning of a “major shift” from the US over its Middle East policy.

        Largely in protest over Washington’s reluctance to get involved militarily in Syria, he reportedly told European diplomats in October that Saudi Arabia would be scaling back its co-operation with the CIA over arming and training rebel groups seeking to topple President Bashar al-Assad.

        A trip to Moscow to press Russian President Vladimir Putin to abandon his support for the Syrian government also failed to produce results.

        More saber rattling, now from Pakistan:

        ISLAMABAD — Pakistan on Tuesday conducted a successful test launch of its Hatf III/Vengeance III Ghaznavi short-range ballistic missile as it continues to strengthen its deterrent capabilities against archrival India.

        A statement by the Pakistan military’s Inter Service Public Relations (ISPR) stated that a “successful training launch” had been carried out of the 290-kilometer-range Ghaznavi, which is capable of carrying conventional and nuclear warheads.

        600 US troops are headed to Poland and The USS Taylor just entered the Black Sea.

        I believe that Putin will be forced to choose. Use his nuclear arsenal, or become the next to get the Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein treatment. The question is, can he launch a successful first strike? Nuclear weapons have never been used in a mass first strike, and there are many unknowns. Further, advances in anti-missile technology and perhaps secret technology may be great enough to minimize any of his nuclear weapons being successfully detonated. Generals and Elites think in terms of “Acceptable Losses” and have access to long term survival bunkers. Clearly, the noose is being drawn tighter around Putin.

        To clarify about Racine and the Monday Night Crime Wave; in SUMMER, that would be a “light day” of crime on the weekend. The Summer activities have begun way too early. So is it an anomaly, or a harbinger of a long, bloody Summer?

        • wadosy says:

          it’s the necons who’ve achieved “nuclear primacy”…. which is supposed to give them the capability of first strikes on russia and china so overwhelming that russia and china would be unable to retaliate

          that’s not russian pliciy, that’s US necon policy

          googling: “nuclear primacy” “first strike” russia china ….About 10,600 results


          but that seems to be the way the system works… you got these plans that are morally unacceptable to most everybody, so you accuse the “enemy” of plotting to do the same thing

          there’s some game theory at work there, no doubt

        • yt75 says:

          @Tim E

          Yes don’t know much about that story with Bandar Bin Sultan (who lived in the U.S. for a long time, and is/was close to GWB and Cheney apparently).
          His removal might be linked to him proposing a quite strange deal to Putin like “you take your hands off Syria and we make sure that you won’t have any terrorist attack in Sotchi” (or in other words, if you don’t you might have some).

          And regarding him quoting a “major shift” in US middle east policy, it seems to me that the public discourse is also often used to “play” on pressure points in the “relationship”.

          As to giving Putin the Gaddafi or Hussein treatment, that would really be total madness, and Russi,a even if also highly complicated, is something else in terms of “core nation”. But who knows…
          (and that would also for sure yet reinforce a certain anti US sentiment in many parts of the world)

  8. Mike says:

    No insults intended, Mr. Patterson; certainly no more so than yours towards Texas reporting and regulatory standards. The TRRC is a few months behind down here on reporting, that I think is going to get fixed soon, so what? A couple of thousand barrels per day that does not show up on Texas data for a couple of months represents about 0.00002% of the world’s production rates.

    I actually produce the nasty stuff but adhere strongly to the notion of approaching peak production rates in my country, just like you do, sir. I understand fully the seriousness of the situation my country faces. There is absolutely nothing lax about any aspect of being in the oil business, anywhere, and particularly not in Texas. I have seen my development and lift costs go sky high in the past 4 years and the weight of regulatory overreach is often more than I can stand up under. I can’t take a leak behind a mesquite tree anymore without filing an EPA form. I pay more taxes than any other industry in the country but somehow am “subsidized” by my government. We are so full up with crude oil along the Gulf Coast now days I can’t even get oil hauled anymore but hey, lets build another pipeline from Canada! That’s a good idea. 99.999% of the people in my country hate my guts because I am in the oil business and the other 0.001% hate my guts because I am from Texas, and am inclined to speak my mind.

    I appreciate what you do. I assume you appreciate what I do. Forgive me I just don’t want to do it in North Dakota.

    • TechGuy says:

      Mike wrote:
      “We are so full up with crude oil along the Gulf Coast now days I can’t even get oil hauled anymore but hey, lets build another pipeline from Canada!”

      But for how long will there be excess crude? Sooner or Later production is going to slip. Better to invest in infrastructure that provides flexibility and resiliency while its still afforable. At some point we will hit an economic brick wall, and won’t have the option to put in pilelines and other infrastructure.

      “99.999% of the people in my country hate my guts because I am in the oil business and the other 0.001% hate my guts because I am from Texas”

      FWIW: I am not one of them that hates you. Best I can do is thank you for your efforts. The Odd thing, is that the higher the cost of energy rises the more they will hate you, from ignorance. One day the lights will go out and they will have no-one to blame but themselves. I recall reading an article or seeing on TV a study, that 20% to 30% of Americans believe that crude oil is a manufactured product and that oil companies are cutting production in order to make more money.
      This reminds me of the Vietnam Vets returning home were spat on, even though most were drafted. It seems the more ignorant people are, the stronger they are opinionated.

  9. Mike says:

    Yes, Dennis; I think that might be part of it as well, though even after 45 years of operating am I sure how the shale players get away with that. When a barrel leaves the lease it must be accounted for. The purchaser must report it, as well as the producer, and if the numbers don’t match, its a problem and we get called out for it. Part of the problem is, as you guys know, multiple wells on a single lease, in the case of unconventional tight oil wells, a unit, that is commingled into a common tank battery. That makes it difficult to look at individual well performance with regards to EUR and decline analysis and I believe it helps muddy the temporary accounting problem we have in Texas.

    Look, I don’t know how many more wells and how bunch more production Texas has than N. Dakota, I don’t care. We have been going thru some growing pains down here the past few years and I know for a fact that is getting resolved. Its important that Americans know that unconventional tight oil resources are not the savior that we need and that we will never come close to energy independence in this country. Whether some kind of plateau occurred in the Eagle Ford, or the Bakken last July 19th of it might happen this coming Sunday before lunch does not seem the point to me. I appreciate the work that you and guys like Ron do; its important. But I belong to the same church. The message that needs to be delivered is not among ourselves, its on the same street where public tight oil companies sell their wares. Raggin’ Texas isn’t doing anybody any good.


    • Dennis Coyne says:

      My apologies for saying rrc data is not very good. The main point i try to make is that for the most recent 12 months the eia estimates are better. When you go back 2 years or so the eia just uses the rrc data.

    • Watcher says:

      “We are so full up with crude oil along the Gulf Coast now days I can’t even get oil hauled anymore but hey, lets build another pipeline from Canada!”



      So . . . this says refineries would rather pay Brent prices for import than WTI prices for your oil?

      I have no doubt you have problems getting it hauled . . . . hauled? What % of your output is pipeline vs truck, and has anyone whispered truck scarcity?

      • Mike says:

        Dennis, you don’t owe me an apology. I am just a proud Texas boy. I understand its frustrating to be several thousand barrels behind each month if you feel the need to plot production rates on a real time basis. I think what is kind of hypocritical about the raggin’ on Texas thing is that the margin of error for production reporting in every other country in the world (all puns intended) is 10% or more and wayyyyyy more than the delay that we have in Texas data reporting. You never get the truth about that. Unless you are willing to track barrels in and barrels out of tankers as they traverse the world, all that real time plotting of reported production is an exercise in futility. Same with reported production for the benefit of Wall Street and actual barrels sold in the Bakken and the EF.

        In the oil business we say, hope for the best, expect the worse, and prepare yourself for disappointment that will take you to your knees. Add 13 months to every payout, divide by 10, multiply by 8.2, add 400K there and 800K there, wait 12 months, then another four, then you kinda know what you got. Kinda. In other words, don’t trust shale dudes. As Dennis kind of eludes to, they know how to take advantage of the system. How do you real time plot that?

        Watcher, I don’t know what hmmm means. Anybody producing in Texas gets their oil hauled by truck, just about. It may go into a pipeline LACT station a few miles down the dirt road, but its all hauled by truck between A and B. Every ounce of it gets accounted for, down to a 2/10ths of 1 % BS&W adjustment. There is no truck scarcity in Texas, there are just fewer vacancies in oil hotels in Texas now days. LACT stations are being shut in. There are X end users in a limited area with X3 supply. This will become an issue in the future and further muddle the production data issue more than it already has been. That is part of what makes real time plotting irrelevant in the big picture, IMDAO.

        Remember, please… if a barrel cannot be hauled, it does not really count. I can theoretically store 10,000 barrels on my lease, and call it production. Royalty, and severance taxes, don’t get paid until its hauled off and the product is taken to market and actually sold. For instance, I can be like EOG, or COP, and say I have decided my URR has gone up 15% on each stinkin’ shale well I operate. Lookit what I can do with the type curve if I just start… here, instead of… there. Kinda like KSA can do. If EOG guts an EF well on open flow and brags about 6000 BOPD IP’s, the real deal is what gets hauled away to market. Its a fluid situation, pardon the pun, that gets taken advantage of greatly but pubicompanies with an agenda.

        Watcher, I don’t know what is going on down there in Houston at the moment but it is causing lots of ulcers, trust me. Cushing is being drained, the PB is being drained; all of it is now going to Houston. These shale dudes are shooting themselves, all of us in Texas, in the foot. Those fellas can brag about the WTI to LLS spread they get that makes their press releases look good but they don’t actually get it if it does not get sold. And it does not get sold if it cannot get moved around the country properly. We typically think of a 70-80 dollar a barrel threshold for shale wells to be profitable, howsbout not being about to sell your stuff at all?


        • Watcher says:

          That’s a reply just loaded with important observation, Mike.

          You probably don’t read all the discussion here about the Bakken — because your focus is Texas, but in December when their temps were so low and snow so deep in NoDak they had a production crash of about 50K bpd down, and given they were still completing some wells that month, it was pretty clearly because trucks could not roll. So to some extent — be it truck scarcity — or from your read, nowhere for them to go — the production limit can very explicitly be due to above ground problems as readily as from geology.

          That’s why I jumped on your observation. How can your trucks have no refineries to deliver to if your oil is cheaper than imports? Why are the coast refineries preferring imports to your oil? Andddddd do you happen to have any feel at all or have you heard any talk at all (and I’m presuming here you are working shale oil) that your oil doesn’t have middle distillate content that other oil has (aka diesel or kerosene?)

          Point being, we here a lot of rumors here. And we are always sniffing after them. You already elevated one of them. We have thought . . . somewhat . . . that truck prevalence in the Texas shales are lower than in NoDak. But you say all of Texas hauls oil on trucks. This is a good observation.

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          Hi Mike,

          You should be proud. What is surprising to me is that Texans like to brag so I would think the RRC would want to be bragging about the output of C+C and natural gas in Texas and it seems that a lot of Texans assume that the RRC must be right and the EIA is wrong. I have watched how the data has played out since Dec 2012 and compared to North Dakota the RRC data is not very good.

          It is kind of surprising because Texas has been at this a long time so we all think that this would have been figured out.

          I definitely agree with you on the regulations and those not being lax in TX, I am pretty sure Ron was talking about the timeliness of the data reporting. As I suggested the confidential wells are probably left out of the TX data reports, in North Dakota they seem to add up the output from all the confidential wells and add it to the state totals. I imagine the RRC of TX could easily do the same, but chooses not to. Do you have any idea why?

  10. Watcher says:

    Given North Korea pays for oil with coal, and the Russians want to do oil deals with China absent dollar involvement, we have this curious bit of linkage:

    China has reportedly agreed with Ukraine to lease 3 million hectares of Ukrainian farmland for the next 50 years, making Ukraine China’s largest overseas farming center. [The land is in the eastern, pro Russia part of the country, which will be receiving those cash Chinese lease payments]

    ZH commenter posted this:

    Looks like an Arab focused layout of Ukraine agriculture (because most Ukraine grain exports go to the Middle East), and the website pretty much says it’s all in the east, south and central. Which makes it puzzling why the EU and US want the west, where there truly is nothing.

  11. Watcher says:

    Halliburton reported:

    1 penny beat of (manufactured) EPS estimates (yawn) but —

    “The company forecast a 25 percent jump in earnings in the current quarter with margins in North America expanding over the year due to increased activity across the region in the second half of the year and service-intensive drilling in the United States. ”

    Lots of it from pressure pumping, which is a bit of a head scratch because there is this perpetual celebration of extraordinary technique employed by EOG or maybe CLR, but . . . HAL or SLB owns the pump. So I suppose they may claim magic in their sand/ceramic choice of % mix and impose that on the pump guys, but it is the pump guys doing the fracking, and they don’t work for EOG or CLR.

  12. aws. says:

    Must not forget that it takes a lot of water to produce LTO (Barely Crude Oil) and that extra extra heavy Athabascan bitumen (which requires ~30% diluent to flow in a pipeline).

    In a warming climate a hotter atmosphere holds more moisture, it will be drier… and Alberta and North Dakota are dry climates to start with.

    Critics call Alberta’s plan for Athabasca River ‘pathetic’

    by Bob Weber, The Canadian Press, Wednesday, March 19, 2014

    EDMONTON – Alberta’s plan to protect the Athabasca River from the escalating pressure of oilsands development reveals how little the government understands about the environment it claims to protect, say prominent scientists and critics.

    “It’s pretty pathetic,” said David Schindler, a retired University of Alberta ecologist and a leading expert on fresh-water systems. “If you were to put this before a panel of international scientists, they would be incredulous.”

    The report points out industrial water demand on the Athabasca is expected to increase by nearly 500 per cent by 2020 and provides ways to regulate how much water could be removed at different times of the year. The river’s flow varies wildly: from 88 cubic metres per second in January to more than 3,500 in July.

    Using 50 years of flow data, the report lays out varying withdrawal limits for five “seasons.” At all times, total withdrawals would be a small fraction of the river’s flow and would nearly stop when the Athabasca was flowing at its lowest rate.

    “It’s not based in anything,” said Bill Donahue, a water scientist and a member of a panel that advises the province on environmental monitoring. “It involves no assessment of the capacity of the river to tolerate reductions in flow.”

    Worse, Donahue said, is that the report assumes the Athabasca will reach its very lowest levels with the same frequency it has for the last 50 years. That ignores that most of those low-flow years occurred within the last decade, probably because of climate change.

  13. aws. says:

    A reminder of why U.S. natural gas storage ended the heating season at half the volume of the five year minimum. And looking forward why California is likely to burn a lot of NG to generate electricity this summer.

    California Drought/Polar Vortex Jet Stream Pattern Linked to Global Warming

    By: Dr. Jeff Masters, Wunderblog, 6:56 PM GMT on April 16, 2014

    From November 2013 – January 2014, a remarkably extreme jet stream pattern set up over North America, bringing the infamous “Polar Vortex” of cold air to the Midwest and Eastern U.S., and a “Ridiculously Resilient Ridge” of high pressure over California, which brought the worst winter drought conditions ever recorded to that state. A new study published this week in Geophysical Research Letters, led by Utah State scientist S.-Y. Simon Wang, found that this jet stream pattern was the most extreme on record, and likely could not have grown so extreme without the influence of human-caused global warming. The study concluded, “there is a traceable anthropogenic warming footprint in the enormous intensity of the anomalous ridge during winter 2013-14, the associated drought and its intensity.”

  14. aws. says:

    EIA Natural Gas Weekly Update

    for week ending April 9, 2014 | Release Date: April 10, 2014

    Colder-than-normal eastern winter leads to record natural gas storage withdrawals

    Most of the country east of the Rockies experienced a significantly colder-than-normal winter this year, with the Midwest having a particularly cold and snowy winter. From Minnesota to Michigan and down to Missouri, on a statewide basis, this December-through-February period was between the 5th and 10th coldest on record…

    Chicago recorded its coldest winter (December to March) on record (since 1872). Heating degree days, a measure of how much and for how long that temperatures drop below 65 degrees Fahrenheit, were more than 20% above (meaning colder than) the 5-year average in Chicago this winter. Natural gas prices at the Chicago Citygate normally trade at a premium of 10 cents to 20 cents versus prices at the Henry Hub in Louisiana. However, between the beginning of December and the end of March this differential averaged more than $3 per million British thermal units (MMBtu). In January and February, repeated price spikes resulted in an average differential to Henry Hub of $5.42/MMBtu.

    As with much of the country, the cold was record-setting more for its sustained nature than for any single month. While the December to March period as a whole was the coldest on record in Chicago, the months December, January, February, and March individually ranked as the 21st, 10th, 9th, and 19th coldest on record, respectively.

    East of the Rockies, but outside the Midwest, this winter was also colder than normal, although not as record-breaking as in the Midwest. In the Northeast, heating degree days in the high population areas of Boston and New York City this winter were more than 10% above the 5-year average. However, on a statewide basis, temperatures in the December through March period did not even rank in the top 50 coldest for many states in the Northeast

  15. aws. says:

    Looking back on the heating season reminds me of an oldie, but a (pertinent) goodie.

    Our extreme weather: Arctic changes to blame?

    By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 9:50 PM GMT on December 16, 2011

    “The question is not whether sea ice loss is affecting the large-scale atmospheric circulation…it’s how can it not?” That was the take-home message from Dr. Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University, in her talk “Does Arctic Amplification Fuel Extreme Weather in Mid-Latitudes?”, presented at last week’s American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco. Dr. Francis presented new research in review for publication, which shows that Arctic sea ice loss may significantly affect the upper-level atmospheric circulation, slowing its winds and increasing its tendency to make contorted high-amplitude loops. High-amplitude loops in the upper level wind pattern (and associated jet stream) increases the probability of persistent weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere, potentially leading to extreme weather due to longer-duration cold spells, snow events, heat waves, flooding events, and drought conditions.

    The economics of the natural gas business will be as unstable as the climate… will next heating season be another non-winter of 2012 gas-price bust or the heating degree day extravaganza of 2014?

  16. aws. says:

    Speculators’ Natural Gas Wagers Rewarded With Late Rally: Energy

    By Naureen S. Malik, Bloomberg, Apr 21, 2014 3:53 PM ET

    “Right now the bullish sentiment is prevailing in term of that storage situation,” said John Kilduff, partner at Again Capital LLC, a New York-based hedge fund that focuses on energy. “It is surprising to have this kind of strength this time of the year. The past two injections haven’t lived up to expectations. The bullish sentiment is a hangover from this tremendous consumption we saw last winter.”

    I did not know that!

  17. aws. says:

    Arthur Berman and David Hughes are quoted…

    Is the U.S. Shale Boom Going Bust?

    By Tom Zeller Jr., BloombergView, Apr 22, 2014 10:59 AM EDT

    Speaking last month to Oilprice.com, Art Berman, a Houston-based geological consultant with a similarly sober (and often unpopular) view of the shale boom, called for more realistic assessments of its longevity. “I’m all for shale plays, but let’s be honest about things, after all,” Berman said. “Production from shale is not a revolution; it’s a retirement party.” Berman and Hughes both presented their concerns at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America last fall.

    Not everyone thinks this sort of pessimism is warranted. With funding from the Alfred P. Sloan foundation, Scott Tinker, a professor of geosciences at the University of Texas at Austin has been leading one of the most comprehensive, well-by-well analyses of the four biggest shale gas reserves in the U.S., including the contentious Marcellus formation in the Appalachians. Tinker doesn’t quibble much with Hughes’ and Berman’s observations about well depletion rates, though he interprets the implications differently.

  18. Jeju-islander says:

    “The site has degraded to nonsense and not oil related.”

    Why is denialist propaganda not rightly considered nonsense.
    see for instance Expert credibility in climate change at http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

    • CDR says:

      Those scientists lose whatever credibility they ever had when they reach into the big honey pot of lucrative grants to “study” the globull warming hoax. Since their funding depends on them advancing the hoax, of course they are all going to agree with each other and shut down the real research that proves “global warming” or now “climate change” is the biggest fraud in human history.


      • Flakmeister says:

        Take your paranoia fueled conspiracy ideation elsewhere…

        When the denialati start to actually propose credible alternatives to overwhelming scientific concensus that currently exists, I’ll take notice, until then I will call out their pseudo-scientific claptrap for what it is…

      • Anonymous says:

        Those scientists lose whatever credibility they ever had when they reach into the big honey pot of lucrative grants to “study” the globull warming hoax.

        You can use that very same reasoning for all scientists in all disciplines. Why only pick on climate scientists? I talking about the science that brought us atomic bombs, computers, men on the moon, antibiotics, ….. Is all that also a series of hoaxes?

  19. Political Economist says:
    • Yes they are seriously exaggerating shale oil production also. That is, they are calling a lot of conventional production “LTO” production, especially in the Permian. A large majority of oil produced in the Permian is conventional oil and not shale or LTO oil at all.

  20. I read at a site that the situation always worsens as it worsens.

    ‘the faster it goes, the faster it goes, the worse it gets, the worse it gets’

    100 bucks for a barrel of oil creates a worsening situation. The socioeconomic aspect becomes a frightening prospect. Everything goes haywire. The symptoms are there.

    Oil at 10 dollars per barrel and the race is on, full employment, 40 cent hamburgers at McDonald’s, the whole enchilada.

    That is not going to happen anymore, ergo, it goes faster as it goes faster and gets worse as it gets worse.

    China burned 3.5 billion tons of coal in 2012. In 1990, the entire coal mined and consumed was 4677 million ton.


    Doesn’t look sustainable.

  21. SRSrocco says:


    I am going to throw my 2 cents in here. As you most of you know, I don’t have a problem doing that.

    First… I find it quite typical that there is very little in the way of discussion on the SEVEN SISTERS video series. It was an excellent documentary showing how the Oil Majors along with Govt’s and their militaries used force, murder, execution, military coops to put in dictators that would allow oil to be exploited from countries for the benefit of the west.

    While the debate on the Texas RRC data is interesting, I thought the material in that video more important. I actually told Ron that I believed there wouldn’t be much in the way of response to that video.

    Second, there seems to be an continued theme put forth by several members that “The site has degraded to nonsense and not oil related.” While some members post information on the subject of climate change, I hardly doubt it takes up much of the space compared to the oil-gas related comments.

    Furthermore, if it is true that human induced carbon emissions are responsible for climate change… OIL, GAS & COAL had everything to do with it.

    Lastly, the biggest problem I see in the analyst community is that the LEFT HAND KNOWS NOT WHAT THE RIGHT HAND IS DOING. The oil-gas analysts have no idea about the precious metals industry. The precious metals analysts have no idea about energy. Mining analysts don’t focus on energy. The Economists fail to comprehend peak oil. The list goes on and on.

    This is indeed the biggest problem when it comes to understanding the ROOT PROBLEMS. So, those who believe certain subject matters are irrelevant, may fall victim to short-sighted analysis.

    I appreciate Ron keeping an open comment section for diverse opinions, while focusing on Peak Oil & GAS.


    • Watcher says:

      There sure have been a lot of posts lately talking about how little climate change is talked about.

    • Doug Leighton says:


      “Furthermore, if it is true that human induced carbon emissions are responsible for climate change… OIL, GAS & COAL had everything to do with it.”

      This is a key point and probably why Ron tolerates dialogue re climate chance. Assuming climate change is valid. Combined with the fact that we may (or have?) reach irreversible tipping points makes this is the biggest obvious issue facing mankind. In theory (however unlikely) we can deal with PO but reaching the point-of-no-return on climate change means it’s curtains over.

      I was always taught to deal with the more serious problem(s) first then work your way down the list. Denying the probability of climate change, and PO, even if we’re wrong, is betraying any trust that our children and grandchildren might have for us. It’s unconscionable, to not acknowledge and face up to big issues that may destroy the planet, as we know it. Though I’m negative as Ron on our chances of success the “safely in my grave” approach is a selfish cop out. The business-as-usual approach is about as bad. Obviously you know this and so do most people here but it’s depressing, to me, to hear the opinions of the flat earth types, and even more depressing to know there are so many of them.


    • yt75 says:


      I indeed think historical aspects are key, especially if there is a way out of this mess.

      It for sure cannot be as objective as technical matters (although in this energy domain, technical matters can also get quite subjective, as doing a complete end to end EROEI analysis is very often almost impossible for instance), but there is also a tendency to avoid them somehow..

      As to climate change, the way I see it is that PO will hit sooner in pure “economic terms”(and already does), but it could also make AGW worse, as even if CO2 out of fossile hydrocarbons combustion may diminish, this could also results in things like massive deforestation and the like (also more or less already happening, in Greece this winter for instance) and I’m not an expert enough at all to know anything about current “dimming” due to industries that would decrease.

    • Jeju-islander says:

      To reply to some points by SRSrocco.

      > “I find it quite typical that there is very little in the way of discussion on the SEVEN SISTERS video series.”
      I do not have the time to watch 4 hours of video and reply immediately. I have now watched episodes 1 and 2 and will post a comment – see below.

      >“The site has degraded to nonsense.”
      I like this site because it has a rational data-driven perspective. Interspersing sensible commentary with lunatic drivel about climate conspiracies damages the credibility of the entire discussion.
      > … “falling victim to short-sighted analysis.”

      I liked the seven-sisters video but it suffers from an over conspiratorial bias. To document some conspiracies such as the 1928 agreement between Shell, BP and Exxon is excellent. But to then theorise that the entire history of the world ever since is all part of the same conspiracy is nonsense.

      In the first video the wording using to describe the 1979 oil shock is –
      “The seven sisters needed higher prices to develop the North Sea oil fields.” suggesting they had somehow conspired to achieve this. I claim nonsense.
      A better wording would be “higher prices enabled the seven sisters to develop the North Sea oil fields.”
      Interspersing nonsense within a serious video discredits the entire project. Do you see the connection?

      • yt75 says:

        “But to then theorise that the entire history of the world ever since is all part of the same conspiracy is nonsense.”

        I don’t think they do such a thing.

        “In the first video the wording using to describe the 1979 oil shock is –
        “The seven sisters needed higher prices to develop the North Sea oil fields.” suggesting they had somehow conspired to achieve this. I claim nonsense.
        A better wording would be “higher prices enabled the seven sisters to develop the North Sea oil fields.””

        First of all I guess it is about the first oil shock (73) and not the second (79 Iranian revolution.)

        And second it isn’t a matter of conspiracy.
        – It is a fact that the US, then the first producer –BY FAR– passed its oil production peak in 1970 :
        – It is a fact that an “energy crisis” started from there especially in the US (you can find article in the NYT archive about that)
        – It is a fact that this event created tremendous “worries” amongst the US administration (see Nixon speeches at the time)
        – It is a fact that James Akins was named by Nixon to go check what was going on
        – It is a fact Akins said the barrel should go up
        – It is a fact that Akins “suggested” in an OAPEC(OPEC with only Arabs countries) meeting in Algiers in 72 that $4 or $5 a barrel would be reasonable (when it was 1.5 or something)
        – It is a fact Bretton Woods was dropped in 71, with associated $ devaluations adding “bullish pressure” on the barrel price.
        – It is a fact the period is also the period of serious percentage rebalance between countries and majors.
        – It is a fact Akins published its article “this time the wolf is here in April 73 beofre Yom Kippour/the “embargo”
        – It is a fact that the declaration of the embargo made the barrel rise on the spot markets (that just had been created and were by far not determining the price of most barrel exchanged)
        – It is a fact that the embargo remained very limited (from a few countries, not Iran (Shah period), not Irak (forgot exactly why), towards a few : US, Nederland, Portugal, and prod decrease five % or something, and lasted 3 or 4 months
        – It is a fact that the embargo was never effective from Saudi Arabia to the US, at least if you believe Akins at around 20:00 below :
        (also mentioning two senators starting having “strong voices”, he told them what was going on, they shat up, some traces of that should still be available.)

        In the end, it is a fact that the “embargo story” was very practical for everybody :
        – For the US to “cover up” US peak towards American public or western one in general, and put the blame “on the Arabs” for the price rise.
        – For the major Arabs producer to show “the Arab street” that they were “doing something” for the Palestinians.

        It is also a fact that the revenues of the majors jumped after this event.
        Overall clearly a win-win story “majors/countries”.
        But also a major delay in the “peak oil concept” perception, that’s for sure.

        And don’t forget that the “reference book” for “oil history” is “the prize” by Yergin, who is also the founder (or major member) of IHS CERA, or in other words the “cheerleading expert group of the industry”, also avoiding to talk “peak oil” at all cost, or keeping the “peak oil theory” moniker whenever the subject arise.

        By the way another book is also interesting (even if also by a peak oil “contrarian”) , “The Age of Oil: The Mythology, History, and Future of the World’s Most Controversial Resource” by Maugeri, who can at the same time clearly state US peak in 1970, and then say the first oil shock (as sudden price rise) had nothing to do at all with geologic constraints, as if the first producer by far at the time going from strong growth to decrease would have no effect at all on the market … (but also giving an estimates of the number of barrels taken out of the market by the “embargo”, forgot how much it is).

        Note : the other documentary (linked above) “la face cachée du pétrole”(the hidden side of oil), I find it better for the 70ies crisis (although the seven sisters one is more recent and much more complete for Africa for instance), this other documentary is adapted from a book by the same title by Eric Laurent, book also full of detailed references (and translated in many languages but not English to my knowledge, a bit strange).
        Overall clearly “technical people” don’t really won’t to “touch” these historical or geopolitical aspects too much (a bit the same with Laherrère in a way), but as said previously, clearly for me, if there is a way out of current mess, the “history of it” should also be set up as objectively as possible (similar issue as with colonization).

        • yt75 says:

          Note : sorry for the typos and spelling mistakes, forgot to re read before posting

          • yt75 says:

            And if one had to list major “events” around oil and geopolitics post wwII, for me that would be at least :

            1) The overthrow of Mossadegh (1951 Times magazine man of the year) in 53 by a CIA/MI6 coup (operation AJAX) for which Madeleine Albright apologized officially in 2000, and which was due to Mossadegh will to nationatize the Iranian oil industry (owned at that time by the Anglo Persian, former BP name). And with a predefined deal before the coup, ending up in much increased share of the business for the US after the coup and Shah in place (forgot exact percentages, also some of it for the French).

            2) The deal between the Saudis and Reagan administration for the Saudis to increase their prod, bring the price down, and put the “last blow” to the USSR (Gorbatchov at that time), cutting the USSR “hard currency” revenues by two third.
            About this :

            And note that the same strategy has been alluded to regarding last Obama visit in Ryad to bring Putin down, for instance :
            “”Neil Barnett of the Centre for Policy Studies says there is a way of doing this: persuade Saudi Arabia to do the dirty work.There is a precedent. Angered by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the Saudis turned on the oil taps, driving down the global price of crude until it reached $20 a barrel (in today’s prices) in the mid-1980s. It would take a much smaller drop in the cost of oil – from $107 a barrel currently to somewhere south of $90 a barrel – to cause Russia severe financial and economic damage.””
            But then of course :
            – The Saudis most probably don’t have the possibility to do it this time (max possible flow or almost)
            – Even if they did, they most probably don’t feel like it (US policy towards Iran, Syria to “mellow” for them, need for Saudi budget, willing to keep capital in the ground)
            – And even if they could and did it, this would also bring down the “shale oil revolution”, as already happened (in the eighties, see above extract), doubt the industry if very “hot” for that …

            But also note that this second point is also highly linked to the sudden “political reserves increases” that happened in the eighties within OPEC due to their quotas rules, and that regarding this the “usual saying” is “look at this bunch of liars”.
            Below Laherrère graph showing when these reserves increases happened :

        • Jeju-islander says:

          YT75 – I am enjoying this video series. I have now watched episode 3. In my mind this is the best so far.

          My comment — “But to then theorise that the entire history of the world ever since is all part of the same conspiracy is nonsense.” still seems valid. They start each episode with the same reconstruction of the 1928 conspiracy between Exxon Shell and BP and then imply all events stem from that. I do not believe WW2 was started by the Oil Majors. Oil played a major part in the cause but the world is much more complex than this video makes out.

          As to the demise of the Soviet Union. I quite like Dimitry Orlov’s thinking that collapse was caused by the reaching of Soviet Peak Oil. But this is not the only theory I like –
          “There are many theories out there about what exactly caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. Some say that it is Ronald Reagan with his Star Wars program. Others say that this is the war in Afghanistan or the Polish union Solidarnosc. Other popular theories include the failure of the Soviet economy, the drop in oil prices, the inability to produce consumer goods, the yearning of many Soviets for western-style freedoms and incomes, national/ethnic problems, a hypertrophic military-industrial complex, a massive and corrupt bureaucracy, the corruption of the CPSU and its nomenklatura, the personal treason of Mikhail Gorbachev and many other theories. While all of these factors did contribute to weaken the Soviet system, I do not believe that they brought it down, not even combined together. What really brought down the Soviet Union was something entirely different: an unbearable cognitive dissonance or, to put it more simply, an all-prevailing sense of total hypocrisy.” from http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.kr/2014/04/how-ukrainian-crisis-will-eventually.html

  22. Dennis Coyne says:

    Hi doug,

    First I agree with the concensus on climate change.
    Remember that the theory that the earth was not flat and not the center of the universe was a challenge to the prevailing theory when it was proposed.

    So pointing to current prevailing theories, proves nothing about which is correct.

    Though I have made similar comments myself, I think they lack merit in hindsight.

  23. Tim E. says:

    @yt75 – Unfortunately I only understand English, so I was not able to watch the Documentary you presented about Putin, nor could I find an English translation. However I did find another video, which I highly recommend all watch.

    Some of the notes I took from this video:

    Putin believed that dismantling the USSR was the greatest Geo-political disaster of the century.

    In 1991, when St. Petersburg was on the brink of starvation Putin used his business contacts within Germany to exchange Russian oil for food. Putin had already recognized that Energy is a tool for power.

    A must see at the 1:10:00 mark – Dick Cheney’s remarks

    The video talks a great deal about the importance of gas and oil as it relates to power.

    My thoughts: Russia is Putin’s private empire and he must expand at all cost. He will not back down and the West realizes this. This is a fight to the death between Alpha Wolves. The West only needs to take down Putin, and Russia will revert back to the power behind The Seven Sisters. Putin has no single head he can attack to take down the West, so he must go nuclear. It is only a matter of waiting to see which event happens first.


    • yt75 says:


      Thanks a lot for the link, didn’t have time to watch it yet.

      As to the Putin interview, first link I posted is with English subtitles, but the extract is very short (afterwards he explains the thing a bit more) :

      Below Imdb entry for the documentary :

      For sure Putin is a strong ruler, but one thing we must not forget is that Putin came after the Yeltsin era, which saw the most ruthless privatization (under a kind of ultra libertarian/mafiosi capitalism mindset, with tax evasion everywhere) era, and this after/during the complete collapse, and that somehow he put an “end” to that (more or less, and he himself got some of it for sure, but still).

      Below an interview about the current situation of Stephen Cohen (NYU Russian studies professor), that I found quite interesting :

      Hey, in fact the complete “I Putin a portrait” doc is also available in English :

      • Tim E. says:


        I did watch the video of Putin laughing and I understand, as a commenter explained:

        Those radars and defensive systems, they cover our territory up to the Ural mountains, they neuter a part of our nuclear arsenal which is the basis of our defensive potential. Every expert know this. Then they come and tell us : “don’t worry we won’t use it against you, we’re the good guys, honest”. It doesn’t work that way…. that’s why I laughed.

        Putin knows that is a trick to leave him defenseless and he doesn’t plan to end his life like being treated like Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein were treated at the end of theirs. Here is what Dick Cheney said in the video starting around the 1:10:00 mark:

        Dick Cheney is heard tersely speaking at Vilnius, Lithuania, 4 May 2006, which will be the justification for the American plan to maintain their World dominance by installing anti-missile batteries in Eastern Europe:

        No legitimate interest is served when oil and gas become tools of intimidation or blackmail, either by supply manipulation or attempts to monopolize transportation. And no one can justify actions that undermine the territorial integrity of a neighbor, or interfere with Democratic movements. Yet in Russia today, in many areas of civil society, from religion and the news media, to advocacy groups and political parties, the government has unfairly and improperly restricted the rights of the people.

        I will watch the Democracy Now link, however the documentary link says it is down.

        However, even know, the situation is escalating, as evidenced on sites like Zerohedge, Drudge Report, BBC, Press TV and others. Obama just drew a line in the sand with China and said that the US would defend the Senkaku Islands in Okinawa Prefecture, by claiming they are subject to Article 5 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. The tension is growing and the escalation is climbing. No one is backing down.

  24. Tim E. says:

    AN interesting development if true:

    Russian Su -24 scores off against the American “USS Donald Cook”

    US destroyer “Donald Cook” with cruise missiles “Tomahawk” entered the neutral waters of the Black Sea on April 10. The purpose was a demonstration of force and intimidation in connection with the position of Russia in Ukraine and Crimea. The appearance of American warships in these waters is in contradiction of the Montreux Convention about the nature and duration of stay in the Black Sea by the military ships of countries not washed by this sea.

    In response, Russia sent an unarmed bomber Su- 24 to fly around the U.S. destroyer. However, experts say that this plane was equipped with the latest Russian electronic warfare complex. According to this version, “Aegis” spotted from afar the approaching aircraft, and sounded alarm. Everything went normally, American radars calculated the speed of the approaching target. And suddenly all the screens went blank. “Aegis” was not working any more, and the rockets could not get target information. Meanwhile, Su-24 flew over the deck of the destroyer, did battle turn and simulated missile attack on the target. Then it turned and repeated the maneuver. And did so 12 times.

    After the incident, the foreign media reported that “Donald Cook” was rushed into a port in Romania. There all the 27 members of the crew filed a letter of resignation. It seems that all 27 people have written that they are not going to risk their lives. This is indirectly confirmed by the Pentagon statement according to which the action demoralized the crew of the American ship.

    Which brings me back to my speculation – that top secret weapons and capabilities exist that are a game changer. Especially if The West has technology that can neuter a Russian all-out First Strike by destroying the missiles prior to reaching their targets and detonating.

    Also, as the sinking of the Submarine Kursk proves, they are many unknowns to waging a massive nuclear war. Possessing nuclear weapons is one thing, successfully using them is another. It’s never been done before.

    I understand that the Kursk was a hunter-killer launching a torpedo, but every “Boomer” (SLBM submarine) is being tracked by the US Navy and, if possible has a hunter-killer assigned to it, so successfully launching it’s missiles is not assured, and every Boomer would become an instant target in the event of all out war. Further, every missile launch must successful to fire the entire load, and if a problem happens at launch, it may destroy the submarine and the rest of the missiles.

  25. Canabuck says:

    A thought experiment: Fast forward 10 years and imagine a world where oil production is down by 10%.
    What would such a world be like? What would the city in which you live be like?
    Would there be better transit, more unemployed? Maybe life would slow down for most, and be more enjoyable. And people would live closer to their jobs.
    Any other comments on how life would change in your city?

Comments are closed.