Peak Oil Barrel

150 responses to “April World Oil Production Drops Again”

1. Matt Mushalik

   08/16/2026

   75,281 kb/d? Is that not very close to the crude oil peak predicted in the early 2000s for 2005?

   Reply
   1. Ovi

      08/16/2026

      Matt

      The predicted peak wandered around 84,500 kb/d. It is shown in the first chart at November 2018. After that the question became will that peak be broken. It was finally exceeded in August 2025 when it hit 85,000 kb/d.

      Some argued that the real peak should be an annual production peak. It is also shown on the left side of the first chart.

   2. Sheng Wu

      08/17/2026

      several news sources claim that after SOH blockade, lots of ship passage have been hidden and the real traffic is a lot larger, and Chris Wright claim there is a shadow passage of almost 9MBOPD now in SOH.

   3. Paul Pukite (@whut)

      08/18/2026

      So this is true and the consumption numbers recover, or this is still true but the consumption numbers don’t recover with the oil going into storage, or this is not true.

      Which of these scenarios is more likely?

   4. DC

      08/19/2026

      Sheng Wu,

      There has been a recovery of about 4.6 MMb/d of OPEC output in July from the low in May 2026 when it dropped by as much as 9.5 MMb/d for crude output based on MOMR data. Wright is a clown just saying what Trump wants to hear.

      Note that this does not include the refined products that flow through Hormuz, data on this is harder to find.

2. Seppo Korpela

   08/16/2026

   Have any of you shifted to use AI tools to analyze oil production. I paid the $200 yearly fee to use Claude and gave it the command. Prepare a Matlab plot for the Gulf of Mexico oil production separating the deep water from shallow water. Here is the result. Why can’t I send a figure any longer??

   404 OOPS! Page Not Found!

   Reply
   1. Ovi

      08/16/2026

      Seppo

      The chart size needs to be smaller than 60 kilobytes. This can be done by opening the chart and resaving/exporting it to a different format such as a gif or jpeg.

   2. Ovi

      08/16/2026

      Seppo

      The chart size needs to be smaller than 60 kilobytes. This can be done by opening the chart and resaving/exporting it to a different format such as a gif or jpeg.

   3. DC

      08/16/2026

      Seppo,

      I usually aim for less than 55 kB for chart file size, I usually paste it into a spreadsheet and then alter the dimensions of the chart or the compression of the file (sometimes both are needed). Also you can email me the chart at [email protected] and I can try to post it.

   4. Seppo Korpela

      08/17/2026

      Thanks, I see this notice for file the upper limit for sizes to be acceptable: Maximum file size: 1 MB.
      Allowed formats: JPG, JPEG, PNG.

      Here is a one with reduced size.

      GOM2025B

   5. DC

      08/17/2026

      Seppo,

      That’s what the app supposedly will allow, by my hosting service only let’s us post 55 to 60 kB charts in the comments, I have been unable to fix this, my software skills are very limited.

   6. Paul Pukite (@whut)

      08/18/2026

      Haven’t shifted to LLM AI for this, but this is what it is capable of:
      https://pukpr.github.io/OilShockModel/oil-shock-model

      Here is the repository including two versions of output: https://github.com/pukpr/OilShockModel based on the LLM training on and then understanding the algorithm behind the oil shock model, enough that a simple prompt can generate the computation and graph the results.

      this is just a test to post a figure

      repository-open-graph-template

   7. Sheng Wu

      08/23/2026

      Seppo,

      https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_api_adc_mbblpd_m.htm
      from link above, one could plot out the API density since 2015
      the api density for GOA has been steady since 2015, almost 98% below 40deg API, with 1/3 goes to API below 30deg!!!

      and don’t have the API history since 1985.

      I looked at the isotope data of C2 and C3 in the main deep water field, i.e. Mississippi Canyon, and the values match maturity in the condensate and rich wet gas for similar source rock, i.e. Eagle Ford where 90% liquid has API >40deg to over 60deg. The cause of this discrepancy is overmatured hypersaline lacustrine sourced oil, much like in Guyana and presalt Brazil.

3. DC

   08/16/2026

   Ovi,

   Thank you for the excellent post.

   Reply
4. DC

   08/16/2026

   There was some discussion of Marcellus shale gas and natural gas prices in comments of last post. Site linked below has some PA natural gas price data in the natural gas production reports for those interested.

   https://www.ifo.state.pa.us/releases/page/4/type/2/Energy/

   Chart below can be enlarged with a mouse click.

   

   Reply
   1. DC

      08/16/2026

      Average Pennsylvania Natural Gas spot price $/MCF from reports at link below

      https://www.ifo.state.pa.us/releases/page/1/type/2/Energy/

      Click on chart below for larger view

      

   2. Coffeeguyzz

      08/16/2026

      Dennis,
      As has been stated umpteen times, App Basin output has been about 100% the takeaway capacity for years now.
      There will definitely be an uptick in the coming years – noticeable by late 2027 – as incremental pipeline inservice is put into play.
      Also, if the planned regional data center buildout continues, an additional 4 Bcfd might be realized in 5 years or so time.

      In the name of Holy Gaia, Dennis, I do not know why you keep referencing Patzek. In his 2021 report, he claimed Marcellus wells would average a 14 year lifespan. That is SO preposterous a statement that I do not know why anyone takes this guy seriously.

      (Aside, I made a typo in that Porter 6U energy equivalent of its 14 Bcf. It equates to ~2 1/2 million barrels of oil in its first ten and a half months’ production).

   3. DC

      08/17/2026

      Coffeeguyzz,

      The Patzek analysis is excellent in my view. If it was believed that the resource was there, the pipelines would be built. They haven’t been as of yet, we will see what happens in the future.

      Chart below has PA average natural gas quarterly spot prices moved forward by 3 quarters assuming there is about a 9 month delay between spud and first flow plotted on right axis with Marcellus output on right axis. Utica output has been flat to declining for the past 6 years. Click on chart for larger view.

      

   4. Sheng Wu

      08/17/2026

      DC,

      you should also post the WV gas production (including Marcellus and Utica, but mainly Marcellus) where the increase is substantial, 50% increase after 2020 and now already half of the PA production, all because of higher liquid production in Marcellus, and Utica there in WV is dry gas,
      https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_sum_a_EPG0_VGM_mmcf_m.htm

      yes, PA is flat because gas economics is not there with sub-$2 wellhead price, it is miracle it could still hold production flat, and I believe the main reason is the SWPA is increasing production as their economics is much better with more wet gas components.

   5. DC

      08/18/2026

      Sheng Wu,

      The Marcellus output plotted is for all US states, I could not find price data for all states, just PA.

      Also note the price was low in 2017 to 2021 and output was growing pretty quickly, very little correlation between natural gas price and output in PA. R squared is about 0.023 for natural gas price vs output with natural gas price shifted forward by 9 months due to lag between spud and first flow.

   6. DC

      08/18/2026

      WV and PA marketed natural gas logarithmic vertical scale, click on chart for better view.

      

   7. Sheng Wu

      08/23/2026

      DC,

      WV Marcellus gas production is not related to gas price, but rather the NGL and condensates.
      From the EIA link here above, you could plot out the gas production for WV and PA independently, and you could see that the PA production has been close to flat with barely 0.5BCFPD increase since 2020.

      The gas in WV (mainly Marcellus) has been increasing since 2019, and almost up 50% from 6BCFPD to almost 9 BCFPD, together with PA total gas at 21BCFPD, that’s 30BCFPD, close to your logarithmic vertical scale plot (monthly).
      Logarithmic vertical scale seriously hides the increase since 2020, there is only 2 smallest ticks looking quite flat, but that is 25% increase, from 800BCFPD to ~1000BCFPD.

      Patzek’s forecast used regular vertical axis and the forecast basically stays flat after 2020 with WV+PA at 25BCFPD even with core being drilled at previous forecast rate, and they assume NPV10=0 price is $2/MCF for the core while price has been close to barely $2/MCF for the past 6 years. The NEPA Marcellus dry gas indeed followed their forecast, but the SWPA and mainly WV Marcellus accounted for the extra increase of 0.5BCFPD and ~3.5BCFPD since 2020. Now, Marcellus has drawn extra ~60TCF after their forecast and reaching a new record peak of ~29BCFPD, and total gas drawn till today is close to 110TCF, and if we assume peak now is half of the TRR, then TRR~220TCF, more than Patzek forecast of 178-200TRR.

      The failure of Patzek forecast is mainly due to SW Marcellus liquid, especially WV, and probably now in Ohio as well. The cost of Marcellus laterals has been declining the fastest pace among of shale patches, and yet the productivity per foot holds strong or even improving. I won’t be surprised that Ohio could be drilling very economic shallow Marcellus for condensate and even oil in the coming years.

   8. Coffeeguyzz

      08/24/2026

      Sheng Wu,

      Ohio Mighty Marcellus development is already expanding northward.
      Gulfport just announced its North Marcellus project wherein its future inventory expanded by 200% in Jefferson and Belmont counties.

      Bigger ramifications are the ever-growing Utica footprint in Ohio.
      EOG’S 5 well Norris pad in Columbiana county averaged almost 800 barrels of oil (thats BO, not BOE) in Q1 2026.
      Successful well in next county north – Mahoning – from Hilcorp.

      Taking a much broader macro view …
      The Pennsylvania counties of Beaver and Lawrence lie directly east of these Ohio producers and have had minimal development in recent years.
      Dennis seems to consistently (weirdly?) misconflate slow/non development as evidence of non viability. (See his comments re Ute development).
      Aw contrare to the max!
      These now ‘fringe’ regions are absolutely ‘waiting in the wings’ to come online when the MASSIVE footprint of already viable – economically – wells starts to peter out … many decades from now.

      I was absolutely floored when I examined ~300 well production histories of the ‘dogs’ in these (mostly northwest PA) counties.
      With modern technology/practices and $4/$5 pricing, the supply is nearly limitless.

      Aside, always great to see input from industry professionals such as yourself.

   9. DC

      08/24/2026

      Sheng Wu,

      The Patzek forecast was for Marcellus only, the only good data I have for that is from EIA. For Marcellus cumulative production is 102 TCF, perhaps Patzek estimate is conservative or peak might occur at more than 50% of URR. Also the important metric is EUR per lateral foot and we don’t have good data on that. Generally the SW PA and WV core areas have lower productivity than NE PA.

      Coffeeguyzz,

      When I see significant output I will believe it. So far Utica/Point Pleasant has been pretty flat for many years.

   10. Sheng Wu

       08/24/2026

       Coffeeguyzz,

       Great to hear more exciting news in SW Marcellus! and shale oil in Utica!!!

       DC,
       it is my opinion that the SW Marcellus was under-estimated prior 2020, and hence hiding under the radar in Saputra/Patzek 2024 paper is due to two factors,
       1. prior experiences in shale drilling rules out prolific liquid-rich pure shale with high TOC, especially the volatile oil windows.
       2. the SW Marcellus is ultra-thin 30~60ft, and the porosity measured with conventional methods only yields less than 10% porosity (Saputra 2024 paper quotes 7%), and therefore the original HCs in place as well as productivity were under-estimated.

       I also was puzzled by the over 100% recovery in SW Marcellus liquid rich shale patches along with the geologists there. Until earlier this year, I actually measured the actual porosity is probably well over 15% to over 20% with our density difference poresimetry.

       https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/pyrites-fools-gold-marcellus-over-100-eur-sheng-wu-lxhqc

       So, the 100% EUR is surreal with a reason behind.

   11. DC

       08/24/2026

       Sheng Wu,

       Patzek used available production data to make their estimate in early 2021, not clear that things have changed much since then. Significant marketed natural gas growth in WV from 2020 to 2025, about 7% per year. In 2025 the annual growth was about 5%. We will see what happens in the future.

5. Hickory

   08/16/2026

   About 90% of Kazakhstan oil is exported via a Russian port on the Black sea near Crimea- Novorossiysk.

   ‘U.S. Vice President JD Vance asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a July 31 phone call to halt drone strikes on non-Russian oil tankers near the Black Sea port of Novorossiysk. Washington warned that targeting the Caspian Pipeline Consortium terminal risked destabilizing global energy markets and harming U.S. corporate interests.’

   Does this strike anyone as a little hypocritical…Vance instructing a country that is fighting for its very existence to refrain from disrupting the oil markets?
   He has been strongly pro-Putin during this whole invasion. Is it an expression of strong preference for Authoritarianism?

   “U.S. Vice President JD Vance stated in April 2026 that halting direct U.S. weapons funding and transfers to Ukraine is one of the proudest achievements of the current administration.”

   Reply
6. Coffeeguyzz

   08/16/2026

   Hickory,
   In your (last post) link to the good folks at MCOR, one need only quickly glance at the thickness depictions of the Utica versus Marcellus to understand why many of us are uber bullish on the Ute.
   The absolutely immense expanse of the Utica is simply breathtaking.

   Looking at the northeastern most ‘boundary’, one sees the note ‘edge of study area’.
   Yeah, well, Questerre actually had a handful of successful Utica wells over 100 miles north of that ‘boundary’ using archaic, ~17 year old technology back in 2010.

   Your MCOR link also listed the forever-overlooked Upper Devonian formations. While this resource garners neither love nor attention for years now, Gregory Wrightstone estimated that ~100 Tcf might be recoverable from the Burket/Geneseo alone. Again, this is using a decade-old technological framework.
   With today’s tools, the UD could easily surpass even that (Wrightstone’s) already high figure.

   100+ years of natgas supply.
   Gar. Own. Teed.

   Reply
   1. Klim

      08/17/2026

      Long before that climate will have eliminated many of those natgas beneficiaries, I’m afraid.
      Good news for the immediate future nevertheless

   2. DC

      08/17/2026

      Coffeeguyzz,

      You keep hyping the Utica, but output is flat, maybe that changes if more pipelines are built or when there is more data center demand, we will see. At some point the resource may become too expensive to produce as the cheapest and easiest resources will be extracted first. We will never run out of natural gas, the expensive resource will remain under ground.

      From 1975 to 2017 the average World Natural gas consumption grew at 2.6% per year, from 2018 to 2025 the average annual growth rate fell to 1.2% and perhaps that rate continues for many years, my guess is that it will be challenging beyond 2030 for growth in natural gas consumption to continue.

      We will see.

   3. DC

      08/20/2026

      Coffeeguyzz,

      Nobody pays attention to the upper Devonian because output is negligible. If that changes then perhaps it will get some attention.

7. Andre The Giant

   08/16/2026

   Great job Ovi!

   Forgive me, but there is often talk about AI on this site. AI does (data centres and AI Agent wars consuming 80% of internet bandwidth) does have energy implications

   https://fortune.com/2026/07/23/dead-internet-theory-bots-agents-majority-web-traffic/

   For anyone who still think Copilot, Chat GPT, etc are thinking. Here is most concise mathematical description I have come across

   All they do is predict the next “token” (a word represented as a number so a computer can understand it) in a sequence (question, sentence, etc).

   And yes ( I know someone will chime in) the transformer neural network architecture is more complicated than this, but that just allows the LLM to use CONTEXT and SEMANTICS in its response.

   a language model assigns a probability to each next token based on all earlier tokens.

   So the log‑likelihood is:

   LLM(x) = sum_{i=1 to n} log P(x_i | x_<i)

   Token x1: P(x1)
   Token x2: P(x2 | x1)
   Token x3: P(x3 | x1, x2)
   …
   Token xi: P(xi | x1, x2, …, x_{i-1})

   … and so on

   Then add up the logs of all those probabilities.

   This is exactly how modern LLMs compute their training objective: maximize the probability of the next token given the previous ones.

   https://gist.github.com/ritwikraha/77e79990992043f60a9588610b2781c5

   It is amazing what LLMs can do, but all they are doing is predicting the next word in a sequence (sentence) given the previous words.

   And yes ( I know someone will chime in) the transformer neural network architecture is more complicated than this….but that just add SEMANTIC and CONTEXTUAL nuance to the response.

   Reply
   1. Ovi

      08/17/2026

      Dennis

      Thanks

   2. Ovi

      08/17/2026

      Andre

      Thanks

   3. Pops

      08/17/2026

      Andre, your explanation is true, as far as it goes. But how different are you or I? Do you not search for the appropriate next word given semantics and the context of your thought?

      “Nobody looks at the chemistry of amino acids forming in a reducing atmosphere and says “so life is just chemistry” as a way of dismissing what came after. The mechanism being simple and local doesn’t cap what the aggregate can do”

      That was Claude’s thought when asked the question. Seems a little more than just guessing the next word. Seems like a thought to me. I think the possibility there IS a thought there scares people.

      BTW, I’m a slowly retiring graphic designer aka “desktop publisher.” Me and my Mac put a few print tradesmen out of business back in the 90s. My current trade will be obsoleted as well over the next bit by AI. So I’m neither a fan boy nor techno-optimist, in fact I’m fairly pessimistic on the outcome. But one thing PO taught me was to read the writing on the wall, regardless of what my druthers might like.

   4. Nick G

      08/17/2026

      Pops,

      The difference is that we don’t understand biology and intelligence, so it’s still mysterious. OTOH, we still (mostly!) understand how “AI” works.

      If you understand something, it’s much less mysterious. The Turing test is inadequate, because Claude can carry on a conversation, yet we (mostly!) know that Claude is an “it” and not a “he”.

      We are likely to eventually understand how humans think, and the nature of consciousness. I don’t think that will elevate “AI”. More likely it will make human thought and consciousness less mysterious, less seemingly supernatural and “divine”.

   5. Hickory

      08/17/2026

      This (LLM’s) is the early days.
      Anyone who downplays the capabilities is likely reacting out fear (whether they know it or not).
      I don’t blame them.

      I asked- “add up the mass of the 1000 closest stars to earth”, and in one second I got a reply-
      “The cumulative mass of the 1000 closest stars to Earth is approximately 300 to 400 Solar Masses (\(M_{\odot }\)), which equates to roughly \(6 \times 10^{32}\) to \(8 \times 10^{32}\) kilograms.”, with a much longer accompanying explanation.

      Quick work.

   6. Nick G

      08/17/2026

      “ Anyone who downplays the capabilities”

      That wasn’t the topic of conversation. The topic was whether what we call AI duplicates human thinking.

      I am hopeful that AI will greatly accelerate research, especially medical. But…I think the question of whether AI is “thinking” is very difficult, mostly because we don’t know what humans are doing when they “think”.

   7. Pops

      08/17/2026

      Nick, the thing about AI is that its behavior is an emergent property of training at scale. It is not coded, or a database. Even though we do know how the servers are wired

      Human behavior on the other hand is fairly predictable, even if the details of the wet works are obscure.

      AI behavior is an emergent property that wasn’t theorized, it even surprised the researchers. Which is why they are all in on massive training runs, because that is what works.

      That emergent intelligence is what is so fascinating and scary.

   8. gerryf

      08/17/2026

      Hickory.

      Anyone who downplays the capabilities is likely reacting out fear (whether they know it or not).
      I don’t blame them.

      I asked- “add up the mass of the 1000 closest stars to earth”, and in one second I got a reply-”

      You’re impressed with AI because it gives you a number, but is it right? This is a common failure, and there are many high-profile media reports on AI productivity that turn out to be dependant on “Did AI give any answer”, vs “Did AI give the correct answer”

      My division works with AI every day. Like all users, we find AI often gives confidently incorrect answers. We find AI often makes up numbers – no basis in fact, and completely unrelated to it’s ‘simulated reasoning’.

      You might find a better way to use AI is “List the 1000 stars closest to earth, sorted by name, together with their mass in kilograms, and solar mass. Compute the total mass and average mass and display standard deviations” This is actually an easy query since there are sources online that do just that.

      The answer is 340 Solar masses, or 6.7 x 10^32 kg. A much better answer than the very approximate “300 to 400” solar masses you received as an answer, and I think shows that your AI didn’t actually compute the number, just grabbed a partial phrase and went with that. But still, my answer has a whole bunch of maybe questionable assumptions of stellar mass and if i was really curious I’d look at them more.

      But the more complete type of question gives you data to do some quick checks and actually establish whether the AI was useful or bogus.

   9. Hickory

      08/18/2026

      Mostly correct, and generally doing as well as very well trained humans.
      The various services will be competing for capability , and collaborating.

      I do believe we are all likely to be shocked by the capabilities over the next 5 years,
      and it may be a very very unpleasant shock.
      I do not consider the global financial networks to be secure, for example. AI will enable capable individuals/groups to do things they never could have before. For better and for worse.
      This low cost military drone emergence is just the beginning of disruptive effects we should expect. To escalate.

   10. Andre The Giant

       08/18/2026

       I should have mentioned:

       1) The LLM uses next token (word) prediction to train a neural network…..to statistically “understand” human language structure. It starts learning grammar, and semantics and world facts, nouns, verbs etc.

       It is simply amazing that a neural network ( a directed stochastic graph) can do this simply by next word predicting any text it can get its hands on (billions, trillions? of human sentences)

       2) In the post-training phase the LLM is trained how to be conversational by training on human feedback to their responses, as human don’t just want the next word, they want a human response to their prompt.

       more too it than that but, thousands of youtube videos explaining.

   11. Seppo Korpela

       08/21/2026

       Recursive AI is now the hot topic. There are plenty articles on this.

       https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-ai-revolution-in-math-has-arrived-20260413/

       BUT:

       https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/08/18/1142188/ai-recursive-self-improvement/

       “AI’s recursive self-improvement might not come so quickly after all

       AI agents are not yet creative enough to carry out genuinely innovative open-ended AI research, it seems.” Michelle Kim August 18, 2026

8. Rick Munroe

   08/17/2026

   Test: previous cooment failed….

   Reply
9. DC

   08/17/2026

   Brent October futures price up to $91/b as of August 17, 2026.

   Reply
10. THC

    08/17/2026

    China leads wave of clean power wastage as grids globally hit limits

    BEIJING/SINGAPORE, Aug 17 (Reuters) – China turned away enough clean energy to power Mexico ​for a year in the six months through June as its grids hit their limits, while networks in many other nations ‌such as Australia and Japan also failed to keep pace with a surging renewables buildout.

    https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-leads-wave-clean-power-wastage-grids-globally-hit-limits-2026-08-17/

    Reply
    1. Hickory

       08/18/2026

       Almost 10% of wind and solar energy production capacity has been curtailed in 2026. I suspect they will continue to figure out how to optimize their system. They are very motivated to have abundant and secure energy.
       “China’s overall domestic energy [Total] self-sufficiency rate is projected to reach approximately 84.6% in 2026.”

    2. THC

       08/18/2026

       China’s energy consumption/electricity growth has been impressive.

       Both roughly 2.2X that of the US.

       If we use energy consumption/electricity as proxies for economic/industrial activity, then China’s economy is by far the largest in the world already.

    3. Nick G

       08/18/2026

       THC,

       If you look at Purchasing Power Parity adjusted GDP, China’s GDP is much larger than the US.

       Simple currency conversion is misleading. Which, sadly, does suggest that China is masterful at manipulating the value of their currency.

    4. THC

       08/18/2026

       Nick,

       True PP GDP does show China on top, but even that understates it relative to the gap in energy/electricity.

11. THC

    08/17/2026

    SPR: 293 million barrels

    https://www.spr.doe.gov/dir/dir.html

    Reply
12. Pops

    08/18/2026

    I wonder if TACO is the reason US production is not climbing? The US was supposed to be the new swing producer, but they aren’t swinging. Is it fiscal discipline and shareholder value that is holding shale back? Is there simply no one who dares predict which way the US will lurch next? Or are the options thinning? Is $85/bbl just not enough?

    https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/US-Shale-Majors-Cut-Spending-Despite-Higher-Oil-Prices.html

    Reply
    1. Ovi

       08/18/2026

       Pops

       Check the US chart in the post. It projects US production to Dec 2027.

    2. THC

       08/18/2026

       Wait till the US starts serious debate about restricting exports.

13. DC

    08/18/2026

    Updated World Natural Gas Shock Model with Gross minus reinjected Natural Gas URR of about 18800 TCF, the plotted output is dry natural gas which is about 90% of the gross minus reinjected amount. In 2025 World output was about 406 BCF/d and cumulative output about 6000 TCF, peak in 2038 at 438 BCF/d for dry natural gas with cumulative output at 8335 TCF at the end of 2038, cumulative output reached 9400 TCF (50% of URR) in 2044. Click on chart for larger view.

    

    Reply
    1. Hickory

       08/18/2026

       DC- impressive to undertake this projection
       Is the decline due primarily to depletion or to projected demand offset by other sources, such as solar/nuclear. What are some of the assumptions you have incorporated for this?

    2. DC

       08/18/2026

       Hickory,

       Decline is due to depletion for URR assumed.

       My original pst on natural Gas 11 years ago at link below, some of the rationale for the model is explained in that post.

       https://peakoilbarrel.com/world-natural-gas-shock-model/

       I have assumed a resource of 18800 TCF for this scenario. I extrapolated the increase in the extraction rate trend from 2012 to 2024 out to 2050 (linear increase of .039% each year starting at 4.17% in 2024 and increasing to 5.142% in 2050 and then remaining at that level until 2100 and then the extraction rate decreases by 1% per year (multiply extraction rate by 0.99 each year from 2101 to 2250.)

       The scenario is certain to be incorrect as future resources, extraction rates, etc are not known.

       Using Hubbert Linearization for all World natural gas from 2005 to 2024 suggests a URR of 18900 TCF, fairly close to the scenario presented.

       Keep in mind that the HL method often gives inaccurate results. For comparison I did an HL for World C+C using data from 1994 to 2025 and the resulting URR is 2940 Gb,which is close to my best guess estimate of 2990 Gb for World C+C URR.

       Chart below shows extraction rate, but units of vertical axis are TCF per year, divide by 365 or 366 as appropriate and multiply by 1000 to convert to BCF/d as on previous chart.

       

    3. Hickory

       08/19/2026

       It seems to me that the ability to accurately project future Nat Gas projection is much much lower than for oil. Is that how you see it?

    4. DC

       08/19/2026

       Hickory,

       I agree in part because we are not as close to the peak for natural gas. One thing that gives me a bit more confidence in the natural gas estimate is that there is not a cartel manipulating the supply of natural gas as is the case with OPEC affecting World C+C output. For both World C+C and for World natural gas a Hubbert linearization gives reasonable estimates for each (close to my best guess.)

       It is also possible (or certain) that my best guess will be incorrect, but whether too low or to high has yet to be determined. The HL for natural gas using data from 2005 to 2025 is in chart below (click on chart for larger view).

       

    5. DC

       08/19/2026

       World C+C HL using 2005-2025 data, URR=3000 Gb in chart below. Click on chart for full picture.

       

    6. RGR

       08/21/2026

       Any world on revising the Shock Model now that it has changed its answer across…what, a decade or two now? Like….building one that isn’t better called “The Kick The Can Indefinately Model”?

    7. Paul Pukite (@whut)

       08/22/2026

       we know you are Reserve Growth Rulezzz and are not sincere in your curiosiity

    8. D C

       08/22/2026

       RGR,

       Like any scenario for the future much depends on assumptions, there are an infinite number of different assumptions about the future which could be made which leads to an infinite set of future possible scenarios. The odds of choosing the correct scenario are precisely one divided by infinity, which has a zero percent probability. This is very basic Stats 101.

       There are no correct scenarios of the future.

    9. D C

       08/22/2026

       We can also do a Hubbert linearization on conventional oil and conventional natural gas. For conventional oil (excluding extra heavy oil with API gravity of less than 10 degrees and tight oil) the URR is about 2400 Gb, adding about 200 Gb for tight oil and extra heavy oil would lead to a URR of 2600 Gb, about 350 Gb less than my best guess scenario (with conventional URR at about 2750 Gb).

       For natural gas excluding US shale gas the URR of conventional gas is about 11500 TCF, US shale gas is estimated to have a URR of about 1000 TCF so this suggests a URR for World natural gas of under 13000 TCF.

14. THC

    08/18/2026

    One plausible explanation for what is going on with oil/Hormuz:

    https://t.me/iceagefarmer/3456

    “So Trump comes out and declares the strait is open again — completely made up, and who even believes him at this point? But “belief” is not the point. The headlines go out, and the high-frequency algorithmic trading pushes the oil prices back down. These markets have been completely manipulated by their statements:

    1. Not just to make billions through insider trading
    2. Not just to push people into confusion and learned helplessness
    3. But to absolutely prevent any natural demand destruction

    … meaning, usually if the world is running out of something, the price rises. That’s the most basic supply/demand concept. It’s been undermined by this cycle of nonsense announcements and manipulated markets — and this is GUARANTEEING that we are going into an absolutely worst-case “hard landing” scenario: the engineered energy crisis that will require fuel rationing and cause massive inflation across commodities, transportation, cost of living…everything.

    The economy CANNOT survive what they have engineered here.”

    Reply
15. Andre The Giant

    08/18/2026

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/us-working-on-deconfliction-mechanism-among-turkey-israel-and-syria-us-envoy-says/ar-AA2ap7G4

    Israel and Turkey getting into it in Syria.

    Turkey is no joke Militarily and is part of NATO

    Reply
    1. THC

       08/18/2026

       This is gonna be one big *ss war.

       Overlapping of the two fronts (Middle East and Ukraine/Russia) on the way as well.

    2. Andre The Giant

       08/19/2026

       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTDQft0gIYQ

       Col Douglas McGregor confirms Turkey has nukes.

       Gravity Bombs that are leftover when the USA put them there to get to the Russians in the Cold War.

       They also have an agreement with Pakistan to supply them.

       McGregor knows because Trump sent him to Turkey to try to get them back

       He also says Israel is facing an existential threat.

       If the US abandons them, they are done in the region
       or will need to start nuking people.

    3. THC

       08/19/2026

       This may be going too far off topic — pls let me know if I should keep it closer to oil/energy/population.

       ~~~~~

       Re Nukes:

       You might find this detailed investigation of the Hiroshima bombing historical documents and records worth at least skimming. If true, the implications are profound for geopolitics.

       “Hiroshima Revisited

       The evidence that napalm and mustard gas help fake the atomic bombings”

       https://mpalmer.heresy.is/webnotes/HR/download/hiroshima-revisited.pdf

    4. Andre The Giant

       08/21/2026

       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXI742hcyw0

       Israel says an attack on Turkish assets in Syria should not invoke Article 5 of NATO defense treaty.

       “An attack on 1 NATO country is an attack on ALL”

       That is limited to an attack on Turkish soil.

16. Andre The Giant

    08/18/2026

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/new-muslim-nato-shows-trump-s-authority-in-middle-east-has-collapsed/ar-AA2ansSn

    “Mecca NATO” formed.

    US influence in region waning.

    Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan. Trying to get Egypt to join.

    Reply
    1. THC

       08/18/2026

       Shia vs Sunni

       That is HUGE.

    2. Andre The Giant

       08/18/2026

       Oil (Saudi), Nukes (Pakistan),, Turkey (largest ground troops in the world), Egypt (Meditteranean sea)

       It won’t be boring!

17. Andre The Giant

    08/19/2026

    https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16062409/nationwide-blackout-18-months-power-grid.html

    Knocking out 9 power substations in USA could cause nationwide blackout for 18 months.

    Glad this guy posted this on the internet /sarc

    Reply
    1. THC

       08/19/2026

       Andre,

       Have you, by any chance, been listening to the “Greatest Hits of Satan Klaus”?

       Here he is mentioning your scenario;

       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DKRvS-C04o

    2. Andre The Giant

       08/19/2026

       who is Satan Klaus? The guy in the link?

    3. THC

       08/19/2026

       Hi Andre,

       Yes, Satan Klaus is Klaus Schwab, founder of the WEF.

       Another of his oldies but goodies is his prediction that “Going Back to Normal is Fiction”. I increasingly suspect this prediction will also apply to Hormuz, the middle east, and global oil markets.

       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkUD2aSZR3A

18. gerryf

    08/19/2026

    NYTimes article: The crack spread is going to make your life unpleasant.

    “wholesale gasoline and diesel prices are up about 59 percent and 69 percent, respectively, over a year ago. That’s way more than the 36 percent increase in crude oil prices.”

    Gift article: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/19/opinion/gas-prices-crude-oil-diesel.html?unlocked_article_code=1.61A.NYaC.xzLYFuL5Y-6M&smid=url-share

    Reply
19. Andre The Giant

    08/19/2026

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muko3_2L9gY

    4 minutes

    Remember the shadow fleet?

    It is a fleet of decommisioned ships that can only get insurance from Russia.

    1 of them is sinking on its own.

    This could cause an ecological disaster 3x the size of Exxon Valdez.

    No one will insure these things. It will be interesting to see if Russia pays out the policy.

    if not that is 2-5 mbpd of oil off the market.

    Reply
20. Hickory

    08/20/2026

    “Coal remains the world’s largest power source, generating nearly 11,000 TWh in 2026—77% more electricity than wind and solar combined.
    The Iran war is giving coal an unexpected boost, as disrupted LNG supplies and higher gas prices make coal more competitive in Europe and Asia.
    Renewables are growing rapidly, but soaring electricity demand is slowing coal’s displacement, with the IEA expecting coal to remain the largest individual power source through 2030.”

    Got AC? Got coal to power the AC?

    Reply
    1. Nick G

       08/20/2026

       Well, really, solar is by far our biggest energy source. Think about space heating: the temperature of our homes and offices would be in the neighborhood of -400 degrees without the sun. Lighting? There would be no outside lighting, and we’d lose half our indoor lighting, without the sun. No food. No biomass. No FF.

       Solar is by far our biggest daily energy source.

    2. Iron Mike

       08/20/2026

       Data centres too will continue to increase demand for coal.

    3. Hickory

       08/20/2026

       I know work you hard to feel comfortable with reality Nick. Really hard.
       It doesn’t help me, to attempt to dip everything in sugar.

    4. Nick G

       08/20/2026

       Hickory,

       Well, it doesn’t help to assume that someone who seems to disagree with you is in denial. It may be a lot of other things, including miscommunication.

       So…I suppose I’m not at all clear on what your point was. I was just trying to set certain basic perceptions, including the idea that FF is a big resource compared to solar (it’s really, really not), or that we use more FF than solar power in our daily life (we don’t). These are very common misperceptions, which contribute to terrible, inefficient building design; and to a lack of familiarity with solar.

       So…what was your point? That we use too much coal? That solar isn’t catching up to coal fast enough? I would agree with both. I would reply, though, that right now these are effectively social decisions – we could accelerate the growth of solar pretty easily, but the FF industry’s political power is helping protect it. Which leads to the point that we should all try to be at least a bit politically active – vote for politicians who push for net-zero, educate people about the economic and environmental benefits of net-zero, etc.

    5. DC

       08/20/2026

       Hickory,

       Using Energy Institute data for the World, electricity generation from coal has grown at less than 1% per year from 2012 to 2025 while non-fossil fuel electricity generation grew at about 4.8% per year over that same period. Future rates are of course unknown. Non-fossil fuel generation was about 44% of the World total. Let’s assume fossil fuel growth is 1% per year in the future and non-fossil fuel growth continues at 4.8% and total electricity generation grows at 2.67% for the World. Under those assumptions fossil fuel electricity generation falls to zero around 2065. See chart below and click on chart for full view.

       

21. Larry

    08/20/2026

    Ovi has US output still grinding higher into 2027, and the part of that I can speak to is who actually does the work. We run a job board for traveling trades workers, and the crews that build and turn this stuff around — welders, pipefitters, instrument techs — are the same few thousand people rotating between the Gulf Coast, the Permian, and now the data center jobs. When a data center is paying $100 to $125 a day per diem on top of $40 an hour, a plant either matches it or waits for its turnaround crew. We publish state-level wage data for the trades that staff these projects if it is any use on the cost side of the forecast.

    Reply
    1. Ovi

       08/20/2026

       Larry

       Thanks for the offer. I don’t do economic analysis. On this board, Dennis does the economic analysis and he will see your offer. Knowing the daily rates is useful but one must know the total man-hours to drill a well and to complete it.

       Regardless

       Thanks again.

    2. DC

       08/20/2026

       Ovi is spot on, as we don’t have man-hour data for the oil industry, it is difficult to do much with wage levels. A real oil man could do such an analysis as they could estimate the man-hours, I am not an oil man.

22. shallow sand

    08/20/2026

    Bessent’s back door QE the reason oil has been up steadily this week?

    Reply
    1. DC

       08/20/2026

       Shallow Sand,

       I think the market has stopped believing the bullshit from the Whitehouse. Oil prices are likely to continue higher as Hormuz remains effectively closed.. On August 18 the spot price for gulf Coast diesel was about $185/b, on Feb 6, 2026 it was about $89/b, refined products are expensive and as many have said the economy runs on diesel fuel at present.

    2. THC

       08/20/2026

       shallow sand, DC,

       Yes, their magic spells for market manipulation are no longer working as expected, and the algos have perhaps been trained not to respond to their favorite key phrases in Axios.

       The latest fairy tales from Barak Ravid failed to crush the oil market:

       “Under the operation, which has been underway for the last several weeks, 15–20 tankers have entered and exited the strait each night through a southern channel along the coast of Oman”

       https://x.com/BarakRavid/status/2090256576720597437?s=20

       https://x.com/HormuzLetter/status/2090298622940185069?s=20

    3. SRSrocco

       08/21/2026

       Shallow,

       The U.S. Treasury’s move to double bond buybacks from $2 to $4 billion is a rounding error and is basically meaningless in the whole scheme of things.

       But the markets certainly reacted, especially precious metals. However, this really wasn’t good for metals over the next 6-12+ months; it caught traders on the wrong side of the trade, especially the shorts.

       This also had no impact on the global oil market per se, but traders will be traders.

       There is so much Leverage trading in these markets; Warren Buffett recently said the entire stock market has turned into a massive Gambling casino, much like Sports Betting.

       This will end badly in the next 6-12+ months.

       steve

    4. THC

       08/21/2026

       Hi!

       Are you Steve from *the* SRSrocco report?

       Nice to see you here!

       srsroccoreport.com/u-s-shale-oil-gas-production-update-aug-2026-whats-going-on-is-the-permian-showing-signs-of-peaking/

23. DC

    08/20/2026

    Brent futures at about $93/b as of August 20, 2026. I expect the price will continue to rise as the market no longer trusts the White House nonsense.

    Reply
24. gerry maddoux

    08/21/2026

    Don’t you think Iran is shipping petrochemical products to Russia via the Caspian Sea?
    And in return receiving the things necessary for survival?
    Russia needs diesel and gasoline. Iran needs a lot of things.
    Unfortunately, it may be only a matter of time until Russia ships the unthinkable.
    The Caspian Sea is a littoral mess. Pun intended.

    Reply
    1. THC

       08/21/2026

       Given all the talk about Iran and nuclear weapons as the justification for one thing or another, it seems worthy to consider how much of this is real.

       ~~~~~~~

       Remember the “duck and cover” drills?

       These drills were used to plant fear of “nuclear war” into people’s minds at an early age.

       Now check out these scenes from Chinese nuclear weapons propaganda films at the 25:55 time stamp:

       https://www.bitchute.com/video/h8HcVGMMvLoT

       They show a nuclear strategy where, to clean up an enemies who survived the nuclear blast, they send in a secondary attack force, including men riding in on horseback and shooting rifles while wearing cheesy protective gear.

       They even put gas masks on the horses……hilarious…….

    2. GaryLittle

       08/21/2026

       Do you know the differance between Vietnam and Iran ?

       X8585848484XX
       35646489200XX

       Donald Trump had a clear exit plan to get out of the Vietnam War

    3. LeeG

       08/21/2026

       Might be a matter of time until the US or Israel does the unthinkable.

    4. THC

       08/22/2026

       “What if my government is lying to me?”

       Trump alone in his 2nd term, along with his cabinet and appointees, has lied so much that there is no room for doubt that people at the highest levels of gov’t can and do lie to the public without any signs of remorse or guilt.

       “What also have they lied to me about?”

       Nuclear weapons, perhaps?

       It appears that the wiki page for the Manhattan Project has been heavily edited over the years, and likely cleansed of details that would be cause for suspicion.

       One such topic is the issue of the U-235 material.

       Apparently the methods existing at that time for separating uranium-235 (only 0.7% of raw uranium) were developed by Ernest Lawrence in 1941 ( mass spectrometers/cyclotron) and Franz Simon and Nicholas Kurti (gaseous diffusion, Oak Ridge) in 1940. In other words, production of U-235 had only just begun.

       From the April 14, 2010 Manhattan Project Wikipedia

       https://web.archive.org/web/20100414234612/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_project

       According to 2010 wiki,

       “The uranium bomb was a gun-type fission weapon. One mass of U-235, the “bullet,” is fired down a more or less conventional gun barrel into another mass of U-235, rapidly creating the critical mass of U-235, resulting in an explosion. The method was so certain to work that no test was carried out before the bomb was dropped over Hiroshima, though extensive laboratory testing was undertaken to make sure the fundamental assumptions were correct. Also, the bomb that was dropped used all the existing extremely highly purified U-235 (and even most of the less highly purified material) so there was no U-235 available for such a test anyway. The bomb’s design was known to be inefficient and prone to accidental discharge.”

       Read that carefully:

       *”The method was SO CERTAIN TO WORK that NO TEST was carried out before the bomb was dropped over Hiroshima”

       *”the bomb that was dropped used ALL the existing extremely highly purified U-235″

       *Therefore, there was no “U-235 available for such a test.”

       Does any of that raise any doubts?

       I’ll post more snippets from time to time.

       Apologies for the distraction (which has relevance given that “nuclear weapons programs” are a key point in the Iran war story).

    5. Nick G

       08/22/2026

       THC,

       Are you suggesting that nuclear weapons don’t actually work?

    6. THC

       08/22/2026

       Hi Nick!

       I’ll try to be brief and avoid posting too much at one time on the nuclear weapons topic.

       There is significant room for doubt regarding what actually happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

       If you find this of interest, I suggest you take a look at these books:

       Hiroshima Revisited

       The evidence that napalm and mustard gas help fake the atomic bombings

       https://mpalmer.heresy.is/webnotes/HR/download/hiroshima-revisited.pdf

       ~~~~~

       Exploding The Nuclear Weapons Hoax
       By Akio Nakatani

       https://archive.org/details/death-object-exploding-the-nuclear-weapons-hoax-by-akio-nakatani-z-lib.org

    7. gerryf

       08/22/2026

       Can you take this to another forum perhaps? Is it really worth cluttering up a site focused on discussing oil industry data?

       Maybe just link to undoubtedly better places for discussing nuclear conspiracies.

    8. Nick G

       08/22/2026

       THC,

       Why should we care about what happened in WWII? If the atomic bombs were vapor ware (something whose performance had to be faked because it wasn’t ready for use when promised), why would that matter?

       One more time: are you suggesting that nuclear weapons, as a general rule in the present, don’t actually work?

25. Ovi

    08/21/2026

    Rig Report for the Week Ending August 21

    The dropping rig count that started in early April 2025 when 450 rigs were operating had a small increase this week. The rig count broke out from the previous steady rate of 367 ± 5 rigs per week since August 2025 and is creating a new steady state rate between 417 rigs/wk and 422 rigs/wk

    – Today WTI closed at $87.06/b, up from $82.40/b last Friday.

    – US Hz rigs + DRigs dropped by 3 this week to 446.
    – US Hz oil rigs rose by 1 to 419, down 31 since April 2025 when it was 450. It was also up 57 rigs from the low of 362 first reached in the week ending August 1, 2025. The rig count is down 9% since April 2025.
    – New Mexico Permian Hz rigs were down by 2 to 87. Lea added 1 to 37 while Eddy dropped 3 to 49.
    – Texas added 4 to 219. Midland was unchanged at 19 while Martin added 6 to 24 offsetting its last week drop of 8.
    – Eagle Ford was unchanged at 40.
    – NG Hz rigs dropped 1 at 111.

    

    Reply
26. Ovi

    08/21/2026

    Frac Spread Report for the Week Ending August 21

    The frac spread count dropped by 9 to 184. From one year ago, they are up by 19 spreads but are still down by 31 since March 21, 2025.

    

    Reply
    1. DC

       08/22/2026

       Hi Ovi,

       If you make the charts square they appear in full.

27. Andre The Giant

    08/22/2026

    https://mishtalk.com/economics/trump-threatens-to-use-the-military-on-the-us-bond-market-what/

    Trump says he is going to use the US Military against the US Bond Market.

    This is close to when he said he was going to nuke a hurricane to keep out of the US.

    Reply
28. DC

    08/22/2026

    Problems exporting Venezuela’s oil in piece linked below

    https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Tankers-Wait-a-Month-as-Venezuela-Hits-an-Oil-Export-Ceiling.html

    Only enough export capacity at ports for about 1250 kb/d of crude oil exports.

    Reply
    1. Sheng Wu

       08/22/2026

       Thanks for the link, DC!

       This reads that the ports are there and just need some upgrade, and also production capacity is there to support more than 1.25MBOPD export. This confirms my conjecture that reviving production is easier than transportation in Venezuela, while mainstream before this news mainly emphasized the heavy oil from Venezuela is hard to produce.

    2. DC

       08/23/2026

       Sheng Wu,

       It is not clear how quickly the port capacity can be revived, also looking at production numbers reported in MOMR, output is not very high. A lot of infrastructure has deteriorated in Venezuela and it it is not clear the current government in Venezuela is competent or that investors need to be convinced of the stability of the nation and regime before investing.

29. THC

    08/22/2026

    Trump reposts on Truth Social:

    “We’ve escorted over 1000 ships through the Strait of Hormuz.”

    https://x.com/Osint613/status/2091308273328656563?s=20

    Reply
    1. THC

       08/22/2026

       Anyone care to comment?

       Barak Ravid:

       🚨🚢🛢️Around 40 tankers transited in and out of the Strait of Hormuz through the southern deep channel on Friday night. Around 16 million barrels of oil moved out of the strait through the southern channel on Friday night, three U.S. officials told me.

       https://x.com/BarakRavid/status/2091159212587917391?s=20

    2. T HILL

       08/22/2026

       THC,

       We know that strikes on shipping continue within SOH and BAB, but it also appears more likely to me that these reports of increased shipping supported by US military have some underlying legitimacy. Lies, misrepresentations and delusions are clearly the norm for this administration and their supporters, so it is difficult to ID the few truths that slip through. However, some of the specifics about these reports strike me as indicating some underlying success here. While much reduced in count since it’s cold-war peak, the US Navy remains an extremely capable force.

    3. THC

       08/22/2026

       Hi T Hill!

       Thanks for commenting.

       I agree the Fog of War is insanely thick. We are being fed propaganda from all sides and it is very hard to know what is really going on over there.

       The situation is the same with Ukraine/Russia, although in that case it was mostly MSM vs. the “ex-C1A” and “retired colonel” type folks with the alternative narrative.

       I can’t think of any sources that I feel are even close to truly trustworthy — if you have any you recommend, please share.

    4. LeeG

       08/23/2026

       THC, not knowing who Barak Ravid is I’d say quoting people in the administration isn’t the same as getting information. 16 Mb through Hormuz sounds highly unlikely. I don’t think satellite imagery would support that.

       https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YtjxgH_d_Qk

    5. THC

       08/23/2026

       Hi LeeG,

       I only learned about Barak Ravid after the Hormuz crisis started, but many feel he is acting as a mouthpiece for Trump and his associates in manipulating the markets and insider trading.

       Interestingly, the Hormuz Letter, which may be an Iranian mouthpiece or at a least posting information from the Iranian perspective, came out to directly refute Ravid’s latest claim, and as you noted, they cited satellite imagery as evidence.

       ~~~~

       FWIW

       “Iran directly rejects Axios’s claim and says “Trump is lying” about 16 million barrels of oil exiting the Strait of Hormuz on Friday night………this directly confirms Kpler satellite data showing zero west-to-east tanker crossings on Friday night and zero barrels of oil exiting through the Strait, as well as SAR image data and Sentinel-1B radar images from early Saturday morning.”

       https://x.com/HormuzLetter/status/2091225564762009813?s=20

       And then I hear others like Rory asking “what about the dark transits?”

       https://x.com/Rory_Johnston/status/2091290655184036133?s=20

    6. DC

       08/23/2026

       THC,

       I would say that anyone who believes the crap from the White House has not been paying attention. By the way, I have heard there is a bridge in Brooklyn for sale for those interested.

    7. THC

       08/23/2026

       DC,

       Thanks for saying that — 100% spot on!

30. T HILL

    08/22/2026

    Oilprice article citing WoodMac research notes that current conflicts are indeed accelerating EV adoption. Article also cites IEA annual EV report. Key stats in their forecasts include 30% of new car sales in 2026, 25% of global fleet by 2040 and an additional 5 million bpd of avoided demand.

    https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Hormuz-Oil-Crisis-Accelerates-Global-EV-Sales.html

    Glad to see this type of data on accelerating EV adoption starting to show up.

    Reply
    1. Nick G

       08/23/2026

       Solar as well:

       “London, 23 April – Data analysed by global energy think tank Ember shows that China’s solar exports reached a record 68 GW in March, double the previous month, amid high energy prices due to the US-Israel war with Iran and an additional boost from changes to Chinese tax rebates.

       The March data from the Chinese customs authority provides the first insight into the global response to the energy crisis. Analysis by Ember, with data published openly in the China Solar PV Export Explorer, reveals that the record 68 GW of solar exports is equivalent to Spain’s entire solar capacity, surpassing the previous record set in August 2025 by 49%. “

       https://ember-energy.org/latest-updates/chinese-solar-exports-double-in-a-month-to-hit-record-high-amid-energy-crisis/

31. TYS

    08/23/2026

    How much electricity would it take to irrigate the farm land in the United States to prevent further loss of crops?

    https://www.terraagtechnologies.com/post/water-bankruptcy-the-70-of-our-aquifers-now-in-decline

    Besides the tens of billions of dollars building the desalination plants needed, a nation wide system of canals and pumping stations are required.

    Obviously none of these things have been built because people don’t vote for people who have prevented hardship. They don’t have the imagination.

    The United States is on the road to losing a third of it’s arable farmland but because most people have full bellies today why worry about tomorrow.

    Obviously some savings can be made not growing corn for biofuels but those farmers still need to grow something and most of the land requires irrigation.

    Many countries are even worse off

    Reply
    1. Hickory

       08/23/2026

       TYS- in makes no sense (economic/thermodynamic) to desalinate water from the gulf and pump up to the high/dry plains where groundwater is limited.
       To increase food supply you take care of the much lower hanging fruit first
       – prime farmland going for ethanol production is incredible economic folly
       – grain feed beef is a waste of prime farmland. Far better to simply graze cattle on non-prime farmland and walk them down to processing centers/ rail depot when necessary
       for example

    2. Nick G

       08/24/2026

       Hickory,

       Grass fed, lean beef? Heresy! Get the tar! Get the feathers!!

    3. TYS

       08/24/2026

       Nick G

       Much of The land used to grow corn needs irrigation.
       Grass also needs irrigation and ever more so with the increasing droughts

       https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/08/11/uk-farmers-fields-dry-out-amid-heatwave-and-drought

       Cattle and sheep are being feed winter feed, farmers will go bankrupt

       https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/peak_water_use_needs_for_corn

       Hickory

       The United States still needs a national water grid and many additional reservoirs in order to save rainwater during excess times.

       Desalination is still required at scale because the declining aquifers are used by people as well as farms.

    4. THC

       08/24/2026

       No worries folks, there are lots of data centers coming to a farming community near you!

       Why waste water on crops, livestock, and dairy when it can be wasted on data centers that lose unGodly amounts of money for ever dollar they take in?

       It’s all going great!!!

    5. Hickory

       08/25/2026

       “In the United States, roughly 11% of corn acreage and about 8% to 10% of soybean acreage are irrigated.” Places that are too dry for these crops should lean towards crops that need less water, like wheat/barley, sorghum and black eyed peas.
       Or mixed grazing (with low density PV).

32. Nick G

    08/23/2026

    “ most of the land requires irrigation.”

    Only about 18% of US farmland is irrigated.

    https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2024/10-31-2024.php

    It’s important to remember that almost all agricultural water is free to the farmer. This means that there is an extraordinary level of waste: very high levels of evaporation from open waterways, flooding instead of pin-point watering, inappropriate crops (rice in the desert! Feed for cattle…in the desert!!). Much of the land that is now irrigated should *never* have been farmed.

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019WR026995

    The amount of water used for irrigation could (and should) be reduced dramatically.

    Desalination is relatively expensive – far too expensive for ag water. It’s fine for drinking water, which is only about 5% of overall potable water consumption. Of course, drinking water should be recycled – that’s done in a few places (e.g., Las Vegas, Israel), but it’s held back by the “ick” factor.

    Reply
33. gerryf

    08/23/2026

    U.S. gas boom fails to deliver economic benefits

    https://gasoutlook.com/analysis/u-s-gas-boom-fails-to-deliver-economic-benefits/

    The shale gas boom in Appalachia has delivered “little beneficial economic impact to host communities” despite twenty years of development, with regions that experienced the highest concentration of drilling seeing weaker job and income growth — and even greater population loss — than other parts of the country, according to a new report.

    Reply
    1. Ervin

       08/24/2026

       The small township in southwestern Pa. Named Cumberland , received its first check from the state from fracking taxes and here is what they did. Bought a new fire truck, two new police cars, gave the policemen a $2/hr raise, funded there pensions and put the rest in the general fund. Nope no benefit at all.

    2. Sheng Wu

       08/24/2026

       in the shale patches in Appalachia, so many new hotels were built, and shopping malls renovated.

       the left-over shale bashers did count in the rail-truck fire in East Palestine yet because they don’t want to build the pipelines.

    3. Coffeeguyzz

       08/24/2026

       gerryf,

       This is just one of SO many examples of how ‘thinking about the thinking process’ can be so very illuminating.
       I started to read your linked article days ago but had neither the time nor the ‘stomach’ to spend on that tripe.

       Right off the bat, any article written by a staunchly anti hydrocarbon ideologue like Nick Cunningham warrants at least some skepticism from any open minded, objective observer.
       This directly ties in with the larger topic of just what sources to which anyone can turn in order to learn factual, complete (as feasible) honest information by which one can form enlightened views, regardless of one’s political and/or ideological inclinations.

       That gasoutlet piece reports on the ‘study’ done by Sean O’Leary from the Ohio River Valley Institute.
       Doing a quick chatbot inquiry reveals the background of the ORVI, its benefactor – the Meliore Foundation (and its CEO Tom Brookes).
       Interesting …

       Ol’ Chatbot counter to the hydrocarbon hit piece …

       Misconflation of direct payroll employment with total economic impact, minimizing the enormous productivity gains (50 fold increase in output from 20 years ago) while ORVI itself acknowledges the resulting enormous GDP contribution.
       The noted “16,238 gas jobs” figure is a direct count from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics quarterly report (QCEW). This is a narrowly tailored listing consisting of five categories that the QCEW describes according to its predominant (insert emphasis here) economic activity. SO, it inherently does NOT constitute a complete accounting of downstream, supplier or induced employment.
       Folks building the compressors, hauling equipment, doing engineering work, providing legal/accounting services, or working for a supplier are NOT included in the gasoutlet narrative.

       A 2019 academic study published in the American Economic Journal estimated $80,000 of county wage income and $132,000 of royalty/business income per $1 million of new production with larger regional effects.
       Pennsylvania’s own IFO states that over $3 billion of Act 13 funds have been distributed statewide, with the bulk going to shale host counties.

       Imma guessin’ 90+% of the posters on this site are anti hydrocarbon to varying degrees.
       While differing views are both beneficial – even necessary – for a wider positive communal stance, the SOURCES which help form those views must be recognized as to their possible biases if any type of objectivity is to be achieved.
       Adversarial positions ought to be accorded an airing, but if a reader/watcher is to glean any scintilla of relevance, the validity of the roots of their opinions needs to be both recognized and acknowledged.

       Big, BIG reason underlying so much of today’s discord across a wide swath of issues.

    4. Nick G

       08/24/2026

       Coffeeguyz,

       I’m not anti-mercury – I just think it’s not a good thing to ingest.

       I’m not anti-hydrocarbon: we (humans and pretty much all of life) are made out of hydrocarbons. I think they’re great!

       I’m not anti-fossil hydrocarbons: I think they were great as a fuel at a much smaller level, and I think they’re still perfectly good as petrochemical feedstocks.

       But…I join the worldwide consensus among scientists, engineers, biologists, etc that emitting excess CO2, methane, etc into the atmosphere has very undesirable effects. Effects that are extremely costly and risky*.

       One more time: that’s a worldwide scientific and engineering consensus. That’s not a fringe idea. So, anyone who starts with the premise that we should greatly reduce GHG emissions is not biased – they’re firmly on solid scientific ground. They’re looking at the evidence and listening to the experts.

       —————————————

       * That, of course, is only part of the story. The very bad distribution of FF, oil especially, has led to a lot of corruption,to a number of oil wars (the current one with Iran is a pretty good example!), and to what this blog refers to as “oil shocks”. These are significant problems. We can live with them, unlike excess GHGs, but it would be nice to not have to.

    5. THC

       08/24/2026

       Hi gerryf,

       Great point about understanding unspoken biases/agenda a source of information might have.

       I hope to work more on consistently looking into that when consuming information/content.

    6. T HILL

       08/24/2026

       Thanks gerryf. This struck a chord when I had first read this report. I’ve lived and worked in one part of the Appalachians or another for more than 50 years, most of that within what the feds define as Appalachia. From the standpoint of FF, I was reminded of the remaining impacts from prior rounds of extraction. From the hundreds of thousands of acres of former strip mined lands to many the thousands of abandoned oil and gas wells. I recall my first walk onto an old strip mine on a farm I rented in SW PA and wondering how many hundreds to thousands of years it would take to recover naturally . The lack of a severance tax in PA and the state subsidies for the gas industry have always been a bit of a puzzle. Of course, the extractive industry ‘resource curse’ described in this report is nothing new.

    7. Verwimp

       09/02/2026

       @Nick G
       Please consider the difference between hydrocarbons and carbohydrates. We and other life forms are made of carbohydrates, not hydrocarbons. You put maple syrup on your bread, not gasoline do you?

34. Ervin

    08/24/2026

    Ok, I’ll ignore what the township did and concentrate on all of the bad stuff. Thanks for straightening me out on the issue.

    Reply
35. Sheng Wu

    08/24/2026

    https://energy-analytics-institute.org/2026/08/13/argentina-nearly-doubles-vaca-muerta-oil-estimate-in-boost-to-export-strategy/

    Vaca Muerta TRR shale oil close to doubled by latest geological survey.

    My estimate based on latest data is that it should be tripled. While dry shale gas there is not as prolific as the wet gas and condensate there, implicating more liquid oil coming from the gas section, and less gas reserve, similar to SW Marcellus.

    Reply
    1. DC

       08/25/2026

       Sheng Wu,

       An extra 15-30 Gb of oil is a rounding error in the grand scheme of World Oil Markets.

36. THC

    08/25/2026

    1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

    ww.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Rebuttals

    All “97% Consensus” Studies Refuted by Peer-Review

    ww.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html

    (Add w to the front of the links to view them)

    Reply
    1. THC

       08/25/2026

       Why are the links above blocked? Inconvenient?

    2. DC

       08/25/2026

       THC,

       Take it up with Askimet, it may be that many sites have marked the web pages you have cited as spam.

37. Carnot

    08/25/2026

    Nick G,

    A consensus is not a proof. In the case of global warming the consensus consists of people whose salary depends upon them not understanding something, such as the ability of carbon dioxide to absorb certain IR radiation. Water vapour absorbs far more of the incident radiation than CO2 and is present in the atmosphere by at least 25X more than CO2. Perhaps you should widen your scope of reading and not rely on the flawed Michael Mann hockey stick graph. You dominate this blog with your biased and mostly flawed views and you know zero about fuels production – fossil or synthetic. Why not engage your brain prior to boring us to death with you opinions.

    Reply
    1. DC

       08/25/2026

       Carnot,

       Yes geophysicists and geochemists are well aware of the constituent proportions of water vapor and CO2, there are thousands of scientists involved in the IPCC and have debunked all of the claims by those that believe that climate change is not a problem.

    2. Nick G

       08/25/2026

       Dennis, of course, is right – the IPCC is an international consensus document, which is agreed to by Russia, KSA, Norway, etc. Everyone, basically, including all the major oil exporters except the current US presidential administration(!?!?).

       —————————————

       “ the consensus consists of people whose salary depends upon them not understanding”

       Well, do the salaries of Exxon/Mobil’s scientists, engineers and managers depend on not understanding??

       Exxon/Mobil’s scientists identified climate change as a serious problem 40 years ago. Their executives have recently agreed that net-zero is both doable and necessary, and they have made achieving net-zero a corporate goal.

       Seems like a reputable source.

    3. THC

       08/25/2026

       There is no consensus on the consensus.

       Barack Obama’s “97% consensus claim” on twitter:

       “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”

       ~~~~~~~

       Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder

       https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262842021_Quantifying_the_consensus_on_anthropogenic_global_warming_in_the_literature_Rejoinder

       “A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.”

       ~~~~~

       Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change

       https://www.wmbriggs.com/public/Legates.etal.2015.pdf

       ” inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus……..shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.”

    4. THC

       08/25/2026

       Carnot,

       I think you will find this interesting.

       ~~~~~

       Comment on “Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming”

       https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joe_Duarte/publication/268791343_Comment_on_Scientists%27_Views_about_Attribution_of_Global_Warming/links/54dda34c0cf25b09b9143ee7.pdf

       “Verheggen et al.1 report a survey of scientists’ views on climate change. However, they surveyed a large number of psychologists, pollsters, philosophers, etc. The number of nonclimate scientists who responded is undisclosed, and is likely unknowable given the design. Thus, the valid results of the study are unknown, and it should be withdrawn.”

       “Even when constrained to climate scientists, it is ill advised to report a consensus as though it is an aggregation of independent judgments. Humans are an ultrasocial species, and dissent is far costlier than assent to a perceived majority. Global warming has become an ideological, and thus moral, issue. This is alarming because moral rebuke and ostracism are extremely powerful deterrents for humans. Causes for concern include (1) A scientist who contests the prevailing narrative on human-caused warming, or merely produces smaller estimates, will likely end up on a McCarthyite blacklist of “deniers”. Self-described mainstream climate scientists refer the public to such lists, implicitly endorsing the smearing of their colleagues.8 This is disturbing, and unheard of in other sciences. (3) A venerable climate scientist was recently savaged by his colleagues for choosing to advise a nonleftist policy foundation.”

       “This is a noxious climate for serious science. We should ask whether it has deterred young scientists from the field. Who wants to end up on a blacklist? It is also advisable to explore whether climate science selects for environmentalists scientists who believe that “nature” is sacred, or that ecological stasis is inherently desirable, may struggle to maintain an appropriate scientific posture. If the field is deterring bright minds or selecting for a particular creed, it would install a selfreinforcing and unreliable consensus for decades.”

    5. Nick G

       08/25/2026

       THC,

       You haven’t commented on the fact that Exxon/Mobil, Russia and Saudi Arabia have all committed to achieving net-zero (along with all other major countries).

       These are all entities that are very proud of their engineering and technical expertise. They also are not at all shy about defending fossil fuels. But…they know very well that they would be laughed at if they attempted to deny the serious risks of climate change or the role of fossil fuels in creating those risks, because they know from their own expertise that those risks are real.

       It’s simply not credible to suggest that these entities are under the control of a mysterious conspiracy to needlessly promote renewable energy.

       Sheesh. Please, let it go.

    6. Iron Mike

       08/26/2026

       Nick G,

       Again with the Exxon Mobile commitment to net-zero. You really are naive.

       You think their PR is going to come out and say. “Oh we are NOT committed to net-zero because we don’t give a shit”.

       What a joke. A company that has such a severe history of environmental damage and degradation all of a sudden is the spokesperson for climate change advocates and environmentalists.

       We really do live in a clown world.

    7. Nick G

       08/26/2026

       Iron Mike,

       Of course I don’t expect committed environmentalism from Exxon. That’s precisely why their endorsement of net-zero is so important: they wouldn’t say it if they didn’t know that there was no way to weasel out of it. They wouldn’t say it if they didn’t know that the science was so clear that if they refused to say it they would make it absolutely clear that they were out-for-profit sociopaths.

       Exxon is the classic example of a witness that is testifying against their self-interest. That makes them the most credible witness.

       Of course, it’s worth mentioning that going net-zero is actually going to increase their profits – that’s why upstream folks are using solar where they can for pumping, etc.

38. DC

    08/25/2026

    A new post is up

    https://peakoilbarrel.com/short-term-energy-outlook-august-2026/

    Reply