78 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, January 3, 2025”

  1. The FAO [Global] Food Price Index* (FFPI) stood at 127.0 points in December 2024, down 0.6 points (0.5 percent) from its November level, as decreases in the price indices for sugar, dairy products, vegetable oils and cereals more than offset increases in meat…
    For 2024 as a whole, the index recorded 122.0 points, 2.6 points (2.1 percent) lower than the average value in 2023.

    1. Did I read EV’s were 51% of sales in China for 2024? 31 millions cars vs 18 for North America?
      China is 5 years ahead of EV sales goals.
      Does IEA have numbers?

  3. “Although they’re happy to use guns as a wedge issue to bring in male voters who are insecure about their own masculinity.”

    Seems to be working

  4. I do not think the whole space when it comes to computer technology (chips) is fully understood, and its impact on technology to all aspects of energy extrapolation, refining and utility really.

    It is a little bit an admiration post of how it is possible to expand the expectations even beyond the expectations generated by Murphy’s law when it comes to computer chips. How technology can evolve (silicon purity, laser, chemicals) and of course fossil fuels are involved in the process. It involves everything getting smaller at laser point, with lesser volt getting through at a most likely copper or silver linkage. A win, win uptil a certian point. So you get improved performance at less material throughput.

    It is almost too good to be true. But yet what I read was that major companies circumvented material obstacles, and made beoynd expected progress the last 10 years.
    Now, the semicondutor industry must also aknowledge the sustainabily battle. (IBM has stated this for a start). Better technology should be balanced against carbon footprint as it stands. “We should explore all elements” one Japanese executive said, to explore all options for progress”. In my mind, if we can reduce the carbon footprint while retaining much of the technology advantages; the performance is good enough or even less is ok probably, at least for the private market. It is not a very big problem in the immediate future. But how to produce the same enormous amount of chips should be on the sustainbilty radar.

    It is very relevant, probably someone like Alimbiquated could probably add something. I am am guilty of being 50+, but not by much; it is important to get input into this topic for older people as well. No sources? Chat gpt or gemini. I prefer well formulated opinions, and I hope others do as well.

  5. The main footprint is the power consumption of server farms, not so much chip production. The industry’s solution seems to be doubling down on energy production.

    Energy consumption per calculation keeps falling, but the volume is increasing faster.

    A lot of this has to do with the modern approach to AI. After decades of trying and failing to build a smart machine, they’ve just started throwing hardware at the problem. Some of these new models have trillions of parameters. They all need to be calculated before the thing works. The training algorithms are relatively well understood, but nobody really knows what the machine learns. If anyone did, they would program it.

    And generally, software is getting less and less efficient. Good programmers are expensive, chips and the energy to run crappy software are cheap. Back in the nineties we used to say “Intel giveth, and Microsoft taketh away”.

    1. Sounds like American muscle cars from the 60’s. Just add bigger engines. Better suspension and brakes will come later.

      1. Unfortunately, it didn´t…
        (Until much, much later, but not very good even at that point since the world had moved even more forwards at that point)
        Example, in storage, -64 2900 lbs Dodge Dart, 13″ with drumbrakes all around… No PB or PS.
        My point being, US cars, snowmobiles and planes like the 737 lags quite a bit.
        Makes some efforts to avoid MAX and Arctic Cat for that reason, might hurt to some here but that´s my opinion anyway.

    2. Alimbiquated

      Thanks for the comment.

      I find it somewhat illogical that it is not possible to take the out of proportion technological gains in the semiconductor industry and run away with it. To buffer against the sustainability battle. It is actually possible to produce low voltage chips with incredible performance due precision technology. Transistor spacing going down from 15-20 nm 5-10 years ago to 4-10 nm as of now going towards 1 nm in the next 5 years probably (nanometer, a unit of measure for length). The precision technology itself is vulnerable due to the advanced supply chain behind it. I do not understand why it can not be an emphasized goal to run away with the profits, and also then reduce electricity demand? Maybe in the future, the resemblance to the rise of automobiles in the 1960’s is a pretty good one probably. Not quite the same, but close.

  6. from https://www.lauriegarrett.com/

    “Mike Johnson is now celebrating his election as Speaker of the House with a speech, vowing to outlaw all restrictions on oil, gas, coal; eliminate all tax incentives for EV vehicles; promote LNG; cut regulations across the govt.; shut down climate research.”

    While Rep. Thomas Massie, the lone GOP holdout voting against Mike Johnson, has essentially become a self-reliant energy advocate trying to live off-the-grid as much as possible. That’s the scary part. He knows too much about the reality of the situation.

    https://www.roku.com/whats-on/tv-shows/off-the-grid-with-thomas-massie?id=c27fddb472bb519eafaf1557b47380f7

    1. Transcript of Mike Johnson speech to congress, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEGqwbWXs9E

      As Leaders of a Nation with vast natural resources that God has blessed us with it is our duty to restore America’s energy dominance and that’s what we’ll do. We have to apply Common Sense. We have to stop the attacks (tax?) on liquified Natural Gas. Pass legislation to eliminate the green New Deal – that funding. We’re going to expedite new drilling permits. We’re going to save the jobs of our auto manufacturers and we’re going to do that by ending the ridiculous EV mandates. And as heirs to the American Revolution and the descendants of patriots who defy tyranny in the coming months, we are going to pass legislation to roll back the totalitarian fourth branch of government known as the administrative state.

      Couldn’t find where he said he will shut down climate research, but it goes without saying they will try.

      1. Jesus. Roll back the bureacracy that runs gov’t. Sure you will Mikey.

        “Restore ….. dominance”.

        Hey Mike, what did God do about The Cedars of Lebanon?

        Bread, circus and clowns. A herd of clowns.

        1. LEEG —
          Any time you hear the phrase “energy dominance” you know someone is talking shit. It means nothing. It’s a tell.

          1. It means something about dominance, not much about geophysical reality or national security. Maybe one of the Christian churches will catch a different wave of popular sentiment acknowledging physical reality.

      2. As Leaders of a Nation with vast natural resources that God has blessed us with it is our duty to restore America’s energy dominance

        Liberals and other non-evangelicals have such a hard time grasping this world view. One of the most unfortunate verses in the bible (IMHO) is Genesis 1:28

        “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

        Mike Johnson, MAGA etc, take this to mean that humans (especially American males) have a god-given right to dominate everything, globally. God help us.

        2. Understood. I moved to Trump country a few years ago. It’s not hard to grasp but the sense of entitlement to lowest cost fuel crosses a whole range of political and religious identities. It’s not just God botherers although they clearly articulate the reason for their entitlement.

        3. I like to say Be fruitful and multiply are the most Darwinian words in the bible.

      3. I love how completely braindead the first sentence is combined with the claim to want to use randomly capitalized common sense.

        1. FYI, the mixed-case is due to the automatic translation. Still, the number of lunatic cultists that I see on-line that use random capitalization is telling. Something has snapped in their brain so that they believe what they write comes from goD or where ever.

      4. We’re going to save the jobs of our auto manufacturers and we’re going to do that by ending the ridiculous EV mandates.

        I think this has the car makers tearing their hair. They know that EVs are the future, and that if the US stalls on the transition it will make US car makers badly uncompetitive with Chinese companies. It will be a repeat of Japan walloping US car companies in the 70’s.

        This seems to be oil companies promoting their interests at the cost of car makers, consumers…basically everyone.

        Come to think about it, a lot of this anti-transition stuff comes from Charles Koch (and his family). AFAIK jis family doesn’t produce oil, it refines it. So it’s this one part of the oil industry that’s harming the rest of the county.

        1. NickG,

          The smart automakers will produce with an eye to the future which is electrified transport. Soon ICEVs will no longer be able to compete and the longer automakers that focus only on only ICEVs the further they will fall behind.

          1. Dennis, given that the auto industry in the US is pretty much no growth and per capita sales on a long slow decline it seems to me the rate of electrifying personal transportation will hit production limits imposed by decining global oil production in the next decade. Our great tech transition will be to less driving instead of ICE replacement.

            1. electrifying personal transportation will hit production limits

              Are you concerned that manufacturing cars requires oil inputs, and that more expensive oil will limit production?

            2. NickG- Yes, it seems reasonable that as global oil production declines the liquid fuel used to produce a vehicles constituent parts and transport them will also decline. All while oil is also used to build out wind/solar/distribution infrastructure.

            3. Well, vehicle manufacturing uses almost no oil inside the factory walls. Even transport of parts and finished vehicles requires relatively little oil: most is very efficient water and rail. Oil could triple in price and it would have little impact on car company cost structures. And in time oil will be squeezed out entirely: rail, trucking and water transportation will electrify or move to non-oil liquid fuels. Do a search of “maritime net-zero”, for instance.

              The same is true of wind and solar.

            5. Paul,

              I looked at the comments: I didn’t see any that had useful information, just a lot of hand waving.

              If you saw something useful, maybe copy it here?

            6. LEEG,

              Lots of energy comes from sources besides oil (about 68% of primary energy consumed in 2023 was from sources other than oil). The “oil is the master resource” meme is way overblown in my opinion. Also consider that in barrels in 2023 the consumption was supposedly 100 Mb/d, but only 83% of this was actually crude plus condensate with the rest being mostly biofuels and NGL (aka bottled gas), of the crude input to refineries only about 60 Mb/d of gasoline, diesel and, jet fuel combined were cinsumed by the World in 2023, so just 60% of the “oil consumption” total.

          2. Dennis,

            I agree. And, I think that most people in the auto industry agree.

            The problem is that Trump is threatening to eliminate the EV tax credit. Buyers apparently focus on upfront costs (even though EV TCO is mostly lower), and so automakers would very, very much like to keep the credit to help them transition to EVs.

            Hence the tearing of hair…

            1. Nick G,

              The tax credit can be seen as a crutch, they cannot go on forever and automakers just need to get to work getting the transition done. Those companies that realize this may survive, the automakers that do not will be the Kodak of the future.

            2. I agree absolutely that car companies need to transition to EVs, even if public policy becomes misguided.

              But…there’s a very strong case for the tax credit. Oil and FF gets a number of very large subsidies, including military security, the ability to emit pollution without charge, tolerance of the economic effects of “oil shocks”, etc. Of course, a stiff tax on oil & FF would be the best thing, to account for these costs, but subsidies for domestic low-carbon alternatives is the next best thing.

      5. I wrote a previous comment, and then tried to edit it, and and the system said it had marked it as spam and it has now disappeared Help!

        1. Nick G,

          I suggest you save your comments in a word editor, also limit links to 4 or less by dividing up your comment too many links in a comment is a spam identifier.

      7. As far as I am concerned, Trump and the GOP have made a commitment to ensure that China becomes the dominant world power and the US becomes increasingly irrelevant.

        When it comes to automobiles, foreign brands are rapidly losing market share in China to the point that some of them are going into crisis mode, Nissan and the Volkswagen group come to mind. China is beginning to export a fair amount of vehicles and while the folks in the US may be oblivious to what is happening the folks in Mexico, Brazil and other places are not. In my neck of the woods Chinese brands are increasing their presence. The majority of new heavy duty trucks on the road here are Chinese and the all the new large (12m or 40ft.) buses are Chinese as well.

        According to this IEA web page https://www.iea.org/reports/solar-pv-global-supply-chains/executive-summary,

        China has invested over USD 50 billion in new PV supply capacity – ten times more than Europe − and created more than 300 000 manufacturing jobs across the solar PV value chain since 2011. Today, China’s share in all the manufacturing stages of solar panels (such as polysilicon, ingots, wafers, cells and modules) exceeds 80%. This is more than double China’s share of global PV demand. In addition, the country is home to the world’s 10 top suppliers of solar PV manufacturing equipment.

        Further down it issues this warning:

        The world will almost completely rely on China for the supply of key building blocks for solar panel production through 2025. Based on manufacturing capacity under construction, China’s share of global polysilicon, ingot and wafer production will soon reach almost 95%. Today, China’s Xinjiang province accounts for 40% global polysilicon manufacturing. Moreover, one out of every seven panels produced worldwide is manufactured by a single facility. This level of concentration in any global supply chain would represent a considerable vulnerability; solar PV is no exception.

        The company that supplies Jamaica with natural gas (LNG) convinced the decision makers circa 2015 to invest in a combined cycle gas turbine electricity plant and the plant was commissioned in 2019. The combined output of all the turbines (3 x https://www.gevernova.com/gas-power/products/gas-turbines/6b plus a steam turbine powered by the exhaust of the 3 gas turbines) makes it the largest single plant on the island’s grid (see https://openinframap.org/stats/area/Jamaica/plantshttps://openinframap.org/stats/area/Jamaica/plants). The were plans to replace the second largest plant (oil fired) on the grid with another CCGT fueled by NG but the last I heard any news about that was 2022 and by October 2023 there was this: Jamaica Public Service (JPS) plans to shut down two fossil fuel-fired power plants and replace them with RE. Electricity from solar PV plus batteries is very close to being less expensive than anything the local utility can supply if not already so. I expect solar PV to continue to erode the demand for electricity from oil and gas plants going forward and most of the equipment (all the PV panels) is probably going to be supplied by China.

        A feasibility study was conducted and published in 2022 that concluded that battery electric buses would provide the lowest total cost of ownership for the government owned municipal bus fleets in the capital city and the resort city of Montego Bay. The LNG supplier to the island convinced the government that CNG buses would be a better investment and underwrote the cost of CNG fueling infrastructure so 100 Chinese made CNG buses have been acquired and only 6 battery electric buses. The operating and maintenance costs of the electric buses have not been made public and I suspect they will not be as it is likely that the government will acquire more CNG buses to replace the ageing diesel units.

        So the US will probably remain a major source of fuel and food for places like Jamaica but, that’s about it. Appliances, vehicles, clothing, industrial machinery, and construction materials are mostly coming from China. That is probably the case across much of the world. How are Trumps policies going to change any of that?

        1. I agree.

          The Trump administration appears determined to boost oil for transportation, which will cripple the U.S. car industry over time. I think the car companies know this, but between internal resistance to change (from people whose careers were built around ICEs) and fear of Trump, they seem paralyzed.

          The oil industry does not seem to care about the long term damage to…everything outside their industry.

          Although, to be fair, the Koch family seems to be disproportionately influential here.

        2. China invested $40 billion in solar.

          China has invested $2,200 billion in subsidies for fossil fuels per year over the last few years.

          https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-rise-despite-calls-phase-out-2023-11-23/

          The result of these massive subsidies is an increase in consumption of coal which is beyond comprehension.

          China will burn this year as much coal as Great Britain will in the next 800 years. China alone is ensuring that global temperatures will blast through the 1.5c increase and fires like in California, Spain, Greece, Canada will spread.

          1. Well, the US can’t point to China as an excuse for inaction. No question China is polluting a great deal. OTOH, they’re building solar, wind and EVs just about as fast as possible, and faster than anyone else (especially compared to the US, which is being pretty slow).

            Really, US citizens first priority should be about what we do in the US. And the Trump administration is clearly planning to do stuff that’s counterproductive.

            1. Nick

              What bit about the fossil fuel subsidies article do you not comprehend?

              China subsidised fossils fuel by $2.2 trillion and solar by $40 billion. If the figures were reversed someone could argue they were building renewables as fast as possible.

              You have the classic trait of a self deceiving Woke. Somehow you can praise a mass murdering dictatorship that is destroying the world yet you criticise an elected leader who wants to reduce dependence on that evil government.

              https://www.davidalton.net/2024/11/05/falun-gong-and-forced-organ-harvesting-a-sickening-persecution-no-one-should-have-to-face-imprisonment-torture-nor-butchery-because-of-their-religious-or-spiritual-beliefs-remarks-made-at-a/

            2. Sure, China is an authoritarian government that does some bad things-including their treatment of Falun Gong and Uygurs.

              Could they build more wind, solar and EVs? Possibly. Probably at least a bit more. But they’re certainly building them faster than anyone else, especially compared to the US. So again, China provides no excuse for the US’ relatively slow deployment.

              And….what does either of those things have to do with whether the incoming US administration has good policies with regard to wind, solar and EVs??

          2. Did anyone bother to look up exactly what the IMF call fossil fuel subsidies?? The overall majority of ‘subsidies’ for fossil fuels are the environmental costs, as if a dollar value can be placed on the damage to the environment.

            Throughout history we have built our civilization and never counted the cost to the environment, while obviously degrading it. To make renewables look better, we now want to add a cost to just fossil fuels, call it a subsidy, when subsidies have traditionally been an economic gain for one sector of civilization to artificially boost it.

            We give economic subsidies to renewable, and nuclear industries to make them seem viable, whereas we tax and claim royalties off fossil fuel industries, yet muddy the waters by claiming they are subsidised. It is the consumers of the energy from fossil fuels that are economically subsidised, not the industry.

            We, humanity as a whole, like to lie to ourselves to show something is good and something else is bad, by changing what terminology means. I suppose it keeps the weak minded happy that we can continue on our path of destructive civilization.
            Any civilization based upon minerals and metals that have to mined in ever lower grades meaning ever more energy in the provision of these resources, is not sustainable on a finite planet and will end. Entropy and dissipation, immutable laws of physics guarantee it.

            I’d be interested in a comparison of economic subsidies, less taxes and royalties paid, in a fully free market place, but no such statistics exist, as most markets are not fully free, as govts invoke rules to their liking..

            1. It is the consumers of the energy from fossil fuels that are economically subsidised, not the industry.

              Yes, of course. Consumers should be taxed. And, they always are. Ask any economist: whether the tax is technically paid by the seller or the buyer, it has exactly the same effect: It’s paid by the end consumer. If the tax is administratively paid by the seller that may hide it from the consumer, but the seller will put it in their cost structure, and pass it on to the consumer who pays it as part of the purchase price.

              And that’s perfectly fine. You want the consumer to pay it because it’s likely to change their behavior in small or large ways, and that will (in this case) reduce pollution.

            2. Nick, the cost of renewables and nuclear must go up if we tax the consumers of fossil fuels, as they totally rely upon fossil fuels for their mining, manufacture and distribution.

              Plus of course it’s all the poorest in many countries that benefit from cheap fossil fuels that we count as ‘subsidies’ today. Of course making them worse off is part of the outcome of your suggestions.

              A quick look at the Keeling curve of CO2 shows no change after decades of solar and wind development, plus 29 COP conferences to reduce carbon dioxide release into the atmosphere. What’s the definition of stupidity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

              The simple reality that you fail to understand is that civilization itself is a Ponzi scheme. The entire scheme unravels when we no longer have the energy and materials to maintain the existing system.

            3. renewables and nuclear…rely upon fossil fuels for their mining, manufacture and distribution.

              For the moment. But they’re not a large part of their cost structure. The price of FF could double and it would make almost no difference. Individual consumers, who use the bulk of oil & a large part of gas, would take the brunt of any price-based rationing.

              it’s all the poorest in many countries that benefit from cheap fossil fuels that we count as ‘subsidies’ today

              That used to be the case, to some extent. But not now – solar is the cheapest source in the great majority of poor countries

              The entire scheme unravels when we no longer have the energy and materials to maintain the existing system.

              The sun drops 130,000 terawatts on the earth 24×7. Solar is now the cheapest source of power. There’s more than enough cheap energy.

            4. Nick … “Solar is now the cheapest source of power. There’s more than enough cheap energy.”

              No it is not, and it doesn’t matter how many times you state it, it simply is not true!!

              There are zero Aluminium smelters in the world running off grid on just solar, which would clearly happen if it was the cheapest source of power. How is this so hard for you to understand??

            5. Hideaway,

              Aluminum smelters like to be connected to a grid. It’s going to be extremely unlikely for a large smelter of any kind to be attached to a single energy source, off grid.

              It just makes no sense: a manager who suggested it ought to be fired. I’ll look the government who approves it should be voted out of office.

              That says nothing about the value of solar, or any other energy service, it just means that a well managed grid is a very good idea.

              Now, is it possible that such a thing as an off grid smelter exists out there? Sure. Never underestimate the power of inertia, the desire to protect obsolete assets and business models, and local corruption. But it shouldn’t exist:coal is way too expensive almost everywhere, and a grid connection for such an operation is generally going to be far more optimal.

              And one other thought: aluminum is a cheap commodity, which depends on cheap power to be competitive-it tends to migrate to cheap Hydro, and cheap nighttime power. It should be a very low priority in any developing country where the grid is under developed, and other consumers are starved for power.

              But, what the heck: if you can find one that would be interesting to see. It’d be fascinating to understand why they did such a thing.

            6. Nick, your own comments defeat your argument that solar is the cheapest form of energy…

              “It’s going to be extremely unlikely for a large smelter of any kind to be attached to a single energy source, off grid.”

              Yet they do build coal fired plants in Indonesia for their own microgrid to power Aluminium smelters!!

              They don’t build solar farms to do this!!

              If solar was truely the cheapest form of electricity, then it would make economic sense to go off grid in a stand alone system as that would be the cheapest to produce Aluminium. The FACT no-one is doing it CLEARLY tells everyone paying attention it’s NOT the cheapest form of electricity!!

              It’s economic reality 101, yet so many people miss this simple reality…

            7. One more time:

              Aluminum smelters like to be connected to a grid. It’s makes no sense for a large smelter of any kind to be attached to a single energy source, off grid.

              It just makes no sense: a manager who suggested it ought to be fired. The government who approves it should be voted out of office.

              That says nothing about the value of solar, or any other energy service, it just means that a well managed grid is a very good idea.

              Now, is it possible for such a thing as an off grid smelter to exist? Sure. Never underestimate the power of inertia, the desire to protect obsolete assets and business models, and local corruption. But it shouldn’t exist:coal is way too expensive almost everywhere, and a grid connection for such an operation is generally going to be far more optimal.

              Aluminum is a cheap commodity, which depends on cheap power to be competitive-it tends to migrate to cheap Hydro, and cheap nighttime power. It should be a very low priority in any developing country where the grid is under developed, and other consumers are starved for power. A coal plant should sell its power to the grid during peak consumption periods, and send it to something like smelting during off periods.

              So, It’d be fascinating to understand why they did such a thing. I’d guess they own captive coal mines, which will be stranded assets otherwise.

              Indonesia has recognized this reality:

              “ Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto has announced that his government plans to retire all coal and other fossil fuel-power plants while drastically boosting the country’s renewable energy capacity in the next 15 years….

              Sadly, the political obstacles are large:

              “If the government is serious about speeding up the energy transition, efforts to shut down coal-fired power plants and prevent new permits for the construction of coal-fired power plants must be clear so that partners, investors and financial institution can see the pipeline and progress…”

              https://apnews.com/article/indonesia-coal-energy-transition-fossil-g20-cop-2d8fd110a855a37167d49211e65fc51d

          3. China now imports coal at about 460 Mt. US production last year was 527 Mt. This will not end well.

            1. S. Korpela

              Dependence on Indonesia and Australia for coal imports as it stands. And everyone else are dependent on China to produce cheap industrial products. Eventually the whole arrangement will fail to a degree. But that will not mean China is “done”, just that we have to adjust to a world with less easy money/energy and cheap products.

              (The change in mindset would be the most difficult one in my opinion. The reductionist mindset is not ingrained in human genes. Historically – religion kept people to a more modest lifestyle. Most 40+ people I know are fully invested in the system the way it is and have little appetite for change in my opinion.)

  7. “He’s a criminal and a con artist. And that has to be central to everything you cover about him.”

    Who could that be?

    1. Trump or Musk, applies to both it seems. Though no criminal convictions of Musk yet to my knowledge.

      1. No criminal convictions to Trump, either, at least until tomorrow (1/10).

        1. Matt,

          Trump has been convicted, just not sentenced yet. Correction, sentence is complete.

  9. The site just passed one quarter of a million comments.
    Filter by comment type

    Comments list navigation 250,004 items « ‹ Current Page

    That is since 2013 when the site was launched,

    1. Thank you Ron and Dennis, all all others for your comments.
      Hopefully we realize that its not just about spouting our own perspective but more importantly to learn from what other people put forth.

      1. A very big thanks to Ron and the crew, have been following POB since TODs demise and have learned even more interesting stuff since, including the extraction updates, quirks and other perspectives of what´s really going on. Sometimes opinions clashes for different reasons but that´s also an oportunity to learn, or at least get an understanding, of your “opponents” background and reasonings.

      2. It is a very good format all together. Nice blending of facts and opinions.

        I have been following the site since 2014, and I am often more interested in opposing points of view for long term pondering around important issues. In the short term (as most people) I find them irritating. It is probably leaning towards a scientist approach, trying to figure out what is “really going on”.

      3. Hickory,

        Don’t forget to thank Ovi. He has produced more than half of the content here since October 2019 when he began regular posts here, without Ovi this site would not be nearly as good, in my view. Thanks of course to Ron for getting this site started. If any of the people who regularly comment here would like to do a monthly post let me know at peakoilbarrel@gmail.com, the pay is not very good (it is zero), but it can be fun to provide a longer commentary. The decisions on whether to post will be made by Ovi and Dennis, Ron has become a silent partner of late and is letting Ovi and me run the site.

  10. “Leader of Oath Keepers spinoff who called for ‘race war’ is ex-Vegas homicide detective”

    —– not a surprise

    1. S, that was cryptic. Unless you’re referring to Trump and his response to the SoCal fires…

      Narcissists generally have no inherent sense of self-worth, so they rely on other people, via attention or narcissistic supply, to re-affirm their importance in order to feel good about themselves and maintain their self-esteem. They then turn other people into operations or objects in such a way that others do not pose any emotional threat. This reactive pattern is pathological narcissism

  12. Interesting Commentary from G & R

    https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/natural-resources-q3-2024

    Excerpt, but read it all at link:

    By February 2024, that number had dropped to 121, a 27% decline. Over the past seven months, the rig count has fallen further, reaching just 101—a 17% plunge in a remarkably short time. As every seasoned industry observer knows, exploration and production companies cut their least productive rigs first, leading to an inevitable but temporary boost in reported drilling productivity.

    But this veneer of efficiency masks a more profound truth. Producers, facing dwindling options, have concentrated their remaining rigs on the final Tier 1 drilling areas within their plays. This “high-grading” of inventories explains the reported productivity gains of the past eighteen months but also signals an endgame. Our analysis suggests that Tier 1 drilling inventory in these plays is rapidly being exhausted. The accompanying graphics in this letter’s “Shale Fields and the Hubbert Curve” section lay bare this reality, using the Marcellus as a case study in depletion dynamics.

    They foresee a future rally in both oil and natural gas prices in the near future.

    1. Wouldn’t the higher prices increase shale oil and gas production ?

      1. Iron Mike,

        I would expect a bit, but eventually even higher prices won’t affect output much as resources deplete. Though it depends how much prices increase, if they increase by a factor of 10 output might increase, but that seems an unrealistic expectation from my perspective,

  13. US EMISSIONS STAGNATED IN 2024

    “US greenhouse gas emissions barely decreased in 2024, leaving the world’s largest economy off track to achieve its climate goals, according to an analysis released Thursday, as the incoming Trump administration looks set to double down on fossil fuels. The preliminary estimate by the Rhodium Group, an independent research organization, found a net fall of just 0.2 percent in economy-wide emissions. Lower manufacturing output drove the modest decline, but it was undercut by increased air and road travel and higher electricity demand.”

    https://phys.org/news/2025-01-emissions-stagnated-climate-goals.html

  14. “Donald Trump is a symptom of our diseased society. He is not its cause. He is what is vomited up out of decay.”

    well put

  15. The annual cost of weather related natural disasters events in the USA has increased about 8 fold since the 1980’s (CPI-adjusted). Drought, fire , flood etc.

    Maybe someday these kind of costs, and the loss of insurability, will grind growth down to a nubbin.
    Its one way to arrive at a place closer to some rough equilibrium.
    More painful than restraint….but we generally don’t do restraint.

    https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/state-summary/US

    1. Well, climate disasters destroy assets like buildings. That’s a reduction in wealth (stock). Repairing that loss is an increase in activity (flow), so an increase in GDP. If you’re at full unemployment, then you’d have less new construction and more renovation/replacement construction, so in that case GDP would remain the same, but wealth would be less than it would’ve been otherwise.

      If the replacement assets were built to better standards: better insulation, heat pumps instead of gas furnaces, solar design, passive house, etc., then this might be of value.

      1. Please don’t rebuild in the flood zones.
        Please don’t build on good soil (Class I-III).
        Please don’t build on wildlife habitat.
        Please don’t cut down whats left of forests.
        Please don’t build near estuaries and other wetlands.

        Please downsize.

Comments are closed.