Peak Oil Barrel

172 responses to “US May Oil Production Drops”

1. DC

   08/05/2026

   Thanks Ovi,

   Great report.

   Note that the STEO forecast released on July 7, 2026 completed the forecast on July 1, 2026 when WTI futures prices closed at $68/b.

   Link below has WTI forecast (July 2026 at $73/b and Dec 2026 at $65/b)

   https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/data/browser/#/?v=8&f=M&s=0&start=202212&end=202712&ctype=linechart&maptype=0&linechart=WTIPUUS

   With this oil price forecast, the EIA STEO forecast for the Permian Basin and other tight oil plays looks exceedingly optimistic in my view.

   WTI oil price chart at link below

   chart

   Reply
   1. Ovi

      08/05/2026

      Dennis

      Thanks.

      I think that the Permian forecast is related to those 15 rigs that were added to Eddy county in May/June which could start showing up as increased production later this year.

      We should get the August STEO on Friday. I think that WTI will be. closer to $65 in December. Trump I think is going to throw in the towel with Iran and just let this whole situation fade away. As the election approaches he wants Iran out of the news.

      The big unknown continues to be. China. To what extent will they reenter the market. Also will the US slow its release of oil from the SPR. T wants the price of gasoline down by election time. The gas stations will slowly drop their price as crude goes down but will not get to the $2.95/gal pre war price. I read last week that Exxon was losing money at some of its stations, pre war.. I think the new low will be in the $3.50/gal to $3.75/gal.

      I am curious to see what happens in Lea county for June. Will it continue to follow the rig chart to another new high?

   2. Sheng Wu

      08/06/2026

      few reports about the Canadian trans-mountain pipeline will reduce the export of WCS heavy to US.
      While, Venezuela export to US jumps to close to 800kbopd.
      Shocked to learn that Venezuela was still able to export 1.16MBOPD last month after earthquake, down only 40KBOPD and only import 81kBOPD of diluents.
      They are also exporting lots of petrochemicals, maybe distillates?
      Note that domestic consumption of crude is about quarter of MBOPD. This translates into Venezuela is drawing over 1.6MBOPD?

      https://boereport.com/2026/08/03/venezuelas-oil-exports-fell-slightly-in-july-cargoes-to-us-rose/

      Note that the US crude supply and consumption is kinda insulated from Middle-east, only self-looped in North America till January, 2026 with Canada import at huge discount. After January 2026, with Venezuela under the belt.

   3. DC

      08/07/2026

      Hi Ovi,

      I disagree that $65/b for WTI is likely by December 2026, One would need to believe that the SOH and Red Sea bottlenecks will be wide open by then. Consider piece linked below

      https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Shipping-Through-Hormuz-Drops-Sharply-as-Tensions-Rise.html

      I am skeptical that the situation will improve much before November 2026 and perhaps not until Jan 2029.

   4. DC

      08/07/2026

      Permian Horizontal + Directional (H+D) Oil Rigs, keep in mind production lags by 7 to 8 months unless DUC stocks are depleted to raise completion rates. Eight months ago the rig count was about 250 with the count rising to 256 by last Friday an increase of 2.4% from 8 months ago.

      permian rigs 2608

2. Iron Mike

   08/06/2026

   Strait of Hormuz update from the Iranian side. (Take with a grain of salt)

   The regime has announced a 5-7% fee for all commercial ships passing through the strait of Hormuz except Chinese and Russian vessels. Oman is asking for 3%.

   (They believe the Trump administration are desperate enough to accept)

   If the deal is accepted you can rest assure Iran would continue bullying the gulf states and incentivize their ambitions of being THE regional power.

   No news on the nuclear weapons front.

   Reply
   1. Nick G

      08/06/2026

      If this president were a Russian or Chinese agent, it’s hard to imagine how he could have harmed US interests more than this.

   2. LeeG

      08/06/2026

      These are Iran/Omani talks. Don’t think the US is invited.

   3. Nick G

      08/06/2026

      “ Don’t think the US is invited.”

      Well, the US’s credibility and influence hasn’t yet been completely destroyed by this president. Not quite yet. Everyone will be looking to see if the US lets this stand. If it does…then that would be an extraordinary statement of the new irrelevance of the US, and the astonishing incompetence of this president and of the US military that he and his SecDef have crippled*.

      Perhaps simply the final clarification that the attack was a folly of the highest order.

      What kind of forecast does that suggest? As the pressure on the president to give up grows, so does the electoral penalty for it. This continues to suggest a long gridlock.
      ——————————

      *This is two-fold: precision weapons have been greatly depleted; and the military leadership has been degraded and intimidated with arbitrary demotions and firings of competent officers and promotions of sycophantic officers.

      The military was traditionally the one part of the government that conservatives understood and supported. But…this president seems determined to cripple every last part of the government.

   4. Sheng Wu

      08/06/2026

      Straight of Iran & Oman.

      If US and Israel lose this war, then the wall will be buried and the golden dome expanded.

      Shocked to see the supposedly PCBs coming from a PAC interceptor — all the chips on the PCB obviously are 30 years old package, and Russia’s 50 years old package.

      Asking a veteran served in West Germany time about weapon depletion, and he just could not believe it — there were 10 Ukraine wars stockpiles in West and 20 in the East.

   5. Andre The Giant

      08/06/2026

      “The regime has announced a 5-7% fee for all commercial ships passing through the strait of Hormuz except Chinese and Russian vessels. Oman is asking for 3%. ”

      If that gets accepted it will be like a loan shark that keeps increasing the interest rate or else!

      Once they figured out where you live, where you work and where your kids go to school…

   6. THC

      08/06/2026

      The US and Iran do a good slapstick comedy routine.

      US (Trump / Bessent / Rubio): Oman and Iran are close to a deal for opening the Hormuz. A beautiful deal is coming……….

      A few days later…….

      Iran: We are close to completing an agreement with Oman re the Hormuz.

      Details include:

      “US, Israeli, and all other “hostile” country vessels will be permanently banned from transiting the Strait of Hormuz”

      “Countries and individuals that have caused damage to Iran will not be granted permission to transit through the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf until the damage is compensated”

      https://x.com/HormuzLetter/status/2085425395604611120?s=20

   7. GaryLittle

      08/07/2026

      “it’s hard to imagine how he could have harmed US interests more than this”

      Malignant Sadism: A severe, pervasive personality style where a person’s core motivation, pleasure, and sense of power come almost entirely from inflicting pain, humiliation, or terror on others.

      Someone who fits this description perfectly is often simply called a pure sadist, a malignant narcissist (if paired with extreme self-absorption), or a psychopathic sadist (if they completely lack a conscience).

      “Iran would continue bullying”

      It was the “Don’t tread on me President” who decapitated the Iran leadership.

   8. Sheng Wu

      08/07/2026

      If SOH becomes Iran-Oman-Straight then Indian Ocean should be true Indian Ocean, and Malacca Straight will be Singapore-Malaysia-India-Indo strait.

      Ships around Arab Peninsula claim there is no more GPS signal, only Beidou could be used. Beidou signal is even stronger in the Gulf of America than GPS, where in ship cabin, GPS lost signal while Beidou still work.

3. Ovi

   08/06/2026

   Cdn Natural Resources Q2 Report

   – Canadian Natural Resources (CNQ.TO) booked Q2 adjusted net earnings of C$2.19 per diluted share from C$0.71 a year earlier. Analysts polled by FactSet expected C$2.01. (Earnings tripled)

   – Industry leading operating costs of $22.19/bbl (US$16.03/bbl), driving our highest Oil Sands Mining and Upgrading per barrel netback ever achieved by the Company, during a quarter, at approximately $78.00/bbl.

   I think the operating costs are direct and do not include other operating costs such Mgmt expenses, interest on debt, etc.. Posted for comparison to Tight oil, if comparison is possible.

   https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/308306/Canadian-Natural-Resources-Limited-Announces-2026-Second-Quarter-Results

   Reply
   1. Sheng Wu

      08/09/2026

      obviously it is due to the Trans Mountain pipeline that boosted the netback price?
      this also implies that Pacific customers could pay higher price for the WCS

4. THC

   08/06/2026

   Going Back to Normal is Fiction (Klaus Schwab)

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

   This clip works perfectly for Hormuz situation………

   Reply
5. Pops

   08/07/2026

   Streamed yesterday. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbf33QDSeJQ

   Jean Laherrère latest fossil fuel production forecasts, examining long-term trends in oil, coal, natural gas, shale gas, NGPL, and global production cycles using historical data and Hubbert Linearization methods.

   And Art Berman, presenting “Oil Markets Are Adaptive Systems: Complex Order Without Equilibrium.”

   >A little rough but interesting. includes links to slides.

   Reply
   1. THC

      08/08/2026

      Pops, thank you.

      Jean Laherrère looks and speaks great for a 95 year-old!

      I hope but doubt I will last that long!

   2. Sheng Wu

      08/09/2026

      wish they will all witness the true FF peak!

6. Ovi

   08/07/2026

   Rig Report for the Week Ending August 7

   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 413 rigs/wk and 418 rigs/wk

   – Today WTI closed at $78.18/b, down from $84.67 last Friday.

   – US Hz rigs + DRigs rose by 2 this week to 447.
   – US Hz oil rigs rose by 2 to 415, down 35 since April 2025 when it was 450. It was also up 53 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 1 to 86. Lea added 3 to 36 while Eddy dropped 4 to 49.
   – Texas rose by 2 to 216. Midland and Martin were unchanged at 19 and 26, respectively. There was one change >1. Reeves added 2 rigs 22.
   – Eagle Ford was unchanged at 40.
   – NG Hz rigs added 1 at 108.

   – Frac data for the week ending August 7 has not been reported up to this point.

   A Rig

   Reply
7. T HILL

   08/08/2026

   THC,
   Thank you for the link in the last post to the article by Beck on PV system level EROI. Good stuff. Given the underlying assumptions, I took his results as supportive for PV+wind. One more step towards closing our Faustian bargain with fossil fuels. I’ll also note that Beck is a proponent of nuclear buildout merely as an observation.

   Separately, I see that Reuters is reporting the Iran/Oman SOH discussions on tolls range from 3% to 7% at the moment. Perhaps $4/b +/-? The chain of strategic dominoes ready to topple from this failed venture remains stunning. Well, at least the conflict has “completely and totally obliterated” and “destroyed all nuclear facilities and capability” in Iran. Wait…..

   All completely unpredictable right?

   Reply
8. DC

   08/08/2026

   Permian Horizontal plus directional centered 4 week oil rig count. Keep in mind the current rig count forecasts output 8 months in the future assuming DUC stocks are not depleted to increase the completion rate. Eight months ago the 4 week average H+D oil rig count was about 249 and for most recent 4 weeks about 256.

   See chart linked below

   permian hdrigs 2608

   Reply
   1. DC

      08/09/2026

      Chart below shifts the Permian H+D oil rig count 8 months forward in the future to coincide with the lag between spud and first flow of about 8 months, read this off left vertical axis. Permian tight oil output from Jan 2025 to June 2026 is plotted on right vertical axis. The fall in rigs may have been offset with a higher depletion of DUC stock over that period. Chart at link below.

      permian rigs and output 2608

   2. Ovi

      08/09/2026

      Dennis

      You can see the addition of the Drigs starting in late May.

      It is interesting to see that only you and I are interested in what is happening in the Permian.

   3. DC

      08/09/2026

      Ovi,

      Yes the most recent chart I posted has the rigs shifted forward in time by 8 months, so that increase that started in May would be shifted to Jan 2027. If we assume the depletion of DUC stocks ceases at some point (where wells drilled becomes equal to wells completed and change in DUCs each month becomes zero) then the increase in rigs since May simply gets us back to the level of Nov 2025 (which shifted forward by 8 months gets us to the July 2026 level of the 2nd chart above.

      Many are interested in the geopolitical situation surrounding Hormuz and the Red Sea which is certainly a big deal. The Permian may become important if output starts to decline in the next year or two as many do not expect this (including the EIA), though this does match with OPEC’s forecast for US tight oil.

      I think it is all interesting, though much is guesswork as future prices, demand, and output are all unknown.

   4. Sheng Wu

      08/09/2026

      DC,

      I am on the same page here with you on Permian oil forecast.
      However, I believe the US takeover Venezuela is a forward looking strategy to warrant and extend the superpower status of US in the oil market. The mainstream like to bash T as Taco or no-strategy, thus overblown Venezuela crude as heavy/expensive to move or revive. In reality, it is the lowest hanging fruit that T could grab with oil majors.

   5. DC

      08/10/2026

      Sheng Wu,

      We will see how Venezuela works out.

      So far not really a game changer in my opinion. Majors will not repeat past mistakes in Venezuela and current regime is not much different from previous regime.

9. Hickory

   08/08/2026

   Its clear now. A massive invasion with 10-20 year commitment of a couple hundred thousand troops vs capitulation.
   Capitulation is the legacy of Trump.
   Of course it turns out to be a huge defeat for the US stature and influence in the world.

   Also of great importance is to think what this means for the Islamic Republic of Iran.
   They will have the ability to negotiate for huge economic benefit- reparations, unfrozen assets, SOH tolls, removal of all trade sanctions and restrictions on sale of oil.

   What will they use this economic windfall for? In addition to major escalation in military capability including nuclear weapons program, they will fund their domestic infrastructure and industry including oil and gas production, reinvigorate their program of spreading fundamentalist governance to the Islamic world and cleansing the region of non-believers (in Allah), and of course placating their population with domestic program funding.

   If I was one of the neighboring Gulf countries I would absolutely attempt to win an arms race. The Turkey-Pakistan-Saudi mutual defense pact is a step in that direction. Keep in mind that if Turkey is attacked by Iran at some point then NATO is committed to respond.

   And if I was an Israeli I would be looking flee, once again, to somewhere that might be survivable.

   Reply
   1. Nick G

      08/08/2026

      “ A massive invasion…vs capitulation.”

      There’s a 3rd choice – keeping the US embargo/blockade in place, and trying to wait out the Iranians. There’s precedent for this: the US has had an almost total embargo/blockade on Cuba for 65 years! Hasn’t worked, but the US keeps on trying…

      The Iranians want the US to make *active* concessions, like publicly agreeing to Iranian control of the Strait, and giving very large ($300B!) reparations. Such concessions would be very painful for this president, and I have a hard time seeing him actually do them.

      This kind of passive resistance would harm everyone in the short-term: we’d be likely to see very high oil prices (not to mention fertilizer, aluminum and the other things that move through the Strait), and the Iranian public would suffer (and become more radicalized *against* the US). It would likely help the opposition in the US mid-terms, which would be a modest silver lining. A bigger silver lining is a sharp acceleration of the transition away from FF.

      A big mess, but in the long-term the acceleration of the transition would likely be worth the short-term cost.

   2. Hideaway

      08/09/2026

      Nick G, “A bigger silver lining is a sharp acceleration of the transition away from FF.”

      What acceleration away from fossil fuels?? Do you never stop with your denial of reality?? Last time I looked over the last 20 years we had added around 37,000TWh of energy from fossil fuels and only 4,800TWh from solar and wind.
      If you step back and look at the big picture, it’s all just added on top of prior energy use, always an addition.

      There has never been a transition. We didn’t transition from wood to coal, in fact we added more wood use once coal was added to energy use. Then since we added oil use to coal and wood, both have increased in consumption as well.

      How much of that total world energy supply is the 4,800 TWh of solar and wind?? Around 3% of total energy use.

      If we leave out traditional biomass use, what percentage of modern industrial energy use are fossil fuels? Around 92% with Hydro and Nuclear making up the bulk of the last 8%.

      There has never been a transition of any energy use and all that has happened over the last 250 years, is that we’ve been adding energy use at a super-linearly scale rate in all that time. anyone that knows anything about physics knows what happens to super-linearly scaled systems when they end.

   3. Iron Mike

      08/09/2026

      Hickory,

      I am going to delve into the realm of conspiracy here.

      The only way right now Israel can get regime change, is if they assassinate Trump (or a member of his family) divert the blame to the Iranian hardliners which they would gladly accept, which would warrant a strong reaction from the U.S to push for regime change.

      Otherwise, I can see only the 2 options you mentioned playing out, either capitulation of Trump or tit for tat which will eventually lead to possible invasion in Southern Iran.

   4. Pops

      08/09/2026

      Inputs only matter for fossil fuel profits, or if what you actually want is heat. A thermal power plant throws away maybe 60% of the fuel’s energy before an electron reaches the grid. Not to mention well-to-wheels loss of ICE vehicles.

      Solar and wind skip conversion entirely — their product IS electricity. Comparing raw TWh of fossil primary energy to raw TWh of renewable generation is misleading at best. Adjust for FF losses and the 37,000-to-4,800 gap shrinks by roughly a factor of three. Still a real gap, but a different argument.

      And of course fossil burn has kept growing with population and incomes — we’ve been burning things for heat for millennia, and global population and energy demand have been compounding the whole time. One might debate whether population compounding will continue but that’s another thread.

      Electricity as a general-purpose energy carrier is only about 150 years old. Grid-scale solar PV has only been cost-competitive for roughly 15 years.

      Even from that standing start, solar and wind are now the fastest-growing source of new electricity generation worldwide — in 2024 they made up about 80% of the increase in global generation, more than coal and gas combined. That’s not “no transition,” that’s what the early years of an exponential buildout look like.

   5. GaryLittle

      08/09/2026

      “There has never been a transition of any energy use and all that has happened over the last 250 years”

      The total absolute amount of human labor and muscle energy dedicated to farming globally peaked around the mid-20th century. Whale oil stopped being used as a primary energy and lighting source in the late 19th century. Mainstream animal-powered transportation in Western countries largely phased out between 1910 and the 1950s as automobiles and electric transit took over.

      Solar energy is growing faster than any other power source. Solar and wind reached historic milestones, generating more electricity globally than gas for the first time in April 2026 (22% combined vs. 20% for gas). Solar supplied 12.8% of U.S. electricity in May 2026, surpassing coal (12.2%) for the first time on a monthly basis. Fossil fuels still account for a major share of total energy (around 57% of global electricity generation in 2025), but their relative dominance is shrinking.

      Based on current consumption rates and proven reserves, oil and natural gas are projected to run out in roughly 50+ years (around the early 2070s), while coal may last for over 100 years. However, these timelines shift constantly due to new discoveries, changing technology, and a global shift toward renewable energy. About 47 to 56 years that remain of oil, 50 to 60 years natural gas and about 100 to 130+ years of coal based on current consumption rates and proven reserves. Standard solar panels provide usable electricity for 25 to 35 years, while the sun itself has about 5 billion years of nuclear fuel remaining.

      The main upside of closing the Strait of Hormuz is that a severe global oil crisis would force countries to quickly switch to renewable energy and build true energy independence. While a closure would cause major economic pain, it creates a few forced structural changes.

   6. Hideaway

      08/10/2026

      GarryLittle,
      “The main upside of closing the Strait of Hormuz is that a severe global oil crisis would force countries to quickly switch to renewable energy and build true energy independence.”

      Where to start with this. Do you know how solar, wind and batteries are made from the digging of the minerals out of the ground to transport, to processing and refining, to factories, to distribution then connection to grids??

      Let’s stop using fossil fuels for any of these processes and see how much solar, wind or batteries gets built…

      If the straight of Hormuz stays shut and all the fossil fuel products cannot get out of the Gulf, then it wont take long to collapse civilization, in which case you wont have to worry about solar or wind or transitions..

      Your argument is a dangerous physical impossibility because keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed would crash the very industrial system required to build renewable energy.

      This view is a classic example of isolating energy from materials. It treats the “green transition” as a software swap, completely ignoring that the alternative system is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the fossil fuel network.

      If the Strait of Hormuz is closed, beyond a certain point of the buffers of fuel, the light-speed digital networks and the 72-hour urban food boundary ensure that civilization collapses long before enough extra solar panels can be manufactured.

      Be careful with what you wish for and look at the entire system of civilization as a whole, not separate parts that act independently, as none are independent.

      BTW, thermodynamically solar, wind and batteries have nowhere near enough EROEI to run modern civilization, but reading bullish EROEI papers of magical energy returns, that use narrow boundaries, excluding most energy inputs will give you that impression.

      Please don’t fall into Nick G’s trap of believing in these fairy tales..

   7. Eulenspiegel

      08/10/2026

      You always build the successor with the preccessor. Coal was mined with muscle power and animals first.
      The early drilling rigs where powered with a steam engine, and coal powered trains moved the barrels.

      As solar and wind ( and nuclear or geothermals ) are now build with fossiles.

      There’s nothing wrong about this. 50 years of oil left will build the new infrastructure.

   8. GaryLittle

      08/10/2026

      Up to 95% of a 100-watt monocrystalline solar panel’s materials can be recycled using advanced modern recycling technologies. This means that out of a typical 10-kilogram (22 lbs) panel, about 9.5 kilograms of material can be recovered and reused to make new products. The frame, aluminum 100% recyclable. Easily unbolted or pried off and melted down into raw aluminum. The front glass is 90% to 95% recyclable and makes up the vast majority of the panel’s total weight (~70%). 85% to 96% of the high-purity silicon wafers can be chemically separated, melted down, and reused to forge new silicon ingots. Plus, 95% to 98% of the copper and silver of the wiring is recoverable. Thermal and chemical processes extract these high-value metals, keeping precious silver and copper in the supply chain.

      Producing a gallon of gasoline requires an upstream energy investment (extraction, transport, and refining) equal to roughly 20% to 30% of the energy contained in the finished fuel. Because a standard gallon of gasoline holds about 120,000 to 125,000 British thermal units (Btu) of energy (roughly 35 to 36 kilowatt-hours [kWh]), the embedded or “well-to-pump” energy required to produce and deliver it is approximately 24,000 to 37,500 Btu (or about 7 to 11 kWh) per gallon.

      The 7 to 11 kWh of embedded energy used just to produce and deliver a single gallon of gasoline is enough to drive an electric vehicle (EV) the exact same distance that the gallon of gas would take a conventional car. An average internal combustion engine car travels roughly 25 to 30 miles on one gallon of gasoline. Because modern EVs achieve an average efficiency of 3 to 4 miles per kWh, an EV only requires about 7 to 9 kWh of electricity to travel that same 25-to-30-mile distance.

      A permanent closure of the Strait of Hormuz would cause a severe global economic shock, but it would not permanently crash the industrial system required to build renewable energy. Instead, it would act as a violent disruptor that drastically increases manufacturing costs in the short term while aggressively accelerating the long-term decoupling of clean energy supply chains from fossil fuel dependencies. Despite a massive near-term spike in inflation and manufacturing delays, the core clean energy production lines would pivot rather than collapse entirely due to three structural buffers.

      China commands the vast majority of global solar, wind, and battery manufacturing. Its heavy industry relies heavily on domestic coal and continental pipelines from Russia and Central Asia, insulating its factories from seaborne Persian Gulf disruptions. Second, high oil prices make alternative transit routes (like rail or looping around the Cape of Good Hope) economically viable, ensuring rare earth metals, lithium, and copper still reach factories. And last, every dollar added to the price of oil and gas makes the return on investment (ROI) for domestic renewable infrastructure look vastly superior, triggering historic government mandates to push through supply constraints.

      The best thing to happen to your grandchildren today would be for the inevitable transition to renewables be advanced by high priced limited oil. This would be something that a narcissist would have a hard time understanding.

   9. Paul Pukite (@whut)

      08/10/2026

      https://x.com/WHUT/status/2086860864888488083

   10. Hideaway

       08/11/2026

       Eulenspiegel, you are forgetting that it took very little energy and materials to mine the near surface coal which had a tremendous energy return for the effort. Likewise using the early drilling rigs with shallow holes to get huge quantities of flowing oil.

       Solar, wind, nuclear and geothermal are all built with huge amounts of fossil fuels, of which just about every type of EROEI study leaves out most of, in their calculations.

       It’s not a tiny little bit of energy and materials to get the energy back out, it’s huge gobs of both energy and materials to get some electricity back, with nowhere near the EROEI required to fully run our civilization.

       Everyone wants to take a transition as if it happens in a vacuum, not as part of the entire system. To build a whole lot more of anything, takes a huge increase in overall energy use. What’s not understood is that we need to use more energy to stand still, because grades of every mineral we mine keeps declining, plus their distance gets more remote on average, the depth gets deeper, the ore index gets harder, so mining a tonne of coal, oil, copper, nickel, gravel, sand is getting more energy expensive.

       Also, hidden from most people’s understanding, is how the overburden and strip ratios are getting larger, to get at the best remaining grade ore. We used all the close, easy to access, surface and near surface deposits of everything.

       Unfortunately Entropy and dissipation are real, so we have to keep mining to replace what’s lost. The larger our civilization, the more it takes to maintain just what’s built, let alone build MORE of anything. As it is 97-99% of the materials we use are just maintaining the current system (Tearing down an old house, or road to build a replacement, is just maintenance of the system. Building another new house or road is adding to it).

       Solar and wind currently provide 3% of world primary energy use, and produce no products, just electricity, but all those that don’t understand the system want you to believe in the waste heat argument for all fossil fuel use and not consider products. (apparently we’ll magic them up with zero energy and material cost).

       All energy sources are free to mankind as a whole, solar, wind, water, oil, coal, gas, geothermal. We just have to build machines from mined materials to gain access to these sources of energy. That mining is costing a whole lot more in both energy and material terms. (You need a whole lot more machines to move and process all the material from a 0.5% grade copper mine to produce 100,000 tonnes of copper per annum, than we ever needed to mine 100,000 of copper per annum from a 5% grade copper mine, along with a lot more energy).

       If you add a whole lot of solar, wind and batteries to every low grade copper mine, you have to dig up a lot more lower grade resources first to do so. Including building the new lower grade mines, the processing facilities, the refineries, the factories, more or upgraded ports, more factories making the higher number of machines required.

       In other words a spiral of more materials to build all the ‘extras’ we require of all the low EROEI energy and materials we are going to use, just to maintain what we have.

       How does using more energy to gain access to a constant amount of materials work in the real world?? Simple, it doesn’t at all, it physically can’t. Yet all the proponents of a transition, that’s not happening want you to believe in 7% growth in a segment coming out of the magic of money, without more energy and materials being used..

   11. THC

       08/11/2026

       Hi Hideaway,

       I was intrigued by your comparison of the growth in energy generation from wind/solar vs. hydrocarbons.

       I checked the numbers and found:

       2005 vs. 2025 energy generation by source

       Wind + solar: 1.1 EJ -> 45 EJ (growth of 43.9 EJ)

       Hydrocarbons (coal/oil/NG): 380 EJ -> 515 EJ (growth of 135 EJ)

       I wonder how much worse it would look for solar/wind if we could compare EROI.

       Unfortunately, particularly for solar, China has a near monopoly on the renewable supply chains, and I doubt we can obtain reliable information on all of the energy inputs required to build, install, and recycle these devices every 15~ 20 years.

       Also it is ironic from a strategic standopoint that with hydrocarbons the fuel sources are diverse and global, but with wind/solar we have one major source (China) that is also a single point for possible failure (war/revolution) or control of renewable users (don’t comply and you won’t get solar/wind equipment any more).

   12. THC

       08/11/2026

       I found China’s monopoly or renewable energy systems interesting, and looked a bit deeper.

       **Percentage of renewable energy systems with ZERO Chinese materials/components**

       **Solar cells: Effectively none

       Global market share of zero-dependence solar <5% (est)

       **Wind turbines: Effectively none

       Global market share of zero-dependence solar <5% (est)

       ~~~~~

       Global Market Share: Zero Chinese Dependence

       Solar <5% First Solar only viable supplier

       Wind <5% Possibly some older/geared designs; rare

   13. Hideaway

       08/12/2026

       THC, that figure of 45Ej is incorrect because it’s using the substitution method, which means actual output has been multiplied by 2.5 to account for all the heat loss from burning ALL fossil fuels.

       The real number is around 18-19 Ej out of 620 Ej used annually by civilization. It’s a drop in the ocean, but by using the substitution method we make it appear much more useful.

       It’s one of the ways we humans lie to ourselves, to make the narrative appear so much better than it is.

   14. THC

       08/12/2026

       Hideaway,

       OK I found the info re the calculation of 45 EJ:

       ~~~~~~

       45 EJ is not the amount of electricity wind and solar actually generated — it is a converted “primary energy equivalent” that inflates their contribution by treating them as if they were produced by fossil-fuel power plants. The multiplication factor of roughly 2.5 comes from dividing by an assumed thermal efficiency of about 0.4 (40%), so 100 TWh of electricity becomes 250 TWh of primary energy

       https://ourworldindata.org/energy-substitution-method

       If 45 EJ is a substitution-method number and the assumed efficiency is about 40%, then the implied actual electricity output is:

       45 EJ × 0.4 = 18 EJ

   15. Nick G

       08/12/2026

       THC,

       This is very, very silly.

       If you measure primary energy for FF, and you want to compare it to renewable energy, then you have to convert renewable electricity to an equivalent amount of primary energy. That’s why this approach was used by British Petroleum, the entity that maintained the authoritative database for energy statistics for quite a long time. BP – a major FF company!

       On the other hand, you can simply look at the electricity or usable energy produced by FF, and compare that to the electricity produced by FF. In that case you have to divide the Exajoules of FF by 2.5 (actually, probably by 3 or 4, but that’s another discussion).

       You have to choose one or the other to make them comparable.

       People who want to defend FF keep talking about thermodynamics, but the laws of thermodynamics say that the *quality* of energy is extremely important. Heck – the 1st & 2nd laws says that energy is never gained or lost, it simply changes its level of quality. So, they’re saying it’s all about the quality!! Electricity is much higher quality than heat, which is why we convert roughly 3 units of FF heat to 1 unit of electricity, and consider it a very good deal. FF advocates never address this in simplistic discussions of EROI.

   16. Nick G

       08/12/2026

       “ China’s monopoly or renewable energy systems”

       This is highly misleading. Sunlight and wind are far more widely available than fossil fuels. EVERY country has sunlight – 90% have better insolation than Germany, which is planning to go to net-zero.

       Every major industrial country could produce wind & solar equipment if it chose, though it might take a while to become competitive with China. But…if you’re worried about security of supply wind and solar are what you want. industrial competitive leads like this are temporary. Detroit had the clear lead after WWII. They lost that lead to Japan. Now their willingness to milk the ICE cash cow is making a loss of their remaining market share to China very likely. If the US wants to revers that, it can, though that seems unlikely under this president.

       Further, even if China tried to cut off supplies, existing generation would still exist and there would be no immediate shortage, unlike FF. It would be a longer-term problem, which could be fixed by creating a domestic industry.

   17. T HILL

       08/12/2026

       Gary, Pops & Eulen,
       Thanks for some of the comments above quantifying the arguments in favor of wind and solar. Good stuff.

       I’m struck a bit funny that on a site named “peak” oil barrel there seems to be so much support for the status quo. Have we forgotten that zero percent of a gallon of diesel moving that truck down the road is recyclable?

       Much of this debate seems to have two unstated assumptions. First is that the current paradigm that endless growth and 24/7/365 energy use must and can continue indefinitely. The second is that FF can somehow deliver on that paradigm. Obviously flawed assumptions. On the flip side, the math on even a 90% recycle rate for wind/solar starts to be daunting after only a few lifecycles.

   18. Nick G

       08/12/2026

       T Hill,

       Recycling is all about relative costs and social priorities. There’s really no technical barrier to 99.9% recycling – a lot of it has to do with manufacturing design to allow for recycling, which is relatively unexploited now.

       Given that the Earth is mostly a closed system (which means that very, very little mass leaves or enters – with the exception of some helium and H2), any recycling losses will mean that the lost material exists somewhere – it’s just a matter of labor and energy to reclaim it, and the limits to solar energy are, on a practical level, far above human needs.

       For instance, it won’t be that long before we’re mining landfills: AI powered robots methodically extracting everything there. There’s an extraordinary amount of material in seawater, though people only seem to talk about the distant edge cases, like gold.

   19. Hideaway

       08/12/2026

       Why is it that if someone points out that we can’t run modern civilization off solar and wind, because they simply don’t have the full thermodynamic EROEI, I’m assumed to be a supporter of Fossil Fuels??

       I’m not, Fossil Fuels EROEI is falling rapidly, they damage the environment with CO2 and endocrine disrupting pollution, via micro plastic pollution among many other forms of pollution.

       There is nothing good for our environment by using Fossil Fuels, and they wont be with us for much longer anyway.

       However none of this means that making up fake stories of how good Solar and wind are, actually helps solve the thermodynamic requirements of just maintaining modern civilization, let alone growing it.

       To have massive growth in any one major sector, of which energy is as major as you can get, means maintaining the existing system to allow the growth of the new. It’s physically impossible to do it any other way.

       Solar, wind and batteries are discussed by Nick G et al, as if they are produced in a vacuum, while the rest of the system of civilization just provides a whole lot of raw materials, processing plants, refineries, factories, trucks/ships/ports/roads etc, to move it all, and plenty of people to do all the work at zero energy and material costs.

       Then there is always the hand wave of they can be recycled, as if that was without material and energy costs, for full recycling back to original use. You guys are aware that most recycling we do now is actually downcycling, but we call it recycling as the cost (energy and materials) to get whatever back in a fit state for original use, without contaminants, is much higher.

       “Approximately 95% of end-of-life solar panels worldwide are still disposed of in landfills or through conventional waste management systems, highlighting a substantial gap between waste generation and proper recycling infrastructure.”
       https://eureka.patsnap.com/report-solar-panel-recycling-economic-and-environmental-benefit

       If you want to collect, transport, disassemble, separate, then transport to a whole lot of blast furnaces to separate out the different metals, without getting a lot of contaminants in your recycled metals. You are building a whole lot of NEW machines and factories to do all this, while trying to maintain the existing system at the same time.

       This can only get done with increased overall ‘growth’, to build all this new ‘stuff’ at such a mega scale. This puts your target we need to reach, in terms of total energy and materials required, at a higher level than present.

       This is all happening with a background of declining ore grades, deeper and more remote ore bodies on average, and harder ore indexes (meaning more energy required to crush the rock), plus higher strip ratios. All because we used the easiest to extract ores first!!

       You guys just refuse to acknowledge reality. We only were able to build the 18Ej of solar and wind we have, because we expended the Fossil Fuel system by 135TWh, by building all the mines, upgrading ports, increasing the number of machines for mines, building new processing plants, refining plants, factories, new copper wire from expanded mines etc, etc (I’m leaving out hundreds of things that had to be built first!!) which allowed the solar, wind and batteries to be, mined, built and deployed, and a lot of the extra energy is in just running all these new mines, upgrade and new facilities, and the lives of the people that operate them all.

       We only have the solar, wind and batteries we do have because we grew the system. You want a whole lot more, then we have to build and operate a whole lot more!! When you do the full thermodynamic calculation on the lot of civilization, you clearly see it’s super-linear growth, by a lot higher exponent that all the work on just cities by Prof West, et al. Super-linearly scaled energy dissipative systems only end one way… Look it up…

   20. Nick G

       08/13/2026

       “Why is it that if someone points out that we can’t run modern civilization off solar and wind, because they simply don’t have the full thermodynamic EROEI, I’m assumed to be a supporter of Fossil Fuels??“

       Because that claim about solar & wind is false. It should tell you something that the general consensus of the world scientific and engineering community (including hardheaded countries like China, and major oil companies like Exxon/Mobil) is that we can and should transition away from FF to renewables. To claim otherwise is not realistic, and the only plausible explanation for it is a very strong desire to protect the FF industry where one makes one’s living.

   21. Hideaway

       08/13/2026

       Nick G …. “Because that claim about solar & wind is false”

       If it was false, then every Aluminium smelter would be going off grid with their own solar and batteries, as it would be far more profitable than being grid tied using a lot of fossil fuels. No-one anywhere is doing this!!

       Companies like Adaro in Indonesia are going off grid with a new captive coal fired power station, currently being built..

       Your continued insistence that solar and batteries are cheaper, makes zero sense with what companies are actually doing, or not doing..

       I’d love for solar to be a cheaper, better option that can keep civilization going for another 100 years or more, but reality of the real thermodynamic numbers, clearly shows it can’t happen, and fossil fuels will get too energetically expensive fairly soon as well.

       Nick G … “To claim otherwise is not realistic”. To deny reality like you do is not realistic, but is a common thing among humans, to deny a bad outcome.

       I worked out my own way to find the approximate EROEI as none of the papers I’ve ever read is realistic. They all have narrow boundaries!! My method worked out old Fossil fuels accurately, and newer fossil fuels also accurately (with low and declining EROEIs, so also not appropriate for a future with modern civilization (to low!!).

       However that doesn’t make solar, wind and batteries the answer. They also had to stack up using the same methodology. They didn’t and neither does large nuclear. (all low EROEI, to low for modern civilization).

       Why do you think so much effort and capital is being poured into SMR nuclear and fusion if the existing technologies were good enough to run modernity??

       You talk a good game about all these countries and large companies talking up solar and wind, but never answer why none of them are building a supposedly cheaper way of making Aluminium!!

       Does it ever occur to you that governments have to talk up solar and wind as they do not have any real alternatives, and at least that keeps people from panicking about the future once fossil fuels themselves can’t run modernity because of low and lowering EROEI, plus all the climate and environment damage???

       Just look at the Keeling curve, still on the same accelerating trend, despite decades of nuclear, solar and wind promotion, no change. All the decades and trillions of dollars has done is create more mining, more use of fossil fuels, more damage to the environment, basically just more industrial civilization, that’s killing the ecology of the planet. more of what’s not working, and can’t work, is not going to help anything.

   22. GaryLittle

       08/13/2026

       The absence of standalone, 100-percent solar-powered aluminum smelters does not prove that solar energy cannot power a modern world. Instead, it highlights the unique, continuous 24/7 heavy-load demands of specific industrial processes rather than a fundamental flaw in solar technology.

       The Hall-Héroult smelting process requires a flat-rate, uninterrupted supply of electricity around the clock. If an aluminum potline loses power for more than 4 to 6 hours, the molten bath solidifies, destroying the expensive smelting cells and requiring months of costly rebuilding. Historically, smelters relied on continuous baseload power sources like coal or dedicated large-scale hydroelectric dams.

       Heavy industry is beginning to transition by pairing solar and wind with large-scale battery storage or flexible grid contracts. For instance, mining and metal giants like Rio Tinto have signed major agreements to supply regional smelters with a mix of solar power and massive battery storage. A modern energy grid does not require every single generator to power every single factory directly without storage. A functioning grid combines solar, wind, storage, and other clean sources to deliver continuous power where it is needed.

       Battery and energy storage technologies are bridging the gap for heavy industry by transforming how ultra-high-temperature plants handle power. Instead of requiring continuous fossil-fuel baseload power, industrial plants use storage to convert intermittent solar and wind into a steady, reliable resource. Heavy manufacturers are using utility-scale batteries to smooth out variable renewable energy sources. Industrial battery energy storage systems (BESS)—traditionally 2-hour systems—have rapidly transitioned to 4-hour and 8-hour configurations. This allows them to capture excess midday solar energy and discharge it throughout the night. Industrial operators rely on grid-forming inverters. If the external power grid fluctuates or drops out, these systems instantly form their own stable voltage and frequency to keep massive equipment like smelters or furnaces running without a microsecond of interruption.

       Over half of heavy industry’s energy demand is for heat, not electricity. Thermal batteries act as a direct alternative to burning natural gas. These systems draw low-cost, off-peak renewable electricity from the grid and use resistive heating elements to warm up solid blocks (like graphite, crushed rock, or specialized brick) inside highly insulated enclosures. Companies like MGA Thermal have piloted blocks containing encapsulated aluminum particles that change phases to store extreme energy. They can absorb variable power in short windows, then steadily release superheated steam or air up to 550°C around the clock to sustain manufacturing lines.

       While lithium-ion batteries dominate light electronics, heavy industry requires multi-day resilience. Industrial operators are increasingly turning toward sodium-ion and vanadium redox flow batteries. These alternatives use abundant, non-flammable materials and can cycle thousands of times without major degradation, lowering the cost floor for grid-scale factory backups. Technologies like iron-air batteries are scaling to offer up to 100 hours of continuous discharge, protecting critical processes against extended multi-day winter storms or periods of low solar and wind generation.

       Instead of assuming heavy factories must remain perfectly rigid, new process control innovations let plants interact dynamically with energy storage. Modern aluminum operations are implementing advanced control technologies (such as the MPOT system). This software allows a smelter to safely dial its power consumption up or down by small percentages in real time. By pairing this slight consumption flexibility with on-site storage, heavy industrial plants effectively convert themselves into grid-balancing assets that absorb power when it’s cheap and drop demand when the grid is strained.

   23. Hideaway

       08/14/2026

       Garry,
       Use your words, not A.I.’s words.

       I can get A.I. to state anything is true, it doesn’t make it so..

       I also notice not a single core argument of mine is refuted, even with the use of A.I.

   24. Hideaway

       08/14/2026

       BTW Garry, I used my A.I. to see what it thought about your A.I. writing….

       All from A.I., at least I’m up front about it…

       “Moving Past the AI Narrative.

       AI models generate text by finding the safest, most repeated compromises in existing literature—which is why they regurgitate clean, linear energy transition narratives.

       They cannot calculate the systemic stress of a society scaling its energy demands super-linearly. If you are looking to rewrite or restructure this piece to accurately reflect Kardashev-scale energy realities, power-law dynamics, or the true thermodynamic constraints of heavy industry, where should we start ripping it apart?

       We can focus on: The raw quantitative calculations of a gigawatt-scale battery backup.
       The math behind super-linear metabolic scaling in modern industrial hubs.
       The specific thermodynamic failure points of the Hall-Héroult cell under variable loads.”

       Personally I’d pick on this A.I. as being unrealistic by using Kardeshev scale for anything as it’s just a made up human fiction..

       If you get your A.I. to understand how modern civilization is built upon super-linear scaling of energy and materials moved, by using real world numbers, it immediately junks all the renewable or nuclear niceties as unrealistic and irrelevant as the physics points in only one direction towards singularity as happens to all energy dissipative structures that go super-linear in scaling..

   25. THC

       08/14/2026

       Hi Nick,

       Re: China’s monopoly on renewable energy systems:

       From the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), March 2026:

       https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-solar-industry-upheaval-effects-will-be-global

       “Today, China is the undisputed global leader in the solar industry. It dominates the solar supply chain—by an **extraordinary** margin. In 2024, China produced 93.2  percent of the world’s polysilicon, 96.6  percent of wafers, 92.3  percent of photovoltaic (PV) cells, and 86.4  percent of PV modules”

       “China’s innovation cycles far outpace the rest of the global solar sector, rapidly advancing across first-generation sub-technologies—and the pace of turnover continues to accelerate.”

       “Today, China is leading in third-generation solar technologies, particularly perovskite and tandem cells, positioning itself at the forefront of next-generation photovoltaics. ”

       “According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s January 2026 PV Best Research‑Cell Efficiency Chart, LONGi Green Energy holds the world record for the highest conversion efficiency in perovskite/silicon tandem technology, achieving 34.85 percent. Meanwhile, the Nanjing University/Renshine collaboration holds the world record for the highest conversion efficiency in perovskite tandem technology, achieving 30.1 percent.”

       “Chinese firms are rapidly accelerating their transition to advanced N-type (such as TOPCon, HJT, and BC) and next-generation technologies at a scale and speed unmatched by international competitors. Consequently, global counterparts find that even when their products meet local manufacturing standards, their component efficiency and performance often lag behind China’s latest-generation offerings, leaving them vulnerable to technological obsolescence and market marginalization.”

   26. GaryLittle

       08/14/2026

       “I also notice not a single core argument of mine is refuted”

       Sorry Hideaway, but the entire post refutes your identity BS. It starts with the first sentence. You are in deep denial.

       “The absence of standalone, 100-percent solar-powered aluminum smelters does not prove that solar energy cannot power a modern world.”

       The modern world will move forward with or without todays aluminum smelters. Why would I waste my time to refute your nonsense in todays modern world. When AI can do it in nanosecond. You need to up your game in 2026 and practice some simple research.

       Best Wishes

   27. Nick G

       08/14/2026

       THC,

       Yes, China has become dominant in PV, and is still improving. It’s a sad commentary on the incompetence of the current US presidential administration, which is deliberately attempting to turn its back on solar. It’s harming the US greatly.

       On the other hand, what I’ve said elsewhere still stands: PV imports aren’t nearly as dangerous as oil imports: if PV imports are cut off it has no effect on currently installed solar power. And, it’s certainly possible for a country like the US, or countries like Germany, to expand their domestic industries – if necessary they can subsidize domestic production on the basis of national security (which should be an easy argument to make if China has cut off exports!).

   28. Hideaway

       08/14/2026

       Garry Little, you can call anything you like BS and nonsense, but it doesn’t change reality at all. It’s a head in the sand approach.

       My A.I. totally dismissed your A.I. in a sentence or 2…

       “AI models generate text by finding the safest, most repeated compromises in existing literature—which is why they regurgitate clean, linear energy transition narratives.

       They cannot calculate the systemic stress of a society scaling its energy demands super-linearly.”

       A whole lot of statements prove nothing without evidence. The real world evidence is clear, Adaro are building a new coal fired power station and Aluminium smelter, no-one anywhere is building one based on solar and batteries, it’s way too expensive to do..

       With lots of subsidies, secret government contracts and guarantees, sure big players are adding some solar and wind to their Aluminium smelters, also to appease ESG requirements.

       Rules, regulations, ESG appeasements, do not make the thermodynamics of something cheaper, real world economics are what counts.
       I fully acknowledge that just economics, while coal power plants can spread massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, is bad, but civilization was built on economics, there is zero proof it can last on ideas or ideals.

       Plus ripping up the remainder of the natural world to get all the minerals and metals required for the non existent transition, is not really a good idea either..

   29. THC

       08/15/2026

       Hideaway,

       “Plus ripping up the remainder of the natural world to get all the minerals and metals required for the non existent transition, is not really a good idea either.”

       But it is a wonderfully profitable grift.

       Hey, here’s another idea.

       Maybe we should burn wood as fuel, give it a fancy name/acronym, and give carbon credits to the insiders who can get the gov’t subsidies?

       (Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage = BECCS)

       Oh, wait……..

       “Modelling multiple wood-sourcing scenarios, we found that BECCS is unlikely to generate negative emissions within 150 years, is likely to produce higher emissions for decades than using natural gas without carbon capture and is likely to increase electricity costs by ~3.5-fold.”

       https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-026-01817-8

   30. GaryLittle

       08/15/2026

       “Whatever!”

   31. THC

       08/15/2026

       https://www.ccarbon.info/public_files/State-of-Sector-Investments-in-CDR_cCarbon_081125_v2.0.pdf

       “BECCS projects attract **leverage** because they function like traditional infrastructure assets. They generate revenue from multiple, often **government-contracted**, sources such as electricity generation, heat production, and waste processing (gate fees). Government support mechanisms, like the UK’s Contracts for Difference (CfD) for BECCS, provide the long-term revenue certainty that debt financiers require, effectively underwriting the project and lowering the cost of capital.”

       This is gonna be great……

       ~~~~~~~~

       Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS)

       “BECCS is uniquely positioned to deliver both renewable energy (= WOOD!!!) and permanent carbon removal,”

       “The sector is poised for major expansion, with over 100 plants and more than 70 MtCO₂ of annual capture capacity planned by 2030.”

       I see nothing but rainbows heading our way…….

10. Opritov Alexander

    08/09/2026

    And it seems that modern technologies make it possible to replace fuel and lubricants with electricity. And as the apologists of the energy transition tell us, there should be no problems with electricity, they say, with modern SES and WPP technologies, cheap kW from an outlet is an engineering task, and not a question of the raw material wealth of a particular country. But, of course, this is not the case.
    The chart shows the forecast of global electricity demand growth in the next couple of years. Every year, the world will need an additional 1,000 TWh of electricity. Russia consumes a little more per year. Half of this new demand will arise in China, the other half in the rest of the world, according to the IEA forecast.
    However, with all the apparent ease of implementing the momentum gained, new kwts are being created for the Chinese fuel and energy complex with great difficulty and heroic efforts. China’s electric power industry is based on coal, which production reached 4.8 billion tons last year. And more and more observers and experts say that this figure is close to the physical limit of the PRC. The bowels are not capable of giving more:
    Currently, the average mining depth of Chinese coal mines is approaching 500 meters.
    More than 210 mines operate at depths of over 800 meters.
    Over 60 mines are more than a kilometer deep, and the deepest mine, Suncun in Shandong Province, has reached a depth of 1,500 meters.
    Coal mining in China falls by an average of 8-12 meters annually.
    In Eastern, Central and Northeastern China, the depth increases by 10-25 meters per year.
    Such data is provided by the China Coal News newspaper.
    That is, the intensive introduction of renewable energy in China does not come from a desire to reduce the carbon footprint, save the planet and other “green” and climate myths. The Chinese energy industry is in full swing in the most acute structural crisis of the shortage of the main source of Chinese prosperity in recent decades — thermal coal. And without cheap coal, all these industrial wonders, giant factories and other energy-intensive services will collapse very quickly. Just as fast as in Europe.
    Per year in China
    https://t.me/topinfographic/4761

    Reply
    1. Opritov Alexander

       08/09/2026

       More than 10 thousand are produced in China per year. TWh of electricity, and about half of this demand is covered by coal. And as coal is exhausted due to its physical shortage, it will need to be replaced with something. To produce this amount of electricity, it will be necessary to increase the fleet of nuclear power plants 20-30 times, and 60 nuclear power plant reactors are already operating in China. Well, either find free 1-1.5 trillion cubic meters of natural gas per year and build several hundred brand-new thermal power plants.
       In general, the problem of potential shortage of electricity for the growing demand (including from electric vehicles, data centers) is acute in many countries of the world, in China, in the USA, in Europe, and even in Russia. And its solutions are not trivial. Therefore, it will not work to take and replace liters of gasoline kWh from the outlet with a wave of a magic wand.

    2. Sheng Wu

       08/10/2026

       The deepening coal production in China is like the deepening of shale oil and gas in US, i.e. Permian–>Woodford, Barnett; and Haynesville —> Western Hayneville.
       With new technology and reach of power, they could produce more from remote but shallow places, i.e. the ultra-high voltage transfer technology enable China to produce and transfer electricity from coal-thermal power plants in Xinjiang with local vast amount of untapped surface coal mines;
       US could produce deeper and deeper waters in remote waters of GOA or Alaska.

       In the past 2 decades, while the western world wasted all money for some fancy suicidal decarbonization policy; China invested significantly to more the dirty coal/carbon more efficient, and more value.
       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvYBvlnFI2o

    3. THC

       08/15/2026

       SW,

       “while the western world wasted all money for some fancy suicidal decarbonization policy; China invested significantly to more the dirty coal/carbon more efficient, and more value”

       Key phrase: “fancy suicidal decarbonization policy”

       Is this truly being done due to “accidentally” mistaken views, or are we witnessing a long-term plan involving the controlled demolition of the Western Global Order?

       I notice that China is also BY FAR the leader in building new nuclear power plants.

    4. Nick G

       08/16/2026

       THC,

       China is the world’s leader in investing in and implementing a transition away from fossil fuels.
       China may be the leader in nuclear, but they’re building far more solar and wind – at least 5x as much (25x as much before adjusting for capacity factor).

       Even France is investing far more in solar and wind than in nuclear (just 1 nuclear plant in the last 25 years).

       China prides itself on it’s technocratic approach to governance – if you think they’re a reputable source of information on energy, then you should be all in on the transition.

       And let’s be clear: the idea that climate change mitigation is “the boy who cried wolf” is very much a fringe idea these days. The idea that it’s a conspiracy of some sort is just… bonkers.

    5. Iron Mike

       08/16/2026

       Nick G,

       If China’s energy policies are so great why don’t you go live there and that way you can lower your carbon footprint and actually make a difference, instead of repeating groundhog day mantras on this forum which isn’t going to make a diddly squat difference to anything other than create arguments which ironically is a waste of energy.

    6. Nick G

       08/16/2026

       Iron Mike,

       Well, it’s because I care about my country. And, what the hell, I’ll admit it: I care about how the rest of the world is doing, too.

       Let me ask: why do you care about the stuff I say?

       I should say that I don’t comment here to try to trigger oil folks. I don’t want to “own” anybody. But, I feel it’s important to correct misinformation about renewables, etc. That’s all it’s about.

       I try not to respond to everything that, ideally, would be corrected. For instance, when someone just says something boosterish about how much FF there is in the world…

    7. Nick G

       08/16/2026

       IM,

       Actually, partly its just the process: I like reading ideas, researching new ones, fine tuning old ones, putting ideas into writing, editing that writing, debating ideas, etc.

       OTOH, I do think what we say here makes a difference. People “lurk” here and read stuff, and both they and active contributors do take away ideas, even if they don’t make a big deal about it. Ideas can travel surprisingly quickly…

11. DC

    08/09/2026

    The transition from fossil fuel to non-fossil fuel will not be easy and it will not be fast, there is time as long as we start now with some urgency. See energy transition scenario in chart linked below based on rates of increase for non fossil fuel and total energy consumption growth from 2015 to 2025 extrapolated to 2083.

    energy transition 2608

    Reply
    1. Nick G

       08/09/2026

       Dennis,

       What numbers did you use? It looks like there were 4: two base numbers and the %increase of each.

       I think that this analysis is misleading because nuclear and hydro are weighing down the exponential increase of wind & solar. if you break out solar and wind (so that you have 3 components to “non-FF”) you’ll get a very different result…

    2. THC

       08/10/2026

       *They* have been telling us for a while now that there are too many of us on the planet, and that the majority of us are not going to make the cut.

       *They* hope that it can be done in “a civil way,” or “a *special* way”……..

       I wonder what sort of *special* means of depopulation they have in mind.

       ~~~~~~

       Dennis Meadows Club of Rome Depopulation in a Civil Manner Hopefully

       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOal7g5fqnU

    3. THC

       08/10/2026

       **Georgia Guidestones (anonymous monument, Elberton, Georgia, 1980)**

       Inscription: “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”

       At the time of erection (!), world population was about 4.5 billion, so this implied a ~90% reduction.

       **Ted Turner**

       “The world’s population should be about two billion, and we’ve got about six billion now”

       **Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh**

       In a 1988 Deutsche Presse-Agentur interview: “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation.”

       **Dr. Eric Pianka**

       Carrying capacity = 2 billion?

       2006 presenation at the 109th meeting of the Texas Academy of Science March 2-4

       Transcript:

       https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_depopu109.htm

       “Dennis Meadows…..estimated that we crossed the maximum number of humans the earth could support back about 1978. But up until then we could have eased into a sustainable world, but now we’re 20% above.

       …..We could not have reached six and a half billion if it weren’t for fossil fuels, to do agriculture and feed the hordes of humans around the earth. And the fossil fuels are running out. So I think we might have to cut back to, say, two billion”

       “after the human population collapses, there’s going to be a lot fewer of us. Food’s going to be diminished. Pollution’s going to go down, which will be good. But there’s not going to be much to recover from. Our descendants are going to curse us for the party we took, the party we had, and I really recommend **Richard Heinberg**’s book the Party’s Over: Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Societies. This man has thought about these things deeply.

       The End of Oil is good, too. But it’s not anywhere as good as the Party’s Over.”

    4. DC

       08/10/2026

       Nick G,

       The analysis may be conservative, but assuming wind and solar can continue to grow at the recent (past 10 year) rate would undoubtedly be optimistic. Oil and natural gas consumption grew at an average annual rate of about 7% per year from 1945 to 1975. That number could be used instead of the 3.2% annual growth rate I used for non-fossil fuel and perhaps that would be realistic. The analysis was a simplified back of envelope type. Any scenario of the future is 100% certain to be incorrect, so do we know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Probably not.

    5. DC

       08/10/2026

       A more optimistic energy transition with wind and solar consumption growing at 7% per year after 2030 with growth slowing from the 16% rate in 2015-2025 to 7% in 2031. Fossil fuel consumption peaks in 2055 in this scenario. Chart at link below.

       energy transition optimistic

    6. LeeG

       08/10/2026

       DC, seems to me that the non-fossil energy growth that has climbed with fossil growth will plateau far below a hypothetical crossover point because there won’t be enough energy to run the system and rebuild the system at the same time. HomoSaps will manage with less energy because there will be less energy.

    7. DC

       08/10/2026

       Kolbeinth,

       You make a very good point about fossil fuel energy which I did not include in my analysis. A unit of fossil fuel energy often results in energy losses on the order of 30 to 40% in terms of useful work done by a heat engine. Typically wind and solar energy have very low losses on the order of 5 to 10%. An alternative way to do the analysis is using exergy rather than energy (where we deduct the heat losses where the heat is simply waste heat as in an ICEV during summer weather.).

       On that basis the 530 EJ of fossil fuel energy consumed in 2025 might be only 371 EJ of Energy assuming average waste heat of about 30% for all fossil fuel use (this is a WAG). On that basis and assuming losses of only 10% for wind and solar we would need far less total energy. There may be some cases where fossil fuel must be utilized, though future technology might eliminate those needs, difficult to anticipate the technological changes of the next 50 to 100 years.

       Also note I have not included the likely demographic transition where World population gradually falls to a more manageable level of 1 to 2 billion over the next 200 years as family size continues to fall with better education for women. This will also reduce energy requirements as will heat pumps, and better energy efficiency. Lots of possibilities.

    8. Nick G

       08/10/2026

       Hi Dennis,

       The thing is: the 7% figure tells us how quickly demand grew, not how quickly supply grew – supply was limited by the TRRC, not by any kind of geological or engineering limit. And I think we’re more concerned about supply limits.

       I think it’s clear that we can continue to grow solar to any level we might want, and at a rate well above 7% The OOIP for solar is 180,000 TW, about 10,000x as large as current human power consumption. Wind isn’t quite as scalable, but the limits are well above where we are now.

       The latest chart could be described as Net-zero in 2085. China is planning for net-zero in 2060, and we should note that China is very careful about its public energy goals, and so far they’ve exceeded their goals. The fact that new-light-vehicle sales in China are 62% EV and rising says a lot.

       Really, the limit is political: how much are we willing to internalize the costs of security and pollution? How much are we willing to make obsolete current FF infrastructure, before its natural depreciation schedule? How much are we willing to turn much of the FF industry’s reserves into stranded assets?

       Will the FF and allied industries manage to prevent hard-headed analysis, and continue to spread the unrealistic propaganda we’re seeing from the current president?

    9. Nick G

       08/10/2026

       “ There may be some cases where fossil fuel must be utilized,”

       Well, FF is just another hydrocarbon. At the moment it’s relatively cheap, as long as you ignore all of the external costs.

       “ future technology might eliminate those need”

       We have the technology – we can make concrete, steel, fertilizer, etc, without FF. We can power aviation with synthetic jet fuel. At the moment these are significant niches where renewable electricity isn’t price competitive with FF, as long as you don’t include FF’s external costs. Improved engineering and manufacturing efficiencies may change that (solar is the poster child for that!), or we may have to wait until the politics changes and we internalize the costs of security and pollution.

    10. DC

        08/10/2026

        Nick,

        I just picked a number that the World has accomplished in the past, it is not a small matter for something to grow at a 7% annual rate for 40 years or more. For the past 10 years wind and solar output combined have grown at about a 16% annual rate, it is doubtful that such a rate of growth can continue indefinitely so I used 16, 14, 12 10, 8, and then 7% from 2031 to 2083. Nobody knows what the future will bring, certainly not you or me.

12. Hickory

    08/10/2026

    THC- Contraction of the population is a highly likely outcome one way or another.
    Sometimes it has happened from famine or drought, Sometimes by war,
    and sometimes by plague.
    Sometimes by poverty, or natural disaster.
    And sometimes by ‘ethnic cleansing’.

    I do buy into the concept that 8.3 B is many billions too many for this finite world.
    And I do hope the contraction happens gradually.
    Having no or fewer children is a good start,
    and allowing people to chose dying as a basic human right (without restriction and for any reason) would be an act of kindness we should extend to all.
    So, I guess you may call me ‘they’.

    Reply
    1. THC

       08/10/2026

       Hi Hickory,

       Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

       Quick note — I may sound like a guy with a huge carbon footprint, but I likely have one of the smallest among the few posters here. I have not had a personal vehicle (ICE or electric) or even a driver’s license for over 20 years. I mostly walk, take the train, and use taxis for short and quick trips when in a hurry.

       Re population: One of the many issues is I wonder how many people are really on this planet right now? Are the population statistics from China, India, Africa, and many other places in the world real?

       My gut feeling is we have gone too far with the hydrocarbons and are in some sort of overshoot situation. I doubt it will be pleasant when this reverses itself, and I likely am more skeptical of the renewables than many here.

       I was at the beach the other day (Japan), and gazed at these HUGE wind turbines sitting on a nearby island. GIANT structures. No movement at all………maybe a slow wind day but…..not good…..

       Oh, and don’t worry, you are not one of them. We have all read books by some of their think tanks, but unless you have been invited to Bohemian Grove, Bilderberg, high level WEF meetings (not the public briefings), Peter Thiel’s group (forget them name), etc. and socialize with those people, you are not “them.”

    2. Hickory

       08/11/2026

       You went off topic, but in reply I will point out that wind turbines are often at a standstill-
       ‘The global capacity factor for utility-scale wind energy typically ranges between 25% and 50%.’
       and in the US averaging 38%.
       Nonetheless when placed in areas with a good wind resource they do well for those regions, such as Iowa with 64% of total annual electricity coming from wind. And they could add lots more if they decide it would be necessary/useful.
       Part of the energy mosaic.
       Sometimes the wind doesn’t blow, and sometimes the oil well runs dry, sometimes the nuclear fission plant fuel rods need to be replaced (about every 18 months for 6 weeks turnaround in general), and sometimes nations cut down all of their trees.

    3. THC

       08/11/2026

       Hi Hickory,

       The intermittency of wind/solar seems like a major issue if wind/solar is expected to replace hydrocarbons as the core supply for societal energy demands.

       Wind supplies over 60% of Iowa’s electricity (and about 10% of Iowa’s total energy).

       However, less than 1% of Iowa’s wind supply has battery back-up.

       How does Iowa compensate for the intermittency of wind?

       1. Iowa is plugged into MISO (15 states + Manitoba) and is able to export and import electricity as needed.

       2. Iowa balances wind with coal and natural gas.

       Iowa on an annual basis is a net electricity exporter, but on an houry/real-time basis, regularly imports electicity to compensant for drops in wind supplied electricity.

       ~~~~~~

       Let’s look at the role of solar/wind in the larger grid (MISO) that Iowa is pluged into and depends on.

       https://www.potomaceconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/2024-MISO-SOM_Report_Body_Final.pdf

       Page 21

       Share of MISO Load Served by Wind and Solar Generation: Avg. 17.4% in 2024

    4. Hickory

       08/11/2026

       THC- Its an open question as to how much intermittent sources can contribute to an areas total, energy, with a lot of regional variables. We’ll see over time. Some places are more fortunate than others, of course.
       The utilities are driving the train on the choices, and they have expertise and a lot of ‘skin in the game’.

       Realize that imported oil, nat gas, and coal are also intermittent sources of energy.

13. DC

    08/10/2026

    A comparison of the EIA’s 914 estimate for New Mexico with the data from the New Mexico OCD in chart linked below. It seems likely the New Mexico data may be gradually revised higher as it becomes more complete for the period from Jan 2025 to May 2026. Units for the chart below are kb/d and this is for C+C output in New Mexico.

    nm ocd v 914

    Reply
    1. Ovi

       08/11/2026

       Dennis

       Great that the charts show up. Much better

       Attached is the NM chart posted above with the projection. The projection and the EIA data are sitting on top of each other. Only 5 kb/d difference.

       A NM

    2. DC

       08/11/2026

       Ovi,

       Interesting how closely your projection agreed with EIA. Note that a larger image appears by clicking on image.

    3. Ovi

       08/11/2026

       The original is in the post.

14. DC

    08/10/2026

    Interesting piece linked below claiming traffic through Hormuz need to increase by 10x to stabilize oil market, otherwise oil prices will rise. This seems about right to me.

    https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/BofA-Hormuz-Needs-10-Times-More-Ships-to-Stabilize-Oil-Markets.html

    Reply
    1. THC

       08/10/2026

       Hi DC,

       It is *astounding* that somehow the oil price has magically stayed well below $100 in the middle of this nutty situation.

15. THC

    08/10/2026

    Trump Faces Growing Pressure to Restrict U.S. Oil Exports

    “The U.S. oil industry got a scare last week. News reports claimed that the Trump administration may be considering an export ban on crude oil and refined petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel in order to bring those prices down—prices which have been elevated considerably by the reduction of oil supplies worldwide in the wake of the Iran war. But a Trump administration spokesperson said the administration has no plans to ban exports of oil or natural gas products.”

    https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Trump-Faces-Growing-Pressure-to-Restrict-US-Oil-Exports.html

    Reply
16. Hickory

    08/11/2026

    I wonder if Iran will bring an Ecuadorean flagged fishing trawler within range of the Texas and Louisiana coast?

    “A Shahed-136 kamikaze drone can fly an operational range of approximately 2,000 to 2,500 kilometers (1,200 to 1,600 miles), while newer upgraded variants like the Shahed-136B claim a reach of up to 4,000 kilometers (2,485 miles)”

    500 miles due west of Nicaragua is 1200 miles from the Houston ship channel, Corpus Christi and Cameron Parish.

    Don’t be surprised if someone pulls off a false flag operation. Including mister trustworthy himself, with a US domestic asset as a target. I wouldn’t put anything past him. And he has been granted immunity by the Supreme Court…brilliant.

    Reply
17. Carnot

    08/11/2026

    Hideaway,

    Good to see your still active and fighting your beliefs which, incidentally, I fully agree with you. I have kept out of the political discussions. Nick G still thinks he is the super sage of ruinables and thinks that anyone who does not agree with his polemic views is an idiot.

    Reply
    1. Hideaway

       08/12/2026

       Thanks Carnot,

       The simple reality of the statement often made here and elsewhere which I keep proving is wrong, is how solar and battery back-up is the cheapest form of electricity.

       If it was close to real then every Aluminium smelter would go off-grid, to avoid grid costs, and use their own solar and batteries to smelt aluminium. It would be to their economic advantage to do so, and way more profitable than expensive fossil fuel powered electricity production. Afterall Aluminium is often called congealed electricity for a very good reason..

       By the very fact that no-one anywhere in the world has built a new Aluminium smelter off-grid, nor take an on grid smelter off grid to run on their own “cheaper” power, by itself tells everyone that the “story” is not accurate.

       An aspect I’ve noticed about all the solar and wind talk is how many homes they can power. It’s never, ever about how it can power continuous industrial applications, which is what modern civilization runs on.

    2. Nick G

       08/12/2026

       Nah. Solar (and wind) are newer, so they’re still catching up in installed scale*.

       Just as importantly, why would smelters want to go off-grid? There are a lot of advantages to being part of a grid**, and smelters are big enough to get special price arrangements that can capture the cost benefits of local solar, or hydro or geothermal, whichever’s cheapest.
       ———————————
       *As opposed to scale of new installations, where solar and wind clearly dominate.

       ** These include diversity of supply, which greatly reduces supply variance (regardless of whether it includes FF), and scale, which also greatly reduces supply variance. Please note that variance is a basic challenge in grid management that is inherent in both demand and all supply sources, and it’s not that big of a deal for a large grid to manage – certainly not the deal breaker for wind & solar that FF advocates suggest.

    3. Hickory

       08/15/2026

       Hideaway-
       Now that you/Australia has seen what can happen with energy importation disruptions, have you changed your views on the best energy development pathway for Australia?
       Thanks.

18. Carnot

    08/11/2026

    There is a new posting on Oilystuff called hydroprocessing. This covers hydrotreating and hydrocracking of refinery streams.

    https://www.oilystuff.com/group/oil-natural-gas-refining-stuff/discussion

    Reply
    1. Sheng Wu

       08/11/2026

       jet fuel needs (saturated) cyclic hydrocarbons, which gives high freezing point and high flash point, these needs “rare earth crude” which has higher cyclic HCs to start with, and Hydrotreating and Hydrocracking could not increase efficiently.

       The WCS marine source biodegraded crude does not have as high cyclic HCs as hypersaline lacustrine sourced crude, i.e. Venezuela and CHina Bohai. This might be part of the reason US refiners still dream of Venezuela crude, and now realizing record high margins, while China closing in US in jet fuel production before the Venezuela invasion — see my linkedin post.
       https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/orinoco-oil-rare-earth-crude-sheng-wu-eta1c

       Also, the hypersaline lacustrine sourced shale oil, did not experience biodegradation, also have higher amount of wax (higher carbon number >16~30 HCs chains), and they have higher yield in diesel as well with hydrocracking.

       Regular marine crude has higher lighter HCs, and better for gasoline with simple refinery — easiest to refine.

    2. Sheng Wu

       08/11/2026

       the major challenge in jet fuel is higher freezing point and yet higher flashing point — two controversial requirements.
       The Koch brothers started with California hypersaline crude refinery expertise and found ways to improve the recovery/separation of the jet fuel. They then went to Soviets to build similar refineries, got paid tons of gold bars during the Great Depression.
       In WWII before 1944, the Luftwaffe usually have upper hand during spring-summer-autumn, but lost half or more capability during the winter, that’s the fuel cause in the air.

19. DC

    08/11/2026

    US tight oil increased at an average annual rate of 109 kb/d for the past 24 months (using OLS trend line) and by 46 kb/d for the annual rate of increase over the past 12 months (also using OLS).

    The August STEO came out today and they have US L48 excluding GOM increasing at an annual rate of 505 kb/d over the Aug 2026 to July 2027 period, or roughly 10 times higher than the tight oil increase of the previous 12 months, optimistic is an understatement for how I would characterize this forecast.

    Reply
    1. DC

       08/11/2026

       US tight oil chart, click on chart for larger image. vertical scale is logarithmic.

       Also note there are now two comment add plugins, only the second works for me, I have left both so that old charts do not disappear.

       

20. DC

    08/11/2026

    We seem to have lost the ability to post charts in the comments. Will try to fix.

    Unable to fix so far sorry.

    Reply
    1. gerryf

       08/11/2026

       I notice that previous chart links are now displaying inline. Maybe related.

    2. DC

       08/11/2026

       Gerry,

       That was a change while trying to fix problem, so not related.

    3. DC

       08/11/2026

       Problem with charts fixed sort of, only second (bottom “image” plugin works properly, first has been left active so old charts remain.)

    4. gerryf

       08/11/2026

       Your ‘US Tight Oil’ chart above looks normal.

       But if I scroll up, the charts are all G-I-A-N-T size.

    5. DC

       08/11/2026

       Gerryf,

       Yes I think that is why I used the links before, the plugin seems to give inconsistent results with different browsers.

       Changed back to links for first plugin.

21. THC

    08/11/2026

    Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) below 298.7 million barrels

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

    Reply
22. Hickory

    08/11/2026

    From Rystad-
    -China is the only country running large-scale coal-to-gas production, with capacity set to nearly triple from 9.4 Bcm this year to 28 Bcm by 2030.
    -Cheap mine-mouth coal in Xinjiang is producing gas for $9.1 to $9.6 per MMBtu, generally undercutting China’s average LNG import price.
    -Rystad says LNG exporters from Australia to Qatar to the US need to model coal-to-gas as a structural dampener on China’s import demand, not a footnote.

    “China’s coal-to-gas program is a direct expression of its energy security doctrine.”

    https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Chinas-Coal-to-Gas-Industry-Set-to-Triple-by-2030-Rystad-Says.html

    Reply
    1. Sheng Wu

       08/12/2026

       the coal to gas plants in mine-mouth coal in Xinjiang should not be compared to LNG price, but rather local pipeline gas, produced from Southern Xinjiang gas field, or transported from Central Asia, which runs about 50BCM per year.

    2. Hickory

       08/12/2026

       Why? Do they not have pipeline capacity from the production region to other locations in China where the nat gas may be consumed?

    3. Sheng Wu

       08/12/2026

       the Xinjiang and Central Asia conventional gas supply already fill up the pipeline, and if the Coal-to-Gas cost is already as high as LNG, then they will not be able to get any profit pipping out.

       OTOH, China has very large and now competitive coal-to-liquid/urea projects, which could compete with natural gas in urea, Monoethylene glycol (MEG) etc.

23. Andre The Giant

    08/12/2026

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

    Israel scheming with Saudi Arabia to build a pipeline into the meditteranean sea.

    Israel has the Leviathon gas field and there is a big gas field in Lebanon.

    I wonder why everyone has wanted to get into Syria???

    Reply
    1. Nick G

       08/12/2026

       I think the answer to your question is that 1) Israel’s offshore gas is relatively new, and 2) the primary customer for the ME was, for a very long time, Europe, so getting things through Syria (and Israel and Palestine before it) was the priority.

    2. Andre The Giant

       08/12/2026

       Agreed.

       I forgot my /sarc tag.

       Syria was a way to bypass SOH

24. Sheng Wu

    08/12/2026

    it is amazing that a professional’s view of shale could be altered dramatically, here is a view of Haynesville 15 years ago (2011), where Ted Pazek of BEG was very optimistic.
    https://youtu.be/cLMa3E1HI5U?si=-6BK0Lcb2RtVmhqa&t=145

    Reply
    1. DC

       08/13/2026

       Sheng Wu,

       More recent analysis (June 2021) by Patzek at link below

       https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187551002100247X

       About 44 to 96 TCF forecast from Haynesville based on the analysis, including refracting of older wells. A reasonable guess would be 70 TCF with about 30 TCF from wells completed as of May 2021. Chart below from paper linked above

       

    2. Sheng Wu

       08/13/2026

       Yes, DC,
       it is a little more than 5 years from Jan. 2021 when they submitted the paper.

       According to the current production data we are deviating from the group’s most optimistic Brown (Base+core+noncore) line in the upper more optimistic direction?

       It seems that his group did not underestimate the core EUR much, but probably failed to include:
       1. ever-longer laterals and lowering cost, even for the >~12Kft deep shale formations
       2. at the same time, stable EUR per foot, or slight improvements, compared to shale oil’s deteriorating EUR per foot as they drill more and longer.
       3. stronger economics realized as US LNG export boom

       for the EUR references, I am using Mire’s work, which updated till 2023, and already outpacing Patzek most optimistic forecast,

       https://mirepetroleumconsultants.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/MPC-2023-Haynesville-Shale-Report.pdf

       not the distorted EUR by Art Berman,

       https://www.artberman.com/blog/draining-america-first-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-shale-gas/

       A side note, I am looking at Marcellus in Ohio, and they are seriously getting more liquids out, as validated by the record long laterals there, all close to the Ohio-WV border. In the shallowest part of Marcellus, Ohio, at just above 5kft TVD, and less than 30ft of high TOC (>10%) black shale, they could now produce even black oil at good rate. This is different from Barnett, where beyond wet gas, the production rate drops rather fast, and at shallow blocks ~7kft, virtually no production demonstrated. This is part of the reason that the mainstream formulated “no shale oil, just shale gas” conventional wisdom.
       This is further used to set the forbidden Bakken Shale Oil — no drilling in the high TOC Bakken shale.

       In WV-OHIO Marcellus, a 20K ft lateral could be finished in just 5 days, and completion probably only 1/2 of the time as in Permian.

    3. DC

       08/13/2026

       The Patzek paper (revised paper received in May 2021) considered a completion scenario of 20 wells per month from 2020 to 2023 and 40 wells per month from 2023 to 2033, future rates of completion cannot be predicted accurately. The analysis considered geologic potential which matches data through 2020 very closely. Through June 2026 about 51.5 TCF of shale gas has been extracted from the Haynesville Formation out of a potential for 96 TCF (including refracks) at most, a more realistic estimate would be about 70 to 80 TCF as it is unlikely the non-core areas will be developed as extensively as predicted by Patzek.

       Haynesville would be beyond its peak if peak occurs at 48 TCF which is half of the higher Patzek scenario of 96 TCF for Haynesville. So far the peak in Haynesvill output was 15.3 BCF/d in May 2023 when cumulative output was 35.8 TCF which points to a URR about 72 TCF.

       The EIA estimates the average completion rate in the Haynesville at 44.6 wells per month from Jan 2020 to July 2026 with recent completion rates at about 57 wells per month over the past 12 months.

       We will have to wait and see how things play out.

       Side note: Marcellus cumulative is about 107.5 TCF, Recent Patsek forecast (2024) is about 178 TCF for Marcellus URR, if peak is at 50% of URR this suggests 89 TCF which the Marcellus reached for cumulative production in Sept 2024. Peak so far was Dec 2023 when cumulative output was 82 TCF, implied URR is 164 TCF.

       Patzek paper at link below.

       https://repository.kaust.edu.sa/server/api/core/bitstreams/cac2ff2d-bae2-4f6d-9596-00a1cdd0cc76/content

    4. Sheng Wu

       08/13/2026

       DC,

       A new peak rate has most likely been set in Haynesville, not the 18BCFPD that I quoted from the API link, but they now quoting 16.6BCFPD which was forecasted to arrive 2~3 years later. Even deduct Western Haynesville’s 0.5BCFPD, which only emerged after ~2023, it is another new peak rate for legacy Haynesville.

       https://www.oilpriceapi.com/basins/haynesville

       for sure, the laterals drilled and completed each month is obviously higher than Patzek predicted, and so expect much higher new peak rate to arrive soon?
       18BCFPD could be within reach this year with 66 wells per month TIL, total 250 wells, and each producing 30MCFPD, that’s +7.5BCFPD. With legacy decline at ~6.2BCFPD, that’s a net addition of 1.3BCFPD. At the end of 2026, over 53TCF should already been produced in legacy Eastern Haynesville.

    5. DC

       08/14/2026

       Sheng Wu,

       See link below for shale gas output

       https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/xls/Fig43.xlsx

       In May 2023 output was 15.3 BCF/d and in July 2026 output was 14.2 BCF/d. There are only so many viable locations in the Haynesville, core areas are probably very close to being fully drilled and non-core areas will have lower EUR per well so productivity for the average well per foot of lateral is likely decreasing.

    6. Sheng Wu

       08/15/2026

       DC,
       The api link above I gave is indeed fishy, and I don’t give it much confidence.
       But the trend is there and same as EIA table you give, which is not up to date like this week in August.

       Agree that the drilling locations will be limited, but if they could lower the cost for drilling and completion, and with improving wellhead prices, the drillable locations will improve as long as they could maintain or just slightly improve EUR per foot.
       It is like SW Marcellus, where the cost is really low , and getting lower with longer laterals, and more liquid rich blocks could be developed and we see a steady up trend in gas production as well, as compared to NE Marcellus.

    7. DC

       08/15/2026

       A scenario for US Shale Gas with URR of 1000 TCF, peak in 2029 with cumulative output at 500 TCF. See chart linked below

       

    8. Hickory

       08/15/2026

       I hope countries that import US lng have plans to find some other source of energy in the next 5-10 years.

    9. DC

       08/15/2026

       Scenario for US non-shale marketed (wet) natural gas, URR is 1450 TCF with cumulative production through Dec 2025 at 1274 TCF, chart below, click on chart for larger view.

       

    10. DC

        08/15/2026

        For US natural gas we add the previous two scenarios together, peak in 2026 URR is 2450 TCF, cumulative production at the end of 2025 is 1642 TCF. click on chart below for larger view.

        

    11. DC

        08/15/2026

        Sheng Wu,

        The August estimate is a forecast from the Short Term Energy outlook and is for the Haynesville region (including conventional natural gas output from that region.) There is no place where we have real time data for oil and natural gas production, it is always 1 to 2 months behind and even that data is generally an estimate as state data is incomplete for 6 to 18 months (it varies from state to state). Nobody has accurate data for August. The Haynesville is not likely to see productivity per foot of lateral increasing as core areas run out of space for new wells and most new wells in the future will be completed in non-core areas with lower average productivity per foot of lateral. Perhaps high natural gas prices will allow more drilling, but if US natural gas prices rise, then LNG from the US will become more expensive and won’t be able to compete on the World market and coal, wind and solar will take market share from natural gas in electricity markets. If that occurs demand for natural gas will fall along with HH natural gas price, then there is little incentive to drill Haynesville wells in non-core areas.

        Bottom line, there will be far fewer profitable well locations in the Haynesville than you surmise. The same type of analysis applies in the Marcellus and Utica/Point Pleasant.

    12. Sheng Wu

        08/15/2026

        Hickory,

        Rumors say Russia still hope to reopen the pipeline to EU.
        Consider this: all the oil and gas pipelines from Russia to EU were built during the peak of cold war, and with crisis one after another and industrialization picking up FF use rapidly, the US were left with no choice but to grab whatever possible, and leaving EU and Japan to get whatever resources even from USSR.

        The major reason that Ukraine war started is because US wants EU and East Asia to buy US gas and oil, taking over Venezuela and Iran oil is one step to further strengthen the monopoly built after shale revolution success.

        In 1977, CHina had a major discovery of a huge oil field near Beijing, Renqiu, where the new capital district will be, they drilled 14 wells in less than 1 year and achieved 0.5MBOPD with each well producing more than 35KBOPD Low GOR (50scf/bbl) &API (23deg) sweet oil, and Bush Senior, who was a communication officer (act as Ambassador) in Beijing, and he immediately telegram Washington that US should consider import from CHina, because therewere geological potential to find half a dozen more there. Unfortunately, there was not a second Reqiu, and the field reached its peak in 1 year, and quickly start dropping 20% each year while oil price also dropped from peak of $15 to $5. This created a huge inflation in China as all the national budget was planned as 2 more fields will be discovered, and the peak of each field should last at least 5 years.

25. Ovi

    08/12/2026

    SPR Below 300 M Barrels

    At 298 Mbs, it is slightly more than 100 Mbs than 1 yr ago.

    A Res

    Reply
    1. DC

       08/13/2026

       Ovi,

       Since April 3, 2026 the SPR has dropped by about 114 MMb an average rate of about 6.6 MMb per week. If that rate of draw continues for the next 7 weeks the SPR reaches about 252 MMb which is close to the level that the US military considers a minimum acceptable level.

26. Andre The Giant

    08/12/2026

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOZ_f6j352k

    Lots of energy and resource talk.

    worth the 1 hour watch ( the first 20 minutes at a minimum )

    Col Douglas McGregor (who worked for Trump)

    1) All major chokepoints in the world are now unreliable (that would include chokepoints that transport CPU chips)

    2) We are swimming in a pond full of Black Swans

    3) The US Military needed 10 years to prepare for a war with Iran

    4) We are heading for a severe depression by the end of the year.

    5)The days of the USA Navy policing the worlds chokepoints is over. The rest of the world will have to do it.

    6) The US Military has been designed for winning by quick overwhelming force.

    There is no long term “surge capacity”

    7) Iran is fighting an existential threat, the USA is not.

    USA Military members are fed up and may revolt

    Reply
    1. Nick G

       08/12/2026

       Boy, oh boy. Remember 2 weeks before the most recent oil war started, when I said that the Strait has been, for a very long time, a good reason for consumers to diversify beyond FF?

       That wasn’t psychic, it was something everyone has known, well, forever. Frustrating that we’ve done so little to kick the FF habit. Of course, it hasn’t helped that politics has been dominated by the oil industry’s money for 75 years.

    2. Nick G

       08/12/2026

       Oil war, 1990 version:

       

    3. Andre The Giant

       08/13/2026

       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Aa1YPkA5VI

       US Sailors on USS Abraham jumping overboard from burnout

    4. Hickory

       08/14/2026

       Iran is not fighting an existential threat.
       Only their current government is, not their general population or sovereignty.

    5. Nick G

       08/14/2026

       Hickory,

       I think you’ll get some disagreement there in Iran.

       No question that the current Iranian regime doesn’t have a clear mandate from its population. There are a lot of people, particularly younger people, who fervently want a better, more modern government, and who don’t have direct experience with the US’ bad behavior in the 20th century.

       But, the US does have a terrible history. It invaded Iran in 1954 to terminate a budding democracy. It has invaded the countries on both its eastern and western borders: Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Iraqi invasion was pretty close to illegal. The US had a good treaty with Iran for nuclear control, and this president arbitrarily ended it and has illegally attacked Iran several times since, including the current insane war.

       This war is quickly turning the Iranian people against the US.

    6. Andre The Giant

       08/14/2026

       Trump has threatened to blow up their power plants, take their oil, desalination plants and other critical infrastructure.

       Israel is facing an existential threat (Turkey and Iran).

       Israel has nukes and proven they can penetrate Iran’s air defenses.

       Iran won’t go extinct but very motivating and a reason to fight (existential?)

       Unlike US soldiers and the world minus Israel who are baffled as to why USA started and continues this?

       Ghislane Maxwell’s father worked for Israel’s Mossad. Trump has floated the idea of pardoning her.

       Hmmmm……

27. TYS

    08/13/2026

    I do feel sorry for people who still think that we can now stop climate change.

    https://climateandeconomy.com/2026/08/13/13th-august-2026-todays-round-up-of-climate-news/

    The horrific floods, droughts and fires we have seen increase over the last few years are not going to stop if we reduce CO2 emissions.

    The global energy imbalance today is due to the gasses in the atmosphere today. It is also due to the trillion plus trees lost that are no longer converting sunlight into wood and fruit and nuts. A trillion trees no longer tapping into the ground water, each tree evaporating up to a four hundred gallons of water each day. The cooling effect of this evaporation cut down and burnt.

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-a-record-high-energy-imbalance-is-driving-global-warming

    Next year there will be another 15 billion trees cut down and almost as many incinerated in fires.

    The soil which holds excess rain is being washed and blown away at a rate of 35 billion tonnes per year.

    Soil, trees, permafrost, aquifers all act as buffers and stabilisers and they are being destroyed.

    Generally the people who still hope these things can be reversed have zero idea of the resources needed to reverse aquifer depletion, deforestation and soil erosion.

    Reply
    1. Kevin

       08/13/2026

       Agreed. I also feel sorry for all the people that think we’re going to switch from FF to Renewables. Renewables are just a more efficient way to consume FF. And unfortunately and counterintuitively the efficiency is killing us. If we truly wanted to reduce consuming FF, we need to make them much LESS efficient, which would mean building less, not more, renewables. But then we think, PROFITS and try to be more efficient.

       Live Now and be kind!

    2. Sheng Wu

       08/13/2026

       https://lnkd.in/p/gR8ZgTes

       In China ancient history, there is an idiom for Alarmism racketeers, 杞人忧天, someone fear sky will fall tomorrow and then find evidence for this fear, and spread it as a cult. The western suicidal extremists are such a bunch of racketeers under the names of “science”, “green”,…. luckily, the sky will not fall, and they will suffer instead of others.

    3. TYS

       08/13/2026

       Zheng Wu

       We have an ancient saying in the west for someone who dismisses vast amounts of overwhelming evidence that is increasing with each year. It is.

       Whatever!

    4. Nick G

       08/13/2026

       “The horrific floods, droughts and fires we have seen increase over the last few years are not going to stop if we reduce CO2 emissions.”

       The overwhelming consensus in the scientific and engineering community is that reducing GHG emissions is essential to reducing the overall impact of climate change. It will be hard to prevent the harm that’s already baked in, but it can get much worse than that if we do nothing.

       Right?

    5. TYS

       08/14/2026

       Nick G

       In the few areas where forests still exist relatively untouched. Temperatures are consistently 5 to 10 degrees less than areas in the same latitude where forests have been destroyed.
       Do you know how much cooling occurs when one tonne of water evaporates?

       Do you know what the earth energy imbalance is?

       Do you know why despite over $2 trillion of investment in renewables, global oil and gas consumption increased and coal consumption is second highest ever.

       Do you know that due to the energy imbalance the global permafrost is melting and this is releasing vast quantities of methane and CO2. Twenty years ago we had a chance of stopping this tipping point. We are seeing the end game now.

       Even if we cut oil coal and gas consumption by half tomorrow we would still be adding to an already out of control situation.

       What chance will China and India will cut coal consumption from 6 billion tonnes to 3 in the next 4 years?

       Scientists have calculated that reversing deforestation, replanting exactly what has been destroyed would prevent climate catastrophe. However because fresh water is so depleted we would need to build desalination plants and considerable storage and distribution systems against the all to common droughts.

       Easy enough, just persuade India and Pakistan to dismantle their armed forces and use the $100 billion per year as above.

       Same with Russia, China, Iran, U.S and all the rest.

       Two trillion per year would just about do it. The other trillion to be spent on public transport and building lovely energy efficient buildings.

       Most people when they think about this a little will conclude that the chances of these things changing are zero.

       As Kevin says live now and be kind….

       We only answer for ourselves.

    6. Nick G

       08/14/2026

       TYS,

       You didn’t address my question.

       Let me restate it:

       The overwhelming consensus in the scientific and engineering community is that reducing GHG emissions is essential to reducing the overall impact of climate change. It will be hard to prevent the harm that’s already baked in, but it can get much worse than that if we do nothing. And, the benefit of GHG reductions (primarily from FF emissions) is proportional to the level of reduction. In other words, anything we do is helpful, and the more we do the better.

       For instance, they disagree that permafrost methane release constitutes a “tipping point”, as argued above: “ large-scale thawing of permafrost occurs gradually with increasing temperatures. “We don’t see a sudden tipping in our climate models,” says Victor Brovkin, researcher at MPI-M and lead author of the study”

       https://mpimet.mpg.de/en/communication/news/permafrost-thaw-gradual-change-or-climate-tipping-point

       Do you agree with the climatology profession, and the world scientific and engineering communities?

    7. Hickory

       08/15/2026

       TYS
       True (your initial statement)
       And that is why I think that some companies/government will embark on large scale attempts at geoengineering. Sulfur in the atmosphere and iron in ocean.
       I rank chance of successful management close to zero.

       https://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/technologies/stratospheric-aerosol-injection
       https://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/technologies/ocean-fertilisation

       Good website on this topic btw- https://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/

    8. Sheng Wu

       08/15/2026

       here is another left-over extremists’ news

       https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Ranked-How-Dirty-Are-the-Eight-Biggest-Names-in-AI.html

    9. THC

       08/15/2026

       SW,

       That’s a nice proverb (杞人忧天).

       “这则寓言通过杞人担忧天地崩坠的故事，嘲笑了那种整天怀着毫无必要的担心和无穷无尽的忧愁，既自扰又扰人的庸人，告诉人们不要毫无根据地忧虑和担心。”

       “This fable, through the story of the man of Qi who worried that the sky would fall and the earth would collapse, mocks those mediocre minds who spend their days consumed by needless anxiety and endless worry—troubling themselves and annoying others—and teaches people not to fret without any basis or reason.”

       We can go to MSM or alt-media, and we will find that most of the content is fear/worry inducing.

       Are we naturally attracted to fear or are there people who benefit from promoting fear?

28. Klim

    08/14/2026

    Sheng Wu

    I thought seppuku comes from East. LOL

    Reply
    1. Sheng Wu

       08/15/2026

       the seppuku practiced by Japan warriors after they are defeated, the western left-over extremists are preaching winners to commit suicide.

       Similar thing happened in CHina’s history nearly 2 thousand years ago, the East Han dynasty, where at the peak of civilization they preached for “progressive justice” even people today could not imagine and got earlier termination.

29. THC

    08/14/2026

    WILD GUESS

    Things will get picante in the crude markets when China starts issuing crude oil import licenses and refined product export licenses to its independent refiners in volume.

    No idea why they aren’t doing it now, but they are leaving a lot of money on the table, probably can’t wait forever.

    Reply
    1. Sheng Wu

       08/15/2026

       News say that China is restarting the crude purchase, and lots more from Russia now.

    2. THC

       08/15/2026

       SW,

       Thank you!

       It’s hard to know what is really happening in Ukraine/Russia, but it sounds like Russia may have lost a lot of refning capacity.

       Sending crude to China and buying back some of the refined products might make sense for them.

       Do you know if the Chinese gov’t has started issuing crude import and product export licenses to the teapot refineries?

30. Andre The Giant

    08/14/2026

    https://mishtalk.com/economics/trump-orders-the-navy-to-restore-steam-engine-tech-on-aircraft-carriers/

    Trump orders US Navy to return to steam engines over electromagnetic catapults.

    “President Trump has directed the Navy to tear out a complex system for launching jet fighters from its aircraft carriers and instead go back to using steam catapults, a move Navy officials have fought for years and will likely cost billions of dollars.

    U.S. officials say Trump signed a national security memorandum Thursday directing the change, which would involve removing the electromagnetic catapult system used by the ships in the Gerald R. Ford class of carriers.”

    Reply
    1. Andre The Giant

       08/15/2026

       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgS_PKV_q08

       5 minutes

       Trump doesnt like digital or electromagnetic.

       He says you have to be Einstein to figure it out

       (Truth Social is digital and if the electromagnetic system is working it’s been figured out)

       But he likes steam. Steam is easy to understand.

       China is putting electromagnetic catapults on their carriers.

31. Ovi

    08/14/2026

    Rig Report for the Week Ending August 14

    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 415 rigs/wk and 420 rigs/wk

    – Today WTI closed at $82.40/b, down from $84.67 last Friday.

    – US Hz rigs + DRigs rose by 2 this week to 449.
    – US Hz oil rigs rose by 3 to 418, down 32 since April 2025 when it was 450. It was also up 56 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 up by 3 to 89. Lea was unchanged at 36 while Eddy added 3 to 52.
    – Texas dropped by 1 to 215. Midland was unchanged at 19 while Martin dropped by 8 to 18. Offsetting Martin’s drop, Glasscock added 6 rigs to 7 while Upton added 3 to 18.
    – Eagle Ford was unchanged at 40.
    – NG Hz rigs added 4 at 112.

    A Rig

    Reply
32. Ovi

    08/14/2026

    Frac Spread Report for the Week Ending August 14

    The frac spread count dropped by 3 to 193. From one year ago, they are up by 26 spreads but are still down by 22 since March 21, 2025.

    A frac

    Reply
33. THC

    08/14/2026

    CONGRATULATIONS!

    Trump: “Pretty soon I’ll be declaring the Hormuz Strait a territory of the United States.”

    https://x.com/FoxNews/status/2088358818023366698?s=20

    Reply
34. Coffeeguyzz

    08/14/2026

    Small news from the ‘gas world’ …

    It’s been noted on this site numerous times that the Deep Utica will eventually blow the production doors off the already Mighty Marcellus.
    Well, the Porter 6U – just northeast of Pittsburgh – has been online ten and a half months, just passed the 14 Bcf mark (energy equivalent to 8 and a half million barrels of oil), is averaging ~44 MMcfd (latest month over 48 MMcfd) And. Is. Flowing. On. RESTRICTED choke.
    This was independent operator Huntley’s ‘swan song’ effort as they have now been bought by EQT.
    With minimal exceptions, App Basin operators have refrained from tapping into the Big Brother in the basement.
    Where Utica/Point Pleasant wells have come online, the results have – right accross the board – shown to be far, far superior than their Marcellus counterparts on the same pads.
    Simply surreal numbers.

    Down Under, the Beetaloo boys expect first commercial production in a few weeks from 3 wells on the same pad.
    The Aussies are now employing state of the art Super Spec rigs and simulfrac’ing with Liberty’s latest hardware.
    If topside (read political) conditions hold, this region could become a substantial supplier for the east coast of that country.

    Bokoo natty far off into the future.

    Reply
    1. THC

       08/14/2026

       Bokoo natty -> nice!!!

    2. Hickory

       08/15/2026

       Good maps-
       thickness, depth, distribution of marcellus and utica shale
       https://marcellus.psu.edu/resources/maps-graphics-and-videos/

    3. DC

       08/15/2026

       Here is Utica Point Pleasant output, see chart below.

       

    4. DC

       08/15/2026

       Mighty Marcellus has not seen much growth over past 4 years, perhaps a near term peak is likely. we will have to wait and see. Click on chart below for larger view.

       

    5. Hickory

       08/15/2026

       Lack of Marcellus production growth over the past 3 years could be due to low price for Nat Gas (low incentive) and limitations on offtake capacity, rather than any reflection on the resource size.

    6. DC

       08/15/2026

       Hickory,

       That is possible, but keep in mind that T. Patzek’s mean resource estimate for Marcellus is about 180 TCF and cumulative production to date is about 117 TCF for marketed Marcellus Shale gas. If the Patzek resource estimate is accurate we may be very close to the peak in Marcellus output in 2026.

       Also note the P10 to P90 Marcellus resource range in the Patzek paper is 107 to 266 TCF.

       Paper at link below

       https://repository.kaust.edu.sa/items/829f674d-bdaf-4d2b-a21b-5bd1d5338f49

       Also note that US natural gas prices have been relatively low from 2012 to 2025, see link below

       https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhda.htm

    7. T HILL

       08/15/2026

       Interesting report, with a catchy nickname of ‘frackalachia’ coined.

       Shale Gas in Pennsylvania : 2026 – The Illusion of Shale Gas and an Engine of Economic Prosperity

       https://ohiorivervalleyinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Shale-Gas-in-Pennsylvania-2026.pdf

       The parallels between coal mining and gas fracking in this area are hard to ignore and sad to see for anyone that knows some of these areas.

    8. DC

       08/16/2026

       Information on PA gas prices at link below, see Figure 4 in the PDF

       https://www.ifo.state.pa.us/download.cfm?file=Resources/Documents/NGPR_2022_Q2.pdf

35. Pops

    08/15/2026

    trump is down to idle threats of “declaring” Hormuz to be US territory. His idiocy is staggering.

    This entire Iran fiasco, including the muted oil price response, has been based on the TACO theorem: trump will chicken out and everything will go back to normal. Except that isn’t going to happen. trump has screwed the pooch and it is not going to be unscrewed. Iran holds the cards now and will hold the strait hostage perhaps indefinitely but at least until trump is out of the picture, just like they did to Carter.

    And trump can do nothing about it. He’s already shot his wad sorta speak, he has no standoff bullets left and little backing for expansion to a ground war or aerial dumb-bombing and the attendant casualties.

    Oil refiners at some point will realize this and understand the price ISN’T going to come down next month. It may in fact be permanently repriced. And because the SPR releases are “loans” carrying usurious repayment obligations, they will owe the government big vig – ~30% – because they’ll be repaying with very expensive oil.

    My thought is refiners will stop “borrowing” SPR crude before it limits out.
    Of course I’ve been wrong before…

    Reply
    1. Hickory

       08/15/2026

       China is going to have to come back to the oil market soon.
       I’m sure this will come up when Xi comes to USA in September.
       US desperately needs very important things from China.

36. Ron Patterson

    08/15/2026

    Just the first minute and five seconds; that’s all you have to watch of this video. Especially if you live in Texas!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uuIdHzVU4g

    Just 1 minute and 5 seconds. you will not regret it.

    If that link don’t work, just go to YouTube.com and type in this line in the search bar.
    MUST-WATCH: James Talarico BREAKS THE INTERNET with megaviral announcement

    Reply
    1. GaryLittle

       08/15/2026

       Well if Trump is the gold standard, Paxton isn’t qualified to be a dog catcher. We are watching the end of the American empire. Next stop, $8 gas and 10% inflation. All from the group of “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15) and “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” (Exodus 20:17). Nothing like family values in America. You can’t fix stupid.

37. T HILL

    08/15/2026

    It appears that the Black Sea’s role as another global chokepoint for energy and ag continues. Oil exports from black see ports have been up-and-down a bit as strikes continue.

    I see reporting that: “JPMorgan says Iran, Oman ‘legally justified’ to charge Hormuz navigation fees. Denmark, Sweden, and Turkiye charge service fees for vessels to pass through narrow waters in their maritime territory, providing a precedent for Iran and Oman to do the same for the Strait of Hormuz”. Can’t be, I’m sure I read here that SOH tolls would ‘never’ happen.

    Climate change driven drought on the Danube and Rhine are hitting Europe hard. Danube levels have led to reactor shutdowns at plants in Hungary and Rumania. We’re seeing multiple force majeure declarations among German petrochemical plants. The FF Faustian bargain continues to bite, with the recent doubling of the rate of climate change likely to accelerate such impacts too.

    Who could have known?

    Reply
38. Ovi

    08/15/2026

    An Update to World Oil Production has been posted

    https://peakoilbarrel.com/april-world-oil-production-drops-again/

    Reply