“I will drink every gallon of oil produced west of the Mississippi.”
—-1885, John Archbold, partner of Standard Oil founder John D. Rockefeller. Yikes. Texas, Oklahoma, California, most of Louisiana, and North Dakota are all west of the Mississippi.
“Within the next two to five years, the oil fields of this country will reach their maximum production, and from that time on we will face an ever increasing decline.”
—-1919, Van H. Manning, Director of the U.S. Bureau of Mines. In 1931, the east Texas oil field was discovered and created a glut of oil.
“U.S. oil production will likely peak between 1965 and 1970 and steadily decline thereafter.”
—-1956, M. King Hubbert, Shell Oil geologist and father of the Peak Oil Theory aka Hubbert’s Peak. He was right, until he wasn’t. U.S. oil production peaked in 1970 and bottomed out at 5 million bbl per day in 2008. Today it is 8.3 million bbl per day. Main reason? Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling.
“Global oil production is 84 million bbl per day. I don’t believe you can get it any more than 84 million bbl per day. I don’t care what Abdullah, Putin or anyone else says about oil reserves or production.”
—-2005, T. Boone Pickens, billionaire oil tycoon. In 2013, global oil production was 90 million bbl a day.
“Peak Oil deniers are blithering idiots.”
—-2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014, James Quinn, Chairman Emeritus of the Department of Peak Oil Forensics, University of Pennsylvania. Heh. I made that one up.
Well, in the last decade, it appears that Russian ultra-nationalist Vladimir Putin is one-up on American oil expert T. Boone Pickens. Seems the Russian oil companies may have been whispering oil data in Putin’s ear that was not for international dissemination.
Let’s get real about Peak Oil. The U.S. Energy Information Agency states that there 1.6 trillion barrels of known oil deposits out there on the planet, and energy agencies in other countries, such as France and Russia, agree. That’s nearly 49 years of oil left for everyone on Earth at today’s production of 90 million bbl per day, assuming it is all consumed at the current rate of production, which it isn’t. Some is stored, and some is being replaced rapidly by other forms of energy such as natural gas (see below). Currently, production more than meets demand. The global price of oil is DROPPING.
New and significant deposits are being found all the time. In Russia, a 2.2 billion bbl deposit was found in April 2014 in the Astrakhan region north of the Caspian Sea. It is the largest announced oil find in Russia in 20 years. In Kenya, a 1 billion bbl deposit of light sweet crude was announced in September 2014. The list goes on and on in a variety of other locations such as Angola and Venezuela. Small potatoes you might say, but then there’s this blockbuster ……
“In March of 2009, the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) completed a reassessment of the in-place oil shale reserves in this (western) region and increased their estimate from about 1 trillion barrels of shale oil to 1.525 trillion barrels of shale oil. The Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that about 1.8 trillion barrels of shale oil potentially underlay Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.” The word trillion is not a misprint. The oil is there. And we can get it. At a price, of course.
While Peak Oil supporters argue truthfully that there is a finite amount of oil to be found on the planet, they don’t mention how much, just that it is getting more difficult and more expensive to recover, which is also true. Shell Oil believes there could be 300 billion more bbl of oil in the Gulf of Mexico seabed. That’s huge, but deep sea drilling is expensive. Same goes for the possible 16 billion bbl sitting in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and the trillion-plus shale oil in the West. And you can count on radical environmental activists creating a political and legal firestorm in all cases. National security be damned.
Peak oil supporters also ignore two other huge factors: technology and natural gas. The oil companies are currently working on new hydraulic fracturing processes that will enable them to squeeze out even more oil from fracked wells. As for natural gas, because of its current abundance, due in large part to drilling for oil, it is rapidly replacing fuel oil as a method for heating hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses, especially in the Northeast and Midwest. And how about those tens of thousands of vehicles that are currently burning liquid natural gas (methane) and compressed natural gas instead of diesel or highly refined gasoline. Natural gas has reduced our national consumption of oil by hundreds of thousands of bbl per day and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
The current heavy use of plentiful natural gas will inexorably lead to shouts of “Peak Natural Gas.” Don’t laugh. It’s happened before. In the 1970s, when clueless climate scientists were warning about the Earth getting colder and an impending Ice Age, the federal government “fixed” the problem of dwindling domestic natural gas resources.
It started in 1938 with the Natural Gas Act, when the federal government decided it could regulate the construction of interstate natural gas pipelines under the guise of safety. That morphed into the federal government controlling the wellhead PRICE (uh, oh) of natural gas sent for resale through those interstate pipelines under the guise of cheap natural gas for the consumer. The capstone to this folly was in November, 1978 when the federal government passed the Natural Gas Policy Act, which created 30 (!!!!!) different categories of natural gas sales with varying ceiling prices set by the federal government.
The upshot to all this? Natural gas power plants couldn’t compete with plants using much cheaper coal, so they converted their steam turbines to burning coal. It gets worse. A full 50% of all coal plants operating in the U.S. today were built in the 1970s and 1980s. Did you know that? The result was/is dirtier air (“I love the smell of sulphur dioxide in the morning”) and hundreds of billions of extra tons of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere, compliments of the geniuses sitting in Congress and the White House.
“If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.”
—-Milton Friedman
I can hardly wait for the next fix to Peak Whatever.
With appreciation to Russell Gold, who contributed some of the information above in his article, “Why Peak Oil Predictions Haven’t Come True – and Probably Won’t,” published in the Wall Street Journal, 29 Sep 14.
If The Oil Plunge Continues, “Now May Be A Time To Panic” For US Shale Companies
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 10/14/2014 20:11 -0400
Over the past 5 years, the shale industry, fabricated or real reserves notwithstanding, has been a significant boon to the US economy for four main reasons: it has been the target of billions in fixed investment and CapEx spending, it has resulted in tens of thousands of high-paying jobs, its output has been a major tailwind for the US trade deficit, and has generally been a significant contributor to GDP (not to mention various Buffett-controlled or otherwise railway corporations). And perhaps, most importantly, it has become a huge buffer to the price of global oil, as the cost curve of US shale is horizontal, with a massive 10,000 kbls/day available within pennies of $85/bl.
Goldman’s explanation:
We believe that the vast reserves that have been opened for development through shale oil in the US have flattened the cost curve meaningfully, at around a US$85/bl Brent oil price. We estimate shale reserves from the top three fields in the US onshore (the Permian, Bakken and Eagle Ford) at around 91bn boe, which to put it in context, is equivalent to roughly one third of Saudi Arabia’s current stated reserves (ZH: this number may be vastly overstated). Most of this resource has become available in the past five years, with few barriers to exploiting the reserves. Production in the US as a result is growing strongly, by more than 1mbpd currently, and we expect this pace of growth to continue over the coming three years as capital continues to be drawn in to these developments. The consequence is that costs of production and E&P capex/bl should stabilise as the marginal cost of production remains stable. We believe that shale oil has become effectively the marginal source of supply, providing the bulk of non- OPEC production growth. This is also the key driver of our oil price view: we continue to expect Brent oil to stay at c.US$100/bl for the coming few years.
For once, Goldman is spot on (even if their Brent price target may be a bit off): with shale oil profitable only above its virtually horizontal cost curve, it means that a whopping 11,000 kbls/day are available as long as Brent is above $85, a clear “red line” for all OPEC producers.
The red line is conveniently shown on the chart below:
Furthermore, in the following chart, it is clear how lower rates of Fed-sponsored cheap-funding have enabled more and more mal-invested wells to drill chasing ‘only-increasing’ shale oil… if rates rise (high-yield credit spreads broke 400bps today – the highest in 13 months) then the breakevens become even more expensive and that cost curve even more compromising to the marginal producer.
However, should the price drop below $85, and very bad things start to happen, not the least of which is what we warned about in May that “Shale Boom Goes Bust As Costs Soar.” That was when Brent was $110. It is now at $85 and sliding lower.
As a further reminder, we noted two days ago that shale is now in a bear market:
But that is nothing compared to the no bid market the (very, very levered) shale companies will find themselves in if and when, for whatever reason, Brent drops below $85 to a price where only Qatar is profitable on the global Brent cost curve.
So while we understand if Saudi Arabia is employing a dumping strategy to punish the Kremlin as per the “deal” with Obama’s White House, very soon there will be a very vocal, very insolvent and very domestic shale community demanding answers from the Obama administration, as once again the “costs” meant to punish Russia end up crippling the only truly viable industry under the current presidency.
As a reminder, the last time Obama threatened Russia with “costs”, he sent Europe into a triple-dip recession.
It would truly be the crowning achievement of Obama’s career if, amazingly, he manages to bankrupt the US shale “miracle” next.
Just a few of the roadblocks: Independent producers will spend $1.50 drilling this year for every dollar they get back. Shale output drops faster than production from conventional methods. It will take 2,500 new wells a year just to sustain output of 1 million barrels a day in North Dakota’s Bakken shale, according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency. Iraq could do the same with 60.
Consider Sanchez Energy Corp. The Houston-based company plans to spend as much as $600 million this year, almost double its estimated 2013 revenue, on the Eagle Ford shale formation in south Texas, which along with North Dakota is one of the hotbeds of a drilling frenzy that’s pushed U.S. crude output to the highest in almost 26 years. Its Sante North 1H oil well pumped five times more water than crude, Sanchez Energy said in a Feb. 17 regulatory filing.
“We are beginning to live in a different world where getting more oil takes more energy, more effort and will be more expensive,” said Tad Patzek, chairman of the Department of Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin.
Drillers are pushing to maintain the pace of the unprecedented 39 percent gain in U.S. oil production since the end of 2011. Yet achieving U.S. energy self-sufficiency depends on easy credit and oil prices high enough to cover well costs. Even with crude above $100 a barrel, shale producers are spending money faster than they make it.
The U.S. oil industry must sprint simply to stay in place. U.S. drillers are expected to spend more than $2.8 trillion by 2035 even though production will peak a decade earlier, the IEA said. The Middle East will spend less than a third of that for three times more crude.
The boom’s boosters have given rise to the misconception that wringing oil and gas from shale can be easily replicated throughout the country, Patzek said. That isn’t the case, he said. Every rock is different. The Bakken shale, along with the neighboring Three Forks formation, covers an area larger than France, according to the IEA. An oil-bearing formation that’s 400 feet (122 meters) thick in one spot may taper off to nothing just a mile away, Patzek said. What works for one well may yield little in a neighboring county.
The output of shale wells drops faster, too, falling by 60 to 70 percent in the first year alone, according to Austin, Texas-based Drillinginfo Inc. Traditional wells take two years to fall by about 55 percent before flattening out. That forces companies to keep drilling new wells to make up for lost productivity.
“You keep having to drill more and you keep having to spend more,” said Mark Young, an analyst with London-based Evaluate Energy, which tracks production and its costs.
A prolonged slide in prices below $85 a barrel may put pressure on operators that have struggled to contain costs or that don’t own acreage in the prolific “sweet spots” of the oil fields, said Leonardo Maugeri, a former manager at Rome-based energy company Eni SpA who’s researching the geopolitics of energy at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-27/dream-of-u-s-oil-independence-slams-against-shale-costs.html
[img
[/img]
“However, should the price drop below $85, and very bad things start to happen, not the least of which is what we warned about in May that “Shale Boom Goes Bust As Costs Soar.” That was when Brent was $110. It is now at $85 and sliding lower.”
—-from Admin’s blizzard of predictable bullshit above
The fracked/horizontally drilled wells will continue to produce, perhaps at a LOSS, even if the price of oil drops below $80 per bbl. Due to federal regulations, it costs MORE to shut these wells down than it does to continue operations at a loss based on spot market.
Answer that, tough guy.
[img
[/img]
Quinn’s latest Peak Oil chart, published in 2005.
[img]https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRuoLthO4W1a_GVIlc9qjkvuKwkklVcEd0pPqbgceMioPwrU5SA[/img]
@SSS
“The fracked/horizontally drilled wells will continue to produce, perhaps at a LOSS, even if the price of oil drops below $80 per bbl. Due to federal regulations, it costs MORE to shut these wells down than it does to continue operations at a loss based on spot market.
Answer that, tough guy. ”
Easy. Tight oil wells have ridiculous decline rates, meaning you constantly have to drill new ones to replace lost production from old ones. Existing oil wells may continue to produce, even at a loss, but it’s unlikely that new ones will be put into production. Even just a couple of months without new wells getting put into production would cause tight oil production to collapse quickly.
Admin
You still are unable to refute anything I published in my article, instead opting for a bizzard of bullshit microeconomic comments and opinions based on a bunch of assumptions. I painted the big picture, then and now. Straightforward facts.
Was M. King Hubbert wrong with his famous Peak Oil bell curve? Eventually, yes.
Was T. Boone Pickens wrong on global oil production? Most assuredly, yes.
Are the figures I posted for known global oil deposits wrong? No!!!!
Get back to me once you can prove my article is misleading and/or just plain incorrect. Otherwise, I’ll chalk this one up as another victory on my Admin Beatdown Chart.
@ Antred: as fine a glob of irrelevant gobbledygook as I’ve ever seen on this site, mate. Well done.
SSS
Your sleuthing skills and critical thinking skills are decrepit and sorry.
You could have been doing a touchdown dance in January 2009 too, when oil was trading for $35 per barrel. You would be crowing about peak oil being a fraud. It is sad that you are unable to understand the difference between peak oil and peak cheap oil.
You would be ignoring why the price of oil is plunging. It is plunging because worldwide demand is plunging. Worldwide demand is plunging because we are entering phase two of the Greater Depression. Someone with critical thinking skills would comprehend the difference between plunging demand and a moderate increase in supply.
If you had paid attention in economics 101, you would understand the dynamics of supply and demand. You might also understand the concept of EROEI. The shale oil producers will not drill new wells when oil is going for $80 per barrel. The existing wells deplete in less than two years. The supply will adjust to the price.
You also haven’t been paying attention to geo-politics. I guess golf is more interesting. The US and Saudi Arabia have concluded a backroom deal to try and make Putin and Iran fall into line. They are pumping more oil now, despite the decline in demand to push prices lower and destroy the Russian and Iranian economies. The blowback from unintended consequences will blindside them.
The OPEC countries need oil prices at $90 or above to sustain their economies, or they will have uprisings and revolution. Enjoy the temporarily low prices for gas. It won’t last.
And thus I conclude my economics lesson for the doddering old spook.
If shale property is so valuable, why is Chesapeake selling? Why did the stock of the acquiring company crater?
Chesapeake Energy Corp. CHK, +15.14% said Thursday it’s selling shale assets to Southwestern Energy Co. SWN, -7.48% for $5.375 billion. The assets based in the Southern Marcellus Shale and a portion of the Eastern Utica Shale in West Virginia comprise 413,000 net acres and 1,500 wells, as well as the property, plants and equipment that go with them.
SSS is correct.
Oil is self-replenishing, aka Abiotic Oil. My work in this area has been published in many leading Scientific Journals.
If you don’t believe me, you can blow me.
SSS, I don’t think you understand the concept of peak oil. The points you try to make against it pretty much explain the theory. The fact that there is still a lot of oil left in the ground, but that it is becoming more and more difficult and expensive to recover is a cornerstone tenet of peak oil theory. No amount of new drilling and extraction technologies can create oil where none exists. What exactly was the point you are trying to make?
TJF
His point was to bust my balls.
He’s not responding because he’s taking his mid afternoon nap, so he’ll be able to stay up and watch Lawrence Welk reruns.
Oil isn’t dead prehistoric plant material.
Hydrocarbons are found throughout the known solar system. They are not all “prior life.”
The Russians developed the theory of abiotic oil and have better success in predicting where to drill for oil than are Western geologists. Clearly their theory is superior.
Here’s one to twist your noodle:
Giraffes are oddities. In order for a giraffe to even exist, their physiology and anatomy exhibits very odd conditions necessary for blood to fight gravity from ear to hoof.
How, then, did dinosaurs that dwarf giraffes ever walk the Earth?
One explanation: The Earth was much, much smaller tens of millions of years ago, and thus gravity was much lessened. Sound far-fetched? Why?
One theory (it goes against Christian cosmology, so it’s not popular) is that matter is being created all the time, across the galaxy and universe (see Halton Arp’s work around the ‘net.) The guy who writes the half-past-human blog opines that cosmic radiation penetrates the Earth’s crust and interacts with other materials deep inside to create matter, most notably HYDROCARBONS.
Is this so implausible?
If this is remotely possible, then “peak oil” is basically impossible.
Oil is life.
In that, I mean that for the time being, control of oil resources is the key to all power in the world. The royal families that arose after the fall of Rome are today’s hereditary Elite because at the end of the day, they own the lion’s share of oil discover, extraction, refining, sale and (yes!) use (i.e., they are behind all the manufactured military police-the-world BS the results in military adventures that burn more oil in a year than the GDP of most of the world’s countries.)
It’s a closed loop from which they extract their power, just like the Kreb’s Cycle of cellular respiration.
I have no idea if oil production, prices, availability, or whathaveyou will go up down or sideways. I figure the whole thing is a game played at my expense.
“The Russians developed the theory of abiotic oil …” ——– dc.sunsets
You go, boy!!! For many years now, seriously, I have questioned the whole theory of “oil comes from dead dinosaurs and plants”. Too many holes in that theory. And it IS a theory.
Not saying the answer is abiotic oil … although you and ‘A Real Geologist” may be correct.
Bring on the Thumbs Down, mutherfuckers!!!
Oh, dear….
“(it goes against Christian cosmology, so it’s not popular)” – I had no idea (and still do not) as to in what manner it somehow antagonizes Christianity on which the theologians are pretty much silent. It a common mistake so we’ll let it pass.
“Biotic” vs. “Abiotic” oil. I don’t care what the origin is. “Peak Oil” (or anything else) is reached when the total economic cost of extraction exceeds the total benefit obtained.
If “abiosis” is not replenishing fields at the rate of off-take then BFD.
Peer-reviewed stupidity is still stupidity.
DaP
@ DaP
I only suggest that Big Bang cosmology is defended in the same ways as Global Warming and HIV/AIDS are defended as theories…
Big Bang assumes all matter was created long, long ago (by God? since they call it The God Particle, that imagined first spec of matter, I assume that is what’s believed.)
On the subject of who created the Heavens and the Earth, I believe theologians are anything but silent. If, on the other hand, quasars are paired with nearby galaxies and exhibit spectra that imply material creation, that would make the Big Bang untenable and add one more observed deviation from the literal interpretation of Biblical verse. This is what Halton Arp’s non velocity redshift theory was all about, and talk about a unified front to quash investigation….
Now, why people feel the need to see scripture as more than metaphor continues to escape me…but many most assuredly do so.
@dc…
You have lost me.
We go from “Christian cosmology” to “Big Bang”. Pick one, willya?
And for “Christian cosmology”, you’d have to orient me toward some organized body of work on the topic. Scripture is useless for this because the reader is left to his own devices and limitations in terms of understanding in relating text and observed reality. A belief in a Creator does not, of itself, establish a codified cosmology.
And, in the final analysis, I really do not care – “Big Bang” is as “miracle-based” as “Let there be light.”
Next up – “…all matter was created long, long ago…” So? BFD. All energy was as well and we have pretty good evidence since the Trinity test 70 years ago that Einstein was correct about the interchangeability of the two.
And, btw, “matter” starts at a far lower of organization than atoms and molecules. Matter is fairly malleable in terms of organization given appropriate inputs of energy and co-reactants.
I am not looking to pick a fight nor carry on a lengthy debate. Just pointing out that grand sweeping statements are out of line in analyses that require close reasoning.
Now… gotta get back working to find ways to minimize the biz’s exposure to energy cost risk. In review of raw data over the years, I am yet unable to find any evidence that inexpensive stocks are coming on line. (Once one counts the externalities of shale oil/gas and the fact of the steadily increasing debt of the operators, anyhoo.)
DaP
…and one last note after seeing the word “theory” way too many times.
A “theory” is the result of repeated successful validations of a “hypothesis” via “testing” that hypothesis.
My callous indifference to “Big Bang”, “Creationism”, “Biotic”, “Abiotic”, etc stems from one little problem.
Not only are they not valid theories. They are not even good hypotheses as they are absolutely refractory to “testing”.
So, step away from the group-think framing of these ideas as somehow being “Theory”.
By the scientific method, they just ain’t.
DaP
@SSS
“The fracked/horizontally drilled wells will continue to produce, perhaps at a LOSS, even if the price of oil drops below $80 per bbl. Due to federal regulations, it costs MORE to shut these wells down than it does to continue operations at a loss based on spot market.
Answer that, tough guy. ”
Easy. Tight oil wells have ridiculous decline rates, meaning you constantly have to drill new ones to replace lost production from old ones. Existing oil wells may continue to produce, even at a loss, but it’s unlikely that new ones will be put into production. Even just a couple of months without new wells getting put into production would cause tight oil production to collapse quickly.
Admin quoted – Furthermore, in the following chart, it is clear how lower rates of Fed-sponsored cheap-funding have enabled more and more mal-invested wells to drill chasing ‘only-increasing’ shale oil… if rates rise (high-yield credit spreads broke 400bps today – the highest in 13 months) then the breakevens become even more expensive and that cost curve even more compromising to the marginal producer.
The answer has already been laid out for you two fold and you call it “irrelevant gobbledygook”. Please answer how these companies are going to keep drilling at a loss without more credit. When that dries up its game over. A company can not go on near as long as the extend and pretend federal government at losses.
SSS is too busy missing 2 foot putts to respond.
[img]https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-hmOgs35IFMk/VDZAorlZhUI/AAAAAAAAFyg/B1wfiGjxzDw/w346-h440/f4b81ac5-7aa5-4c99-ae2d-971237b244b3[/img]
[img
[/img]
Admin
May I humbly suggest that you and TJF enroll in an English as a Second Language course. You continue to blather on about the price of oil, market forces, international politics, and other ancillary bullshit while TJF regurgitates some of the same points I made and then asks ME what my point was? Well, what the fuck is YOUR point, Einstein?
I’m speaking about the national and international quantity of oil that is known to be available. Sure, the price and production of oil will go up and down according to market forces, but so what? My main point is that there’s still plenty of oil out there. And plenty more to be had.
Are you two saying that that massive deposit of shale oil in the western U.S. (the mother lode is in Colorado) somehow doesn’t count in the big picture of Peak Oil? I say it does, and it isn’t going away. Marcellus and Bakken are peanuts compared to that bonanza. Will it be more expensive compared to the east and west Texas oil fields? You bet. When the time and circumstances are right, the oil companies will be all over that deposit like stink on shit.
Your turn, but only if you really enjoy getting your ass kicked.
SSS –
You make it difficult to be civil with your adamantine refusal to acknowledge economic reality. I perceive that you have a very deep need to believe that the current petroleum denouement is real.
You claim “When the time and circumstances are right, the oil companies will be all over that deposit like stink on shit.”
Really?
Chevron and Shell both abandoned projects there between 2012 and 2013 when prices of WTI were well above $90/bbl.
If you believe that an economy built on sub-$35/bbl oil is going to fare well north of $90 (it hasn’t by the way) then I believe you are in for a shock in years to come.
Further – why should anyone believe the “estimated” reserves published. The Marcellus was downgraded by 96% not too long ago – remember?
Turns out that happened because the floggers of the energy companies were “providing data and technical assistance” to the USGS. (Oh, yes, I am sure that was an isolated case….yep,yep,yep.)
Cheers!
DaP
“You (SSS) claim “When the time and circumstances are right, the oil companies will be all over that deposit like stink on shit.” Really? Chevron and Shell both abandoned projects there between 2012 and 2013 when prices of WTI were well above $90/bbl.”
—-DaPerfessor
What a maroon. I face economic realities, and I am well aware of the Chevron/Shell abandonment of shale oil projects in the Green River area of Colorado. Know why they did that? Availability of water and power, and the massive capital investment to insure those two essentials are available to mine and process the shale oil. The companies decided it would be cheaper, under the current and mostly political circumstances, to invest elsewhere. I know it’s shocking to many people, but that’s what for-profit companies do.
The potential remains, and it’s huge. The oil didn’t go away. And as the Guvernator might say, “They’ll be back.”
SSS
You are out of your league. Adding up your score for 18 holes and understanding the economically feasible amount of oil that remains to be extracted from the earth are mutually exclusive for your narrow pea brain.
This has been another epic beatdown on your skinny ass.
You should hang it up and go watch Larry Welk before bedtime.
Give it up, Admin.
@SSS will be stone-uncomprehending of why the economy grinds to a halt once the current decline in oil price rebounds and demand destruction ensues as prices move steadily above $5/gal gas and $5.50/gal diesel. There exists no comprehension in his corner of the $/BTU premium on liquid fuel as opposed to local wire-delivered energy.
“WTF!? We know there’s a lot of oil in Colorado. So what if they’re limited on fresh water and available power!?” He lives in a world of Skittle-pooping unicorns and verdant pastures in all directions – – complete with rainbows anywhere you look.
Maybe you can’t ignore him. I will. I’ll use up my limited spare time teaching my dog some card tricks. Yeah, it’ll be a waste of time but it will be more fun.
DaP
@ DaP
You’re a special kind of stupid, aren’t you? I think big, really big. And long range, for future generations and their well being. You, not so much. Let me take you through this step by step.
Step One. More than 90% of oil consumption in this country goes to transportation. 90%. Do you have a viable alternative to the internal combustion engine? Right now, ready to mass produce? No is the correct answer.
Step Two. I don’t give a flying fuck if gas and diesel moves above $5/gallon, and it may do just that. So what? You still have to eat and get to/from work. You’ll pay more for food and have less take-home pay. Got that? You WILL pay. No alternative.
Step Three. Now maybe, just maybe, like the man who is to be hanged in a fortnight, your mind will be concentrated …… on the oil that is available in your own country’s back yard. The oil that can make all this economic misery go away. The oil that is there and being delayed and denied to you by the federal government and desert tortoises, snail darters, spotted owls, jumping meadow mice and Defenders of Wildlife.
Step Four. You and a majority of citizens vote to make this bizarre world disappear. Billions and billions of bbls of oil that REALLY EXISTS IS REALLY USED. What a concept.
End of fairy tale. And I’m sticking with it.
” …. SSS will be stone-uncomprehending of why the economy grinds to a halt once the current decline in oil price rebounds ………. ” ——– DaPerfessor
Late to the party here.
1) What economy?
2) Grind to a HALT?? Surely, you jest, or speak metaphorically. You gonna stop eating and drinking? You gonna stop replacing your fridge, stove or other appliances that break down? You gonna stop buying clothes? You never gonna buy another book again? What … you gonna live in a one room shack and not move a muscle? All cuz gas is more expensive?
3) Germany / Europe was paying $5 a gallon way back when I first visited in 1970. Why didn’t their economies grind to a halt?
@SSS –
I freely admit to being a “special kind of stupid”. I am so stupid that I believe that the very moment it requires MORE than a barrel of oil above ground to get a barrel of oil out of the ground that all that tight oil is going to stay right where it is….below ground. Just because you want something does not mean the Universe owes it to you and stands ready to deliver. Edumucate me, big boy…just as soon as you get done with the Skittles harvest. (Big shout-out to the unicorns for me, okay?)
@Stucky –
Either you have not had enough coffee when you wrote this or you are being ornery. It is pretty clear that, despite being a potty-mouth, you do have a few functioning brains cells and a modicum of culture.
Yes, sport, there is an economy still and it is acknowledged to be declining but it still has a ways to go to the place where the wheels come off. But that is coming…
“Halt” – yes, that is what I mean. Point by point, I have reduced gas consumption by 70% in the last 7 years by re-ordering what work I do and where I do it. (Now at about 400 gal/yr). More attention is paid to scheduling errands that require driving. I don’t pretend to being green or anything, I am just getting less dependent on stuff that is getting less affordable. My salads don’t come from more than 50 ft from the kitchen, same for most of my vegg and lots of our fruit..
I have developed other ways to use the veg/fruit and have developed my own little economy for obtaining protein by those means.
Your comment re: German gas at $5/gal back in the 70’s was just lame and you know it. They were not nearly as dependent on liquid fuel then as they are now. But because of the lack of suburban-ization, they still (like much of Europe) are way less dependent on liquid fuel than N. American.
Food does not have to move very far from field to table, public transport is effective and energy-efficient.
And in the last 30 years almost every economy grew because of debt. Once that bubble pops completely, there’s not too many economies that won’t have to rebuild out of the basement.
yeah, in summary, lack of liquid fuel will result in people dying off.
I don’t like the prospect but I don’t think it wise to hide from reality.
DaP