Explosive details on the nuclear bomb about to explode in America...

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


First off, thanks for your response, and yes, as I will show in spades below, I am familiar with the EIA.

Your response did show that I need to be much clearer on the meaning of my term 'purchasable oil' and it will show quite clearly that I am right.

You can divide every country in the world into one of two groups.

One group are the net exporters of oil, and the other group are the net importers of oil.

To find the amount of what I call purchasable oil, you take the net exporters and subtract the total consumption from the total production and that give you the total amount of oil that is available on the world market for the net importers to purchase.

There are three main databases that you can use for energy statistics. The EIA, which is the statistical arm of the US Department of Energy, the IEA, International Energy Agency out of Paris, and the BP Statistical review of World Energy. Only the BP numbers list total production and total consumption of crude oil by country, so for this analysis I use their numbers.

The total amount of purchable oil has declined from 47,577,000 barrels per day in 2005 to 46, 724 barrels per day in 2012, the last year total global numbers are available for.

This is exactly what Peak Oil predicted, and it happened pretty much on schedule. This is the only thing that matters in terms of Peak Oil studies, and it neatly incorporates the more technical ideas of declining EROEI and the Export Land Model.

So, I am not wrong, I was just unclear about what 'purchasable oil' means.

What is even more disturbing, after you take into account the increased demand in just China and India, total purchasable oil for the entire rest of the world has dropped from 42,162,000 barrels per day in 2005 to 37,541,000 barrels per day in 2012.

The entire world, outside of India and China, has 5 million barrels per day LESS oil to purchase now than we did in 2005. If you want to see the spreadsheet for yourself, goto centurysolartracking.com and send me an email and I will send you the entire BP data and formulas that demonstrate this.

Your comments about IEA and EIA projections are quite meaningless, as if you go back and look at their projections from 2000, 2005 etc, they were completely wrong about the current production. These agencies are good for producing actual statistics, but their projection history is so wrong as to make current predictions a joke.

And no, the rest of the world will not use fracking technology as it isn't cash positive. It only works, for the very short term, in America because America and print any amount of money and lend it to the producers. And I have shown earlier, fracking is already levelling off, and will soon go into decline.

Thanks again for the response.

reply to post by cavtrooper7


Not sure what you are referrring to , but no, oil isn't made out of dinosaurs. The accepted geological explanation is that oil is formed by decayed algae from blooms in the ancient past. Another theory is that oil comes from abiotic origins deep in the earth.

I favour some combination of the two, but it is irrelevant. Peak Oil is about production rates, not ultimate origins, new technology, future reserves, etc.

reply to post by yamammasamonkey


Actually, it doesn't. The EIA has been wrong on the high side on every single projection they have made that we have the numbers to definitely compare to. AND, as previously posted, fracking has already begun levelling off as is inevitable with such a silly technology.

Your second link to me to an article that stated that the US is paying four times the going rate for oil and gas as Russia, not sure what you mean by that.

reply to post by Melyanna


"And no, the rest of the world will not use fracking technology..."

How bout you google "EU fracking", there are about 37 dozen articles that imply your full of #.

Here is a quote from an article published just today,,,

"The European Commission wants to forgo ambitious climate protection goals and pave the way for fracking -"

m.spiegel.de...=www&referrrer=http://drudgereport.com/

Are you from Earth?

reply to post by yamammasamonkey


www.bloomberg.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">France bans fracking

www.csmonitor.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">As Poland's fracking wanes, so does Europes

I won't return the insult.

reply to post by Melyanna


Links don't work

Melyanna
reply to post by ItCameFromOuterSpace

 

Not sure how that changes the fact that the amount of oil available for purchase has declined steadily since 2005. That is all that matters.

Global production of oil fell from a high point in 2005 but has since rebounded in 2011 and 2012 setting new records.

en.wikipedia.org...

Search engines on Oil production. They are our friend. I am sure they are all liars though.

reply to post by Melyanna


You know your stuff, that is for sure.

The only thing I would add is that one of the biggest missing factors in oil production reports is the quality if the crude being produced, which continues to decline. Last I seen of numbers on the production of light sweet crude is back in 2008, which showed light sweet crude production in serious decline. Back in the day, twenty plus years ago, only light sweet production was counted.

The yield from current crude is a heck of a lot less, and more costly to refine as well. We might be maintaining crude oil production numbers, at a vast increase in cost, but the yield from what is being produce is considerable lower than in the past.


Where I would disagree with you is on the impact the looming drop in world oil production will have on the world's economy. In the short term, it will create a great deal of turmoil, but in the long term, the world economy will be far better off.

The problems with oil is that the reserves are easily controlled by a small group of people, who are then able to manipulate the world economy. With vast amounts of cheap oil, it is profitable to produce goods on one side of the planet to take advantage of slave labor, and sell those goods on the other side of the planet. As the world oil runs out, this will be far less feasible.

Alternative energy sources are not centralized, not easily controlled, and much more labor intensive. Technology has greatly reduced the need for large production centers, large amounts of capital.

The end of big oil will usher in a vast change how the world's economy functions, and it will be a good thing for the middle class.

What in the world are you talking about?

You're saying that:
>oil production is declining
>oil production will stop
>major crash
>crash burn crash
>we all die
>?

My family owns land in west tx. Have you heard of the Cline shale? Nothing is crashing in 2015. If anything, that is hopefully when things start happening. Would it make sense that less production=higher costs? Maybe they want prices high?

30 billion barrels of Oil under WestTx

reply to post by wdkirk


When you understand Peak Oil, it is not the top line, but the bottom line that matters. As detailed above, despite the increase in the top line, which is a global maximum effort peak, the total amount of oil that all exporting nations together have been able to produce and sell to the importing nations has declined since 2005 - 2012.

The global increase in the top line essentially comes down to american fracking, which this october showed definite sign of flattening out, exactly as predicted by anyone who can honestly look at the technology.

reply to post by poet1b


I agree completely that in the long term the effect of declining net hydrocarbon energy will be good. In the short term, however:

1. We had a debt based money creation system.
2. This system never generates the money to pay down existing debt.
3. The only way to pay down existing debt is by growing the economy and creating more debt to pay down the existing debt.
4. Their is a perfect correlation between increasing GDP and increasing net energy supplies.
5. Without increasing energy supplies, you cannot have increasing GDP
6. Since 2005, the globe as a whole has had a declining net energy supply. This is just a mathematical FACT.
7. Therefore debt repayment will become a bigger and bigger issue sometime after 2005, exactly as has happened.
8. When the maximum effort peak ends, which it has already started to, sometime between 2015 and 2020, the SHTF economically.

reply to post by BanTv


I keep tabs on every shale deposit.

It does not matter at all what the reserve numbers are. What matters is the rate of production of net energy, which has been declining since 2005.

That decline has happened despite the industries largest ever increase in capital expenditures.

That decline will significantly escalate sometime in the near future when fracking levels off, and it has already started to level off.

Those who can grok this simple truth, which has been obvious to the mathematically and geologically literate since the early 1970's, are using it to create a situation that will destroy america as a world power.

Those who are living in denial and who refuse to see the plain truth ARE ASSISTING those who wish to destroy America.

I don't want America destroyed, so I am trying to publish hard numbers to wake a few people up.

reply to post by yamammasamonkey


Search on France Bans Fracking

Search on As Poland Fracking Wanes, so does Europes.

Fracking is a cruel joke being foisted on uneducated Americans.

reply to post by Melyanna


Thanks, now I understand that there is a more direct correlation between war and economics. Economics applied in a certain way can be considered a weapon.

Maybe a new subject for those who study economics..uhh...warfare,..how to weaponize economics...? Brilliant economist can be brilliant warriors.

Can a good worrior be of any help to an economist? Uhmmm...must give it some more thought...maybe will read some more Sun Tzu.

Melyanna
reply to post by doorhandle

 

About the 'your funeral' stuff, I just don't know how else to react. The responses given reflect a complete lack of understanding of the basic issues, and I simply don't have time to engage in a discussion with someone who hasn't the learning to engage in a discussion.

That isn't a criticism. No cosmic law says anyone has to study such stuff.

How would you suggest ending a discussion more pleasantly?

In other words, your passive aggressive personality does not allow for people speaking back to you, as you are used to manipulating those around you to accept your position. Dreadful woman.

This thread, all your assertions, are worthless until you provide the cited references as requested by other posters.

The Bakken seems to have plenty of oil, and Australia has oil shale reserves worth an estimated $20 trillion, there is oil on the Falkland plateau, in any case, with the millions of tons of Methane hydrate about, cars can use methane (gasoline cars) diesel engines might be more difficult to convert to methane.

reply to post by Rollie


How do you integrate my response to ignorant_ape with your idea that i wont let people speak back to me?

reply to post by pikestaff


The issue is production of net energy, not gross energy in the ground. Production of net energy is falling. Gross energy in the ground does not apply.

Just found this and thought I should share ...David Bird, a reporter who covers energy markets for the Wall Street Journal, has been missing for nine days. Bird, who has worked for the parent of the Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones, for more than 20 years, left his Long Hill, New Jersey home on the afternoon of Saturday, January 11, telling his wife he was going for a walk. Despite a continuous search by hundreds of volunteers and law enforcement officials, Bird has not been located. wallstreetonparade.com...

The article also says "Bird also connected the Federal Reserve’s bond buying program as “supportive for crude oil and other commodities…” In other words, oil and other commodity prices would no doubt be slumping further were it not for the $85 billion per month cash infusion into markets by the Fed. (The Fed has trimmed that amount by $10 billion beginning this month.)
Nine days later, on October 30, Bird wrote that “Crude prices dropped to their lowest level in four months Wednesday after government data showed a larger-than-expected increase in U.S. oil stockpiles.”

On November 11, Bird wrote: “Americans are seeing the lowest pump prices for gasoline since February 2011, AAA says. Gas prices dropped 6.6 cent per gallon the past week to $3.186, which is down 25.3 cents from a year earlier. The average in Kansas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas is below $3.”

An article penned by Bird on December 12 raised more concerns about “rising fuel inventories.” Bird said “EIA’s implied demand figures showed diesel/heating oil demand was at the lowest level for this time of year for 15 years, while gasoline demand for the week was the weakest early December level in 12 years.”

Statements like that contradict the thesis that the U.S. is on the path to economic recovery.

On December 16, Bird wrote that “The U.S. is on track to reach records for crude-oil production by 2016, as hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling techniques continue to unlock oil in shale rock…In just eight years, the U.S. will have turned around from a 62-year production low of 5 million barrels a day to near the all-time high of 9.6 million barrels a day, according to a report by the Energy Information Administration released Monday…Surging domestic production has pushed U.S. oil prices below the global benchmark, with the gap at about $12 a barrel Monday.”"

reply to post by the2ofusr1


Not sure where you are going with that quote, but thanks for it. Very interesting.

1. Fracking only exists because of money printing.
2. The Fed has started to taper and rumours are that they will taper another 10 billion on January 29th.
3. If they stop printing money, fracking goes away pretty quickly, and the economy slows down ALOT.

Is that what you are thinking?