Doug Leighton and his beautiful wife, Karen, take to the slopes in La Thuile, Aosta Valley, Italy, during one of their well deserved breaks from the High Energy Physics conference they are 'attending'. Even while skiing, Leighton weighs the merits of the Etp model in his mind, preparing to eventually return home to peakoilbarrel, to render his well considered opinion, and thus fulfill his solemn promise.
Above is a page from the High Energy Physics conference official website. Note very carefully the dates of the conference. The conference runs from March 1-7, 2015. Thus, it is already well over when the conversation, below, begins.
THIS IS ANOTHER IN A SERIES OF ONGOING INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS INTO THE NEFARIOUS GOINGS ON AT PEAKOILBARREL. MAKE OF IT WHAT YOU WILL.
WE JOIN THE CONVERSATION ALREADY IN PROGRESS.
http://peakoilbarrel.com/opec-crude-plus-more-on-eia-estimates/
WE JOIN THE CONVERSATION ALREADY IN PROGRESS.
http://peakoilbarrel.com/opec-crude-plus-more-on-eia-estimates/
Doug
Leighton says:
If, as the IEA believes, oil prices average about $55/bbl in 2015 and not reach $73 until 2020, a lot of assumptions will have to be modified: Because, these prices are clearly well below those needed to justify investment in and exploitation of expensive-oil options like tar sands and Arctic oil.It seems to me as if a new reality is being signaled by the many recently stalled or cancelled mega-projects. For example, Shell has abandoned plans for a huge petrochemical plant in Qatar; Chevron shelved its plan to drill in the Beaufort; and, Statoil has turned its back on Greenland. If Majors are moving away from expensive future projects it’s probably because they doubt their viability, not because they can’t raise the cash.
And committing to mega-projects is committing to a predictable future. Could it be that Big Oil has decided the next decade contains too many unknowns: AGW issues, upsurge in renewables, a mega recession, you name it? Or, maybe they’ve just discovered Ron’s Blog?
Jeffrey
J. Brown says:
And many major were
already cutting upstream capex, even before the decline in oil prices.
Caelan
MacIntyre says:
Good points, Doug…Oh, those impending fractally knock-on effects…
But it does seem reasonable to expect that, yes, increasingly, those who have more leisure, even desperate, time on their hands will discover Ron’s blog, and maybe even run a few camouflaged ads on it. ‘u^
Well, maybe Ron could start charging sliding rates relative to topic deviation, via Paypal, with vile name, etc., surcharges and discounts for highly-rated comments.
Great comment. Thanks!
I hear they communicate with Ron by e-mail. All those Big Oil CEOs report to Mr. Patterson:)
Hi Doug,
I hear they communicate with Ron by e-mail. All those Big Oil CEOs report to Mr. Patterson:)
Doug Leighton says:
Thanks Dennis. I thought you might be mad at me. But of course, maybe you are?
Why would I be mad?
I need you to keep me in line when I say particularly stupid things.
Or even to question my usual BS.
I can help, too, when Doug needs to rest.
Or even to question my usual BS.
Futilitist says:
“I need you to keep me in line when I say particularly stupid things.”I can help, too, when Doug needs to rest.
Caelan MacIntyre says:
At some points, I thought quite a few were mad at Dennis, including Rune. At first, I thought it was my astigmatism acting up again with multiple apologies here and there.But then, maybe the sun shines out of his behind as the saying goes with regard to certain questionable forms of optimism perhaps, which is probably less of a convenient place for the sun to shine from, such as if for a PV setup for a large town.
You want PV or not? Well then give us our sun back.
In any case, perhaps minimum sunspot cycles reduce swelling.
This post dedicated to our beloved Ronald Walter.
(Throwing my remaining edit time over to Watcher)
Futilitist says:
Hi Doug.
“It seems to me as if a new reality is being signaled by the many recently stalled or cancelled mega-projects. For example…”
Yes. The oil industry is beginning to wind down, as should be expected. Conditions fundamentally changed when the cost of production exceeded the ability of consumers to support that production, around June of 2014. So it’s all down hill from here. How could it be otherwise?
NOTE----AFTER THIS, A MASSIVE, SIDE ARGUMENT FORUM SLIDE WAS ENGINEERED, SO, AT THE END, I asKED MY QUESTION TO DOUG LEIGHTON ONCE AGAIN. THIS TIME HE ACTUALLY RESPONDS.
Futilitist says:
Hey Doug.
That is what I have been saying. Hardly anyone is listening.
I’ve been trying to tell people here that there was a major paradigm shift that happened in June of 2014. The cost of oil production exceeded the ability of consumers to afford to pay for the continuing production of oil. The cost of oil production will continue to rise, and oil affordability will continue to fall. So, the price of oil can no longer ever meet the cost of production. This means that the oil industry will shrink from now on.
People here are starting to try to blame the EIA and IEA for making bad projections on purpose to help banksters steal their oil jobs! Ridiculous. No one seems to want to face the truth. Big surprise.
I’ve been trying to tell people here that there was a major paradigm shift that happened in June of 2014. The cost of oil production exceeded the ability of consumers to afford to pay for the continuing production of oil. The cost of oil production will continue to rise, and oil affordability will continue to fall. So, the price of oil can no longer ever meet the cost of production. This means that the oil industry will shrink from now on.
People here are starting to try to blame the EIA and IEA for making bad projections on purpose to help banksters steal their oil jobs! Ridiculous. No one seems to want to face the truth. Big surprise.
Please take a look at my Futilitist Collapse Challenge:
I made the challenge as a fun way for people to try to get their heads around the new ‘normal’. I would really love your opinion on it and the theory that the oil industry must now shrink due to the cost of oil production not being able to be met going forward.
This is the simple, yet highly unwelcome answer. It is so unwelcome that even Ron refuses to believe it.
People here respect what you say, Doug. I could sure use your help convincing some of them. Thanks.
I’m shepherding my wife to a high energy physics conference in La Thuile, Italy for a few days so will be out-of-the-loop here for a wee bit. Meanwhile, I look forward to reading your “Collapse Challenge” stuff. And, I WILL get back to you. Doug.
Doug Leighton says:
Hi Futilitist:I’m shepherding my wife to a high energy physics conference in La Thuile, Italy for a few days so will be out-of-the-loop here for a wee bit. Meanwhile, I look forward to reading your “Collapse Challenge” stuff. And, I WILL get back to you. Doug.
Futilitist says:
Thanks Doug.
REPLY
NOTE----i took doug's word at this point, though it did sound a little fishy to me, like an elaborate way of dodging my question. but i was too busy to check up on his claim. although there actually was a high energy physics conference in thuile, by the time doug leighton makes his comment claiming to be there, the conference had already been over for 10 days!
AT THIS POINT, RON PATTERSON PUTS UP A NEW MAIN POST, AND WE ARE ON TO THE NEXT COMMENT SECTION PAGE:
AT THIS POINT, RON PATTERSON PUTS UP A NEW MAIN POST, AND WE ARE ON TO THE NEXT COMMENT SECTION PAGE:
Doug Leighton says:
Hi Dennis:
Quick note from Val d’Aosta: My opinion is you’re wrong to employ URR C+C less extra heavy oil (WITHOUT QUALIFICATION) for your analyses because these reserves are weighed so heavily toward those that will be difficult to exploit and therefore may never see the light of day.
More important, would you be able to create a table-of-assumptions and attach it to your projections in the future? It’s difficult for me to visualize projections separate from assumptions even though I realize you typically explain them somewhere.
I (we?) would particularly like to see your price assumptions attached because whether or not URR resources are developed (and when) will depend mainly on future prices. Right?
And, Jeffery:Would you give us the benefit of your (considerable) expertise on how natural gas will come to the fore, VIS-À-VIS oil; as oil reserves become increasingly exhausted? I keep hearing reports about substantial gas reserves in the Arctic, Australia, Russia, etc. but have never seen a creditable analysis as to how this will likely impact our future energy supplies/usage.
Of course I know nothing whatsoever about natural gas other than substantial reserves exist in places such as Alaska’s and Canada’s North Slope.
In mathematics, topological K-theory is a branch of algebraic topology.
It was founded to study vector bundles on topological spaces, by means of ideas now
recognised as (general) K-theory that
were introduced by Alexander
Grothendieck. The early work on topological K-theory is due to Michael Atiyah and Friedrich Hirzebruch.
Dennis Coyne says:
Hi Doug,
For my world models there usually are no price assumptions though recently I tried to look at what the economy could afford, by assuming that oil prices which result in prices that cause oil expenditures to be more than 3% of total world GDP, will cause a recession (this is conservative in my opinion) so that oil prices cannot rise above this.
I am not sure if you are talking about the Bakken Model, Eagle Ford Model or the World Model, in the Bakken and Eagle Ford I will do what you ask in the future. For the World, I do not have the data to estimate costs for all the fields in the World ( a nearly impossible task). It is assumed that prices will rise to a level that will make the model’s future output levels possible, clearly if the economy will not support oil prices that make the marginal barrel (most costly to produce barrel) profitable, then the model will be incorrect and extraction rates will be lower.
In several of my scenarios I predicted lower future extraction rates, this would mean that some of the costly barrels would be left until later and only the less expensive oil would be produced. It is impossible to say with certainty what future extraction rates will be as we do not have either future production costs or future oil prices.
Jeffrey J. Brown says:
Doug,
An interesting approach for estimating future natural gas exports would be to look at the rates of change in some production to consumption ratios (what I call the ECI Ratio).
Dennis Coyne says:
Hi Doug,
I created a scenario for World C+C output assuming a URR of 3000
Gb based on a Hubbert Linearization of C+C less extra heavy (URR=2500 Gb) and
an extra heavy oil (Canadian oil sands and Orinoco belt) URR of 500 Gb (based
on Jean Laherrere’s estimate in 2013).
There is no price assumption built into this scenario, it is
simply assumed that oil prices rise enough to allow oil companies to make a
profit, but no oil prices are included in the oil shock model.
Then I used a simplistic analysis (which is not based on
Hamilton’s analysis, that analysis is far more complex) asking the question:
“If the oil shock scenario output is produced, what oil price
level can the economy afford without a recession resulting from the high
prices?”
I looked at World Real GDP per capita growth (using IMF and UN
data) over the 1990 to 2014 period, as well as C+C output (EIA data), oil price
data (BP data), and consumer price index(cpi) data from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics(BLS). The major assumption here is that if the spending on C+C
output in constant 2014$ rises to too high a percentage of World Real GDP
(using the purchasing power parity [PPP] method) then a recession will result.
The World seems to be badly affected by an oil spending level
that is higher than 3.25% of World Real GDP (in 2008 the spending on C+C output
was 3.26% of World GDP). So I assumed oil spending must be 3% or lower to
prevent a recession induced by high oil prices.
I also looked at the growth in real GDP per capita for the World
from 2005 to 2014 and the average was about 2.6% over those 10 years.
I conservatively assumed that the 2015 growth rate would be 2.2% and that the annual rate of growth would decrease by 3% each year until 2030 (1.4%). I used the UN’s medium fertility population scenario until 2030 and combined it with the assumptions above to create a World Real GDP scenario from 2015 to 2030.
I conservatively assumed that the 2015 growth rate would be 2.2% and that the annual rate of growth would decrease by 3% each year until 2030 (1.4%). I used the UN’s medium fertility population scenario until 2030 and combined it with the assumptions above to create a World Real GDP scenario from 2015 to 2030.
Using the assumption that world oil spending is 3% of World real
GDP we can create a scenario for World Oil spending in billions of 2014$ per
year. This is combined with our original C+C output scenario to find oil prices
(oil spending divided by output is equal to the oil price).
These prices are the maximum oil prices that will not create a
recession due to high oil prices (if the multiple assumptions are correct).
I will leave it to oil industry experts to judge if these oil
prices are sufficiently high to enable the oil to be produced profitably.
A final note, in 2013 Jean Laherrere estimated that there were
850 Gb of technical proved plus probable reserves remaining at the end of 2010
(excluding extra heavy oil reserves).
My output scenario has 500 Gb of C+C less extra heavy oil
produced from 2011 to 2030. There are also 36 Gb of extra heavy oil produced in
the scenario over the 2011 to 2030 period. It is also possible that there will
be some new discoveries and reserve growth in the future as oil prices rise.
Chart below.
Doug Leighton says:
Thanks Dennis.
I’m too busy attending talks to respond properly but please note I do appreciate your approach. Meanwhile, my simplistic view is that URR depends primarily on the balance between average world-wide depletion rates, oil prices, and effectiveness of EOR efforts. I think depletion rates are generally under-appreciated in the big reservoirs that matter (owing to extensive infill drilling) AND I’m ALWAYS “under-appreciating” EOR effectiveness extending life/productivity of important reservoirs. So perhaps your approach (and result) is as good as any but I really hate to admit that. More later; conference here lasts another week.
I’m too busy attending talks to respond properly but please note I do appreciate your approach. Meanwhile, my simplistic view is that URR depends primarily on the balance between average world-wide depletion rates, oil prices, and effectiveness of EOR efforts. I think depletion rates are generally under-appreciated in the big reservoirs that matter (owing to extensive infill drilling) AND I’m ALWAYS “under-appreciating” EOR effectiveness extending life/productivity of important reservoirs. So perhaps your approach (and result) is as good as any but I really hate to admit that.
More later; conference here lasts another week.
NOTE----DOUG LEIGHTON IS APPARENTLY STILL *WAY* TOO BUSY ATTENDING WORKSHOPS AT THE HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS CONFERENCE TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THE ETP MODEL. THE ACTUAL 7 DAY CONFERENCE HAD ALREADY BEEN OVER FOR 17 DAYS WHEN DOUG MADE THIS COMMENT. HE ALSO CLAIMS HERE THAT THE CONFERENCE HAS ANOTHER WEEK TO GO! THAT WOULD MAKe IT A 25 DAY LONG EVENT. WOW.
MOVING ON AGAIN, RON PATTERSON PUTS UP HIS NEXT POST, AND WE ARE ON TO THE NEXT COMMENTS PAGE. ON THIS PARTICULAR PAGE, the PROBLEM OF THE HUMAN POPULATION OF PEAKOILBARREL IS ADDRESSED BY MURDERING FUTILITIST:
MOVING ON AGAIN, RON PATTERSON PUTS UP HIS NEXT POST, AND WE ARE ON TO THE NEXT COMMENTS PAGE. ON THIS PARTICULAR PAGE, the PROBLEM OF THE HUMAN POPULATION OF PEAKOILBARREL IS ADDRESSED BY MURDERING FUTILITIST:
Doug Leighton says:
Well said Gail. I would add, the analysis of human carrying capacity is, too often, a disservice to our planet. Human carrying capacity is just a number, one that needs to be viewed in conjunction with carrying capacity for all living species. How many plants and animals will disappear forever with the inevitable arrival of a couple billion more people? The decimation of large fish species is an example but unfortunately, only one example.
Petro says:
Hi Doug,
a few post back I replied to one of your comments as:
“….cash out that 401K; drink that ’89 Chateau Margaux; smoke that Cuban you been hiding; go and see Europe and/or a Saffari and/or Coral Reef;… etc.
The next 5-10-20-30 years are going to be anything like the past 10-30 years….”
“….cash out that 401K; drink that ’89 Chateau Margaux; smoke that Cuban you been hiding; go and see Europe and/or a Saffari and/or Coral Reef;… etc.
The next 5-10-20-30 years are going to be anything like the past 10-30 years….”
-I hope your “scarcity” in commenting and the darkening mood of the comments is the result of you actually doing some/all of the thing I suggested (or is it as the result of the flood of “intelligent” and “knowledgeable” commentators we had the pleasure to hear from as of late?!)…joking.
Good to hear from you.
Be well,
Petro
Doug Leighton says:
Hi Petro,
We have been in Italy visiting a Daughter, who lives here, and attending a High Energy Physics Conference at La Thuile, in Aosta Valley. And, yes, respecting the darkening mood, it`s affecting me: I`m beginning to focus on different stuff, for awhile anyway. But, I generally skim through Ron`s Blog once or twice a day so perhaps I now fit more into the lurker category. Cheers, Doug
Petro says:
Beautiful area.
Enjoy the time, friend!
Plenty of wine and food help brighten the mood ( I personally lean on the wine side of “brightening”….).
Enjoy the time, friend!
Plenty of wine and food help brighten the mood ( I personally lean on the wine side of “brightening”….).
Be well,
Petro
Fred Magyar says:
Enjoy!
NOTE----THE PEAKOILBARREL REGULARS ADD SOME COLOR TO DOUG LEIGHTON’S BIG LIE. DECEPTION CAN SURE BE A LOT OF FUN WHEN YOU ARE IN ON THE LITTLE JOKE. OTHERWISE...
Rune Likvern says:
Loren Soman (futilitist)
If this site does not meet your expectations to content, why do you not (together with your follower!) start your own site?
If this site does not meet your expectations to content, why do you not (together with your follower!) start your own site?
I understand it is both depressing and disappointing for you to wake up day after day after day through several years just to discover that collapse (according to your expectations) have not happened.
Has the etp model been subject to peer reviews?
Just to illustrate how curve fitting may be applied, I curve fitted (exponential) the oil price developments as from 1859 to 2013 (BP data so everyone who wishes can try it by downloading BPs Statistical Report) in several steps;
1859 – 2013
1960 – 2013
1970 – 2013
1980 – 2013
Just to illustrate how curve fitting may be applied, I curve fitted (exponential) the oil price developments as from 1859 to 2013 (BP data so everyone who wishes can try it by downloading BPs Statistical Report) in several steps;
1859 – 2013
1960 – 2013
1970 – 2013
1980 – 2013
Guess what?
Using the data set as from 1960 to 2013 gave the best fit (R squared). This does not give the model any predictive powers.
So why is the etp model just covering the time span 1960 – 2013? Why not 1900 – 2013?
Using the data set as from 1960 to 2013 gave the best fit (R squared). This does not give the model any predictive powers.
So why is the etp model just covering the time span 1960 – 2013? Why not 1900 – 2013?
You base all your expectations around some model and if this is the “holy grail” of all oil models I take it you have studied it and have such insights into it that it would be easy for you to convince others about the etp model’s powers. When called upon to do so (about the etp model) you stonewall or refer to the owner of the etp model. That is not a reassuring response.
As shown above a simple curve fitting using price data from BP for 1960 – 2013 results in just as good a predictability.
As shown above a simple curve fitting using price data from BP for 1960 – 2013 results in just as good a predictability.
What if your world view has been shaped from a model that has several flaws, where do that leave you?
Doug Leighton says:
Excellent comment Rune but it reminds me of the time I tried to argue with a Jehovah’s Witnesses (You know, the door-to-door preaching-dudes known for The Watchtower and Awake!) In other words, you would have more chance of success talking to a fence post because these guys already have ALL the answers. For the record, I’m a curve fitting skeptic as well.
NOTE----WELL, GREAT. AFTER 9 DAYS OFF OF WORK CAVORTING ON THE SLOPES OF THUILE, DOUG LEIGHTON FINALLY RETURNS WITH HIS VERDICT ON THE VALIDITY OF THE ETP MODEL. BY AGREEING WITH RUNE LIKVERN! AMAZING.
Futilitist says:
Hello Doug and Rune.
Welcome back from the physics conference, Doug.
Rune, you are going to Rune your reputation.
Please take the Futilitist Collapse Challenge. I dare you.
No one here has ever beaten the Futilitist Collapse Challenge.
PS—
Rune, I have asked you nicely to stop repeating my real name over and over again. Oil depletion is a very sensitive and emotional subject. People are tense. It sounds very much like you are trying to encourage some nut job to hunt me down and kill me. This is very uncool. You have crossed a dangerous line with this. Please stop at once.
Call me Futilitist.
Dave P says:
Relax, you’ll live longer that way.
Wake says:
Lighten up, Francis
NOTE----AT THIS POINT, I REALIZE THAT I HAVE BEEN HAD. IN MY COMMENT, ABOVE, I SARCASTICALLY WELCOME DOUG BACK FROM THE HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS CONFERENCE. I THEN INVITE BOTH RUNE AND DOUG TO TAKE THE FUTILITIST COLLAPSE CHALLENGE, WHICH NO ONE HAS YET SOLVED. (AND I HAD TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT THAT ASSHOLE, RUNE LIKVERN WAS DOING WITH MY REAL NAME) FUCK YOU, RUNE. YOU ARE A FRAUD. I WILL DEAL WITH YOU IN ANOTHER BLOG POST.
Ron Patterson says:
Synapsid, yes I had read that the Deccan Traps lasted between, 600,000 and 800,000 years if my memory serves me correct, but I did not know that they had been dated that closely as related to the Chicxulub strike.
And I have fallen behind in my “keeping up” with my science on the subject. What is the latest scientific opinion on what caused the K-T Extinction? I can remember a few years ago there was still a fierce debate on the subject and the meteor people seemed to be winning.
Doug Leighton says:
METEORITE people please. A meteor is an asteroid, or other object, that vaporizes on entry into the atmosphere; think “shooting stars” if you wish. If a meteor survives the big plunge and lands it`s then known as a meteorite. Sorry but I had to say it Ron.
Ron Patterson says:
Doug, I thought about that and a “meteorite strike” just didn’t sound right. Before it strikes it is a meteor, and only after it strikes is it a meteorite.
Or a meteor is something in motion, a meteorite is something at rest.
So Doug, you should write those fools and tell them it was a meteorite that slammed the moon, not a meteor.
Fernando Leanme says:
I update a graph Mann used at Bristol a while back
I think he’s a really interesting character.
Fred Magyar says:
I think he’s a really interesting character.
I agree, but not nearly as interesting as you! I drew a red line through the data and as hard as I try I can’t see anything but a continued increase in global temperatures. Granted at a somewhat slower rate than originally predicted but increasing nonetheless.
Furthermore it looks like the data confirm an increase of approximately 0.8 deg C which by coincidence happens to be what the current consensus amongst reputable climate scientists is, with most of that warming showing up in the latter part of the 20th century and early 21st century.
Don’t see any cooling trend in that graph, does anyone else?
Doug Leighton says:
Hi Fred:
I see exactly the same trend as you. Moreover, as you know, this is well established. Perhaps the key here is “Reputable Climate Scientists” because I’ve yet to see a CREDITABLE claim to the contrary — on Ron’s Blog or anywhere else.
Futilitist says:
Why are you guys talking about Mann?
Would anybody else here like to see Javier’s CV?
Futilitist says:
Hey Fernando, Fred, and Doug.
Why are you guys trying to help cover up the fact that Javier is not a real scientist?
Fernando Leanme says:
Fred M., I saw Mann’s Bristol lecture and I thought it was rather odd to see a set of slides, prepared for a lecture in 2014, missing the temperature data after 2005.
So I grabbed the screen print, gridded his graph, and put in the NOAA data set. When I did it I saw the reason why he didn’t show data beyond 2005…it weakens his case.
He wanted the audience to have confidence in climate models, which he uses almost exclusively in the work he does nowadays.
I also wrote a critique of his Sci American article, False Hope, in which he used a pretty slick set of figures to confuse the readership and raise what I call climate hysteria. I think a lot of what he writes has to be parsed, and looked at extremely careful because it’s loaded with propaganda, and it uses the visual techniques we see in that Bristol lecture.
In other words, I don’t trust what the guy writes, and I read it mostly as an exercise to teach myself how to discern bullshit from reality.
Fred Magyar says:
In other words, I don’t trust what the guy writes, and I read it mostly as an exercise to teach myself how to discern bullshit from reality.
Fair enough, you are certainly entitled to your opinion!
Then just for shits and giggles why don’t you go discuss your theory here:
Futilitist says:
Nothing can go wrong…..go wrong……go wrong……….
NOTE----AT THIS POINT I AM ABOUT TO BE BANNED AND I KNOW IT. I DON’T HAVE TIME TO POST ON PEAKOILBARREL THAT DOUG HAS BEEN LYING ALL ALONG ABOUT THE HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS CONFERENCE TO AVOID ADDRESSING MY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ETP MODEL. THAT IS WHY I AM POSTING THIS ON MY BLOG.
John B says:
Japan already has 100,000 home fuel cell installations in place, and is selling Hydrogen vehicles to the public. Fact not fiction.
Doug Leighton says:
Correct,
It started during Expo 2005 in the Seto area and is fairly well established now. The Government plans to add 100 hydrogen stations under a new budget covering half of the installation costs all of which will be operational in 2015. I think all the major car companies (Japanese ones) are participating in this.
wimbi says:
MARCH 30, 2015 AT 8:32 AM
MARCH 30, 2015 AT 8:32 AM
Thanks much Ron. I was starting to despair.
REPLY
Thanks Ron, that was really due.
Boomer II says:
Then when it was suggested that he was working on a Ph.D., I wondered if we were being subjected to some sort of ill-conceived social experiment.
Ron Patterson says:
MARCH 30, 2015 AT 7:35 AM
People, the comments are now all screwed up. I was deleting a bunch of Futilitist’s posts and apparently I deleted one that had a reply to it without being aware of the reply. When that happens that screws up the all comments and makes them appear as if it was an original comment instead of a reply.
-Lloyd
Enno says:Thanks Ron, that was really due.
However, when he started to get so insistent wanting feedback about his oil theories, I thought he might be having some sort of manic episode. He sounded like people not quite right in the head who think they have figured out the world.
At any rate, the guy was out of control and I am glad he is gone.
Ron Patterson says:
MARCH 30, 2015 AT 7:35 AM
People, the comments are now all screwed up. I was deleting a bunch of Futilitist’s posts and apparently I deleted one that had a reply to it without being aware of the reply. When that happens that screws up the all comments and makes them appear as if it was an original comment instead of a reply.
That’s the bad news. The good news is Futilitist is gone forever. I just got tired of his shit and banned him.
I will have another post later today. It will be a short post because there is not much data to post about. But that will fix the comments problem.
I will have another post later today. It will be a short post because there is not much data to post about. But that will fix the comments problem.
NOTE---RON QUICKLY COBBLES TOGETHER ANOTHER USELESS NEW POST TO GET OFF THIS PAGE AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. THIS WHAT A COVER UP LOOKS LIKE.
Doug Leighton says:
Hi Ron,
EIA data is out for January showing large drop in North Slope: 524,000 down to 486,000 bbl/day YOY. Clearly, only one month but possibly significant. I’m now willing to bet (almost) the North Slope never sees 500,000 bbl/day produced again, ever.
Ron Patterson says:
It should be out any minute now.http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/supply/monthly
But I am getting a “This webpage is not available” error. Is anyone else having that problem?
But I am getting a “This webpage is not available” error. Is anyone else having that problem?
Doug Leighton says:
Worked fine for me.
Ron Patterson says:
Doug, would it be possible for you to send me the Excel spreadsheet with the data. Just send it as an attachment. Please, that apparently is the only way I am going to get it.
Never mind. It was my DNS Server. I found a fix on the net.
Fuser says:
Sent
Doug Leighton says:
Ditto but apparently all has been resolved.
NOTE----FROM HERE ON OUT, IT’S BACK TO BUSINESS AS USUAL. WHEW, THAT WAS A CLOSE CALL.
WHAT FOLLOWS IS SOME BORING, USELESS CLIMATE DEBATE, PUT HERE TO PROVE THAT DOUG LEIGHTON IS A LIaR. HE OBVIOUSLY WILL NEVER ANSWER THE VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION I ASKED, AS HE PROMISED THAT HE WOULD, SINCE HE RETURNED FROM HIS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT (FICTIONAL) HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS CONFERENCE.
THIS IS NOT THE WAY A SERIOUS, HIGH PROFILE, ENERGY INFORMATION WEBSITE SITE SHOULD OPERATE. DOUG LEIGHTON AND RUNE LIKVERN ARE OBVIOUSLY OIL INDUSTRY SHILLS. SO IS THE GREAT JEFFREY BROWN. SO IS RON PATTERSON. SO ARE DENNIS, OLD FARMER MAC, AND FERNANDO LEAME. SO IS CAELAN MACINTYRE, and fred magyar, ETC, etc.
PEAKOILBARREL IS A HALL OF MIRRORS.
PEAKOILBARREL IS A HALL OF MIRRORS.
LIKE I SAID BEFORE, WHAT FOLLOWS IS JUST A BUNCH OF USELESS DRIVEL. FEEL FREE TO SKIM.
Fernando,
I can understand that after a long, hard career you don’t want to work hard in your retirement. But, why not actually read the comments you’re responding to, thinking about them, and replying with something relevant?
In this case – you’re talking about on-site, above ground hydrogen storage. I was talking about underground storage.
And, if you put in a little effort, and used your engineering skills, you’d see that there are a lot of viable forms of synthetic fuel storage, such as methane, ammonia, etc. At the moment Germany is planning to inject H2 into their NG storage, which will work for relatively low concentrations of H2. Eventually they plan to use synthetic methane, but many other things would work as well.
Doug Leighton says:
European and Japanese technicians are also cooperating to develop new metal-hydride materials that can store hydrogen. A Norwegian friend of mine is participating in this research. I have zero (almost) knowledge about this but was roped into translating some applicable material from Japanese to English for the dude involved.
Doug Leighton says:
SAWDUST:
“I not sure how many people here keep close eye on what’s happening in China but…..”
I don’t pretend to be a China expert but I did live/work there seven years and still go back once or twice a year to visit old friends. Two things I suggest are that generalizations are dangerous and the housing bubble is an overblown issue. Moreover, I would be the last to say that there weren’t many large problems, I’ve seen them all, especially the corruption, but please be careful about sweeping statements. And, you might want to take the following into consideration:
1) The second biggest investment in China is education for children,
2) For every Engineer that graduates in the US, 20 graduate in China,
3) The average family in China will make almost any sacrifice for the sake of future generations,
4) The Middle Class in China is bigger than the US population and it is growing very rapidly,
5) Virtually every citizen is (far) better off than he/she was ten years ago and is positive about his/her future,
6) Most people in positions of authority have good educations (they’re not lawyers),
7) Infrastructure is expanding at an exponential rate (especially rail and subway systems),
2) For every Engineer that graduates in the US, 20 graduate in China,
3) The average family in China will make almost any sacrifice for the sake of future generations,
4) The Middle Class in China is bigger than the US population and it is growing very rapidly,
5) Virtually every citizen is (far) better off than he/she was ten years ago and is positive about his/her future,
6) Most people in positions of authority have good educations (they’re not lawyers),
7) Infrastructure is expanding at an exponential rate (especially rail and subway systems),
I could go on .
Doug Leighton says:
DIRECT EVIDENCE FOR A POSITIVE FEEDBACK IN CLIMATE CHANGE: GLOBAL WARMING ITSELF WILL LIKELY ACCELERATE WARMING
“A new study has confirmed the existence of a positive feedback operating in climate change whereby warming itself may amplify a rise in greenhouse gases resulting in additional warming.”
Doug Leighton says:
CLIMATE-RELATED DISRUPTIONS OF MARINE ECOSYSTEMS: DECADES TO DESTROY, MILLENNIA TO RECOVER
“A new study reports that marine ecosystems can take thousands, rather than hundreds, of years to recover from climate-related upheavals. The study’s authors analyzed thousands of invertebrate fossils to show that ecosystem recovery from climate change and seawater deoxygenation might take place on a millennial scale.”
Watcher says:
My, my. Imagine that. Covenant busting.
And he was fibbing. He doesn’t have to run the oil company. He can just take the reserves and hold them. They’re not going anywhere and he wasn’t going to get repaid anyway.
These bozos are walking into the workout session and saying “YOU!! YOU will be responsible for the destruction of US energy independence, and don’t you DARE believe for 1 microsecond that we won’t go public with this and name banker names, and maybe even where your kids go to school. Okay, I apologize for that one. But . . . you get the picture.”
This will work for a while. Maybe long enough to try that on the Fed.
Doug Leighton says:
Watcher, you deserve an Oscar: Stand-Up-Comedy. Now, if I understood 0.01% of your financial stuff I might be able to hold my head high around here. Alas, ‘twil never be.
shallow sand says:
Doug, hold your head high. Diverse knowledge makes this blog go, and believe me, you know a lot more stuff that I do not, than vise versa.
Synapsid says:
Doug L,
Another site for new papers is EurekAlert! It’s hosted by AAAS and supported by DOE, NSF, and NIH.
Doug Leighton says:
Thanks Synapsid, I’ll monitor it for awhile and perhaps add it to my already crowded tool bar.
Fernando Leanme says:
The article doesn’t really contribute anything new. It’s a rehash of the old controversy over whether CO2 leads or lags large climate swings. The way the ice ages come and go make it clear the system is delicately balanced and the main driver is the orbital variations.
The feedback mechanisms are the clouds as well as the isostatic rebound of continental land masses previously under the giant ice caps in North America, Europe and Asia.
Doug Leighton says:
Actually there are many feedback mechanisms that can either amplify or diminish the effects of a change in climate besides the ones you mention. Another is the melting of permafrost resulting in the release of methane. And you should consider the release of carbon from ecosystems due to changing climatic conditions such as the die-back of high-carbon ecosystems (i.e., the Amazon). One that especially concerns me is Atmospheric Vapour because as the atmosphere warms its concentration of water vapour increases, further intensifying the greenhouse effect which in turn causes more warming, which cause an additional increase in water vapour — a self-reinforcing cycle. My understanding is that water vapour feedback may be strong enough to double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone. In any case, I think these discussions are best left to scientists who have the data and are trained in the interpretation a critical factors.
Doug Leighton says:
Oh, and respecting glacial isostasy, typical uplift rates are of the order of one cm/year (or less) and it mainly affects northern Europe, Siberia, and Canada. This certainly influences permafrost melting and methane release in a significant way but it would take a specialist to calculate the effect(s).
NOTE----SO, THAT’S ABOUT THE END OF THIS STORY. SORRY ABOUT THE BORING EPILOG, BUT, BEING DEAD, I NO LONGER REALLY HAVE ANY CREATIVE IMPUT. NOW THAT FUTILITIST HAS BEEN MURDERED, ALL IS WELL AGAIN IN RON’S WORLD.
OK FOLKS. SHOW’S OVER. MOVE ALONG. NOTHING TO SEE HERE…
Aside from that, Mrs.Lincoln, what did you think of the show?
ReplyDeletehttp://peakoilbarrel.com/opec-january-production/#comment-559242
DeleteCorrection; it's this link:
Deletehttp://peakoilbarrel.com/opec-january-production/#comment-559244