Oil and Gas Issues

[JimD]

There is a lot of propaganda coming out of the oil and gas industry right now.  But the bottom line is becoming the ceiling fast.

It is the ripple effect that gets you.  If it was just one company going and the rest motoring on it would not matter much except to the small number intimately involved.  When it is an industry it is different as each one going down tends to drag the one next to it along with it. You don't pay your bills then the guy you owe can't pay his and so on.  Like dominos.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/03/wolf-richter-default-monday-oil-gas-companies-face-creditors.html

Debt funded the fracking boom. Now oil and gas prices have collapsed, and so has the ability to service that debt. The oil bust of the 1980s took down 700 banks, including 9 of the 10 largest in Texas. But this time, it’s different. This time, bondholders are on the hook.

And these bonds – they’re called “junk bonds” for a reason – are already cracking. Busts start with small companies and proceed to larger ones. “Bankruptcy” and “restructuring” are the terms that wipe out stockholders and leave bondholders and other creditors to tussle over the scraps......

[Sigmetnow]

New study calculates the climate damage costs of fossil fuels, at a consumer level (gallons and kWh).
http://qz.com/355923/if-we-paid-for-the-hidden-cost-of-emissions-gas-would-be-6-25-a-gallon/

[viddaloo]

BC research and Obamascience, for sure. The authors don't know the full extent of the climate catastrophe and therefore cannot divide it into gallons and dollars. Pure Obamascience BC, I tell ya.

[jai mitchell]

A BNSF Railway train loaded with crude oil derailed and caught fire on Thursday afternoon in a rural area south of Galena, Illinois

[JimD]

Ahh yes!  Not to worry it is just a corporate geo-engineering effort to warm up the Midwest from an unusually cold winter.  Move along now.

[Sigmetnow]

Third oil train fire in as many weeks was supposedly using safer cars.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/06/3630622/another-bakken-oil-train-derailment/

[Sigmetnow]

Canada: This is the third CN derailment in northern Ontario [in] less than a month, and the second in the same area.

GOGAMA, Ont. -- A CN Rail train carrying crude oil derailed early Saturday in northern Ontario, causing numerous tank cars to catch fire and spill into a local river system, the railway and provincial police say.

http://www.cp24.com/news/fire-burning-after-train-carrying-crude-oil-derails-in-northern-ontario-1.2268690

[Csnavywx]

Feb 2015 petroleum data from the EIA indicates a jump in consumption to ~19.5mbpd compared to 18.0-18.5mpbd the last few Februaries. It's the highest rate since Feb 2009. It's now clearly on the rise since gas prices fell precipitously last fall.

[Sigmetnow]

Feb 2015 petroleum data from the EIA indicates a jump in consumption to ~19.5mbpd compared to 18.0-18.5mpbd the last few Februaries. It's the highest rate since Feb 2009. It's now clearly on the rise since gas prices fell precipitously last fall.

I would imagine some of the increase is due to the severe weather this February in the eastern U.S.

[AbruptSLR]

The linked article indicates that a combination of a record high surplus of crude oil supplies and a strengthening US dollar has driven the price of Brent crude oil down:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/09/us-markets-oil-idUSKBN0M505B20150309


Extract: "Brent crude oil fell toward $59 a barrel on Monday as the dollar strengthened and a supply glut pushed global oil inventories to record highs."

[JimD]

http://econbrowser.com/archives/2015/03/u-s-oil-production-still-surging

For those not familiar with many of the terms used in the Peal Oil discussions and what has been happening with oil production the last 10 years there is lots of good stuff in this article.  If one takes the time to look through the charts and read the explanations from Jeffery Brown in the comments they will understand why those knowledgeable about oil production state that the predictions about crude oil production peaking circa 2005 have so far proven to be correct.  And that increased 'liquids' production since then is actually an affirmation of the predictions and was expected.

Other notable points in the article are that US liquids production is still increasing in spite of the laying down of large numbers of rigs and it will continue to rise for up to 6 more months.  As storage facilities around the world continue to fill and approach 100% capacity this will put strong downward pressure on prices.  It is highly unlikely we have seen the bottom in prices yet.

As pointed out above consumption is rising in response to the lower prices at the pump.  A worrying trend but to be expected.  Strongly increased sales of large vehicles such as suv's and pickups will bake a lot of increased future consumption in unfortunately.  We will certainly pay an economic penalty for this.

[Sigmetnow]

Lack of available storage space for oil may cause the next oil price crash.

... As oil prices have crashed, from more than $100 a barrel last summer to below $50 now, big trading companies are storing their crude in hopes of selling it for higher prices down the road. With U.S. production continuing to expand, that’s led to the fastest increase in U.S. oil inventories on record. For most of this year, the U.S. has added almost 1 million barrels a day to its stash of crude supplies. As of March 11, nationwide stocks were at 449 million barrels, by far the most ever.
...
If oil supplies do overwhelm the ability to store them, the U.S. will likely cut back on imports and finally slow down the pace of its own production, since there won’t be anywhere to put excess supply. Prices could also fall, perhaps by a lot. Morse and his team of analysts at Citigroup have predicted that sometime this spring, as tanks reach their limits, oil prices will again nosedive, potentially all the way to $20 a barrel. With no place to store crude, producers and trading companies would likely have to sell their oil to refineries at discounted prices, which could finally persuade producers to stop pumping.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-12/oil-storage-squeeze-may-lead-to-another-price-crash


Waiting for someone to suggest the surplus extracted oil should be stored back underground....   

[Sigmetnow]

On the other hand, oil companies are still managing to make money -- a lot of it -- by trading, betting on higher prices later.

Although better known for their oil fields, refineries, and petrol stations, BP Plc, Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Total SA are also the world’s biggest oil traders, handling enough crude and refined products every day to meet the consumption of Japan, India, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands.

The trio’s sway in commodities trading, largely unknown outside the industry, is set to pay off in 2015 as the bear market allows traders to generate higher returns by storing cheap oil today to sell at higher prices later and using lower prices to make more bets with the same capital.

“Volatility has increased dramatically over the last three or four months,” said Mike Conway, the head of Shell’s trading and supply business. “Parts of your business that are volatility driven are probably doing pretty well.”
...
The last time that a European oil major disclosed the profitability of its trading operation was a decade ago, when BP said it made $2.97 billion in 2005, or about 10 percent of the company’s total earnings that year.

Without giving away concrete financial results, the companies have indicated income from trading already rose in the fourth quarter of 2014 as oil prices fell.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-12/oil-giants-in-europe-use-trading-prowess-to-profit-from-slump

[Sigmetnow]

It was an ugly day for oil.  Price down to $46, available storage filling up, and the estimate for 2015 production is raised, "since the large reduction in drilling has failed to slow output."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-13/it-s-another-ugly-day-for-oil

[JimD]

The sucker rally is almost over.  I pointed out that the rise was just temporary and was based upon hype (to reel in the suckers and dump some bad investments on the unwary).  Production soars.  Storage fills.  And disaster awaits around the corner.

Expect much lower prices soon.

Here is some good info and some instructive charts.

Blood will continue to flow for some time yet.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/03/wolf-richter-us-oil-bust-just-got-worse.html

..US oil drillers have been responding by slashing capital expenditures, including drilling, in a deceptively brutal manner. In the latest week, drillers idled 56 rigs that were classified as drilling for oil, according to Baker Hughes. Only 866 rigs were still active, down 46.2% from October, when they’d peaked at 1,609. In the 22 weeks since, drillers have taken out 743 rigs, the most dizzying cliff dive in the data series, and probably in history:..

So US oil production hit another record of 9.366 million barrels per day for the week ended March 6, according to the Energy Information Administration’s latest estimate....

 Thousands of wells have been drilled recently but haven’t been completed and aren’t yet producing. This is the “fracklog,” a phenomenon that has been dogging natural gas for years.....

Crude oil stocks are now 78.9 million barrels, or 21.3%, higher than at this time last year....

So when is US storage capacity going to be full? That event would cause all sorts of havoc in the oil markets, including a terrible plunge in price. With no place to put their oil, some production companies would have to turn off the tap and leave the oil in the ground. That would bring production down in a hurry, but it would add to the pent-up supply, the “fracklog,” thus dragging out the bust even further....

So there is a very good chance that storage capacity will disappear as a death trap for the price of oil this year. But US oil production is likely to continue to rise, leaving the industry to face an even bigger oil glut and even more price mayhem next year. Yet production won’t start declining until the money runs out.

The price is going to stay down for quite some time.  There are going to be big ripple effects across the entire world.

[oren]

I would guess the main ripple effects on a global level might be increased demand for oil due to lower prices, as well as postponement of renewable projects that become less competitive. Bad things.
Economists wanted to avoid recessions in order for BAU to run without glitches ==> money printing ==> bubble of cheap credit ==> fracking boom with no real profits but with lots of output ==> oil plunge ==> hastening climate change and collapse
Sometimes I think the worst enemies are Central Bankers.

[Bob Wallace]

Just a point about the increase in SUV/pickup sales that has been reported following the downturn in oil prices.

Car companies still have to meet CAFE standards.  If they sell a larger number of inefficient vehicles early in the year then they must sell a higher proportion of efficient vehicles during the remainder of the year. 

That most likely means that they will raise the cost of inefficient vehicles and lower the cost of efficient vehicles in order to shift the market.  What will especially useful is selling EVs and PHEVs.

[P-maker]

Dear Bob

Being overly optimistic is not going to do neither you nor the energy transition any good.

Let me tell you a personale tale about means of transportation in our family.

In the 1960ies, my dad drove a US Chevy – roughly  5 km/l of gasoline
In 1973 – after the oil crisis – he switched to a Dutch DAF – less than 10 km/l
In the 1980ies – he bought a Swedish Saab turbo – somewhere between 6 & 8 km/l
In the 90ies – I bought my first car – a Japanese Mazda 121  - on average 12-14 km/l
In 1998 – I bought an English Rover – less than 10 km/l
In 2000 – I bought a French Peugeot – roughly 12 km/l
In 2004 – my wife got a French Peugeot company car – close to 10 km/l
In 2010 – my wife got a new German Opel Insignia company car – less than 10 km/l
In 2014 – I sold my Peugeot and bought my wife a German Mercedes – 16-18 km/l of diesel
In 2015 – my oldest son has bought an old Peugeot – back to somewhere close to 12 km/l

I now take the (diesel!) train to work every day and my wife and son have both doubled their daily driving distances.

As you will see - in my lifetime - the average mileage of the cars has tripled, but the total daily driving distance is increasing rapidly as well, so the daily consumption of gasoline in our family has been more or less the same over the past 50 years.

One year ago, I was overly optimistic. Switching from a two-car family (doing roughly 10 km/l) to a one-car family again (doing more than 15 km/l) seemed like the right way to go (cutting 75 percent of fossil fuel consumption in one blow), but reality turned out to be more cruel than that.

I may consider buying a new plug-in hybrid one of these days to increase my own non-fossil fuel mobility, but the net result will be added fossil fuel consumption, no matter how much “green” electricity I can pull out of the plugs every night.

New technology is fine, but It doesn’t solve any of the issues we are discussing in this thread.

[Bob Wallace]

So if you, your son, and almost everyone else were driving EVs powered by electricity generated by solar panels and wind turbines  that would have no impact on oil?

And if we replaced the natural gas used for electricity generation and residential heating with electricity from renewable sources and biofuels there would be no impact on gas?

[P-maker]

The poor young man cannot afford a PHEV or similar, so he was forced to buy an old wreck.

As long as we do not get those old gazz guzzlers off the roads, there will still be a market for them.

I also tried to illustrate the fact that changing life circumstances (# of kids) and corporate car fleet policies play a role. I tried to make the point, that mobility increases as you grow older (reluctance to move and salaries both increase).

I was not talking about gas for heating or any kind of substitution. Just making the point that transportation needs vary through life and that new technology is not a silver bullet.

Transporting a ton of batteries every time you go to the grocery store for a litre of milk is highly inefficient in my view.

[Bob Wallace]

New efficient cars, be they high MPG ICEVs, PHEVs or EVs, purchased at the front end make their way toward the used car markets.  And become the "old wrecks" of the future.

Right now, if your son could manage with a ~75 mile range, he could purchase a used Nissan Leaf for about $12k.  If he drives 10,000 miles a year he save about $1k per year on fuel and oil changes.  Perhaps a lot more on repairs.  Four to six years and the Leaf would pay for itself simply in savings.

There is an inefficiency in hauling around batteries.  But the ICEV you might drive is wasting about 80% of the energy in the gas it uses.  That is real inefficiency.

[Bob Wallace]

Leaf range too low to be useable?  I just checked used Chevy Volt prices.  The least expensive I found was $16k, which might be a budget strain.  But let's look at the math.

My credit union is now making 72 month loans on used cars for 2%.  Monthly payment, no money down, would be $236.

Driving most of his miles on electricity would make monthly payment more affordable because of the fuel savings.

Now, that's for a three year old car.  A few years from now there will be older used Volts (and Leafs) and the purchase prices will be lower.  At some point there will be 15, 20 year old PHEVs and EVs for sale.

[P-maker]

Bob, you are living in a different world.

The cheapest 3y old Nissan Leaf costs more than $20k in this country. You can't borrow money to buy a used car in this country. He paid 1500 $ for his old wreck. All your math goes down the drain, when faced with these realities! You are a factor 10 off at least.

Apart from that, electricity prices (including taxes) are quite high here, so your calculus will never make any sense on this side of the pond.

[Bob Wallace]

Sorry, P-maker.  I don't know what country you live in.  I was giving you US information.

I'd be highly surprised if I was off by a factor of ten.  Being off on the price of a used Leaf or Volt by a factor of ten would make them $120,000 and $150,000 cars.  I doubt you'd have to pay 20% interest on a car loan.  $1.00/kWh?  $30.00/gallon?


How about telling us where you live and what prices you are seeing?

[P-maker]

Bob, the factor of 10 was about the cost of an old wreck compared to a 3y old EV. As long as you can buy these wrecks (or rent them for that matter), you will not see any upswing in overall fuel efficiency.

On all threads, you are attacking sensible, sustainable, renewable  and energy efficient ways of living. How about giving a few details on how you live your life. What happened during your most recent 2 months of vacation. Did you take your Tesla S for a spin down the freeway or did you do something else?

[Bob Wallace]

Please show me one single time where I have attacked " sensible, sustainable, renewable  and energy efficient ways of living".
---

You failed to tell us in which country you live.

Yes, here in the US one can buy a used ICEV for well under $1,000.  But that used ICEV will use fuel every month and almost certainly have higher repair and maintenance costs than an EV. 

EVs and PHEVs are only a few years old.  Nissan started shipping Leafs in December, 2010 IIRC.  Eventually there will be 15 year old EVs and PHEVs.

Fifteen years from now the 'old wrecks' one can buy will be more efficient than today's 'old wrecks'.  Fleet mileages are increasing. 

How do I live my life? 

Most of my electricity comes from solar panels, has for about 25 years.  I minimize when I shop and I recycle.  I generally use stuff until it's really worn out, repair and continue using when practical.  Have for more than 25 years.  I've been an organic gardener, for more than 25 years.  I eat a minimal amount of meat.  I dry my clothes on a line.  I purchase the most efficient appliances I can find (and afford).  I drive half the US average by going shopping only twice a month (generally) and planning efficient routes when I do go.

I deviate from an energy limited lifestyle by taking the occasional long trip, generally by air.  This winter we traveled to Bangkok where my aging MIL lives and did a side trip to Sri Lanka.  Public transportation and all that.

I pay for my carbon sins by calculating my carbon footprint and purchasing carbon offsets.

Now, I could cut things finer, but I'm not willing to be a martyr.  I'll do more than most, but I won't take it to an extreme because even if I cut my carbon emission to zero that would not solve the world's problem.

[P-maker]

Bob, you fit right into the typical scheme of a modern World traveller.

You spend about 60 percent of your budget on leisure travels - e.g. visiting your MIL.

As it happens, I also visited Sri Lanka in February this year. I took the Dreamliner - saving about 20 % of the fuel on an ordinary flight. The start in Sri Lanka was perfect - cruising down an almost empty  freeway in a Toyota Prius. The last day was terrible - winding our way down from the mountains in a 15y old Toyota Hiace.

Although my wife complains that my favourite blue shirt I bought in Tesco´s 15 years ago is worn out, I still cling on to it.

I don't live in a country per se. I try to make every trip important. If you can save more energy by going abroad and influence decision-makers, it is well worth the effort. On the local level, I stick to the principle of excercising more than you drive. Translated into practical terms, it means that if you take four youngsters in the car for a four hour drive, they each need to run for an hour to keep me happy.

[Neven]

Translated into practical terms, it means that if you take four youngsters in the car for a four hour drive, they each need to run for an hour to keep me happy.

In front of or behind the car? 

[P-maker]

Don't care as long as it's outside the car.

Afterwards you still need to consider their environmental foot prints:

Taking a swim in Swedish lake is fine, as long as they are clean afterwards. Taking a shower in a Danish public CDH environment is also fine. Even taking a dip in a German nuclear pool is fine with me. But diving into an Austrian cesspit - is just about taking it too far!

[Bob Wallace]

Bob, you fit right into the typical scheme of a modern World traveller.

You spend about 60 percent of your budget on leisure travels - e.g. visiting your MIL.

As it happens, I also visited Sri Lanka in February this year. I took the Dreamliner - saving about 20 % of the fuel on an ordinary flight. The start in Sri Lanka was perfect - cruising down an almost empty  freeway in a Toyota Prius. The last day was terrible - winding our way down from the mountains in a 15y old Toyota Hiace.

Although my wife complains that my favourite blue shirt I bought in Tesco´s 15 years ago is worn out, I still cling on to it.

I don't live in a country per se. I try to make every trip important. If you can save more energy by going abroad and influence decision-makers, it is well worth the effort. On the local level, I stick to the principle of excercising more than you drive. Translated into practical terms, it means that if you take four youngsters in the car for a four hour drive, they each need to run for an hour to keep me happy.

A modern world traveler?  Hell, son, I'm a last century backpacker.  I have moved on to a small drag behind suitcase.  It's easier on old bones.

60%?  Maybe 20% (and my income is low).  And that's because I'm trying to jam in as much traveling as I can in the next few years before I'm not able to travel any longer. 

You rode around SL in cars and trucks?  How wasteful. I rode trains and some buses.  I did take a tuk-tuk a couple of times when it was too far to walk in the midday heat.

Look, we can play the "I'm greener than you" game but that's meaningless and way off topic.

[wili]

"trying to jam in as much traveling as I can"

Sorry, Bob.

Stating that this is a high priority pretty well disqualifies you from claiming any real deep concern for GW. You just haven't really gotten the picture yet, somehow.

Thanks for helping us put the rest of your prattle into context, though.

ETA: Ah, I see you have a nice way to make yourself feel better: "I pay for my carbon sins by calculating my carbon footprint and purchasing carbon offsets."

I, too, have a handy little scheme to allay guilt for my sins. Maybe you should try this one, too!?:
http://www.cheatneutral.com/

[Bob Wallace]

Thank you for your guidance wili.

I will make it a point of beating myself soundly this evening.

Now, do you actually think that my taking the odd trip now and then and purchasing carbon offsets signals my non-concern for climate change?

Or are you just playing the fool?

[wili]

"I will make it a point of beating myself soundly this evening."

Wonderful! Now at last I can sleep happily in this knowledge. '-)

"do you actually think that my taking the odd trip..."

Depends on how odd the trip is! '-) But, yeah, essentially. Do you really think your 'offset' undoes the carbon you dumped into the atmosphere?

I don't have to play the fool!

You may well get there. But you're nowhere close enough, yet. Might want to start by brushing up on your Kantian ethics.

[Bob Wallace]

Do you really think your 'offset' undoes the carbon you dumped into the atmosphere?

I can't guarantee it.  I don't personally measure what happens.

What I do is to figure out my annual carbon footprint and usually double that amount.  You can get info on calculating your carbon footprint and how to find an offset that is likely legit here -

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/offsets.asp

Early on I used tree planting programs and more recently used the money to purchase micro-solar systems.

I'm still looking for a place for my 2013 and 2014 money as the startup that I was using is now running on its own and not requesting funds.  (I haven't actually calculated my 2014 number nor done my income taxes yet.  That's an April thing.)

Now, am I doing wrong?  Would it be better if I did not travel and hung on to my money? 

What's your solution for having a zero carbon footprint?  How successful are you?

[wili]

If you like giving money to people you don't know, you can still do that without doing any flying (or just send the checks to me)  .

In the old www.myfootprint.org, I was down to about 'one earth' before I went (mostly) vegan. (I haven't checked recently; they now charge.) Mostly cutting out all long distance travel (except for a bicycle trip or three every year) including flying was the biggest reduction for me, but also going meatless and now (mostly) vegan were big, too.

I should be clear that I'm not one of those who thinks that doing something high carbon could never be worth it. If one really were going to make a very significant policy difference by flying, say, to Washington, that might be worth it. But I gave up pretending that my personal presence was necessary for that kind of political impact. I mostly work with my students, then with the educational and other institutions I interact with, then some at the municipal and state level, and of course communicating regularly with my US congress folks.

Education and communication is mostly what I'm working on. I think we need a lot of that. The more people, especially young people, learn about the full extent of the problem, the more likely they are going to come up with approaches that old duffers like you and I couldn't dream up. Educating without totally bumming them out is a trick, but I always require some kind of direct action along with reflection.

Getting late here; time to turn in... 

[Bob Wallace]

Where does your electricity come from?  Carbon free?

How do you offset the carbon it took to build your bike?

Do you think that you, Neven, and I have made a big dent in climate change by cutting our personal carbon footprints?  Do you see signs that we've started a mass movement that will prevent extreme climate change?

BTW, I just found out that one of the organizations selling carbon offsets is a large community forest near here.  I'm pretty confident that they aren't blowing smoke.  I know some of the people who have worked for years to bring these redwoods under non-profit control.

They may be the folks getting my offset money.  I've got to dig into things a bit more.

http://www.cityofarcata.org/departments/environmental-services/city-forests/forest-history

http://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/projects/

[jai mitchell]

Where does your electricity come from?  Carbon free?

How do you offset the carbon it took to build your bike?

Do you think that you, Neven, and I have made a big dent in climate change by cutting our personal carbon footprints?  Do you see signs that we've started a mass movement that will prevent extreme climate change?

BTW, I just found out that one of the organizations selling carbon offsets is a large community forest near here.  I'm pretty confident that they aren't blowing smoke.  I know some of the people who have worked for years to bring these redwoods under non-profit control.

They may be the folks getting my offset money.  I've got to dig into things a bit more.

http://www.cityofarcata.org/departments/environmental-services/city-forests/forest-history

http://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/projects/

Ontario doesn't allow forestry offsets in their carbon trading market.  It is very interesting that California and Ontario have a shared carbon trading scheme (a combined market) but only California allows forests that have already been logged, and have little to no timber sale potential for the next 30 years, to be placed under "fallow" conditions and soak up carbon credits, allow for others to emit more carbon at a ridiculously low costs (when compared to the 100-year cost of carbon impact).

[wili]

"Where does your electricity come from?  Carbon free?"

Yep.

You're joking about the bike, right? It was used when I got it thirty years ago. The guy otherwise would have trashed it. If you want to know. (If I do need a new bike some day, I do think it would be cool to get (or make!?) one of those bamboo bikes. But I'm pretty sure my old bike will outlast me at this point.)

Look, in any case. I'm not claiming purity. Purity isn't the point.

The point is to bring one's own carbon emissions down as rapidly and greatly as possible and to encourage others to do the same. (While still doing what you can to educate yourselves and others and to influence policy...)

The fact is that we can all live fairly comfortable lives on a fraction of what most of us now consume, with no real sacrifice or suffering. I'm not starving. Indeed, I eat a much healthier diet than the average American. I also get more exercise. And can live with less money.

There are still things I need to do--more work on insulating the house; eating less in total, growing even more of my own food, and maybe a bit less beer (at that point, you are starting to talk about suffering and sacrifice!  ) Staying closer to home makes me more connected to my community, imho.

Drastic reductions can come at no great loss, and frankly in improvement, of standard of living, if that means health and community. Not that at some point we shouldn't be willing to actually cut back to the point that it hurts some, too. If we were willing to do that for WWII, why not now?

[AbruptSLR]

The linked article by The Financial Times indicates that the US shale industry is showing remarkable resilience which should keep crude oil prices low for years to come, which should keep carbon emissions high for some years to come:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/372e52bc-c98b-11e4-a2d9-00144feab7de.html#axzz3UYn7X1Uc

[JimD]

I found a great must read/watch presentation from Arthur Berman (if you don't recognize the name that means you are probably not qualified to discuss much about the energy industry - just saying).

This is not about climate change but one thing that gets many in trouble when talking about our problems and how to fix them is that they do not understand the energy business - energy IS the economy and it is the population totals.  The oil and gas business has had and will have a huge impact on what can be done and what will be done.  One should pay close attention to it.

PEAK OIL - yes is it is real and yes it did happen just as predicted.  You will find good data here on why that statement is true - though the presentation is not about that particularly.  Never forget that most of what you are told by the media is propaganda and the more they piss on something the more likely it is true.  Remember how maligned the Limits to Growth reports are and they have a prefect track record going back over 40 years.  Peak Oil is a close competition to that.  What you hear about tar sands, and shale oil/gas is mostly lies.  Here are some facts.

It is long, but really well worth the time.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/03/debunking-americas-energy-fantasy-shale-gas-tight-oil-peak-next-decade.html

[Shared Humanity]

JimD....great link....just finished watching the whole thing.

[JimD]

More on the bloodbath..

http://wolfstreet.com/2015/03/15/liquidity-death-spiral-junk-bonds-oil-gas-energy-companies-reserves-redetermination/

And the beginnings of the government bailout..

http://wolfstreet.com/2015/03/13/us-government-bails-out-oil-industry-russia-pe-firms-the-saudis-venezuela-wall-street-but-slams-american-consumers/

[Sigmetnow]

Federal regulators quietly float overhaul for aging U.S. oil pipeline network.

Almost two years after an Exxon Mobil Corp. pipeline split open and sent Canadian crude flowing through a neighborhood in Mayflower, Ark., federal regulators have quietly proposed a sweeping rewrite of oil pipeline safety rules.
...
The oil and pipeline industries are already lobbying against the idea, saying PHMSA has overstepped its legal mandate.

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060015050

[jai mitchell]

It will be interesting to see what happens to U.S. production once the price drops to $26.00 which, now that we are reaching storage capacity, is likely to occur in the next 6 months.

I find it a little disturbing that the speaker is given such gravity to his work and yet he refused to look at the political forces driving the market overcapacity.  Without discussing Saudi Arabia no longer willing to be a swing producer, without discussing the ISIS, Iraq, Kurd issue, the ukranian oil issue with Iran and the loss of production in Libya, one can hardly discuss the reason and the long-term projection for supply metrics.

finally, there is little doubt that the wells that have been fracked, and capped are sitting there waiting to be removed.  The money was being made in the drilling, there are tons of wells that have not yet been pumped.  To say that the fracking supply will go away in 6 months or even 2 years is worse than foolish, it is absolutely deceitful. (self or otherwise).

my $.02

[Bob Wallace]

There have been plenty people living your lifestyle and preaching about the value for a long time.  It hasn't moved the needle enough to make a difference.

Because the discussion was philosophical: "This is not the right way to live/forward for society, and thus this, this and this will happen some time in the future". This future is now, we are seriously bumping into the limits. See the global financial crisis, frantically veiled by all kinds of bookkeeping and psychological tricks. Or visit the Arctic Sea Ice Blog.

The discussion is shifting from the theoretical to the practical level. It's no longer abstract, and this changes the equation. So to now stop talking about the changes that really need to take place, and just say: 'Don't worry, we got you covered, we're going to greenify your SUV, airplanes, Coca Cola, Christmas gifts and Disney World trips', is about the stupidest thing you can do.

The coming success of renewables needs to be used as an example of change that can be achieved, instead of reinforcing the BAU narrative.

[wili]

Bob said that I wrote: "There have been plenty people living your lifestyle and preaching about the value for a long time"

I did not (and would not) say any such thing. Please avoid attributing to others words that they did not say. Thank you.

[Laurent]

Let them eat carbon! The corporate plan to cook Africa in its own fossil fuels
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2796838/let_them_eat_carbon_the_corporate_plan_to_cook_africa_in_its_own_fossil_fuels.html

[Bob Wallace]

Bob said that I wrote: "There have been plenty people living your lifestyle and preaching about the value for a long time"

I did not (and would not) say any such thing. Please avoid attributing to others words that they did not say. Thank you.

Actually the quoted words are mine, not yours.  They are part of a comment I wrote.  I apparently quoted something you had said.

The rest of my comment has disappeared and the words below starting with "Because...." are someone else's words and sentiments with which I do not agree.

Someone apparently edited my comment and took a bit of creative license putting words into my mouth, er, keyboard.  There is an 'Edited by' attribution at the bottom.

[JimD]

jai

Yes, good points.  I am sure that Mr Berman knows about all of that and could discuss it.  But perhaps he chose to stay somewhat out of things he does not consider himself a deep expert upon (after all he made fun in his presentation about false experts pontificating on oil and gas issues to general laughter) and there is also only so much time in a presentation of course. 

I would love to be able to get him in an off the record "What do you really think?" overall discussion and see what he says.  One of the problems with well known people is that they have to protect their positions in the dialogue and their image.

I won't say who it is, but I do have some limited access to the personal opinions on what is going to happen with climate change and carrying capacity of one of the most famous climate scientists.  His personal opinion is that we are irrevocably f**ked and that we will suffer catastrophic collapse.

That is one of the reasons I argue so strongly against BAU and for being proactive in our response rather than passive.

[silkman]

Meanwhile in George Osbourne's budget statement in the House of Commons today he announced a £1.3bn stimulus package to resuscitate the North Sea.

The announcement was coupled with a cancellation of the fuel price escalator to ensure that  lower oil prices are passed on to consumers.

And this from a coalition that set out to be the greenest UK government ever just five years ago. It just serves to illustrate the point made by many on this forum that short term political expediency will always win the day.

At least we can console ourselves that he took a penny off a pint and reduced whisky duty so we can drink ourselves into oblivion with abandon!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-31940616