2014 Bakken Oil Output 1.1M Barrels a Day

35 Comments on "2014 Bakken Oil Output 1.1M Barrels a Day"

Davy, Hermann, MO on Thu, 3rd Apr 2014 10:53 am 



A good asset for the US until the cost of money goes up and the cost of production become unprofitable. In any case Bakken is a drop in the bucket of world production. It will plateau and begin its decline soon. I am getting tired of all the hoopla over insignificance.

Dave Thompson on Thu, 3rd Apr 2014 11:19 am 



[“We’re very confident on the future of the Bakken,” said Jonathan Garrett, an analyst at Wood Mackenzie. He added that the expected lifetime of a Bakken well is 25 years to 30 years.] Depletion rates for these wells are in the 40/60% range per year. OR somebody is lying to me?

shortonoil on Thu, 3rd Apr 2014 12:16 pm 



$15 billion in drilling costs to produce 1.1 mb/d! Compare that with Saudi per well drilling cost of 1970. The Bakken is spending $13,336 per barrel of daily production, In 1970 the Saudi’s were spending $4.60. Using IHS data, in five years the average Bakken well that comes on line at 470 b/d will be producing 46 b/d in five years.

“We’re very confident on the future of the Bakken,” said Jonathan Garrett.

We assume he was joking!

http://www.thehillsgroup.org

Davy, Hermann, MO on Thu, 3rd Apr 2014 12:24 pm 



Snap that Whip short!!!!

rockman on Thu, 3rd Apr 2014 2:36 pm 



Dave – And that’s the great deception that can be perpetuated with the long life of a Bakken well. Some Bakken wells may produce for 30+ years. I’m currently working in a field where there are still some wells producing that were drilled 68 years ago. But those wells have averaged less than 10 bopd for more than 30 years. But 5 bopd for 30 years is over 50,000 bo. Not an insignificant number if you’re just looking at URR. But from a daily supply stand point it isn’t at all relevant.

Which, again, is the reason I tend to harp about the significance some folks give to ultimate recoverable reserves. It doesn’t matter how much oil the Bakken or EFS eventually produce. What matters to everyone who uses oil is the rate at which it comes out of the ground. And in the case of the Bakken and EFS it’s how long will the drilling boom continue because when it stops (for whatever reason) the existing wells will still have the same big URR numbers but the daily delivery will decline very quickly.

Nony on Thu, 3rd Apr 2014 2:37 pm 



The TOD doomer analysis predicted 150,000-225,000:

“Conclusion 3. Because of the highly variable nature of shale reservoirs, the characteristics of the historical Bakken production, and the fact that per-well rates seem to have peaked, it seems unlikely that total Bakken production will exceed 2x to 3x current rate of 75,000 BOPD.”

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3868

BTW, check out all the reader comments. Community was onboard with that estimate and enjoying their negative view of the play. All kinds of comments about hype being hype, etc. Even author speculating that the 2008 USGS estimate was politically influenced high (since then it’s been revised to double it!)

Now that the Bakken has MORE PRODUCTION than the UK or Columbia (in the top 20 countries if it were a country), I think doomer community needs to reconcile their earlier statements.

Learn to be skeptical BOTH of the positive and of the negative. (Like, Gail…really is a serial disaster predictor and not that smart on the numbers/econ, just throws up shark fins.) If you don’t, and continue to always be skeptical of every upside and believing of every downside…then you lack balance and honesty.

ghung on Thu, 3rd Apr 2014 3:05 pm 



Nony: “I think doomer community needs to reconcile their earlier statements.”

Why? You wouldn’t take them any more seriously than we take you. Seems pointless.

Northwest Resident on Thu, 3rd Apr 2014 3:14 pm 



“North Dakota produced a daily average just shy of 860,000 barrels per day..”

What this hyped up article fails to point out, however, is that it probably took close to 600,000 barrels per day to produce the energy required to extract that 860,000 barrels per day.

So you end up with a net barrels per day of roughly 260,000. BFD.

Note: This is based on a estimate of seven barrels required for every ten barrels produced from shale plays that I found on another website a couple of weeks ago. True? False? Somewhere in between?

Nony on Thu, 3rd Apr 2014 3:17 pm 



Oh, well if you remember reading it somewhere on the Internet, it must be true, NR. 😉

Northwest Resident on Thu, 3rd Apr 2014 3:27 pm 



Nony — Although I get the impression that is true for you, it isn’t true for me. Which is why, as you can see from my “Note:”, I am skeptical of that exact ratio and looking for “intelligent” feedback from somebody who might have more accurate info. But thanks for your perspective.

GregT on Thu, 3rd Apr 2014 3:32 pm 



I think that we have passed the point where the words ‘doomers’ and ‘cornucopians’ need to be redefined.

Those that believe that we will never run out of cheap excess energy should be reclassified as doomers, while those that believe that we can ween ourselves off of fossil fuels, and build new sustainable societies, should be called cornucopians.

It’s time to change the way that we look at our planet. Continuing to destroy the Earth’s natural ecosystems by burning fossil fuels should be viewed as highly negative, while leaving the remaining reserves in the ground, should be viewed as positive.

Sadly, we still have far too many people that care more about the markets, and human greed, than they do about the future of the only thing that is truly worth saving. Life itself.

Boat on Thu, 3rd Apr 2014 4:08 pm 



Northwest Resident
What this hyped up article fails to point out, however, is that it probably took close to 600,000 barrels per day to produce the energy required to extract that 860,000 barrels per day.

Did you add all the gas flared off? Energy just wasted? It may as high as 30% waste. A lot of floating numbers out there on this number.

rollin on Thu, 3rd Apr 2014 4:13 pm 



I did a poll on people I met. After giving an explanation of what is happening to oil production, I asked them several questions.
The outcome can be summarized by most people not caring much how they get their energy (electric vs oil or where electric comes from). Mostly they seemed to want to continue their lives even if the means and methods were different. When I told them that there would be less products and that they might have to be made locally, they in general did not care.

So basically, the citizen is not addicted or a lover of oil and those that push fossil fuels and do their damndest to keep their status quo are not fulfilling the desires of the people. They are setting them up for a big fall.

Boat on Thu, 3rd Apr 2014 4:16 pm 



shortonoil
$15 billion in drilling costs to produce 1.1 mb/d! Compare that with Saudi per well drilling cost of 1970. The Bakken is spending $13,336 per barrel of daily production,

$13,336 cost per barrel? I don’t think I will use that number in any discussion soon.

Northwest Resident on Thu, 3rd Apr 2014 4:44 pm 



Boat — In answer to your question, no, I did not add in the gas flared off or energy just wasted. I just used a number that seemed to be from a “trustworthy source” on an article I read.

The energy return on energy invested ratio is frequently discussed in articles, including here on this site. We KNOW that we are rapidly approaching a point in time where the energy invested to get a barrel of shale oil out of the ground will equal or exceed the amount of energy available to the economy once that barrel of oil has been extracted, processed and delivered in useable form to the end consumer. But I found that “barrels of oil needed to barrels of oil extracted” ratio in one place — it is an interesting way of putting it and I’m hoping one of our resident experts could either confirm or deny the 7-to-10 ratio. So far, no luck.

shortonoil on Thu, 3rd Apr 2014 7:15 pm 



@ NR

Does it take 7 barrels of oil to produce 10 at the well head for the Bakken. The answer is no, that would exceed the theoretical limits for energy conversion during the oil production process. The last time someone around here calculated the ERoEI of the Bakken it came out between 7.5 and 8:1 (can’t find the notes on how they did it, they will show up eventually). The average worldwide ERoEI (which is always taken at the well head) in 2012 for conventional crude was 9.6:1. The minimum theoretical ERoEI (the point where the average barrel hits the dead state) is 6.9:1. Just for reference the ERoEI of the average barrel produced in 1960 was 78:1.

Hope that helps.

http://www.thehillsgroup.org

.

shortonoil on Thu, 3rd Apr 2014 7:54 pm 



“$13,336 cost per barrel? I don’t think I will use that number in any discussion soon.”

lol, think you dropped a few units. That is $13,336 per barrel of daily production for drilling costs. But seriously, it makes you wonder just how profitable could this production really be?

Northwest Resident on Thu, 3rd Apr 2014 8:00 pm 



shortonoil — Yeah, that answers the question. I guess I can use the ERoEI ratio and convert that to a barrels used to barrels extracted ratio, and come up with an estimate of about 1.25 barrels of oil used to extract every 10 barrels of oil in Bakken. Still, that ends up being a rather large subtraction from the rosey figure of of 860,000 barrels per day, and still doesn’t include the amount of energy required to transport that oil to the refinery, refine it into something useable, and then deliver the end product(s) to point of sale — no doubt, another barrel or two burned for every ten barrels extracted.

8:1 today versus 78:1 in 1960. That is an incredible fall from where we used to be. No wonder we are many trillions in debt with the fat rats grabbing everything they can get while the getting is still good, as we creak along ever closer to the final breaking point.

shortonoil on Thu, 3rd Apr 2014 10:19 pm 



“Still, that ends up being a rather large subtraction from the rosey figure of of 860,000 barrels per day, and still doesn’t include the amount of energy required to transport that oil to the refinery, refine it into something useable, and then deliver the end product(s) to point of salepoint of sale — no doubt, another barrel or two burned for every ten barrels extracted.”

Most analysis fail to include the energy it takes to refine, and distribute petroleum. It’s huge. In 2012 it took about 56,000 BTU/gal to refine, and distribute a gallon of crude. (That number comes out of the Etp model, and is backed up by EIA calculations) Out of light sweet which has 140,000 BTU/gal, its a pretty big chunk. Out of field condensate, which is primarily pentane, and has only 107,000 BTU per gallon there is little if anything left over for the economy.

The amount of energy to extract, process and distribute petroleum is increasing every year. Last thing I read global debt was $100 trillion, and had increased by $30 trillion since 2008. The cost to produce our most essential extractive commodity is increasing, and our net worth is decreasing. That’s what we are trying to explain to people. We are on a declining slope, and it is getting steeper every day!

http://www.thehillsgroup.org

.

Nony on Thu, 3rd Apr 2014 11:57 pm 



Piccollo in late 2009, posted another Bakken thread. He was not explicit in that thread about his old prediction being wrong. (And consider if he’d been right, how TOD would have played it…) However, he was at least graceful when confronted on it:

“Admittedly, I was a bit hasty in my prediction of peak rate. However, I will go out on another limb and say that 1 million barrels per day is going to be really tough, especially if the decline rates mentioned by a poster above are wide spread. Let’s hope you’re right and I’m wrong. If it did reach 1 million barrels per day, it would absolutely be “moving the needle” on national production.”

Note, that this has already been surpassed. We are over 1 million with US Bakken alone (ND and MT).

So, I guess it did “move the needle”. 🙂

rockman on Fri, 4th Apr 2014 12:23 am 



Shorty – I started this message but don’t think it was posted. Want to try an idea to follow up on the time factor vs. URR. I’m sure you understand NPV: net present value. For others: NPV is the common way for the oil patch to monetize the value of reserves. A simple analogy: You loan me $100 and I pay you back $150. Good deal for you? Depends. If I pay you back in one month…great for you. If I pay you back in 30 years…not a very good investment for you. So if a $7 million well has an ultimate recovery of 200,000 Bo is it good or poor investment? Well, if it takes 8 years…not so bad. But 60 years…not so good. But what if half comes out in 8 years and the other half takes 50 years? We calculate NPV using net monthly cash flow.

In economic analysis we convert the bbls to $’s of cash flow and do NPV. So a $7 million well has an ultimate undiscounted cash flow of $16 million net of royalty, production taxes and lease operating expense. But consider two wells with the same revenue but recover at different rates. So one has a NPV of $12 million. Not bad. And the other well: NPV is $8 million so a $7 million well producing $16 million is barely profitable??? Yes: because the cash flow has a discount rate of 10%. The yearly cash flow is decreased 10% per year per year.

That’s how we run economics but probably difficult for folks to relate. But here’s my suddenly brilliant thought: instead of using NPV how about NPO: Net Present Oil. So the first well has a NPO of 120,000 bo ($12 million/$100) and the second well has a NPO of 70,000 bo ($7 million/$100).

So both wells have an URR of 200,000 bo but adjusted for the length of time it takes to recover 100% of that oil one well has an equivalent recovery of 120,000 bo and the other only 70,000 bo.

So maybe a Bakken well will make 300,000 bo but so much comes out from Year 10 to Year 30 it has a NPO of only 150,000. That gives a very difference sense of the impact of such wells. Just like thinking getting $150 back on a $100 loan is good deal. Unless you’re getting it a little every month for many, many years down the road.

Nony on Fri, 4th Apr 2014 2:26 am 



A graph of NPV per year for a typical Bakken well would be interesting to me. I searched and have not seen any examples on google images. Almost like the cum curve itself, but with the investment making it negative to start. And also, it’s not just a slowing production with time, but also the effect of discounting on top of that.

How many years to go positive, perhaps a comparison to conventional or deep offshore.

How much of the value comes in the “uncertain” part of the type curve (say after 5 or 10 years or whatever you think we know based on old wells for the general shape). I have a suspicion given the steep declines as well as inherent compounding adding up, that all of this fussing about the decline curves 30 years from now ends up not affecting the economic feasibility of the wells. But I don’t know for sure how much it matters.

There’s also some value in wells that tend to deliver more, earlier, not just from discounting but from the futures curve pricing being backwarded. This is not just saying this…I have read that some operators are taking this into account.

P.s. We all have our blind spots, so nothing against the indivuals, but the idea of having a cogent discussion about this stuff if some of the parties don’t understand time value of money…and have been hanging out here for years and still don’t. Just seems like a drag to not really be able to get into the real issues and being stuck on such a basic concept.

P.s.s. Total back of the envelope, but if we think about the major sunk cost as the well completion and how long to pay it off. 8 million for a well. Figure $50bbl after costs. Then need 160,000 barrels to get it back (simple payback, ignoring time value of money). I think you hit that about 2 years.

http://www.ogj.com/content/dam/ogj/print-articles/Volume%20110/April%202/z120402OGJxma05.jpg

Obviously to do it right, you want to have a model and a WACC and all the costs and factors and pricing and such. But I think just knowing this aspect makes it a lot less shakey and risky than doomers think. Something like Kashagan is much more of a long term risk. Bakken wells are something, you can pretty rationally get in/out of if there is a price crash (main risk, not geology). And we already saw this once in 2008. So for a debt issuer, it’s really not that high a level of uncertainty to be underwriting this development. not like deep offshore or overseas or something really risky like a biotech or a the like.

rockman on Fri, 4th Apr 2014 4:09 am 



Nony – “How many years to go positive, perhaps a comparison to conventional or deep offshore.” That’s one area that the Bakken and the shale plays have an advantage…sort of. Because of the high initial rates the early incomes suffer less from discounting. It also gets them to payout quicker.

OTOH if you have ever run NPV at a 10% DR on any oil/NG production you realize that any production beyond the first 7 or 8 years adds very little to the NPV. Which also means it adds very little to the rate of return since NPV is used to calculate it.

Yes: find anyone’s plot of any well vs. time and add just the first 8 years and you would have a rough approximation to NPO. But you find many companies that don’t discuss anticipate flow rates beyond the first few years.

Nony on Fri, 4th Apr 2014 4:12 am 



PV-10 is a normal part of the 10K (to support your point).

Nony on Fri, 4th Apr 2014 4:28 am 



I just read another old (2011) TOD Bakken thread that was disagreeing with mainstream predictions of tight oil growth. Basically, the mainstream ended up right and Gail/TOD (most commenters patting her on the back) was wrong.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7499#more

1. Gail sets up the discussion and links to some other threads…but does not disclose the previous Piccolo prediction of 150-225,000 bdp max. An analysis that she had commission and posted and that exists on TOD and got huge discussion at the time (almost all agreement).

2. She

a. disagrees with the mainstream prediction of 2 MM bpd additional US production by 2015. She disagrees with imports being cut in half. She disagrees with the tight oil affecting timing of peak oil.

3. Since then, we have blown away all these predictions and she has been shown wrong.

We are almost at 8 MM bpd at end of 2013 (from a low of 5). Hit the 2MM by 2015 well early!

Imports are about cut in half already. Down to 5 MM bpd from their high of 10 MM bpd. (Cut even more if you account for the 2MM bpd net exports of finished petroleum products we do). And we’re not even into 2015 yet.

And pretty much everyone (including some of her fellow peakers like Kopits, Hamilton) says that we would be post peak were it not for US LTO (IOW, it is affecting things noticeably). Heck, now we have some peakers who want to shift the goalposts and exclude it from definition of peak oil (why bother if it doesn’t matter?)

4. And Gail has not bothered posting a nice analytical post to explain everything that turned out different from what she said and what she learned from that. Instead…more poor sharks are being disfigured.

Nony on Fri, 4th Apr 2014 4:35 am 



But rockman (Bakken, shale timing). There’s also a big element of the drilling now that’s infill. IOW, it leverages infrastructure (e.g. the pad) that is already there. Leverages existing knowledge and exploration already done. It’s pretty much a faster time to first oil and less risky than some all new play.

I don’t think the alarmists and suspicious types here appreciate that. They just see oil production predicted and assume that it must be some con job since it’s different from the memes they’ve been reading about at TOD, PO, POB for last few years. And the funny thing is the mainstream predictions have ended up being the sound ones, not the analyses in the peak-o-sphere which have drastically underestimated US LTO growth. And I have to say…it’s more likely the bias is here, given the results rather than with the EIA or the like. (Heck, didn’t ASPO have some dramah of demanding EIA talk to them. ;-))

Nony on Fri, 4th Apr 2014 4:53 am 



Another failed anti-Bakken prediction from the TOD-sphere:

http://bittooth.blogspot.com/2011/08/ogpss-north-dakota-and-bakken-shale.html

Nony on Fri, 4th Apr 2014 5:13 am 



And then there’s Rune’s article. 600-700 bpd predicted. Left in the dust months after he made the prediction and way back in the rear view mirror now. Think got all kinds of media play. But has been blown out of the water, now. And he hasn’t bothered publishing a followup or maybe said something to all the people that he dismissed when they disagreed with him.

Nony on Fri, 4th Apr 2014 5:28 am 



Here’s the link to the famous Rune post:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9748

It was so totally awesome that it got rerun as a top 10 post of the year. Doesn’t look so good now…

Calhoun on Fri, 4th Apr 2014 8:55 am 



Yep, Nony, the world is full of predictions that never came to be. Gail, Chris Martenson, Nicole Foss, Michael Lynch, Daniel Yergin ($38 long term price ceiling for oil in 2004). Add in a bunch of pseudo economists like Marc Faber. World is full of predictions. It’s all too easy to go back and find the ones that suit your argument.

That’s one reason I like Rockman’s views – he never predicts anything!

But after reading hundreds of your posts, I’m still unclear about what your expectations are (I avoid the word predict) for both U.S. and world oil production. At times you appear somewhat middle of the roadish and at other times full-bore optimistic. I’m guessing that you don’t deny that a peak will come (correct me if I’m wrong) but when do you see it happening? And do you feel that the world will manage through it?

Nony on Fri, 4th Apr 2014 9:22 am 



I don’t have a problem with predictions. In fact, I think it drives learning. (For instance, in the forums, I’m a big fan of the thread for betting the year end price.) I have a huge problem with not facing them though. And making repeated ones in a way that veers into being intellectually dishonest.

Thank you for kind question on my views. Not sure I have them all sorted out. I guess I’m kind of middle of the roadish on outlook. And in any case, I prefer to really look at everything (even factors on opposite side of my view).

On outlook, I think the prolonged high oil price is a real issue and more important than the small increases in volume. I suspect/hope/wonder if OPEC has more to do with this than we give credit. I remember the peak oil of the 70s and how OPEC was beaten. I though this even back in 2005 and the events of 2008 certainly showed a cartel that acted to boost price dramatically. I also thought the conspiracy stuff about twilight in the desert and light spotting by Saniford and the like was silly and don’t think people like Heading Out have really faced up to what they said and that what has gone down. SA has lots of oil in the 2P, 3P category within their borders.

But even if there’s a lot of oil around, if we are becoming more and more at the mercy of SA (or ME countries), even if there’s no imminent geological driven peak…we still can get screwed by the cartel. I do think LTO has kept oil from going to 120 though. So, there’s that.

On the gas side, it’s been utterly dramatic how peak gas didn’t hold up and cliffs didn’t hold up and the price situation is quite reasonable. You can even make a statement in opposition to Rock saying price is the reason for all the shale plays, not technology/knowledge. Maybe you say that about oil…but in gas, the Marcellus has basically stopped conventional gas well drilling. (And I think even in oil, completion technology has advanced. Those wells have some skill from all the repetition and there has been learning compared to some carbonate plays from the 80s where maybe a handful of 3 frack horizontals were done. For that matter, George Mitchel learned a few things wandering in the Barnett wilderness for 25 years. It wasn’t all “old Austin Chalk knowledge”.

I enjoy having a place to chat about the oil/gas boom and the analytics and all. I’m not really into some of the conspiracy theory stuff though. Wall Street watches the Bakken pretty closely and there’s a heck of a lot of press. The idea that TODsphere has the better insights and everyone else is falling for press releases, I don’t buy it. Heck, the play has so many wells and production volume, that it’s not like a drug stock or something that might get hyped and have a digital outcome (go/no-go).

I guess also, even if I’m a little middle of the roadish, my sympathy is to finding the oil. Most peakers say it’s bad news that we can’t have more oil…but really that;s what they want for environmental reasons or the like.

Anyhow…it’s hard to analyze yourself and I had a root canal and some pain meds. So…I do appreciate your kind inquiry, especially after all my antagonistic posts.

P.s. Whatsa fella gotta do to get banned here? Doc? I’m already booted at PO. You don’t want them outdoing you.

Nony on Fri, 4th Apr 2014 9:38 am 



I thought about your post a little more. I think SA basically has us by the nuts. In a free competition world (imagine if there were as many companies drilling SA as drill the US or even just the Bakken), that price would be way lower. While there’s some possibility of a price crash (and not just from recession from cartel discipline, from supply), there’s also a chance of continued economy not being great. But I think we will manage. It may not be 80s-90s disco economy, but the 70s were livable. Certainly the localization and meltdown and the like is off the hook silly.

Davy, Hermann, MO on Fri, 4th Apr 2014 10:40 am 



Calhoun said – Yep, Nony, the world is full of predictions that never came to be. Gail, Chris Martenson, Nicole Foss, Michael Lynch, Daniel Yergin ($38 long term price ceiling for oil in 2004). Add in a bunch of pseudo economists like Marc Faber. World is full of predictions. It’s all too easy to go back and find the ones that suit your argument.
That’s one reason I like Rockman’s views – he never predicts anything!

Yea predictions are strange and problematic. They dramatically diminish in accuracy exponentially the farther out you go like the heat of a fire. I guess it is because the nonlinear world we live in is very difficult to model. I find no problem with predicting macro trends. Many are plain to see and straight forward. For example world population is growing and overshoot is increasing with this growth. Overshoot leads to population corrections. We see trends in the financial system and the oil supply demand dynamics. We can accurately say that there is a trend of limits of growth and diminishing returns with problem solving. We can predict unsustainability leading to correction. So, there are obvious trends that allow a generalized predictions. It is when we focus the type and duration of the subject the distortions come into play. Oil price and is case in point and with that supply and demand. Then there is the stupidity of many MSM reporters, think tanks, NGO’s, and the UN that “excel goal seek”. We see this with population forecast, food production, and energy use. These forecast lately are no way in relation to carrying capacity and limits of growth. Predictions are fun to make and watch for the results. They remind me of the casino. We know the odds so throw the dice.

shortonoil on Fri, 4th Apr 2014 1:59 pm 



“In a free competition world (imagine if there were as many companies drilling SA as drill the US or even just the Bakken), that price would be way lower. ”

As an API lobbyist told me fairly recently, “most people just have no idea how much it costs to produce this stuff”. Guess she was right!

Calhoun on Fri, 4th Apr 2014 3:25 pm 



PREDICTIONS! Why do people make them? I think a lot of people just want to be recognized as smarter than others. But there are others, like Colin Campbell and Robert Hirsch, who make predictions to wake us up to the very difficult situation we will be feeling at some point in the future.

Campbell’s graphs of oil production have not accurately predicted where we are today. Hirsch is betting on a 2015 or so timeframe for peak. But in neither case are the accuracy of the predictions more important than the bigger issue that we are headed for a world of scarcity and we are not ready.

Unfortunately, when predictions do not pan out precisely, critics quickly assume the bigger message is similarly invalid. In the end, only time will tell who is right.

I think the more conservative voices, such as Charles Maxwell, will prove correct. He calls for a peak between 2015 and 2020 and guesses that 2017 would be a reasonable point estimate.

Does it matter? It would matter if we, as a society, were making efforts to prepare. But we aren’t, so to some extent it doesn’t matter. However, my concern is primarily for my son, born in 2000, who will hopefully live well into the end of the current century. He will most certainly live through the worst of the decline. By the time he reaches my age, I expect the world will be a dramatically different place, and not for the better.

So, we wait and watch.