Recently, the EIA released its Annual Energy Outlook 2015 and so we asked David Hughes to see how the EIA’s projections and assumptions have changed over the last year, and to assess the AEO2015 against both Drilling Deeper and up-to-date production data from key shale gas and tight oil plays.

In July 2015, Post Carbon Institute published Shale Gas Reality Check, which found that in 2015 the EIA is more optimistic than ever about the prospects for shale gas, despite substantive reasons for caution.

This month we turn our eyes to the EIA’s latest projections for tight oil.

After closely reviewing the Annual Energy Outlook 2015, David Hughes raises some important, substantive questions: Why is there so much difference at the play level between AEO2014 and AEO2015? Why does Bakken production rise 40% from current levels, recover more than twice as much oil by 2040 as the latest USGS mean estimate of technically recoverable resources, and exit 2040 at production levels considerably above current levels? How can the Niobrara recover twice as much oil in AEO2015 as was assumed just a year ago in AEO 2014? What was the thinking behind the wildly optimistic forecast for the Austin Chalk in AEO2014 that required a 78% reduction in estimated cumulative recovery in AEO2015? How can overall tight oil production increase by 15% in AEO2015 compared to AEO2014 while assuming oil prices are $20/barrel lower over the 2015-2030 period?

America’s energy future is largely determined by the assumptions and expectations we have today. And because energy plays such a critical role in the health of our economy, environment, and people, the importance of getting it right on energy can’t be overstated.

It’s for this reason that we encourage everyone—citizens, policymakers, and the media—to not take the EIA’s rosy projections at face value but rather to drill deeper.

36 Comments on "Tight Oil Reality Check"

Makati1 on Tue, 22nd Sep 2015 7:50 am 



Who cares? It’s too late to stop the runaway climate change. All else is fluff in the long run.

“Decades-Long “Megadrought” Looms For Entire US As Lake Powell Runs Dry, NASA Warns”
“Snowpack in Sierra Nevada at 500-Year Low, Researchers Say”
“Next two years hottest globally, says Met Office”
“As wildfires rage in West, ranchers lose cattle, rangeland”
http://ricefarmer.blogspot.fr/

Boat on Tue, 22nd Sep 2015 9:23 am 



Predictions are indicators of a direction but hind sight is always more accurate. EIA’s methodology at least explained in detail if one wants to sort through it.

Plantagenet on Tue, 22nd Sep 2015 11:03 am 



I wonder if anyone has ever reviewed David Hughes’ past predictions and asked him why he was so wrong in the past and what explains the annual changes in his predictions.

Cheers!

Nony on Tue, 22nd Sep 2015 12:15 pm 



Read it and jotted down my reactions:

• Eschew ad homs (“post carbon” and previous failed Hughes predictions [peak gas from 2006!])

• Tends to repeat/grind negative aspects of shale that are not in debate, well known (decline rate of well, extrapolate to field, sweet spots) rather than just analyze

• Indicts the change from 2014 to 2015, but there has been a major change (price). Also the whole thing is new. After all, what were the predictions 5 or 10 years ago for LTO. So, yes, he’s actually right that predictions are not robust/easy, but then this is not looking at stripper wells.

• No discussion of technology/knowledge trends. E.g. the “cracking the code” aspect of learning about plays that leads to better exploitation.

• Probably pretty lagging (when was the EIA work created?)

• EIA price projection is probably aggressive on price (high) and would be better expressed in real dollar estimate.

• Comments about production lags, DUCs, retreat to core etc. contributing to “resilience” are relevant.

Bakken:

• Agree that the Bakken growth shown by EIA is strange. I wonder if it is the result of dated analysis that relied on higher prices (yes, EIA 2015 shows a price drop, but perhaps the play analysis was done separately and before the crash). Really what is happening looks a lot more like a flat-line. But I agree that can only last for a couple years. So something more like Hughes’s estimate would make sense unless there really are notable advances in the technology to make it cheaper to drill/complete or to get more per well.

• The part about resource being greater than USGS estimate doesn’t worry me. That estimate is pretty dated and there have been advances in completion practices since then. At a high price regime, I’m sure we could deliver something like the EIA 2015 case…just we won’t get those high prices absent a war in the Mideast or Russia.

Eagle Ford:

• EF will be a bit lower in the near term than either DH or EIA 14 or 15 estimate. Given high declines and rig count drops, this is a play that can turn off fast when prices drop.

• Too hard to really think about debate the shark fin in 2024 (Hughes versus EIA). I see plays usually tending to drag out more than people think (fat tail). But then EF really is a true shale with very fast declines. Then again, it has a great location. I just don’t know. I really wouldn’t worry about it as 2024 so far away. See the estimates as not that far apart given all the uncertainties.

Permian and others (mixed):

• Wolfcamp: Hughes mashes a couple different points together in the same bullet (high upside and then too optimistic a forecast). I think a result of just writing fast. I do like his discussion of the difference in the geology and basically the promise of the Permian based on its oil in place and its being a bit more of a conventional play (not a true shale). I think everyone is curious about the Permian based on some differences versus the Eagle Ford. Just high uncertainty here. But in some sense the Permian is a world class resource. [yes, I know it’s a stacked play and this is just Wolfcamp.]

• Spraberry: I think Hughes could benefit himself and the readers by looking at how companies are deciding between Wolfcamp and Spraberry. Some earnings calls are helpful here.

• Niobrara looks like another one where the analysis is just dated. Their 2014 estimate (maybe developed in 2013) was rapidly exceeded when we were in the high price regime. I suspect (regardless of the price listed for the EIA 2015 assumption) that this estimate was derived to try to correct the 2014 underestimate but that it relies on a high price regime situation.

• Bone spring: basically agree with him. 2014 estimate too conservative and then upped it to a 2015 one that was too optimistic. I think the 2014 one was too conservative because of failing to appreciate the opportunity (which industry was learning about) and then 2015, I suspect, reflects high price assumptions.

• AC is interesting because of its history but still so small as to not matter much (whether optimistic or not). I think a lot will depend on price in the 2020+ regime. If it comes up, than great. If it stays around $50, then the wells won’t get drilled here.

• Other plays: Hughes bangs the non-ubiquitous shale drum again but this is a talking point not real insightful analysis. Every market has different producers/customers that vary in size. The concentration of approx. one quarter Bakken, one quarter EF, one quarter Permian, and then a smatter of little guys is really not so extreme.

Conclusions:

• All plays: I think the two dynamics going on here are
o A. catching up with understanding of the growth. (story of the last several years underestimating.)
o B. shift to the low price regime.
o So EIA was under before and is over now. But for different reasons.

• I don’t think it’s fair or relevant to criticize the EIA methodology. This is an inherently uncertain situation. The geology was actually pretty well known a long time ago. What was not was the commercial potential. Who predicted the ramp up? Not Hughes! This is a new phenomenon. There is still some catching up going on. Add onto that that price has changed and this will drive some changes also. I expect 2016 to be down as they included the price impact more. And then even given all that…who knows what the costs will be in 2025 or what the production will be. Maybe we get some developments in completion efficacy, maybe we don’t.

rockman on Tue, 22nd Sep 2015 1:49 pm 



Mac – Who shoukd care? Easy answer: you and everyone else who expect AGW to bring about damaging climare change. Any significant effort will require energy…huge amounts of energy. Just imagine the effort to move irrigation water to needed areas. And obviously the bulk of that energy will have to come from fossil fuels. A probably a lot from coal.

Curse fossil fuels all you want for getting us to this stage we’re. But mitigating the effects by whatever significant degree won’t happen without energy

apneaman on Tue, 22nd Sep 2015 3:24 pm 



rockman says – we have to bomb the village to save it. You might have an partial argument, except there is no real mitigation or real preparation other than “Jade helm” and such. If TPTB gave a shit why do the let the real estate/development complex build on flood plains when they have been warned by professionals who know not to? No better example than Texas. Deluge – destruction – rebuild, when we know damn well it is just going to keep happening and the severity and regularity will increase. Look at Miami and other rising tides east coast locals and their spending tax dollars to rebuild beaches that are doomed within just a couple of decades. No almost all the effort and huge amounts of energy is going into BAU that benefits those with the most. It’s dog eat dog to the last man standing. Look at Rick Scott & Co. A bunch of criminal morons who only care about protecting the rich. Can’t even say the phrase climate change. Essentially, almost no preparation for what is here now and only going to get worse. It could not be a more worse case scenario as far as failing to attempt to protect citizens. Should be fun to watch the masses rip apart the political puppets and other well paid useful idiots after the elite abandon them. Standard practice in troubled times.

Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Time Series

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/time-series

DUTCH SEA LEVEL RISE EXPERT: MIAMI WILL BE “THE NEW ATLANTIS,” A CITY IN THE SEA

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/dutch-sea-level-rise-expert-miami-will-be-the-new-atlantis-a-city-in-the-sea-7628340

One-Two Punch of Rising Seas, Bigger Storms May Greatly Magnify U.S. East Coast Floods
New Study Quantifies Synergy of Two Climate Hazards

“At the same time, separate studies suggest that the intensity of the biggest storms generated in the North Atlantic may increase, because warmer waters contain more energy. Projections of this phenomenon are somewhat less certain, but scientists are taking them with increasing seriousness.

The new study shows how the two factors may work together. The authors analyzed 15 climate models at five locations: Atlantic City, N.J.; Charleston, S.C.; Key West, Fla.; Pensacola, Fla.; and Galveston, Tex. They not only considered both factors, but the chances that they would be correlated–in other words, the probability that they could act together in time to produce more than the sum of their parts. Five models simulated both high local sea-level rises and increases in the strongest storms.”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150921133833.htm

beammeup on Tue, 22nd Sep 2015 5:12 pm 



Nony posted: “The geology was actually pretty well known a long time ago. What was not was the commercial potential. Who predicted the ramp up? Not Hughes! This is a new phenomenon.”

Another thing that wasn’t well known: The extent to which the investment community would be willing to fund risky shale ventures in search of returns in a low-return environment.

Boat on Tue, 22nd Sep 2015 5:37 pm 



Apeman,
Should be fun to watch the masses rip apart the political puppets and other well paid useful idiots after the elite abandon them. Standard practice in troubled times.

But it is nobody’s fault but their own. In America you are free to make bad investments and stupid decisions. Some call this the Darwinian flush lol

Makati1 on Tue, 22nd Sep 2015 6:13 pm 



rockman, I don’t expect wasted efforts to mitigate anything. I expect it ALL to go down fast when it happens. It takes a functioning financial system to do big projects and that system will soon be dead or severely crippled. Killed by the same greed that is killing life on this planet. So, yes, collapse now and reset to whatever level is possible without the oil, etc. The human species may just survive.

Davy on Tue, 22nd Sep 2015 7:35 pm 



The NOoo said “Another thing that wasn’t well known: The extent to which the investment community would be willing to fund risky shale ventures in search of returns in a low-return environment.” Sometimes you can be so funny NOoo and not even realize it. Think about it NOoo low cost money needing a home with high price commodity ready to exploit. Include in that all the snake oil hype at all levels.

It is called a gold rush mentality within an investment bubble. This was 100% central bank created. Without QE & ZIRP US & HUGE Chinese credit creation oil would never have gone up enough to allow the black gold rush. The economy was flat on its face. We should have bit the bullet at that point with a rebalance. So, I am rephrasing you “What wasn’t know was how far central banks were going to go. That was the surprise.”

Truth Has A Liberal Bias on Tue, 22nd Sep 2015 8:12 pm 



Is being a fucking idiot a prerequisite for posting multiple comments daily on this pathetic site? Judging from the retarded comments I see here on such a regular basis I’m convinced it is. You guys are morons.

Davy on Tue, 22nd Sep 2015 8:18 pm 



thalb, what a pathetic name for an asswipe. I am glad I did my part ofending you. It gives me great pleasure for you to feel like an asswipe.

apneaman on Tue, 22nd Sep 2015 8:41 pm 



Goof Has A Liberal Bias, obviously you feel right at home here then. Among your kind – or do you only get the 1 website?

rockman on Wed, 23rd Sep 2015 6:22 am 



So apneaman’s approach to having a boom in the village is to just do nothing, stand there and watch it explode killing himself and all his neighbors. That was his response. Unless of course he has some magical plan top mitigate the negative effects of AGW that doesn’t require affordable energy.

So wise apneaman: tell us how you see the world trying to relieve he suffering brought on by AGW that won’t depend on energy. Energy that economies will need to function as they try to assist in those efforts. Or is your solution just to provide ignorant smartass bumper sticker responses while the world goes to shit?

rockman on Wed, 23rd Sep 2015 6:28 am 



Truth – So you’ve disagreed with every comment here even though they run the entire range of conservative to liberal? I gather then that explains the “bias” part of your tag: you dislike every comment you see here regardless of where that position falls. Thus I feel very sorry for you since your mind must live in a very strange world.

Makati1 on Wed, 23rd Sep 2015 7:20 am 



Rockman, If I understand your question to Ap re mitigation of AGW, I agree with him. I don’t see any mitigation or need for oil energy. Oil energy got us into the mess in the first place. More poison will not fix it.

ghung on Wed, 23rd Sep 2015 8:16 am 



Rock – I can see both your side and AP’s point of view. You want to do what we can to mitigate the decline into a climate-changing world (minimize the downslope of industrialism), and Ap understands that POD/peak everything is like quicksand: The more we fight it using current ways of doing things, the deeper into the quagmire we sink. Or, if you like, when you’ve dug yourself into a hole, it makes no sense to keep digging, eh?

This is the nature of the fine set of predicaments humans have gotten themselves into; damned if you do and all that. Me? I continue to leverage fossil fuels to help mitigate my local circumstances, but try to do so in ways that ultimately reduce my contributions to this madness. Has going off grid required a lot of fossil fuels? Sure. Has doing so reduced my long-term use of fossil fuels and nasty grid power? Absolutely, perhaps for decades, hopefully providing a certain level of resilience on the home front. I have my doubts that society at large will decide to follow the only response I could come up with that makes any sense at all, but when you’ve figured out that industrial society is f@cked anyway, best to go your own way. Maybe a few more can/will follow.

In short, you’re both wrong, and both right, or, looking at it another way, their is no right answer. That’s the way overshoot works.

beammeup on Wed, 23rd Sep 2015 9:05 am 



Davy: I posted the comment about shale being a product of investors looking for returns in a low-growth environment. I agree with your position that the whole game was ultimately the product of central bank machinations. The commercial potential was always crap, but cheap money and not much real growth elsewhere can create all sorts of anomalous bubbles.

Davy on Wed, 23rd Sep 2015 10:16 am 



Beam me up, pretty obvious to some of us. You would think someone like the NOoo could connect the dots. The guy is supper smart but narrow minded when it comes to plain as day. I imagine he considers free fed money just the political side of the Macro. IOW a perk of being connected.

Nony on Wed, 23rd Sep 2015 10:35 am 



This article is not an AGW. Their are ten million other articles to discuss that. Why divert from the topic of this article? It is on the US shale plays and their ultimate resource amount and the rate of production. EIA and Hughes may both be wrong and are discussing a difficult topic, but at least it is the same topic.

This reminds me of the ethane ships article where you lot had no take on any of the interesting issues (processing, wet versus dry gas, ethane engines, rejection, naptha versus ethane crackers, etc. etc.) and just repeated comments on LNG (that you had made several times before). Some of you didn’t even appear to know the difference.

At least TOD would try to be thoughtful.

P.s. Davy, you’re attributing a remark to me that was made by beam. At least beam is on topic though…not discussing AGW, even if it is the tired trope of blaming Wall Street for shale kicking your peaker predictions in the ass.

Davy on Wed, 23rd Sep 2015 11:23 am 



Why cant you stay on topic NOoo? Did or did not the Fed make shale gold rush possible?

apneaman on Wed, 23rd Sep 2015 11:34 am 



Fuck you nony, we will talk about whatever we want asshole.

apneaman on Wed, 23rd Sep 2015 12:23 pm 



Fuck you rockman, you’re like plant now trying to twist my words around to fit your own agenda , which always comes back to making yourself look like a saintly energy provider that the helpless sheep need or else will die in agony without you. You are very consistent in steering discussions towards justifying and protecting your personal political/economic/status position. Methinks you is also doing some guilt avoidance rationalization too. Own it, you’ll sleep better. My comments were descriptive, not prescriptive and I have always contended that we will never stop burning anything, least not oil, so just stop it.

The bomb has already exploded for some villages and it had a clearly recognizable timer on it – yet was ignored by those who swore an oath to protect their constituents best interests. That means more than just economics. My point was they are the ones who stood there and watched it – the village idiot is now the mayor. There are more and bigger bombs on the way and still almost nothing is being done to prepare. All the energy in the world will not save us now. Apes hard wired for short term rewards will suffer the consequences. Being just partly responsible and precautionary would save lives and/or turn the dial down on the inevitable suffering. Of course in the late stage of neoliberal capitalism, no one in charge is responsible for anything. That’s why the responses to AGW consequences are almost all reactive not proactive. The rebuilding and rescue efforts will dwindle and will be gone soon enough, as the costs are mounting and are going to help break the national, state and personal banks. Already they need to turn to convicts at $2 bucks a day to fight fires. Are we desperate yet?

ghung is right – you are on your own, but you still gotta pay your taxes, so your government can pay for hydrologists and other expensive highly educated and trained professionals to ignore and then go ahead and rezone floodplains, landslide, sea level rise and fire prone areas for the real estate development industrial complex.

rockman on Wed, 23rd Sep 2015 12:30 pm 



ghung – Exactly. We’ve discussed before the distinction between a problem (for which there might be a solution) and a predicament (for which there is no solution but responses that might improve, or worsen, the situation). IMHO we have a serious predicament with regards to fossil fuel consumption and AGW. There is no “solution”. We can’t continue using ff as we have been but we still depend upon them for the sake of economic stability. Thus there is no viable solution to solving the AGW “problem” but we need to do whatever we can to reduce the impact.

And thus the problem I have with both sides of the debate when all they do is offer one-sided “solutions” that don’t take into account the predicament we’re in with the entire dynamic. While you’ve certainly done your share it also has zero impact on the predicament the rest of the world has to deal with. Not your fault, of course. You can only control your tiny bit. So while it might provide you with some personal satisfaction it does nothing to address the predicament the rest of the world faces.

rockman on Wed, 23rd Sep 2015 12:41 pm 



a – I didn’t twist your words. You said: “You might have an partial argument, except there is no real mitigation or real preparation.” That seems rather easy to interpret. There’s nothing to twist there…you’re saying there’s nothing we can do to lessen the situation. Obviously I 9and many here) strongly disagree with you.

The bomb hasn’t “exploded”. It’s in the process of going off. And there’s much we can do IMHO to not only lessen the blast but repair some of the damage. Don’t let me twist your words but they seem to indicate that you see no ability to respond in any helpful way to the predicament and have given up all hope. If that’s not correct then share with us those plans.

apneaman on Wed, 23rd Sep 2015 1:23 pm 



I am not saying there is nothing we “could” do, I am saying that almost nothing has been done to prepare and I provided Miami/Florida as an example of governments doing exactly the opposite. Denying is not preparing and neither is throwing a lot of the money into band-aide fixes to protect expensive property and BAU that will soon be gone.

I do not think you actually understand the severity of the situation and the enormously powerful and unstoppable forces we have unleashed. You seem to suggest there is a switch we can turn off and all the inertia will just go away and leave us alone. We have blown the, so called, safe 2 degree mark already (waiting on lag time) and many self reinforcing positive feedback loops are well underway. They cannot be stopped regardless of what apes do now. This is why hope is a childish fantasy. At our very very best, we could alleviate some suffering and extend some lives, but it would cost economically and any politician that advocates taking even the slightest hit in standard of living has hung him/herself, let alone the permanent major rollback and disruption that would be necessary to do this. Hope is not a virtue rockman, it’s a curse. Even among those who have a basic understanding of AGW, they believe that AGW can be fixed and growth can continue. Delusional to the extreme. The ancient limbic system is driving the bus. Since you have a family you are the least likely to get it or admit any existential threat to you and yours. You are hard wired for this and has been thoroughly demonstrated in hundreds of studies. Your lack of understanding of science is not the main problem, it’s the hopey interpretation of it that is.

HOPE, n.
Desire and expectation rolled into one.

Ambrose Bierce – The Devil’s Dictionary.

MrNoItAll on Wed, 23rd Sep 2015 1:41 pm 



apneaman — There is always hope, even to the bitter end. To give up hope is to submit to total defeat. There are too many instances recorded in historical fact where hope was maintained in the face of certain defeat, and that hope is what energized and inspired those laboring under the so-called hopeless situation to eventually overcome all obstacles. Giving up on hope or classifying hope as a childish fantasy might seem like the only logical thing to do, for some. As for me, I will never give up hope — for myself, my loved ones, for humanity, for planet earth — and I will keep that hope burning until the day I die.

apneaman on Wed, 23rd Sep 2015 2:58 pm 



Of course there is, or at least the perception of it. There has to be otherwise we would not be here. It is inherent and you cannot actually choose otherwise. But what are we hoping for and not preparing for? Happy motoring or the species greatest threat ever? Any hope one might have for themselves and loved ones is meaningless without action. In this case drastic. A small handful of individuals may take it but as a species – FAIL. Our plan is like that of dropout welfare recipients. Instead of working and planning and preparing, we spend our welfare money on lotto tickets and dream happy hopey dreams. Hope to hit the jackpot.
There’s your hope for humanity. A terminal cancer patient hoping for a miracle remission. It actually happen once in awhile, but no one can explain it. Maybe the CO2 will float off into space next week in a similar mystery miracle. Let us hope. I have hope for my loved ones too. Hope they live as long as they can and as gently as possible. It’s actually more of a wish, that I am aware may not be possible. The vast majority of people in industrialized countries are hoping. Hoping for more money, more stuff, more travel, more fancy food, more more more all the while ignoring and downplaying decades of warnings from some of the smartest people we have ever produced backed by overwhelming amounts of data. This is not childish?

makati1 on Wed, 23rd Sep 2015 9:03 pm 



The Future:
Failure to Prepare
is to
Prepare to Fail.

BC on Wed, 23rd Sep 2015 10:04 pm 



https://youtu.be/LULIq2Oo70E

MrNoItAll on Thu, 24th Sep 2015 1:25 am 



Tar Sands Timmy — cute little blob of grease if you ask me. We should be appreciative of the oil company execs and the hard work the oil producers are doing. They are part of a major effort to buy human civilization a little more time before the lights start going out for good. Wise individuals will use this time wisely.

makati1 on Thu, 24th Sep 2015 3:15 am 



MrNo, they are killing the planet, not buying time. They are speeding up the clock with their greed. They have no morals. Never did. Never will.

Davy on Thu, 24th Sep 2015 4:35 am 



The true killing of the planet is in Asia. Tar sands are insignificant compared to what is going on in China with coal. There is simply nothing worse than coal for the climate period. Tar sands are probably just below coal but on a far lower extraction quantity.

Tar sands are important in the respect they are contributing to a liquid fuel resource. Liquid fuels are a foundational resource for the car culture we live in. They are likely barely economic but they are still a liquid fuel resource that is vital for the stupid fockin (thanks Dmeyers) mess we are in having constructed a society completely dependent on a global car culture. If that in itself is not bad enough then engaging in unsustainable over consumption and over population by a factor of 10.

Much of the Chinese coal production is going into consumer goods for global export many of which will end up in landfills relatively quickly from the very poor quality. We could rightly call the plastic gyres in the oceans Chinese gyres. A portion of the electricity from coal is supporting a population with legitimate needs.

China was once a great example of sustainability and resilience in urban living and agriculture but then it rejected that higher level lifestyle for western consumptions. I call this a lifestyle paradox. Seemingly lower social and economic levels are actually high order when viewed by sustainability and resilience longer term. China rejected thousands of years of higher culture for unsustainable and destructive western style development. This was a global project participated in by the evil corptocrasy in the west that is nothing more than a kleptocracy.

Asia is the evil incarnate on earth if you view pollution, ecosystem destruction, locust like populations, and climate damage as evil. I do so people like dog paw above are evil by extension. He claims to not be religious but he is a proselytizing Asiaphile who is engaged in constant war lust and American death fantasies. How pathetic.

onlooker on Thu, 24th Sep 2015 4:40 am 



Yes in particulate with respect to pollution coal is one of the worse things, triggering acid rain and making breathing a hazard with the fine particles clogging the lungs and basically contributing to deaths world-wide.

makati1 on Thu, 24th Sep 2015 6:25 am 



Interesting:

In 2001, the US used almost 4 times the coal per capita as China.

In 2012, the US was using over 3 times the electric as China per capita. Coal produced about half of all of the Us electric in 2012. It is still about half today.

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_02

BTW: The Ps uses 1/18 as much as the US.

Davy on Thu, 24th Sep 2015 6:57 am 



Folks per capita or aggregate what does it matter if the climate is being destroyed. Asia has 4.5Bil people that kinda skews the per capita now doesn’t it! Some regions are more responsible with reproduction than others and better global citizens. Then there is Asia who has decided high consumption and populations are a good thing. Wise men know better.