Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on January 31, 2018
MIT Researchers: US Oil Production Estimates May Be Flawed
There’s something odd about the U.S. oil production boom.
Yes, the U.S. is now a player on the world energy stage, producing enough to strike fear into the hearts of OPEC‘s member states. Crude oil production in the U.S. has practically doubled in just 10 years and is now approaching the production levels of OPEC’s leader, Saudi Arabia.
US Crude Oil Production data by YCharts.
That the shale revolution changed the very fabric of the American oil industry is an understatement. Until the ability to frack rock and drill horizontally came along, U.S. oil production had been on a slow, downward slog from its peak in the early 1970s. Now, the sky is the limit — with the president of the United States calling for U.S. energy independence.
But according to researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), there is something very wrong with these calls for ever-expanding U.S. production. In fact, the party may be over far sooner than anyone can imagine.
What happens when you assume
Oil producers and investors have lots of data sources. Geologic data, core samples, and estimates put together by experts are all on the table in the search for crude. One of the primary data sources for all stakeholders is a government agency: The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
The EIA is the entity that puts out weekly oil supply and demand data, as well as the all-important oil and petroleum inventory statistics. The agency also puts out longer-term projections for oil production in the U.S. At present, the EIA’s forecasts for long-term U.S. oil production growth are pretty bullish:
Naturally, something as big as the shale revolution calls for some research.
Two MIT researchers, Francis O’Sullivan and Justin Montgomery, dove into the data behind the EIA’s long-term estimates. What they found when they analyzed the EIA’s data left them scratching their heads.
They noticed that the administration was being aggressive in its assumptions of well productivity. The shale revolution is, at its base, built on bringing advanced technologies to an old business. In its reports, the EIA assumes the average productivity of individual wells will continue unabated.
As the well-known investing caveat goes, past performance is not indicative of future results. And yet that’s precisely what the EIA is banking on.
Could the sun be setting on the shale revolution? Image Source: Getty Images.
As detailed in a recent article by Bloomberg, Montgomery and O’Sullivan dug into the data on ground zero of the shale revolution: North Dakota’s Bakken deposit. North Dakota has been one of the significant beneficiaries of the shale revolution. Oil that was once thought to be impossible to produce burst forth.
But by tweaking the EIA’s assumptions using well data from the Bakken, the two researchers found that total production from new wells could undershoot the EIA’s estimates by a wide margin — as much as 10%. How soon? By 2020, just three years from now.
All the more interesting, the EIA couldn’t dispute the researchers’ questions. When queried via email by Bloomberg, an EIA scientist in charge of oil, gas, and biofuels exploration and production analysis, Margaret Coleman, granted that MIT’s study “raises valid points.”
So are we back to importing most of our oil?
In the EIA’s defense, when dealing with something so complicated, some underlying assumptions are inevitable. In her response, Coleman pointed out to Bloomberg that few oil fields have the detailed well data that MIT used to question the EIA’s estimates. This raises a fair question: What should the EIA do in the absence of detailed data?
The other criticism of the MIT researchers’ report has, no doubt already occurred to you: Don’t bet against technology. Technological advances often come out of nowhere to change the world. Who’s to say that profit-seeking oil companies won’t wrench ever-increasing amounts of oil out of the ground?
Yet Montgomery and O’Sullivan point out that many shale drillers have increased productivity over the past three years by focusing on “sweet spots” — not true efficiency gains. This is an intriguing idea and suggests that investors might want to focus on the shale drillers that truly have an edge up on the competition.
Foolish takeaway
Despite the valid points brought up by the M.I.T. researchers, there just isn’t enough hard-data to truly make actionable decisions from their findings. Yes, future oil production estimates are based on assumptions. But to truly know whether or not we should be worried about future oil production falling short, we would have to have high-quality data on the countless wells in the shale patch — no easy thing. It’s why the EIA has to make estimates in the first place.
The best thing for oil & gas investors to do in a world of uncertainty is to focus on oil stocks with high-quality management, overseeing businesses that are not solely reliant on continued production and efficiency gains to reward shareholders over the long term.
91 Comments on "MIT Researchers: US Oil Production Estimates May Be Flawed"
I AM THE MOB on Wed, 31st Jan 2018 1:42 pm
The US government lie? We needed a study done to figure this out? LOL Same the governments employment, inflation, and GDP estimates!
Cliffhanger on Wed, 31st Jan 2018 1:50 pm
The US Shale Business is “not profitable” and can’t fund itself whether oil is at 100 or 50 dollars a barrel
https://imgur.com/a/t7ulB
MIT Technology Review: Shale Oil Will Boost U.S. Production, But It Won’t Bring Energy Independence
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/507446/shale-oil-will-boost-us-production-but-it-wont-bring-energy-independence/
The world’s largest oil trader Vitol says US oil production will peak in 2018
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-commodities-summit-vitol/u-s-oil-output-may-be-set-for-last-spike-in-2018-vitol-idUSKBN1CF1MZ?rpc=401&
Outcast_Searcher on Wed, 31st Jan 2018 1:50 pm
Mob randomness: As though Shadowstats et al had more reliable figures. Or your random blogger of choice.
Of course, for a fee, you can get to hear what your particular echo chamber of “truth” wants to hear, but so what?
No rational person thinks government reports are perfect. But there are lots of corrective mechanisms over time (such as adjustments as more data comes in).
Whoever thinks the government, the MSM, the rich, etc. all get together to form some effective vast conspiracy to fabricate things and never gets caught needs a giant pile of tinfoil hats.
Anonymous on Wed, 31st Jan 2018 1:52 pm
The MIT study finds an issue with future forecasts (and worse with time). They are not commenting at all on current production reporting.
I AM THE MOB on Wed, 31st Jan 2018 2:12 pm
Outcast
Every major monthly US government economic report – employment, GDP, inflation – is little more than a fraudulent propaganda tool used to distort reality for the dual purpose of supporting the political and monetary system – both of which are collapsing – and attempting to convince the public that the economy is in good shape.
I AM THE MOB on Wed, 31st Jan 2018 2:15 pm
Outcast
The Soviet Union lied about their economic data before they collapsed! And it was an oil shortage that caused their collapse! So what do you think is going to happen when we have our world oil shortage in a few years?
dave thompson on Wed, 31st Jan 2018 2:17 pm
Go back to about 2004 and see what was counted and called crude oil then compare that with today. What is counted in 2018 as crude oil production is totally different. EROEI.
MrBill44 on Wed, 31st Jan 2018 6:14 pm
Dave Thompson: If there was a “Like” button for your comment, I concur and pushed it.
I AM THE MOB on Wed, 31st Jan 2018 6:51 pm
Dave
The EIA and IEA will soon be counting scotch whiskey and Johnson’s baby oil in their “All Liquids” totals! Anything oily that burns!
Mad Kat on Wed, 31st Jan 2018 7:04 pm
I second that button push, Dave. Barrels of what? Light, sweet crude? Sand tar? Distillates? Moonshine? Rubbing alcohol? Vodka? Net total energy is the important number, not the number of barrels of flammable liquid. Net energy has been declining for many years, but they don’t dare make any study/report on that fact. It would end the delusion.
Boat on Wed, 31st Jan 2018 10:54 pm
Go to eia and read exactly how they come up with their weekly numbers. To get to the end correct number is a lag of almost 3 months. That information has been their for years but you idiots just don’t google.
Boat on Wed, 31st Jan 2018 11:00 pm
If you want to talk shyt about liquids some of the cheapest on the market is heavy crude called conventional. Doomers just can’t wrap their brains around that.
MASTERMIND on Wed, 31st Jan 2018 11:02 pm
Boat is Triggered again! LOL Clean that sand out of your clit!
MASTERMIND on Wed, 31st Jan 2018 11:04 pm
Boat I know “all liquids” will be coming out of your wife/sister/girlfriend. When society collapse and the goons rape her over and over again!
Davy on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 4:51 am
“Barrels of what? Light, sweet crude? Sand tar? Distillates? Moonshine? Rubbing alcohol? Vodka? Net total energy is the important number”
It’s working for now. The system has managed to mix the various liquids to make good products but at a cost. The real issue is what will happen when and if the economy tanks and these more expensive less energy potent liquids systematically become too expensive to grow the economy. If the economy manages to limp along with renewables supplement oil enough this systematic issue of energy value is pushed out even further. The question is when is the day of reckoning? Oil will decline and renewables will likely never go 100% so a day will come when we can’t keep all the balls in the air and entropy will win.
Davy on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 4:58 am
“If you want to talk shyt about liquids some of the cheapest on the market is heavy crude called conventional. Doomers just can’t wrap their brains around that.”
Let’s not do the usual price play. Price alone is not a good indicator of value. In this case EROI clearly shows a difference. The quality and the cost of heavies is science based and science says it is inferior. If the market can produce it and sell it at a lower cost because of its lower value than great but that does not mean it is a better value to the macro economy.
Davy on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 5:36 am
“KKR Sees A 100% Probability Of Recession In 24 Months”
https://tinyurl.com/y8umvjsd
“As many of our readers will know, our base case for some time has been that a modest economic slowdown will occur in 2019. However, with tax cuts taking effect in 2018, the chance of a near-term recession appears quite remote. Consistent with this viewpoint, our proprietary recession model, which we show in Exhibit 64, suggests a limited chance of recession during the next 12 months. According to the model, high interest coverage, tight High Yield spreads, low delinquencies, and a modest consumer obligations ratio all appear to be favorable tailwinds that should sustain economic growth through 2018. However, when KKR extends the projection horizon to 24 months, things get ugly. Interestingly though, when we extend the model from 0-12 months to 24 months, the risk of recession increases materially. One can see this in Exhibit 65. We link the uptick in the model’s cautionary outlook in late 2019 and beyond to a structurally peaking U.S. dollar, a flattening yield curve, higher unit labor costs, and some reversion to the mean in both consumer confidence and home building expectations.”
“Importantly, irrespective of where we are in the cycle, we believe that – compliments of central bank intervention – the current prices of many financial assets appear more cyclically elevated than current economic conditions might otherwise support. Indeed, as we show in Exhibit 67, the S&P 500 has been up for nine consecutive years, despite a U.S. economic recovery that has been lackluster by most standards. This performance feat by the U.S. equity market is quite extraordinary, as it has occurred only one other time on record – the 1991-1999 period. And at the risk of pointing out the obvious, all of this is expected to hit in 2019/2020, just in time to make the next presidential election especially interesting.”
a on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 6:22 am
Always remember that the production numbers are gross production, not net production. All of the oil that is used for fueling all of the equipment that goes into fracking is included in the production (and consumption) numbers. EROEI.
Boat on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 12:06 pm
Davy
Trump maybe should have waited a year on those tax cuts.
Boat on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 12:09 pm
Mak,
Plenty of world reports on total btu’s. Idiot
Davy on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 12:48 pm
yea boat, looks like around the time of the next election the economy could be in a foul mood to be electing an incumbent.
GregT on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 1:01 pm
“KKR Sees A 100% Probability Of Recession In 24 Months”
Everything written under the pen name Tyler Durden can be considered as gospel, unless of course the article in any way badmouths the US of A. Then it’s all just complete nonsense.
Davy on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 1:09 pm
silly grehgie, when are you going to say something intelligent? My above reference is from KKR not your buddy Tyler. If you were more intelligent and actually read the article you would have noticed this.
GregT on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 1:18 pm
“KKR Sees A 100% Probability Of Recession In 24 Months”
by Tyler Durden
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-31/kkr-sees-100-probability-recession-24-months
And no need to hide the link behind a tiny URL.
Davy on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 1:32 pm
Silly greggie, try again. The part of the article I referenced was directly from KKR, besides who cares who you think is a good reference. You don’t say anything intelligent so how can you rate articles? Your specialty is stalking, pricking and enabling your daddy love with silly billy. I doubt you are even smart enough to understand what I referenced. You made no comment in that regards. Whooo what a waste case.
GregT on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 3:11 pm
Then why not link to the original article, instead of Tyler Durden’s take aways?
http://www.kkr.com/ja/node/2788
Here would be a couple of mine, from the article that you ‘referenced’:
Emerging Markets
“Bottom line: Despite the recent strength in EM, we think that Emerging Markets outperformance still has three to five years more of running room. Indeed, our recent travels lead us to believe that domestic consumption stories are accelerating in many areas of EM, which we believe will continue to drive a sustained period of overall economic growth.”
“Within EM, we generally favor economies with large domestic consumption stories and/or an increasing value-added services franchises. At the moment, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, and even parts of China appear compelling.”
GregT on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 3:20 pm
So in a nutshell, the author of that article agrees with much of the sentiment expressed here on PO.com.
The west is heading further down, while Emerging Market economies will continue to grow.
GregT on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 3:28 pm
Which, BTW, is exactly what myself and others here have been saying all along………
MASTERMIND on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 3:56 pm
Greg
Do you not know how to check the economic growth rates of countries?
OECD Economic Growth GDP Per Capita 1970-2015 (0.5%)
https://imgur.com/a/HXBkr#Bv4I4AF
Global Economic Growth GDP Per Capita (1.3%)
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG
World Governments Gross Debt to GDP (330%)
https://imgur.com/a/3usX7
Global economic growth has peaked, says World Bank
https://www.ft.com/content/4b9e6190-f55e-11e7-88f7-5465a6ce1a00
MASTERMIND on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 3:56 pm
US shale oil and the Seneca effect
What this all means is that the decline in production, whenever it comes, will not follow a symmetrical bell curve shape; because, in a sense we will have brought forward oil from the back side of the curve in our attempt to keep production growing. Instead, we can expect to fall over the edge of a Seneca cliff in which production falls suddenly, with potentially catastrophic consequences for economies still dependent upon fossil fuels.
http://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2018/02/01/us-shale-oil-and-the-seneca-
GregT on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 4:02 pm
I spent longer working in the finance sector, than you’ve been alive MM.
MASTERMIND on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 4:19 pm
L.A.’s homelessness surged 75% in six years. Here’s why the crisis has been decades in the making
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-homeless-how-we-got-here-20180201-story.html
Davy on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 4:40 pm
“So in a nutshell, the author of that article agrees with much of the sentiment expressed here on PO.com.”
Silly greggie, you are mixing up market performance with economic performance. I would love for you to explain P.O. sentiment. What is it greggie? Is it your team’s sentiment? I think you don’t have a clue what that article said. You don’t follow Zero Hedge becuase many of its articles quash your extremist agenda. What is so funny about you is you like the nutter sites like global research who are overtly anti-American.
Davy on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 4:44 pm
“I spent longer working in the finance sector, than you’ve been alive MM.”
You wouldn’t know it from your comments.
GregT on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 4:53 pm
“What is so funny about you is you like the nutter sites like global research who are overtly anti-American.”
Many of the articles at global research are written by an American; Dr. Paul Craig Roberts.
Scholarship & Academia
Dr. Roberts has held academic appointments at Virginia Tech, Tulane University, University of New Mexico, Stanford University where he was Senior Research Fellow in the Hoover Institution, George Mason University where he had a joint appointment as professor of economics and professor of business administration, and Georgetown University where he held the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy in the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
He has contributed chapters to numerous books and has published many articles in journals of scholarship, including the Journal of Political Economy, Oxford Economic Papers, Journal of Law and Economics, Studies in Banking and Finance, Journal of Monetary Economics, Public Choice, Classica et Mediaevalia, Ethics, Slavic Review, Soviet Studies, Cardoza Law Review, Rivista de Political Economica, and Zeitschrift fur Wirtschafspolitik. He has entries in the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Economics and the New Palgrave Dictionary of Money and Finance.
He has contributed to Commentary, The Public Interest, The National Interest, Policy Review, National Review, The Independent Review, Harper’s, the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, Fortune, London Times, The Financial Times, TLS, The Spectator, The International Economy, Il Sole 24 Ore, Le Figaro, Liberation, and the Nihon Keizai Shimbun. He has testified before committees of Congress on 30 occasions.
Journalism
Dr. Roberts was associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal and columnist for Business Week and the Scripps Howard News Service. He was a nationally syndicated columnist for Creators Syndicate in Los Angeles. In 1992 he received the Warren Brookes Award for Excellence in Journalism. In 1993 the Forbes Media Guide ranked him as one of the top seven journalists in the United States.
Public Service
President Reagan appointed Dr. Roberts Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and he was confirmed in office by the U.S. Senate. From 1975 to 1978, Dr. Roberts served on the congressional staff where he drafted the Kemp-Roth bill and played a leading role in developing bipartisan support for a supply-side economic policy. After leaving the Treasury, he served as a consultant to the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Davy,
Dropped out of mommy and daddy’s defence contract business, to live in exile on grandpa’s farm.
Now who has more credibility?
GregT on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 5:06 pm
Let me guess;
‘Shut up grehg, you are such an dumbass.’
JuanP on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 5:14 pm
I believe both the US and the global economy are bubbles that will burst. The USA is particularly disconnected from reality with every single market in it artificially inflated beyond repair. I am quite curious about whether this can last until after the next US presidential election. If the economy lasts that long before crushing then Trump could be reelected. There are many people in the USA that hate Trump with a passion and would truly hate to see that happen. I would think this bubble couldn’t last so long but it has already lasted much longer than that, so who knows? Anything is possible
MASTERMIND on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 5:47 pm
Dr Paul Craig Roberst is a total nut job! LOL He is a far right lunatic! A crazy old man! Just look at his picture on his blog! Nuff said! LOL Greg is so fucking ignorant! Total white trash garbage!
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/
Just look at that mug! A picture is worth a thousand words!
MASTERMIND on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 5:49 pm
JuanP
Who gives a flying fuck who is president! When the oil shortages hit the entire global economy is going to collapse! And it will be total anarchy on earth! No matter who is in charge! And your family members of MS 13 will be robbing and stealing and raping!
Anonymous on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 5:51 pm
Anybody remember when “The Rockman” (in the third person, no less) said US shale was bogus because the majors were abandoning it?
Take a lot at now! 10 MM bpd. And the majors all over buying into the Permian.
https://www.ft.com/content/a8314d06-0741-11e8-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5
MASTERMIND on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 5:52 pm
Greg
At least davy isn’t a total idiot who thinks he can survive the Apocalypse by prepping! You are outnumbered by a million to one! That is why you only far right people prepping! Because they have zero common sense and can’t think critically!
MASTERMIND on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 5:54 pm
Annyomouse
The US Shale Business is “not profitable” and can’t fund itself whether oil is at 100 or 50 dollars a barrel
https://imgur.com/a/t7ulB
The world’s largest oil trader Vitol says US oil production will peak in 2018
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-commodities-summit-vitol/u-s-oil-output-may-be-set-for-last-spike-in-2018-vitol-idUSKBN1CF1MZ?rpc=401&
MIT Technology Review: Shale Oil Will Boost U.S. Production, But It Won’t Bring Energy Independence
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/507446/shale-oil-will-boost-us-production-but-it-wont-bring-energy-independence/
Chevron CEO warns US shale oil alone cannot meet the world’s growing demand for crude
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/01/us-shale-cannot-meet-the-worlds-growing-oil-demand-chevron-ceo-warns.html
Davy on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 5:58 pm
“Many of the articles at global research are written by an American; Dr. Paul Craig Roberts.”
Another nutter grehggieT, try again. Occasionally the guy says something balanced but most of the time he is a rabid anti-American like you and a few others here. He has some good points but then loses them in intense bias and extremism. Please spare me the copy and paste credentials. If credentials meant anything the world would be a paradise.
“Now who has more credibility?”
There is nothing in your comment greggie that indicates credibility out of you. You can’t even give an informative comment anymore. All you want to do is stalk and prick and get daddy love from ole bill.
Anonymous on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 6:01 pm
Ten Million bpd. Double the production of a decade ago. Read it an weep, peakers.
The Oil Drum and ASPO are in the shitcan too. Savinar is running an astrology magazine.
Mad Kat on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 6:03 pm
I say again, for Boat’s benefit, NET ENERGY is the important number, NOT BARRELS. The oily industry is nothing but lies these days. If the truth were out, the investor rats would be jumping ship in droves.
To quote “a”: “Always remember that the production numbers are GROSS production, not NET production. All of the oil that is used for fueling all of the equipment that goes into fracking is included in the production (and consumption) numbers. EROEI.”
I.E. 1950s when 1 barrel produced 100 barrels v.s. today when 1 barrel produces, maybe, 10 barrels on average. YUGE difference, Boat.
Davy on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 6:15 pm
Silly billy, does it hurt to see the US doing so well? The place sure isn’t crashing and burning like your agenda has been cheerleading. You must be pulling your hair, BTW, do you have much hair?
MASTERMIND on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 6:36 pm
Anonymous
As M. King Hubbert (1956) shows, peak oil is about discovering less oil, and eventually producing less oil due to lack of discovery.
https://imgur.com/a/6dEDt
IEA Chief warns of world oil shortages by 2020 as discoveries fall to record lows
https://www.wsj.com/articles/iea-says-global-oil-discoveries-at-record-low-in-2016-1493244000
Saudi Aramco CEO sees oil shortage coming as investments, oil discoveries drop
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-aramco-oil/aramco-ceo-sees-oil-supply-shortage-as-investments-discoveries-drop-idUSKBN19V0KR
Peak Oil Vindicated by the IEA and Saudi Arabia ..So long oil drum and ASPO the big shots have got things from here! LOL
MASTERMIND on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 6:38 pm
Annyoumouse
Existing oil reserves are scheduled to begin a catastrophic crash within 1 to 3 years. When it hits the economic and social damage will be catastrophic. The end of Western Civilization, from China to Europe, to the US, will not occur when oil runs out. The economic and social chaos will occur when supplies are merely reduced sufficiently….
https://imgur.com/a/6dEDt
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7382/full/481433a.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421509001281
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151300342X
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236114010254
http://www.geo.cornell.edu/eas/energy/the_challenges/peak_oil.html
http://www.energybulletin.net/sites/default/files/Peak%20Oil_Study%20EN.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/document/367688629/HSBC-Peak-Oil-Report-2017
https://www.wsj.com/articles/iea-says-global-oil-discoveries-at-record-low-in-2016-1493244000
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-aramco-oil/aramco-ceo-sees-oil-supply-shortage-as-investments-discoveries-drop-idUSKBN19V0KR
MASTERMIND on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 6:39 pm
Annoymouse!
The End of the Oil Age is Imminent
Recently, the HSBC oil report stated that 80% of conventional oil fields were declining at a rate of 5-7% per year. This means that there will be an oil shortage of ~30 million barrels per day by 2030 and ~40 million barrels per day by 2040.
http://www.scribd.com/document/367688629/HSBC-Peak-Oil-Report-2017
What is mentioned far less often is that annual oil discoveries have lagged annual production since the 1980s.
https://imgur.com/a/6dEDt
Now, this problem has nothing to do with the recent decline in the oil price, which started in 2014. This has been an on-going problem for the past 30 years. Now, the IEA is predicting oil shortages by ~2020 due to declining exploration.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/iea-says-global-oil-discoveries-at-record-low-in-2016-1493244000
Here, the IEA blames this problem on the low oil price. But, this problem started in the 1980s. The problem is geological: we are running out of conventional cheap oil. Shale and tar sands are not the answer, either. Those resources are far too expensive, compared to conventional oil, because the global economy is based on cheap conventional oil. Expensive oil is not a replacement for cheap oil.
Based upon the HSBC report and the IEA, the End of Oil Age will start around ~2020: there will be a dramatic economic depression due to exhaustion of cheap oil. This will cause a global economic collapse.
MASTERMIND on Thu, 1st Feb 2018 6:40 pm
Annoumouse
USA DOE Study: PEAKING OF WORLD OIL PRODUCTION (Hirsch, 2005)
https://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf
USA GAO Study: Uncertainty about Future Oil Supply. Addressing a Peak and Decline in Oil Production
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07283.pdf
Australian Government (Leaked) 450 pages Study: concludes world peak oil around 2020
https://web.archive.org/web/20170415190328/https://www.aspo-australia.org.au/References/Bruce/BITRE-Report-117-Oil_supply_trends-2009.pdf
Kick rocks buddy!