[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', '
') Im simply implying that for those who follow this and have for a very long time, the difference between what is considered Crude oil and Total liquids is important and germane to discussions about THE peak in global crude oil production. Anytime I see ANYONE come in here and claim that Total liquids = Oil, I will politely and assertively point this out. It is a key point in understanding the larger picture.

[ROCKMAN]

P – Yep…obviously GPO will only become concrete in the rear view mirror. The question becomes how long into the future should we wait? Probably a more important factor: how much decline in production do you have to see before feeling comfortable that it won’t rise above that level again: 10%...20%...30%? And again: for how long?

And then you can split hairs: is the apparent peak at some point in time the max production capable or a voluntary lower rate due to lower consumption? But in time a voluntary lower rate might reach the max rate as depletion catches up.

The smaller the production subset (like a trend, a state, maybe even a country) things can reverse themselves rather quickly. But looking at global production it would be much more different to change a trend line given the huge size of the production base. Consider a smaller production base like the US. Nice up tick thanks to the oily shales but we’re still not close to the 1971 peak…just closer. Will we ever exceed that 4 decades old peak? Maybe…maybe not. Opinions vary. But until we actually do the US PO will remain 1971 regardless of anyone’s expectations. That rearview mirror thingy again.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')
I find myself agreeing with you. The importance of the thing that consumers are actually demanding, gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, asphalt, is much more important than all the bits and pieces that those items can be manufactured from.

[Loki]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', '
')Consider a smaller production base like the US. Nice up tick thanks to the oily shales but we’re still not close to the 1971 peak…just closer. Will we ever exceed that 4 decades old peak? Maybe…maybe not. Opinions vary.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')
I find myself agreeing with you. The importance of the thing that consumers are actually demanding, gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, asphalt, is much more important than all the bits and pieces that those items can be manufactured from.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Loki', '
')And if the US can't negate our own peak with unconventionals, what is the probability that other regions can?

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', 'M')ay I introduce Hubbert's claimed AND actual peak....versus the reality of natural gas, supercharged by the production of shale and tight gas?

[Subjectivist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 's')ubjectivist, no doubt we'll come up with substitutes, I don't think we'll all just roll over. But by the same token, I don't think we'll come up with a replacement.

[Pops]

Thanks Sub. My lesson for the day was "confounding factor".

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')
Are you able to explain why you think the way you do, rather than making a statement which appears to have minimal or no relation, and then attaching some link which (as has been demonstrated) might actually contradict the point you are trying to make?

[ROCKMAN]

Ralfy - I’ll jump in. The high finding costs for oil companies seems rather high but I have no alternative numbers to offer. But it is very difficult to break out the components. And then there’s the lag time factor. But look at Chesapeake, once considered the fair haired child of the shales. But for several years they’ve been forced to liquidate $25 billion in assets to pay down debt and provide operational funds. And they are still $13 billion in debt today. And Wall Street became less impressed with CHK from the heady days when Aubrey was “Mr. Shale” their market cap dropped about 60% from their peak. IOW investors lost $20 billion in market cap in just several years.

But it’s good to remember making money on a stock isn’t a just a function of their profitability. They key is getting the next fool to pay you more for the stock then you paid. And that requires growth in the companies reserve base in the opinion of Wall Street. Which is why continued drilling is a requirement…not an option.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '
')http://theautomaticearth.com/Finance/oi ... redit.html

Read the page and feel free to counter it using other figures for debt levels, amounts spent by oil companies, etc.

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut for several years they’ve been forced to liquidate $25 billion in assets to pay down debt and provide operational funds. And they are still $13 billion in debt today. And Wall Street became less impressed with CHK from the heady days when Aubrey was “Mr. Shale” their market cap dropped about 60% from their peak. IOW investors lost $20 billion in market cap in just several years.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')
No. If I wanted to know what Nicole or her compatriot thought on the topic, I would ask them. But only after she learned more about the technical side of peak oil.

[ROCKMAN]

doc - I didn't "make it sound" like anything. I just stated the publicly available facts just as you have. If that looks desperate then it did so in your mind's eye. And I agree with you about market evaluations: they often seem to swing between too optimistic and too pessimistic. Not often in the Goldilocks zone.