I'm bumping this thread in response to OilFinder's post here.
I can't remember the last time Matt Simmons slung a prediction. I believe the last prediction he made was the "rust" prediction, which said we were headed for doom within 6-9 months. I believe this prediction was made some time before oil rose back up and stabilized around $80, when everybody was talking about demand destruction leading to production destruction and the money getting pulled from various oil projects.
It's probably safe to say that prediction should be chalked up as another failure and I'm just wondering if anybody has a spreadsheet of all his bad calls.
PeakOil is You
THE Matthew Simmons Thread pt 3 (merged)
Re: The Matthew Simmons Thread pt 3 (merged)
by TheDude » Sat 27 Feb 2010, 17:17:15
Last October? Matt Simmons: Oil Industry Needs a Shock, Oil Supply is at Risk : Chain Bridge Investing
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '(')5) Will take over $100 trillion to properly address the “zombie list,” which Simmons uses to summarize the following issues: (1) fewer geologists; (2) a aging workforce; (3) rusting infrastructure; and (4) a lack of technological innovation. The industry has not upgraded its corrosion control since the 1960s. The oil industry’s infrastructure continues to rust away. The industry risks losing a majority asset base in the next five to 10 years.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '(')5) Will take over $100 trillion to properly address the “zombie list,” which Simmons uses to summarize the following issues: (1) fewer geologists; (2) a aging workforce; (3) rusting infrastructure; and (4) a lack of technological innovation. The industry has not upgraded its corrosion control since the 1960s. The oil industry’s infrastructure continues to rust away. The industry risks losing a majority asset base in the next five to 10 years.
Vague enough for you?
OF2 was poking his stick at Dr. Pope GideoSchmut, who's opened about 10 different accounts here over the years. Don't know what that has to do with Matt and rust.
peak oil failed predictions - Google Search Plenty from JD of course. Freddy Hutter keeps track of the horses in the race; here's Campbell: PeakOilComment
Ugh. X Axis grid, wherefore art thou?
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
-
TheDude - Expert
- Posts: 4896
- Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Re: The Matthew Simmons Thread pt 3 (merged)
by mos6507 » Sat 27 Feb 2010, 17:26:59
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', '
')Vague enough for you?
')Vague enough for you?
That's a revision. The prediction Matt made was something like $200+ oil in 6-9 months.
BTW, it's a good thing Colin Campbell is retired since he made some of the worst early calls. And in the most recent interview he gave, he comes across as an AGW denier who just doesn't want to call himself one, which shouldn't surprise anybody since the guy does come from the oil industry itself.
- mos6507
Re: The Matthew Simmons Thread pt 3 (merged)
by shortonsense » Sat 27 Feb 2010, 19:18:24
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '
')It's probably safe to say that prediction should be chalked up as another failure and I'm just wondering if anybody has a spreadsheet of all his bad calls.
')It's probably safe to say that prediction should be chalked up as another failure and I'm just wondering if anybody has a spreadsheet of all his bad calls.
They aren't bad calls. They are an agenda. He makes money if people can be made to believe that energy/oil/gas prices are only set to increase. He does not make money if people think energy investing is a bad financial move. His predictions going back as far as the eye can see have always been unidirectional. Simmons is a smart man. A smart man is not uni-directional in a multi-directional environment. Therefore his uni-directional nature is not an accident.
-
shortonsense - Permanently Banned
- Posts: 3124
- Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Re: The Matthew Simmons Thread pt 3 (merged)
by TheDude » Sat 27 Feb 2010, 21:15:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', '
')Vague enough for you?
')Vague enough for you?
That's a revision. The prediction Matt made was something like $200+ oil in 6-9 months.
Can't find that one. Did come across this in the news: A tale of two countries to give hope to others
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hy is Oman looking for such fields? In 2001, production reached its highest level, just short of 1 million barrels per day (bpd). It then went into sharp decline, dropping by more than a quarter over the next six years. With petroleum accounting for 80 per cent of the budget, this was a perilous path.
Supporters of “peak oil” – the idea that global oil supply will soon enter irreversible decline – seized on this as evidence.
One prominent peak oil commentator, the US investment banker Matt Simmons, forecast a continuing collapse in Omani output. Another, Dr Colin Campbell, predicted that by this year, Oman would be pumping just 610,000 bpd.
But actual output is running 40 per cent higher than this dismal view. Production rose in 2008 and last year, and is expected to gain again this year. The sultanate began a measured but far-reaching programme to sustain its petroleum sector.
Oman pulled up in 2005, too, before declining once more. They were at 78% of peak in 2008. Still looks like a wobbly tailspin down. Who do these people think they're BSing? Venezuela clawed back from an initial peak for decades, to little ultimate effect, other than imposing more and more of the oil curse on its population and making various IOCs and service companies rich.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')TW, it's a good thing Colin Campbell is retired since he made some of the worst early calls. And in the most recent interview he gave, he comes across as an AGW denier who just doesn't want to call himself one, which shouldn't surprise anybody since the guy does come from the oil industry itself.
Lots of deniers in the electrical engineering field too, from what I've read. Apparently something to do with dealing with near-instantaneous phenomena and projecting that onto the world?
It was funny how Khebab showed that a simple population per capita metric was delivering better calls than forecasts from the EIA/IEA/etc. I really wonder if we can do any better than fall back on the simple heuristic of BRIC Demand Gone Wild and say that supply won't keep up. That's what happened in the US in the 60s, after all, all those hippies burning rubber on the newly built interstate highway system. Bummer.
