World Oil Supply Hits Year High, Boosted by U.S. Shale Surge

41 Comments on "World Oil Supply Hits Year High, Boosted by U.S. Shale Surge"

dave thompson on Thu, 14th Dec 2017 11:37 am 



One more good stat showing that the alt green energy transition is nothing more than wishful thinking.

denial on Thu, 14th Dec 2017 4:00 pm 



even the best prediction of oil is 30 years left in the barrel…
When you subtract out all the bullshit best case scenario is less than 20 years……Not much coming out of Gewahr lately I wonder what is happening there……

Makati1 on Thu, 14th Dec 2017 6:34 pm 



Ho Hum! What else is new? Fuzzy numbers to sell stock or to keep the investor rats on the sinking ship? Or both? Not important.

Fuzzy numbers in other news: “How GDP Became A Joke, In One Chart” (US)

“Growth was initially reported very weak, below consensus and barely moving. Then the data was revised to show the US economy was shrinking – and shrinking a lot (the number was –0.7% annualized). Then it was revised to show the economy was shrinking a bit. Then it was revised to show the economy was growing, but a long way below trend growth. The growth number was then revised to be basically in line with trend growth. Now, US growth at the start of 2015 is thought to be 3.2%.”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-13/how-gdp-became-joke-one-chart

“No wonder then economists – especially those who work at the Fed but all of them really – their predictions and their analyses have become the butt of all jokes; and by implication, no wonder traders and algos no longer respond to economic “data.””

Anything coming out of the US government is pure bullshit. Ditto for the Federal Reserve. ‘Extend and pretend’ is the US motto now. ‘In Debt We Trust!’ Figures lie and liars figure. LMAO

Brent on Thu, 14th Dec 2017 8:30 pm 



Curious after four years of concentrating on sweet spots in the shale plays. How much longer they can keep growth going.

Boat on Thu, 14th Dec 2017 9:04 pm 



mak,

All your bs aside the US is now net importing around 3 mbpd vrs 12 mbpd before fracking. Hard for a hater to take, eh? That money saved pays for your gov dole. God bless helping the poor

GregT on Thu, 14th Dec 2017 9:55 pm 



Boat,

All of your usual nonsense aside, the US is still a net importer of oil. Hard for a retard to take, eh? That debt that continues to pile up, is yours, and all of the money that your government took from you in that ponzi scheme called social security, is about to evaporate, along with the money that you are gambling in the market casino, that you owe to somebody else, as well as your bank owned, rent to own home. Makati’s generation of Americans are likely the last to see any of that money that your government stole from them.
Not even God will be able to help you, when the largest bubble in history finally bursts.

Makati1 on Thu, 14th Dec 2017 10:04 pm 



Ah, Boat, I guess you are one of those “exceptional” Americans that bad never touches.

Maybe you should watch this and maybe you can see the many, many similarities to today?

“The Crash of 1929” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EPTCm9RVRM ALL was good, until….

I repeat: “Figures lie and liars figure.” LMAO

Cloggie on Thu, 14th Dec 2017 10:09 pm 



“One more good stat showing that the alt green energy transition is nothing more than wishful thinking.”

Huh, just because the US is drowning in oil, alt-energy is fake?

Again: in 2016 in Europe 90% and US 60% of all new energy capacity is renewable. This is not going to change in the coming years.

dave thompson on Thu, 14th Dec 2017 11:13 pm 



Cloggie the article said ” the IEA said the amount of crude oil on the global market rose by 170,000 barrels a day in November to 97.8 million barrels a day.”
That means world wide oil consumption is still increasing, even with the addition of the alt energy that you so famously tout.
That means year over year humanity is still dumping more and more carbon into the atmosphere.
The green transition only seems to make it worse.

Cloggie on Thu, 14th Dec 2017 11:22 pm 



Patience dave, peak conventional oil is a true story; this shale episode won’t last eternally and is the last gasp of a dying oil industry.

dave thompson on Thu, 14th Dec 2017 11:46 pm 



Yes Cloggie I agree, however once the oil goes away you can forget about industrial civilization, including green energy FF extenders.

Cloggie on Fri, 15th Dec 2017 12:25 am 



Let’s agree to disagree.

In my view a kWh is a kWh and it is irrelevant where it comes from. We are not going to discriminate and engage in kWh-racism.lol

And no, renewable energy is NOT an extension of the fossil fuel system but can stand on its own feet. Once the renewable energy base is in place it can sustain and renew itself.

Guys much smarter than any of us show the way forward:

https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/publications/studies/What-will-the-energy-transformation-cost.pdf

Not that this is going to change the minds of any of those who are too heavily invested in the collapse stories.

After all, there is nothing more important in the life of a man than being right.

Well, after 50, that is.

GregT on Fri, 15th Dec 2017 1:23 am 



“and no, renewable energy is NOT an extension of the fossil fuel system but can stand on its own feet.”

Name one (current) “renewable” energy scheme, that does not require fossil fuels in it’s resource extraction, refinement, manufacture, distribution, and maintenance. And while you’re at it, name one gadget that we use electricity for, that also does not require fossil fuels in it’s resource extraction, refinement, manufacture, distribution, and maintenance.

Otherwise, give it a rest already Cloggie, it’s getting beyond old.

dave thompson on Fri, 15th Dec 2017 1:44 am 



Sorry Cloggie No FF inputs no industrial civ. The paper you cite is ridiculous.
First off there is no current proof that any such transition is in the works.
Year over year humans burn more FF no matter how many wind turbines or solar panels or electric cars are built.
Granted there are places in the world that have built and invested in these FF extenders. But so far the energy produced with these so called green energy schemes world wide, is a drop in the bucket. AND has never fully taken the place of FF energy inputs and products anywhere.
Wishful thinking is all good and well, however being right does not include wishful thinking.

Makati1 on Fri, 15th Dec 2017 1:46 am 



“To see the bigger picture, let’s tear down an iPhone 5, Steve Job’s last hurrah, and follow its journey from rare earth to your pocket….

Made in Mongolia: rare-earth-minerals An iPhone is not only assembled in China, but it starts in that country at a much earlier stage and much deeper part of the earth. Ninety percent of rare earth minerals, naturally occurring solids whose combination comprises essential iPhone parts, are mined in China, notably in Mongolia….

Made in Japan, Korea, Taiwan: They are the Asian immigrants. Made in Japan, Taiwan and Korea but are married into the American product. Apple has sourced its LCD panel from Sharp, Japan Display and LG in the past…. iPhone’s microchips are made by Samsung, … Samsung or a subsidiary is providing iPhone with rechargeable batteries….

Made in Europe: It sounds like Europe’s diminishing share of world economics, but, true, a French-Italian company based in Geneva, Switzerland, STMicroelectronics, managed to get a slice of the iPhone pie: the gyroscope used for tracking the smartphone’s orientation…

Made in China: When Americans protest that iPhones are made in China, they mean that it is assembled by the Chinese. The blueprint, crystal, specialized parts and processors from the US, display panels, chipsets and memory from Japan, Korea and Taiwan, gyroscope from Europe and rare earth minerals from Mongolia all come together in China, the world’s factory.” (Keep this in mind when you read about China in US MSM propaganda.)

https://financesonline.com/hello-world-the-economics-of-iphone/

Yep! ‘Renewable’ energy is going to power all of those factories, mills, quarries, trucks, feed all of those people, clothe them, transport them, house them, educate them, build and repair their roads,entertain them, etc. All for a disposable toy. Not on this planet or in this life! LMAO

Davy on Fri, 15th Dec 2017 3:41 am 



“Not even God will be able to help you, when the largest bubble in history finally bursts.”

China

Davy on Fri, 15th Dec 2017 3:51 am 



“Maybe you should watch this and maybe you can see the many, many similarities to today?”

Just take a look what is going on in China. China makes the US look like the minor league.

Antius on Fri, 15th Dec 2017 4:05 am 



I will look at the Fraunhofer paper in more detail later. The general thrust of it is:

• Large reductions in space heating through heavy investment in insulation over the next 30 years. Residual space heating loads met through a mixture of natural gas & biogas combined heat & power (CHP) and heat pumps, both at source and integrated into district heating systems. 1 unit of electric power provides 2-3 units of low grade heat.

• Electricity provided by wind / solar backed up by natural gas & biomass CCGT and CHP. Overall electricity loads appear to be much lower than today.

• Transport is met by a mixture of petroleum, hydrogen, electricity and synthetic fuels.

• Industry heat is provided by natural gas and biomass.

It is difficult to draw comprehensive conclusions without details calculations. But here are some high level conclusions.

• The reduction in heating loads is realistic for new structures, but will be difficult in traditional buildings. The construction of much larger district heating networks is sensible in my opinion, as this would allow long term heat storage and a much better utilisation of intermittent power.

• Renewable electricity backed up by natural gas CCGT (50/50), will be only marginally more expensive than electricity provided by coal (my own calculations confirm this) and will produce only 30% of the CO2 emissions per unit power. Attempting to eliminate residual fossil fuel consumption by using electricity storage will be very expensive. But if you can accept some residual fossil fuel usage, the scheme will be a lot more affordable.

• The transport energy mix would appear realistically achievable, although in my opinion, the use of electrolytic hydrogen and synthetic fuels will be expensive and is not an efficient use of power. Increased usage of grid connected rail based vehicles and hybrid compressed natural gas road vehicles would be a better option.

• The large use of biomass may be achievable on economic grounds, but is questionable from an environmental viewpoint. It would mean setting aside an area almost as large as Belgium for the growth of bio crops for Germany alone.

• The reduced use of electricity is questionable, as electric power usage is directly tied to economic output. A wealthy society may be able to reduce heating loads through building upgrades and maybe even transport energy consumption through various measures. But there is no easy way of reducing electricity consumption without offshoring industry. Declining power consumption is a good proxy for a declining real GDP.

That is as much as I have time for right now. I will try and make time for a more in depth assessment over the next few days.

Have a good weekend everyone.

Davy on Fri, 15th Dec 2017 4:42 am 



“In my view a kWh is a kWh and it is irrelevant where it comes from. We are not going to discriminate and engage in kWh-racism.lol”

In my view a kWh is a kWh and that is where it ends. As soon as a kWh enters the human economy and becomes subject to human behavior its value and potency change that simple dynamics. Using the 1 kWh = 1kWh story to justify differences in intermittency, efficiencies, and sustainability is just a ruse to peddle agenda. Renewables have a vital place in our energy mix going forward. They provide a good niche in that mix for inclusion into the grid with power that is less dirty. It is invested power and what I mean by that is once you install it then it does not have to be fueled. It is not the answer because it likely cannot support modernism 100%. Without modernism renewable are not possible except for real once like we used before the industrial revolution. These are sustainable modernism is not. Talk that it can be a energy transition paradigm is fake green physics denial and denial of the economics of affordability and scale. It is denial of human nature that maybe could go 100% renewables in a different arrangement. That is not the arrangement we are in today. We are in extreme overshoot with population and consumption with effects that are dangerously apparent with depletion, planetary ecosystem destruction and destabilization of climate.

“And no, renewable energy is NOT an extension of the fossil fuel system but can stand on its own feet. Once the renewable energy base is in place it can sustain and renew itself.”

This statement does not reality test. Renewables are intricately part of the fossil fuel complex and have yet to show society can even go significantly renewable and that is just with grid power. When you add in transport and petrochemicals then the math becomes worse. The big kicker is even if renewables could become a predominant source of power it is unlikely they will scale up into the rest of the world because renewable energy is expensive and new. Fossil fuels have already been built out over decades. It is doubtful in a short time renewables could replace fossil fuels globally. This means even if a place like Europe becomes significantly fossil fuel driven it will still dwell in a fossil fuel world. Europe is significantly integrated into the global world and cannot decouple form globalism and remain affluent. It is a matter of imports and exports. Europe who is the one of the best possibilities for significant renewable penetration but it remains dependent on the rest of the world for the affluence from imports of resources and exports of finished products to fund its effort at renewable energy. Once the global world goes into decline so will Europe and so will the renewable energy effort. So this is a twofold difficulty for 100% renewable. It is technical and it is economic. On the economic side it is twofold with affordability and the fact the rest of the world will likely never go 100% renewable.

Davy on Fri, 15th Dec 2017 4:45 am 



Great comment Antius with balance and technical detail.

Antius on Fri, 15th Dec 2017 6:55 am 



‘This statement does not reality test. Renewables are intricately part of the fossil fuel complex and have yet to show society can even go significantly renewable and that is just with grid power. When you add in transport and petrochemicals then the math becomes worse. The big kicker is even if renewables could become a predominant source of power it is unlikely they will scale up into the rest of the world because renewable energy is expensive and new. Fossil fuels have already been built out over decades. It is doubtful in a short time renewables could replace fossil fuels globally. This means even if a place like Europe becomes significantly fossil fuel driven it will still dwell in a fossil fuel world. Europe is significantly integrated into the global world and cannot decouple form globalism and remain affluent. It is a matter of imports and exports. Europe who is the one of the best possibilities for significant renewable penetration but it remains dependent on the rest of the world for the affluence from imports of resources and exports of finished products to fund its effort at renewable energy. Once the global world goes into decline so will Europe and so will the renewable energy effort. So this is a twofold difficulty for 100% renewable. It is technical and it is economic. On the economic side it is twofold with affordability and the fact the rest of the world will likely never go 100% renewable.’

There are a lot of problems standing in the way of a 100% renewable economy in the world we have today. The question isn’t so much whether it is possible (it is and has been done before) it is whether it would allow anything like the level of prosperity that we have today. If population levels were what they were before the industrial revolution, the world could rely on biomass and hydro for much of its energy needs. This would have been a much easier transition to make, as both sources are energy dense and dispatchable and biomass is suitable for long-term storage. With the population levels we have, most of the power would need to come from low power density, intermittent renewable energy, such as wind and solar.

Intermittency is the most obvious problem. The ways around it are fossil fuel backup, energy storage and demand management. Storage is technically easiest in the heating sector, because heat can be stored in hot substances, i.e. water, rock and phase change materials. But doing so does involve infrastructure costs that may be difficult to achieve quickly and integrate into existing urban layouts. Storage of electricity is very expensive and involves a lot of infrastructure. So long as we have fossil fuels available, it is much cheaper to use renewable energy simply to reduce the fuel burned at FF power stations. You cut FF usage by roughly half if you can do that with a basket of renewable energy sources and the marginal increase in whole system cost is reasonably modest, at least at present. My estimate is that a baseload electricity source using storage to balance intermittency would be roughly 3 times as expensive as new build nuclear, even before the later can exploit significant scale economies.

Demand management (curtailing use when power is not available) is another option for dealing with intermittency. In some cases, it can be done with some additional infrastructure costs without impacting productivity. This is especially true for uses involving hot and cold, because thermal energy can be stored at the point of use. In many cases, working with an intermittent power supply would severely impact the labour and capital productivity of industry and transport, because there is no avoiding the fact that processes requiring power cannot be performed when that power is not available. My guess is that if we did go down a 100% renewable pathway, we would have to take that hit, as storage may not be affordable for everyone. There would be impacts upon labour and capital productivity and this would put pressure on incomes.

Low power density is a more insidious problem. At present, wind and solar are in a kind of bubble. Wind power consumes a lot of steel compared to other energy sources. That steel is cheap right now, because it benefits from sunken investments in plant made possible by fossil fuels, powered by fossil fuels and dumped at a loss by the Chinese in an attempt to keep employment up during a period of deflation and reduced internal demand. How cheap will steel be when we have to make it using intermittent renewable electricity? The sector also benefits from the downturn in North Sea oil & gas, which makes ships and crew relatively cheap. Throw into that a new competitive auction process that squeezes suppliers’ profit margins such that they may actually be bidding beneath long-term costs and you have all the ingredients of a cost bubble.

Solar power is much the same story. The Chinese invested hundreds of billions of dollars in state owned companies that crank out more solar panels than the rest of the world put together. They do that using largely coal based electricity, in factories made using fossil fuel energy. And their output is dumped onto first world markets at less than cost; the way the Chinese system works the real costs may not be reflected in sale costs at all.

This points to trouble ahead. It suggests to me that people are underestimating the difficulty of living on renewable energy when all costs are considered. The problem is that the picture is complex and difficult to perceive at the best of times. Idealism is also distorting people’s thinking. Advocates of renewable energy, including some on this board, have too much emotional investment in the idea to seriously face up to its problems. This means that people and governments end up committing to a path without a clear idea of the long-term issues that it will create.

Cloggie on Fri, 15th Dec 2017 10:57 am 



The question isn’t so much whether it is possible (it is and has been done before)

Ouch! You won’t make many friends with that opinion, Antius. Many here don’t like to see their scenic world view of immanent doom shattered. That is those people who say that renewable energy is a derivative of fossil fuel and that renewable can’t replace fossil fuel.

More bad news for the doomers: the Dutch government and Swedish energy giant Vattenfall are so utterly unimpressed with the arguments referred to above that they will press ahead with a tender for “Hollandse Kust Zuid” (Dutch Coast South) offshore wind farm. And like we have already seen with German offshore projects, the developer Vattenfall offers to do the job without subsidy whatsoever, neither for the construction nor for the kWh’s brought on shore:

https://www.offshorewind.biz/2017/12/15/vattenfall-reveals-dutch-offshore-wind-power-play/

Wouldn’t be surprised if other contenders will even offer money for the privilege of building and exploiting this wind farm, to be operational in 2022:

https://english.rvo.nl/hollandse-kust-zuid-wind-farm-zone

And since the recent Paris summit, the momentum for renewable energy is great.

Davy on Fri, 15th Dec 2017 11:21 am 



Please dutchy, most normal people just want a good balanced realistic explanation of what we face. We have been deceived for too many years by science and governments. People like you live that serious passion of envy and self-promotion of which this whole Euro Alternative energy scene is part of. It is the basis of the promotion of your Euro Empire. It is part of the web of deceit you are spreading. If you were just a normal person you would give a more sober assessment. That won’t work for you because this is all about victory for your fantasy empire.

dave thompson on Fri, 15th Dec 2017 11:49 am 



Hey Cloggie do those wind turbines in the ocean come with a fleet of sailing ships ready to pour concrete, move steel towers and turbines too? Where does the copper wire come from that is coated with plastic polymers that need to be stretched back to the land? Is that all done with teams of oxen?

Cloggie on Fri, 15th Dec 2017 11:58 am 



http://www.irena.org/publications/2015/Feb/Renewable-Energy-Options-for-Shipping

dave thompson on Fri, 15th Dec 2017 12:04 pm 



Cloggie that article only talks about “renewables”. No where does it give any type of specific type of energy for shipping. So back to the schooners and ox carts?

GregT on Fri, 15th Dec 2017 12:24 pm 



“If population levels were what they were before the industrial revolution, the world could rely on biomass and hydro for much of its energy needs.”

There’s that little predicament rearing it’s ugly head again. Too many humans. The energy problem is only one subset of that predicament, the other two big ones being economic, and environmental. Until that predicament has been dealt with, all three of those subsets combined, can never be solved.

Solving the energy subset without addressing overshoot, will only make the environmental problem worse, which in turn will adversely affect the economic subset.

The human predicament will eventually be dealt with by environmental limits. Many of those limits have already been identified at length.

GregT on Fri, 15th Dec 2017 12:33 pm 



I might add, there are likely to be many more limits, that the humans have not identified as of yet.

Cloggie on Fri, 15th Dec 2017 12:48 pm 



That won’t work for you because this is all about victory for your fantasy empire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXGOWJbt2BU

Older video of Richard Spender explaining in London to British people (who live there, albeit in the minority) why we need Europe.

Earlier this week parliament staged a coup that said parliament can vote against Brexit at the last minute.

The EU btw is not a fantasy.

https://documents1940.wordpress.com/2017/12/03/paris-berlin-moscow/

https://www.rt.com/business/328765-medvedev-russia-eu-asia-crisis/

GregT on Fri, 15th Dec 2017 12:52 pm 



I might also add, we are currently adding an entire USA worth of humans to the planet, every 4 years. The primary driver of population growth, is a surplus in energy production.

Energy production is at the root of the problem, it is not the solution.

Cloggie on Fri, 15th Dec 2017 1:02 pm 



I might also add, we are currently adding an entire USA worth of humans to the planet, every 4 years. The primary driver of population growth, is a surplus in energy production.

Energy production is at the root of the problem, it is not the solution.

???

The opposite is true: the richer, the more energy, the fewer children. People who hardly use energy have the most children.

MASTERMIND on Fri, 15th Dec 2017 4:55 pm 



Cloggie

Solar and wind made up one percent of total energy last year. And your sources are as biased as you could possibly be…You are as dumb as rocks.

Makati1 on Fri, 15th Dec 2017 6:22 pm 



The Ps is more than 25% “renewable” electric. Most is hydro and geothermal. (~50%) Wind and solar is still only about 1%.

“The Philippines is located in the Pacific Ring of Fire and thus has a high geothermal potential. In terms of electricity generation, 41.4% of the electricity demand is met by geothermal energy, 28% by coal, 11.4% by hydro, 15% by natural gas and 0.1% by wind, solar and biofuel. In terms of installed capacity for power generation Hydro is 63.2%, 35.1% is geothermal , 1.1% is biomass and 0.6% by wind and 0.1% solar.”

https://energypedia.info/wiki/Philippines_Energy_Situation

The Ps has the potential to be free of FFs for electric generation. They are working in that direction with speed, and a goal to be 100% ‘renewable’ electric by 2023. Electric buses and taxis are even appearing in the city. We shall see.

Sissyfuss on Fri, 15th Dec 2017 8:52 pm 



Clobnoxious thinks that the nazis were the first to push renewable energy by burning Jews to heat their domlciles. Of course they only used a very few, they being such upstanding denizens of moral compass.

fmr-paultard on Fri, 15th Dec 2017 9:33 pm 



president trump is having problem finding supertards to help him run the show

GregT on Fri, 15th Dec 2017 10:02 pm 



“president trump is having problem finding supertards to help him run the show”

President Trump is the ultimate supertard. There is an endless supply of lesser supertards, who would be far more than willing to help him run the show.

Try not to forget paultard, “you’re fired” is supertard Trump’s personal trademark.

MASTERMIND on Fri, 15th Dec 2017 10:24 pm 



The Great Oil Swindle “You’re really going to hate gasoline $10 a gallon (yes, it could get that ugly)”

https://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/113557/great-oil-swindle?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

Cloggie on Fri, 15th Dec 2017 11:01 pm 



“Clobnoxious thinks that the nazis were the first to push renewable energy by burning Jews to heat their domlciles. Of course they only used a very few, they being such upstanding denizens of moral compass.”

Has there ever come anything else but sneers out of that mouth of yours?

Remember that you can’t remain a suppa power with an attitude like that for long. If you keep repeating 24/7/365 that your society is going to collapse, without having the intent to stave that event off, you can expect that collapse to happen. Self-fulfilling prophecy and stuff.

Not that I care.

But to be fair to Siss, I think his country is going to collapse too. Too many Sissyfusses around unable and/or unwilling to carry the burden of civilisation. Sissyfuss is walking sneeringly into the grave.

It was nice to have known you.

Cloggie on Fri, 15th Dec 2017 11:10 pm 



“Solar and wind made up one percent of total energy last year. And your sources are as biased as you could possibly be”

You never give sources, millimind.

It is 8% and 40% new power globally, 60% US and 90% Europe.

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/renewable-energy.html

Repeat after me, millimind: “we are all going to die”.

Anonymous on Fri, 15th Dec 2017 11:49 pm 



“All of your usual nonsense aside, the US is still a net importer of oil.”

Well, if you give us credit for the 51st state production, we break even. 😉

GregT on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 11:21 am 



“Well, if you give us credit for the 51st state production, we break even. ”

Good point.