Re-writing forum history is also what you do. You were going on an on about how Southern European "cultures" just were not "homogeneous" enough, and their people were "lazy." Dog whistle much?

Don't weasel out of it, own it.


FYP...

Good job ignoring the fact that the industry, as a whole, is not maintaining sufficient cash flow, and desperately needed investment opportunities are drying up.

Yeah, no. It's clear you still don't actually understand what peak oil refers to, and continue to confuse short-term production gain with longer-term production promise.

It's not how much you can ramp up and produce in a given month or year when Wall St. gives you an open line of credit. It's about how much you can prove you can produce going forward. No one expects your heroes in the tight oil industry to expand much further. That band has stretched as far as it can go.

Because as we've covered dozens of times, your "no problem" argument needs every last drop of new production coming in. Lop off 1/3 of producers in 18 months, watch CAPEX nosedive for the survivors (already is), then you've got serious problems on the near horizon. The "market" you worship so fervently doesn't just fix that scenario, seamlessly and quickly. It's a complete dislocation of all markets, as we'll see soon enough.

We're not talking about copper here. We're talking about oil, the lifeblood of all industrial society. The health of the oil industry is what maintains "business as usual" for the global economy, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Any way you want to slice it, we are LONG past the point of the oil industry maintaining positive cash flow. That is absolutely because of depletion, and we're delaying the inevitable with this short, uneconomic wave of tight oil production. If we took away the subsidy and the baseless loans (to frackers) and the demand-slowing austerity, I think we can all agree that oil price would be much, much higher right now.

That's what my post referred to two years ago, troll.

7th of July, 2017,at 2:48PM : Jiggs predicts peak "tight oil". Claims social validation of said belief.

And thank you for the below, this is wonderful, old school Jiggs
Jiggs claims peak positive cash flow for producers of a commodity that's the lifeblood of the economy, which he also claims is in a peak and soon to be declining production.

The mental acrobatics required to reconcile those contradictory positions has given us much pleasure. I'm glad you're back and kicking.

I didn't say electric was an "energy source", but oil is very rarely used to generate electricity worldwide. So if transportation fuel starts coming out of the socket, instead of a gas pump, you're going to have natgas/solar/nuclear/coal/wind as the fuel source that replaces oil in transportation. And transportation is way more than half of oil demand. That's not an immediate problem for oil producers, but it's sorta lurking in the future as a huge fall off demand.

Offshore oil is not only very cheap on a relative basis (you're looking at breakeven crude points from the 30s to the 60s for most projects, which is why they've stopped doing them with oil this low), but is also incredibly plentiful. We have barely scratched the surface of offshore oil, and technology continues to give us access to ever deeper fields at reduced costs. But again, with oil so cheap and oversupplied, there is just idle offshore machinery sprinkled all over the world.

I did not say oil was being phased out, I said this will likely happen in the future as gas pumps are supplanted by sockets. The high density applications (jet fuel) will take much, much longer to replace and plastic applications may never be replaced, but these are fractional pieces of oil demand.

So just to reiterate again: oil is very oversupplied right now, there is cheap oil all across the world not being drilled now because oil is so cheap and oversupplied, and oil may be PERMANENTLY oversupplied because demand may start plummeting within the next 10-15 years due to a permanent move away from oil-fueled transportation and towards electricity-fueled transportation.

I mean kinda ironically you've stumbled onto something that could happen soon. Not because any of the idiocy you're spouting about peak oil, but oil oversupply could lead to (or create the conditions for) a civil war in Venezuela, Brazil, or even KSA/other middle eastern countries.

How do you figure? Adoption rates aren't linear. Being 10k more expensive than an ICE equivalent isn't much different than 25k more in terms of it's wide scale appeal. The difference between 10k more and cost parity makes a huge difference though and we're right about there. Prices could drop even more than that. And if oil prices go up in any significant way it just expedites the process.

Peak oil supply being thoroughly disproven, we need to start talking about the problem of peak oil demand, which is a certainty thanks to the coming electrification. That will impact some industries pretty heavily. I predict peak oil demand will occur roughly in 2024, after which time demand will fall further and further under supply.

Mother of god Jiggs... You still believe in peak oil? How? Oil, as a technology, is at the 'approaching obsolescence' stage while oil extraction technology has improved drastically allowing for reserves that effectively did not exist when people dreamed up peak oil to be tapped.

High oil prices always depended on the richest nation in the world needing vast quantities of imported oil. Now we don't. The market has reacted accordingly.

You really can't see that the game has changed completely can you?

LOL.... we still import 9 million barrels per day. Most in the world, until China recently nosed past us.

No one disputes technology for tight oil plays has improved, and production cost for each individual fracking well has fallen a little. You still have to move your well-head every 2-3 years with this crap, and production cost hasn't come down nearly as far as you cornucopians insist. The industry as a whole still isn't making money enough to maintain future exploration and infrastructure expansion.

You're all crowing about "over-supply," when all this is is lack of storage amid a short-term burst in production enabled entirely by unsustainable levels of credit. This has been shown dozens of times in links "no problem" trolls never read.

There is ZERO indication of long-term supply stasis when factoring in the industry is literally shrinking (see OP).

"the coming electrification" .... LOL...

you don't know what you're talking about. Demand is only inelastic up to certain barriers. Demand for the most efficient energy source we've ever harnessed is relentless, and not going away any time soon until the price spikes again into the economy-killing triple digits it was for 5 years.

The Global Oil Demand Driver That Is Being Ignored

the conversation often overlooks the role that heavy trucks and freight play in driving demand. The International Energy Agency just published a report arguing that the world needs to get a handle on fuel efficiency for freight, or else oil demand will continue to rise, regardless of how many Tesla’s are on the road.

EVs don't move freight, as we've covered. Not in any mass commercial scale, despite decades of trying. Now, I'm sure you'll frantically pour over "teh Googlez" and hammer out some screed with a link to some test-phase innovator showing their new EV 18-wheeler struggling up a hill, but they're really no closer to making that happen than they were 40 years ago.

Peak demand is painfully LOL, as the Douglas & Westwood presenter in the OP fleshed out rather clearly.

If your "peak demand" argument had any merit, your hero wouldn't be bending over so that his Russian idol could tap the final frontier: the polar ice caps.

No we haven't covered that at all. EVs can and will move the majority of freight, in 15 years. As for use of oil in freight, I posted the numbers above. Did you even read them? Trucks are irrelevant when cars electrify. They're less than 1/4 of all oil demand, cars are roughly half.

This is like saying computers will never do word processing because they've never done it, despite decades of trying?

Are you unaware that energy density has been improving constantly and rapidly for 40+ years? And that it's finally reaching the point of cost parity with ICE vehicles?

Hammer this into your brain:

1. There is a point which batteries are sufficiently cheap and energy dense that they're cheaper and offer a better experience than gasoline.
2. That point is less than a decade away for cars and less than 15 years for semi trailer trucks.

These two points aren't in contention, by the way.

Congratulations, this is the most idiotic thing you've ever said.
Demand hasn't peaked yet. And even when it does, light crude will still be profitable as long as the price is above $10-$30 depending on the well.

Anyway, I love you Jiggs. A deep abiding man-love. The level of pure defiance of reality amidst the dismal failure of your own predictions is legendary

LOL!!!! ... Still no links, just more "trust me" sentiment. Source your claim so we can all laugh at the context you're ignoring, or just do yourself a favor and stop posting about topics you obv. don't understand.

No, it's literally nothing like that. Horrible metaphor ftw!

No, it isn't. And won't be for another 30+ years, if all goes perfectly. See, this is how links work in support of one's argument, try it some time:

Argonne: EVs may be almost as energy-dense as gasoline vehicles by 2045

An analysis by a team at Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) has found that by 2045, some configurations of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) could become almost as energy-dense as legacy vehicles, if the efficiency of the powertrain as a whole is considered.

"Some configuations..." "could become..."almost as" ... "if the" ...
Holy crap, that's a lot of qualifications! And this is a pro-EV article!!!

Clown.

Well, for the absolute best fields, anyway, as we've covered, and you continue to conveniently ignore. For the average field around the world? More like $70-90. And we both know the global economy isn't buoyed by only the elite wells.

LOL... You keep telling yourself that, fraud. Linking my previous posts out of context is a tried practice of yours. You hate when I hold you accountable for your notable pattern of dishonesty and overt racism.

Tell us more about how "lazy cultures" are ruining Europe from the south on up.

Oh this is beautiful man. You really are that ill-read that you don't even understand what's being said in your own link, or how it relates to question of EVs being at superior cost (and everything else) to ICE in the near future (experts peg that date at around 2022). I won't correct you, I will just leave others to laugh at the stupid.

Do yourself a favor and read 10 or 20 articles on EVs, maybe a scholarly paper or two, then get back to me.

I'll just quote myself again. These statements are not controversial in any way. You can learn them, or continue being ignorant:

Look at you dancing. You don't even understand what goes into factoring cost, on an apples to apples basis. You failed miserably at that last year.

And you sure as hell don't actually understand energy density.

Link your claim that they are "15 years away," or admit you're just pretending it's true because you want it to be true.

You're quite literally insane. When an EV:

- Has an electric motor + baterry pack that costs less to car manufacturers than an ICE + supporting components
- Has enough range to drive all day

It reaches cost parity and becomes superior to an ICE car. It also has much lower running costs (already). Given that batteries are far from done improving in energy density and cost, it gets more and superior every year after parity, such that ICE are quickly wiped from the mainstream market.

The link above you mercilessly beclowned yourself with (really, these own goals are getting embarrassing) is talking about the point at which a battery system weight-for-weight has as much usable power (including efficiencies efficiencies) as gas does.

What does that have to do with cost parity? Absolutely zero. You're so silly you don't understand that. I thought maybe you were somewhat intelligent and just had some kind of schizotypical fixed delusions around oil/energy, but you can't even understand simple concepts.
I'm not going to link what's common knowledge. And we're 5-7 years away, not 10 or 15, from battery/ICE cost parity for cars.

Again, I repeat, what I stated is not controversial. It's up to you to get your head around reality.

This is the trend in battery pack pricing:



It's predicted to halve by 2020 and halve again by 2023. And that's a conservative estimate. 100 kWh is an all day charge (all-week for even long range city commuting) with ICE-superior performance. And the battery pack will cost $5000, another 2-3000 for the motors and charging system. Against that, cars lose:

- ICE engine
- Muffler, gearbox, heavy drive components, engine mounting
- Radiator, hoses, sump, oil system
- Starting battery
- Catalytic converters, other expensive pollution systems
- Fuel injection system, overall hundreds of complex components.
- The cost of assembling, designing, servicing, warrantying, JITing this ultra complex system.
- For the end user, the large cost of gasoline and maintenance.

Do you see why cost parity will be reached? Do you see why they'll be vastly superior? Three years later, the cost of the battery pack will be halved again, to $2500. Do you see why ICE cars are going to be wiped off the map?

This is true. It's also wondrous hopium that it's actually going to happen by 2045. Certainly not in any apples to apples comparison that includes all the costs you don't want to include re: an EV's "supporting components."

Sounds like a man who 1) does not understand natural limits and 2) instead insists trends can continue indefinitely, and 3) has no honest appreciation for how an EV is built and maintained. Though, that was clear years ago about you.

Citation on "lower running costs already," please. Make sure you're comparing all the same factors for both. Thanks.

Adorable little narcissist isn't actually hearing what he's being challenged with. Adorable.

It's not that I don't understand your obligatory goal post shift. It's that, as a matter of basic physics, EV batteries don't provide the same energy density that liquid hydrocarbons do, and won't. That supercedes your "cost parity" analysis for reasons you obviously don't understand. Moving mass over large distance (at a speed faster than a horse) is a process that, ultimately, isn't concerned with "cost parity." It either can be done, or it can't. You either have enough of the energy source in order to ramp up production, or you don't. Throwing money at it won't magically make more lithium, etc. But to people like you, "no problem! Technology is always improving, and we'll just figure out how to do power it better with even LESS of the source!" ... FAIL

Your limited brain seems to believe the sky is the limit on the power source required to make these batteries. But where is the lithium going to come from? The cobalt? Tesla already "sh*t the bed" on their promised Model 3s batteries this year, and refused to answer when asked if there was a resource limitation. There absolutely was.

What DID Tesla have to say after the resulting 15% share loss?

“The technology challenge grows exponentially with energy density. Until early June, production averaged about 40% below demand.”

Wait, what? What does "energy density" have to do with anything? Tooth says "keep at it," so you should be fine.

LOL!!! Yeah, that's because you don't actually have a link that ultimately supports your tired "no problem" argument. Now, you'll scramble to find some puff pieces from within the industry itself. But no independent, scientific analysis claims EVs will overtake ICEs for another 20-25 years. Your evasiveness is like a kid telling a teacher "I don't have to show my work, it's common knowledge." Miss the point much?

Anyway, troll... You continue to come at this predicament of net energy decline from a position of economics and finance, just like every Adam Smith cultist before you in this forum. Showing a trend-line from a graph of cost (which you still didn't link to), and making assumptions as if it's going to continue at that trajectory without question? That's a real blind spot for you. I'm not sure you actually understand why.

We appear to have a communication breakdown 100% because you 1) don't provide links backing up your laughable claims, and 2) don't actually read the links you are provided.

It's not that it's controversial. It's that it misses the point, entirely.

Hydrocarbon liquids for fuel are king for a reason. Always have been. Unfortunately, we're not finding them like we used to, while demand is higher than ever. That's a problem. And "batteries" are not going to save the day.

Nice bump. This is the ultimate beclowning. Do one of the battery guys want to set this guy straight? I don't have the interest, it's too easy.

Jiggs, are we going to get a "Battery majors dumping capital expenditures" post any time soon? Peak battery density? Peak lithium? When do we get peak peak?

Jiggs,

I've been reading and posting on internet forums for a long time, and you are, by a fairly wide margin, the best troll I've ever come across.

The way that you made a prediction which (almost) literally could not have turned out to be any more wrong, then after you were proven wrong, you came back and, with a straight face, argued that you would be proven correct regardless of whether the oil market goes up or down, and regardless of when the market went up or down, is truly impressive.

Heck, I know for sure that you're a troll, yet you still got me to respond to you.

JiggsCasey = GOAT troll, period.

While i agree with peak oil demand, i think 2024 is rather opportunistic. Could be a case for western oil demand peaking around that time but non-western will be increasingly use oil for a long time. Also building the infrastructure in non-dense regions particularly will take time. I'd estimate that by 2025 the 'first mover' countries and cities/hubs will go green (think Norway, Randstad area in the netherlands, London, Paris, some smog Chinese cities). World wide peak demand c. 2040

The "supporting components" are the extra components that an ICE vehicle needs over an EV.

1) They already know the "natural limits" of ICE and EV, re: efficiency and weight.

2) Literally no one is insisting that trends continue forever.

3) Damn near every one of us built a toy one as a kid. Electric motors aren't complex and we all know what a battery is. Most of us haven't built a toy ICEV.

You can go on Edmunds to compare vehicles. Gasoline costs about 3x what electricity costs per mile, and maintenance is about 1.8x more for a ICEV than an EV. That is over a 5-years at 15k miles per year. It works out to a total of $6,592 to $14,555 if you are looking at Nissans.

Those are the entire totality of running costs that would differ between ICEVs and EVs. There really isn't anything else that matters until you get close to 100k miles where you are comparing the total ongoing costs of engine/transmission/exhaust repairs to battery replacement.

...

Sorry for not addressing the rest, but I am at risk of becoming bored so am moving onto activities that don't have as much of a risk of that. I've heard from trusted others that boredom is something to be avoided. Maybe I will address the rest at a later date.

Yeah I think we'll see a lot of second world growth in oil usage. Still. The tipping point happens when new cars with internal combustion engines go into permanent decline rather than growing every year. That will happen sooner than people think. Once price parity is reached, no later than 2025 IMO, it's gg ICE cars in much of the world, from industrialized Asia to Europe and the US. They'll go into rapid decline. EV cars are superior on so many levels, performance, ride smoothness, acceleration, low maintenance, lower running cost, no noise/vibration, space, more reliable, zero emissions.



Total cost of ownership parity - car cost + maintenance + fuel - is being reached next year. By 2022 total cost of ownership will be many thousands of dollars cheaper.

The main reason for 2024 is that we're probably going to get another recession which will drop demand for a few years. This is what happened to oil in the 2008 recession (complete with hilarious Jiggs-y predictions post 2009):

There will be an ongoing need for cars that go "vroom." Same as some people still ride horses because they like conveyance devices that poop.

And just to put these numbers into perspective, here are global car sales:



You'll notice they're growing about 1.7 million/year. However, EVs are growing exponentially, and this year will hit 1 million/year for the first time. We're about a year away from the start of terminal decline in non-electric cars.



In four years (2021) we'll be producing 3 million EVs/year, which will start eating rapidly into the total number of ICE cars on the road. By 2024, 20 million ICE cars will be off the road - 2% of the total - and another 1%/year, growing exponentially, will leave the road. Given that cars make up just over 50% of oil demand:



This means that oil enters terminal demand decline around 2024 - the greatest source of its growth (growth in the number of new ICE cars) will disappear in 2019, after which time the existing demand starts decreasing exponentially. The oil price will eventually be at the cost of the light sweet crude wells, about $10-$30 depending on inflation.

It's a pretty clear trajectory, and nothing is going to stand in its way.

There are 1.2 billion cars, and China will probably grow at 5% the next decade. India at 7%. Some predictions say 2 billion automobiles in the world by the 2030's.

vehicle production (about 70m in passenger cars):


So the number of cars will grow. Average age of automobiles is quite high currently, like 11-12 years I think. Plus a lot of Chinese don't use their car a whole lot, which will change.

So if EV production is 5-6 million by 2024, that means the number of ICE vehicles is still growing, and probably will be until the 2030's.

Then there is problem of infrastructure. Since charging time is probably at least 15-20 min, you are going to need a lot more super chargers. Especially developing countries won't have those.

Plus there is still the other 50% of oil usage which will grow. Airplanes, trucks, bunker oil, plastic, fertilizers etc.

On top of that I don't think EV production will double each year. It takes enormous capex and raw materials to ramp up production to say 20-30m EV's a year. The cheapest most efficient batteries currently use a ton of cobalt, and most of the world's cobalt is in the congo. I don't think a lot of CEO's will be happy to depend on that, if they splurge 2-3x their annual profits on capex to expand production. And suddenly the price of cobalt goes up 10x due to some civil war.

If you really think it will be exponential, then you should bet on copper and aluminum producers imo. They will do really well. Especially copper, since there isn't a whole lot of spare supply (without significant capex spend), and it has been trading below marginal cost of production for a while.

I guess this is why Berkshire owns so much GM.

My guess is 85 million automobiles and light trucks by the time we reach 2030, and maybe 15-20m of those will be EV. So that still means 65-70m ICE vehicles being produced. If 50-60m vehicles are being scrapped each year (number is about 10m on 240m vehicles in the US), then that means ICE vehicle production will keep growing for probably another 15 years.