Great counterpoints. EV production will definitely not double each year, but it's still exponential and I don't think anyone alive doubts that. Estimates are solidly around 30%/year compound growth.

If China and India grow as rapidly as you say, and drive a lot more, then the switchover point definitely will be much further in the future. Maybe 2030. Still. China is desperate to switch to EVs due to severe smog, and will do so as fast as they can make them. Once cost parity is reached and then forever overcome, you get an explosion of growth.

I don't forsee problems with the rare minerals. There will be new designs and battery breakthroughs. It's still a young industry.

Cars are more than 50%. Stuff like marketable coke and gas aren't really an oil demand - they're side products of oil. They don't drive demand - it's only gasoline, distillate and jet fuel that matter, the rest are byproducts and many of them can be found in other sources. Cars should properly be seen as 65% of demand.

I don't think infrastructure will be a problem. There's lots of empty space and a ton of extra revenue to made in providing chargers. We'll build it out quickly, it's a rounding error for a majors. Getting above 10% EVs as a total of all cars will start to get interesting with power usage relative to baseload, but that's a while off and after terminal decline.

to play devils advocate: the projections re: ev cost parity, automobile production, and cost competitiveness of renewables may in part rely on inaccurate assumptions about china's plans/spending/goals going forward. as china attempts to increase its world influence, especially in SE asia (see e.g. belt and road initiative), energy infrastructure (renewables in particular) will continue to be a priority. for example, the chinese govt has a target of 20% of energy consumption from renewables by 2020. it also seems pretty clear that the chinese govt is not shy about using large amounts of state funding to achieve its goals, even if the capital is deployed less efficiently than in private markets. with this in mind, and considering the smog issue TS noted, it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that ev adoption (and use of renewables generally) in china will accelerate more quickly than cost parity timelines would dictate, as non-monetary considerations partially drive decision making. a funding glut in r&d (above the level that private markets otherwise would fund) may also speed this process along. this isnt to say that china aspires to be a model world citizen, just that as they try to reduce dependence on oil imports, they will also influence the transition to ev and renewables. they probably also will not hate the political capital this will generate.

https://www.ing.com/Newsroom/All-new...r-industry.htm

ING economists predicting near 100% of european marketshare going to EVs by 2035.

Yeah. I mean total cost of ownership flips next year. Purchase cost flips around 2022. Then it dives under more and more, forever - cheaper and cheaper than ICE every year, with far superior total cost of ownership already. The demand for these is going to be incredible.

In the whole mix you have fleet and autonomy (gas makes zero sense for autonomy, for a number of reasons). I think we see an explosion once the economics flip. Why would people buy a more expensive obsoleting greatly inferior technology in 2025?

Old people (or people who are just generally disconnected from what's going on in the world) are willing to pay a premium to avoid having to deal with things that aren't familiar to them. Thinking about the old people in my life, i can't see them even considering to go ev at purchase cost parity. What it'll take to convince them is having close family members who have purchased electrics so they can see it and get familiar with the technology. For those segments there'll be a lag of 5-10 years.

I assume Jiggs has left (or gotten a new username) but I saw that oil supply recently hit 100 million bpd. Since jiggs said 95 was impossible it felt like time to bump this for a hearty good laugh.

Long live Jiggs, GOAT troll!

When he's wrong, he's right. And when he's right... well, we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

hi pumpkin...

lol @ "I saw recently."

I'm still around... Just censored from the main (8 years running) for my uncomfy topics of discussion, and don't really see the point of wasting time on subforums chalk-filled with supply-side confirmation bias and the trolls who support it. But good job defaulting to surmising that I prolly changed my name. That's all you.

Net energy depletion remains very real, and no amount of accounting tricks changes that simple fact.

As for your claim, cite what you think you are asserting. Who is declaring 100 mpd today? Does it include wildly uneconomic forms of hydrocarbon where the companies drilling are losing their shirts and/or cannibalizing their assets? As always, provide some context, or admit you're trying to pat your own back in the hopes I'm somehow not around to hold it accountable.

I've never wavered in my argument. That's because I know that conventional production has been flat for almost 10 years, and unconventional production is 100% reliant on unsustainable levels of borrowing. Frackers aren't gonna save your position. They are, in fact, scrambling for answers in a ZIRPY-derp world.

Uneconomic US shale oil drilling is the only thing "growing" for the total you're crowing about, so I'll just leave this here:

Top U.S. Shale Oil Fields Decline Rate Reaches New Record…. Half Million Barrels Per Day

https://srsroccoreport.com/top-u-s-s...-day/#comments

According to the newest EIA Drilling Productivity Report, the top five U.S. Shale Oil fields monthly oil decline rate is set to surpass a half million barrels per day in August. Thus, the companies will have to produce at last 500,000 barrels of new oil next month just to keep production flat.

Gosh, that'll be tough, going forward, considering they're not really exploring anymore because they can't afford it. To say nothing of needed growth in production (not just flat production).

Therefore, the largest shale oil producer in the Permian spent $264 million more than they made from operations drilling 63 new wells in the Permian and only added a net 9,000 barrels per day of oil equivalent. Now, how economical is that?

Oh wait, you're expecting $143 oil again any day now?

Level up, and get better gear, bro.

Ain't no troll like a supply side troll

Shale production is basically flex production at this point. 68 is right about risk adjusted break even and most producers slow down. Once you get to 75 or 80 dormant fields get put online again.

There ARE signs that the easiest areas to tap are running out and the easy efficiency gains are gone so the threshold price will trend up overtime every time shale production spikes.

That is still gonna carry us for years at least, and probably decades, until **** hits the fan, even if nothing else (lol prospect) becomes the big thing after shale.

Hah. We'll have to have a Jiggs party for the 10 year anniversary of the first time you made one of these claims.

Edit: Oh, and how are those metrics we agreed on looking these days?

Hi Jiggs,
How did your cuckspert's prediction from peak-oil.com go?

of course, the last line I wrote is the nut graph, which you're unable to grasp.

no one asked that guy to make a price prediction... that's a fool's game. But focusing on his price prediction whiff misses the point.

What I said there was that the industry (shale) is doomed at any price. Extending lines of credit doesn't fix that for them. Sorry.

We'll have to disagree there. The literature I've read insists "break even," if being honest about all costs and the need to pay dividends, is way higher than $68/bl for the average shale play.

doing a super grunch here.....

but it seems like big semi-recent changes are 1) iran production dropping due to trump, 2) OPEC basically saying no to trump (very recent.....

3) THE BIG ONE.............. pipeline and flaring constraints in USA (not to mention the ongoing "all kinds of technical costs are going up"...)......... this has been on the the internet for awhile and in the popular press for a couple of months..... growing USA production has been the sole thing keeping oil prices from exploding upwards. of course, pipeline and flaring constraints are being worked on as we speak (and certainly suggestion that regulators aren't very aggressive in enforcing flaring rules)......

and yes, the world will need alot of oil for the next 30 years, if not much longer..

it is interesting that one of the reasons oil started going up awhile ago was that the long-term outlook was so bad that investors didn't want to commit capital to it. (i realize this could/would work the opposite way too)

Hi Jiggs,
Looks like shale is doing just fine, even with super low prices. It's called technological advancement, bro.
Oil below $60 again. For something that peaked in 2012 and is in permanent decline it seems to not have peaked in 2012 and not be in permanent decline, no?

At what date do you admit that you got mind-cucked by peakoil.com?

Hi ProudBro Tooth. How is your quest going to keep Europe super white, and blame all of the world's economic problems on brown people?

You still have a lot of difficulty grasping the difference between conventional (a density lighter than 17.5 Deg API) and unconventional oil production, as well as accepting the difference between short-term glut (based 100% on unsustainable levels of borrowing) and mid- long-term production promise. Marginal, expensive production of crap-grade hydrocarbon liquids is still taking an economic beating. Dumb Wall St. investors are still throwing money at the industry, which is cannibalizing its own CAPEX just to stay afloat. Your orange hero changing the tax law throws a lifeline to frackers, but it doesn't change the fundamental problem.

Continental needed that money (although CEO Harold Hamm certainly doesn’t). In 2007 Continental had $165 million in debt and paid $13 million a year in interest on that debt. In 2016 its debt had ballooned to $6.5 billion and the annual interest payments rose to $321 million. The GOP tax law essentially pays off two years of Continental’s interest payments, allowing this failing business model to continue because Continental has not been generating enough income to pay even the annual interest on its debt.

While the company he leads is drowning in $6.5 billion of debt, Harold Hamm is personally worth twice that amount. He'll be fine. He was easily able to afford one of the most expensive divorce settlements ever.

These are just two examples of shale companies receiving an immediate financial lifeline from the GOP tax bill.

Also, global spare capacity is down over 50% from 2017. We grow more and more susceptible to a supply shock.

Slow-motion collapse remains relentless. And it's largely due to net oil depletion all over the planet. The emergence of radical right nuttery and social dislocation all over the world is merely a symptom of the diagnosis.

But I'm sure that to you, the situation in France, for example, is all a result of a less homogeneous, "lazy" nation demanding entitlements, and has nothing to do with the fact that debt-addicted nation states simply can not balance their budgets anymore.

Congrats on going balls out on the red herring ad hominem to open. Nice to see you Jiggs, and I especially enjoyed this:
I'm going to use that the next time nothing whatsoever is happening like I predicted.
This is great. Like a true conspiracy theorist, you're now seeing the thing you're obsessed with - peak oil - everywhere, causing everything. Peak oil is now causing the alt-right! Despite the low prices. That's awesome, man.

Pretty hilarious reading through this thread now that the U.S. is a net exporter of oil and the shale gas industry has gotten so good at extraction of the "difficult" wells and production that there is enough supply to power the U.S. for 500 years. Not to mention that the beautiful by-product of fracking is the production of natural gas, which has caused the U.S. to massively reduce emissions on the carbon footprint side. Fracking is green tech!

Slow motion collapse, lololol. Yes, we're going to see a slow motion collapse of the price of oil as the economy slows down and as the U.S. (!!!) gluts the oil market for the next several decades.

They are finding more oil (and gas) in Texas than expected. Marginal production coming on line seems to be right at about 50/bbl break even (average is lower in the 40’s)

This actually suggests US shale growth will slow because some of the marginal production were committed to early in the year when prices were higher. But there is plenty of growth left in the 30s and 40s range in Texas.

If prices somehow spike because, for example, Iran and Saudi Arabia go to war, Oklahoma and the Dakotas got gigatonnes of more oil that breaks even in the 60s and 70s. We got more than enough oil to last us until we colonize Mars and invent cheap/safe/clean (for example) fusion reactors.

The more pressing questions are how much do we want to use and how cleanly can we burn the stuff without roasting ourselves.

The "roasting ourselves" meme is not that different to peak oil. Superficially credible but mostly bull**** in the more dire claims and based on flawed assumptions and projections.

John Stossel has been doing a yearly show ripping the "world is running out of oil crowd" going back 15 years. For example here is from a 20/20 in 2009

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1s_hld3JEQ

You would thing that these kinds of terrible predictions like this thread would at least introduce some humility into debates like global warming and other doomsday topics. The reality is things get better over time in free societies. And when challenges like finding oil or rising sea levels present themselves, smart people will figure out the best way to deal with them.

I mean permian producers have bene happy getting 50 oil all year, given thats what the diffs have made their oil worth. So with pipes coming on now and Q1, and WTI down to $50, its almost a wash. Still net negative but small.

US should end the year at 13.5mm barrels in 2019. Seems hard to get a sustained rally if the US can supply all the world demand growth

Amazing numbers aren't they. The US now produces 30% more oil than Saudi Arabia. Now has bigger economically recoverable reserves than Saudi Arabia at current prices.

What odds would you have laid against this possibility 15 years ago? 100:1?

Solid opening.

Jiggs, given that the last 5-10 years has been one excuse after another for why peak oil didn’t happen (shale, borrowing, etc) but it is definitely going to happen imminently - don’t you think it’s at least possible that 5 years from now you’ll have some different excuse you can’t predict now?