This depends on how it's being reported. The downturn in price will certainly dry up a lot of U.S. production, and we should see that fairly quickly because of the nature of this unconventional drilling. However, what has already been drilled (or has already paid for or hedged) will keep producing in the near term. But without sustained prices of over 100/bbl no new infrastructure is going to just magically pop up to maintain that production.

You say that like it's NOT EXACTLY OUR POINT

lol no.

Think about the contrast to the stock market: you never see the thing get cut in half in four months, which is more or less what happened to oil this year and does just happen from time to time. The closest parallel was 2008-09, but that played out over about 15 months in equities, and in about 4 in oil (sep 08 - dec 08) and the percentage fall in oil was much greater as well. Commodities are just more volatile than fixed income, or interest rate, or equities, or just about anything else. Depending on world economics and weather, energy and agriculture fight it out for which is the more volatile in any given year.

There were several different points being made.

You do know that we have gone through exactly this before, right?

You can check to see exactly what happened in the early 1980s instead of theorizing.

The 'lol no' followed by an explanation that basically agrees with the point being responded to (or misses the point entirely) is one of the highlights of 2+2 for me.

When you don't understand the distinction being made, is that a highlight too?

Deuces your identification of the fact there is less enthusiasm to find supply when prices is low isn't exactly groundbreaking stuff. We've been saying that, and that high prices = more supply, to the dumbass OP for about a half-decade now.

Missed it entirely is more accurate. Commodity business cycles last decades.

LOL... that's some epic baseless optimism you got there at the end.

As posted many times earlier in response to your latest "so what" rationalization, losing half of U.S. shale plays would be catastrophic to U.S. production growth. As we made clear, your "no problem" argument needs 100% of shale wells to keep pumping, and then a whole bunch more each year. That is literally impossible with prices this low.

Meanwhile, even if you take a state official desperate to maintain state revenue as truth, back here in reality, many more independent studies of shale plays have Bakken way closer to $80-$90 as the break-even point - and certainly higher to lure investment. Capital costs, as what the state is looking at above, don’t begin to reflect all of their costs like overhead, debt service, taxes, or operating costs so the true situation is really a lot worse.

But again, half? Pretty awful.

With annual decline rates over 50% for the average well, you need to be running faster (drilling more and more wells) each year in order to just stay in place (maintain production quotas). Too bad the "no problem" narrative for shale production requires even MORE than just staying in place.

15/183 rigs = half for jiggs

Oh look! It's the SMP regular who insists that algae can easily replace conventional oil, and doesn't think EROEI is an important ratio.

You don't get to change the definition of peak so as to suit your dumb argument that pretends it's not happening. Do better. Even Hubbert didn't predict any "doomsday," so get your facts before spewing. Also, there's no "specific" description of collapse, you fraud.

Where a world in perpetual growth slowdown and conflict is not interesting at all .... at least to a safe, insulated westerner who clearly doesn't understand the affects of net energy depletion on complex societies.

And they will note that most of this is obnoxious straw man creation from a hollow poster who bailed on this debate many months ago, and only returns to re-write forum history and disappear all over again.

oh WoaT, at least try and follow the discussion before chiming in with your miss-the-point basics ... idiot.

lol someone missed the point jiggs, and it wasn't me.... ND oil industry will be just fine. The other regions will get taped if prices are thought to be going up again.

Thats. how. this. works.

oh, no, it was you... was always you, and continues to be you. You're the slow part of this thread, and it's no coincidence most of your offerings are ignored.

Well, for the next 12-18 months, anyway. But if you had the capacity to qualify what "fine" actually means here, you would do so.

No one here is surprised that you don't have the slightest clue what goes into mothballing a shale drilling site, nor starting it back up again. Regardless, your dumb "drill baby drill" sentiment doesn't have the time, the man power, nor the investment promise to ramp up to levels you "feel" are possible. Deep thinker.

lol

Had I insisted either of those, it would be a fine criticism. Since I did neither, it lacks a bit of merit.

What I said is that there is nothing wrong with spending a couple of bucks experimenting on oil from algae as one of the possible alternative energy sources, and that EROIE is not the most important criteria that energy companies use to determine whether a project is worth it.

Hubbert most certainly predicted a doomsday. He even made some pretty curves on pieces of paper that described exactly how it is supposed to happen by 1971.

And there is the doomsday claim that you are denying exists.

You stopped adding new content for me to respond to. Have you any new arguments this time around or are you just seeking to proselytize?

still demanding that exact final score before the game, huh, troll mod?

anyhow... lay the points. Or don't. But it's the right side, and you haven't covered all thread.

Well, currently its hard to bet with you since according to you every possible outcome is proof that you won. I'm not asking for a score, I'm asking you for what you consider a 'win'.

I do find it funny that in the 2009-2010 thread you were much more free with specific predictions. I'm assuming that your complete failure at being right with any of those specific predictions is why you no longer do that.

The 50% is the decline in production rate of a well from its first to second year.

That has always been the case, which is why peak oil happened a few hundred years ago.

"Nothing wrong with spending a couple bucks..." ... . Cool re-write.

Yeah, you insisted algae from oil was a viable solution and has the potential to replace what conventional oil production provides. You even dismissed common-sense logistical roadblocks to bio-diesel infrastructure. Over and over again. Don't sugar coat now, or I'll be happy to revisit the thread and hyperlink all your ridiculous claims.

LOL... link please. Because the truth is, he made concessions for technology and alternatives (esp. nuclear, which he felt - wrongly - could fill the gap).

Yeah, he was talking about U.S. conventional production, not global, genius. He was dead-on accurate. Are you sure you have the slightest clue what you're talking about?

No, I crushed your dumb premise, and reminded the thread that there is no substitute for conventional liquid fuels. I didn't feel I needed to kick you while you were down, so I awaited your next round of dumb cornucopia.

Yeah, I've made a ton of new arguments throughout this thread, none of which have effectively been countered by denialists like you. But have at it. Here's a few fast balls for you and your slow bat speed:

- World conventional production has been flat since 2005
- U.S. unconventional production is the only thing maintaining very tepid global liquids growth
- the economics just aren't there for U.S. unconventional production, and won't be
- 2015 was always the year most "alarmists" have always pointed to as the turning point
- cornered, the very best your allies here have offered is that because the Fed has papered over the problem this long, they'll just continue to do so. ... I guess just until the magic energy source from God is found, right in time.

No, liar. What you're asking is for me to paint a precise picture of the world for you on the downside of the oil bell curve.

Regardless, as for my criteria, I've already "won." ... Peak is here. Decline is all that remains. The affects of which will only get worse until people in power change policy.

Link what you think you're talking about.

In the near term that depends on the cashflows from the individual drilling programs, which are based on the price of oil and the volume to be extracted. However, the nature of shale is that each well doesn't produce very much without being re-drilled and without multiple active bores. So, if the main pad was already paid for at $100/bbl, you have value already established there. Then maybe you can drill more at $70/bbl from that pad, and maybe whatever is producing from the earlier drill is still profitable at a much lower price since the initial investment has been paid. So, the whole industry was going nuts and drilling like crazy down to $70/bbl, and as the price was getting there the producers were selling forward to lock in the program and some profitability. The simple fact of the matter, though, is if the oil price stays below that the oil just won't be produced until the price is back above.

So I don't think their opinion in ND is that they will be just fine. Those programs not locked in on price are probably hurting and could go bust. You might take the opinion who cares? and define that as just fine- they were all trying to get rich quick anyway. Others might not see it that way. All the guys in man-camps will go home. Hopefully they didn't think that getting paid $100/hr for relatively low skilled work was going to last forever and they put aside something- likewise for other temporary beneficiaries of the overshoot.

I insisted that neither one of us has the tools to determine whether it is a possible source. Bio-diesel has potential. Sunlight is free.

Your EROEI argument also proves beyond doubt that life itself is a stupid unsustainable activity given that plants are horrifically inefficient. Don't get me started on how unsustainable animals are.

He made them after the fact and didn't come to the obvious conclusion that he was wrong.

He was completely incorrect. A local peak is not what he predicted. A local peak is what commodity cycle theory predicts, not what peak oil predicts.

My premise is that Peak Oil (tm) is wrong because commodity cycle theory is correct.

Flat production is not predicted by peak oil theory.

Yet the world economy just keeps humming along outside of that pesky financial crisis that was precipitated not at all by global liquids growth.

The economics will be there if demand gets back to keeping up with supply. We seem to be quite fine given that the supply is completely overwhelming the demand and the oil will sit there waiting for us to be willing to pay $100 or $200 per barrel.

And the opposite of what peak oil predicted happened in 2014. Peak oil requires ever increasing prices, not a crash due to oversupply. Commodity cycle theory predicts what happened. Almost like clockwork - missed the 32 year cycle by 'bout a year.

Of course, the Fed is manipulating EVERYTHING. I have personally seen Yellen sneaking around in the wee hours filling the gas tanks of the blind and stoopid public with grain alcohol just to put off the inevitable end to our society.

Can we get a few to point & laugh at?