Nice post 27% of the California automotive fleet can be powered by California solar photovoltaic energy that is installed today. In about 10 years this number should be over 100%. Algebra.

Exactly the opposite is the truth.

For example gasoline usage up 25% in the year following your OP: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/Lea...A103600001&f=M

Gasoline inventories up about 7% in the year following your OP:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/Lea...s=WGTSTUS1&f=W

Even up to today total usage of crude is up 9% year over year.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/Lea...s=WTTSTUS1&f=W

But think of what those numbers could have been if demand hadn't been destructed!

zOMG!! I know right? Helps, of course, that my thesis is literally supported by real world developments, including debt bubbles popping all over the place, China grinding back to reality and at least three oil/gas wars already raging.

But I guess the biggest "development in the real world" is simply the fact that U.S. unconventional production - the only thing maintaining global production growth for 5 years now - has absolutely peaked and finally begun its inevitable decline.


http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/drilling/#tabs-summary-2

Makes me wonder if you even have my thesis right in your own head. Probably not. ... Obviously I've spelled it out a half dozen times, but it doesn't seem like the confirmation bias crowd here of free market cultists is hearing me. So it looks like I'll have to provide it once again.

Well, considering I've been right already for some 7-10 years running, I don't really need your "grant." Conventional easy oil absolutely reached its peak between 2005 and 2008, and no redefining what of constitutes "total petroleum liquids" since then changes that fact.

My thesis suggests "oil will run out?" Interesting!!! When did I say that? ... In the meantime, let's revisit what I've insisted some two dozen times and maybe it will register for you this round:

Oil will never "run out." It will simply become too expensive to produce up against what the public can actually afford, because most of the sweet spots have already been harvested.

I don't need 20 years; that reality is already here. The carnage currently being endured by high-margin producers is quite graphic. They're praying for a quick return to triple-digit, economy-busting Brent prices before the default avalanche reaches them.

Oh, yes, forgot ... Electricity produced by expanded nuclear, or solar (no, wait, you discounted that already), or algae, .... orrrrr what is it this month that will most certainly replace our complex web of 800 million combustion-engine vehicles seamlessly within a generation? I can't keep up with the cornucopian "no problem" dogma.

Time frame for what? Of what? Be more clear in what you're trying to allege. What I said? What al-Husseini said?

Pretty sure what I said was that the global economy is f'd fairly soon either way -- high or low oil price. Look at the quote of mine again that you're referring to:

Dip to $60. Say goodbye to the tight oil "revolution" and production quotas. Spike to $140? Say goodbye to demand growth. ... Either way, the industry is f'd and the economy in great peril.

Looks like the former is playing out, as low prices are absolutely killing the producers at the margins. Even Saudi Arabia has had to put bonds on the market and took out a new $27 billion line of credit. Who will blink? Probably all.

Really? While he did see a price rise as more likely, look again at the first sentence of the man's quote:

"The prospect of a severe oil price drop can only happen as the outcome of another economic collapse."

Despite all the papered-over appearances, there is considerable evidence the global economy is already in great crisis. Demand growth is no longer strong after years of crushing prices. Meanwhile, U.S. production (based on unsustainable credit) flooded the market, and the Saudis refused to cut their own. And who can blame them?

That's all this is ... A short-term period of U.S. oversupply made possible entirely due to easy credit. All Al-Husseini missed on was underestimating the resilience of U.S. producers by about a year. They're now taking a beating, as predicted. ... In the bigger picture, he's still forecasting spiking prices for 2016-2017. ... You can't possibly crow that he's wrong when we haven't even seen how fast U.S. production will plummet.

But watch how steep it gets by next spring!! Good times for your heroes over-extended on that Ponzi scheme.

I gave an investment thesis? Where?

I'm pretty sure I've told anyone who has asked that I wouldn't touch oil futures. I understand that all this forum boils down to is "can I make money on it?" ... But I'm not here to provide investment advice, and never claimed to be. Keep your money right where it is at your own peril. I merely enjoy reminding a forum full of free market zealots that energy dictates to the economy (not the other way around) and that the basic Laws of Thermodynamics don't really give a sh** about "market forces." ... You'd all be wise to remember that. Because no matter what direction (largely manipulated, certainly reactionary) global oil price goes, ... depletion remains relentless. Oil's ability to power the global economy (EROEI) is way, way past its peak, and absolutely nothing is close to being ready to replace it.

Yet down, relentlessly, some 50% since the price spike and economic crash of mid-2008.

Pointing to a demand boost since the price floored doesn't really do much for your argument as it pertains to my own. My point stands: The prices dropped due to weakened demand after years of astronomically high Brent/WTI, NOT some sudden promise of long-term increased supply.

Makes predictions. Predictions don't pan out. Continues to think was correct. Makes more predictions. Predictions don't pan out. Continues to think was correct.

Begins thread in BFI, says I am not here to provide investment ideas.

Prediction that global economic growth will be anaemic seems to be panning out pretty well.

He is yet to show in any way this is due to high oil prices. By his logic economic growth should really be picking up steam right now. The global economy has issues, that's for certain. One of the main drivers of slowing economic growth is an aging population in s few large countries that used to be powerhouses of global growth.

Also, Jiggs is surprised when shale oil production declines when prices decline. We have been telling him for months this is exactly what would happen. Now he uses it as further justification of peak oil. Amazing

It is about as good as it has ever been.

If Jiggs peak oil ranting for the past 6+ years just means that economic growth is going to be anemic like it currently is - then ok. It sucks but it certainly isn't a catastrophe or anything that requires deep fundamental changes to our way of life.

Anemic after a major crash is very telling though, normally at this stage after a crash there is serious robust healthy bounce back and the global economy is on Viagra and Christina Hendricks just walked in the room.

Several economies are of course being pumped full of Viagra in the form of ZIRP/QE but they can muster a semi at best. It amazes me how much people have normalised ZIRP when in historical terms its a freakish anomaly. Its not that long ago the historical average for IR was 6%, imagine what that would do now, total and utter carnage. There is massive fretting over a raise that would still leave IRs at less than 1%.

Looking at this as well if this is the worst it gets so what seems incredibly short termist and vacuous. What this says it that **** is really fragile and vulnerable and there is no strength or underlying health in the system. The potential for things to get worse is high but to get better low, as everything has been done to make things better and as I said, all we got was a semi.

I dont hold PO responsible for this, but am open to the idea its a contributing factor, not the single issue JC says it is. That said the most convincing thing about JC is not his arguments but the reactions to his arguments. About 90% of the replies made to him are total strawmen.

My point was that its pretty silly to say that the current 'anemic growth' is right in line with Jiggs' predictions. Because he doesn't actually make any concrete verifiable predictions - just vague threats and allusions of problems to come. There is no growth number that Jiggs wouldn't use to claim victory.

I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but could you point to where he made actual predictions about what growth right now would be like?

By the way just for the lols (against people on many different sides) go back and read this thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...ussion-499512/


Edit: I think I meant: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...t-fast-550913/ It's the one with Jiggs claiming the Bakken 'myth' was debunked already.

Yes, he most certainly has. In this thread, as well as the one in Unchained. You sticking your fingers in your ears and blocking your eyes from reading provided links does not change that fact.

Well, by your rather ******ed assessment of my provided argument, anyway. Again, that's your own short-coming, no one else's.

LOL!!!

Wrong, that's just another dishonest straw man on your part, being the troll that you are.

As was made clear in the quoted post above, I literally acknowledged plummeting oil price would doom the shale oil industry. Not even a hint of surprise.

Wrong, liar. What you've been telling me is that production can all ramp back up easily as soon as price returns. It's like you don't understand how the industry actually works. Probably because you don't have even a rudimentary grasp of geological sciences, nor the process for which leases are financed and purchased.

Your lack of capitulation despite statements proven to be false disqualifies you as a commentator on this topic. Everyone is laughing at you, man. Here are just a couple (bold and underline yours)
The guy's statement has been proven false. Note the underlined. Oil has halved and we have not had an "economic collapse", or anything remotely close to it. You rode this guy's nuts like Zorro rose Toronado, but his comments are completely incorrect and would have lost anyone a fortune had they invested based on his comments. Oil has halved. We have not had an economic collapse. The underlined statement is utterly false.

This is also utterly false:
Yet 17 months later, precisely the opposite has happened. US hydraulics has indeed calmed the markets - in fact, it's halved the price of oil. Conventional continues to increase and indeed there is substantial spare reserve (and even more if Iran is allowed to come online more).

What's worse, anyone who invested based on your urgings would have lost everything.

You were wrong, dude. Provably. Sack up and admit it?

Instead, you lie. The final denouement and undeniable proof of your inability to say anything meaningful on this topic is contained in the below
The bolded is just total bull**** man. Here is the relevant data:



See demand increasing year on year? And demand has increased at a steady pace since 2009. Note the lovely continuous increase in demand, which has not slacked at all. Meanwhile, supply has jumped majorly in the past few years (note the blue line rapidly climbing above its long term upward trend), and is going to continue to outstrip demand despite increasing demand.



In short, what you say is total bull**** and in complete contradiction of the raw data.

If we just get rid of them olds, tho... Growth will be back in a flash. Ask samson.

Anyhow, Team Cornucopia won't acknowledge any of this. They have "6+ years" of deep denial at stake, and to turn back now would be utterly unthinkable. There must be some "other" reason the clock on the global stock market crash is at one minute to midnight. It must be the "olds", or liberal spending, or non-Aryan welfare state economies with outlandish pension obligations. You know, that kind of thing. What they do, acknowledging limits to growth can never be part of the equation.

Meanwhile, the BTU energy provided by the average 42-gallon barrel of oil continues its relentless decline, while the sultans of spin continue to devise clever ways of redefining what constitutes petroleum liquids so as to maintain the illusion of production growth.

The average 2+2'er does not have a clear understanding of depletion, nor the law of diminishing returns. To them, all oil is the same, and oil from 1950 is the same quality as today.

Aw, back to the refuge of 'But the oil is different!' While ignoring the technological gains in extracting the oil and technological gains in how we use the oil (compare average mpg in 1950 to average mpg today).

Gosh, are we at March of 2016 yet?

Meanwhile, we have U.S. rig count down 60% since this time last year. You understand the lag time that occurs between reduced CAPEX spending and rig count? You understand the lag time that occurs between rig count reduction and production decline? Probably not, even though I've spelled it out numerous times here and in UC.

These equations don't unfold overnight, genius.

We absolutely are on the verge of a serious market correction, and if you doubt that, you're clearly suffering from an acute addiction to hopium.

I could sit here and punish your dumb "Good Times" premise with endless links from financial entities all substantiating that demand destruction is the chief driver of the price crash, but I have little doubt you'll ignore them. It's what you do. Far easier for you to just post charts without linking.

Also, where did Al-Husseini advise anyone to invest in oil futures? He clearly demonstrated that the direction of oil price was murky. Regardless of your painfully optimistic interpretation of economic vitality, you'd be pretty dumb to risk your "fortune" on that specific passage. In any event, he's talking about 2016-2017 oil price, so you might wanna gear down on awarding yourself any trophy until we actually reach that point.

It's funny watching you ignore the charts I link, such as in my previous response to you. Here it is again, pumpkin:



I called for 1-2 years. Has that played out yet? Meanwhile, look at U.S. shale production already. Oops... GFY.

Yeah, you'd better hope and pray Iranian production comes online for your "No Problem" outlook on global capacity. ... Like, as soon as yesterday. Because U.S. production (uneconomic as it is) is set to nosedive.

Well, no. Only if they curiously cashed out this week. Talk to me in 2017 for where oil price is, just as Al-Husseini alludes to. Then make sure the economy isn't in recession... In the meantime, take your Ritalin.

About what? My confidence in your capacity to acknowledge or be honest about the health of the global economy? OK.

LOL!!!!!! You, suggesting anyone else is "lying." Just LOL!!!!

(You should link your charts. Standard message board fare, there.)

I stand by what I wrote, regardless of your inability to distinguish consumption from demand. I once took a beating from your allies in this argument for making that mistake. Something tells me they'll leave you be, however. It's different when one of their own does it.

Regardless: The halving of world oil price has most everything to do with diminished demand, a little bit to do with the strengthening of the dollar, and a little bit to do with a very short blip in U.S. shale production... the latter of which was always enabled by easy credit, and now is absolutely dying, as predicted.

Well, here's where you confuse past consumption for future demand, anyway. I'd expect better from a wide-mouthed economics bloviator like yourself, but I'll let you wrestle with that for a while.

In the meantime, here we are .... It's the IEA, referring to, you know, actual demand:

Even more significantly, oil demand in Asia and Europe suddenly began weakening — thanks to slowdowns in China and Germany. More broadly, oil demand has been flatlining in lots of places around the world.

IEA sees 2015 oil demand growth much lower

Demand for oil in 2015 will grow far slower than previously forecast as global economies remain weak, the International Energy Agency said on Tuesday, and prices may extend their sharp fall so long as OPEC shows no sign of countering a supply surge.

and, oops... more downward demand revision for 2016... That can't be good for the shale Ponzi scheme absolutely begging for $90+ oil (see OP)

Global oil demand to slow in 2016: IEA

Global oil demand will slow in 2016, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said in its latest monthly report, as it warned that the rebalancing of supply and demand in oil markets "has yet to run its course." ... On the back of this volatility, the IEA forecast that global oil demand growth would slow to 1.2 million barrels a day (mb/d) in 2016, from around 1.4 mb/d this year.

Uh huh. Cool story. Your cart-before-horse assessment doesn't seem to jibe with the facts, including the IEA's seemingly seasonal downward revisions in demand forecasting. To say nothing of your curious confusion separating consumption from demand forecasting.

For all your crowing, the supply trajectory is same as it has been. I can counter your (short-term) boost in U.S. shale data by simply pointing to Libya, Syria, Nigeria, etc. disruptions. What you can't counter is slowing demand from China, Germany, et al. There's your price dip.

"Sack up" and face it: The U.S. shale "revolution" was nothing more than a retirement party. The lights have come on, and you gotta go home.

Not only have I absolutely not ignored those caveats, I've also put them in perspective. You're such a perpetual fraud every time you make the mistake of entering this discussion and revealing your lack of insight. But do keep pretending technological and efficiency gains can counteract a 60% drop in drilling capacity.

I've alluded to this many times in the past, but perhaps you should finally just break down and acquaint yourself with Jevon's Paradox before pretending you've made a salient point on the matter. You haven't.

I know you'll continue to carry the charade because you have to, but YOU are the one who ignores my fundamental points (supported by links). Not the other way around. You're not fooling anyone with your projections.

LOL... That held up quite nicely, actually, unless you can show how Bakken contains 400 billion barrels of recoverable oil. That was the myth alluded to:

Just stop posting. You don't even understand what you're trying to mock, as proven most every time you enter the fray.

Jesus Christ Jiggs. I am not sure if you purposefully misunderstood my comment on demographics or are just that dense. It has to be dense as you then post about China, the country facing the worst of the demographic problems over the next twenty years. But you wouldn't know about that, you're a single issue voter. And you've been proven wrong over and over again by toothsayer, and it's awesome.

Oh man. I love how you're so deluded you think you look fine with that quote even with the production we've seen over the 6 years since you posted that.

Man I'll hand it to Jiggs, he doesn't give up even in the face of certain defeat. Would have made a great Spartan.

So let me get this straight, the economy crashes if oil goes down? Through the ramblings and insults, I remembered reading something like that.

I would love to hear the logic behind that with some hard numbers.

The core of Jiggs belief is that consumers won't pay for oil at prices that producers need to produce oil.

His contention is that oil will trade in a window between 80 and 100 dollars. 80 is supposedly the price where oil is too expensive for consumers. And 100 is supposedly the minimum price for producers to produce oil.

There's some hand waving in here and misunderstanding of basic economics. But basically when prices are low he points out that the producers are cutting back and we won't produce enough oil for much longer. When prices are high he points out that the economy is about to be destroyed. When prices are in the middle he points out how both will happen.