Situation worse than being told

“The World’s Energy Problem Is Far Worse Than We’re Being Told”

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/The-Worlds-Energy-Prob…

t

9 Likes

nah, VZ opted to do more business selling oil to China in the meantime.

https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/fuel-oil-byproducts-boo…

The article is overly dramatic about the end of days.

1 Like

“VZ opted to do more business selling oil to China in the meantime.”

VZ is giving away oil to repay Chinese debt. China lent billions to Venezuela and they want payback in oil. Or else!

You really think the situation in EU is rosy? Germany’s industries are shutting down one by one. Fertilizer plants (using NG) shut down. Smelters - same. England - gimme a break. they will freeze in the dark this winter. Rest of EU? Big troubles. High costs. Small businesses really suffering with high energy prices.

t.

7 Likes

VZ is giving away oil to repay Chinese debt. China lent billions to Venezuela and they want payback in oil. Or else!

Correct, VZ has a large debt with China, so large that when Maduro went hat in hand to ask for more he was turned away.

The Captain

1 Like

https://i0.wp.com/ourfiniteworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2022…

“Try verifying a couple of their sources yourself. But don’t stop when you see that the search results show up many links - also don’t just look at the first few pages of the search results (which sometimes even includes unreliably sourced Wikipedia articles written many years ago with links to important real people - again for the veneer of credibility - who have no actual association with it). Try verifying some of the search results and you’ll soon see that the details only go 2 levels deep. They really start falling apart at level 3. For example, the 75 year old author of this article who claims that he “has for almost five decades worked at the highest levels with various governments around the world” and that he has “authored or co-authored more than 35 books” produces a grand total of 81 search results on Google and only a handful of photos can be found. I could go on and on…”

From trustpilot on this publication.

Please! Vet your sources!

The CRAAP Guide. How to vet your sources.

https://libguides.rbc.edu/c.php?g=484846&p=3320444

3 Likes

t,

My opinion of Ms. Tverberg’s articles has soured a bit over the years. I agree with the title of the article and many of her points, but she has adopted some beliefs there is scant or no evidence to support.

My primary disagreement with her general argument is the belief that oil prices will fall because of the lack of affordability. Five to ten years ago I believed it, but I’ve changed my mind. Certainly, there’s a balance between supply and demand, but overall, precious and depleting resources should be relatively more valuable over time.

I also disagree with the sharp descent or “cliff” of energy usage moving forward. It is very possible that late 2018 may be the peak C+C (crude plus condensate) production, and it’s pretty clear that crude oil peaked a number of years ago, but alternative sources of carbon energy will likely sustain a more gradual descent than depicted. She cherry-picks the year 2020 for its 5.5% decline in energy, but the pandemic is largely responsible for that reduction. Since then oil production has rebounded somewhat, but not to the 2018 peak. Instead she calls for a 6.6% decline moving forward, so that we’re only using 1/6th of the energy by 2050. That’s too steep in my opinion. The recent Laherrere study believes that crude oil production may fall as much as 40-50% by then, but production of all sources (extra heavy, light tight, kerogen, etc., all inferior to crude) will only be down by 10-25%.

This is a difficult read but is worthwhile. Natural resource availability, especially oil and fresh water, is the most important subject in macroeconomics.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266604902…

“The goal of politicians seems to be to keep citizens from understanding how awful the situation really is by reframing the story of the decline in energy supply as something politicians and economists have chosen to do, to try to prevent climate change for the sake of future generations.”

Gail Tverberg

She’s spot on when it comes to the role of politicians, and the fact they can’t report what’s happening. It would be nice if the politicians maintained their cool better. Instead some are behaving like the sky is falling, with irrational behavior and an amazing lack of calm and restraint. Crazy politicians and crazy media makes for crazy people.

The point at which energy availability per capita starts to fall is when we have a problem with traditional capitalism, because it becomes less clear how capital can lend money and reliably expect to receive a return on their investment. I’m not sure anybody knows how to navigate this scenario. Share more and learn to live with less?

In summary, resource depletion should have an inflationary impact on the economy, while technology has a deflationary effect. We really need everybody to start conserving where possible, but instead there’s lots of proud and frivolous waste. I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how hard it is to deny privileges from people once they have enjoyed them. It can be lower taxes or drugs or fattening foods or a big gas-guzzling car (I have an F 150 which is a useful family tool and a luxurious passenger vehicle…it’s great). Not getting everything you want is going to be painful.

No time to panic. Stay busy and stay vigilant.

2 Likes

My opinion of Ms. Tverberg’s articles has soured a bit over the years

Ah, Gail the Actuary. It’s nice to see that at least one of the Peak Oil Doomers made it through unbroken and unbowed (and without turning to astrology).

Anyway, there’s no reason why fossil fuel energy per capita has to keep growing in order for society to thrive and prosper. As you point out, non-fossil energy has been growing as well - but even aside from that, if your society’s energy efficiency grows, you can have growing abundance even while energy usage per capita stays stable - or even falls.

US total primary energy consumption per capita fell by about 15% between 2000 and 2019 (total energy consumption remained constant, but population increased by about 17%):

https://www.statista.com/statistics/265571/primary-energy-co…

…but real GDP per capita increase by $12,000.

https://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-per-capita/table/by-year

So Ms. Tverberg’s analysis is…well, about as useful as her many predictions that we were about to reach Peak Oil.

Albaby

3 Likes

“US total primary energy consumption per capita fell by about 15% between 2000 and 2019 (total energy consumption remained constant, but population increased by about 17%):”

Alternative energy shifted to some extend with added wind and solar power, and more devices were ‘energy efficient’ than before, including cars. Jet planes are more efficient and packed wall to wall increasing efficiency. LEDs replaced incandescent.

Yet, people have no issues hopping on a plane to EU or Asia or South America for vacations. No issues with SUVs and pickup trucks running around town.

But that’s in the US… In most of Asia, oil and natural gas consumption is ever increasing. China will be building new coal plants along with hundreds more in India and all over Africa. EU is keeping and re-opening coal plants right now.

The world population grows by over 1% a year. More people, more energy.

Now, how much more ‘energy savings’ is there to spare? Can you convince people to ‘use less’?
Other than through high prices?

Gas is down to $3/gal in Texas. Seen it even below that now.

Yeah, if I need a widget now, Amazon delivers it to my door. Don’t have to spend the gas money to go to Home Depot 8 miles away now even. Less miles for me and everyone else to drive. But what next?

It’s a good thing people use less - we would already be running out of oil. But, overall, oil demand keeps ratcheting up. For NG, it’s going through the roof since it’s greener.

This was a prediction for the US back in 2013

https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Hungry-Dark-Exploding-Natural/dp…

I think you’ll get a preview as England staggers without NG energy this winter, and German industry shuts down more and more of it’s manufacturing due to ‘no gas’. So far, glass making, fertilizer production seriously impacted there. More to come as gas is saved to heat homes and generate some electricity.

US storage is bouncing along at low levels. Any surplus during the fall these days is not going into storage but into sales overseas.

t.

Now, how much more ‘energy savings’ is there to spare? Can you convince people to ‘use less’?
Other than through high prices?

I don’t know. Probably a lot? U.S. energy efficiency has been increasing, at a pretty constant rate, for more than two decades now. Mostly invisibly, without significantly higher prices (other than the recent price dislocations).

But the basic point still stands - Tverberg’s claim that you have to have a rising level of per capita energy consumption in order to have a stable (much lass thriving or growing) society is complete bupkis. So her observation that this is happening at the global level is pretty useless as well.

Albaby

2 Likes

Albaby1,

Where to start.

For four years running, we have reached peak oil. That may change, as we might surpass the peak in late 2018.

I’m not a doomer. I was raised in a scientific community, where people study the world and change their mind when the data presents itself. I’m just trying to figure it all out. I’m here to learn, not to win arguments. I do anticipate prosperity will decline as resources are depleted.

Let’s try an experiment. Let’s see approximately how much money a $12,000 per person GDP increase over 20 years is. Let’s assume the rise in income was linear.

So, $6k per person times 330 million people times 20 years equals:

$39.6T (I think I have that right)

Now let’s estimate how much debt did the nation accumulate during that time?

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEBTN

Total Public debt went from $5.8T to $30.6T equals $24.8T.

Using two FRED charts to find the increase in household debt, and extrapolating a bit to estimate 2000 debt, household debt increased from about $8.7T to about $17T, so another $8.3T.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HDTGPDUSQ163N

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP

A rough estimate in all accumulated debt between 2000 and 2019 is about $33.1T. My opinion is that it is getting harder to turn $1 into $2.

I think it’s hard to make a good argument whether life is more or less prosperous than it was in 2000. It’s so different. Lots of shiny new stuff and a whole lot of rundown stuff, too.

1 Like

“Try verifying a couple of their sources yourself. But don’t stop when you see that the search results show up many links - also don’t just look at the first few pages of the search results (which sometimes even includes unreliably sourced Wikipedia articles written many years ago with links to important real people - again for the veneer of credibility - who have no actual association with it). Try verifying some of the search results and you’ll soon see that the details only go 2 levels deep. They really start falling apart at level 3. For example, the 75 year old author of this article who claims that he “has for almost five decades worked at the highest levels with various governments around the world” and that he has “authored or co-authored more than 35 books” produces a grand total of 81 search results on Google and only a handful of photos can be found. I could go on and on…”

You don’t even have to make it that hard. As soon a mysterious “they” knows something they aren’t telling you, it is guaranteed to be hogwash. Letting someone in on a fake secret is Confidence Game 101. Now you are both insiders. Your good buddy trusted you with valuable info, and so obviously you can trust him. In fact, you kind of owe him one…

Despite my better judgement, in a moment of weakness I clicked on the click. It is hard to describe how stupid that article is. It was a series of random facts that were unrelated to any of assertions the author was making, along with a few painfully obvious statements.

It reminded me of the Nigerian price email phishing scam. The scammers include obvious errors and red flags in order to weed out the smart people. That’s how that article was written. They clearly don’t want intelligent people to take it seriously. So what’s the scam? I didn’t investigate it further, but there are tons of adds screaming at you to sign up for free investing advice worth $100s. If you are dumb enough to believe their articles, you just might be dumb enough to take their free investing “advice” too. I bet it doesn’t remain free for long, though…

…Like I say, Confidence Game 101.

1 Like

I do anticipate prosperity will decline as resources are depleted.

Why?

We have vastly fewer resources in the U.S. than we did in the 1920’s (for example). But we’re vastly more prosperous. The same is true globally - I’d rather be a random person on earth in 2022 than in 1922, without the slightest hesitation.

Intellectual resources almost never get depleted - once mankind develops a new technology, new knowledge, it almost never gets lost. We know how to do so much more today with any given increment of natural resources than we did a hundred years ago…and that knowledge doesn’t ever get used up. Running out of whale oil didn’t cause our houses to go dark; running out of petroleum one day won’t, either.

Simon was right, Ehrlich was wrong.

Albaby

2 Likes

If you look at the graph in the article, WORLD per capita use stayed the same throughout the 2000-2018 period, only dropping with the pandemic.

Her statement that energy and RESOURCEs must be sufficient for a growing world population is right on.

I wouldn’t want to be part of the European experiment in energy deprivation this winter.

t.

1 Like

Albaby:“Intellectual resources almost never get depleted - once mankind develops a new technology, new knowledge, it almost never gets lost.”

Other than wars and religious fanaticism which over the centuries have taken mankind many steps backwards. Lots of early Arabic knowledge and math - lost due to wars. the Library at Alexandria with thousands of scrolls of knowledge destroyed. Even today, less than 50 years ago, bookburning of everything including history, math, technology destroyed by Hitler in giant bonfires. Libraries stripped. Worse, ISIS looted and destroyed much of the history of Iraq and Afghanistan.


Albaby: " We know how to do so much more today with any given increment of natural resources than we did a hundred years ago…and that knowledge doesn’t ever get used up. Running out of whale oil didn’t cause our houses to go dark; running out of petroleum one day won’t, either.‘’

Running out of whale oil was a problem for the rich. Everyone else burned candles made from tallow and candle making was an industry going back thousands of years. Fortunately, fossil fuels came along - first kerosene for lamps.

Yeah, hopefully nuclear fusion power will come along and save our world. Otherwise, I doubt you can make an install enough solar panels and wind machines to power modern society. Along with depletion of much of metals and other important minerals.

We’ll never ‘run out of oil’…our ability extract enough to use to power the economy will decline over time, no matter what.

We’re equally dependent upon Natural Gas these days for power generation and industrial uses. In Texas, half the power comes from NG in the summer and winter.

The winter European experiment in shortage of NG should be telling…

t

t:“Running out of whale oil was a problem for the rich. Everyone else burned candles made from tallow and candle making was an industry going back thousands of years. Fortunately, fossil fuels came along - first kerosene for lamps.”

Well, actually forgot to include home heating from coal…and lighting systems going back 200-300 years in many cities with ‘town gas’ made from half burning coal…

You did know that when coal production peaked in about 1910 in England, it could no longer provide coal to Italy. Italy turned to Germany for it’s coal, then aligning itself with Germans. Hitler came along, and Italy joined - mainly to protect it’s energy needs.

War often start over resources - whether it is oil from Russian oil fields in the Caucauses that Hitler needs, to oil fields in Romania at Ploesti, to ‘water’ and sheep growing wars in the early US west, to Colonies of Spain and Spanish Conquistors seeking gold, silver and other loot.

the future will be interesting.

Yeah, hopefully nuclear fusion power will come along and save our world. Otherwise, I doubt you can make an install enough solar panels and wind machines to power modern society.

Sure you could.

Oh, it would take time, of course. It can’t be done on the timetable that Greens would like for us to avoid the likely increase in global temperatures of about 2.7 degrees. But it’s certainly technologically feasible to build an electric grid that combined dispatchable non-fossil sources (nuclear and hydro) with renewables like solar and wind to power modern society, over the next fifty to seventy years.

You’d probably need to build a lot more nuclear than we have…but notice how quickly political resistance to nuclear energy fades in the face of actual energy scarcity? Sure, fusion would be nice - as would a step-change improvement in energy storage, which could do the same thing for dispatchable power. But we don’t need any improvement in energy technology from what we have now to keep modern society humming through a transition away from fossil fuels over the very long amount of time that we have available to us to do so (if we want). Long before we start running out of oil and gas, we can have the nuclear infrastructure (plus renewables) to keep us going swimmingly. We’re not limited by natural resource scarcity - only our choices.

Albaby

13 Likes

You’d probably need to build a lot more nuclear than we have…but notice how quickly political resistance to nuclear energy fades in the face of actual energy scarcity? Sure, fusion would be nice - as would a step-change improvement in energy storage, which could do the same thing for dispatchable power. But we don’t need any improvement in energy technology from what we have now to keep modern society humming through a transition away from fossil fuels over the very long amount of time that we have available to us to do so (if we want). Long before we start running out of oil and gas, we can have the nuclear infrastructure (plus renewables) to keep us going swimmingly. We’re not limited by natural resource scarcity - only our choices.

To that list I’d add that conventional nuclear has popular support in general and robust support in Congress. If we really needed to or wanted to build out more nuclear there are no real barriers in that regard. SMRs are probably 20 years out, but have some promise as well. Similarly, we could built renewables faster than we are currently doing if we really needed to.

Technology to find and extract gas and oil is constantly improving. And of course, efficiency is improving, and there is a lot of low hanging fruit in that area as well. I just don’t see long term constraints on energy.

1 Like

Technology to find and extract gas and oil is constantly improving. And of course, efficiency is improving, and there is a lot of low hanging fruit in that area as well. I just don’t see long term constraints on energy.

There are large reserves of natural gas and oil in the U.K. and in France. (Fracking needed) These are politically stranded reserves and the technology to recover them economically is about 15 years old.

In other words, you makes your bed ya gotta lay in it.

Cheers
Qazulight

1 Like

Nuclear power is supposed to “come along and save our world”?

Sheesh! It is way over priced. It wont happen.

Lets get off this ride.

Seriously the safer better is a deflationary policy. We have that now and will continue to enhance it.

As far as magic bullets? I no longer drink. But I live vicariously through those who do. The ride has that benefit if only words.