"Wharfie, perhaps you missed my posts explaining things."
Not at all; you just haven't a clue of what you speak.
"Not so. When it was $60, I started ranting how it will go down. I guessed to $40, which it did [Ray Duray said not all oil went down to that price, to wheedle out of being wrong]. But I guess it will go down to $30 in 2004 dollars [you have to adjust for inflation]. Competition from other energy sources will see to that. Not to mention other effects such as population decline, limits to traffic jams, vehicle efficiency, taxes, and so on."
LMAO. Maybe TOd will change a Yergin from $38 to a Winn, at 40 bucks. We have a party every multiple. Double Yergin Day at $114.
My man westtexas today notes...
Regarding today's WSJ article on oil supplies (at the bottom of yesterday's Drumbeat), following is a copy of my e-mail to the authors:
Kenneth Deffeyes predicted that world oil production (note that he used crude + condensate, not total liquids) would peak between 2004 and 2008, most likely in 2005. He observed that world crude oil production probably peaked in 2000, but he never backed off what his mathematical model showed.
The cumulative shortfall between what the world would have produced at the May, 2005 rate and what it has actually produced is over 700 mb (EIA, crude + condensate). So, the crude oil data suggest that we probably did peak in 2005.
However, the real problem is net export capacity. We are working on our final written report on the top five net oil exporters (about half of current world net oil exporters), but note that their total liquids net exports fell by -3.3%/year from 2005 to 2006, and the decline in net exports is almost certainly going to accelerate from 2006 to 2007. This is the fundamental reason for high oil prices--we are bidding against other importers for declining net oil exports.
theoildrum.com
Of course, I suspect you know where those 700mb are hiding. And how we will get them out of the ground next year. Cuz you have a very fanciful imagination. |
