The US is in for a world of hurt due to their reliance on gas coupled with the wind/solar scam.
G&R are warning that the US has already past peak gas production and is now slipping down the backside of Hubbert's curve. If this is true the US is on a path to real pain, that will make the 70's crisis look like a bad rainy day.
The US has sacrificed everything on a gamble for unlimited gas. Replacing nuclear with gas, coal with gas, process heat & building heat all gas. Chemical industry/Fertilizer production heavily dependent on gas. And greenwashing the gas with expensive, impractical wind & solar, which are even more reliant on low cost gas backup. And gas providing the overwhelming bulk of peaking power generation. And huge LNG exports. At the very least the US will soon be faced with paying World prices for gas, typically >4X higher. That will devastate the economics of gas. Ramping up nuclear means getting rid of the 100% corrupt NRC. And that won't be easy.
"...The great drama of American shale production may now be nearing its final act. For years, we have anticipated that the relentless growth in shale output would crest by late 2024 or early 2025, catching many off-guard. In hindsight, even this expectation might have erred on the side of caution. Quietly and without much fanfare, both shale oil and shale gas appear to have passed their zenith several months ago. Recent data from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) reveal that shale crude oil production reached its high-water mark in November 2023, only to slide 2%— roughly 200,000 barrels per day—since then. Likewise, shale dry gas production peaked that same month and has since slipped by 1% or 1 billion cubic feet per day. The trajectory from here, according to our models, looks steeper still..."
"...our thesis is built upon the enduring insights of the late Dr. M. King Hubbert, whose groundbreaking prediction of the peak in conventional U.S. crude production in 1970 remains a landmark in energy analysis. In this essay, we aim to show how we have adapted Hubbert’s foundational work, augmenting it with the latest advances in artificial intelligence, neural networks, and machine learning to address the complexities of shale production. The implications of our findings are profound. Our edge lies in an uncommon synthesis: the marriage of cutting-edge computational techniques with deep, domain-specific expertise in the energy sector.
Too often, we observe legacy oil and gas analysts tethered to antiquated models, while AI practitioners—adept at the math but unfamiliar with the nuances of resource extraction—arrive at flawed conclusions. Neither approach alone suffices anymore. Our unique combination of skills allows us to reach conclusions that defy conventional wisdom, and we are confident these conclusions will ultimately prove prescient...."
I took my first geology course in 1970. I was told we were running out of oil and gas 54 years later I keep hearing the same thing. I have heard the same thing throughout a very long and very successful career in the O&G business. Forget the fact that we have a gas-glut in the U.S What modelers like yourself fail understand is that the amount of oil and gas we have is price dependent. For example, coal-bed methane is a resource that at $5.00/MCF become profitable. So do multiple shale plays such as the Niobrara that are largely gas only. Your Permian map shows a lot of closely paced wells. But those are largely Wolfcamp A. What about deeper zones that are largely gas and are very sparsely drilled horizontally and hydraulically fractured?
In addition, we are not the only country in the world with brittle marls and siliceous shales that can produce large amounts of gas. Have you studied the Montney in Canada or the largely unexplored Beetaloo Sub Basin in Australia? Do you have any idea how much gas countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia have? Or how much natural gas is stranded in offshore fields that adjoin undeveloped countries. The Orange Basin, offshore Namibia and South Africa has recently been in the news for largely oil discoveries. But it also has a huge amount of gas, which we have no choice but to flare or not produce. You also fail to take into consideration he rapid advances in hydraulic fracturing technology and long-reach horizontal drilling that have made plays like the Haynesville economic. What do you know about the effects of the switch from cross-linked gels to slick-water fracs?
Yes, we will eventually run out of natural gas... But not for a very long time. In the meantime, hire a geologist who is not Art Berman.
First off where do you get it's MY analysis? This is Goehring & Rozencwajg, who are experts in the field, and go right into the weeds analyzing depletion rates right from the individual well to the entire field to the entire nation.
And you're using the "Boy Who Cried Wolf Fallacy" or Argumentum ad lupum.
Even worse than that the boy who cried wolf was actually dead on in his predictions for peak conventional oil & gas production in the US.
US NG consumption was rising at a strong linear pace of ~8%/yr until 1972 when it peaked @ 5987 TWh. Then it fell continuously to 4376 TWh in 1986. And did not recover to the previous peak until 1996, 24yrs later. That's is a bad production failure.
And consequently coal which was flat until 1971 @ 3229 TWh started a long upturn in consumption @ 6286 TWh in 2000, when it plateaued. Along with nuclear rising from 162 TWh in 1972 to 2281 TWh in 2001. That is a big move from gas to coal & nuclear after the conventional gas supply crunch began. Coal actually rose to match gas consumption from 1983 to 2008. After having been well behind gas, 2700 TWh lower in 1971.
So the industry pundits, including the EIA were way wrong in the 1970s, causing a severe energy crisis, a lot of pain and economic hardship, and you are pretending they won't be wrong again. But his time we are far, far more vulnerable to a gas supply crisis, as I stated.
People seem to think Hubbert was claiming he had a crystal ball and could see into the future. Not true, Hubbert's peak is about supply and depletion rates of typical oil or gas fields, using current technology. New tech will certainly open up new fields and extend the viability of old fields. But they will still peak. As Netherland's gas fields did in 1975 and Norway's oil fields in 1993.
I am arguing for energy supply diversity, you are doing the opposite. If I'm wrong the only result is there will be negligible cost, just good sound economic planning. If you're wrong there will be an economic catastrophe. People will die and economies will collapse due to an energy supply crunch.
"So the industry pundits, including the EIA were way wrong in the 1970s, causing a severe energy crisis, a lot of pain and economic hardship, and you are pretending they won't be wrong again"
The 1970's energy crisis was a function of the Arab oil embargo, and it was worldwide - not confined to the U.S.
As an "antiquated" (according to that report you referenced) oil and gas professional, I have run multiple oil and gas fields, so I am well aware that they deplete. But I am also aware that oil companies like to make money. There are a lot of gas plays that can be exploited both in the U.S. and worldwide that are simply not economic at today's prices. They would be with a higher gas price. Proven reserves are a function of economics not simply technically recoverable oil or gas.
As for the report you referenced, YES, they are crying wolf!! They are absolutely crying wolf!!! They are not an oil and gas consulting group. They are an investment group based in New York. Look at their resumes! No one on their team has any technical expertise in either petroleum engineering or petroleum geology None of them have likely ever seen a drilling rig or taken either a petroleum engineering or geology course. They are hardly experts and that has to be one of the dumber reports on gas that I have read. You can believe what you want but either the authors of that report are idiots, or they have ulterior motives and being deliberately misleading.
I am all for energy diversity. I give talks on it. BUT I AM AN EXPERT IN THE OIL AND GAS BUSINESS!!! It takes more than a few business majors from New York to impress me.
You really need to do more research on the subject. No one is going to die because we are running out of natural gas. They may have to pay more
I'm well aware of the Arab Oil Embargo. And that contradicts your statements. High oil price --> energy substitution or increased demand for natural gas. And NG prices did explode at the same time as oil prices. So, as you admit, that should spur a rapid increase in gas & oil production in the US. But oil production fell, briefly recovered and then went into a long decline of 21yrs, not returning to its previous peak until1998.
And after the Arab Oil Embargo, we were hit again by a Saudi production cutback in 1979, which was even worse than the embargo. Again the whole economy suffered, with US primary energy trend before 1973 going to 32,000 TWh by 1983. Instead it was 19,300 TWh, a major hit of 40%. No wonder industry decided to move overseas in the 1980's, as is happening in Europe now, due to the Russian gas blockade. Now you see how vulnerable oil & gas is to major disruption. Never mind resource shortfalls. When's the next Middle East war? What do you think that will do to the oil & gas price? An Iran invasion? China mostly uses coal and has easy access to Russian oil & gas. What will that do to US industry & living standard? Now you can understand why I'm promoting energy supply diversity. And that means not being reliant on gas. Wind/solar makes us even more reliant on gas.
And NG production peaked in 1972 IN SPITE of a huge price increase. And that production drop continued until 1986 and didn't recover until 1996. Just as EXPERT PETROLEUM GEOLOGIST AND GEOPHYSICIST M. King Hubbert predicted.
As for their expertise, they are a prominent investment firm in energy, that's their business. And that business is dominated by business people, even math & physics people because it is data driven and you need the best people at data analysis. If petroleum geologists were best at that, then they would dominate Energy investment firms, but they don't. Do you know how to do neural net programming, aka A.I.? That's how you do accurate forecasting. Getting all the oil & gas drilling data is easy, they do that, and they have plenty of expert advisors in the tech, that's also the easy part. You need to be good at data analysis to make good predictions.
You need to do some research. People will die if NGas price increases substantially due to short supply, as they have and are dying in Europe when they lost the Nordstream pipelines. People die of cold (can't afford heating or must sacrifice medical costs), economic deprivation kills. Fertilizer/food costs skyrocket. That kills.
So you were wrong in the 1970s with both oil & gas, but your telling us to trust you now. That would be a fool's errand. Our lives, our survival depends on getting that right. I wouldn't trust you as far as I can throw you.
And you claim you're all for energy diversity but everything you've said demonstrates the exact opposite.
We are not doing energy diversity, in fact the exact opposite. From 1991 to 2007 US energy supply was pretty stable at ~40% oil, 24% gas, 24% coal, 11% nuclear. Now it is 38% oil, 34% gas, 9% coal, 10% nuclear. With the electricity 42% gas, 18% nuclear, 16% coal and becoming more & more reliant on gas. As well as heat. As well a lot of the chemical industry, most importantly fertilizer. That's what has happening listening to people like yourself.
Your diagram demonstrating that eight states must be evacuated because of NORM is priceless. Well done!!!
The US is in for a world of hurt due to their reliance on gas coupled with the wind/solar scam.
G&R are warning that the US has already past peak gas production and is now slipping down the backside of Hubbert's curve. If this is true the US is on a path to real pain, that will make the 70's crisis look like a bad rainy day.
The US has sacrificed everything on a gamble for unlimited gas. Replacing nuclear with gas, coal with gas, process heat & building heat all gas. Chemical industry/Fertilizer production heavily dependent on gas. And greenwashing the gas with expensive, impractical wind & solar, which are even more reliant on low cost gas backup. And gas providing the overwhelming bulk of peaking power generation. And huge LNG exports. At the very least the US will soon be faced with paying World prices for gas, typically >4X higher. That will devastate the economics of gas. Ramping up nuclear means getting rid of the 100% corrupt NRC. And that won't be easy.
https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/the-depletion-paradox
"...The great drama of American shale production may now be nearing its final act. For years, we have anticipated that the relentless growth in shale output would crest by late 2024 or early 2025, catching many off-guard. In hindsight, even this expectation might have erred on the side of caution. Quietly and without much fanfare, both shale oil and shale gas appear to have passed their zenith several months ago. Recent data from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) reveal that shale crude oil production reached its high-water mark in November 2023, only to slide 2%— roughly 200,000 barrels per day—since then. Likewise, shale dry gas production peaked that same month and has since slipped by 1% or 1 billion cubic feet per day. The trajectory from here, according to our models, looks steeper still..."
"...our thesis is built upon the enduring insights of the late Dr. M. King Hubbert, whose groundbreaking prediction of the peak in conventional U.S. crude production in 1970 remains a landmark in energy analysis. In this essay, we aim to show how we have adapted Hubbert’s foundational work, augmenting it with the latest advances in artificial intelligence, neural networks, and machine learning to address the complexities of shale production. The implications of our findings are profound. Our edge lies in an uncommon synthesis: the marriage of cutting-edge computational techniques with deep, domain-specific expertise in the energy sector.
Too often, we observe legacy oil and gas analysts tethered to antiquated models, while AI practitioners—adept at the math but unfamiliar with the nuances of resource extraction—arrive at flawed conclusions. Neither approach alone suffices anymore. Our unique combination of skills allows us to reach conclusions that defy conventional wisdom, and we are confident these conclusions will ultimately prove prescient...."
I took my first geology course in 1970. I was told we were running out of oil and gas 54 years later I keep hearing the same thing. I have heard the same thing throughout a very long and very successful career in the O&G business. Forget the fact that we have a gas-glut in the U.S What modelers like yourself fail understand is that the amount of oil and gas we have is price dependent. For example, coal-bed methane is a resource that at $5.00/MCF become profitable. So do multiple shale plays such as the Niobrara that are largely gas only. Your Permian map shows a lot of closely paced wells. But those are largely Wolfcamp A. What about deeper zones that are largely gas and are very sparsely drilled horizontally and hydraulically fractured?
In addition, we are not the only country in the world with brittle marls and siliceous shales that can produce large amounts of gas. Have you studied the Montney in Canada or the largely unexplored Beetaloo Sub Basin in Australia? Do you have any idea how much gas countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia have? Or how much natural gas is stranded in offshore fields that adjoin undeveloped countries. The Orange Basin, offshore Namibia and South Africa has recently been in the news for largely oil discoveries. But it also has a huge amount of gas, which we have no choice but to flare or not produce. You also fail to take into consideration he rapid advances in hydraulic fracturing technology and long-reach horizontal drilling that have made plays like the Haynesville economic. What do you know about the effects of the switch from cross-linked gels to slick-water fracs?
Yes, we will eventually run out of natural gas... But not for a very long time. In the meantime, hire a geologist who is not Art Berman.
Yawn!! Wake me up when the sky actually falls.
First off where do you get it's MY analysis? This is Goehring & Rozencwajg, who are experts in the field, and go right into the weeds analyzing depletion rates right from the individual well to the entire field to the entire nation.
And you're using the "Boy Who Cried Wolf Fallacy" or Argumentum ad lupum.
https://leanlogic.online/glossary/wolf-fallacy/
Even worse than that the boy who cried wolf was actually dead on in his predictions for peak conventional oil & gas production in the US.
US NG consumption was rising at a strong linear pace of ~8%/yr until 1972 when it peaked @ 5987 TWh. Then it fell continuously to 4376 TWh in 1986. And did not recover to the previous peak until 1996, 24yrs later. That's is a bad production failure.
And consequently coal which was flat until 1971 @ 3229 TWh started a long upturn in consumption @ 6286 TWh in 2000, when it plateaued. Along with nuclear rising from 162 TWh in 1972 to 2281 TWh in 2001. That is a big move from gas to coal & nuclear after the conventional gas supply crunch began. Coal actually rose to match gas consumption from 1983 to 2008. After having been well behind gas, 2700 TWh lower in 1971.
So the industry pundits, including the EIA were way wrong in the 1970s, causing a severe energy crisis, a lot of pain and economic hardship, and you are pretending they won't be wrong again. But his time we are far, far more vulnerable to a gas supply crisis, as I stated.
People seem to think Hubbert was claiming he had a crystal ball and could see into the future. Not true, Hubbert's peak is about supply and depletion rates of typical oil or gas fields, using current technology. New tech will certainly open up new fields and extend the viability of old fields. But they will still peak. As Netherland's gas fields did in 1975 and Norway's oil fields in 1993.
I am arguing for energy supply diversity, you are doing the opposite. If I'm wrong the only result is there will be negligible cost, just good sound economic planning. If you're wrong there will be an economic catastrophe. People will die and economies will collapse due to an energy supply crunch.
"So the industry pundits, including the EIA were way wrong in the 1970s, causing a severe energy crisis, a lot of pain and economic hardship, and you are pretending they won't be wrong again"
The 1970's energy crisis was a function of the Arab oil embargo, and it was worldwide - not confined to the U.S.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Arab-oil-embargo
As an "antiquated" (according to that report you referenced) oil and gas professional, I have run multiple oil and gas fields, so I am well aware that they deplete. But I am also aware that oil companies like to make money. There are a lot of gas plays that can be exploited both in the U.S. and worldwide that are simply not economic at today's prices. They would be with a higher gas price. Proven reserves are a function of economics not simply technically recoverable oil or gas.
As for the report you referenced, YES, they are crying wolf!! They are absolutely crying wolf!!! They are not an oil and gas consulting group. They are an investment group based in New York. Look at their resumes! No one on their team has any technical expertise in either petroleum engineering or petroleum geology None of them have likely ever seen a drilling rig or taken either a petroleum engineering or geology course. They are hardly experts and that has to be one of the dumber reports on gas that I have read. You can believe what you want but either the authors of that report are idiots, or they have ulterior motives and being deliberately misleading.
I am all for energy diversity. I give talks on it. BUT I AM AN EXPERT IN THE OIL AND GAS BUSINESS!!! It takes more than a few business majors from New York to impress me.
You really need to do more research on the subject. No one is going to die because we are running out of natural gas. They may have to pay more
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapg/aapgbull/article/107/6/851/623376/M-King-Hubbert-and-the-rise-and-fall-of-peak-oil
I'm well aware of the Arab Oil Embargo. And that contradicts your statements. High oil price --> energy substitution or increased demand for natural gas. And NG prices did explode at the same time as oil prices. So, as you admit, that should spur a rapid increase in gas & oil production in the US. But oil production fell, briefly recovered and then went into a long decline of 21yrs, not returning to its previous peak until1998.
And after the Arab Oil Embargo, we were hit again by a Saudi production cutback in 1979, which was even worse than the embargo. Again the whole economy suffered, with US primary energy trend before 1973 going to 32,000 TWh by 1983. Instead it was 19,300 TWh, a major hit of 40%. No wonder industry decided to move overseas in the 1980's, as is happening in Europe now, due to the Russian gas blockade. Now you see how vulnerable oil & gas is to major disruption. Never mind resource shortfalls. When's the next Middle East war? What do you think that will do to the oil & gas price? An Iran invasion? China mostly uses coal and has easy access to Russian oil & gas. What will that do to US industry & living standard? Now you can understand why I'm promoting energy supply diversity. And that means not being reliant on gas. Wind/solar makes us even more reliant on gas.
And NG production peaked in 1972 IN SPITE of a huge price increase. And that production drop continued until 1986 and didn't recover until 1996. Just as EXPERT PETROLEUM GEOLOGIST AND GEOPHYSICIST M. King Hubbert predicted.
As for their expertise, they are a prominent investment firm in energy, that's their business. And that business is dominated by business people, even math & physics people because it is data driven and you need the best people at data analysis. If petroleum geologists were best at that, then they would dominate Energy investment firms, but they don't. Do you know how to do neural net programming, aka A.I.? That's how you do accurate forecasting. Getting all the oil & gas drilling data is easy, they do that, and they have plenty of expert advisors in the tech, that's also the easy part. You need to be good at data analysis to make good predictions.
You need to do some research. People will die if NGas price increases substantially due to short supply, as they have and are dying in Europe when they lost the Nordstream pipelines. People die of cold (can't afford heating or must sacrifice medical costs), economic deprivation kills. Fertilizer/food costs skyrocket. That kills.
So you were wrong in the 1970s with both oil & gas, but your telling us to trust you now. That would be a fool's errand. Our lives, our survival depends on getting that right. I wouldn't trust you as far as I can throw you.
And you claim you're all for energy diversity but everything you've said demonstrates the exact opposite.
We are not doing energy diversity, in fact the exact opposite. From 1991 to 2007 US energy supply was pretty stable at ~40% oil, 24% gas, 24% coal, 11% nuclear. Now it is 38% oil, 34% gas, 9% coal, 10% nuclear. With the electricity 42% gas, 18% nuclear, 16% coal and becoming more & more reliant on gas. As well as heat. As well a lot of the chemical industry, most importantly fertilizer. That's what has happening listening to people like yourself.