Hard Asset Alliance Invest In Gold

There Will Be Oil

Login or register to post comments Last Post 6269 reads   27 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 11 through 20 (of 27 total)
  • Sun, Sep 18, 2011 - 06:33pm

    #11
    RGR

    RGR

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 15 2011

    Posts: 5

    count placeholder

    Certainly Yergin is in a

Certainly Yergin is in a position to recall the history of past "running outs" or "peak oils" than nearly anyone else, and certainly such historical fact has nothing to do with belief. The reviews which show the resource numbers he mentions are from knowledgable individuals who have calculated those volumes without allowing belief to enter into the calculations. As to whether or not his historical knowledge lends credibility to his forecasts, which arguably are no better than peak oilers, is a different question altogether. 

  • Sun, Sep 18, 2011 - 06:46pm

    #12
    RGR

    RGR

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 15 2011

    Posts: 5

    count placeholder

    Johnny Oxygen wrote:If we

[quote=Johnny Oxygen]

If we can increase existing reserves by so much then why isn’t it being done? 

[/quote]

It is. Hubbert himself was quantifying reserve growth of fields back in the late 60’s. Yergin mentions the amounts of new additions in relation to consumption in the article. 

  • Sun, Sep 18, 2011 - 07:11pm

    #13

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    count placeholder

    it’s all beside the point..

[quote=RGR]

[quote=Johnny Oxygen]

If we can increase existing reserves by so much then why isn’t it being done? 

[/quote]

It is. Hubbert himself was quantifying reserve growth of fields back in the late 60’s. Yergin mentions the amounts of new additions in relation to consumption in the article. 

[/quote]

Peak Oil is NOT about reserves, it’s about production rate, it’s about the rising energetic cost of producing the second half of the total reserve, and about the rising cost of producing it.

There is about as much oil left as we have used so far in some 150 years.  So what?  We are still at Peak Oil.

Even if an entire Saudi Arabia was discovered today (~260 billion bbls) it would only postpone the inevitable by:

((260,000,000,000/2)/85,000,000)/365 = 8.3 years.

IF we could find the dough to finance it with……..

  • Sun, Sep 18, 2011 - 10:22pm

    #14
    RGR

    RGR

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 15 2011

    Posts: 5

    count placeholder

    Damnthematrix wrote:Peak

[quote=Damnthematrix]

Peak Oil is NOT about reserves, it’s about production rate, it’s about the rising energetic cost of producing the second half of the total reserve, and about the rising cost of producing it.[/quote]

Is there any chance you could reference a Hubbert publication talking about the rising energetic cost of producing the second half of the total reserve? Certainly I don’t recall any offhand, and most information on this topic not generated by Hubbert is of dubious value.

I would also point out that "total reserve" is a term not usually employed correctly, or even understood, by most outside the industry who haven’t spent some portion of their life quantifying such things to the satisfaction of auditing firms like Ryder Scott, banks, the IRS or SEC. Considering that the world’s "total reserve" was once 600 billion barrels…and we have since used ALL of that reserve…and find ourselves with nearly twice the "total reserve" remaining, it is a tricky concept for the uninitiated.

 

[quote=Damnthematrix]There is about as much oil left as we have used so far in some 150 years.  So what?  We are still at Peak Oil.[/quote]

 

We have been at peak oil before. And you are incorrect in your volume estimates. There is somewhere between 14 trillion barrels and  4 or 5 trillion barrels of total endowment, according to Dr. Saleri or Richard Nehring. This isn’t including undiscovered oil of course, which the USGS has quantified in the 1 or 2 trillion barrel range (from memory, but good for an approximation). We have used slightly more than a trillion perhaps?

So conservatively we have used perhaps 25% of the global known endowment, or 10% if you want to be more liberal with the amount available. And we have been at peak oil perhaps 3 or 4 times since Jimmy Carter proclaimed we were "running out" back in 1977, so we are now in another one? If you say so, myself I don’t think the value of this metric is worth much. The question now being, how many of them might there be waiting in the wings yet?

[quote=Damnthematrix]

Even if an entire Saudi Arabia was discovered today (~260 billion bbls) it would only postpone the inevitable by:

((260,000,000,000/2)/85,000,000)/365 = 8.3 years.

IF we could find the dough to finance it with……..

[/quote]

Peak oil happened in 2005, according to retired Princeton professor Deffeyes. Would you like to bet that since that point in time, we have added more than 260 billion barrels to the "total reserve" of the planet?

 

  • Sun, Sep 18, 2011 - 11:05pm

    #15
    ewilkerson

    ewilkerson

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 18 2010

    Posts: 213

    count placeholder

    RGR,If there is so much

RGR,

If there is so much easy oil out there, why are we not putting more holes in easy areas than spending $300 million on a deep sea well?  We’ve been on this plateau of from between 72-74m b/day for around seven years now.  Most new oil projects take around seven years to bring to market.  Where is it when prices even make Canadian Tar Sands profitable?  The easy oil is gone.  The Saudis can’t raise production by any great amount for any real length of time.  Their easy oil is gone, plenty of saur oil left, and Gawahr is almost certainly in decline.  They have even admitted it in private conversations.

Cheers,

Ernest

  • Mon, Sep 19, 2011 - 12:48am

    #16
    RGR

    RGR

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 15 2011

    Posts: 5

    count placeholder

    ewilkerson wrote:RGR, If

[quote=ewilkerson]

RGR,

If there is so much easy oil out there, why are we not putting more holes in easy areas than spending $300 million on a deep sea well? 

[/quote]

I never said a word about easy oil. If I were, I would venture that the first "easy oil is gone" evolution was complete by 1901. That was the year that new technology was required to reach "less easy to get" oil. Counting the new technologies required to reach ever more difficult oil, I estimate we are approximately 5 generations away from "easy oil". You and I, everyone posting on this board has grown up in varying ages of "more difficult oil". We drill $300 million dollar wells because we can, and someone believes they can make an excellent rate of return on such a project. 

[quote=ewilkerson]We’ve been on this plateau of from between 72-74m b/day for around seven years now.  Most new oil projects take around seven years to bring to market.  Where is it when prices even make Canadian Tar Sands profitable?  The easy oil is gone.  The Saudis can’t raise production by any great amount for any real length of time.  Their easy oil is gone, plenty of saur oil left, and Gawahr is almost certainly in decline.  They have even admitted it in private conversations.

Cheers,

Ernest

[/quote]

 

Of course we are past easy oil. That was gone before you were born. Hubbert didn’t write about "plateau oil", some peak oil revisionist did that when it turned out that the most recent peak…wasn’t a peak. The Canadian tar sands were profitable and producing whem oil was $10/bbl, so them producing at $100 isn’t a surprise, and Ghawar had better be in decline, according to estimates of the oil it had in 1975 or so, it should now be empty! How is that for unexpected optimism, fields which should be EMPTY are still producing millions of barrels a day! Yergin has noticed this of course, as have others, but it appears to be more popular to cast it as a pessimistic event, rather than an optimistic one. 

  • Mon, Sep 19, 2011 - 07:50pm

    #18

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    count placeholder

    Rebuttal to Daniel Yergin

Rebuttal to Daniel Yergin

By Jeffrey J. Brown

Jeffrey J. Brown is an independent petroleum geologist in the Dallas, Texas area. He has just been named to the ASPO-USA board of directors and has been a frequent contributor to Energy Bulletin and The Oil Drum. His website is GraphOilogy.

He submitted a letter to the Wall Street Journal in response to Daniel Yergin’s article. The letter has not yet been published by the WSJ.

-BA

To the Editor:

Contrary to Mr. Yergin’s assertion that advocates of Peak Oil have been wrong at every turn, six years of annual global production data show flat to declining crude oil and total petroleum liquids production data.

The EIA shows that global annual crude + condensate production (C+C) has been between 73 and 74 mbpd (million barrels per day) since 2005, except for 2009, and BP shows that global annual total petroleum liquids production has been between 81 and 82 mbpd since 2005, except for 2009. In both cases, this was in marked contrast to the rapid increase in production that we saw from 2002 to 2005. Some people might call this "Peak Oil," and we appear to have hit the plateau in 2005, not some time around mid-century.

Only if we include biofuels have seen a material increase in global total liquids production.

In the US, there are some good stories about rising Mid-continent production, and US (C+C) production has rebounded from the hurricane related decline that started in 2005, but 2010 production was only very slightly above the pre-hurricane level that we saw in 2004, and monthly US production has been between 5.4 and 5.6 mbpd since the fourth quarter of 2009, versus the 1970 peak of 9.6 mbpd. Incidentally, US net oil imports of crude oil plus products have fallen since 2005, primarily as a result of a large reduction in demand, because of rising oil prices (which Mr. Yergin predicted would not happen), but EIA data show that the US is still reliant on crude oil imports for two out of every three barrels of oil that we process in US refineries.

However, the real story is Global Net Oil Exports (GNE), which have shown a measurable multimillion barrel per day decline since 2005, and which are measured in terms of total petroleum liquids, with 21 of the top 33 net oil exporters showing lower net oil exports in 2010, versus 2005. An additional metric is Available Net Exports (ANE), which we define as GNE less Chindia’s (China + India’s) combined net oil imports. ANE have fallen at an average volumetric rate of about one mbpd per year from 2005 to 2010, from about 40 mbpd in 2005 to about 35 mbpd in 2010 (BP + Minor EIA data, total petroleum liquids).

At the current rate of increase in the ratio of Chindia’s net imports to GNE, Chindia would consume 100% of GNE in about 20 years. Contrary to Mr. Yergin’s sunny pronouncements, what the data show is that developed countries like the US are being forced to take a declining share of a falling volume of GNE. In fact, our work suggests that the US is well on its way to "freedom" from its reliance on foreign sources of oil, just not in the way that most people hoped.

In a November, 2004 interview in Forbes, Mr. Yergin asserted that oil prices would be back to a long term price ceiling of $38 by late 2005–because of a steady increase in global crude oil production. It turned out that Mr. Yergin’s predicted price ceiling has so far been the price floor. The lowest monthly spot crude oil price that the EIA shows for post-November, 2004 is $39.

I suspect that just as Mr. Yergin was perfectly wrong about oil prices, he may be confidently calling for decades of rising production, just as we come off the current production plateau and just as an accelerating decline in Global Net Exports kicks in.

Sincerely,
Jeffrey J. Brown

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-09-18/daniel-yergins-letter-peak-oil-community-and-rebuttal

  • Mon, Sep 19, 2011 - 07:54pm

    #17

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    count placeholder

    ooops..

double post..

  • Mon, Sep 19, 2011 - 09:08pm

    #19

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    count placeholder

    Gotta love Kunsler……

The Rainmakers

        This much can be stated categorically about the USA these days: the more distressed our economy gets, the more delusional thinking you will encounter. People want to assign the cause of their misery to this or that (socialism, abortion, Jews, the New World Order). People want to believe that their world is a safe place with bright prospects (climate change is a myth, we have a hundred years of shale oil). The realm of oil is especially ripe for misunderstanding, since we depend on the stuff so desperately, and the world’s geology is complex indeed, and then you have to bring math and money into the picture. But it’s another thing when professional propagandists take the stage and attempt to systematically mislead the public.

Such is the case with two ersatz bombshells zinging across the web-waves this past week, fired off by two of the foremost professional liars on the scene. The first comes from the oil industry’s leading prostitute, Daniel Yergin of Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), owned by the mammoth HIS consulting company. CERA is the main public relations shop for the oil industry. Its mission is to blow smoke up America’s ass in order to keep investment dollars flowing into oil companies because oil companies prefer to use other people’s money to perform their risky operations. They make a lot of money themselves, and accumulate it diligently, but they are not so foolish as to squander it on dry holes and adventures in alchemy.

So, last week Daniel Yergin came out with a blast in the Wall Street Journal affecting to debunk peak oil. His own theory is much like Irving Fisher’s economic theory set out October 21, 1929 that "stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau."  Three days later, the markets crashed and the Great Depression commenced. Yergin says we’ve hit a permanent plateau for oil production. He is pimping for a bonanza in shale oil, tar sands, and other innovative ventures in picking "fruit" that is not hanging so low anymore. He says:

 

"Meeting future demand will require innovation, investment and the development of more challenging resources. A major reason for continuing growth in petroleum supplies is that oil previously regarded as inaccessible or uneconomical is now part of the mix, such as the "presalt" resources off the coast of Brazil, the vast oil sands of Canada, and the oil locked in shale and other rocks in the U.S."

 

Spoken like a true PR whore. Translation: give us money. Calling all investors. Give your dollars to the folks working the Bakken play, or Eagle Ford down in Texas. These shale plays represent oil that is trapped in "tight," low-permeability rock that has to undergo fracturing operations ("fracking") before you can drain it out. It costs a lot more to get oil this way than by sticking a pipe in the ground and running a pump-jack to get it out the old-fashioned way.

There are more than a few dirty secrets about the shale oil plays, but the biggest one is that you have to throw a huge amount of capital and steel at it to keep it running as an ongoing enterprise, and that money – other people’s money – will be in shockingly short supply in the years head. Those troubles you hear distant rumblings about in places like Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain – that’s the sound of the world’s money whooshing into a black hole, which is what happens when debts are not repaid. Something very similar is happening in the USA, where all the unresolved mega-borrowing of the past thirty years is whirling down the drain, never to be seen again, and a craven corporate oligarchy (there, I said it) is working tirelessly to hoard the last remaining vestiges of money before it either deflates across that event horizon, or inflates away to nothing by digital multiplication.

In either case the result is the same: you’re broke Here’s the truth about the US shale plays: they will never amount to more than about one million barrels-a-day (m/b/d) in production under any circumstances (the nation uses 19 m/b/d); and even more probably the money will not be there to keep the shale oil coming very many years into the future. You can take that to the bank (if your money has any value when you get there, and if the bank has not cratered). In our fugue of techno-narcissism, America wants to believe that we can just keep on being what we used to be, pizza, DisneyWorld, WalMart, and all.

So, the second big buzz of the week came courtesy of Goldman Sachs, in a sloppy press release saying America would be the world’s top oil producer in 2017, at 10.9 m/b/d. The effrontery of these thieving pricks! They apparently pulled the information out of chief Goldman flack Lucas Van Praag’s ass. One might infer that Goldman Sachs is campaigning to raise money for the oil industry by suggesting a bonanza is underway. It’s a crude ruse. The actual "confidential" report – as opposed to the brief summary in the media – shows that Goldman Sachs arrives at this position by referring to non-oil substances as oil. Neat trick. Be sure to call Goldman Sachs to invest your remaining savings in algae secretions and ethanol.

No doubt, though, that these two PR offensives will accomplish their secondary mission: to gird the hopes and wishes of the political right-wing, who are hell-bent on keeping this country from entering a plausible future. Watch these ideas take flight and wonder that you live in such credulous nation.

  • Mon, Sep 19, 2011 - 10:43pm

    #20

    Vanityfox451

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 28 2008

    Posts: 373

    count placeholder

    Yergin Schmergin …

Mike,

You know, when you post items such as these as a reply to someone, it would be a really humbling experience if they were to reply to them stating something along the lines of : –

[quote=A Somebody Who Just Woke Up]

"Wow, I had no idea!"

[/quote]

[quote=I just  Wised Up]

"I was under the weight of a fatuous illusion, and you’ve put me straight".

[/quote]

[quote=It Just Piled On In Spades]

"Please accept my apology". 

[/quote]

[quote=Severe Enlightenement]

"Accept my appreciation in waking me up to this serious issue, and in giving me a time-frame to act in supporting my friends and family!"

[/quote]

[quote=Seriously Angry B*st*rd!!!]

That Daniel Yergin needs C******ing with a blunt *****!

[/quote]

But no …

There’ll be a blank space beneath these kind of posts, 99 times out of a 100 …

Maybe this post will make the difference this time, but who could tell …

Paul

Viewing 10 posts - 11 through 20 (of 27 total)

Login or Register to post comments