Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

New projects offset decline until 2008

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

New projects offset decline until 2008

Unread postby Don_Quichote » Thu 21 Apr 2005, 18:39:07

Is that without the decline of the Cantarrel complex and the "possible" decline
of Ghawar ?
User avatar
Don_Quichote
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu 31 Mar 2005, 04:00:00

Re: New projects offset decline until 2008

Unread postby clv101 » Thu 21 Apr 2005, 19:12:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Don_Quichote', 'I')s that without the decline of the Cantarrel complex and the "possible" decline
of Ghawar ?
I suspect, but don't know, that such a statement is the result of looking at the existing and expected depletion rates against the increasing rates of production due to new projects. That the current information shows a shortfall in 2008 is interesting. New projects are very public and very long winded developments the timetable for new production is very well know also the existing production decline rates are well known. The only variable that isn't well know is new areas passing peak.

There is little scope for the 2008 date to be pushed out since that would require unexpected new production or the rate of existing production to decline - both unlikely. This is scope for it to come closer though by an unexpected area (like Saudi Arabia) peaking.

All the evidence, whether looking at production rates for individual fields or looking at untimely recovered reserves point to the same timeframe 2005-2010. I haven't seen a sensible analysis that points to a ~2020+ peak.
"Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen." The Emperor (Return of the Jedi)
The Oil Drum: Europe
User avatar
clv101
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed 02 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Bristol, UK

Unread postby linlithgowoil » Fri 22 Apr 2005, 05:01:49

i thought the general consensus was that by mid-late 2007 we'd be in big trouble? until then, we should be pumping around 83-84 million barrels a day on the plateau.

looks like my plan to be debt free by 2010 has failed then. thing is, i'll likely be bankrupt within 6-9 months anyway as i have no job after end of august. oh well. :)
User avatar
linlithgowoil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon 20 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Scotland

Unread postby Sys1 » Sun 24 Apr 2005, 06:02:58

Actually, big troubles will come this year. 2006 if we have "luck".

Btw, get debt free is really useless. Do the opposite, as capitalism is doomed. You'll need a lot of stuffs to build a community self efficient. If you just plan to get debt free, you act like someone believing government will find solutions. Their solutions today are drill Alaska, make war in Iraq and free tax oil for business SUVs. As you can see, they are just insane.

There'll be a massive crash of world economy. No matter what are your debts, surviving will be a challenge.
Last edited by Sys1 on Sun 24 Apr 2005, 14:49:58, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sys1
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Fri 25 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Unread postby Leanan » Sun 24 Apr 2005, 14:34:33

You know, that thought has crossed my mind. If the economy collapses, all of us who did the right thing - saved our money, stayed out of debt, invested in Roth IRAs and deferred compensation plans - will be screwed. Heck, even if we just have really bad inflation, spending your money immediately is the smart thing to do, as long as you are buying something that will be useful.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby smiley » Sun 24 Apr 2005, 16:20:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')tw, get debt free is really useless. Do the opposite, as capitalism is doomed.


I agree that having a bit of money on the bank won't do you any good. It is better to invest it in durable and useful items. Getting into debt up to your eyeballs however is a very bad idea.

People often have the misconception that they own a car or a house. That is not true, they own a loan. The bank or credit institution owners the house and the car. That is, until the loan is fully repaid.

Anything you buy on credit is not yours and can be taken away if you don't fulfill the interest payments. And if interest rates are going back to 15% like in the seventies that is going to be pretty hard.

Survival is a whole lot easier if you don't get evicted.
User avatar
smiley
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Fri 16 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Europe

Unread postby Leanan » Sun 24 Apr 2005, 18:35:04

The thing is, many of us will be "evicted" anyway. If you can't afford gas for your car, who cares if it's repossessed? If your home or condo is so far away from your job you have to move, and everyone else is doing the same thing so you can't sell, does it matter if your mortgage is paid off or not?
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby No-Oil » Mon 25 Apr 2005, 05:01:56

I believe a combined approach to your finances is the right answer.
FWIW I have transfered my mortgage to a 15yr fixed term with the intention of repaying it over 10 if possible, even if I lose the ability to pay later, the prior overpayment will proviode a buffer. The amount is low, so once my other debts are cleared by the end of the year, any work will cover the mortage payments.

Clear all debt that you can, & then use the excess cash to buy useful things for the future, including self sufficiency systems & trading goods.
For self sufficiency, I'm building a small battery bank that can be used to run my central heating system electrics, a water storage & cleaning/filtration system. Remember you can live for a month without food & only days without clean water ! Oh & build at least a months food reserve !

Back to the subject at hand, I read an article the other day ( http://321energy.com/editorials/rubin/rubin041505.html ) that showed the authors calculated predictions on depletion, assuming his figures are correct & an avaerage 84mbpd consumption, it equates to reductions in world supply as follows;-
2006 = 4days
2007 = 1week
2008 = 2weeks
2010 = 39days

The 2010 figure is interesting, if correct, it means knocking over a months worth of supply out of the global demand & that is at todays consumption rates or a reduction to 75mbpd i.e. a 10% reduction in consumption. That is still using all the oil available on a daily basis ! Bet the price goes up more than 10% in the same period !!!!!
The roller coaster is still climbing, but it's near the top now !
Where there's a WAR there's a WAY :(
User avatar
No-Oil
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Fri 31 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: UK

Unread postby OilyMon » Mon 25 Apr 2005, 07:18:33

Having studied the graphs of the other major peak in oil production history, I have little faith that an increase in production is going to do anything to offset the decline that is going to occu, or that is already occuring. Even if it does, what difference does it make if peak oil comes now or in 5 years? Sure you may have less debt or your house paid for, but the employees of the bank are going to be going through the same tough times as you are. If the consequences are as far reaching as they are predicted to be, who's going to worry about the fact that you owed somebody money in the old system?
User avatar
OilyMon
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Southern Ontario

Unread postby Leanan » Mon 25 Apr 2005, 09:49:02

Exactly. If you're in a position to pay off your mortgage and eliminate all your debt, fine, go ahead and do it. It might work out. But if you're not, don't stay up nights worrying about it.

Me, I don't have any real debt, but I am seriously considering cutting back on my IRA and deferred comp contributions. I have a feeling I will never see that money. Or if I do, it won't be worth much. I won't eliminate them altogether, since we may have a soft landing, but right now, it might be better to use that money to invest in tools or books or solar panels.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby tmazanec1 » Mon 25 Apr 2005, 11:25:14

No-oil:
I have read the report. What I disagree with is their assumption that depletion will be steady. The link states that the water cut in Ghawar is rising. You can only assume depletion will be horizontal by assumming Saudi Arabia does not fall off a cliff. My guess is that oil will cost more, perhaps a lot more, than $100/barrel by 2010!
tmazanec1
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby No-Oil » Mon 25 Apr 2005, 19:01:38

tmazanec1;

I hear where your coming from, that is why I said "assuming his figures are correct". As far as I can tell from the limited info I can find on Ghawar, it is broken down into 4 main producing zones that are geologically distinct & covered by 100's of wells. The water cut news has not mentioned how many wells or zones are affected, so the info is unreliable with no comparative data to compare it to.
The roller coaster is still climbing, but it's near the top now !
Where there's a WAR there's a WAY :(
User avatar
No-Oil
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Fri 31 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: UK

Unread postby RobintheDruid » Tue 26 Apr 2005, 12:20:31

Hey Leanan, I've got plenty of debt. I could enslave my soul working all hours in a factory to pay for it, but I'm not going to. I'm going to go back to how I originally started off gardening instead. That is sell the van, sell the power tools and just do small time gardening cycling round with hand tools in my backpack.

Downsizing is the key I think. The less reliant you are on 'the state' or on gas-guzzling vehicles or machines, the better.
User avatar
RobintheDruid
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri 01 Apr 2005, 04:00:00

Unread postby Phetro » Wed 27 Apr 2005, 17:11:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RobintheDruid', 'H')ey Leanan, I've got plenty of debt. I could enslave my soul working all hours in a factory to pay for it, but I'm not going to. I'm going to go back to how I originally started off gardening instead. That is sell the van, sell the power tools and just do small time gardening cycling round with hand tools in my backpack.

Downsizing is the key I think. The less reliant you are on 'the state' or on gas-guzzling vehicles or machines, the better.


Wealth is measured not by material possession, but by an inverted relation to need. That is, whoever needs the least is the most wealthy. And it certainly is obvious when you compare the attitudes, mindsets, and happiness/fulfillment levels of content people vs. those that always "want a little more."

You will be among the wealthiest people on Earth, should PO come to pass as drastically as I foresee.
User avatar
Phetro
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed 27 Apr 2005, 03:00:00

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 29 Apr 2005, 21:50:59

The thing to remember is Need and Want are not the same thing, all people really need are clothing, shelter, sustenance, and family/friends. Most want a whole lot more though.
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17094
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: New projects offset decline until 2008

Unread postby khebab » Sat 30 Apr 2005, 17:38:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Don_Quichote', 'I')s that without the decline of the Cantarrel complex and the "possible" decline
of Ghawar ?


There is a good discussion about depletion by Chris Skrebowski:

Skrebowski's Oilfield Megaprojects Update

new supply in 2005: 2 mb/d
demand increase: 2.2 mb/d
Largest megaproject: Saudi Arabian field of Khurais in 2009: 1.2 mb/d

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd an alternative analysis which is being used by the CIBC (Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce) is to look at the potential shortfall and what price you'd need to close that shortfall by destroying demand. And the figures that they're coming up with are quite dramatic. They see this sort of shortfall increasing from about one mb/d in 2006 which they believe can be closed by the price rising to $61/b, and then they take it up to 2.8 mb/d the year after at $70 oil. 2008 they've got shortfall of 5 million barrels and $80 oil. 2009 they're up to $90 oil. 2010 they're up to $101 oil.

Now this is a rather economist's approach because it assumes that everything works smoothly. I'm not sure that high oil prices can be accommodated in that sense. It seems much more likely that they will induce some significant economic set back.
khebab
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Canada
Top

Unread postby Dan1195 » Sat 30 Apr 2005, 19:34:10

Its fairly obviously those dollar estimates with those shortfalls are way underdone. Price has already been to $58 a barell with no shortfalls. 1 mbd shortfall would prob take prices north of $70 potentially much higher with so much speculation.
User avatar
Dan1195
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Sat 19 Mar 2005, 04:00:00

Want vs Need

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 05 Jan 2010, 19:56:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'T')he thing to remember is Need and Want are not the same thing, all people really need are clothing, shelter, sustenance, and family/friends. Most want a whole lot more though.


This was either my first post on PO.com or very close too it. I went back to look tonight and after 4 years and 8 months I can say I stand fully behind it.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17094
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
Top


Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests

cron