DECLINES FASTER THAN EXPECTED

by **BigBear** » Sun 08 May 2005, 10:05:03

. Last year, overall capital spending was down 4.1 percent, to $14.9 billion. That means it is spending less on exploration for new prospects at the same time its older fields, like those in North America, are in a natural decline. The company's production eroded nearly 5 percent in the first quarter, a rate that surprised analysts and caused Exxon to miss earnings projections.

I found this statement on a posted article in regards to Exxon's overall performance interesting. Exxon had stated earlier it expected overall declines of 5% /yr. and yet here it states it has just experienced a 5% decline in just the first quarter--it seems there is more and more information coming out suggesting decline worldwide may be happening more quickly than previously expected.

[B]

by **smiley** » Sun 08 May 2005, 10:26:01

It is the same for Shell. They posted an 8% decline in their last quarterly whereas a 3% decline was expected.

Pemex was expecting Cantarell to start declining at the end of this year. However the evidence suggest that it already started declining ad the end of last year.

I think many companies are wildly optimistic when it comes to estimating the performance of these older fields.

by **BigBear** » Sun 08 May 2005, 13:08:40

With light sweet crude representing only 20 percent of the 80million barrels produced daily, the price spread between the sweet crude and the available high-sulfur variety is bound to keep growing.
____________________________________________________________
Another interesting quote from a posted article---can this be true???--then one would have to ask--how is it being refined--and also with heavy crude giving only 60% of the refined products that light sweet gives--how deep will the shortage of gasoline and heating oil really be this autumn??

by **RonMN** » Sun 08 May 2005, 18:14:00

Heavy crude only gives us 60% of the refined products compared to light sweet???

I never heard that figure before! If it was all heavy sour we would need to pump an extra 33 MBD just to break even! OUCH!

by **bobcousins** » Sun 08 May 2005, 19:33:12

Is this sort of declining output just a blip, or is it unusual?

I have always thought that the peak will creep up unnoticed; output will just start to fall but it will be attributed to specific technical factors, or more general "sabotage" or "disruption". People will blame all sorts of things before admitting that we are really on the downslope.

It must be hard for the oil company execs sitting on vast piles of cash to believe that there is anything seriously awry. Likewise for the innocent public, who are still trying to get their brain round global warming.

by **vegasmade** » Mon 09 May 2005, 07:30:14

Hey Bob, isn't that's what happening. All the current info is saying peak, without actually saying peak. Without a general comprehension of peak attributes, technical difficulties etc. will certainly be blamed. No literate human hasn't heard the term fossil fuels, but we'll just stay optimistic, lol!

by **Tanada** » Thu 12 May 2005, 20:18:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RonMN', 'H')eavy crude only gives us 60% of the refined products compared to light sweet???

I never heard that figure before! If it was all heavy sour we would need to pump an extra 33 MBD just to break even! OUCH!

by **BigBear** » Fri 13 May 2005, 08:40:57

Thanks Tanada for that information--it would seem that over time the oil companies would receive a fair return on their $1billion investment in each sweet crude refinery that was updated--but it leaves the question as to why they seem relunctant to make such change overs if so much heavy crude it hitting the market.
Have you heard of any such changes being made to sweet crude refineries.

by **FoxV** » Fri 13 May 2005, 10:27:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigBear', 'i')t would seem that over time the oil companies would receive a fair return on their $1billion investment in each sweet crude refinery that was updated

by **vegasmade** » Fri 13 May 2005, 15:46:11

No, the oil companies will not be investing soon. They know the economy in America is so close to colapse, refining heavy crude will be pointless because we won't be able to buy it. It's another case where their lack of investment can only be seen as a huge clue to the future. If they had any intention of continuing to sell refined crude in this country, they'd be preparing to do so with sour crude.
The facts of depletion are such that any future petroleum will be of the heavy, sour variety. Big energy cannot continue to produce anything near the current levels of demand without a huge infastructure shift toward sour crude refining. I'm not sure of a solid figure for how much heavy crude we are currently able to refine, but it certainly isn't enough to allow for 20+ billion barrels a year.
If tax breaks and government subsidies isn't enough motivation, they know it's pointless. We're being abandoned by the corporations that have sucked the resources and capital from this country. They've turned their backs on us, when will we rise up and turn our backs on them? Fox is right, the time will come to line them up, and knock them down. IMO that needs to happen well before peak is a reality. They're determined not to fix it, so we might as well remove them and move on.

by **BigBear** » Mon 16 May 2005, 10:14:23

[B]China Apr Crude Imports Rise 22.5% On Year To 12.25 Million MT

This posted article--along with one that sates Venezuala's production is down 800,000 b/d are good examples of both rapid decline and increased demand.
New world wide production this year will be appox. 2.6 mb/d--between demand and decline reports coming in it appears that amount is already a flash in the dark. Regardless of today's oil prices--by December things should be very interesting indeed.

by MD » Mon 16 May 2005, 15:36:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FoxV', '
')In the end, I think those oil exec sitting on montains of cash are scared as hell because when the revoulution comes, they'll be the first put to the wall (with GWB and the republicans soon to follow)

by **FoxV** » Mon 16 May 2005, 16:01:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MD', 'B')eing a republican, I suppose I should have a gun ready to fight you off?

by MD » Mon 16 May 2005, 16:24:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')I would be more frightened of the gun weilding, SUV driving, McMansion owning, credit card Max'ing, McDonald eating people that don't have a clue of what's around the corner.

Those that are looking forward to chaos and anarchy are also preparing. And I'd much rather be with a prepared anarchist in the middle of the woods than a panic stricken soccer mom in downtown LA

by **jmacdaddio** » Mon 16 May 2005, 21:29:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')would be more frightened of the gun weilding, SUV driving, McMansion owning, credit card Max'ing, McDonald eating people that don't have a clue of what's around the corner.

by **smallpoxgirl** » Mon 16 May 2005, 21:44:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MD', 'I') live on the edge of a small city, in the middle of Ohio with prime farm land all around. There is reason to be hopeful for some security here, even in the worst conditions.

by **jmacdaddio** » Mon 16 May 2005, 21:51:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')ither way, I'm liking Montana much better. 89 crop acres per person.

by **smallpoxgirl** » Mon 16 May 2005, 22:07:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jmacdaddio', 'C')areful Smallpoxgirl! Montana may have lots of cropland per capita, but it also is a harsh landscape which requires intensive irrigation and fertilization ... Jared Diamond had a great chapter on Montana in Collapse and unless he's a lying sack of crap he portrayed Montanta as scenic but harsh and difficult to farm sustainably.

by **jmacdaddio** » Mon 16 May 2005, 22:23:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n the winter there will be lots of flash frozen Puget sound emigrants to eat.

by **smallpoxgirl** » Mon 16 May 2005, 22:30:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jmacdaddio', 'Y')es, but how can you microwave them without electricity?

DECLINES FASTER THAN EXPECTED

DECLINES FASTER THAN EXPECTED

Who is online