[copious.abundance]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('westexas', 'M')any things are possible, but it's also possible that many of the other plays will be disappointing

[ralfy]

Ultimately, what we need aren't just more plays but oil sources with higher energy returns, not just to meet the needs of a growing population (as oil producers might choose to sell beyond local markets) but to meet a growing global middle class, one on which the present middle class depends to maintain its own income levels.

[westexas]

Of course, the primary point of the North Slope case history is that it illustrates the "Undulating Decline" pattern that we have (so far at least) seen in US crude oil production since 1970. As noted above, Alaskan crude oil production increased at 20%/year from 1976 to 1988, to a production level below the 1970 rate of 9.6 mbpd (C+C, EIA). Contrary to the widespread disinformation campaign in the media, the current increase in US crude oil production is not the first increase in US production since 1970.

I certainly concede the point that the very slow increase in global crude oil production since 2005, combined with a material post-2005 decline in Global and Available net oil exports, have provided considerable incentives for US oil companies to make money in tight/shale plays. But I think that the assertion by many in the Cornucopian camp that shale plays will result in a virtually infinite rate of increase in global crude oil production is wildly unrealistic.

And as noted up the thread, we are still facing high--and increasing--overall decline rates from existing oil wells. At a 10%/year overall decline rate, which in my opinion is conservative, the US oil industry, in order to just maintain the 2013 crude oil production rate, would have to put online the productive equivalent of the current production from every oil field in the United States of America over the next 10 years, from the Gulf to the Eagle Ford, to the Permian Basin, to the Bakken to Alaska. Or, at a 10%/year decline rate from existing wells, we would need the current productive equivalent of 10 Bakken Plays over the next 10 years, just to maintain current production.

On the natural gas side, the recent Citi Research report (estimating a 24%/year decline rate in US natural gas production from existing wells), implies that the industry has to replace virtually 100% of current US gas production in four years, just to maintain a dry natural gas production rate of 66 BCF/day. Or, at a 24%/year decline rate, we would need the productive equivalent of the peak production rate of 30 Barnett Shale Plays over the next 10 years, just to maintain current production.

In any case, I suspect that most of the shale plays, even the commercial plays, will turn out to be gas prone. Note that the outlook for crude oil production from the Utica Shale changed dramatically in only one year:

Ohio's well data shatters shale oil hopes (May, 2013)
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-16/business/sns-rt-us-ohio-utica-databre94g00b-20130516_1_gas-production-eagle-ford-oil-production

[dashster]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', 't')he US is using less oil imported oil nowadays because of a combination of the fastest growing domestic oil production in US history and lessened consumer demand as people trade in their SUVs for more fuel efficient machines"...sure.. sounds about right.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', 'U')ltimately, what we need aren't just more plays but oil sources with higher energy returns, not just to meet the needs of a growing population (as oil producers might choose to sell beyond local markets) but to meet a growing global middle class, one on which the present middle class depends to maintain its own income levels.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('westexas', ' ') Contrary to the widespread disinformation campaign in the media, the current increase in US crude oil production is not the first increase in US production since 1970.

[ROCKMAN]

John - That's a good point worth repeating IMHO. I think sometimes folks confuse our inability to satisfy our thirst for oil with a relative lack of resources. The US has been near the top of the oil producers list forever. In fact, we were Saudi America before there was a Saudi Arabia. Not only blessed with a huge resource base but had governmental, free enterprise and private mineral ownership systems that greatly aided the development of those resources.

As they say it isn’t the fall that kills you but that sudden stop. If we had somehow been able to keep our consumption more in tune with our production capabilities this website might not even exist today. The US doesn’t have a production deficit problem as much as it has a consumption excess problem IMHO.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dashster', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')I stand corrected. "The Obama Effect" is certainly in this mix as well.

[dinopello]

What would be the problem with a president announcing that our plan was for the US to use up all the oil in the rest of the world first (as long as they ae willing to sell it to us at a reasonable price) and then when they are all sucking on dry holes in the sand, we ramp up our bountiful resources and rule the world?

[dashster]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')
I wasn't referring to the start of the recession so much as Obama doing his best to make sure we don't get the recovery we normally would, if he wasn't getting in the way.

[dashster]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', '
')As they say it isn’t the fall that kills you but that sudden stop. If we had somehow been able to keep our consumption more in tune with our production capabilities this website might not even exist today. The US doesn’t have a production deficit problem as much as it has a consumption excess problem IMHO.

[ROCKMAN]

d - Your conservation plan would solve one problem: consumption. But a large portion of our society is dependent upon that oil consumption to generate their paychecks. Cutting down those drives to Starbucks or Las Vegas would save fuel but what are we going to do with all those then unemployed coffee makers and blackjack dealers? We certain aren't going to turn them into solar panel engineers.

As the man who was wrestling on the ground with that alligator said: "Hell no,I don't need help holding on. I need help letting go".

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dinopello', 'W')hat would be the problem with a president announcing that our plan was for the US to use up all the oil in the rest of the world first (as long as they ae willing to sell it to us at a reasonable price) and then when they are all sucking on dry holes in the sand, we ramp up our bountiful resources and rule the world?

[HARM]

John_A wrote:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') do not know what price rationing means

[dashster]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'd') - Your conservation plan would solve one problem: consumption. But a large portion of our society is dependent upon that oil consumption to generate their paychecks. Cutting down those drives to Starbucks or Las Vegas would save fuel but what are we going to do with all those then unemployed coffee makers and blackjack dealers? We certain aren't going to turn them into solar panel engineers.

[sparky]

.
Rationing is the critical factor in any human society
in a well run state rationing is done with money or laws
the British ran an excellent rationing system during WW2
the classic rationing extreme is triage
sorting out needs with hard choice of who get to live

[dashster]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dashster', '
')Las Vegas is not a commute use and would not have to be rationed. Actually, I don't know that there would be rationing, just a blockage of the freeways and roads to commuters. Police roadblocks would stop people and they would have to somehow demonstrate that they are not driving to work.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HARM', 'J')ohn_A wrote:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') do not know what price rationing means

[HARM]

John, I think you're splitting hairs with semantics here. Price *IS* a form of rationing --the commodity only goes to those with the ability to pay for it, in amounts determined by what they can afford to pay (wealth). If gas costs $100/gallon and I cannot afford it, then my "ration" is effectively zero. In cases like wartime rationing, gas was allocated on the basis of citizenship --each person gets an equal share of the commodity as determined by the politicians in charge of the wartime command economy.

We can spend all day arguing which form of rationing is more "fair" or "efficient", but at the end of the day, it's still rationing. This reminds me of the debates over universal healthcare. Conservatives kept arguing that decent healthcare insurance was "accessible to everyone", to which liberals countered, "sure, 'accessible' like owning a Ferrari --if you can afford it, you can get it". Conservatives just can't seem to get their heads around the fact that price is a rationing mechanism that allocates resources based on wealth (or don't want to, as it raises some uncomfortable issues about wealth inequality).

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HARM', 'J')ohn, I think you're splitting hairs with semantics here. Price *IS* a form of rationing --the commodity only goes to those with the ability to pay for it, in amounts determined by what they can afford to pay (wealth).