[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'r')alfy - excellent numbers. Such projections always fail on two pivotal points IMHO. First, predicting the existence of reserves before you find them. I don't fault them for trying...that's how exploration geologists make their living. But presenting those numbers as "facts" takes the process too far IMHO.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')Where? I didn't see the chart anywhere? Just to be clear, here is the IEA chart. Just whip out the one you claim disputes it. Certainly that isn't yet another link which you may or may not have read, and then assigned conclusions to which may or may not be accurate, if someone built one of these to dispute the IEA...DO THIS:



I can explain how if you don't know how.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')
Rock, this is EXACTLY what Hubbert did. So was it okay for him to do it because he was an expert and all (and therefore by extension real experts are allowed to do the same, USGS, Lahherrere, IEA, EIA, MMS?) or should everyone just NOT do it?

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '
')The study and other articles are linked here:

future-production-otsf-changing-views-about-peak-oil-t68551.html#p1157024

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')
Rock, this is EXACTLY what Hubbert did. So was it okay for him to do it because he was an expert and all (and therefore by extension real experts are allowed to do the same, USGS, Lahherrere, IEA, EIA, MMS?) or should everyone just NOT do it?

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')
Do you not know what a cost/supply curve looks like even after being provided an example, or is a person reading the posts to you in a foreign language not translating correctly, what is the deal here?

Here is the IEA cost supply curve.



It explains nearly EVERYTHING required to begin a conversation on oil flowrates, origin, resource quantities, cost to consumers, you can build models on these things, make economic assumptions, disparage them at will if you discover a scientific reference calling into question a resource size, all of it.

The correct answer does not require random speculation, analysis from a blog, youtube videos, or the senseless assembly of random links on other topics. This piece of information either exists somewhere to contradict the IEA, or it does not.

If it does, just slap up a copy of it. If it does not, just cowboy up and admit it. That's it. Simple, single chart answer, doesn't even require words.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')
Oh, you certainly claimed it. But were wrong. Again, this isn't something which requires the convoluted parsing you appear to substitute for analysis. Hubbert did something, and said something very specific. Says so right on his graph, which was referenced. You certainly devoted quite a bit of time trying to roll back what he wrote on his graph, certainly you didn't succeed.

You do realize that the beauty of starting with the finding of, and then utilization of, a single critical fact early in an explanation makes it much easier to comprehend for the viewing audience, and also much harder to refute. Hubbert said something very specific, and I can use exactly what he said and wrote versus those who try an reframe said fact because it doesn't fit into their random conclusion to follow. You can have, and apparently do, all the conclusions you wish Ralfy, but you don't get to make up your own facts.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')The correct answer does not require random speculation, analysis from a blog, youtube videos, or the senseless assembly of random links on other topics. This piece of information either exists somewhere to contradict the IEA, or it does not.

If it does, just slap up a copy of it. If it does not, just cowboy up and admit it. That's it. Simple, single chart answer, doesn't even require words.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')and there was no cost/supply curve there...this isn't hard Ralfy, just grab the graphic showing the cost supply curve.

[John_A]

Sorry Ralfy, still no cost curve. Maybe Aleklett will get around to it next decade? Or Hook? Amazing that they want to discuss anything about resources without one, it is a pretty basic piece of information,covers resource size and cost, hell if ECONOMISTS can figure this out, what is holding the physicists back? Or peak oil people?

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Spencer Dale, BP’s (NYSE: BP) group chief economist, isn’t trying to predict the future—whether it’s the doomsday scenarios of peak oil demand or the advent of electric vehicle (EV) “carmageddon.” At Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, the unabashedly candid economist presented BP’s Energy Outlook 2018, which is interwoven with what appears likely to happen and thought experiments on how badly things could go haywire. “The value of an exercise like this isn’t to predict the future, it’s to better understand the uncertainty you face,” he said. Underscoring that uncertainty, Dale addressed topics such as autonomous vehicles, peak oil, investment in oil production and tight oil volumes by saying no less than five times, “I don’t know.” That’s not necessarily a bad thing. On peak oil demand, for instance, Dale cannot see the summit out to 2040 which is “quite important,” he said. “There’s

[Zarquon]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/clim ... lling.html

Not sure if it's been discussed elsewhere on this board, but does anyone expect significant new discoveries in the US offshore in places where drilling has been prohibited?

[ROCKMAN]

Z – “…but does anyone expect significant new discoveries in the US offshore in places where drilling has been prohibited?” The Rockman does not. Of course, that depends on your definition of “significant”. Decades ago stratigraphic test wells were drilled off the east coast and offshore west FL. The primary problem was the lack of sufficient oil source rocks. Same problem with PORTIONS of the US Arctic waters. The west coast obviously had oil source rocks. But we know that because of the “significant” amount of oil already produced for several decades. But unlike Deep Water GOM there is no DW west coast: only igneous rocks that far out. That Pacific subduction plate if your familiar. And speaking of DW GOM: that’s a rather mature play. Some fields left to find but over 170 fields have been discovered and developed over the last 35 years. Offshore GOM oil production has increased but I suspect that party will be winding down soon: offshore fields, especially DW, tend to deplete relatively fast.

[ROCKMAN]

An oil company has several methods to grow its reserve base. One is to spend more monies successfully drilling new prospects. Of course, as has been noted before, the discovery of significant new reserves has been decreasing for some time. The second is to buyout partners in existing producing fields in which they don’t own 100%. Most fields are owned by groups of companies. Difficult to do since companies want to increase proved reserves and not decrease them.

The third method is to increase the amount its own stock the corporation owns. Typically the vast majority of a company’s stock is owned by private investors. When a corporation buys its own stock it increases the amount of reserves it owns. And given the remaining shareholders own the corporation it increases the value of their stock. But does at the expense of the corporation’s income. Income which needs to be reinvested. But if a corporation determines its stock is undervalued buying it back may represent a better ROR the spending those monies drilling.

And thus: “Royal Dutch Shell plc announced the launch of a $25 billion share buyback program on Thursday. “Today, Shell starts a share buyback program of at least $25 billion in the period 2018-2020, subject to further progress with debt reduction and oil price conditions,” the company said in a statement on its website.


“In the first tranche of this program Shell enters into an irrevocable, non-discretionary arrangement to enable the purchase of A ordinary shares and/or B ordinary shares up to the maximum aggregate consideration of $2 billion over a period of 3 months,” the statement added. Ben van Beurden, Shell’s CEO, said the company’s free cash flow outlook, and the progress it has made to strengthen its balance sheet, gave the company the “confidence” to start its share buyback program. In its latest financial results statement released Thursday, Shell reported free cash flow of $9.5 billion in the second quarter, compared to $5.1 billion in the first quarter and $12.1 billion in 2Q 2017. In 2Q, the company recorded $4.7 billion earnings on a current cost of supplies basis, excluding identified items. This figure stood at $5.4 billion in 1Q and $3.6 billion in 2Q 2017.”

BTW while $25 billion sounds like a lot to us "little people" it is only 8% of Shell's total market cap.

[ROCKMAN]

"So the heretofore useless source rock underlying the old Texas oil fields recently became available as reserve additions with techno improvements". If you're referring to PDP reserves (those that are meaningful to most of us) then you're wrong. No one gets 1 bbl of PDP reserves until they are Proved Developed Producing. Especially true of the shale plays. In reality the big recent gains in the value of pubic companies have been almost entirely due to the increase in oil prices. A factor companies have no control over.

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')n oil company has several methods to grow its reserve base.