Does anyone have any information on how much this is estimated to be?
http://quotes.freerealtime.com/dl/frt/N ... est%20News
PeakOil is You
THE International Energy Agency (IEA) Thread pt 3 (merged)
Major oil pool found
by elrod » Fri 11 Jun 2004, 12:33:01
-
elrod - Wood
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Thu 03 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
by MrPC » Fri 11 Jun 2004, 12:39:38
400-700 million barrels according to a quick google search on oil sabah discovery barrels - that's under three months supply.
It'd therefore push out the global peak by about 6 weeks (and that's being optimistic, and assuming that the figures didn't include any provision for minor finds like this, which they actually do).
It'd therefore push out the global peak by about 6 weeks (and that's being optimistic, and assuming that the figures didn't include any provision for minor finds like this, which they actually do).
The purpose of human life revolves around an endless need to extract ever increasing amounts of carbon out of the ground and then release it into the atmosphere.
-
MrPC - Lignite
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Sun 23 May 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
by Pops » Fri 11 Jun 2004, 12:44:25
Significant though, I believe there were no 500mbbl finds last year and only 2 the year before.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
-
Pops - Elite
- Posts: 19746
- Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
by smiley » Fri 11 Jun 2004, 15:17:16
I did find the amount of 400-700 barrels which would be big if it was the amount of recoverable oil. It would more than double their total proven reserves.
But if this is just oil in place the amount of recoverable oil would be only 150-250 barrels. I suspect that it is the latter and that they just use these inflated numbers to attract investors.
But if this is just oil in place the amount of recoverable oil would be only 150-250 barrels. I suspect that it is the latter and that they just use these inflated numbers to attract investors.
-
smiley - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2274
- Joined: Fri 16 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Europe
Let's All Dissect the Latest OMR, Shall We?
by Guest » Thu 23 Sep 2004, 22:18:03
IEA's latest OMR (Oil Market Report) , which you can get here:
link is not the most exciting reading. So how about we select our favorite bits to enlighten those less intrepid? I'll start:
Page 1 "Two Ends of a Looking Glass": Decribes two opposing camps, one of which has led to "chatter of Saudi reserves, peak oil, and missed company production targets"...
They say "light sweet crude has been in short supply"... Despite this, the IEA is optimistic. They explain why.
Page 4: World Demand for 4Q 2005 is 85.6 mb/d!
Page 13 (summary): "World oil suply increased by 300kb/d in August, similar to July's downward-revised increment. Although non-OPEC supplies declined for the second month running, by 150kb/d, this was offset by a 410kb/d in OPEC crude and 40 kb/d in OEPC NGL, condensate, and non-conventional oil. World supply reached 83.6 mb/d, some 4.3 mb/d higher than a year ago (editorial: an increase of 4.3 million barrels a day in one year and prices are still at this level?!?)
The non-OPEC supply fall of 150 kb/d in August was driven by the North Sea and USA, where production was off by a combined 330 kb/d. Norweigan and Alaskan summer maintenance accounted for the bulk of this decline...
..August data for Russia showed oil production reaching 9.35 mb/d, 45 kb/d up on July....
..OPEC (ed: this includes Iraq) crude supply for August averaged 29.3 mb/d, up by 410 kb/d to July....
...OPEC-10 (excluding Iraq)....spare capacity continues to erode to very low levels, at least when measured on a sustainable basis. However a combination of surge capacity and expected capacity additions (ed: don't know if these will materialize!) by end-year mean that short-term flexibility may be 1.9 mb/d more than suggested purely in terms of sustainable capacity.
page 14: (regarding OPEC estimate of sustainable capacity):Key in this regard is Saudi Arabia's reported capability to reach 10.5 mb/d, compared to this Report's assessment of 9.5 mb/d sustainable capacity (attainable within 30 days and immediately sustainable for 90 days or more)
Page 17: Mexico - July actual. Crude oil production fell by more than 70 kb/d in July to 3.8 mb/d, and once again heavy crude accounted for the bulk of this. NGL production was also 15 kb/d lower at some 445 kb/d. Exports too were down by 40 kb/d at 1.81 mb/d as heavy/sour Maya deliveries, and notably those into US and other American markets, fell...(despite recent claimed reserve additions)...the future ability of Mexico to exploit deepwater reserves to offset declining Cantarell field output remain in doubt. [ed: Canterell is dying?]
Ok, I stopped at page 18. Would someone else like to take a crack at it?
link is not the most exciting reading. So how about we select our favorite bits to enlighten those less intrepid? I'll start:
Page 1 "Two Ends of a Looking Glass": Decribes two opposing camps, one of which has led to "chatter of Saudi reserves, peak oil, and missed company production targets"...
They say "light sweet crude has been in short supply"... Despite this, the IEA is optimistic. They explain why.
Page 4: World Demand for 4Q 2005 is 85.6 mb/d!
Page 13 (summary): "World oil suply increased by 300kb/d in August, similar to July's downward-revised increment. Although non-OPEC supplies declined for the second month running, by 150kb/d, this was offset by a 410kb/d in OPEC crude and 40 kb/d in OEPC NGL, condensate, and non-conventional oil. World supply reached 83.6 mb/d, some 4.3 mb/d higher than a year ago (editorial: an increase of 4.3 million barrels a day in one year and prices are still at this level?!?)
The non-OPEC supply fall of 150 kb/d in August was driven by the North Sea and USA, where production was off by a combined 330 kb/d. Norweigan and Alaskan summer maintenance accounted for the bulk of this decline...
..August data for Russia showed oil production reaching 9.35 mb/d, 45 kb/d up on July....
..OPEC (ed: this includes Iraq) crude supply for August averaged 29.3 mb/d, up by 410 kb/d to July....
...OPEC-10 (excluding Iraq)....spare capacity continues to erode to very low levels, at least when measured on a sustainable basis. However a combination of surge capacity and expected capacity additions (ed: don't know if these will materialize!) by end-year mean that short-term flexibility may be 1.9 mb/d more than suggested purely in terms of sustainable capacity.
page 14: (regarding OPEC estimate of sustainable capacity):Key in this regard is Saudi Arabia's reported capability to reach 10.5 mb/d, compared to this Report's assessment of 9.5 mb/d sustainable capacity (attainable within 30 days and immediately sustainable for 90 days or more)
Page 17: Mexico - July actual. Crude oil production fell by more than 70 kb/d in July to 3.8 mb/d, and once again heavy crude accounted for the bulk of this. NGL production was also 15 kb/d lower at some 445 kb/d. Exports too were down by 40 kb/d at 1.81 mb/d as heavy/sour Maya deliveries, and notably those into US and other American markets, fell...(despite recent claimed reserve additions)...the future ability of Mexico to exploit deepwater reserves to offset declining Cantarell field output remain in doubt. [ed: Canterell is dying?]
Ok, I stopped at page 18. Would someone else like to take a crack at it?
- Guest
by Guest » Thu 23 Sep 2004, 23:57:37
I'll also note that IEA's reckoning of SA's current sustainable production capacity of 9.5 mb/d is also SA's August production number (9.5 mb/d).....and from other reports we find that most of that recent increase was likely heavy oil...
Not to alarm anyone, and this was noted in this forum recently, but it bears repeating: in other words, Saudi Arabia is pumping at full capacity!!! (excluding the possibility of later capacity additions and surge addition... but I am wary of those who say that "it would/will be higher if only the proper investments are/were made"....Remember, too, how OPEC recently tried to trumpet that 1.0-1.5 spare capacity figure...the IEA said basically: "Nope." No serious analyst I've read recently believes OPEC anymore anyway...
The myth of endless, vast SA oil seems to be officially over. Also keep in mind this is not Collin Campbell, this is not Matt Simmons, this is the IEA saying this.
Don't expect to see any big headlines on this, though. The shock waves would be truly enormous...consider yourself now part of the "in" crowd on this...
The powers that be already knew and began preparations....now are you?
Not to alarm anyone, and this was noted in this forum recently, but it bears repeating: in other words, Saudi Arabia is pumping at full capacity!!! (excluding the possibility of later capacity additions and surge addition... but I am wary of those who say that "it would/will be higher if only the proper investments are/were made"....Remember, too, how OPEC recently tried to trumpet that 1.0-1.5 spare capacity figure...the IEA said basically: "Nope." No serious analyst I've read recently believes OPEC anymore anyway...
The myth of endless, vast SA oil seems to be officially over. Also keep in mind this is not Collin Campbell, this is not Matt Simmons, this is the IEA saying this.
Don't expect to see any big headlines on this, though. The shock waves would be truly enormous...consider yourself now part of the "in" crowd on this...
The powers that be already knew and began preparations....now are you?
- Guest
by Guest » Fri 24 Sep 2004, 03:27:24
For those so inclined, go to page 26 of this report, and
see the chart entitled: "Curde Inventories and Prices, Shifting Patterns".
It details the unusual non-linear break from the usually highly linear correlated relationship between WTI crude oil prices and US industry crude oil stock levels.
I'd like to see what conclusions others draw from the chart...For me, it's clear that oil is trading on an "other" variable....and something fundamental has shifted, peak oil, probably.
I'd post the chart here if I could figure out how.
Maybe someone could?
see the chart entitled: "Curde Inventories and Prices, Shifting Patterns".
It details the unusual non-linear break from the usually highly linear correlated relationship between WTI crude oil prices and US industry crude oil stock levels.
I'd like to see what conclusions others draw from the chart...For me, it's clear that oil is trading on an "other" variable....and something fundamental has shifted, peak oil, probably.
I'd post the chart here if I could figure out how.
Maybe someone could?
- Guest
by Soft_Landing » Fri 24 Sep 2004, 11:46:08
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')aybe someone could?
This report is a few weeks old.
Notice the most recent numbers?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U').S. crude-oil stockpiles fell 9.1 million barrels to 269.5 million in the week ended Sept. 17, the U.S. Energy Department said. Supplies are 5.8 million barrels from being the lowest since September 1975. It was the first time since 1988 that inventories had dropped for eight straight weeks.
So the lastest point on the scatter would be way up in the left hand corner.
The breakdown of this correlation is probably what most analysts are referring to as the terror premium. I prefer to think of the so called 'terror premium' as really a 'lack of surplus capacity' premium. Terror or no terror, low spare capacity is going to add to price.
I think the spare capacity is an interesting variable, because it would be impossible to be in decline without having zero spare capacity. Seeing spare capacity go down, and prices subsequently edge upward, these are things that must preceed peak. Of course, it's theoretically possible to rebuild spare capacity, but the trend is down there. That's thanks to the US going into Iraq in part. Would they like to lose more spare capacity (nb. understatment) by going into Iran?
-
Soft_Landing - Lignite
- Posts: 367
- Joined: Fri 28 May 2004, 03:00:00
by Guest » Fri 24 Sep 2004, 12:20:16
Thanks for posting that chart....
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he breakdown of this correlation is probably what most analysts are referring to as the terror premium. I prefer to think of the so called 'terror premium' as really a 'lack of surplus capacity' premium. Terror or no terror, low spare capacity is going to add to price.
I think the spare capacity is an interesting variable, because it would be impossible to be in decline without having zero spare capacity. Seeing spare capacity go down, and prices subsequently edge upward, these are things that must preceed peak. Of course, it's theoretically possible to rebuild spare capacity, but the trend is down there. That's thanks to the US going into Iraq in part. Would they like to lose more spare capacity (nb. understatment) by going into Iran?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he breakdown of this correlation is probably what most analysts are referring to as the terror premium. I prefer to think of the so called 'terror premium' as really a 'lack of surplus capacity' premium. Terror or no terror, low spare capacity is going to add to price.
I think the spare capacity is an interesting variable, because it would be impossible to be in decline without having zero spare capacity. Seeing spare capacity go down, and prices subsequently edge upward, these are things that must preceed peak. Of course, it's theoretically possible to rebuild spare capacity, but the trend is down there. That's thanks to the US going into Iraq in part. Would they like to lose more spare capacity (nb. understatment) by going into Iran?
Since, as you say, in order for us to be at peak, space capacity must go to zero....
That would lead naturally lead to make another kind of chart...
Charting spare capacity....vs. prices.. (over time..like the chart above to determine linear relationship
Maybe the chart's available somewhere...or we could make it...
We could we get the data?
- Guest
by Barbara » Fri 24 Sep 2004, 13:14:29
OK, this is my stupid thought.
Saudis reserves are unknown until now, but if we agree they are at peak then we just look at how much they've already pumped in the whole history and voilà, we know exactly how much is left.
Am I wrong?
Please respond!
Saudis reserves are unknown until now, but if we agree they are at peak then we just look at how much they've already pumped in the whole history and voilà, we know exactly how much is left.
Am I wrong?
Please respond!
**no english mothertongue**
--------
Objects in the rear view mirror
are closer than they appear.
--------
Objects in the rear view mirror
are closer than they appear.
- Barbara
- Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1121
- Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Zoorope
by pip » Fri 24 Sep 2004, 14:38:33
I'd like to see a spare capacity chart over several years. Maybe lack of spare capacity is normal and that is the way the industry works. I doubt it, but this is my first peak oil scare. Just trying to get some perspective.
-
pip - Coal
- Posts: 480
- Joined: Wed 21 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Republic of Texas
by Soft_Landing » Fri 24 Sep 2004, 16:16:32
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat would lead naturally lead to make another kind of chart...
Charting spare capacity....vs. prices.. (over time..like the chart above to determine linear relationship
Maybe the chart's available somewhere...or we could make it...
We could we get the data?
Charting spare capacity....vs. prices.. (over time..like the chart above to determine linear relationship
Maybe the chart's available somewhere...or we could make it...
We could we get the data?
This is trickier than it sounds. The relationship plotted can be meaningfully because price and US stocks are pretty much known quantities on a weekly basis. As far as spare capacity is concerned, well, it's an estimation based upon state secrets. In any case, that estimation doesn't change on a weekly basis, but is probably more relevant on a yearly scale. Price and stocks obviously change a lot over the course of a year.
If trading was changing based upon spare capacity, what you might expect is something like this:
In this model, there is a different relationship between stocks and price for each given spare capacity regime (indicated by the green lines).
Although we can see at once that this kind of idea isn't going to work in any simple way. After all, we know that in 2003, there wasn't a great deal of spare capacity (this is right, isn't it?) and yet, in 2003 (red squares), we can see the price vs stocks points seem to be on the same stocks X price curve. What we do notice, though, is that all the 2003 data points are on the left of the scatter, indicating that stocks were on the low side historically for the entire year. Given what we know about US refining capacity, this is probably just explained by an unexpected increase in demand.
Of course, this is a problem for the 'spare capacity as a variable' model. The way you'd want to alter it, in my opinion, is factor in an expectation of future spare capacity, or something like that. When you have a relationship like this, i believe it tends to get well known among traders in the commodity. Regular traders are likely to decide when to buy based upon curve in relation to the typical variables. This makes the old model something of a self fulfilling prophesy. It takes a while for the traders to start acknowledging new information.
One reason spare capacity is interesting in a model is because it eliminates downside risk for speculators. If there is little spare capacity, then price can hardly come down too much - there'd be no more product for the market to sell. Thus, the lower speculator's (i'm taking long term here) believe spare capacity is, the more that oil becomes a safehaven of sorts. That was my reasoning behind proposing spare capacity as a variable.
But if spare capacity is going to work this way, then that means the speculators first have to believe that spare capacity is low, and that it's not going up any time soon.
Now, if you look back at the graph, you can see that the 2004 datapoints seem to cover a range between the mainstream correlation, and a second accumulation that is off the main curve (circled region). If you were to use your imagination, you could imagine traders figuring out that spare capacity was low near the beginning of 2004, and as a new trend forms, data points drift right toward the new accumulation.
This could be tested if we had dates for each of those 2004 data points. They're probably on the IEA website or somewhere. I'll see if I can find them and post the results...
I've just realised one other thing worth mentioning... The vertical axis is dollars in nominal terms, as far as I can see. If inventories have changed significantly since 1993 toward more of a just in time schedule, then you'd expect inventories to get smaller as price goes up (ie time). Make sense? This just suggests an artifact that could contribute to the appearance of the curve. Ideally, the vertical axis should really be in constant dollars.
-
Soft_Landing - Lignite
- Posts: 367
- Joined: Fri 28 May 2004, 03:00:00
