Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

"Oil outlook is grim, but panic worst response"

Discussions related to the physiological and psychological effects of peak oil on our members and future generations.

"Oil outlook is grim, but panic worst response"

Unread postby KevO » Sun 11 Nov 2007, 11:15:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')on't panic is excellent advice in most times of crisis, though not if you're an investor, in which case the trick is to panic 48 hours before everybody else does. If the peak oil crisis is upon us, then not panicking is the right response. It can be a quite gentle crisis if handled properly, but it will be a nightmare if governments and markets panic.

The surge in the price of oil is not driven by a conviction that supplies have peaked and can only decline from now on. Dealers in the London and New York exchanges who make the market react to the daily flow of news -- a possible Turkish invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan, two North Sea rigs closed for a week because of bad weather -- don't bother much about longer-term issues, such as peak oil.

The market is simple-minded............


continues at
link

or also
HERE
KevO
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Tue 24 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: CT USA

Re: "Oil outlook is grim, but panic worst response"

Unread postby Eli » Sun 11 Nov 2007, 11:37:33

Where is the guy getting info?

He says when we do peak we will have a 2% decline rate?
User avatar
Eli
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3709
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: In a van down by the river

Re: "Oil outlook is grim, but panic worst response"

Unread postby KevO » Sun 11 Nov 2007, 11:46:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Eli', 'W')here is the guy getting info?

He says when we do peak we will have a 2% decline rate?


no idea and I've never heard of him though he seems something of a journo big shot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Dyer

.
KevO
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Tue 24 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: CT USA

Re: "Oil outlook is grim, but panic worst response"

Unread postby Bas » Sun 11 Nov 2007, 12:09:48

We have nothing to fear but fear itself (but sell your stocks now before it's too late ; )
Bas
 

Re: "Oil outlook is grim, but panic worst response"

Unread postby KevO » Sun 11 Nov 2007, 12:12:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bas', 'W')e have nothing to fear but fear itself (but sell your stocks now before it's too late ; )


totally agree. The phrase 'investing in the stock market' is soon to be an oxymoron
KevO
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Tue 24 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: CT USA

Re: "Oil outlook is grim, but panic worst response"

Unread postby Starvid » Sun 11 Nov 2007, 16:14:06

The IEA says that the global natural decline rate is 8 % and that new investments in old fields (workovers and suchlike) is reducing it to 3,7 %.

That's the amount (85*0,037=3,2 mbpd) of new production we need every year just to stay flat. Then demand is growing at about 1 mbdp every year, on top of that.

So we need about 4,2 mbpd of brand new production from new fields, every year. One Saudi Arabia's worth of production (not reserves though) every 24 months...

edit: Uh.... My point being...

Buy oil? :)
Last edited by Starvid on Sun 11 Nov 2007, 16:19:44, edited 1 time in total.
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
User avatar
Starvid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Uppsala, Sweden

Re: "Oil outlook is grim, but panic worst response"

Unread postby MD » Sun 11 Nov 2007, 16:18:33

Re: "Oil outlook is grim, but [s]panic[/s] hoarding worst response "

And that's what's up next. On a global scale.
Stop filling dumpsters, as much as you possibly can, and everything will get better.

Just think it through.
It's not hard to do.
User avatar
MD
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4953
Joined: Mon 02 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: On the ball

Re: "Oil outlook is grim, but panic worst response"

Unread postby venky » Sun 11 Nov 2007, 18:33:17

Is $100 oil the highest for this current cycle or could we see lower prices this spring?
I play the cards I'm dealt, though I sometimes bluff.

Only Man is vile.
venky
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Sun 13 Mar 2005, 04:00:00

Re: "Oil outlook is grim, but panic worst response"

Unread postby Eli » Sun 11 Nov 2007, 19:04:57

We could see a huge sell off over the short term due to the collapse of the equities market and credit collapse.

The conventional wisdom will be to sell oil because the demand is going to be reduced.
User avatar
Eli
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3709
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: In a van down by the river

Re: "Oil outlook is grim, but panic worst response"

Unread postby JohnDenver » Sun 11 Nov 2007, 21:01:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'T')he IEA says that the global natural decline rate is 8 % and that new investments in old fields (workovers and suchlike) is reducing it to 3,7 %.

That's the amount (85*0,037=3,2 mbpd) of new production we need every year just to stay flat. Then demand is growing at about 1 mbdp every year, on top of that.

So we need about 4,2 mbpd of brand new production from new fields, every year. One Saudi Arabia's worth of production (not reserves though) every 24 months...

edit: Uh.... My point being...

Buy oil? :)


Oil production in Jan. 2004 was 82.2mbd. If the natural decline rate is 8%, we lost roughly 6.6mbd in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, for a total loss of 26.4mbd over 4 years.

Meanwhile production today is roughly 84.3mbd. Therefore, if the natural decline is 8%, the world added (2.1+26.4) = 28.5 mbd in 4 years. That's roughly 3 Saudi Arabias in 4 years.

So it's not that hard to add a Saudi Arabia's worth of oil. We did it 3 times in the last 4 years, by your own accounting.
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Re: "Oil outlook is grim, but panic worst response"

Unread postby RonMN » Sun 11 Nov 2007, 21:38:37

Do you think there will ever be a time where "they" say "it's time to panic"???

Quote:
If the peak oil crisis is upon us, then not panicking is the right response. It can be a quite gentle crisis if handled properly,

So say the zombie hoards ready to kick your door in...I say buy more ammo!

"All is well...All is well!...DON'T panic!"
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.
User avatar
RonMN
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2628
Joined: Fri 18 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Minnesota

Re: "Oil outlook is grim, but panic worst response"

Unread postby Starvid » Mon 12 Nov 2007, 00:53:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'T')he IEA says that the global natural decline rate is 8 % and that new investments in old fields (workovers and suchlike) is reducing it to 3,7 %.

That's the amount (85*0,037=3,2 mbpd) of new production we need every year just to stay flat. Then demand is growing at about 1 mbdp every year, on top of that.

So we need about 4,2 mbpd of brand new production from new fields, every year. One Saudi Arabia's worth of production (not reserves though) every 24 months...

edit: Uh.... My point being...

Buy oil? :)


Oil production in Jan. 2004 was 82.2mbd. If the natural decline rate is 8%, we lost roughly 6.6mbd in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, for a total loss of 26.4mbd over 4 years.

Meanwhile production today is roughly 84.3mbd. Therefore, if the natural decline is 8%, the world added (2.1+26.4) = 28.5 mbd in 4 years. That's roughly 3 Saudi Arabias in 4 years.

So it's not that hard to add a Saudi Arabia's worth of oil. We did it 3 times in the last 4 years, by your own accounting.

Yeah, but the natural decline rate in old fields is not what's important. It would be if we didn't manage our fields at all, but we do. That's why decline rates aren't 8 % but 3,7%.
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
User avatar
Starvid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Top

Re: "Oil outlook is grim, but panic worst response"

Unread postby Starvid » Mon 12 Nov 2007, 00:56:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Eli', 'W')e could see a huge sell off over the short term due to the collapse of the equities market and credit collapse.

The conventional wisdom will be to sell oil because the demand is going to be reduced.

That's the next buying opportunity in my opinion.

I'm getting hold of liquidity now, waiting for that to happen.
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
User avatar
Starvid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Top

Re: "Oil outlook is grim, but panic worst response"

Unread postby Eli » Mon 12 Nov 2007, 01:06:45

yes, yes it is.
User avatar
Eli
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3709
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: In a van down by the river

Re: "Oil outlook is grim, but panic worst response"

Unread postby JohnDenver » Mon 12 Nov 2007, 01:24:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'T')he IEA says that the global natural decline rate is 8 % and that new investments in old fields (workovers and suchlike) is reducing it to 3,7 %.

That's the amount (85*0,037=3,2 mbpd) of new production we need every year just to stay flat. Then demand is growing at about 1 mbdp every year, on top of that.

So we need about 4,2 mbpd of brand new production from new fields, every year. One Saudi Arabia's worth of production (not reserves though) every 24 months...

edit: Uh.... My point being...

Buy oil? :)


Oil production in Jan. 2004 was 82.2mbd. If the natural decline rate is 8%, we lost roughly 6.6mbd in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, for a total loss of 26.4mbd over 4 years.

Meanwhile production today is roughly 84.3mbd. Therefore, if the natural decline is 8%, the world added (2.1+26.4) = 28.5 mbd in 4 years. That's roughly 3 Saudi Arabias in 4 years.

So it's not that hard to add a Saudi Arabia's worth of oil. We did it 3 times in the last 4 years, by your own accounting.

Yeah, but the natural decline rate in old fields is not what's important. It would be if we didn't manage our fields at all, but we do. That's why decline rates aren't 8 % but 3,7%.


Right. 3.7% decline without including any new projects. Add in new projects, and (erring on the pessimistic side) you've got an annual decline around 2%, like Dyer assumes in the original article. 2% is a reasonable number, and probably too high.
Peak Oil Debunked
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: "Oil outlook is grim, but panic worst response"

Unread postby peripato » Mon 12 Nov 2007, 01:39:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'S')o it's not that hard to add a Saudi Arabia's worth of oil. We did it 3 times in the last 4 years, by your own accounting.

"The oil boom is over and will not return... All of us must get used to a different lifestyle." King Abdulla of Saudi Arabia.
User avatar
peripato
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Tue 03 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Reality
Top

Re: "Oil outlook is grim, but panic worst response"

Unread postby Starvid » Mon 12 Nov 2007, 01:40:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'T')he IEA says that the global natural decline rate is 8 % and that new investments in old fields (workovers and suchlike) is reducing it to 3,7 %.

That's the amount (85*0,037=3,2 mbpd) of new production we need every year just to stay flat. Then demand is growing at about 1 mbdp every year, on top of that.

So we need about 4,2 mbpd of brand new production from new fields, every year. One Saudi Arabia's worth of production (not reserves though) every 24 months...

edit: Uh.... My point being...

Buy oil? :)


Oil production in Jan. 2004 was 82.2mbd. If the natural decline rate is 8%, we lost roughly 6.6mbd in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, for a total loss of 26.4mbd over 4 years.

Meanwhile production today is roughly 84.3mbd. Therefore, if the natural decline is 8%, the world added (2.1+26.4) = 28.5 mbd in 4 years. That's roughly 3 Saudi Arabias in 4 years.

So it's not that hard to add a Saudi Arabia's worth of oil. We did it 3 times in the last 4 years, by your own accounting.

Yeah, but the natural decline rate in old fields is not what's important. It would be if we didn't manage our fields at all, but we do. That's why decline rates aren't 8 % but 3,7%.


Right. 3.7% decline without including any new projects. Add in new projects, and (erring on the pessimistic side) you've got an annual decline around 2%, like Dyer assumes in the original article. 2% is a reasonable number, and probably too high.

I don't really understand what you are saying here.

As far as I know, production is not declining. We have been on a plateau for a few years, barring some rounding errors.

Without new projects (only workover of old projects) we have a decline 0f 3,7 % according to the IEA. With new projects we have a decline rate of about 0 %.

Going forward, I think we will see a negative decline rate, that is, growing production. And then a peak in 5-10 years at 90-95 mbpd.

edit: If investment will be forthcoming, something which is not at all assured.
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
User avatar
Starvid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Top

Re: "Oil outlook is grim, but panic worst response"

Unread postby peripato » Mon 12 Nov 2007, 01:55:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'S')o it's not that hard to add a Saudi Arabia's worth of oil. We did it 3 times in the last 4 years, by your own accounting.

‘‘You look at the globe and ask, ‘Where are the big increments?’ and there’s hardly anything but Saudi Arabia,’’ he said. ‘‘The kingdom and Ghawar field are not the problem. That misses the whole point. The problem is that you go from 79 million barrels a day in 2002 to 82.5 in 2003 to 84.5 in 2004. You’re leaping by two million to three million a year, and if you have to cover declines, that’s another four to five million.’’ In other words, if demand and depletion patterns continue, every year the world will need to open enough fields or wells to pump an additional six to eight million barrels a day — at least two million new barrels a day to meet the rising demand and at least four million to compensate for the declining production of existing fields. ‘‘That’s like a whole new Saudi Arabia every couple of years,’’ Husseini said. ‘‘It can’t be done indefinitely. It’s not sustainable.’’ Sadad al-Husseini, formerly Aramco’s top executive for exploration and production. Link
User avatar
peripato
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Tue 03 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Reality
Top

Re: "Oil outlook is grim, but panic worst response"

Unread postby JohnDenver » Mon 12 Nov 2007, 02:04:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', '
')I don't really understand what you are saying here.

As far as I know, production is not declining. We have been on a plateau for a few years, barring some rounding errors.

Without new projects (only workover of old projects) we have a decline 0f 3,7 % according to the IEA. With new projects we have a decline rate of about 0 %.

Going forward, I think we will see a negative decline rate, that is, growing production. And then a peak in 5-10 years at 90-95 mbpd.

edit: If investment will be forthcoming, something which is not at all assured.


You may be right. Or you may not be.
Anyway, I'm just pointing out that a 2% decline post peak (as assumed by Dyer in the original article) is reasonable, given what is known about decline rates.
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: "Oil outlook is grim, but panic worst response"

Unread postby peripato » Mon 12 Nov 2007, 02:05:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'G')oing forward, I think we will see a negative decline rate, that is, growing production. And then a peak in 5-10 years at 90-95 mbpd.

a) We already have a negative decline rate.
b) Although possible it would require simultaneous and significant rises in production from both OPEC and NOPEC to inrease supply at this point.
User avatar
peripato
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Tue 03 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Reality
Top

Next

Return to Medical Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron