General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.
by Arthur75 » Tue 28 Aug 2012, 06:44:39
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')etting our carbon needs entirely from forests will be a lot cleaner and safer than mining it from the ground.
We already tried that, with much less people around, and it was far from enough, (not even speaking of today's levels)
-
Arthur75
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun 29 Mar 2009, 05:10:51
- Location: Paris, France
-
by Cloud9 » Tue 28 Aug 2012, 06:55:10
As I recall, it was a capitol offense to cut down one of the King's trees. Billions will freeze and starve to death before that ecotopia is achieved.
-
Cloud9
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2961
- Joined: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
-
by meemoe_uk » Tue 28 Aug 2012, 09:13:01
You 2 doomers kids forgot to read my post before replying, and your posts make no sense either.
Just when did we last have the chance to try make a economy which uses trees growing in 2000ppm CO2 conditions?
Considering that TPTB keep most of the world's people in poverty, I agree billions will starve before atmos CO2 levels get high. It'll take hundreds of years of fossil fuel burning, like 500 years at least. But people dieing will not stop fossil fuels being extracted and burnt, will it?
-
meemoe_uk
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 948
- Joined: Tue 22 May 2007, 03:00:00
-
by Arthur75 » Tue 28 Aug 2012, 13:01:57
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('meemoe_uk', 'Y')ou 2 doomers kids forgot to read my post before replying,
I stopped doing that around your third or fourth one, son
-
Arthur75
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun 29 Mar 2009, 05:10:51
- Location: Paris, France
-
by rockdoc123 » Tue 28 Aug 2012, 13:16:56
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') haven't seen your history of peak oil predictions. If this has been your only one then OK. But maybe you've done the typical peaker thing of predicting it to happen next year every year for the last 20 years.
No I had the prediction based on real data which took into account planned developments. WoodMackenzie has access to this kind of information much moreso than pretty much any other analytic company. The mega-projects all came on stream, most of the heavy oil proposed also came on stream. There appear to be delays in some North Sea fields as well as some in West Africa and full production from Brazil is still a moving target. Your suggestion that recession or production delays are used as an excuse for delay in peak is rather naïve. Of course peak is controlled by economics. Companies will not produce at a loss and will tend to shut-in production and delay spending that might be necessary to increase production in recessionary times. Production delays are also important. Peak is all about production not reserves, all the reserves discovered in the world would be meaningless if they were neither economic (due to a collapsed market)or for some other reason could not be brought on stream for an indeterminate amount of time.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he part of reality you don't mention is the market price of oil. A lot of these field that fail the transition from prospects to commercial fail because the market price is so low. At £4000 a barrel, there'd be a lot more commercial viable fields, enough for another hundred years of increasing oil production I think.
Naïve again. It is difficult to see at $100/bbl what discovered field in the world is not economic. I would ask you to give me an example as I am not aware of any. It is only when you start to drop below $80/bbl that the heavy oil projects (SAGD) begin to suffer and that is probably about the price level where you would see less and less shale oil drilling. If you are running oil company economics once you have already capitalized your exploration costs then it is all point forward economics which end up having a smaller level of technical risk. Many of the delays are actually due to government issues (this has been a long term problem in Gabon), social and other political issues (Nigeria has suffered from this) or technical issues related to unskilled manpower (I can think of a couple of good examples of offshore shallow water developments that have been stalled for years simply because of technical screw-ups). When I mentioned the Rockhopper drilling in the southern Atlantic as having not found economic resources it has to do with size. There the reserves are so small that regardless of commodity price it is hard to see how they would be developed and this is exacerbated because higher commodity price also results in higher E&P costs.
I have spent a lot of the last decade looking around the world for what are remaining large exploration targets. Outside of the shale liquids story (the US is likely the biggest followed by Argentina and maybe China or Algeria) there really isn’t anything in areas where people aren’t already exploring. If they are exploring there then it means it is economic at the current price. The idea that there are vast amounts of hydrocarbons left to be discovered that require a higher price for exploration to happen is incorrect. Again, point to such areas if you can.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his paragraph just suggests to me you are a peaker. You are too focused on the peak. The 10 years delay of today doesn't matter at all long term. Bear in mind the market price can go into the $thousands per barrel. It only matters if you are anticipating a peak round about now and looking for little scraps that off-set the peak a year or two.
That is a silly accusation. What is a “peaker”? If you are arguing that oil is not a non-renewable resource then I’m afraid I have to write you off under the “blithering idiot” category. If you do believe it is non-renewable then by definition there has to be a peak of some variety at some time irrespective of price. The question becomes not whether there will be a peak but rather when, at what level and what shape the curve will take. Your assumption is that there is a ton of oil waiting to be developed that requires a price in excess of $140/bbl. Exactly where are those discoveries please?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hen we burn fossil fuel it isn't 'lost' as peakers want to believe, its actually 'liberated' to be used and recycled for thousands of years by the biosphere. If it get stuck underground again we can dig it up again.
I think you are a bit confused on time scales here. In order for CO2 in the atmosphere to have something to do with hydrocarbons it would require first that it causes plant growth (a few years time) then it results in plant death and burial and that additional burial under the right temperature conditions happens (several millions of years under ideal conditions where there is no erosion, uplift nor sedimentary by-passing). And the rate of conversion is much, much slower than extraction.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')For the cause, if we run short of fossil fuel, we should continue to mine carbon rocks such as calcium carbonate.
Precisely what do you propose using limestone for? It makes good cement but it certainly can’t be used as an offset for either liquid petroleum or natural gas in terms of energy production.
by meemoe_uk » Tue 28 Aug 2012, 14:57:28
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')I had the prediction based on real data which took into account planned developments.
Well its always been the case that if you only take into account planned developments, you always get peak oil to around about now. Oil companies only 'stock' about 20-30 future years worth of oil fields, and when you apply that to hubbert's exponential bell curve you always peak around about now, with the 20-30 years worth production at current rates actually making up the hundreds years long down slope of the bell curve.
This way of predicting future world oil production has always failed.
This time it's different huh?
hmm... I've heard that before. But not from the RockDoc himself. Could the most informed member of PO.com be falling for one of the oldest tricks in the PO book?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')our suggestion that recession ... are used as an excuse for delay in peak is rather naïve.
You'll have to quote me there, because thats not what I wanted to express. I don't see recessions as a way of stalling 'the <geological> peak'. I'm not focused on the peak, because I think it as such a long way off, and of little consequence anyway.
Recessions and prices crashes and hikes are employed to control the oil industry, to make sure the big players remain in charge.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on the 1970s price hikes, the 1980 peak in production, and the mid 1980s oil price crash. These events I like to think of as 'the previous cycle', a cycle I think is repeating now, where we are still in the 1970s stage of high prices and industrial development. I predict artificial peak in production and a crash in prices and a big recession next, around 2015-2017. Then steady recovery. Then by around 2027 the 2015 peak will be surpassed, as by then we'll be in the 1990s part of the cycle.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')It is difficult to see at $100/bbl what discovered field in the world is not economic. I would ask you to give me an example as I am not aware of any.
No company has really bothered to look for >$100 a barrel oil, so there aren't any found examples. Any company that did look for such oil would be flushing money down the bog. But just cos you and your fellow explorers haven't looked for it doesn't mean it isn't there.
But I can give an example of a large but expensive to produce coal field. That one found under the Norwegian sea. It's estimated to be 3.5 times the size of the rest of the worlds known reserves. Digging out that coal from under the sea would be far too expensive to be competitive with all the opencast mining going on today. However its still got >2 EROEI so one day it might be economical to get it. Same for some oil fields I expect.
The next oil cycle will kick off around 2040, by which time we'll be looking at $120-$200 ( in today's dollar value ) a barrel oil I think.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat is a “peaker”?
by rockdoc123 » Tue 28 Aug 2012, 17:28:25
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')il companies only 'stock' about 20-30 future years worth of oil fields,
That’s utter nonsense. Have you ever worked for an oil company? I’ve worked for a number and I never remember being told to stop finding and commissioning new oil production. Your activities can be constrained occasionally by cashflow but it has always been the mantra of oil companies to get bigger, faster. The idea that somehow they would conspire as a group to manage production flies in the face of history. The Saudis learned this to their great chagrin when they tried to create an oil shortage.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his time it's different huh?
hmm... I've heard that before. But not from the RockDoc himself. Could the most informed member of PO.com be falling for one of the oldest tricks in the PO book?
You cannot treat oil exploration and production as a simple statistic. It is a limited resource. You put all your faith in the notion that ….hey we had a double peak in the North Sea and then suggest this will happen numerous times everywhere else. I’m sorry to inform you it won’t. The reason the North Sea saw its second peak was due to government incentive. Regardless of that incentive there has not been enough discoveries to supplant decline. Before the second peak the exploration had concentrated on the Jurassic and subsequent to that it moved to explore the Triassic and further north. But by all accounts they have run out of objectives. There are no undrilled play types remaining in the North Sea. There will be the occasional discovery but it will not replace existing declines. There is only so much resource that a basin can contain. The idea that because the US has a huge shale oil potential it should translate in similar fashion around the world doesn’t hold water. In one of my last roles before retirement I managed a group that reviewed worldwide shale hydrocarbon potential. That review demonstrated there are actually only a few places where the right ingredients are there to make it work. The resource is limited and it doesn’t matter what the price is unless you want to say “abiotic oil” and be immediately pegged as the intellectual equivalent of the Dougal character from Father Ted.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')ecessions and prices crashes and hikes are employed to control the oil industry, to make sure the big players remain in charge.
You must be joking? Are you suggesting that there is some cabal or secret society of power brokers who create artificial recessions and price crashes? Do they have secret handshakes and gestures like the masons? If so then you have truly admitted to being in the lunatic fringe. Dougal would find himself to be an intellectual giant in your presence.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')o company has really bothered to look for >$100 a barrel oil, so there aren't any found examples. Any company that did look for such oil would be flushing money down the bog. But just cos you and your fellow explorers haven't looked for it doesn't mean it isn't there.
by meemoe_uk » Wed 29 Aug 2012, 06:10:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rockdoc123', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')il companies only 'stock' about 20-30 future years worth of oil fields,
That’s utter nonsense. Have you ever worked for an oil company? I’ve worked for a number and I never remember being told to stop finding and commissioning new oil production.
Your activities can be constrained occasionally by cashflow Oil development 'Constrained occasionally by cashflow'?
You make it sound like there's never been an oil company gone out of business, like the worst thats ever happened is some company had to skimp on 1st class postage stamps for a week, but apart from that they've had an effectively endless supply of cash.
So why don't they multiple the number of RockDoc's working for oil companies by a thousand fold ?
Your logic that produce is not limited because an employee isn't told to limit produce doesn't make sense. News paper delivery boys are never told to limit the number of papers they deliver.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '.').. but it has always been the mantra of oil companies to get bigger, faster. The idea that somehow they would conspire as a group to manage production flies in the face of history. The Saudis learned this to their great chagrin when they tried to create an oil shortage.
TPTB did successfully create an oil shortage in 1973 btw.
Management of production isn't done by the smaller oil companies, but by those who control the money supply. Until about 2002, money supply in the oil industry was pretty tight. Then suddenly there was free cash for any company that was capable of helping oil development.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his time it's different huh?
hmm... I've heard that before. But not from the RockDoc himself. Could the most informed member of PO.com be falling for one of the oldest tricks in the PO book?
by rockdoc123 » Wed 29 Aug 2012, 15:41:25
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')our logic that produce is not limited because an employee isn't told to limit produce doesn't make sense. News paper delivery boys are never told to limit the number of papers they deliver.
Revisionist interpretation. What you said was that oil companies purposefully had a limited supply of oil. This is not the case. What they have is not limited by what they have looked for which is the point. You are playing a shell game with your arguments here. Your view seems to be they only looked for what was economic at the time, which I know is not the case, we have looked for everything.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')PTB did successfully create an oil shortage in 1973 btw.
The powers that be? You are trying to make this sound like a conspiracy. It was the ill-advised attempt by Saudi Arabia to get higher prices for a commodity in which they controlled the market. It only took two years for them to lose market share and essentially doom themselves to no longer having control over the market. It wasn’t some great cabal of “powers”, simply Saudi Arabia operating largely on the recommendations of Yamani.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ''')Government incentive'. OK so you're somewhat aware that TPTB have influenced oil development with cash incentives. But for some reason you seem to sideline its importance. Was the free cash for any company wanting to help develop oil in Iraq a minor importance? It seemed the at the conferences at the time everyone was pretty excited about the free cash.
Again a shell game argument. What you have been arguing is that there is an unlimited supply of oil and all we need to have happen is higher prices. What I pointed out from the UK experience is that those higher realized prices (through incentives) resulted in improved production which lasted for only a short number of years while it allowed explorers to access areas they had not done previously. What I also pointed out is that now they have effectively accessed all of the play types, no level of price change is going result in another larger bump in production. The important point is it is ultimately determined by what is in the ground.
Let me give you an example. The production of a given oil field can be thought of as a fractal view of worldwide oil production. There is a certain amount of oil in the ground (in place resources) of which there is a certain amount that is ultimately recoverable. In the early phases of production the timing and peak can be influenced somewhat by economics and technology (can either increase the pace of development or incentivize to produce at higher rates at the expense of lower ultimate primary recovery or higher water production). However, once you are further into the production history of the pool and it has begun to experience natural decline economic or technology improvements will have little effect other than to level out the peak production. Scaling up we can look at global production in a similar manner. While we were still exploring for oil with vast resources left in the ground the effect of economics and technology had a significant impact on peak trajectory and timing. Now, however, we are running out of new possibilities with any significant size and as we reach peak determined by the projects sitting in the hopper now for immediate commissioning changes to economics or technology will only prolong that peak since they cannot replace quickly enough what is being produced. The bottom line is it is all controlled by what is ultimately recoverable from the earth. The only way you can argue there will be continuous new and higher peaks is if you believe the earths oil resources are unlimited which requires unscientific arguments to support it.
As to Iraq I haven’t a clue what you are talking about regarding “free cash”. The deals from the Iraqis were horrendous and could only be marginally economic for the largest of companies. This is born out in the fact the fourth bid round got very few bids at all. And it isn’t as if the Iraqi oil is something we didn’t know about. There are no discoveries happening in southern Iraq, it is refurbishment of existing fields and the production is just now coming back to where it was previously. The discoveries in Kurdistan are new but OF2’s numbers are hugely exaggerated as they are all in place numbers and the reservoir is a fractured carbonate. What this means is a billion barrel discovery will likely translate into a 100 MMB recoverable reserve or less.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')es, TPTB create and control economic booms and busts by manipulating money. I've posted this on PO.com several times before.
by meemoe_uk » Wed 29 Aug 2012, 18:36:45
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')evisionist interpretation. What you said was that oil companies purposefully had a limited supply of oil. This is not the case... ...You are trying to make this sound like a conspiracy. It was the ill-advised attempt by Saudi Arabia to get higher prices for a commodity in which they controlled the market.
Seems you're pretty set on these points, and as I'm not going to gain from debating you on this, I'll decline from further debate on this one point. I've read and understood what you've said, but I don't accept what you've said as the full picture. If you have zero tolerance for 'conspiracy' theory in your interpretations we are never going to see eye to eye.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s to Iraq I haven’t a clue what you are talking about regarding “free cash”. The deals from the Iraqis were horrendous and could only be marginally economic for the largest of companies.
Harhar, I can't resist dazzling you with a 'conspiracy' perspective on this. The free cash was 'government incentives' from the US government for companies helping to develop oil in Iraq.
Anyone from my group would tell you the 'Iraqis' offering the bum deals to oil companies where in fact puppets wholly owned by anglo-american powers that be. The prices for drilling\exploitation permits offered by the 'Iraqis' to the oil companies were probably decided for them by anglo-american advisorys.
A lot of the money given to the Iraqis in these contracts would be given straight back to the anglo-american banks to pay off loans and war reparations etc, although some highly compliant Iraqis would be allowed to have some of the wealth. This way the money is created on Wall street, passes through the hands of the workers, but most of it ends up back where it started.
Great story huh? What do you think of that?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')The discoveries in Kurdistan are new but OF2’s numbers are hugely exaggerated as they are all in place numbers and the reservoir is a fractured carbonate. What this means is a billion barrel discovery will likely translate into a 100 MMB recoverable reserve or less.
It would be nice if OF2 would visit this thread. He's been very active here lately but on a different thread. I got the impression he's a long term oil cornucopian ( like me! ) who doesn't expect a geological peak anytime soon. But I get the impression you are senior to him in the oil industry. Maybe he'll bow to your higher understanding and declare his previous stance is wrong and go along with your stance and prediction of peak oil around 2013-2015.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')There are no oil companies getting together in darkened smoke filled rooms planning how they can take over the world.
