Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on September 9, 2016
See where Apache Corp. says it found billions of barrels of oil
Apache Corp. stock is among the top gainers this week after the energy company revealed an “immense” oil and gas reserve in a relatively unknown corner of west Texas.
Apache APA, +0.90% estimated that its more than 300,000 contiguous acres in the region holds about 3 billion barrels of oil and 75 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. It called the field Alpine High.
Alpine High is located in the Delaware Basin, which is a sub-basin in the southwest corner of the Permian Basin. The Permian itself is mostly located in west Texas, with a small area straddling southeastern New Mexico.
Texas estimates the Permian already has produced 29 billion barrels of oil, and says industry experts estimate it to contain “recoverable oil and natural gas resources exceeding what has been produced over the last 90 years.”
Oklahoma has experienced an influx of earthquake activity in the past decade that seismologists have tied to the underground disposal of wastewater from oil and gas drilling.
The Permian accounted for nearly 20% of total U.S. oil production a few years back. Formations like Spraberry and Wolfcamp had been way more prolific than the Delaware as seen in this map from the Energy Information Administration:
Until recently experts considered the area a poor candidate for hydraulic fracturing, a process that uses water mixed with sand and chemicals to unlock oil and gas trapped in rock. Analysts at UBS said the area has received “minimal focus from the industry to date.”
See also: Sunrun’s languishing stock price masks skills of CEO
When Apache announced the discovery on Wednesday, the stock rose more than 7%. Weekly gains reached more than 14% on Friday, the stock’s best weekly rise since mid March. In comparison, the S&P 500 index SPX, -1.87% lost 1.3%. Crude oil, meanwhile, fell sharply Friday but was still on track to log about a 4% weekly gain.
Analysts at Citigroup estimated Apache’s new discovery to be worth about $3.7 billion. The analysts calculated Apache will have to invest about $1.5 billion over the next five years to start developing the field, which is rich in natural gas.
Apache said it was increasing its 2016 capital spending plan by $200 million to $2 billion. Developing Alpine High will eat more than 25% of Apache’s total spending program.
The play “won’t be ready for prime time until 2018,” but there’s further upside for the field over time, analysts at Credit Suisse said in a note. Credit Suisse was among several investment banks that increased their price targets for Apache’s stock, by $4 to $67 a share.
According to FactSet, Apache shares average a price target of $57.47, about 2% below Friday prices.
85 Comments on "See where Apache Corp. says it found billions of barrels of oil"
Plantagenet on Fri, 9th Sep 2016 3:03 pm
This is good news for people who own Apache stock
Apneaman on Fri, 9th Sep 2016 3:13 pm
Planty, you’re powers of deduction are unparalleled in the annals of global peak oil commenting.
Bob on Fri, 9th Sep 2016 3:30 pm
More investors are to be lured to their doom. Meanwhile the CEOs will be unloading their stock options as quick as they can. I love this town!
rockman on Fri, 9th Sep 2016 3:49 pm
First, there are not two basins, the Permian and Delaware, in west Texas. There is the Permian Basin which is composed of the Midland and Delaware SUB-BASINS. A very important distinction since any stats about the PM will include those of both the sub-basins.
But most importantly the Delaware Basin (sub-basin, really) is NOT some new play:
The Delaware Basin is a multi-stacked play prospect, where almost every well can potentially draw production from different zones. This sub-basin is a more horizontally mature area than the Midland Basin, and thus serves as the foundation for horizontal development in the Greater Permian Basin. Its production is best split into two areas, a northern and southern area. The northern area is known for is advancements in horizontal development while the southern area is associated with vertical wells. The prospective zones for production are located within the Bone Springs and Wolfcamp formations, often referred to as the WolfBone play.
IOW when folks talk about all the hydrocarbons produced and will be produced from the PB they are primarily talking about the DB. Yes: there is a sh*tload of hydrocarbons in the DB: been known for about 80 years. LOL.
What Apache is SPECULATING about is the POTENTIAL of one formation in a basin where many formations were proven prolific MANY DECADES AGO. From the Big Dog at Apache: “In our case, having no preconceived notions, we were very interested in the source interval of the Woodford Barnett and the Pennsylvanian. That is not the play currently being made in the Delaware and Permian basins. We spent a lot of time and money looking at our own proprietary 3D seismic, drilled a couple of wells and systematically tested our concepts, including thermal maturity, minerology and history of movement. We concluded Alpine High was a play in which these major factors are favorable.”
Note: “…a couple of wells…” And from that they are estimating billions of bbls of oil EQUIVALENT. Yes, pay attention: some stories are reporting “boe” and others just “bo”.
Perhaps I’m not looking in the right places but I’ve yet to find Apache disclosing the details of the tests on those “couple of wells”. Like how much oil vs NG, flow rates, etc.
And it isn’t as though the Woodford Shale was unknown. From a report written in 1991:
“Unconventional gas discoveries in Woodford Shale are likely in both the Anadarko and Permian Basins and adjacent provinces where Woodford Shale is thermally mature. Fractures are common
Competent lithofacies (chert, siltstone, dolostone, sandstone, silty black shale) are abundant.
Areas having greatest gas production potential and most prospective lithologies are the Anadarko Basin in Oklahoma; the Arkoma Basin in Oklahoma and Arkansas; the Frontal zone of Ouachita fold belt in Oklahoma; the
Delaware Basin in Texas and New Mexico; and the Val Verde and Midland Basins in Texas.”
And lastly about that 14% bump in Apache’s stock price: that puts it back to where it was valued last June. Just as valid to say that Apache’s SPECULATION as to its potential in the Delaware Basin has halted the gradual decline it has suffered over the last couple months. BTW the current price is about 50% lower then when it peaked in 2012.
rockman on Fri, 9th Sep 2016 3:54 pm
“This is good news for people who own Apache stock”. Yes indeed: those who bought stock this summer have just about recovered the money they lost the last few months. And if they bought a few years back they now have lost less money. Yahoo…party time!!! LOL.
shortonoil on Fri, 9th Sep 2016 4:25 pm
Until Apache tells us what the permeability of these sources are, they haven’t said a thing.
The industry has already spent over $1 trillion attempting to squeeze oil out of a brick. For their efforts they managed to create an industry will annual gross sales of $362 billion. If this is source rock with zero permeability they can do it all over again.
Boat on Fri, 9th Sep 2016 5:34 pm
rock,
Apache drilled 19 wells.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/investing/apache-huge-oil-discovery/
eugene on Fri, 9th Sep 2016 6:36 pm
19 wells and from that they have 3 billion in reserves. 19 wells prove nothing but we live in the day when guesstimates are considered reserves. But if you belong to the ever hopeful of a wonderful future with endless everything, I guess it sounds good.
Anonymous on Fri, 9th Sep 2016 6:42 pm
See rockman, boat just posted a link saying they drilled 19 wells. Based on boats geological survey of this ‘find’, coupled with his extensive hands-on in the industry, that 3 billion is a good as in the pipeline. Don’t know why you even bother with anything like, experience, or knowledge, when you got boat to set you straight.
Boat on Fri, 9th Sep 2016 7:46 pm
Anonymous,
Set up a google news account and have oil news as a keyword search and you to can become an expert on oil news. Then set up searches for nat gas, wind, solar, oil pipeline, and refinery news and you to may be able have a normal conversion.
Boat on Fri, 9th Sep 2016 8:03 pm
Libyan official says oil merger removes obstacle for government unification
https://next.ft.com/content/dc95ac44-41f5-11e6-9b66-0712b3873ae1
penury on Fri, 9th Sep 2016 9:09 pm
In my younger days we called stuff like this “betting on the come” lousy poker and probably just as bad for drilling,
shortonoil on Fri, 9th Sep 2016 9:25 pm
“Then set up searches for nat gas, wind, solar, oil pipeline, and refinery news and you to may be able have a normal conversion. “
Try reading Dake, or take a course in “Classic Waterflooding Predictive Models” then you may be able to have some sort of a conversion with something a little more informed than a box lunch. Without knowing how, and why it comes out of the ground all you are doing is playing a dart game in a gin mill at 3:00 AM.
Boat on Fri, 9th Sep 2016 9:46 pm
short,
Demand is up, production is up, proved reserves will last for decades and the world is getting ready to hit another peak in production. Every indicator says your full of shyt.
rockman on Fri, 9th Sep 2016 9:48 pm
Boat – Mucho thanks. I wonder where that “couple of wells” came from? Perhaps just their initial evaluation phase.
“Apache has identified at least 2,000 drilling locations, and estimates an initial value of between $4 million to $20 million per well.” Using a 75% lease royalty and $50/bbl that roughly works out to a 100,000 to 500,000 per well 8/8ths URR. Not a completely out of line quess IMHO. The key word at this time being “guess”.
Obviously Apache can’t book anything close to billions of bbls of proven reserves according to SEC regs after
just 19 wells. So the term “3 billion of RESERVES” seems rather inappropriate. I could buy “resource” a lot easier since it really doesn’t mean sh*t. LOL. Also I can understand why they might keep the details of those 19 wells confidential but doing so does not help with the credibility of their expectations.
It is going to take several hundred wells producing for a year plus to get a rough handle on the plays. And that’s in each of the 5 formations they allude to. IOW 1,000+ wells total. I don’t consider that unreasonable given what it took to get a handle on the Eagle Ford, Barnett and Bakken. So in a couple of years or more we might have a reasonable data base to model.
In addition to the shale plays most are familiar with there are many more in the US that have been tested by hundreds of wells in the last 8+ years and none of those have generated front page stories. One or more of those 5 formations might. Or not: remember there are a number of shale formations lying above and below the Eagle Ford. And collectively they are 10X+ as thick as the EFS and none of them have become meaningful objectives. As pointed out numerous times there are dozens of hydrocarbon bearing shale formations in different basins across the US (and many hundreds globally). But “shales” are not commercial oil/NG plays. Only shales with a unique combinations of factors have become commercial plays.
So as usual the bottom line is: time will tell. And given that Apache stock has so far only returned to a price it was at a few months ago it looks like the analysts want more time.
rockman on Fri, 9th Sep 2016 9:56 pm
Penury – The house just loves those players that “bet on the come”…it makes $billions off of them. LOL. In my untamed youth playing serious cards in the French Quarter I typically made more not so much by my skills as by the poor choices of the other players betting on the come. Probably would not have been able to finish my geology degree without their help. LOL.
geopressure on Fri, 9th Sep 2016 11:00 pm
Bob… If they don’t unload their stock options, then the options will expire & loose all value…
Northwest Resident on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 1:45 am
“Demand is up”
“Global oil demand growth is expected to slow from 1.4 mb/d in 2016 to 1.2 mb/d in 2017, as underlying support from low oil prices wanes. The 2017 forecast – though still above-trend – is 0.1 mb/d below our previous expectations due to a dimmer macroeconomic outlook.”
https://www.iea.org/oilmarketreport/omrpublic/
“Oil demand set to slow in 2017, says IEA” — BBC News
“OPEC Warns of Deeper Cuts to Oil Demand Forecast on Slowdown” — Bloomberg
“production is up”
“U.S. Petroleum and Other Liquid Fuels
Refinery wholesale gasoline margins (the difference between the wholesale price of gasoline and the price of Brent crude oil) averaged 42 cents/gal in August. This level was lower than the 73 cents/gal average in August 2015, but similar to the previous five-year average for August. Higher U.S. gasoline production and inventory levels in 2016 have contributed to lower gasoline margins than in 2015. Margins have been lower despite gasoline consumption being 2.3% higher through the first eight months of 2016 compared with the same period in 2015.
The U.S. average regular gasoline retail price decreased to $2.18/gal in August, 6 cents/gal lower than in July. Monthly average retail gasoline prices for August 2016 ranged from a low of $1.96/gal in the Gulf Coast—Petroleum Administration for Defense District (PADD) 3—to a high of $2.58/gal in the West Coast (PADD 5). EIA forecasts that the monthly average price of U.S. regular gasoline reached an annual peak in June of $2.37/gal, with lower prices expected in the second half of 2016.
Consumption
Total U.S. liquid fuels consumption increased by an estimated 290,000 b/d (1.5%) in 2015. Liquid fuels consumption is forecast to increase by 200,000 b/d (1.1%) in 2016 and by an additional 140,000 b/d (0.7%) in 2017.
Motor gasoline consumption is forecast to increase by 170,000 b/d (1.9%) to 9.33 million b/d in 2016, which would be the highest annual average gasoline consumption on record, surpassing the previous record set in 2007. The increase in gasoline consumption reflects a forecast 1.9% increase in highway travel (because of employment growth and lower retail gasoline prices) that is partially offset by increases in vehicle fleet fuel economy. EIA forecasts that gasoline consumption will fall by 10,000 b/d (0.1%) in 2017, as an increase in forecast highway travel (albeit at a slower rate than in 2016) is more than offset by expected growth in fleet-wide fuel economy.
Jet fuel consumption is forecast to increase by 40,000 b/d (2.8%) in 2016, and then fall by 10,000 b/d (0.6%) in 2017, as improvements in average airline fleet fuel economy more than offset growth in freight and passenger travel.
Consumption of distillate fuel, which includes diesel fuel and heating oil, is expected to fall by 100,000 b/d (2.5%) in 2016, after falling by 60,000 b/d (1.5%) in 2015. Falling distillate consumption in 2016 is the result of relatively warm winter temperatures, reduced oil and natural gas drilling (which uses diesel fuel in its operations), and declining coal production, which has reduced diesel use in rail shipments of coal. Stronger expected economic growth in 2017 contributes to forecast distillate fuel consumption growth of 80,000 b/d (2.1%).
Hydrocarbon gas liquids (HGL) consumption is forecast to increase by 10,000 b/d (0.6%) in 2016 and by 90,000 b/d (3.7%) in 2017, as increased ethane consumption offsets reduced consumption of other HGL. Ethane consumption is forecast to increase by 70,000 b/d (6.5%) in 2016, as expansion projects at ethylene-producing petrochemical plants increase feedstock demand for ethane. In 2017, forecast ethane consumption increases by an additional 90,000 b/d (8.2%), as five new petrochemical plants and a previously deactivated plant begin operations.
DOWNLOADmillion barrels per dayyear over year change, million barrels per dayU.S. liquid fuels product suppliedTotal product supplied (left axis)Product supplied forecast (left axis)Motor gasoline (right axis)Jet fuel (right axis)Distillate fuel (right axis)Other fuels (right axis)2014201520162017201815161718192021-0.4-0.20.00.20.40.60.8Source: Short-Term Energy Outlook, September 2016
Supply
U.S. crude oil production is projected to decrease from an average of 9.4 million b/d in 2015 to 8.8 million b/d in 2016 and to 8.5 million b/d in 2017”
https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/us_oil.cfm
“proved reserves will last for decades”
According to Boat, based on no logical analysis of fact whatsoever.
It’s pretty obvious who is full of shyt here.
Northwest Resident on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 1:56 am
Try again:
“Demand is up”
“Global oil demand growth is expected to slow from 1.4 mb/d in 2016 to 1.2 mb/d in 2017, as underlying support from low oil prices wanes. The 2017 forecast – though still above-trend – is 0.1 mb/d below our previous expectations due to a dimmer macroeconomic outlook.”
https://www.iea.org/oilmarketreport/omrpublic/
“Oil demand set to slow in 2017, says IEA” — BBC News
“OPEC Warns of Deeper Cuts to Oil Demand Forecast on Slowdown” — Bloomberg
“production is up”
“U.S. crude oil production is projected to decrease from an average of 9.4 million b/d in 2015 to 8.8 million b/d in 2016 and to 8.5 million b/d in 2017”
“proved reserves will last for decades”
According to Boat, based on no logical analysis of fact or authoritative sources linked whatsoever.
One begins to wonder who in fact is demonstrably full of “shyt”.
Truth Has A Liberal Bias on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 2:24 am
Boat has Google so now he’s an expert lol what a clown
Cloggie on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 3:09 am
We had a discussion the other day about the discovery and initial exploration of “gigantic coal deposits” in the UK, much of it under the North Sea. But because the DailyMail wasn’t considered a reliable source of information by our collapsenik apneaman, here a more detailed article written by a professional oil man, Algy Cluff:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10518072/UKs-next-offshore-energy-fortune-lies-in-coal.html
He first confirms the general knowledge that oil and gas from the North Sea are in steep decline. Furthermore he reminds us that the UK government has reservations about onshore fracking as well as dirty coal. The only way out the government sees is making the UK dependent on imports of gas from Gulf states.
Not so fast, says Cluff. There are billions and billions of tons of coal just on our door step. He cites a colleague who said that there is probably enough to fuel entire Europe for 2000 years.
And no, he doesn’t want to send miners down in diving gear, the keyword is gasification:
As an oil man and one of the first North Sea pioneers of the early 1970s, I firmly believe that our ability to “gasify” the coal surrounding our island without the need to mine it can now provide a vital energy solution and produce abundant and cheap gas for generations.
So why is his experience as an oil man relevant for today?
During those heady days – for our consortium discovered oil with its first well – I spent quite a lot of time with my colleagues getting in the way on the various rigs we chartered (one hole cost $750,000 to drill then and maybe 100 times that today).
As we scrutinized the logs, recording the lithology of the rock, we noted the presence of substantial thicknesses of coal.
The vision:
The coal lies around our shores; billions and billions of tonnes of coal from Swansea to Whitehaven and from the Firth of Forth to Lincolnshire.
That coal is not only there but, thanks to the astonishing evolution of horizontal oil drilling technology, it can also be cheaply, quickly and safely converted into gas and piped ashore.
How to do it?
The process of Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) requires no new technology and there is practically no exploration risk, thanks to detailed geology reports from the old NCB. [It involves injecting oxygen or steam into unworked coal underground to release gas.]
UCG is a technology first proposed in 1868 by in a member of the Siemens family in coal Mekka Britain:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_coal_gasification
How much is sub sea coal worth in energy terms?
The scale of the reserves is remarkable: 2bn tonnes of coal, of which half may be amenable to gasification, is equivalent in oil terms to 4bn barrels of oil – the size of a Middle Eastern oil field.
Cluff says: let the Americans have their fracking and shale, UCG is unique for the UK. We are talking about two completely different technologies here.
Cluff obviously doesn’t lose a word about CO2 production as a side effect.
But anybody who claims that the world is running out of fossil fuel soon has to catch up with new developments.
My attitude is: if there is no choice, use these resources to set up a renewable energy sector. The EU is right on track with its stated goal to achieve that aim largely by 2050. Climate accords should prevent that we are going to use fossil fuel “for another 2000 years”.
If the British efforts currently underway with UCG succeed, we should have to revise all our preconceived ideas about depletion, not just those expressed by Campbell et al, but even those of the 1973 Club of Rome. There is probably not enough oxygen in the atmosphere to burn all the “fossil” present in the earth’s crust.
Cloggie on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 3:30 am
Reading up a little on UCG from the Wikipedia article… it must rejoice our resident one-worlders apneaman and ghung that the technology was first recognized and implemented in the USSR. Non other than Vladimir Lenin saw in it a “Great Victory of Technology” and a way to liberate The Worker from having to crawl through coal mines on behalf of the hated Capitalists.
The first successful exploitation took place in Donbass and elsewhere between 1939 and the 1960s, but were eventually abandoned because natural gas could be won easier from gas fields, Heinberg’s famous “low hanging fruit”. In 2004 there were merely some sites operational in Uzbekistan and Russia.
In other words, there can be no doubt that the UCG technology works and will work in the UK. Perhaps not as cheap as gas from the Pars field in Iran, but still cheap enough to keep society going until renewables take over.
Anybody who worries about fossil fuel depletion is shortonbrains or deceiving his customers as a consultant.
Heinberg and his “The party is Over” is mega-out.
We nevertheless need renewables for polution and climate reasons, not depletion.
Anonymous on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 4:40 am
Clog, ‘renewables however you define the term, are doing nothing for pollution or helping the climate problem. Co2 levels continue to rise, a permanent layer of smog hangs over every major city in the world. Renewables are being used to grow the total supply of energy to burn, not to ‘take’ over from dirty energy, that much should be clear by now to even the most optimistic heinberg fan.
The brits can gasify all the coal they want. Coal gasification is a dirty, expensive, and energy intensive business. Maybe you believe people will use that energy to build out an all solar\wind\tidal\whatever ‘clean’ energy system? LoL, Id like to think such a thing was in the works, but my observations about how things actually work, show pretty clearly there are no plans of any kind to ‘replace’ dirty energy, with ‘clean’, anytime soon. (ie never). The coal-oil-gas machine will rumble on, until it simply falls apart. Renewables, wont save anything, though they might play a role in extending the life of the fossil-fool party a while longer than would otherwise be the case.
Cloggie on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 4:43 am
Another UK voice, again from 2014:
http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/north-east-news/drilling-date-set-north-seas-6896191
Tynemouth to be one of first locations for £1bn scheme to access deep sea deposits which could power Britain for centuries… A billion-pound plan to reach untapped coal reserves under the North Sea will be under way by the end of the year, as the vast scale of the energy source beneath the North Sea is made clear. Scientific data of the true extent of the coal deposits on the sea bed reveals that even a tiny percentage of them would be enough to power Britain for centuries to come, says a local expert… Dermot Roddy, chief technical officer of energy company Five Quarter which will be leading the much-anticipated extraction work, said there are trillions of tonnes of deeply-buried coal stretching from the North East coast far out to sea: an amount thousands of times greater than all oil and gas extracted so far… The plan is for a rig on the coastline around Tynemouth to begin vertical boring hundreds of metres down before taking a horizontal direction out to sea, reaching first an estimated two billion tonnes of coal just off the coast… Between three and 23 trillion tonnes more lie further out… Mr Roddy said: “We’ve been aware of this for a long time but the fact there’s a lot of coal doesn’t really matter if there’s no way of getting at it.”
But now Five Quarter, with its licence for offshore gas work in the North Sea, is at the starting point of demonstrating the technology and proving it works. “Suddenly we can do what people didn’t think we could do,” said Mr Roddy.
Roddy is not telling that the Soviets have shown that it works since the thirties.
As I learned from the rockman, fracking technology was also around for decades but not applied, because it wasn’t economically feasible. The low hanging fruit needed to be picked and consumed first, before the oil professionals decided it was time to get the ladder out of the shed to pick the higher hanging fruit.
The fatal error low hanging fruit cake Heinberg made was to suggest that the rest were “dregs”, unworthy of our attention. This suggestion probably was the result of wishful thinking, where hopeless romantic Heinberg was yearning for a post-industrial future, filled with veggie gardens and people dancing on the music of a fiddle, a future without commuting, time sheets, boring offices, filled bank accounts and subsequent compulsive consumption, like SUVs and holidays to Farawayistan. A future btw more attractive for shopping adict females than for male wage slaves.
This btw is a valid life style choice and even sympathetic, but the idea that this kind of future will be an inevitable result of depletion, that is not true. Sorry to have to break it to Richard.
Cloggie on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 5:06 am
Clog, ‘renewables however you define the term, are doing nothing for pollution or helping the climate problem.
How can you say that, completely untrue.
Co2 levels continue to rise, a permanent layer of smog hangs over every major city in the world.
Little or no smog in European cities, Chinese cities are indeed terrible. Windturbines and solar panels do not increase CO2 levels.
Renewables are being used to grow the total supply of energy to burn, not to ‘take’ over from dirty energy, that much should be clear by now to even the most optimistic heinberg fan.
That may be the case now but emphasis on climate change should lead to forbidding the use of fossil in the long term. The EU btw is on that track.
The brits can gasify all the coal they want. Coal gasification is a dirty, expensive, and energy intensive business.
Agree, but there is no democratic politician who has the power to force the electorate to sit in the dark and in the cold.
Maybe you believe people will use that energy to build out an all solar\wind\tidal\whatever ‘clean’ energy system? LoL, Id like to think such a thing was in the works, but my observations about how things actually work, show pretty clearly there are no plans of any kind to ‘replace’ dirty energy, with ‘clean’, anytime soon. (ie never).
You are right for the US, China and Russia, but Europe is different.
The coal-oil-gas machine will rumble on, until it simply falls apart. Renewables, wont save anything, though they might play a role in extending the life of the fossil-fool party a while longer than would otherwise be the case.
The large scale and growing presence of wind turbines and solar panels in Europe prove otherwise. Recently even the US and China signed the Paris climate accords.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/03/breakthrough-us-china-agree-ratify-paris-climate-change-deal
Davy on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 6:50 am
Clog, you only have part of the equation and that is the technology part. You forget it takes a healthy economy and society to make this stuff and put it in place. It takes time and it takes organization. These are fatal flaws to your optimism that rejects depletion, deflation, dysfunction and decay. When I say rejection I mean you believe humans will overcome these “D’s”. The time to get here to there is like a trip to Mars. It can be imagined but just barely. That barely is enough for an optimist. I will acknowledge we will try because we have no choice. This is our orientation a the highest levels and few can reject what feeds us. My point has always been time frame of how long we can keep the unsustainable going. I acknowledge we still have some time. That is my view of a future. Is that 10 years more or less? That seems reasonable to me but I don’t claim to know. I will say I see the ominous reality of a time frame compressing. When time frame starts exponential compression the end is near. We will see a phase change of destructive change.
Your beloved civilization can’t maintain so many things with so much instability. It is only stable climate that gave us agriculture that allowed your beloved civilization. We readily forget our humble beginnings because of the exceptionalism of our creation. That creation is only though nature’s acquiescence and we have been so rude to nature. Your beliefs will be shaken continuously here on out because this process is a gradient that will soon become a cascade. The gates of hell are going to open up so to speak. The gates of hell is the “D’s” of death mentioned above not the “D” in Devil.
In a way we are being mechanized and programed into the pursuit of the unsustainable instead of preparing for a storm of the ending of an age. You can quote all day long about “what ifs” but you are not very convincing. I have seen no studies that prove we can maintain civilization beyond just a few years. What I continually is see studies that project the reality of our recent past into an unknown future with the goal seeking of optimism. This goal seeking is denial and delusion wrapped up in a package of deception. More “D’s” to contend with. We use the technical of trends and fancy math statistical equations to forecast what we want to believe. Status quo and main stream society rejects any news of collapse. People like me are considered fringe and “not right”. Yea I am considered not right by rejecting insanity. LOL. This rejection is systematic and at the highest levels. The only news allowed is growth based news.
You preach the latest narrative of a renewable world of a continuation of an adapted status quo. Challenges are acknowledged as they must be because of the inconvenient results of science but the future can be fudged with techno-optimism. It worked in the past and is working now. The end is never in doubt. Progress with challenges is a given. This progress is based on innovation and technology within continued development of civilization. Energy and complexity are never in doubt because of substitution and technological innovation.
The burden of proof and maintaining a narrative are on you not me. You have the weight of destructive change on your shoulders. I have been here for years and have seen one optimist after another fold. You vanished for many months and are suddenly back. I welcome you back but your message is the same. Good luck proving the unprovable.
shortonoil on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 8:13 am
“short,
Demand is up, production is up, proved reserves will last for decades and the world is getting ready to hit another peak in production. Every indicator says your full of shyt. “
Then explain this:
https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/icbkDFACM4iA/v2/-1x-1.png
The price is lower this year than it was last, $48.67, and it was lower in 2015 than 2014. The industry is losing money on every barrel that it produces, and it can’t even replace those. That is going to get a lot worse over the next 2 to 3 years:
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_022.htm
You don’t even know how they get oil out of the ground, and you sit there and fill up page after page with bullsh’t. You probably think that oil production is counted at the well head. Your ignorance of the subject is only superseded by your tenacity at spreading it.
The oil age is ending, and over the next few years producers will be going out of business all over the world. They already are!
Cloggie on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 8:27 am
The price is lower this year than it was last, $48.67, and it was lower in 2015 than 2014. The industry is losing money on every barrel that it produces, and it can’t even replace those. That is going to get a lot worse over the next 2 to 3 years
You really have to be desperate to cling on to your out-dated ASPO-2000 model of oil-depletion if you want to sell *LOW* oil prices as proof that peak oil is now/immanent.
The real explanation for the price collapse is that there is overproduction of oil, due to fracking, which explains the price collapse. And yes, oil companies (the American shale oil ones) are losing money, a lot will go out of business, leading to price stabilization and next increase (Pork Cycle).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_cycle
The oil age is ending, and over the next few years producers will be going out of business all over the world. They already are!
Yep, but the strong ones survive and they will experience party time due to much higher prices in the medium future.
Mother nature still has enough to give, probably for centuries to come.
Heinberg’s advice, namely that “we should leave oil before it leaves us” should be replaced with “we should leave oil because it stinks and potentially ruins our biosphere”.
Cloggie on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 8:33 am
Davy says: “Clog, you only have part of the equation and that is the technology part. You forget it takes a healthy economy and society to make this stuff and put it in place. It takes time and it takes organization.”
I absolutely can’t see why a modern nation like Britain should be unable to drill a hole in North Sea bed and inject water and oxygen in order to harvest fossil energy, regardless of the state of their economy. And I can’t share your worries about the time frame.
My real worries are that the price of for instance North Sea gas will be so low that it will push renewables out of the market, leading to yet another major global economic impulse, leading to endless convoys of container ships taking the shortest route between East Asia and Europe/Eastern USA via the North-pole unhindered, 12 months per year.
rockman on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 9:04 am
Sorry C!oggie but I’m obligated to take a shot at Mr. Cluff. This is neither an argument for or against gassification. But if he hasn’t been misquoted he’s just one more full of sh*t snake oil salesman with regards to drilling costs. LOL.
“…one hole cost $750,000 to drill then and maybe 100 times that today”. Which means the cost for such a well increased from $750,000 to $75 MILLION. Even if he understands nothing about drilling he would still know that statement is bullsh*t. My secretary and my wife would know it was BS. And now that I’ve researched and discovered his extensive experience watching offshore wells being drilled I can only assume he got carried away with his pitch after a 5 Martina lunch. LOL.
Again not a statement for or against gassification. But Mr. Cluff, like all good oil patch promoters, knows he’s selling the sizzel and not the steak. LOL. But as far as the viability of offshore coal gassification (BTW barely offshore: his leases are in just tens of feet of water) it’s no different then the early days of the US shale plays. Great optimism or pessimism won’t determine the results: only a lot of drilling AND production will. And, as we’ve seen with our shales, will be heavily dependent on the price of NG and capex availability.
Cloggie on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 9:19 am
Rockman, so you basically say: “let’s wait and see”, a modest approach.
I think more can be said already in 2016. The North Sea is one of the area’s on the planet that are explored most and thousands of wells have been drilled, dry or otherwise. So we may assume that a pretty accurate picture is available of what is stored below the sea.
Furthermore there are decades of experience with UCG in the (former) USSR.
This would all suffice for a “head start” of coal gasification.
rockman on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 9:38 am
Cloggie – “I absolutely can’t see why a modern nation like Britain should be unable to drill a hole in North Sea bed and inject water and oxygen in order to harvest fossil energy, regardless of the state of their economy.”. FYI: in 1994 when the Rockman and the rest of the oil patch began to try horizontal drilling in the Gulf of Mexico almost all the hands and service companies with such experience working with us were English and Scottish because they originally developed the tech in the N Sea. Countries, sophisticated or not, don’t drill such wells: the service companies do the actual work. Not impossible that some of the contractors used to develop that offshore coal were drilling a lot of Eagle Ford wells in S Texas a few years.
Ten years ago I geosteered horizontal wells for Exxon off the west coast of Africa. All it takes to get a hand working anywhere on the planet is just buying him an airplane ticket. Consultants, whores, lawyers, etc: we’re all rentable. LOL.
rockman on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 9:58 am
Cloggie – “And yes, oil companies (the American shale oil ones) are losing money”. Just a picky little point. The vast majority of shale players, including those that have or will file for bankruptcy, are not “losing money”. All wells producing today are delivering positive cash flows. Otherwise they would have been plugged and abandoned. And that includes wells that will never recover 100% percent of their costs.
The bankruptcies are due to the inability of companies to service those huge debts they took on to drill their wells. IOW the oil price bust has only decreased the number of news wells being drilled. The only existing wells we’re losing are the ones depleting. Which is why so many folks predicting US oil production “falling off a cliff” were going to be proved wrong.
But I suspect you do understand the dynamics at play and just got a bit loose with your phrasing. My response was more aimed at others. You’re just my designated whipping boy for the moment. Nothing personal, of course. LOL.
rockman on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 10:21 am
Cloggie – “I think more can be said already in 2016.” My wait and see opinion is based upon the lack of results using CURRENT tech, the CURRENT cost of development and the CURRENT and MIDTERM price the Brits will be paying for imported NG. I’ve yet to see anyone make such credible projections.
Same situation with the US shales: it was much easier to be optimistic using a $100/bbl cost assumption then $40/bbl. Which beleive it or not, the Rockman offered some years ago (before the oil price collpase) the same “wait and see” response to long term (10+ years) expectations of the shale optimists. Not a difficult position to take given it was proven a valid attitude just a few years earlier when the NG shale optimists were touting its rosey future as prices hit $10+ per MCF. And then NG prices collapsed. The Marcellus was able to hang in there longer then the Barnett but it is also starting to falter a bit today.
As we like to say in Texas: after 41 years in the oil patch….this ain’t my first rodeo. LOL.
Cloggie on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 10:36 am
“You’re just my designated whipping boy for the moment.”
The whipping doesn’t really hurt so far.lol
rockman on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 10:42 am
C!oggie – “This would all suffice for a “head start” of coal gasification.” Yes, and what have we learned? From a 2014 IEA report:
“But there are two big problems. First, coal gasification actually produces more CO2 than a traditional coal plant. As Laszlo Varro, head of gas, coal and power markets at the IEA says: “Coal gasification’s…overall carbon intensity is worse than coal mining, so it is not attractive at all from a climate change point of view”.
So how will it fit with the Brit environmental crowd? Their GHG sensitive European cousins?
“The second problem is water use. Coal gasification is one of the more water-intensive forms of energy production.”
So another question I haven’t seen addressed: is the Brit water resource sufficient AND AFFORDABLE?
So again: time will tell. LOL. You got to remember in the last 4 decades the Rockman has seen HUNDREDS of hyped projects that ultimately failed. So it takes more then a lot of “what ifs” for him to develop a strong attachment to any proposed project.
rockman on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 10:48 am
“The whipping doesn’t really hurt so far.” There’s been so gossip that you might be a pervert. But not from the Rockman, of course. It might have been Boat but I’m not sure. LOL.
Got to inject humor from time to time since the subject matted is so damn serious.
Cloggie on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 10:50 am
Rockman, I am not advocating massive use of coal gasification, just pointing out that the potential exists.
“The second problem is water use. Coal gasification is one of the more water-intensive forms of energy production.”
Risking that the whipping will intensify… but I would venture that it is not that difficult to find water in the North Sea. Or is for some reason salt seawater not suitable?
Perhaps CO2 can be injected into where it came from?
Cloggie on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 10:52 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/science/burying-a-mountain-of-co2.html?_r=0
Turning Carbon Dioxide Into Rock, and Burying It
http://www.greenfacts.org/en/co2-capture-storage/l-3/5-geological-storage-co2.htm
Boat on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 11:17 am
Northwest Resident on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 1:45 am
Why post month old data when new numbers come out every week? I assumed people could find SHORT-TERM ENERGY OUTLOOK at the eia site. This is why I don’t always post links. Put it in favorites. Btw the new report comes out in two days. If you want any help with information just ask nicely. I can help you.
Global consumption of petroleum and other liquid fuels is estimated to have grown by 1.4 million b/d in 2015. EIA expects global consumption to increase by 1.5 million b/d in 2016 and by 1.4 million b/d in 2017,
https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/global_oil.cfm
shortonoil on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 1:31 pm
“You really have to be desperate to cling on to your out-dated ASPO-2000 model of oil-depletion if you want to sell *LOW* oil prices as proof that peak oil is now/immanent.”
You have to be really stupid to believe that oil producers will continue to produce oil for very long when they can no longer make money producing it. They ain’t your personal Santa Clause, you self serving, miscreant of a social degenerate. They are turning their liquid assets, (reserves) into cash flow, and when they are gone they will close their doors.
By our calculations that will be another 270 Gb. The oil industry, and the 0.01% that owns it are now losing $1.7 trillion per year from their declining asset values. Those are funds that they are transferring to the 99.99% who don’t own it. They aren’t doing it because they want to take care of you; they could care less if you died tomorrow. They are doing because they have no other alternative until those reserves are gone.
You are no more than hamburg in the grinder as far as the elite are concerned. Get used to, or do something to protect yourself. Otherwise someone is going to be having Boat Burgers for diner someday. Your snugly little fantasy world of self deception is rapidly coming to an end.
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/
Apneaman on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 1:56 pm
Clogged, you don’t actually read the links you post do you?
Wow, 10 million dollars and they came up with
““We have some calcites here,” she said, pointing to a smattering of white particles in the otherwise dark gray rock samples.”
“smattering of white particles”
Humanity is saved again!!!!!
“But doing so is costly. And with little in the way of economic incentives to spur carbon storage, there are only about a dozen large-scale projects operating around the world, storing a total of less than 30 million tons a year”
So, less than 30 million tons sequestered by an expensive technology out of a total of 35.5 billion tons of human emitted CO2 every year as we are losing natural CO2 sinks and positive feedbacks starting to emit more CO2 every year, while the cancer monkeys are doing everything in their power for MORE!
I have to conclude there must be great psychological benefit to being a clueless moron who lives in a fantasy land of their own making. It’s like your brain has given your brain a free pass to interpret any and all information in the most pleasing fashion. O happy day!
Here you go fantasy boy.
Survivable IPCC projections are based on science fiction – the reality is much worse
The IPCC’s ‘Representative Concentration Pathways’ are based on fantasy technology that must draw massive volumes of CO2 out of the atmosphere late this century, writes Nick Breeze – an unjustified hope that conceals a very bleak future for Earth, and humanity.
“This is reiterated by Dr Hugh Hunt in the Department of Engineering, at the University of Cambridge, who points out:
“10 billion tonnes a year of carbon sequestration? We don’t do anything on this planet on that scale. We don’t manufacture food on that scale, we don’t mine iron ore on that scale. We don’t even produce coal, oil or gas on that scale. Iron ore is below a billion tonnes a year! How are we going to create a technology, from scratch, a highly complicated technology, to the tune of 10 billion tonnes a year in the next 10 years?”
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2772427/survivable_ipcc_projections_are_based_on_science_fiction_the_reality_is_much_worse.html
Some, including me, do not believe 10 billion tons is enough. We would need to be at no higher than 300 ppm CO2 to be able to maintain a stable civilization weather wise.
Daily CO2
September 8, 2016: 400.29 ppm
September 8, 2015: 397.63 ppm
August CO2
August 2016: 402.24 ppm
August 2015: 399.00 ppm
https://www.co2.earth/
Don Stewart on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 3:01 pm
270 Gb of oil remaining to be produced.
Assume that each of those barrels could generate 10 dollars to pay debts. That makes 2.7 trillion dollars. But there are actual debts (not just promises) of 200 trillion dollars. Which means that the wealth that you think you have is actually worth about a penny on the dollar.
Can money to pay debts be generated without oil? I doubt it. No one would be driving to work, and no trucks or ships or planes would be transporting finished goods.
Don Stewart
shortonoil on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 4:02 pm
“But there are actual debts (not just promises) of 200 trillion dollars. Which means that the wealth that you think you have is actually worth about a penny on the dollar.”
The biggest losers are going to be those that own the debt. That is the 1%. That 200 trillion on their books is not going to be worth pocket change. They will most likely strong arm the government into stealing everything that is not nailed down, and somethings that are.
Be cautious, very, very cautious!
ghung on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 4:48 pm
“The biggest losers are going to be those that own the debt. That is the 1%.”…..
….and pension/retirement funds, etc., that invested in these schemes. The rest they owe each-other. At some point it will be the 1% cannibalising themselves. Won’t that be fun to watch from the cheap seats.
Apneaman on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 5:01 pm
We need more oil and the products conjured up from it.
30 yrs ago you had 17 mins to escape a house fire. Today it’s 3-4 minutes as new homes and furniture burn faster
https://twitter.com/Know/status/769989206085074944/photo/1
I luvs me some VOC’s
rockman on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 5:51 pm
Cloggie – “…but I would venture that it is not that difficult to find water in the North Sea. Or is for some reason salt seawater not suitable?
Unfortunately it requires fresh water: Coal gasification is the process of producing syngas–a mixture consisting primarily of methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen (H2), carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O)–from coal and water, air and/or oxygen.
But some good news about the nasties that come out with the methane:
Carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (or storage) is increasingly being utilized in modern coal gasification projects to address the greenhouse gas emissions concern associated with the use of coal and carbonaceous fuels. In this respect, gasification has a significant advantage over conventional coal combustion, in which CO2 resulting from combustion is considerably diluted by nitrogen and residual oxygen in the near-ambient pressure combustion exhaust, making it relatively difficult, energy-intensive, and expensive to capture the CO2 (this is known as “post-combustion” CO2 capture).
In gasification, on the other hand, oxygen is normally supplied to the gasifiers and just enough fuel is combusted to provide the heat to gasify the rest; moreover, gasification is often performed at elevated pressure. The resulting syngas is typically at higher pressure and not diluted by nitrogen, allowing for much easier, efficient, and less costly removal of CO2. Gasification and integrated gasification combined cycle’s unique ability to easily remove CO2 from the syngas prior to its combustion in a gas turbine (called “pre-combustion” CO2 capture) or its use in fuels or chemicals synthesis is one of its significant advantages over conventional coal utilization systems.
And as the following shows technology isn’t the big hurdle since it really isn’t a new idea. It’s the economics:
“Mississippi Power’s Kemper Project is in late stages of construction. It will be a lignite-fuel IGCC plant, generating a net 524 MW of power from syngas, while capturing over 65% of CO2 generated using the Selexol process. The technology at the Kemper facility, Transport-Integrated Gasification (TRIG), was developed and is licensed by KBR. The CO2 will be sent by pipeline to depleted oil fields in Mississippi for enhanced oil recovery operations.
Hydrogen Energy California (HECA) will be a 300MW net, coal and petroleum coke-fueled IGCC polygeneration plant (producing hydrogen for both power generation and fertilizer manufacture). Ninety percent of the CO2 produced will be captured (using Rectisol) and transported to Elk Hills Oil Field for EOR, enabling recovery of 5 million additional barrels of domestic oil per year.
Summit’s Texas Clean Energy Project (TCEP) will be a coal-fueled, IGCC-based 400MW power/polygeneration project (also producing urea fertilizer), which will capture 90% of its CO2 in pre-combustion capture using the Rectisol process. The CO2 not used in fertilizer manufacture will be used for enhanced oil recovery in the West Texas Permian Basin.
Plants such as the Texas Clean Energy Project which employ carbon capture and storage have been touted as a partial, or interim, solution to climate change issues if they can be made economically viable by improved design and mass production. There was opposition by utility regulators and ratepayers due to increased cost and by some environmentalists such as Bill McKibben who view any continued use of fossil fuels as counterproductive.”
And note: the economics in a number of sequestration projects inc!uses using the CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. IOW it takes cooperation between industrty, environmental interests and govt to improve the economic viability.
Which again brings us back to the same point: coal gasification tech isn’t the problem. The economics are (especially working offshore) and only time will tell if the various pieces of the puzzle can be combined to make the effort viable enough to scale up to a meaningful impact.
Cloggie on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 5:59 pm
OK, thanks!
Wait and see then.
shortonoil on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 8:24 pm
“At some point it will be the 1% cannibalising themselves. Won’t that be fun to watch from the cheap seats.”
That will be the onset of rapid total social disintegration. Until recently they have been busy watching the populous to make sure that no anti-social behavior emerged. When every outburst from the population becomes an excuse to attack one of their own, things will begin to de-evolve rather rapidly. Look at the dog and pony show of the upcoming US presidential elections.
rockman on Sat, 10th Sep 2016 10:58 pm
Cloggie – More on the economic hurdles of coal gasification. Heard some doors about probnlems with the Kempler project. Nothing on the boob tube so I researched. Also note this is not underground gassification…it’s all being down at ground level without wells. A bit more about underground gassification first:
Linc Energy recently received a research & development license for Underground Coal Gasification (UCG), the first issued in the USA in twenty years. Linc Energy is moving ahead with a demonstration phase project in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin, one of the country’s most active coal mining regions. Underground coal gasification has been tried by industry for decades without much success.
Linc Energy has developed proprietary new technology that they believe will allow them to succeed where others have failed. Linc Energy is an Australian company formed in 1996 that has been primarily focused on UCG but also has holdings in unconventional oil and gas. They have successfully tested a series of small UCG projects in Australia, and have produced synthetic jet fuel from their UCG syngas.
The key breakthrough in Linc Energy’s UCG technology has been the use of horizontal directional drilling, similar to what is used to hydrofrack shale.
And where we are today:
Cougar Energy and Linc Energy conducted pilot projects in Queensland, Australia based on UCG technology provided by Ergo Exergy until they were banned in 2016. Yerostigaz, a subsidiary of Linc Energy, produces about 1 million cubic metres (35 million cubic feet) of syngas per day in Angren, Uzbekistan. The produced syngas is used as fuel in the Angren Power Station. In South Africa, Eskom (with Ergo Exergy as technology provider) is operating a demonstration plant in preparation for supplying commercial quantities of syngas for commercial production of electricity. ENN has also operated a successful pilot project in China.
In addition, there are companies developing projects in Australia, UK, Hungary, Pakistan, Poland, Bulgaria, Canada, US, Chile, China, Indonesia, India, South Africa, Botswana, and other countries. According to the Zeus Development Corporation, more than 60 projects are in development around the world.
Looks like time isn’t telling a very good story for one of Presideng Obama’s hyped energy “solutions”. From wiki: “The Kemper Project, also called the Kemper County energy facility, is an electrical generating station currently under construction in Kemper County, Mississippi. Mississippi Power, a subsidiary of Southern Company, began construction of the plant in 2010.[2] The project is central to President Obama’s Climate Plan.[3] Once operational, the Kemper Project will be a first-of-its-kind electricity plant to employ gasification and carbon capture technologies at this scale.
However, there have been project management problems. The power plant construction has been delayed and is scheduled to open in the third quarter of 2016, more than two years behind schedule, at a cost of $6.6 billion—three times original cost estimate. According to a Sierra Club analysis, Kemper is the most expensive power plant ever built for the watts of electricity it will generate.”
It appears to have missed expectations by a wide margin. Unfortunate that it was hyped as THE future of affordable “clean coal” by the current fed administration. Explains why I’m always suspicious of every sales pitch:
“Mississippi Power says that the Kemper Project will allow for the production of cleaner energy through the use of integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) and carbon capture technologies, eliminating the majority of emissions normally emitted by a traditional coal plant. Because the activities involved with an IGCC plant involve minimal water consumption, these processes will not harm the water sources of the area. A study conducted by Southern Company states that the Kemper Project “is a large undertaking with high visibility and will help set the stage for future coal-based power generation.” The facility will be a “zero” liquid discharge facility.
On June 3, 2010, the Mississippi Public Service Commission certified the project and the ground breaking ceremony took place.”
And not just private money involved: DOE is providing approximately $270 million in financial assistance to the project at this location. And not just fed money but MS citizens also. I can’t find any confirmation that these moneies have been refunded:
“In February 2015 the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled the state Public Service Commission overstepped its authority in approving hundreds of millions of dollars in rate increases to cover the costs of Kemper, and said Mississippi Power must refund the money to its 183,000 ratepayers. Mississippi Power collected $125 million in 2013 and $156 million in 2014 to build the yet-unfinished plant. The court said the regulators violated the law because they did not assess whether the construction costs were being prudently incurred.”