PDA

View Full Version : Intresting article on the worlds Oil supplies...



Nix
01-22-2007, 01:21 PM
This was copied and pasted from an email that one of my co-workers recieved.

>Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
>Caveats: NONE
>
>Your info and editorially un-edited from the original sender.
>
>
>January 15, 2007
>The Cheap Oil Mirage
>
> The American public is understandably happy to see the bottom fall
>out of the oil futures market. But temporary circumstances are only
>sending them another false signal that everything is perfectly okay on
>the oil scene. And it only reinforces the foolish belief that when
>prices go up it is solely because corporate finaglers tweak them up on
>purpose. In fact, these days it's the other way around: often prices go
>down because corporate finaglers are tweaking the markets, dumping
>positions, playing shorts rather than acting like real oil users bidding
>on real contracts for delivery for real purposes like making gasoline.
>When oil goes up, as it certainly will again, it is primarily because of
>geology -- what's left in the ground -- and secondarily because of
>geopolitics -- where it's left in the ground (and what's happening
>there).
>
>
> The supernaturally warm winter temperatures have also played a
>part, keeping inventories high while the home furnaces idle. (Last week
>it was 70 degrees in Albany, NY.) There is surely some demand
>destruction in the background.
>Third World nations are increasingly dropping out of the bidding
>(meaning their generators quit making electricity and their trucks stop
>running). And a contracting US economy may also play a part. But even
>these circumstances may not overcome the supply problems in the real oil
>world. Here's what's going on:
>
>
>
> As a baseline, it helps to understand that the four largest
>super-giant oil fields of the world are now in decline. They have been
>responsible for producing 14 percent of the world's oil supply. They are
>now old and tired (thirty years is old in the oil world) and they are in
>depletion. These are The Cantarell field of Mexico, the Burgan field of
>Kuwait, the Daqing field of China, and the granddaddy of them all, the
>Ghawar field of Saudi Arabia.
>
>
> The Cantarell field is a horror story. Pemex, the Mexican national
>oil company, tried to conceal the dire developments, because Cantarell
>alone is practically the whole Mexican oil industry. But it is now
>self-evident that Cantarell is crashing, with a 40 percent annual
>decline rate projected ahead, meaning a couple of years and it's out.
>Mexico is America's second largest source of oil imports (after No. 1
>Canada and before No. 3 Saudi Arabia). When Cantarell crashes, the
>Mexican oil industry will crash and the US will be out a major source of
>imported oil. The US will also be out of imports that were so
>conveniently close they could be shipped by pipeline rather than tanker
>ships. For its part, Mexico will be out of a major source of export hard
>currency revenue and as its economy crashes will probably become even
>more politically unstable -- meaning more Mexican citizens desperately
>seeking to get out. Guess where.
>
>
> Burgan is in decline. The Kuwaitis announced it themselves last
>year.
>Daqing has been the major source of China's domestic oil, which is
>otherwise paltry, meaning Daqing's decline will only make China more
>desperate for imports. Ghawar remains shrouded in mystery, since Saudi
>Aramco does not welcome outside audits. But at 50 years old it is well
>past the mean age of peak production for oil fields and that alone
>probably tells the story. Beyond that, we know that Ghawar is producing
>with a (best case) 35 percent "water cut" (and perhaps much higher).
>They have to pump seawater into the field (a standard
>practice) to keep the oil coming out under pressure. The trouble is that
>they are getting this substantial water cut after redeploying their
>equipment for horizontal drilling -- an ominous sign. Saudi Arabia
>declared last year that it would increase production to 12 million
>barrels a day by 2009. By close of 2006, it appeared to have trouble
>producing 9 million, with prospects for a 4 percent annual decline rate
>in the years just ahead.
>
>
> Elsewhere, Iran is not only past peak, but its domestic demand is
>so high that it cannot maintain its export levels. The North Sea, which
>saved the West's ass through the 1990s, is now crapping out at a steep
>decline rate. Iraq is on track to Palookaville, despite substantial
>reserves, and even if, by some miracle, its tired old oil infrastructure
>survives the war, the US may lose access to future production for
>geopolitical reasons that should be obvious.
>
>
> Venezuela is past peak for conventional liquid crude and hurting
>badly for technical expertise to work its oil fields since Hugo Chavez
>purged the state oil company's management. Last year, Venezuela had to
>import Russian oil to avoid defaulting on contracts. Whatever the true
>condition of Venezuela's industry, Chavez is not disposed favorably
>toward the US -- he hosted Iran's president Ahmadinejad last week to
>signal that both of them were on the same page where the US was
>concerned.
>
>
> The situation in US production is grim. We peaked in 1970. East
>Texas is near total depletion, with a 99 percent water cut (it produces
>"oil-stained water). Prudhoe Bay in Alaska now has a 75 percent water
>cut. We're on track to produce under 5 million barrels a day in 2007
>(down from a 1970 high of about 10 million), and heading relentlessly
>further down year-on-year. We burn through more than 20 million barrels
>a day. Do the math and see above (re:
>potential imports) for our prospects.
>
>
> So, for now the US public (here in the East, anyway) is enjoying
>both a winter-of-no-winter and a season of comfortably lower oil prices.
>The financial markets are doing a triumphal dance in expectation of
>soaring equity values.
>And the news media is lumbering along with its head up its ass.
>
>
> Last week, however, the US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
>Resources, in an extraordinary session, heard testimony that the nation
>is in grave danger of a permanent oil crisis. Some of these senators
>affected to be shocked and surprised. What planet have they been living
>on? What is the nation getting for the hundreds of million of dollars
>paid to their staffers? Outgoing Republican chair, Senator Pete Domenici
>(R-NM), said to the witnesses that "what you told us today is absolutely
>startling with reference to the future." Is it too early for a dumb****
>of the year award?
>
>
> Perhaps the most valuable message the committee got came from Dr.
>Flynt Leverett from the New America Foundation, who said: "...there is
>no economically plausible scenario for a strategically meaningful
>reduction in the dependence of the United States and its allies on
>imported hydrocarbons during the next quarter century." That's the
>straight dope and we'd better stop pretending otherwise.
>
> We'd also better stop pretending that alt.fuels such as ethanol,
>bio-diesel, coal liquids, or hydrogen will allow us to keep up the happy
>motoring.
>We have to make other arrangements for daily life. We don't have a
>moment to lose. Our "to do" list is very long. If we waste our time in
>recrimination or hand wringing we are going to lose the things we value
>most, including an orderly society. So, don't be fooled by the temporary
>fall in oil prices. We're in the zone of the long emergency.
>
>Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
>Caveats: NONE
>
>Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
>Caveats: NONE
>

SSDude
01-22-2007, 04:34 PM
The $10000 question is who wrote it and how credible are they?

Nix
01-22-2007, 04:53 PM
It came from military personel. I work for a medical supply company and there are a ton of Fire Fighters and EMS people here that are very good friends in many of the Military branches. I erased all the contact information and such for privacy purposes before I posted the article. Yet I cant be to sure how credible they are considering I dont personally know this indvidual. Intresting none the less:thumbsup

Prince Valiant
01-22-2007, 05:18 PM
Not really worried about oil supplies. Even if we weren't to discover another well, we still have the tar sands in Canada, and the Shale in Colorado...those two alone would net us something like 300 years worth of oil, even factoring in increasing demand of 6% a year.

SSDude
01-22-2007, 05:51 PM
Long before we run out of oil resources we will have developed other sources of energy.

Not to worry in the near future we will be able to ruin err i mean run all our stuff on corn ethanol. And we will continue to subsidize the ethanol producers with our tax dollars. :chair:

2SLOW
01-22-2007, 06:01 PM
yup green lake Colorado has oil shale that can supply the U.S. for the next 500 years BUT do not expect 1.99 a gallon!

2SLOW
01-22-2007, 06:03 PM
Long before we run out of oil resources we will have developed other sources of energy.

Not to worry in the near future we will be able to ruin err i mean run all our stuff on corn ethanol. And we will continue to subsidize the ethanol producers with our tax dollars. :chair:


that is a good observation but our ethanol does not all come from corn mostly from sugarcane in south America. sugar cane is used because it is a simple sugar not a complex starch like corn is, it's harder to use corn than sugar cane.
another false hope the government and the oil boys tell the public.

SSDude
01-22-2007, 06:24 PM
Sugar cane is the prefered ingredient in ethanol refined in south america namely Brazil as it grows like weeds in their climate.
Most of the local ethanol is coming from the new corn plants popping up around the state. Many more plants are currently under construction. The state has gone so far as to provide grants to gas stations located near these plants to install E-85 pumps.
The US government estimates that 20% of the national corn crop will go to ethanol production next year.
This will put a strain on food supplies and feed stock for the tasty animals we like to eat. Expect prices to go up because of the corn shortage.

Prince Valiant
01-23-2007, 03:33 PM
Here's what I see in 50 years:

A resurgence to nuclear power. Geothermal heating (heat from the earth's core) will be begining to get traction with one or two plants. We'll also see the advent of greater wind and wave power generation. Cleaner burning coals will be present because of cost.

Automotives: Will see a greater percentage of diesel powered vehicles with very clean emmissions. I think Hybrid type vehicles will become commonplace, with more reliance on using wasted heat energy to produce electric energy (IE, using heat from the engine to generate steam, and thus turn a generator to produce electricity). Plus, we'll finally reduce the weight of vehicles by accepting lower refinement standards and maintaining acceptable, but not increasing crash standards.

I predict a commercially available car will get 75+mpg while carrying a family of 4 in comfort.

In the cities, you'll see more three wheeled vehicles that skirt automotive laws by being classified as motorcycles. This will allow manufactuers to produce small, two, three, and four seat vehicles that weigh next to nothing, and don't have the same crash standards to meet. These vehicles will be far less expensive, and get 70-100mpg on the hwy, 50+ in the city...we will see hybridization of these vehicles.

DirtyMax
01-23-2007, 05:45 PM
Speaking of oil... .did I miss the rash of hurricaines this morning? Go to work, gas everywhere is $1.95-$1.97. Come home ant it's $2.19 everywhere.

Only gas can go up a quarter in hours but will drop only a penny every other day. :fire

Prince Valiant
01-23-2007, 06:00 PM
Only gas can go up a quarter in hours but will drop only a penny every other day. :fireNot that it's fair, BUT, the reason is this:

If something occurs to cause the futures market to jump...be it political strife, weather, war, broken pipelines, etc, THEN the gas companies/stations have to look at the prospects of what the cost of the gas they'll buy in the future, if they figure it'll likely be more...

...then they then have to raise their prices to increase their profits immediately so that they have the actual funds to buy more stock in the near future.

So, when the price does drop, why don't we have an immediate drop at the pump?

Well, the reason is, no one wants to sell gas at a loss. If you "bought" it at 2.30/gal, and the price drop the next day means you should be selling it at 2.00/gal, you'd be disinclined to just sell it that cheap, wouldn't you? Instead, as the expensive gas sells, and is "replaced" by cheaper gas, the price drops incrementally, and unfortunately, slowly.

It is true that even IF you bought gas cheap, the price spikes, and you raise you price to reflect this, your price will stay up...even if you didn't actually "buy" the gas at the expensive price. It's an unfortunate consequence of the futures market that instability generally results in BIG profits.

An analogy to the above is this:

You buy a house at 100,000 dollars. In 8 years, the market has dictated that it's worth 150,000 dollars.

Of course, a fair profit would dictate that you sell your house at 109,000 dollars, right? NO! Of course not.

You sell your house at 150,000 because A) You can and B) You need that profit to buy your NEXT house.

IF you bought your house at 100,000 and the market plummeted, would you be eager to sell at 75,000? NO, you'd probably just hold it until it sold later on, when prices recovered. Or, just hold the price at least at100,000 until someone came along to purchase it, right?