Peak Oil (was "petroleum geologist explains US war policy")

[Backatcha Bandit]

"Hotel Rwanda" was a pile of cock, though.

 

[laptop]

Still waiting for the explanation of why we're not 20km deep in "abiotic oil"...

Or even 1km deep...

 

[bigfish]

BG's North Sea discovery raises hopes for UK gas production

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article1269433.ece

BG Group unveiled its biggest gas discovery in the North Sea for five years yesterday, raising hopes that the rate at which the UK's dependence on gas imports is increasing could be slowed.

The find, with estimated recoverable reserves of between 100 million and 275 million barrels, is the biggest since the Buzzard field was discovered in 2001 and comes amid declining production in the British sector of the North Sea.

BG owns a 30.5 per cent stake in the new find, its fifth in the North Sea in the past 12 months. The American energy group ConcoPhillips controls 36.5 per cent, with the remainder belonging to Italy's ENI.

An exploration well was sunk earlier this year 9km from BG's existing gas field, named Judy. A later well confirmed the discovery. Mark Carne, BG's executive vice president in Europe and Central Asia, said: "This is one of the largest recent North Sea discoveries and represents a highly attractive near-term, near infrastructure project. It once again reinforces the prospects for our UK exploration and production business and shows the continued productivity of the North Sea."

 

[bigfish]

New US Gulf oil discovery

http://www.newsalert.com/News/Story...DCA3-44D1-4B29-8122-9B11CE64DA7B}&siteid=mktw

HOUSTON (MarketWatch) -- A deepwater discovery reported Thursday underscores the growing importance of a geological formation in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico that's only recently become accessible to crude oil and natural gas producers.

A consortium led by BP PLC (BP) found hydrocarbons at the Kaskida well, right in the middle of the Keathley Canyon offshore area, 250 miles southwest of New Orleans. Other prospects in these kinds of formations - known as the "lower tertiary" - have been found in Walker Ridge and Alaminos Canyon, to the east and the west of Keathley Canyon.

While companies have been exploring and producing in the Gulf for decades, the advent of more sophisticated drilling technology over the past five years has allowed them to probe further into the Earth's crust in deeper waters in order to reach previously inaccessible reserves. This year's relatively mild hurricane season in the Atlantic and sustained high energy prices have also raised the chances for these ventures to turn a hefty profit once commercial production begins.

Kaskida is the first such discovery in Keathley Canyon, one of the southernmost provinces of the U.S. side of the Gulf. BP holds a 55% stake of the project. Other partners are Devon Energy Corp. (DVN) with 20% and Anadarko Petroleum Corp. (APC) with 25%.

The Kaskida discovery "is going to be very meaningful for Devon and Anadarko," which are the second- and third-largest holders of lower tertiary leases, after Chevron Corp. (CVX) said David Heikkinen, an analyst with Houston-based energy research firm Pickering Energy Partners.

Devon believes that the Kaskida discovery is the "largest to date" in the Gulf's lower tertiary, said senior exploration and production vice-president Stephen Hadden in a release.

Anadarko was also optimistic about its first lower tertiary exploration success.
....
Squeezing Oil From Older Rocks

Most of the Gulf of Mexico's oil found so far is trapped in rocks dating from the Miocene period, between 5 million and 23 million years ago. But lower tertiary rocks are older and deeper and promise to be even more bountiful in hydrocarbons, Heikkinen said.

Although many such discoveries are large, ranging in the 350 million-500 million-barrel range, companies have yet to determine whether the hydrocarbons will flow at economic rates. That's why Gulf watchers are eagerly awaiting the public release of the results of a recently completed flow test at the Chevron-operated Jack discovery.

The "body language" from Devon - which also has a stake in Jack - means the "flow test is encouraging enough that companies want to invest in the lower tertiary," Heikkinen said.

Appraisal of the Kaskida well, which lies in 5,860 feet of water, will begin later this year, BP said. It was drilled to a depth of nearly 32,500 feet. Prospectors found 800 net feet of hydrocarbon-bearing sands, or "pay." By contrast, the first Jack well found 350 feet of net pay in 2004.

The large amount of net pay indicates that Kaskida's estimated reserves could come in at the higher end of the 350 million-500 million-barrel range.

 

[bigfish]

More new North Sea oil and gas finds

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=35190

Dana Petroleum is pleased to report the flow test results from its two latest North Sea exploration wells, which have made important oil and gas discoveries in the UK and Netherlands, respectively...

In the UK Northern North Sea, flow test results from the East Causeway well 211/23d-17z have proved extremely encouraging. The well was drilled horizontally through the Middle Jurassic Brent Group of sandstones, intersecting several reservoirs in the Ness and Tarbert Formations in two separate fault blocks. The western fault block tested at a stabilised combined flow rate of 14,500 barrels of oil per day (bopd) from the Ness and Tarbert formations.

The initial test on the Tarbert sands flowed high quality, light sweet crude oil at stabilised rates of up to 7,000 bopd. The crude oil gravity is around 32 degrees API with a low gas oil ratio. A second test, performed on the Ness Formation, flowed at stabilised rates of up to 7,500 bopd with the oil being of similar high quality to that recovered from the first test...

The East Causeway well also intersected Brent sandstone intervals in the eastern fault block, which had previously been drilled by the suspended well 211/23b-11 and flowed at rates of up to 8,100 bopd. Flow rate and pressure data from all the reservoir tests will now be analysed to assess the full productivity and reserve potential of both the neighbouring fault blocks. The East Causeway well will be suspended for use as a potential future oil producer pending development decisions, including the possible integration of this new discovery with other existing oil discoveries in the area.

In the Dutch North Sea, the E18-6 well has also been successfully drilled and flow tested. As predicted, a good quality reservoir interval was encountered in the Lower Slochteren sands and this flowed at a rate of approximately 45 million standard cubic feet of gas per day (mmscfpd). The gas discovered here was of similar quality to that recently developed in the neighboring F16-E gas field, which was brought onstream in 2005 and in which Dana also holds an interest. This latest discovery has encouraged the group to consider the drilling of an appraisal well in a fault block further to the west of the current well. This could prove up even more gas volumes before developing the area as a tie-back to the F16-E platform.

Following the successes at East Causeway and E18-6, Dana is continuing its 2006 North Sea program with appraisal drilling now underway on the Babbage gas field in the UK Southern Basin. This Babbage well is targeting a crestal area of the structure in order to establish reservoir productivity ahead of a development decision. If appraisal is successful, it is expected the field will be moved quickly into development as a tie-back to existing infrastructure.

Commenting on the news, Tom Cross, Dana's Chief Executive said:

"We are highly encouraged by the test results from the East Causeway and E18-6 wells and look forward to accelerating our technical work on these areas to deliver potential new field developments. North Sea exploration is a key part of Dana's strategy and these value-adding oil and gas discoveries in our core area provide further growth opportunities as we seek to build upon Dana's current portfolio of 12 producing fields."

 

[bigfish]

Boost for North Sea after major oil find

http://business.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=181&id=337782004

BRITAIN’S oil and gas industry received a major boost yesterday as one of the North Sea’s newest operators made the largest discovery in the region for three years.

Canadian oil and gas minnow Oilexco revealed that test drilling in the Brenda Field, in the outer Moray Firth, showed that the reservoir could contain more than 150 million barrels of oil.

A spokeswoman for the UK Offshore Operators’ Association called the find "very encouraging", adding: "Even in maturity, exploration in the UK continental shelf can still produce results. UKOOA estimates that there could be between five billion and 11 billion barrels of oil equivalent still to discovered in UK waters."

A spokesman for Stephen Timms, the Energy Minister, said: "The new test results from Oilexco’s appraisal of the Brenda discovery are particularly encouraging and welcome. This acreage was specifically identified and promoted by the Department of Trade and Industry as an area of potential.

"The North Sea is still a region of great opportunity and news such as this shows it is still a vibrant area for exploration and investment."

 

[bigfish]

Massive oil field found under Gulf

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/15444612.htm

San Ramon-based Chevron Corp. (CVX) said it completed the deepest successful test of a Gulf of Mexico well, showing it may be possible to produce billions of barrels of oil from a new undersea deposit.
...
The well was tested at more than 20,000 feet beneath the sea floor in 7,000 feet of water, 175 miles off the Louisiana coast, according to a statement from Chevron, the field's operator and 50 percent owner. The new deposits that are being explored may hold 3 billion to 15 billion barrels of oil, Chevron spokeswoman Margaret Cooper said.

Chevron's partners, Oklahoma City-based Devon Energy Corp. (DVN) and Norwegian Statoil ASA (STO), which each hold 25 percent of the project, known as Jack No. 2, said the test demonstrates the viability of the newly discovered deposits.

"The farther offshore you go, the larger the unexplored potential," said Gene Pisasale, a Baltimore fund manager who owns 832,000 Chevron shares. The flow of oil during the test of the new well earlier this year was "substantial," said Pisasale.

As output from wells in shallower Gulf waters has dwindled, companies such as Chevron, the second biggest U.S. oil company, have explored further offshore in hopes of bigger finds to boost their reserves.

The gulf "will continue to be a platform for future growth for year to come," Chevron said in a statement.

The partners plan to drill another appraisal well at the site in the Walker Ridge Block in 2007. A decision whether to develop Jack may be made in 2007 or 2008, Statoil's Mellbye said. The field would start production in 2013 if development goes ahead, he said.

"Test results are very encouraging and may indicate a significant discovery," Stavanger, Norway-based Statoil said in a statement. "The full magnitude of the field's potential is still being defined."

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51837

Chevron and two oil exploration companies announced the discovery of a giant oil reserve in the Gulf of Mexico that could boost the nation's supplies by as much as 50 percent and provide compelling evidence oil is a plentiful deep-earth product made naturally on a continuous basis.

Known as the Jack Field, the reserve – some 270 miles southwest of New Orleans – is estimated to hold as much as 15 billion barrels of oil.

 

[laptop]

Once more "data" is not the plural of "anecdote".

 

[Fruitloop]

Yeah, this was a great thread, but I'm not sure what posting every single oil discovery out adds to it tbh. I mean, there are other places where this information is available, and it's not like the continued discovery of some reserves is really in doubt.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

What is interesting is the size distribution of reserves found because that can be used to infer stuff about the amount of oil remaining to be found.

http://www.energybulletin.net/16873.html

 

[Falcon]

From Bernie's reference:

Assuming that only small fields have yet to be discovered, the size cutoff value will not impact significantly the URR value as shown on Fig. 7. Even if we add 228 new small fields, the Parabolic Fractal Law predicts only an increase of 2 Gb in reserves!

On the bright side, I expect BigFish well helpfully keep us informed by posting every detail of each of those 228 immaterial new fields.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

How many big fields, say over 10 billion barrels (of actual booked reserves that banks would lend money against) have been found in the last decade or two?

The only one I can think of offhand is that one in Kazakhstan. Presumably there are at least some others?

As far as I can make out though, the vast majority of super-giant fields were found between 1900 and 1960, with relatively few since then.

 

[clv101]

I gave a lecture on Peak Oil at The Centre for Alternative Technology this weekend. Here are my slides:
http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/portal/image...ide_for_oil.pdf

 

[muser]

Some of the oil discovery stories have alot of ifs and buts about them. If I were a cynic I might believe that a 'story' is concocted to raise the share price, an insider pockets to the share premium and reinvests in finding the oil the original story cliamed.
But I'm not a cynic

 

[bigfish]

From Bernie's reference:

On the bright side, I expect BigFish well helpfully keep us informed by posting every detail of each of those 228 immaterial new fields.

With U.S. proven oil reserve currently estimated at between 21.4 billion barrels (U.S. Energy Information Administration) and 29.3 billion barrels (BP Statistical Review), the further addition of the 15 billion barrels upper estimate of Chevrons latest discovery looks set to boost U.S reserves by between 50 and 70 percent. Such a large increase, delivered in just one fell swoop, can hardly be described as "immaterial" by anyone in their right mind, especially as the GoM Jack discovery signals the beginning of a new dawn of ultra deep hydrocarbon exploration in the deep virgin domains of this richly endowed region. Furthermore, the discovery of this and other ultra deep hydrocarbon finds in the GoM flatly contradicts western conventional wisdom of where oil plays are supposed to be located. For example, clv101 tells us in his recent psuedo-scientific lecture that:

Conventional oil will only form in the following conditions:

1. Source rock at a depth where organic matter can be cooked (7,500 to 15,000ft). Any deeper and it turns
into gas.

2. Reservoir rock into the pores of which oil can migrate

3. A Cap rock to stop the oil escaping the Reservoir rock

4. A ‘trap’ –a structure such as a giant fold into which the oil migrates to be trapped underneath the Cap.

5. It must be leakproof otherwise oil will seep out and not accumulate in drillable quantities

Oil geologists know that if you do not have all 5 of these, you will not have oil.

Wrong! Leaving aside the fact that hydrocarbon polymorphs of high chemical potential (the molecular constituents found in natural petroleum) cannot possibly form out of highly oxidized biotic molecules of low chemical potential (no matter how long you "cook" them) without violating the Second Law of thermodynamics, the Jack well has found OIL (not gas as you seem to be insisting should be the case) at 28,175 feet. BPs Kaskida well found OIL, not gas, at 32,500 feet, while Chevron's other prospect in the region, the Tahiti well, will be pumping OIL, not gas, from 26,000 feet.

So much for your 'oil to gas conversion at depth theory' which is complete pants!

 

[Crispy]

32500ft below sea level or below the surface?

Because they're already putting 8000ft of water between the rig and the floor.

Still, this is difficult oil, not easy oil, and we'll have to wait a while for significant output. By which time, even more of the world's conventional sources will be in decline, and demand will continue to rise. Hooray, the peak is delayed anoither 6 months!

 

[laptop]

reinvests in finding the oil the original story cliamed.
But I'm not a cynic

Or just in Columbia's finest?

Neither am I

 

[Falcon]

As far as I can make out though, the vast majority of super-giant fields were found between 1900 and 1960, with relatively few since then.

In fact, the majority of all oil in production today was discovered in the 10 years either side of the Second World War.

BigFish - the world consumes 32 billion barrels of oil per year. Consumption must grow at 2% per annum or capitalism fails. Supply must match demand, yet base stock is declinining at 8% per annum. The average annual discovery rate for the last decade has been less than 10 billion barrels per year.

In that context, 15 billion barrels is immaterial.

You still don't appear to have grasped the concept that oil can be transported by tectonic processes into regions that would not permit oil formation.

Nor have you responded to laptop's straightforward question about how your pre-tectonic theory accounts for the absence on earth of a uniform ocean of oil several kilometers deep?

 

[bigfish]

BigFish - the world consumes 32 billion barrels of oil per year. Consumption must grow at 2% per annum or capitalism fails. Supply must match demand, yet base stock is declinining at 8% per annum. The average annual discovery rate for the last decade has been less than 10 billion barrels per year.

In that context, 15 billion barrels is immaterial.

Chevron's Jack 2 discovery isn't the only large oil find made in the GoM recently. In March, Mexico announced the discovery of a new huge oil find, the Noxal Field, located 60 miles off the coast of the state of Veracruz. Noxal is estimated to contain as much as 10 billion barrels of oil and the find could turn out to be even larger than Cantarell. Super giant oilfields seem to behave like London buses, just when you think one will never turn up, 2 of them arrive together! As things stand, the Jack 2 and Noxa discoveries look set to add 25 billion barrels to the worlds all time record proven reserves of 1.28 trillion barrels, thus setting a new all time record of 1.53 trillion barrels. Divide 1,530 billion/450(30x15) billion, and the optimum level of world oil industry reserves jumps from an Optimum Level x 2.84 to Optimum Level x 3.40.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4808466.stm

These new GoM discoveries are important because they show clearly that new super giant oilfields do exist at great depths and that they are waiting to be found. The discovery also indicates that promising new petroliferous formations at deep horizons are abundant; whether in the Middle East, the Caspian Sea, Russia, the East/West coast of the Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico or the North Sea. The SNP leader Alex Salmond, an oil economist with the Royal Bank of Scotland in a previous life, was quick to point out in Scotland's Sunday Herald at the weekend that he believes the North Sea is far from a spent force. Pointing to the Gulf of Mexico he said: “Everybody thought all the discoveries had been made but last week’s find could see the US reserves boosted by 50%. We’re going to see the same pattern in the North Sea.”

http://www.sundayherald.com/57794

You still don't appear to have grasped the concept that oil can be transported by tectonic processes into regions that would not permit oil formation.

I always have difficulty grasping concepts when they violate the Laws of physics. For example, the Second Law of thermodynamics specifically prohibits the transformation of highly oxidized biotic molecules of low chemical potential into highly reduced hydrocarbon polymorphs of high chemical potential, at any depth and pressure. In reality, tectonic processes actually help to facilitate the upward migration of hydrocarbon fluids from the mantle via an encircling necklace of interconnecting, generally latitude-parallel faults, the oil stacking in the Earth's crust at all horizons.

 

[bigfish]

Nor have you responded to laptop's straightforward question about how your pre-tectonic theory accounts for the absence on earth of a uniform ocean of oil several kilometers deep?

Thomas Gold answers the question thus:

If we accept the fact, now known full well, that hydrocarbons are a common constituent of the cosmos and the planetary condensations that formed in it, then we have a totally different viewpoint. Hydrocarbons are stable down to great depths and the high temperatures there, contrary to many statements that have been made that the temperature reached at depths between 30,000 and 40,000 ft would dissociate most of the hydrocarbons. But these calculations are seriously in error, because they ignored the strong stabilizing effect of pressure at depth, that had been calculated by Soviet (Ukrainian and Russian) thermodynamicists.

The existence of diamonds, crystals of pure carbon that form at pressures which are not reached on earth at depths of less than 140 kilometers, proves that unoxidized carbon exists at such depths, and also carbon-bearing liquids must flow there that can deposit carbon at high purity. High pressure fluid inclusions in diamonds prove that liquid or gaseous hydrocarbons were present at their formation. Present day meteorites give us examples of the solids responsible for the building up of the Earth; among those only one class, the carbonaceous chondrites, contain much carbon, mostly in unoxidized form. That this material is present in the Earth's interior in large abundance is shown by the distribution of noble gases and their isotopes that have emerged into our atmosphere and show distributions that are strikingly similar to those in carbonaceous chondrites, but dissimilar to those of any other class of meteorites. The presence of this type of material would account for a continuous supply of hydrocarbons to the atmosphere, as the outer layers of the mantle heat up over time and make fluids form from the solid hydrocarbons that were included in the forming Earth (as also in most of the other planets and their satellites, in the asteroids, comets and interplanetary dust grains). Such fluids are less dense than the rocks, and buoyancy forces will propel them upwards.

Rocks and lower density fluids can co-exist at any level in a solid planetary body, provided that the pressure of the pore fluids is sufficiently high to make the differential pressure between rocks and fluids less than the crushing strength of the rocks. For a static case (with no upward flow of the fluid), this would result in pressure domains, within which the fluid pressure shows a pressure gradient with depth given just by the density of the fluid (the "head"), and where the bottom of each domain is at the level at which the fluid pressure is insufficient to maintain pore spaces against the higher pressure of the rock. (See Figure 1.) It is assumed here (for the static case) that this makes a complete barrier. As for the top of any domain, this cannot be at a level higher than that at which the fluid pressure equals the rock pressure, since fluid pressures in excess of this value cannot be maintained in rocks that on a large scale and in long time-intervals, have no tensile strength and therefore cannot resist the intrusion of the fluids and the generation of new pores.

If we consider the case of a slow upward migration of fluids (liquids or gases), then this picture changes to one in which each domain will be stacked on another one below, all the way down to the level of origin of the fluid. The fluid pressure would thus make a stepwise approximation to the pressure in the rocks. Now none of the barriers can be absolute, since they would be torn open by the fluids that arise from deeper and higher pressured domains. But the barriers would be torn open in each case only to the point at which the flow to the overlying domain causes it to suffer a pressure drop resembling that of the static case. This rule will apply whatever the nature of the rock. The heights of the domains will be determined by the rock and fluid densities and the crushing strength of the rocks; this height has been found to be between 10,000 ft and 15,000 ft in many sedimentary rocks, and in excess of 20,000 ft in granitic basement rocks. The upward seepage of methane is very widespread all over the Earth, as is shown by the great extent of methane hydrates on the ocean floors and in permafrost regions on land, where mostly no shallow source of methane can be invoked.

Vertically stacked domains of hydrocarbons have been found in all cases where drilling was sufficient to display them. The consistent tendency to find hydrocarbons below any producing region has been given the name of "Koudyavtsev's Rule", after the important Russian petroleum investigator who discovered this effect and collected a very large number of examples of it from all parts of the world. This rule would be the consequence of a deep origin of hydrocarbons and a steady process of outgassing.

With this picture in mind we would readily understand that refilling of hydrocarbon fields is possible and even probable. But if merely the steady upward flow from deep sources had been responsible, the refilling time scales would be much too slow to be of commercial interest, or to match the speed that appears to have been observed. A limit to the global average of that flow speed can be derived from the approximately known supply of carbon to the atmosphere over time. On that basis a large gas field may be recharging in times reckoned in tens of thousands of years, still very short compared with many millions of years, as had been the widespread belief. But observed refill times of just a few tens of years cannot be explained by this. However another effect will set in when a field is under production and the pressure in its domain is thereby diminished. The pressure difference between the producing domain and the one below it will then be increased, resulting in a higher rate of flow through the low permeability layer that divides these domains, or it may even result in a physical rupture of that layer.

This type of refilling process thus allows exploitation of the domain below that from which production had been obtained before. In turn, when this lower domain had suffered a sufficient pressure loss, the process may continue to the next lower domain. How much more than the original content of a hydrocarbon field can be produced in any one case will depend on numerous details of the formation, but present indications are that it is often at least double. The present global gas and oil glut appears to be due to this effect, and we have not yet seen the end of it, or any indication that it will end soon. Gas fields will be subject to faster refilling than oil fields, and moreover the volumes of gas in lower domains will in general be greater due to the higher pressures there and the higher compressibility of gas. Gas will thus become more plentiful than oil for this reason alone, but gas seems to be generally more plentiful and more widespread than oil. The environmental advantages of changing from coal or oil to gas, by far the cleanest of all combustible fuels, are very large, and the changeover is at present still handicapped by the mistaken belief that the supplies of gas will run out soon.
Thomas Gold
September 1999

http://trilogynet.net/Thomas_Gold/recharging/

 

[laptop]

Any chance that bigfish will demonstrate that he understands the question by summarising that mega-paste in, say, 10 lines?

 

[Falcon]

But observed refill times of just a few tens of years cannot be explained by this. However another effect will set in

How about a one sentence summary :

"Each time an arbitrary and specious effect fails to describe observable reality, a new arbitrary and specious effect will be posited".

 

[bigfish]

Oil prices continue to slide

http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,1880525,00.html

The price of oil today fell below $60 (£31) a barrel for the first time in six months, continuing the dramatic decline over recent weeks.
The benchmark oil price in New York was trading near $59.75 a barrel, while in London the price of Brent crude dropped to $59.37, the lowest levels since March.
...
Oil prices have dropped more than 23% since hitting a record high of $78.40 a barrel in mid-July.

 

[Crispy]

Hurrah! Crisis averted!

 

[bigfish]

... "Each time an arbitrary and specious effect fails to describe observable reality, a new arbitrary and specious effect will be posited".

I don't suppose you've read 'Crop Circles In The Desert' by Michael Lynch yet have you?

Here's the Summary:

It is hard to characterize the discussion about Saudi oil resources as scientific in nature. Much of the technical information cited is either irrelevant (provided without explanation of its meaning) or wrong. Many of the arguments involve perverted logic and are often refuted by information provided by the “alarmists” themselves, particularly in the case of Simmons. The omission of publicly available information raises questions about the sincerity of the work.

The actual evidence presented by the Simmons work suggests that (a) the Saudis are at the beginning of their resource curve, (b) they are developing their fields in a very careful manner, and (c) they have faced and overcome numerous technical challenges. Nowhere is there anything to support his conclusions that their production is going to peak, and historical evidence refutes this hypothesis quite clearly.

It is also interesting to realize that these 12 papers, each dealing with various technical problems in Saudi Arabian oilfields, were presented at a prominent industry forum to an audience of technical experts assembled from all over the world, and not a single question was raised about the overall capability of Saudi Arabia as an oil supply. (Simmons)

Schermer has a simple test of any hypothesis: consider which is more likely, the hypothesis put forth or its opposite?* In this case, we are being asked to believe whether it is more likely that a Harvard M.B.A. with no technical background has correctly perceived an extraordinary conclusion from engineering papers, contradicting all other data and observed reality as well as the vast majority of expert opinion, or whether he simply got it wrong. The evidence in this paper shows that what he has said, which can be tested, is demonstrably wrong.

Overall, the arguments made by the various “alarmists” resemble a cable television special on crop circles, where only evidence conforming to the zealots’ beliefs is presented—most of it unquestioningly—even where it is illogical, meaningless, or simply incorrect. What is needed is greater critical thinking on the part of the audience on both crop circles and Saudi peak-oil warnings.

*Michael Schermer, Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time (New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1997).

http://www.gasresources.net/LynchM 06 (Crop Circles).pdf#search="crop circles in the desert"

 

[Falcon]

Michael Shermer received his bachelor's degree from Pepperdine University in 1976 in Psychology/Biology, his master's degree from California State University, Fullerton in Experimental Psychology two years later, and his Ph.D. from Claremont Graduate University in History of Science in 1991 (with a dissertation entitled "Heretic-Scientist: Alfred Russel Wallace and the Evolution of Man: A Study on the Nature of Historical Change"). biography

If I understand you correctly, BigFish, you are asking us to believe that an expert in experimental psychology and UFO debunker can evaluate the evidence presented by Simmons (an Energy industry investment banker, for whom it is essential to understand the risk associated with around $77 billion in oil related transactions), and make some sort of authoritative determination as to its merit.

It's not clear why the absence of a technical background should preclude you from challenging an issue, but does not preclude you from defending it. An explanation of this point by you would be ... entertaining.

The principle of Occam's razor is helpful, however: given that each OPEC member's income is directly proportional to their declared reserves, that reserves provide collateral that lowers the cost of borrowing for food and weapons and props up weak currencies, that there is no means of verifying their declarations, and in the Saudis case is the only thing that prevents the fall of the ruling faction - is it more likely that reserves are inflated, or not?

 

[bigfish]

Deepwater Drilling May Open New Oil Frontiers

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060911-gulf-oil.html

Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News
September 11, 2006

Oil companies are buzzing after Chevron, Devon Energy, and Norway-based Statoil ASA last week announced the successful discovery of oil at a staggering depth beneath the surface of the Gulf of Mexico Jack 2, as the new test well is called, extends downward for more than five miles (eight kilometers).

The well delves through 7,000 feet (2,134 meters) of seawater and more than 20,000 feet (6,100 meters) of seafloor to strike oil in the lower tertiary formation—a layer of rock laid down between 65 million and 24 million years ago.

The find, potentially the United States' largest in four decades, could yield from 3 to 15 billion barrels of crude oil. Even though the top estimate would not do much to slake the nation's growing thirst for fuel, it could boost existing U.S. reserves by 50 percent.

But experts suggest that the cutting-edge technologies used to create and operate the well are far more important than any single oil find.

Such technologies could open access to previously unattainable oil across the globe. And high oil prices are making the enormous startup costs worth the gamble.

"It's giving folks greater confidence to explore in the deepwater Gulf region," said Judson Jacobs, director of upstream technology for Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) in Boston, Massachusetts.

The Gulf is hardly unique, he adds. Other promising deepwater locations await exploration off the coasts of Brazil, the United Kingdom, West Africa, and Southeast Asia.

 

[Falcon]

potentially ... could yield ... the top estimate would not do much to slake the nation's growing thirst ... could open access ... promising

Hi BigFish. Charitably leaving aside all the conditionals for a second (and, therefore, most of the post).

I'll give you an interesting way to read this. Replace "could" with "unless". I.e. "unless such technologies access material volumes of previously unattainable oil across the globe, the [world's] growing thirst for fuel will not be slaked".

The issue is not whether they can or can't find oil in 7000 feet of seawater at 20,0000 feet depths. The issue is whether, after meeting the incredible energy cost of doing so at significantly degraded probability of success rates they can do so in sufficient volume to replace 80% of existing stocks in 10 years (Exxon's estimated required replacement figure).

Slowly by your examples do you reveal the nature and challenge of Peak Oil.

 

[bigfish]

Russian oil grab 'puts western supplies at risk'

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1885258,00.html

· BP and Shell face bids, says energy expert
· New UN body may be needed to police markets

Terry Macalister
Monday October 2, 2006
The Guardian

A former government adviser has warned it is "only a matter of time" before BP or Shell faces a bid from a Russian state-owned group such as Gazprom which could threaten western oil supplies.

Professor Peter Odell, an energy economist, says ExxonMobil is also vulnerable to a Chinese takeover as the large UK and American stock-listed oil groups lose their influence in global markets.

"A Chinese bid for Exxon and/or Chevron and/or a Russian bid for Shell and/or BP, backed by funds provided by the wealthy member countries of Opec seem likely to be only a matter of time.

"With the 'majors' gone there will be concern in the main OECD countries for the future security of supplies," he said in an unpublished speech to Opec ministers in Vienna last month.

Professor Odell, who was an adviser to Tony Benn, the UK energy minister in the late 1970s and has since worked for a host of different foreign governments, said he was not being alarmist or deliberately controversial. "Latest figures show the western oil majors are losing their leadership of the global oil system and now have only 9% or 10% of the world's reserves. They appear unable to win new production rights except as minority partners in state-run systems," Mr Odell says.

The Russian gas group Gazprom is keen to expand its sphere of influence outside its home country and told the Guardian earlier this year it would like to buy a British energy company.

The treatment by Russian officials of Shell at Sakhalin-2 and BP on the Siberian Kovykta field has also been interpreted as the Kremlin manoeuvring in the energy sector for political ends.

Alexander Ryazanov, chief executive of Gazprom's oil arm Gazprom Neft, said that the unit's healthy cashflow and help from its parent would make it easy to find up to $25bn(£13.3bn) to take a 50% stake in the joint venture, TNK-BP.

The Chinese - and the Indians - meanwhile have been using state-owned companies to expand abroad to secure supplies for their energy-hungry industries.

Professor Odell foresees a return to state-owned companies in the west too, along the lines of Norway's Statoil and Austria's OMV which have also been expanding fast.

He predicts a "new British National Oil Corporation, a revived Petro-Canada and a deprivatised Total in France and Belgium". The publicly quoted companies such as Shell and BP have not helped their own plight in the eyes of those countries with expanding needs for oil, says Professor Odell, a Briton who currently works at Erasmus University in Rotterdam.

He believes western oil companies have endangered their own survival by skimping on investment and using their cash for share buybacks and "extortionate" executive remuneration packages.

Professor Odell is considered to be quite conservative but he is a sceptic about the world running out of oil fast. "The ultimate physical sufficiency of global oil and gas resources is not in doubt so that one can ignore the present-day Jeremiahs," he told Opec ministers.

He believes the need for better order in global markets will eventually lead to the creation of a United Nations International Energy Organisation which will include input from Opec and others.

 

[muser]

Can anyone provide academic figures for reserves in sudan. China is willing to back the government against the wishes of the international community, so I can imagine that there is a sizable amount of oil. Would America back an anti government rebel group. In short does america have an interest there. Will they stop a genocide or create one.