Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Tucked into an article about food needing a fundamental rethink, according to Tim Lang, member of the UKs new Food Council, is this:

Oil and energy: "We have an entirely oil-based food economy, and yet oil is running out. The impact of that on agriculture is one of the drivers of the volatility in the world food commodity markets."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7795652.stm

First time Ive seen it acknowledged that peak oil fears have driven any market at all, even if it is sort of obvious based on oil price in recent years and other stuff.
 
Oil has sneaked up to $48. All those projects getting cancelled seems to be having a bit of an impact.


People are also betting on oil going up alot.

Jan. 5 (Bloomberg) -- The steepest plunge in crude prices on record may be setting up oil investors for a rally this year, if history is any guide.

The so-called forward curve of futures contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange suggests oil will rise 28 percent to $60.10 a barrel by December. The curve looks almost the same as 10 years ago, after Russia’s default and the collapse of the Long-Term Capital Management LP hedge fund raised concerns that a global economic slowdown would reduce energy demand. Crude prices fell 25 percent in the final quarter of 1998, the steepest drop in seven years.
link

Those cuts by opec seem to be paying off for them as well. Risky bet that oil will recover much though with china seemingly cratering and SUV sails down by 35-40%.

The era of volatility seems to be upon us.


Oh and happy 2009.
 
I was watching An Inconvenient Truth tonight. There was nothing about peak oil on it, but Gore showed a graph about the average mpg for cars round the world which I thought was interesting. US cars have (or had given the demise of their automotive industry) the worst figures for efficiency in the world. Why would a country with insufficient and declining oil reserves to enable it to be self-sufficient (resulting in wars in oil regions around the world) have done nothing to get figures up from 20mpg to an easily achievable 60mpg?

Anyway, this is the music video from the closing song in the film. Very uplifting.
Melissa Ethridge - I Need To Wake Up
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=djP-c7d_Oeo
 
What does this mean, DD? :confused:
This is to say many people are suggeting the president elect is aware that the production of conventional crude and condensate is very close to its maximum figure and will go into decline in the comming years. He may have some understanding of the consaquencies of that. However on the down side his energy picks have been a biofuel (specificaly corn ethanol) guy and a 'technotopian' someone who goes for all the wild technofixes.

My best guess is in the next couple of years breeder reactors both fast breeders and Thorium will rapidly be seen as the panacea to the unfolding energy crisis. Especialy as peak uranium may be passed (although advocates say there is vast amounts of the stuff in the sea and in phosphates etc) and peak coal seems to be a touch closer than is often thought, more importantly may seem to be to the USGS.
 
Citgo Petroleum Corp., the U.S. refiner owned by the Venezuelan government, will suspend charitable contributions of home heating oil to poor U.S. households -- a sign that falling oil prices may hamstring Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, whose administration has used an oil windfall to win voters' loyalty at home and allies abroad.
In a surprise announcement, former U.S. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II said Venezuela would stop deliveries to his Boston-based nonprofit, Citizens' Energy, which last winter received $100 million of fuel that was distributed throughout the Northeast. Mr. Kennedy said Citgo cited falling oil prices and the world economic crisis for forcing the company "to re-evaluate all of its social programs." Neither Citgo nor the Venezuelan government had any comment.
mail
Hugo Chávez



The move raises questions about whether Mr. Chavez can afford to continue his oil-fueled largess. Venezuela gives cut-priced fuel to many Latin American nations and sends some 100,000 barrels a day of oil and oil products to Cuba in exchange, in part, for the services of 30,000 Cuban doctors, nurses, dentists, and sports trainers. In 2007, Cuba valued total Venezuelan aid at $7.8 billion. Some analysts say Venezuela is now as big a donor to cash-strapped Cuba as the U.S.S.R. was back in the Cold War.
As crude prices have plunged in the past six months, spot prices for heating oil at New York Harbor have collapsed more than 60% to around $1.30 a gallon. That has considerably lowered heating costs, reducing the need for the program.
The oil-price slide is likely to crimp Venezuela's spending plans this year. The government calculated its $78 billion budget for 2009 using an oil-price forecast of $60 a barrel, almost twice the current $32.14 a barrel for Venezuela's crude basket.
Venezuela has some cushion. Over the weekend, the central bank said the country's international reserves topped $42 billion at the end of 2008 -- up 25% over 2007, the highest level on record -- thanks to lofty oil prices for most of the year.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123120371249755835.html
 
Ooh here is a really good video of Dr Colin Campbell talking in 2005 about how the realization of peak oil could lead to a big banking crisis:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MgX1HIzljFs

Its only just over 3 minutes long and is rather interesting considering what ended up happening to the banks.

And yes it ties in nicely to my own opinions about this stuff and why peak oil theories didnt go mainstream years ago.

Apologies if this video has been posted on the forum before, it was new to me.
 
nah, I'm being convinced that the banking crisis was ultimately caused by the West artificially growing their economies with debt as a result of losing all their manufacturing to the East. High oil prices didn't help, but I don't think they were the cause. Although they will go back up again, that's for sure.
 
nah, I'm being convinced that the banking crisis was ultimately caused by the West artificially growing their economies with debt as a result of losing all their manufacturing to the East.

Well yeah that too, I dont think peak oil was the only cause, but I think its a very big factor.

Say debt has always been used to accelerate growth, but they got rather carried away in recent years. And like you said, some large sectors of the real economy have been exported. But maybe they would have gotten away with this if they were not hitting ceilings imposed by resource availability and climate change concerns.

If we pretend that such limits did not exist, then the potential for future growth would still be massive, energy prices wouldnt have gone massive, and the house of cards would not have started wobbling quite so much?
 
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d25b8d2c-fb97-11dd-bcad-000077b07658.html

Total says oil output near peak
By Carola Hoyos in London
Published: February 15 2009 23:37 | Last updated: February 15 2009 23:37
The world will never be able to produce more than 89m barrels a day of oil, the head of Europe’s third largest energy group has warned, citing high costs in areas such as Canada and political restrictions in countries like Iran and Iraq.

Christophe de Margerie, chief executive of Total, the French oil and gas company, said he had revised his forecast for 2015 oil production downward by at least 4m barrels a day because of the current economic crisis and the collapse in oil prices.

He noted that national oil companies, which control the vast majority of the world’s oil, and independent producers, which play a key role in finding new sources, were “substantially limited in their ability to fund investments in the current [financial] environment”.

Oil prices have fallen from a record $147 a barrel in July to about $35 a barrel on Monday, with the world consuming 84m barrels of oil a day. This year oil consumption is expected to fall from 2008 levels.

Mr de Margerie warned that the glut of oil caused by the dramatic reduction in demand would be short-lived and that, in spite of the economic crisis, in the long-term demand would remain constrained by supply. Three years ago, the International Energy Agency expected consumption and production to hit 130m b/d by 2025. It has since dropped its forecast to a little more than 100m b/d by 2030.

Delays and cancellations in projects to extract oil from Alberta’s tar sands and Venezuela’s Orinoco belt – both expensive and environmentally difficult operations in which Total is active – will cut 1.5m b/d of supply that would have come on stream had oil prices remained strong. The rest of the revisions from Total’s mid-2008 estimates came from the more pessimistic view of the political situation in Iran and Iraq, which hold the world’s second and third largest oil reserves.

Meanwhile, Mr de Margerie now expects a faster decline in production at older fields, such as those in the North Sea. At lower price levels, companies will find it harder to justify the greater cost of keeping such fields pumping.

Total’s chief executive has long been an outspoken advocate of maintaining investment, rather than repeating the mistakes of previous cycles by cutting costs so much that the industry is unable to meet global demand when economies recover. But he is also in the midst of trying to renegotiate contracts in Canada and is considering further investments in Venezuela.
 
Anyone see this weeks Horizon on Fusion power?

Pretty interesting and informative. Essentailly they (the various experts featured) were saying it could be possible within 20 - 35 years if there was a sginificent boost in funding.

Had some simple but devastating facts on why renewables aren't going to do the business no matter what and they were all agreed that we face an energy crises - although the phrase 'peak oil' was not mentioned it was clearly implied.

Fusion was memorably described as 'a get out of jail free card for humanity' - whilst making the case that we are well fucked without it.

Be interested to see other peoples opinions cos it was seemed pretty much a funding plea from the Fusion research community - but the science seemed pretty solid.
 
Pretty interesting and informative. Essentailly they (the various experts featured) were saying it could be possible within 20 - 35 years if there was a sginificent boost in funding.

Funny that, bunch of peeps asking for more cash.

See this thread for a form of fusion that was completely ignored by Dr Cos and his university buddies...cheaper, more robust and easier to scale up to industrial processes...maybe, if it works!

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=280708
 
Rig count roping fast
Globaly at just under 10% year on year for January and in the US at over 15%.
The US rigs getting cut are mostly the tight gas fields, effectively 'unconventional' gas and stripper wells for the oil. Unconventional gas has a very high development cost and very rapid depletion rates, so its takes alot of drilling to keep up flowrates and companies need lots of income to be able to get the next well funded before there current crop dry up. (IIRC its in the region of 30% pa for the first couple of years, then they keep flowing a very low rates for a long time).

This means that US NG production is headed for a bit of a mini cliff this year. This should see the price of NG shooting up later in the year.

Scaling back is happening all over the industry with the non conventional oil and gas getting hit first. We are headed for a potential supply crunch with severe overcapacity in refiners unless demand drops faster than the rigs disspear.
 
SEC rules have been changed so that companies can take the annual average oil price and use that to estimate reserves. This means last years huge oil spike will give the year a nice and high average. This means that when calculating reserves companies can include oil in up to about $90 (or more can remember last years average of the top of my head). So they can include oil that they cannot economicaly recover in todays market on their books for total reserves. If the price remains relatively low this year we could see a big gaping drop in booked reserves amoung the majors.
 
am I dreaming or wasn't there a bottleneck in refinery capacity last year?
Yes there was but there has been a large amount of new refining capacity coming on stream. If you go back a few months I posted about a 450 000 barrel a day refinary coming on line in India, there is also a fair bit of capacity coming online in the likes of Saudi and China. These refinaries are being optimised for heavy and sour oil grades. With a pretty big drop in demand coupled with new capacity it has all the ingreediants of overcapacity. Last year Valero were trying to flog of some of there refinaries in the US. If memory serves the ARAMCO refinary in Saudi is supposed to handle Suadi domestic demand and was being built for there heavy and sour fields (Ill dig around to remember which ones. Manifa is in my head but that could be wrong). But with the price of oil so low Saudis economy may not have the demand for oil they were expecting, we shall see.
 
Bloomberg

March 11 (Bloomberg) -- Royal Dutch Shell Plc and other international oil companies may get greater access to reserves as resource-rich nations seek capital and technology for fields that have become harder to develop since crude prices slumped.

Shell, Europe’s biggest oil company, and rivals BP Plc and Exxon Mobil Corp., struggled to increase reserves when oil prices were at a record. Nations with hydrocarbon deposits, including Russia and Venezuela, renegotiated contracts in favor of national oil companies to keep a larger slice of their energy wealth for themselves. Crude prices have fallen about $100 a barrel since reaching an all-time high in July.

“Oil prices are lower, and may continue to stay low for a period, and that will ease access to reserves,” Shell Chief Executive Officer Jeroen van der Veer told Bloomberg News in an interview in London on March 4. “It is not happening now, but it will happen.”

Shell was forced to cede a majority stake in Russia’s Sakhalin-2 oil and gas project in 2007. OAO Gazprom, the state- run gas exporter, took control after regulators threatened to close the $22 billion project on environmental grounds.
People who work for oil companies dont talk about peak oil, they tend to talk about 'reserve replacement' the replacing of used reserves. Things is an oil companies share value is only partialy derived from the profit they make, it also comes from their ability to make profit in the future, if you have a company with 30 years worth of oil you can sell that share to someone who will be paying for 30 years steady income, like a bond or so on. The super majors have been buying everything and anything with a reserve to keep there numbers up and now are getting into the non conventional oil industry as SEC rules say you can book kerorgen sands against reserves. But the oil 'majors' (IOCs, international oil companies)are really minnows having about 15% of the worlds reserves under their direct control. The NOCs (national oil companies) are the real heavyweights, the likes of PEMEX, Saudi ARAMCO, PetroBras have the lions share. The IOCs get there money from subcontracts, refining, distribution as well as extraction. But even there the technically sophisticated players like ARAMCO have been moving in.

With so many oil producers in the deep shit with the fall in price the IOCs with their deep pockets seem to be aiming to get back into places they were previously excluded or not able to actualy control the oil production.
 
I spotted this interesting piece about crude oil pricing:

As a benchmark, WTI is widely condemned, dismissed as “broken” by oil analysts and derided as insular and irrelevant to the physical market of cargoes of oil bought and sold from Rotterdam to Ras Tanura.
...
Against all common sense, a local, landlocked market in a shrinking commodity vulnerable to price manipulation has become a global benchmark for energy. It is shocking, and more so because, in the hue and cry last year over speculation in oil markets, the focus was on regulation and naming guilty speculators. No one bothered to even consider the thimbleful of oil beneath the towering pile of US Light Sweet Crude Oil contracts. No one asked whether a commodity barred from international trade was a sensible measure of the global cost of energy.
 
Link
Toe Heal Air Injecting (Im certain Ive posted about this before but cant find it)

Anyway, they have completed initial testing on a $150 million dollar experement on it and some geeks over at TOD have done an EROI on it.
This has a realistic potential of increasing the amount of recoverable oil from bitumen tar sands. It uses a technique of airflooding to burn some of the bitumen and increase the API specific gravity of the rest of the bitumen making it more viscouse and easier to remove, its complex but seems competative with other technologies especialy the likes of open cast mining and SAG-D (steam assisted gravity drive).

This technology wont change the peak date, but it will open reserves the tar sands for expensive extraction mitigating against the bottom end of the down slope (so called fat tail of the hubbert bell curve).

The comments are almost as enlightening as the actual post.

Not bitument tar sands are a different (more thermaly mature) kind of chemestry to oil shales which are kerogen and less likely to benefit from this technology.
 
Interesting that the governments updated reply to him, considering the change in IEA position, was "With sufficient investment, the government does not believe that global oil production will peak between now and 2020, and consequently we do not have any contingency plans specific to a peak in oil production."

As some were speculating on this thread long ago, it does seem like the economy is going to get the blame for oil production peaks, rather than oil getting the blame for the bad economy.

Aside from the business as usual, oil war & economic confidence reasons for not acknowledging and preparing for peak oil, there are other considerations at work. Downplaying the geological realities underpinning the situation, in favor of being able to blame economic or political policy failures of specific countries, enables various games down the line. Given the disruption that peak oil would cause to peoples lives, it may be handy to have some scapegoats on hand to try to channel the anger and resentment at some external evil. Tie that back in with the desire to sometimes grab the dwindling resources, and a desire to deflect blame away from a political & economic system that eats resources, and the denial makes sense.

There was something in the FT the other day about how much new drilling in the North Sea has dwindled because of the investment climate, and how much more quickly than anticipated our North Sea will reach end of life as a result. The low price of oil at $50ish gets the brunt of the blame, which is funny as it wasnt many years ago that the high oil price of $50ish was a horror to be blamed for various woes.

Its plausible that people will never agree about how much oil is left in the ground, but with time all will be forced to acknowledge production decline, but they get a choice on what to blame. No matter how tempting it is to get upset & annoyed that our own personal beliefs about the root cause is not accepted and acted upon, at least the current stage where $50 oil is not enough to sustain the necessary investment in new capacity, does rather prove that the era of cheap & easy oil is over, and that the main thing that matters really. We clung to oil because it was relatively easy, cheap & abundant, so when it is no longer those things, its magical role is already half lost. Nothing else will compete with it until it becomes in short supply.

Meanwhile things have been changing on the demand side so the days where we could track our path towards, along or beyond the plateau by watching a simple tale of global supply struggling to keep up with demand, are over, at least until those 'green shoots of recovery' they've started parping on about on the telly materialise, which could be a very short or a very long wait indeed. Considering how certain many of us feel about our plight and the overall picture, there sure is a lot of uncertainty about how all these events are going to unfold.
 
I was reading that article in that FT. I'd imagine that brings the peak oil scenario much closer. But I see in the same week that that the proposed new nuclear sites were announced, that the govt is proposing subsidies of £3-5000 for new electric cars. Presumably that is how they propose to power them all. I wonder if that subsidy will be on top of the £2000 there is talk of for scrapping your old car? I wonder where there will get all the lithium needed for the batteries. Bolivia controls 70% of world supplies, is very environmentally minded and extracting it all could be very environmentally destructive.
 
Oils back above $70 per barrel in the middle of a recession and petrol is hitting £1 per liter. All that production being shuttered in by OPEC, IOCs struggling tar sands producers, small stripper wells that can no longer afford to pump and so on is now driving the price back up.

Its not getting much attention atm, but its their, the elephant in the room. We are bumping into the limits of growth. All we can do is increase the efficiency that we use a resource at and then hit Jevons Paradox.
 
Coal provides nearly one-quarter of the total energy consumed in the U.S., and by Mr. Warholic's estimate, the country has enough in the ground to last about 240 years. A belief in this nearly boundless supply has led officials to dub the U.S. the "Saudi Arabia of Coal."

But the estimate, recent findings show, may be wildly overconfident.

. Last year, the U.S. Geological Survey completed an extensive analysis of Wyoming's Gillette coal field, the nation's largest and most productive, and determined that less than 6% of the coal in its biggest beds could be mined profitably, even at prices higher than today's.

"We really can't say we're the Saudi Arabia of coal anymore,"

In the field, challenges are becoming more apparent. Mining companies report they have to dig deeper and move more earth to extract coal from aging mines, driving up costs. Utilities have grown skittish about whether suppliers can ship promised coal on time. American Electric Power Co., the nation's biggest coal buyer, says it has stepped up its due diligence to make sure its suppliers can make deliveries after some firms missed shipments last fall. It even bought a mine to lock down supplies.

Germany cut its proven hard-coal reserve estimates by more than 99% in 2004 as it explored reducing mining subsidies, which would make coal more expensive to extract. Overall, assessments of total world reserves dropped by half from 1980 to 2005, according to a study by Energy Watch Group, an independent group based in Germany.


If Powder River prices were to hit $60 a ton in current dollars, as much as 47% could be extracted. But at that price, coal would have a tough time competing with other fuels and technologies.
A six fold increase in price would see a huge drop in demand, people could not afford to use the energy and things like cars would cost a great deal more as the energy required to mine, smelt and fabricate the materials would see massive price increases.

Link to WSJ.

Offcourse the other factor is that as the price of coal rises the price of energy rises and the cost of moving earth rises steeply, the $60 calculation is dependent on $10 coal costs, as the price goes up the goal posts move.

E2A a link to Richard Heinbergs analysis on US reserves.

Link
 
Massive slump in investment in oil and gas exploration.

Oil and gas producers will cut spending more sharply than expected this year because of the slump in North American natural gas prices, analysts at Barclays Capital said on Monday.

Spending globally on exploration and production is expected to shrink by 15 percent in 2009 from the previous year, compared to the 12 percent drop the companies had expected in December, Barclays' analysts James Crandell and James West said in a report on their semi-annual survey of 402 energy companies.
Reading between the lines Id guess that tight gas in the US will be especialy heavy hit.

Russia is expected to see a 30 percent drop in spending, with Lukoil (LKOH.MM) showing the steepest decline of 52 percent.

Well its not a safe place to invest anyway but the big domestic producers must be feeling a tight pinch. New oil in Russia is going to be expensive to develop and have long lead times. My guess is the worlds second largest producers is getting well past its second peak now.

Link

Edited to add a small story, Repsol to explore for oil in the Argentinian area of the Falklands.
 
Link to the oil drum


This is one of the best pieces Ive read in a while on why we remain addicted to oil. 7000 words long and some of it is pretty well understood in terms evolutionary psychology, but it is still very very worth the read.

I am sorely tempted to have it as its own thread..... grab a cuppa and enjoy.
 
Iraqi oil contracts to be auctioned in live TV 'game show'
Telegraph. 26 Jun 2009

Iraq, which has the world's third-largest proven oil reserves, plans to conduct the bidding for contracts to develop six major oil and two gas fields publicly over the course of a few hours.

The scheme appeared to come as a shock to some of the major oil companies. Others admitted they "had an inkling" that Baghdad would conduct the process in the open but had not expected a televised spectacle.

...

I am sorely tempted to have it as its own thread..... grab a cuppa and enjoy.

Thanks dd. I'll finish reading that this afternoon.

Have you read the Accursed Share by Georges Bataille?
 
why Im such a postwhore

I wrote this about the above link, for another forum. It is totaly OT for this thread but thought some might be interested.....


http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5519#more

I was reading a rather brilliant article on the evolutionary reasons we are addicted to energy consumption when in the middle of it the explanation of why I am such a postwhore appeared.

out. Of major importance in the millions of years of hominid adaptation was the concept of 'salience', which is related to curiosity, novelty and reward seeking. Salience is noticing what is important, or different; what contrasts from the usual. All of the various precursor hominid species to modern man evolved under conditions of privation and scarcity, at least until 20-30,000 years ago,

Salience recognition is part of the mesolimbic dopamine reward pathway. This system of neurons is integral to survival efficiency, helping us to instantly decide what in the environment should command our attention. Historically, immediate feedback on what is 'new' was critical in avoiding danger as well as procuring food. Because most of what happens around us each day is predictable, processing every detail of a familiar habitat wastes brain energy. It also would slow down our mental computer so as to become a deadly distraction. Thus our ancestors living on the African savanna paid little attention to the stable mountains on the horizon but were alert to any change or movement in the bush, on the plains, or at the riverbank. Those more able to detect and quickly process 'novel cues' were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Indeed, modern experimental removal of dopamine receptor genes in animals causes them to reduce exploratory behavior, a key variable related to inclusive fitness in animal biology


the neural network that regulates our ability to feel pleasure and be motivated for “more”. When we have a great experience .... our brain experiences a surge in the level of the neurotransmitter dopamine. We feel positively charged, warm, ‘in the zone’

The world wide web is especially capable of hijacking our neural reward pathways. The 24/7 ubiquity and nearly unlimited options for distraction on the internet almost seem to be perfectly designed to hone in on our brains g-spot. Shopping, pornography, gambling, social networking, information searches, etc. easily outcompete the non-virtual, more mundane activities of yesteryear. Though becoming addicted to more 'information' doesn't use a great deal of energy relatively speaking, it, repetitive use can be highly addictive, though psychiatrists in different countries are debating whether it is a 'true' addiction. For better or worse, the first things I do in the morning is a)check what time it is, b)start the coffee machine then c)check my email, to see what 'novelty' might be in my inbox.

Basicaly we are hardwired to notice differences and new things. We have a reward system in our heads based around dopamine and we get a rush of dopamine finding something new, this helps create a desire to repeat that activity. So every time we see a new post we get a tiny learned pavlovian repsonse keen to see something new and get that dopamine rush......

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:


Yeah I know most people will be :sleeping: or :poke: but still I got a BIG dopamine rush out of reading this and understanding a big part of why I cant pull myself off of the net at work and have gained so many verbal warnings over the years.....


:peace:
 
Back
Top Bottom