Thread: We are at the peak in world oil production...

Originally Posted by ptif219

We have been hearing this for years yet every year there are new oil deposits found

They find new deposits of crap grade "oil," sure. The kind that returns an EROEI of about 30% the rate that the good stuff does. The kind that will not sustain growth.

The reality is there has not been a find of light sweet crude of any significance anywhere on God's green Earth in over 30 years.

Originally Posted by Taxcutter

ptif is right.

The end of oil has been predicted ever since Col. Drake's day.

We heard for years that we'd be attacked on our own shores. People laughed for years, and then it happened. If you don't like that analogy, your parent's generation heard for years that U.S. production would peak and decline. They laughed and laughed in the faces of those "doomist," and then it happened. We've had to desperately import more each passing year since 1970 or so.

They are not finding new fields at any rate that remotely keeps up with dying existing capacity of mature fields. ... The data is undeniable. As are the conditions of the global economy that are unfolding just as the Chris Martensons of the world insisted it would throughout the middle of last decade. It will get worse. At which point, growth will sputter again and the IMF-World Bank-Federal Reserve can crush demand artificially (war, tax increases), or sit back and watch the world tear its hair out.

Originally Posted by Taxcutter

Conservation is OK, but more government regulation and taxation is simply unacceptable.

A better approach is to get government out of the way of development of alternatives.

If they have an economical EROEI of 7:1 or better and don't harm the environment to catastrophic levels, sure. But none do.

Originally Posted by Not Amused

Of course they are alarmist. No one get notice if they say everything is going to be OK.

Interesting. So it's all a conspiracy. All due respect, but where did they all meet to get their story straight? The U.S. DoE, the Pentagon, the IEA, Oxford Univ., the Australian and German governments, Total Oil of France, the U.N., the IMF, and the endless array of petroleum executives and geologists? And no one leaked the ruse?

Originally Posted by Not Amused

Thats is odd, I was in Rifle CO in the early 80's, when shale oil was the future. Maybe the concerns with peak oil back then were unfounded.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Originally Posted by Not Amused

What is the answer, bio-fuel? When does that make a dent in the oil consumption?

It doesn't.

Originally Posted by Not Amused

Technology will, and has, made a far bigger impact than conservation.

This seems vague. Can you quantify that a bit further? Are you factoring time into your equation? Because the ramifications of peak are already starting. What progress has technology truly made that is at all ready on a mass commercial scale? I hear a lot of promising "test phase" experiments. But nothing that's ready to convert 900 million combustion engine vehicles any time soon.

Originally Posted by Jiggs Casey

Interesting. So it's all a conspiracy. All due respect, but where did they all meet to get their story straight? The U.S. DoE, the Pentagon, the IEA, Oxford Univ., the Australian and German governments, Total Oil of France, the U.N., the IMF, and the endless array of petroleum executives and geologists? And no one leaked the ruse?



I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.



It doesn't.



This seems vague. Can you quantify that a bit further? Are you factoring time into your equation? Because the ramifications of peak are already starting.

I am afraid Peak Oil was always political.... and still is.

New finds off Angola and Nigeria.. Exploration in Darfur..

Libya, Iran and Yemen are completely untapped.

Peak Oil is generally promoted by Energy Brokers NOT oilmen.

Originally Posted by Margot

I am afraid Peak Oil was always political.... and still is.

New finds off Angola and Nigeria.. Exploration in Darfur..

Libya, Iran and Yemen are completely untapped.

Peak Oil is generally promoted by Energy Brokers NOT oilmen.

Actually, in the original post I just showed a series of oilmen who are as convinced as the sun will rise tomorrow that supply is no longer able to meet demand. They spoke quite eloquently. Should really watch. If not, I have plenty more.

Regardless, you're not really answering my question. How did all those entities conjure up the same "fraudulent" conclusion? Why? On whose orders? How is their data wrong? It's nice to default to "they all must be lying," but it doesn't carry much weight if a contributor don't flesh out how he/she arrived at that assertion.

As for the locations you allude to, if you have one, I'd be happy to review a link that declares how much proven, recoverable oil you believe exists at each, and we'll put them in proper perspective about what percent of demand they'll cover.... and that's before we even bother to talk of 1) how much the new infrastructure will cost and 2) how long before it even gets to market. ... Also, exploration is not discovery. Exploration is exploration.

Originally Posted by Jiggs Casey

Actually, in the original post I just showed a series of oilmen who are as convinced as the sun will rise tomorrow that supply is no longer able to meet demand. They spoke quite eloquently. Should really watch.

Regardless, you're not really answering my question. How did all those entities conjure up the same "fraudulent" conclusion? Why? On whose orders? How is their data wrong? It's nice to default to "they all must be lying," but it doesn't carry much weight if a contributor don't flesh out how he/she arrived at that assertion.

As for the locations you allude to, show a link that declares how much proven, recoverable oil exists at each, and we'll put them in proper perspective about what percent of demand they'll cover.... and that's before we even bother to talk of 1) how much the new infrastructure will cost and 2) how long before it even gets to market.

I don't know this guy Al Husseini... I know Zaki Yamani, Ali Naimi and Juba... and I am inclined to believe them.

Proven oil reserves are economic measurements.

Look at Shaybah.. and Manifa.. Both were discovered in the late 1950s and early 1960s.. and are just being developed now.

There is also HUGE untapped potential in Afghanistan and Balochistan.

Originally Posted by Margot

I don't know this guy Al Husseini... I know Zaki Yamani, Ali Naimi and Juba... and I am inclined to believe them.

OK, and what do you think they say? Please back up your claim so I know where you're coming from? Link please.

Originally Posted by Margot

Proven oil reserves are economic measurements.

Yes, and?

Originally Posted by Margot

Look at Shaybah.. and Manifa.. Both were discovered in the late 1950s and early 1960s.. and are just being developed now.

Because they knew they'd be far more expensive to develop. And are.

Regardless, Shaybah has been online since 1998, and Manifa is offshore (doubly expensive). Shaybah was held back 30 years because of it's remote location (more cost issues). Regardless, at 14 billion barrels (estimated) it's no game changer at all. Neither is Manifa, and the two combined (and doubled, just as a hypothetical) don't make up for Saudi's other dying capacity rates.

Originally Posted by Margot

There is also HUGE untapped potential in Afghanistan and Balochistan.

again:



btw, how can you possibly say that Libya and Iran are "completely untapped?" Was that a serious statement?

Originally Posted by Jiggs Casey

OK, and what do you think they say? Please back up your claim so I know where you're coming from? Link please.



Yes, and?



So?

Shaybah has been online since 1998, and Manifa is offshore (doubly expensive). Shaybah was held back 30 years because of it's remote location (more cost issues). Regardless, at 14 billion barrels (estimated) it's no game changer at all. Neither is Manifa, and the two combined (and doubled) don't make up for Saudi's other dying capacity rates.



again:



btw, how can you possibly say that Libya and Iran are "completely untapped?" Was that a serious statement?

Shaybah has only been partialy explored.. and Manifa is a Supergiant field.

Do you ever read SUSRIS?

Oh yes.. Libya has HUGE potential.. Khadafi killed the oil business there in 1969.. and Iran has NO money to develop their reserves....... Iran could be producing 10 million barrels per day.. and Libya could be producing 8.

Originally Posted by Margot

Shaybah has only been partialy explored.. and Manifa is a Supergiant field.

Do you ever read SUSRIS?

Oh yes.. Libya has HUGE potential.. Khadafi killed the oil business there in 1969.. and Iran has NO money to develop their reserves....... Iran could be producing 10 million barrels per day.. and Libya could be producing 8.

Manifah has smaller proven reserves than Shaybah. And considering the world consumes a billion barrels every 12 days, neither is "Super Giant" in my opinion, ... though maybe it is in some curious definition of the term.

I've asked three times now, and it is clear you are not a poster who is willing to provide a link to substantiate your specific claims.

Very well.

Saying something like "Shaybah has only been partially explored" sounds profoundly hollow. I would wager that Saudi Arabia has been vastly explored, over and over again, for decades, using technology that would make our heads explode. You'll need to provide a link to literature suggesting what parts of SA are virgin territory before that claim will carry any weight. For now, it sounds laughable without context.

Iran COULD be producing at a slightly higher rate (but certainly NOT 10 mbpd), and they'd be that much faster to exhaustion. Your claim says nothing of reserve volume. It is interesting when people default to the macro rationalization that insists if you just throw enough money at finite shortage, you can solve the finite shortage. Doesn't work that way.

Originally Posted by Jiggs Casey

I've asked three times now, and it is clear you are not a poster who is willing to provide a link to substantiate your specific claims.

Very well.

Saying something like "Shaybah has only been partially explored" sounds profoundly hollow. I would wager that Saudi Arabia has been vastly explored, over and over again, for decades, using technology that would make our heads explode. You'll need to provide a link to literature suggesting what parts of SA are virgin territory before that claim will carry any weight. For now, it sounds laughable without context.

Iran COULD be producing at a higher rate, and they'd be that much faster to exhaustion. Your claim says nothing of reserve volume. It is interesting when people default to the macro rationalization that insists if you just throw enough money at a problem, you can solve a shortage. Doesn't work that way.

I grew up in Ghawar.. and Manifa is in fairly shallow water... it was brought on line in 1957.. I've been out there to fish....

Safaniya, north of Dhahran is also huge.. producing a million pbd.. and it was discovered in 1951.

Most of what you read about Saudi Arabia is wrong... They have NEVER released their reserve figures.. so every insta pundit like Matthew Simons makes predictions... and claims.

Originally Posted by Margot

I grew up in Ghawar.. and Manifa is in fairly shallow water... it was brought on line in 1957.. I've been out there to fish....

Safaniya, north of Dhahran is also huge.. producing a million pbd.. and it was discovered in 1951.

Most of what you read about Saudi Arabia is wrong... They have NEVER released their reserve figures.. so every insta pundit like Matthew Simons makes predictions... and claims.

Still no links to your earlier claim. Coming from a poster who actually tried to say that Iran is "completely untapped," your credibility on this issue needs a rebirth.

I'm aware how private Saudi is with their reserve figures -- a fact that supports my argument far more than it does your own. Thus, you aren't certain what they have either, and seem to be erring on the side of optimism. Unfortunately, without the hard data, we have to go on their past actions as an indicator. And in that realm, Saudi looks even more desperate. They're resorting to water injections for their true supergiants (a clear sign of rapid depletion). They're also shifting greatly to offshore production. If they had "plenty," why resort to the far more expensive sea bed fields? Worst of all, they have admitted they don't have the spare capacity anymore to atone for crisis elsewhere (Libya, Nigeria, etc.). Saudi used to be able to ride to the world's rescue when conflict hampered OPEC production. That's no longer possible, as they've all but said plainly. We don't even need to talk about the unflattering Wikileaks cables that admitted Saudi's reserve figures are inflated, along with most other OPEC nations.

If most of what I read about "Saudi is wrong," then you just sunk your own argument. Most of what I read about Saudi is fully, stock-boosting, nation-protecting tripe that pretends they have decades of capacity at current levels of consumption and a bit higher. They don't.