Chevron Finds Big Oil Field

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Ahem

Postby professorpan » Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:02 pm

Re: peak, no peak, graphs, charts, et al --<br><br>Again -- argue all you want about how much gas is left in the tank of the Hummer, but please, everyone, realize that the vehicle is barrelling at 90 miles-per-hour and is HEADING FOR A FUCKING CLIFF!<br><br>We've already set in motion potentially calamitous environmental changes. It's time to reverse course, regardless of how much black blood is left. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Peaking, dude

Postby Dreams End » Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:32 pm

5E6A, you aren't in the spirit of things at all. Arguing rationally and calmly. gonna give this board a bad reputation, you are.<br><br>All that Farrah stuff was me having a bit of fun. If you search our Byzantine archives, you'll find that this is not the first time we've debated peak oil. If by debate, we mean "flog the horse until the carcass is no longer even visible." So any one liners I have now are simply condensed from all that...but you may not have been around for those. <br><br>Now, as long as you leave Farrah out of it, I'm happy to respond. But if you keep impugning Farrah's honor, I will be forced to meet you on the field of honor. I will drop the gauntlet, sir...<br><br>Let me go wander over to the Hubbert page you mentioned. From memory, I recall a lot of charts, each with different peaks. He even had one that would peak in about a thousand years. <br><br>Oh before I do that...the quote Palast had about being without a drop in fifty years...are you disputing that is in the report? Because it is. Verbatim. I'll check context and page numbers while I'm gone. You can write your apology to Farrah while I'm looking.<br><br>Uh oh...on MY page 32, which appears to be a scanned image of the original what I see is a US map with all the Uranium deposits that can be used to replace the oil. See, this paper wasn't about saving us from Peak, it was about promoting nuclear energy. Or do you suggest Palast was misinterpreting the title:<br><br>Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels. <br><br>Anyway, I'll find that figure 20 or I'll eat my tar sand.<br><br>Okay...I found it! I'm a clever monkey.<br><br>The figure is indeed the classic peak. Here's the paragraph before, which I have to type because it's a pdf and I'm not happy about it, no sir, I'm not.<br><br>First off, the preceding graph was about Peak Coal. I'm not hearing a lot about peak coal, but I digress.<br><br>Here ya go:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>The same treatment for the world production of crude oil is shown in Figure 20. Here the ultimate potential production is taken to be 1250 billion barrels shown in Figure 15. The unit rectangle of the grid represents 250 billion barrels. Consequently, the total area under the curve will contain but five of these rectangles. In figure 20 the curve has been drawn on the assumption that the maximum rate of production will be about two and one-half times the present rate, which places the date of the peak at about the year 2000. As in the case of coal, variations of this assumed maximum rate will advance or retard the date of culmination.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Wiki tells me this:<br><br>Most oil reserves are found in only a few countries, but estimates of their size vary widely<br>Enlarge<br>Most oil reserves are found in only a few countries, but estimates of their size vary widely<br><br>It has been estimated that there was initially a total of 2,050 (Colin Campbell, 2005) to 2,390 gigabarrels (380 km³) of crude oil on Earth, of which, depending upon which estimate you believe, about 45% to 70% has been used so far. According to the 2006 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, from the years 1965-2005 approximately 917,558,609,280 barrels of oil were produced globally.[2]<br><br>You probably like Campbell, so we'll use his number. Hey, that's a bit more than Hubbert's maximum refers to in figure 15. Why it's about a 65% increase. You get that, right. The graph you referred to is based on "ultimate potential production is taken to be 1250 billion barrels ".<br><br>Where did his estimate come from, anyway? Fig. 15 says:<br><br>"Estimated world crude-oil reserves initially present which are producible by present methods (modified after L.G. Weeks.)"<br><br>Either he was flat wrong, or else he was simply not accounting for the extra 750 billion barrels that were not recoverable by current techniques. In fact, I found no graphs whatsoever estimating the rate of increase of production ability based on enhanced technology, such as the story that started this thread indicates. Hey, no graph, no truth eh?<br><br>Okay, so Hubbert based his information on incorrect assumptions and yet miraculously got the exact same curve that is still cited today. That's freaking Nostradamus like. <br><br>Okay, I have to stop for now. But we can't end our discussion of Hubbert's graph without restating his conclusion (I mean the conclusion about fossil fuels before the many pages shilling for nuke power):<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>On the basis of the present estimates of the ultimate reserves of petroleum and natural gas, it appears that the culmination of world production of these products should occur within about half a century, while the culmination for petroleum and natural gas in both the United States and the state of Texas should occur within the next few decades. <br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Does culmination mean "top of a bell curve?" Or does it mean..."culmination."<br><br>Never fear, peakers and ye worshippers of all things Hubbert. The prophet brings not news of gloom. The next paragraph states:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>This does not necessarily imply that the United States or other parts of the industrial world will soon become destitute of liquid and gaseous fuels, because these can be produced from OTHER fossil fuels which occur in greater abundance. But it does pose as a national problem of primary importance, the necessity, both with regard to requirements for domestic purposes and those for national defense, of gradually having to compensate for an increasing disparity between the nation's demands for these fuels and its ability to produce them from naturally occuring accumulations of petroleum and gas.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Even Hubbert, it seems, is not a Peak Oiler of the gloom and doom variety. <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: wordplay is not rigor

Postby 5E6A » Thu Sep 07, 2006 4:29 pm

You are addicted to the vaguely circular logic of avoiding the synthesis are you not?<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>the quote Palast had about being without a drop in fifty years...are you disputing that is in the report? Because it is. Verbatim...<br><br>Uh oh...on MY page 32...<br><br> Quote:<br> The same treatment for the world production of crude oil is shown in Figure 20. Here the ultimate potential production is taken to be 1250 billion barrels shown in Figure 15. The unit rectangle of the grid represents 250 billion barrels. Consequently, the total area under the curve will contain but five of these rectangles. In figure 20 the curve has been drawn on the assumption that the maximum rate of production will be about two and one-half times the present rate, which places the date of the peak at about the year 2000.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Now, fifty years plus 1956 is... 2006<br><br>For the umpteenth time, peak is the point on the production graph where the most number of barrels comes out of the ground in one day ostensibly never to be eclipsed again. This is also the point where approximately 50% of all that is recoverable has been produced. So at the point of peak there is still 50% to produce.<br><br>According to both the text and the graphic, the peak with its attendant 50% yet to exploit, was to occur on or about 2006. That would absolutely refute Palast's statement that the last drop would be had in 2006.<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em> Quote:<br> On the basis of the present estimates of the ultimate reserves of petroleum and natural gas, it appears that the culmination of world production of these products should occur within about half a century, while the culmination for petroleum and natural gas in both the United States and the state of Texas should occur within the next few decades.<br><br>Does culmination mean "top of a bell curve?" Or does it mean..."culmination."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>You can choose to defend foundation-less premise until the cows come home and beyond, it still won't lend it credence. Once again you, like Palast are wont to play with, if not outright misrepresent, meaning. For clarification let us examine the definition and import of 'culmination' and flog a dead horse one more time for the reluctant.<br><br>Culmination is <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/culmination">"the action of culminating"</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>Culminating is <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/culminating">1 to reach its highest altitude; also : to be directly overhead 2 a : to rise to or form a summit b : to reach the highest or a climactic or decisive point</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->.<br><br>Given that culminating and culmination has everything to do with reaching an acme, high point or peak, and nothing to do with final, last, ultimate or end, combined with the explicit graphical representation of a peak occurring just after the 2nd millennium, with the resulting decline in production of the second half of remaining resource, the only honorable, rigorous, sane, rational and appropriate response henceforth is to accept that your presentation of, and adherence to the validity of Palast's conjecture is not correct. The honorable and rational thing to do at this point is to concede that Palast has misrepresented what research he did, and that it bears no verisimilitude. The choice is yours. The facts stand for themselves regardless of your actions to admit to them or not... <p></p><i></i>
5E6A
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: wordplay is not rigor

Postby Bismillah » Thu Sep 07, 2006 5:51 pm

Thanks very much for that, 5E6A. A brilliant and comprehensive rebuttal. <br><br>I'll just add that it sickened me to see Palast producing something so lazy, shoddy and eyewateringly wrong. Like Dave McGowan, he has done some very valuable work. And like him, he sometimes has a really irritating tendency to sabotage himself by adopting this wisecracking, flower-squirting, revolving bow-tie style. It looks really conceited, it's a very poor substitute for substance, and it's not even funny. <p></p><i></i>
Bismillah
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:35 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Peaked, Dude

Postby JD » Thu Sep 07, 2006 5:56 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>This does not necessarily imply that the United States or other parts of the industrial world will soon become destitute of liquid and gaseous fuels, because these can be produced from OTHER fossil fuels which occur in greater abundance. But it does pose as a national problem of primary importance, the necessity, both with regard to requirements for domestic purposes and those for national defense, of gradually having to compensate for an increasing disparity between the nation's demands for these fuels and its ability to produce them from naturally occuring accumulations of petroleum and gas.<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Even Hubbert, it seems, is not a Peak Oiler of the gloom and doom variety.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>Confusion reigns over a complex topic that is sufficiently complex to baffle even many people close to the data (ie petroleum professionals and economists).<br><br>Interesting to use the above quote, as what Hubbert says within it is indeed exactly what is happening.<br><br>Worldwide <!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START--><span style="text-decoration:underline">light oil</span><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END--> production peaked in the range of 2000/01 based statistics published by World Oil.<br><br>"Oil" production has gone up because there is more bitumen, heavy oil, and natural gas liquids included in the "oil" production number.<br><br>These aren't as good as light oil as a fuel source for two reasons. First is it can take a lot of energy to produce them, so the net energy available for consumption is relatively low. in the case of bitumen it can take nearly 2 barrels of energy equivelent to produce a barrel of bitumen. Second the refined products yield is far lower.<br><br>The combined effect is that we will have less net energy for consumption as so much energy is taken up in energy production of products that simply don't yield much gasoline. Oil company people on the production side have missed the importance of the reduction in refined product yield, and oil company people on the refinery side don't in general understand<br><br>The debate shouldn't be over <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>whether</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> a peak of oil production will occur; rather it is <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"approximately how much time do we have (ie 2 years or 20, and what do we do about it?"</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Answer is: conservation, more conservation, and substitution. <br><br><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START--><span style="text-decoration:underline"><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>And I do want to underscore conservation by means that support the existing population base!</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--></span><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END--> <br><br>I can't believe the whackos out there that are dying to use Peak Oil as an excuse for mass genocide. Talk about "making a killing" on the oil markets!<br><br>As per markets and price behaviour offering clues to Hubbert being right or wrong: I'm agnostic. Lots of things move markets. One of them is people fucking with markets; look at Enron and the California power crisis. I don't have issues with current oil markets, but find natural gas markets curious. Things don't go around in the natural gas market.<br><br>Natural gas and Hubbert's peak, and another one of those useless graphs: <br><br>I have in front of me a couple of intruiging graphs (I find some graphs useful actually even if some people don't get them) - sorry don't have them sourced online and can't post:<br><br>#1 - US natural gas production and rig count<br><br>US natural gas production peaked at the end of 2001 at about 53.5 bcf/d. The response of adding working natural gas drilling rigs at rate growing exponentially at about 25% per year is a decline in production down to 49 bcf/d to year end 2005. So increasing effort in terms of drilling, with less output.<br><br>#2 - Canadian Natural Gas Production and Cumulative Well Count<br><br>From 1991 to 1999 production grew steadily with the addition of 2500 wells per year from about 13 bcf/d to about 20 bcf/d. Since then production has been flat. No growth. However, from 1999 to the end of 2003 there was the addition of 8000 wells per year. Then from 2004 to the present the addition of 14000 wells per year.<br><br>Wow. Wells drilled has gone up appoximately 600% to stay flat in a basin which used to grow with about 1/6 the level of current activity.<br><br>I know some people on this site are proud of their ability to think and reason, so here's one to mull over: Despite what anyone thinks about oil companies, if hydrocarbon supplies were infinite/recharging why the hell would oil companies waste money putting more holes in the ground? Instead they'd sit back and keep all the dough which they are spending, right? Or maybe those drilling rigs aren't real and it's all a conspiracy??<br><br>Duhhhh what a stupid argument (peak vs. non-peak). Oil and gas are finite resources and we will hit the wall relying on them as our primary fuel sources. Nothing more to say about that. <br><br>Mental energy is better devoted to conservation, substitution, and new hydrocarbon recovery efforts to keep the cart on the road (in that order).<br><br>With the amazing way we waste precious energy resources conservation is so easy - no mass culling of the population is required. <p></p><i></i>
JD
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Peaked, Dude

Postby Dreams End » Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:01 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>You can choose to defend foundation-less premise until the cows come home and beyond, it still won't lend it credence.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Okay, that was REALLY low. I don't know how you found out my cows ran away, but I don't appreciate you dragging my pets into this forum. First Farrah, and now Bessie. Have you no decency?<br><br>Also, your retort on "culminate" was embarrassing. Made me look stupid. Don't make me look stupid. You wouldn't like me when I'm stupid. In my defense, the first response on dictionary.com gives both of our meanings. Figures:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>1.        to reach the highest point, summit, or highest development (usually fol. by in).<br>2.        to end or arrive at a final stage (usually fol. by in): The argument culminated in a fistfight.<br>3.        to rise to or form an apex; terminate (usually fol. by in): The tower culminates in a tall spire.<br>4.        Astronomy. (of a celestial body) to be on the meridian, or reach the highest or the lowest altitude.<br>–verb (used with object)<br>5.        to bring to a close; complete; climax: A rock song culminates the performance. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Pretty sure we can rule out number four, anyway. I kinda had 2, and 5 in mind, with the "terminate" part of 4, but not the "rising to apex" part. I think, however, it would not be ufair to say that when it speaks of the apex, it typically means that the apex is all she wrote. <br><br>So what's a 70's supermodel to do?<br><br>First, I'm getting confused so maybe we can separate out some issues. The first issue is about whether Hubbert said what you said he said and whether you said that what Palast said Hubbert said was wrong or rather that it was wrong that Palast said what Hubbert said or rather that Palast said what Hubbert said but what Hubbert said was wrong. You can see my confusion.<br><br>So one step at a time.<br><br>Did Hubbert base that peak graph thingy on an estimate of total recoverable reserves of 1.25 gigabarrels?<br><br>If so, then, just speaking of Hubbert now...and his wrongness, not later applications of the theory, how does even Colin "we don't condone genocide, we just publish articles advocating it in our newsletter" Campbell's low estimate of 2 gb affect that particular graph? To me, it looks like you'd have to add more than two and a half more of those square thingies and they won't fit.<br><br>Now, second, what about that 1.25 gb. Can we concede that his estimate of total reserves was way off? Or do we suggest that it simply reflected what was recoverable at the time and not the total? If the latter, then what does the fact that we are still recovering rather fully despite having sucked up 1.25 gb already, suggest about "estimates of known recoverable reserves"? To me, albeit no expert in geology as you guys are, it sounds to me like "estimates of recoverable reserves" are not handed down on stone tablets but might be prone to large amounts of error.<br><br>Okay, so you guys can work on those first two answers. But keep it simple. As someone has exposed, rather tactlessly, I might add, I am addicted to the vaguely circular logic of avoiding the synthesis. Damnit...yes...YES. I'm adicted to circular logic synthesis avoiding. There....I said it. I SAID it. Does that make you happy now?<br><br>Now, where was I...oh yeah. Well, okay, here's something else I have trouble with. I'm trying to get some basic info. I think it would be handy, for example, to get an estimate of CURRENT recoverable reserves. Here's where it gets tricky. The oil companies/DOE have one version, and the US geological survey has another. Hmm...this is science after all...can't be THAT big a difference.<br><br>Let's see, Oil Industry estimates show current proven reserves at around 1 trillion barrels of "proven reserves". USGS gives us the figures of 1.1 trillion for "identified"..not a huge difference but then 2.275 trillion as "recoverable reserves".<br><br>Even if you take away the 400 billion extra barrels the USGS suggest lie in Russia (this can clearly be explained by Soviet infiltration of the USGS, a well known historical fact) that's still a pretty big difference. But then, I'm pretty sure the oil companies and DOE are more reliable than the USGS, given the politics behind everything the USGS does...(you remember the huge protests over the Mt. McKinley altitude measurement adjustment....whew, that was a mess.) Luckily, oil companies do not manipulate data like the USGS. <br><br>Oh, all that anti-peak propaganda came from <br> <br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/2worldoil.mideast.html">here.</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>At the very least, you can see how us average supermodels might not immediately jump to the conclusion that the data is exactly what peakers suggest it is. This is from that same site that had all that info above that was in a chart, not a graph, but I thought was pretty darn good.<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br><br>The "watchdogs" of the press and public interest groups tend to miss the mark on complex scientific issues. They do not have, as Lippmann noted in a letter to Alice Hamilton in 1928, the necessary technical information. They wait, instead, to be supplied. CBS, AFP, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, Mother Jones and many others have been well supplied with proven oil reserve information from the Department of Energy and the oil industry. However, they have not sought -- nor apparently have they received -- any additional information.<br><br>A recent search of the Lexis-Nexis database has failed to turn up a single instance of oil reserve estimates being questioned by journalists. Most of the time, not even the qualifying term "proven" is added to the description of the massive reserves of the Middle East. If it comes as a surprise that we have based our policy discussions on a fallacy, it is, perhaps, nothing more than a reflection on the myopic tendencies of pack journalism.<br><br><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/4chorus.html">link</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>What's interesting about that site is that it has nothing to do with peak oil. Instead it is attempting to rebut the idea that the Middle East has 2/3 of the world's oil reserves, a fact parroted endlessly by the media. Not saying that this is done to JUSTIFY wars for those who don't mind sending our hummers to protect THEIR hummers...but, you know, sometimes that sort of thing does happen.<br><br>His conclusion:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>As we have seen, there is far more oil in the rest of the world than there is in Middle East. If the Veneuelans are right, there is enough oil in Venezuela alone to power the world for 44 years (at 27.3 billion barrels of world consuption per year). Similar or greater reserves exist in the Athabasca tar sands and other unconventional reserves that push actual world reserve life well out into the 22nd century. These are not as cheap as Middle Eastern reserves, but they are not prohibitively expensive either. True, not all of the unconventional oil can be recovered. Estimates range from 15 percent upwards. And there may be a number of these unconventional oil fields in other nations that have not been publicly characterized. For example,Russia and Madagascar may also have heavy oil fields.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Venezuela? Hey weren't we just trying to overthrow.....<br><br>Well, anyway. Obviously, I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. I have a photo shoot tomorrow (I still got it, you know), a CRSA-anon meeting to attend and I'm still worried to death about my cows. <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: Chevron Finds Big Oil Field

Postby Dreams End » Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:04 pm

So a rabbi and a priest walk into a bar. The rabbi says, "Hey, have you heard about that peak oil thing?" And the priest responds:<br><br>Timeline<br><br> • 1857 -- Romania produces 2,000 barrels of oil, marking the beginning of the modern oil industry.<br><br> • 1859, Aug. 25 -- Edwin L. Drake strikes oil in Titusville, Pennsylvania<br><br> • 1862 -- First commercial oil production in Canada, also 1863 in Russia.<br><br> • 1862 -- Most widely used lamp fuel (camphene) taxed in US at aprox. $1 a gallon; kerosene taxed at 10 cent per gallon. (Kovarik, 1997)<br><br> • 1863 -- John D. Rockefeller starts the Excelsior Refinery in Cleveland, Ohio.<br><br> • 1879 -- US Geological Survey formed in part because of fear of oil shortages.<br><br> • 1882 -- Institute of Mining Engineers estimates 95 million barrels of oil remain. With 25 milliion barrels per year output, "Some day the cheque will come back indorsed no funds, and we are approaching that day very fast," Samuel Wrigley says. (Pratt, p. 124).<br><br> • 1901 -- Spindletop gusher in Texas floods US oil market.<br><br> • 1906 -- Fears of an oil shortage are confirmed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Representatives of the Detroit Board of Commerce attended hearings in Washington and told a Senate hearing that car manufacturers worried "not so much [about] cost as ... supply."<br><br> • 1919, Scientific American notes that the auto industry could no longer ignore the fact that only 20 years worth of U.S. oil was left. "The burden falls upon the engine. It must adapt itself to less volatile fuel, and it must be made to burn the fuel with less waste.... Automotive engineers must turn their thoughts away from questions of speed and weight... and comfort and endurance, to avert what ... will turn out to be a calamity, seriously disorganizing an indispensable system of transportation."<br><br> • 1920 -- David White, chief geologist of USGS, estimates total oil remaining in the US at 6.7 billion barrels. "In making this estimate, which included both proved reserves and resources still remaining to be discovered, White conceded that it might well be in error by as much as 25 percent." (Pratt, p. 125. Emphasis added).<br><br> • 1925 -- US Commerce Dept. says that while U.S. oil production doubled between 1914 and 1921, it did not kept pace with fuel demand as the number of cars increased.<br><br> • 1928 -- US analyst Ludwell Denny in his book "We Fight for Oil" noted the domestic oil shortage and says international diplomacy had failed to secure any reliable foreign sources of oil for the United States. Fear of oil shortages would become the most important factor in international relations, even so great as to force the U.S. into war with Great Britain to secure access to oil in the Persian Gulf region, Denny said.<br><br> • 1926 -- Federal Oil Conservation Board estimates 4.5 billion barrels remain.<br><br> • 1930 -- Some 25 million American cars are on the road, up from 3 million in 1918.<br><br> • 1932 -- Federal Oil Conservation Board estimates 10 billion barrels of oil remain.<br><br> • 1944 -- Petroleum Administrator for War estimates 20 billion barrelsof oil remain.<br><br> • 1950 -- American Petroleum Institute says world oil reserves are at 100 billion barrels. (See Jean Laherre, Forecast of oil and gas supply)<br><br> • 1956 -- M.King Hubbard predicts peak in US oil production by 1970.<br><br> • 1966 - 1977 -- 19 billion barrels added to US reserves, most of which was from fields discovered before 1966. (As M.A. Adelman notes: "These fields were no gift of nature. They were a growth of knowledge, paid for by heavy investment.")<br><br> • 1973 -- Oil price spike; supply restrictions due to Midde Eastern politics.<br><br> • 1978 -- Petroleos de Venezuela announces estimated unconventional oil reserve figure for Orinoco heavy oil belt at between three and four trillion barrels. (More recent public estimates are in the one trillion range).<br><br> • 1979 -- Oil price spike; supply restrictions due to Midde Eastern politics.<br><br> • 1980 -- Remaining proven oil reserves put at 648 billion barrels<br><br> • 1993 -- Remaining proven oil reserves put at 999 billion barrels<br><br> • 2000 -- Remaining proven oil reserves put at 1016 billion barrels.<br><br> • 2005 -- Oil price spike; supply restrictions and heavy new demand<br><br>I love that one. Gets me every time.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: Chevron Finds Big Oil Field

Postby Dreams End » Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:35 pm

I found a graph!!! ALL BY MYSELF!!!<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.trendlines.ca/TrendlinesScenarios1996-2005PeakOilbyASPOColinCampbell.gif" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: Chevron Finds Big Oil Field

Postby Dreams End » Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:45 pm

Oh you will LOVE <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.trendlines.ca/economic.htm">this site.</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> Not only are they pro-peak...they have soooo many graphs.<br><br>However, they do have a bit to say about those who misinterpret peak for various gloom and doom scenarios:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>A Commentary on Peak Oil<br><br>There's been alotta talk in the media about Peak Oil, with insinuations that the recent $70/barrel prices were indicative of long term supply concerns. On the contrary, extraction of "all liquid oils" hit a global production record of 84.7-mbd in December 2005. It is hoped that our Depletion Scenarios assist in putting the Peak Oil issue in perspective. As shown in our graphs above, present levels of crude extraction are forecast for some time albeit at reduced volumes post peak, but there will be lotsa oil availability well into the next century. The models estimate an average 1.989 Trillion barrels of oil is economically recoverable. And much of the price spiking in 2005 was based on "a fear of shortages" rather than any bona fide problems. It is more likely that there is presently a shortage of refining capacity in the supply chain. <br><br>There are a ton of gloomster sites out there that take glee in spreading misinformation about "what" will happen "when". Take care when visiting them that selling books and lucrative speaking engagements may have some part in their fear merchantry. My acid test in determining extravagant claims is the search for time lines. If noticeably absent, ask these pundits when noteworthy events are to occur. Reluctance to commit to a time line allows the fraudulent to avoid challenge, application of due diligence and media scrutiny. <br><br>In quite an ironic way, it was the studies of Colin Campbell of Ireland and Jean Laherrère of France that illustrated decades of future crude production that we in turn used to dispel wrongful conclusions. At the time we did not realize that this same work was being promoted by the Peaksters to illustrate that "the end is nigh". And it was likely this growing notoriety that caused Campbell's first brush with controversy.<br><br>Colin Campbell has been forecasting the Peak of Oil extraction for very many years. He was most vehement that Y2K would finally be his correct one. He was master of his own undoing by his prolonged denial that his longtime Y2K Production Peak was being challenged (by the facts). Throughout 2001 to 2003, Campbell stalwartly ignored Supply data from a myriad of sources and steadfastly held to his conviction that the 64-mbd barrier had not been breached. Each Newsletter carried the same hopeless graph and tables. Finally in March 2004 he admitted publicly that this threshold had been well tested and he must indeed push the Peak forward in time and increase the extraction targets. Conventional Peak Oil is moved to 2003 from Y2k & All Liquids Peak Oil is pushed to 2012 from 2010.<br><br>The Achilles heel was his failure to accept the magnitude of growing Russian production and the newfound non-conventional sources. In his original work, Colin had been tracking conventional crude. He wanted that his precise documentation of past and future production would finally validate Hubbert's 1975 prediction of a global peak of oil in Y2k. In Nov/2001 he professed: "Russian production forecasts are a myth. So, barring large scale discovery or development of a secret cache of finds, this output surge will last for two or maybe three years before being overwhelmed by expanding local demand and the return the decline curve." Well, Russia went on to actually surpass Saudi Arabia in annual production. And worse, the new "all liquids" definition (which now encompassed heavy, polar, deep water, gas liquids and processing gains) attained quite substantial and unforeseen volumes due to those components.<br><br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Much more by following the link. So many graphs, so little time.... <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: Chevron Finds Big Oil Field

Postby Dreams End » Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:35 am

Brief time out...my writing style is...well, it's what it is. I don't agree with you, 5E6A (say hello to cousin Seven of Nine for me, by the way) but your big "rebuttal" was very well written and heartfelt.<br><br>The fact that you include other sorts of peaks..water, etc, and the need for deconsumption suggests to me that you are buying into an idea with a pretty checkered past. It doesn't ultimately matter what resource runs out...it's the idea that the only way out is deindustrialization and (not your words but very prevalent) depopulation. This is the subtext that I oppose so adamently. I'm really not a big fan of oil. And I'm certainly not a fan of oil companies. <br><br>I have to close now. Farrah says the light from my laptop is bothering her. Oh...and Bessie made it back...bless her. She was in the neighbor's garage. And...I went ALL the rest of the day without avoiding synthesis. I'd have to say this was a pretty good day. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: Chevron Finds Big Oil Field

Postby chiggerbit » Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:56 am

OMG, et, that was an oil and gas lease of my property for a short period of time back in the 60's. <br><br>"Recites:lease, for the purpose of investigation, exploring,mining and operatingfor and producing oil liquid hydrocarbons. all gases, etc....the following described land...." The lease was later released, so I assume it was a bust.<br><br>Kind of creepy, though. I started googling on property rights, because I know that land rights don't usually include mineral and gas rights under the land. Ack! It almost looks like the ones with mineral or gas rights can come set up operation on your property. Surely that can't be right. Looks like this is a hot topic out West. <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Petroleum Leases

Postby JD » Fri Sep 08, 2006 11:59 am

This is a complex topic which is a petroleum speciality of its own.<br><br>Surface rights and mineral rights are frequently split. Not always though.<br><br>If someone owns the mineral rights, by common law they are "entitled" to obtain a surface lease from which to access their mineral rights. They are also entitled to sublet the rights in the form of a lease to a 3rd party. The origin of the law and precedents surrounding this go way back to the time of feudal England.<br><br>If this concerns you, track down who currently owns the mineral rights. You might be able to purchase the rights for a nominal value if the owner thinks there isn't much prospectivity to the lands. Unfortunately, if the owner thinks otherwise the mineral lease may be worth many times the surface rights. <p></p><i></i>
JD
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: further around the mulberry bush

Postby 5E6A » Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:08 pm

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Also, your retort on "culminate" was embarrassing. Made me look stupid. Don't make me look stupid. You wouldn't like me when I'm stupid. In my defense, the first response on dictionary.com gives both of our meanings. Figures:<br><br> Quote:1. to reach the highest point, summit, or highest development (usually fol. by in).</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br> <br>I do not see how high point, summit, or highest development can remotely be construed as a finality. It in every way only denotes an crest at which a decline is to follow. If decline is to follow, there is more, albeit at a declining rate, to be had. Therefore, your need for, and instance of, finality is neither met nor defensible.<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Did Hubbert base that peak graph thingy on an estimate of total recoverable reserves of 1.25 gigabarrels?<br><br>If so, then, just speaking of Hubbert now...and his wrongness, not later applications of the theory, how does even Colin "we don't condone genocide, we just publish articles advocating it in our newsletter" Campbell's low estimate of 2 gb affect that particular graph? To me, it looks like you'd have to add more than two and a half more of those square thingies and they won't fit.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Depletion is a <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/9/13/162534/953">function of production and URR.</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> Had we not consumed at an exponential rate of growth with respect to the two divergent estimates, you would be correct in assuming that the larger reserve would not fit under the curve. Had we not consumed at an exponential rate the curve would have looked different in it would have shown a peak much later in date and the up curve and decline would have been much flatter in rate. However, we did. In the next decade we will, if able, consume as much oil in those ten years then was produced in all the previous years to date. This is exponential. This is why his curve analysis still works. Had we not been unremitting pigs, oil would not be in jeopardy of declining. But we have been, so we must bear the responsibility of our actions.<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>To me, albeit no expert in geology as you guys are, it sounds to me like "estimates of recoverable reserves" are not handed down on stone tablets but might be prone to large amounts of error.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>I believe I already said as much previously. So much for retention. Here it is again, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9009529&contentId=7017933">"URR (Ultimately recoverable resource), ...is "an estimate of the total amount of oil that will ever be recovered and produced. It is a subjective estimate in the face of only partial information."</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--></em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Now, where was I...oh yeah. Well, okay, here's something else I have trouble with. I'm trying to get some basic info. I think it would be handy, for example, to get an estimate of CURRENT recoverable reserves. Here's where it gets tricky. The oil companies/DOE have one version, and the US geological survey has another. Hmm...this is science after all...can't be THAT big a difference.<br><br>Let's see, Oil Industry estimates show current proven reserves at around 1 trillion barrels of "proven reserves". USGS gives us the figures of 1.1 trillion for "identified"..not a huge difference but then 2.275 trillion as "recoverable reserves".</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>When any entity estimates, they use statistical analysis. If you are so inclined, you can usually find, although it may take going to a rather large library and delving into non-internet available publications and media, the methodology and data behind the estimates. I have done this with the DOE, which get their figure from the USGS. I would advise anyone to be very careful of using DOE predictions. Here is why. In statistics there are measures of confidence. Roughly translated it is a probability one can assign that the outcomes your research findings to can be expected to reflect real world occurrences. Peer reviewed literature generally holds research to a 95% confidence measure. Meaning if you cannot prove through statistics that your findings have a 95% chance of being reflected in the real world, they don't even consider your paper for review to make sure you did not fudge data or the analysis. Other levels are calculated. The DOE does a 50% and 5%. Here is where the caution comes in. <br><br>Almost without exception, the DOE, with respect to publishing estimates on the date of Peak Oil, which they have addressed in the past four years, and URR uses not the 95% number, but the 50% and 5% number. The 2 trillion estimate caries a measure of confidence of 50%. When the DOE estimates PO as occurring in the late 2030's, they are using the 5% finding for URR. This is not acceptable to the research process as I understand it. Those findings do not have the statistical probability to be rigorous in the realm of scientific research. But they make good copy. And where the agendists are concerned, copy is everything.<br><br>A final note. After I ascertained that the DOE was bandying about lesser confidence measures I did an additional data check. I found the original data tables for the 95% number and did my own arithmetic with respect to URR. My addition of the original data set, triple checked, was a full 300 billion barrels short of their total, that's ten years of global consumption at present rates. This would result in disqualification for publication in any peer reviewed situation. Making mistakes in adding up data for totals is not allowed. It throws not only your conclusions into doubt, but your methodologies and analysis as well. These factors all add up to a giant red flag with respect to how reliable any estimate is coming from the USGS/DOE.<br><br>And now for something completely different. (with all this having to rehash what was abundantly clear to begin with, is it any wonder I feel like I am in the argument sketch from MPFC?)<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>The fact that you include other sorts of peaks..water, etc, and the need for deconsumption suggests to me that you are buying into an idea with a pretty checkered past. It doesn't ultimately matter what resource runs out...it's the idea that the only way out is deindustrialization and (not your words but very prevalent) depopulation. This is the subtext that I oppose so adamently. I'm really not a big fan of oil. And I'm certainly not a fan of oil companies.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>I have a feeling that previous encounters with presentations of PO have left you with more than just an abiding bias. My research to date has not just been limited to the nature and veracity of finite oil and how long it will last. It has delved into the pervasive nature in which oil has been applied to create the industrial lifestyle we presently revel in. It has also sussed out the potential for alternative forms to shore up the gap. The potential is not present. The feed-stock nature of oil is not provided for through the application of nuclear, solar, wind, water or bio sources of energy. This means that the building blocks of our society, plastic, rubber etc. are of dubious longevity in the post peak arena. Further, the potential for application of all to cover just the burning of petroleum products is also at a deficit. Once you are left with a potential deficit even in the face of radical exploitation of the alternatives only one thing remains, a re-assement of how much we each can consume. Finally, there is a great cause for concern in that the alternatives themselves are reliant upon petroleum inputs to implement. How do you make an alternative reliant upon petroleum when that item is scarce? This is why I say that ultimately, beyond our lifetimes, sustainable society may look much more like pre than post industrial. The way in which oil shaped the industrial revolution to post is enormous. Absent that input, things are apt to look much different.<br><br>Consumption is a measure of many things. It ranges from widgets to food, transportation to climate control, size of dwelling to makeup of the actual structure. There is every reason to believe that non-petroleum input agriculture can produce as much food as the form of petroleum reliant agribusiness that feeds the world currently does. It will require, however that people adjust the manner in which they get their food. Predominately, it will require many more farmers. It will also require that people be satisfied with the range of foodstuffs that can be grown and stored locallly. For a good insight as to how locally produced agriculture is the way through our current conundrum, get a copy of The Omnivores Dilemma by Michael Pollan from your local library. The section on polyface farm / grass farming is particularly enlightening and uplifting. The proprietor of polyface farm cultivates a hundred or so acres with a dozen employees, raises a range of organic meats from beef to foul and rabbit. He also gets more product out of his farm then conventional methods.<br><br>To put words in my mouth is reprehensible. Neither my overt text nor the subtext ever approached even contemplating a reduction in population. I will admit to having my doubts that we can continue to freely increase our population without complications. However, I have not undertaken anywhere near a comprehensive inquiry to the extent to which our host is able to support a number of humans upon its face. That is why I would never even contemplate a reduction in population. That you would go to the length it took to put those words in my mouth also calls into question how willing you are to discuss the realities that face us. It seems that for every refutation I present, you find another way to restate the fallacy, and now are looking for even more fallacious reasons to doubt the finiteness of resources. This is not in the spirit of debate. Remain on track, and find relevant aspects to discuss, distraction and obfuscation are neither honorable nor rigorous. <p></p><i></i>
5E6A
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: further around the mulberry bush

Postby Dreams End » Fri Sep 08, 2006 4:11 pm

5 -- now I'm focused on another thread for the moment...but no...I did not mean to imply you were a "depopulation" person. Peak Oil, as well as "peak food" before that, has been used by many to advocate this position. Interestingly, it seems there are some inclined to look for peak anything.<br><br>I'll look more closely at your post a bit later. <br><br>But when I stated "(not your words)", it should have been better expressed as " not saying this is your position." That is truly what I meant. I am deeply, deeply suspicious of many putting forward this stuff, but I was not talking about you there, and hopefully the little note to you earlier made that clear.<br><br>Now...what about the criticisms from WITHIN peak of the "peak gloomers"? I gave an example, but there are more.<br> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: Chevron Finds Big Oil Field

Postby Et in Arcadia ego » Fri Sep 08, 2006 11:49 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Would it require waiting until the last drop for a Peak Oil crisis to ensue?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I won't compete with the aggressive posting in this thread(it's aggressive for good reason, no offense to either side), but my own, very brief understanding is no, you need not wait for the last drop, the knee-jerk reaction on Wall Street to a <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>formal</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> Peak Oil announcement would instigate the begining of the next Great Depression. Other information I have come across indicate that once Oil crosses the $100 per barrel ratio, it will be an unsustainable cost to the country's infrastructure and we'll see a crash start that way, as in the trucking industry will not be able to afford to deliver goods, etc.<br><br>This is why I rarely enter the fray of whether Peak Oil is real or not, and for some reason that's eluded a lot of people, here no less than anywhere else. The <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>real</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> point is(to me, at least), peak or synthesized peak, the <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>EFFECT</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> of the Industry embracing it will be the same regardless, and I wish to God more people would pay attention to that instead of letting threads like this one siphon off their mental stock, cause that to me is all they are good for.<br><br><br> <p>____________________<br>Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.</p><i></i>
User avatar
Et in Arcadia ego
 
Posts: 4104
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:06 pm
Location: The Void
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest