Oil discoveries dispel "Peak Oil" as myth

[Mr. H.]

Here's a story about a company that's entered into an agreement to build 4 (count 'em, four) drillships at $600 million a pop. They've collected a non-refundable deposit of $100 million. They are to compliment the drillships already under construction. Regardless of the Peak Oil debate, somebody out there think's more oil is waiting to be found.

The ultra deepwater market has turned a corner and we believe this is the bottom of the newbuilding price cycle. We see strong demand for state of the art ultra deepwater drillships and are confident of customer demand for these drillships.

RIGZONE - Dryships Seeks 4 New Ultra-Deepwater Drillships for $2.4B

 

[Samson]

Here's a story about a company that's entered into an agreement to build 4 (count 'em, four) drillships at $600 million a pop. They've collected a non-refundable deposit of $100 million. They are to compliment the drillships already under construction. Regardless of the Peak Oil debate, somebody out there think's more oil is waiting to be found.

The ultra deepwater market has turned a corner and we believe this is the bottom of the newbuilding price cycle. We see strong demand for state of the art ultra deepwater drillships and are confident of customer demand for these drillships.

RIGZONE - Dryships Seeks 4 New Ultra-Deepwater Drillships for $2.4B

It must be part of the VAST BIG OIL CONSPIRACY to make us believe that fossil fuels will last forever.

 

[editec]

Now Occidental ( OXY - news - people ) is breaking ranks in another way, by upsetting the commonplace view that the days of "easy oil" in the U.S. are over. Last year Oxy announced a new find outside Bakersfield, in Kern County, Calif., which is shaping up to be the biggest onshore oil discovery the U.S. has seen in three decades. It likely holds more than 1 billion barrels of oil (and natural gas equivalents) that will be easy and cheap to extract

Wow, sound like a lot, doesn't it?

That 1 billion barrels is about 14 DAYS worth of oil at the world's current consumption



math?

1,000 million/70 million = 14.2857 days worth of oil.

So?

That's means peak oil is at best two weeks later than it was before this stike.

 

[Mr. H.]

An extra 2 weeks huh? Maybe I'll take that Hawaiian vacation that I've been putting off.

 

[Big Fitz]

1. We live in a finite universe. Nothing can change that.
2. Oil is a finite resource. It will run out.
3. We do not know accurately how much oil we do have in the world.
4. Technology creates new ways to supply our energy needs
5. We have always found technological solutions faster than we have run out of energy.

 

[Samson]

It likely holds more than 1 billion barrels of oil

iow a 50 day supply for the US and enough to satisfy current global demand for 12.5 days.



underwhelming.

shaping up to be the biggest onshore oil discovery the U.S. has seen in three decades

even more underwhelming that the biggest onshore find in decades is only enough to last 50 days..... or less than 1/2 of 1% of what we require to sustain our energy profile.

The point of the article was not to report on an oil find that could sustain worldwide oil demand for the next 200 years.

The point is that there are still quite viable sources of oil inside the USA, even within fields that have been "depleted."

This is not to say that fossil fuel is a inexaustable resource, but it does bring into question the doomsday predictions of "Peak Oil" conspiracy theorists that believe that some absurd extrapolation of a "exponential" model of oil consumption must describe an apocolyptical societial future.

 

[mdn2000]

The Peak oil myth is nothing more than fear-mongering, oil deposits produce oil for decades, not days. If you are to believe the PeakOilPhobes, why are we still producing oil, a ten day supply should of ran out, lets say, at least ten days ago.

 

[loosecannon]

It likely holds more than 1 billion barrels of oil

iow a 50 day supply for the US and enough to satisfy current global demand for 12.5 days.



underwhelming.

shaping up to be the biggest onshore oil discovery the U.S. has seen in three decades

even more underwhelming that the biggest onshore find in decades is only enough to last 50 days..... or less than 1/2 of 1% of what we require to sustain our energy profile.

The point of the article was not to report on an oil find that could sustain worldwide oil demand for the next 200 years.

The point is that there are still quite viable sources of oil inside the USA, even within fields that have been "depleted."

This is not to say that fossil fuel is a inexaustable resource, but it does bring into question the doomsday predictions of "Peak Oil" conspiracy theorists that believe that some absurd extrapolation of a "exponential" model of oil consumption must describe an apocolyptical societial future.

Samson, there is almost always recoverable oil within wells that have been closed and capped, or taken offline.

It's a cost vs benefits calculation made according to current prices.

A well is no longer sufficiently productive at 1972 prices so it gets capped in 1972. It isn't worth the costs to open it in 1990 at 1990 oil prices so it gets taken offline. Then in 2008 oil jumps to $147/bbl and it IS cost effe3ctive to run that well again, unfortunately the infrastructure that supports it needs modernization so it is prohibitively expensive to do so.

That oil remains in the ground forever, or until the price of oil reaches a premium so high as to justify full costs of developing the field from scratch.

Our oil extraction process is driven by ROI, not by maximum resource extraction. That causes us to strand a lot of oil in the ground never to be recovered.

 

[loosecannon]

extrapolation of a "exponential" model of oil consumption must describe an apocolyptical societial future.

Well so far only YOU have mentioned anything like an "apocolyptical societial future".

Funny how you project your own wild eyed fantasies onto folks who don't live in your scary movie.

 

[Samson]

extrapolation of a "exponential" model of oil consumption must describe an apocolyptical societial future.

Well so far only YOU have mentioned anything like an "apocolyptical societial future".

Funny how you project your own wild eyed fantasies onto folks who don't live in your scary movie.

Funny how you have such weak reading comprehension skills:

Although I'm not accustomed to spoon-feeding, let me introduce you to Jiggs. Don't be alarmed, I assure you the straight-jacket he is wearing won't allow him to do us any violence:

The supply decline will be slow, while the economic ramifications will magnify.

The only thing sudden would be the ramifications of war (trade war, or military war) in advance of global financial panic, the risk of which grows with every passing month.

Although Jiggs tends to contradict himself; e.g. "supply decline will be slow," yet there is a peak, I'm astonished you could miss his obvious, paranoia-induced hallucinations.

If the "supply decline will be slow," then what will cause these "ramifications of war and "global financial panic?"

 

[Samson]

Samson, there is almost always recoverable oil within wells that have been closed and capped, or taken offline.

Yes, and, your point is, I suppose, that this oil doesn't "count" as it doesn't support the "Peak Oil" theory that's been bantered about for the past 90 years, but never materializes because, strangely, all the oil that didn't "count" yesterday suddenly continues to sustain the demand for oil.

In the OP they discover new deposites of oil, but it doesn't count, because...........?

Oh yes, it's size MAY be small, (or large, but let's discount that possiblity: It wouldn't support the theory).

 

[loosecannon]

extrapolation of a "exponential" model of oil consumption must describe an apocolyptical societial future.

Well so far only YOU have mentioned anything like an "apocolyptical societial future".

Funny how you project your own wild eyed fantasies onto folks who don't live in your scary movie.

Funny how you have such weak reading comprehension skills:

Although I'm not accustomed to spoon-feeding, let me introduce you to Jiggs. Don't be alarmed, I assure you the straight-jacket he is wearing won't allow him to do us any violence:

The supply decline will be slow, while the economic ramifications will magnify.

The only thing sudden would be the ramifications of war (trade war, or military war) in advance of global financial panic, the risk of which grows with every passing month.

Although Jiggs tends to contradict himself; e.g. "supply decline will be slow," yet there is a peak, I'm astonished you could miss his obvious, paranoia-induced hallucinations.

If the "supply decline will be slow," then what will cause these "ramifications of war and "global financial panic?"

apparently you are too dense to realize that I am not Jiggs. And even the quote you posted came nowhere near the "apocolyptical societial future" you claimed.

You must have a reading comprehension disorder.

 

[loosecannon]

Samson, there is almost always recoverable oil within wells that have been closed and capped, or taken offline.

Yes, and, your point is, I suppose, that this oil doesn't "count" as it doesn't support the "Peak Oil" theory that's been bantered about for the past 90 years, but never materializes because, strangely, all the oil that didn't "count" yesterday suddenly continues to sustain the demand for oil.

In the OP they discover new deposites of oil, but it doesn't count, because...........?

Oh yes, it's size MAY be small, (or large, but let's discount that possiblity: It wouldn't support the theory).

more gibberish, but to clarify for the braincloudy: my point is that a new discovery of recoverable oil in an old field is only unique in that it is actually valuable enough to warrant the cost of recovery.

EVERY capped well has recoverable oil in it. But almost none will ever be economically viable as new projects.

But more importantly my point is that since we have an oil recovery policy dictated by ROI rather than maximum extraction we are leaving a shit load of oil in the ground on purpose and it will never be economically feasible to start from scratch to recover it.

Just like it will be 1000 years before it becomes economically feasible to mine our landfills for copper, aluminum and other valuables that we threw out as trash before recycling became vogue.

 

[Mr. H.]

Not to stray off topic here but when you specifically focus in on a single discovery or an individual well, you tend to lose sight of the collective contribution.

Why would a farmer bother with 80 acres of ground when the yield is microscopic compared to the total output of the U.S., or global output for that matter? Oh yeah- it's renewable and sustainable, but we'd all be fine without it. It wouldn't be missed.

But that guy (or gal) farming those 80 acres has probably put a half dozen kids through college, bought as many vehicles in his lifetime, paid taxes, taken vacations, repaired his house, etc. etc. thereby contributing to the economy.

The same is true of the people that drill for and find 85% of the oil and gas in this country- independent business owners. And there are some very small companies out there:

One out of every six barrels of crude oil produced in the United States comes from a marginal well - a well whose production has slowed to 10 barrels a day or less. Over 85 percent of the total number of U.S. oil wells are now classified as marginal wells. There are over 396,500 of these wells in the United States, and together they produce over 797,400 barrels of oil per day, or nearly 10 percent of lower-48 states production. Stripper wells are more common in older oil and gas producing regions, most notably in Appalachia, Texas and Oklahoma.

That's an average of 2 barrels per day. Somebody want to do the math on this one? Individually, these wells don't appear to matter for shit. Collectively, they represent a significant contribution to our domestic production and have an impressive impact on the economy- employing hundreds of thousands and adding billions to the GDP.

So it's beyond me why anyone would dismiss a well making 2 barrels per day, let alone a discovery that potentially contains tens of millions of barrels. Peak oil or not- business goes on and thank goodness it does because oil and gas are the most precious of commodities yet the least understood or appreciated, and the individuals that risk fortunes and lives to find 2 barrels or tens of millions of barrels are goddamn forgotten underapprecated heros in our society.

 

[Samson]

extrapolation of a "exponential" model of oil consumption must describe an apocolyptical societial future.

Well so far only YOU have mentioned anything like an "apocolyptical societial future".

Funny how you project your own wild eyed fantasies onto folks who don't live in your scary movie.

Well so far only YOU have mentioned anything like an "apocolyptical societial future".

Funny how you project your own wild eyed fantasies onto folks who don't live in your scary movie.

Funny how you have such weak reading comprehension skills:

Although I'm not accustomed to spoon-feeding, let me introduce you to Jiggs. Don't be alarmed, I assure you the straight-jacket he is wearing won't allow him to do us any violence:

The supply decline will be slow, while the economic ramifications will magnify.

The only thing sudden would be the ramifications of war (trade war, or military war) in advance of global financial panic, the risk of which grows with every passing month.

Although Jiggs tends to contradict himself; e.g. "supply decline will be slow," yet there is a peak, I'm astonished you could miss his obvious, paranoia-induced hallucinations.

If the "supply decline will be slow," then what will cause these "ramifications of war and "global financial panic?"

apparently you are too dense to realize that I am not Jiggs. And even the quote you posted came nowhere near the "apocolyptical societial future" you claimed.

You must have a reading comprehension disorder.

Correct, you are not Jiggs, but Jiggs is another confused believer in "Peak Oil."

I'm not projecting anything: He is his own example of ludicrousness. However, at least he was able to try, in his own incoherent, contradictory way, to explain the theory of "Peak Oil."

Unhappily, your role seems to be more of a parrot. Lets see if you can think outside the box: If my description of Peak Oil's apocolyptical societal future doesn't reflect Jiggs "ramifications of war and global financial panic," then what does?

 

[loosecannon]

I spose it is just that 2 bbls/day is 1 ten millionth of our needs. 1/10,000,000.

 

[loosecannon]

extrapolation of a "exponential" model of oil consumption must describe an apocolyptical societial future.

Well so far only YOU have mentioned anything like an "apocolyptical societial future".

Funny how you project your own wild eyed fantasies onto folks who don't live in your scary movie.

Funny how you have such weak reading comprehension skills:

Although I'm not accustomed to spoon-feeding, let me introduce you to Jiggs. Don't be alarmed, I assure you the straight-jacket he is wearing won't allow him to do us any violence:




Although Jiggs tends to contradict himself; e.g. "supply decline will be slow," yet there is a peak, I'm astonished you could miss his obvious, paranoia-induced hallucinations.

If the "supply decline will be slow," then what will cause these "ramifications of war and "global financial panic?"

apparently you are too dense to realize that I am not Jiggs. And even the quote you posted came nowhere near the "apocolyptical societial future" you claimed.

You must have a reading comprehension disorder.

Correct, you are not Jiggs, but Jiggs is another confused believer in "Peak Oil."

I'm not projecting anything: He is his own example of ludicrousness. However, at least he was able to try, in his own incoherent, contradictory way, to explain the theory of "Peak Oil."

Unhappily, your role seems to be more of a parrot. Lets see if you can think outside the box: If my description of Peak Oil's apocolyptical societal future doesn't reflect Jiggs "ramifications of war and global financial panic," then what does?

who gives a shit what your description of Jiggs commentary means?

I am not he and you are not quoting him. You are just posting garbage in place of his actual text.

And I am not parroting him or anybody else.

You seem to be: lame, projecting, misquoting, assuming and flat out lying.

Do you have a point or a clue?

 

[Samson]

Unhappily, your role seems to be more of a parrot. Lets see if you can think outside the box: If my description of Peak Oil's apocolyptical societal future doesn't reflect Jiggs "ramifications of war and global financial panic," then what does?

who gives a shit what your description of Jiggs commentary means?

I am not he and you are not quoting him. You are just posting garbage in place of his actual text.

And I am not parroting him or anybody else.

You seem to be: lame, projecting, misquoting, assuming and flat out lying.

Do you have a point or a clue?

Yes: That in all your blitherings, you have not been able to describe the result of the "Peak Oil" theory that you seem to have embrased because of some vague notion of "exponential" functions.

But, I'll ask a second time (since your reading skills have once again failed you) before I allow someone else to spoon-feed what I can only assume is the result of a mental handicap:

If my description of Peak Oil's apocolyptical societal future doesn't reflect Jiggs "ramifications of war and global financial panic," then what does?

 

[JiggsCasey]

1. We live in a finite universe. Nothing can change that.
2. Oil is a finite resource. It will run out.
3. We do not know accurately how much oil we do have in the world.
4. Technology creates new ways to supply our energy needs
5. We have always found technological solutions faster than we have run out of energy.

6. "Hope" is not a domestic energy policy.

We can not act on assumption. Nothing is remotely ready to replace what light crude provides complex societies.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Yes: That in all your blitherings, you have not been able to describe the result of the "Peak Oil" theory that you seem to have embrased because of some vague notion of "exponential" functions.

But, I'll ask a second time (since your reading skills have once again failed you) before I allow someone else to spoon-feed what I can only assume is the result of a mental handicap:

If my description of Peak Oil's apocolyptical societal future doesn't reflect Jiggs "ramifications of war and global financial panic," then what does?

You're moving the goalposts again, Dick. What you initially said was that I somehow asserted there would be a dramatic and catastrophic drop in supply. That's what I took issue with, because I never said that. Now you're changing it to suit your smarmy premise.

Supply drop will be gradual. Financial panic in advance of that supply drop will be slightly faster, and has already begun all over the planet. As economic conditions and the strain of natural resource requirements get worse, the risk of military and/or trade conflict grows, as has been the case for centuries. Are you actually doubting that cause-effect? Or just still pretending there's plenty of oil for 100+ years based on nothing more than anecdotes and hope?

No doubt you ignored the links I presented in the previous post. That stuff doesn't adhere to your Frank Drebbin-like, "nothing to see here" narrative of obnoxiousness.

You can't debate the geology, because there is nothing to counter the argument. Mexico, in terminal decline. North Sea, terminal decline. Same with Indonesia, Kuwait, the U.S., Iran, Russia and on and on and on.

"You can't predict the future!! You can't predict the future!!! <bacaw!!!>" .... asshat.

Yes, there are new discoveries here and there. Of course. But the rate of discovery is not coming anywhere close to keeping up with dying existing capacity.

My challenge still stands: Still waiting for anyone to show the forum where and when was the last significant discovery of proven reserves of light crude in excess of 30 billion barrels? Yeah, think Carter administration.

Conventional oil production has flatlined since 2004. We are at the plateau of peak. Global decline will begin within the next few years. Period, end of story. Besides the geology and oil industry investment patterns that prove it (and you guys won't dare acknowledge) , this is only further confirmed by geopolitical behaviors towrads oil "rich" nations, and the impending crash of the U.S. dollar.

If you have real, comprehensive proof (beyond squawking about claims from 1909 and 1970) as to how the IEA, U.S. Dept. of Energy and our own Joint Chiefs are wrong, we'd be happy to examine it. If not, you're useless to this topic, wasting bandwidth, and making yourselves look ultra-retarded and arrogant - a lethal combination, as we learned from 2001-2008.

But heavy oil is not light crude, abiotic science died many decades ago, and estimated reserves 10 miles under bedrock is not "recoverable reserves."