Posted on 12/05/2006 1:02:40 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
I'm sorry if I read more into your words than you said. Can you explain what you meant by "it is purposeful" that the US now produces less oil than it used to produce?
Let's just say... the oil companies are very proficient at what they do............ get the oil out of the earth.... and also making sure that oil continues to be at the center of our needs. Some things will never change. Money and power talk.
Take care ..........
LOL ............... ok, kid.
I'll just offer to you, the recipe for any ongoing ignorance on this subject is to be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge.
I spend time learning about the energy industries nearly every single day and have for a couple of decades. It has fed my family, provided well for me and allowed me to travel to many different places in the US and around the world.
In that time I've found there is little to be learned from those that claim secret knowledge but will not say more.
You are acting as a fool (notice, I did not call you a fool).
Many of those who have known "secret" knowledge are now dead. Congrats to your industry heads.
Feel proud. Glad the family is well fed, and, I'm so glad that you could travel around the world.
Everyone is thrilled.
I've found there is little to be learned from those WHO claim
****
English ..............
The more informative title of the theory is Peak Easy Oil. Most of the discussion of the theory is completely off point.
I'm an engineer. Most days I'm lucky to spell my grammar mistakes correctly. Why most colleges don't require more communication skills from the engineering degrees I'll never understand. The work we do is useless unless we correctly communicate it to others. It has always been a lacking skill with me. Thanks for the correction, no sarcasm intended.
If someone wants to carp over that grammar, they ought to take a gander at the grammar and spelling employed by the Founding Fathers.
Sorry to be such a jerk.............. just part of my lousy genes.
;-)
Merry Christmas....... if we don't run into each other again any time soon!!
Thanks for the link but I'm not at all sure those numbers are worth the computer space their stored in. Firstly the figure for Canadian Reserves jumped by 175 Billion barrels on Jan 1st 2003 because of the inclusion of Tar Sands in the numbers which had not previously been included. I can understand why they were included because tar sands production had become such a significant percent of total Canadian production. It is however comparing apples and oranges.
Secondly you will have been aware that between 1987 and 1990 a number of OPEC producers suddenly found 300 Billion more reserves. A number of commentators expressed skepticism at the time and it appears that they were right. Kuwait's Burgan field which accounts for approximately half of their production and which has been producing for sixty years can now only produce 1.7 MMbbls/day. There are reports of internal KOC documents that estimate recoverable Kuwaiti reserves of only 48 Billion barrels compared with the number of 104 Billion shown in the OGL numbers. The Kuwaitis are now planning to triple their developement budget to try and maintain production levels
Russia in another interesting case. Their reserves jumped from 48 Billion in 2002 to 60 Billion in 2003 and have remained at that same level for four years notwithstanding they are producing at approximately 9Million barrels /day or 3.3Billion a year
The mexican Cantrell field, the second or third largest super giant has had a nitrogen injection program but they now estimate that the gas cap and water encroachment are only 825ft apart and closing at between 250/350 feet a year. Cantrell could be producing as little as 875K bbls/day next year
Venezuelas production has dropped well below their OPEC quota level of 3.2 MMbbls/day to 2.45, although they may be a special case of no qualified engineers to run their wells.
All of the above leads me to question those "official numbers" and the EIA makes a point of disclaiming any ability to confirm the numbers from outside the USA.The two for one number can be seen Here on the graph on page 4.
The 50 % increase is in the same paper although that may be on the high side (Annual growth of 2.3%)The prior 18 years growth was at 1.75%/anum.
Increasing the recovery factor from 20% to 30% is not going to run out of oil sooner, it will last longer, just as we are doing on the North Slope with fields 3 decades into production. secondary and tertiary techniques are not applied at the beginning, but near the end of the economic limit of the primary production technique, extending the life of the field.
I'm not familiar with the depletion rates on the fields on the North Slope but historically the fields in Texas had depletion rates of 5-8% with just vertical wells. It looks as if Yibil in Oman and Cantrell, both of which have used horizontal drilling and water/nitorgen injection may be depleting at rates in excess of 12%. TRR are improved it's just that you get them sooner. Also I know a number of fields in the North Sea have similar decline rates. And it makes sense where one has very high/barrel production costs to recover ones investment ASAP.
As always the problem is that as soon as you get out of the US and Western Europe the reserve numbers become very "fuzzy" unless a publicly quoted company is the operator - and even then it can be difficult - see Shells problems with proven/probable reserves.
Having spent some time in the oil business I appreciate corresponding with someone who actually knows what they're talking about.
To not include non-conventional sources like the Alberta oil sands would seem disingenuous.
Well I agree they have to be accounted for somewhere but where do you stop. Do you include estimates of the Orinoco Belt Bitumen? How about Colorado Shale ? The Bakken Shale of ND ? How about coal reserves. After all the Sasoil or Fischer-Tropsch process can provide us with high quality diesel at present prices.( In fact I think there's a pilot plant being built right now in Colorado )
Some day soon, it will add 100~500 billion barrels to the US reserves.
I'm not very well versed in this play but as I understand it the estimates of ultimately recoverable reserves are all over the place anything from 30 Billion to 300 Billion - but nevertheless a sizeable addition to our energy reserves.
When production rates were then tied to reserves among OPEC members, they brought forth every reserve they could defend to the competing partners.
I'm still pretty skeptical of Middle East Reserve numbers and their ability to maintain production levels. I believe the Saudis had plans to have 80-90 additional rigs working by the end of this year but in fact only have just over thirty. Their monthly production has also started to drift downwards which may be them "managing the market" or finding trouble maintaining production.
Russia also continues to find more oil. My company is working the new development of Vankor and Sakhalin Island. They have many areas that have been poorly if at all searched.
I agree that Russia is fixing to become the largest oil producer in the world. Had they used joint ventures earlier I'm sure they would be producing way beyond their present capacity. They might also not have abused their resevoirs so badly.
I think the two for one originally came from an Exxon-Mobil annual report but I'm not sure about that.
I agree the 2.3% growth may be on the high side but China's GDP growth is now estimated to be 10% for 2006, above their previous estimates of 8%.
I'm not disagreeing about secondary and tertiary improving URR but my point is that compared to developements with just vertical wells the oil will get extracted sooner so depletion when it occurs happens at a faster rate.
I don't equate "Peak Oil" with running out of oil but I do think it signifies a change in the total energy equation with oil and NGL's becoming more expensive in relation to other energy sources and having a significant impact on the cost of living. And in that regard the idea of congress imposing a windfall tax on the oil companies could not be more stupid. Who was it who said "Only an economist from Harvard would think you could get more of something by taxing it." I also believe that we should not be using such a valuable commodity in producing base load electricity requirements when we have alternatives such as nuclear - which has a far better safety record than coal.
Peak Oil is definitly a canard and fraud.
The oil companies do a great job getting the oil out of the ground, they are very competent ....... but in the end, they really are just a bunch of lame-*ss criminals.
(jmo)....... not just mine
I think we should include all sources that can produce petroleum with current technology at an economical (one the market supports) price. If these are not included, what is the purpose of tracking "peak" oil? At one time very deep or very heavy were not included in reserves, now many are. Some are not yet included because we cannot reasonably produce them. But as technology improves, and as prices rise, they will get included as well.
I also believe that we should not be using such a valuable commodity in producing base load electricity requirements when we have alternatives such as nuclear - which has a far better safety record than coal.
There is not a lot of oil used this way, some of that counted in the total is cogen generated from waste heat at refineries, not a wasteful process. Are you aware we now import more uranium than we produce, even though we have greater reserves than many place from which we purchase.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.