Oil

Recommended reading, economic debates, predictions and opinions.

Re: Oil

Postby Spidey » 02 Jan 2012 16:17

tidal wrote:
My bet is that most of the reserves will get left in the ground. The owners of the existing reserves will be in a mad scramble to both (a) avoid any limits on their extraction and (b) get theirs out before their competitors do. But in the end, only a fraction will get out. Odds are better for a larger proportion of the proven oil and gas reserves to be burnt.



With 1.3 billion people, the People's Republic of China is the world's most populous country and the second largest oil consumer, behind the U.S. In recent years, China has been undergoing a process of industrialization and is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. With real gross domestic product growing at a rate of 8-10% a year, China's need for energy is projected to increase by 150 percent by 2020. to sustain its growth China requires increasing amounts of oil. Its oil consumption grows by 7.5% per year, seven times faster than the U.S.'

http://www.iags.org/china.htm



Image

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ ... uench.html
Last edited by Spidey on 02 Jan 2012 16:28, edited 1 time in total.
If life seems jolly rotten, then there's something you've forgotten -- and that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing. - Eric Idle
User avatar
Spidey
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 2323
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 20:55
Location: Ottawa

Re: Oil

Postby ghariton » 02 Jan 2012 16:28

newguy wrote:There has been a large drop in the percent of 16 and 18 year olds with licences. They blame facebook.

Shouldn't it be: They credit facebook?

This is yet another manifestation of the trend that Tyler Cowen flags in his book, The Great Stagnation. One of the reasons for slower growth in GDP is that increasing numbers of people are spending time on-line, visiting facebook, playing games, downloading porn, or just browsing.

Beats joy-riding.

George
The plural of anecdote is NOT data.

In God we trust, all others bring data (William Edwards Deming)
User avatar
ghariton
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 9439
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 19:59
Location: Ottawa

Re: Oil

Postby newguy » 02 Jan 2012 16:57

ghariton wrote:
newguy wrote:There has been a large drop in the percent of 16 and 18 year olds with licences. They blame facebook.

Shouldn't it be: They credit facebook?

Absolutely. It's just that my youth was all about apportioning blame, not credit. :lol:

newguy
User avatar
newguy
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 7688
Joined: 10 May 2009 18:24
Location: Montreal

Re: Oil

Postby tidal » 03 Jan 2012 14:53

Spidey wrote:
tidal wrote:My bet is that most of the reserves will get left in the ground. The owners of the existing reserves will be in a mad scramble to both (a) avoid any limits on their extraction and (b) get theirs out before their competitors do. But in the end, only a fraction will get out. Odds are better for a larger proportion of the proven oil and gas reserves to be burnt.
With 1.3 billion people, the People's Republic of China is the world's most populous country and the second largest oil consumer, behind the U.S. In recent years, China has been undergoing a process of industrialization and is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. With real gross domestic product growing at a rate of 8-10% a year, China's need for energy is projected to increase by 150 percent by 2020. to sustain its growth China requires increasing amounts of oil. Its oil consumption grows by 7.5% per year, seven times faster than the U.S.'
http://www.iags.org/china.htm

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ ... uench.html
If there is a point being made here with respect to my contention, then it's escaping me.

Is it that the forecasts for annual oil consumption - in China and globally and in the U.S. - are forecast to grow? Well, duh, yeah. And? Is this the first time you have bumped into the EIA and IEA? And I am not saying that's wrong - in fact I explicitly indicated that there are large proven reserves of all fossil fuels.

But that wasn't my main point then, now was it? First, it is a "stock" problem, not a "flow" problem. ("Peak oil", by the way, a different topic, is more characterized as a "flow" than a "stock" problem, at least initially, depending on how much you ascribe to it...). You are responding with a bunch of "flow" data and forecasts. Second, my point was about two very incompatible objectives where the implied quantities don't appear to be reconcilable.

I'm still a big fan of the Denzil Washington attorney character in "Philadelphia" who would often say, to the effect: "Explain it to me. Like a three-year-old would do."

So let me try this again.

Let's say that at age 20 you weighed 170 pounds. At age 30, 180 pounds. At age 40, 200 pounds. At age 50, 230 pounds. And you are zooming up faster and faster towards 340 pounds and beyond. And now your doctor is saying that you need to stabilize your weight asap and try to get back below 200 pounds or lower or the whole project is likely to crash and soon.

Your contribution here is like saying "But there's still lots of food to eat! I like eating food! And my forecast is that I am going to eat ever more and more food!"

Well, maybe so. In fact, I'd bet you would.

But that really has not much to do with what the physician said, now does it? So what if there's lots of food? So what if everyone is screaming for more ice cream? The two things remain incompatible. Something's gotta give. THAT was my point.

OR, was the point that it's all the fault of the dastardly Chinese?

Sorry. Over 50% of the cumulative increase in the atmospheric CO2 is courtesy of just the USA, Germany and Britain. China represents about 10%. Did I mention that this is primarily a "stock" problem, not a "flow" problem? Yes, China is now the single largest annual emitter. Big deal. They will add about 0.4% to the 10% cumulative responsibility this year. Besides, they/we ALL have to effectively go to net-zero later this century.

Oh wait. It wasn't about EITHER of those points, now, was it? It was about a big hand-wave away of the physical reality of a greenhouse effect and a climate crisis. Oh, well then, carry on.

Here is the point. We've got two numbers that are based on what our best oil/gas/coal geologists and our best climate scientists are telling us. They are engaged in different studies of the physical world, but at one point their empirical estimates and forecasts come together on one common "stock" metric: the amount of carbon in those fuels we can combust. And the numbers are very, very, vastly different. Essentially irreconcilable. And it makes you think "Do you feel lucky punk? Well, do ya?" Because otherwise, we have some hard trade-offs ahead of us...

So, back to my original point. My opinion is that most of the existing fossil fuel proven reserves of the Exxons and Gazproms and Saudi Aramco's and Petrobras and PetroChinas and BHPs and oil sands and everyone else will eventually stay in the ground. Either because we choose to or because we run into serious disruption problems with respect to climate by later this decade. Something's gotta give. Since this has to do with perhaps the most important valuation metric for by far the largest industry in the world, one would think that investors would be, um, puzzled by this discrepancy... But, no, that would upset too many apple carts and too many delicate fee-fee's. Ergo, no such discrepancy can be allowed to exist. Poof, by collective fiat... a.k.a. "the longest river in the world"...
The future is bright for jellyfish, caulerpa taxifolia, dinoflagellates and prokaryotes... rust never sleeps... the dude abides... the stupid, it burns. (http://bit.ly/LXZsXd)
User avatar
tidal
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: 28 Jul 2006 10:56
Location: Toronto

Re: Oil

Postby AltaRed » 03 Jan 2012 15:21

tidal wrote:My opinion is that most of the existing fossil fuel proven reserves of the Exxons and Gazproms and Saudi Aramco's and Petrobras and PetroChinas and BHPs and oil sands and everyone else will eventually stay in the ground. Either because we choose to or because we run into serious disruption problems with respect to climate by later this decade. Something's gotta give. Since this has to do with perhaps the most important valuation metric for by far the largest industry in the world, one would think that investors would be, um, puzzled by this discrepancy... But, no, that would upset too many apple carts and too many delicate fee-fee's. Ergo, no such discrepancy can be allowed to exist. Poof, by collective fiat... a.k.a. "the longest river in the world"...

My opinion is it will not unfold as you opine, especially this decade, and never to the degree you suggest. We probably will see a reduction in 'flow' primarily due to changes in land vehicle transportation fuels, but most of the stock will be accessed, processed and used. Hydrocarbons are not going away due to critical use in plastics, medicine, lubricants and especially aviation fuels. There will be winners and losers in the hydrocarbon industry, so just be sure to hold your investments in the most productive and efficient and sovereign of the lot. That will be the Exxons, Gazproms, Aramcos, Pebrobras and PetroChinas in one form or another.
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki The go-to place to bolster your financial freedom
User avatar
AltaRed
Diamond Ring
Diamond Ring
 
Posts: 12112
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 21:04
Location: Ogopogo Land

Re: Oil

Postby tidal » 03 Jan 2012 15:44

AltaRed wrote:
tidal wrote:My opinion is that most of the existing fossil fuel proven reserves of the Exxons and Gazproms and Saudi Aramco's and Petrobras and PetroChinas and BHPs and oil sands and everyone else will eventually stay in the ground. Either because we choose to or because we run into serious disruption problems with respect to climate by later this decade. Something's gotta give. Since this has to do with perhaps the most important valuation metric for by far the largest industry in the world, one would think that investors would be, um, puzzled by this discrepancy... But, no, that would upset too many apple carts and too many delicate fee-fee's. Ergo, no such discrepancy can be allowed to exist. Poof, by collective fiat... a.k.a. "the longest river in the world"...
My opinion is it will not unfold as you opine, especially this decade, and never to the degree you suggest. We probably will see a reduction in 'flow' primarily due to changes in land vehicle transportation fuels, but most of the stock will be accessed, processed and used. Hydrocarbons are not going away due to critical use in plastics, medicine, lubricants and especially aviation fuels. There will be winners and losers in the hydrocarbon industry, so just be sure to hold your investments in the most productive and efficient and sovereign of the lot. That will be the Exxons, Gazproms, Aramcos, Pebrobras and PetroChinas in one form or another.
I will note that I am basically deferring to respective domain experts here. I.e. that the geologists' estimate of proven fossil fuel reserves are correct, and that the climate scientists' evaluation of the maximum amount we can combust is correct. I also note that the two numbers are vastly different and that to reconcile them there needs to be either a dramatic change to "business as usual", or one has to presume that one of the calculations is wildly wrong.

It is apparent you are opting for the latter, despite not having any real expertise in the field you implicitly dismiss as wrong. You are asserting that we can continue on with business as usual, essentially with impunity, presumably because one of the fields of expertise is egregiously wrong. Also noted.

I would agree that this is the predominant paradigm, and it certainly accounts for the valuations of the big producers... Who knows, it could even be right. Meanwhile, the paradox exists - why did the US Air Force go to all that effort and expense to develop HITRAN and MODTRAN. Was that all wrong too?
The future is bright for jellyfish, caulerpa taxifolia, dinoflagellates and prokaryotes... rust never sleeps... the dude abides... the stupid, it burns. (http://bit.ly/LXZsXd)
User avatar
tidal
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: 28 Jul 2006 10:56
Location: Toronto

Re: Oil

Postby AltaRed » 03 Jan 2012 15:53

tidal wrote:I will note that I am basically deferring to respective domain experts here. I.e. that the geologists' estimate of proven fossil fuel reserves are correct, and that the climate scientists' evaluation of the maximum amount we can combust is correct. I also note that the two numbers are vastly different and that to reconcile them there needs to be either a dramatic change to "business as usual", or one has to presume that one of the calculations is wildly wrong.

Not necessarily that either one is wrong, but there will always be a selective need for fossil fuels in some aspects of our civilization - even if there is a climate event that reduces human population by 80%. There is no endpoint for use of fossil fuels - period.

You are asserting that we can continue on with business as usual, essentially with impunity, presumably because one of the fields of expertise is egregiously wrong. Also noted.

You obviously did not read my post very well. Never have I said 'business as usual'.

Meanwhile, the paradox exists - why did the US Air Force go to all that effort and expense to develop HITRAN and MODTRAN. Was that all wrong too?

What the Air Force does is not terribly relevant to most of the 7 billion people who mostly want a higher standard of living. Good luck on eliminating carbon emissions to the atmosphere.
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki The go-to place to bolster your financial freedom
User avatar
AltaRed
Diamond Ring
Diamond Ring
 
Posts: 12112
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 21:04
Location: Ogopogo Land

Re: Oil

Postby tidal » 03 Jan 2012 16:01

AltaRed wrote:
tidal wrote:I will note that I am basically deferring to respective domain experts here. I.e. that the geologists' estimate of proven fossil fuel reserves are correct, and that the climate scientists' evaluation of the maximum amount we can combust is correct. I also note that the two numbers are vastly different and that to reconcile them there needs to be either a dramatic change to "business as usual", or one has to presume that one of the calculations is wildly wrong.
Not necessarily that either one is wrong, but there will always be a selective need for fossil fuels in some aspects of our civilization - even if there is a climate event that reduces human population by 80%. There is no endpoint for use of fossil fuels - period.
You are asserting that we can continue on with business as usual, essentially with impunity, presumably because one of the fields of expertise is egregiously wrong. Also noted.
You obviously did not read my post very well. Never have I said 'business as usual'.
Meanwhile, the paradox exists - why did the US Air Force go to all that effort and expense to develop HITRAN and MODTRAN. Was that all wrong too?
What the Air Force does is not terribly relevant to most of the 7 billion people who mostly want a higher standard of living. Good luck on eliminating carbon emissions to the atmosphere.
Ok. So is what you are saying that the fossil fuel producers can justify their current valuations based largely on forecast use of their resource stocks for plastics, medicine, etc.? Good luck with that. Or that an 80% reduction in population (your point) is compatible with "7 billion people who mostly want a higher standard of living"? (By the way, what the US Air Force did there IS relevant, because it is about pertinent physical reality - you know, like, oh, the chemical structure and energy properties of hydrocarbons is a physical reality as well?)

Anyway, since you seem to be accepting the domain expertise of both groups, I guess you are really making more of a values and moral judgement. I can accept that, even though I disagree with it.
The future is bright for jellyfish, caulerpa taxifolia, dinoflagellates and prokaryotes... rust never sleeps... the dude abides... the stupid, it burns. (http://bit.ly/LXZsXd)
User avatar
tidal
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: 28 Jul 2006 10:56
Location: Toronto

Re: Oil

Postby AltaRed » 03 Jan 2012 16:22

tidal wrote:So what you are saying is that the fossil fuel producers justify their current valuations based on forecast use of their stocks for plastics, medicine, etc.? Good luck with that.

Erroneously making assumptions. I simply said the most efficient public companies and sovereign companies (with gov'ts behind them) would remain standing. That may be only 10% of the companies worldwide at some point in time. I also did not say anything about valuations. I would expect valuations to decrease but that does not mean they will not remain standing. Exxon will likely be around for a lot longer than 90% of other publicly traded oil companies just because of their financials and margins (ability to be one of the survivors).

Or that an 80% reduction in population (your point) is compatible with "7 billion people who mostly want a higher standard of living."

Again, you are erroneously making assumptions. A worst case climate change scenario might eliminate 80% of the population who waited too long to make change, but who will still likely use fossil fuels to some degree even then. That said, climate change will not stop most of today's 7 billion people from wanting a higher standard of living and willing to burn fossil fuels to some degree to do so. Countries will always be positioning against one another for economic power/advantage.

Please read my posts more thoroughly for what they actually say.

Anyway, since you seem to be accepting the domain expertise of both groups, I guess you are really making more of a values and moral judgement. I can accept that, even though I disagree with it.

The world is neither black nor white. There will always be a struggle between morals/values (as you put it) and personal (sovereign) desires for higher standards of living and economic power. Hydrocarbon use will never go away as quickly as the naive assume.
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki The go-to place to bolster your financial freedom
User avatar
AltaRed
Diamond Ring
Diamond Ring
 
Posts: 12112
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 21:04
Location: Ogopogo Land

Re: Oil

Postby newguy » 03 Jan 2012 16:35

Sinopec, Total invest $4.5-billion in U.S. shale

More reserves coming soon to an atmosphere near you.

Tidal, I'm curious about the 1 decade talk and how long it will take for things like perma frost or ice caps to melt. If sea level only rises a bit, it can always be denied. I don't think things like an ice free arctic or slightly warmer temps will convince people to stop burning gas. The 1% lives on the beach. On the other hand the 99% in the favelas will become the new beachfront millionaires.

newguy
User avatar
newguy
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 7688
Joined: 10 May 2009 18:24
Location: Montreal

Re: Oil

Postby Spidey » 03 Jan 2012 16:52

tidal wrote:
So, back to my original point. My opinion is that most of the existing fossil fuel proven reserves of the Exxons and Gazproms and Saudi Aramco's and Petrobras and PetroChinas and BHPs and oil sands and everyone else will eventually stay in the ground. Either because we choose to or because we run into serious disruption problems with respect to climate by later this decade. Something's gotta give. Since this has to do with perhaps the most important valuation metric for by far the largest industry in the world, one would think that investors would be, um, puzzled by this discrepancy... But, no, that would upset too many apple carts and too many delicate fee-fee's. Ergo, no such discrepancy can be allowed to exist. Poof, by collective fiat... a.k.a. "the longest river in the world"...


Tidal - You're an extremely intelligent fellow (more intelligent than I am; I'll say it) but respectfully, I've found intelligence to have very little relation to common sense or practicality. What are you seeing or forecasting that makes you believe that we will run into serious disruption problems with respect to climate by later this decade? I just don't see the will on either a personal or political level for what would amount to monumental changes in our lifestyle and standard of living. The population has just hit 7 billion and will continue to grow to 8 billion by mid-century. China and other developing nations seem to have very little desire to curb growth or development. (According to wiki, their CO2 emissions from China are currently 23.33% of the global total.) Economic matters will probably trump environmental ones for some time to come in the US. And despite your views on younger people "not willingly letting this happen", the vast majority of them seem to be as consumer-driven as ever, if not more so.

So maybe something does have to give. I just don't see it "giving" any time in the near future.
Last edited by Spidey on 03 Jan 2012 17:11, edited 4 times in total.
If life seems jolly rotten, then there's something you've forgotten -- and that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing. - Eric Idle
User avatar
Spidey
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 2323
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 20:55
Location: Ottawa

Re: Oil

Postby Shakespeare » 03 Jan 2012 16:54

I don't think things like an ice free arctic or slightly warmer temps will convince people to stop burning gas
Nor will a billion dead from famine.
“Never appeal to a man's better nature. He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage.” -- R.A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love.
User avatar
Shakespeare
Diamond Ring
Diamond Ring
 
Posts: 18569
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 00:25
Location: Lethbridge, AB

Re: Oil

Postby newguy » 03 Jan 2012 17:00

Shakespeare wrote:
I don't think things like an ice free arctic or slightly warmer temps will convince people to stop burning gas
Nor will a billion dead from famine.

Because famines happen all the time and mainly to poor people anyway. Flood long island and see what happens.

newguy
User avatar
newguy
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 7688
Joined: 10 May 2009 18:24
Location: Montreal

Re: Oil

Postby Nemo2 » 03 Jan 2012 17:06

Spidey wrote: And despite your views on younger people "not willingly letting this happen", the vast majority of them seem to be as consumer-driven as ever, if not more so.

I remembered making this post.....5 years ago today, (when we lived in Orleans):

As I've mentioned before, we live within littering distance of three schools and the garbage level surrounding each is appalling............today's youth might talk a good game, spray graffiti slogans and give lip-service to 'the planet', but I doubt they have any more altruism than their forebears......and possibly way less.
Exit, pursued by a bear.
William Shakespeare, Stage direction in "The Winter's Tale"
User avatar
Nemo2
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: 02 Jan 2006 15:27
Location: Belleville

Re: Oil

Postby tidal » 03 Jan 2012 18:30

AltaRed wrote:Hydrocarbon use will never go away as quickly as the naive assume.
Back at'cha. I don't think it will go away as quickly as necessary. But I would say that those that think that fossil fuel use has a long and strong run ahead of it that are equally naive. See the gap between reserve and emission limit numbers previous page. Something's got to give, and it's not marginal.

On that last point and "business as usual". Sure, that's not a quote, but I am guessing that you think we will burn the proven reserves and a large chunk of probable and possible, plus another large chunk of new finds. Whereas I think, um, less than that. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to identify us respectively on the "BAU" continuum.

P.S. you manufacture medicines, lubricants, agrochemicals, etc. from fossil carbon, and then toss the end products into the atmosphere/hydrosphere/biosphere? Guess what. They oxidize and turn into atmospheric carbon dioxide and marine carbonic acid and carbonates. Same problem as combustion. And then it sits around for millenia.
newguy wrote:I'm curious about the 1 decade talk and how long it will take for things like perma frost or ice caps to melt. If sea level only rises a bit, it can always be denied. I don't think things like an ice free arctic or slightly warmer temps will convince people to stop burning gas.
Not the thread for that. But the evidence from the gravity measures of the ice sheets looks like the mass loss is following an accelerating pattern. If so, then it will become apparent that much of our coastal infrastructure and agriculture will be lost, and some of it alarmingly soon - i.e. mid-to-late this century, with lots more lost in later centuries. Additionally, the pattern of sea-level rise - falling at the poles, rising much more in the mid-latitudes - will be a big counter-intuitive wake-up call this deade

Evidence of a commitment to loss of the arctic ice cap could lead to chaotic changes to weather patterns. But that was your speculation/question, and it would be too short to do attribution to weather pattern changes.

I think the major immediate impacts in the next decade will relate to extreme events and changes to hydrology (floods, droughts) and their effect on agriculture particularly. Tough to do attribution there as well on such short timescales, but hard to completely ignore too. Let's watch Texas. As far as effects on permafrost - far more uncertainty there. Hope we get good news there.
Last edited by tidal on 03 Jan 2012 19:08, edited 2 times in total.
The future is bright for jellyfish, caulerpa taxifolia, dinoflagellates and prokaryotes... rust never sleeps... the dude abides... the stupid, it burns. (http://bit.ly/LXZsXd)
User avatar
tidal
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: 28 Jul 2006 10:56
Location: Toronto

Re: Oil

Postby tidal » 03 Jan 2012 18:48

@ Spidey, I am on an sluggish iPod right now, but Nature bats last. Doesn't really care how much of the CO2 fastball hurling its way is Chinese or Canadian or if they hate each other. I mention upthread - the gravity measurements of the ice sheets; watch that this decade. They're ALREADY melting at the current temp rise and appear to be accelerating. A very big deal. A bunch of reinforcing effects are expected.

I think the idea that if large changes are imminent that young people will react the same as old people is something that you, nemo2 and ghariton can anecdotally discuss amongst yourselves. Get back to me with something. Remember, the plural of anecdote is not clueless.
Last edited by tidal on 03 Jan 2012 19:01, edited 1 time in total.
The future is bright for jellyfish, caulerpa taxifolia, dinoflagellates and prokaryotes... rust never sleeps... the dude abides... the stupid, it burns. (http://bit.ly/LXZsXd)
User avatar
tidal
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: 28 Jul 2006 10:56
Location: Toronto

Re: Oil

Postby brucecohen » 03 Jan 2012 18:57

An engineer/inspector who worked on TransCanada's first Keystone pipeline argues that it should not be allowed to build the proposed one. Here is his op-ed in a Nebraska newspaper.
brucecohen
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 9798
Joined: 20 Feb 2005 17:47

Re: Oil

Postby AltaRed » 03 Jan 2012 19:27

tidal wrote:On that last point and "business as usual". Sure, that's not a quote, but I am guessing that you think we will burn the proven reserves and a large chunk of probable and possible, plus another large chunk of new finds.

No, I don't necessarily think so, at least not in this century. There will be winners and losers. Some companies with proved reserves won't get to produce them all while others with probable and new finds will. It depends on who you are and what you control, e.g. I doubt middle eastern producers and their state owned companies really give a shit about climate change since their cling to power depends on it.
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki The go-to place to bolster your financial freedom
User avatar
AltaRed
Diamond Ring
Diamond Ring
 
Posts: 12112
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 21:04
Location: Ogopogo Land

Re: Oil

Postby tidal » 03 Jan 2012 19:58

P.S. @ spidey... no discrepancy between my 10% china cumulative and your 23% "wiki" current. Again, a STOCK problem... but now so late in the game that it's ALSO a flow problem. Try Kump and Kasting as a text off the top of my head. P.P.S. bad card to play trump with against the developing nations. Physical reality would be on their side if it could. Better to use a les obviously transparent and wrong negotiating position. Physics is ultimately your friend.
The future is bright for jellyfish, caulerpa taxifolia, dinoflagellates and prokaryotes... rust never sleeps... the dude abides... the stupid, it burns. (http://bit.ly/LXZsXd)
User avatar
tidal
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: 28 Jul 2006 10:56
Location: Toronto

Re: Oil

Postby Spidey » 03 Jan 2012 22:37

Tidal - I'm having difficulty responding to your contention because it does not seem very precise. There are many implications, data and warnings but I find it difficult to discern whether you are expressing a prediction or wishful thinking. On the one hand you say that most of the current reserves will remain in the ground, which seems to imply a drastic policy change within the next 10-20 years. But on the other hand you seem to say that we might continue to increase output for decades, oil consumption is forecast to grow and the chance for emissions falling by 2015 are remote. In general however, you seem to imply that there will be a major climate changes over the next decade or so, which will result in drastic global environmental policy changes. Is that in fact what you are saying? (Another chance to play Denzil Washington.)
Last edited by Spidey on 03 Jan 2012 23:02, edited 1 time in total.
If life seems jolly rotten, then there's something you've forgotten -- and that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing. - Eric Idle
User avatar
Spidey
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 2323
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 20:55
Location: Ottawa

Re: Oil

Postby AltaRed » 03 Jan 2012 23:00

To put this in context, the average production decline rate is about 5% per year for oil fields around the world. It varies from perhaps as high as 10% for highly prolific reservoirs to perhaps only 1-2% for very expensive/difficult reservoirs. This article http://seekingalpha.com/article/82861-p ... line-rates is not the most sophisticated but it keeps decline discussion in relatively simple terms. What it means is the average oil field lasts 20-30 years before it is abandoned on a cost breakeven basis.

The super fields will last a lot longer (30-40 yrs) due to the complexity of development that may occur over a period of 10-15 years. Prudhoe Bay is a prime example of that. Kashagan in the Caspian Sea will be another. The new discovery off Brazil potentially yet another. And of course the oil sands of Alberta and heavy oil of Venezuela's Orinoco belt could last indefinitely although I would agree with Tidal that much of the peripheral stuff and recent 'me too' projects that have yet to get off the drawing board may be left wanting. I believe there is little risk that existing capital investment (amortized over perhaps 20 years) will be left stranded.
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki The go-to place to bolster your financial freedom
User avatar
AltaRed
Diamond Ring
Diamond Ring
 
Posts: 12112
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 21:04
Location: Ogopogo Land

Re: Oil

Postby ghariton » 04 Jan 2012 00:45

I read tidal as saying (and I apologize, tidal, if I get this wrong) that the problem is not on the supply side but on the demand side. In other words, it matters not that we might have carbon-based energy coming out of our ears. The reality will be that we will not use this energy because of its (further) contribution to global warming.

But I am still unclear on the mechanisms that will prevent us from using this energy. Remember that this will be a free rider problem, with particularly strong incentives to free ride. (You control your emissions. I will continue and my lower costs will enable me to capture world markets, as well as to keep my domestic users happy.)

Perhaps pressure to cut or eliminate emissions will come from the young. Tidal seems to imply this when he pooh-poohs my suggestions that the young are not particularly ready to sacrifice their own consumption. But they will have to make enough of a sacrifice to go out and vote.

Perhaps we will come to an international agreement with countries as diverse as China (threatened with political instability), India (who has not yet recognized there is a problem), and Japan and Russia (who have just withdrawn from the Kyoto accord). But binding international accords are few and far between. The agreements underpinning the WTO are the only examples I know of. And sacrifice on behalf of other countries has a particularly poor record.

Perhaps Shakespeare is right when he predicts war, although, if anything, that should increase emissions of all kinds in the short run, especially if the war is nuclear.

I don't know. Just what will the mechanism be that leads to hydrocarbon resources being left in the ground?

George
The plural of anecdote is NOT data.

In God we trust, all others bring data (William Edwards Deming)
User avatar
ghariton
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 9439
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 19:59
Location: Ottawa

Re: Oil

Postby AltaRed » 04 Jan 2012 01:02

ghariton wrote:I read tidal as saying (and I apologize, tidal, if I get this wrong) that the problem is not on the supply side but on the demand side. In other words, it matters not that we might have carbon-based energy coming out of our ears. The reality will be that we will not use this energy because of its (further) contribution to global warming.

I read Tidal's premise the same way and who knows how soon, or if, the squeeze will occur on the demand side. My post just before yours was intended to show that on the supply side, (most) existing producing reserves deplete pretty quickly and so the supply overhang won't be as gluttonous as might first appear. That said, there will eventually be losers on the supply side when/if the price squeeze occurs, but it won't be national oil companies, or certain publicly traded companies, that 'are among the best'. It will pay to be #1 or #2 in the business at that time.
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki The go-to place to bolster your financial freedom
User avatar
AltaRed
Diamond Ring
Diamond Ring
 
Posts: 12112
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 21:04
Location: Ogopogo Land

Re: Oil

Postby ghariton » 24 Jan 2012 00:40

Canada has a new best friend:

China wants to forge a "win-win" energy partnership with Canada that would set an example for the world, while also satisfying its "huge" demand for resources.

China's ambassador to Canada, Zhang Junsai, offered Beijing's view exclusively to The Canadian Press as Prime Minister Stephen Harper prepares for his return trip to the Asian economic giant in two weeks.

Not surprisingly, energy and resources will be high on the agenda for Harper's visit, the envoy said.

"China is undergoing rapid industrialization and urbanization, and its demand for energy and resources is simply huge. Canada, on the other hand, is rich in energy and resources, which also boasts for its stable political situation as well as favourable conditions for investment," Zhang wrote in a 1,100-word statement that he penned in response to an interview request.

"The two countries have every reason to forge a stable and win-win partnership in the long run in the field of resources."


Gosh, maybe that's how a pretty girl at a dance feels. If one partner doesn't want to dance with her, there are many others.

George
The plural of anecdote is NOT data.

In God we trust, all others bring data (William Edwards Deming)
User avatar
ghariton
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 9439
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 19:59
Location: Ottawa

Re: Oil

Postby CROCKD » 11 Feb 2012 18:58

I wonder if Harper and his entourage are carrying their Blackberrys and other devices with them.

Traveling Light in a Time of Digital Thievery
" A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it is written on " Samuel Goldwyn
"The light at the end of the tunnel may be a freight train coming your way" Metallica - No Leaf Clover
User avatar
CROCKD
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 2043
Joined: 15 Aug 2008 16:59
Location: GTA

PreviousNext

Return to Financial News, Policy and Economics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Doug and 1 guest