Crude Oil Production Could Plateau

peterpiper1978

Star
Registered
There will never be a shortage of oil or gas (so called fossil fuels according to a report by nasa and other scientists). They claim that the whole theory that oil supplies are limited is propaganda to enable high prices. according to nasa and these scientists, it cant be a fossil fuel because it is found on other planets like neptune where they feel life is totally impossible. i been reading into it and it makes sense because you have to have life to have fossils right? they say that oil will always be regenerated by the earth due to mechanisms that occur deep into the surface. anyway heres a link to one report by nasa.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47675
 
Re: There will never be a shortage of oil according to NASA

This from the same guys who can't prevent pillow foam from causing catostraphic damage to the space shuttle? hmmmmm, sound suspect
 
source: The Wall Street Journal.com

Oil Officials See Limit
Looming on Production
By RUSSELL GOLD and ANN DAVIS
November 19, 2007; Page A1

A growing number of oil-industry chieftains are endorsing an idea long deemed fringe: The world is approaching a practical limit to the number of barrels of crude oil that can be pumped every day.

Some predict that, despite the world's fast-growing thirst for oil, producers could hit that ceiling as soon as 2012. This rough limit -- which two senior industry officials recently pegged at about 100 million barrels a day -- is well short of global demand projections over the next few decades. Current production is about 85 million barrels a day.

The world certainly won't run out of oil any time soon. And plenty of energy experts expect sky-high prices to hasten the development of alternative fuels and improve energy efficiency. But evidence is mounting that crude-oil production may plateau before those innovations arrive on a large scale. That could set the stage for a period marked by energy shortages, high prices and bare-knuckled competition for fuel.

The current debate represents a significant twist on an older, often-derided notion known as the peak-oil theory. Traditional peak-oil theorists, many of whom are industry outsiders or retired geologists, have argued that global oil production will soon peak and enter an irreversible decline because nearly half the available oil in the world has been pumped. They've been proved wrong so often that their theory has become debased.

The new adherents -- who range from senior Western oil-company executives to current and former officials of the major world exporting countries -- don't believe the global oil tank is at the half-empty point. But they share the belief that a global production ceiling is coming for other reasons: restricted access to oil fields, spiraling costs and increasingly complex oil-field geology. This will create a global production plateau, not a peak, they contend, with oil output remaining relatively constant rather than rising or falling.

The emergence of a production ceiling would mark a monumental shift in the energy world. Oil production has averaged a 2.3% annual growth rate since 1965, according to statistics compiled by British oil giant BP PLC. This expanding pool of oil, most of it priced cheaply by today's standards, fueled the post-World War II global economic expansion.

On Oct. 31, Christophe de Margerie, the chief executive of French oil company Total SA, jolted attendees at a London conference by openly labeling production forecasts of the International Energy Agency, the sober-minded energy watchdog for industrialized nations, as unrealistic. The IEA projects production will grow to between 102.3 million and 120 million barrels a day by 2030. Mr. de Margerie said production by 2030 of even 100 million barrels a day will be "difficult."

Speaking Clearly

This is "the view of those who like to speak clearly, honestly, and [are] not just trying to please people," he bluntly declared. The French executive said many existing oil fields are being depleted at rates that will damage their geologic structures, which will limit future output more than most people allow. What's more, some nations endowed with large untapped pools of oil are generating so much revenue from their current production that they feel they don't need to further develop their fields, thus putting another cap on output.

Earlier this month, James Mulva, the chief executive of ConocoPhillips, echoed those conclusions in a speech at a Wall Street conference: "I don't think we are going to see the supply going over 100 million barrels a day.... Where is all that going to come from?" He questioned whether the industry has enough support services and people to execute projects to add that much oil production.

Even some officials from member states of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which has long insisted on its ability to supply the world with fuel for decades hence, are breaking ranks and forecasting limits. The chairman of Libya National Oil Corp. said at the same London conference the world will have difficulty producing more than 100 million barrels a day.

A former head of exploration and production at Saudi Arabia's national oil company, Sadad Ibrahim Al Husseini, has also gone public with doubts. He said in London last month that he didn't believe there were enough engineers or equipment to ramp up production fast enough to keep up with the thirsty global economy. What's more, he said, new discoveries are tending to be smaller and more complex to develop.

Many leaders of the industry still dismiss the idea that there is reason to worry. "I am no subscriber to the theory that oil supplies have already peaked," said BP's chief executive, Tony Hayward, earlier this month in a speech in Houston.

Exxon Mobil Corp. Chief Executive Rex Tillerson has said that if companies had better access to the world's oil reserves, production would increase and prices would go down. "Sufficient hydrocarbon resources exist to play their role in meeting this growing global demand, if industry is allowed to access them," he said in a speech this month. If access were granted, Exxon Mobil believes the industry would be able to raise fuel production to meet demand in 2030 of 116 million barrels a day.

The oil industry has long been beset by doom-and-gloom scenarios, which so far haven't panned out. "The entire oil industry in the late 1970s was convinced the price [of oil] would be $100 by 1990 and we would need huge oil shale mines" to exploit oil locked away tightly in rock, says Michael C. Lynch, president of Strategic Energy & Economic Research Inc. Of course, that didn't happen, as discoveries ushered in new eras of low-priced oil in the mid-1980s through the late 1990s.

U.S. government experts are optimistic -- to a point. The Energy Information Administration, the data arm of the Energy Department, forecasts world oil production will hit 118 million barrels a day by 2030. But the agency warns that its prediction might not pan out if resource-rich nations such as Venezuela and Iraq don't invest enough in their operations.

"We know that the world is not running out of energy resources, but nonetheless, above-ground risks like resource nationalism, limited access and infrastructure constraints may make it feel like peak oil just the same, by limiting production to something far less than what is required," said Clay Sell, deputy secretary of energy, in a speech in October. Resource nationalism refers to tightening state control of oil fields to achieve political aims, often by restricting outsiders' ability to develop the oil for world markets.

'Undulating Plateau'

Two or three years ago, it was far more common for oil analysts and officials to trumpet the potential of new technology to harvest more oil. In a report last year, Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a prominent adviser to energy companies, made the comforting prediction that oil production could reach 110 million barrels a day by 2015, and "more than meet any reasonable high growth rate demand scenario we can envisage" up to that date. Because of progress being made in extracting oil through new methods, CERA said it found "no evidence" there would be a peak in oil flows "any time soon." In a later report, CERA said world oil production won't peak before 2030 and that even when it does, production will resemble an "undulating plateau" for one or more decades before declining gradually.

Oil companies have seen several years of bull-market prices, and thus of trying to produce more. This has given their executives a better sense of what is and isn't possible.

One limit: Many people think most of the world's giant fields already have been discovered. By 1970, oil-industry explorers had discovered 10 giants that could each produce more than 600,000 barrels a day, according to Matt Simmons, chairman of energy investment banking firm Simmons & Co. International. Exploration in the next 20 years, to 1990, yielded only two. Since 1990, despite billions in new spending, the industry has found only one field with the potential to top 500,000 barrels a day, Kazakhstan's Kashagan field in the Caspian Sea. And Mr. Simmons notes it is proving expensive and difficult to extract.

Big strikes are still possible. This month, Petróleo Brasileiro SA announced a deep-water find off Brazil's Atlantic coast that appears to be the largest discovery since Kashagan.

But some of the most promising geological formations are in locations that are inhospitable, for reasons of geography or, especially, politics and strife. Output from Iraq's rich fields is unlikely to grow much until security improves and outside investment returns. The future of Iranian and Nigerian production is likewise clouded by geopolitical and local instability.

Labor and construction bottlenecks also are making it difficult to develop proven fields. One of the largest obstacles is the booming commodity markets themselves: The prices of raw materials used in oil-field platforms and equipment has escalated. And during the years of low or moderate oil prices in the 1980s and 1990s, companies didn't develop enough geologists and other skilled workers to supply today's needs. "Years of underinvestment in new talent have led to a limited and aging pool of skilled workers," noted Andrew Gould, the CEO of oil-service giant Schlumberger Ltd., last month.

High oil prices have also led to steep cost inflation for drilling rigs and other equipment. Costs have soared so much that the industry is falling behind in the investment needed to sate expected future demand. To meet demand forecasts of 90 million barrels of oil a day in 2010, the industry needed to have spent $350 billion on drilling and producing in 2005, argues Larry G. Chorn, chief economist of Platts, the energy and commodities-information division of McGraw-Hill Cos. But the International Energy Agency estimates that spending on oil-field production in 2005 came to only about $225 billion, he says.

A failure to spend enough in the past few years "may have already put the industry behind the spending curve," Mr. Chorn says. As a result, he predicts "temporary shortages over several years, causing debilitating price spikes."

Compounding the problem: Most of the world's biggest fields are aging, and production at them is declining rapidly. So, just to keep global production at current levels, the industry needs to add new production of at least four million daily barrels, every year. That need is roughly five times the daily production of Alaska, with its big Prudhoe Bay field -- and it doesn't assume any demand growth at all.

Rate of Decline

Mr. Simmons scoffs at estimates that production from proven fields will decline only 4.5% a year. He thinks a more realistic rate of decline is 8% to 10% a year, especially because modern technology actually succeeds in depleting fields faster.

If he's right, the industry needs to add new daily production of at least eight million barrels -- 10 times current Alaskan production -- just to stay even.

Mr. Simmons thinks the world needs to shift its energy focus from climate change to more immediate concerns. "Peak oil is likely already a crisis that we don't know about. At the furthest out, it will be a crisis in 2008 to 2012. Global warming, if real, will not be a problem for 50 to 100 years," he says.

Oil executives who believe a production ceiling is coming are making plans to stay relevant in a world where oil production is constrained.

Mr. de Margerie said at Total's annual meeting this spring that the company was "looking into" nuclear-industry investments and had hired nuclear experts to help make strategic decisions. ConocoPhillips recently said it was considering building a commercial-scale plant to turn plentiful U.S. coal into natural gas.

Soaring energy prices have breathed new life into projects targeting "nonconventional" oil, such as that trapped in sand or shale. But these sources can't be tapped nearly as quickly or inexpensively as the big oil finds of the past.

Vivid Example

Canada's massive oil-sands deposits, which hold the largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia's, offer a vivid example. They contain an estimated 180 billion barrels of oil. But after years of intensive development and tens of billions of dollars of investments, the sands are producing only a little more than 1.1 million barrels of crude a day. That's projected to reach three million a day by 2015. The oil deposits are so heavy that companies must either mine them or slowly steam them underground to get the oil to flow out of the sand.

Randy Udall, co-founder of the U.S. chapter of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, has written that these unconventional oil supplies are like having $100 million in the bank, but "being forbidden to withdraw more than $100,000 per year. You are rich, sort of."

As these uncertainties mount, there is growing hope that Saudi Arabia, which has about 20% of the world's oil reserves, would ride to the rescue if needed. Saudi Aramco, the national oil company, has embarked on an ambitious plan to increase its daily production by 30%, or three million barrels, early next decade, and thus reclaim the title of top producer from Russia. But Mr. Al Husseini, the former Saudi oil executive, now an independent consultant, said others aren't doing as much, leaving the world entirely dependent on Saudi Arabia to provide extra capacity.

"Everyone thinks that Saudi Arabia will pull us out of this mess. Saudi Arabia is doing all it can," he says in an interview. "But what it is doing, in the long run, won't be enough."

P1-AJ631A_PEAKO_20071118202042.gif
 
<font size="4">
I saw this guy on some TV program (don't remember which) talking about "Peak Oil" may be some fabrication by the oil industry. The guy was advancing the theory of "Sustainable Oil" which implies that crude oil, in some areas or cases, is actually replenishiing itself. Is this true or just another conspiracy theory? - I have no idea.

Nevertheless, here are some links I found:

Abiotic Oil</font size>
Addressing the theory in circulation that oil is not solely of organic origin, but that there may be another mode of origin as well from deeper in the crust, involving magma.

There is a substantial body of evidence to support this theory. That does not negate, however, the quest for getting away from dependence on fossil fuels. The greenhouse gasses produced by the burning of such will continue to be a pressing matter that must be addressed. Now that the world has achieved a consciousness about how we treat our planet, this news that we are not so far from depleting our oil reserves is a welcome breath of fresh air, removing some of the panic effect that can foster unrest.

http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/

`


<font size="4">Origin Of Black Gold, Texas Tea, Debated </font size>
I'm going to advance a rather radical idea here. I could be wrong, but so could the rest of you. Nobody knows for sure.

It begins with a belief . . . if you look up the origins of crude oil, you will see that we don't know for sure. All we have is theory(s) and a 'consensus' of opinion (just like global warming). Scientists "believe" that organic material was crushed and heated into inorganic material deep in the earth.

They can extract oil from animals and from plants, but it's not petroleum.
Man has not been able to make petroleum. Refine it, yes... fabricate it, not so much.

What they didn't teach us in school was that there are other scientists around the world who believe that oil didn't come from dinosaurs and plants and they make more sense to me than the plants and dinosaurs theory ever did.

Sure, we can produce less efficient/more expensive alternatives to petroleum from a variety of vegetable oils. But why drive the price of everything we eat up to replace something that may not need replacing in the first place?

There are examples of oil fields replenishing themselves across the globe just like at Eugene Island 330 in the Gulf of Mexico offshore near Louisiana which has been "mysteriously" refilling and producing more oil than was ever expected. The oil appears to be refilling into the huge reservoir from far below near the earths core.

http://redstaterusa.blogspot.com/2007/12/origin-of-black-gold-texas-tea-debated.html

`
 
Another one:

<font size="5"><center>A strange phenomenon shows abundance
of possible crude oil in earth’s crust
replenishing the drawn out reserves </font size></center>


2349_320.gif


India Daily
April 18, 2005

Some strange things are happening in the field of oil exploration. Almost all over the world, in many oil and gas fields (not all) as crude oil and gas is being pumped out at a rate never witnessed before, the reserves are actually getting replenished through some strange phenomenon.

According to sources the phenomenon is especially conspicuous in offshore oil and gas fields.

According to researchers the earth’s crust which is thinner under the ocean is experiencing a strange behavior that may actually be very helpful for fossil fuel based energy supply.

The earth’s rocky crust and the upper mantle form the Lithosphere. According to some geologists, the lithosphere has recycled itself for millions of years starting from the time when life started on the earth. As a result, fossils are all over the planet’s lithosphere not just on top part of the crust.

As a result, as oil and gas are depleted due to extraction, the density difference between heavy rocks and these embedded fossil fuels all over in the lithosphere are replenishing the oil and gas fields.

The phenomenon is not conspicuous in all oil or gas fields. For example in the Middle East this is not happening. The reason that this does not happen in every oil and gas field in that in many cases, the embedded fossil fuel cannot surface in the void created by the oil and gas exploration because there are non- permeable rocks separating the embedded reserves and the void created by the exploration.

It is an accepted fact that the earth’s crust especially under the oceans does recycle. According to a theory called Wadati-Benioff zones, or simply Benioff zones earthquakes tend to be concentrated in certain areas, most notably along the oceanic trenches and spreading ridges. The prominent underwater earthquake zones parallel to the trenches that typically were inclined 40-60° from the horizontal and extended several hundred kilometers into the Earth.

Geologists believe that the ocean floor and underwater portion of the earth’s crust are continuously getting recycled. In certain areas, the magma is expanding, creating new ridges and therefore older ridges are moving apart. Based on this, do not assume that earth is expanding. In certain areas under the ocean, the magma is actually receding. When magma recedes, that part of the world experiences less stress and the porous crust can accumulate fossil oil and gas. Eventually as the magma recedes further, the ocean floor collapses into the magma. On another side of the world thousands of miles away, new ridges are formed and magma comes out to support the theory of expanding or shifting-apart ocean floors. Many Geologists believe, under ocean fault lines are caused by this phenomenon at any instance of time.

Based on this phenomenon, it is probable that earth’s oil and gas fields are getting replenished with fossil fuels embedded in the lithosphere.

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/2349.asp
 
<font size="5"><center>
Quest for oil leads to Dakota prairie</font size>
<font size="4">
Perhaps hundreds of billions of barrels </font size></center>


680-nm_bakken_041008.standalone.prod_affiliate.81.jpg



By RICK MONTGOMERY
The Kansas City Star
April 9, 2008

Deep under the northern Badlands, trapped tightly in dense layers of shale, there is oil.

Perhaps hundreds of billions of barrels of it.

A long-anticipated federal report to be released today will examine just how much might be squeezed out of a vast blanket of rock called the Bakken Formation.

Geologists have known about “the Bakken” for more than half a century. So the question isn’t whether high-quality crude really exists in a region not commonly associated with drilling rigs: North Dakota, eastern Montana and the southern parts of two Canadian provinces.

The question is, how tough is it to get at this oil?

With world market prices briefly topping $112 a barrel Wednesday, many producers are willing to go the extra mile — or in this case, two miles down and then sideways — to reach a reservoir that was either unreachable or not worth reaching until recent years.

Even so, just a small fraction of the Bakken’s mother lode may be deemed “technically recoverable” in the U.S. Geological Survey report, details of which were closely guarded.

Ron Ness of the North Dakota Petroleum Council reckoned that only about 1 percent of all the Bakken oil is recoverable using horizontal drilling and other new technologies, “and you only do that if it’s economical to do it.”

“It’s like tapping into your driveway. That’s how hard the oil is embedded in the rock.”

If the rosier views of some experts are correct, however, as much as 10 percent, 25 percent or even 50 percent of the obstinate oil could be coaxed out of the formation using the latest and costliest know-how.

Such scenarios foresee the Bakken offering up more domestic crude supplies than Alaska’s North Slope and the hotly disputed Arctic National Wildlife Refuge combined. On the Web, the wild possibilities and skeptics who snort at them have made the Bakken a kind of legendary Bigfoot in the energy-dependency debate.

“I believe the resource is in place, and the trick is finding the sweet spot,” said Steven Grape, a petrochemist at the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Scientific curiosity bubbled up last year — as did the economic hopes of rural North Dakota — when Houston-based EOG Resources reported that a single well it had drilled below the town of Parshall was expected to deliver 700,000 barrels in its lifetime. In 2007, the number of wells in the Bakken rose from 300 to more than 450. Drillers have encountered the formation throughout an area known as Williston Basin, through which the Missouri River flows.

“The people are just waking up and realizing, ‘Hey, we’ve got an oil boom on our hands,’ ” Grape said.

The Geological Survey in 1995 estimated the amount of recoverable oil in the Bakken at around 150 million barrels — less than the amount of oil Kansas produces in five years.

But estimates are apt to climb significantly with today’s report. In Montana, the Elm Coulee Field alone has been producing 15 million barrels annually since 2005.

Estimates of the total amount of crude sitting in the Bakken have varied wildly since the 1950s, when the formation got its name. (Henry O. Bakken owned the North Dakota land where Amerada Petroleum Co. drilled the Bakken No. 1 well.)

The most intriguing calculations came from a federal geochemist, Leigh Price, who died before his findings were published. A draft study at the time of his death in 2000 did not receive a complete scientific review, but Price’s estimates were staggering — from 271 billion to 503 billion barrels of potential resources in the ground.

That would be well more than all current recoverable crude oil resources in the U.S., which the Energy Information Administration estimates at 175 billion barrels.

In light of the nation’s foreign-dependency woes and the potential for thousands of new jobs, U.S. Sen. Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, asked the Geological Survey to update its estimates using Price’s unpublished work.

“This is not going to be a red light or green light about oil development in the Bakken. Clearly, there already is a big green light there,” Dorgan told The Associated Press. “But I think the question is pretty clear: How much of that oil is recoverable using today’s technology?”

And just as important, at what cost?

“Hundred-dollars-a-barrel helps offset the risk,” said geologist Julie LeFever, who has spent decades researching the Bakken for the North Dakota Geological Survey. “But if the price drops through the floor, most of the drilling would be over. The bottom line always is economics.”

Horizontal drilling and the modern fracturing techniques used to collect the crude cost about $6 million per well — six times the expense of a vertical well. But Ness said a horizontal operation, if successful, can produce many times the oil.

He compared the method to excavating the creme filling of an Oreo cookie from the side rather than by drilling several holes from the top.

The U.S. Geological Service said it would release its findings this afternoon on the service’s Web site, www.usgs.gov.

“This is not going to solve a great mystery,” Ness predicted. “Let’s focus on the recoverable reserves.

“They can get 50 or 70 percent of the oil up in the North Slope. Here? We’re getting about 1 percent.”

http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/569274.html
 
<font size="5"><center>
Russia's oil boom may be running on empty</font size></center>


635-22web-RUSSIANOIL-major.major_story_img.prod_affiliate.91.jpg

Workers struggle to cap a blowout in the Priobsk oil field
in West Siberia in 2000.


McClatchy Newspapers
By Tom Lasseter
Friday, August 22, 2008

MOSCOW — The Russian oil boom, which has produced a gusher of cash, political power and an opulent elite — and has helped fuel the country's renewed assertiveness in Georgia and elsewhere — is on shakier ground than officials in Moscow would like to admit.

Most of the oil produced after the country's 1998 financial collapse has come from drilling and re-drilling old Soviet oil fields with more advanced equipment — squeezing more black gold out of the same ground — and efforts to develop new fields have been slow or non-existent.

That strategy is potentially disastrous, said Valery Kryukov, who researches oil companies in western Siberia for a government-funded think tank.

"If the situation which exists now stays the same, oil production will start to decline seriously in two years," Kryukov said in a phone interview from his offices in the city of Novosibirsk.

The implications extend far beyond Russia's borders. Last year, Russia was the world's second-largest oil producer. If its output begins to decline or is hampered by inept or corrupt business practices, the price of oil could begin climbing again.

The concerns about Russia's oil industry also raise questions about the health of the nation's economy, which has enjoyed stratospheric growth thanks to high oil prices since the economic crisis a decade ago, according to interviews with a dozen economists and analysts.

Higher oil and gas prices could further enrich and embolden resurgent Russia, but if production declines sharply, a hungry bear could prove to be even more troublesome than a prosperous one is.

That's a serious matter for a country where, by some estimates, the oil sector funded about a third of the national budget last year, and where by all accounts industrial, technological and agricultural businesses lag far behind. Russia's other major revenue source is natural gas, in which Russia leads the world; oil and gas sales are mainly responsible for the country's $592 billion in gold and foreign exchange reserves.

The practice of reaping quick profits and ignoring long-term interests is reminiscent of the former Soviet Union's development policies, and it was embraced by post-Soviet billionaires, known as oligarchs, who propped up flimsy companies to strip Russia's natural resources for as many fast rubles as possible. It continued as the government took over many of those private companies, often by brutish means.

Under Vladimir Putin, Russia's president from 2000 to 2008 and now the prime minister, the Russian government dismantled the nation's largest oil firm, Yukos, and imprisoned its founder.

The government declared oil to be part of a "strategic sector" in which foreign investors need permission from the government before they can buy a significant stake in companies. Foreigners have been steadily shoved out, including a recent incident in which the head of the joint Russia-UK company TNK-BP, one of the country's leading oil concerns, and 148 specialists left the country after their visa status was called into question.

In the short-term, business has been lucrative: Russian oil output jumped from about 6.1 million barrels a day in 1998, when the price of a 42-gallon barrel was less than $20, to an average of some 9.7 million barrels a day in the first half of this year. Prices reached $145 a barrel in July before dropping back to the $120 range.

At its current rate of production, though, Russia will run out of oil relatively soon, in about two decades, according to BP statistics. Saudi Arabia — last year's biggest oil producer — can continue pumping at its current clip for about 70 years, according to the same BP statistics.

A chart provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration lays out the stark details: Only two of Russia's 14 largest oil producing fields were opened after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, and half of the 14 were more than 60 percent depleted in 2006. As fields are depleted, pumping oil out of them generally becomes harder and more expensive.

After a decade of oil production increases, there's been a slight drop — 0.5 percent — in production during the first seven months of this year, according to state statistics. Troika Dialog, Russia's largest investment bank, is forecasting a 0.7 percent decline in oil production this year from 2007.

In response, Russian officials have rolled out a proposed tax break that could enable oil companies to save an estimated $4.2 billion or more in the hope that firms will use the cash to go find more oil.

Economists who are bullish about Russian oil point to upcoming projects on offshore sites — awarded to two state-controlled companies — that could substantially increase the country's oil reserves.

Officials in Russia's ministry of economic development didn't respond to repeated requests for comment.

However, Valery Tsvetkov, a deputy of the institute of market problems at the state-funded Academy of Sciences, laid out an array of statistics showing what's wrong with Russia's oil industry.

Among them: In 1990, some 17.3 million feet of new wells were drilled looking for new reserves in the former Soviet Union, almost all of them in what's now the Russian Federation. In 2007, about 3.9 million feet were drilled.

"Why? Because today those who work in the oil industry find it easier to take the cream off the existing fields than to find new fields," Tsvetkov said. When he and others send research papers to the government about potential economic problems, he said: "No one reads them."

"The Russian government has few people with the mentality of statesmen," Tsvetkov said. "Today, the aim of many people is to become rich at the expense of the state."

Indeed, there are few signs of concern in the nation's capital, a caviar wonderland for the Learjet crowd. Moscow has more billionaires than any other city in the world — 74 according to Forbes magazine. Lest the millionaires feel left out, there's an annual Millionaire Fair where a big spender can buy a $1 million set of diamond-encrusted rims for his Mercedes or BMW.

Even optimists, however, are worried about the economy's dependence on oil revenues during a time when reserves are ebbing.

Valery Nesterov, an analyst at Troika Dialog, showed a reporter a map of Russia's oil and gas infrastructure — a vast array of wells and pipelines — and gestured to blank expanses in the eastern provinces. The oil under the ground there and in the waters surrounding Russia could secure its position as a world leader, he said.

When asked about the current flattening of production numbers, and the extent to which Russia's economy is tied to oil, Nesterov's tone changed.

"Every Russian who thinks is worried about this. Unfortunately, there are no signs this will change," Nesterov said. "These days, the economy is dependent on natural-resource exports, which is just a temporary bonanza. These resources sooner or later will be depleted."

A Western diplomat in Moscow said drilling in old fields makes sense from the perspective of Russia's ruling elite, who control energy companies only as long as they remain in power.

"If you're running Gazprom (a Russian natural-gas producer) but you don't really own it, then your interest is maximizing short-term profits, not long-term development," said the Western diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the subject. "If you look at most of the Russian companies — the energy companies — that's precisely what's happened. They have focused on profits or dividends and less so on long term development and replacing reserves."

In a nation with a history of economic tumult and social unrest, the diplomat said, it doesn't bode well for the future.

"They're not Keynesians," the diplomat said, "they're Russians."

McClatchy Newspapers 2008

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/49962.html
 
Peak Oil My Muthafuckin Ass - Oil is $58 a barrel

$100 a barrel- totally fuckin inflated, assholes telling people its demand, China needs oil too. Well it is demand but it seems that broke America doesn't need to do quite as much driving now that it has no cash and what happens. I thought demand would only increase infinitely?????????????

Gas is $1.87 here in South Carolina now. I thought we'd never get below $2 a gallon again??????????? Peak Oil could occur, but its not here. Peak Oil has become the Oil Cartel's latest marketing tool.

I want to hear your opinions on this.
 
Re: Peak Oil My Muthafuckin Ass - Oil is $58 a barrel

I really would like to know the cause of the increase and the decrease in the price of a barrel. I thought some commisson or the Justice Department or somebody (there is a thread I believe -- will search) that was supposed to be investigating the cause.

"The Cause" is related to everything: price - present and future; the real story with respect to peak oil; and what measures we should be taking to deal with these matters, short and long term.

Damn. I'd like to be Chairman of the Energy Committee or whatever with power of subpoena. I'd find the cause, shitty pants and all.

QueEx
 
Re: Peak Oil My Muthafuckin Ass - Oil is $58 a barrel

I really would like to know the cause of the increase and the decrease in the price of a barrel. I thought some commisson or the Justice Department or somebody (there is a thread I believe -- will search) that was supposed to be investigating the cause.

"The Cause" is related to everything: price - present and future; the real story with respect to peak oil; and what measures we should be taking to deal with these matters, short and long term.

Damn. I'd like to be Chairman of the Energy Committee or whatever with power of subpoena. I'd find the cause, shitty pants and all.

QueEx

Maybe a trip to Saudi Arabia right after the 2006 election cause this.... Que you know who I'M talking about ;)
 
Re: Peak Oil My Muthafuckin Ass - Oil is $58 a barrel

I really would like to know the cause of the increase and the decrease in the price of a barrel. I thought some commisson or the Justice Department or somebody (there is a thread I believe -- will search) that was supposed to be investigating the cause.

"The Cause" is related to everything: price - present and future; the real story with respect to peak oil; and what measures we should be taking to deal with these matters, short and long term.

Damn. I'd like to be Chairman of the Energy Committee or whatever with power of subpoena. I'd find the cause, shitty pants and all.

QueEx

Maybe this new Administration will actually call the Oil people to come explain all this?

I'd like to know as well. :angry:

All said, lets not forget that Oil companies always make a profit when Oil prices go up.
 
Re: Peak Oil My Muthafuckin Ass - Oil is $58 a barrel

All said, lets not forget that Oil companies always make a profit when Oil prices go up.

Yeah, and so do Oil Producing and Export Countries as well as cast of characters who I do not know by trade-name who bid on, buy and otherwise speculate on, oil.

I want to know what each have been doing. These parties have been pointing fingers at each other for the longest. Its time we get down to whats really going on. AND, if we cant, I'm afraid we have a monster (rising oil prices) that we can't control, can't harness and can't plan around because we don't really know what the Fuck is going on.

Hot dammit, I want that ended :angry:
 
Re: Peak Oil My Muthafuckin Ass - Oil is $58 a barrel

Remember for the past 3 years Oil companies and their dupes/supporters were claiming that the inflated price - "marketing fees" and supply etc were driving shit - pure lies
Remember all that "we have to recoup are exploration costs" okay so now they cant be recouping them right? so theyre going out of business now right? Hell no.

Basically we had an Opec Presidency with Bush- our energy policy was fucking written by the OIL COMPANIES - thats the reason Cheney has been saying he's not in the executive branch to ditch subpopenas. Ive been telling people for 2 years that oil will drop before the election and stay down afterward. Obama might not go after big oil for their bullshit lies and price fixing now that prices are down but I think he would have if prices stayed inflated.
Gas supplies are high as fuck now- why?Demand has remained steady. Supply is high because the muthafuckin refineries boosted output.

:smh: this shit is like living 100 yrs ago - fuckin oligarchs going buckwild
all thats left is 8 yr olds in factories


Another part of the price per barrel - oil is traded as a commodity - hedge funds scrambled to buy oil and other comoddities after the market started tanking artificially inflating the price beyond real demand- oil started going down when hedge funds couldnt afford to do that shit anymore in a way that could compare with everyone else not buying.

Now that they've made the price of food skyrocket we have to wait a yr or 2 for food companies to drop their prices again
 
Last edited:
Re: Peak Oil My Muthafuckin Ass - Oil is $58 a barrel

a post from the venezuela thread
http://www.bgol.us/board/showpost.php?p=641889&postcount=45

08/25/2005
The Truth About Soaring Oil Prices
By: Tamara Tragakiss

It's really not much more complicated than sticking a straw into dry, loose sand and letting the oil gush up. It costs $1.50 a barrel to extract. When members of the Saudi royal family want to increase their profit margin, they and their fellow OPEC nations turn the spigots down, make wildly contradictory claims about reserves and pumping capacities and issue false promises and mixed messages-all of this designed to send the oil traders into a panic at every minor supply interruption.

The result is that the desert oil barons, crafty and corrupt, sit back and collect $30, then $40, then $50, and now almost $66 a barrel for their crude oil.
The money props up their unstable regimes, fosters social decay and repression in their countries, and some of it ultimately ends up in the coffers of terrorist organizations.
This is the world of oil, according to author and former commodities trader Raymond J. Learsy.
He says OPEC has for many years been carrying out this age old "shell game," which has been aided and abetted by our own government's policies, by a complacent and undisciplined American oil consumer and by a gullible mainstream media. Mr. Learsy believes that it's time we, the
oil-consuming nations, break the grip of the oil cartel before the money we send its way ends up breaking us.
It's a message that the Sharon resident of 40 years has been trying to send to America and its politicians since 1991, when, at the end of the first Gulf War, he wrote an Op-Ed piece in The New York Times entitled "Did We Fight the War to Save OPEC?" Apparently, he believes so.
In the newly-released book "Over A Barrel, Breaking the Middle East Oil Cartel," Mr. Learsy follows up on this theme-after more than a decade in which he says things have only worsened-and delivers a clarion call of impending disaster, both economically and in terms of our national security.
Despite being the subject of a deluge of interviews last week that included appearances on CNN International, Fox News and at least 15 radio programs, Mr. Learsy, a writer as yet unaccustomed to being in the media spotlight, took some time to answer questions at his Sharon home last Friday.
He is incredulous that Americans, commodity experts and the media seem to have swallowed whole the notion that oil is now, or is about to become, scarce and that we should therefore accept high prices as an accurate reflection of the narrowing supply-demand gap.
"Six years ago," he pointed out, "the price of oil was closer to $10 a barrel. It's practically unheard of for a commodity to jump 600 percent in six years. And nobody is stomping their feet somewhere."

Dressed comfortably and sipping a Diet Coke, Mr. Learsy seemed much more relaxed than when he had appeared on a recent television news show. At first somewhat reserved, in person Mr. Learsy soon opens up with surprising warmth and candor. His manner of speech is earthy and earnest, reminiscent of those corporate men of the old days who succeeded in an era that valued street smarts over MBAs.
Brimstone Exports, the name of Mr. Learsy's trading company, which retired with its owner some years ago, had offices all over the world, and chartered ships and rail cars by the hundreds, he said, calling it "a blood and guts life business." The company traded everything from strawberries to chemical fertilizers, including phosphates, phosphate rock, ammonia and sulfur.
In his new book, he writes about those days of less formal trading, in the early 60s: "We got along on our character, our connections and what we knew." It was then, as a
28-year-old, that Mr. Learsy encountered his first cartel.
Three companies had formed the Sulfur Export Corporation (Sulexco), a legal cartel at the time that had a lock on the world market in sulfur, which came mostly from underground domes in the southern United States. Sulexco, the author explained, kept supplies tight to cultivate an illusion of scarcity. They cast themselves in the role of benevolent keepers and distributors of a dwindling resource. Believing this propaganda made buyers grateful to get their hands on the precious commodity at any price, the author said.

"It was a heady scene," he writes, when he discovered a supplier in Western Canada who was able to get sulfur as a byproduct of natural gas. The young trader parlayed this into a deal with a large British chemical company, a move that not only set up Mr. Learsy's future business, Brimstone, but eventually broke the myth of sulfur scarcity, and with it, Sulexco's chokehold on the market.
Nowadays, he sees a parallel between the old sulfur monopoly and the current oil monopoly. His book attempts to expose what he considers to be many of the fallacies and myths that support the interests of both OPEC producers and our own domestic oil industry.
Even on the question of whether oil production in the Middle East is nearing its peak, he thinks it is impossible to speculate, writing, "All OPEC members' figures are opaque and must be considered suspect until the cartel allows them to be verified ... ."
He has little patience for the often-heard justification for today's high gasoline prices at the pump-topping $2.50 a gallon and rising-that, adjusted for inflation, they are about the same as what we were paying in 1981.
"All this nonsense about inflation-adjusted prices is just a charade to keep us happy that we're paying through the nose," he said. Oil should not be judged that way, Mr. Learsy explained, offering a comparison involving gold. The price of gold was $800 an ounce in 1981, and if treated like oil, it should be $1,600 to $1,700 today, rather than its current trading price of around $450.
Offering other examples, Mr. Learsy said that if the world tolerated the type of markup taken by OPEC, an ice cream cone would cost $25 and a Ford Taurus would cost $300,000. The cost of production doesn't justify those prices, but if OPEC's example were followed, that's where they would stand.

A lack of refinery capacity in this country, which OPEC members have cited as one reason why crude oil prices keep rising, is another canard, he insisted.
"Think about that. If I'm producing oil and you have 10 refineries, and suddenly you close two refineries, you are going to need less oil ... Demand for oil would go down," he argued.
He also simply doesn't agree with current predictions of long-term high prices for crude, but admitted, "I'm a voice in the wilderness. I really think there's no reason for the price to be at that level."
Though he generally supports free-market ideas and many of the policies of the current administration, Mr. Learsy remains sharply critical of what he considers the oil industry's unhealthy influence on the policies of both President George W. Bush, and his father before him.
"But I also say the following in the book and I mean this-that Bush is an oil man. It's bred in the bone. He knows more about it than probably anyone else in government and he is probably the one best equipped to lead us out of this wilderness."
The energy bill, which came out after the book went to press, is not, according to Mr. Learsy, much of a start. "It does some things reasonably well," he said, but "it's pork barrel. It gives the oil industry enormous tax benefits, which are totally uncalled for at $60-a-barrel oil, which shows you the influence of that segment of our society."
In a narrative that sometimes reads like an Arabian tale, Mr. Learsy's book traces out OPEC's emergence and development into a powerful oil monopoly. He goes on to imagine a "nightmare scenario" in which crude oil prices push toward $100 a barrel, sending a tsunami shock wave of economic and political disaster around the world. Finally, the book lays out a prescription for breaking the cartel and averting such a disaster, by compiling familiar and less-familiar proposals into a comprehensive solution for both the short- and the long-term.
Mr. Learsy's strategy addresses both conservation and alternative energy development measures, calls for releases from the Strategic Oil Reserve to stimulate a price drop and offers other demand-tempering policies, such as a voucher system for gasoline.
Though he admits some of his proposals might be controversial, he believes something must be done. "[The money] is going to very unstable regimes, to people who are propagating "wahhabi" schools and imams [who are] preaching hatred of our ideals and hatred of the things that we cherish and hold to be important. And where they are not immediately successful, they are not without the will to draw blood."
It seems as if no one is listening, though. "Sometimes I feel a little like the boy [in "The Emperor's New Clothes"] pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. I'm waiting for other people to pick up on this ... ."
In commenting on last week's article in The New York Times Sunday magazine, "Breaking Point," in which writer Peter Maass suggests, among things, that the oil scarcity is real this time, the retired commodities trader had this to say: "Maass has become a card-carrying member of the good cop/bad cop fraternity of oil patch flacks, scaring us half to death by [prognostications] of the imminent demise of oil-and thereby helping to justify extortionist prices-but simultaneously assuring us that it is only with a heavy heart and concern that the Saudis, OPEC and its minions are gouging us at the pump."
"Over a Barrel," published by Nelson Current, started at 480,000th on Amazon.com just prior to its publication, and this week climbed to 1000th, where it currently hovers. Mr. Learsy has written for The New York Times and National Review Online, and is a member of the Wilson Council at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. He lives in Sharon with his wife, Melva Bucksbaum, whom he refers to as his "Muse."
 
Last edited:
Re: Peak Oil My Muthafuckin Ass - Oil is $58 a barrel

a post from the venezuela thread
http://www.bgol.us/board/showpost.php?p=641889&postcount=45

08/25/2005
The Truth About Soaring Oil Prices
By: Tamara Tragakiss

It's really not much more complicated than sticking a straw into dry, loose sand and letting the oil gush up. It costs $1.50 a barrel to extract. When members of the Saudi royal family want to increase their profit margin, they and their fellow OPEC nations turn the spigots down, make wildly contradictory claims about reserves and pumping capacities and issue false promises and mixed messages-all of this designed to send the oil traders into a panic at every minor supply interruption.

The result is that the desert oil barons, crafty and corrupt, sit back and collect $30, then $40, then $50, and now almost $66 a barrel for their crude oil.
The money props up their unstable regimes, fosters social decay and repression in their countries, and some of it ultimately ends up in the coffers of terrorist organizations.
This is the world of oil, according to author and former commodities trader Raymond J. Learsy.
He says OPEC has for many years been carrying out this age old "shell game," which has been aided and abetted by our own government's policies, by a complacent and undisciplined American oil consumer and by a gullible mainstream media. Mr. Learsy believes that it's time we, the
oil-consuming nations, break the grip of the oil cartel before the money we send its way ends up breaking us.
It's a message that the Sharon resident of 40 years has been trying to send to America and its politicians since 1991, when, at the end of the first Gulf War, he wrote an Op-Ed piece in The New York Times entitled "Did We Fight the War to Save OPEC?" Apparently, he believes so.
In the newly-released book "Over A Barrel, Breaking the Middle East Oil Cartel," Mr. Learsy follows up on this theme-after more than a decade in which he says things have only worsened-and delivers a clarion call of impending disaster, both economically and in terms of our national security.
Despite being the subject of a deluge of interviews last week that included appearances on CNN International, Fox News and at least 15 radio programs, Mr. Learsy, a writer as yet unaccustomed to being in the media spotlight, took some time to answer questions at his Sharon home last Friday.
He is incredulous that Americans, commodity experts and the media seem to have swallowed whole the notion that oil is now, or is about to become, scarce and that we should therefore accept high prices as an accurate reflection of the narrowing supply-demand gap.
"Six years ago," he pointed out, "the price of oil was closer to $10 a barrel. It's practically unheard of for a commodity to jump 600 percent in six years. And nobody is stomping their feet somewhere."

Dressed comfortably and sipping a Diet Coke, Mr. Learsy seemed much more relaxed than when he had appeared on a recent television news show. At first somewhat reserved, in person Mr. Learsy soon opens up with surprising warmth and candor. His manner of speech is earthy and earnest, reminiscent of those corporate men of the old days who succeeded in an era that valued street smarts over MBAs.
Brimstone Exports, the name of Mr. Learsy's trading company, which retired with its owner some years ago, had offices all over the world, and chartered ships and rail cars by the hundreds, he said, calling it "a blood and guts life business." The company traded everything from strawberries to chemical fertilizers, including phosphates, phosphate rock, ammonia and sulfur.
In his new book, he writes about those days of less formal trading, in the early 60s: "We got along on our character, our connections and what we knew." It was then, as a
28-year-old, that Mr. Learsy encountered his first cartel.
Three companies had formed the Sulfur Export Corporation (Sulexco), a legal cartel at the time that had a lock on the world market in sulfur, which came mostly from underground domes in the southern United States. Sulexco, the author explained, kept supplies tight to cultivate an illusion of scarcity. They cast themselves in the role of benevolent keepers and distributors of a dwindling resource. Believing this propaganda made buyers grateful to get their hands on the precious commodity at any price, the author said.

"It was a heady scene," he writes, when he discovered a supplier in Western Canada who was able to get sulfur as a byproduct of natural gas. The young trader parlayed this into a deal with a large British chemical company, a move that not only set up Mr. Learsy's future business, Brimstone, but eventually broke the myth of sulfur scarcity, and with it, Sulexco's chokehold on the market.
Nowadays, he sees a parallel between the old sulfur monopoly and the current oil monopoly. His book attempts to expose what he considers to be many of the fallacies and myths that support the interests of both OPEC producers and our own domestic oil industry.
Even on the question of whether oil production in the Middle East is nearing its peak, he thinks it is impossible to speculate, writing, "All OPEC members' figures are opaque and must be considered suspect until the cartel allows them to be verified ... ."
He has little patience for the often-heard justification for today's high gasoline prices at the pump-topping $2.50 a gallon and rising-that, adjusted for inflation, they are about the same as what we were paying in 1981.
"All this nonsense about inflation-adjusted prices is just a charade to keep us happy that we're paying through the nose," he said. Oil should not be judged that way, Mr. Learsy explained, offering a comparison involving gold. The price of gold was $800 an ounce in 1981, and if treated like oil, it should be $1,600 to $1,700 today, rather than its current trading price of around $450.
Offering other examples, Mr. Learsy said that if the world tolerated the type of markup taken by OPEC, an ice cream cone would cost $25 and a Ford Taurus would cost $300,000. The cost of production doesn't justify those prices, but if OPEC's example were followed, that's where they would stand.

A lack of refinery capacity in this country, which OPEC members have cited as one reason why crude oil prices keep rising, is another canard, he insisted.
"Think about that. If I'm producing oil and you have 10 refineries, and suddenly you close two refineries, you are going to need less oil ... Demand for oil would go down," he argued.
He also simply doesn't agree with current predictions of long-term high prices for crude, but admitted, "I'm a voice in the wilderness. I really think there's no reason for the price to be at that level."
Though he generally supports free-market ideas and many of the policies of the current administration, Mr. Learsy remains sharply critical of what he considers the oil industry's unhealthy influence on the policies of both President George W. Bush, and his father before him.
"But I also say the following in the book and I mean this-that Bush is an oil man. It's bred in the bone. He knows more about it than probably anyone else in government and he is probably the one best equipped to lead us out of this wilderness."
The energy bill, which came out after the book went to press, is not, according to Mr. Learsy, much of a start. "It does some things reasonably well," he said, but "it's pork barrel. It gives the oil industry enormous tax benefits, which are totally uncalled for at $60-a-barrel oil, which shows you the influence of that segment of our society."
In a narrative that sometimes reads like an Arabian tale, Mr. Learsy's book traces out OPEC's emergence and development into a powerful oil monopoly. He goes on to imagine a "nightmare scenario" in which crude oil prices push toward $100 a barrel, sending a tsunami shock wave of economic and political disaster around the world. Finally, the book lays out a prescription for breaking the cartel and averting such a disaster, by compiling familiar and less-familiar proposals into a comprehensive solution for both the short- and the long-term.
Mr. Learsy's strategy addresses both conservation and alternative energy development measures, calls for releases from the Strategic Oil Reserve to stimulate a price drop and offers other demand-tempering policies, such as a voucher system for gasoline.
Though he admits some of his proposals might be controversial, he believes something must be done. "[The money] is going to very unstable regimes, to people who are propagating "wahhabi" schools and imams [who are] preaching hatred of our ideals and hatred of the things that we cherish and hold to be important. And where they are not immediately successful, they are not without the will to draw blood."
It seems as if no one is listening, though. "Sometimes I feel a little like the boy [in "The Emperor's New Clothes"] pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. I'm waiting for other people to pick up on this ... ."
In commenting on last week's article in The New York Times Sunday magazine, "Breaking Point," in which writer Peter Maass suggests, among things, that the oil scarcity is real this time, the retired commodities trader had this to say: "Maass has become a card-carrying member of the good cop/bad cop fraternity of oil patch flacks, scaring us half to death by [prognostications] of the imminent demise of oil-and thereby helping to justify extortionist prices-but simultaneously assuring us that it is only with a heavy heart and concern that the Saudis, OPEC and its minions are gouging us at the pump."
"Over a Barrel," published by Nelson Current, started at 480,000th on Amazon.com just prior to its publication, and this week climbed to 1000th, where it currently hovers. Mr. Learsy has written for The New York Times and National Review Online, and is a member of the Wilson Council at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. He lives in Sharon with his wife, Melva Bucksbaum, whom he refers to as his "Muse."

Good read!
 
Re: Peak Oil My Muthafuckin Ass - Oil is $58 a barrel

<font size="5"><center>
Oil prices fall below $45;
market looks to OPEC</font size></center>



Associated Press
By PABLO GORONDI
December 12, 2008

Oil prices fell below $45 a barrel Friday in reaction to news that a $14 billion emergency bailout for U.S. automakers had collapsed in the Senate, raising more fears for the U.S. economy.

The decline came after a strong rally in the previous session and traders said expectations of a significant production cut by OPEC would help keep a floor under prices.

By midday in Europe, light, sweet crude for January delivery was down $3.10 to $44.88 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Overnight, the contract surged $4.46, or 10 percent, to settle at $47.98.

In London, January Brent crude fell $3.07 to $44.32 a barrel on the ICE Futures exchange.

David Moore, commodity strategist at Commonwealth Bank of Australia in Sydney, said comments by Saudi Arabia's Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi on Thursday that November production by the world's largest exporter was in line with OPEC's recently lowered targets indicated it was serious about output cuts.

"There are expectations that OPEC will move to tighten supplies," Moore said. "Oil prices softened this morning but well within the range we saw last night (despite) worries about falling consumption because of economic weakness."

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which accounts for about 40 percent of global crude supply, has signaled it plans to reduce output quotas at a meeting Dec. 17 in Algeria.

Many analysts expect a production cut of as much as 2 million barrels a day, which would match the combined reductions of two previous output cuts earlier this year.

But they say the success of any production cuts in stabilizing oil price will depend on how closely OPEC members comply. OPEC's overall November production was well above quotas agreed to by member states, according to Platts, the energy information arm of McGraw-Hill Cos.

Victor Shum, energy analyst at consultancy Purvin & Gertz in Singapore, said oil prices were adjusting Friday to what was seen as an "overdone" rally. Weaker stock markets across Asia also pressured prices, he said.

"The biggest factor is still the expectation that OPEC will make substantial production cut next week, with coordination from Russia," he said.

Russia has said it plans to coordinate production levels with other non-OPEC producers. On Thursday, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev suggested that Russia is ready to work with OPEC.

"Both the Russian government and Russian producers have a common interest in higher prices and this is increasing the chance of a coordinated effort to curb supplies," said Olivier Jakob of Petromatrix in Switzerland.

Oil's rally overnight was boosted by a falling dollar, which makes commodities like oil more attractive. It outweighed a warning from the International Energy Agency that energy demand will shrink this year for the first time since 1983.

In the report Thursday, the Paris-based IEA cut its forecast for global oil demand in 2008 by 350,000 barrels a day to 85.8 million barrels a day, down 0.2 percent from 2007. It also said 2009 demand would increase by just 0.5 percent to 86.3 million barrels a day. That's 200,000 barrels a day less than its estimate last month.

Oil prices have fallen 70 percent since peaking at $147.27 in July. After hitting $40.50 a barrel last week, some oil traders believe that if the market has not bottomed out, it is close to doing so.

In other Nymex trading, gasoline futures fell 3.28 cents to $1.0458 a gallon. Heating oil dipped 4.7 cents to $1.4596 a gallon and natural gas for January delivery lost 10.5 cents to $5.493 per 1,000 cubic feet.

Associated Press writer Eileen Ng in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, contributed to this report.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i5TtajgUpSm7KY5jf-lCJGHBB-tAD9514O880
 
Re: Peak Oil My Muthafuckin Ass - Oil is $58 a barrel

just imagine if the dollar was stronger - itd be in the 30s
 
Re: Peak Oil My Muthafuckin Ass - Oil is $58 a barrel

somehow my peak oil is bullshit threads have all been deleted from the politics and main boards

6 minutes just had a story backing up what ive been saying about speculators driving up the prices

turns out the same people from enron who were inflating the electricity markets - that caused those blackouts in california- went to work for places like jp morgan chase and did the same shit to oil

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/08/60minutes/main4707770.shtml

maybe que can embed the page or the video

the article is 4 pages so i didnt post it
 
Re: Peak Oil My Muthafuckin Ass - Oil is $58 a barrel

<IFRAME SRC="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/08/60minutes/main4707770.shtml" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/08/60minutes/main4707770.shtml">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
Re: Peak Oil My Muthafuckin Ass - Oil is $58 a barrel

It's not funny but there's no way this govt didn't know speculators were driving up the price of oil. The question is why are THEY doing this. THEY already have more money than THEY will ever spend. This has to be about a New World Order of some sorts, one where there are only two classes. But why?
 
Re: Peak Oil My Muthafuckin Ass - Oil is $58 a barrel

It's not funny but there's no way this govt didn't know speculators were driving up the price of oil. The question is why are THEY doing this. THEY already have more money than THEY will ever spend. This has to be about a New World Order of some sorts, one where there are only two classes. But why?

what I never got is how other businessmen could allow themselves to be destroyed via high fuel costs when they could clearly not support those who were working against their interests- but the majority of them supported Bush anyway. I asked some old schoolers why they would support someone who was gonna get them fucked up and the answer was fear - they fear making waves more than possibly being broke. Doesn't make sense to me, but I've been broke before :lol:
 
Re: Peak Oil My Muthafuckin Ass - Oil is $58 a barrel

I wouldn't be surprised if select business people got kickbacks from oil companies and that missing 350 billion bailout money no one can account for.
 
<font size="5"><center>
Quest for oil leads to Dakota prairie</font size>
<font size="4">
Perhaps hundreds of billions of barrels </font size></center>


By RICK MONTGOMERY
The Kansas City Star
April 9, 2008

Deep under the northern Badlands, trapped tightly in dense layers of shale, there is oil.

Perhaps hundreds of billions of barrels of it.

A long-anticipated federal report to be released today will examine just how much might be squeezed out of a vast blanket of rock called the Bakken Formation.

Geologists have known about “the Bakken” for more than half a century. So the question isn’t whether high-quality crude really exists in a region not commonly associated with drilling rigs: North Dakota, eastern Montana and the southern parts of two Canadian provinces.

The question is, how tough is it to get at this oil?


<IFRAME SRC="http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/us-offshore-oil-reserves/" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/us-offshore-oil-reserves/">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
Last edited:
(Doc) Oil Smoke and Mirrors

2i20p4l.jpg




Peak oil
is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline. The concept is based on the observed production rates of individual oil wells, and the combined production rate of a field of related oil wells. The aggregate production rate from an oil field over time usually grows exponentially until the rate peaks and then declines—sometimes rapidly—until the field is depleted. This concept is derived from the Hubbert curve, and has been shown to be applicable to the sum of a nation’s domestic production rate, and is similarly applied to the global rate of petroleum production. Peak oil is often confused with oil depletion; peak oil is the point of maximum production while depletion refers to a period of falling reserves and supply.

M. King Hubbert created and first used the models behind peak oil in 1956 to accurately predict that United States oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970.[1] His logistic model, now called Hubbert peak theory, and its variants have described with reasonable accuracy the peak and decline of production from oil wells, fields, regions, and countries,[2] and has also proved useful in other limited-resource production-domains. According to the Hubbert model, the production rate of a limited resource will follow a roughly symmetrical bell-shaped curve based on the limits of exploitability and market pressures. Various modified versions of his original logistic model are used, using more complex functions to allow for real world factors. While each version is applied to a specific domain, the central features of the Hubbert curve (that production stops rising and then declines) remain unchanged, albeit with different profiles.

Some observers, such as petroleum industry experts Kenneth S. Deffeyes and Matthew Simmons, believe the high dependence of most modern industrial transport, agricultural and industrial systems on the relative low cost and high availability of oil will cause the post-peak production decline and possible severe increases in the price of oil to have negative implications for the global economy. Predictions vary greatly as to what exactly these negative effects would be.

If political and economic changes only occur in reaction to high prices and shortages rather than in reaction to the threat of a peak, then the degree of economic damage to importing countries will largely depend on how rapidly oil imports decline post-peak. According to the Export Land Model, oil exports drop much more quickly than production drops due to domestic consumption increases in exporting countries. Supply shortfalls would cause extreme price inflation, unless demand is mitigated with planned conservation measures and use of alternatives.

Optimistic estimations of peak production forecast the global decline will begin by 2020 or later, and assume major investments in alternatives will occur before a crisis, without requiring major changes in the lifestyle of heavily oil-consuming nations. These models show the price of oil at first escalating and then retreating as other types of fuel and energy sources are used.

Pessimistic predictions of future oil production operate on the thesis that either the peak has already occurred, we are on the cusp of the peak, or that it will occur shortly and, as proactive mitigation may no longer be an option, predict a global depression, perhaps even initiating a chain reaction of the various feedback mechanisms in the global market which might stimulate a collapse of global industrial civilization, potentially leading to large population declines within a short period. Throughout the first two quarters of 2008, there were signs that a possible US recession was being made worse by a series of record oil prices.

Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

Video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...OgmSo7KNY_MrgL7n_mfCg&q=oil+smoke+and+mirrors
 
Re: (Doc) Oil Smoke and Mirrors

<IFRAME SRC="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8296096.stm" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8296096.stm">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
If they're saying it could peak by 2020 (given how the white media machine lies about numbers all the time)...

expect to see $4 gas in 2-3 years, and severe gas shortages by 2015.

By 2020, the cost of gas would probably be prohibitive for most daily drivers (say bye bye to traffic jams).

Mark this and prepare for gas shortages.
 
expect to see $4 gas in 2-3 years, and severe gas shortages by 2015.

By 2020, the cost of gas would probably be prohibitive for most daily drivers (say bye bye to traffic jams).

Mark this and prepare for gas shortages.

heaven forbid the "looming" dollar crisis
 
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
Peak Oil, Peak Food

Source

By Aetius Romulous

16 December, 2009

The single greatest challenge facing our modern economic food chain is the insanely unnatural low cost of food to the consumer, making the simple and necessary act of eating dependent on food that is almost free. The global edifice of cheap food rests on the volatility of a single input; the exponentially depleting supply of easy, cheap oil. We are gorging ourselves at the $1.99 all-you-can-eat oil buffet. Food is too cheap, a "correction" is coming, and there is not a damn thing anybody can do about it.

Eat, or Die Trying

For the most part of human history, the cost of eating was a brutal, hard day of death defying exertion. You found food or you died, and you probably died trying. As civilization advanced, the cost of food fell. Social organization added efficiencies to food gathering, freeing time to reinvest in technology, develop specialists, get drunk, or fight. Commerce grew, trade developed, and the production of food ceased to be simple individual effort, becoming pooled resources that traded food for other commodities in ever increasingly complex exchanges. This primitive separation of end user from producer in no way relieved the individual from contributing to the general pool of wealth - idle laggards still starved to death with nothing to trade in the markets for food. Whether you bartered in kind, or used some form of money, you still had to expend a hard life's toil to eat. Again, many died trying.

This is what has essentially driven the pace of history; ever-creative ways to produce more food per unit of person labour. It worked well enough. People ate better, mortality rates improved, populations grew, and technology and specialized work gained from the surplus of labour that could be directed their way. In the western world, and in particular England, receding amounts of arable land were required to feed more and more people. By the end of the 13th century, land became fenced and enclosed in a crude form of assembly line privatization; surplus people were forced into small subsidiary "cottage" industries, or streamed by the thousands into the safety of larger communities and cities. The factory, and unemployment, was born. Starvation was no longer reserved for lazy n'er-do-wells and became the providence of the economically displaced. Human exertion and effort became unlinked from the land.

Of course, as private property displaced whole communities, the new landed parvenu aristocracies gained control of the lands complete suite of resources. These new "capitalists" drafted up the economically useless as modern workers, returned to the land now as wage slaves who toiled for meagre subsistence, exchanging the better part of their labour for wretched scraps at the edges of the growing marketplace. The landowner took the rest as personal wealth, which we call profit now. Technology advanced at greater rates and civilization picked up steam...literally.

In 1712, at the Conygree Coalworks in England, the local capitalist - Lord Dudley - was having a devil of a time improving his bottom line. Half-starved and wretched labourers slogged below the earth's surface in claustrophobic blackness, hacking coal from stubborn seams under his private lands. The mines kept filling with water, drowning his workers and cutting into profits. At this time, a remarkable new device appeared saving the unhappy aristocrat from such frustrating declines in production. Thomas Newcomen had perfected his "atmospheric engine", a steam propelled device that could pump the water out of the mines with only a handful of dimwitted attendants. Free from the prospect of drowning, workers could now beaver away at an increased rate (we call that productivity now), padding the pockets of the Dudley's at a pace never before encountered. It was a miracle, and the beginning of the glorious Industrial Revolution. Another separation became enshrined between humans and the earth.

For the first time, human beings were considered as productive chattel and productivity the measure of increasing profits. Commerce exploded and people left the land in droves, crowding into cities of productive convenience where labour became plentiful and the distribution of goods, cheap. Food became one of those goods. The aristocracy of private ownership rejoiced at the gap between sustenance wages and profitable consumer goods. Machines provided economies of scale that allowed a growing middle class to expend only a part of their lives trying to eat, and the aristocrats - none at all.

Law followed. Growing and complex states began to learn how to utilize the expanding power of the marketplace. Trade laws, taxation, and growing defences of private capital grew. Economies of scale visited both the growing hordes of urbanized landless, as well as the increasing foothills of private capital. Conglomerates of vested interests pooled resources, dragging legal scripture behind them. The earliest known "corporation" was founded in the 14th century in Sweden, however the concept of a legally protected business venture with an infinite life of its own quickly spread. By 1602, with the Dutch East India Company established in Amsterdam, the "conglomeration of vested interest" became the principle means by which sophisticated nation states launched the age of exploration and colonization.

Not since the advent of the steel plough - when tilling fields moved from dragging a sturdy stick across hard land - had the productivity of food taken such a monumental leap. Where once an individual could feed only himself and his dependents, now organized teams of agricultural workers employing wondrous new machines could feed dozens, and then hundreds of humans with ever decreasing human effort. For the emergent middle classes, less and less time was required working to feed one's self. With the falling cost of food, more and more people could spend their time and money on other goods or pursuits. Machine made clothes, machine made furnishings, machine made gewgaws of all manner and description (we call that consumerism today). In a very real sense, western humanity was liberating itself from the tyranny of essential sustenance, and investing the freedom in greater liberty - and pointless, mass produced crap. Snow globes sold like hot cakes. Exactly like hot cakes.

The global food chain became organized thus; grow it, ship it to a central location, distribute it back to regional and then local markets and retailers, sell it to hungry consumers. At each step along the way, "value" was added to calories, where value meant profit. Where little value was realized there was malnutrition and starvation, where lots of value was available, there became increasing participation by corporations. By their nature, corporations squeegeed out the inefficiencies and brought increasing amounts of capital to bear. No profit, no food. Or snow globes. As the Industrial Revolution gripped the earth, colonization and mercantilism gave way to capitalism. Market places expanded and stratified, layers of value added enterprise employed less and less people to produce more and more food. Horses gave way to tractors; local farm markets gave way to dedicated food retail chains. Rail lines and steamships moved food across nations, continents, and the globe. Economies of scale at every step lowered the cost of eating along with everything else.

As the 20th century clicked forward, for the burgeoning masses of wealthy western nations, cheap food became a right, and then just simply assumed. Poverty and squalor remained the providence of the economically marginal, as it always had and in that sense, little had changed. However, for increasing members of affluent western societies, prodigious amounts of capital moved away from food production and into all the things that make powerful capitalist states breathless nations of discretionary consumers. Rich meant less and less time feeding one's self, and more and more time accumulating stuff.

In 1914, western humanity inexplicably took time out to spend three decades denuding the earth of healthy, well-fed men, women, and children. A blind and irrational invisible hand swatted from the earth about 200 million or so. All these human folk had to be properly fed and supplied prior to their excruciating death, and industry celebrated by rising to the challenge. Machines leapt into the breach in a symbiotic reciprocating engine of feeding and killing on a truly industrial scale. "Total war" entered modern lexicon. Airplanes moved food and bombs in alternating waves. With the entire continent of Europe momentarily out of the food making business, America and good old Yankee know how took up the slack. America was an island fortress, island as in thousands of miles away by sea. Transport logistics was born; convoys of hundreds of specially designed ships moved back and forth across the oceans. The costs were staggering, food went short, and rationing was imposed on the rich and middle classes. For the last time in history, the cost of food rose to life and death again. And then peace broke out.

The next great step forward in food history came at the close of global hostilities in mid century. Having invested the no-cost-too-high capital of military supply and distribution, the ships, trains, trucks, and airplanes manufactured in the thousands were returned to civil use. Private, corporate industry vacuumed up legions of military logistics specialists. Transport and distribution costs collapsed around the world. The "container" ship was born. At the same time, complex munitions processes moved into synthetic, inorganic fertilizer production that dramatically increased crop yields. Incredible plenty drove prices down at the same time transportation costs fell. Abundance rejoiced. Farmers went broke. In their place arose massive agricultural conglomerates that vacuumed up the great diversity of the world's local farms, replacing them with hectares upon hectares of dedicated crops, mechanically worked, industrially fertilized, and hooked by rail, sea, and air to far-flung markets offering the maximum return on investment.

Welcome to the Machines

Today, entire heartlands of biodiversity, countless expanses of small rural farms and communities, have been purchased by syndicates of corporate finance wizards from the urban bowels of Wall Street. Banks, hedge funds, and trusts receive billions of dollars worldwide from the accounts of thousands of scattered investors - most unwittingly - through pension funds and other retirement and savings vehicles. None of whom would recognize a carrot in the ground if it kicked them in the groin. Their only task is to maximize their clients return on investment. And food is a reliable investment it turns out. Once assembled and sold forward to international agri-businesses, hundreds of hectares are mechanically and scientifically ploughed under and replanted with "monocultures" of single crops. Electronically monitored machines prepare and renew the soil with mountains of synthetic fertilizer, more machines plant the crop, and more machines harvest it.

The crop is delivered to massive central terminals by rail and truck, where it is rerouted towards regional complexes and ports. Sometimes travelling the breadth of a continent, and sometimes travelling the expanse of the sea on huge ships designed for the purpose, the happy crop is delivered to yet more terminals where it is assembled, packaged, and labelled with paper, tin, and other things - all of which arrive in exactly the same way - for sale to food distributors. Large retail grocery outlets contract to have the increasingly angry crop loaded on yet more trucks, rail, or ships, after which it is finally delivered to urban hubs of people in the form of canned creamed corn, lined up on brightly lit shelves and slathered in marketing. Two cans for under a buck and a hat for your kid.

Millions of western homemakers in mini vans will spend twice that on fuel to drive to the store; pouring out of their urban sprawl like microbes, leaving behind their suburban castles, hot tubs, motorbikes, and heated driveways, bitching about the cost of food the entire way. They will spend twice what they can eat and throw out the rest. They will have money left for IPods and plasma TV's. Absolutely none of them will toil from sun up to sun set for the single purpose of eating. None. A can of creamed corn from the other side of the planet for nothing more than a few moments worth of inconvenience.

The cost of food is almost zilch.

Humanity may have landed a man on the moon, but nothing compares with two cans of creamed corn for under a buck. It's a freaking miracle. A miracle when one considers all the open palms that creamed corn had to pass through from seed to plate, throwing off profit into every sweaty one. Food is now corporate, and driven by the bottom lines of dozens of invisible enablers, corporate charters all regulated by law and designed for no other reason than the maximization of each shareholders value. Built atop every golden kernel of corn is a golden edifice of economic interconnectivity.

According to the US Department of Agriculture, US households may have spent as much as a third of their disposable income on food at the dawn of the corporate age in the early 20th century. By 1933, that number had shrunk to 25%. Well into the post war era, 20%. When the Beatles appeared on Ed Sullivan, 15%. Iraq war - 10%. Economic meltdown...9.7%.

Food, clearly, is too big to fail.

Consider then, that all the efficiencies that are the miracle of cheap food rest entirely on technology and mechanization. Consider further, that each and every technological piece depends on - in its turn - nothing more substantive than gooey black oil. No oil, no food. The global edifice of cheap food rests on the volatility of a single input; the exponentially depleting supply of easy, cheap oil.

But of course, oil is infinite - or so we think. We don't actually believe that, but we think it just the same. To a certain point, we are correct. When we worry about oil, we worry about it running out, which is in all probability not going to happen. However, while we fret away our time worrying about the earth's supply of fossil fuels we completely miss the point. We will never run out of oil if only because the cost of slogging it out of the planet will become so exorbitant, we may never get a chance to pump that last, precious barrel. As the price of oil rises, and those costs are passed along the conga line of civilization, the real question becomes the effect those rising costs will have on everything. Everything, including creamed corn and snow globes.

The oil community has a name for this - peak oil. Peak oil is the place on the graphs where the easy, cheap to access oil runs out, and there is nothing but expensive stuff ahead. While all agree that the oil supply bell curve is real (the "Hubbard curve"), and that we are very near to conquering the air thin summit of said Hubbard curve, there is dispute about when the actual downward part of the trip will begin. Pessimists argue that we are there now, while sunny optimists say we won't reach it for years...say about 2015. 2015 as in five years from now, when we will in all probability be bitching and screaming about spending eight or nine percent of our disposable income on food.

Let Them Eat Really Expensive Cake

The cost of food will rise with the cost of oil and the problem with that problem is that our technology won't save us. Food in the ground can be made cheaper by simply making more of it. However, the issue is that all that food is way over there, and all of us rich westerners live way over here, tightly packed into teeming centers of urban sprawl. Between our food and us is a complex system of oil dependent logistics. Planes, trains and automobiles; combine harvesters, container ships, and mini vans.

Quick fact: it can take as much as 50 barrels of oil to produce a single calorie of food energy. Healthy people need about 2100 calories a day. If that seems ridiculous, consider that the average American calorie travels over 1500 miles, or that nearly 70% of seafood products are imported. Nearly 10% of beef stocks are also imported, and all those rump roasts require 35 parts of energy to produce a single unit of beef food energy. Grain is grown in one place, cows in another, fertilizer in another, and mountains of manure are collected and shipped to yet another. Think about all the things that have to happen, and all the places and people your Big Mac passes through in order for you to eat for under five bucks. Think about how many of these people, places, and things are powered by oil in some way. All of them - including you, the consumer. You don't need to be an economist to get it; as the price of oil rises, the cost of food will keep in step. One only need think about it.

Oil prices must rise, and food prices must rise with them. What does that mean? It means that we will have less disposable income because we have to eat. We just have to, and so we will have to pay the price no matter what. We will have less money for other things. Less for cars. Less for plasma TV's. Less for Target, American Eagle, and Home Depot, all of whom will have their own oil/price issues. Our growing food expense, which is not negotiable, will cannibalize our spending on everything else. If you are thinking at all about it at this point, you will quickly realize that you will be working more for food, and less for gewgaws. America is a gewgaw nation, and so you are also starting to realize that even more jobs will disappear, more companies fail, more banks will go broke. Banks that aren't in the food business at least.

All that technology, all those machines and synthetics and drive and energy and Yankee know how that are directly responsible for food production are not owned by the humans that depend on them. Every link in the modern food chain is owned and operated by legal bundles of contracts and agreement called corporations. Absolutely every one of which is required by law to increase profits and return on investment. Not one is going to take a "haircut" on food. Not one cares who eats, and who does not. Instead, guaranteed an end user who must purchase by a separate law of nature, all will simply pass along the costs, no matter what they become. Falling purchases of calories will simply be made up by increased margins from smaller and smaller pools of rich folks who have the wherewithal to pay. History will regress and retrace its steps, back to times when great swaths of humanity spent the better portion of their lives simply trying to eat. Or more correctly, paying to eat.

For several generations now we have taken food for granted, its collapsing cost ensuring that it became a small but necessary evil every grocery day. Spending even 10% of our hard work on the necessity of food was too much for us. Our scorecards are measured in the amount of useless crap we can consume, free of the burden of eating. The sudden reversal of that historic trend, and its effects on every other facet of our consumer societies, is indeed the greatest challenge facing us today. Food is too cheap, a "correction" is coming, and there is not a damn thing anybody can do about it.

Think about it.
 
Re: Peak Oil, Peak Food

Thxs
Nice Read.

After i saw that Collapse Documentary...and a few other like it, it really made me evalute myself and the people around me. In a sense, the mass majority of the people on this planet are depending on other people to provide for them. Whether it be food, cloths, transportation, heat during the cold winter months or whateva. A lot of us live in confort zones because of the money that we have or the money that can be giving to us. but when the time comes when u dont have anything to buy with the worthless pieces of paper that you honored so much...then what wil you do?

The people that control these big corporations are aware of whats to come as far as Oil is concerned. And please believe theyre ready for it. Whether the BS hits the fan in the year 2050 or 3050...they still prepare for the "inevitable".....while we sit and depend on them to save us.

Look around your house and pick out the things that were a by product of crude oil. All of the people that prosper from Oil are living it up for the moment at the expense of our stupidity. :smh:

Wake Up People!!!
Get out of your comfort Zones!!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top