DrumBeat: January 30, 2007
Posted by Leanan on January 30, 2007 - 9:43am
Topic: Miscellaneous
GE sees global oil, gas reserves lasting at least 100 years
Global hydrocarbon reserves will last at least 100 years, although they will become increasingly more difficult to access, GE Oil & Gas Chief Executive Claudi Santiago said Monday."Oil and gas reserves are out there," Santiago said at the GE Oil & Gas annual meeting, which runs until Tuesday. "The issue is that it is increasingly difficult" to extract.
Russia spent last year strenuously denying reports that it was participating in the creation of a cartel of gas suppliers to the EU. Now, however, the idea has received an unexpected boost from Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khameni, who called on Russia to create a "gas OPEC" at a recent meeting with Russian Security Council secretary Igor Ivanov. Although a cartel would be unprofitable for Gazprom, an energy union cum geopolitical alliance of Russia, Iran, and Algeria does appear to be in the works.
‘Experts’ say Iran’s nuclear-energy plans in chaos
A number of Western diplomats and technical experts close to the Iran’s nuclear-energy program have said it is archaic, prone to breakdown and lacks the materials for industrial-scale production. They said Iran's efforts to produce highly enriched uranium, the material used to make nuclear bombs, are in chaos and the country is still years from mastering the required technology.
Price of oil on the slippery slope
ONLY five months ago crude oil prices nudged $US80 a barrel amid predictions by informed observers - not apocalyptic ravers - that the commodity would reach the $US100 level.Since then, oil has tumbled 30 per cent and the contango on futures pricing has disappeared, which means investors aren't punting on a quick recovery.
How will we ever get a critical mass of awareness and willingness to change and prepare for a post-peak, post-meltdown, relocalized world when we are all indoctrinated from cradle to grave into supporting and being part of industrial growth culture?
The poor dupes were swimming in the oil they hated and didn't even know it.
Poor Martha Stewart will be seen as the goddess who failed. Well, she already has, really, having gone to prison and afterward retreated into her omnimedia fortress of corporate refuge (basically joining the enemy). As the middle class chokes and gets crushed under the weight of its unpayable debts and falling standards of living, Martha may be lucky to avoid getting eaten, along with a long list of other celebrity porkchops that an angry and grievance-filled public will turn on.
Jeremy Leggett: Take to the fields
The tipping point of global oil production will be accompanied by a dire energy shock, and we will have to redefine the concept of farming.
Nuclear agency: air defenses impractical
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission concluded Monday that it is impractical for nuclear power plant operators to try to stop terrorists from crashing an airliner into a reactor.
The Nuclear Revival - What's Old Is New Again
The State of the Union Address was a focus of curiosity last week as the President and his party traded opinions and barbs with his ascendant foes, the Democrats. But one thing that they could all agree on was the need to foster a new energy policy-one that is both clean and less dependent on our enemies.
Miners Celebrate Resolutions Encouraging Uranium Projects in Two Key New Mexico Counties
Commissioners in two key uranium-abundant New Mexico counties passed resolutions supporting and encouraging uranium mining in that state. Previously, many wondered if uranium would ever be mined in New Mexico again.
Debunking the Myths
About Nuclear Energy
As the U.S. Congress debates energy policy, EIR provides this summary review of the answers to frequently raised objections to the only feasible solution to the U.S. and worldwide power shortage, nuclear energy.
Project Green: This Ecofriendly House
Michele Gries-Haber, 41, a marketing executive in Austin, Texas, composts, recycles and drives a hybrid car. So when she got married last year and decided to enlarge her house—a 1926 Craftsman-style bungalow—it was a no-brainer that she and her husband, Michael Klug, would adopt an ecofriendly approach. There was just one problem. "We had no idea what that really meant," she says. "We thought we'd put up some solar panels."
Hopes are high for the United States to find ways to become less dependent on gasoline, and later this week U.S. legislators will be debating the prospect of biofuels supplementing or even replacing petroleum. That should be music to the ears of those in the alternative energy industries, but there is growing concern that too much is being expected of still relatively new resources too quickly.
Taiwan: Used cooking oil to be turned into biodiesel
The Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) announced that starting from July each household will be required to recycle their waste cooking oil that will go into the production of biodiesel.
Bush '17 Biofuel Goals Technically Feasible-USDA Official
U.S. President George W. Bush's alternative fuel goals for the next 10 years are "technically feasible", according to U.S. Department of Agriculture's undersecretary for rural development, Thomas Dorr."I am confident that these goals can be met," Dorr said Monday in a speech at the Clean Fuel Finance Forum in London.
Idea fosters cost-efficient ethanol production
An engineer looks at refining a byproduct into methane, and using that gas to power the plant.
Energy tops Indo-Russian priority list
The array of agreements signed last week during Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit to India indicates that while India might have warmed significantly to the United States over the past decade and dramatically since his last visit to the subcontinent, the India-Russia relationship hasn't cooled either.
Ghana, Nigeria agree energy supply deal
Nigeria has agreed to supply 80 megawatts of electricity to Ghana as part of a deal to help the country to address its current energy crisis.
China exerting more efforts to save energy and reduce emissions in 2007
China will make more efforts this year to save energy and reduce emission in every sector of the national economy, Zhu Hongren, an official with the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), said Monday.
Africa: Oil, Global Influence Driving Hu Jintao's Trip
China's energy-hungry economy and global influence are driving President Hu Jintao's 12-day tour of Africa which kicks off this week.It is Hu's second trip to Africa in less than a year.
UN chief seeks climate change summit
Plans for an emergency summit of world leaders to break the international impasse on cutting greenhouse gases are being discussed by Ban Ki-moon, United Nations secretary-general.
Russian Police Search Russneft Offices
The Russian Interior Ministry's Investigative Committee said in a statement that the searches had been conducted after a criminal investigation was opened against the country's seventh-biggest oil company for failure to pay taxes "on an especially huge scale."
Biodiesel: Asia's alternative fuel
ASIA'S big biodiesel producers are starting to secure their green investments by hedging against falling oil prices and rising feedstock costs, but the move may carry even bigger risks for infant players.
Saudi Arabia, which already has aggressively shaved its oil output in a battle to shore up prices, will reduce production by another 158,000 barrels per day beginning Thursday and more cuts are on the way, according to a media report.
Senators to Propose Gas Tax for Road Projects
A bipartisan group of senior state senators intends to offer legislation this week that would rely on a sales tax on gasoline to finance billions of dollars for road construction and maintenance, according to a draft of the plan, which will be presented as an alternative to a precarious compromise proposal for transportation funding.
Shell defies US pressure and signs £5bn Iranian gas deal
Shell has signed an important deal to help Iran develop a major gas field, ignoring growing pressure from George Bush to isolate the country for being part of what he alleges is an "axis of evil".
Fuel stocks run out in Indian state as tanker strike enters sixth day
A two-week window for compromise came as petrol pumps in the state capital Kolkata were almost dry and public transport was severely cut back, with only a quarter of public buses operating in the city of 12 million people.
Falling gasoline prices skid to a stop
The drop in U.S. retail gasoline prices skidded to a stop over the last week, the government said on Monday. President George W. Bush’s plans to expand the country’s emergency petroleum reserve drove crude oil costs higher.
How Much Did the Green Revolution Matter? or Can We Feed the World Without Industrial Agriculture?
While there have long been critiques of the Green Revolution, many, many people assume that without the work of Norman Borlaug and the other scientists who brought us new hybrids and who convinced much of the world to convert to nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides based on fossil fuels, we cannot feed the world. I am suspicious of this claim, and have been musing on it for some time. It is certainly true that grain yields rose dramatically during the Green Revolution, but how much does and did that actually matter?
Oil And Gas Companies Ready Drilling Projects For Newly Melted Arctic
The Arctic region contains a quarter of the world’s remaining oil reserves, experts estimate. It also contains massive natural gas fields in the Barents Sea, including Russia’s huge Shtokman field. “By 2040 or 2050, the Arctic Ocean will be navigable and that will mean significant developments very soon,” said ArcticNet research group head Martin Fortier.
Global Warming: The vicious circle: Key findings of the IPCC's fourth assessment report
Congress begins tackling climate issues
Two private advocacy groups say they have found evidence of political pressure on government climate scientists at seven federal agencies in efforts to downplay the threat of global warming. Their report was expected to be presented to a House committee Tuesday as the Democratic-controlled Congress steps up its examination of the Bush administration's climate policy.
Concerning Saudi Depletion/Decline Rates
I have been thinking about Saudi Arabia and their depletion and/or decline rate. In fact I have thought of little else for some time now. It occurred to me that there are two terms at use here. There is the term “depletion”, and then there is the term “decline”. These two terms are used almost interchangeably but in fact, they have two entirely different meanings. And I have been as guilty as anyone else in confusing these two terms and often using the term “depletion” when in fact I should have been using the term “decline”, or vise versa.
Depletion starts as soon as the first barrel from a reservoir is pumped and continues until the last well is capped. Depletion rate is always the annual extraction rate divided by the total remaining reserves. And since the exact remaining reserves are never known exactly, the depletion rate is always just a guess.
Decline rate is an entirely different thing and can be measured exactly, no guesswork involved. Decline rate is simply how much a country, company, field or well produced this year verses last year.
But I have not been the only one guilty of incorrectly using these two terms interchangeably. The Center for Strategic and International Studies makes the same error. On page 16 of this document:
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/events/061109_omsg_presentation1.pdf
CSIS makes the same error. That slide is titled Saudi Oil Field Depletion Rates They start off using the term depletion correctly. They tell us their estimation the Kingdom’s average state of depletion then they name three fields and give us their estimation of their state of depletion.
Then they switch gears and start using the term decline, and here they use that term correctly also. They tell us that the average decline rate of Saudi fields is 8%. However with an extensive drilling program the decline is mitigated to a number close to 2%. Okay so far so good. Then in the last sentence they completely screw everything up. I quote:
These depletion rates are well below industry averages, due to enhanced recovery technologies and successful “maintain potential” drilling operations.
Wrong! The figures 8% and 2% are not depletion rates, they are decline rates. In fact, here the two rates, depletion and decline, are going in opposite directions. That is, by decreasing the decline rate, they are increasing the depletion rate. If a field has a natural decline of 8% then it will be depleted by 50% in just over 8 years. If the natural rate is only 2%, it would take 34 years for 50% depletion to be reached.
If the natural decline rate is 8%, but you drill a lot more wells and suck the oil out a lot faster in order to decrease the decline rate to 2%, you will not increase the amount oil in the ground, you will only dramatically increase the depletion rate and set the field up for a catastrophic collapse, most likely within a decade of the initiation of such an extensive drilling program.
But what causes a field to decline by 8%? If the pressure in the field is kept constant, then the volume of liquids produced by each well will also remain constant. Saudi injects, as of a few years ago, about 7 million barrels of water per day into Ghawar. And presumably they remove about 7 million barrels per day of oil and water. The oil from the field will decline as the oil to water ratio declines.
Water is always injected on the periphery of a reservoir, and deeper than the oil well depth. Ideally water encroaches on the wells from two different directions, in from the periphery and up from the bottom. I say ideally because this is the best of all possible scenarios. Sometimes fractures cause the water to bypass the oil and go directly to the well. The wells near the periphery will always have a higher water to oil ratio than those nearer the center. If you can pull more oil from nearer the center of a reservoir you can actually decrease the water to oil ratio….for awhile. If you draw a graph of a field declining at 2% and another declining at 8%, they both will meet at zero. This means at some point, the field declining at only 2% must turn sharply downward in order to catch up. That is, of course, unless God decides to put more oil in the reservoir.
In any reservoir, there will always be some wells that produce better than others, that is more oil and less water. If you drill more wells in these “sweet spots” and pull more oil from these spots you can slow the decline in a field. But make no mistake, by decreasing the decline rate you are only increasing the depletion rate. Sooner or later far more wells on the periphery will water out and water will begin to encroach from the bottom. At that point, the 2% turns into 20% or better and the field goes into catastrophic decline.
This is what happened to Yibal. They began horizontal drilling in Yibal in 1990 and the production rate increased. In 1997 they produced 250,000 barrels per day. By 2001 that figure had dropped to 90,000 bp/d and in three more years it had dropped to half that, about 45,000 bp/d. At Yibal, the decline rate was completely stopped for awhile and they even increased production slightly before….before…..catastrophic collapse, dropping by more than 80% in seven years.
How close are Saudi’s fields to collapse? How long has the average 8% natural decline been held to an average of 2%? And remember a field usually doesn’t start to decline until it is past the 50% URR. And an 8% decline usually doesn’t come until well past the peak. But it really depends on how long ago Saudi started this extensive drilling program to hold the decline of their giant fields from a 5% to 12%, (average of 8%), decline rate to a 2% decline rate. We really do not know but it was likely in the mid to late 90s.
In 1976, Saudi’s four largest fields, Ghawar, Safaniya, Abqaiq and Berri produced 8,386,000 barrels per day. In 1994 that figure was 7,010,000 a drop of 16.4%. The output from Zuluf, Marjan and Au Sa’fah kept production of Saudi’s giants above 8 million barrels per day however.
…………..1976…..1994…% decline
Ghawar….5,353….5,000….6.59%
Safaniya…1,436……960…33.15%
Abqaiq…….831……650…21.78%
Berri……….766……400…47.78%
Total……..8,386….7,010…16.41%
As you can see, Ghawar declined the least of all.
There were no OPEC cuts in effect in 1994. At this point Middle East nations were producing flat out. Kuwait had completely recovered from the war but Iraq was producing only about half a million barrels per day, about one fifth its pre war production.
Simmons gleaned these figures from the SPE papers, (Society of Petroleum Engineers). Since 1996 Abqaiq has totally collapsed. Saudi is admitting that Abqaiq is 74% depleted however this figure is likely very conservative.
I am convinced that Saudi Arabia is on the very cusp of collapse. This morning on CNBC they announced that Saudi’s cuts will be over one million barrels per day. That is about twice their required share of OPEC promised cuts. Could it be that the collapse has already begun?
Ron Patterson
All very good points Ron, but it doesn't look like the market believes you. The article about Saudi Arabian production cuts lists a pretty large cutback in production, yet the price of oil hasn't budged; in fact, it has been dropping for some months now.
Keith, of course the market doesn't believe me. The market believes that Saudi Arabia has over 260 billion barrels of reserves. The market believes that the Middle East has over 700 billion barrels of reserves. But when people begin to realize that Saudi reserves are dramatically overestimated, they will realize the same is true for the rest of the Middle East. This will be the bomb that, when it explodes, will shake the world. Nothing will ever be the same again when this fact becomes common knowledge.
Ron Patterson
I'm curious whether "the market" knew in advance of the crashing of other major oil fields, like Cantarell, etc. - if not then the market doesn't know dick. I find it hilarious that humans are dumb enough to believe in the goodness of herd psychology (Popular Delusions and the Madness Of Crowds). The market is dumber than 3 ugly blondes blowing 4 blondes, and no amount of wishing upon a star will replace the one time gift of oil. And that's a good thing, because capitalism (resource rape and pillage) is destroying the fricken planet! Better to take the tough medicine now, then learn to live like we belong in an ecosystem instead of rampaging over it with four-wheel monster trucks. The sooner the endless growth virus dies, the better for the future (or should I say, the less dreadful the future will be).
Spot market is not a total market.
There is no point to buy a cheap oil if there is no storage for it.
Wake me up when/if KSA would be unable to ramp up the production in response to the increasing demand (significant price increase).
Were you awake thru aug, while price surged to 78 and sa steadily cut production, and stubbornly continued to cut up to nov, when opec provided a fig leaf for an apparently reluctant sa to enact more cuts?
You could have bought dec o06 futures for $20 on 2002. Shows how much the market anticipates the future. The only change has been that long dated futures are now above the spot price.
That happened first in the Summer of 2004.
Ron, I've just come from the cold and turned the computer on for the first time today. Oil is up three bucks. Maybe a few billionaires picked up your article sometime today.
Anyway, please accept my compliments for a well-written and informative posting. You've come a long way from your early days on energyresources, baby! Keep it up.
ToilForOil, thanks for the kind words. But I really don't think my early postings on Energyresources were all that bad.
Were they???? ;-)
Ron Patterson
West Texas Crude is $56.50 (up 13% from $50) as of the evening of 30 January.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2220#comment-153441
Please read the above recap. This is the fifth time we've addressed this article since November. The last time was Saturday. Ron clearly does not understand the basic terms and therefore cannot interpret the presentations and press coverage. Today is using the term "rate" in a likewise mistaken manner. Please discount his interpretation completely. He knows nothing on this matter and his verbal diarrhea only compounds the confusion...
Remember Freddy. I'm the one who repeats things over and over!
But you know, historically speaking, he does seem to understand the part about 'Saudi Arabia' s reduction is nearly double the total cuts it agreed to make under two output accords hammered out at OPEC at meetings in October and December, The Journal said.'
Even more interestingly, while the Saudis keep talking about how they can increase production at any time (which may be true, of course), 'The latest cut means Saudi Arabia will have reduced production by about 1 million barrels per day in the past six months, The Journal said, citing an unnamed senior Saudi oil official.' which is interesting in the light of historically high prices last August. And yes, we can debate nominal price all you wish, but they were cutting production when prices were significantly higher, and they are cutting production now - as a matter of fact, the real world production cuts seem somehow unrelated to spot market prices, actually. Certainly, there could be a number of reasons for the Saudis to cut production - for example, to help prop up fellow OPEC member Iran's ailing economy. (And since we don't talk about history in terms of peak oil, we will just let that little Sunni/Shia split go without discussion.)
The major difference between today and last November is contained in the two quotes from the cited article - but as you have absolutely no desire to discuss even history in the making when discussing peak oil, feel free to save your time by not responding to me, but I think you will have a bit of a challenge contradicting that 'unnamed senior Saudi oil official.'
Good luck. We will all wait for your refutation of Saudi production figures, as it is clear that the Saudis have no knowledge or understanding of oil production.
And do note, I have not given a reason for Saudi Arabia's currently reduced production numbers (obviously, helping Iran was a joke) - I am merely noting that it is essentially beyond dispute. Also beyond dispute is that oil production peaks, and declines - and the way to recognize that decline is because less is produced. And yes, a swing producer follows different patterns, and yes, production can increase and decrease for reasons which have nothing to do with geological reality. However, no one has yet found a way to actually stop oil production from going into a geologically determined decline.
But as you do not seem to feel bound by any historical limits in discussing peak oil, please enjoy discussing how any oil producer, whether Romania or the U.S. or Norway can just increase production, since past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Should be entertaining.
Pat, Ron is well aware that the author was a KSA Security official; because we have discussed it before at TOD. We can forgive a Security Official for flubbing and confusing decline with depletion.
But i don't grant that immunity from shame to someone who daily "tries" to make authoratative statments. Since 2003 i have been correcting his bungling on a cornucopia of topics. When i last corrected him last month, i mentioned that there were about 4 dozen of his gems floating around in cyberland.
He is the self-appointed ambassador of die-off. He is the idiot that told us last week that the global population would be down to 2-billion "by perhaps 2017". He is the idiot that in 2003 declared that Peak Oil would be upon us by 2004. And 2005. And 2006. He is the idiot that said we would have the mother of all global economic Deprssions by Spring 2004.
And he never guesses. He is sure. And we can count on it.
And u want to believe this idiot knows that KSA has Peaked? The kid who filled Coca~Cola machines over there for five years? Fine. To each his own.
We're still trying to figure out whether JeffreyWT drove the honey wagon or the lunch truck. I'll get back to u on that one.
Seriously, one must understand that Demand Call varies as much as 3-mbd during a typical year. While OPEC has its published quota, it does allow some latitude to adjust for these Call guidelines from IEA and OPEC. The Call for Q1 is 86-mbd. The Demand Call for 2007Q4 is 87-mbd but will be as low as 84-mbd in the interim. There will be opportunity to within 12 months to see how the non-opec producers and KSA react. The Feb 1st quota restriction straddles one of those transitions.
As a final note, please remember that Aramco is not the only producer in KSA. When KSA or Saudi Aramco make statements, there can be as much as a 0.5mbd variance due to legacy producers and the neutral zone. When speaking of their own production or MSC, Aramco is often 0.5-mbd shy of the KSA figures.
And we continue in Watchful Waiting mode.
The personal insults are one of the problems in recent discussions - one which I am trying not to engage in, as far as possible.
The reduction quote does not seem to come from a security figure (though still possible - although you may be confusing different people, as several different Saudi sources have been making public pronouncements in this area in the last few months), but according to the article, an 'unnamed senior Saudi oil official.'
We all have our hobby horses, and to the extent you provide information to back your arguments, this expands the discussion.
As for Watchful Waiting mode, that is a well chosen phrase - and I try to be mindful of the difference between data, projections, and explanations. Generally, the current data (which has definite imprecisions) shows flat world oil production over a significant time, the projections from the last decade often seem silly when reviewed against current data, and as for the explanation why crude production is essentially flat, we will see. Though it is not a single source - the interaction between geology, above ground influences, from weather to politics, and general economic conditions all play a role.
I am very agnostic on many of the arguments here - what I find of paramount importance is what is going on now, though obviously, a dip in production for a week, a month, or a year is not clear proof of the end of the oil age - which won't happen for decades anyways. Nonetheless, the current fairly steep in percent terms decline in production from two major sources of exported oil is not something to be easily dismissed.
Thank you very much Ron for the post. I have often wondered how much well injection skews HL plotting and if it's effects could be measured and accounted for.
Decline/Crash
(Crude oil = crude + condensate)
I have some proposed definitions:
A crash results in at least a 50% drop in production in 10 years, i.e., an annual decline rate of at least 7% per year.
A decline results in less than a 50% drop in production in 10 years, i.e., an annual decline rate of less than 7%.
It looks like the best case for Saudi crude production in February is 8.5 mbpd. Some reports put it possibly below 8.0 in December. In any case, Saudi Arabia is showing--at least--an 8.7% annual decline rate (from 9/05 to 2/07). So at this rate, their production will drop by 50% in about 8 years.
David Shields predicts a 15% annual decline rate for Mexico (12/05 to 12/08), which suggests that production would drop by 50% in 5 years.
Note that in both cases, net oil exports will crash much faster than the overall production crash.
The UK, with a decline rate of 9.3% (year to year average), is crashing, and at this rate their production will drop by 50% in 8 years.
The overall North Sea would be classified as a decline, with a 5% annual decline rate, which would result in a 50% drop in 14 years.
A key point is the gross decline rate, which is the underlying decline rate of existing wellbores, versus the net decline rate, which is the net decline in production, after new wellbores, workovers, etc. (Simmons' definition)
Note that it took a ferocious drilling program to keep the Lower 48 net decline rate at 2% and to keep the North Sea net decline rate at 5%. It may be that the world is not drilling nearly fast enough to keep the net decline down to the Lower 48 range.
BTW, two very interesting comments in the above article: Saudi Arabia has cut twice what they agreed to cut and further cuts are expected. Do you get a sense that some portions of the MSM are beginning to get the tiniest inkling that perhaps the sheiks have no robes? It's still amazing that CNBC has not commented, as far as I know, on the Cantarell story--versus their breathless non-stop comments on the Jack #2 discovery.
Westexas,
Regarding Cantarell/Jack/CNBC you shouldn't be amazed. NBC is part of a huge conglomerate of corporations, and their success is dependant on the success of the economy. Doom and gloom reporting (however truthful) might scare the public into spending a little less and saving a little more. That's the last thing advertisers want.
Garth
A lot of people like to fall into the trap of seeing ignorance about something as deliberate deception. Maybe we just like to believe that other people are smarter than we are. In my personal experience that is not the case. They are usually a lot less smart or a lot more ignorant (which is not the same thing, by the way).
The simple truth is: NBC is making a whole lot more money by "reporting" about BS (Britney Spears) than about important stuff. They couldn't care less about getting to the bottom of the well because not one of their viewers is interested. They rather want to see fashion shots of silly girls with big hair. Or the police tape around the house where a murder-suicide took place. Makes them feel alive, I guess.
Infinite,
Actually, both you and Garth are correct. Having worked in the MSM, particularly for CBS, I can tell you that my editors have shot down stories I've worked up that, according to my editors, were "too negative" and could "adversely affect advertising revenue."
They will then go on to suggest I cover a popular story that your average person might find "interesting, unusual, or awesome. Go for the wow factor."
The media is controlled by big business and they are not stupid. They have hired the very best media strategists to work out the best, i.e. most profitable, method to satisfy their viewer's interests and their corporate interests.
Believe me, if the MSM discovered they could make money from tossing babies onto the tines of pitchforks, and still keep their viewers, they would do so in a heartbeat. The MSM is the enemy. Not because they desire to be the enemy, but because they, like all corporations, are programmed to maximize profits no matter the cost to the rest of the planet. They will create warm and fuzzy images and sounds that will make all sorts of life destroying practices seem the "right" thing to do. Think of the tropes they use every day to sell all manner of worthless crap: patriotism, sex, power, family values, and wealth. The power of propaganda lies in its ability to create powerful images that play upon our core sensibilities. It is very hard to resist these images, and most people find it very hard to resist secondary peer pressure from those who have bought into the MSM soma trance.
Once the crowd starts to turn, the media will race to get out in front and seem to be the leader. What it will do then is not lead the mob towards their original objective but will slowly and inexorably coopt and turn the mob towards a solution that is not in the planet's best interest but will be recast in the image of the crowd's original desire. In other words, instead of renewable energy or powerdown, you will see old technology dressed like an old, fat transvestite in new, shiny green clothes. We can see that with the rather Orwellian use of the term, "Clean Coal."
"adversely affect advertising revenue."
That is the whole point. The intellectial value of a story has nothing to do with its marketing value. That does not mean the people who market news are stupid - they just have a value system based on $$$ rather than much else.
And one also has to acknowledge that the viewers are reinforcing the system. So, in a sense, one could even say it is as much "the MSMs fault" as its the giraffe's fault that its neck is so long. It did not chose to be like that. Nature, by selecting for long neck animals, did. Viewers are selecting the kind of news they want, evolution in the market place does the rest. I hope I am not offending any religious readers by saying that? It might be more pleasant for them to belive that God made Fox News on the final day!
So the MSM is really just following what the majority wants. I know that there is a screaming minority right there who says "Sacrilege! How can you say people are so stupid?", to which I would say: "Go out on the street and ask people what was on the news last night. Aks them what they remember."
Every time bush say “clean coal” I just cringe. Only someone who doesn't understand science and technology would use that term. “Cleaner Coal” I could tolerate, but “Clean Coal” is Orwellian double speak. Someone needs to explain to him about conservation of energy and parasitic loss.
Nice analysis, Cherenkov. If you're talking about the broadcasting networks and big-circulation media, I agree completely.
I think it's important, though, to see that there are many rooms in the mansion that we call "the media."
You get the best info in specialist publications, like science or industry journals. Some business reporting is excellent. TOD would fall into the category, if it were commercial.
Next best is quality publications for the elite, like the NY Times, Wall Street Journal (the news side, not the editorials), LA Times, etc. I've noticed that reporting on energy has been getting much better in the last couple of years.
Local newspapers and media can be surprisingly good. They aren't subject to the same pressures that you've described (they have other sorts of pressures). The Cleveland Plain Dealer had a dynamite series on peak oil and energy starting in 2005. The Daily Astorian has had outstanding coverage on climate change. I think that local journalism will stage a comeback, as local communities become more important.
The wire services (Associated Press, Reuters) are professional but not very adventurous these days. On the other hand, they will surprise you. UPI, of all places, has had some surprisingly good pieces on energy
The last place I would expect to get good information is from the commercial broadcasting networks. I've even given up on PBS and NPR, except for an occasional "Frontline" piece. The pressures are just as Cherenkov has described. It's too bad too, because there are some talented professionals there, even at Fox. Too bad too, since broadcast journalism has the power to bring down governments, change policy overnight. Maybe that's why the reporters are so hog-tied.
Counter-cultural media are a mixed bag in terms of quality. Some are great, like TOD, and others are the dogs dinner. When the mainstream media are unresponsive, the c-c media is the only place to develop ideas and support.
So, bottom line, don't write off the media as if it were a monolithic body.
ggg, dont forget nbc is owned by ge and what is ge saying ? "enough oil for 100 yrs" (but only if the us buys lots of expensive weapons - made by ge)
Jeffrey WT, please don't help us with definitions. You and Patterson have shown that u know very little outside your small area of expertise. Most of the blathering by both of u here at TOD is the blind-leading-the-blind.
Do us all a favour, Jeffrey and get one of the Campbell or Laherrere compilations of HL. Everyone here knows that i luv HL but it serves only a limited purpose and u and khebab clearly have no idea what in the world that is. I suggest i think to was Colin's Essence book ('93?), where he shows over 50 HL's of different coutries and regions. Only 8 approach the predictive power that u and khebab say that they do. That's eight. 8 of 50 or more. A dart would do better. East texas included.
Ron and yourself know nothing of the ME technology. Have read none of the SPE documentation. I notice that many pundits here are too cheap to go to pay per view sites and flood us with anecdotal B.S. day in and day out.
Get a life. Please.
Most KSA drilling is at a density of one/100 sqmi. Lower 48 was at 1/sqmi at Peak. Your authorative statements are juvenile and disgusting and getting worse....
Most KSA drilling is at a density of one/100 sqmi
Freddy, what are you smoking? You might get that well density if you divided every well in the Kingdom by the area of the entire country, but I don't think that's what you meant in the context of a discussion about production. Please will you cite your sources? I've got access to SPE, so just the paper number will do.
Here's my source: Levorsen, Geology of petroleum, 2 ed. says that Abqaiq had 66 wells in an area of about 180 square miles as early as 1951. And I'm sure they've drilled a few more since. Abqaiq is basically a mini-Ghawar so presumably that will be similar. And those 80 or 100 or 120 or whatever rigs that everyone keeps talking about must be doing something, surely?
Lower 48 was at 1/sqmi at Peak.
More like 128 acres - or 64 or 32 in some areas. There are 640 acres in a square mile, BTW. You're welcome.
Good post, but it begs the question as to whether the ratio of ultimately recoverable reserves to total oil in place can be increased by any of the drilling technology. I'm not in the field, so I don't know the answer.
Ron - excellent post! I note that the Saudi cuts run opposite to prior stated intent to increase production, flood the market, and undercut the Iranian economy by so doing.
In a prior post you mentioned your experience of KSA. Can you comment on the relation between Shia and Sunni. This is not well covered in western media but I have the sense that Shia are very much 2nd class citizens with much reduced rights etc.
Cheers!
Shia and Sunni racial tensions have nothing to do with PO. We would be running out of the stuff at the same rate, even if every Shia brought his Sunni neighbor a gift basket every morning. It is of no importance to the oil fields in Mexico, Russia, Canada or the North Sea how soon the Middle East erupts in another round of genocide.
On the other hand...raising the EPA standard and the gas tax could make life a whole lot easier in the long run, independently of how the crap plays out over there.
IP:
I'm not so sure of this. If we trust stated reserves figures, the only countries that have huge undeveloped reserves are KSA, Iran and Iraq.
When those reserves are brought online, will likely have a big effect on the timing of the peak. There is no doubt that the politics of Iraq, Iran and KSA have a lot to do with this.
I would add that just a couple of weeks ago the head economist of the IEA told the US senate energy committee that those were the only countries that mattered.
I do not doubt that there are reserves (especially in Iraq). I do doubt that the impact will last very long. A couple of years, maybe? What does that buy us? Anyone who buys an SUV today will have to fuel it for 10-12 years, so the natural timescale for an "extension" before the geological peak happens would have to be a decade. Will we be able to fend the peak off for another decade? Highly doubtful.
Now, given what you know, would you honestly advise anyone who does not have more money in their pocket than they need to buy a large vehicle because KSA, Iran and Iraq have reserves? Or would you not be cautious and tell them that the party might just be over pretty soon and they might be forced to sell that vehicle for next to nothing and get a smaller one, after all?
Just curious. Personally, I like to be cautious, j