 | The High Speed Passenger Rail Act, Draft 1 | The Oil Drum | CNBC: Matt Simmons Discusses a Plateauing Oil Supply with Maria Bartiromo |  |
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
TOD:Europe
- Oilwatch Monthly - November 2008
- The 2008 IEA WEO - Production Decline Rates
- The EU Strategic Energy Review: maybe not so depressing after all
TOD:Canada
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
TOD:ANZ
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so.”
—Mark Twain
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Oil Profiteers Will Earn Our Outrage
From that link:
So many people just don't get it. There is no shortage? Even OPEC couldn't cause a shortage? The next thing he will be telling me is about the car that runs off water that the oil companies are keeping off the market.
Yes, there is speculation. Yes, it increases volatility. But there is also a very tight supply/demand balance, especially with the OPEC cuts. In fact, if you look at inventories, the market has been undersupplied for months. That can't go on too much longer without causing some havoc.
The irony, of course, is that it's the rightwing Post. Even if it were "speculators" driving up the price...so what? Isn't that how the free market is supposed to work?
I know this may be an unpopular thought, even around here, but how can we be sure that speculators are not driving down prices instead of pushing them up?
While I am not as sophisticated as the poster SAG, the recent trends in the futures market favor selling short contracts later in the year about $7 higher than current prices. This may cause speculators to sell oil they don't own, hoping that the price of oil does not go past $65 later in the year.
Even by the optimistic standards of the EIA, and contrary to the article above stating the supply will exceed demand through 2007 and 2008, all indications are that demand is about 2 million bpd over last year and supply gains are a fraction of that. Therefore it doesn't make sense that oil prices have fallen over the last few months.
I've begun to wonder about this a little bit myself.
However, we do need to keep recent oil prices in perspective--they are close to two-thirds higher since 5/05 than in the 20 months prior to 5/05 (Brent spot price of $62 on average after 5/05 versus $38 before). I suspect that this price spike was enough to kill off a lot of demand (and some people) in poorer countries, but it was obviously not enough to kill off any meaningful demand in rapidly developing and richer countries.
But we effectively have a supply/demand imbalance in OECD countries, where demand is being met by drawing down inventories. This can't continue indefinitely.
As I have suggested several times, the next round of bidding for declining petroleum exports will be much, much tougher than the last round of bidding.
BTW, the "Export Land" model rolls on. The NYT today, in an article on Venezuela, noted that Venezuelan car sales up up about 50% year over year. In many of the exporting countries like Venezuela we are seeing a lethal (lethal for export capacity) combination of strong cash flow and subsidized petroleum prices.
Well WT... maybe the uber-rich folks who've been speculating on oil futures are the same folks who hold scads of repackaged mortgage securities.
Maybe they've figured out that candle burns poorly from both ends .
perhaps a better analogy is that a candle can't support any weight if a blowtorch is applied to the middle :)
The bank of international settlements, (BIS) shows a $5.8 trillion derivative position in oil contracts held by central banks on its books. Since they would not be necessarily trading for a profit motive, you have to allow for this in trying to understand the market movements.
It is likely in my opinion that they are shorting the market at the moment, and that they can use the SPR and other worldwide storage as collateral in case they get called to deliver. There are also hints that the Iraqi oil production has been sold forward even though it is still in the ground with uncertain prospects of coming out in volume.
Francois.
The above are some good explanations of what may be happening. I'd just like to point out that if the price of oil was being intentionally held below its market clearing value, demand will not only exceed supply but malinvestment in the energy and transportation industry will occur as businesses and individuals make incorrect decisions based on the current price.
In addition, inventories would be run down. I don't think the use of the SPR would be a viable alternative in the long run to stop the inventory decline (within the US) because the oil could not be efficiently distributed through the country in a major emergency.
Less problematic is that if speculators alone were keeping prices down, then eventually market forces over time would cause their trading positions to reverse – and the market would go back near equilibrium.
i have always assumed that "speculation" can drive the price down as well. the msm all seem to agree oil will stay in the $ 60 range and gas below $ 3 for the coming year(all the new projects coming onstream). once a story gets repeated a few times it becomes fact, not to be questioned. welcome to the world of the gannet rag.
Aren't oil companies themself saying peak oil is many decades away, and that alternatives are plentiful. Why is it so surprising many come to the conclusion there is a conspiracy to keep prices high.
Not surprising since if they started telling the truth about how much oil is out there, investors might start questioning why exactly oil executives should recieve such lavish bonuses. BP' John Browne had his cut in half over some minor issues such as oil spills and safety lapses.
If they came clean about the supply situation I imagine there would be a public demand many of them go to jail.
You would have thought that someone would have looked the mathematical models and the probability of vastly increased consumption in the exporting countries and then tried to warn us of a rapidly developing oil export crisis.
You would have thought that someone would have looked the mathematical models and the probability of vastly increased consumption in the exporting countries and then tried to warn us of a rapidly developing oil export crisis.
Well, if one of those mathematical models had been shown to work with some sort of precision, then people would have probably listened. But when you say "Saudi is peaking because the HL is where Texas was when it peaked", and then I show that this was not in fact the case, you followed up with "Regardless, Saudi is still peaking." Then you start looking for data points to try and salvage your prediction, instead of letting the model provide the prediction. You have your modeling exactly backwards in this case.
Let's review here. What about the HL suggests that Saudi has peaked? And do you believe that the HL has the ability to call a peak with less than a 5-year error range? If so, please justify that answer.
Robert most of the bottom up analysis give basically the same result. The most important number from HL is a good estimate of depletion rates I think it gives the best answer for this question. Next it gives good enough of a URR estimate to handle obvious fraud like we have in the ME.
Other information bottom up analysis current events etc can be and should be used to bracket the date of peak down to a single year. As of now I have more faith in the depletion rates from HL than any other method. Look at the slope of your lines not the URR intercept. Picking the right URR needs additional data either via carrying HL out post peak or external information. We must use all the information we have and HL provides critical pieces what I consider the best estimate for depletion rates and a choice of URR's that can be easily limited with other information.
For some reason you have decided to put on blinders.
My god the experts are claiming decades of oil is left even off by 5% its enough to show that the experts are wrong and enough to start a mitigation policy.
Finally again the depletion rate in my opinion is the hardest piece of information to figure out the fact HL provides it is very important. And I've said repeatedly that the peak year prediction is not done with HL alone WT was implicitly using external data if you read his posts I was doing the same I just did not think about it until you wrote your article. I know for a fact I was I suspect anyone that has used HL does.
HL is not sufficient for predicting the year of peak no reason to belabor the point. I'm not sure WT ever made that assertion if so then I think its obvious its wrong.
Robert most of the bottom up analysis give basically the same result.
When you write “basically the same result”, what do you mean? Peak within 10 years? Yes, I would agree with that. But we are being told, again and again, that Saudi peaked in 2005 “as predicted by the HL.” My point is that the HL can’t predict any such thing. It would have predicted a Texas peak in 1956, and you couldn’t have confidently concluded that Texas peaked until 1982 or so. A Saudi peak in 2002 would have been consistent, and a Saudi peak in 2012 would be consistent. This is important. The precision of the method has been vastly oversold.
The most important number from HL is a good estimate of depletion rates I think it gives the best answer for this question.
How so? Tell me mathematically how you pull the depletion rates out of the HL. Recognize that the slope points down even if production is constant. Complicated by that is the fact that URR is moving. So, it is not simply a matter of looking at the slope. It can be done, but I don’t think it is as straightforward as you seem to believe.
Next it gives good enough of a URR estimate to handle obvious fraud like we have in the ME.
The Texas URR has increased by 50%. In my next essay, my hypothesis is that the HL will show that Saudi’s URR is growing, and has grown at a fairly brisk pace in recent years.
For some reason you have decided to put on blinders.
I don’t believe I have any blinders on at all. I am just waiting for someone to define the parameters that are required to predict peak. The parameters at the moment are incredibly broad. So, I look to other factors. I don’t think the HL gives me any useful information at all in the case of Saudi.
HL is not sufficient for predicting the year of peak no reason to belabor the point. I'm not sure WT ever made that assertion if so then I think its obvious its wrong.
Well, I think you might be surprised about that. Even when he appeared on TV to debate the issue, he built his case around the HL. He kept saying that Saudi is right where Texas was when it peaked. So the core of his position is that the HL is the key to determining a Saudi peak. Look back at the essays he has written on it and tell me I am wrong. Show me where he is relying heavily on above-ground factors. Look at the number of times “as predicted by the HL” appears in his arguments. Then you may have a better handle on where I am coming from.
I just had an "aha" moment. I just tested a hypothesis of mine, and think you will be quite surprised at what I just uncovered. It is directly related to something I wrote in the response above, but no hints yet. I want this one to be a surprise. I will try to write this up some time this week.
Next look at Russia right now HL is off by up to 4 years on the date of peak in my opinion and its a tough problem. I think we might be able to tighten it up to the year. If not we have to wait. Right not all I want to know is if no plateau makes sense. Can we maybe maybe not. But no one else is even claiming Russia will peak in the next 4 years. If they even manage to hold production steady for 3 years that makes a big difference IMHO maybe enough to keep our undulating plateau going for a while.