Open Thread
Posted by Stuart Staniford on January 13, 2006 - 3:41am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Tags: hubbert peak, oil prices, peak oil [list all tags]
Must be time...
Posted by Stuart Staniford on January 13, 2006 - 3:41am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Tags: hubbert peak, oil prices, peak oil [list all tags]
As far as the mid-east goes, the Iranian people are relatively progressive and Westernized. I heard an interview with an American basketball player on NPR the other day. He didn't make the cut of 360, or so, NBA players so where did he go? Iran. Who even knew they had a league?
The best finance professors I ever had were all from Iran.
I believe Simmons himself has commented on how, pre-1979 revolution, it was Iran that bailed us out of our own oil-peak and subsequent Arab-oil embargo.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/ofr-97-470/OF97-470G/
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/ofr-97-470/OF97-470G/iranmap.html#TOP
Best of luck with your raid Oil CEO. I'll be eager for an update.
I think our best option is and always has been to get the Russians sufficiently concerned to wholeheartedly side with us. Once that is achieved, even if it means bribing them, the Chinese might get onboard a little quicker.
Post Iraq, March 2003 - as much as I hate to admit it - We need the global community in on this one. We can't ignore the French anymore.
Yesterday's talk here of using nukes was completely out of control. Any attack at this stage(which there won't be) would have to be conventional. If you don't know why, you need to trade in your engineering degree for a couple courses on political science.
The only thing wrong with Iran is a leadership that uses religion to control its people.
Occupation is about as stupid a plan as anybody could come up with. We already own Iraq and Afghanistan. Notice any patterns?
In fact the more you think about it, the more you realize the best option is to, well - to just be friends.
this also of interest; it was something I dug up when I was wondering how the religious aspect would have a bearing, and shows the relative distribution of shia/sunni compared to where the oil is, but see the first comment in the thread.
January 12, 2006
Norway Sees Dip in 2006 Oil Production
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 2:04 p.m. ET
OSLO, Norway (AP) -- Oil production from Norway's offshore fields is expected to decline by almost 5 percent this year, although natural gas exports continue to set new records, the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate said Thursday.
The government agency's annual resources report projected production of about 2.43 million barrels per day in 2006, down from 2.56 million barrels per day in 2005.
The report said crude oil flows from the world's third largest oil exporter also declined about 9 percent from 2004 to 2005. It said that was due partly to lost production from the Snorre offshore field after it was shut down into early 2005 because of a natural gas blowout in late November 2004.
The Stavanger-based directorate said production was also about 7.5 percent lower than it had projected in its 2004 report, but that oil flows were now expected to remain stable through 2010.
However, it said natural gas exports during 2005 set a new annual record of 35.3 trillion cubic feet, an increase of 8 percent over 2004.
''In the years to come, we also expect production of salable gas to increase,'' the report said.
The directorate said investments in developing offshore finds had increased nearly 23 percent from 2004 to 83 billion kroner ($12.57 billion) in 2005.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/gifs/Slide14.gif
The drops being reported in the new article seem larger numerically than what I read off this chart, but we still see the claim that next year's drop will be less than this year's. That's pretty interesting in view of how some here have characterized north sea oil as collapsing.
example:
1mb/d peak output in 2005
800kb/d in 2006 = 20% decline (200kb/d change)
take same decline rate
640kb/d in 2007 = 20% decline (160kb/d change)
or same production loss
600kb/d in 2007 = 25% decline (200kb/d change)
So even though it shows 2007's decline lower than 2005 the base from which its declining will be a great deal lower resulting in probably higher % decline.
When people say collapsing, i would guess they mean rapid decline which i would take to be in the region of 8% and above.
What does anyone think about China and India's announcement on energy cooperation?
I've posted my own commentary here, but I would like to know from the folks here is how serious you think China and India are on co-developing biofuel and maybe even sustainable energy resources?
"Sceptics say Chinese companies are unlikely to share their real business plans with Indian rivals, especially as they have mostly been able to outbid them. "Governments like to sign pieces of paper, but it often doesn't amount to much," one analyst said."
I can't argue too much with your commentary, which makes sense. However, the devil is in the details.
A Fast Blast poll found 62% siding with Corsi and 38% with Ruppert.
This is what happens when "our" side is represented by Ruppert instead of one of our TOD hosts, for example. It also explains why people like Smil refer to peakers as a "catastrophist cult"; yes, they're painting with too broad a brush, but when people like Ruppert are at least in part our public face, that's the conclusion many people will draw.
People post here claiming the US blew up the WTC in one post, then ask why nobody listens to them in the next. Let's get Stuart on TV (other TOD hosts would be just as good, but using psuedonyms wouldn't do much on the credibility front)
When did it come to be that "polls" replaced science?
Let's have a poll here among TOD readers so we can get to "truth" on these important questions.
How many of you "feel" that:
I just love the way the media loves to use polls. They poll everything, and they tend to be believe that the weight of the poll somehow establishes the truth.
If a poll showed that 55% of the people polled believed that the sun revolved around the earth, then I guess I damn well better believe that the sun does indeed revolve around the earth.
One useful thing that a poll does do is to illuminate the level of ignorance in the general population on any given topic. So I guess they do serve some purpose.
We tend to follow the crowds.
If everyone else believes the Earth is the center of the Universe, then it must be true. Who am I to second guess the wisdom of the crowds?
The biggest problem with polls is that you fool yourself into believing the question asked is "fair and balanced".
Quite often, though, the question is loaded with emotional trigger words and false choices. The outcome is pre-programmed into the question.
Example: Are those who believe in Peak Oil theory part of a doom & gloom cult?
YES!!!, no, Definitely, Absolutely!
(Randomly click on only one answer please.)
((Remember: we merely report (distort), YOU decide))
So here you have two speakers, one with lots of baggage selling a doom-and-gloom vision, and the other a smooth talker promising endless growth, riches, and "the American Dream"! Guess who is more popular?
This was a point that Hanson made long ago - democracies are popularity contests and the voters select leaders who they think will maximize their future well-being. Ruppert was selling doom-and-gloom so of course his view was rejected. That's the natural first reaction of anyone who has not studied the issue in some detail. This is also why most western governments seem incapable of being proactive about peak oil - doing so gets them defeated at the next election, as it did Jimmy Carter. So the western nations are always going to be stuck in reactive mode until the general public accepts the reality of peak oil, which they may not do til they've exhausted every other option (which will likely include more war).
and they will thank you for it. Tell them
something new, and they will hate you for it."
- george monbiot
Tell them something they want to believe and they'll'll answer your poll question accordingly.
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/
What policies are best for the economy and GDP growth?
I'm quoting from memory here but I think it was something like 74% siding with Greenspan and 26% went with Jesus.
versus
Sorry, I don't have a link for a transcript.
While not explicitly endorsing the abiotic theory, the citation of the theory, which has not to my knowledge stood up any scientific scrutiny, seems undeserved.
Center for Energy sets out their objectives below...
What I fear is happening here is the infiltration of an alternative narrative that justifies unrestricted pursuit of oil (ANWR?. It also conveniently excuses anyone from doing anything to get over oil dependance. When an apparently reputable and well meaning information service lends this sort of legitimacy to abiotic oil and perhaps even implies that it is an emerging new discovery (did they do that?) I for one can no longer take them seriously. Corsi's involvement with the whole promotion of abiotic oil does it's proponents no favours, his very presence is cause for doubt. I'd suggest that it works similarly here for Center for Energy - citation of the abiotic theory only hurts their credibility and brings their agenda into question.
Ruppert kept asking Corsi to back up his claims with science but really didn't bring anything to the table. I would say that Ruppert definetly won the debate. But then again I think most of the Coast to Coast listeners aren't well educated and tend to lean towards conspiracy theories.
I saw the promo for the CNN program again. The title is "Running out of oil", and the voiceover simply says "How much oil is left, and who is going to get it?".
The background video just had pictures of some oil wells and pipelines and didn't give clues to where they were going with this.
All I know is that this is for an upcoming edition of "CNN Presents" that will run in Feb. It should be a 1-hour program..
IMO, the key problem that we will face this year is not so much a shortage of total oil capacity, but a shortage of net export capacity. Net export capacity in exporting countries is being squeezed from two directions--by increasing domestic consumption and by falling production. As time goes on, more and more countries that were net exporters are going to become net importers, e.g., Indonesia and the UK.
One other key point regarding percentage changes. Let's assume we have a country producing two mbd, consuming one mbd and thus exporting one mbd. A 10% drop in production (200,000 BOPD) would result in a 20% drop in net exports (200,000 BOPD out of 1,000,000 BOPD net exports).
As the following article points out, the demand for exports worldwide is exploding.
The big three exporters--Saudi Arabia; Russia and Norway--account for more than half of the exports from the top 12 net exporters (all those exporting more than one mbd, net). Saudi Arabia accounts for as much net exports as the bottom six on the list combined.
Of the big three, only Russia did not show a decline in net exports in 2005 versus 2003. As I previously noted, both Saudi Arabia and Norway are on the wrong side of the 50% of (Hubbert Linearization) Qt mark. I don't know about Russia.
http://www.energybulletin.net/12034.html
Find a couple of spare planets or face global oil war
Richard Beeston, The Times
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2.html
Using the most expansive definition of "oil," the net oil exports from the top 14 exporters in 2004 were 38.32 mbd.
Based on the P/Q versus Q method, at least three of the countries are past 50% of Qt: Saudi Arabia; Norway and Iran.
At least two countries have recently shown reduced production because of political unrest: Venezuela and Iraq.
At least two countries are currently experiencing production declines or they are predictin