DrumBeat: September 27, 2006
Posted by threadbot on September 27, 2006 - 9:15am
Topic: Miscellaneous
US oil reserves up for 1st time in 3 yrs
US proved crude oil reserves last year rose for the first time in three years and natural gas reserves had their biggest annual increase since 1970, the government's top energy forecasting agency has said.Crude oil reserves jumped 1.8 per cent in 2005 from the year before to 21.757 billion barrels and natural gas reserves soared 6.2 per cent to 204.4 trillion cubic feet, according to the federal Energy Information Administration.
Proved reserves are the estimated amount of supply that economically can be recovered using known drilling technology.
Two of the four largest US oil-producing areas, Texas and California, increased their crude oil reserves while reserves were lower in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.
Oil price very low, action needed: OPEC chief
Oil prices are very low, harming investment in the industry and something must be done to steady the market, OPEC President Edmund Daukoru said on Tuesday.
To Peak Oil, Or Not To Peak Oil
We have been struck by the number of bearish reports and comments emanating from analysts, fund managers and assorted pundits with regard to oil, gas and other commodities. Just prior to the release of the FOMC statement on September 19, we heard a well-respected Chicago floor trader gush about how the oil bubble had burst, and how the Fed wouldn’t need to hike interest rates any further. Hearing that, we were tempted to rush out and trade in our 35 miles per gallon Honda for a gas-guzzling SUV as we watched prices at the pump plummet.Of course we wouldn’t buy an SUV, but hearing statements like that makes you wonder what all the talk of peak oil has been about over the years.
Michael T Klare: Cashing in on the fear factor
Oil Disputes Raise Tension Among Southern Sudan Factions
A simmering conflict is threatening to start another war in Sudan. This time, it is as much about oil as it is ethnicity. Unequal distribution of oil revenues, bungled oil contracts, and differences in ethnic power sharing are creating new fault lines in an already divided country.
China's Oil Deals With Iran, Myanmar Put It at Odds With U.S.
George Bush's battle to control the world's oil supply has cost billions of dollars, much more than it would have cost to discover new sources of energy.
Rising Risks for Europe's Power Utilities: Bigger investment needs, conflicting objectives, and supply-security concerns are making for an uncertain future.
Shell seeks to partake in Turkey pipeline project
Report: Russian Fuel Going to Iran Plant
ussia will ship fuel to a controversial atomic power plant it is building in Iran by March under a deal signed Tuesday, news agencies reported, as Tehran's nuclear chief met with a Russian security officer at the Kremlin.
Greenspan: Junk Sarbanes-Oxley, Raise Gas Taxes
Divergent political camps in the United States have found common ground in support of "energy security" and "energy independence". As high gasoline prices and intensifying conflicts in the Middle East focus attention on US dependence on petroleum imports, progressives and conservatives are organizing to reshape US policy based on their own views about what the terms "energy security" and "energy independence" mean.
Interior Dept. criticized over unpaid royalties: Lawmakers say agency should collect as much as $2 billion from companies.
Big Oil moves ahead on human rights, slowly
Changed climate will cook elderly people
When the great heatwave of 2003 struck Paris, it left 14,802 people dead; 30,000 people died throughout the rest of Europe. It was, according to Britain's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, the worst natural disaster on record.Sixty per cent of those deaths occurred in nursing homes, retirement homes and hospitals.
Gas-Guzzlers in the Capital: Governor, lawmakers don't exactly practice what they preach.
Economists on climate change: do we care?
Will the spending needed to prevent global warming cost the world more than just sitting back, or even enjoying the possible financial benefits of a hotter planet?Economists are divided over that cold financial calculation in the week ahead of a major report on the issue to be presented to ministers of the world's leading nations.
White House said to bar hurricane report
A government agency blocked release of a report that suggests global warming is contributing to the frequency and strength of hurricanes, the journal Nature reported Tuesday.
[Update by Leanan on 09/27/06 at 11:08 AM EDT]
Summary of Weekly Petroleum Data for the Week Ending September 22, 2006: Oil tumbles as gasoline supplies surge.
[Update by Leanan on 09/27/06 at 2:25 PM EDT]
The Arctic: Oil's last frontier
Twenty five percent of the world's untapped reserves could lie near the North Pole, but politics could prove harder to crack than the ice. |  |
First, a security/Iraq compendium from a usually non-political source:
Just in case you were feeling secure
Then some more directly energy related:
Texas is more hospitable than Mass. to wind farms
Decline in Gas Prices Isn't Buoying Detroit
Apologies if they're repeats.
Copper thieves get killed cutting into power lines
Bruce in Cumberland County Illinois
The question is just how much havoc criminals will wreak before they lose their wheels.
So yes, higher price does increase reserves. It is still doubtfull if it increases the flow of oil. IMO, it doesn't
2003 - 79.8-mbd
2004 - 83.2-mbd
2005 - 84.5-mbd
A new quarterly record was set in 2006Q1 of 85.17-mbd
A new monthly record was set in July 2006 of 86.23-mbd
Just the facts, ma'am. IEA facts. It is time for the peaksters to realize that they have been misled by lotsa hype that never measured against on-the-ground production/refining escalation. And the best (2010) is yet to come ...
Before then, it seems a bit wild to say that it's the 'peakster' side that has been misled by hype. In the meantime, Stuart's graphs, and Khebab's, use the same IEA numbers. Whether they are facts, jury's out. That's why they use multiple data sources. And the overall picture looks pretty flat to me.
And there is no correlation betw price & URR or betw price & extraction rates.
The correlation is between price rises and price drops vs excess capacity at any given moment in time.
I agree with that - so how do we measure excess capacity - you got any charts?
Could you provide some evidence to show that Freddy is wrong in his conclusions? A counter-argument, let's say, with numbers?
Of course there has been a considerable divergence in the IEA numbers and the EIA numbers since December. The IEA numbers are still right up there or are higher than December while the EIA numbers are down by almost a million barrels per day.
Somebody is lying.
Or, alternatively, as Keith Richards once said,"What's a morning?"
It's been a good day. As long as we can keep Odo(or, Auto, as I like to call him) awake.
Just don't let me hide the scotch. I might hide it down my throat.
However, I understand the world's growth in useage yeilds a demand level of around 185 mmbpd in 30 years being needed. If it were possible to raise production that much, then how come production seems nearly flat? Why do the Saudi's not produce more oil? How come the US oil companies can't replace their reserves except with natural gas?
But, besides all that Freddie really pissed me off about two or three months ago, and I hoped to return the favor. While I don't have the long memory for slights of the ladies of our species (watch out for Paris, she's gonna remember and get even!) I do remember long enough to get in a gig or two.
My real, no joke best hunch says that oil prices dropped when the 30 something guys in the hedge fund biz swapped out of energy futures in the wake of Amarynth. The rise in the Dow and the S&P results from them redeploying their funds in a safer place. The same reason interest rates are low in spite of the Fed-the Hedge Fund Cowboys are huddling in a safe refuge while they figure this stuff out .
But we'll all figure this out with perfect 20-20 hindsight in a couple of months, or we'll all be sitting barricaded in our homes while hordes of ravening zombie S.U.V. owners clamor around trying to suck our gastanks dry.
But he knows what he is talking about.
When I say he pisses people of, what I mean is, it's not really what he is doing - it is how you read him.
It is you that is being pissed off.
Take a look at yourself. You are angry not at Freddy but at the fact that you have no numbers to refute what he is saying.
Self-hatred is good is this case. We should not try to denigrate others, but rather provide numbers and argument for a counter-offensive. Self-hatred provides us with a possible motive to do that.
For without these numbers and argument it is difficult to see how Freddy is wrong.
That's the problem here. You are talking past his points. You assume he's wrong amd you are right before actually debating.
Take a closer look.
I give a rat's ass. Probably much more. I'd also rather have Freddy analyzing numbers for me(when I don't have time to do it for myself)than anybody else here.
Well...with the possible exception of Stuart, but he doesn't post here anymore.
Seems to me the difference right now is simply between IEA and EIA as long as we're looking at this too short time frame of the last 2 years. One shows modest increase, one shows flat. Either could represent a peak/plateau or not. My problem with Freddy is that he never addresses the arguments brought up here in terms of field decline or other specifics. He presents IEA numbers and then talks of the modelers he presents on his website, but doesn't go beyond that. It winds up as a parallel, sometimes belittling argument between individuals each playing with their own toy.
But I don't really want to enter this fray anyway, and he is right that in the past peakers underestimated the production potential of the world. That may or may not be the case again.
All of these don't have certain numbers to attach, and the possibilities are enough to throw the peak several years one way or the other.
Only hindsight will be 20-20. In the meantime we each make our best guess based on our interpretation of the most likely scenario. It does seem, as Freddy has stated, that the models are doing some converging, but there is still a ways to go before the mist clears.
We can answer them based on what we want to believe. What we want or wish the numbers to be based on our undeniable forecasts of how the future must be. Curve-fitting.
Or we can base them in retrospect on the actual numbers.
Or we can try to forecast them in some sane manner based on our experience from how numbers in similar situations in the past actually worked out, using statistics, etc.
I prefer a combination of the last two options.
One of my mottos has been,"Always expect the unexpected."
I would have no problem with the scrutiny that is afforded Hutter here, if it were only applied to everybody else in an equal manner. Certainly we can find persons and statements more deserving. Freddy does his homework.
Good evening to you ... and thanks.
He's also consistently an asshole, rude and insulting. This does not necessarily invalidate his position, but