The price of gas

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 May 2004 01:48:23 GMT, Philip Sondericker
wrote:

I make no claims as to the accuracy of anything contained in the above
article. But it's an interesting counterpoint to the article claiming
that
oil reserves are actually increasing. Is this just more of the usual
alarmism?

The Wall Street Journal had an article the other day dealing with
Hubbert's Peak.

Hubbert predicted that oil production in any field or country would
peak (and then decline) at a fairly predictable time, and history has
borne him out.

"Marion King Hubbert, a geophysicist and a geologist for the USGS, is known
for predicting, in 1956, that U.S. oil production would peak in 1970 and
decline thereafter. This peak has come to be known as Hubbert's peak and is
used to allegedly demonstrate that the current demand for oil will lead to a
crisis and that that crisis is nearly upon us."

In the U.S. as I recall it was 1972 (I was surprised it
was so late). In the North Sea it was 2000. Saudi according to the
article is fairly close to peaking, and nothing has been discovered in
the past half-century that could replace Saudi oil.

The article made no mention of fields regenerating, though obviously
it is possible in a given case. (Shucks, there could have been an
undiscovered field/lode/pool near the Mexican one mentioned, which
began to "leak" into the original site.)


Are you referring to David Goodstein's book "Out of Gas"?

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

out.

"Marion King Hubbert, a geophysicist and a geologist for the USGS, is
known
for predicting, in 1956, that U.S. oil production would peak in 1970 and
decline thereafter. This peak has come to be known as Hubbert's peak and
is
used to allegedly demonstrate that the current demand for oil will lead to
a
crisis and that that crisis is nearly upon us."


Remakably he was only off by a couple of years.

Mike
MU-2

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

out.

"Marion King Hubbert, a geophysicist and a geologist for the USGS, is
known
for predicting, in 1956, that U.S. oil production would peak in 1970 and
decline thereafter. This peak has come to be known as Hubbert's peak and
is
used to allegedly demonstrate that the current demand for oil will lead
to
a
crisis and that that crisis is nearly upon us."


Remakably he was only off by a couple of years.

Production peaked due to interference by EPA and others, not due to
availability or resources. IOW he was right for the wrong reasons.

This doesn't sound right. Are you saying the "EPA and others," meaning
government regulation, reduced the oil well reserves?


"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
news

Production peaked due to interference by EPA and others, not due to
availability or resources. IOW he was right for the wrong reasons.

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
et...
This doesn't sound right. Are you saying the "EPA and others," meaning
government regulation, reduced the oil well reserves?

Reserves (from the time) and known resources are much higher than what we're
extracting.



"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
news

Production peaked due to interference by EPA and others, not due to
availability or resources. IOW he was right for the wrong reasons.

Wasn't there an article in the WSJ a week or two ago where some oil company
execs said the regs weren't the primary issue?

I didn't look into it further. What's the problem? Failure of the
marketplace to place sufficient refining capacity on line? The price of
bringing more well capacity online is too high or unpalatable to the public?
What? Or is it working the way it's supposed to and there are just a bunch
of people annoyed at higher prices?

Are you an expert in the field (no pun intended) or just going with a gut
feeling? Just curious, because while I would gladly discuss with someone
with significant industry knowledge I really don't have any time to debate
environmental politics or with someone who bases their knowledge on one
party's propaganda (either one). No offense but it's late.


"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
et...
This doesn't sound right. Are you saying the "EPA and others," meaning
government regulation, reduced the oil well reserves?

Reserves (from the time) and known resources are much higher than what
we're
extracting.

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
et...
Wasn't there an article in the WSJ a week or two ago where some oil
company
execs said the regs weren't the primary issue?

I didn't look into it further. What's the problem? Failure of the
marketplace to place sufficient refining capacity on line?

If there's not enough capacity to meet the market demand, that would
indicate the market palce is not acting without significant interference.

The price of
bringing more well capacity online is too high or unpalatable to the
public?
What? Or is it working the way it's supposed to and there are just a
bunch
of people annoyed at higher prices?

Check out how much it costs to get past the EPA and the rest fo the
government alphabet soup to build refining capacity, to drill, or other
facilities.

Are you an expert in the field (no pun intended) or just going with a gut
feeling? Just curious, because while I would gladly discuss with someone
with significant industry knowledge I really don't have any time to debate
environmental politics or with someone who bases their knowledge on one
party's propaganda (either one). No offense but it's late.

No offense, but you can look up hard data, and stay away from the mainstream
media, who are not known as experts, either, not just party propaganda (in
my case the CATO Institute, which is non-partisan...they give Dem's and
Repug's both barrels)


"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
et...
This doesn't sound right. Are you saying the "EPA and others,"
meaning
government regulation, reduced the oil well reserves?

Reserves (from the time) and known resources are much higher than what
we're
extracting.

When it is profitable enough then more refining capacity will be built. On
the production side, the market is telling you that it is not very
attractive to drill at recent prices.

Mike
MU-2

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
et...
Wasn't there an article in the WSJ a week or two ago where some oil
company
execs said the regs weren't the primary issue?

I didn't look into it further. What's the problem? Failure of the
marketplace to place sufficient refining capacity on line? The price of
bringing more well capacity online is too high or unpalatable to the
public?
What? Or is it working the way it's supposed to and there are just a
bunch
of people annoyed at higher prices?

Are you an expert in the field (no pun intended) or just going with a gut
feeling? Just curious, because while I would gladly discuss with someone
with significant industry knowledge I really don't have any time to debate
environmental politics or with someone who bases their knowledge on one
party's propaganda (either one). No offense but it's late.


"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
et...
This doesn't sound right. Are you saying the "EPA and others,"
meaning
government regulation, reduced the oil well reserves?

Reserves (from the time) and known resources are much higher than what
we're
extracting.

I'm no expert in the field, but one of my best friends is. He's a
geophysicist (With MS degrees in geophysics and geology) who works for
a company that does seismic analysis of potential oil fields for many
of the major oil companies. He's reluctant to participate on usenet as
himself in a discussion (gee, I wonder why), but I asked him some
specific questions about this topic, and paraphrase below. Take it for
what it is worth.

1. Using current technology, how long will current oil reserves last?

This is a difficult question. The lower-end estimates are at about
75-100 years at current useage levels (and average increases)and
current technologies. The higher-end estimates are at over 500 years.
There is no clear consensus in the field about this, in part because
new technologies are developing quickly, and we are constantly
discovering new areas where exploration could be very profitable, and
because the data we are getting on field size and composition is
becoming better all the time. My personal 'guestimate' is much closer
to the 500 years than to the 75 years. Certainly we won't run out of
oil any time during our lifetimes, or our childrens.

2. Like where?

Off the coast of Brazil is very promising, as is the area off Sierra
Leone. The Gulf of Mexico also has great potential. The problems with
each areas are different tho. In the Gulf, the problems are primarily
political and environmental. Florida has consistently acted to
restrict oil field exploitation for fear of pollution. Brazil has some
problems as well politically, in that one of their demands (so far, to
at least one major proposal) has been that Brazilian companies and
workers make up at least 90% of suppliers to any development. But
Brazil doesn't have the kind of experience in the field that would be
needed for a large-scale project. Deep-water rig exploration is highly
specialized (and dangerous), and the people who have the experience
are the Americans and North-Sea types. There are plenty of other
areas. Russia has large numbers of unexplored fields, and both Canad
and Alaska in the US still have great potential. We aren't sure about
ANWR. Obviously there is some oil down there, but we don't know the
extent yet. Political debates aside, it might not even be worth it to
develop.

3. What about other places in the US?

There is plenty of oil under the US. The question is when does it
become economically feasible to get it. At $20 a barrel, there is
really no incentive to spent billions of dollars exploring the Gulf of
Mexico (or even dealing with political bureaucracies like Brazil). At
$50 a barrel it becomes very reasonable to spend that kind of money to
get to what we think are extensive (but relatively hard-to-get-at)
reserves. Same with Alaska and Canada, and even other places like
Pennsylvania where the size of fields might be relatively limited, and
the quality relatively low, but when the price per barrel reaches some
number, it then makes sense to start production from there.
Additionally, the US has large reserves of shale-oil. This can't be
distilled using conventional processes, but there are a number of
technologies that look very promising for managing both the production
and the pollution problems associated with this, and when they are
solved (quite possibly within the next decade) many billions of
barrels of shale-oil will very readily available.

4. What about the middle east?

There are still vast reserves in the middle east. [He told me these
were just ballpark numbers]The total known oil reserves in the world
are estimated to be about 1250 billion barrels. Known reserves just in
Saudi Arabia are along the lines of 400-500 billion barrels. Demand is
supposed to be about 90-100 million barrels per day by 2010. Right
now, it's about 75-80 million. Iraq has large reserves, as does Libya
and several other nations. Remember, these are *known* reserves. There
is quite a bit more out there that we can get (albeit expensively),
and a great deal more beyond that that we can't get to just yet. But
the technology flows with the cost of oil, to a great degree. Saudi
does *not* want oil at $40 a barrel. Because at $40 a barrel, oil
companies are a lot more likely to spend the billions necessary to
develop the shale-oil stuff, the alternative fuel stuff (soybeans
anyone?), and the direct exploitation technology (improved
slant-drilling, cheaper processing for lower-quality crude, deeper
water technology) that will make Saudi oil much less important. Saudi
has enough oil, and enough of an incentive to keep it relatively cheap
that it can slow the development of other technology.

5. How much of this is government overregulation?

LOL. *Which* government? Brazil? Sierra Leone? Russia? Saudi? The EPA?
The state of Florida? Yes, the governmental regulations are a big part
of it. ANWR might have huge amounts of exploitable oil underneath it.
but the government says we can't go get it. At least not yet. But in
my mind, the bigger problem is refinery capacity. Most of the
refineries are at or near capacity, and these things cost a ton of
money to build, and nobody wants them in their backyard. There are
several different types of refineries, but even the 'cheapest' kind
(Called a 'topping' refinery), which can usually only process the
cleanest, highest-quality oil, costs a ton of money, and produces some
obnoxious stuff. The most expensive refineries (Called 'complex' or
'cracking' refineries) can easily cost billions of dollars, are huge,
and can be very polluting. If we start using lower-quality crude, then
we'll need more of the big, complex refineries.




These are not his direct quotes, and I'm sure I mangled some of what
he said, but I thought his opinions might be useful in this
discussion.




"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message . net...
Wasn't there an article in the WSJ a week or two ago where some oil company
execs said the regs weren't the primary issue?

I didn't look into it further. What's the problem? Failure of the
marketplace to place sufficient refining capacity on line? The price of
bringing more well capacity online is too high or unpalatable to the public?
What? Or is it working the way it's supposed to and there are just a bunch
of people annoyed at higher prices?

Are you an expert in the field (no pun intended) or just going with a gut
feeling? Just curious, because while I would gladly discuss with someone
with significant industry knowledge I really don't have any time to debate
environmental politics or with someone who bases their knowledge on one
party's propaganda (either one). No offense but it's late.


"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
et...
This doesn't sound right. Are you saying the "EPA and others," meaning
government regulation, reduced the oil well reserves?

Reserves (from the time) and known resources are much higher than what
we're
extracting.

In article , Tom Sixkiller wrote:
Reserves (from the time) and known resources are much higher than what we're
extracting.

I think the point is not that we are about to run out of oil, but we're
going to run out of *cheap* oil.

Necessity being the mother of invention will mean that as the *cheap*
oil all disappears, new technologies will become economically viable
(biodiesels, renewable sources, energy from agricultural waste) that
aren't at the moment because oil is so much cheaper.

In our urban society, the threads are intricately woven, so even those
of us who don't fly or don't drive will see the cost of living increase
for a while. We'll survive, but it might not be all milk and honey for a
few years whilst we get used not to the lack of oil, but the lack of
cheap oil.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"