73
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 10:09 am
And I have heard projections that ANWR could produce 1.5 million per day, but I am told it is miniscule and not worth bothering with by many opponents of it. Your point about Ghawar highlights the point of typical oil field size, that if we ignore ANWR based on estimated size, then we ignore virtually all oil fields with perhaps one principle exception in the entire world, which is Ghawar. Obviously we would all be in very desperate economic shape right now if that was the case.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 10:24 am
okie wrote:
And I have heard projections that ANWR could produce 1.5 million per day


Quote:
The low- resource-case production peaks at 510,000 barrels per day in 2028, while the high- resource-case production peaks at 1,450,000 barrels per day in 2028.
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 10:59 am
okie wrote:
And I have heard projections that ANWR could produce 1.5 million per day, but I am told it is miniscule and not worth bothering with by many opponents of it.
If they really said this, so ANWR opponents' nonsense is not minuscule.
BTW, they (eg Nancy Pelosi) also assert that's ANWR is not worth bothering with because it won't produce anything before 10 years Rolling Eyes

For the records, the world total number of > 1 Mb/d oil fields amounts to... 4 (four). So 1.5 Mb/d is not minuscule, it's huge !
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 11:00 am
That's not even the main point, the main point is the marginal barrel of oil extracted from northern Alaska is estimated to cost $80 (eighty) per barrel plus transportation south.

We're better off buying from the Canadians at Athabasca, long-term contracts are on offer for a lot less that $80/bbl and the pipelines valves have already been inverted to send oil south.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 11:07 am
Quote:

http://www.mbendi.co.za/indy/oilg/p0005.htm#25


Introduction

The population of the world continues to grow, as does the average standard of living, increasing demand for food, water and energy and placing increasing pressure on the environment. The population of the world doubled from 3.2 billion in 1962 to 6.4 billion in 2005 and is forecast to grow to 9.2 billion in 2050.

Supplies of oil, gas, coal and uranium are forecast to peak as reserves are depleted. At the same time, fear of climate change is putting pressure on the energy sector to move away from carbon burning to nuclear, solar and other environmentally friendly energy sources.

Oil accounts for between 34% and 37% of the world's primary energy. Components of crude oil are feedstocks to the chemicals, plastics and fertiliser industries.

Crude oil is extracted from the earth and refined to create a range of gas (liquified petroleum gas - LPG), liquid (gasoline, diesel, jet aviation fuel, paraffin, etc) and solid (bitumen) petroleum products. The most sought after crudes are those that are "light" (i.e. contain a high proportion of short chain molecules) and "sweet" (i.e. low sulphur content) as they are easier and cheaper to refine.

...

Crude Production

Crude oil production averaged 82 million barrels per day (mbpd) in 2006, a change of 413 tbpd compared to 2005, and 85.7 mbpd in 2007. In 2006, OPEC crude oil production was 43.5% of the world total. Excess OPEC capacity dropped from 6 mbpd in 2002 to 2 million barrels a day in 2006. The countries with the largest 2006 oil production were, in order, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the USA, Iran, China, Mexico, Canada, the UAE, Venezuela, Norway, Kuwait and Nigeria. The Middle East and Russia are forecast to provide an increasing share of world crude production as fields elsewhere mature.

The IEA reports that world crude oil production fell from 73.8 mbpd in 2005 to 73.2 mbpd in the first 10 months of 2007. Some of the fall can be attributed to geological conditions and part to political instability, particularly in Iraq and Nigeria.

According to Chevron, oil production is declining in 33 of the 48 largest oil producing countries. The CEOs of Total and Conoco Philips both predict it will be difficult to ever reach production of 100 mbpd even though the IEA is predicting production of 116 mbpd by 2030 and the US government 118 mbdp. At the beginning of 2007 Wood Mackenzie forecast conventional peak oil taking place by 2020. The Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) predicts that peak oil will take place before 2010.

Although Peak Oil is often mentioned in the press in the context of oil supplies to the transportation industry, there is seldom mention of the possible impact of Peak Oil on the chemicals industry and those industries, such as agriculture, plastics and roadworks, further downstream.

Oil Trading

On average, 52 mbpd of oil were moved internationally in 2006. The USA, Europe and Japan were responsible for more than 60% of world oil imports, while the Middle East, Africa and former Soviet Union accounted for more than 65% of world oil exports.

The crude oil spot price averaged $US 72 per barrel in 2007, more than triple the average price in 2002. Towards the end of 2007, the price of crude oil breached US$ 100 per barrel and, in May 2008, US$ 120 per barrel.

Refining

According to the 2007 BP Statistical Energy Survey, world 2006 refinery capacity was 87 mbpd and 2006 refinery throughput was 75 mbpd on average. The countries with the largest oil refining capacity are, in order, the USA, China, Russia, Japan, India, South Korea, Germany, Italy and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is currently doubling its refinery capacity before 2012.

Consumption

World demand for oil reached 85.7 mbpd in 2007, 1% up on the 84.9 mbpd in 2006. The major oil consuming nations were, in order, the USA, China, Japan, Russia, Germany, India, South Korea, Canada, Brazil and Saudi Arabia. Although US consumption has remained static over the past four years, China increased its petroleum consumption by 5.5 percent in 2007. China and India accounted for some 70% of the increase in oil demand during 2006 and 2007, with oil producing countries responsible for much of the balance.

Between 1996 and 2006, USA domestic production reduced from 45% to 33% of demand. Net imports were larger than the combined production of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The US government launched its 20 in 10 initiative to reduce gasoline demand by 20% in 10 years, through improve engine emission standards and the use of ethanol.

The IEA forecasts that oil demand will increase by 10 mbpd to 94.8 mbpd in 2015. Demand for OPEC oil is forecast to increase from current 31 mbpd to 38.8 mbpd in 2015. It is not clear that the additional demand is going to be met through a combination of new sources of conventional oil, gas to liquids, unconventional oil and biofuels.


IT WOULD BE CLEAR IF THE USA ASAP INCREASED ITS CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION!
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 11:14 am
High Seas wrote:
That's not even the main point, the main point is the marginal barrel of oil extracted from northern Alaska is estimated to cost $80 (eighty) per barrel plus transportation south.
Hmmm, I doubt you'll find a reliable source which gives such price levels !
ANWR is no more demanding than Siberia or many deepwater reserves which have been launched years ago with market prices below 50$ per barrel (btw, oil raw price from the Middle East is in the sub 10$/b range !).

At 50$/b, coal to liquid is already largely profitable. American financiers would be crazy to finance Grand North's 80$/b oil fields while sitting on the world's largest coal reserves.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 11:24 am
Precisely my point, MiniTax.

It makes no sense for us to drill at such cost levels. We have to examine cheaper options.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 12:12 pm
Quote:

At 50$/b, coal to liquid is already largely profitable.


And quite pollutive as well. But you guys really don't care too much about that part, do ya?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 12:22 pm
I think it obvious now. Those opposing the federal government ending its prohibition of oil drilling in ANWR and in other rich domestic sources of crude oil, are seeking to reduce America's consumption of everything that exceeds per capita that of the rest of the world.

Their argument against drilling in ANWR, for example, is that it won't by itself solve our total energy problem. That argument by itself is obviously a stupid argument. They employ this argument nonetheless because their true objective is cutting America's per capita consumption of everything to levels equal to that of the rest of the world. They pursue this objective to placate the world's envious rather than aid those who have less emulate those who have more. They in turn pursue this objective either because they are unable to see that achievement of their objective will produce a worldwide totalitarian tyrannical collective (e.g., a "Big Brother" world), or because they actually seek a worldwide totalitarian tyrannical collective.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 12:28 pm
High Seas wrote:
Precisely my point, MiniTax.

It makes no sense for us to drill at such cost levels. We have to examine cheaper options.

MiniTAXE's true point is that your alleged costs for drilling for and transporting ANWR oil are malarkey, and therefore should be ignored.

I too think those costs you allege are malarkey.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 12:31 pm
ican711nm wrote:
High Seas wrote:
Precisely my point, MiniTax.

It makes no sense for us to drill at such cost levels. We have to examine cheaper options.

MiniTAXE's true point is that your alleged costs for drilling for and transporting ANWR oil are malarkey, and therefore should be ignored.

I too think those costs you allege are malarkey.

Let the oil companies worry about that, and if it isn't economic, then they won't invest there, but my guess is they will. I don't see why it needs to be alot different than Prudhoe Bay, and it has been very profitable, obviously.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 12:37 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

At 50$/b, coal to liquid is already largely profitable.


And quite pollutive as well. But you guys really don't care too much about that part, do ya?

Cycloptichorn

Your "quite pollutive" accusation is malarkey. If oil ccombustion were actually "quite pollutive" in the USA, life expectancy in the USA would not have increased from below age 60 in the year 1931 to above age 78 in the year 2008.

We obviously care about pollution.

We also care about truth. "But you guys really don't care too much about that part, do ya?"
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 12:42 pm
High Seas wrote:
Okie - the Ghawar oil field took over six years to recover, and may have been irreparably harmed. No animals or plants were involved, so your comment doesn't apply.

Ghawar, for anyone unfamiliar, is the largest oilfield ever found on this planet. It produces 5 million barrels of oil a day.


I certainly don't have your expertise or experience in that HS, but I am an oil patch kid, have a kid who is an engineer in the business, and am acquainted with folks here in town who run petroleum drilling schools all over the world including Saudi Arabia. Their opinion of Ghawar is that it has had an amazing six decade run that is probably coming to an end, but it still has 10-15 years of good production left at current reserve estimates and those estimates have been underestimated numerous times over the years as have reserves in our own Permian Basin where they are still managing to drill and find oil. The folks from the school do say that Ghawar is down from a peak of 5.5 million barrels to a current approximately 4.5 million barrels a day, but that is still substantial.

Ten to fifteen years isn't all that long but as fast as technology advances in the world these days, it is long enough to develop practical alternate energy to heat, light, transport, run the machines, etc.

If the cost of drilling at ANWR was at tax payer expense, I would look at that more closely, but if the oil companies think they can make a profit by developing that relatively small area, I do not see why they should be denied that opportunity to relieve at least some of our dependency on potentially unstable outside sources. Self sufficiency is an excellent goal for both individuals and nations.

Or maybe you have something in mind re Ghawar that I'm missing?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 12:52 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

At 50$/b, coal to liquid is already largely profitable.


And quite pollutive as well. But you guys really don't care too much about that part, do ya?

Cycloptichorn

Your "quite pollutive" accusation is malarkey. If oil ccombustion were actually "quite pollutive" in the USA, life expectancy in the USA would not have increased from below age 60 in the year 1931 to above age 78 in the year 2008.

We obviously care about pollution.

We also care about truth. "But you guys really don't care too much about that part, do ya?"


Ridiculous. The fact that you don't understand the relationship between modern health care and nutrition, and raised life expectancies, calls in to question your intelligence, Ican. It has little to do with pollution and everything to do with modern medical technology. What more, we aren't talking about burning oil, but the liquefaction of coal.

Coal mining is an inherently pollutive and destructive process; liquefying the result is a pollutive process; burning the liquid fuel creates further pollution. Not a good solution to move forward into the future.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 01:48 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I certainly don't have your expertise or experience in that HS, but I am an oil patch kid, have a kid who is an engineer in the business, and am acquainted with folks here in town who run petroleum drilling schools all over the world including Saudi Arabia. Their opinion of Ghawar is that it has had an amazing six decade run that is probably coming to an end, but it still has 10-15 years of good production left at current reserve estimates and those estimates have been underestimated numerous times over the years as have reserves in our own Permian Basin where they are still managing to drill and find oil. The folks from the school do say that Ghawar is down from a peak of 5.5 million barrels to a current approximately 4.5 million barrels a day, but that is still substantial.
Foxfyre, good numbers and their magnitude are important, otherwise, conclusions would be erronous.
I don't know where you get your numbers for Ghawar but they are wrong.

First, proven reserves for Ghawar are estimated to be 60 to 100 Gb, now. At a rate of 2 Gb/year, that would mean AT LEAST 30 to 50 years of good production, not 10-15 !
But should I remind you that in 1975, the USGS has stated that Ghawar URR (proven+ probable + possible reserves) amounted to 60 Gb and up to now, cumulated production from Ghawar has been ... 65 Gb, that is Ghawar should have been empty, void, zeroed. Yet, its water cut is just around 30% (mean world value is 75%, in France, some wells' water cut is more than 95% and it's still profitable !).

Second, Ghawar is producing 5 Mb/d for years, even peakoilers wouldn't venture to say it's peaking now or in the next 2, 3 years (see for example the peak oil sites theoildrum.com or peakoil.com).
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 01:50 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
liquefying the result is a pollutive process; burning the liquid fuel creates further pollution. Not a good solution to move forward into the future.
Cycloptichorn
Come on Cycloptichorn, you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about, do you ?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 02:45 pm
miniTAX wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I certainly don't have your expertise or experience in that HS, but I am an oil patch kid, have a kid who is an engineer in the business, and am acquainted with folks here in town who run petroleum drilling schools all over the world including Saudi Arabia. Their opinion of Ghawar is that it has had an amazing six decade run that is probably coming to an end, but it still has 10-15 years of good production left at current reserve estimates and those estimates have been underestimated numerous times over the years as have reserves in our own Permian Basin where they are still managing to drill and find oil. The folks from the school do say that Ghawar is down from a peak of 5.5 million barrels to a current approximately 4.5 million barrels a day, but that is still substantial.
Foxfyre, good numbers and their magnitude are important, otherwise, conclusions would be erronous.
I don't know where you get your numbers for Ghawar but they are wrong.

First, proven reserves for Ghawar are estimated to be 60 to 100 Gb, now. At a rate of 2 Gb/year, that would mean AT LEAST 30 to 50 years of good production, not 10-15 !
But should I remind you that in 1975, the USGS has stated that Ghawar URR (proven+ probable + possible reserves) amounted to 60 Gb and up to now, cumulated production from Ghawar has been ... 65 Gb, that is Ghawar should have been empty, void, zeroed. Yet, its water cut is just around 30% (mean world value is 75%, in France, some wells' water cut is more than 95% and it's still profitable !).

Second, Ghawar is producing 5 Mb/d for years, even peakoilers wouldn't venture to say it's peaking now or in the next 2, 3 years (see for example the peak oil sites theoildrum.com or peakoil.com).


That's the point the oil drilling folks here in Albuquerque have made, MiniTax--the estimates of existing reserves throughout the world have been so often flawed and are so often less than the reality that we honestly don't know how much oil we have left. The figures I cited, however, were from memory from talking with those oil drilling folks who have worked on contract in Saudi Arabia in the last several years--not sure when they were last there though. I should have qualified that 10-15 years with at least 10-15 years. Your numbers are quite likely more realistic though.

However, I did go looking for something to support those numbers before bowing to what is probably your superior knowledge Smile and did find this source: ENERGY BULLETIN
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 02:47 pm
miniTAX wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
liquefying the result is a pollutive process; burning the liquid fuel creates further pollution. Not a good solution to move forward into the future.
Cycloptichorn
Come on Cycloptichorn, you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about, do you ?


More then you, my friend, who is little more then a troll on this forum.

Yes, burning of fossil fuels creates further pollution.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 03:00 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

The fact that you don't understand the relationship between modern health care and nutrition, and raised life expectancies, calls in to question your intelligence, Ican. It has little to do with pollution and everything to do with modern medical technology. What more, we aren't talking about burning oil, but the liquefaction of coal.

Coal mining is an inherently pollutive and destructive process; liquefying the result is a pollutive process; burning the liquid fuel creates further pollution. Not a good solution to move forward into the future.

Cycloptichorn

You allege that pollution controls have had little to do, and modern medical technology has had everything to do with increased life expectancies for Americans. That's silly.

Also you've gone off on your red herring trip again. I'm talking about eliminating the federal prohibitions against drilling for oil in ANWAR and in other rich domestic locations of crude oil.

You too are free to talk about whatever you please.

Currently there is little toxic pollution and acceptable levels of noxious pollution in the USA due to burning fuels generated from crude oil.

If liquifying coal is a toxic pollution process, then let's not liquify it. Let's burn coal in the form it is mined or drill for more oil. However, I suspect that making and burning liquified coal may produce less noxious pollution than that generated by non-liquified coal, because there would be no point in profit making firms going to the energy consumption and expense of liquifying coal if that weren't true.

Your hypochondria pretense is a poor substitutte for reasoning.
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 03:15 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

More then you, my friend, who is little more then a troll on this forum.

Yes, burning of fossil fuels creates further pollution.

Cycloptichorn
What the hell are you doing on this forum, Cycloptichorn. You're wasting time and energy using Internet powered by electricity mostly made from ... COAL (in the US). Shocked Shocked

Quick, stop further unecessary pollution, switch off. Adios, forever, nice to have talked to you. :wink:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 07/09/2025 at 04:34:19