Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Business, Finance, and Investing Making money, investing in markets, and running businesses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-25-2014, 06:26 PM   #76
JiggsCasey
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
JiggsCasey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 2+2 energy editor
Posts: 7,239
Re: Oil majors dumping capital expenditures...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shifty86 View Post
I'm not an expert on what you guys are discussing, and I don't have a dog in the fight.

That said, I've worked in the Canadian Oilsands for the past 8 years. Currently there is more construction happening then I've ever seen before in my time working there, every major oil company from Shell, IOL, CNRL, Syncrude, Suncor, Husky, ConocoPhillips and a few others have major construction projects being constructed or about to start in the Alberta oilsands. These are all 3BN$+ projects, and as of right now there is no sign of it slowing down. Saskatchewan is suppose to have more oil reserves then Alberta.

I have no idea if this helps, I just thought Id share that has someone who has worked in the area for basically the past decade and through a boom and a bust. There is more work going on now then in 2007 before the bust.
There is no doubt the much-more-expensive-to-extract tar sands industry is expanding. But more out of desperation than anything else.

Because for all the mess it creates, I've seen no one suggest 1) production volume can expand much more than 5-7M barrels per day, nor 2) global oil price drop as a result of that expansion (barring global recession).
JiggsCasey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2014, 02:20 AM   #77
JiggsCasey
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
JiggsCasey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 2+2 energy editor
Posts: 7,239
Re: Oil majors dumping capital expenditures...

Last thing, and I'll let this thread die. Unless others wanna keep it going:

Here is the EIA openly admitting that conventional production 1) is STILL at 2005 levels, and 2) has actually been in decline since Feb. 2012. Two years' trend. Not a blip.

We've maintained tepid global production growth based 100% on exceptionally expensive US shale. And the tight oil industry? It's now buckling.

World crude production 2013 without shale oil is back to 2005 levels
Summary

Since end 2010, the group of still growing countries (+1.2 mb/d) can’t offset decline elsewhere (-2.4 mb/d), giving a resulting decline of 1.2 mb/d or 400 kb/d p.a. This is mainly oil-geologically determined decline.

OPEC, which is usually called upon to provide for the difference between demand and non-OPEC production, has got its own problems (geopolitical feed-back loops caused by peaking oil production) and was not able to fill that gap. Global crude oil without US shale oil declined by 1.5 mb/d since its most recent peak in Feb 2012.

Conclusion

While the mainstream media lulls the public into believing that US shale oil is a revolution, peaking oil production in many countries eats like a cancer through the oil supply system. The big problem is that more oil dependent infrastructure is being built which will not be needed when US shale oil peaks and the underlying decline is revealed.

((Incremental production for each country is calculated as the difference between total production and the minimum production between Jan 2001 and Oct 2013))
JiggsCasey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2014, 04:36 AM   #78
ToothSoother
adept
 
ToothSoother's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,014
Re: Oil majors dumping capital expenditures...

Three simple questions.

1. Why do you take this seriously and not the many EIA projections, opinions and costing of production that say there is no chance of peak oil? Surely if this was as serious as you believe, the EIA would be trumpeting it, so that things like coal/gas liquefaction and increased oil sands mining projects could begin on a large scale, saving the US from disaster.

2. Surely, if this was as serious and obvious as you say, speculators who know all of this as well as you would have put the price of oil up to $300/barrel, not where it's been for the last 5 years?

3. How are you making money from this view? For posterity, please let us know what trades you have made and what you would make today, so we can come back in a couple of years and see how you did.

Thank you sir!
ToothSoother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2014, 04:44 AM   #79
ToothSoother
adept
 
ToothSoother's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,014
Re: Oil majors dumping capital expenditures...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JiggsCasey View Post
There is no doubt the much-more-expensive-to-extract tar sands industry is expanding. But more out of desperation than anything else.
Dozens of large companies aren't making multi billion dollar bets out of desperation. Why would you be desperate when you're sitting on vast reserves of a commodity that's going to become increasing scarce and expensive? I'd be ecstatic.

Quote:
Because for all the mess it creates, I've seen no one suggest 1) production volume can expand much more than 5-7M barrels per day
Try to follow me here. There is a vast land area with extractable oil sands, 180 billion barrels of which which can be produced with current well known technology for < $80/barrel.

Given that oil sands are completely unlike liquid fields (they are solid, in a fixed place that's widely dispersed (like a vast peat bog), not constrained by flow parameters, and able to be accessed from any point on their land area), what possible reason could there be for this not being able to scale up?

Quote:
nor 2) global oil price drop as a result of that expansion (barring global recession).
If a vast reserve of something can be produced for $80/barrel, for a long time (while light crude still makes up the bulk of the volume for decades and is produced for $10/barrel), what fundamental reason will oil have to stay well north of $100?
ToothSoother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2014, 06:16 AM   #80
phantom_lord
veteran
 
phantom_lord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2,420
Re: Oil majors dumping capital expenditures...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JiggsCasey View Post
Last thing, and I'll let this thread die. Unless others wanna keep it going:

Here is the EIA openly admitting that conventional production 1) is STILL at 2005 levels, and 2) has actually been in decline since Feb. 2012. Two years' trend. Not a blip.

We've maintained tepid global production growth based 100% on exceptionally expensive US shale. And the tight oil industry? It's now buckling.

World crude production 2013 without shale oil is back to 2005 levels
Summary

Since end 2010, the group of still growing countries (+1.2 mb/d) can’t offset decline elsewhere (-2.4 mb/d), giving a resulting decline of 1.2 mb/d or 400 kb/d p.a. This is mainly oil-geologically determined decline.

OPEC, which is usually called upon to provide for the difference between demand and non-OPEC production, has got its own problems (geopolitical feed-back loops caused by peaking oil production) and was not able to fill that gap. Global crude oil without US shale oil declined by 1.5 mb/d since its most recent peak in Feb 2012.

Conclusion

While the mainstream media lulls the public into believing that US shale oil is a revolution, peaking oil production in many countries eats like a cancer through the oil supply system. The big problem is that more oil dependent infrastructure is being built which will not be needed when US shale oil peaks and the underlying decline is revealed.

((Incremental production for each country is calculated as the difference between total production and the minimum production between Jan 2001 and Oct 2013))
So while the world economy is still in the doldrums and the US became self-sufficient the rest of the world cut production? Do you think there's a possibility you're cherry picking what you want from that report?

Every IEA/EIA/OPEC report states that the global market is well supplied; and this is while Iran is under sanctions and Libya is pumping next to nothing. Opec has about 6m BPD in spare production.

Conventional production is at 2005 levels because it makes prudent financial sense, not because of production problems.
phantom_lord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2014, 06:33 PM   #81
JiggsCasey
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
JiggsCasey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 2+2 energy editor
Posts: 7,239
Re: Oil majors dumping capital expenditures...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSoother View Post
Three simple questions.

1. Why do you take this seriously and not the many EIA projections, opinions and costing of production that say there is no chance of peak oil? Surely if this was as serious as you believe, the EIA would be trumpeting it, so that things like coal/gas liquefaction and increased oil sands mining projects could begin on a large scale, saving the US from disaster.
You seem to be conflating projections for the future with recorded data of the past. I take seriously the past and present recordings of production and what they mean going forward. They're verifiable up against USGS and BP figures. ... Conversely, I often don't take seriously the EIA forecasts that 1) don't make mathematical sense based on the current data trends, and 2) have a long history of being dead wrong.

And, try not to make the mistake of asserting what the EIA "would be trumpeting" regarding a reality that would easily spook global markets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSoother View Post
2. Surely, if this was as serious and obvious as you say, speculators who know all of this as well as you would have put the price of oil up to $300/barrel, not where it's been for the last 5 years?
They would? Link please. Sounds like an instant global economy killer to me ... Regardless, many of these speculators adhere to flawed demand-constrained forecast models, just like you seem to be doing.

Again, the price remains "low" because it's all the public can bear, as has been shown every time it flirts with going past $100.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSoother View Post
3. How are you making money from this view? For posterity, please let us know what trades you have made and what you would make today, so we can come back in a couple of years and see how you did.
Largely irrelevant. But if you want investment hints for short-term gain, sign up for the daily Energy & Capital newsletter. It's deceitful in a lot of ways for the sake of short-term profit, but as an entity, those guys know the peak of conventional crude is here.
JiggsCasey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2014, 07:02 PM   #82
JiggsCasey
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
JiggsCasey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 2+2 energy editor
Posts: 7,239
Re: Oil majors dumping capital expenditures...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSoother View Post
Dozens of large companies aren't making multi billion dollar bets out of desperation. Why would you be desperate when you're sitting on vast reserves of a commodity that's going to become increasing scarce and expensive? I'd be ecstatic.
The global economy, starving for energy consumption, is what's desperate. The companies themselves are scaling way back on their "billion dollar bets," as the OP clearly conveys. Pretty obvious to me they're no longer "ecstatic" when their profit margin is plummeting because the price of oil is too low.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSoother View Post
Try to follow me here. There is a vast land area with extractable oil sands, 180 billion barrels of which which can be produced with current well known technology for < $80/barrel.
Oh, I follow you. I just don't agree that it can be consistently harvested for <$80. We can get into a link war on that aspect if you like. You'll rely on industry PR claims. I'll stick with independent geologists and economists who don't ignore "externalities."

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSoother View Post
Given that oil sands are completely unlike liquid fields (they are solid, in a fixed place that's widely dispersed (like a vast peat bog), not constrained by flow parameters, and able to be accessed from any point on their land area), what possible reason could there be for this not being able to scale up?
I'm sure it smells like ice cream too, from that kind of rosey spin. Anyhow, the reality is quite different.

Besides the logistical and financial impediments, you seem to be ignoring refinery and delivery costs. Worse, do you want to get into the C02 argument as well?

Tar sands planned growth is 3X climate limit

Care to double and triple an industry that looks like this?



Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSoother View Post
If a vast reserve of something can be produced for $80/barrel, for a long time (while light crude still makes up the bulk of the volume for decades and is produced for $10/barrel), what fundamental reason will oil have to stay well north of $100?
So it's a conspiracy? The price is artificially elevated? Please link, and include an explanation for the slides in the OP whereby the majors all need the global price of oil closer to $120-150.

Obviously, you're missing something. It probably starts with your flawed base presumption that tar sands development is that cheap.

A Slowdown At The Tar Sands?
Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver recently estimated the oilsands would need $650 billion in capital investments in the next decade alone — almost five times what's been spent there over the past 50 years.
Total to Take $1.65 Billion Loss on Canada Oil-Sands Project
Alberta oil sands are beset by rising labor costs and a shortage of workers as well as a discount for the price of Canadian heavy crude as U.S. oil output exceeds expectations. Suncor yesterday canceled the Voyageur venture after Chief Executive Officer Steve Williams said in December the profit margin for processing Alberta bitumen was “disappearing.”
Have the Canadian Tar Sands had their Day?
Add an upgrader, the “pre-refinery” that transforms heavy oil into a lighter crude that can be further refined into diesel and gasoline, and the needed break-even rises to above $100. ...

These mining breakeven prices are very high. Right now, WTI crude is trading at about $97/barrel and Brent is trading at about $111/barrel. New mining developments, including an upgrader, have a breakeven of about $100/barrel, which makes the economics very marginal indeed.
JiggsCasey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2014, 09:39 PM   #83
JimAfternoon
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
JimAfternoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: On Location
Posts: 6,904
Re: Oil majors dumping capital expenditures...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JiggsCasey View Post
LOL New Mexico...

700 million barrels in proven reserves, or what the planet uses in about 7.8 days. Doubtful half of that will ever be extracted, as foreign investment flees from unconventional extraction at alarming rates.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/industrie...l-rich-states/
I was talking about the general Rockies area, including the 4 or 5 states I mentioned.

And it appears I was wrong. There's actually estimated to be 3 trillion barrels in CO alone.

Quote:
A recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office estimated that if half of the oil bound up in the rock of the Green River Formation could be recovered it would be "equal to the entire world's proven oil reserves."

Both the GAO and private industry estimate the amount of oil recoverable to be 3 trillion barrels.

"In the past 100 years — in all of human history -- we have consumed 1 trillion barrels of oil. There are several times that much here," said Roger Day, vice president for operations for American Shale Oil (AMSO).
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/ameri...ry?id=17536852
JimAfternoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2014, 10:52 PM   #84
JiggsCasey
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
JiggsCasey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 2+2 energy editor
Posts: 7,239
Re: Oil majors dumping capital expenditures...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimAfternoon View Post
I was talking about the general Rockies area, including the 4 or 5 states I mentioned.

And it appears I was wrong. There's actually estimated to be 3 trillion barrels in CO alone.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/ameri...ry?id=17536852
And most of it will stay in the ground because it's cost-prohibitive to extract. Write it down.

Cost kinda matters. Both for the companies that bring it to the surface as well as for the average consumer, who hasn't seen a wage increase in 5-6 years.

Again, I can pretend I've found 10 trillion barrels of crude behind the moon. That says nothing of the logistics of bringing it to market, nor the public's capacity to afford the price.
JiggsCasey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2014, 11:12 PM   #85
ToothSoother
adept
 
ToothSoother's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,014
Re: Oil majors dumping capital expenditures...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JiggsCasey View Post
You seem to be conflating projections for the future with recorded data of the past. I take seriously the past and present recordings of production and what they mean going forward. They're verifiable up against USGS and BP figures. ... Conversely, I often don't take seriously the EIA forecasts that 1) don't make mathematical sense based on the current data trends, and 2) have a long history of being dead wrong.
A long history of being dead wrong? No, the EIA is one of the few that is correct so far. Half of the models from 2005 are already far below current production.

Quote:
They would? Link please. Sounds like an instant global economy killer to me
You keep asserting this like a religious mantra, but have provided zero evidence. I see no reason why oil going up 300% in five years would not destroy the global economy, where oil going up another 20-30% would destroy the global economy. It's a bizarre theory at odds with reality.

Quote:
... Regardless, many of these speculators adhere to flawed demand-constrained forecast models, just like you seem to be doing.
I'm not adhering to anything. I get the concept of peak oil very well, as you noted earlier. I'm trying to get at the truth. So far your theory seems like a whole heap of crap; you avoid any hard question that sticks a hole in your theory.

Quote:
Again, the price remains "low" because it's all the public can bear, as has been shown every time it flirts with going past $100.
So the demand curve for oil is highly elastic? Is that your claim? Your post is entirely at odds with how markets work.

Quote:
Quote:
3. How are you making money from this view? For posterity, please let us know what trades you have made and what you would make today, so we can come back in a couple of years and see how you did.
Largely irrelevant. But if you want investment hints for short-term gain, sign up for the daily Energy & Capital newsletter. It's deceitful in a lot of ways for the sake of short-term profit,
Largely irrelevant? What a cowardly out. This is Business, Finance and Investing man, not politics, where you couldn't convince anyone of your thesis either. If you don't have an investment-relevant thesis, please GTFO. Let's lock this thread.

You believe in a global oil shock that the market has completely missed and you have no idea how to make money from it. Amazing, considering that there will be hard times if there is a global oil shock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiggsCasey View Post
The global economy, starving for energy consumption, is what's desperate. The companies themselves are scaling way back on their "billion dollar bets," as the OP clearly conveys.
What the OP conveys is that the free cash flow of these companies requires a higher oil price to stay free cash flow positive despite huge capex - not long term profitability. Do you see why declining capex is a sign of low confidence in global oil scarcity?

Quote:
Pretty obvious to me they're no longer "ecstatic" when their profit margin is plummeting because the price of oil is too low.
So the price of something that's becoming scarce is too low, causing margins to plummet? You don't see how that works against your thesis?


Quote:
Oh, I follow you. I just don't agree that it can be consistently harvested for <$80. We can get into a link war on that aspect if you like. You'll rely on industry PR claims.
Everyone, from investment banks to consultants to the companies themselves to government bodies agrees with these claims. Multiple independent sources have been quoted. And the other side, you've got a handful of retirees. What's more, oil is already produced for these price levels - in fact lower - and the nature of the reserve is such there's no reason it can't be scaled.

Quote:
I'll stick with independent geologists and economists who don't ignore "externalities."
Externalities, lol. As if that's relevant to supply, which is all that matters for your peak oil theory. Coal has a bunch of nasty and expensive externalities, but you know what? It's been supply cheap reliable fuel for decades and will do so for decades more.

Quote:
I'm sure it smells like ice cream too, from that kind of rosey spin. Anyhow, the reality is quite different.

Besides the logistical and financial impediments, you seem to be ignoring refinery and delivery costs.
I'm not ignoring refinery and delivery costs. $80/barrel includes that. You can get it out of the ground for around $10, further processing adds another $30. At $40 you have heavy unconventional crude. The rest gets you to refined light crude.
Quote:
Worse, do you want to get into the C02 argument as well?
Who gives a **** about CO2? Your head is entirely in the wrong place. This is about supply limitations and whether it's a threat to the economy.

Even the CO2 argument is irrelevant nonsense. Extraction of non-liquid oil is marginally more expensive in terms of CO2. It costs 5-20% more CO2 per barrel, depending on the technology. That's a lot of energy, but a drop in the ocean in the scheme of things. Let's take the worst case, 20%. If unconventional rises to 20 million barrels/day - which is enough to offset conventional light crude decline for decades even in the worst case - that will increase CO2 emissions from oil by 6%. 1 part in 16!! In terms of total energy, that means around a 2% increase in total global emissions. 1 part in 50. Utterly meaningless. If we're spewing out 33.0 billion tons of CO2/year, with 20 billion barrels/day of unconventional added to the mix, in the worst case, we'll be spewing out 33.7 billion tons of CO2. You think anyone will bring the global economy to a standstill for the sake of the difference between 33 and 33.7 billion tons? LOL

CO2 is irrelevant as an "externality" in the global scheme of things, and irrelevant to supply. Stop with this externality bull****, it just makes you look silly.

Quote:
Care to double and triple an industry that looks like this?

Why not? We mine 7 billion tons of coal each year, which looks exactly like that, and have for decades, which is 30 billion barrels - or equivalent to rate of supply of all oil currently.

Clearly, we have the means at this scale. Clearly, we accept the externalities at this scale (coal has a list of externalities not much better than heavy crude, and on a much larger scale). Clearly, we can do it quite cheaply. Yet you somehow think doing a fraction of this with oil is impossible, or unacceptable? Pass the pipe, please, I want some of what you're smoking.

Apart from that, extraction doesn't need to use strip mining. Steam injection and gravity draining technologies:

a) work
b) have far less environmental impact
c) bring down costs even further

I only mention strip mining because it's something we already competently do on a global scale far exceeding even oil production (and exceeding by 10x the level of unconventional we need to do to offset conventional decline for decades). I also mention it because it has similar externalities, and it's something you can easily grasp, and not wiggle away from. In other words, it completely destroys of your argument.
Quote:
So it's a conspiracy? The price is artificially elevated? Please link, and include an explanation for the slides in the OP whereby the majors all need the global price of oil closer to $120-150.
This is for free cash flow given new capex, not long term profitability, according to your own post. I know you're not an investment guy, but please try to understand what these terms mean. New industries of any kind, but especially mining, involve massive upfront debt. You can't stay free cash flow positive - not for years - in any industry while building a new industry. Your entire premise is a total red herring, when what matters is long term profitability and supply.

Quote:
Obviously, you're missing something. It probably starts with your flawed base presumption that tar sands development is that cheap.
No, it starts with you missing the very basics of capex investment and free cash flow.

Go have a look at the fundamentals of the iron ore industry. It's very similar - the price has risen a huge amount in a 10 year bubble - more than oil!, and recently pulled back quite a lot. The investment decisions of various iron ore producers have been governed by this - first a massive capex boom to get in the new prices, then, as their free cash flow and concerns about a dropping price longer term makes capex less desirable, a decline in capex.



Hopefully, you agree there is no "peak iron ore" imminent and driving these numbers - it's a highly abundant substance - yet they look exactly like the oil industry!

So hopefully you can see that your OP is just worthless trash that establishes nothing, even though it might look plausible.

The only way to provide evidence for peak oil is to provide evidence that there is a limitation of supply. The existence of large extractable reserves that merely require higher prices - and not much higher than today - is proof that there isn't, and that peak oil won't happen. Slightly more expensive oil? Maybe. Massively more expensive oil? No. Peak oil? No.

To cover this scenario, the second plank of your conflated thesis is that oil can't go much above $100 without wrecking economies. All the evidence (and all of common sense and economics) suggests that this view is retarded.

If you wish anyone to take you seriously, you're going to have put forward a meaningful case. I don't see how you could, though, given that it goes against absolutely everything we know.
Quote:
Alberta oil sands are beset by rising labor costs and a shortage of workers as well as a discount for the price of Canadian heavy crude as U.S. oil output exceeds expectations. Suncor yesterday canceled the Voyageur venture after Chief Executive Officer Steve Williams said in December the profit margin for processing Alberta bitumen was “disappearing.”
(My bold). So more plentiful supply is dropping the price of heavy crude, which is making the marginal producers unprofitable in the short term as their their large capex costs catch up with free cash flow.

And that sounds like peak oil to you?

Quote:
Add an upgrader, the “pre-refinery” that transforms heavy oil into a lighter crude that can be further refined into diesel and gasoline, and the needed break-even rises to above $100. ...

These mining breakeven prices are very high. Right now, WTI crude is trading at about $97/barrel and Brent is trading at about $111/barrel. New mining developments, including an upgrader, have a breakeven of about $100/barrel, which makes the economics very marginal indeed.
You are confusing peak oil (completely inelastic - supply can't be made at any price close to current level, which would be an economic disaster) with non-peaking oil that has elastic supply curve.

Everything you've posted points to non peaking oil with an elastic supply curve. You've failed to make a rational case for peak oil.
ToothSoother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2014, 12:49 AM   #86
JimAfternoon
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
JimAfternoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: On Location
Posts: 6,904
Re: Oil majors dumping capital expenditures...

/thread
JimAfternoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2014, 04:03 AM   #87
JiggsCasey
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
JiggsCasey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 2+2 energy editor
Posts: 7,239
Re: Oil majors dumping capital expenditures...

I promise to respond to each passage soon. Looks like it will take a bit of time to sit and provide relevant links and summation for all that you've offered here. But I will do it.

The coal comparison was especially rich, as if a barrel of coal burns at the same BTU rate as a barrel of oil.

Anyhow, I'm in the process of moving, and time will be limited until Monday or Tuesday.

For now, in short:

- You seem to be falling into the common cornucopian strategy of redefining (for you) what peak oil means. That its about reserves in the ground, not extraction rates. ... Meanwhile, I'm telling you there's no way the world gets to 100M barrels per day of total liquids production due to economic and logistical barriers. As conventional declines, unconventional won't be able to keep up. ... You're firing back with reserve totals for unconventionals, horribly simplistic cost estimates and rosey extrapolation for an industry that will NEVER get to the levels you (and most flawed economists) naively envision. ...

- If you've already admitted how intrinsic oil is to the global economy, and that nothing is ready to substitute for it, its basic logic that the world will need ever more of it going forward. You know, barring war or a new global recession. Demand forecasts for 100M barrels per day (in a perfect world) aren't very far into the future. You seem to think "no problem." I'm beyond confident there's "no way."

- Economic growth turns to economic contraction as the cost of energy extraction rises. I can't emphasize that enough, and the data overwhelmingly backs that up.

- Climate change has nearly everything to do with global oil depletion, and to summarily dismiss it from context makes me question where you're coming from in your denial that peak is here. To just say <$80/bl over and over again for bitumen, while dismissing all the things that most certainly do cost and put the real price per barrel much higher shows you don't have much respect for the biosphere we all have to live in.

If you assert these technocrats and wildcatters can produce dirtier and far-less-efficient fossil fuel at a profit with a WTI price closer to $60-80, then why isn't it?

PS: Not that it's relevant, but iron ore extraction is not as abundant as you seem to think. There are noticeable shortages and export caps around the world.

Last edited by JiggsCasey; 03-29-2014 at 04:33 AM.
JiggsCasey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2014, 04:22 AM   #88
Gameflow
newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 46
I don't really know much about this topic, but I always thought oilprices where higher than what they would be due to speculation?
How come they are lower than what they should be? Regulation?
Gameflow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2014, 02:30 AM   #89
JiggsCasey
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
JiggsCasey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 2+2 energy editor
Posts: 7,239
Re: Oil majors dumping capital expenditures...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JiggsCasey View Post
If you assert these technocrats and wildcatters can produce dirtier and far-less-efficient fossil fuel at a profit with a WTI price closer to $60-80, then why isn't it?
So, I'm back. The move took longer than I thought, but I'm finally settled in my new place. If you still want me to cover your earlier thread, I will, Tooth. But before I do, could you please summarize an answer for the question above?

You've expounded the wonders of the most dirty and disgusting form of crude (actually a synthetic derived from bitumen, not actual oil), and insist it can be harvested to seemingly endless quantity with oil price >$80 a barrel. If that were true, and the speculators all knew this, why does global oil price seem to keep banging it's head on a ceiling closer to $95-115?

Oil sands trades $30 less than WTI because it's just not very good "oil" at all. Meanwhile, foreign investment for Canadian sands is drying up for a lot of reasons, one of them being the fact that capital investment expenditures are blowing up and they're getting killed.

Last edited by JiggsCasey; 04-14-2014 at 02:46 AM.
JiggsCasey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2014, 03:42 PM   #90
ToothSoother
adept
 
ToothSoother's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,014
Re: Oil majors dumping capital expenditures...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JiggsCasey View Post
So, I'm back. The move took longer than I thought, but I'm finally settled in my new place. If you still want me to cover your earlier thread, I will, Tooth. But before I do, could you please summarize an answer for the question above?
I think it's all been said.

Quote:
You've expounded the wonders of the most dirty and disgusting form of crude (actually a synthetic derived from bitumen, not actual oil)
Nearly everything humans do is dirty and disgusting, if you want to use those words. And we do it on a truly massive scale. Extracting bitumen for an extra 20 million barrels/day is a drop in the ocean of what humans do. Your argument on this point is irrational.

Quote:
and insist it can be harvested to seemingly endless quantity with oil price >$80 a barrel. If that were true, and the speculators all knew this, why does global oil price seem to keep banging it's head on a ceiling closer to $95-115?
Presumably the same reason oil was $140 (inflation adjusted) in 1980, and $40 (inflation adjusted) in 1987. Oil lost 2/3 of its value in seven years. World reserves didn't change. Extraction technologies didn't change.


Huge amounts of capex are need to bring unconventional online (or iron ore, or gold, or just about anything, really). Prices spike well above long term levels when that capex is ongoing. Your OP sets out exactly that capex expenditure. You don't have an argument here. Look at iron ore, for example...far, far, far above the long term cost of production, for an abundant substance that most definitely isn't peaking.
Quote:
Oil sands trades $30 less than WTI because it's just not very good "oil" at all. Meanwhile, foreign investment for Canadian sands is drying up for a lot of reasons, one of them being the fact that capital investment expenditures are blowing up and they're getting killed.
Yep, it's crap oil. Expensive to refine, requires a different kind of processing. But it works. For < $100/barrel.

You think regular light crude oil is good to refine, though? It's a disgusting toxic black environmentally destructive slime that needs extensive refining and infrastructure. The fact that bitumen is worse than the other misses the point entirely. We can refine it, easily. We do. We can refine 10 of millions of barrels a day for a good price if we choose to. Ergo, supply will not stop as long as the sludge can be pumped, strip-mined, steamed, or coaxed out of the ground in some manner.
ToothSoother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2014, 08:30 PM   #91
BrianTheMick2
Need a ride?
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 14,118
Re: Oil majors dumping capital expenditures...

Problem solved back in 1977:

BrianTheMick2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2014, 01:59 AM   #92
JiggsCasey
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
JiggsCasey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 2+2 energy editor
Posts: 7,239
Re: Oil majors dumping capital expenditures...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSoother View Post
I think it's all been said.
Nope. Not really.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSoother View Post
Nearly everything humans do is dirty and disgusting, if you want to use those words. And we do it on a truly massive scale.
I see. So because we already rape the Earth, let's speed it up with an even dirtier process... because we can. Got it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSoother View Post
Extracting bitumen for an extra 20 million barrels/day is a drop in the ocean of what humans do. Your argument on this point is irrational.
Speaking of lacking a rational argument, please link to a single peer-reviewed paper or industry claim that asserts we can get tar sands production to 20M barrels per day, a 6-fold increase over today's meager levels of production.

Your amusing hand-wave of destructive human ambitions aside, how do you imagine they'll get it all to Texas to be refined? Or can Canada just build all that's needed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSoother View Post
Presumably the same reason oil was $140 (inflation adjusted) in 1980, and $40 (inflation adjusted) in 1987. Oil lost 2/3 of its value in seven years. World reserves didn't change. Extraction technologies didn't change.
You're not really answering my question, never mind the fact that you're attempting to compare a man-made crisis (1980s) to a geological one (today). But if you're trying to suggest oil price can and will easily come down to 1990's levels of affordability (presumably not as a result of a deep global depression killing demand), congratulations! You're completely alone in that forecast.

The age of cheap oil is over, as confirmed by the IEA, the IMF and countless other international entities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSoother View Post
Huge amounts of capex are need to bring unconventional online (or iron ore, or gold, or just about anything, really). Prices spike well above long term levels when that capex is ongoing. Your OP sets out exactly that capex expenditure. You don't have an argument here.
Ah yes. The earlier baseless argument that claims that once the infrastructure is in place, expenditures will drop. I guess the infrastructure capacity in place today will get us to the magical 20M barrels per day level, without need for further expansion. ... We covered that for shale oil production, and it's the same rejection here. You don't appear to know what you're talking about, though you sorta admitted that when you entered the thread.

Back here in reality: The giants pick the low-hanging fruit first. The costs never abate ... especially if you're trying to increase flow rates to the laughable estimates you're claiming are possible.

Foreign investment isn't drying up just because "it's all in place already." Are you delusional?

http://business.financialpost.com/20..._lsa=8178-9472
Capital cost pressures in the oil sands have tripled, operating costs in the oil sands at least doubled, we had a change in the oil sands royalty regime, we had greater environmental regulations, costs of compliance have increased, we had continued delays in pipelines that allow us to move products out to maximize revenue, (there is) negative public sentiment toward the oil sands, plus you have the emergence of other opportunities in the U.S. and elsewhere,” Mr. Ukrainetz told an industry conference organized by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and Scotiabank.

“These are things that impacted our willingness to take on further oil sands spending, more than changes in SOE rules and regulations,” said Mr. Ukrainetz, one of many Canadian executives who are managing the SOE-owned assets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSoother View Post
Look at iron ore, for example...
No. And stop attempting such silly apples to oranges comparisons. Iron is not energy. Metals are a totally different market ... (and, as it so happens, the health of said market being largely dependent on oil price!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSoother View Post
Yep, it's crap oil. Expensive to refine, requires a different kind of processing. But it works. For < $100/barrel.
It also burns about 1/3 as efficient (in terms of EROEI) as light crude.

But wait. You seem to be curiously raising your acceptable price ceiling by some 25%. I thought you said <$80? In any event, $90-100 per barrel continues a major drag on the macro economy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSoother View Post
You think regular light crude oil is good to refine, though?
No. Never said "good." Just far less expensive and far more efficient. ... I'm merely trying to remind you that economics of your "no problem" belief system on this issue don't actually add up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSoother View Post
It's a disgusting toxic black environmentally destructive slime that needs extensive refining and infrastructure.
But not nearly as disgusting as an industry you wanna expand 6x.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSoother View Post
The fact that bitumen is worse than the other misses the point entirely.
LOL... Wrong. It IS the point entirely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSoother View Post
We can refine it, easily. We do. We can refine 10 of millions of barrels a day for a good price if we choose to. Ergo, supply will not stop as long as the sludge can be pumped, strip-mined, steamed, or coaxed out of the ground in some manner.
If the very worst of liquid hydrocarbons could be produced "for a good price," it would be. It isn't.

And if the price ever got to the point where foreign and domestic investment wasn't running for the hills, who would be able to afford it at the consumer level?

What the OP shows, beyond a doubt, is that 1) continued expansion for tight oil production requires a per barrel price way higher that it already is, and 2) the public can't and won't go any higher than this $95-$110 range.
JiggsCasey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2014, 08:07 PM   #93
bigpotpoker
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: due
Posts: 2,501
Re: Oil majors dumping capital expenditures...

If there is a lot to be drilled in the parts where people have mentioned, why is off-shore drilling still done?
bigpotpoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2014, 02:32 AM   #94
BrianTheMick2
Need a ride?
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 14,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpotpoker View Post
If there is a lot to be drilled in the parts where people have mentioned, why is off-shore drilling still done?
If there are hamburgers at McDonalds, why is there Wendy's?
BrianTheMick2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2014, 07:16 AM   #95
DrawNone
Pooh-Bah
 
DrawNone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: im on savage time im on ratcht time
Posts: 4,803
Re: Oil majors dumping capital expenditures...

Jiggs is there any way to believe in peak oil and not believe that it will cause a global cataclysm and the breakdown of society?
DrawNone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2014, 12:05 AM   #96
northeastbeast
banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,373
Re: Oil majors dumping capital expenditures...

The price they can sell a barrel of oil for is decreasing and the cost to produce a barrel of oil is increasing. It's like when GM produces too many cars or McDonald's builds too many restaurants. There are a lot of conditional assumptions that go into the projections of what it will cost to produce a barrel of oil from a certain area or source. Those projections are not static. Huge concentrated investments can change the conditions that made the investment so attractive in the first place. A massive demand for workers can increase the cost to produce anything that requires workers to produce it.

In my opinion it is not the supply of oil that will peak. It will be the demand for oil that will peak within 15 years.

The base fundamental economy is fine as a system. Only governments can stop the power of strong economies. A sovereign debt crisis, a major war, or some giant cataclysmic event are the only things that can stop the economy as we know it for a substantial period of time.

The world is in a transition period where in unison we are constantly changing out parts of systems and making them more efficient. Massive disruption and re-organization is taking place. Gigantic increases in information are almost choking the world in ideas and opportunity. It's just starting to get really exciting. People are under tremendous pressure to constantly adapt to newness and it's snapping some of them mentally. But I predict that the level of opulence that our economy produces will start to make wages largely irrelevant in regard to standards of living. A 100 years from now parents will be complaining about their kids houses (kids will own entire houses), like parents today worry about their kids having cell phones at 7 years old.

Last edited by northeastbeast; 04-21-2014 at 12:13 AM.
northeastbeast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2014, 02:26 PM   #97
grizy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
grizy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Looking for Rush HU Poker
Posts: 15,493
Re: Oil majors dumping capital expenditures...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpotpoker View Post
If there is a lot to be drilled in the parts where people have mentioned, why is off-shore drilling still done?
Because nobody lives in the middle of the ocean.
grizy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2014, 09:06 PM   #98
JimAfternoon
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
JimAfternoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: On Location
Posts: 6,904
Re: Oil majors dumping capital expenditures...

Offshore drilling is very profitable, that's why.

Much of the oil in the gulf is located in formations with a very high permeability. They can often produce oil just off the reservoir pressure without needing to stimulate the well.

The stuff on land typically needs to be fracked, because it's located in formations with a very low permeability. Fracking is basically just artificially creating a high permeability in a naturally low-permeability formation.
JimAfternoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2014, 03:16 AM   #99
GoodEnuff
journeyman
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 216
Re: Oil majors dumping capital expenditures...

itt nobody appears to have a clue about oil and where we're at today and where we're going. Shale oil revolutions, it's happening. There are a few compaines to invest in where it's damn near impossible to strike out. In my area the strike zone is 100%. The costs on drilling some of these wells are recouped in as little as 6 months.
GoodEnuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2014, 03:17 AM   #100
GoodEnuff
journeyman
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 216
Re: Oil majors dumping capital expenditures...

If you want to learn about oil and where the money is. There's 3 places you only need to know about.

The Bakken (ND)
The Eagle Ford (TX)
The Cline (TX)
GoodEnuff is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online