Wikileaks: 2012 peak oil?

[Xtrema]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/08/saudi-oil-reserves-overstated-wikileaks

TLDR, Saudi's oil reserve is overestimated by 40% and they are already at production limit.

$200 oil here we come.

[benyl]

Nice. If this is true, I can't see housing prices going down... ;)

haha, I heard that there is an influx of Americans coming to work in Calgary because there are jobs here.

[Zephyr]

Fuck that means I have to eat my own words and get a hybrid :banghead:

[ZenOps]

Could be.

Them Saudis are pressurizing the wells with saltwater, which means eventually what they pump up is a mix of oil and saltwater. And that means exponentially less oil with the exact same pumped volume.

[ZeeZee]

There is a great book called "Twilight in the Desert" by Matt Simmons that goes into detail about how the Saudi's have been overstating their reserves for decades.

Anyone that thinks we've got 400 years of oil left on the planet is delusional.

You don't extract some of the most challenging reserves in the world (Alberta) unless the easy ones (Saudi and co.) are substantially depleted.

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by benyl
Nice. If this is true, I can't see housing prices going down... ;)




If the price of every input to every consumable item in the economy doubles, corporate profits suddenly are cut in half, consumers suddenly lose all of their expendable income to necessities like food and fuel - What do you think will happen to the price of housing? What do you think will happen to the economy and life in general as we are used to today?

Everything is oil.

Wishing for $200 oil is stupid if you ask me. (realizing you arent wishing for it)

Rgs,

B

[FraserB]

Originally posted by ZeeZee
There is a great book called "Twilight in the Desert" by Matt Simmons that goes into detail about how the Saudi's have been overstating their reserves for decades.

Anyone that thinks we've got 400 years of oil left on the planet is delusional.

You don't extract some of the most challenging reserves in the world (Alberta) unless the easy ones (Saudi and co.) are substantially depleted.

This a pretty good read, Im about halfway through right now.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[in*10*se]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
I am not overly concerned about it; if prices go up then people will adapt thier useage accordingly.

It makes other energy technologies more viable when the cost of oil is up as well. I am actually kind of excited to see oil go way up in value to see what kind of innovative products come out as a result.

you have no idea the ramifications when oil hits 200 bucks do you... so so foolish.:rolleyes:

[kertejud2]

I saw a TV movie about this not too long ago. The second part took place in Calgary. "Burn Up" I believe it was called. Neve Campbell and the guy from Billy Madison and West Wing.

It was "meh".

[Sugarphreak]

...

[heavyD]

Good news. Death to SUV's and pickup trucks.:thumbsup:

[arian_ma]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


Huge increases in the cost of transportation and transported goods, massive inflation leading to huge interest rate spikes, people crying in the streets about gas and diesel prices... big trouble for people used to thier lifestyle for sure.

But with that comes innovation and alternative solutions, whenever oil has been high is when you see the largest advances in non-oil technologies as a result of consumer demand for them.
Yes, THEN there's the whole problem with wtf are we going to make all of our shit out of?

FYI - plastic comes from oil. Look around you right now and name one thing that doesn't have plastic in it.

[Aleks]

Originally posted by ZenOps
Could be.

Them Saudis are pressurizing the wells with saltwater, which means eventually what they pump up is a mix of oil and saltwater. And that means exponentially less oil with the exact same pumped volume.

Waterfloods as a method of increasing recovery factors have been around for a long time. It's an easy way to double your ultimate recoverable oil. Lots of those here in Alberta too.

[89coupe]

Originally posted by heavyD
Good news. Death to SUV's and pickup trucks.:thumbsup:

You think? Please, the higher the price of Oil gets, the more money people make.

Do you forget 2007? Remember what the price was? Remember what realestate did?

http://charts.insidestocks.com/chart.asp?vol=Y&jav=adv&grid=Y&divd=Y&org=stk&sym=CLJ1&data=H&code=BSTK&evnt=adv

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by broken_legs



If the price of every input to every consumable item in the economy doubles, corporate profits suddenly are cut in half, consumers suddenly lose all of their expendable income to necessities like food and fuel - What do you think will happen to the price of housing? What do you think will happen to the economy and life in general as we are used to today?

Everything is oil.

Wishing for $200 oil is stupid if you ask me. (realizing you arent wishing for it)

Rgs,

B

Well, if $200 oil do come, we will have a repeat of 2005-2007 boom. As long as you are on the right side of inflation, you'll make it out like bandits. Lots people did.

BTW, $200 oil will be enough justification to build at least 2-3 more oilsand mines. Think of all the engineering and trade resources you need.... again.

[benyl]

Originally posted by heavyD
Good news. Death to SUV's and pickup trucks.:thumbsup:

Fuck that. I like my F-150. Even if I can only afford to drive it once a week, I will still drive it! hahaha

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by 89coupe


You think? Please, the higher the price of Oil gets, the more money people make.

Do you forget 2007? Remember what the price was? Remember what realestate did?

http://charts.insidestocks.com/chart.asp?vol=Y&jav=adv&grid=Y&divd=Y&org=stk&sym=CLJ1&data=H&code=BSTK&evnt=adv

I have to agree. We are only 10-20 cents off highest gas price of 2008. And pick ups in Canada is still over 50% of total vehicle sales.

[benyl]

Originally posted by Xtrema

BTW, $200 oil will be enough justification to build at least 2-3 more oilsand mines. Think of all the engineering and trade resources you need.... again.

And the IT to support all that engineering effort.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by benyl


And the IT to support all that engineering effort.

Fuck yeah! :thumbsup:

[legendboy]

Kind of funny how some people in this thread only think of the price of fuels in relation to the price of oil.

How about the 95% of everything else in our world that is dependent on oil?

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by legendboy
Kind of funny how some people in this thread only think of the price of fuels in relation to the price of oil.

How about the 95% of everything else in our world that is dependent on oil?

30% raise in oil, almost guarantee 30% raise in gas.

Other stuff will be impacted at a lessr rate, depending on the cost of fuel/oil needed to make and deliver that material.

[ZenOps]

Originally posted by Aleks


Waterfloods as a method of increasing recovery factors have been around for a long time. It's an easy way to double your ultimate recoverable oil. Lots of those here in Alberta too.

Of course, while it lasts... But once it hits 50 percent water 50 percent oil, the laws of diminishing return start to kick in. At somewhere around 66% water 33% oil, you are expending a ridiculous amount of time and energy - essentially you are wasting more time and energy pumping water in and out than oil.

This means production of oil is not linear, mining metals is linear.

And since the accelerated rates are factored in, peak oil is very peakish.. When production drops - it will drop fast and hard.

[benyl]

Originally posted by Xtrema

30% raise in oil, almost guarantee 30% raise in gas.


= 30% increase in salary / rates

If not, you will lose you peeps.

[89coupe]

Originally posted by benyl


= 30% increase in salary / rates

If not, you will lose you peeps.

Dont forget bonuses!!! LOL

[89coupe]

Oh man, and options, my goodness. Haha.

[CUG]

It's okay, Israel has tons of oil :thumbsup:

[Spoons]

Spr5YFfrnA0

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by 89coupe
Oh man, and options, my goodness. Haha.

Looks like there are at least 3 people in this thread are having hard-ons for $200 oil.

:rofl:

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by benyl


= 30% increase in salary / rates




Only for oil companies. I didn't see a god damned dime extra last "boom", and was pretty happy to see the economy deflate

[Cos]

Originally posted by heavyD
Good news. Death to SUV's and pickup trucks.:thumbsup:

and gas guzzling turbo premium using vehicles. Haha


Originally posted by Tik-Tok



Only for oil companies. I didn't see a god damned dime extra last "boom", and was pretty happy to see the economy deflate

Dont you work in the airline industry which has no connection to O&G really.

[benyl]

Originally posted by Cos


and gas guzzling turbo premium using vehicles. Haha


I guess I have to park the car too.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by Cos


Dont you work in the airline industry which has no connection to O&G really.

That's what I mean. If you aren't in O&G, you probably didn't see raises anywhere close to what Alberta inflation went to. No matter where our economy is, I make the same, so shitty economy, with overall lower prices suites me fine.

[max_boost]

If $200 oil comes with another 50%+ spike in real estate prices, oh man. :bigpimp:

[Darell_n]

$200 oil = $12 jug of milk. Everything in this city is delivered on a truck and fuel surcharges will double their cost.

[93VR6]

No way 2012 is peak oil.

As for $200 barrels I bet it happens and happens relatively soon.

[jsn]

That's good news for me. I'm graduating this year and i've been having a tough time landing an O&G job :)

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by 93VR6
No way 2012 is peak oil.

As for $200 barrels I bet it happens and happens relatively soon.

you're right. that happened in 2005.

[cjay^]

My idea of changing from FNCE to Petroleum Land Management just became a whole lot more appealing. :D

[davidI]

Originally posted by Aleks


Waterfloods as a method of increasing recovery factors have been around for a long time. It's an easy way to double your ultimate recoverable oil. Lots of those here in Alberta too.

Werd. I work on a project with over 99% water cut meaning 1 barrel of oil for every 99 barrles of water produced.

[ExtraSlow]

Originally posted by cjay^
My idea of changing from FNCE to Petroleum Land Management just became a whole lot more appealing. :D My brother did that. Now he's a baller. Had to work 60 hours weeks for a few years to "get ahead" though.

[Feruk]

Originally posted by ZenOps


Of course, while it lasts... But once it hits 50 percent water 50 percent oil, the laws of diminishing return start to kick in. At somewhere around 66% water 33% oil, you are expending a ridiculous amount of time and energy - essentially you are wasting more time and energy pumping water in and out than oil.


Dude no. You clearly don't know much about the topic. I work a field that's 97% water, 3% oil. There are fields in Alberta that are 99% water.

[Aleks]

Originally posted by Feruk


Dude no. You clearly don't know much about the topic. I work a field that's 97% water, 3% oil. There are fields in Alberta that are 99% water.

+1

[arian_ma]

Am I the only one in this thread who thinks oil prices rising directly correlates with how fucked we are?

[89coupe]

Originally posted by arian_ma
Am I the only one in this thread who thinks oil prices rising directly correlates with how fucked we are?

Elaborate.

[narou]

Fuel prices are not a direct comparison to Oil prices.. Look at how many times the gas price goes up when Oil goes down and vice versa. O.o

I hate when people start crying and asking about gas prices spiking every time the Oil price does. :banghead:

[arian_ma]

Originally posted by 89coupe


Elaborate.
I mean, what's going to happen when the rest of the world (the 3/4 of countries who are broke) can't afford the oil? What's going to happen when the 1st world countries can't afford the oil. If oil is $200+/b it's not going to come back down, since it's a resource which is being depleted and more and more scarce. At some point, the people who control oil are going to be the people who control the world, unless we come up with a sustainable and reusable energy source who's backbone can be implemented into our society for a reasonable cost at an insanely fast rate...

[Cos]

Supply and demand if it is 200.00 a barrel that means someone is paying 200.00 a barrel.

People seem to miss the obvious. If oil gets too expensive demand might dry up meaning a falling price. Then all the money in oil and gas goes into other industries. People are held hostage by oil because it is still affordable. If it goes much higher we could be much more interested in investing in other industries.

To think there is no easy way out is retarded. Why do you think opec tries to deflate the price of oil. Prices just high enough so people dont start looking elsewhere.


Just to follow up to this:


So what is the problem? In the short run, nothing. But sustained development of new energy sources always rests on the condition of the old ones. Coal did not arise as Europe’s main energy source until Europeans had cut down virtually all their forests for fuel, and the later switch to oil did not occur until the scarcity of coal drove its price high.

In the 1970s Americans responded to high oil prices with alternative energy projects and more fuel-efficient cars. But when prices dropped in the 1980s, we threw caution to the wind—along with the energy projects. We purchased ever larger cars and SUVs and moved to ever more distant suburbs. Sure enough, now that oil prices have spiked again, we are looking at the same alternatives we had relegated to niche markets then.



Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=keep-oil-prices-high


I bet people had no idea what to do when the trees were running out, or when coal was running low in europe. Now look at the price of coal, it is sold by the TON.

I remember a story where NG in the turn of the century worked out to 10x the price it is sold at today. I could see oil become a lot less lucrative over the next 20 years. If it does sell for $1000.00 a barrel I bet the stuff I use day to day will be from another source. I see two ways for the future.

1.) Oil prices get so high we find alternative sources, stick to it, and oil becomes a rare commodity like gold, silver, etc etc.

2.) Oil prices go so high people stop buying it, causing the industry to faulter and become more efficient. Prices drop back down to reasonable levels and we continue on.


If I had to guess, I would say we see #2 happen, and then #1 happen in the next 25 years. To get new technology going we are going to need a spike in prices to get that technology going. Once that happens oil prices will drop and we will again go back to oil. As prices rise again the new technologies will be far enough along that it will be the final bump to put us off oil forever. Prices will stay high for what we need it for but most of the world will have gone elsewhere.

[arian_ma]

Do you really think demand for oil is ever going to drop? Just look at everything around you, cars, trucks, planes, ships, heat even...then you get into plastics - everything you use daily, all your food packaging, electronics, even clothes...everything is made of plastic.

[Cos]

Originally posted by arian_ma
Do you really think demand for oil is ever going to drop? Just look at everything around you, cars, trucks, planes, ships, heat even...then you get into plastics - everything you use daily, all your food packaging, electronics, even clothes...everything is made of plastic.

Yes I do. Keep the price low enough and no one looks elsewhere. Bump the price up so it is now cheaper to use moonrock to build something you are damned straight Apple will be flying to the moon to get the rock to build the iPhone 28. Either prices have to stay low enough or demand will shrink. The transition period is going to be difficult but the world wont 'end'.

I edited my last post with more sources.

[Type_S1]

Originally posted by cjay^
My idea of changing from FNCE to Petroleum Land Management just became a whole lot more appealing. :D

Are you at U of C right now? This was my career choice as well...I hope to god oil prices raise :D

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by Cos


Yes I do. Keep the price low enough and no one looks elsewhere. Bump the price up so it is now cheaper to use moonrock and millions of people suddenly starve to death because they already spent 90% of their income on food. Apple will no longer exist, as no one will be able to afford trivial pursuits and widgets anymore. 90% of peoples efforts will be for keeping warm and keeping fed. Either prices have to stay low enough or demand will destruct via starvation and death. The transition period is going to be difficult but the world wont 'end'.



fixed.


You seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room. NO cheap easy source of convenient energy = life as you know it ends.

[Type_S1]

Originally posted by Cos


Yes I do. Keep the price low enough and no one looks elsewhere. Bump the price up so it is now cheaper to use moonrock to build something you are damned straight Apple will be flying to the moon to get the rock to build the iPhone 28. Either prices have to stay low enough or demand will shrink. The transition period is going to be difficult but the world wont 'end'.

I edited my last post with more sources.

I personally think you are dreaming. The western world and all first world countries are built on oil right now and it is a relatively inelastic commodity. When prices in oil raise demand doesn't drop...people just pay more and bitch about it. Of course ONE day this is going to change but it is more then 25 years as you think away. 50-100 years at least. The next most viable resource is NATGAS which is more efficient and cheaper but technology isn't anywhere near the level it needs to be at to support anything(cars, housing, commercial etc..). People who talk about alternative energy like wind and solar power are completely dreaming...these will never be viable sources of energy. Pretty much when oil is now longer economic natgas is what people will be looking towards. Once this happens natgas will see a huge jump in price and the cycle will start all over again.

[arian_ma]

How are they going to keep the prices of a commodity that is getting harder and harder to find, mine, and process, low? It's not like there is an alternate energy people can turn to if oil is too expensive. I mean yeah, you're right, they will TRY to turn to other sources, but like I said, without the proper time and money for cities to establish ways of supplying the population with a different energy source, it will be CHAOS during the transition period.

[Cos]

Originally posted by Type_S1


I personally think you are dreaming.

Well I personally disagree. I really do believe that we will find other sources besides oil and this is talking long term. If we had a 10% year after year starting 2009 I would say my 25 year timeline is realistic. Electricity demand is already up substantially and you can heat your house and drive an electric car with it. Build some nuke plants out of concrete with mines that use electric vehicles and it is very sustainable.

I am not speaking to the plastics and so forth market as I dont know enough about the emerging technologies right now.

I will ride my bike to work which is 25km each way rather than drive if we see $300.00 a barrel with no substitute.



Originally posted by arian_ma
How are they going to keep the prices of a commodity that is getting harder and harder to find, mine, and process, low? It's not like there is an alternate energy people can turn to if oil is too expensive. I mean yeah, you're right, they will TRY to turn to other sources, but like I said, without the proper time and money for cities to establish ways of supplying the population with a different energy source, it will be CHAOS during the transition period.

As I mentioned the transition period will be tough. If we started to see an immediate drop in production today (like all reserves were somehow connected and they all dropped off) then yes we are talking chaos. However in my example above if we are talking 10% increase year over year for years to come then I dont think my idea is far fetched at all.

Do you honestly believe that people were looking at oil when there was still lots of coal and coal was cheap? Hell no, it took the substantial drop in coal to find an alternative. Trains cant function as well on oil as they can coal. That was the beginning of the end of trains and the beginning of the car.

Now oil drops off, there will still be lots for OTHER product and uses that we need (assuming no catastrophic drop in production) and oil will turn into a luxury product. Where rich people can spend $15.00 / Litre to drive their Lambo's on weekends. I think we already have the new technology.... electricity... it just needs a good shot in the arm.

It is amazing what humans can achieve in 10 years with resources and brain power. Look at the US Space program as a good example. I believe when the time is needed we will find a way, and quickly, unless as I said there is a catastrophic drop off.

It depends how it plays out. I dont think we are on that roller coaster yet but we are getting close.

[Rarasaurus]

Originally posted by Type_S1


I personally think you are dreaming. The western world and all first world countries are built on oil right now and it is a relatively inelastic commodity. When prices in oil raise demand doesn't drop...people just pay more and bitch about it. Of course ONE day this is going to change but it is more then 25 years as you think away. 50-100 years at least. The next most viable resource is NATGAS which is more efficient and cheaper but technology isn't anywhere near the level it needs to be at to support anything(cars, housing, commercial etc..). People who talk about alternative energy like wind and solar power are completely dreaming...these will never be viable sources of energy. Pretty much when oil is now longer economic natgas is what people will be looking towards. Once this happens natgas will see a huge jump in price and the cycle will start all over again.
Nat Gas is already where it needs to be to run cars, transit and you have the ability to refuel at home. The civic dx already exists and is a nat gas version of the civic. There are already many natrual gas vehicles on North american roads.Many city transit organisations use nat gas on buses. Right now oil is cheap and we have no reason to look else where. When it gets high people will switch to natrual gas. In the end both are good for alberta.

Also the transition will not be chaos. Odds are it will happen slowly. Oil will price people out of the market incrementally as there are always people willing to pay more for the convenience. It will not be like we all of a sudden run out... I think to believe we are even 25 years away from having to switch from oil is false as there are still a lot of reserves.
the convinience.

[Cos]

Also to add. Lots of companies are already talking about working from home. Last snow day I worked completely from home at 100% efficiency.

Guess what... put in an electric furnace and on demand hot water heater... let me work from home and I have no NEED for NatGas or oil. I dont drive, I dont use it for heating, I am good to rely on electricity which can be generated using wind (which there are TONS of projects starting up) nat gas, coal, nuke, solar, etc. etc. etc.

Again this is ignoring the use of plastics but if the energy industry can adapt I am sure the materials industry can adapt just as well. As mentioned I just dont know as much about it.

[Type_S1]

Originally posted by Rarasaurus


Nat Gas is already where it needs to be to run cars, transit and you have the ability to refuel at home. The civic dx already exists and is a nat gas version of the civic. Many city transit organisations use nat gas on buses. Right now oil is cheap and we have no reason to look else where. When it gets high people will switch to natrual gas. In the end both are good for alberta.

It is no where near where it needs to be to run cars. There is a few car that do use it but they are not completely natgas vehicles. Oil is high right now compared to natgas...if people could switch to natgas with out a problem do you really think they wouldn't have already? It would save commercial companies huge amounts of money because natgas is so much more efficient and burns a lot cleaner. The fact is it is not a viable product right now. Huge technological changes have to be made and companies would need to start inventing new technologies to work with natural gas. The cost of this would be substantial and that is why we do not see it yet.

As for being good for alberta...oil is good for alberta gas is okay. Oil makes more money and we have a shit load of it. Gas, if the prices raise significantly it may be more worthwhile for companies to start drilling into more unconventional plays but I doubt that will be happening anytime soon because of the lack of demand for it. By the time oil gets to costly I am sure natgas will be very viable and the technology will be there but I don't think we will see this for atleast 50 years at a minimum.

[Type_S1]

Originally posted by Cos


Well I personally disagree. I really do believe that we will find other sources besides oil and this is talking long term. If we had a 10% year after year starting 2009 I would say my 25 year timeline is realistic. Electricity demand is already up substantially and you can heat your house and drive an electric car with it. Build some nuke plants out of concrete with mines that use electric vehicles and it is very sustainable.

I am not speaking to the plastics and so forth market as I dont know enough about the emerging technologies right now.

I will ride my bike to work which is 25km each way rather than drive if we see $300.00 a barrel with no substitute.



I understand your points but the fact is there is no alternative to oil that is anywhere near market use right now. Nuke plants? Really? I would rather have oil at 300$ a barrel then nuke plants in our country. Most people are switching away from nuclear power because of the downside's to it.

You might ride your bike but would 99% of other people? Eventually if prices are high enough...and I mean extremely high like $300 like we were talking that is when research on different forms of energy will start. Right now nobody really cares other then the few eco-freaks out there.

Only time will really tell though we can all go back and forth talking about up and coming technologies and trends and alternative energy but it is all just theories right now. My theory is the NATGAS eventually becomes the main source of energy in Canada 50 years + from now.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by arian_ma
Do you really think demand for oil is ever going to drop? Just look at everything around you, cars, trucks, planes, ships, heat even...then you get into plastics - everything you use daily, all your food packaging, electronics, even clothes...everything is made of plastic.

If prices does not go up, cost of alternative will never make sense. IMO $200 is healthy.

Now if you look at human race as royally fucked. Oil is just the 1st of many things we'll fight for, for years to come. Then it'll be rare metals. Then it'll be food and water.

Developed country is already having low birth rate but 3rd world is still pumping them out like crazy. Until we can control amount of consumers, we are all heading toward doom.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by Type_S1

I would rather have oil at 300$ a barrel then nuke plants in our country. Most people are switching away from nuclear power because of the downside's to it.


This is why we cannot have nice things, because of fear mongers like yourself. Tell me how many people have died in Alberta oil sands plants and facilities per year compared to nuke plants in the states?

[Sugarphreak]

...

[broken_legs]

http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse

[Sugarphreak]

...

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
^^ Some good points; but that guys views are somewhat skewed

" I think the future is going to be about moving from an “I” to a “we” culture… back to a bygone era, where neighbors weren’t just nice to each other, but relied on each other."

But just shoot me whenever this prophecy happens... why does the entire world seem to want to become a communist nation?


Obviously you didnt watch all 3 hours of his presentations.

Way to take random quotes out of context to support your bias.


edit:

relevant to the silly comments about how expensive oil will help us:

WeBtdwPpTQM

[Sugarphreak]

...

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Type_S1


I understand your points but the fact is there is no alternative to oil that is anywhere near market use right now. Nuke plants? Really? I would rather have oil at 300$ a barrel then nuke plants in our country. Most people are switching away from nuclear power because of the downside's to it.

There are nuke plants in our country. Ontario gets half of their power from them. Most of Canada is hydro power though.

Here's a fun game, compare the amount of deaths and environmental impact of all the nuclear power plant disasters in history with one single hydro plant disaster: Banqiao

[powerslave]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
why does the entire world seem to want to become a communist nation?

Nothing wrong with that.

In any case, there's a documentary out there on how Cuba dealt with the oil crash after the Cold War. I know it's not the same thing we may be facing, but they had to adapt fast. Yes there was a lot of struggle at first, but in the end people learened to move away from an oil dependency.

Here's the documentary in question Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Community:_How_Cuba_Survived_Peak_Oil)

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


You don't have to watch it, it is all written below in the links. I spent enough time going over certain areas to get a good idea of what he is trying to put forth and make a case for.

That quote is directly out of his summary, it isn't like I randomly pulled it from the middle.

So you still maintain that Chris Martenson is trying to push forth his pro commy socialist agenda? lol

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by kertejud2


There are nuke plants in our country. Ontario gets half of their power from them. Most of Canada is hydro power though.

Here's a fun game, compare the amount of deaths and environmental impact of all the nuclear power plant disasters in history with one single hydro plant disaster: Banqiao


Pretty sure most of Canada is coal.

[Feruk]

Originally posted by Type_S1


I understand your points but the fact is there is no alternative to oil that is anywhere near market use right now. Nuke plants? Really? I would rather have oil at 300$ a barrel then nuke plants in our country. Most people are switching away from nuclear power because of the downside's to it.


This statement is totally false. There's something like 25 new nuclear power plants slated to be built around the world. Europe, India, and China are all heading that way. Not sure about Canada/USA so I won't speak to that. Demand for nuclear is going up, not down. The price of uranium has almost DOUBLED year over year.


Originally posted by Type_S1

Eventually if prices are high enough...and I mean extremely high like $300 like we were talking that is when research on different forms of energy will start. Right now nobody really cares other then the few eco-freaks out there.


At $300/barrell, oil would still be one of the cheapest liquids on the planet. Way cheaper then Coca Cola, but that's beside the point.

I think Cos brings up some good points, and you're sort of agreeing with him. Right now nobody does care about alternative energy because oil is cheap. When oil gets expensive, people will look for alternatives, which will once again make oil cheaper. Sinusoidal pattern begun. The idea that oil prices will not drop with demand is completely untrue. You only have to look back at 2008 to see oil go from $150 to $47 in a matter of months on a lack of demand.

I think the next 30 years are gonna be amazing for investing if you play your cards right.

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by broken_legs



Pretty sure most of Canada is coal.


Edit I am corrected . 57% of canadas electricity is Hydro.

[Cos]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


You are right that it would be Chaos if we ran out overnight, that won't happen though and the transition period you are talking about is only going to occur when damand is vastly greater than supply... again not something that will happen overnight.

However between when we run out of natural oil reserves and now; there is going to be steadly increasing prices, those prices are going to change peoples habits over time... even rapidly if need be.

Just look at the 70's with the fuel crisis then, some amazing advances in fuel economy occured and people did start to settle for less powerful cars as a result.

Personally I think it is going to take 200-300$ oil to spur on rapid development and research into innovative new technologies... I also think if faced with such massive fuel costs that those technologies are going to find thier way to consumers a lot faster than anybody could ever imagine.

You put all my points in such a nice coherant sentance. I have the ideas but cant communicate worth a damn. :rofl:

[Sugarphreak]

...

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


Ok, I had a chance to review it in more detail, admittedly that may have been kind of a lofty comment to call him a communist... I still think his theory is bat shit crazy though :poosie:


U STILL HAVEN'T WATCHED IT.

:thumbsdow

[creeper]

They used to have a lucrative industry producing oil from this:

http://cnx.org/content/m14776/latest/graphics1.jpg

In 1903, this was the best thing available:
http://www.wright-house.com/wright-brothers/wrights/photos/1903-flight-wright-640x450.gif

And about 65 years later:
http://www.dailyworldbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/NASA-Shuttle-Launch-Today-Monday-April-5-2010.jpg


I'm anticipating a gradual shift from this:
http://omiusajpic.org/files/2010/05/oil_sands_open_pit_mining.jpg

To this:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3088/3157251517_3af1e7362c.jpg

Have no fear, innovative technology will save the day. :thumbsup:

[Pinner]

Originally posted by Type_S1


The fact is it is not a viable product right now. Huge technological changes have to be made and companies would need to start inventing new technologies to work with natural gas. The cost of this would be substantial and that is why we do not see it yet.



Nat Gas conversion is simple.

Nat Gas is the future transportation fuel, we have so much Nat Gas we literally don't know where to sell it. Petro China just yesterday bought a 5.4 billion chunk of BC Nat Gas reserves.

What is this "new technology" we need S1 ?

Fleets of cars/trucks were burning Nat Gas in Calgary before you were born. (70's 80's)

[ExtraSlow]

The reason natural Gas isn't "viable" for a transsportation fuel right now has nothing to do with technology, and everything to do with Economics. Oil is still cheap enough.
If oil hits $200 and stays that way for at least ten years, then you'll see serious development of natural gas and other "althernative" fuels.

Same could be said for most ofhter forms of energy. As logn as Coal and oil are "cheap" Wind, Solar, Nuclear, geothermal etc will all remain niche players in North America.

[A790]

Does anyone actually know what the global oil reserves really are?

[Cos]

Originally posted by creeper
They used to have a lucrative industry producing oil from this:
In 1903, this was the best thing available:
And about 65 years later:
I'm anticipating a gradual shift from this:
To this:
Have no fear, innovative technology will save the day. :thumbsup:

Stop making sense.

[cosmok]

Originally posted by A790
Does anyone actually know what the global oil reserves really are?
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2178rank.html

[ipeefreely]

Originally posted by Type_S1
.... The next most viable resource is NATGAS which is more efficient and cheaper but technology isn't anywhere near the level it needs to be at to support anything(cars, housing, commercial etc..). ...


Originally posted by Type_S1
As for being good for alberta...oil is good for alberta gas is okay. Oil makes more money and we have a shit load of it. ....

Alberta makes most of it’s money from Natural Gas. That's why were in a deficit right now because the price of natural gas is in the shitter.

And last time I checked I heat my house with natural gas and I have the choice of buying a few natural gas vehicles (there are also conversation kit too).

You’re starting to sound like the next ZenOps! :nut:

I think Alberta is going to be ok! ;)

ERCB Report (http://www.ercb.ca/docs/products/STs/st98_current.pdf)

[89coupe]

I can't wait for the day Natural Gas is back to $7.50:bigpimp:

[dexlargo]

^I don't think that the price of gas is going up in the foreseeable future, but probably down. With the advent of CBM/Shale gas, The global supply of gas suddenly quadrupled.

Shale gas reserves are estimated at ~450 trillion cubic feet, whereas conventional gas reserves are estimated at ~180 trillion cubic feet, according to this article from last September: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-23/low-emission-shale-gas-to-discourage-nuclear-carbon-capture-chatham-says.html

[89coupe]

Originally posted by dexlargo
^I don't think that the price of gas is going up in the foreseeable future, but probably down. With the advent of CBM/Shale gas, The global supply of gas suddenly quadrupled.

Shale gas reserves are estimated at ~450 trillion cubic feet, whereas conventional gas reserves are estimated at ~180 trillion cubic feet, according to this article from last September: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-23/low-emission-shale-gas-to-discourage-nuclear-carbon-capture-chatham-says.html

Well if you read the ERCB report you would see these prices wouldn't take effect till 2019.

But I can wait that long, I have far too much invested, gotta sit tight and wait it out.

[dexlargo]

^Hmmm... I hadn't read the report, but I've now quickly scanned the relevant portions. I'll have to read more details on how they predicted those numbers, because I'm pleasantly surprised by them.

I hope they're right, that would have a nice effect on my finances as well.

[Tik-Tok]

Please correct me for mis-understanding anything here, but if we had another peak oil, wouldn't that drive natural gas up, because of new project demands for the oil sands?

[badatusrnames]

Originally posted by Aleks


Waterfloods as a method of increasing recovery factors have been around for a long time. It's an easy way to double your ultimate recoverable oil. Lots of those here in Alberta too.


Originally posted by davidI


Werd. I work on a project with over 99% water cut meaning 1 barrel of oil for every 99 barrles of water produced.


Originally posted by Feruk


Dude no. You clearly don't know much about the topic. I work a field that's 97% water, 3% oil. There are fields in Alberta that are 99% water.

Any of you guys reservoir engineers?

Sure, you can make money at 99+% water cuts...most oil pools in Alberta are 90%+. Waterflooding definitely gives you a nice bit of extra oil initially and is critical to keep your field going, Btut the real issue is well productivity. Once you get water breakthrough to your wells, their oil productivity begins to decline rapidly as watercut increases - relative permeability is a bitch.

The curve below basically shows watercut (or fractional flow of water) vs water saturation for an oil reservoir. Initially, at low water saturation (irreducible water and below), there is very little flow of water. However, as reservoirs are produced and experience water influx, either through water injection, or from an underlying aquifer (generally the water's coming in, you really can't avoid it), the water saturation in the reservoir increases, and you can see, once you hit that middle part of the curve, the proportion of water you produce increases dramatically, at the expense of your oil production. After that point, it's a long slow, march to residual oil at high watercuts. You're making money, but it takes a long time to recover that remaining reserve.

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/typical_ff_curve.jpg

It's not that there isn't a lot of oil left in these pools and that we can't recover it at high watercuts, it's a question of rate. Once these pools start producing water, oil rate drops off dramatically. A few hundred billion barrels aren't good to us if it takes fifty years to get them when we need them in ten.

This article lays it out pretty good:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2393

[jazzyb]

Originally posted by badatusrnames






Any of you guys reservoir engineers?

Sure, you can make money at 99+% water cuts...most oil pools in Alberta are 90%+. Waterflooding definitely gives you a nice bit of extra oil initially and is critical to keep your field going, Btut the real issue is well productivity. Once you get water breakthrough to your wells, their oil productivity begins to decline rapidly as watercut increases - relative permeability is a bitch.

The curve below basically shows watercut (or fractional flow of water) vs water saturation for an oil reservoir. Initially, at low water saturation (irreducible water and below), there is very little flow of water. However, as reservoirs are produced and experience water influx, either through water injection, or from an underlying aquifer (generally the water's coming in, you really can't avoid it), the water saturation in the reservoir increases, and you can see, once you hit that middle part of the curve, the proportion of water you produce increases dramatically, at the expense of your oil production. After that point, it's a long slow, march to residual oil at high watercuts. You're making money, but it takes a long time to recover that remaining reserve.

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/typical_ff_curve.jpg

It's not that there isn't a lot of oil left in these pools and that we can't recover it at high watercuts, it's a question of rate. Once these pools start producing water, oil rate drops off dramatically. A few hundred billion barrels aren't good to us if it takes fifty years to get them when we need them in ten.

This article lays it out pretty good:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2393

Effective porosity is huge. I.E. connected porosity.

Then theres Oil in Place or OIP and recoverable oil.

From the law of thermodynamics and rock physic prinicples only so much oil is recoverable due to pressure, pore space, effective porosity, Sw (water saturation), and non-removable oil; ie. oil that binds to the pore-space.

[badatusrnames]

Originally posted by jazzyb


Effective porosity is huge. I.E. connected porosity.

Then theres Oil in Place or OIP and recoverable oil.

From the law of thermodynamics and rock physic prinicples only so much oil is recoverable due to pressure, pore space, effective porosity, Sw (water saturation), and non-removable oil; ie. oil that binds to the pore-space.

Thanks, tell me something I don't know... what you're describing is capillary pressure and residual oil.

But really what's important to the Saudi problem isn't the permeability or OOIP of their pools, it's that their productivity is potentially going into a serious decline. It doesn't matter how big their reserves are (mobile oil, more or less defined by pore space and your connate water and residual oil saturations), it's how quickly they can recover those reserves, which is defined by the curve above.

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by badatusrnames


Thanks, tell me something I don't know... what you're describing is capillary pressure and residual oil.

But really what's important to the Saudi problem isn't the permeability or OOIP of their pools, it's that their productivity is potentially going into a serious decline. It doesn't matter how big their reserves are (mobile oil, more or less defined by pore space and your connate water and residual oil saturations), it's how quickly they can recover those reserves, which is defined by the curve above.


word.

Just had lunch with a logger working in saud for last 10 years. He explained that ALL of the re-entry work they have done for the last 4 years has been nothing but water. Every well starts the same - Expect O/W contact at X depth, side track add a new lateral section higher in the reservoir above the OW contact to start producing oil again. Water. Water. Water.

They have massively over estimated oil production capability.

[Supa Dexta]

Originally posted by broken_legs
They have massively over estimated oil production capability.

And that is AWESOME.... Watch what happens when that place starts to dry up, they'll be trading in exotics for herds of camels again and the fighting will be crazy. <no racist> its just whats going to happen. The world will turn their back on that side of the planet faster then you can imagine.

[ExtraSlow]

Originally posted by broken_legs
They have massively over estimated oil production capability.
Originally posted by Supa Dexta
And that is AWESOME....
This

[Feruk]

badatusrnames: Good reply, glad a few guys in this thread know what the industry is about. You're absolutely right, what we've been doing up until the last few years is a skimming operation of old fields. I'm a production engineer actually.

Old technology can't compete with the reservoirs in Saudi, but multi stage frac operations are a game changer for the WCSB.

[Feruk]

Originally posted by ipeefreely

Alberta makes most of it’s money from Natural Gas. That's why were in a deficit right now because the price of natural gas is in the shitter.

And last time I checked I heat my house with natural gas and I have the choice of buying a few natural gas vehicles (there are also conversation kit too).

You’re starting to sound like the next ZenOps! :nut:

I think Alberta is going to be ok! ;)

ERCB Report (http://www.ercb.ca/docs/products/STs/st98_current.pdf)

I'm not much of a believer in what the ERCB thinks prices will do. I think a strip price is more indicative of where the markets might go. Strip for 2019 right now shows a range from 3.85 to 9.85. I'm not optimistic about a gas recovery.

http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/energy/natural-gas/natural-gas.html

[ipeefreely]

Originally posted by Feruk


I'm not much of a believer in what the ERCB thinks prices will do.

Ya, me too... :rofl:

I still have the one from 2007. I should find it and see what they thought the prices would be back then! :rofl: :nut:

[dexlargo]

^I'm back in the camp with you guys. This totally is not my area, but I have a friend who is very well paid to analyze these things and bets millions and millions of dollars based on that analysis. So, over the weekend, I had dinner with my buddy who is an energy trader and we talked about gas prices. He thinks the ERCB is totally out to lunch as well. He hasn't done forecasting (at least not that he thought was at all reliable) for so far out as 2019, but thought a $7.50 prediction was dubious, at best. He expects that the price of gas will continue to decline for the next three years at least, due primarily to the advent of shale gas, whereas the ERCB is predicting that the currently steep downward trend is going to reverse immediately and start a gradual, consistent upward trend. I haven't researched further into that report to pick up why they think this sudden reversal is going to occur - so maybe there's something in there that I'm missing.

In our conversation, we only talked about the report incidentally. My friend was aware of it, but made it clear that he didn't put much stock in it. In fact, I got the impression that the ERCB is in the business of painting rosy pictures of our energy economy, and that their predictions should be taken with a grain of salt.

Like I said though - I'm totally out of my area here and mostly relying on my 20 minute conversation on this topic with my buddy, so I have to defer to those who are more in the know, and it sounds like a bunch of the people on here know a hell of a lot more about this topic than I do.

[badatusrnames]

Originally posted by dexlargo
^I'm back in the camp with you guys. This totally is not my area, but I have a friend who is very well paid to analyze these things and bets millions and millions of dollars based on that analysis. So, over the weekend, I had dinner with my buddy who is an energy trader and we talked about gas prices. He thinks the ERCB is totally out to lunch as well. He hasn't done forecasting (at least not that he thought was at all reliable) for so far out as 2019, but thought a $7.50 prediction was dubious, at best. He expects that the price of gas will continue to decline for the next three years at least, due primarily to the advent of shale gas, whereas the ERCB is predicting that the currently steep downward trend is going to reverse immediately and start a gradual, consistent upward trend. I haven't researched further into that report to pick up why they think this sudden reversal is going to occur - so maybe there's something in there that I'm missing.

In our conversation, we only talked about the report incidentally. My friend was aware of it, but made it clear that he didn't put much stock in it. In fact, I got the impression that the ERCB is in the business of painting rosy pictures of our energy economy, and that their predictions should be taken with a grain of salt.

Like I said though - I'm totally out of my area here and mostly relying on my 20 minute conversation on this topic with my buddy, so I have to defer to those who are more in the know, and it sounds like a bunch of the people on here know a hell of a lot more about this topic than I do.

The thing about predicting the future is that well, it's the future. No one has a crystal ball. Each forecast has a methodology and reasoning for why their forecast is the way it is, but in the end, they might as well be throwing darts at a dart board most of the time.

http://i.imgur.com/DulWp.jpg

[89coupe]

I don't believe much in analysts, but I do tend to believe in the billionaires who are investing hundreds of millions into shale gas plays here in Alberta & BC.

Its odd they would be doing this if they felt there was no money to be made.

Hmmmm.;)

[Projek01]

most people dont realize that the world would be quite doomed without oil and gas. yes, we could make energy by using solar cells but how do get our fertilizers to grow our crops. where do we get the plastic to make the goods we use every day. the sulfur and nitrogen used in fertilizers are produced mainly from oil refining.

using hydrogen technology is the most rediculous idea ever. hydrogen is most efficently made from the gas shift process which uses natural gas... hydrogen can be produced by splitting water from electricity which comes from burning coal. hydrogen storage requires a lot of energy to compress the gas just to get a couple km of range.

natural gas vehicles are good but you would not be able to make it to edmonton on a tank of gas. that means you would have to fly there or rent a gasoline burning car.

basically, expensive or no oil+gas = no food for the planet