• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Approaching the Olduvai Cliff?


  • Please log in to reply
505 replies to this topic

#241 lightowl

  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 16 January 2005 - 11:36 AM

This is pretty bad coming from Forbes.

http://www.forbes.co...110doomoil.html
http://energybulletin.net/3978.html

You say the price of oil will rise much higher than it already has. Why?

"The problem we have is that there are 2.3 billion people in Chindia," Leeb says, using shorthand for a combined China and India. "Today, China and India use the energy-equivalent of 5.5 barrels of oil per person per year, while rich nations use 39. No matter how rosy your thinking is as to the global supply of oil, there is no way there is going to be enough to satisfy the demands of an extra 2.3 billion people coming online."

As China and India become rich nations, the demand for oil could grow at 6% per year, compared to 2% recently. Currently, the world has almost no excess supply. The planet is operating at anywhere from 95% to 99% capacity, Leen says. "There is no margin for error." The only way the system can respond is continued price increases.

How bad will it get?

At the end of 1999, oil was trading for around $10 a barrel. Since then, it has risen by about 29% per year. Simply extending the trend line means that oil will be at $100 a barrel in about three years and at $160 in five years, Leeb says. If prices rise the way they have in the last year, the resulting levels will be even higher, and that's without any major geopolitical crisis in the Persian Gulf or anywhere else. "It's not a heroic position," Leeb says. "But I don't know how you avoid it."



#242 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,376 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 16 January 2005 - 05:46 PM

So much for economic arguments that demand magically creates its own supply, when the geology of the planet says otherwise.


Demand doesn't magically create supply. I am not sure who told you there is magic involved, but they are wrong. Supply and demand are more like socio-economic forces that work together. Right now, oil and other geologic energy supplies are getting tight. The planet has given up most of its "easy to reach" energy resources, yet the demand conintues to rise. Three simple things will happen when demand grows faster than supply. The price of the resource will go up, people will try to find more (mining and drilling), and people will try to develop different energy solutions. All three of these will happen over the coming years. These things are happenning all the time all over the world's economic landscape on macro and micro scales.

#243 advancedatheist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 17 January 2005 - 02:11 AM

Demand doesn't magically create supply. I am not sure who told you there is magic involved, but they are wrong. Supply and demand are more like socio-economic forces that work together. Right now, oil and other geologic energy supplies are getting tight. The planet has given up most of its "easy to reach" energy resources, yet the demand conintues to rise. Three simple things will happen when demand grows faster than supply. The price of the resource will go up, people will try to find more (mining and drilling), and people will try to develop different energy solutions. All three of these will happen over the coming years. These things are happenning all the time all over the world's economic landscape on macro and micro scales.


Unfortunately we seem to be acting out on a global scale the kind of collapse scenario Jared Diamond describes in his new book. Norse settlers in Greenland, Mayans in Central America and the Polynesian settlers on Easter Island were all trying to "find more" of a peaking resource before their respective complex societies imploded.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#244 advancedatheist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 23 January 2005 - 06:52 PM

Forthcoming book about Peak Oil:

Twilight in the Desert : The Untold Story of Saudi Arabia's Depleted Oil Fields and What It Means to the World, by Matthew R. Simmons

http://www.amazon.co...l/-/047173876X/

Product Description:
The most critical question facing the world energy market is whether Saudi Arabia can substantially increase its oil production to meet rising world demand in the years ahead.  Sparked by personal observations of Saudi oil wells which led him to suspect that some Saudi fields were in decline, Matt Simmons has created a compelling case that Saudi Arabia production will soon reach an apex, after which its production will decline and the world will be confronted with an immense and potentially catastrophic oil shortage.  The factual basis of the book is over 200 technical papers published over the last 20 years which individually detail problems with particular wells or particular fields, but which collectively demonstrate that the entire Saudi oil system is “old and fraying.”  Based on his analysis, Mr. Simmons asserts that sudden and sharp oil production declines could happen at any time.  Even under the most optimistic scenario, Saudi Arabia may be able to maintain current rates of production for several years, but will not be able to increase production enough to meet the expected increase in world demand.  Eventually, the reckoning day will come and the world economy will be confronted with a major shock that will stunt economic growth, increase inflation, and potentially destabilize the Middle East.

The book is written in a concise and engaging style, providing background on Saudi Arabia, the oil industry, world oil market, and the management of the Saudi oil resources.  Mr. Simmons addresses technical issues about oil production in a clear, interesting style, providing documentation but not losing the reader in details  The book is written with a strong focus and passion, and the overall sense is of a behind-the-scenes expose, akin to a 60 minutes investigative piece.


Also check out Matthew Simmons's company Website:

http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/

#245 free

  • Guest
  • 54 posts
  • 0

Posted 23 January 2005 - 08:15 PM

http://www.technolog.../review_oil.asp

The End of Oil?
By Mark Williams Febuary 2005


If the actions—rather than the words—of the oil business’s major players provide the best gauge of how they see the future, then ponder the following. Crude oil prices have doubled since 2001, but oil companies have increased their budgets for exploring new oil fields by only a small fraction. Likewise, U.S. refineries are working close to capacity, yet no new refinery has been constructed since 1976. And oil tankers are fully booked, but outdated ships are being decommissioned faster than new ones are being built.

If those clues weren’t enough, here’s a news item that came out of Saudi Arabia on March 6, 2003. Though it went largely unremarked, the kingdom’s announcement that it could not produce more oil in response to the Iraq War was of historic importance. As Kenneth Deffeyes notes in Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert’s Peak, it meant that as of 2003, there was no major underutilized oil source left on the planet. Even as established oil fields have reached their maximum production capacity, there has been disappointing production from new fields. Globally, according to some geologists’ estimates, we have discovered 94 percent of all available oil.

The Saudis’ announcement arrived right on schedule—at least, once the three-year delay imposed by OPEC’s anti-U.S. embargo and production cutbacks of the 1970s was factored in. In 1969, the prominent geologist M. King Hubbert predicted that a graph of world oil production over time would look like a bell curve, with a peak around the year 2000. Thereafter, he argued, production would drop—slowly at first, then ever faster.

Hubbert had a track record as a prophet: his 1956 forecast that U.S. domestic oil production would peak in the early 1970s proved correct. Kenneth Deffeyes, who started out in 1958 as a young petroleum geologist at Shell’s Houston labs working alongside Hubbert, became so convinced by the man’s theories that by 1963 he had left the oil business, except for occasional consulting work; he is now a professor emeritus of geosciences at Princeton University. In Beyond Oil, Deffeyes takes readers through Hubbert’s analysis in a highly readable style, even boiling down the complex mathematics into a few pages of graphs.

The prognosis? Deffeyes has no doubt that by 2019, the year in which Hubbert’s theories indicate global oil production will drop to 90 percent of current rates, human ingenuity will have found replacement energy sources (see “What Energy Crisis?”, p. 19). But Deffeyes is optimistic about the long term only because he believes that by 2010, pressures will grow so intense that they’ll create the resolve necessary to develop a new energy ­economy. In the short term, he foresees continually rising oil prices that force industry after industry closer to the wall. He fears not just escalating resource wars around the world but also mass starvation in some countries, since the 6.4 billion people living on the earth today are fed thanks largely to the successes of the 20th century’s “green revolution,” which, among other innovations, brought petrochemical-based fertilizers into wide use.

Because 15 years ago we failed to begin developing the new energy sources and technologies we need now, Deffeyes argues, in the immediate future we’ll have to rely on what we’ve got. In Beyond Oil, he examines how we might optimize the use of our geologically derived energy sources.

Deffeyes suggests that coal will make a comeback and that Fischer-Tropsch conversion—the process by which the Nazi regime turned coal into gasoline to keep its Panzers running during WWII—might become commonplace. He grants that there’ll be an outcry over the ecological costs of burning coal; similarly, there’ll be much agonizing as nuclear power plants are again rolled out. But Deffeyes believes that M. King Hubbert, whose 1956 paper predicting the U.S. oil production peak is titled “Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels,” was right: nuclear power will be part of our response to decreasing reserves of oil and natural gas, as necessity overrides any political opposition.

Ultimately, says Deffeyes, we may just have to resign ourselves to relying more on coal, wind, and nuclear fission for ­electricity and switching to high-efficiency diesel and hybrid automobiles in order to ration our remaining oil reserves for as long as possible. Abundant energy from fossil fuels was a one-time gift, Deffeyes concludes, that lifted humanity up from subsistence agriculture and has led to a future based on renewable resources.

#246 advancedatheist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 26 January 2005 - 07:34 PM

I might add that Jim Rogers is well known in libertarian circles. When the free-market fundamentalists themselves have to acknowledge the reality of Peak Oil, then the denial game is over.

http://www.ameinfo.c...iled/52594.html

United Arab Emirates: Monday, January 24 - 2005 at 10:45

Another 10 years of high oil prices?

A new assessment of the supply and demand position for oil suggests that the outlook for high prices may be much stronger than previously thought.

Talk to traders about oil prices and they only look a few months ahead. But a new book from George Soros' former colleague Jim Rogers, 'Hot Commodities' points to a much more long-term outlook, and the news for oil is very good.

Roger's thesis is that oil supply has peaked and is now in decline around the world. He cites the evidence for and against, noting the Saudi Government's strong objections to this claim. But even his critics would have to admit that he makes a compelling argument.

He recalls how Shell's scientist King Hubbert correctly predicted the peak of US oil production in the early 1970s which every one thought was crazy but proved to be spot on. And he finds a number of eminent experts, with no axe to grind, who have come to a similar conclusion about the situation today, only worldwide.

The most outspoken expert is Matthew Simmons who has written several hundred reports on Saudi oil of the past few decades. His conclusion is that the Saudi fields are past their prime and that the Kingdom's five elephant wells are peaking and the biggest Ghawar is 90 per cent depleted.

So is Simmons the modern answer to Shell's Hubbert as the Cassandra predicting decline? Rogers marshals others in support such as the legendary oilman T. Boone Pickens. And there is a certain irony in the Shell oil company's recent reductions in its own reserves which may point to the future.

Rogers argument is that the oil price has not been rising in recent years due to a 'terrorist premium' but because we are starting to run out of oil. This, he believes, will guarantee high oil prices in the years ahead, indeed for the next decade if his long-term projection of a bull market for commodities is proved correct.

Some Middle East observers reading this article will be determined to dismiss Rogers as a crank. But this just is not true. He is very highly respected in US investment circles, and retired at 37 – he is now 62 – after making a fortune working with George Soros.

He also founded his own commodities index fund in 1998 which since then has been the single-best performing index fund in the word in any asset class. So is he wrong or are the vested interests of the oil industry right?

Rogers highlights the instability and problems in other areas of the world which might be developed to provide alternative oil supplies to the Middle East, vis-à-vis Russia, West Africa, Venezuela and of course Iraq. Meanwhile, alternative energy technologies are inadequate to replace oil, and demand for the black stuff is surging in China and India.

Overall, this book makes a strong case for higher oil prices for at least the next decade, and the possibility of a considerable further upward spike in prices. The consequences for the world and the Middle East are clearly enormous.



#247 advancedatheist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 04 February 2005 - 05:08 AM

So much for the economic argument that we can simply find more oil by investing more money into exploration:

http://www.telegraph.../04/ixcity.html

Shell shock as reserves and new supplies dwindle

By Christopher Hope, Business Correspondent (Filed: 04/02/2005)

Shell yesterday shocked investors with a fifth downgrade of its "proven" oil and gas reserves in just over 12 months, and revealed that it had struggled to find more oil supplies to replace its output last year.

The news overshadowed record profits of $17.6 billion (£9.3 billion), up 38pc, in 2004 on the back of a surging oil price and a strong performance by the company's downstream business. Net income or profit after tax was up 48pc to $18.5 billion (£9.8 billion). Both were records for a British company.



#248 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 04 February 2005 - 09:35 AM

Ultimately, says Deffeyes, we may just have to resign ourselves to relying more on coal, wind, and nuclear fission for ­electricity and switching to high-efficiency diesel and hybrid automobiles in order to ration our remaining oil reserves for as long as possible. Abundant energy from fossil fuels was a one-time gift, Deffeyes concludes, that lifted humanity up from subsistence agriculture and has led to a future based on renewable resources.


It should be noted that diesel engines aren't particularly efficient, diesel just has a higher energy density than gasoline.

#249 advancedatheist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 16 February 2005 - 07:15 AM

What are cornucopians going to say now that the oil men themselves are sounding the alarm?

http://www.dallasnew...cera.50e0d.html

Energy experts meet in Houston

More demand, lower output equals geopolitical alliances

11:30 PM CST on Tuesday, February 15, 2005

By SUDEEP REDDY / The Dallas Morning News

HOUSTON – Even as oil companies rake in record profits, the energy industry is bracing for a future of uncertainty and increasing difficulty in securing new prospects for expansion.

Crude oil near $50 a barrel for much of the last year has exposed a new reality emerging for buyers and suppliers of energy:

The struggle to meet growing demand will strain producers, while creating new geopolitical alliances, executives and analysts said Tuesday at the Cambridge Energy Research Associates conference.

Global economic growth and declining oil production in industrialized nations have created "a new energy equation," said David O'Reilly, chairman and CEO of ChevronTexaco Corp.

"Relative to demand, oil is no longer in plentiful supply," he said. "The time when we could count on cheap oil and even cheaper natural gas is clearly ending."

The oil market muddled through the last year under a razor-thin supply cushion, with spare capacity of just 1 million barrels a day in a market consuming more than 80 million barrels.

Explosive growth in Asian oil demand – led by China and India – surprised an oil market that was already facing growing difficulty increasing supplies.

With the resulting rise in prices, and fat cash reserves, many companies are rushing to produce their most accessible oil reserves and secure new resources.

But competing in that environment has become much harder, said John Morgan, executive vice president of Occidental Petroleum Corp. "Everybody has money.

Some oil executives remain cautious about how long higher oil prices can last, quickly recalling the rapid reversals in the market as recently as 1998.

Julian West, a senior director of CERA, said the rush to bring on new production could even present a surprising short-term reaction: too much oil.

With a long slate of projects coming online, the world could see the largest increase in supply ever in 2007, Mr. West said.

But the world also must contend with changing geopolitical relationships – from Russia, Iran, Venezuela and other key producers – that will probably balance out the expected supply increases.

"Our great river of supply might be clogged by geopolitics," Mr. West said....

Humans took 125 years to consume the first trillion barrels of oil removed from the ground. The next trillion barrels will probably be consumed in just 35 years, Mr. O'Reilly said.

With oil and gas becoming increasingly difficult to secure, oil executives say that Americans must prepare for the new order and finally move past the goal of energy independence.

"Holding that view can be counterproductive," said Edward Galante, senior vice president of Irving-based Exxon Mobil Corp.

"It can distract us from focusing on the reality – the need to deal with the U.S. interdependence in global energy markets." .



#250 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,376 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 16 February 2005 - 07:51 AM

Humans took 125 years to consume the first trillion barrels of oil removed from the ground. The next trillion barrels will probably be consumed in just 35 years, Mr. O'Reilly said.


Most experts I have read say that the second trillion barrels is all that is left (or anyway that is all the hydrocarbons that are currently accessible).

#251 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 16 February 2005 - 04:37 PM

Most experts I have read say that the second trillion barrels is all that is left (or anyway that is all the hydrocarbons that are currently accessible).


That ignores coal and biomass reduction.

We in the USA still use and are already returning to an even greater use of coal (as well as biologically derived combustibles) if consumption increases and we are unable to find better high-output sources from radically new power sources like fusion. Even fission is essentially a limited growth fossil fuel with some renewable aspects but all the potential production from alternative sources cannot compensate for rapid increases in demand. Not even conservation is able to accomplish that it appears and many emerging economies like China are rapidly expanding their coal use.

CO2 in the atmosphere is also from a number of organic sources (cattle/agricultural methods etc) as well as volcanism and human habitat expansion is simultaneously destroying the natural CO2 scrubbers (plants and blue/green algae) on land and in the sea faster than we are currently replacing them.

Interestingly I just read another tree ring study yesterday that you too might find of interest as it concerns drought cycles in the last few centuries that describes trends, which predate full industrial impact and are very likely to impact food production.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6970736

New data hint at history’s huge dry spells
Scientists surprised by severity of past droughts

By Robert Roy Britt Senior writer
Updated: 8:10 p.m. ET Feb. 14, 2005

Historical droughts in the Columbia River Basin were more severe than anything in recent memory, including the drought of 1992-93, scientists said Monday.

A study of tree rings found four droughts between 1750 and 1950 that were "much more severe than anything in recent memory" because they persisted for years.

One drought that started in the 1840s lasted 12 years. Flows on the Columbia River were at least 20 percent below long-term averages and might have been much lower, said lead author Ze'ev Gedalof of the University of Guelph in Ontario. Reliable river flow records go back only about 75 years. But tree-ring data reveals how much trees grow each year, a reflection of climate.

"Imagine what a drought lasting that long would do to the resources and economy of the region today," says Dave Peterson of the U.S. Forest Service and the University of Washington's College of Forest Resources.

Five other multiyear droughts were identified, around 1775, 1805, 1890, 1925, and one in the 1930s coinciding with the Dust Bowl era.

***

The study was published recently in the Journal of the American Water Resources Association.

***

The study is a microcosmic look at one drainage. But other research has reached similar conclusions.

A much broader study covering the western United States and going back 2,000 years suggests that droughts in recent memory are indeed relatively minor.

{excerpts}
Posted Image
University of Washington
Periods of low flows include a 12-year drought starting in the 1840s, a severe drought in the 1930s, and four periods of low flows in 1775, 1805, 1890 and 1925. The half-century following the Dust Bowl of the 1930s was unusual for the relative absence of drought.


BTW, if you look at the pattern it appears that here in the USA we may be due for another serious period of long term drought, exactly like what is already appearing to impact significant areas of the country. These are also the kinds of climatic trends that are now linked to the demise of prehispanic civilizations like the Anasazi, Maya and Teotihuacanos.

An interesting study of this relationship of social behavior with climate has recently been published by Jared Diamond with his book "Collapse".

How Societies choose to fail or succeed

Background to Princeton lecture

radio transcript of interview

#252 advancedatheist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 16 February 2005 - 06:59 PM

Most experts I have read say that the second trillion barrels is all that is left (or anyway that is all the hydrocarbons that are currently accessible).


For thermodynamic reasons we're going to yield a lot less net energy from the latter half of the supply than we got from the first half.

#253 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 16 February 2005 - 08:11 PM

After I posted above I serendipitously got to hear Jared Diamond interviewed on the Leonard Lopate show on WNYC (93.5).

It was so interesting and comprehensive that I think it is well worth including in this thread. He is dealing with so many of the Threats to Life and solutions discussed in our forum that I think his educated perspective is well worth listening to.

I should also add that another resource that is under threat that we do not normally include in our thinking is fresh water.

http://www.wnyc.org/...pisodes/current (this link will change to an archive after tomorrow)
Collapse

Jared Diamond, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Guns, Germs, and Steel, looks at the root causes of the demise of different civilizations. His latest book, Collapse, argues that environmental destruction has often made it impossible for a society to sustain itself.

Real Audio



#254 advancedatheist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 16 February 2005 - 10:39 PM

BTW, if you look at the pattern it appears that here in the USA we may be due for another serious period of long term drought, exactly like what is already appearing to impact significant areas of the country. These are also the kinds of climatic trends that are now linked to the demise of prehispanic civilizations like the Anasazi, Maya and Teotihuacanos.


Meanwhile, people continue mindlessly to build suburban sprawl here in my new home of Arizona, without giving a thought to where the water is supposed to come from even assuming "normal" rainfall patterns.

#255 advancedatheist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 17 February 2005 - 03:31 AM

http://news.ft.com/c...000e2511c8.html

Chinese demand set to push Opec to limit

By Javier Blas and Kevin Morrison in London
Published: February 16 2005 20:29 | Last updated: February 16 2005 20:29

The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries signalled a significant tightening of oil markets towards the end of this year, warning on Wednesday it would have to pump close to its maximum capacity next winter to meet rising demand from China against the backdrop of slowing Russian production.

The cartel said it would have to supply at least 30.1m barrels a day in the fourth quarter of the year to balance the market, an increase of 630,000 b/d from its previous estimate in January and 1.1m b/d up from the December figure. The International Energy Agency forecasts Opec's capacity will be 31.5m b/d by mid-2005.

Opec pumped at capacity last autumn as it tried to catch up with a big increase in demand. But the sharp production increase reduced spare capacity to a 30-year low, helping push oil prices to a nominal record of more than $55 a barrel last October.

The increasing reliance on Opec will make the market more vulnerable to political shocks in the Middle East, analysts said. Oil prices briefly surged more than $1 on Wednesday amid conflicting reports of an explosion in Iran's Bushehr province, where Tehran is building a nuclear reactor. “The cushion to confront an unexpected shock will be very limited,” said Antonio Merino, chief economist of Repsol YPF.



#256 advancedatheist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 18 February 2005 - 07:44 PM

http://quote.bloombe...zkE&refer=home#

Shell, Exxon Tap `High Cost' Oil Sands, Gas as Reserves Dwindle

Feb. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Shell Canada Ltd. Chief Executive Officer Clive Mather says oil from his Athabasca project, where tar sands are boiled to produce crude, can cost twice as much as drilling in the North Sea. And it's worth every cent, he says.

``If we had access to unlimited conventional oil, I guess the interest in Athabasca would diminish quite quickly, but that isn't the case,'' Mather said in a Feb. 3 interview in London. ``This is high-cost oil, there's no question about that. At current prices, it's still very good business.''

A 15-year decline in oil reserves is spurring companies such as Royal Dutch/Shell Group, Exxon Mobil Corp. and ChevronTexaco Corp. to spend $76 billion in the next decade to boost supplies of oil from tar sands and diesel fuel from Qatari natural gas, according to estimates by the International Energy Agency in Paris. Oil executives say they have no choice but to try alternatives to drilling because there is not much more crude to be found in their current fields.

``We're damn close'' to the peak in conventional oil production, Boone Pickens, who oversees more than $1 billion in energy-related investments at his Dallas hedge fund firm, said in an interview in New York Feb. 16. ``I think we're there.'' Suncor Energy Inc., the world's second-biggest oil-sands miner, is his largest holding.



#257 advancedatheist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 20 February 2005 - 10:38 PM

http://english.aljaz...1E5850FB067.htm

Expert says Saudi oil may have peaked

By  Adam Porter

Sunday 20 February 2005, 10:58 Makka Time, 7:58 GMT 

As oil stubbornly refuses to fall below $45 a barrel, a major market mover has cast a worrying future prediction.

Energy investment banker Matthew Simmons, of Simmons & Co International, has been outspoken in his warnings about peak oil before. His new statement is his strongest yet, "we may have already passed peak oil".

The subject of peak oil, the point at which the world's finite supply of oil begins to decline, is a hot topic in the industry.

Arguments are commonplace over whether it will happen at all, when it will happen or whether it has already happened. Simmons, a Republican adviser to the Bush-Cheney energy plan, believes it "is the world's number one problem, far more serious than global warming".

Saudi oil peaking?

Speaking exclusively to Aljazeera, Simmons came out with a statement that, if proven true over time, could herald by far the biggest energy crisis mankind has known.

"If Saudi Arabia have damaged their fields, accidentally or not, by overproducing them, then we may have already passed peak oil. Iran has certainly peaked, there is no way on Earth they can ever get back to their production of six million barrels per day (mbpd)."

The technical term for damaging an oilfield by overproduction is rate sensitivity. In other words, if the oil is pulled out of the ground too fast, it damages the fragile geological structure of the field. This can make as much as 80% of the oil within the field unextractable. Of course, at the moment, virtually every producer is at full tilt. The most important among them is Saudi Arabia; their Gharwar field is the world's biggest.

One of the first hints that Simmons got over possible Saudi Arabian overproduction was from researching an obscure US Senate committee meeting in 1974.

Field damage

"A whistleblower in Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia's oil company, was first reported in The Washington Post. He had claimed that Aramco had been overproducing the giant Gharwar field and that if they did not slow down, they would damage the reservoirs.

"The committee, which swore witnesses in under oath, produced over 1400 pages of documentation on the subject, it included some specialist advice which advised cutting Saudi production to 4mbpd to maintain production levels."

Currently, at near maximum production, Saudi Arabia is producing about 9mbpd, though recently they claimed they could potentially produce 12mbpd or even as much as 20mbpd. A claim Simmons called "pie in the sky".

"The faster you pull a reservoir, the faster you pull out all of the easy-to-produce oil," explains Simmons. "What happens is that you lose massive amounts of what the oil industry calls oil-left-behind still inside the field. These issues, as you can see, have been known about for years."

Overproduction

"If you look at what Iran is doing, they are actually going to inject natural gas to the tune of 2bcf (billion cubic feet), through a 72in pipe into their Aghajari oilfield. It is a $2bn project. This is in order just to boost production from 200,000bpd to 300,000bpd. In the 1970s Aghajari was producing 1mbpd. It has been overproduced."

Simmons also says the same thing happened with the oil company El Paso last year.

"At the same time as the Shell write-off, El Paso realised they had been producing their fields too hard. As a result they had to write off 41% of their reserves." In 2004 Shell first announced it had lost about 20% of its oil reserves.

Another clue came as Simmons discovered a ferocious debate that had been going on inside Saudi Aramco about overproduction.

"The company claimed in the early 1970s that it would be able to produce 20 to 25 mbpd, then by 1978 it was 12mbpd. Now it looks like 9.8mbpd is the maximum," he says.

Precious resource

"Luckily for them, demand quietened down in the 1980s. People thought when they cut production that they were simply trying to drive up oil prices, but in fact they were resting their fields to limit the damage.

"But then came the first Gulf war and they were forced to crank production up again and they have been fighting the problem ever since.

"In 1981 in their own book, Aramco and its World, something they give out to new employees and such, they openly talked about how maximising production would permanently harm their fields and that maximum production could not continue. They thought demand would fall and the fields would be sustained. Unfortunately that has not been the case."

The reasons for maximising production are not always obvious, they can be technical, but also geo-political.

"There is always a balance for producers. Do you want to conserve your fields and produce slowly? Or do you want to be a statesman? Would you rather be a market leader with all that brings, or a smaller, less powerful producer?"

The idea that Saudi Arabia could force its production up to 12mbpd or higher is met with scorn by Simmons.

"This is dangerous stuff," warns Simmons. "If we say they have not peaked and then they choose to further increase production, they will only hasten their field decline, and waste huge amounts of valuable oil into the bargain. And oil, as we are only now coming to realise, is the world's most precious resource."



#258 advancedatheist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 23 February 2005 - 11:56 PM

Morgan Stanley acknowledges Peak Oil?

http://www.morgansta...050221-mon.html

... non-OPEC producers are operating at full capacity and output is stagnant.  That has been a chronic issue for the past five years, and it has given OPEC market power as the swing producer.  But the problem has lately intensified.  For example, former Soviet Union (FSU) production was down 1% in January from a year ago, and we expect that Russian production growth will likely dwindle by half through 2007.  In addition, the political situations in Venezuela and Nigeria bode ill for reliable supply.  Nigeria is of special concern, given its key role in supplying light sweet crude.  That market tightness has made OPEC's recent production cuts even more potent in lifting prices.  Moreover, with no increase in refining capacity yet visible, we are concerned that the onset of the US summer driving season will push product prices back to previous highs and crude prices could well follow.

In hindsight, it appears that OPEC was literally operating at full capacity in the fourth quarter of last year, for the first time ever.


The increasingly anxious reports coming from mainstream business & financial news sources should be putting the free-market cornucopians in a difficult spot. It's easy to dismiss Peak Oil warnings issued by independent scholars, academicians and environmentalists. But when the information channels used by the capitalist elite start to discuss this problem, the foolish denial game absolutely has to stop.

#259 advancedatheist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 24 February 2005 - 08:16 PM

http://olympics.reut...storyID=7715617

Oil Firms Insist They Are Winning Reserves Battle

Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:50 AM ET

By Toby Reynolds

LONDON (Reuters) - Major oil firms insist they are more than replacing energy reserves they extract with new resources even though U.S. regulatory accounting indicates they are failing to do so.

In the last three weeks, BP, Exxon Mobil and Total have all said they more than replaced the volume of hydrocarbons they drew out of the ground in 2004, according to their traditional accounting systems.

However, using reporting guidelines set by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, BP and Exxon say they fell far short of this target, while analysts say Total likely did the same.



#260 advancedatheist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 24 February 2005 - 08:25 PM

http://www.bloomberg...X1Mnkg&refer=us

Commodity Strategists: Oil Price May Rise to $60, Bearbull Says

Feb. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Oil prices may rise as high as $60 a barrel this year on concern that OPEC may not be able to fill the gap left by any oil supply disruptions, said Frederique Dubrion, a fund manager at Geneva-based Bearbull Securities.

``The fact that OPEC excess capacity is the lowest in three decades means if you see a big disruption, prices could go up,'' said Dubrion, who helps oversee the equivalent of about 65 million euros in energy company investments.



#261 advancedatheist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 26 February 2005 - 10:41 PM

http://cbs.marketwat...D&siteid=google

Oil price surge defies forecasters

Even investors aren't factoring in $50 crude
By Lisa Sanders, MarketWatch
Last Update: 12:01 AM ET Feb. 26, 2005 

DALLAS (MarketWatch) - As crude-oil futures climbed above $51 a barrel this week, analysts threw up their hands and wondered why.
 
"None of the historical correlations analysts have used - inventories primarily for oil, storage for natural gas, natural-gas and oil prices for rig counts -- work," said Jim Wicklund, managing director of energy research at Banc of America Securities.

"No one can really explain, with anything but a very broad brush, why crude oil prices are as high as they are."

Pointing to the Energy Department and American Petroleum weekly U.S. inventory reports, James Williams, an energy economist at WTRG Economics, said nothing in the data supports prices at this level. See Futures Movers.

That view is widely shared. Nevertheless, the benchmark light, sweet crude oil contract for April delivery finished the week up 10 cents at $51.49 a barrel despite the Energy Department's report of a build in crude supplies. For the week, the contract was up 5 percent.

A few analysts upped their price forecasts this week, including Deutsche Bank and Prudential Equity Group. Prudential increased its outlook for 2005 oil to $42 a barrel from $35 amid an upgrade of integrated oil stocks. See Ratings Game.

Still, analysts polled by Thomson First Call said they expect oil to average $40 a barrel. That's $1 higher than the January estimate and $2.43 more than the December estimate. See archived story.

Raymond James is ahead of most brokers' estimates with a $44 oil price forecast for 2005.

"But we're still too low," said Marshall Adkins, managing director of energy equity research at Raymond James. "There has been a fundamental shift in the oil markets."

One reason for the disparity between forecasts and the current price of crude is a bias on the part of analysts. Most analysts believe that oil will return to normal levels, though he said there's no longer a good way to gauge what is normal.

"This time is different than other times," Adkins said. "We've always had an oil bubble in our existence, where there was more supply capacity than demand, and that's essentially not the case anymore."

Secondly, demand from China has skyrocketed. And thirdly, in some areas of the world, supply growth has hit a wall.



#262 advancedatheist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 27 February 2005 - 02:42 PM

http://quote.bloombe...aIqU&refer=home

OPEC Probably Won't Raise Oil Output as Prices Jump, Qatar Says


Maybe because OPEC is physically unable to do so because of Peak Oil?

Feb. 27 (Bloomberg) -- OPEC, producer of more than a third of the world's oil, isn't likely to raise output when it meets in Iran next month, the Qatari oil minister said, even though crude in New York has pushed through $50 a barrel and demand forecasts for 2005 have been revised upwards.

``I don't think we will increase production in Iran, it's more likely we will cut supply to stop inventories from building,'' Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyah told reporters in the Persian Gulf emirate's capital, Doha, on the sidelines of an international gas conference. ``Growth in the U.S. and U.K. hasn't been affected so far, though we need to be careful.''

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which is scheduled to meet March 16 in Isfahan, Iran, slashed sales each month from October to January in an attempt to avoid a glut forming in the market and sending prices lower. Qatar has joined Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in signalling that OPEC may be prepared to continue this trend to keep prices near current levels.

Global demand may average 84 million barrels a day in 2005, while daily production in January was only 83.6 million barrels, according to the International Energy Agency. Oil prices have risen 10 percent in the past three weeks in New York, to $51.49 a barrel on Friday, Feb. 25, on growing concern that OPEC and other exporters will fail to keep up with demand this year.

OPEC last year didn't anticipate a jump in demand from China and last March lowered production targets to 23.5 million barrels a day. Three months later, ministers abolished their quotas and were told by al-Attiyah, at the time OPEC's president, to pump crude at will in a bid to meet the biggest increase in demand in three decades.

Survey Predicts Higher Prices

Crude oil prices may rise further from a four-month high on concern that crude output won't keep pace with climbing demand, according to a weekly Bloomberg survey of analysts and strategists.

Twenty-seven of 52 respondents, or 52 percent, predicted oil prices will climb in this new week. Thirteen, or 25 percent, said prices will fall and 12 forecast little change. A week ago, 44 percent of respondents said prices would rise. Fourteen of the last 21 surveys correctly predicted the market's direction.

Crude oil for April delivery climbed 10 cents to $51.49 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange on Friday, Feb. 25, the highest close since Oct. 29. Futures are up 44 percent from a year ago. The price of crude rose 5.1 percent in the last week.

`High Side'

The Qatari minister said current oil prices are ``on the high side,'' and have gained recently because of cold weather in the U.S. and Europe and rising demand for gasoline. ``We have to be careful in Isfahan and be sure that there is a need for any change,'' he said.

OPEC last month agreed to maintain the current production quota of 27 million barrels a day and abandon its price target, a goal that has been ignored for more than a year.

Qatar is the smallest producer in OPEC and currently is pumping close to its capacity of 800,000 barrels a day.



#263 lightowl

  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 27 February 2005 - 07:38 PM

OPEC Probably Won't Raise Oil Output as Prices Jump, Qatar Says

Maybe because OPEC is physically unable to do so because of Peak Oil?


OPEC is loosing ( has lost ) control over the oil prices. When OPEC decides to raise or lower production it only has a short term psychological effect on investors. Oil futures are so volatile with the current supply-demand gab that OPEC steps are marginal. New production facilities are needed or the supply squeeze will harden and no quota extension anywhere will make prices cool down.

#264 advancedatheist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 02 March 2005 - 10:12 PM

http://quote.bloombe...efer=news_index

Pemex Says Cantarell Field to Begin Decline in 2005 (Update4)

March 1 (Bloomberg) -- Petroleos Mexicanos, Mexico's state oil monopoly, said it expects production at its largest oil field to decline this year, earlier than previously forecast, and plans to boost investment by more than $1 billion from 2004 to make up for the shortfall at other fields.

Cantarell, which accounted for more than 60 percent of oil production last year, will produce an estimated 2.02 million barrels of oil in 2005, down from 2.11 million barrels per day in 2004, Vinicio Suro, planning director for Pemex's production and exploration unit, said on a conference call with investors.

``That means that we're going to begin the decline of production in Cantarell by around 80,000 or 90,000 barrels of oil'' per day, Suro said.

Pemex plans to invest as much as $11.5 billion this year, up from $10.1 billion in 2004, to boost production in other fields, including exploration of deep-water deposits for the first time, to make up for the Cantarell decline. Pemex has doubled its debt in four years to $45 billion to finance annual investments of about $10 billion.



#265 advancedatheist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 03 March 2005 - 02:41 AM

From,

THE ASSOCIATION FOR THE STUDY OF PEAK OIL AND GAS

ASPO NEWSLETTER No 51 - MARCH 2005

http://216.187.75.220/newsletter51.pdf

504. The US Department of Energy addresses Peak Oil

The US Department of Energy has submitted the following article for inclusion in this Newsletter

The Mitigation of the Peaking of World Oil Production
Summary of an Analysis, February 8, 2005

A recently completed study for the U.S. Department of Energy analyzed viable technologies to mitigate oil shortages
associated with the upcoming peaking of world oil production. Commercial or near-commercial options include improved vehicle fuel efficiency, enhanced conventional oil recovery, and the production of substitute fuels. While research and development on other options could be important, their commercial success is by no means assured, and none offer near-term solutions.

Improved fuel efficiency in the world’s transportation sector will be a critical element in the long-term reduction of liquid fuel consumption, however, the scale of effort required will inherently take time and be very expensive. For example, the U.S. has a fleet of over 200 million automobiles, vans, pick-ups, and SUVs. Replacement of just half with higher efficiency models will require at least 15 years at a cost of over two trillion dollars for the U.S. alone. Similar conclusions generally apply worldwide.

Commercial and near-commercial options for mitigating the decline of conventional oil production include: 1) Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR), which can help moderate oil production declines from older conventional oil fields; 2) Heavy oil/oil sands, a large resource of lower grade oils, now produced primarily in Canada and Venezuela; 3) Coal liquefaction, an established technique for producing clean substitute fuels from the world’s abundant coal reserves; and 4) Clean substitute fuels produced from remote natural gas.

For the foreseeable future, electricity-producing technologies, e.g., nuclear and solar energy, cannot substitute for liquid fuels in most transportation applications. Someday, electric cars may be practical, but decades will be required before they achieve significant market penetration and impact world oil consumption. And no one has yet defined viable options for powering heavy trucks or airplanes with electricity.

To explore how these technologies might contribute, three alternative mitigation scenarios were analyzed: One where action is initiated when peaking occurs, a second where action is assumed to start 10 years before peaking, and a third where action is assumed to start 20 years before peaking.

Estimates of the possible contributions of each mitigation option were developed, based on crash program implementation. Crash programs represent the fastest possible implementation - the best case. In practical terms, real-world action is certain to be slower.

Analysis of the simultaneous implementation of all of the options showed that an impact of roughly 25 million barrels per day might be possible 15 years after initiation. Because conventional oil production decline will start at the time of peaking, crash program mitigation inherently cannot avert massive shortages unless it is initiated well in advance of peaking. Specifically,* Waiting until world conventional oil production peaks before initiating crash program mitigation leaves the world with a significant liquid fuel deficit for two decades or longer.

* Initiating a crash program 10 years before world oil peaking would help considerably but would still result in a worldwide liquid fuels shortfall, starting roughly a decade after the time that oil would have otherwise peaked.

* Initiating crash program mitigation 20 years before peaking offers the possibility of avoiding a world liquid fuels shortfall for the forecast period.

Without timely mitigation, world supply/demand balance will be achieved through massive demand destruction (shortages), accompanied by huge oil price increases, both of which would create a long period of significant economic
hardship worldwide.

Other important observations revealed by the analysis included the following:

1. The date of world oil peaking is not known with certainty, complicating the decision-making process. A fundamental problem in predicting oil peaking is uncertain and politically biased oil reserves claims from many oil producing countries.

2. As recently as 2001, authoritative forecasts of abundant future supplies of North American natural gas proved to be excessively optimistic as evidenced by the recent tripling of natural gas prices. Oil and natural gas geology is similar in many ways, suggesting that optimistic oil production forecasts deserve to be viewed with considerable skepticism.

3. In the developed nations, the economic problems associated with world oil peaking and the resultant oil shortages
will be extremely serious. In the developing nations, economic problems will be much worse.

4. While greater end-use efficiency is essential in the long term, increased efficiency alone will be neither sufficient
nor timely enough to solve the oil shortage problem in the short term. To preserve reasonable levels of economic prosperity and growth, production of large amounts of substitute liquid fuels will be required. While a number of substitute fuel production technologies are currently available for deployment, the massive construction effort required will be extremely expensive and very time-consuming, even on a crash program basis.

5. Government intervention will be essential, because the economic and social impacts of oil peaking will otherwise
be chaotic, and crash program mitigation will need to be properly supported. How and when governments begin to seriously address these challenges is yet to be determined.

Oil peaking discussions should focus primarily on prudent risk management, and secondarily on forecasting the timing of oil peaking, which will always be inexact. Mitigation initiated earlier than required might turn out to be premature, if peaking is slow in coming. If peaking is imminent, failure to act aggressively will be extremely damaging worldwide.

World oil peaking represents a problem like none other. The political, economic, and social stakes are enormous. Prudent risk management demands urgent attention and early action.



#266 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,376 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 03 March 2005 - 07:53 AM

At least they are talking about it, but the worst place to look for a solution is to government. The DOE will most likely just make problems worse. Just look at how the government deals with high heating oil prices - THEY SUBSIDIZE PEOPLE (with tax money) TO BUY MORE OIL!!!

Ridiculous.

#267 advancedatheist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 03 March 2005 - 06:32 PM

http://story.news.ya...ce_050303134221

Oil prices could hit 80 dollars in next two years: OPEC

Thu Mar 3, 8:42 AM ET

KUWAIT CITY (AFP) - Prices of crude oil could surge to as high as 80 dollars a barrel within the next two years but such a level would not last long, OPEC (news - web sites)'s acting secretary general was quoted as saying.

"I can affirm that the price of a barrel of crude oil rising to 80 dollars in the near future is a weak possibility," Adnan Shehab-Eldin told Kuwait's Al-Qabas newspaper.

"But I cannot rule out (the possibility) of oil prices rising to 80 dollars a barrel within the next two years," he said on Thursday.

"If the oil price rises to this level for one reason or another -- for example, interruption of supplies from a producing nation by one to two million barrels a day -- it is not expected to continue for long," he said.



#268 advancedatheist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 03 March 2005 - 06:45 PM

At least they are talking about it, but the worst place to look for a solution is to government. The DOE will most likely just make problems worse. Just look at how the government deals with high heating oil prices - THEY SUBSIDIZE PEOPLE (with tax money) TO BUY MORE OIL!!!

Ridiculous.


Is the market any better? A good case could be made that markets have actually accelerated resource depletion. After all, we've had well defined property rights for oil and natural gas in North America all along -- but our local oil and gas extraction peaked years ago, and we're getting increasingly anxious about our dependency on overseas supplies that are also showing signs of peaking (Indonesia, for example, will have to drop out of OPEC presently) . Clearly property rights and mechanisms for free exchange don't make certain kinds of critical resources last indefinitely.

We need to look at the problem on a more fundamental level instead of engaging in simple-minded hunter-gatherer confabulations. ("Our tribe -- the Free-Marketers -- is good. The other tribe -- the Governmentists -- is bad.") Humans in the past couple centuries have stumbled onto a massive Malthusian overshoot trajectory made possible by all the fossil sunlight we've managed to dig up and burn, and this has happened because of our nature as gene machines, regardless of how we organize our societies concerning the roles we assign to government versus market.

#269 advancedatheist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 03 March 2005 - 07:38 PM

I've posted on Cryonet that overseas cryonicists are threatened by the declining reliability of jet fuel supplies, and that they need to plan now to relocate to North America:

http://www.post-gaze...5062/465710.stm

Morgan Stanley trades energy in barrels

Thursday, March 03, 2005
By Ann Davis, The Wall Street Journal

United Airlines, fighting intense financial pressure, decided in late 2003 it needed a better way to get fuel to its planes. To get that job done, it went to an unusual place: Morgan Stanley.

Now, employees of the bank scour the world for jet fuel for the airline. They charter barges, lease pipelines and schedule tanker trucks, delivering more than a billion gallons a year to United's hubs. They even send inspectors to make sure no one tampers with the stuff.

What's a white-shoe investment bank doing selling oil? The answer unfolds in Purchase, N.Y., where an army of its commodities traders sit before flickering screens on a vast, domed trading floor staffed 24 hours a day. At the former site of Texaco's headquarters, Morgan Stanley veterans Neal Shear and John Shapiro run one of the most profitable energy-trading operations in the world.

But they don't just trade futures, a common way of betting electronically on commodities that involves buying and selling contracts for future delivery. Morgan Stanley also handles real barrels of oil and generates actual megawatts of power.

The reason is twofold. Having access to barges and storage tanks and pipelines gives the bank additional options, to move or store commodities, that most energy traders don't pursue. And by having its finger on the pulse of the business, it hopes to get a more subtle feel for the market, a crucial asset to a trader.



sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#270 advancedatheist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 04 March 2005 - 11:29 PM

http://www.businessw...22077_mz054.htm

FEBRUARY 28, 2005   

The Oil Patch Is Getting Slippery

Sure, Big Oil is raking in money. But new reserves are more elusive, and governments are bargaining harder

Times could hardly seem better for big oil companies. Buoyed by high crude prices, Western oil majors are reporting outsize profits. Stock valuations? They're stratospheric.

But if investors knew the details of a recent auction of oil plots in Libya, they might temper their enthusiasm. Libya has thrown itself open for investment, and the oil majors of Europe and the U.S. have stormed in, hungry for a piece of the country's 25 billion barrels in reserves. At an auction on Jan. 29 for exploration rights for 15 Libyan blocks, the bidding got so heated that the winners wound up with "extremely harsh terms that will make it difficult for them to make profits," says Craig McMahon, an analyst at oil consultant Wood Mackenzie in Edinburgh. McMahon figures that for one block, No. 106, which was bid on by 16 companies and won by Occidental Petroleum Corp. (OXY ), the government is likely to capture upwards of 98% of the revenues, compared with around 80% on other deals in North Africa, where governments drive hard bargains. Occidental says McMahon's estimate is too high and that it's happy to get a stake in an underdeveloped oil patch. "The days that people had gotten used to, where oil was inexpensive and easily available -- those days are gone," says an Occidental spokesman.

Libya's auction underscores the strange state Western oil companies find themselves in. Problems are emerging in the midst of incredible plenty. The industry's record of replacing oil and gas reserves has turned lackluster. From Russia to Libya to Venezuela, investment terms and tax regimes are becoming less favorable as governments angle for a bigger cut of the oil wealth. "Despite the current appearance of riches, there are long-term trends that will have a negative effect on industry profitability," says J. Robert Maguire, co-head of global energy investment banking at Morgan Stanley (MWD ) in London.

Costs are rising fast. Day rates for deep-water drilling rigs have more than doubled in the last year, rising from $75,000 to $150,000 and above, says Lehman Bros. Inc. analyst Angeline M. Sedita. Some observers wonder when the markets will notice that the industry is facing headwinds. "Nobody is asking the hard questions," says Fadel Gheit, a senior analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. (OPY ) in New York. "It is all forgiven thanks to the obscene profits they are making." Gheit thinks investor pressure on companies to gain access to more resources and slash costs will eventually drive a new wave of mergers -- even if oil prices stay high. And if they drop, the consequences could be severe.

REPLACING OUTPUT
Gheit and other industry watchers believe major oil companies face some fundamental challenges. For starters, companies need to replace annual output by well over 100% to sustain production growth -- a target many are struggling to achieve, says Wood Mackenzie analyst Robert Plummer. He reckons that Royal Dutch/Shell Group's (RD ) reserve-replacement ratio has hovered at around 44% to 57% over the past five years, if the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission's definition of reserves is applied. One consequence is that Shell's 2004 actual production of oil and gas declined by 3% from the previous year. Even BP PLC (BP ), considered one of the best-run of the majors, missed the mark. It added 110% to its reserves according to British accounting -- but just 89% according to more conservative SEC rules. "Today is not a good time to scramble around" for reserves, says BP CEO John Browne.

Clearly, it's getting harder for companies to replenish the oil and gas they pump. The question is whether this is because they cut back exploration budgets in response to low oil prices in the '90s or because opportunities are running thin. The answer is probably a combination of both. At any rate, the average size of finds dropped from 353 million barrels in the 1970s to 107 million since 2000, figures Morgan Stanley. "The law of diminishing returns is alive and well. We're drilling more to get the same volumes," says Arthur L. Smith, CEO of John S. Herold Inc., a Norwalk (Conn.) energy consulting firm.






23 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 23 guests, 0 anonymous users