Oil supplies have not peaked

Source: Gulf News

Oil at $100 a barrel should give exporters every incentive to pump more, but their difficulty in doing so shows the world is struggling to sustain production.

A growing number of leading industry figures - the CEOs of Total and ConocoPhillips among them - now question mainstream forecasts for supply, suggesting the era of "plateau oil" is nearer than many in the business have admitted.

While global oil demand is projected to grow to more than 100 million barrels per day later this century, some argue it may not be possible to boost flows beyond the current rate of some 86 million barrels...

Read more: http://gulfnews.com/business/Oil_and_Gas/10180652.html

---

Good news and bad news in this... For peak oil theorists, you have to push your model back a bit. However, the article also admits the major problems on the supply side.

is almost opposite what the body of the article says.

actual PEAK of oil production will not be reached until later than previously thought.

Most peak oil theorists place the peak NOW, or have us on the downward spiral already.

They have a certain motivation in arguing thusly.

And the article provides almost no support for that position.

Let's check our motivations at the door...

Check out http://www.theoildrum.com for excellent analysis.

...about The Oil Drum.

You all should see what we have up today: a debunking of Daniel Yergin and CERA over the past five years. It's scary how wrong they've been. They'll look like geniuses when the economy tanks and demand goes down, of course.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3487

It's been very educational!

:toast:

Somebody will seize upon high gas prices as an issue, and will create massive incentives to some refining company in an effort to remove some of the bottlenecks in the refining part of the process.

If I understood what I read the other day, oil is not in shortage but refining capacity is backlogged, and that is increasing the actual price of gasoline. Oil will become more and more scarce as demand increases, but current demand can be met. That demand is stuck behind a wall of refining capacity.

Have you checked the profits of the major gas suppliers in the US?

But if a politician is going to be given a big bag of money, they might be more likely to propose a huge incentive program (from our tax dollars) to give some supplier a way to build a whole new refinery. Now, whether or not the refinery ever goes on line is another thing.

No supplier would spend their profits on expansion / upgrades if it didn't lead to more profit. Limited capacity increases their profits. So, my guess is that we're going to see somebody propose we just give a refinery to some company since it would create jobs, etc.

That would seem logical for National Security Reasons!

Just a MODEST proposal...

DAVID BRANCACCIO: Other analysts see it differently. Yesterday, the Rand think tank published a study based on wide discussions with refining industry officials. According to the study, those in the industry are patting themselves on the back for getting so efficient by ridding themselves of so much capacity. The study includes one executive's "happy" thought: "I think the industry has learned that it's okay to fall short on product. There is no reward being long on product or production capability."

In other words, there's no margin in being on the side of the little guy. If you're an investor in one of these refining companies, you may agree with that wholeheartedly. If you're driving somewhere this holiday weekend in a vehicle that requires fossil fuel, you may not. We can all agree on at least one thing, however. The biggest spike in gasoline prices on record is not just a household budget issue. It slows down the entire economy, costing by some estimates, as much as a billion dollars a week. Do the math. At that rate, it could cost us 52 billion dollars a year &%151; almost as much as we got back from the president's latest tax cut.

That's it for now. I'm DAVID BRANCACCIO

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/brancaccio.html

Apparently, NOW has done several stories on this subject
http://www.pbs.org/now/search_google.html?q=refineries

it really is a national security issue

Experts on CNBC after Hurricane Katrina stated unequivocably that several new refineries on drawing boards had gotten the green light from either or both Louisiana or Mississipi several years ago, but the companies did not build because there was no need as long as existing refineries could provide enough to maximize profits without the companies spending on new refineries. The oil industry experts said that govt regulations or lack of incentives were not to blame for the fact that no new refineries have been built.

There should be no incentives for an industry making such huge profits but being unwilling to reinvest profits in infrastructure improvements and maintenance as long as the current facilities are able to meet demand providing windfall profits.

Then the supply and demand curve won't drive the retail price of gasoline to obscene, profit-gouging highs.

If refining capacity were the problem, crude oil would be stacking up like cordwood as tankers could not unload and the price of crude oil would plummet.

Refined products are fungible. Crude is at $100/bbl.

The peak is not sharp because a great deal of Iraqi oil is not getting to market. It only serves to truncate the peak.

Building a zillion more refineries will not put more oil into the ground.

and certainly not from this article.

As it stands- production data shows a peak for all liquids of 85.47 mbpd in July of 2006.

The article has a very high "fluff factor".

"Oil supplies near peak"

until an editor pressured for a change. Because the more I read the article, the less one can say anything different.

There is NO substantive support in the article for the title.

...they'll find a few more wells that weren't previously profitable. Perhaps even up until the moment the last drop is gone.

Sounds like Rove or Luntz spin to me.

And to my knowledge, most 'peak oil theorists' have felt there would be a protracted plateau period, assuming no geopolitical overlay.

Which, in the end, is fantasy.

sleeping bag.. they said it would take 1/10th the area of NM to supply the nations needs.. sounds like a good start for a new industry even before the final research is over for maximum production.. it could easily fill the gap between other renewable energies, solar could supply at least 50% of daytime eventually.. if they would quit screwing us with corn ethanol, should be illegal its immoral, and go into cellulose and hemp.. we would be free of foreign oil,

things like non carbon chain oil like AMSOIL would reduce oil changes in cars to 250,000 miles.. it increases mpg considerably also. and reduces engine wear exponentially...

we could do it, be free of foreign and domestic oil domination, if we weren't controlled by 'Disaster Capitalists'..

I'm not up on any of this. Could you point me in the right direction? That sounds very promising!
I'll google also.
Thanks!

Algae oil? Non-carbon chain oil?

What are those?

(I'm just honestly curious, here.)

Vertigro Algae Bio-Fuel Oil/C02 Sequestration System



There's more in the link.

One thing I'd really like to know is what does the cost of oil do to the cost of plastics. We all know how much the fuels (gasoline, diesel, kerosene, heating oil) cost, but the hydrocarbons that make up plastics account for a large portion of that $100 barrel, too. What does this mean for their costs going up? Or are the profits made from the fuels offsetting the costs of making the plastics?

all about -- peak is when production hits a limit. The problem of course is when demand outstrips production.

The peak is truncated because so much Iraqi oil is off the market.