Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Tough to pump more oil, even at $100 - Reuters

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
Eugene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-09-08 07:21 AM
Original message
Tough to pump more oil, even at $100 - Reuters
Source: Reuters

Tough to pump more oil, even at $100
Wed Jan 9, 2008 5:20am EST

By Peg Mackey and Alex Lawler - Analysis

LONDON (Reuters) - 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 (TOTF.PA: Quote, Profile, Research)
and ConocoPhillips (COP.N: Quote, Profile, Research)
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 bpd.

Supply still falls short even after so-called
unconventional oils extracted from tar sands and
converted from natural gas are taken into account,
said Sadad al-Husseini, a former top official at
state oil giant Saudi Aramco.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSL0725705620080109
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-09-08 07:56 AM
Response to Original message
1. Reuters used the term "Hubbert's Peak"!
Edited on Wed Jan-09-08 07:58 AM by GliderGuider
Peak Oil is breaking through into the MSM! This article even sounds skeptical about the placating utterances of people like Hayward (BP CEO). They'd better be careful - the sheeple could wake up and start wondering who the hell has been spinning them dream-time fairy tales about oil, and why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-09-08 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
2. The energy economy is falling faster than I thought!
This is bad. 100 dollar ought to be dropping to the 80s or even 70s after OPEC and every nation that wants some fun money dumps their product on the market.

Congrats everyone. We have passed the point of no return on this.

Bush needs to open the reserves and keep them open until the wells run dry. This thought of a "reserve" saving the day is only keeping people from supporting alternative sources.

EMC2 Fusion
Focus Fusion
Hell even ITER

We need to start getting into the fusion mindset now while we are not in an energy depression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Delphinus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-09-08 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
3. "limited new supplies"
Edited on Wed Jan-09-08 05:55 PM by Delphinus
Full paragraph:
"Today's oil prices are high because there are limited new supplies," Husseini, who ran exploration and production at the Saudi state oil company from 1986-2002, told Reuters. "There's a history now. We're several years into level production."

And there was a story in The Guardian yesterday, where some were saying it could be as high as $200 by the end of this year. Barclays Capital predicts an average oil price of $87.40 for 2008.

Edit to add:
Whoever proves right, Husseini says there's no need for panic -- oil's decline will spur conservation and alternative fuels.

"In the long term, this crisis is probably the only way to get to a sustainable global economy," he said.


Does ANYONE believe this? If there was a shred of truth to it, wouldn't we be doing something NOW?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ready4Change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-09-08 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
4. I hope we're only at Peak.
I spent some time thinking about this. One point of view I took was that of a major oil producing nation. If I were aware of this growing phenomena, how might I handle it?

Sure I can make a lot of money as the price climbs. But as the other nations get desperate, the odds of them attacking me to take the last of the oil grows. I risk getting destroyed.

My maximized option seemed to be to hide my declining reserves, do everything possible to keep my production up until the very last moment, when my wells run dry of useful oil and there's nothing left to fight over. The key was to keep my reserves secret, so no one would know how close the end really was.

I wonder if any oil producing nations are playing that game?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-09-08 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I think they are more concerned about economic collapse elseware.
They likely are keeping the pumps on full power to help keep the US and other nations out of energy depression.

No it is not out of kindness. It is the realization that once we hit depression the oil price will drop rapidly due to the millions of people no longer able to afford their cars and SUVs.

They need to get rid of their reserve oil and build their dollar reserve to help outlast.

And I think Bush needs to do the same thing!

He needs to open the reserve fully so that there is no more thinking by Americans that we can "wait for this to pass" as I heard somebody stupidly say today.

Every bit of oil needs to be sucked up and used now so that we do not go into Energy depression. The time we get from such an effort needs to be spent on getting fusion and other alternative sources online NOW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Here's what I think "House of Bush, House of Saud" tried to do about it:
The Saudi Peak - a Hypothesis about the Iraq War

There's lots of supporting research and documentation in the article, but the core scenario is as follows:

The speculation of this article is that the real background of the Iraq war goes something like this:
  • The Bush administration is composed primarily of oilmen. They are well aware of the Peak Oil theory.
  • They are also aware of the risks that a decline in global oil production could pose to the world’s political and economic stability, especially if it is generally perceived to be the result of irreversible geological conditions (i.e. we start to realize that the world is running out of oil and there’s nothing we can do about it).
  • The Bush administration and the Saudis are also well aware of the role Saudi Arabia plays as the linchpin of world oil production.
  • The Bush administration and the Saudis are very good friends, and share intimate secrets like the actual state of Saudi oil production.
  • In early 2001 the Saudis tell George and Dick that Ghawar has started to “water out”: the oil they are pumping up contains more and more of the water that they are using to force oil into the wells. This is a sure sign that the field is nearing the end of its useful life.
  • This news triggers very loud alarm bells in Washington and Riyadh, because if Ghawar and overall Saudi production are about to decline this brings the risk of global instability that much closer.
  • The two administrations decide they need to keep the imminence of Saudi oil decline out of the public consciousness for as long as possible. To do this they need to accomplish two things: mask the decline of Saudi Arabia, and make it appear as though any decline in Middle East production is due to above-ground factors.
  • Fortunately, they have a ready target in Iraq. Saddam is vulnerable, he has lots of oil, and Iraqi oil production has been in chaos since Gulf War 1. And he controls the input end of the IPSA pipeline.
  • At Cheney’s Energy Task Force meetings the plan is developed and western oil companies are brought into the picture. This ensures they will be onside and will not start asking awkward questions later about the provenance of Saudi oil.
  • As a parallel effort, the Saudis agree to sponsor an attack on US soil to provide the Bush administration with the required “casus belli”. The Saudis recruit 15 of their own citizens to form the core of the September 11 attack team.
  • Once the attack has taken place the march to war begins. It doesn’t matter how flimsy the excuses are, all that matters is that the progress of the plan cannot be derailed under any circumstances. No penetration of the ruse, however small, will be permitted. This determination results in the Wilson/Plame reprisal, the killing of Dr. David Kelly and possibly other killings like that of State Department WMD analyst John Kokal (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/112003_kokal.html ). The real reason for the invasion must never be discovered.
  • Iraq is duly invaded and Baghdad is captured. The Oil Ministry is the only facility to be secured because it’s the only one that matters to the plan.
  • The meters in the southern oil fields are immediately shut off and sabotaged so nobody can tell how much oil is missing.
  • The un-metered oil is redirected into the perfectly functional IPSA pipeline and enters Saudi Arabia.
  • There are now two possibilities for what happens to the purloined oil:
    • It arrives at the Saudi port of Yanbu where it is loaded onto tankers as legitimate Saudi oil, and shipped to international customers. There is a problem with this scenario, because the oil coming in from Iraq has a slightly different chemical signature from Saudi oil. This small difference would be noticed by customers, because the refineries need to know the characteristics of their feedstock very precisely.
    • A more reasonable solution is that this oil is piped to refineries in Saudi Arabia and is used to satisfy domestic demand. The Saudi oil spared by this substitution is shipped out to customers, and no one is the wiser. This is both safer and easier than the first suggestion, because the stolen oil never leaves Saudi Arabia, and its disposition falls under the obscuring veil of Saudi secrecy. This also makes the case harder to prove, of course.
  • The 1.7 million barrel per day volume of the IPSA pipeline and the timing of the rise seen in Saudi oil production in early 2004 fit the scenario perfectly.
  • Any decline in overall Middle Eastern oil production can now be blamed on the civil war in Iraq, which has been either a blessing in disguise or a calculated part of the plan. The attacks on oil installations have also made it easy to disguise the disappearance of a full tanker-load-equivalent of oil every day.
  • It was all going well, except that the decline in Saudi oil production exceeded everyone’s expectations. Even with the Iraqi subterfuge in place the decline of 800,000 barrels per day over the last year could not be masked.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC