OT: Here're the savings from Arctic drilling — 75 cents a barrel

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:cc0e9c0b-0f09-40f4-aceb-f45b4b64da6d@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com,
[email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> I've explained many reasons why this talk of reserves is practically
> meaningless. I guess you will just go on believing what you need to
> believe.

You must be the one sane person in the world. After all, real oil
companies, investors, nations commit financial resources on the basis of
reserves, recoverability, quality, etc. You should try to start your own
petro investment advisory service and make so much money that you would be
too occupied to ride a bike. ( last words aimed at bringing some relevance
in the thread to the forum )

 

[Ron Ruff]

On Jun 1, 12:35 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> I've explained many reasons why this talk of reserves is practically
> meaningless. I guess you will just go on believing what you need to
> believe.

And I've been reading your explanations and they don't make sense. If
the oil is there, then it can be extracted at whatever it costs to do
so. "Peak oil" will only occur *when* the extraction costs are so high
that alternative sources of energy are less expensive... and of course
there will be no crisis at all then, since the alternatives will be
developed and in place. You can get momentary "peaks" like we did in
1980 (and possibly now) if there is a global recession... but in any
case, world oil production only goes down (and only will) because
there is reduced demand.

Of course you can get a situation where production doesn't meet
demand, *if* the cartels are able to create it. That and other market
manipulation are responsible for what is happening now.

"Peak oil" is a joke... there is no rational basis for it.

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:cf3d5db6-909a-4161-9c45-91d891fcb9ab@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
Ron Ruff <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Jun 1, 12:35 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> I've explained many reasons why this talk of reserves is practically
>> meaningless. I guess you will just go on believing what you need to
>> believe.
>
> And I've been reading your explanations and they don't make sense. If
> the oil is there, then it can be extracted at whatever it costs to do
> so.

One short semester of basic economics will do wonders for your
comprehension.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Sandy wrote:
> Dans le message de
> news:cf3d5db6-909a-4161-9c45-91d891fcb9ab@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
> Ron Ruff <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> On Jun 1, 12:35 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>> I've explained many reasons why this talk of reserves is practically
>>> meaningless. I guess you will just go on believing what you need to
>>> believe.
>>
>> And I've been reading your explanations and they don't make sense. If
>> the oil is there, then it can be extracted at whatever it costs to do
>> so.
>
> One short semester of basic economics will do wonders for your
> comprehension.

Wanna bet?

 

[still just me]

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 11:33:50 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:

>
>I'm not naive enough to think democracy was intended for Iraq or
>Afghanistan. I'm also not naive enough to think things are currently
>working out as planned.

The clear fact that they didn't actually have a plan. So, while things
didn't work out in their favor, they didn't "not work out as planned".

 

[[email protected]]

On Jun 1, 1:59 pm, Ron Ruff <[email protected]> wrote:

> If
> the oil is there, then it can be extracted at whatever it costs to do
> so.

!!! Try to keep your eyes on the prize here Ron. Don't forget that at
some point it takes a barrel's worth of energy to extract a barrel of
oil. If the oil is there, it might be worth extracting. But there is
no economic law which ensures that recoverable reserves can be
produced at a rate that satisfies global demand, given the reality of
massive ongoing depletion from giant fields.

Is this really that hard? Wow.

 

[[email protected]]

On Jun 1, 1:14 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:

> You must be the one sane person in the world. After all, real oil
> companies, investors, nations commit financial resources on the basis of
> reserves, recoverability, quality, etc.

They sure do. And the majors are producing less and less oil each
year, and increasingly desperate to get their hands on any remaining
reserves, and speaking of the future in a markedly different tone than
they have in the past.

 

[[email protected]]

On Jun 2, 3:03 pm, still just me <[email protected]> wrote:

> The clear fact that they didn't actually have a plan. So, while things
> didn't work out in their favor, they didn't "not work out as planned".

Do you remember Chalabi's 'triumphant arrival' in Baghdad? That was a
plan not working.

 

[[email protected]]

On Jun 1, 1:59 pm, Ron Ruff <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Peak oil" is a joke... there is no rational basis for it.

BTW, I've barely mentioned 'Peak Oil.' The current supply crunch is
occurring prior to the peak in global production, but with supply
unable to catch up to demand already it's all academic. We are
experiencing what is known as the 'Peak Lite' scenario.

If Ghawar, something like three times larger than the second largest
field in the world, starts an obvious decline, then the global peak
will be upon us then if not before.

After the US production peak in the early '70s, its occurrence was
denied by people like yourself until well into the 1980s.

 

[Ron Ruff]

On Jun 2, 9:04 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> !!! Try to keep your eyes on the prize here Ron. Don't forget that at
> some point it takes a barrel's worth of energy to extract a barrel of
> oil.

That's a new one! Sure, we'll be using something besides oil long
before it gets that bad... but when is it going to get that bad?
Exactly how much energy does it take to deliver a barrel of oil now?

> If the oil is there, it might be worth extracting. But there is
> no economic law which ensures that recoverable reserves can be
> produced at a rate that satisfies global demand, given the reality of
> massive ongoing depletion from giant fields.

Like I keep saying, it is natural that the cost of extraction will
slowly rise as the cheaper sources of oil run out. What we are seeing
is not a slow rise however.