On May 29, 1:17 pm, Ron Ruff <
[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 29, 11:24 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On May 28, 6:23 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > > What this appears to be is a reduction in oil production in the USA when it
> > > is really a suspension while there are cheaper sources.
>
> > Where do you get this stuff?
>
> > You think Prudhoe Bay is producing one third as much as it used to
> > because drilling has 'slackened off,' but I'm the delusional one.
> > Gotcha.
>
> Investing in tapping the more expensive sources of oil simply doesn't
> make economic sense... until the easier and cheaper sources have been
> depleted to the point where the *natural* price of oil is high enough
> to insure a good profit. Otherwise you will be susceptible to cheaper
> sources driving the price down to where you are losing money. Seems
> pretty simple to me...
Seems pretty simple to me too. Oil is expensive now, and it's going to
stay that way. Industry people don't have any illusions about finding
more huge fields, or about oil ever going down to 50 or below ever
again, or that global production will come at all close to matching
the demand forecasts of IEA. The easy oil is gone. Due to ongoing
losses in huge aging fields, new finds have to replace another 4 mbpd
each year, and that's assuming no increase in demand. But the new oil
fields aren't up to it. From 1950 to 1970, 10 fields were discovered
that produced at least 600k barrels per day. From 1970 to the present,
three fields of that size have been discovered. We won't be able to
make up the difference with oil sands, old wells, or by squiggling
pipes into the far reaches of depleted reservoirs. So it would seem
your assumptions about the economic risks of developing remaining
reserves from PB are not tenable. Just do the math.
It's typical that we Americans want to blame everyone but ourselves
for the problems we brought down onto our own heads as exceptional
consumers and ignoramii.