20 oil rigs missing in Gulf of Mexico: US Coast Guard
H. E. Taylor
WASHINGTON (AFP) - At least 20 oil rigs and platforms are missing in the
Gulf of Mexico and a ruptured gas pipeline is on fire after Hurricane
Katrina tore through the region, a US Coast Guard official said.
"We have confirmed at least 20 rigs or platforms missing, either sunk or
adrift, and one confirmed fire where a rig was," Petty Officer Robert Reed
of the Louisiana Coast Guard told AFP.
All of the missing rigs were in the Gulf of Mexico, Reed said citing Coast
Guard overflights of the area and information from oil companies.
[...]
<http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050831/ts_alt_afp/usweatheroilgulfrigs_050831213642>
2005/08/31: OilDrum: Newest (and very informative and very scary) report from an anonymous insider
There are MANY production platforms missing (as in not visible from the air).
This means they have been totally lost. I am talking about 10's of platforms,
not single digit numbers. Each platform can have from 4 to 100+ wells on it.
Most larger ones have 20-30 wells in this area, with numerous caisson wells.
They are on their sides, on the bottom of the gulf - they will likely be left
as reef material, provided we can get permission. MMS regulations require us
to plug each of the wells that were on these platforms - HUGE cost now, as
the platforms are gone... Hopefully, MMS will grant `abandon in place' status
for these wiped out structures.
[...]
<http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/8/31/83553/8973>
<can you say long term impact>
-het
--
"It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday
is the hope of today and reality of tomorrow." - Robert Goddard
Energy Alternatives: http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/energy/energy.html
H.E. Taylor http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/
Aidan Karley
> 2005/08/31: OilDrum: Newest (and very informative and very scary) report from an anonymous insider
>
> There are MANY production platforms missing (as in not visible from the air).
> This means they have been totally lost. I am talking about 10's of platforms,
> not single digit numbers.
>
http://www.rigzone.com/news/region.asp?r_id=1 with notes of about 4 rigs going adrift (including one
in a shipyard that wrecked a bridge) and possibly a couple lost. Which sounds credible for an
abnormally bad storm.
What to make of reports of actual platforms going missing I'm not sure about. If we can build
platforms that will take a 100ft wave plus 160mph winds, then I can't see why the Gulf can't.
The reports on Rigzone also point out that the abandonments were all covered by routine
planning, so wells should have been shut in, risers and flowlines flushed to seawater, etc, so
reinstating the production shouldn't be too big a problem, providing the pipelines have not been
damaged.
--
Aidan Karley,
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: +57°10' , -02°09' (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233
Written at Thu, 01 Sep 2005 09:36 +0100
Nog
"H. E. Taylor" <h...@despam.autobahn.mb.ca> wrote in message
news:4316AE...@despam.autobahn.mb.ca...
What's not clear is what percent of total US production is lost. What
percentage of the lost production against total world production.
Percentage of lost production against total US and world production.
These figures seem to be allusive on web sites by design.
Is the giant price increase really justified against the pip that was lost?
Looks more like another tactic to generate even more staggering wealth by
the rich. What do you think?
Gary Reichlinger
>Is the giant price increase really justified against the pip that was lost?
>Looks more like another tactic to generate even more staggering wealth by
>the rich. What do you think?
Since you asked, I think you are a moron. It is a shortage of
refining capacity which is the problem. Blame the environmentalists
and politicians who kept any refineries from being built in the US in
the last 30 years, not the people who tried to build them. If you
sent any contributions to environmental groups in that timeframe, then
you are responsible for the current mess, so quit your bitching.
Tim Keating
<rei...@navix.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 12:07:11 -0400, "Nog" <nog...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>>Is the giant price increase really justified against the pip that was lost?
>>Looks more like another tactic to generate even more staggering wealth by
>>the rich. What do you think?
>
> Since you asked, I think you are a moron. It is a shortage of
>refining capacity which is the problem. Blame the environmentalists
>and politicians who kept any refineries from being built in the US in
>the last 30 years, not the people who tried to build them. If you
No.. The oil company(s) read the tea leaves (Hubbert Peak), and
decided NOT to build any more refineries.. Instead, they've shuttered
a large number of them in recent years..
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html
"The United States experienced a steep decline in refining capacity
between 1981 and the mid-1990s. Between 1981 and 1989, the number of
U.S. refineries fell from 324 to 204, representing a loss of 3 million
bbl/d in operable capacity (from 18.6 million bbl/d to 15.7 million
bbl/d), while refining capacity utilization increased from 69% to 87%.
Much of the decline in U.S. refining capacity resulted from the 1981
deregulation (elimination of price controls and allocations), which
effectively removed the major prop from underneath many marginally
profitable, often smaller, refineries."
>sent any contributions to environmental groups in that timeframe, then
>you are responsible for the current mess, so quit your bitching.
"Refinery closures have continued since 1989, bringing the total
number of operable U.S. refineries to 149 in 2003."
Again, the Oil companies could have easily expanded or refurbished
those older/smaller units. Instead they closed them all together.
bush_au...@sbcglobal.net
"environmentalists".
The oil companies own this government body and soul. The govt does
everything the oil billionaires want and does nothing they don't want.
If there is "limited capacity" it follows from the 130 year old
strategy of John D. Rockefeller to limit capacity to keep prices as
high as possible.
Rightwing hatemongers need to get out of town because they ain't
welcome during this crisis.
Gary Reichlinger
<NotForJ...@directinternet11.com1> wrote:
> No.. The oil company(s) read the tea leaves (Hubbert Peak), and
>decided NOT to build any more refineries.. Instead, they've shuttered
>a large number of them in recent years..
There have been numerous proposals over the years to build new
refineries which have been defeated by environmentalists. Just go
back through the newsletters from your favorite groups and read them
crowing about their "victories."
> Again, the Oil companies could have easily expanded or refurbished
>those older/smaller units. Instead they closed them all together.
The cost to met new regulations was more than the old refineries
were worth. Also, new processes that have been developed,
particularly for heavy crude oils, need the large volumes that only a
new refinery could accomodate.
Maximust
> This, I can agree with. I remember this being buffered around the
> coffee tables in the local restaurants at the time they were
> closing the refinery east of Arnett, in Ellis County, Oklahoma.
> This small refinery specialized in making diesel fuel from the
> local wells, for the local agricultural market. The pressure was
> on to meet the clean fuel standards and this was causing the
> refinery company (Tonkawa) to consider closing the refinery
> instead of upgrading it. The decision was eventually
> reached...they closed it.
Stupid mistake for them. If they had stayed open, they would be making money now
hand over fist.
Joshua Halpern
GIGO. While no refineries were built, the ones that remain were
enlarged zig fold. The problem at this point was the geographic
concentration.
josh halpern
Johnny Bravo
>You extreme rightwing hatemongers always harping about
>"environmentalists".
>
>The oil companies own this government body and soul. The govt does
>everything the oil billionaires want and does nothing they don't want.
>
>If there is "limited capacity" it follows from the 130 year old
>strategy of John D. Rockefeller to limit capacity to keep prices as
>high as possible.
So the oil companies were filing lawsuits against themselves to
prevent new refineries from opening?
That's a very interesting claim, care to defend it?
Tim Keating
<rei...@navix.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:14:46 -0400, Tim Keating
><NotForJ...@directinternet11.com1> wrote:
>
>> No.. The oil company(s) read the tea leaves (Hubbert Peak), and
>>decided NOT to build any more refineries.. Instead, they've shuttered
>>a large number of them in recent years..
Since you find it so painful to quote everything I wrote..
I'll requote the portion of my response that was edited out..
==========Requote==========
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html
"The United States experienced a steep decline in refining capacity
between 1981 and the mid-1990s. Between 1981 and 1989, the number of
U.S. refineries fell from 324 to 204, representing a loss of 3 million
bbl/d in operable capacity (from 18.6 million bbl/d to 15.7 million
bbl/d), while refining capacity utilization increased from 69% to 87%.
Much of the decline in U.S. refining capacity resulted from the 1981
deregulation (elimination of price controls and allocations), which
effectively removed the major prop from underneath many marginally
profitable, often smaller, refineries."
"Refinery closures have continued since 1989, bringing the total
number of operable U.S. refineries to 149 in 2003."
===========End Requote============
>
> There have been numerous proposals over the years to build new
>refineries which have been defeated by environmentalists. Just go
>back through the newsletters from your favorite groups and read them
>crowing about their "victories."
Irrelevant and probably a gross distortion. ..
Plenty of sites available, the old (closed) refinery sites 200+.
>
>> Again, the Oil companies could have easily expanded or refurbished
>>those older/smaller units. Instead they closed them all together.
>
> The cost to met new regulations was more than the old refineries
>were worth. Also, new processes that have been developed,
>particularly for heavy crude oils, need the large volumes that only a
>new refinery could accomodate.
I doubt it, refineries are mostly composed of many smaller scale
units.
I suspect that most of the retired sites had more than enough room
for expansion. Instead the US is now highly vulnerable to refinery
interruptions.
Deregulation virtually guaranteed unstable output as any excess
capacity is considered unprofitable (and to be eliminated). The
public is quickly discovering this fact for themselves. Where it is
far more profitable for the Oil industry to always keep the market on
the edge(shortage).
It's just another example where unchecked capitalism undermines
our goal of a stable society.
bush_au...@sbcglobal.net
HOUSE if they can prove they can make a buck off the deal and it has
any smigeon of "public use". Weaklings filing lawsuits go nowhere in a
country where the highest court in the land is bought and sold by
billionaires.
John D. Rockefeller didn't hire fleets of lawyers, he hired fleets oif
lawfirms filled with lawyers. He set the pattern that continues today.
You live in a fairytale fantasyland if you think there are courts that
work for the good of the public.
You live in a straitjacket padded-room lala-land if you think pipsqueak
Greenpeace or Sierra Club can combat ExxonMobil and win anything that
ExxonMobil doesn't feel like losing. Entire states have sued Exxon and
have been given the finger (think Exxon Valdez and how much Exxon has
actually paid on the court's judgement).
-----
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4223573.stm
Exxon Mobil profits exceed $25bn
Profits have soared despite a fall in oil production
US oil giant Exxon Mobil made a record $25.3bn (£13.4bn; 19.4bn euros)
profit in 2004 as it benefited from the surge in crude oil prices.
The world's largest public oil company saw income from exploration,
production and refining soar despite a decline in the amount of oil and
gas produced.
Revenues hit a record $298bn as worries over disruption to oil supplies
in Iraq, Nigeria and Russia lifted prices.
The firm's annual profit is higher than the gross domestic product of
Syria.
Soaring prices
Exxon Mobil's profits rose to $25.33bn from $21.51bn last year, on
revenues up 17% to $298bn.
-----
http://www.seattleclassaction.com/exxon/exxon.asp
... The Appeal
Exxon Valdez appeals ruling stuns Alaskans (By Yereth Rosen)
ANCHORAGE, Alaska, Nov 7 (Reuters) - Exxon Mobil Corp.'s reprieve on
Wednesday from a $5 billion punitive fine stunned and angered Alaskans
who had sued the energy giant for punitive damages from the 1989 Valdez
oil spill disaster. ...
------
It is in the major oil company's interests to limit capacity to
facilitate control of supply and control of retail prices, which are
usually only a couple of cents different across brandnames with
stations on the same intersection. It is not "price wars" to the
bottom, but collaboration to fix prices as high as traffic can bear.
Aidan Karley
wrote:
> bbl/d), while refining capacity utilization increased from 69% to 87%.
>
than sufficient to justify all the closures in the world.
Some beancounters would be very worried by a utilisation (uptime)
of only 87%. High nineties is what they'd want the engineers to deliver,
and reluctantly they'd allow them some time for fripperies like
preventative maintenance etc.
--
Aidan Karley,
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: +57°10' , -02°09' (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233
Lloyd Parker
Gary Reichlinger <rei...@navix.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:14:46 -0400, Tim Keating
><NotForJ...@directinternet11.com1> wrote:
>
>> No.. The oil company(s) read the tea leaves (Hubbert Peak), and
>>decided NOT to build any more refineries.. Instead, they've shuttered
>>a large number of them in recent years..
>
> There have been numerous proposals over the years to build new
>refineries which have been defeated by environmentalists.
Then you'll have no problem providing numerous references to this.
> Just go
>back through the newsletters from your favorite groups and read them
>crowing about their "victories."
I've never seen the Sierra Club or the Nature Conservancy crowing about not
building refineries, unless they were going to be in the middle of a wetland.
>
>> Again, the Oil companies could have easily expanded or refurbished
>>those older/smaller units. Instead they closed them all together.
>
> The cost to met new regulations was more than the old refineries
>were worth. Also, new processes that have been developed,
>particularly for heavy crude oils, need the large volumes that only a
>new refinery could accomodate.
>
Translation -- making $5 billion in profits isn't enough; it's $10 billion or
we shut down the country.
Lloyd Parker
Actually, blame the refining companies. It's cheaper to refine oil in other
countries, so they build there and ship the oil there. If you know Texas, for
example, environmentalists are practically an endangered species there, and
considering the state politicians, couldn't stop anything from being built.
Gary Reichlinger
wrote:
>In article <ruieh1ded4gftak2p...@4ax.com>,
> Gary Reichlinger <rei...@navix.net> wrote:
>> There have been numerous proposals over the years to build new
>>refineries which have been defeated by environmentalists.
>
>Then you'll have no problem providing numerous references to this.
Agreed. Try google with "environmentalist" and "oil refinery".
I got 10,500 hits.
Lloyd Parker
Gary Reichlinger <rei...@navix.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 02 Sep 05 10:50:05 GMT, lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <ruieh1ded4gftak2p...@4ax.com>,
>> Gary Reichlinger <rei...@navix.net> wrote:
>
>>> There have been numerous proposals over the years to build new
>>>refineries which have been defeated by environmentalists.
>>
>>Then you'll have no problem providing numerous references to this.
>
> Agreed. Try google with "environmentalist" and "oil refinery".
>I got 10,500 hits.
Gee, I just got 2,070,000 for "Bush" and "Hitler." Guess you're right.
Gerald
"Johnny Bravo" <baawa_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mlnfh1p85ghsrlfj4...@4ax.com...
Actually, the Oil companies are pushing Global Warming so there can be more
powerful hurricanes that will destroy the oil rigs so they can charge more
for gas and buy new rigs from their Bush loving friends. Yeah.... That's
it.
No, no... The Hurricane and New Orleans destruction didn't actually happen.
It was all staged in a studio so the oil companies could charge more money
for gas and raise their profits. The studio they used is the same one NASA
used to fake the moon landings. Thereby implicating the government in the
plot.
The limit to really stupid theories is limited only by the number of really
stupid people.
Gerald
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:dfa6s8$gjs$6...@puck.cc.emory.edu...
Phil Hays
>For what it's worth "Lloyd parker asshole" got me 12,200 hits
I got about 35,900 hits for for "Gerald" and "twit".
And about 23,900,000 for "true" and "false".
Can we stop now?
--
Caution: Contents may contain sarcasm.
Phil Hays
Aidan Karley
wrote:
> And about 23,900,000 for "true" and "false".
>
> Can we stop now?
>
No.
Results 1 - 10 of about 64,900,000 for Can we stop now. (0.18 seconds)
(Had to be done <G>.)
--
Aidan Karley,
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: +57°10' , -02°09' (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233
Written at Mon, 05 Sep 2005 11:54 +0100
Morty McSnerd
news:togeh19t4j3vb68it...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 11:58:06 -0500, Gary Reichlinger
>>>Is the giant price increase really justified against the pip that was
>>>lost?
>>>Looks more like another tactic to generate even more staggering wealth by
>>>the rich. What do you think?
>> Since you asked, I think you are a moron. It is a shortage of
>>refining capacity which is the problem. Blame the environmentalists
>>and politicians who kept any refineries from being built in the US in
>>the last 30 years, not the people who tried to build them. If you
> No.. The oil company(s) read the tea leaves (Hubbert Peak), and
> decided NOT to build any more refineries.. Instead, they've shuttered
> a large number of them in recent years..
There are no qualified petroleum engineers or earth scientists in the oil
and gas industry who lend any credence at all to Hubbert's Peak. As were
thousands of others, it's a very simplistic totally un scientific curve fit
that was generated in the 50's, when a 16k computer using data punch cards
was the biggest and the best.
>
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html
>
> "The United States experienced a steep decline in refining capacity
> between 1981 and the mid-1990s. Between 1981 and 1989, the number of
> U.S. refineries fell from 324 to 204, representing a loss of 3 million
> bbl/d in operable capacity (from 18.6 million bbl/d to 15.7 million
> bbl/d), while refining capacity utilization increased from 69% to 87%.
> Much of the decline in U.S. refining capacity resulted from the 1981
> deregulation (elimination of price controls and allocations), which
> effectively removed the major prop from underneath many marginally
> profitable, often smaller, refineries."
Do a bit more research and you will see that most all of these refineries
were closed down because of ever increasing environmental restrictions and
demand which raised costs so high it the refinery would of had to of been
operated at a loss to continue on. The refining industry streamlined to
compensate for increased operating costs and lower refining margins.
Although quite significant, that is not the most difficult hurdle. The
problem is that it can take a decade or more to get all the regulatory
approvals, permitting and legal maneuvering necessary to start construction
on a new refinery. Any time anyone in this country has wanted to implement a
significant drilling or construction program, the myriad of "environmental"
groups in this country have always (ALWAYS FUCK HEAD!!), done all kinds
political or legal maneuvering to greatly impede or completely shut down
those efforts, with little if any of their rationale steeped in science and
technology.
Curiously, In 1977 the Democrat Majority and Democrat President modified the
clean air act to exempt coal fired plants that used pre-1970 pollution
abatement technology from the clean air act. All though far greater
polluting and green house gas producing than any refinery, these 559
exempted power plants, the largest source of electric power in the US,
are -still- exempt from the clean air act. You don't reckon that left vs
right, union vs non-union, east vs west politics had a damned thing to do
with the -insane- energy/environmental strategies Democrats and thier minion
environmental groups have been heaping on this country for the last 40 years
do you?
Do you figger if all at once america's oil and gas industry went from being
non-union to 98% democrat voting union workers we could get ANWR opened up
and a refinery or two built in the lower 48 do you?
>>sent any contributions to environmental groups in that timeframe, then
>>you are responsible for the current mess, so quit your bitching.
> "Refinery closures have continued since 1989, bringing the total
> number of operable U.S. refineries to 149 in 2003."
>
> Again, the Oil companies could have easily expanded or refurbished
> those older/smaller units. Instead they closed them all together.
"Easily" my aching ass. You haven't got a clue of what you are talking
about. It's never been "easy", always quite difficult or impossible. Let me
guess. You are either a drop out or are some kind of liberal arts major
right?
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Coby Beck
news:11286956...@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
> "Tim Keating" <NotForJ...@directinternet11.com1> wrote in message
> news:togeh19t4j3vb68it...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 11:58:06 -0500, Gary Reichlinger
>>>On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 12:07:11 -0400, "Nog" <nog...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>Is the giant price increase really justified against the pip that was
>>>>lost?
>>>>Looks more like another tactic to generate even more staggering wealth
>>>>by
>>>>the rich. What do you think?
>
>>> Since you asked, I think you are a moron. It is a shortage of
>>>refining capacity which is the problem. Blame the environmentalists
>>>and politicians who kept any refineries from being built in the US in
>>>the last 30 years, not the people who tried to build them. If you
>
>> No.. The oil company(s) read the tea leaves (Hubbert Peak), and
>> decided NOT to build any more refineries.. Instead, they've shuttered
>> a large number of them in recent years..
>
> There are no qualified petroleum engineers or earth scientists in the oil
> and gas industry who lend any credence at all to Hubbert's Peak. As were
> thousands of others, it's a very simplistic totally un scientific curve
> fit that was generated in the 50's, when a 16k computer using data punch
> cards was the biggest and the best.
http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php
Since you begin with something so basic and so completely wrong, it is hard
to take the rest very seriously. Peak oil is a simple fact of oil
production and non-renewability.
>> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html
>>
>> "The United States experienced a steep decline in refining capacity
>> between 1981 and the mid-1990s. Between 1981 and 1989, the number of
>> U.S. refineries fell from 324 to 204, representing a loss of 3 million
>> bbl/d in operable capacity (from 18.6 million bbl/d to 15.7 million
>> bbl/d), while refining capacity utilization increased from 69% to 87%.
>> Much of the decline in U.S. refining capacity resulted from the 1981
>> deregulation (elimination of price controls and allocations), which
>> effectively removed the major prop from underneath many marginally
>> profitable, often smaller, refineries."
>
> Do a bit more research and you will see that most all of these refineries
> were closed down because of ever increasing environmental restrictions and
> demand which raised costs so high it the refinery would of had to of been
> operated at a loss to continue on. The refining industry streamlined to
> compensate for increased operating costs and lower refining margins.
> Although quite significant, that is not the most difficult hurdle. The
> problem is that it can take a decade or more to get all the regulatory
> approvals, permitting and legal maneuvering necessary to start
> construction on a new refinery. Any time anyone in this country has wanted
> to implement a significant drilling or construction program, the myriad of
> "environmental" groups in this country have always (ALWAYS FUCK HEAD!!),
> done all kinds political or legal maneuvering to greatly impede or
> completely shut down those efforts, with little if any of their rationale
> steeped in science and technology.
So you say. But given the total absense of any verifiable specific or
number and the absense of any referenced sources...well, whatever you say.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Morty McSnerd
news:1125599501....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> You extreme rightwing hatemongers always harping about
> "environmentalists".
> The oil companies own this government body and soul. The govt does
> everything the oil billionaires want and does nothing they don't want.
Hey dummy, if the oil companies were able to own this government body and
soul you'd still be paying a buck a gallon for your gasoline and your home
heating bill would be about 1/3 of what it's going to be this winter.
> If there is "limited capacity" it follows from the 130 year old
> strategy of John D. Rockefeller to limit capacity to keep prices as
> high as possible.
Actually it was John D. Rockefeller's moving the oil and gas industry into
the 20th century, inventing technologies to find and mass produce oil at a
very low price that allowed ordinary working class americans to be able to
afford to buy it. Without the likes of Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller,
Carnegie and Thomas Edison an affluent american middle class could never of
been created. Go back and read the history of it with open eyes this time.
Teddy Roosevelt, a president who felt americans were at their best and
brightest when fighting wars and killing, was quite envious of both JP
Morgan and JD Rockefeller because they controlled more of the gross national
product than he, the leader of the federal government did. It had nothing to
do with anti-trust. It had to do with power and the politics of power and
Teddy not being a fan of Jeffersonian style "limited government". There were
many oil companies competing with Standard Oil and keeping prices affordable
and technology moving forward that are in business to this day. Your
problem is that you don't understand enough about business, economics,
science and technology to be able to determine what is nothing more than
political propaganda and what isn't.
> Rightwing hatemongers need to get out of town because they ain't
> welcome during this crisis.
Actually our best, brightest and most ambitious go into the private sector,
becoming the very engineers, business managers and scientists who are going
use capitalism save your sorry left wing ass one more time.
Jakob Creutzig
> "Morty McSnerd" <mo...@dontspammeplease.com> wrote in message
> news:11286956...@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
> > "Tim Keating" <NotForJ...@directinternet11.com1> wrote in message
[..]
> >> No.. The oil company(s) read the tea leaves (Hubbert Peak), and
> >> decided NOT to build any more refineries.. Instead, they've shuttered
> >> a large number of them in recent years..
> >
> > There are no qualified petroleum engineers or earth scientists in the oil
> > and gas industry who lend any credence at all to Hubbert's Peak. As were
> > thousands of others, it's a very simplistic totally un scientific curve
> > fit that was generated in the 50's, when a 16k computer using data punch
> > cards was the biggest and the best.
>
> http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php
>
> Since you begin with something so basic and so completely wrong, it is hard
> to take the rest very seriously. Peak oil is a simple fact of oil
> production and non-renewability.
The fact that oil is finite and can't be depleted with exponential
growth indefinitely is indeed trivial. I think this is not the
point in question.
"Hubbert's peak", OTOH is a very specific modellation of the
production scheme, predicting a bell--shaped production curve
and peak production exactly at the half--point of oil extraction
capacity, and using assumptions on the total recoverable reserves
to claim a certain date of peak. These are quite specific assumptions
and claims, and one can easily accept the simple fact that oil
production has to peak at some day while refuting claims about
the specific shape of the production curve.
I still don't understand, for instance, why the production should
be symmetric. And I have not seen any argument why the bell
curve should be a good model (not everything in life has the normal
distribution).
Best,
Jakob
Morty McSnerd
Uh...Lloyd...can you tell us the reputable source you got that from? I have
to ask, because I've been in the oil and gas industry since 1964, reading
several oil industry technical journals and business publications a month
and have -never- seen what you are quoting. The problem is, because of
environmental politics and government bureaucracy, lead in time to build a
refinery -not-, once you get the refinery built, whether it's cheaper to
refine some where else or not.
Texas has to deal with the same environmental laws and federal government
bureaucracy that we do everywhere else in the Country. The largest offshore
oil province is off shore Texas and that is totally administered by the
Federal Government and impeded by the same eastern congressmen and radical
environmentalists who have greatly impeded and/or shut down any substantial
oil and natural gas development every where in the United States it's been
tried, except for good old Democrat voting Louisiana. Look on a map.
Probably the largest oil province in north America is the Rocky Mountain
Overthrust belt, stretching from the Mexican to Canadian border. The largess
of the overthrust has been kept off limits for 20 years now. Look at the
north slope of Alaska. Locate Prudho Bay. Using 30 year old technologies,
that's where more that 20% of this countries domestic oil production has
been coming from for more than 25 years, with quite minimal environmental
impact. Note it is on the vaunted Artic Plain. Follow that Artic Plain some
40 miles to the east to a place called ANWR. There could be as much or more
oil and natural gas reserves there as was found at Prudho bay, yet democrats
and their minion environmental groups have used legal maneuvering and
filibustering to keep it off limits to even a small number of test wells to
determine how substantial ANWR's reserves are. Using modern state of the
arts extractive technologies like Extended reach drilling, we could develop
some 1.5 to 3.5 million barrels of oil per day with essentially -0- (as in
nil) environmental impact, yet because of politics and technological
illiteracy it remains off limits. Look at the Gulf of Mexico. Although one
of the richest off shore areas in the world, the greatest part of it is off
limits to development. Look at the eastern seaboard of the United States.
Even though quite substantial oil and natural gas deposits have been
developed off shore Labrador, and there could be huge reserves down the
entire eastern seaboard, it has been declared off limits to any development,
including test wells. Even though tremendous oil and gas reserves have been
produced and developed off shore California, a large part, if not most of it
has been kept in fallow simply because very powerful wealthy elitist left
wing Hollywood types have beach homes up and down the coast and don't want
to see and oil tanker off in the horizon. They don't give one hoot in hell
about what you and the rest of "the little people" pay for gasoline or what
effect it has on your lively hood or any other average Americans lively
hood. These left wing stinking wealthy Hollywood types pay the myriad of
environmental groups substantial sums of money to keep their view completely
clear of any threat of looking out some day and on the far horizon seeing an
oil tanker float by.
The next time you are at the pump, think about all the conjured, highly
emotionalized anti-oil development propaganda you've been reading in the
newspapers and seeing on TV for the last 30+ years. The truth is that the US
has been a very hostile environment to any one who has attempted any
substantial development of this nations great oil and natural gas reserves.
Did you really think you could sit back on your fat stupid technologically
illiterate ass all that time watching the spectacle and not have to pay the
price at the pump?
Didn't you even get remotely curious about all those oil field workers
bumper stickers, which out of sheer frustration with the -insanity- that has
pervaded this nation's energy/environmental politics, said "let those dumb
bastards freeze to death in the dark!". Are you quite proud of being one of
those dumb bastards now?
T.Keating
> "Tim Keating" <NotForJ...@directinternet11.com1> wrote in message
> news:togeh19t4j3vb68it...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 11:58:06 -0500, Gary Reichlinger
> >>On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 12:07:11 -0400, "Nog" <nog...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >>>Is the giant price increase really justified against the pip that was
> >>>lost?
> >>>Looks more like another tactic to generate even more staggering wealth by
> >>>the rich. What do you think?
>
> >> Since you asked, I think you are a moron. It is a shortage of
> >>refining capacity which is the problem. Blame the environmentalists
> >>and politicians who kept any refineries from being built in the US in
> >>the last 30 years, not the people who tried to build them. If you
>
> > No.. The oil company(s) read the tea leaves (Hubbert Peak), and
> > decided NOT to build any more refineries.. Instead, they've shuttered
> > a large number of them in recent years..
>
> There are no qualified petroleum engineers or earth scientists in the oil
> and gas industry who lend any credence at all to Hubbert's Peak. As were
> thousands of others, it's a very simplistic totally un scientific curve fit
> that was generated in the 50's, when a 16k computer using data punch cards
> was the biggest and the best.
Huh???
Hubbert accurately predicted the US's Oil peak despite many nay
sayers.. P.S. Hubbert was a Phd Geophysicist who worked for Shell Oil
and then later for USGS..
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/
Even the big oil companies are just now beginning to admit publicly
that the Global Oil Peak is near or has already occurred.
Matthew Simmons is well respected oil analyst and has uncovered
substantial unrefuted data backing up his claim. No big discoveries
in over 30 years. Number of oil rigs to maintain production in the
face of declining field output don't exist, State owned reserves
magically increased (with no explanation, data, or basis), etc..
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/047173876X/103-2972713-8651856
"Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World
Economy "
Additionally.. their simply isn't the infrastructure to accommodate
growth.. (Let alone accommodate the current Oil output decline in 43
countries.) Pipelines of any significant length take many years to
build. Demand is driving up prices to economically damaging levels.
>
> >
> > http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html
> >
> > "The United States experienced a steep decline in refining capacity
> > between 1981 and the mid-1990s. Between 1981 and 1989, the number of
> > U.S. refineries fell from 324 to 204, representing a loss of 3 million
> > bbl/d in operable capacity (from 18.6 million bbl/d to 15.7 million
> > bbl/d), while refining capacity utilization increased from 69% to 87%.
> > Much of the decline in U.S. refining capacity resulted from the 1981
> > deregulation (elimination of price controls and allocations), which
> > effectively removed the major prop from underneath many marginally
> > profitable, often smaller, refineries."
>
> Do a bit more research and you will see that most all of these refineries
Nope... You do the research.. and post the links...
DOE's link/webpage already blames DEREGULATION and resulting loss of
profits..
You must provide REAL proof otherwise..
> were closed down because of ever increasing environmental restrictions and
> demand which raised costs so high it the refinery would of had to of been
SNIP... remaining environmental rant which provides ZERO proof !!
Additionally.. the number of refineries has continued to drop since
1989 down from 204 to 149 (2003) !!! ( I.E. Another 25% loss)..
2005 data indicates that the number of large US refineries continues
to drop..
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/refineries.htm
Down to just 132 refineries capable of refining 10,000 B/d or more..
Note: Oil refineries don't generate all that much air pollution when
compared to the amount of refined product they produce.
(Processes are mostly self contained under high pressure or vacuum.)
> >>sent any contributions to environmental groups in that timeframe, then
> >>you are responsible for the current mess, so quit your bitching.
>
> > "Refinery closures have continued since 1989, bringing the total
> > number of operable U.S. refineries to 149 in 2003."
> >
> > Again, the Oil companies could have easily expanded or refurbished
> > those older/smaller units. Instead they closed them all together.
>
> "Easily" my aching ass. You haven't got a clue of what you are talking
> about. It's never been "easy", always quite difficult or impossible. Let me
> guess. You are either a drop out or are some kind of liberal arts major
> right?
Verses sighting, permitting and building a totally new plant..
Yes, easily.. They have 180+ former Oil refinery sites to choose
from..
No matter what... the Oil companies have no desire to build them..
1. They're making loads of profit from the refining shortage and won't
screw up something that is making boatloads of profits.
2. They don't want to get stuck paying debt for refinery when they
can't get raw materials to keep it in production.. (peak oil)..
In the End, big oil will stall, lie, weasel, whatever.. They just
won't build them. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if they permamently
close one or two of those plants damaged by the hurricane. Meanwhile,
expect long delays getting them back online...the profits are just too
lucrative to pass up..
Morty McSnerd
news:jZv1f.2017$S4.797@edtnps84...
<yawn-been there done that> That is not a publication or a site contributed
to by -real- working petroleum engineers or any other members of the oil and
gas industry. It is a left wing propaganda spewing sight that found
hubbert's peak re-inforces thier highly politicized junk science. Check it
out. There is no mention of who these people are, or what thier
qualifications are. From reading it, my judgement, as one with a degree in
Petroleum Engineering and is a registered professional petroleum engineer,
who has been making reserve predictions and doing numerical modeling for
over 30 years now am telling you that hubbert's peak is not well founded in
reservior science and is not, nor ever was seriously used by any major oil
company to determine where and when they will build refineries. If the
company Hubbert worked for didn't use his forecast, it was because they
understood the shallow science behind it, and not some wild eyed conspiracy
as suggested by your so-called "energy" link.
The quite factual reality is because of exponential growth of the
technologies to discover, develop and produce oil and gas, accurately
predicting any peak or remaining oil reserves more an 3 - 5 years into the
future is quite in-accurate and is best described as fool's play. A very
substantial portion of the oil and natural gas being produced around the
world today is being done by break through technologies that were not
possible, some not even concievable as short as a decade ago. For the past
100 years, any oil reserve predictions made more than just a few years in
the past statistically will be grossly inaccurate simply because they can't
accurately predict technological break throughs. They can only base future
predictions on current state of the art's technologies. No doubt everyone
want's some kind of prediction future oil and natural gas production, no
matter how in-accurate it is, but the reality is that Hubbert, Shell Oil
Company and the folks at energybulletin.net all are crying to know when peak
production will be reached. The fact is that no one knows. When you meet
some one who thinks he can tell you when the final peak is going to come and
when the world oil and natrual gas reserves are going to be depleted, you
will know you are talking to a fool.
Yes, as one who is a petroleum engineer who has been actively engaged in the
industry since 1964 and am a qualified industry expert, I say and I
do -know-. But if you are too naive to listen to anyone who has the time,
experience and grade in the oil and gas industry that I do, go to your local
library and browse through industry publications such as "World Oil" or the
Society of Petroleum Engineer's "Oil and Gas Journal". Look at old oil
company annual reports, there is a wealth of good reliable published
information out there. If you can find your public library and can read
without moving your lips, you will have no difficulty finding it. The only
question will be one of your ability to comprehend it.
Aidan Karley
wrote:
> There are no qualified petroleum engineers or earth scientists in the oil
> and gas industry who lend any credence at all to Hubbert's Peak.
>
working there).
--
Aidan Karley,
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: +57d10' , -02d09' (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233
Written at Fri, 07 Oct 2005 18:30 +0100
Coby Beck
> <bush_au...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:1125599501....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> You extreme rightwing hatemongers always harping about
>> "environmentalists".
>
>> The oil companies own this government body and soul. The govt does
>> everything the oil billionaires want and does nothing they don't want.
>
> Hey dummy, if the oil companies were able to own this government body and
> soul you'd still be paying a buck a gallon for your gasoline and your home
> heating bill would be about 1/3 of what it's going to be this winter.
Why? They want consumers to pay them less?
Coby Beck
news:ap4q7ts...@fb04349.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de...
> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
>
>>
>> http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php
>>
>> Since you begin with something so basic and so completely wrong, it is
>> hard
>> to take the rest very seriously. Peak oil is a simple fact of oil
>> production and non-renewability.
>
> The fact that oil is finite and can't be depleted with exponential
> growth indefinitely is indeed trivial. I think this is not the
> point in question.
>
> "Hubbert's peak", OTOH is a very specific modellation of the
> production scheme, predicting a bell--shaped production curve
> and peak production exactly at the half--point of oil extraction
> capacity, and using assumptions on the total recoverable reserves
> to claim a certain date of peak. These are quite specific assumptions
> and claims, and one can easily accept the simple fact that oil
> production has to peak at some day while refuting claims about
> the specific shape of the production curve.
>
> I still don't understand, for instance, why the production should
> be symmetric. And I have not seen any argument why the bell
> curve should be a good model (not everything in life has the normal
> distribution).
I can't claim any authoritative knowledge, but I think that the shape of the
curve is a product of extraction techniques and pressure properties of
depleting fields as well as statistical principles.
Hubbert's Peak prediction was at least borne out by actual production in the
US.
You may be right that this will not be the shape for world oil production as
new extraction techniques, notably used by Saudi Aramco on the world's major
fields, involve pumping salt water into the field as oil is extracted
thereby keeping the field's pressure elevated. The result of this will be
longer high-production levels and a much sharper drop after the inevitable
peak is in fact reached.
Which is actually not a good thing, it means less warning and faster rate of
decline in supply once we are on the Other Side...
Bob Downie
> Falsified. (BSc geologist; 18 years in the oil industry and still
>working there).
>
working there (and I know many more with similar opinions).
--
Bob Downie
Downie GeoScience Ltd.
please remove #n0spam# to reply directly
Prescott Bush managed Nazi Thyssen's Silesian Coal 1926-1942
Morty McSnerd wrote:
> <bush_au...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:1125599501....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > You extreme rightwing hatemongers always harping about
> > "environmentalists".
>
> > The oil companies own this government body and soul. The govt does
> > everything the oil billionaires want and does nothing they don't want.
>
> Hey dummy, if the oil companies were able to own this government body and
> soul you'd still be paying a buck a gallon for your gasoline and your home
> heating bill would be about 1/3 of what it's going to be this winter.
>
> > If there is "limited capacity" it follows from the 130 year old
> > strategy of John D. Rockefeller to limit capacity to keep prices as
> > high as possible.
>
> Actually it was John D. Rockefeller's moving the oil and gas industry into
> the 20th century, inventing technologies to find and mass produce oil at a
> very low price that allowed ordinary working class americans to be able to
> afford to buy it. Without the likes of Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller,
> Carnegie and Thomas Edison an affluent american middle class could never of
> been created.
Says you. Just because you can hit keys with your fingers and string
words into sentences does not make it true.
The republican-libertarian dogma is "free markets, without restraints
on competition" is what produces the best price, often lower prices, on
goods and services. You are claiming that rigged elections, bribed
corrupted politicans making unbalanced laws skewing the level playing
field, makes better and lower prices. You are in opposition to your own
dogma.
The history of Standard Oil and the Rockefellers is well documented.
Biographer Ron Chernow went through JDR's papers and found evidence of
all those things: perjury, bribing, corrupting, fraud, conspiracy. The
Untied States Supreme Court found the some of the same things, and
busted the S.O. Trust as an illegal operation.
You are claiming that illegal activities to distort the market produce
best, lower, prices.
Ford and Carnegie likewise engaged in illegal and immoral acts to bust
the power of citizens to exercise their constitutional rights to
freedom of assembly, freedom to choose a representative (unions) to
negotiate contracts (something capitalists do every day, hiring lawers
as representatives) produces the best deal with all market forces
sitting at the bargaining table.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679438084/ref=ase_explorbushhit-20/104-4378820-5342341?v=glance&s=books
Titan : The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr.
by Ron Chernow
Hardcover: 800 pages
Publisher: Random House; 1st ed edition (May 5, 1998)
ISBN: 0679438084
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0486428214/ref=ase_explorbushhit-20/104-4378820-5342341?v=glance&s=books
The History of the Standard Oil Company : Briefer Version (Paperback)
by Ida M. Tarbell, David M. Chalmers (Editor)
Paperback: 256 pages
Publisher: Dover Publications (February 10, 2003)
ISBN: 0486428214
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1586481630/ref=ase_explorbushhit-20/104-4378820-5342341?v=glance&s=books
Henry Ford and the Jews: The Mass Production of Hate
by Neil Baldwin
Paperback: 432 pages
Publisher: PublicAffairs (December, 2002)
ISBN: 1586481630
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1410204960/ref=ase_explorbushhit-20/104-4378820-5342341?v=glance&s=books
The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem
by Henry Ford Sr.
Paperback: 252 pages
Publisher: University Press of the Pacific (July 1, 2003)
ISBN: 1410204960
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1410204987/ref=ase_explorbushhit-20/104-4378820-5342341?v=glance&s=books
The International Jew: Jewish Influences in American Life
by Henry Ford Sr.
Paperback: 264 pages
Publisher: University Press of the Pacific (July 1, 2003)
ISBN: 1410204987
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312290225/ref=ase_explorbushhit-20/104-4378820-5342341?v=glance&s=books
The American Axis: Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, and the Rise of the
Third Reich
by Max Wallace
Hardcover: 416 pages
Publisher: St. Martin's Press; 1st edition (August 29, 2003)
ISBN: 0312290225
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1845450132/ref=ase_explorbushhit-20/104-4378820-5342341?v=glance&s=books
Working For The Enemy: Ford, General Motors, And Forced Labor In
Germany During The Second World War
by Reinhold Billstein, Karola Fings, Anita Kugler, Nicholas Levis,
Billstein Levis
Paperback: 320 pages
Publisher: Berghahn Books (October 1, 2004)
ISBN: 1845450132
> Go back and read the history of it with open eyes this time.
Every book I cited above I have read at least once, sometimes more than
once. I have a list of 1,000 books i think are relevent to this
subject.
> There were
> many oil companies competing with Standard Oil and keeping prices affordable
> and technology moving forward that are in business to this day. Your
> problem is that you don't understand enough about business, economics,
> science and technology to be able to determine what is nothing more than
> political propaganda and what isn't.
Your problem is your selective reading only things which agree with
your false conclusions that fascists know best how to run an economy.
If you read outside your little circle you would find that Carnegie and
Rockefeller both funded nazi-like eugenics programs when Hitler was in
the first grade, and JDR funded German eugenics which produced the
likes of Josef Mengele right up until the day he died in 1937.
You would know something about JDR's and S.O's deals with German
cartels, especially IG Farben, and the S.O. collaboration with nazis
into WWII.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0007GU27S/ref=ase_explorbushhit-20/104-4378820-5342341?v=glance&s=books
The I.G. Farben and Standard Oil international cartel of World War II
by Kenneth Fossey
Unknown Binding
ASIN: B0007GU27S
Availability: Out of Print--Limited Availability
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0006D1DHA/ref=ase_explorbushhit-20/104-4378820-5342341?v=glance&s=books
The ''sanctity'' of I. G. Farben's spy nests: A fifty year old lobby
still in operation : a documentary
by Howard Watson Armbruster
Unknown Binding: 16 pages
Publisher: Armbruster (1956)
ASIN: B0006D1DHA
Availability: Out of Print--Limited Availability
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0029046300/ref=ase_explorbushhit-20/104-4378820-5342341?v=glance&s=books
Crime And Punishment Of I.G. Farben, The
by Borkin
Hardcover: 250 pages
Publisher: Free Press (June 1, 1978)
ISBN: 0029046300
Availability: Out of Print--Limited Availability
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802113621/ref=ase_explorbushhit-20/104-4378820-5342341?v=glance&s=books
The Splendid Blonde Beast: Money, Law, and Genocide in the Twentieth
Century
by Christopher Simpson
Hardcover: 399 pages
Publisher: Grove Pr; 1st ed edition (March 1, 1993)
ISBN: 0802113621
You keep arguing that the Fascist Doctrine of govt consolidation with
industrialists produces the best and lowest proices for consumers.
History shows this is not true.
> > Rightwing hatemongers need to get out of town because they ain't
> > welcome during this crisis.
>
> Actually our best, brightest and most ambitious go into the private sector,
> becoming the very engineers, business managers and scientists who are going
> use capitalism save your sorry left wing ass one more time.
Industrialists have utter contempt for their technocrat cattle herds.
People who "think" for fascists are not in any way "best and
brightest".
Getting the monopolists out of energy and fuels, opening up to
competition which is not skewed and screwed by govt corruption and the
bribers and bribees, will lead to the greatest era of prosperity the
world has ever seen.
Coby Beck
>>> oil and gas industry who lend any credence at all to Hubbert's Peak. As
>>> were thousands of others, it's a very simplistic totally un scientific
>>> curve fit that was generated in the 50's, when a 16k computer using data
>>> punch cards was the biggest and the best.
>>
>> http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php
>>
>> Since you begin with something so basic and so completely wrong, it is
>> hard to take the rest very seriously. Peak oil is a simple fact of oil
>> production and non-renewability.
>
> <yawn-been there done that> That is not a publication or a site
> contributed to by -real- working petroleum engineers or any other members
> of the oil and gas industry. It is a left wing propaganda spewing sight
> that found hubbert's peak re-inforces thier highly politicized junk
> science. Check it out. There is no mention of who these people are, or
> what thier qualifications are. From reading it, my judgement, as one with
> a degree in Petroleum Engineering and is a registered professional
> petroleum engineer, who has been making reserve predictions and doing
> numerical modeling for over 30 years now am telling you that hubbert's
> peak is not well founded in reservior science and is not, nor ever was
> seriously used by any major oil company to determine where and when they
> will build refineries. If the company Hubbert worked for didn't use his
> forecast, it was because they understood the shallow science behind it,
> and not some wild eyed conspiracy as suggested by your so-called "energy"
> link.
Forecasts aside, if it is your opinion that Hubbert's predictions were *not*
borne out by subsequent events, then please provide a link to a reputable
source that shows when the peak did occur in the US and what the shape of it
was, I promise I have an open mind on the subject, but, again forecasts
aside, I was unaware that anyone disputed that Hubbert was correct about
what did occur in US production.
> The quite factual reality is because of exponential growth of the
> technologies to discover, develop and produce oil and gas, accurately
> predicting any peak or remaining oil reserves more an 3 - 5 years into the
> future is quite in-accurate and is best described as fool's play.
My admitedly limited understanding is that there have been no major fields
discovered in some decades. Am I wrong? Do you think it is likely that a
siginicant amount of recoverable oil (with either existing or foreseeable
technologies - ie not magic) remains undiscovered?
>> So you say. But given the total absense of any verifiable specific or
>> number and the absense of any referenced sources...well, whatever you
>> say.
>
> Yes, as one who is a petroleum engineer who has been actively engaged in
> the industry since 1964 and am a qualified industry expert, I say and I
> do -know-. But if you are too naive to listen to anyone who has the time,
> experience and grade in the oil and gas industry that I do, go to your
> local library and browse through industry publications such as "World Oil"
> or the Society of Petroleum Engineer's "Oil and Gas Journal". Look at old
> oil company annual reports, there is a wealth of good reliable published
> information out there. If you can find your public library and can read
> without moving your lips, you will have no difficulty finding it. The only
> question will be one of your ability to comprehend it.
Forgive me. Googling for "Morty McSnerd" on various industry websites did
not turn up any results. But I am quite happy to take you at your word and
if you will drop the inflammatory rhetoric and general trash-talk, you will
find I am quite capable of listening to reason.
May I ask: have you read Matthew Simmon's presentation on Saudi oil? What
technical mistakes is he making or do you think he is right about the state
of Ghawar and the other fields?
Steve Spence
> "Morty McSnerd" <mo...@dontspammeplease.com> wrote in message
> Forgive me. Googling for "Morty McSnerd" on various industry websites did
> not turn up any results. But I am quite happy to take you at your word and
> if you will drop the inflammatory rhetoric and general trash-talk, you will
> find I am quite capable of listening to reason.
>
> May I ask: have you read Matthew Simmon's presentation on Saudi oil? What
> technical mistakes is he making or do you think he is right about the state
> of Ghawar and the other fields?
>
Google Mortimer McSnerd & Edgar Bergen .....
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Aidan Karley
> --
> Bob Downie
> Downie GeoScience
>
I saw some paperwork with your company name on it recently, but I
can't remember where. Do the names "Dave Harrison" or "Phil Leighton" ring
any bells with you? (I work for DH, but was borrowing PL's office
recently.)
Oh, hang on, it's coming back to me - some technical reports for a
North Sea field that I had to clear to get desk space in Phil's office.
--
Aidan Karley,
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: +57d10' , -02d09' (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233
Written at Sat, 08 Oct 2005 18:24 +0100
Jakob Creutzig
> "Jakob Creutzig" <creu...@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote in message
> news:ap4q7ts...@fb04349.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de...
[Hubbert modelling]
> > I still don't understand, for instance, why the production should
> > be symmetric. And I have not seen any argument why the bell
> > curve should be a good model (not everything in life has the normal
> > distribution).
>
> I can't claim any authoritative knowledge, but I think that the shape of the
> curve is a product of extraction techniques and pressure properties of
> depleting fields as well as statistical principles.
That's almost the level of exactness I got in explanations. And
for me, this is not really accurate enough to believe in a curve.
In particular, I'd be more interested in those ominous "statistical
principles".
> Hubbert's Peak prediction was at least borne out by actual production in the
> US.
It accurately forecast the peak date and decline; however the
curve does not fit really well, and it seems clear by now that
peak production occurred _before_ half of the ultimately recoverable
oil was drawn out.
Actually, the curve resembles more of a Weibull distribution to
me, which I also would think of as slightly more plausible in
statistical ways of thinking (performance of aging structures
are often modeled using Weibull statistics).
> You may be right that this will not be the shape for world oil production as
> new extraction techniques, notably used by Saudi Aramco on the world's major
> fields, involve pumping salt water into the field as oil is extracted
> thereby keeping the field's pressure elevated. The result of this will be
> longer high-production levels and a much sharper drop after the inevitable
> peak is in fact reached.
>
> Which is actually not a good thing, it means less warning and faster rate of
> decline in supply once we are on the Other Side...
It would clearly be catastrophical to have a supply-driven decline
like forecast in the DOE analyses.
Best,
Jakob