[ROCKMAN]

looker - That's a two part question. First, what is the outlook for current KSA production? Easy answer #1: I don't have a f*cking clue. Second, what is the outlook on future KSA reserves yet to be developed? Easy answer #2: I don't have a f*cking clue. I hope that clears things up for you. lol. I've been working in one Texas country off and on for 30 years and have access to all the detailed production history. And it would still be difficult to come up with very confident answer if you asked me the same about that little piece of Texas.

[onlooker]

Thanks rock, I could not think of who else to ask haha.

[FatherOfTwo]

Hey gang, long time no semi-anonymous internet chat.

The downside is those methods require oil 2- 3 times as high as the current price to develop. Plus each LTO well has a low initial production amount and steep decline - like 40-50% the first years— they are instant strippers after a couple of good years. (reminds me of a few girls I've,,,, nevermind)

IMO, the upshot is another year or 3 of fairly low then rising price as the glut clears.
Then we get to see who is left standing when the price gets back up into fracking territory.

The upshot is the cheap oil has peaked but not begun decline, so for now all appears peachy.

In my opinion that's a pretty accurate overview of the current state of the oil market and the players within it, and it's also a not unrealistic prediction of what the future may hold provided nothing else changes. Implied within Pops statement of "for now all appears peachy" is the inference it won't stay that way. (Correct me if that inference isn't accurate) However I think one important factor is going to have a big impact on how things play out:

Are we as a society beginning to address the problem(s)? Does the Paris Agreement, and the overall general softening of opinion by many governments and corporations towards the idea of carbon taxes, (or other methods of reducing carbon emissions) mean we will finally address climate change and as a result Peak Oil's effects will be greatly mitigated?

Seriously addressing our carbon output means capitalism (which barring major social upheaval is entrenched for the foreseeable future) will finally begin to address its biggest systemic weakness - that all too often the very real external costs, be they societal or ecological, are ignored. Leaving more fossil fuels in the ground will necessarily impact supply and demand of oil, thus impacting the rates of decline and the degree of nastiness of Peak Oil. When you add in that we've demonstrated we're pretty adept at getting more reserves moved from possible to probable to proven (albeit at high cost), then I think Peak Oil's possible impacts are muted even more.

So I personally remain optimistic (as opposed to my gloom and doom view of 10+ years ago). I concede that even with significant social change and technical advancement it's still not going to be pretty, and that there will be real, long lasting, negative impacts, but that we will not spiral into an abyss of Peak Oil doom.

[Pops]

Hey FoT, long time no type!

After about 5 thousand posts I came to the conclusion I can't forecast the future for squat so I always try to phrase my immaculate predictions as mere conjecture.

[Tanada]

Hey gang, long time no semi-anonymous internet chat.

However I think one important factor is going to have a big impact on how things play out:

Are we as a society beginning to address the problem(s)? Does the Paris Agreement, and the overall general softening of opinion by many governments and corporations towards the idea of carbon taxes, (or other methods of reducing carbon emissions) mean we will finally address climate change and as a result Peak Oil's effects will be greatly mitigated?

Seriously addressing our carbon output means capitalism (which barring major social upheaval is entrenched for the foreseeable future) will finally begin to address its biggest systemic weakness - that all too often the very real external costs, be they societal or ecological, are ignored. Leaving more fossil fuels in the ground will necessarily impact supply and demand of oil, thus impacting the rates of decline and the degree of nastiness of Peak Oil. When you add in that we've demonstrated we're pretty adept at getting more reserves moved from possible to probable to proven (albeit at high cost), then I think Peak Oil's possible impacts are muted even more.

So I personally remain optimistic (as opposed to my gloom and doom view of 10+ years ago). I concede that even with significant social change and technical advancement it's still not going to be pretty, and that there will be real, long lasting, negative impacts, but that we will not spiral into an abyss of Peak Oil doom.

FOT! LTNS! please pull up a stool and shoot the breeze a while! How are things in your neck of the woods these days?

[Keith_McClary]

We don't get many Cornies raving about humungous ginormous discoveries any more.

Remember way back when Kashagan and Jack-St-Malo were the Cornie poster children? There's still "Plenty of Oil" in them (because they just started production).

[JV153]

JV - "it seems to me the pricing is more or less automated based on the closing raw barrel price (the refinery input) for that day". If you're referring to closing future prices refineries don't pay on that basis. They pay as per their negotiated contract prices with producers like the Rockman. Granted some benchmark prices are used in that calculation but adjusted to what refiners project for their potential selling prices for their products. A refiner projects what he thinks the product market will bear for his output. And the folks buying refinery production decide daily what they are willing to pay and they don't give a sh*t what the futures market thinks. lol.

Actually you just restated my point, while filling in some specifics, in a very long way. Closing daily price. I'm not privy to the exact details. I'm not a market trader.. if that's what you think. Interesting details though.

[FatherOfTwo]

FOT! LTNS! please pull up a stool and shoot the breeze a while! How are things in your neck of the woods these days?

In my neck of the woods, the shit continues to hit the fan and the outlook is bleak. (economy-wise)
Western Canada is getting absolutely hammered with oil at these prices, many are calling this the worst bust ever experienced. Corporate and government balance sheets are not in good shape and the trickle down is hitting everywhere in terms of major layoffs in all sectors, reduced salaries for those who remain, a declining real estate market, high residential and commercial vacancy rates, etc. etc. Provincial and Federal governments are talking deficit spending to help keep the patient on life support.
Any discussion of Peak Oil around here would get you laughed out of the room.

[onlooker]

And yet FT, peak oil has alot to do with it. Their would not have been that aggressive a play for Tar and Shale if peak in conventional had not at the least been approached.

[Keith_McClary]

Any discussion of Peak Oil around here would get you laughed out of the room.

It's always been like that. How many Albertans know when peak Alberta conventional production occurred?

[MonteQuest]

Funny that so many old-timers to Peak oil.com have come out of the woodwork. For myself, these low oil prices are bound to cause some prognostications. Wanted to see.

[ennui2]

Western Canada is getting absolutely hammered with oil at these prices, many are calling this the worst bust ever experienced

My sympathy is nonexistent. Canada should try diversifying its economy. Maybe try planting some palm trees, because it looks like they'll be doing well up there due to all the AGW caused by burning the oil that runs the Canadian economy.

[Keith_McClary]

Western Canada is getting absolutely hammered with oil at these prices, many are calling this the worst bust ever experienced

My sympathy is nonexistent. Canada should try diversifying its economy. Maybe try planting some palm trees, because it looks like they'll be doing well up there due to all the AGW caused by burning the oil that runs the Canadian economy.

No, we export it to you, you burn it causing AGW.

[FatherOfTwo]

Western Canada is getting absolutely hammered with oil at these prices, many are calling this the worst bust ever experienced

My sympathy is nonexistent. Canada should try diversifying its economy. Maybe try planting some palm trees, because it looks like they'll be doing well up there due to all the AGW caused by burning the oil that runs the Canadian economy.

I wasn't fishing for sympathy, simply stating fact. Diversification efforts have been made, albeit with poor results. You have to realize it's a hard cycle to break, when times are good everyone wants to get in on it, which just feeds it more. Then when the bottom falls out everyone bemoans the lack of diversification. To really diversify will take many years (probably a decade or more) of sustained effort. We haven't had a bust cycle last that long, once oil starts climbing in price again everyone goes back to the old ways.

You should also know that Canada's contribution to AGW is tiny compared to the major powers of the world. That is not an excuse but to blame Canada is pretty flippant.

[FatherOfTwo]

And yet FT, peak oil has alot to do with it. Their would not have been that aggressive a play for Tar and Shale if peak in conventional had not at the least been approached.

I haven't been following the data on conventional production rates, but does it really matter if peak conventional has been reached? We've demonstrated that getting more oil out of the ground, moving those reserves from possible to probable to proven, isn't particularly difficult just expensive. I don't have the sources ATM but I believe others have documented there is more than enough to keep going for quite a while and that the real focus needs to be on keeping it in the ground to start addressing climate change and the ecological damage.

[Subjectivist]

And yet FT, peak oil has alot to do with it. Their would not have been that aggressive a play for Tar and Shale if peak in conventional had not at the least been approached.

I haven't been following the data on conventional production rates, but does it really matter if peak conventional has been reached? We've demonstrated that getting more oil out of the ground, moving those reserves from possible to probable to proven, isn't particularly difficult just expensive. I don't have the sources ATM but I believe others have documented there is more than enough to keep going for quite a while and that the real focus needs to be on keeping it in the ground to start addressing climate change and the ecological damage.

It matters simply because our entire western economic system is based on growth, and to get unconventional oil costs so much more there is nothing left over to grow the economy. We need not just any energy to run our system, we need cheap energy. Oil at $110/bbl was enough to stall growth, and it was only possible because those were the marginal barrels, most barrels cost far less because they were conventional.

[MonteQuest]

It matters simply because our entire western economic system is based on growth, and to get unconventional oil costs so much more there is nothing left over to grow the economy. We need not just any energy to run our system, we need cheap energy. Oil at $110/bbl was enough to stall growth, and it was only possible because those were the marginal barrels, most barrels cost far less because they were conventional.

This is why peak oil is an economic crisis, not an energy crisis. Good post.

[jupiters_release]

Funny that so many old-timers to Peak oil.com have come out of the woodwork. For myself, these low oil prices are bound to cause some prognostications. Wanted to see.

We've been waiting a decade for the shoe to drop. We're in post pre-mature pre-traumatic stress disorder or PPMPTSD.

[ROCKMAN]

Father - Is Canada really a "tiny" producer of AGW? I suppose that depends on how you measure it. Perhaps in absolute volumes of GHG. But is that fair: a smaller population might produce less in aggregate. But does the average Canadian produce less then the average Chinese? IOW do Canadians have the "right" to produce more GHG per person then the Chinese: Canadian GHG per capita is more then twice that of China. In fact Canadians produce about as much GHG per person as the US and Australia.