Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Reserve replacement, industry costs and the big IOC's

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Reserve replacement, industry costs and the big IOC's

Unread postby shortonoil » Fri 13 May 2016, 18:21:40

Zarquon wrote:"Anyway, I'm asking because a while ago I saw a presentation video by Steven Kopits (a presentation at Columbia Uni. IIRC, 2013 or 2014) where he stated that E&P costs in the industry had increased by about a whooping 500% in the last decade, a trend likely to continue, and that he wondered whether the big private players would still exist ten years from now, at least in their present form as industry giants. Back then I thought that to be a shocking statement."

One more thing. If we use Kopits data we can estimate (roughly) what it would cost to replace the reserves that are now being extracted. We have one good data point which is 2013, when the industry spent $75 billion to replace 4 Gb of the 32 consumed. That was $18.75 per barrel. Using Kopits 50% per year figure it would cost $142.38 per barrel in five years to discover another 4 Gb. All other things staying the same, it would cost $4.82 trillion to replace 4 Gb in five years. To replace the entire 32 GB being used will require 52% of the entire world's GDP in 5 years.

Obviously, the big integrated oil companies are not going to be around much longer. Of course, this is a linear interpolation of the data, and nothing is linear in the oil industry. If this function turns out to be exponential, which is likely, the cost could be 5 times the GDP of the world. Don't be fooled by the banna-rama commentary meant to distract you. The conclusions are simple, and straight forward.
User avatar
shortonoil
False ETP Prophet
False ETP Prophet
 
Posts: 7132
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Reserve replacement, industry costs and the big IOC's

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 13 May 2016, 20:01:18

shortonoil wrote:[i]

Obviously, the big integrated oil companies are not going to be around much longer.

I don't follow you there. Why won't they make just as much profit on scarce oil as they did on easy cheap oil? I think the majors will be around to the very end, perhaps reduced to two or three by more mergers but still there and with a gas station at every highway exit.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Reserve replacement, industry costs and the big IOC's

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 14 May 2016, 12:23:27

Z - Difficult to get a hard handle on "successful drilling" stats since there's a wide range of successes. For instance if success is defined by completing a well there are completed wells that will never make a profit. A not uncommon situation: the drilling drilling cost is $6 million and it finds only $4 million in reserves. But the well will only cost $2 million to complete and frac. So total cost for that $4 million in reserves but cost $8 million. But the completion decision made a 2:1 profit...$4 million income vs $2 million cost. Also consider the high success rate the Rockman had several years ago drilling very deep (16,000'+) NG prospects in S La using 3D seis. Almost all turned out to be just one well fields. IOW very small. And 30+ years ago a new discovery in the same trend might lead to 5 to 10 low risk develoment wells in the same reservoir. IOW my sucess rate was much higher (70%+ vs 20%) I found much less reserves per well.

Shooting seismic is always a crap shoot. First, not many apparent viable prospects are found. And if they are found you can still drill dry holes/marginal wells. Or another company bat you to the lease: many shoots are joint ventures by sometimes as many as 5 to 10 companies that can go after prospects on their own.

But as I pointed out before the big money saver of 3D seismic is cutting down the number of dry holes. And while it can increase success rates most of those successes in many trends will be much smaller then the fields discovered pre-seismic. The 23 out of 25 successful shallow NG wildcats I drilled in the late 80's discovered reservoirs that were less the 10% the size of the fields discovered in the same trends 30+ years earlier. That had been the same dynamic on the GOM shelf in the 80's and later. And is currently going that way in the Deep Water GOM.

Which, again, why Big Oil is swinging hard into the acquisition mode: regardless of better success rates the fields left to be found (at both high and low oil/NG prices) will generally be smaller and smaller. That's why the Deep Water GOM was hit so hard: virtually no potential to find individual fields that large onshore. And no: the Bakken and Eagle Ford Shale are NOT fields...they are TRENDS of fields. BTW the DEEP WATER GOM had been under development for more then 35 years. Last time I looked more than 150 fields have been found out there. And yes: even in the DW GOM the size of new discoveries tend to become smaller.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Reserve replacement, industry costs and the big IOC's

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 14 May 2016, 12:57:31

Z - And some interesting facts for you: in general the managers of the ExxonMobil refineries don't care if they crack oil produced from an XOM or Shell field. Likewise those producers don't care who refines their oil. Both are more focused on theif profit margins. Many of those decisions might be made be made on tax considerations. BTW do you realize that all the gasoline sold at XOM stations weren't made at XOM refineties? In fact even an XOM refinery doesn't make "XOM" gasoline per se. All refineries make base gasoline. IOW it's all the same and varies only by octane. Drive by a Valero refinery in Texas and you'll see "blending stations" with tankers being serviced. That XOM gasoline isn't XOM gasoline because of where the oil was produced or even what refinery cracked it: it's defined by the additives mixed into the base gasoline. I prefer Chevon's additives myself. And given I live across the highway from the second largest refinery in the Western Hemisphere (ExxonMobil) I wouldn't be surprised if that's where much of my Chevron fuel was produced at it. The Chevron refinery is about 15 miles away. And recently the largest refinery in the Western Hemisphere which was once 50/50 with Shell and Saudi Arabia is now 100% KSA.

When was the last time you filled up at your neighborhood Saudi station? LOL.0
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Reserve replacement, industry costs and the big IOC's

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 14 May 2016, 13:39:37

What additives do each of the main retail systems use? Shell had a big sales pitch a few years ago about nitrogen cleaning compounds in their fuel, but other than that nothing much do I know LOL.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Reserve replacement, industry costs and the big IOC's

Unread postby AdamB » Sat 14 May 2016, 15:25:16

shortonoil wrote:"Even more difficult to say how much of the replacement gaps is due to falling prices (reserves becoming uneconomical) and how much is due to simply being unable to find or buy enough new reserves. And even more difficult (but probably less important) is guessing how accurate these reserve statements actually are."

To answer that question it is first necessary to state that there is no shortage of liquid hydrocarbons on earth. According to a 2000 USGS study there could be as much as 4,200 Gb.


That study was supplanted by the 2012 update. Any reason you reference dated material? The report you reference also uses quite an inferior method of calculating field growth, unlike the published 2012 method, with supporting material provided in December of 2015. Any reason you would inferior estimates, at all?

Based on the resources excluded from that study, is there any reason you didn't include those, as the IEA has in the past? Not doing so means you are underestimating the amount of resource available? And a recent Carnegie Mellon study puts the total amount of resource in the 24 trillion barrel range.


shortonoil wrote:We have extracted about 1,400 to date. The problem lies in determining how much of that resource can actually be used.


All of it, just as the USGS and EIA say. It is only a matter of cost.

shortonoil wrote:
The economic perspective simply states that the reserve (liquid hydrocarbons that can be extracted) are a function of price, and production cost.


Incorrect. The ability to extract is independent of price, it is only cost. This is because there is no REQUIREMENT of extraction in the present, it is simply potential.

shortonoil wrote:An introduction to the report "Depletion: A determination for the world's petroleum reserves" can be found here:

http://www.thehillsgroup.org/petrohg10.pdf


Inadequate, and certainly incomplete. Written by someone with even the basic knowledge of the geoscientists at the Survey I would venture. Estimates of resource are not inclusive, and doesn't even mention those who did such work (Rogner). The very concept of depletion is mismanaged at the same time that the words "reserves" and "resources" are confused with their most basic definitions. Obviously the authors are missing expertise in BOTH basic geoscience resource estimates and the PRMS.

A thoroughly inadequate reference.

shortonoil wrote:As a result of our study we have changed the focus of our consulting organization. The big integrated oil companies of the past are, as you say, going the way of the dodo bird. In the near future there will simply not be enough energy available to sustain them. The future of petroleum will become regional, as opposed to global. Petroleum products will come from small local sources serving a local market. The fuel that you use will come from a well fifty miles away, and processed in a small refinery down the street.


Not according to those who do such things for a living. About a year or two back then began inviting experts in these topics to write reports on the systems and processes to properly model these issues, and held a conference for those folks. It is apparent your organization was not invited, because their understanding of refineries was vastly superior. As the previously mentioned topics as well, you can't imagine what a thorough understanding of the upstream sector looks like, utilizing the information you have described but with a far superior understanding.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Reserve replacement, industry costs and the big IOC's

Unread postby Zarquon » Sun 15 May 2016, 00:21:28

ROCKMAN wrote:Shooting seismic is always a crap shoot. First, not many apparent viable prospects are found. And if they are found you can still drill dry holes/marginal wells. Or another company bat you to the lease: many shoots are joint ventures by sometimes as many as 5 to 10 companies that can go after prospects on their own.


Which brings me to another newbie question: all the detailed and costly seismic data and core samples obtained by hundreds of oil companies is analyzed by the firm's geologists and then locked up in a secret vault deep underneath Houston, right? So the vast majority of collected data and analyses never reaches the public (USGS, universities etc.). Does that mean that publicly available studies of oil geology and resources (in the US or elsewhere) are necessarily based on the small fraction of all data that was obtained through public funding? Or are these analyses and the underlying data eventually released, although that could mean giving away a potential edge on competitors?

edit: I found this:
"A 3D seismic survey may cover many square miles of land and may cost $40,000 to $100,000 per square mile or more. The data obtained from such a survey is therefore very valuable, and if protected from disclosure constitutes a trade secret. Seismic data is licensed, bought and sold by seismic survey companies, brokers and exploration companies."

So it can, in theory, become publicly available, if the public pays through the nose for it?
Zarquon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri 06 May 2016, 20:53:46

Re: Reserve replacement, industry costs and the big IOC's

Unread postby shortonoil » Sun 15 May 2016, 09:58:34

"I don't follow you there. Why won't they make just as much profit on scarce oil as they did on easy cheap oil?"

In 2015 all the Majors saw either huge losses, or profits slashed to the bone. WTI sold for $48.67. It is not likely that 2016 will see the price that high. Oil companies don't make money when oil is cheap, they lose money. The industry is now consuming its assets, its reserves, to stay in business; each barrel that they sell reduces their net worth by almost an equal amount.

Where did you get the idea that oil is scarce, the world is flooded with the stuff? The problem is that the economy can not pay a price high enough for the industry to recover its cost. What you are assuming is that the value of oil to the economy is a constant, its not. As its value goes down so also does its price. It is called depletion, and depletion never took a course in ECON 101. Scarcity is only significant if quality stays the same, and the quality of oil (the amount of economic activity it can power) is going down. Its price reflects that decline.

At this point in the cycle the Majors will stay in business until they have sold off their inventory (reserves) and then they will shut their doors. The reserves that they are now selling can not be replaced. The economy consumes oil because it acts as an energy source; not because it is black goo in a barrel. When it can no longer act in that capacity demand for it will go to almost zero. The confusion here lies in confusing two properties of matter, volume and energy. The units for volume are Length^3; energy is Force x Distance. We have the oil industry to thank for that commonly perceived misconception. They sell oil by the barrel, but the value of a barrel to the economy is not a constant. It changes will time, and source of supply.
User avatar
shortonoil
False ETP Prophet
False ETP Prophet
 
Posts: 7132
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Reserve replacement, industry costs and the big IOC's

Unread postby shortonoil » Sun 15 May 2016, 10:14:28

That study was supplanted by the 2012 update. Any reason you reference dated material?

Is this a joke? Resource is so huge it doesn't make any difference. Are you planning on living for a another 300 years? Reserves are what is important, and the industry can no longer replace the reserves that they are now extracting. They have not been able to do that for the last 30 years, and the situation gets more critical with each passing year. If you have just arrived on planet Earth your comment might be excused. Otherwise, it is as valuable as a book of matches is to a fish!
User avatar
shortonoil
False ETP Prophet
False ETP Prophet
 
Posts: 7132
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Reserve replacement, industry costs and the big IOC's

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sun 15 May 2016, 11:07:27

So it can, in theory, become publicly available, if the public pays through the nose for it?


the US is one of the few countries in the world where data isn't freely traded and made available. In Alberta, as an example, all wireline logs and other well information must be provided to the energy regulator who holds that information confidential for a period of 2 years after which it is freely available to anyone for the cost of reproduction (I think there is also an administrative fee but can't remember). Core is all stored in a huge warehouse in Calgary and can be viewed by anyone for a fairly reasonable fee. Years ago that fee was waived for university research purposes but I am not sure that is still the case.Seismic data is generally traded through brokerage firms, companies realize that they can actually make some money from their old data. Newer data isn't as readily available and generally most of what is made available is raw processed data (unmigrated and no spiffy transforms applied). Overseas most countries view any data acquired as not belonging to the company who acquired it but rather the host government. In places like Egypt all of the well data and seismic data can be purchased from the government, basically you rent it because it has to be returned when you relinquish acreage. The same is the situation in many places, the host governments having figured out that by making the data available they increase E&P activity and increase the chance of increased royalties etc.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Reserve replacement, industry costs and the big IOC's

Unread postby AdamB » Sun 15 May 2016, 20:22:36

shortonoil wrote: The problem is that the economy can not pay a price high enough for the industry to recover its cost.


The cure for cheap oil is cheap oil...and the cure for expensive oil is expensive oil....it all works out in the end quite well, and certainly there are owners of existing fields who are absolutely recovering their cost, because they already have, and any amount above lifting costs and assorted taxes is gravy. Even at $40/bbl. Or $30.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Reserve replacement, industry costs and the big IOC's

Unread postby AdamB » Sun 15 May 2016, 20:57:00

shortonoil wrote:That study was supplanted by the 2012 update. Any reason you reference dated material?

Is this a joke? Resource is so huge it doesn't make any difference.


A difference to WHOM? If those who are expert in these modeling affairs, such as the IEA and EIA, are running their timespans across quarter century horizon, to correctly do their accounting for depletion they can't just stop 25 years down the road, it must continue for the life of the resources turned into reserves and then production.

So with this entire century to worry about, I would say that the size certainly does make a difference. The transition has begun, but it is generational in duration, so multi-decade modeling is necessary, making understanding the CORRECT volumes necessary. I understand that in any old curve fitting routine predicting doom tomorrow afternoon, there is no need of correct volumes. But the EIA didn't fall for peak oil back then, and therefore they are already one step ahead of those who did.

shortonoil wrote:Are you planning on living for a another 300 years? Reserves are what is important, and the industry can no longer replace the reserves that they are now extracting.


What in the WORLD are you talking about? There are 500 rigs running in the US (give or take) converting resources to reserves. TODAY. And I can promise that every floor hand, driller, mud engineer, company man and roustabout will get paid for making those rigs do just that.

You do understand that when a model spouts something contradicted by reality, it isn't REALITY that is at fault, right?

shortonoil wrote:They have not been able to do that for the last 30 years, and the situation gets more critical with each passing year.


If they hadn't done it over the past 30 years, that reserve estimate would have been consumed, we would have 0 left...and where would your funny model be then? The entire world running around, using oil NOW, and you pretending that a model that says reserves can't be replaced, when they are, doesn't just defy reality, it falls into the "joke" category.

shortonoil wrote: If you have just arrived on planet Earth your comment might be excused. Otherwise, it is as valuable as a book of matches is to a fish!


If you could subtract consumption from the reserve number 30 years ago, realized that reality had done something different, you wouldn't have made the above statement pretending I'm the one out of whack. Sorry, but you can keep your delusion, I'll stick with the reality of the situation. Empirical observation rocks!
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Reserve replacement, industry costs and the big IOC's

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 16 May 2016, 08:27:37

Z – I’m not sure what part of the country doc is talking about but I know of no other country where log data is as available as in the US. I work the Gulf Coast and all the states require the release of log data. And while there’s an option to hold that data off the market for a year or two it is seldom done. You can go to each state and get that data or make it a lot easier by using a service like Cambe. They have hundreds of thousands of logs from all across the country in their files. BTW they can be had for as little as $2 each. From their website:

“Cambe offers over 75 years of historical log collection and adds hundreds of new logs each month, all high quality, accurately scaled and continuous format for the entire Gulf Coast area including:

Texas RRC (1-6)
Louisiana
South Arkansas
Mississippi
Alabama
Florida
Georgia, and
State Waters
Offshore Gulf of Mexico

The library includes 1" and 5", induction electric, sidetracks, directional surveys, porosity's, offshore velocity surveys, core/paleo and test data now available as digitized logs and raster images. For the Gulf Coast, Cambe offers the most extensive log file in existence with hundreds of both historical and newly released logs added each month. In addition, Cambe gives you ready access to the largest file available of 5" sonic and density logs and an extensive database of cross/references. Most logs are available within 24 to 48 hours for average-size orders. And of course, if you need them digitized or reproduced, Cambe's digitizing and reproduction departments are ready to help.”

Now add to that detailed production history of almost every produced well. Again you can go to the individual states for that info. Much more user friend subscribing to a company like Drilling Info. Right now as I type I can pull the detailed production history of every well produced in every county in Texas. It down loads into Excel and it takes about 15 seconds to pull down every one of the many thousands of wells in each county. In fact the Rockman can click 1 button and see every well log that DI has in its files that can also be downloaded with one more click,

Well logs and production histories are the primary tools the Rockman uses every day. But I doubt you want to get any of that data to analyze. The good news is that you don’t have to: there are many thousands of US field studies available to the public. Go to the websites of the AAPG (American Association of Petroleum geologists), the SPE (Society of Petroleum Engineers), the GCAGS (Gulf Coast Association of Geologic Societies), the Houston, Dallas and Corpus Christi geologic societies, the BEG (Texas Bureau of Economic Geology). Here's their on-line book store: http://begstore.beg.utexas.edu/store/) etc. and you can find very detailed maps and descriptions of numerous US fields dating back more then80 years. And a great many of those studies were published by the geologists/engineers working for the companies that developed the fields.

Another huge source of very detailed data is the university system. Thousands of MS and PhD studies are available. While in grad school the Rockman’s thesis was a study of field in southern CA done under a research grant from the operator of that field, Tenneco. Beside the financial support they also provide all the data. And all can be had for just the cost of copying it.

Given that the Rockman is a development/reservoir geologist he seldom bothers to get the base data on all the fields in a trend since there are usually numerous studies available on line. Now if you want to dig into a hot new trend, like the Eagle Ford or Deep Water GOM you’ll find less available mostly because they are new.

But, hey, want to learn more about the fracture patterns in the Bakken formation? Here’s an entire book written in 2010 (“Fracture Analysis of the Bakken Formation, Williston Basin: Field Studies in the Little Rocky Mountains and Big Snowy Mountains, MT, and Beartooth Mountains, WY, and 3D Seismic Data, Williston Basin”). Notice it also includes some selected 3d seismic data. For your convenience you can order it from Amazon. LOL. Really…you can.

https://books.google.com/books/about/Fr ... vMZwEACAAJ

Want to know the details of hundreds of major oil fields in every production trend in the state? Here is the "Texas Oil Atlas" from the BEG:

http://begstore.beg.utexas.edu/store/at ... results=13

Now go try to find a comparable publication from any other country. I doble dog dare you. LOL.You might notice the Rockman seems to come up with a lot of data in areas where he’s not working. For instance the Rockman doesn’t know sh*t first-hand about the Marcellus Shale. Yet he can come up with mucho details in no time at all. The secret? It’s called the Internet. LOL. Want to burn a few hours go onto the net and discover many thousands of sources of very detailed data covering the US oil patch.

And then take a little time and see if you can find anything close to the oil patch data base you can find in the US for any other region of the world. I dare you. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Reserve replacement, industry costs and the big IOC's

Unread postby GoghGoner » Mon 16 May 2016, 10:17:37

On page 16, you can see that debt to equity ratios increased from 25% to 45% in the last 10 years. The oil industry is changing quickly.

Financial Review of the Global Oil and Natural Gas
Industry 2015
GoghGoner
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1827
Joined: Thu 10 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Stilłwater subdivision

Re: Reserve replacement, industry costs and the big IOC's

Unread postby Zarquon » Mon 16 May 2016, 14:53:05

Rockdoc, Rockman, et al.: first of all, thanks for taking the time. I read a couple of books about oil over the past few years; OPEC, oil and ME history, then Oil 101, Peeking at Peak Oil, TOD and thousands of bits and pieces of info and opinion that the MSM, bloggers, PR whores, nutters, experts self-styled or real, pour all over the internet.

It's fascinating, it's much more important than I would have imagined, but without a solid base to put it all in perspective, all the unconnected bits and pieces - some misunderstood, much of it forgotten almost immediately after reading - somehow leave just a dense fog in my head. For every fact there's three contradicting explanations and four voices from the peanut gallery screaming that it's not a fact at all.

And I guess that's when it becomes convenient to just grab the facts and explanations you like best, pretend to understand them and run with it. Join the pissing contest and throw somebody else's pie charts at the opposition till they shut-the-fuck-up.

That's why I registered here, to try and get at least some of the basics straight. And from what I've gathered it doesn't matter much how many drops or oceans of oil are left, or when the exact month, day and hour of PO is, was or will be. What matters is that costs are exploding in the industry and that it gets harder every year to replace reserves and keep production levels up. Oil prices are just the throttle which can speed up or slow down the process.

I know that the big IOCs are not even that important anymore in terms of their share of total production, but what is true for them should hold true for most others as well and it's probably harder for them to fudge their numbers than for the NOCs. That's why I started this thread.
Zarquon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri 06 May 2016, 20:53:46

Re: Reserve replacement, industry costs and the big IOC's

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 16 May 2016, 16:18:29

Z - Don't feel bad about not getting all the puzzle pieces together...almost no one can. Even us "experts" only know our particular area. Why I usually end up digging for much of the facts I toss out from the Internet. Yes: I am something of a "search junkie". And not just about the oil patch. Probably because I'm stuck in a chair 24/7. LOL.

For instance you would be shocked how many folks I work with had no idea the US has been a net NG importer for a long time. IOW we consume more then we produce even though we're one of te biggest NG producers on the planet. Or that since 1977 when the federal govt imposed the ban on exporting oil from the US that we have in fact (according to the same fed govt that passed the export ban) we have exported 1.5 BILLION BBLS OF OIL.

Every word true. Really. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Reserve replacement, industry costs and the big IOC's

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Mon 16 May 2016, 16:54:35

[vtsnowedin wrote]"I don't follow you there. Why won't they make just as much profit on scarce oil as they did on easy cheap oil?"
shortonoil wrote:In 2015 all the Majors saw either huge losses, or profits slashed to the bone.
A single year or two does not counterbalance decades of profits.

Where did you get the idea that oil is scarce, the world is flooded with the stuff?

I don't consider it scares now. I expect it to be in the future as fields decline and we fail to find new ones.
Scarcity is only significant if quality stays the same, and the quality of oil (the amount of economic activity it can power) is going down. Its price reflects that decline..

Your talking EROEI which is fine but a barrel of oil is a barrel of oil and has as many BTUs of energy in it as it ever did. Burning two barrels of oil to get that barrel would be a bad thing which is what your getting at but explaining poorly.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Reserve replacement, industry costs and the big IOC's

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 17 May 2016, 08:18:48

"In 2015 all the Majors saw either huge losses, or profits slashed to the bone." No they didn't in terms of actual monies and not the "paper loses" of their oil remaining in the ground. This compares to the huger paper gain when oil increased from $30/bbl to $100+/bbl about 10 years ago. At the current price of $40/bbl the value of a bbl of Big Oil's reserves in the ground today is greater then it was a decade ago. ExxonMobil brought in $16.2 billion in revenue during 2015. And like every other operators none of us are going to produce a well if it isn't generating positive cash flow. That's true even for wells that will never recover 100% of the investment. In fact XOM has been so flush with cash it had been buying back large amounts of its own stock.

As mentioned before when a public company posts a "loss" the term doesn't mean what many folks think it does. I won't try to explain the tax accounting and SEC rules covering such calculations. While Big Oil saw a big decline in revenue thanks to lower oil prices as well as lower stock prices it didn't lose a single $ of actually money during 2015.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Reserve replacement, industry costs and the big IOC's

Unread postby StarvingLion » Tue 17 May 2016, 14:09:12

ROCKMAN wrote:"In 2015 all the Majors saw either huge losses, or profits slashed to the bone." No they didn't in terms of actual monies and not the "paper loses" of their oil remaining in the ground. This compares to the huger paper gain when oil increased from $30/bbl to $100+/bbl about 10 years ago. At the current price of $40/bbl the value of a bbl of Big Oil's reserves in the ground today is greater then it was a decade ago. ExxonMobil brought in $16.2 billion in revenue during 2015. And like every other operators none of us are going to produce a well if it isn't generating positive cash flow. That's true even for wells that will never recover 100% of the investment. In fact XOM has been so flush with cash it had been buying back large amounts of its own stock.

As mentioned before when a public company posts a "loss" the term doesn't mean what many folks think it does. I won't try to explain the tax accounting and SEC rules covering such calculations. While Big Oil saw a big decline in revenue thanks to lower oil prices as well as lower stock prices it didn't lose a single $ of actually money during 2015.


What a bunch of gibberish. Buying back their worthless stock with more fake money...wooo Im impressed

The money printers deliberately bankrupted "obsolete" "worthless" coal with green regulations in order to buy it for nothing and are building "uneconomic" CTL plants along with buying up "worthless" water. I wonder why?

Meanwhile the shit for brains at Shell are investing in useless windmills for the stupid human pigs who believe in the EV-Battery singularity!

Your billionaire buddies paper money will be toilet paper in 5 years. Won't buy a loaf of bread.

Keep believing your bullshit of markets, econ theory, and "prices".

ALL BASED ON MONEY PRINTING AND SOFTWARE CONTROLLED "MARKETS"
Outcast_Searcher is a fraud.
StarvingLion
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 2612
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 18:59:17

Re: Reserve replacement, industry costs and the big IOC's

Unread postby Zarquon » Thu 19 May 2016, 23:31:12

ROCKMAN wrote:As mentioned before when a public company posts a "loss" the term doesn't mean what many folks think it does. I won't try to explain the tax accounting and SEC rules covering such calculations. While Big Oil saw a big decline in revenue thanks to lower oil prices as well as lower stock prices it didn't lose a single $ of actually money during 2015.


Hmmm... to what degree would you guess are O&G reserves estimates malleable when it's time to fill out the tax forms? A little pessimism when the IRS comes calling, and a little more optimism when it's time to bolster share prices?
Zarquon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri 06 May 2016, 20:53:46

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 65 guests