Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Conoco Phillips Thread (merged)

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

Re: And Conoco makes 3...

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 27 Aug 2008, 18:03:20

wrote: I seem to see no difference in Dems/Repubs :)



Well, there are differences.

One of the more obvious differences in energy policy is that Nancy Pelosi, dem speaker of the House, won't allow a vote on ending restrictions on offshore drilling. Republicans generally favor ending the ban, and democrats want to keep the ban.

Thats a major difference---the parties aren't the same on that issue.

From an Alaskan perspective, the dems are clearly the obstructionist party who have blocked, filibustered, vetoed and obstructed Alaskan oil development in ANWR and offshore areas for the last 25 years while republicans have, year after year, worked to get ANWR opened. The US would have 1-2 extra mbpd of domestic oil production right now if not for the dems obstructionism.

Thats a major difference---the parties aren't the same on that issue.

And, of course, there are other substantive differences as well. 8)
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: And Conoco makes 3...

Unread postby cube » Thu 28 Aug 2008, 01:54:27

ROCKMAN wrote:Oh yeah...the dems really hurt the oil companies. I'm sorry. I grew up in La. and worked in the oil patch my whole life. Our Dems were the biggest hogs in the oil companies' trough. Maybe your Yankee Dems aren't so easily bought. Yeah...that's right....I think I did read where Chicago breeds some of the most honest politicians in the land. I'm not really fussing at you but as a Libertarian I gave up expecting the best from the red/blue gang long ago.
The word "Democrat" is not normally associated with the south.
The most heavily fortified stronghold of liberalism would definitely be the Northeast and they are virulently against "Big Oil".
I think this is the image that most people get of Democrats.
cube
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3912
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 03:00:00

Re: And Conoco makes 3...

Unread postby KevO » Thu 28 Aug 2008, 02:13:56

frankthetank wrote:
I seem to see no difference in Dems/Repubs :)


what that a boomshanka moment?
In the UK, we see no diference between Labour, Tory and Lib Dems.
We point at people who think there is one
KevO
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Tue 24 May 2005, 02:00:00
Location: CT USA

Re: And Conoco makes 3...

Unread postby VMarcHart » Thu 28 Aug 2008, 06:01:05

Plantagenet wrote:The US would have 1-2 extra mbpd of domestic oil production right now if not for the dems obstructionism.
That's only 5%-10% of imports. I don't think it justifies putting ANWR at risk so we can continue to drive one block to buy ice cream at Walgreens.
User avatar
VMarcHart
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1644
Joined: Mon 26 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Now overpopulating California

ConocoPhillips, Lukoil field heading for peak output

Unread postby PeakingAroundtheCorner » Thu 28 Aug 2008, 13:04:49

Chron.com wrote:An oil field being developed by ConocoPhillips and OAO Lukoil will reach peak production in 2009 after tests of production facilities started this year. The Yuzhno-Khylchuyu field in northern Russia should reach an output of 160,000 barrels of oil a day and the peak should last for three years, Rob Smith, a ConocoPhillips secondee to joint venture Naryanmarneftegas, said today at the site --snip--
Chron.com

It really amazes me that there are so many people out there that deny peak oil and consider it tinfoil hat fodder when it happens all the time and gets posted on sites like Chron.com.
Last edited by Ferretlover on Wed 25 Mar 2009, 18:11:16, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Merged with THE Conoco Phillips Thread.
User avatar
PeakingAroundtheCorner
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Sun 08 Apr 2007, 02:00:00

Re: ConocoPhillips, Lukoil field heading for peak output

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 28 Aug 2008, 14:03:31

hold on, you are talking about two different things. Peak oil refers to reaching maximum rate of total oil production worldwide. Individual fields peak all the time and have been peaking all the time for centuries. Even as worldwide oil production was growing there were thousands of fields that had already peaked and declined. So it isn't about the fact individual oil fields have limited production but more about in a world where oil discoveries are getting smaller and less frequent can the replacement rate ever again outstrip the offtake rate.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5900
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: ConocoPhillips, Lukoil field heading for peak output

Unread postby PeakingAroundtheCorner » Thu 28 Aug 2008, 14:18:45

rockdoc123 wrote:hold on, you are talking about two different things. Peak oil refers to reaching maximum rate of total oil production worldwide. Individual fields peak all the time and have been peaking all the time for centuries. Even as worldwide oil production was growing there were thousands of fields that had already peaked and declined. So it isn't about the fact individual oil fields have limited production but more about in a world where oil discoveries are getting smaller and less frequent can the replacement rate ever again outstrip the offtake rate.


The peaking of individual fields will logically extrapolate to world oil production. This is a demonstration of peak oil production in an individual field. Eventually, if it hasn't already (which I think it has), the production profile formed by all individual fields, combined with discoveries, will reflect world peak oil production.

My point is that individuals fields are the experiments that prove the "theory".
User avatar
PeakingAroundtheCorner
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Sun 08 Apr 2007, 02:00:00

Re: ConocoPhillips, Lukoil field heading for peak output

Unread postby Cashmere » Thu 28 Aug 2008, 15:32:37

PeakingAroundtheCorner wrote:
Chron.com wrote:An oil field being developed by ConocoPhillips and OAO Lukoil will reach peak production in 2009 after tests of production facilities started this year.

The Yuzhno-Khylchuyu field in northern Russia should reach an output of 160,000 barrels of oil a day and the peak should last for three years, Rob Smith, a ConocoPhillips secondee to joint venture Naryanmarneftegas, said today at the site

--snip--

Chron.com


It really amazes me that there are so many people out there that deny peak oil and consider it tinfoil hat fodder when it happens all the time and gets posted on sites like Chron.com.


People who.

If there is somebody out there who believes that oil will not peak at some point, then that person is either ignorant of the facts or a believer in an unsupported abiotic theory, or, if neither of the foregoing, in a state of denial.

People who question the date of peak oil, however, should not be called "deniers."

In fact, I'd suggest there is no place in intelligent conversation for the word "denier". It's a sloppy crutch used by those who aren't able or don't care to make their argument.

"If you don't agree with me, you're a denier."

It's not beyond reason that oil could peak in 10 or 20 years.

While it's extremely unlikely, it's unscientific to suggest it's impossible.

Why don't we leave the word "denier" to those who really need it - holocaust profiteers and Global Warming hysterics.
Massive Human Dieoff <b>must</b> occur as a result of Peak Oil. Many more than half will die. It will occur everywhere, including where <b>you</b> live. If you fail to recognize this, then your odds of living move toward the "going to die" group.
User avatar
Cashmere
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1882
Joined: Thu 27 Mar 2008, 02:00:00

Re: ConocoPhillips, Lukoil field heading for peak output

Unread postby TonyPrep » Thu 28 Aug 2008, 19:37:57

Cashmere wrote:If there is somebody out there who believes that oil will not peak at some point, then that person is either ignorant of the facts or a believer in an unsupported abiotic theory, or, if neither of the foregoing, in a state of denial.
Even the abiotic crowd would be unable to deny a peak, unless oil consumption is running, and always will run, below the rate that oil is being formed.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand

Re: ConocoPhillips, Lukoil field heading for peak output

Unread postby Typo » Fri 29 Aug 2008, 11:53:01

PeakingAroundtheCorner wrote:It really amazes me that there are so many people out there that deny peak oil and consider it tinfoil hat fodder when it happens all the time and gets posted on sites like Chron.com.

It isn't the concept of peak oil that is tinfoil hat fodder. It's the doomer fantasies that are tinfoil hat fodder.
User avatar
Typo
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue 01 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: ConocoPhillips, Lukoil field heading for peak output

Unread postby TheDude » Fri 29 Aug 2008, 12:27:16

Almost half of the documented megaprojects hit their peak only a year after production begins; 11 for 2008 are listed as peaking in the same year of initial production, including AFK Ph. 1 in KSA, which includes Khursaniyah. How long this peak lasts isn't mentioned, and would depend on the size of the field, its characteristics, how hard it's produced, etc. How skewed depletion has become over time towards quick peaks or flat-out production as a norm would be an interesting study.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 02:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia

Re: ConocoPhillips, Lukoil field heading for peak output

Unread postby vilemerchant » Fri 29 Aug 2008, 12:47:45

This won't be popular, but perhaps these individual fields are 'peaking' so quickly these days is because modern technology and equipment has allowed the oil companies to research the fields properly and get all of the available production online extremely quickly.

Individual fields don't need to think about global supply per day vs demand, with oil prices so high and global peak oil seemingly not even an issue I think they just think about 'number of recoverable barrels of oil in the ground and how to get it out as economically as possible'.
User avatar
vilemerchant
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon 07 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

ConocoPhillips Joins Origin in $8 Billion Gas Venture

Unread postby Graeme » Sun 07 Sep 2008, 23:08:05

ConocoPhillips Joins Origin in $8 Billion Gas Venture
ConocoPhillips, the second-biggest U.S. oil refiner, agreed to pay as much as $8 billion to join Origin Energy Ltd. in a natural gas venture in Queensland, potentially trumping a hostile takeover bid from BG Group Plc.
ConocoPhillips will initially contribute $5 billion to take a 50 percent stake in the venture, which will convert coal-seam gas into liquefied natural gas for export to Asia, Houston-based ConocoPhillips said in a statement distributed on Business Wire. Origin, Australia's biggest producer of gas from coal seams, surged as much as 28 percent to a record in Sydney trading.

bloomberg
Last edited by Ferretlover on Wed 25 Mar 2009, 18:12:33, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Merged with THE Conoco Phillips Thread.
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: THE Conoco Phillips Thread (merged)

Unread postby Ferretlover » Sun 14 Feb 2010, 13:39:13

Police: Alaska oil firm head dies in avalanche Feb. 14, 2010,
Associated Pres:
ANCHORAGE, Alaska - The president of ConocoPhillips Alaska was killed and another person was feared dead after the two were swept away while snowmobiling on Alaska's Kenai Peninsula, state police said.
Jim Bowles, the head of the oil giant's Alaska operations, was with a dozen snowmobilers in the Grandview wilderness area near Seward when an avalanche roared down a slope Saturday, burying him and Alan Gage.
Bowles' body was recovered before nightfall, but Gage couldn't be located before the search was suspended because of darkness. The search was to resume Sunday weather permitting. …
link
"Open the gates of hell!" ~Morgan Freeman's character in the movie, Olympus Has Fallen.
Ferretlover
Archivist
Archivist
 
Posts: 5851
Joined: Wed 13 Jun 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Hundreds of miles further inland

Conoco cancels refinery

Unread postby Pops » Sat 24 Jul 2010, 07:48:47

Recently I wrote about speculation in the commodities markets and the volatility that results being a factor in future energy production, whether of the FF sort or otherwise. Looking for news for the front page this morning I came across this release from ConocoPhillips regarding scraping plans for "upgrading" a facility in Germany. Ostensibly the reason is reducing the companies "downstream portfolio".

Being a peaker, my first thought when I saw this story a day or two ago, was, of course they would decide not to invest in an "upgrade" (and maybe even decide to sell the whole thing) because we are at peak production somewhere about now where supply will fall from here on out. I didn't really investigate further. But this news release seems instructive, particularly this boilerplate sentence explaining all the reasons "forward-looking statements" can go awry:

Accordingly, our actual results, including project plans, costs, timing and capacities, capital and exploration expenditures, and share repurchase levels, could differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors, including the following: (a) fluctuations in crude oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids prices, refining and marketing margins and margins for our chemicals business; (b) potential failures or delays in achieving expected reserve or production levels from existing and future oil and gas development projects due to operating hazards, drilling risks and the inherent uncertainties in predicting oil and gas reserves and oil and gas reservoir performance; (c) unsuccessful exploratory drilling activities or the inability to obtain access to exploratory acreage; (d) failure of new products and services to achieve market acceptance; (e) unexpected changes in costs or technical requirements for constructing, modifying or operating facilities for exploration and production, manufacturing, refining or transportation projects; (f) unexpected technological or commercial difficulties in manufacturing, refining or transporting our products, including synthetic crude oil and chemicals products; (g) lack of, or disruptions in, adequate and reliable transportation for our crude oil, natural gas, natural gas liquids, LNG and refined products; (h) inability to timely obtain or maintain permits, including those necessary for construction of LNG terminals or regasification facilities, or refinery projects; comply with government regulations; or make capital expenditures required to maintain compliance; (i) failure to complete definitive agreements and feasibility studies for, and to timely complete construction of, announced and future exploration and production, LNG, refinery and transportation projects; (j) potential disruption or interruption of our operations due to accidents, extraordinary weather events, civil unrest, political events or terrorism; (k) international monetary conditions and exchange controls; (l) substantial investment or reduced demand for products as a result of existing or future environmental rules and regulations; (m) liability for remedial actions, including removal and reclamation obligations, under environmental regulations; (n) liability resulting from litigation; (o) general domestic and international economic and political developments, including armed hostilities; expropriation of assets; changes in governmental policies relating to crude oil, natural gas, natural gas liquids or refined product pricing, regulation or taxation; other political, economic or diplomatic developments; and international monetary fluctuations; (p) changes in tax and other laws, regulations (including alternative energy mandates), or royalty rules applicable to our business; (q) limited access to capital or significantly higher cost of capital related to uncertainty in the domestic or international financial markets; (r) delays in, or our inability to implement, our asset disposition plan; (s) inability to obtain economical financing for projects, construction or modification of facilities and general corporate purposes; and (t) the operation and financing of our midstream and chemicals joint ventures.


That pretty well covers the whole shooting match, including peak oil, climate change regulation, EROEI. Everything up to and maybe including Mr. Fusion!
If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.
-- Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 17642
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Conoco cancels refinery

Unread postby copious.abundance » Sat 24 Jul 2010, 22:59:28

Those "forward-looking statement" disclosures are required by the SEC.
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9532
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Cornucopia

Open letter to Conoco-Philips

Unread postby SilentRunning » Fri 30 Mar 2012, 00:58:48

Dear Conoco-Philips:

I see that you have decided to join the Fracking industry media saturation bombing campaign designed to brainwash er, ah educate us into thinking that fracking is safe and will be wonderful for our lives.

Your "Power in Cooperation" campaign is a masterful stroke of public relations. If only we all just "cooperate", you can get what you want and we can - to put it politely - get the shaft.

I have a counter proposal. You give me the addresses of your 1000 top shareholders. I will start a company that takes highly toxic chemical waste er ah – “Flower Power Juice” - and dumps it into your top shareholders' basements. Also, I will lobby US, state and local governments to exempt my company from things like the EPA superfund law ("We can't stiffle the job creators!"). I wont tell your shareholders what my company dumps in their basements. That would violate my companies’ trade secrets. My company will get to keep the profits from disposing of highly toxic chemical waste “Flower Power Juice”, and your shareholders can feel all wonderful that they are "cooperating" with my company and helping my bottom line.

BTW: Any health problems that your shareholders experience will be vigorously denied and buried by a public relations blitzkrieg.

So how about it Conoco-Philips - don't you think there is "Power in Cooperation"?
Send more Cornicopians!
The last ones were delicious!!! :-)
User avatar
SilentRunning
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri 27 Mar 2009, 22:46:50
Location: Northeastern North America

Re: Open letter to Conoco-Philips

Unread postby Cog » Fri 30 Mar 2012, 04:28:23

When done properly, fracking is completely safe to the environment.
User avatar
Cog
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10277
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: Open letter to Conoco-Philips

Unread postby dohboi » Fri 30 Mar 2012, 05:26:31

Unfortunately, it is never done properly.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17321
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Open letter to Conoco-Philips

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 30 Mar 2012, 10:01:14

Unfortunately, it is never done properly.

absolute horescrap.
There are literally thousands of wells drilled and fracced in a given year (35000 last year alone). Of these there has been how many problems that can be definitely proven to have something to do with the fraccing operation?
"never done properly" demonstrates your lack of knowledge in this subject.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5900
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests