THE International Energy Agency (IEA) Thread pt 3 (merged)

[Pops]

Oil is extremely cheap at $100.

I agree.*

Unfortunately, the economies of the world and the US in particular were not designed around reasonably priced oil but around even cheaper oil - like $20/bbl (except for that bit between '75. and '85.)


* I'd pay $25 a gallon to run my chainsaw and walk to get it to boot!

[TonyPrep]

meemoe-uk,

The EIA publishes estimates for crude and lease condensate, no need to try and back-calculate it yourself. Unfortunately, they are always several months behind, so we won't know their full 2010 estimate until next month, I think. However, the 10 month average for 2010 is still behind the 2008 average, which is behind the 2005 average of daily production. The 2005 figure is 73.718 million barrels per day.

They have changed their format for delivering this information, and haven't yet posted February's update, which is a bit lax of them.

Actually, a couple of months ago, I expected the 2010 average to just pip the 2005 average but now I'm not so sure. However, at least the crude oil figure doesn't double count anything.

[Adelaidewonderer]

2005 : total supply avg = 84.1mbpd of which 4.74mbpd was NGL leaving 79.36mbpd conventional crude
2010 : total supply avg = 87.3mbpd of which 7.10mbpd was NGL+bio leaving 80.20mbpd conventional crude

Well its good to see that a 4% increase in supply, over the 5 year period, only caused a 100% increase in the price of crude over the 5 year period. All someone needs to explain to me , is tell me why i am paying 100% more for my oil, when my income only increased by 20% in the 5 year period. Gee, if my expenditure on petrol has to double every 5 years, i will be using 80% of my income to get to work in 20 years time. But i guess it doesnt matter if i can still buy the petrol.

[meemoe_uk]

>The EIA publishes estimates for crude and lease condensate, no need to try and back-calculate it yourself.
Well it was the IEA ( International Energy Agency ) figures I was
using, not the EIA ( Energy Information Administration ) figures.

Maybe when the EIA release a report we can have another thread, " EIA : world sets all time high oil supply record in 2010 ".
They would make a nice pair of threads at the top of this forum board. i.e. it would send a good hard message out to the 'peak oil crisis is now' gang. Don't you think?

>tell me why i am paying 100% more for my oil
Because the industry is in a state of upheaval as the anglo american majors move into the middle east. This upheaval has been going on since 2001, it is nearly over. I estimate by 2014-15 things will settle down and the price of oil will drop substancially and stay down.

[Adelaidewonderer]

>[i]>tell me why i am paying 100% more for my oil
Because the industry is in a state of upheaval as the anglo american majors move into the middle east. This upheaval has been going on since 2001, it is nearly over. I estimate by 2014-15 things will settle down and the price of oil will drop substancially and stay down.

Please do share how you have come to this conclusion.

[dsula]

>[i]>tell me why i am paying 100% more for my oil
Because the industry is in a state of upheaval as the anglo american majors move into the middle east. This upheaval has been going on since 2001, it is nearly over. I estimate by 2014-15 things will settle down and the price of oil will drop substancially and stay down.

Please do share how you have come to this conclusion.

Oh, that's easy, it's the standard corny argument. Yoday we pumped more oil than yesterday, therfore we will pump even more tomorrow.

[mos6507]

Repeat after me...

UNDULATING PLATEAU

I never got suckered into the absolute dating of peak oil at 2005 that The Oil Drum "drummed" into us. I still see the trouble we will attribute to peak oil doom really getting going around the 2013-2015 time-period that the UK task force is talking about.

[eXpat]

Is Oil Output Peaking or Not? Either Way, Cheap Oil Is Gone for Good

As investors and as drivers, most of us have an interest in the price of oil, and what it's going to do next. But if you're having trouble figuring out whether global oil production is about to peak -- an occurrence that will inevitably be followed by a surge in oil prices -- you're not alone.

Supporters and critics of the theory of peak oil, which predicts when the maximum level of global oil production will be reached and the rate of its decline afterward, are about as far apart in their assumptions and conclusions as the Union and Confederacy were in early 1861.
...
Super-Giant Fields Are Draining Quickly

James Schlesinger, a secretary of energy during the Carter administration and a director of the CIA under President Nixon, suggested during a November 2010 speech at the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas that the peak-oil debate is over.

Schlesinger points out that the world is excessively dependent on the giant, conventional oil fields discovered in the 1950s and 1960s, and production at the old super-giant fields like Burgan in Kuwait and Cantarell in Mexico started to decline sooner than forecast. Conventional fields in the key oil-producing regions of Alaska, the North Sea and Western Siberia are also in decline, he said.
While it is not yet "Twilight in the Desert," he said -- referring to the book by the late energy analyst Matthew Simmons, who calculated that Saudi and global oil production would peak this decade -- "we are well into the afternoon." Schlesinger added that "even the Ghawar oil field [the world's largest] is increasingly hard to sustain."

Also, despite a demand-driven price spike since 2004, oil production in 2010 was about the same as it was in 2004, Schlesinger said. Normally, such a large rise in prices would result in a large amount of additional oil produced. That didn't happen.

Finally, given a 4% to 6% production decline from aging conventional oil fields, the world will need the equivalent of five, new Saudi Arabias -- or about 50 million bpd from new oil sources -- to meet demand in 25 years.

For Schlesinger, it's clear: Peak oil is here, and the data he presents are enough to make you want to move closer to a mass-transit system.
...
Era of Cheap Oil Is Over

Depending on which analysis is correct, peak oil is either close at hand or several decades away. Either production from unconventional oil fields won't be able to ramp up fast enough to replace declining production at aging conventional oil fields or new drilling technology will increase output at many conventional fields and add vast new supplies from unconventional fields, pushing the day of reckoning further into the future.

Either way, barring another long global recession, one thing at least is certain: The era of cheap oil is over. It's highly unlikely that the U.S. will ever see $1.50-a-gallon gasoline again. Indeed, if global oil demand continues to climb, the current $3.11 per gallon average U.S. price for regular unleaded may look cheap in a few years.

That's enough to make many Americans consider more efficient vehicles and other ways to save on transportation costs, whether the peak is imminent or not.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/peak-oil-cheap-oil-is-gone-for-/19837213/

[TheDude]

2008 would have trumped 2005 if not for the recession, to point out what should be obvious. The plateau between those three years is what's noteworthy, that's never happened before, production contracted sharply during recessions or after the fall of the USSR, plateauing for a while before bouncing back; but not during times of ostensible economic expansion.

IEA revises data all the time - Chinese demand passing 10 mb/d a few months ago for instance, they were "only" at 9.7 mb/d or so at first. They are piling on about 1.7 mb/d extra per year so better get cracking, OPEC.

[ian807]

I hate to be so bluntly obvious but....

In 1997, oil was $12 a barrel

In 2011, WTI Crude Oil is $86, and Brent Crude about $103. About a 9-fold increase in 14 years.

So, why is this? Magic? The great jewish-masonic-trilateral commission-alien-[insert favorite conspiracy theory here] conspiracy?

Or could it be as prosaic as supply and demand (i.e. We can't pump enough of the stuff to keep up with demand and we can't find more to pump in a time-frame that's going to matter)?

Because that's what peak oil means in our lifetime. Diminishing supply with lower energy return and much higher prices. We'll never "run out" of hydrocarbons, but in the end, most will remain in the ground, because there won't be any energy positive, profitable way to extract them.

[TheDude]

Hah, just calculated the largest YOY increases in total demand for all nations/continents/regions 1980-2009, the range of available EIA data. #1 is the entire World, #2 is Asia and Oceania. Nothing too surprising there. #3? China, in 2004. In fact all three of these monster gains took place in 2004. Now, that's a rather a striking fact, no? Have to put BP data to this test, as things were really hopping along in the late 60s and their numbers go back to 1965.

Top gains in my series:

Code: Select all

World      2774.86
Asia & Oceania      1197.76
China      859.37
North America      838.83
United States      697.64
Europe      402.93
Middle East      381.6
United Kingdom      294
Japan      282
Central & South America      264.18
Korea, South      264
Saudi Arabia      197.98
India      186.88
Brazil      158.33
Africa      152.79


North America and US both set their records in 2004, too. "You need to go out and shop!"

[Xenophobe]

Well its good to see that a 4% increase in supply, over the 5 year period, only caused a 100% increase in the price of crude over the 5 year period. All someone needs to explain to me , is tell me why i am paying 100% more for my oil, when my income only increased by 20% in the 5 year period.

What are you talking about? We are only now getting back to the price of oil back during the Civil War, which in 2009 dollars was around $110 or so. They at least knew how to value something way back when, it is criminal that only now are we returning to a reasonable value. Don't like your wages? Get some other job, certainly peak oil, past, present, or future, has nothing to do with your talents related to employment, good or bad.

[Adelaidewonderer]

Well its good to see that a 4% increase in supply, over the 5 year period, only caused a 100% increase in the price of crude over the 5 year period. All someone needs to explain to me , is tell me why i am paying 100% more for my oil, when my income only increased by 20% in the 5 year period.

What are you talking about? We are only now getting back to the price of oil back during the Civil War, which in 2009 dollars was around $110 or so. They at least knew how to value something way back when, it is criminal that only now are we returning to a reasonable value. Don't like your wages? Get some other job, certainly peak oil, past, present, or future, has nothing to do with your talents related to employment, good or bad.

Not exactly sure where your coming from there xenophobe, buy I am sure I am gonna need lots of drugs just to meet you half way.

I have never related my talents to my wage. There are people where I work who have far better knowledge than myslef, who get paid alot less than me, there are people at my work who marvel at the invention of velcro, and it allows them to put shoes on each morning and come to work, who get paid more than me. My only need in life is to be in the top 49%, so at least i know more people are doing it tougher than me.

But you know what, no matter how talented any of these people are, they would all be unemployed tomorrow if oil stopped. In fact, at the peak of the oil price in 2008, the more educated ones within the company were the first ones to be laid off.

[meemoe_uk]

I agree with Xeno.
and let's be clear, there is lower layer of peakoilers who don't seem to know the basic teachings of ther own peakoil leaders, never mind the skeptic arguments. They probably don't know who the 'peakoil is now' leaders were\are. Any peakers here know who Matt Simmons, Colin Campbell, Matt Savinar were\are?

Simmons : an economically sound price of barrel of oil is $4000. $100 is a bargain.


hate to be so bluntly obvious but....

In 1970, oil was $1 a barrel

In 1979, oil was $37 a barrel. About a 37-fold increase in 9 years.

So, why is this? Magic? The great jewish-masonic-trilateral commission-alien-[insert favorite conspiracy theory here] conspiracy?

Or could it be as prosaic as supply and demand (i.e. We can't pump enough of the stuff to keep up with demand and we can't find more to pump in a time-frame that's going to matter)?

Correct answer : Economic \ Industrial \ war upheaval

During the 1970s oil crisis, which was much worse than the current one, there were hordes of 'peakoil is now' types. They absolutely could not be told that the price rise was rooted in industrial upheaval, even though ALL previous oil crisis were rooted in industrial\economic\war upheaval and had nothing to do with being geologically induced. Oh no, the 1970s crisis WAS PEAK OIL for sure ( just like all prior crisis were peak oil for sure according to 'peak oil is now' types).

POer rules: All past oil crisis are due to economic\political\war upheaval
: The current oil crisis is always rooted in geological limit.
: There is no point looking at past oil crisis to indentify the crucial difference between a gelogically induced peak and a 'man-made artificial peak'
: why? because this time we just know, we really know...this...is...it!!!

What makes peakers so sure that they've got it right this time? What is the unique factual difference that distinguishs this oil crisis from previous ones?
What would a 2010 peak oiler say to a 1979 peaker or a 1920 peaker to show them that this peak is different?
Skeptics have looked, we really wanted to find the difference aswell. In this respect we're just like peakers. It's just that we're not satisfied with the we really know...this...is...it!!! method of knowing.
We used other ways to detect the difference. and this is what we found - There is no difference.

Now, just like the 1970s, there is every sign that the current oil price rise is due to industrial\ economic\ war upheaval. Do peakers these days even realise the anglo-americans oil majors began a collosal war and oil field seizure and development campaign in the middle east in 2001, costing trillions, and the campaign is still ongoing? It was nearly 10 years ago. Wouldn't suprise me if some of the newer peakers haven't a clue about this. The trillions of dollars needed to fund this campaign come from increase taxes, cost of living, and...energy costs of the masses.

[Xenophobe]

Not exactly sure where your coming from there xenophobe, buy I am sure I am gonna need lots of drugs just to meet you half way.

You wouldn't be the only doper around here...don't feel bad about it....

But you know what, no matter how talented any of these people are, they would all be unemployed tomorrow if oil stopped. In fact, at the peak of the oil price in 2008, the more educated ones within the company were the first ones to be laid off.

None of which matters in the least. So they got laid off in a recession? Bummer...happens to the best of us. Doesn't have diddly to do with peak oil of course, or the price FINALLY getting to where it needs to be so us silly humans will pay attention to its value.

[Hawkcreek]

Now, just like the 1970s, there is every sign that the current oil price rise is due to industrial\ economic\ war upheaval. Do peakers these days even realise the anglo-americans oil majors began a collosal war and oil field seizure and development campaign in the middle east in 2001, costing trillions, and the campaign is still ongoing? It was nearly 10 years ago. Wouldn't suprise me if some of the newer peakers haven't a clue about this. The trillions of dollars needed to fund this campaign come from increase taxes, cost of living, and...energy costs of the masses.

But would this war and oil field seizure have happened if easily available oil was anywhere else within reach?
It is pretty apparent to me that the war was about oil. Why have a war if you can get more oil without one?
It looks like peak oil to me. And quacks like it too.

[meemoe_uk]

But would this war and oil field seizure have happened if easily available oil was anywhere else within reach?
It is pretty apparent to me that the war was about oil. Why have a war if you can get more oil without one?
It looks like peak oil to me. And quacks like it too.

WW1 was about about oil, WW2 was about oil, a multitude of middle east skirmishs between arab-arab, or arab-western oil majors over the last hundred years were about oil, the US-soviet cold war was often pitted over oil, the 1990s gulf war was about oil, the 2001 invasion was about oil.
Books have been written that assert that the world has been in a constant war over oil since the 1880s.
Didn't you know this?

Why have a war if you can get more oil without one?
According to you, WWI was due to peak oil around 1912, because if they could get more oil without one, they wouldn't have been a war.
Peakers of other years wouldn't be impressed with your rational.
You : " Oh MY peak's the real one, because we have a war that seemed to be about oil "
Rest of peakers : " Well, so does MY peak "

Try again, find a difference.

[AirlinePilot]

There are no "peak Oil rulers". There are only proponents on either side of the discussion. In any endeavor which invloves predictions some humans are going to get it wrong. The gist of what those of us who think PO will be a serious issue revolves solely around the work of others to be sure, but at the core, we see the numbers adding up to one conclusion. Peak is very near to now. Whether it be in the past few years or the next it really doesnt matter. Only time will tell.

There are many indications which point to this. We have had a fairly impressive price rise in crude during the last 10 years and specifically the last 5-6. During that time production has struggled along a statistically perfect plateau. Arguing one way or another and playing I told you so over a few hundred thousand barrels a day is downright childish. Its also not very scientific. There is and always has been a measurable disparity in production numbers from the different agencies so arguing about it is moot. Using it as an "I told you so" thesis is shortsighted at best. There is factual data to show that the major oilfields around the globe are at peak or in decline. KSA admits 4-6% and the charts available over at TOD concerning water levels are eye opening. Its become very evident that discovery is of mostly costly deep water oil. This is the most expensive oil we can exploit, both in energy used for extraction and cost. These discoveries will be long in coming with production and they will deplete rapidly as that is the present economic reality when it comes to DW oil. No matter what you believe there is very good reason to distrust several OPEC nations reserve estimates. Here again time will tell. Even in the face of global recession we continue to increase demand and where this new production to meet that demand will come from is very problematic. The IEA is telling you in their latest world oil overview that they do not know where a significant proportion of future demand requirements is going to come from. Its labeled as "yet to be discovered" and its significant. We need to find a whole lot more oil and very soon to make that prediction work. Realistically its not likely coming. Some of their more corny predictions are not coming to fruition either yet the cornies never seem to bring that up either.

Those here who believe new highs in production are coming...significantly above where we are now....really have nothing to base that on except blind faith. Basing some cornucopian belief on the fact that since we saw increases and peaks on the upslope doesn't quite work once you pass the FINAL peak, which is what all of the hoopla is about. Not about the logical fallacy of the "many peaks" argument. Time will tell and If Im a betting man, I think I'll stick with those Peak Oil leaders. They might have been a bit off on the timing, but I think they got the trends right. I'd say that cornies suffer more from a belief syndrome and a denial of overall trends.The rest of us slow crash folks try very hard not to believe anyone and go with the trends suggested by data. Failure to digest that data due to the belief or normalcy bias is what drives the differences we see here. We need the cornies to check us, but arguing with them is a fools errand.

[AirlinePilot]

Claiming every war of the 20th century was about oil is historically inaccurate and naive. I suggest you read some history books or take some college courses on 20th century history.

[TonyPrep]

it would send a good hard message out to the 'peak oil crisis is now' gang. Don't you think?

It would send a message but not a good hard one. The message would be that we don't know exactly when peak oil will be, or was, until many years after the event. Attempts to predict the timing (or to call a peak) are always likely to be wrong, since we can't see into the future. What does appear to be evident is that the cheap oil - conventional crude - is, at best, in a plateau stage and that should sound warnings to everyone. We won't see cheap oil again, except during bad recessions. Expect a lot of those.

2008 would have trumped 2005 if not for the recession

You may well be right but you can't be certain of that. All we have to go on is historical data. Remember, also, that conventional crude is the cheap stuff, the most profitable stuff. Why would oil companies cut back on that kind of crude, instead of the less profitable stuff, when the oil price fell? Some unconventional oil would have still been needed, since conventional couldn't supply demand on its own, but some, even much, unconventional oil would have been close to unprofitable as oil prices fell to its lows in 2008.