[dolanbaker]

So if all this was actually extracted, processed and delivered, it puts off oil depletion by 425 days, more or less.

Well, that's not great news, but it's better than nothing.

A listed discovery cannot be converted to a number of days that put off "depletion". Depletion started in 1859, so it certainly can't be "put off" by any discovery today.

He means "depleted" and you know it!

[shortonsense]

So if all this was actually extracted, processed and delivered, it puts off oil depletion by 425 days, more or less.

Well, that's not great news, but it's better than nothing.

A listed discovery cannot be converted to a number of days that put off "depletion". Depletion started in 1859, so it certainly can't be "put off" by any discovery today.

He means "depleted" and you know it!

I know what the poster WROTE. If they choose not to write what they MEAN, unless someone qualifies as a mind reader, it is not possible to read hidden assumptions, implicit and/or unsaid conjecture, assumed understanding or guessed at professional knowledge not in evidence.

If you are such a mind reader, I bow to your greater abilities. And if the word "depleted" is substituted for "depletion" in the sited text, the comment still does not work. I can see that and I am deservedly victimized by grammar nazi's on a regular basis.

[copious.abundance]

Isn't it ironic how the peaker/doomers here make hay about the decline of a ~12-14 billion barrel oil field (Cantarell) and try to convince everyone it means the end of the world, but when I post a list of recent discoveries in one country totalling 2 or 3 times that number, it gets dismissed as trivial?

[ian807]

Isn't it ironic how the peaker/doomers here make hay about the decline of a ~12-14 billion barrel oil field (Cantarell) and try to convince everyone it means the end of the world, but when I post a list of recent discoveries in one country totalling 2 or 3 times that number, it gets dismissed as trivial?

It may or may not be trivial depending on:

1) how much oil is extractable?

2) at what cost?

3) what eroei?

Just "finding oil" doesn't tell you much. To take an extreme example, Titan has more hydrocarbons than Earth ever will (http://www.universetoday.com/2008/02/13/titan-has-hundreds-of-times-more-liquid-hydrocarbons-than-earth/) and they will do us no good at all. We don't have the technology to retrieve them at a reasonable cost or at a positive energy return.

Even the best reservoir engineers can only estimate these things and unforseen circumstances (cough, cough, Gulf Coast...) can send ROI to zero quickly.

So, as I stated earlier, these fields will help, a little, until they are depleted, but in the long run, it's certainly no game changer.

[mcgowanjm]

OK, how about this:

There's at least 800 Billion BBLS of crude left.

Everybody happy? Cause that's just bunches and bunches.

Do we even have enough oxygen to burn all of that, eh?

[ian807]

OK, how about this:

There's at least 800 Billion BBLS of crude left.
Everybody happy? Cause that's just bunches and bunches.

Bunches, in this case is about 27.5 years supply, assuming no increase in demand with the world continuing to use about 80 million barrels a day (I rounded down to make the math easier. It's probably closer to 87 million).

If demand increases, and our production increases, we could get that down to 22 years or so, I'm sure.

But as always, it's not about quantities. The remaining oil is much more expensive to get, has lowere ereoi (12 to 1 and declining), is of lower quality as far as hydrocarbon and sulfur content go, and as recent events have shown, can have remarkably negative real world consequences.

Bottom line. We'll have oil for a long time, but it won't be as much, and it will be much, much, more expensive, which is good in a sense, in that it will decrease depletion rates and give us more time to develop the patchwork of alternatives available to us.

[ian807]

OK, how about this:

There's at least 800 Billion BBLS of crude left.
Everybody happy? Cause that's just bunches and bunches.

Bunches, in this case is about 27.4 years supply, assuming no increase in demand with the world continuing to use about 80 million barrels a day (I rounded down to make the math easier. It's probably closer to 87 million).

If demand increases, and our production increases, we could get that down to 22 years or so, I'm sure.

But as always, it's not about quantities. The remaining oil is much more expensive to get, has lower ereoi (12 to 1 and declining), is of lower quality as far as hydrocarbon and sulfur content go, and as recent events have shown, can have remarkably negative real world consequences.

Bottom line. We'll have oil for a long time, but it won't be as much, and it will be much, much, more expensive, which is good in a sense, in that it will decrease depletion rates and give us more time to develop the patchwork of alternatives available to us.

[Keith_McClary]

He means "depleted" and you know it!

I know what the poster WROTE. If they choose not to write what they MEAN, unless someone qualifies as a mind reader, it is not possible to read hidden assumptions, implicit and/or unsaid conjecture, assumed understanding or guessed at professional knowledge not in evidence.

If you are such a mind reader, I bow to your greater abilities. And if the word "depleted" is substituted for "depletion" in the sited text, the comment still does not work. I can see that and I am deservedly victimized by grammar nazi's on a regular basis.

Eggs should always be opened at the big end.

487 angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[Timo]

Isn't it ironic how the peaker/doomers here make hay about the decline of a ~12-14 billion barrel oil field (Cantarell) and try to convince everyone it means the end of the world, but when I post a list of recent discoveries in one country totalling 2 or 3 times that number, it gets dismissed as trivial?

Ironic??? Not at all! It's just common sense. And you seem to have misconstrued the fundamental beliefs of those who believe in peak oil. Peak oil does not mean doomsday, as you imply. No one i've ever read here on this website is a doomer. You're just playing word games trying to justify your ignorance. Peak oil is simple geology, physics, and a little math. You know - SCIENCE!!! Familiar with that? Or does this violate your fairytales of the supernatural? Demand is exceeding supply, no matter how much oil you or anybody else on this planet will be able to find. Read that sentence again. All your claims of new oil finds are nothing new, and certainly nothing to lead anyone to think that we're all saved and able to keep living in a petro-fantasy world forever. The world will not come to an end when gasoline hits $5.00 a gallon. The sun will still rise in the east when production falls to 80,000,000 barrels. The only things believed by "peakers" are that these circumstances are real, they are not far off, that these circumstances will drastically change the way we live in this world, and that the world is doing nothing to prepare for very hard times to come. And you! You're even a deniar! Here's some advice. CLAP LOUDER!!! Create your own reality. And don't you dare even contemplate something so simple as a contingency plan, just in case you're wrong and things really do change when we no longer have an over abundance of cheap fossil fuels to make our economies work the way we're all used to. Here's some better advice: If you're annoyed and uncomfortable with the very function and purpose of this website, GO AWAY!

[ian807]

Eggs should always be opened at the big end.

Egads! Heresy!

[copious.abundance]

Isn't it ironic how the peaker/doomers here make hay about the decline of a ~12-14 billion barrel oil field (Cantarell) and try to convince everyone it means the end of the world, but when I post a list of recent discoveries in one country totalling 2 or 3 times that number, it gets dismissed as trivial?

It may or may not be trivial depending on:

1) how much oil is extractable?

2) at what cost?

3) what eroei?

Just "finding oil" doesn't tell you much. To take an extreme example, Titan has more hydrocarbons than Earth ever will (http://www.universetoday.com/2008/02/13/titan-has-hundreds-of-times-more-liquid-hydrocarbons-than-earth/) and they will do us no good at all. We don't have the technology to retrieve them at a reasonable cost or at a positive energy return.

Even the best reservoir engineers can only estimate these things and unforseen circumstances (cough, cough, Gulf Coast...) can send ROI to zero quickly.

So, as I stated earlier, these fields will help, a little, until they are depleted, but in the long run, it's certainly no game changer.

1. Nearly all the discoveries I've listed are recoverable numbers.
2. Petrobras has said these discoveries are profitable at $30 and $40 a barrel. Earlier in the thread I have posted links.
3. Nobody knows what the EROEI of these fields are, and companies do not calculate it in their investment decisions, so it is a non-factor.

Of course things can go wrong. They can also go right. Same is true for everything in life. Yes they are estimations - as are estimations of how much total oil the world has left, when the peak of oil production will occur, etc etc.

Your citation of methane on Titan was utterly lame. We already do extract oil from deepwater fields, so it isn't remotely comparable to going to Titan to get some natural gas.

If they continue to find oil fields like this all up and down the entire coast of Brazil - which is a possibility I've posted links to in this thread - yes, it absolutely will be a game changer.

[copious.abundance]

No one i've ever read here on this website is a doomer!

I stopped reading there.

[TheAntiDoomer]

Timo = the return of schmuto?

[copious.abundance]

Tino, here is something I posted on Sept. 25, page 19. Notice the sentence in bold. It is not inconceivable that the entire coast of Brazil is lined with oil and gas fields, the overwhelming majority of which are currently untapped, and many of which will be very large. Imagine an aquatic Saudi Arabia, with the coast of Brazil something like a deepwater Persian Gulf. Granted, this oil is more expensive to extract than your typical Persian Gulf stuff, but the more they do it, the better they will get at it. And if true, the large volunes present here will absolutely, positively have an impact on the world oil markets. You are dismissing this as inconsequential and claiming "geology! geology!" before you even know anything about how much is there and what the geology is there.

>>> LINK <<<

Petrobras Eyes Ultra-Deepwater Prospects Off Bahia
by Jeff Fick
Dow Jones Newswires
Friday, September 25, 2009

Brazilian state-run energy giant Petrobras (PBR) is currently researching possible ultra-deepwater oil prospects off the coast of northeast Brazil, company CEO Jose Sergio Gabrielli said Friday.

Quoted by the local Estado news agency, Gabrielli said in Brasilia that "there could be (subsalt oil there), we're there conducting research. We have to drill to see."

Bahia Gov. Jaques Wagner recently said that Petrobras was eyeing possible subsalt oil reserves off the coast of his state. Geologists had previously said that the so-called subsalt layer under which the recent oil patch was discovered could extend the length of Brazil's Atlantic coast.

[...]

[copious.abundance]

And from Feb 11 of last year, here is the CEO of Petrobras giving us his estimate of the costs of developing these fields.

>>> Bloomberg <<<

Petrobras Says Pre-Salt Costs at Low End of Scale
By Jeb Blount and Carlos Caminada

Feb. 11 (Bloomberg) -- Petroleo Brasileiro SA Chief Executive Officer Jose Sergio Gabrielli said the company’s costs to develop so-called pre-salt oil fields off the southeastern Brazilian coast are at the “low end” of the scale for offshore deposits.

Developing the Tupi field, the largest oil discovery in the Americas in the last three decades, is “viable” with oil averaging between $35 and $40 a barrel, Gabrielli said today at a news conference in Rio de Janeiro. That’s compared with the global offshore average of $35 to $85 a barrel, he said.

“We have the physical and technical possibilities to deliver this oil at low cost,” Gabrielli said. Petrobras is responsible for 23 percent of the world’s deepwater offshore oil output, he said.

[...]

[Timo]

Oilslick2, i've not discounted anything you've provided here on this site. Nobody has. All i've seen is YOU implying that just because there are a few places left where they are finding oil, that everything science and history tell us is a big lie. Nobody denies that oil is being found off the coast of Brazil. Sure, it's millions and billions of barrels. Nobody is quarelling about that. All people on this website are trying to let you know is that these discoveries, at best, delay the inevitable and don't solve a thing. That's it. End of story. If you feel better not believing that what we see as inevitable is even possible, well, i feel sorry for you, but that's your choice. I fail, though, to understand what kind of joy you get in frequenting this place, unless pointless banter is your M.O.. Me? I'm here because i want to learn something. From you, i've learned that BIG OIL is finding more ways to ruin even more reaches of the earth. The rain forrests are just about gone. Let's take their shoreline, too! If this pleases you, which seems to be the case, THAT'S why people like me resent your presence here. I know! I know! The earth is flat and is the center of the universe, and people like me should just shut up. The world is better off in your hands.

[Timo]

Antidoomer = the return of slow thought.

[copious.abundance]

I'm here because i want to learn something. From you, i've learned that BIG OIL is finding more ways to ruin even more reaches of the earth. The rain forrests are just about gone. Let's take their shoreline, too! If this pleases you, which seems to be the case, THAT'S why people like me resent your presence here. I know! I know!

I'll give you the same speech I've given to others . . . . No, you aren't here to learn anything, you are here to promote the near-term decline of oil production. Just like 60% of the rest of this forum, you do not talk about EROEI, supposedly declining discoveries, supposedly inflated OPEC reserve numbers, declining Cantarell, etc etc, because you are concerned about these issues, you talk about them because you hope it is all true. You are not concerned about an imminent decline in the rate of production of oil, you would be concerned about the lack of an imminent decline in the rate of oil production. All the details, all the supposed "science," the seemingly fancy mathematical models - the whole shebang - is all an effort to convince yourself and others that world oil production is about to decline, because you want it to decline. If they discovered a trillion barrels of light sweet crude in shallow deposits in the deserts of Algeria tomorrow, you would do everything you could to dismiss it and convince yourself and others that it won't amount to anything, because you wouldn't want it to amount to anything. It is all so dishonest. Why don't you just tell me . . .

"I don't actually care about EROEI, I just want oil production to decline ASAP."
"I don't actually care about discovery rates, I just want oil production to decline ASAP."
"I dont actually care about proven reserves of OPEC or anyone else, I just want oil production to decline ASAP."
"I don't actually care how much oil is left in the world, I just want oil production to decline ASAP."

. . . and get it over with. At least you'd be honest.

[copious.abundance]

Looks like someone's making lemonade out of someone else's lemons!

LINK

Brazil sees silver lining in BP spill: more rigs
Fri Jun 11, 2010
* Brazil may pick up rigs idled on moratorium * Could help the country's offshore campaign * Deep water rigs in tight supply around the world

By Brian Ellsworth and Joshua Schneyer RIO DE JANEIRO, June 11 (Reuters) - Brazil could benefit from the BP Gulf of Mexico spill as a U.S. moratorium on offshore drilling boosts available rigs for the country's deep water oil exploration program. Even as an ecological catastrophe makes the future of U.S. offshore drilling less certain, Brazil is plowing ahead with a $220 billion five-year plan to tap oil fields even deeper than BP's ill-fated Gulf well, which is still leaking crude. With an estimated 35 rigs idled in the Gulf of Mexico, Brazil is already receiving inquiries from companies looking to move their rigs here, where vast discoveries in recent years may soon turn the country into a major crude exporter. "What is bad for some may be good for others," said Fernando Martins, Latin America Vice President for GE Oil and Gas, which provides services to drillers in Brazil.

[...]

[bromius]

A textbook example of the strawman fallacy:

I'm here because i want to learn something. From you, i've learned that BIG OIL is finding more ways to ruin even more reaches of the earth. The rain forrests are just about gone. Let's take their shoreline, too! If this pleases you, which seems to be the case, THAT'S why people like me resent your presence here. I know! I know!

I'll give you the same speech I've given to others . . . . No, you aren't here to learn anything, you are here to promote the near-term decline of oil production. Just like 60% of the rest of this forum, you do not talk about EROEI, supposedly declining discoveries, supposedly inflated OPEC reserve numbers, declining Cantarell, etc etc, because you are concerned about these issues, you talk about them because you hope it is all true. You are not concerned about an imminent decline in the rate of production of oil, you would be concerned about the lack of an imminent decline in the rate of oil production. All the details, all the supposed "science," the seemingly fancy mathematical models - the whole shebang - is all an effort to convince yourself and others that world oil production is about to decline, because you want it to decline. If they discovered a trillion barrels of light sweet crude in shallow deposits in the deserts of Algeria tomorrow, you would do everything you could to dismiss it and convince yourself and others that it won't amount to anything, because you wouldn't want it to amount to anything. It is all so dishonest. Why don't you just tell me . . .

"I don't actually care about EROEI, I just want oil production to decline ASAP."
"I don't actually care about discovery rates, I just want oil production to decline ASAP."
"I dont actually care about proven reserves of OPEC or anyone else, I just want oil production to decline ASAP."
"I don't actually care how much oil is left in the world, I just want oil production to decline ASAP."

. . . and get it over with. At least you'd be honest.

A serious decline in global oil production will very likely mean a decrease in the material standard of living at best, and extreme hardship and suffering at worst, for everyone we know and ourselves. Claiming that people who believe peak oil is a problem want it to happen so that they can be correct is crass in the extreme.