OilmanChoke wrote:I am confounded that you would want to limit energy use. That is a bias, it seems to me.
OilmanChoke wrote:Can you elucidate further on the tax breaks and exemptions the oil business gets?
OilmanChoke wrote:Given that I pay a severance tax off the top, along with ad valorem taxes along the way BEFORE I get to income taxes, I feel that I pay a disproportionate amount. But I could be wrong. Reading ExxonMobil's annual report, (in fact, any of the big companies annual reports) show that they pay more in taxes and excise fees than they make in profits.
OilmanChoke wrote:Given that the industry pays so much in taxes that are peculiar to the oil and gas business (preferential taxes), what further costs or penalties should the industry pay for? How would you calculate these cost allocations and would you allocate severance and ad valorem taxes against it?
Wow, do you have no idea of human-induced climate change, resource depletion or sustainability? If you had, you wouldn't be so amazed that someone could propose limiting energy use.OilmanChoke wrote:I am confounded that you would want to limit energy use. That is a bias, it seems to me.
Betting on human ingenuity is the one sure best bet historically'
'I need first to accept Climate Change as being largely driven by anthropogenic greenhouse gases'
'My point in all of this is that it seems you have decided that hydrocarbons are a declining resource, energy should not be abundant, and that work by clever folks to promulgate either one should be stifled for reasons that are based more upon your value system than science or capacity alone. '
OilmanChoke wrote:Spoken like a true statist!
The problems associated with world oil production peaking will not be temporary, and past “energy crisis” experience will provide relatively little guidance. The challenge of oil peaking deserves immediate, serious attention, if risks are to be fully understood and mitigation begun on a timely basis.
Peaking will result in dramatically higher oil prices, which will cause protracted economic hardship in the United States and the world.
Mitigation will require a minimum of a decade of intense, expensive effort, because the scale of liquid fuels mitigation is inherently extremely large.
Intervention by governments will be required, because the economic and social implications of oil peaking would otherwise be chaotic.
OilmanChoke wrote:Of course, in order to first see things as you do, I need first to accept Climate Change as being largely driven by anthropogenic greenhouse gasses, that some wacky meaningless word... "sustainability"... will mean anything in 50 or 100 years, and that resource availability are as described by folks that have one agenda or another and disconnected to the reality of resource availability.
OilmanChoke wrote:My point in all of this is that it seems you have decided that hydrocarbons are a declining resource, energy should not be abundant, and that work by clever folks to promulgate either one should be stifled for reasons that are based more upon your value system than science or capacity alone.
OilmanChoke wrote:If it is going away anyway, why regulate it so heavily?
OilmanChoke wrote: Why not promote drilling all over the world as much as possible so we don't need to have a meaningless debate about whether it is going away or not?
OilmanChoke wrote:In the end, like I said, it is about cost. I am certain that other energies will achieve attractive cost efficiencies on their own over time. Betting on human ingenuity is the one sure best bet historically. Betting on regulations to "solve" problems we cannot even agree we are having is nearly a sure bet the other way.
OilmanChoke wrote:The thing that is most interesting to me here is that while I derive a goodly amount of my income generating energy (not just oil and gas), I certainly am aware and interested in alternatives, because, after all, it is my business. If I offend some of you, it is because you don't like seeing YOUR faith attacked.
OilmanChoke wrote:I am not an energy bigot. I am fully aware of the state of the science on climate change. By the way, here is the first part of a poll of climate scientists from 1996 and rerun in 2004.
http://openchoke.blogs.com/
OilmanChoke wrote: Given that we are just understanding non traditional reservoirs, and that a tremendous amount of research is going into how to exploit clathrates, I suspect that we will see great amounts of energy to benefit us all from hydrocarbons in the future.
OilmanChoke wrote: Lots of brain power at work there. Lots of bets on the table. Most won't work. Some will. Deciding right now which one will work is an uninformed position. Your statement that breakthroughs in hydrocarbon extraction technologies and new understandings on how reseroirs operate is somehow "wish-based" is not a well informed position.
OilmanChoke wrote: I will put together the statistics to show that this industry is getting better at drilling and producing hydrocarbons. You might also want to normalize the oil production with the gas production charts and have a BTU production chart, which is more telling anyway.
OilmanChoke wrote: As such, resource allocations shift, and they do so naturally. You might ask yourself why this is so challenging to your worldview?
Lighthouse wrote:why would anyone want peakoil to happen? Just think at all the hardship which will come when we reach the peak.
Unfortunately its not important what we want.
I't will happen regardless if we want it or not ...
vfr wrote:synthetic fertilizers, ammonia?
They are totally dependent on natural gas.
Our population boom was fueled by synthetic fertilizers made from natural; gas. Once the gas dries up so does the fertilizer and a shortage of fertilizer equals a shortage of food.
TheDude wrote:Bit of a gamble, then. Much as skyemoor said.
No denying the Bakken is profitable. We're just figuring it into the global picture - how much it can really mitigate things. 50kbpd doesn't really stand up too much next to those megaprojects. You'd need 10 Elm Coulees to even register much, and even with their longevity if we're going to maintain supply for the country those wells need to be drilled soon. It's like a microcosm of the US, where we're the third largest producer in the world - with over half a million wells, orders of magnitude more than the rest. That'll take a while to drill all those holes.
OilmanChoke wrote:Again, really surprised and fascinated by the amount of invective on this board towards my comments.
OilmanChoke wrote:First: This topic "DO You Want It To Occur" is exactly the right question. Why would you WANT this to occur unless you are bigoted against hydrocarbons?
OilmanChoke wrote:By the way, I was the source for the Bakken versus State Waters post. Bakken wells are all over the place. I just drilled a dry Bakken well. Like all reservoirs, they have a log normal per well productivity distribution. That is why this is a "statistical play". They also decline. The 3 wells example was meant to illustrate how you can get an obscene amount of mezzanine financing with relatively little cash flow and a great acreage position, and how you shouldn't let the idea of your finacing costs being higher than your IRR per well get in the way. Your goal is to drill as many wells as you can in your acreage to define the maximum number of proven undeveloped locations... and no more. The PUDS have a significant value and will dwarf your proven producing reserves in value when flipped to someone with lower costs of capital. Here are the links to the posts that set up the Bakken post, and a follow up on divestiture of assets in a Bakken-like play. That these plays are being opened up all around us is no fluke. We are truly finding world class oilfields and gasfields "hidden" within our existing basins in rocks we thought wouldn't produce economically. There are several basins we know have a hydrocarbon system that have never had good reservoir rocks we are evaluating as an industry right now. Domestic new field discoveries are in the "b"illions of barrels again, just like in the 1950's. Of course, these wells aren't Saudi Arabia good or Iran good, but they sure as hell are $60+ dollars per barrel good.
http://openchoke.blogs.com/open_choke/2 ... il_bu.html
http://openchoke.blogs.com/open_choke/2 ... _bu_1.html
http://openchoke.blogs.com/open_choke/2 ... d-gas.html
skyemoor wrote:Oil-Finder wrote:skyemoor wrote:
2. The author/authors state "The methods used by Price to determine the amount of hydrocarbons generated by the Bakken are different from the traditional petroleum geochemical practices and are under dispute."
Here are the complete technical papers by Leigh Price:
http://www.undeerc.org/price/
You can find more here - this is some of the work by 2 of the other geologists mentioned in the state of ND piece:
http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/docum ... /index.htm
Linking Price's paper, or one with an Exxon/Mobil engineer, does nothing to show that his methods and findings are not under dispute.
skyemoor wrote:A regular journalist quoting oil execs and bankers having "large land positions" in the Bakken formation. Hardly anything to hang one's hat on.
skyemoor wrote:If you can find something from a reliable source, we'll look at it.
"The per well cost is approximate $2.2 million with the potential for the well to produce 500 to 700 BOPD initially, leveling off at 250 BOPD with virtually no water.
skyemoor wrote:Now, I notice you also stated;Oil-Finder wrote:The reason why estimates of URR are all over the place is because no one really knows.
And one of your references also state;But how much of the Bakken oil in place is recoverable using today's technology? Based on conventional production methods, perhaps only 10 per cent. But horizontal drilling, combined with a new production technique, known as hydraulic fracturing, has increased recovery rates by another five per cent.
and another of your references... science places the oil potential of the Bakken between 10 and 400 billion barrels of oil
So perhaps as much as 15% recovery of 10 to 400 billion barrels after drilling, by your estimate, 10s of thousands of wells, which in this era of old, rusty equipment, low inventory levels, high percentages of skilled oilfield workers at retirement age, and complicated fracturing methods, you claim prices for each well could be $2 million. Suffice to say, this provides us with little, if any, confidence in your claims that such shaky evidence can dissuade us from concerns over economic impacts from doubtful future petroleum production levels.
Nicholai wrote:The top 3 elephant fields in the world (with EROEI ratios of 1:30) are now in decline (at rates of up to 15% per year)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests