Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

General Fossil Fuels Production News AND discussion

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

General Fossil Fuels Production News AND discussion

Unread postby C8 » Thu 16 Jun 2022, 13:50:59

Going back through all the old threads, I was surprised at how specific they were: shale, OPEC, etc. I also didn't find a thread dedicated to just general news on fossil fuel production (as opposed to Peak Oil theory, prices, etc.) I think we are entering a decade where energy is going back to the top of issues that nations deal with and am interested in sticking with this site for a while to discuss it.

As such, we need a good modern general purpose thread that acts as a catch all for fossil fuel production news.

To start off with, I have run across and interesting article about shale and have some thoughts afterwards. I have bolded the gist of it for those of you who want a quicker read.

A fracking boom made the US the world's biggest oil producer. Now its end is pushing gas prices much higher.

Ben Winck Jun 11, 2022, 7:30 AM

*The fracking boom was slowing before the pandemic as investors prioritized profits over growth.

*That attitude has kept production at pre-crisis levels and helped drive gas prices to record highs.


The very boom that bolstered the US's energy independence is now making its gas-price problem much, much worse.

For much of the past decade, fracking gave the US energy sector a massive tailwind. In the so-called shale revolution, fields in New Mexico, North Dakota, and Texas became the next boomtowns for energy commodities. In just a few years, the US overtook Russia and Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest producer of crude oil and natural gas. Total domestic production of crude oil jumped from 5.4 million barrels a day in early 2010 to a record 13 million at the end of 2019, according to the Energy Information Administration.

But what was recently the industry's biggest boon has since become a massive snag at the worst possible time. Russia's invasion of Ukraine in late February quickly pushed energy prices higher around the world as investors braced for a major drop in supply. The West's sanctions against Russian energy companies lifted prices again in March.

Declining supply put more pressure on the US — which exports its oil and gas — to step in with increased production. That hasn't happened.

Relief measures, including emergency releases, dented the rally slightly through April, but with Americans' demand holding strong, prices quickly rebounded. The average price per gallon of gasoline in the US hit a record $4.95 on Wednesday, according to AAA data. Prices are even higher in the most populous states, with Californians forced to pay an average $6.39 a gallon.

The rising prices are in sharp contrast to the declines seen throughout the past decade. The US fracking boom dragged energy prices lower for much of the 2010s as supply overtook demand. Yet the production surge flashed its first signs of a slowdown in 2019. Throw the pandemic, cratered demand, and market dynamics into the mix, and fracking quickly morphed into an anchor holding US production down at a time of intense need.

How fracking powered the energy industry's biggest party — and a nasty hangover
The previous decade's fracking boom quickly turned into a sprint, with companies prioritizing all-out growth over profitability. Near the end of the 2010s, companies started to show signs of a pullback as investment slowed. Industry giants told investors in 2019 they were considering shrinking production. Shareholders pushed companies to prioritize steady profits over the rapid growth seen in prior years.

Drilling in the oil-rich Permian Basin "is going to slow down significantly over the next several years," Scott Sheffield, the CEO of the energy producer Pioneer Natural Resources, told investors in November 2019.

"I don't think OPEC has to worry that much more about US shale growth long term," he said, adding that the firm "will be more cautious" through 2025.

That all came before the pandemic hit. Energy demand plummeted through early 2020 as locked-down Americans cut back on driving and travel. Oil-futures prices even turned negative in April 2020, with traders effectively paying others to take planned barrel deliveries off their hands. Producers preparing to slow drilling suddenly found themselves in a shutdown.

Turning the lights back on hasn't been easy. Demand remained weak until spring 2021, when vaccine rollouts powered a surge in consumer spending and travel. Supply has been slow to respond. Crude production neared 11.7 million barrels a day in March, down more than 1 million barrels from the 2019 peak.

The uptrend has also been a bumpy one, as producers have been wary not to repeat the growth spree of the 2010s. Investors have continued to push profit protection over faster pumping, saying firms need to pay down debts from the prior boom. That's led to producers' free cash flow soaring amid rising prices, a typical sign that the industry is leaving cash on the table and needs to accelerate investment.

Supply-chain issues have also held the sector back from boosting production. Unique sand used for fracking is now in short supply, and prices have nearly tripled from where they stood just one year ago. That's further hobbled the industry that's crucial for matching supply with Americans' extraordinary demand.

"We can't get enough sand," Michael Oestmann, the CEO of Tall City Exploration, told Reuters in February. "We're running less than the number of [fracking] stages we could pump in a day because we've run out of sand every day."

The Biden administration has tried to put more pressure on producers to ramp up activity, but there's been little improvement. The White House called on Congress in late March to pass "use-it-or-lose-it" fees for oil firms' unused wells, saying such policy would kick-start a production surge. Such measures have yet to materialize, and each party has been content to push the blame for sky-high gas prices to the other side of the aisle.

A quick solution, then, is unlikely to arrive. Much of the energy sector is beholden to its shareholders, and investors have learned from the recent past. They're firmly in marathon mode after the growth sprint of the 2010s. But as summer travel ramps up and pumping remains below pre-pandemic levels, consumers are in dire need of more production, and fast.

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-gas ... age-2022-6



Some questions:

1. Was fracking ever that profitable or was it based on debt? Debt, written off as bankruptcy, can function as an unofficial form of subsidy to an industry. If I drill 500 dry wells and write it off by bankruptcy then this covers up the fact that industry drilling- overall- may not be that profitable. The companies that do strike it rich enjoy profits- but was the fracking industry overall ever that profitable (including the bankrupt companies)? Bankruptcy may act as a subsidy to cover up low EROEI.

2. If fracking is really profitable overall, then why aren't they expanding now?

3. If the raw materials needed for fracking (such as sand) rise in price more than the gain in oil revenue, then is the boom and expansion over? Fracked oil has to compete with other forms that do not require sand.

4. Fracked wells deplete quickly we are told- so why has the amount of oil from fracking NOT gone down much? If they are not drilling many new wells then shouldn't the old ones be depleting fast?
User avatar
C8
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 873
Joined: Sun 14 Apr 2013, 09:02:48

Re: General Fossil Fuels Production News AND discussion

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 16 Jun 2022, 14:22:38

C8 wrote:https://www.businessinsider.com/why-gas ... age-2022-6

Some questions:

1. Was fracking ever that profitable or was it based on debt? Debt, written off as bankruptcy, can function as an unofficial form of subsidy to an industry.


Hydraulic fracturing had been used 100,000 times before 1955. If it was unprofitable , folks would have stopped doing it before many on this forum were born. According to the EPA, 2/3's of all hydraulic fracturing in the US had occurred BEFORE 2014 or so. They would have stopped it long ago if they didn't use it to make wells more profitable.




2. If fracking is really profitable overall, then why aren't they expanding now?


They are making YUGE profits, and using it to pay back debt, up the dividend, and live it up on high cash flows. I referenced a WSJ article within the past week explaining all of this, for those who don't watch it regularly.

The service companies that specialize in hydraulic fracturing have been making money on it for a long time, with it as a part of their services. Go check out Haliburton, the holder of the original patent, quarterly reports going back...I don't know....to WWII?

3. If the raw materials needed for fracking (such as sand) rise in price more than the gain in oil revenue, then is the boom and expansion over? Fracked oil has to compete with other forms that do not require sand.


Prices for raw materials have already risen, for things such as sand. And crews. And rigs. So wells become more expensive. Cars have gotten more expensive as well. People still buy them.

In terms of $100+ oil....well....that is GGGRRRRRR---ATE!!! for the industry accustomed to making money at the margin with $50/bbl oil.

4. Fracked wells deplete quickly we are told- so why has the amount of oil from fracking NOT gone down much? If they are not drilling many new wells then shouldn't the old ones be depleting fast?


Deplete isn't the right word, decline is. Their decline rate is higher than other types of wells, this is true. This is a direct benefit to an IRR calculation, because it means you get a majority of your money back sooner rather than later. Oil companies love that, because all revenue after breakeven has been achieved is just GRAVY!!

The reason they decline in terms of rate is completely dictated by Darcy's Law, and what hydraulic fracturing does to allow changes within that equation to increase flow rates. Which is why it has worked well in vertical wells, before folks began applying it to horizontals sometime later in the 20th century. 1980s maybe? It's all quite simple math really. hint hint...cross sectional flow area....
What does a science denier look like?

Armageddon » Thu 09 Feb 2006, 10:47:28
whales are a perfect example as to why evolution is wrong. Nothing can evolve into something that enormous. There is no explanation for it getting that big. end of discussion
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 7740
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: General Fossil Fuels Production News AND discussion

Unread postby C8 » Thu 16 Jun 2022, 17:56:05

AdamB wrote:
C8 wrote:https://www.businessinsider.com/why-gas ... age-2022-6

Some questions:

1. Was fracking ever that profitable or was it based on debt? Debt, written off as bankruptcy, can function as an unofficial form of subsidy to an industry.


Hydraulic fracturing had been used 100,000 times before 1955. If it was unprofitable , folks would have stopped doing it before many on this forum were born. According to the EPA, 2/3's of all hydraulic fracturing in the US had occurred BEFORE 2014 or so. They would have stopped it long ago if they didn't use it to make wells more profitable.




2. If fracking is really profitable overall, then why aren't they expanding now?


They are making YUGE profits, and using it to pay back debt, up the dividend, and live it up on high cash flows. I referenced a WSJ article within the past week explaining all of this, for those who don't watch it regularly.

The service companies that specialize in hydraulic fracturing have been making money on it for a long time, with it as a part of their services. Go check out Haliburton, the holder of the original patent, quarterly reports going back...I don't know....to WWII?

3. If the raw materials needed for fracking (such as sand) rise in price more than the gain in oil revenue, then is the boom and expansion over? Fracked oil has to compete with other forms that do not require sand.


Prices for raw materials have already risen, for things such as sand. And crews. And rigs. So wells become more expensive. Cars have gotten more expensive as well. People still buy them.

In terms of $100+ oil....well....that is GGGRRRRRR---ATE!!! for the industry accustomed to making money at the margin with $50/bbl oil.

4. Fracked wells deplete quickly we are told- so why has the amount of oil from fracking NOT gone down much? If they are not drilling many new wells then shouldn't the old ones be depleting fast?


Deplete isn't the right word, decline is. Their decline rate is higher than other types of wells, this is true. This is a direct benefit to an IRR calculation, because it means you get a majority of your money back sooner rather than later. Oil companies love that, because all revenue after breakeven has been achieved is just GRAVY!!

The reason they decline in terms of rate is completely dictated by Darcy's Law, and what hydraulic fracturing does to allow changes within that equation to increase flow rates. Which is why it has worked well in vertical wells, before folks began applying it to horizontals sometime later in the 20th century. 1980s maybe? It's all quite simple math really. hint hint...cross sectional flow area....


Thank you for that very informative answer
User avatar
C8
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 873
Joined: Sun 14 Apr 2013, 09:02:48

Re: General Fossil Fuels Production News AND discussion

Unread postby C8 » Thu 16 Jun 2022, 18:14:58


Biden Could Invoke Defense Production Act To Raise Gasoline Production

By Tsvetana Paraskova - Jun 16, 2022, 11:00 AM CDT

Biden may use the Cold-War era Defense Production Act To stimulate gasoline production.
National average gasoline prices hit $5 per gallon last week.
The Biden Administration sent a letter to U.S. oil firms, urging them to step up production.
Join Our Community

U.S. President Joe Biden is open to using all reasonable tools the federal government has to boost fuel production and lower gasoline prices for Americans, including emergency Cold-War era acts such as the Defense Production Act, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said during a briefing.

President Biden “is open to all reasonable uses of the federal government’s tools to increase output and lower costs at the pump, including emergency authorities like the Defense Production Act,” Jean-Pierre said on Wednesday, on the day on which the President sent a letter to oil companies telling them to increase gasoline production.

“So, we know where to put the blame: on the war. But oil companies, they have — oil refineries, they have a responsibility too. What they have been doing is taking advantage of the war,” Jean-Pierre told reporters.

“But what we’re trying to do — by putting out the letter, we’re saying, “Hey, we need you to act. It is time to act.” We want to have a conversation,” she added.

In a letter to oil companies on Wednesday, President Biden wrote that “At a time of war, refinery profit margins well above normal being passed directly onto American families are not acceptable.”

Commenting on the letter, the White House press secretary said that “President Biden is putting a spotlight on this and calling on oil refiners to invest those records — those record profits to increase capacity so cost at the pump could come down.”

“He is signaling that he is prepared to use any emergency tools he has, but these companies have a responsibility to step up too. We are focused on getting to solutions,” Jean-Pierre said.

Rallying oil prices, recovering demand post-COVID, and constrained refining capacity are the key reasons for record-high gasoline prices in the U.S. and many other countries. In America, national average gasoline prices hit $5 per gallon last week, the highest ever, in a major blow to the Biden Administration and Democrats ahead of the mid-term elections in November.

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com


1. Isn't this law supposed to be used for an actual war that we are directly involved in? If a President can use it any time wouldn't that amount to a govt. takeover of businesses (i.e. socialism)?

2. Oil companies have said they are close to maxed out already- is this correct?
User avatar
C8
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 873
Joined: Sun 14 Apr 2013, 09:02:48

Re: General Fossil Fuels Production News AND discussion

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 16 Jun 2022, 21:41:24

C8 wrote:1. Isn't this law supposed to be used for an actual war that we are directly involved in? If a President can use it any time wouldn't that amount to a govt. takeover of businesses (i.e. socialism)?


If Trump can demand ventilators to be built because of a pandemic, no, no war is required, just some urge by a President.

C8 wrote:2. Oil companies have said they are close to maxed out already- is this correct?


In terms of oil refineries....yup. The world axed some 3(?) million barrels a day of global refining capacity during Covid, including 2 in the US, give or take? Low prices, and environmental upgrades needed requiring some investment, companies said "screw it" and took them off line.

You don't just flip a switch and bring them back. VT would have a bunch more credibility if he had mentioned this issue in general rather than pretending do nothing policies like stopping leasing for 6 months was a "policy" that mattered.

A reference on that refinery issue.

Domestic production is entirely a different issue. That was covered by the WSJ article I heavily quoted a week or so bac for VT.
What does a science denier look like?

Armageddon » Thu 09 Feb 2006, 10:47:28
whales are a perfect example as to why evolution is wrong. Nothing can evolve into something that enormous. There is no explanation for it getting that big. end of discussion
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 7740
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: General Fossil Fuels Production News AND discussion

Unread postby Doly » Fri 17 Jun 2022, 12:58:27

Hopefully there will be people here that can give you much more detailed answers than mine, but my impression overall is:

1. Fracking has been mostly based on debt. There were a few truly profitable plays, but mostly, not.

2. Even if there were profitable plays, those were the low-hanging fruit and have all been exploited by now.

3. As far as I understand it, the raw materials were never the main issue, it was more of an issue of the drilling and fracking being expensive - effectively, an EROEI issue.

4. There are still some new wells getting drilled. For an accurate explanation of the situation, see this:

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2022 ... roduction/
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4220
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

Re: General Fossil Fuels Production News AND discussion

Unread postby AdamB » Fri 17 Jun 2022, 14:00:24

Doly wrote:Hopefully there will be people here that can give you much more detailed answers than mine, but my impression overall is:

1. Fracking has been mostly based on debt. There were a few truly profitable plays, but mostly, not.


Profitability based on a completion technique (regardless of which one) is defined by the revenue generated from increased (hopefully) differential production volume attributed to that particular completion technique. Well by well. Hydraulically fracturing not being the newest technique, but currently the most common. "Plays" aren't profitable, wells are. Plays are nothing more than a formation or group of formations that are being developed with wells that have organized levels of activity higher than others at a point in time. And in all plays, some wells are profitable, some were not.

Fracking has been wonderfully profitable to those who provide the service, i.e. service companies. To them, plays are nonexistent other than a popular location to put a field camp, wells are what they work in, and they aren't paid by the profitability of the well, they are paid for the job.

Doly wrote:2. Even if there were profitable plays, those were the low-hanging fruit and have all been exploited by now.


I can state for a fact that this statement is not true. The underlying assumption in this statement, quote common among amateurs in the field, is that the best are found and drilled first. It misses the nuance of discovery process modeling so common in the peak oil world (and led peak oilers SERIOUSLY astray because...well...that's what happens to amateurs). The best geology might certainly be FOUND first, in order to prove up the formation, but then those wild and crazy drillers start poking holes everywhere and engineers begin optimizing drilling and completions and efficiencies of scale, and this is what happens next. Like in the Marcellus. Those wacky engineers, dispatching naysayers and low hanging fruit advocates with aplomb. This example is provided by the EIA.Entire article here.

Image


Doly wrote:3. As far as I understand it, the raw materials were never the main issue, it was more of an issue of the drilling and fracking being expensive - effectively, an EROEI issue.


Cost is not, and has never been, an EROEI issue. Cost is cost, and dependent on far more than the energy involved in the item being discussed. Changes in the relative value of energy and resources within the human economic system is exactly why the likes of Charles Hall keep screwing up their claims of end of US oil drilling and whatnot.

Doly wrote:4. There are still some new wells getting drilled. For an accurate explanation of the situation, see this:=
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2022 ... roduction/


Alternatively, skip the peak oilers who are on record as having screwed the pooch horribly because they don't know much about oil and gas. From Doly's referenced author, BEFORE his peaker ignorance (and lack of industry modeling experience as well perhaps? )was revealed, in just one small example.

Roger dunno no much bouts urls from article wrote:I personally think that an ultimate recovery from the Bakken Shale formation of 1.5 Gb is realistic if not a bit optimistic. Based upon my modeling of Bakken Shale oil production with a 1.5 Gb ultimate recovery, peak production would occur in the 2013-2014 period.


The Bakken alone (not the accompanying Three Forks that went unnoticed by this geologically ignorant prognosticator) has PRODUCED 3.1 Gb, is currently producing about .83 million barrels per day, and if those wells decline as expected, will probably add another 1.5 GB to the total. The Bakken formation is currently at or close to its highest oil rates (therefore no peak in 2013-2014 as we heard from the peanut gallery). This excludes all undrilled locations , because those volumes are more a resource category until they make someone's capital expenditure plans. Then those resources will be converted to reserves, and more production, and etc etc, and as expected, reserve growth of this type still rulz. :)
What does a science denier look like?

Armageddon » Thu 09 Feb 2006, 10:47:28
whales are a perfect example as to why evolution is wrong. Nothing can evolve into something that enormous. There is no explanation for it getting that big. end of discussion
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 7740
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: General Fossil Fuels Production News AND discussion

Unread postby Doly » Tue 21 Jun 2022, 14:57:01

The best geology might certainly be FOUND first, in order to prove up the formation, but then those wild and crazy drillers start poking holes everywhere and engineers begin optimizing drilling and completions and efficiencies of scale, and this is what happens next.


And eventually they run out of optimizations and efficiencies.

Cost is not, and has never been, an EROEI issue. Cost is cost, and dependent on far more than the energy involved in the item being discussed.


That may be true for other things, but in the case of fracking, the overall energy needed to do a fracking operation explains a lot about why fracking is expensive.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4220
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

Re: General Fossil Fuels Production News AND discussion

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 22 Jun 2022, 13:42:53

Doly wrote:
The best geology might certainly be FOUND first, in order to prove up the formation, but then those wild and crazy drillers start poking holes everywhere and engineers begin optimizing drilling and completions and efficiencies of scale, and this is what happens next.


And eventually they run out of optimizations and efficiencies.


They do. Hell on wheels to get there they are, but they do get there. But that isn't what will change the US production outlook, that will be the productive (at a price) rock available. No different than how a discrete accumulation finishes it's life, continuous accumulations are just more diffuse.

Doly wrote:
Cost is not, and has never been, an EROEI issue. Cost is cost, and dependent on far more than the energy involved in the item being discussed.


That may be true for other things, but in the case of fracking, the overall energy needed to do a fracking operation explains a lot about why fracking is expensive.


Fracking was so expensive I was doing it, and making money with it, at $20/bbl and <$2/mcf. Today it costs more. And price is higher. And in neither case does the "energy" involved matter in any way except the expected $$ return be more than the expected $$ outlay. Just...that...simple. Doesn't matter if it is my 5 figure completions, or the 7 figure ones so common today.
What does a science denier look like?

Armageddon » Thu 09 Feb 2006, 10:47:28
whales are a perfect example as to why evolution is wrong. Nothing can evolve into something that enormous. There is no explanation for it getting that big. end of discussion
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 7740
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: General Fossil Fuels Production News AND discussion

Unread postby C8 » Thu 23 Jun 2022, 10:55:15

U.S. Oil And Gas Exports Are Fueling Higher Domestic Prices
By Kurt Cobb - Jun 22, 2022, 3:00 PM CDT

In the last decade, the U.S. oil and gas industry won a long-fought battle to lift federal restrictions that limited exports so that it could take full advantage of the shale revolution.
Today, that is one of the key reasons why the U.S. is unable to control the price of gasoline, diesel, and natural gas at home.
In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the resultant economic uncertainty, calls for self-sufficiency are likely to be amplified.


The U.S. oil and natural gas industry long fought for and in the last decade finally won release from federal restrictions that limited exports. The ostensible reason was that because of the so-called "shale revolution" in the country's oil and gas fields, the United States would have plenty of oil and gas to spare for export. The real reason behind the push was that the oil and gas industry wanted what almost every other industry in America already had: The right to sell their products to the highest bidders no matter where they lived on the globe.

This made it almost certain that as U.S. prices rose to match world prices, U.S. consumers would feel the pain. And, since energy prices affect everyone who votes, they are always politically consequential.

So, it is unsurprising that with U.S. regular gasoline prices over $5 per gallon President Joe Biden lashed out at U.S. oil companies—which are having one of their best years ever—saying they need to increase production of refined oil products. The companies have responded that their refineries are running at close to maximum capacity and so there is not much they can do in the short run.

What is left unsaid is that it has long been the policy of the United States to allow the export of refined (as opposed to crude) petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel, and heating oil. The country has a refinery capacity significantly in excess of domestic needs and so exports a considerable volume of refined products including about 1 million barrels per day (mbpd) of gasoline and 1.4 mbpd of diesel and heating oil (for the week ending June 10). If the U.S. were to curtail such exports in order to reduce prices at home, the country would be violating long-term commitments to free trade and free markets, and would be reducing supply and thus raising prices for customers abroad.

The boom in U.S. natural gas exports has also strained U.S. domestic natural gas supplies sending prices from less than $2 per thousand cubic feet (mcf) two years ago to about $7 per mcf today. (That's down from $9 recently.) That has meant sharply rising costs for residential and industrial heating and for natural gas-based plastics and other chemicals including nitrogen fertilizer derived from natural gas.

The boom in liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports now sends about 11 percent of U.S. natural gas production abroad (based on shipments from January through March 2022). The volume of LNG exports rose by a factor of 50 from 2011 through 2021. (See these numbers from the U.S. Energy Information Administration here and here.)

The world's free-trade advocates have long insisted that all commodities should circulate freely across the globe going to the highest bidder. These advocates also believed that government policies should not favor or subsidize one industry over another. The idea was crystallized in 1992 by Michael Boskin, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisors under President George Bush, when Boskin was asked whether the United States should have a policy that encouraged domestic semiconductor production. He is reported to have said, "Potato chips, computer chips—what's the difference?"

Today, the country is talking about the very same issues. Does the United States need an industrial policy regarding semiconductors? Should the United States curtail oil exports? A debate on natural gas exports is likely to erupt soon.

It turns out that it really does matter whether a country produces potato chips or computer chips. In the wake of the Russia/Ukraine conflict which has resulted in the sudden breakdown and wrenching realignment of the global trading system countries around the world are grappling with shortages of food, fuel, and crucial industrial goods including semiconductors.

If nations increasingly decide that self-sufficiency and affordable domestic prices for exportable goods are more important than so-called free trade, look for many more dustups about whether governments should be more involved in setting industrial policies and determining what can and cannot be exported.

By Kurt Cobb via Resource Insights

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:
User avatar
C8
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 873
Joined: Sun 14 Apr 2013, 09:02:48

Re: General Fossil Fuels Production News AND discussion

Unread postby Doly » Thu 23 Jun 2022, 14:48:56

But that isn't what will change the US production outlook, that will be the productive (at a price) rock available.


So the point when the outlook changes and fracking peaks will happen before all the optimizations and efficiencies are done.

Today it costs more. And price is higher. And in neither case does the "energy" involved matter in any way except the expected $$ return be more than the expected $$ outlay.


If energy is expensive enough, then the return will no longer be more than the outlay.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4220
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

Re: General Fossil Fuels Production News AND discussion

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 23 Jun 2022, 15:24:37

Doly wrote:
But that isn't what will change the US production outlook, that will be the productive (at a price) rock available.


So the point when the outlook changes and fracking peaks will happen before all the optimizations and efficiencies are done.


That is a definite possibility. In at least one case, optimization and efficiencies looked to have been wrung out before the high point of production. In another, no. I've only got a couple operative examples to work with, and some of them are early 20th century examples, and difficult to be certain that the data availability is enough to draw this particular conclusion.

Doly wrote:
Today it costs more. And price is higher. And in neither case does the "energy" involved matter in any way except the expected $$ return be more than the expected $$ outlay.

If energy is expensive enough, then the return will no longer be more than the outlay.


Hence the use of resource cost curves to do calculations in this arena. Are you familiar with them or their use?
What does a science denier look like?

Armageddon » Thu 09 Feb 2006, 10:47:28
whales are a perfect example as to why evolution is wrong. Nothing can evolve into something that enormous. There is no explanation for it getting that big. end of discussion
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 7740
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: General Fossil Fuels Production News AND discussion

Unread postby C8 » Sat 25 Jun 2022, 00:02:37

New Regulations In Permian Could Deter Drilling

By Julian Lowe - Jun 24, 2022, 6:00 PM CDT

The EPA is considering a new label for parts of the Permian Basin that could deter or slow oil and gas drilling in certain parts of the prolific Permian Basin.

According to a regulatory notice, the EPA could label parts of the Permian Basin as violating federal air quality standards for ozone. If the EPA does indeed label parts as violating the standards, state regulators would need to find a way to clean up the air quality—and they would have three years to come up with a plan to do that. Their plans could include keeping new industrial facilities from making the air quality even worse and making sure current sites have the proper technology to keep the air quality at acceptable levels.

The EPA is facing a potential lawsuit from WildEarth Guardians over the matter, who brought the air quality issue to the EPA's attention last March.

The possible regulatory action adds yet another element of uncertainty to the oil industry, which is already facing an unknown future while being chastised for not investing more to produce more—whether that's refining or drilling.

"Creating uncertainty on permitting and inserting unnecessary regulatory barriers will only negatively impact the production necessary to meet the needs of consumers," Todd Staples, president of the Texas Oil and Gas Association, told Bloomberg.

The Permian Basin is responsible for the lion's share of the oil produced in the United States. In its latest Drilling Productivity Report, the EIA forecast that the Permian Basin's July production will climb to 5.316 million bpd, out of the total 8.901 million bpd produced across the seven most prolific U.S. basins. In June, the Permian is set to produce 5.232 million bpd, according to the EIA. The next most prolific basin, the Eagle Ford, is set to produce 1.152 million bpd this month.

By Julianne Geiger for Oilprice.com


Its difficult for the oil industry to thrive under these conditions. Investors have to know that new rules could radically change at any moment and ruin their profit projections. Just the uncertainty alone will deter many. We may already be at US Peak Oil in the next three years.
User avatar
C8
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 873
Joined: Sun 14 Apr 2013, 09:02:48

Re: General Fossil Fuels Production News AND discussion

Unread postby AdamB » Sat 25 Jun 2022, 10:35:30

C8 wrote:Its difficult for the oil industry to thrive under these conditions. Investors have to know that new rules could radically change at any moment and ruin their profit projections. Just the uncertainty alone will deter many. We may already be at US Peak Oil in the next three years.


It has been difficult for the industry to thrive since the Windfall profits tax and FERC regulation of intrastate natural gas prices of the late 1970's. And anyone claiming yet another peak in the future must not be paying attention, US peak happened around the time Covid struck, 2020. Goodness, oilprice.com authors aren't advocating yet ANOTHER US OIL PEAK!!! EEK GADS!!! HERETICS!! Haven't we discredited both Hubbert and the run of the mill Happy McPeaksters enough already!!
What does a science denier look like?

Armageddon » Thu 09 Feb 2006, 10:47:28
whales are a perfect example as to why evolution is wrong. Nothing can evolve into something that enormous. There is no explanation for it getting that big. end of discussion
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 7740
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: General Fossil Fuels Production News AND discussion

Unread postby Doly » Mon 27 Jun 2022, 14:54:36

Money plays an utterly vital role in modern society and its nonsensical to ignore that fact.


True. But when a number of so-called finance experts make truly terrible decisions, it's fair to think that they don't understand money as well as they claim. Therefore, their money talk is useless. It isn't that understanding money is useless, is that often those who claim to understand money demonstrate that they don't.

AND, businesses aren't in the business of pleasing engineers.

Businesses are in the business of pleasing their CUSTOMERS.


In other types of business the engineers may play a lesser role in pleasing customers, but in the business of providing energy, you don't please your engineers, you aren't going to please your customers, either. Ask the Texans if they are pleased with the fragility of their grid.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4220
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

Re: General Fossil Fuels Production News AND discussion

Unread postby AdamB » Mon 27 Jun 2022, 15:24:10

Doly wrote:
Money plays an utterly vital role in modern society and its nonsensical to ignore that fact.


True. But when a number of so-called finance experts make truly terrible decisions, it's fair to think that they don't understand money as well as they claim.


Sure...just like peak oilers. Glad to see we are getting on the same page with this credibility thing!

Doly wrote:Therefore, their money talk is useless.


Yup. Exactly the point I make about peak oilers and the value of what they say in the present. We could apply (and I do) the same rule to Charles Hall as well, and his understanding of net energy.
What does a science denier look like?

Armageddon » Thu 09 Feb 2006, 10:47:28
whales are a perfect example as to why evolution is wrong. Nothing can evolve into something that enormous. There is no explanation for it getting that big. end of discussion
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 7740
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: General Fossil Fuels Production News AND discussion

Unread postby Doly » Tue 28 Jun 2022, 15:04:03

Sure...just like peak oilers. Glad to see we are getting on the same page with this credibility thing!


What terrible decisions have peak oilers been making?

Also, I sometimes wonder about peak oilers in other countries. There must be some in oil-producing countries that aren't English-speaking, and we don't know so much about them because they don't speak English. I suppose it's possible that American peak oilers have made bad decisions, but peak oilers in the Middle East or Russia have made the right moves, and we just don't know it, because we haven't seen their game played yet.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4220
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

Re: General Fossil Fuels Production News AND discussion

Unread postby C8 » Tue 28 Jun 2022, 17:05:19

Doly wrote:
Sure...just like peak oilers. Glad to see we are getting on the same page with this credibility thing!


What terrible decisions have peak oilers been making?

Also, I sometimes wonder about peak oilers in other countries. There must be some in oil-producing countries that aren't English-speaking, and we don't know so much about them because they don't speak English. I suppose it's possible that American peak oilers have made bad decisions, but peak oilers in the Middle East or Russia have made the right moves, and we just don't know it, because we haven't seen their game played yet.


Remember, when peak oilers get things wrong that means the theory is wrong, but when Global Warming alarmist get things wrong it means they just made a timing boo boo.
User avatar
C8
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 873
Joined: Sun 14 Apr 2013, 09:02:48

Re: General Fossil Fuels Production News AND discussion

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 28 Jun 2022, 18:05:21

Doly wrote:
Sure...just like peak oilers. Glad to see we are getting on the same page with this credibility thing!


What terrible decisions have peak oilers been making?


Mostly making an explicit choice to sell their religious beliefs as though they are real. It isn't as though many would trust them to make real decisions of course, whereas the financial folks certainly can make decisions that affect everyday lives.

Doly wrote:Also, I sometimes wonder about peak oilers in other countries. There must be some in oil-producing countries that aren't English-speaking, and we don't know so much about them because they don't speak English.


Quite true. Although I've read some Chinese articles on the topic(in English), bumped into a Russian scientist from one of their techno polytechnic institututes or another, spoken with more than a few Scandanavians on the topic. All English speakers though, and don't recall anything being wildly different than American or western European based thinking on the topic.

Doly wrote: I suppose it's possible that American peak oilers have made bad decisions, but peak oilers in the Middle East or Russia have made the right moves, and we just don't know it, because we haven't seen their game played yet.


I'll grant the possibility. You might have to clarify what exactly is a "right move" when discussing peak oil though. Economics is the social science explaining how people react under certain stimuli, oil is an important raw material and operates in the market at large, with a bunch of actors, regardless of country of origin, just doing what they do. No one has a crystal ball in this regard, but we do know several things. It has been about 4 years since the most recent peak oil. And humans are still buying stuff and driving and flying and the claims (or hopes and dreams) of doom tomorrow afternoon certainly were off base.
What does a science denier look like?

Armageddon » Thu 09 Feb 2006, 10:47:28
whales are a perfect example as to why evolution is wrong. Nothing can evolve into something that enormous. There is no explanation for it getting that big. end of discussion
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 7740
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: General Fossil Fuels Production News AND discussion

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 28 Jun 2022, 18:10:01

C8 wrote:Remember, when peak oilers get things wrong that means the theory is wrong....


The peak oil theory as cast into mathematics by Hubbert is not theory. The morons who keep getting it wrong however means the claimants are morons because they can't be bothered to understand the system prior to using it to predict stuff.

C8 wrote:...but when Global Warming alarmist get things wrong it means they just made a timing boo boo.


Global warming is also a fact (as is global colling), and has happened many times in the past. The current dispute seems to be about the WHY more than anything else.
What does a science denier look like?

Armageddon » Thu 09 Feb 2006, 10:47:28
whales are a perfect example as to why evolution is wrong. Nothing can evolve into something that enormous. There is no explanation for it getting that big. end of discussion
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 7740
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Next

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests