| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"PagCal" |
| Date: |
24 Aug 2004 04:24:14 AM |
| Object: |
The Hubbert World Peak of Oil Production Near |
We are somewhere near the peak. Unfortunately, that estimate has taken
on political overtones, to the detriment of science.
see http://www.hubbertpeak.com/summary.htm for details.
Regardless of how close you 'think' the peak is though (5 to 50 years
out), shouldn't we as a nation have a strategy to move beyond fossil
fuel? That 5 to 50 years estimate can also be used as the time it'll
take us to convert - so we shouldn't risk economic disruptions that come
from too rapid a change.
George Bush's statement that 'It won't be his problem' is clearly
irresponsible.
.
|
|
| User: "Animal buddy" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hubbert World Peak of Oil Production Near |
24 Aug 2004 08:11:25 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 05:24:14 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
We are somewhere near the peak. Unfortunately, that estimate has taken
on political overtones, to the detriment of science.
see http://www.hubbertpeak.com/summary.htm for details.
Regardless of how close you 'think' the peak is though (5 to 50 years
out), shouldn't we as a nation have a strategy to move beyond fossil
fuel? That 5 to 50 years estimate can also be used as the time it'll
take us to convert - so we shouldn't risk economic disruptions that come
from too rapid a change.
George Bush's statement that 'It won't be his problem' is clearly
irresponsible.
Then why didn't Clinton in his 8 years in office do something.
Damn
Clinton did nothing to stop terror, nothing to help the coming peak
oil crisis. But, all you asshats only focus on Bush. This ***** is
spread among all parties, ages, races etc.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hubbert World Peak of Oil Production Near |
24 Aug 2004 11:24:55 PM |
|
|
I'm not quite sure what you are talking about.
Are you still blindly angry at Bill and Hillary? If so, remember Bill is
not in office any more. Looking forward, it's Bush.
Are you denying there's a problem? If so, just go buy some gas, and
wow-zer, look at how much it's going to cost you.
And as for terrorism? It hasn't had much if any impact on oil prices.
Wars do impact prices, and Bush started one of those? Is that what
you're angry about?
Or perhaps you haven't taken your meds yet today?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hubbert World Peak of Oil Production Near |
25 Aug 2004 05:14:50 AM |
|
|
Yet more evidence.
---
First signs of a global decline in oil?
by Adam Porter
Wednesday 25 August 2004 6:45 AM GMT
Many producers not only can not expand, they are in decline
New statistics are claiming that oil production in 18 producer countries
has passed its peak and is declining faster than previously thought: At
about 1.14 million barrels a day.
As oil prices bounce around the $45 mark one of the main factors
underpinning the price rise is the increasingly popular notion of oil
''depletion''.
This is the idea that certain countries' reserves of oil have fallen to
such low levels that they can no longer produce at the volumes they once
did.
British trade journal Petroleum Review has reviewed the 2003 Statistical
Review of World Energy, put together by British Petroleum, to look for
signs of depletion.
Its study claims that a large group of producer countries are now in
decline - putting even more pressure on those countries who have spare
production capacity.
There are several worrying aspects to this decline. The first is that
added to the current increase in global demand, it means other countries
must produce more just for the market to stay still.
Secondly, as those countries are forced to produce to their capacity, it
only hastens the day when they too will have declining output.
Depletion speeding up
"The phenomenon of multiple counties all declining is a new one for
everybody... So, in the longer term, matching demand to the new capacity
of producer countries may prove to be a very tough call"
Chris Skrebowski,
Petroleum Review editor
"What surprised me was the rate of decline among the 18 countries whose
production is going down," Petroleum Review editor and oil analyst Chris
Skrebowski told Aljazeera.
"For fourteen out of the eighteen countries the rate of depletion is
speeding up. This has confounded a long held view that decline was a
slow, gradual process.
"The first country to start to decline was the USA. It could be possible
that because they have such a high skill base, so many wells and such
cheap capital that they were able to slow their rate of depletion. Other
countries cannot," he said.
Those 18 countries in decline amount to about 25% of the world's
producers. They are losing about 1.14 million bpd.
This means that the other 75% have to increase output. Not only to add
the extra barrels lost by the declining countries, but also to meet
leaping global demand, about 2.4 million bpd in 2004.
That demand is set to continue its increase, forecast by the
International Energy Agency to grow by another 1.8 million bpd in 2005.
"It's a crazy see-saw where the fulcrum, the pivot, is constantly moving
across. Eventually it is going to get to a point where the see-saw can
no longer balance," said Skrebowski.
Sudden decline
Another problem analysts are facing is that it appears countries can
carry on expanding production until suddenly the decline sets in, never
to be reversed.
Depletion could eventually make
current high prices seem cheap
"The UK expanded production each year until 1999," Skrebowski continues.
"Since then it has gone down every year by 5%, then 6% then 8% and this
year, 2004, it looks set to be higher. This is even with the best
technologies and techniques available."
The country with the biggest rate of decline is Gabon. The impoverished
west African state experienced an 18% drop in production year on year.
This is on a set of fields who only came on the market in the 1970s,
having been developed by the French oil companies. Such a rate of
decline could spell disaster for vulnerable African economies.
Geo-political factors
Of course these are the most obvious examples of depletion. The more
intangible effects are geo-political.
"Depletion is not very exciting or special if it is just in one country,
say the west of country X is going down but the east is going up. No one
really cares about that except those directly involved.
"If, however, it is going down in 'stable' country X and up in
'unstable' country Y, then you get the geo-political dimension. What
happens if declines in safe countries can only be offset by increases
from those less secure?" Skrebowski asks.
Because that is exactly what may be happening. For example
Petrologistics, an oil industry firm which tracks tanker shipments,
reported that Saudi Arabian output actually fell by 400,000 bpd last month.
No more room
"It's a crazy see-saw where the fulcrum, the pivot, is constantly moving
across. Eventually it is going to get to a point where the see-saw can
no longer balance"
Skrebowski, on demand and supply
"There are serious questions being raised about the ability of Saudi
Arabia to expand production. Plus places like Abu Dhabi and Kuwait have
little or no room for movement as well. And you don't need very many
large producers to peak to make things very difficult for the others,"
said Skrebowski.
"As well as the 18 in decline there are many others who have no further
room to expand production by any significant amount. Mexico has some
problems with expanding any further and they do not appear to have
invested in any new exploration whilst China's figures claim they are
still just increasing capacity. Yet at the same time even they have
admitted their two main fields are in decline."
Without gigantic and costly investment, that would itself inflate
prices, squeezing more oil out of the ground may prove hard. Petroleum
Review's rigorous statistical analysis may just be the prologue to a
bigger, more unsettling story.
"The phenomenon of multiple counties all declining is a new one for
everybody. Up to 1990 only the USA and Romania had started declining.
So, in the longer term, matching demand to the new capacity of producer
countries may prove to be a very tough call, a very tough call indeed,"
predicted Skrebowski.
And that may prove to be an understatement.
Aljazeera
By Adam Porter
You can find this article at:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/561306AC-83F7-4FCE-A7EE-3EDD1B5C6096.htm
Close
PagCal wrote:
We are somewhere near the peak. Unfortunately, that estimate has taken
on political overtones, to the detriment of science.
see http://www.hubbertpeak.com/summary.htm for details.
Regardless of how close you 'think' the peak is though (5 to 50 years
out), shouldn't we as a nation have a strategy to move beyond fossil
fuel? That 5 to 50 years estimate can also be used as the time it'll
take us to convert - so we shouldn't risk economic disruptions that come
from too rapid a change.
George Bush's statement that 'It won't be his problem' is clearly
irresponsible.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
