Don’t worry, just a little bump - $70 is just around the corner. Short traders just keep making those margin calls, mortgage the house if you have to. Fortunes await you! PO is for pansies and doomers. At $70 short some more ..... it is going back to $22 .... the world is awash with oil ........ reality has nothing to do with it, its all in those charts!!!!!!!!!!
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:23 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
KillTheHumans wrote:
Your view is that the bakken will slow the rate of growth of crude imports, when the growth of imports has been NEGATIVE going into year 3.
And you think this is sustainable?
Quote:
You apply thermodynamic rules to an economy and pretend it applies the same as in the physical world, which the physicist noticed it didn't, YOUR VIEW, contradicted by someone else who can't figure out what you actually are trying to say any better than I can.
I applied thermodynamics to real growth in the production of goods and services, not to the economy. You cannot increase the production of goods and services without an increase in the use of energy. You might for a short blip with efficiency gains, but that would just lead to greater consumption eventually...as it always has.
Quote:
You say economies can't grow without additional oil input....when its been happening for years
If you take out the financial specualtion growth, we have not been growing the GDP.
Quote:
, your VIEW is that the US is in terminal oil production decline except for the FACT that in 2007 it REVERSED.
A blip on the radar, less than that of the north slope increase.
The US is in terminal decline. That's not my view.
Quote:
MonteQuest wrote:
Trying to discredit me does not change the facts.
TRYING is the wrong verb, and you aren't the one using facts.
Oh? You think Bakken will out produce ANWR? That's the facts I'm talking about.
I think not. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:24 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
MonteQuest wrote:
yesplease wrote:
Well according to Monte, we're gonna get to 30mbpd in 2025 before that happens.
No, I doubt we will ever consume that much. But a normal economy is going to want to. That's what EIA and the IPAA projected in 2005 which is when I put together those numbers.
Update your information.
MonteQuest wrote:
Historically, we have grown oil use 1.5 to 2% a year. And as I am being lambasted about, as recent as 2005, the EIA has projected a 1.7% growth rate.
The irony, of being forced to use OLD EIA projections, because the new ones reflect what is ACTUALLY happening, said NEW projections doing EXACTLY what economists expect in a high cost environment, is just delicious.
MonteQuest wrote:
So, let's say that US oil consumption stays flat for the next 20 odd years with this current projection.
You think life as we know it isn't going to change? Read my Slow Decline thread.
Only if you promise not to have confused physics and economics in it.
MonteQuest wrote:
Especially while China raises their consumption 63% by 2020 and 100% by 2030 with current projections?
Not to mention India. But I will...at 5.5%/yr.
More projections. I suppose its too much to ask for you to look up whats actually happening there, before one of us does, and beats you over the head with more FACTS? _________________ Freddy RULZ!
www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits) (or bankers) (or web "experts")
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:27 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
KillTheHumans wrote:
I explained why it matters. And when people catch errors in my presentations THE FIRST TIME THEY SEE IT, I certainly don't consider it childish, I expect it.
You didn't just "catch the error", you resorted to repeated ad hominems about it. That's the childish part.
You think professionals debate like you do? _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:29 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
OilFinder2 wrote:
I thought this thread was supposed to be about the Bakken?
KTH has turned it into a Montequest bash. I won't reply to him anymore.
The last thing we need is someone full of rancor like him. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:31 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:30 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
OilFinder2 wrote:
I thought this thread was supposed to be about the Bakken?
YES!!! OIL!!! WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN!!!
This crazy person came in and distracted all of us.
I've got my hotel reservations for Minot. You want to give me a few questions to ask for you? I hear there is a 2 hour poster session, which means SOMEONE will be standing in front a poster with numbers on it from the USGS and ND Survey. Captive audience!
Post them here, I'll print them out and take them with me. _________________ Freddy RULZ!
www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits) (or bankers) (or web "experts")
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:53 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
MonteQuest wrote:
KillTheHumans wrote:
Your view is that the bakken will slow the rate of growth of crude imports, when the growth of imports has been NEGATIVE going into year 3.
And you think this is sustainable?
It has been heading into its 3rd year. It did the last time we were running out of oil for maybe 4-5 years? Took cheap prices and the invention of the SUV to stop it. Could be sustainable...why not?
MonteQuest wrote:
Quote:
You apply thermodynamic rules to an economy and pretend it applies the same as in the physical world, which the physicist noticed it didn't, YOUR VIEW, contradicted by someone else who can't figure out what you actually are trying to say any better than I can.
I applied thermodynamics to real growth in the production of goods and services, not to the economy. You cannot increase the production of goods and services without an increase in the use of energy. You might for a short blip with efficiency gains, but that would just lead to greater consumption eventually...as it always has.
Go read what the physicist wrote. I'm as confused as him when you pretend physics applies to economics. And when your writing is so imprecise that I can drive a phase change of water example through it, you KNOW it wasn't written correctly the first time.
MonteQuest wrote:
Quote:
You say economies can't grow without additional oil input....when its been happening for years
If you take out the financial specualtion growth, we have not been growing the GDP.
Go read what the physicist wrote about a song, and the GDP it generates. Answer that question. When you are coherent with that example, maybe we'll talk about it again. Be warned, he's got a good example, and you aren't batting particularly well as of late.
MonteQuest wrote:
Quote:
, your VIEW is that the US is in terminal oil production decline except for the FACT that in 2007 it REVERSED.
A blip on the radar, less than that of the north slope increase.
The US is in terminal decline. That's not my view.
Maybe. Maybe not. Production has been stabilized post US peak before...for periods up to and including multiple years. Not an 8% decline in sight.
MonteQuest wrote:
Quote:
MonteQuest wrote:
Trying to discredit me does not change the facts.
TRYING is the wrong verb, and you aren't the one using facts.
Oh? You think Bakken will out produce ANWR? That's the facts I'm talking about.
Stop confusing FACTS with your speculation, assumptions, extrapolations or anyone elses projections. They are GUESSES, which you yourself already know have been revised since you built whatever presentation you started this whole mess with.
MonteQuest wrote:
Oh? You think Bakken will out produce ANWR? That's the facts I'm talking about.
THINK Monte, and read that statement of yours above. Study it carefully. Stare at it for hours if necessary.
Now look at an actual FACT.
The Bakken has ALREADY outproduced ANWR. Its been that way for DECADES, and it could possibly stay that way forever. When you make one of those ridiculous, "I challenge all comers!" statements, you should at LEAST think about it before hitting the "Submit" button. Bakken production is FACT, ANWR production is one of those silly projections you like so much. STOP confusing the two. _________________ Freddy RULZ!
www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits) (or bankers) (or web "experts")
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:59 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
MonteQuest wrote:
yesplease wrote:
Well according to Monte, we're gonna get to 30mbpd in 2025 before that happens.
No, I doubt we will ever consume that much.
So you're using a figure you doubt? Why not spend a few seconds or minutes searching the interwebs for more realistic figures that you don't doubt?
MonteQuest wrote:
KillTheHumans wrote:
yesplease wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
My point is you cannot have real growth in good and services without an increase in energy inputs.
Course ya can, via appropriate efficiency increases.
Bet your butt you can.
Two idiots.
Unsustainable.
Would you quit it with the Ad Hominem attacks? If instead of attacking other posters you used that time to research your statements, you probably wouldn't need to doubt the figures you use in the first place.
Besides, considering how much of the Earth's NPP we destroy just to use a couple percent, which naturally requires additional energy compared to simply using what we need to survive, any measure of sustainability will require significant improvements in our efficiency of our use of the Earth's NPP. _________________
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:28 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
KillTheHumans wrote:
OilFinder2 wrote:
I thought this thread was supposed to be about the Bakken?
YES!!! OIL!!! WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN!!!
This crazy person came in and distracted all of us.
I've got my hotel reservations for Minot. You want to give me a few questions to ask for you? I hear there is a 2 hour poster session, which means SOMEONE will be standing in front a poster with numbers on it from the USGS and ND Survey. Captive audience!
Post them here, I'll print them out and take them with me.
Well I posted some stuff I'd like to know earlier but I don't feel like digging back through the thread to find 'em. Soooo . . .
-- If you can get a hold of any of the USGS folks who worked on the study, ask them if they figured only the "best" parts of the Bakken would be drilled, or if some lesser spots would be drilled. In general, it would be interesting to know what percentage of the Bakken they expected to be developed in that 30-year time frame.
-- I'd also be interested to know what kind of well spacing they expected to be developed even in the "best" areas. What are the "cells" they made calculations for? Are they 1-sq-mi sections? Or something else? If they are sections, did they assume just 1 or 2 wells per section? If they expected more than 1 well per section, how and where did they assume more well density would be developed, and how did this factor into their calculations?
-- Also, recall my observation based on those forms you linked that their 3.65 billion barrel figure amounts to a calculation of what they expect oil companies to add to their proven/probable/potential reserves from this formation (before taking away production) over the next 30 years. Ask them if they agree this is an accurate characterization of the number they produced, and if so, if it would just be "proven" or also "probable" and/or "potential."
-- I'm interested in the discrepancy between Price's claim that 50% of the oil there could be recoverable (at $12/barrel!), and the apparent low number they came up with. I understand FaceDown's earlier description of Price's "personality," but there must have been *some* rational basis for his 50% assumption. If they know anything about Price's 50% recoverable assumption, it would be interesting to know what they thought of that, and perhaps why they dismissed it. Or did they just ignore it altogether?
-- The maps of the western boundary of both the thermally-mature area, and the Bakken in general (on their Fact Sheet) look suspiciously "cut-off." The line just looks too straight. Ask them if it really is straight like that, or are they unsure where the western boundary is?
-- Since I haven't seen the ND report yet, don't have any questions for any state of ND folks.
-- EDIT: Oh yeah, one other very important question . . . they said their calculation was the amount of "technically recoverable undiscovered" oil. I would like to know how much oil there is "already discovered" and how that figured into their calculation. Did they subtract all the land ("cells") that already have wells on them and are drilling oil? Or did they subtract land that has simply been leased to date by oil companies, with perhaps some seismic readings made? Or maybe they subtracted the land with planned wells on them? Basically I want to know, since they said this is a calculation of "undiscovered" oil, how do they define "undiscovered" and the corollary is, what do they define as "already discovered" and how much of that is there. This question is probably the most important one. _________________ Abundance - what a concept!
Last edited by OilFinder2 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:14 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:58 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 200 billion barr
KTH, in reference to my last question above regarding "already discovered" oil, keep in mind my little calculation here a few weeks ago based on EOG's statements. According to them, their leases contain 4.5 billion barrels of oil, and they assume a recovery rate of about 10%, which would be 450 million barrels. Would this be "already discovered" oil? Or only some of it? Or would this be part of the "undiscovered" for some reason?
OilFinder2 wrote:
OK I just did my own thing for this for EOG Resources.
Joined: Apr 06, 2006 Posts: 2863 Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:43 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
yesplease wrote:
TheDude wrote:
Huh?
The EIA is projecting increased consumption out to 2030:
30mbpd worth in the states? Btw, when was that graph made?
Recently I'd assume, since it's displayed prominently on the front page of their Forecasts & Analyses section!
Don't have time to respond in kind, thanks for the detailed reply though. Will fire back after another ten pages of
Hey OF2, you've got that "There seems to be a problem with the MySQL server, sorry for the inconvenience.
We should be back shortly." in your sig again! Think a bot is messing with you perhaps. _________________ Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
I'm just gonna find a cash machine.
Last edited by TheDude on Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:45 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1971 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:44 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
yesplease wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
My point is you cannot have real growth in good and services without an increase in energy inputs.
Course ya can, via appropriate efficiency increases.
Can you point to any example of an economy that has experience growth for, say, 10 years, whilst using the same or declining amounts of energy. I actually think it might be technically possible, for a while, though I don't think it's possible long term and then there is the small matter of other finite resources.
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:30 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
yesplease wrote:
Would you quit it with the Ad Hominem attacks? If instead of attacking other posters you used that time to research your statements, you probably wouldn't need to doubt the figures you use in the first place.
Calling you an idiot is not an ad hominem attack. Look up the definition, you idiot.
I'm hardly trying to avoid the merits and attack you personally in an effort to win the debate.
That's what an ad hominem attack means. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:40 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:37 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
My point is you cannot have real growth in good and services without an increase in energy inputs.
Course ya can, via appropriate efficiency increases.
Can you point to any example of an economy that has experience growth for, say, 10 years, whilst using the same or declining amounts of energy. I actually think it might be technically possible, for a while, though I don't think it's possible long term and then there is the small matter of other finite resources.
None exists, Tony.
Quote:
Moreover, the nature of the link between energy consumption and GDP is in fact the subject of considerable debate among economists.[28] In particular, there is a school of thought, deriving from the work of the nineteenth century economist Stanley Jevons, which argues that while increased energy efficiency at the microeconomic level may lead to a reduction in energy use, at the macroeconomic level it in fact leads to an increase in overall energy use.
Quote:
The "Khazzoom-Brookes postulate", though it has not been proven empirically, is consistent with classical economic theory, and offers a plausible explanation of patterns of energy use in developed economies. As Professor Paul Ekins, head of the Environment Group at the Policies Studies Institute and co-Director of the new United Kingdom Energy Research Centre (UKERC), told us, "In the economics literature it is … well known that increased efficiency in the use of a resource leads over time to greater use of that resource and not less use of it" (Q 261).[29] This might explain, for instance, why there appears to be no example of a developed society that has succeeded in combining sustained reductions in energy consumption with economic growth. Mr Alan Meier, of the IEA, referred to "several countries that, for brief periods, reduced their electricity consumption or their energy consumption"—often in response to short-term supply crises—but such reductions in demand have never been sustained. This does not mean that sustained reductions in energy consumption are impossible—simply that it is yet to be demonstrated that they are possible.
House of Lords _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:47 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
KillTheHumans wrote:
The Bakken has ALREADY outproduced ANWR. Its been that way for DECADES, and it could possibly stay that way forever.
Not sure what his point is, beings that ANWR can't have been outproduced by Bakken as ANWR has never produced.
Or is he saying that the Bakken formation can produce oil at a greater production rate than ANWR could if drilled?
Bakken is easier to get oil than ANWR?
I think not. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:32 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
MonteQuest wrote:
KillTheHumans wrote:
I explained why it matters. And when people catch errors in my presentations THE FIRST TIME THEY SEE IT, I certainly don't consider it childish, I expect it.
You didn't just "catch the error", you resorted to repeated ad hominems about it. That's the childish part.
You want to act pompous and self righteous at the same time, you better be prepared for people to notice when you are WRONG as well.
MonteQuest wrote:
You think professionals debate like you do?
I know exactly how professionals debate. And write. And publish. And if you aren't already aware of it, none of those places are HERE. _________________ Freddy RULZ!
www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits) (or bankers) (or web "experts")
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
