Last week The Wall Street Journal published a story called Big Oil Companies Struggle to Justify Soaring Project Costs. That story contained a VERY SCARY GRAPHIC that has many people talking:
http://www.investingdaily.com/19358/a-very-scary-graphic/
Last week The Wall Street Journal published a story called Big Oil Companies Struggle to Justify Soaring Project Costs. That story contained a VERY SCARY GRAPHIC that has many people talking:
The article tries to rationalise it:pstarr wrote:It is very scary. And hard to be believe it will be ignored and/or rationalized. But the msm and the gullible public will somehow rise to the occasion. They always do.
There is always a delay between spending on a project, and seeing that spending bear fruit. That delay can be three to five years, or even longer with some of the more complex projects. Recall that oil prices surged from 2005 until 2008, but oil production remained relatively flat during that time. This fueled much speculation that oil production had peaked. But the surge in oil prices spurred new projects, and as those projects came online they began to move the production needle. In the US, this has resulted in five straight years of increasing domestic oil production.
There is always a delay between spending on a project, and seeing that spending bear fruit.
And the longer the payback time (and associated uncertainty and risk), the higher the ROR your investors will want.Pops wrote:There is always a delay between spending on a project, and seeing that spending bear fruit.
Unless the fruit is too high to make a profit and you quit.
3.357 trillion barrels of “technically” recoverable oil with shale oil 10% of that total! All that oil and everyone, with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia, is producing flat out. That is over 100 years worth at current consumption rates. Is that a joke or what?
AndyA wrote:3.357 trillion barrels of “technically” recoverable oil with shale oil 10% of that total! All that oil and everyone, with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia, is producing flat out. That is over 100 years worth at current consumption rates. Is that a joke or what?
Pops wrote:There is always a delay between spending on a project, and seeing that spending bear fruit.
Unless the fruit is too high to make a profit and you quit.
BP Quits Mad Dog (GOM)
Petrobras Quits Lula (subsalt)
Chevron Quits Rosebank (N Sea)
Statoil Quits Bressay (N Sea)
Total Quits Voyager, Sells to Suncor (tar Sands)
Suncor Quits Voyager
Shell Quits Texas
Shell Quits Louisiana (GTL)
Shell Quits Alaska
Shell Quits China
Shell Quits Colorado Shale
Shell Quits Algae
Shell Quits Solar
Everyone Quits Tar Sands
LOL
.
rollin wrote:Why are we so concerned about beating the dying horse that is oil production? Shouldn't we be spending what energy is left on moving toward an oil independent society? Sure, it's nice to have some oil for certain products, but is it worth all this obsessive effort to try and keep an oil dependent transport system going? The system is breaking down, it's not going to be fixed. Trash the old system and move on. The alternative is to come to a halt. Are we so dumb as to not be able to think of anything else or any other way?
The economy used to grow by making people wealthier. Now, consumers go further into debt, while their incomes are stagnant or falling. In 1980, a $7 trillion economy included $2 trillion of what City economist and author of Life After Growth Tim Morgan calls "globally marketable output" (GMO) – real wealth, the kind of stuff you can sell to pay your bills.
But then the economy underwent plastic surgery at the hands of quack policy makers. Now, it's unrecognizable. Today, we have a $16 trillion economy. But how much of that is from GMO? Well, about $13 trillion is consumer spending. And various statistical adjustments. Only $3 trillion is what Morgan calls GMO.
That's the real growth of the US economy since 1980 – a piddly, pathetic $33 billion a year. Barely enough to keep up with population increases.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests