Brian Pursley

An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited

"We can't drill our way to lower prices," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.

May 13, 2008: news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20...

An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited

Fitz: If we touch base in 5 years (I hope we do) and it turns out you're right, I'll be high-fiving you all the way to the bank and take you out to dinner at the restaurant of your choice in my brand new Gulfstream G650 or whatever latest model happens to exist in 2013. Just remember, every calorie of food you eat requires 10 calories of hydrocarbon energy to produce so we'll be burning plenty of hydrocarbons...=)

peakoildebunked.blogsp...

An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited

Fitz:

1) Peak Oil is not accepted in the industry. If Peak Oil were accepted in the industry there would be no so-called "crisis." Rex Tillerson, Daniel Yergin, etc, all laugh at the idea of Peak Oil. All science in the world confirms that petroleum is abiogenic in origin and more abundandant than conventionally assumed.

2) The majority of the elephant fields in the world today have yet to be discovered or developed: peakoildebunked.blogsp...

3) Brazil alone has discovered 3 elephant fields in the past 6 months (Tupi, Jupiter, & Carioca). Therefore the rate of discovery of elephants is increasing dramatically.

4) Conclusion of facts 1-3: Obviously this is a religion for you and no data will be able to convince you otherwise.

I think I'll spend the rest of the day whistling past the graveyard and enjoying the Spring air. Maybe burn a few hydrocarbons just for the hell of it. Have a nice day.

An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited

The fact that individual reservoirs peak is totally irrelevant. The claim of peak oil is that total production will peak globally. Again, I encourage you to read the wiki article you linked to. The first sentence says "Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of GLOBAL petroleum production is reached." So it's not my interpretation. I'm quoting the information you provided me with.

The reason why companies are toiling away in Athabasca is because national oil companies (politics) controls the oil in most other countries. And as far as your remark to get a job at a national oil company, Saudi Aramco doesn't directly hire infidels and Petrobras doesn't hire foreigners: www.bloomberg.com/apps...

I do however own shares in PBR.

*Eugene Island 330*: www.science-frontiers....

aapgbull.geosciencewor...

Anyway, individual reservoirs peaking is irrelevant. What matters is global production.

An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited

Fitz: 2015 remains to be seen. I wouldn't even know where to begin to speculate about 2015. I do know this - Peak Oil theorists have been around since 1859 and they've been wrong 149 years in a row. Notice a pattern? A high commodity price or supply/demand imbalance does not mean production has peaked. Production obviously hasn't peaked. PBR has found three elephants in the past 6 months.

Long PBR.

An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited

Fitz: It's not about winning. Wisdom is not a competition. Yes oil is in abundance and I'm glad you concede production is headed higher. However I never said oil prices will fall and I never said that life is easy. In fact, my bet is that oil will go higher. We have an energy policy - the Democrats hate hydrocarbons and won't let us drill. If peak oil ever occurs it will be due to human political and technological (alternatives, electricity, etc.) factors and not geological factors.

An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited

CrossingtheT: I never said otherwise. However one well being sucked dry doesn't mean anything. Hydrocarbons are constantly being generated deep in the Earth's mantle and crust.

www.geotimes.org/june0...

physicsworld.com/cws/a...

There are other wells to drill - if only Democrats would let us.

An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited

85 mbpd WAS the production rate for 2007. It's 2008 now in case you haven't noticed. And yes I make a big deal between 85 and 86 because 86 > 85. Therefore oil production HAS NOT PEAKED.

Your claim that "the 'peak oil' theory is a theory about production rates on a SINGLE oil reservoir, it is not a 'global' theory" is laughable.

So what's the problem? OK I guess we're all happy then.

You say I need to read the definition of peak oil but apparently it's you who need to focus on reading comprehension. From the first sentence of the Wiki article you linked to: "Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of GLOBAL petroleum production is reached, after which the rate of production enters its terminal decline."

An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited

Fitz: I say this to correct you and not because my biases or emotions are linked to my opinions. However I suggest that it's you who need to get your facts straight. According to the EIA, the world produced 86.94 million barrels per day in February 2008.

"We are producing 86m barrels per day or so, more than ever produced." -- Warren Buffett

Is he lying?

World oil production

2006 - 85.17 mbpd
2007 - 85.20 mbpd
2008 - 86.94 mbpd

Source: IEA

Read it and weep.

A relative tight current supply due to underinvestment (oil was $8 a a barrel in 1999) does not mean global production has peaked.

Your claim that deep water fields "will take technology not existing today to bring into production and delivery" is propaganda based upon ignorance and misinformation. For example, the author of a recent Bloomberg article claims that 18,000 psi is a technological challenge. The author obviously has no understanding of the industry whatsoever. See here:

www.bloomberg.com/apps...

25,000 psi rated solution: www.slb.com/content/se...

According to Petrobras all the technology necessary is currently available: www.bloomberg.com/apps...

Also your claim that "this will take 5-10 yr minimum" seems to be grossly inaccurate. According to Petrobras they will begin production at Tupi in 2009. See here:

www.bloomberg.com/apps...

Furthermore, if you're going to use Alaska as an example of someplace that's peaked and in the same breath there is no political consipracy against drilling there, then I think I'll stick to my own stash because I don't want to be smoking what you're smoking.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out why US production peaked. Maybe if Democrats would let us drill in California, Florida, or Alaska.... Nope. No political conspiracy here. Move along.

But I'm the one blinded by ideology...haha. Open your mind, divorce your biases and emotions from your opinions, and stay mentally flexible. Step away from the Peak Oil literature for a moment and read the antithesis: Gold, Corsi, Clarke, etc.

As I said above: Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe and carbon is the fourth most common element in the universe.

An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited

Aside from raising taxes and drilling for oil I think most Americans would agree with your proposals on a bipartisan basis. However, no Conservative will support raising taxes on gas and no Liberal will support drilling for oil. It goes against the religions.

Another religion, the Peak Oil cult, is based upon the twin myths that (a) hydrocarbons are so-called "fossil fuels" and (b) hydrocarbons were only formed twice in the history of the universe. The existence and profitablity of a company named Transocean (RIG) should be the final nail in the coffin of the "fossil fuel" hoax. The enhanced Enterprise-class drillships will drill in 12,000 feet of water and to 40,000 feet total depth, more than twice as deep as the mythological biogenic "oil window" and
the deepest fossil ever discovered.

The Peak Oil movement is a political movement and not a scientific one. A high commodity price does not mean global oil production has peaked. 86 million barrels per day is more than the world has ever produced and that's just a fact. Peak Oil is therefore a theory, not necessarily a reality, and absolutely not a certainty.

Hubbert and Deffeyes both life long Democrats. If they had their way there would never be another oil rig contructed on the face of the Earth. They are like Al Gore now that he cashed out of OXY. Meanwhile he flies around in jets with an entourage of gas guzzling Secret Service SUVs and the most energy inefficient home in America.

Yes it's important to acknowledge all theories which is also why it's important to acknowledge the theory of abiogenic petroleum origin and the possibility that petroleum is not a finite resource. Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe and carbon is the fourth most common element in the universe. Think about that for a moment.

Disclosure: long NOV, RIG, PBR, & HAL ... =)