DrumBeat: September 5, 2006

[Update by Leanan on 09/05/06 at 9:20 AM EDT]

Oil companies see big Gulf of Mexico discovery

Tests suggest huge oil field found in deep waters

OSLO, Norway - Tests of a deep-water well in the Gulf of Mexico could indicate a significant oil discovery, three companies announced Tuesday, in the first project to tap into a region that reportedly could boost U.S. oil and gas reserves by as much as 50 percent.

...The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that the region where the well is located could become the nation’s biggest new domestic source of oil since the discovery of Alaska’s North Slope more than a generation ago.

The Journal said Chevron and Devon officials estimate that recent discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico’s lower-tertiary formations hold up to 15 billion barrels’ worth of oil and gas reserves, a total that would boost the nation’s current reserves by 50 percent.

[Update by Leanan on 09/05/06 at 9:32 AM EDT]

Coaxing oil from huge U.S. shale deposits

Underneath the high, scrub-covered rangeland of northwest Colorado is the world's biggest oil field. Getting the oil out of the ground, however, is one of the world's biggest headaches.

Why the Survivalists Have Got It Wrong

Independent stations priced out

The number of gas stations in New Hampshire is at its lowest in at least 10 years, according to an annual count by National Petroleum News. In the first quarter of 2006, the state had 800 gas stations, down 181 from last year. Experts say the decline is largely due to the challenges independent owners...face in staying profitable.

Formula change worries keep diesel prices up

Wind Power a Vexing Question for Vermont

When farmer Greg Bryant first heard about plans for windmills along a swath of mountain ridges in this northeastern Vermont hamlet, he was all for it. The idea of tapping a plentiful natural resource for power was appealing.

Now he's dead set against it, one of many people here who fear the prospect of 400-foot tall windmills sprouting from the tops of picturesque mountains.

...If built, the UPC project could power 15,000 to 20,000 homes. Bryant said that's not enough of a benefit to warrant the unsightly presence of 26 towers dotting the surrounding mountaintops.

"It's not a good tradeoff," he said. "It's not worth what you're trading off to trade four montaintops (for) this little amount of power."

Oil buyers try to kick Mideast dependence

World War III more likely from oil grabs than radical Islam

Turn all Britain's homes into mini-power stations, says expert

Moscow mayor says winter energy deficit could reach 20%

MOSCOW - Moscow's mayor warned Tuesday that the capital could face an energy deficit of 20% this winter, sparking concerns that temporary business closures seen in January could be repeated.

"Energy consumption is abnormal at present and the deficit registered in the past is very large," Yury Luzhkov said.

New Zealand: Anti-bus campaign remarkably shortsighted

Remember, remember the 5th of September, 2000

A year before 9/11/2001 happened in the USA, a ‘terrifying incident’ of a different sort happened in Europe that changed how political leaders across the world would forever understand the essential role oil resources played in the ‘developed nations.’

Vietnam fuel price hike cranks up inflationary pressure

Ghana: Power Crisis Worries Gold Miners

Ghana's major industrial users of power are the Volta Aluminium Company (Valco), which is owned jointly by the Ghanaian government and Alcoa, and the gold miners, including AngloGold Ashanti, Gold Fields, Newmont and Golden Star. Aluminium smelters are huge electricity users, dwarfing the mines, but only some of the Valco smelters are in operation.

AngloGold is a bigger user of electricity in Ghana than Gold Fields, partly because AngloGold operates Ghana's only underground mine at Obuasi, which depends on electricity to power ventilation and pumps. But Ghana is a bigger contributor to Gold Fields' overall operations than it is for AngloGold.

Russia agency sues to stop Shell project

Balkan oil project gets backing

Russia has won backing from Greece and Bulgaria for an oil pipeline project to link all three countries.

There is a lot of talk here about why more people are not aware of Peak Oil and doing something about the problem, here is a chance to do something to help get the word out.  

#1, You can send an email with the link to the ASPO-USA conference in Boston to everyone on your email list that might be interested in the Conference and asking them to forward it on. I know Westexas is doing this.


#2, You can help by letting  me know of ways to contact groups that are tangentially related to Peak Oil but probably not aware of the Conference or getting the information to them your selves. You may be in a professional group or some other type of group that might be interested. It is very hard to know about these unless someone tells us. Groups that are involved with sustainable farming would be an example that comes to mind. Groups within the Colleges and University would also be likely candidates.  What we need are ways to contact small groups off the main stream Peak Oil beat.  A lot of people that read the Blogs listed here are aware of the issues and it is "Preaching to the Choir". We need to reach some new blood. Email me and I can either send you the releases or send me the address and I will send them.

: "rickooil@hotmail.com"  or post a reply here.

I'm going to be sending the information to everyone on the Blogroll here on TOD so don't send me those links. Byron King at Whiskey and Gunpowder and the Daily Reckoning is more then willing to help, so that is in the works. I am contacting Jim Puplava at the Financial Sense Newshour and hope he will help get the word out. He has had audio interviews with all the biggies and constantly talks about Peak Oil.

I have several Press Releases available and will send them to anyone that request it.
Obviously people in the New England and North East are more likely to be able to come so if you live in these areas this message is especially for you.

I know some here think it is too late for the type of effort that ASPO-USA is making
( and you may be right) but when you have children and grand children you are motivated to try and do something. (Even though most of the kids think dads nuts)  

BTW,  If you know you are definitely going to go to the Conference, register now, the fees go up Sept. 9th.

Thanks in advance for your help,

Rick Block

Leanan, Gulf of Mexico 15 Gb "discovery" -- link should be


I'm checking this out.

Thanks.  I fixed it.  I think.
Re:  GOM Discoveries (Plural)

One important point that seems to be escaping the MSM's attention this morning is that the oil companies are talking about the discoveries (plural) along this trend having 3 Gb to 15 Gb in total recoverable reserves.  

According to the WSJ article, Devon says that its four discoveries, including "Jack" have recoverable reserves of at least 300 million barrels each.  

This is not a Prudhoe Bay discovery, this is a group of discoveries they estimate will produce between 3 Gb and 15 Gb.

To put the higher figure in perspective, the world uses--from nuclear + fossil fuel sources--the energy equivalent of 15 Gb of oil in less than three months.

Even if they find the oil they want, there is still a long way to go:

If the Jack test pans out and the owners
are prepared to invest the billions of dollars
required to bring Jack and the other Lower
Tertiary discoveries into commercial production,
just how do the owners plan to get
the oil to market? For one, the Walker
Ridge area is remote and has no pipeline to
transport the oil ashore. Extending the
existing deepwater pipeline system to
accommodate Lower Tertiary production,
while possible, no doubt would be expensive
and possibly could render the entire
project uneconomic.

src: offshoresource.com
Does anyone have links to research dealing with the EROEI of existing deep water operations?
I have a paper written by one of my students pending publication that suggests deep water EROI is between 8-17:1 - depending on what boundaries one uses. In any case, the EROI for deep water has been increasing since 2000. I will post a link once it is published.
Extending the
existing deepwater pipeline system to
accommodate Lower Tertiary production,
while possible, no doubt would be expensive
and possibly could render the entire
project uneconomic.

As an ignorant, non-oil person, I wonder why would you have to extend the vulnerable pipe-line system into such deep waters.  Couldn't you just have your wells link up to a platform and fill a tanker directly?

you would need a small fleet of tankers dedicated to the field, you would need significant amounts of crude storage, and if the field contains mostly NG, you would need a liquification plant out in the middle of the gulf.

While probably not impossible, I doubt too many companies or insurance companies want to build that much infrastructure in the middle of the gulf.  A big investment to be sunk in the first hurricane.

Generally shuttling oil is not such an unusual way of exporting outside the GOM. Its used extensively in the Norht Sea in both UK and Norway. It does require a different approach to plaform design - FPSO's (ships hulls with storage and processing on board). These haven't been used in the GOM before to my knowledge (not approved?). In anycase, they are pretty much standard technology and certainly capable for this deepwater environment.

Gas production - well if its a small amount you can reinject to dispose, or agregate together with other fields to export. The Walker ridge is remote, but its the next frontier area and if a number of discoveries get off the ground at once new shared gas export infrastructure will probably be worthwhile.

One thing to note is that wells in this environment cost upwards of $100mill each - this will make developments v. expensive and therefore risky to get going.....we could see quite a few delays out there before anything happens.

That's what my research is telling me. Best source I've got (pdf) is

Emergence of the Lower Tertiary Wilcox Trend in the Deepwater Gulf of Mexico

More than 12 Bbbl of oil in place have been discovered to date. Potential recoverable reserves per discovery range from 30 to 400 MMboe, with a 69% success rate, i.e., 9/13. Trend-potential ranges from 3 to 15 Bbbl of recoverable oil. All discoveries have a common basinal setting, distal Louann salt basin rim, and are salt-cored anticlinal closures with tectonic styles ranging from thrusted symmetrical box-folds of the PFB in Alaminos Canyon (Figure 2A), to salt pillow structures of Walker Ridge (Figure 2B), and possibly continuing to asymmetrical thrusts of the Mississippi Fan Fold Belt in Green Canyon and Atwater Valley protraction areas
Look for Walker ridge + oil.

This is really deep drilling. Technical challenges are huge.

Several inherent technical challenges need to be addressed to ensure economic feasibility of the Lower Tertiary Wilcox trend. These range from the cost-effective drilling of complex salt canopies and evaluating deep structural targets to the completion and production of reservoirs in water depths that have not occurred to date. Understanding the oil chemistry, reservoir quality and associated flow capability will determine the drilling/ completion technology, and ultimately the creation of infrastructure needed to transform the Lower Tertiary Wilcox into a world-class petroleum system in the deepwater GoM. Figure 11. Schematic Wilcox depositional model with key trend wells.
The "news" is that they got a test well to flow at 6/kbd.

The official press release from Devon:

OKLAHOMA CITY, Sept. 5 PRNewswire-FirstCall -- Devon Energy Corporation (NYSE: DVN) today announced the successful completion of an extended production test on the Jack #2 well on Walker Ridge block 758 in the Gulf of Mexico. Although complete details of this deepwater lower Tertiary well test remain confidential, the results fully met Devon's expectations.

The Jack test was designed to evaluate only a portion of the total pay interval. The well sustained flow rates of more than 6,000 barrels of oil per day. The tested interval was approximately 40 percent of the total net pay measured in the Jack #2 well. Devon and its co-owners plan to drill an additional appraisal well in 2007.

"The results of the Jack test are very encouraging. They further support our positive view of the lower Tertiary trend and demonstrate the growth potential of our high-impact exploration strategy on long-term production, reserves and value," said Stephen J. Hadden, senior vice president, exploration and production. "With 273 blocks under lease and 19 exploratory prospects already identified, Devon's lower Tertiary position could more than double our current reserve base of about two billion equivalent barrels in the coming years."

The Jack discovery on Walker Ridge block 759 was drilled in 2004. The discovery well encountered more than 350 net feet of pay. The Jack #2 well was drilled to delineate the discovery. Devon has a 25 percent working interest in Jack. Chevron Corporation (NYSE: CVX) is the operator with a 50 percent working interest and Statoil (OSE: STL) has the remaining 25 percent working interest.

Four Lower Tertiary Discoveries

Jack is one of four discoveries by Devon in the lower Tertiary trend of the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. The others are St. Malo drilled in 2003, Cascade drilled in 2002 and the 2006 Kaskida discovery.

On August 15, 2006, Devon announced that it had doubled its working interest in Cascade to 50 percent. Devon also announced plans for first production from Cascade in late 2009.

Kaskida, which was announced as a discovery on August 31, 2006, encountered approximately 800 net feet of hydrocarbon-bearing sands. Devon believes Kaskida is its largest lower Tertiary discovery to date. Kaskida, about 80 miles northwest of Jack, is the company's first discovery in the Keathley Canyon lease area where Devon has identified 12 additional exploratory prospects.

src: Devon
stock market likes it - Devon is up more than $7.

And by the way - oil is NOT down today - it was down yesterday when our market was closed - today its up 70cents as of 1:03 EST

Down $0.66 at 1:52 pm EDT.

Dave - look at the chart on the right of this post - YESTERDAY it was down - today it is actually up. (I trade it so I know). The TV systems are showing it down but that is because they are comparing it to Fridays close since yesterday was a US holiday (the world oil market was open yesterday and it was down over $1- today it is up 50 cents or so)
You win. DOWN from Friday, UP from yesterday. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain... Just kidding!

Generally speaking, you guys trading it must know something I don't because if the Ups & Downs are due to the reasons given in the financial press, it just looks like short-term group-think behavour to me... mostly gambling -- unless you're doing futures based on peak oil "insider knowledge" as you posted about.

As I type this, NPR is breathlessly announcing the deepwater Gulf of Mexico find... I can't wait for the details, maybe I'll learn something!

best -

Is it ever mention by you guys that the first well drilled was last year and not this year?

I am a bit confused.  This is Jack#2, so I assume this is second well completed and next year they will drill a third well.  Am I wrong?  I am just following press releases, so not real evidence.

Last year, they had a press release that they discover oil with 350 feet of pay dirt.  How is that related to this?

Why bring nuclear into this?  It is fairly irrelevant to an oil discovery and tends to make the valid point you make more suspicious.  Why not just say that even the higher number is less than 6 months' supply at current usage?
"Why bring nuclear into this?"

Because it puts our vast energy consumption in perspective.  If we found an entire new Saudi Arabia, it would increase our nuclear + fossil fuel production rate by less than 5%.

Indeed, a better way to present the comparisons is using likely production rate (and that figured compared to the current US or world production rate) instead of additions to reserves and how many months/years this buys us. Also, it would be useful to discount this production by the barrels equivalent needed to extract it and get it to shore.

Other unconventional sources, such as the Alberta oil sands, should be treated similarly.

But oil accounts for so little of our electrical production (like 3%) and while nuclear is 20% of it, coal is 48% and natural gas around 20%, so mixing electrical energy usage and oil usage seems somewhat incongruous.  Or at least be consistent and bring in coal and natural gas based electrical production to be consistent.
He did. Coal and natural gas are fossil fuels.
Good point.  I need to read more carefully.
" "Why bring nuclear into this?"

Because it puts our vast energy consumption in perspective.  If we found an entire new Saudi Arabia, it would increase our nuclear + fossil fuel production rate by less than 5%. "

My 2 cents, but I agree with rwmcalister on this one.  It's bad enough on an oil to oil comparison that bringing nuclear in makes you look like you're going out of your way to be alarmist and need to go out of your way to do it...which you unfortunately don't.

It's bad enough on an oil to oil comparison that bringing nuclear in makes you look like you're going out of your way to be alarmist and need to go out of your way to do it...which you unfortunately don't.

I agree with substrate.  You sound like an alarmist that is fearmongering.  If you are going to add nuclear stats you also do oil by itself.  You are losing credibility even among the peak oil believers like myself.

above post was to westexas
How in the world is it fearmongering to accurately state that we use the energy equivalent of about a billion barrels of oil every five days from nuclear + fossil fuel sources, especially since we are already using GTL and CTL to produce liquid transportation fuels?

In addition, electricity is now being used for transportation, and it will be used even more via the expansion of rail transportation and increased used of electric cars and plug-in hybrids.  

Is natural gas used for transportation, heating and electrical generation?

Is oil used for transportation, heating and electrical generation?

Is coal used for transportation, heating and electrical generation?

Is nuclear used for  transportation (via light rail), heating and electrical generation?

I'm been looking for a reason to cut back on TOD.  Having to respond to crap like this is a damn good reason.

I'm been looking for a reason to cut back on TOD.  Having to respond to crap like this is a damn good reason.

Hope you don't.  There are a lot of us out here that ignore that crap in order to get the payoff of read posts from experts like yourself.
Don't let some pissant like what's his name piss you off, Jeffrey.

Jeffrey, just ignore him. "Let those with two ears listen."
Yes ignore him.  You are one of the best posters - seriously.  BTW you comments about a pause between bidding for oil.  When do you you expect "round 2" 2008-9?
I'm been looking for a reason to cut back on TOD.  Having to respond to crap like this is a damn good reason.

WTF.  This thread is simply discussing if this "new" field is a decent sized find.  If we ignore CO2 then Coal, nuclear, gas, and oil are pretty much fungible when it comes to producing electricity.  Heck you can even mix in a little solar and wind in there too.  What isn't fungible is the gasoline that powers our cars.  We simply can't power a car off of nuclear power right now.  Sure plug-in-hybrids will play a part but our battery technology is woefully inadequate.  Because of this, oil will be our primary source of transportation for some time.

Since we aren't running out of coal anytime soon I simply don't see the need to play down a discovery of an non-fungible transportation resource by comparing it to fungible (i.e electricity producing) resources.  If that electricity is being used for transportation it doesn't matter.  We aren't running out of coal soon.  So that argument is pointless unless you are talking about global warming.

And for some reason people are calling me the crazy one.  WTF.

Wacki said>>

"We simply can't power a car off of nuclear power right now."  


Nucleat power is powering my house right now at least in part.  I go and plug in my electric lawn mower, ( I don't have one, but hey) then I can plug in my electric car ( I don't have one, but some folks do). So Nuclear is powering my car. Ergo Your statement above is false.

You must be new to the world of Peak Oil.  WesTexas is not the first nor will he be the last to use ""ALL"" forms of energy compared to such finds.  It is rather common in the heavily technical side of these comments.  GET used to it.


 I know its been a rough day, but don't let the Language of others get to you.  We all try to stay Calm and collected in the face of nay-sayers and even Out right Corn-y-copians, and even the Trolls.  Please stay with us, don't take the above people to heart, set aside more time with family, do things you wanted to do with a bit more time, but don't give up on explaining the hard to explain.  Even if at times some of us can be a bit hard headed and dim witted enough to argue with you over something.  But don't listen to me or anyone else, Listen to your heart and go where you need to go and when you need to go.

Charles E. Owens Jr.   , Dan Ur is a Charactor of a short story of mine, I used part of his title as an internet handle.

"So Nuclear is powering my car. Ergo Your statement above is false."

What?  Ok, maybe that single sentence in isolation is technically false but when taken in context it isn't.  The fact is the vast majority of the people in the US aren't going to drive electric cars anytime soon.  Battery lifespan simply isn't there.  Therefore oil isn't fungible with nuclear.  My general statement still stands.  My main point is still correct.

"WesTexas is not the first nor will he be the last to use ""ALL"" forms of energy compared to such finds. It is rather common in the heavily technical side of these comments.  GET used to it."

Fine.  He can do it.  But when using that in the context of describing how this won't effect peak oil it seems pretty silly to me.  The entire nuclear and coal industry simply isn't used to power cars.  They also aren't running out anytime soon.

Look westexas, I'm hear to learn.  I read Robert Rapiers blog, Realclimate, Oildrum and a few other science based blogs on a daily basis. I strongly believe these are the most important blogs on the planet right now.  I honestly meant no harm to you.  If you want to try to explain how my thinking is wrong I would greatly appreciate it.

ugh. I hit post instead of preview: "I'm hear to learn"

can't edit to fix it to "here".  :-p

It was mentioned by Dave Cohen, or one of the other more knowledgable oil patch folks, that at 27,000 feet the Oil is likely mostly going to be NG.  When I told my dad the depth his first words were "Natural gas, not oil".

Taking NG as the outflow of this "Potential" Find, we could easily without much ado, compare it to nuclear.

I still find it helpful to understand at least in some small way How much Total energy we do use in a give time period.  

As for this being a great find.

Its good for selling Adverts, and pop-up ads and might even get the 401(k) folks a bit more of a nest egg, but it is just another drop in the total oil bucket.

Here we are going into over 3,000 psi water column and then getting to dirt.  As Dave Cohen below here somewhere points out, This is a very new Oil and Gas mining depth in the ocean, The feat might not be able to be pulled off.

If this was a field in Arkansas or Alabama Yes then its a nice find.  But not out in deep deep water where we have to jump so many hurdles just to begin to find oil.  

We find the easy and big fields first, then we find the smaller and smaller and harder to find fields when we are running out of the stuff that makes things work.

We have eaten the Sandwich, Now still hungry we are picking crumbs up and licking the plate for drippings.

Scary indeed.
ps. use preview, read and correct.

If we ignore CO2 then Coal, nuclear, gas, and oil are pretty much fungible when it comes to producing electricity.

This seems to contradict YOUR argument for "not talking nuclear".
Ignoring the whole energy big picture is a recipe for talking nonsense, this the preferred way of the trolls.

talking nonsense, this the preferred way of the trolls.

After you mastered that, then you moved onto stalking?

This seems to contradict YOUR argument for "not talking nuclear".
Ignoring the whole energy big picture is a recipe for talking nonsense, this the preferred way of the trolls.

What?  I've talked about this subject with 3 people so far and they all agree with me.  So I'm pretty sure I'm not delusional.  So I take it westexas is some internet god?  Fine.  That still doesn't change the facts.

All I'm saying is if you are going to insist on compare this well to the entire fossil fuel and nuclear industry you should be a little consistent and include the entire fossil fuel and nuclear industry in the peak "oil" graphs.   It seriously looks to me like you guys want to have it both ways by convoluting metrics.

ugh.. "insist on comparing this oil field"
This thread is simply discussing if this "new" field is a decent sized find.  If we ignore CO2 then Coal, nuclear, gas, and oil are pretty much fungible when it comes to producing electricity.

And how much electricity comes from oil?

And how much electricity comes from oil?

Find pretend X% of electricity has to be made from oil.  Include that in the scale.  But artificially pumping up the scale by including all forms of coal, nuclear, etc is just silly when talking about peak "oil".

Find pretend X% of electricity has to be made from oil.

If I have to 'pretend', then your argument is not correct.

Please do stay!

It was your simple rule: "Cut spending 50% and plan on energy costs doubling" that gave me a way to bring up this topic with family and friends. Thank you for that. I know at least a dozen families that will weather this storm better because of your posting here.

Ditto here...
In other words;
I will throw my apology in here for having started something that spun slightly out of control.  I was merely trying to make the point we could limit the discussion purely to oil data and still show that even the upper limits of the find are not going the change the onset of peak.  But Jeffrey, I will say I have learned a tremendous amount from your posts here and would hate to see you cut back for any reason.


Dude, I appreciate all of the technical analysis that you've done and this site would be much diminished if you weren't here.  But it's super weird that after a supposedly large find of oil, you start comparing it to installed nuclear and coal capacity.  Why not compare it to potential installed windpower of the US or all the potential solar insolation.  The media are all in awe that it's "the biggest find since Alaska."  Well hell, look at what good Alaska did for oil production in the US!  It's hardly a little blip.  Now that's damning evidence.  Talk about how long it can run the country - or even the world at current rates of consumption and that's a good way for perspective.  The impression that I get when comparing it to all of those other sources is how easy it would be to replace that.  Three months?  No need to worry then, we can just plop in a nuke and replace it.  But it's a bigger deal than that because our infrastructure is set up to take oil, and this "huge" find isn't huge at all compared with all other oil sources and like Alaska will hardly amount to a blip.  You could even talk about Cantarell...how by the time this find comes online at 400,000 bbls/day (can't remember where I saw that) that the decline in Cantarell will have far exceeded it's max production capability.  That's oil to oil and is totally damning by itself.  To try to diminish the find even further by essentially comparing an apple to an orange of total US production...it's just not warranted.
Westtexas.  I appreciate and look forward to your intelligent posts which always seem to cut to the heart of what we are about at TOD.  Please continue to inform us.
Already a number of months ago I had largely stopped reading TOD as it had to a great degree deteriorated to a bunch of (or so it seems to me) endless bickering over picayune details far removed from the enormity the PO phenomenon.

Then I came across something cross posted at energybulletin by Jeffrey (westexas to you more recent arrivals) and was drawn back by the clarity in his postings (and by that I mean his talent for cutting through the superfluous focusing on "make-or-break" issues) and his obvious command of the material. If he decides that he's not up to as much of TOD as he has been, it will be TOD's loss.  

He does have Graphoilogy blog however, where I hope he will continue to share his perpective with us.  

Whatever you end up doing, Mr. Brown, thank you for everything you've contributed here.

"...drawn back by the clarity in his postings (and by that I mean his talent for cutting through the superfluous focusing on "make-or-break" issues) and his obvious command of the material."

My observations, exactly. His quotes have clarified many things for me. I hope he continues.


FWIW: I believe a great number of TOD readers appreciate your insight. There is no need to respond to every silly remark. Ignore the bad and just reponsed to the follows that you deem worthwhile.

Thanks for all your time.

I don't there is any fear of Jeffrey loosing credibility here.  I think some Wacky substrate of poster's here would have to work on raising theirs first.

Jeffrey,  Don't you go anywhere.  TOD is JUST coming into it's own and you deserve a good heap of the credit.

Keep puting out the good ANALYTICAL Info Westexas.  

We're in Your corner.


They say it's big because it is big. It must be the biggest (collection of) field(s) that has been found in a long time.

Saying it won't supply the world with oil for a very long time is possibly right but not the point - the world is supplied from a huge number of fields of which this might be one of the bigger ones.


These lower Tertiary reservoirs were first identified in the 1930's. Technology prevented drilling any test wells until now. Another well will be drilled in 2007. If things go right and the price stays high -- it will, unless there's a world wide recession -- full-scale production would begin in 2013. Assuming a 5% global decline rate (this is a standard number) and an optimistic daily flow from these GOM reservoirs of 200/kbd in 2013 -- well, you do the math, OK? It's time to make different arrangements for how we live, not engage in cable news-style cheerleading.

As Jeffrey says below, in a Hubbert linearization or production curve (same thing, just an easy transform), this is merely an indiscernible bump (depending on the graph scale) in the long tail end of US production.

I see we need another "Guide for the Perplexed" here.

THANK YOU DC, WESTEXAS, KEHAB for shedding some realistic lights on the latest MSM fireworks show.

Certainly for any newbie coming to this site looking for guidance, the initial flurry of Expert-talking-to-Expert is confusing.

(I'm no expert myself and am only getting a rough idea of what is going on here. So count me among the perplexed.)

There are many expert's code words that need to be decoded for the PO newbie:

  • Deep Water
  • Tertiary Fields
  • "Reserves" versus actual production flows in 2013
  • Minor bump in over all scheme of things

As Dave Cohen points out above:
... identified in the 1930's. Technology [limitations] prevented drilling any [deep water] test wells until now. ... full-scale production would begin in 2013. Assuming a 5% global decline rate ... these GOM reservoirs of 200/kbd in 2013 [are an indiscernable bump in the graph]

It's time to make different arrangements for how we live, not engage in cable news-style cheerleading.

These lower Tertiary reservoirs were first identified in the 1930s

Can you give us chapter and verse on that, Dave?

Well, looking it over, plucky, I see in here that I mislead our readers.
The Wilcox stratigraphic section has long been recognized as an important petroleum resource in Southeast Texas to Southwestern Louisiana, producing primarily gas from fluvial, deltaic and shallow marine sandstone reservoirs since the 1930s. The total estimated ultimate recovery for the onshore Wilcox is 24 Tcf gas or 4 BBoe. Not until the drilling of the BAHA 2 well in March 2001, was the linked depositional system of the Wilcox from shelf fluvial deltaics to basin deepwater turbidites, a distance greater than 250 mi (403 km), tested by the drill bit.

Although this wildcat, drilled in 7,790 ft (2,375 m) of water in the Alaminos Canyon area of the Northwest GoM was noncommercial, it established a working petroleum system in the Perdido Fold Belt (PFB) (Figure 1). The soon-to-follow nearby discoveries, Trident in July 2001 and Great White in June 2002, proved the significant hydrocarbon potential of the PFB by documenting oil accumulations in a variety of turbidite deposits from sheet sands to amalgamated and leveed channel systems.

Shortly after the PFB Great White discovery in 2002, the Cascade discovery was announced, located approximately 275 mi (444 km) east in the Walker Ridge protraction area of the Central GoM (Figure 1). This wildcat was drilled to a depth of 27,929 ft (8515 m) in 8140-ft (2482-m) water. Not only did this significant well extend the Wilcox play to the east, it established the existence of turbidite sands greater than 350 mi (107 km) down dip from the source deltaics and confirmed the Wilcox as a world class depositional and potential petroleum system.

So, it's an extension of the Wilcox play out into the deepwater. My apologies. All other remarks I've made on this thread about this discovery still pertain and are not falsified by the text (or document) I've just cited. As far as I know, this is chapter and verse. Again, I apologize.

In the World News (PBS and BBC, I think) in the radio, this morning, they had basically the same opinion: it will be expensive, it will be risky, it will take time, and it will barely offset natural declines in other fields.
one interesting geographical point is the position of the jack discovery in the GOM. by eyeballing it's position on the NOAA tropical cyclone heat potential map, i get jack's position abutting the big brown blob (BBB), a daughter of the gulf stream loop current. the other discoveries such as St. Malo , Stones,Chinook and Cascade are in the BBB:

i don't know jack about meteorology, but won't GOM hurricanes intensify right over these guys heads?

Oh, yeah, the location of Jack is "ideal" for being nailed by a strong hurricane (or more), say given a decade to decades time interval. That region is most vulnerable in the later season, from Aug to Oct. While still out over the GOM, there's a tendency for strong hurricanes to weaken a category or two as they move toward the Gulf States, perhaps partly due to entraining drier air off of the continent as they approach land (one exception was Camille). The location of Jack is far enough out that it wouldn't have this kind of protection--so far offshore, a Cat IV or V storm is a more likely.


We have now witnessed significant reserves growth in less than a 12 hour period. Currently the headline at CNN.com is:

Gulf oil discovery may be bigger than Alaska's Prudhoe Bay

Same field(s) as before, but growing by the minute.

I have been following this story of the new GOM discovery all morning on CNBC and the net. They have been putting out figures ranging from 3 billion barrels to 15 billion barrels. But the nuts and bolts of the discovery can be found here.

Devon's holdings in the region ``could more than double our current reserve base of about two billion equivalent barrels in the coming years,'' said Stephen J. Hadden, the Devon senior vice president for exploration and production.    And... The partners plan to drill another appraisal well at the site in the Walker Ridge Block in 2007. A decision whether to develop Jack may be made in 2007 or 2008, Statoil's Mellbye said. The field would start production in 2013 if development goes ahead, he said..

Devon holds a 25 percent stake in the field.

On CNBC this morning, they were saying the field could produce as much as 400,000 barrels per day for 20 years. That comes out to 3 billion barrels, not 15. At any rate it should start to come on line, as they say, in 2013. That is causing oil prices to drop today.

One more thing I forgot to mention. The field is in 7,000 feet of water and located 20,000 feet below the sea floor. That is deep. In fact, that is below the traditional oil window. This means the well will probably produce a lot more gas than oil. But they are talking about barrels of oil equalevant.

(I know, that last word is spelled wrong. And my damn spell checker wont give me a hint.

Devon talking BOE means natural gas, as you say.  
In a separate statement, San Ramon, Calif.-based Chevron said the well set a variety of records, including the deepest well successfully tested in the Gulf of Mexico. Chevron said it was drilled to a total depth of 28,175 feet in waters that are 7,000 feet deep.
The Wall Street Journal reported Monday... -- they reported the highest number somebody told them, that's what they god damn did.

Yesterday President Bush warned against our continued reliance on foreign
oil from places that "don't like us very much".

Today the oil companies through MSM are touting a HUGE oil/nat gas discovery!!!!

Yeah right.

Anyone remember PEMEX/Mexican President Fox's anouncement of a HUGE oil discovery off the coast of Mexico (possibly as big as Canterell!) prior to the Mexican elections this past year?

more of the same

Anyone remember PEMEX/Mexican President Fox's anouncement of a HUGE oil discovery off the coast of Mexico (possibly as big as Canterell!) prior to the Mexican elections this past year?

I remember the Fox announcement, and as soon as I saw the mainstream media screaming about this new "find," I knew it was baloney as well.

For me, all of the furor over nothing is actually raising alarm bells. It means that the PO situation is possibly much worse than any of us could imagine. Why else would TPTB hype the daylights out of a "discovery" that hasn't been completely proven yet, and even if so would take at least a decade to come on-line?

Something else is brewing here. Either the constant PO warnings have actually started to cause some alarm among the sheeple, and TPTB want to quiet things down -- or something major is in the works. What the latter would be I have no idea, but it won't be anything good, that's for sure.

I wonder when it will be time to break out the survival gear.

It's not only in ultradeep water, making extraction complicated and costly, it's also in a hurricane prone area.
You spelled won't wrong also.  In fact, Darwinian, you spell a great many words incorrectly in your responses.  Please learn to spell before making such high-falutin' statements of philosophy and sophistic statements of pseudoscience.
And I suppose the term "high-falutin'" is frequently used in the circle of geniuses that you run with.
There are no circles of geniuses (actually spelled genii).  There are, however, circle-jerks termed 'MENSA meetings'.  I prefer to hang out with people of lower intelligence than myself.  The only people whom I call myself CreoleGenius with are TOD Peak Oilers.  Under these anonymous conditions, I can't express the truth to someone who would immediately break my nose.  


     Socio-emotional problems are more prevalent in geniuses with an IQ above 145. Asynchronous development is the primary cause of this. As most children do not share gifted children's interests, vocabulary, or desire to organize activities, the genius child may withdraw from society.

     Some research shows that reasons other than maladjustment make companionship difficult to find for geniuses. As intelligence of a person increases, what they consider as their peers constitutes a shrinking number of people. For example, at an IQ of 135 only every hundredth person would be of equal or greater IQ. This number shrinks significantly as IQ goes up.

Doing easily what others find difficult is talent; doing what is impossible for talent is genius. - Henri Frederic Amiel

There are, however, circle-jerks termed 'MENSA meetings'.

Being a Mensa member I take offense at this. I don't know what your problem is or what Mensa has ever done to you.

Mensa meeting are simply a social function, where people can meet and talk about stuff they may find it difficult to discuss with family or work colleagues.

... stuff they may find it difficult to discuss with family or work colleagues.

like Samuri Sudoko level 5, Peak Oil, and whether the Ultra Deep Purple computer can beat the Intenational Chess champion this year. Also of course, alternate proofs of Fermant's last theorem. ---LOL.

Self aggrandizement is ALWAYS unattractive.
"Geniuses" as plural for genius is actually correct.  Genii is an alternative but usually is used as plural of genie (as spirit in a bottle).  
Thanks behindthecurtain, you hit the nail on the head. I was always a bad speller that is why I always type most everything in Word, then run spell checker before copying and pasting into the message.

But I am reminded of something I once saw in the Boston Globe: "There are several grammatical and typographical mistakes in this paper. They were intentional. Some people are always looking for other people's mistakes and we do try to please everyone.

I am glad that I was able to please Creole Genius by giving him some spelling errors to point out in order that his genius may shine for everyone by allowing him to criticize us dumb-asses who cannot spell very well.

I have had an aversion to good spelling for sixty years and more, merely for the reason that when I was a boy there was not a thing I could do creditably except spell according to the book. It was a poor and mean distinction and I early learned to disenjoy it. I suppose that this is because the ability to spell correctly is a talent, not an acquirement. There is some dignity about an acquirement, because it is a product of your own labor. It is wages earned, whereas to be able to do a thing merely by the grace of God and not by your own effort transfers the distinction to our heavenly home--where possibly it is a matter of pride and satisfaction but it leaves you naked and bankrupt.
- Mark Twain's Autobiography

Thanks Will for your suggestion below.

Ron Patterson

I have examined several Darwinian phrases which trumpet the results of his overt atheism.  The same militant atheism is promoted by moderator Leanan.  It is the true agenda of intellectual doomers, among whom there is no 'blessed hope' in the future or in reality beyond.  Such activity is one higher level of Fear Mongering.  As the mainstream media exists for the sheeple, so the atheist PeakOilers exist to us literati.  They provide the content and number streams to support fear and gloom against those who are trying to live for tomorrow as well as today.

The following Darwinian malaprops betray his satanic agenda.  They are from responses over the last three days.  There are continual uses of the words 'damn' and 'hell' in his writing.

"The following It is just that I keep a large database and plot using Excel. Now if I could just figure out how to post those damn plots".

"Yes, it was a joke and that damn joke is wearing thin. So let's stop joking and stop labeling Gore as the inventor of the internet. We cannot possibly move on until this stupid shit stops"!

"Would that be the case if everyone turned to organic gardening and got fat and kept having kids? Then these kids cleared more land for more organic gardening, then their kids.....

 Tell me Odograph, what the hell is a non-crash anyway"?

Just for the record...I am not a moderator.  I post news links, that's all.  I have neither the power nor the inclination to control what anyone else posts here.
I always feel that people sticking the label "doomers" on others are far more scared of their futures than those they apply the label to.

Don't personally care much for any label, like doomers, cornucopians (though the word "corn", because of ethanol, remains intriguing in there)

Generalizations are in general not things of beauty, or much positive use.

And I fail to see the doom in hearing the waterfall approaching when you're out on the river in your canoe.

The following Darwinian malaprops betray his satanic agenda.  They are from responses over the last three days.  There are continual uses of the words 'damn' and 'hell' in his writing.

Leanan: This is a troll. If you ignore him he will go back to Usenet.

No troll, Will;

I am a geologist from New Orleans.  I never proposed a religious objective, only that Darwinian and Leanan find it necessary to strut their atheism in a peak oil message board.  I do analyze statements by their content and language, which betray various underlying assumptions and predilections.
Best be mindful of your P's and Q's.

Best be mindful of your P's and Q's

No thanks.

Um, yeah.  Mentioning you're an atheist is "strutting" it.  But mentioning you're a Christian is just fine.

Kind of like two men who hold hands in public are "flaunting their homosexuality," while a man and a woman can practically make out in public and no one gives a rip.

Actually Will, I think he's come to TOD to make friends.
If that's the case he's failing miserably.
He isn't a troll.  He's been posting here since around March this year at least, and has even made some interesting comments.

Having said that, I can't for the life of me understand what he is upset about today.

I'm not sure I understand the point of your post.  Are you attacking somebody's religious beliefs?
These militant atheists (kinda a misnomer because the best warriors appear to be religious whackos) are no better than evildoer terrorists. Once we wipe out those godless Ay-rabs,correction: those evildoer Ay-rabs that worship the evildoer God not the good one, then we can turn our attention to these evildoer atheists who are sapping our vital juices.Nope, no paranoia on this site.
Wow - 'overt atheism.' This means that Darwinian ranks at the top position for marriage unsuitability in American society. I bet you think that is some sort of clever putdown.

Anyone else a militantly agnostic follower of oxymorons? You know, something like infinite growth?

I think this is so hilarious. But I am deeply disappointed that Mr. Genius has figured out my "satanic agenda". I will have to be more discreet in the future. ;-)

But what say we deal with peak oil issues instead of labeling one's statements as "satanic". If my doomer arguments are flawed, point out the flaws. Simply labeling them as "satanic" or pointing out that I am an atheist is not an argument, it is merely name calling. And let's not turn this forum into a religious forum, let's deal with peak oil and the consequences of peak oil.

If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.
Elbert Hubbard, American journalist.

Ron Patterson

Just wondering how you can be satanic and atheist at the same time...
details, details,,,,,,
You noticed that huh? A satanic atheist would be an oxymoron. I guess I will just have to give up my Satanism.

Damn, just when I was getting good at it. ;-)

Oh my God! That is way too funny...satanic atheism.  I'm affraid I will think of that all week long...
Who you calling a doomer?

(Matt)3:7 O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

3:10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.


(Mark)13:7  And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet.

13:8 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.   

13:9 But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.   

13:10 And the gospel must first be published among all nations.   

13:11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.   

13:12 Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death.


(Rev)6:12  And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

6:13  And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth

I repeat: who you calling a doomer?

The following Darwinian malaprops betray his satanic agenda.

I think that an idiotic agenda of "expecting miracles" is far more damaging than an satanic agenda which at least remind us to exercise caution and foresight.
This is not for the feeble minded of course.

Dude, This is a nice place for us to teach English Spelling and proper syntax of the langugage only some of us use on a daily basis.

I do hope though it was slightly sarcastic.  

Equivalent  Though I also did not check with a spell check software.

I hate to make mistakes, but oh well they happen.  I find them published books read by the mass market and wonder are there proof readers still reading books?

But this is hunks and chunks of personal opinion laced with factoids and Hard data and URL linkages and also a blog of sorts, Prefection ain't goin' happen and you'll just have to look over it, laugh little and cry a little.

Try to get over it though.

Ron,  I know you can defend yourself,  but it just got my ire up.  Let's get back to Pounding the MSM instead of each other.

Please learn to spell

L'orthographe est la science des ânes.
    Alphonse Allais

Translation : Orthography is the science of the asses.

Also from Ambrose Bierce :

Orthography, n. The science of spelling by the eye instead of by the ear. Advocated with more heat than light by the outmates of every asylum for the insane.


And Bierce's thoughts about journalists are appropriate for today as well--

Reporter, n. A writer who guesses his way to the truth and dispels it with a tempest of words.

I know, that last word is spelled wrong. And my damn spell checker wont give me a hint.

Darwinian... install Google's spellchecker to your browser. It works great on web forms and corrects just about all misses including: equalevant.

Hold it, how does that work? Is there a Mac version?
Go to: google.toolbar.com

Select the appropriate version for your browser. The default will likely be the browser you are currently running, since the web page interrogates your browser specs. The toolbar is very useful, particularly the spell-checker. You may wish to disable the segment that tracks your browsing (under the excuse to warn you about spam-sites, etc).

Works on my Mac.

I think you meant toolbar.google.com, google would need to be the top level domain name.
Re: That is causing oil prices to drop today

Add to all my Walker Ridge posts here:

Can I unofficially designate this as Ridicule Oil Traders Day?

Not all of them, of course...

It's not the traders so much as the people they are trading for, who deserve ridicule. eBay isn't as dumb as the people who buy utter crap on it.
I misspoke. Not the traders. Also, there is a fine post on futures by Nate today. These people buying & selling the commodities should do more research, perhaps, and stop watching so much doctored TV.

Re:  "Primal Scream" Analysis on CNBC

Early this morning, CNBC had an analyst on from Platts who said that the discovery (ies) would not have a material impact on oil production and prices worldwide.  The CNBC anchor almost had a primal scream response, "But it would increase US reserves by 50%!"

What this play, assuming that they can commercially develop it, illustrates is the widening gulf (interesting play on words) between the fortunes of the energy producers and the energy consumers.   Energy sources that can be commercially developed are going to generate lots of cash flow for the owners of the energy sources.  

Things are not going to be quite so rosy for the energy consumers.  I think that is why the financial types on CNBS are constantly cheering for lower oil prices, because they instinctively realize--perhaps on an almost subconscious level--that Peak Oil spells doom for much of our economy as we know it.

"...financial types on CNBS are constantly cheering for lower oil prices..."

CNBS - Cable Network BS?  Looks like a Freudian slip to me.  Probably right on the money, too!

Even worse Westexas. Earlier the Sharron Asspherson was saying that the OCtober contract was down because of the oil discovery. Does she even have a high school degree?
On the GOM discovery,
correct me if I'm wrong (its early) but at a use rate of 20 million barrels a day, 15 billion barrels is only a 2 year supply for the country, assuming we could extract all of it. Is that correct? And if so, what's the big deal? That isn't that much oil...
Being an optimist, you should look at the sunny side.

The US consumes approx 7.5 billion barrels per year but it produces approx. 2.5 billion per year.

Ergo, this bubbling fresh new 15 billion will add a breathing space of seven years to US production (presuming that the rest of the world continues to oblige via its exports).  

Oops, I mean six years ...
Yes but due on stream in 2013 when the US consumes 10 BBL/yr and produces only 2.5BBL - 6 years depletion + Addittioal GOM reserves.
Some of the finance/oil/GW related articles in the news today.


Some of you guys read itulip.com and have wondered if Janszen knows about Peak Oil.  Here is an article on his site that does have some PO awareness factored in.

Oil - Oil stays high unless we see a global recession...Oil has stayed high and I believe that it will continue to do so unless we have a recession. Various risks to supply continue to cause concern. The world may be at the beginning of Peak Oil Production. This means that we may be starting to run out of oil just as China and India are greatly increasing the demand for oil.

Oil is at $72.83 (8/22/06). The risk is that oil stays high. Much is being written about how the world is currently experiencing peak oil production.

There is continued instability in the Middle East. Do you think the Iraq situation is getting better? I don't. Iran is becoming a huge problem as well, not to mention Nigeria and Venezuela. All of these situations help to keep oil high along with the lack of new deposits being found and high demand. Oil will probably stay high unless the situations above improve and/or demand eases because of a global economic slowdown.

Holy Crap...I hadn't realized the dead sea is evaporating!

His proposal is to carry sea water from the Gulf of Aqaba to replenish the Dead Sea, which has shrunk by a third over the past 50 years and faces total evaporation. At stake is the area's delicate ecology and a tourist industry -- that draws 100,000 Britons each year -- centred on the sea's mineral-rich waters and mud.

McCain is being shot at in Europe and it's not even mentioned here?

A missile was fired at a helicopter escorting Sen. John McCain during a visit to the Republic of Georgia last week.

Lastly over at urbansurvival.com they've posted a link to a PDF file with the next 25 years in a FLOW CHART!  It's sickly detailed.


Peak Oil would fall under the natural resource shortages and energy independence.

the prediction of 2/3 of the world's population gone by 2050 would probably be the one thing that might save the human race.

Of course, I doubt seriously that 2/3rds of the people on this globe can die through famine, disease, war, etc.  If things get that bad (and they would have to get really really bad for that to happen), it would probably be more like 95% of the people that disappear.

The Republic of Georgia isn't part of what most people would call Europe, since it's at the eastern end of the Black Sea.

I have a question to ask Westexas, Khebab, and Stuart Staniford (or anybody else who is knowledgeable in this domain).

How do you factor in possible future discoveries (such as this recent GOM one, which is no longer future, but present) into your Hubbert linearization calculations? Do you already have `leeway' for surprise discoveries of this kind (in which case there would really be no `surprise' at all, since you sort of expected it to happen) or do you just acknowledge that the HL-based predictions for the US (228 billion cumulative according to Deffeyes in Beyond Oil, pages 36-37) are less accurate than you thought they were?

In other words, are these extra 5 to 30 billion barrels already part of that cumulative 228 billion barrels, or do you add them to the 228 billion?

"In other words, are these extra 5 to 30 billion barrels already part of that cumulative 228 billion barrels, or do you add them to the 228 billion?"

The question partly turns on how you define "conventional."  A lot of people don't define ultra deep water production as conventional.  My personal definition of conventional is that it is oil that will move to a wellbore without having to add heat energy to the system and/or that you don't have to stripmine.

The best way to answer the question is that we are not going to see any region show a perfectly straight line down to where the plot intersects the horizontal axis (where P = zero), because a lot of these regions will virtually never stop producing.

Inevitably, what we will see is a long production "tail" which on a HL plot, will show up as the data plot asymptotically approaching the horizontal axis, without ever quite getting there.  

As I pointed out above, what this fundamentally points out is the difference between the fortunes of the energy producers and the energy consumers.  

If Matt Simmons is right about oil prices ($200 per barrel in 2010, in constant 2005 dollars), every one million barrel oil field that one finds (or redevelops with more advanced recovery techniques) onshore in the Lower 48 will generate cash flows of up to $150 million or so (depending on the royalty and operating costs).  In many areas, a one million barrel field can be found in an area as small as 100 acres.  If you string together seven small fields like this, you have a billion dollars in net cash flow.

The point is that neither these "leftover" Lower 48 fields nor these ultra deep offshore discoveries will do anything to change the fundamental reality of Peak Oil.  Both may be profitable, but we are just working the "tail" at the end of the production rate versus time plot.

The best way to answer the question is that we are not going to see any region show a perfectly straight line down to where the plot intersects the horizontal axis (where P = zero), because a lot of these regions will virtually never stop producing.

I thought the whole point of linearization was to plot a straight line that intercepts with the x-axis on a normal DIN A 4 page, not an asymptotic curve that goes on forever.
You are in fact inadvertently taking the whole stuffing out of the HL hypothesis. Why should a certain region in the US or elsewhere "virtually never stop producing" anyhow? Slovenia, at last reckoning (2003), was producing 11 barrels per day and will presumably throw in the towel when their production drops to 1 barrel per day or thereabouts. Whole regions and countries have discontinued oil extraction already.
Note that the whole point of HL is to predict cumulative production and 50% production rather than peak - you don't need to linearize for that!
As to the distinction between `conventional' and `non-conventional': there is such a grey area between the two that it becomes a distinction without a difference. As far as most analysts are concerned, if oil is technically and economically feasible to extract, then it is to all intents and purposes conventional.
Perhaps the best solution would be to offer a whole range of Hubbert curves and Hubbert Linearizations - one for conventional, one for conventional plus unconventional, one for the former plus CTL, etc. etc.
Now there is something to mull over!
"You are in fact inadvertently taking the whole stuffing out of the HL hypothesis."

I disagree.  

The contribution from production at the "tail" for any mature province,  while it can be profitable, is not going to materially affect total recoverable reserves (absent some kind of massive discovery, which is always possible, but not likely).  

However, probably the best way to classify all of the ultra deep production worldwide is to lump it in with "other" in regard to world production.  

As a percentage of estimated remaining recoverable conventional crude + condensate reserves (1,000 Gb), this play represents between 0.3% and 1.5% of that amount.  

Considering what 1bbl of oil--42 gallons--can be made into, I doubt if anyone would ignore it--especially given future scarcity. This is why tail-end producers make good investments.

copelch,  You are stepping into a sticky issue here, you don't even know the tenth of it!  And the deeper you dig, the weirder it gets....it makes me think of a child digging in a yard with a spoon, who finally looked up dejected but smiling with discovery, he said, "you know what's under this dirt?  Dirt!."

Light  sweet, heavy oil, heavy sour, condensates, LPG, GTL, are now essentially interchangable....which means natural gas is essentially interchangable with crude oil.  Recently, ExxonMobil claimed an increase in their reserve growth....what most people didn't pay attention to was that they were using a catagory called Reserves all petroleum, and the WHOLE increase was a natural gas field they had long had option on in Qatar....do we count tar sands in....if not, why not, and how about heavy oils...(by the way, the designation Light oil is a legal one for investment and communication purposes....if you mix in a small amount of heavy and move the viscosity a couple of points, light sweet becomes "heavy" but, guess what?  It does exactly the same job it did before...and note that we are leaving out for this discussion bio fuels like ethanol and bio-Diesel....gee, this starts to get confusing don't it?

As the first talkie said, "you ain't seen nuthin' yet!"

Roger Conner  known to you as ThatsItImout

Westexas wrote:

Inevitably, what we will see is a long production "tail" which on a HL plot, will show up as the data plot asymptotically approaching the horizontal axis, without ever quite getting there.

We need HL experts to wade in here.  A tail on the production graph I can see. That's part of the theorgy.  But not a tail on an HL graph.  That would be a very big deal, indeed

As I understand it, production could continue forever without any tail or asymptotic behaviour showing on an  HL graph.  Don't forget, the y axis isn't time in an HL plot!

Calling HL experts!!

Ah, Geez.  I misread my own blockquote of Westexas!!! Good heavens.  Time for bed.  Disregard the post.  Time for bed.  :-)
I can answer but probably someone could confirm.

The way the curve of cumulated discoveries is done, you have to add a very large field (more than twice the Ghawar field) to produce a difference to the Qtt.  It's simply a matter of percentage of new discoveries vs Qtt already calculated.  

I also think that in the Qtt there is a part named yet to be discovered, but I'm not sure.  

If we take the 2 000 billion barrel Qtt, which we have around half already produced, if we add 100 billion barrel, it only amount to 5% increase in Qtt, which is not a very large increase.  

On the other hand, say we are very lucky and we could find another 1 000 billion barrel, we are still encountering the same problems.  Those field would be located on places where actual oil infrastructure is not present because it would be discovered farther from actual production provinces in the world.  This is because exploration companies tend to search near older field first, in order to leverage the existing infrastructure.

Also this increase in Qtt would be swallowed pretty quickly by the exponential growth in overall energy consumption in the world.  Every new decade since we first started use oil, we have consumed more oil than all what was previously used.
For example :

In the 80's (1980-1989) we used more oil than all preceding years (1850-1979).  

Because of exponential growth, the effect of a new 1 000 billion barrel would only get us 6 more years after the 2010 peak year.

Albert Bartlett did a very good (and kind of funny) presentation on the effect of exponential growth, you can find it in the Global Public Media web page.

Thanks for the Bartlett link - brilliant.

You write:

I also think that in the Qtt there is a part named yet to be discovered, but I'm not sure.

The reason you are unsure is that it depends very much on which peak oil expert you read. As far as I can tell, for example, Deffeyes virtually excludes everything apart from 'proven reserves' -- which leads to an overly conservative estimate of 2000 Gb cumulative.

OTOH, Campbell/ASPO puts total cumulative (i.e. URR) at 2450 Gb, of which 1043 Gb used and 1407 Gb left over (i.e. reserves), and with a breakdown by conventional and non-conventional of 1900 Gb and 550 Gb respectively [ASPO Newsletter July 2006].

This seems far more realistic -- at any rate you can at least factor in the new GOM discovery without gulping and fretting and sweating as to how to how to fit it in with the Hubbert method, or having resort to word play.

Insofar as I know, Deffeyes is talking about crude + condensate, Campbell, total liquids.
In the 80's (1980-1989) we used more oil than all preceding years (1850-1979).
I see the point you're trying to make, but I don't think the statement above is accurate. Look at any graph of world oil consumption and you see it actually decreased pretty substantially in response to the 1979 oil shock (probably the only sustained drop in history). I am no expert at area-under-the-curve graphs, but it is quite possible that the world used less oil during the 1980s (1980-1989) than during the 1970s (1970-1979) alone, let alone the period from 1859-1979. So, the idea is a powerful one, but pick a different decade.
We use more oil now per year than in all years combined from 1860 to 1960.
This is the original graphic, straight from Dr. Albert Bartlett's "Arithmetic, Population, and Energy.
This is the original graphic, straight from Dr. Albert Bartlett's "Arithmetic, Population, and Energy.

You forgot one very important piece of context:

"When consumption grows 7%/yr the consumption in any decade is approximately equal to the sum of all previous consumption"

Since consumption is not growing at 7% per year -- and hasn't come close in decades -- that graphic and the conclusions drawn from it do not apply to real world oil consumption.  The numbers were just made up to illustrate a point - that's all.

As a point of fact, the EIA data reveals that the amount of oil consumed in the 90's was less than the amount consumed in the preceeding 12 years, and similarly the amount consumed in the 80's was less than the amount consumed from 1968-1979.  It's still exponential growth, of course, but it's simply false to say oil consumption doubled every decade.

Re: Since consumption is not growing at 7% per year...

Obviously not. Wait, you're not trying to tell me that global oil consumption is going down because ... it's still exponential growth, of course.... No shit. According to the EIA supply numbers, 30.8 billion barrels produced and consumed last year, about 84.5 million barrels used up today... Everybody's got a plan to increase that obscene number... Grow, Grow, Grow!

What's your point? Outside Al Bartlett's academic example, you gotta' point?

What, me worry?

Re: Since consumption is not growing at 7% per year...

Obviously not. Wait, you're not trying to tell me that global oil consumption is going down

How do you get "going down" from "not 7% annual growth"?  That's suspiciously close to the False Dilemma Fallacy.

I'm making a very simple point, that the original claim:

In the 80's (1980-1989) we used more oil than all preceding years (1850-1979).

is factually incorrect, and that the reason for the error is that the graphic used to derive that conclusion is based on an assumption:

When consumption grows 7%/yr the consumption in any decade is approximately equal to the sum of all previous consumption

that is totally unrelated to historical oil consumption data.

Is that clear now, or would you like to make foolish non sequiturs for a while longer?

It's called exponential growth because it's not tied to a perticular number but to a percentage of growth calculated for each period.

Say we have an increase in consumption of 7% a year, each year to evaluate the number of years it need for the consumption to double, you divide 70 by the %.

So we have 70/7 = 10 period (here they are years).  I dont know much of the math at the back of this, but it's a matter of natural logarithm or something like that.  Just remember the working part 70/x% = number of period.

Then using this very simple and straitforward formulae, we get a doubling of consumption every 10 years.  In those cumulated 10 years, we consume more than previous years.

Other parable used to describe this natural phenomenon are :

The algae in a lake, starting with one sample, doubling each day.  The lake is filled after 30 days.  When did the lake was only half empty?

Or this one (from the Bartlett speach):

There is one yeast cell in a bottle, doubling each minute. The bottle is filled after 1h.  At which minute the bottle was only half empty? How long would the yeast grow if 3 new bottles are found and the yeast could go on growing in these brand new bottles?  Notice that those 3 new bottles are 3 times bigger than the first one.

Transpose those little story to oil (regardless of where, when, how much, how we are gonna get it) and say we start with a full bottle (2 000 billion barrels).  How much longer can we go on with current increase in consumption if we find 3 new bottles (6 000 billion barrels)?  

I will reply in a moment (I have some planning work to do for a biodiesel from algae pilot project)

The relationship 7% growth => doubling every 10 years comes from compounding growth: 1.07^10 = 1.97, or approximately 2.
The algae will only cover half on day 29...day 30 it's totally covered and the little cell in a bottle is again one half of the total since it's exponential.
That's a good question, I don't think that an increase of the URR by 2-7% will influence significantly the Hubbert linearization result. If production starts in 2013 at 400 kbpd:
1- US oil consumption will be around 22.5 mbpd (2.5 mbpd higher than today)
2- US production should be around 4 mbpd
So, this new discovery will just make the Hubbert curve tail a little bit thicker and will lower the depletion rate. Note that consumption is supposed to increase by 17.5% by 2015.

src: GraphOilogy

Re: If production starts in 2013 at 400 kbpd...

Pretty generous there, Sam.... Good, we should always use the most optimistic analysis to show that it doesn't change a thing. Does everyone see that teeny weeny little bump at about 2013 in the graph?

Dave cohen:

Pretty generous there, Sam.... Good, we should always use the most optimistic analysis to show that it doesn't change a thing. Does everyone see that teeny weeny little bump at about 2013 in the graph?

This blog post is from Monday, February 27, 2006.  What exactly are you trying to say with that teeny weeny little bump comment?

errr...... Khebab's graph is from a February 27, 2006 blog post which is located here:


So that "teeny weeny little bump" doesn't appear to be included in this graph.  

Dave, I'm sorry, but this made me laugh real hard. Can't help myself.

As you can see, you better be careful with your teeny snide remarks about weeny little petit bumps that you think you can just arbitrarily send us way up here in la belle province, Quebec.
'Cause you know, buddy, we got protection.
You watch it now, you hear?

Man, I'm still laughing.

Khebab, love your charts - even though this one shows US imports of 30 million bpd at 2050 - which by my quick reckoning will equal around 90% of global production.  Us poor Europeans will be using bikes - or maybe it will be canoes by then?

Seriously though, I saw a chart a few weeks back showing how US imports took off following US peak production - was that one of yours - I can't find it?  Do you happen to have a version of this going from say 1950 to 2010, that shows the pre-peak pattern more clearly?  Thanks anyway for posting this.  I need to make one of these for the UK.

No, I don't have a version right now from 1950 to 2010 but I could probably make one.

Remember, Hubbert linearization works for individual regions and areas.  Hubberts curve took a jog upwards in the late 1970s when Alaskan production came online. In reality the United States 'owns' many disparate geological regions - the further out the continental shelf we go, this increasingly becomes a new region. In a perfect world, we would linearize all the different areas that comprise the legal boundaries of the United States. Perhaps just linearizing the GOM separate from onshore Texas and Louisiana would produce different results?

Replying here but this is for Copelch in the hopes that some of this will start to make sense to him.

Re: a jog upwards in the late 1970s when Alaskan production came online

US production with linearization below it, includes Alaska.

Can you spot Alaska?

How about here? -- Starts in 1958


Ships that pass in the night .... though I think the Alaska penny has dropped (thanks, honest) and I get what you are driving at (I think).

Yet here's what Comrade Deffeyes has to say about that chart on page 36 of 'Beyond Oil':

The first thing to notice is the place where the straight line meets the horizontal axis: 228 billion barrels [...] In the Hubbert intepretation, that intercept is the expected amount of oil extracted from the United Strates when the last well finally runs dry.

[my italics]

My question is a very simple one: how do you fit the alleged discovery of 15-30 Gb in the GOM into that prediction?

There are only three possible discrete answers:

  1. The discovery has already been factored in as part of the yet-to-be-discovered fraction, and HL is still OK.
  2. The discovery has not been factored in, and HL is not quite OK.
  3. The discovery is a hoax.
My opinion is that the HL is based on the following assumptions:
  1. most of the significant oilfields (the king, the queens, etc.) have been discovered and their productions have started
  2. production profiles from individual fields are overlapping significantly (i.e. the distribution of the production starting dates is relatively tight and its spread is small compared to an oilfield lifetime).
  3. production is unconstrained (i.e. you produce as much as you can, no quotas).
These conditions are maybe necessary (but not sufficient) to get an unimodal total production profile for the region which can ensure that the HL result is reliable enough. I think your option number 2 is probably correct. The HL success may also depend also on whether or not the biggest oil fields are produced first.
Re: how do you fit the alleged discovery of 15-30 Gb in the GOM into that prediction

First, I don't have to. That was said by Comrade Duffeyes, not me. This is not a cult.

Second, you're inflating the numbers; the range given is 3 to 15 Gb. Who knows what is really recoverable given the logistical difficulties. Sure, it's an example of technology perhaps allowing the exploitation of previously untouchable reserves. It's still just a blip on the tail end of production. P50 = 9 Gb URR = an additional 4% of 228 Gb = 235 Gb. Hubbert analyses are models, not laws. And who cares? The new supply would only make up for declining GOM production in the best case. It's still not clear these reserves will ever be produced. A pipeline needs to be built. I've decided you are worth saving.  

-- Dave

Dave, Khebab,

Thank you for your replies. TOD is certainly not a cult -- anything but. That is one of the reasons why it is probably the most successful of the 1000 peak oil websites around.

My real concern is that, once again, peak oil analysts may be basing their predictions on overly conservative URR estimates. 15 Gb may be a blip, but what if that blip occurs a few times over? Four or five blips and you've got a blurp...

... and the cornucopians will be given yet another opportunity to distract public attention from the insanity of exponential growth as they holler the old platitude that it's deja vu all over again, again and again.

And now the lights are going out all over Central Europe, so goodnight and buona noche to you guys!

The most realistic thing about these figures is the 500% range in certainty - and even that is probably underestimated.

How did you get a P50 of 9 Gb Dave - was that 3+15 div by 2?  What we have on the ground (or at least 27000 ft below it) is a single well test producing 6000 bpd.

A quick back of the envelope calculation shows that you need about 410 wells (each 27000ft long) running at 6000 bpd for 10 years to produce 9Gbs.  10 monster rigs.

Assuming everything goes right, how long would it take to drill each well?


Sure, that's how I calculated a quick & dirty P50. But nobody knows, right? I was trying to be generous.

It was a test well flowing at 6/kbd. If E&P tests out, if a pipeline is built, if ... if ... if ... there would only be a limited number of wells out at that depth. Sam (Khebab) gave a generous 400/kbd estimate -- which wouldn't start at 2013, by the way. That's just when the first production would come onstream. It would take years after that to get to anywhere close to Sam's estimate -- which seems quite optimistic in any case. What about delays? Nobody has ever done full scale production at these depths. Somebody mentioned deepwater drill risers that were 7000 feet long. It's all about production flows versus reserves accounting.

And to top it all off, all of this may never happen. The economics may not be there aside from the technology questions or pipeline. Shaw ("are humans smarter than yeast") mentioned Huge Bladders. That seems about right to me.

Development wells will generally be a lot more prolific than exploration or appraisal wells. The reasons being:

  • Exploration wells in a new province, and early appraisal wells, are drilled ultra-cautiously because you don't know what pressure regime you're drilling into. This means frequent casing runs and hole size reductions on the way down. So you end up producing through a drinking straw. One of the major engineering efforts towards a major field development program (tens of man-years) is an optimized development well design (and corresponding rig design) that assures drilling safety (no blowouts!) but gives a useable hole size (at least 9") in the reservoir, and correspondingly high flowrates.

  • Ditto high mudweight => formation damage => well skin => low flowrates in appraisal wells.

  • The development wells will probably have a complex engineered "completion", i.e. interface between the well and reservoir - things like artificial fractures, gravel packs or even lateral branches. You don't mess around constructing these things in an appraisal well, especially in small hole sizes. SO, higher flowrates again in development wells.

Bottom line - you might get 20Mb/d plus out of development wells in this reservoir. You wouldn't get out of bed for less than that in this province. I believe some operators don't even bother testing discovery or even appraisal wells - the well designs are just so different that the information isn't very useful. Sure gives you a nice warm fuzzy feeling though (and impresses the amateurs on Fox and CNBC).
Thank you, Yes.

On page 49 of Beyond Oil, Deffeyes discusses using the HL technique on discoveries (hits). He estimates that 94% of all discoveries have been found. And that 100bbl oil will still be discovered.

"My guess is that the remaining discoveries will look more like change for a hundred-dollar bill: one twenty, two tens, two fives..."

I've said it before and I'll say it again,
expect to see stories in the MSM between now
and election day in November designed to soothe
the populace into continuing the status quo
at the ballot box.
Do you imply that the discovery announcement is a well-timed decoy?


Absolutely.  Reading from a few of your posts, it would appear you trust our government blindly?  
I don't trust the government but not because I think they are lying, they, most of them anyway, just don't know what they are talking about. If you think every word in the press is some kind of a government conspiracy, or even a  lie fabricated by the government just to influence the elections, then you have a serious case of paranoia.

The fact is, this announcement had absolutely nothing to do with the government, it was made by Chevron, Devon Energy and Statoil of Norway, the three oil companies who are partners in this adventure.

Ron Patterson

After re reading my post I really didnt mean to say I believe THIS is a well timed decoy.  I was simply stating I don't trust our gov't.  I firmly believe we will see gas moderating going into elections followed by a nice rise, unless we crash in Sept/Oct causing the recession that will lead to decreased demand thus temporarily reducing the pump price.  I had read several of his posts and I picked this one to respond to.

I'm on you side of the fence so to speak on this one.

Funny, tate, I have only posted very few comments on TOD yet. None even mentions the government.

Deparately looking for someone to bash?

No, really rough day yesterday.  My mistake.  I have no need for bashing people on blog's; where does it get you?

I read your post defending this field as real big.  I suppose it's relative as are many things, but in the bigger picture I really don't see this doing anything in the near term and the more I've read, this is going to be NG mostly anyway.  That's good since we've been at the edge a NG crash anyway.

Apology accepted.

I just meant "big" in the relative sense. I do understand that not the size is important for peak oil, but the flow rate.



(Houston) A consortium of major oil companies
today announced a major find of oil and gas in
the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. They expect
to prove up from 3 to 15 billion barrels of oil
equivalent in the prolific Pre-Election formation.
It is hoped this discovery will not prove to be
similar to the previously announced major Pemex
deepwater discovery which was believed to be bottomed in the
Pre-Election formation but proved to be in the
Post-Election formation which yielded little hydrocarbons
but tremendous quantities of hot air.
Due to massive reserves of hot air already located in Washington and Mexico City, the
discovery was of little significance.
Hello Boby,

LOL!  That is terrific--Best Political Humor Post in a long time, IMO.

Whatcha think of the probability of a major terrorist attack or a warning of a major terrorist attack in the next two months?
You mean a surprise "surprise in October"?
I am shocked, shocked Messiuer that there is "manipulation" going on in this bannana-democracy establishment.

but, step back,

we'll always have Paris  :-0

Great picture.

- sgage

Renault: And what in Heaven's name brought you to Casablanca?
Rick: My health. I came to Casablanca for the waters.
Renault: The waters? What waters? We're in the desert.
Rick: I was misinformed.

"Of all the gin joints... (etc.)
Go ahead Sam, play it..."

- sgage (with 'Time Goes By' playing in his head)

But of course, Casablanca is not in the desert. That starts on the other side of the Atlas. And now Casablanca is the third largest city in Africa.
In Hollywood in 1942, Casablanca is in the desert...

Don't screw us up by pointing out reality here, Rick was misinformed, OK?

now, we're all aware that Casablanca means White House, right?
I never analyze Mythology. Sorry, roel. Rick was misinformed. And I am shocked, shocked! that there is reserves accounting shenanigans going on here in the really deep ultra-deepwater Gulf of Mexico.

Looks like it is time for a casting call for a re-make of the movie. This time it takes place in a bar located behind the NYMEX. SEC officials burst in, expressing utter shock that gambling goes on in that institution.

Sam is at the electronic piano board playing a crowd favorite: As Hubbert's Curve Unfolds Again (aka We'll Always Have Spindletop). Play it till they get it Sam.

Cool it man, don't you get it yet?
It ain't true! It's one of 'em whatshammacallits in the desert, them fatal inguanas.
You just it back for a bit and have a cold one. Proven recipe.
...major terrorist attack or a warning of a major terrorist

Domestically or Internationally?

Warning: 100%  (Gotta keep the masses on their toes)
Attack: 50%

Warning:  75%
Attack:  100% (if you count all acts of terror toward any US friendly nations
this would include Israel)

Personally, I am most interested in what happens in Saudi Arabia and Russia.
In the case of SA, if they truly are in steep decline and are unable to meet their commitments, one could easily imagine a "terror event" to one of their (non-pruducing) pipelines, pumping stations, rigs or perhaps a port terminal.  This would allow them to save face by saying, "We could produce more except for (insert event)".

As for Russia, I don't trust their numbers (BPD) reported.  If they can't meet their commitments (especially to Europe this winter) some similar "event" may manifest itself providing them with an excuse for reduced capacity.

But then again, winter is after the midterm elections in the U.S.

"Whatcha think of the probability of a major terrorist attack or a warning of a major terrorist attack in the next two months?"

99.9%, plus or minus 0.1%

Forget that. I'll go out on a limb and say 100%  :-)

- sgage


I said this the other day in another thread, but nobody picked up on it there.  Here is a good place to repeat it.

What if the Pakistanis were not meant to find out about the planned airplane attacks that were 'thwarted' by British security.

The Brits (and the US) have already said that they knew something was 'going down', but just did not know when.  But it was the Pakistani whistle-blowing (and arrest of a key player) that stopped evrything dead in it's tracks.

If the Pakistani authorities had not stumbled across the imminent plot, then today we would be in the aftermath of a horrific attack on the US.

That kind of attack can go a long way to spurring the kind of response that would include an attack on Iran.  As well as raising the President's (and the Republicans) popularity to boot.

Yeah, that's my line of thinking too. The simple minded tagline of "Biggest Find Since Alaska! (tm)" is going to get repeated ad nauseum, even with all of the logistical and technical issues mentioned here. The timing of this - RIGHT as Congress comes back for a month before midterm elections???

shakes head I don't know...one wonders if this could turn out like that supposedly gigantic find Pemex announced earlier this year (before THEIR election) that kind of turned out to be a bust.

The lies are trumpeted to heaven, in broad daylight.

The retractions will be whispered, after dark.

(No wonder I'm a survivalist.)

`Mortgage moms' may star in midterm vote

At first glance, the economy's role in this year's midterm elections is a puzzle. Economic growth and unemployment are at levels that in past years would have been a clear political asset for the party in power.

But one layer down in the statistics, the answer is more clear. Flat wages and rising debt nationally have converged to leave millions of middle-class households feeling acutely vulnerable to bumps in their financial planning. The most visible of these are rising energy prices and a softening housing market.

A less obvious but powerful variable is the interest paid by people carrying credit card debt or mortgages whose monthly payments vary with interest rates. People buffeted by these trends have given rise to a new and volatile voting block.

OFHEO's house price index shows the largest quarter-to-quarter fall off in home price increases in three decades of record keeping

CNN had a couple of stories about this last night, too.  One was about how 40% of mortgages now are ARM or other "exotic" mortgages, and how rising rates are causing record mortgage defaults.  The other was about people who are living in shipping containers.  You know, the ones that bring Wal-Mart gewgaws over from  China.  

The actual report is at OFHEO.

I couldn't help looking it up when the worst MSA in the nation is mine.

This chart caught my eye:

That downslope at the end is no fun. Particularly when you realize that it's likely to get much worse. I suppose that means we can add peak housing prices to the list. Of course, where I'm at, apparently we're over the curve already.

Still appreciating right?   There is a huge handwringing going on about the recent reduction in the rate of APPRECIATION, and anecdotes abound regarding individual cases where recent homebuyers are feeling fleeced.  

If there is going to be something unpleasant in the housing market, it will be something much worse than what we've seen to date, which on the whole has been a shift to much slower rising prices--not declines.

I know this is another frustrating example of "contrarian" triple-think, BUT when everyone thinks there is a bubble, there probably isn't one.

Very Talebian. These ARMs, though, with their negative amortization; it seems like a good path to lifelong slavery to me. shudder
Triple think and no bubble?  The simple fact is ARMS were less than 5% in 2003.  They became over 1/4 of mortgages in the next TWO YEARS!  Check out itulip.com and Janszens Ka-Poom theory.  It's got great details and points out the obvious.  EVERYONE doesn't think there is a bubble.  The NYSE is tied to housing and it's not budging...the tsunami is coming.  Pull up a chair and grab a few cold ones.

Check out this one.

Eight Market Spins About Housing by Perma-Bull Spin-Doctors...And the Reality of the Coming Ugliest Housing Bust Ever....


If nothing else read #7.

We're Toast.


As soon as I realized mortgage co's were booking negative amortizing loans as INCOME, I realized we're f*cked.

I just hope to get out of college next year and into something where I can use my econ/finance background at a company producing things we need Made in America or at least no JIT.  <sarcasm>Palatine IL has Weber and we'll still need to grill our spam right?</sarcasm>

Good Morning!  Interesting news from the deep GOM.  At the depths noted, only time and a lot of miney will tell how much is oil and how much is gas.

I followed the link to Energy Bulletin and Hopkins' piece on the survivalist ethic.  Seems a sensible approach.  I read with interest the Nowak piece (EB, 8/31) and thought it to be heavily veiled satire, but I could be wrong.  I think the way to go is relocalization, with heavy investment in electric/rail/bus public transit, beginning as urban and interurban, and ultimately regional and national.  "ELP" has been suggested on this blog a number of times -- go for it.

-- Mort.

I was wondering if any TODers of an economic bent would like to comment on the future value of the British pound in relation to the US dollar and Euro. Given that the pound is about $1.90 and about €1.45 at the moment, in 5 years time when the UK is likely to be importing half of the oil and natural gas we need, would this mean that a £1 buys $1 or €1 or could £1 buy $3 or €2?
Standard supply/demand logic says that, as the UK has to buy more Euros/Dollars and sell more Pounds, the value of the Pound will fall as foreigners have more Pounds that they can't use in their countries.  This will prompt said foreigners to sell the Pound at a discount to get their own currency back (or buy up what little of the prime London real estate that foreigners don't already own).

The question is made rather more complex as many people are predicting a big fall in the dollar due to America's twin deficits (trade deficit and federal budget deficit).  The Pound may remain on par with the Dollar if they both fall, but that doesn't mean much if the price of oil skyrockets in Dollar terms, or if the UK imports tons of stuff from places that don't used either the Dollar or the Pound as currency.

Throw the Petro-euro into the pot and the mix becomes decidedly sticky.
*crawls out of dusty woodwork*

I haven't been reading the comments religiously lately, nor have I really been to TOD in a couple of months, but has anyone heard about the Steorn people?

Search the comments on Steorn, and you'll find some discussion.
Heh, thanks. The comments are universally negative, even cynically so. I cannot argue with the Second Law objections, but the "fleecing" intimations seem off the mark.  The have vehemtly refused any investment until the independent scientific panel they are trying to form brings in a result of testing.
A view from across the pond

I think there is no doubt that the Jack discovery is great news.  Especially for Devon Energy (+12% today), Statoil (+1% today) and Chevron (+3% today).  Note the muted response on the Oslo Bourse - which will I imagine (hope) be rectified tomorrow.  There has been a dearth of good exploration news and this may just remind folks of one reason for investing in oil stocks.

6000 bpd - nice to have on shore - but in 7000 ft of water at TVD of 27,000 ft - this is extreme - not to mention Hurricanes.

BG Group (UK) announced last week a 100 - 275 million bbl (reserves) discovery in the North Sea - this was the biggest N Sea discovery for some years and made news headlines over here.  So as I said, this Jack discovery is great news and the industry needs this sort of thing to keep going.  Just imagine risers 7000 ft long!

Hello CryWolf,

I am no engineer or financial expert, but it might be more cost-effective and safer, in all aspects, to robotically harvest at this great depth going forward.  Imagine huge bladders being filled on the seafloor which would then float up to the surface to either be transferred to a VLCC, or towed by tugboat to a refinery.  This method would eliminate hurricane worries and the huge cost of extending a pipeline out to these wells.  Another answer might be VLCC submarines, but my bladder idea seems cheaper and safer.

On the Global Warming side & exponential climate change: has everyone read this link I posted late yesterday?  This is especially worrisome to me when one considers our growing food shortages.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

Oh right, Bob, I wanted, but forgot, to tell you to stop being surprised/upset at seeing exponentiality. You'll see it occurring, let's say, exponentially more.

That's not a accidental freak thing, it's just that all exponential curves look innocent at the beginning.

Hello Roel,

Thxs for responding with good points.  Obviously, these rising bad exponentials interact with each other to become even worse or create new exponentials with additional follow-on deleterious effects.  The good thing is, thxs to Bartlett's exponential growth presentation and Dieoff.com, is that most TODers are aware of expo-growth and even faster expo-decline.

We need some kind of MSM breakthrough or massive education program to alert the ignorant masses, especially of the destructive exponentials.  If I could only convince Google to put that I feel unlucky button on their search homepage, and get everyone to shout out Peakoil when their glass reaches half-empty--then I would be much more optimistic for optimizing the coming Dieoff Bottleneck!

For example: consider the years required to grow a XMAS tree [low exponential] versus how quickly it burns after the homeowner has post-holiday discarded the dried-out tree. Roughly, ten years of growth gone in thirty seconds or less.  Now consider the 400 million years to make gasoline which burns in less than a millisecond in a internal combustion engine.  That is incredibly rapid exponential feedback provided courtesy of Detritus Entropy!

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

>We need some kind of MSM breakthrough or massive education program to alert the ignorant masses, especially of the destructive exponentials.

What exactly would that accomplish? We are well into overshoot. Whether the world knows about it, won't change the outcome and at worse it will hasten it.

>shout out Peakoil when their glass reaches half-empty--then I would be much more optimistic for optimizing the coming Dieoff Bottleneck!

Look at all of the current boondangle of alterative energy projects today. Mass knowledge of PO will only accelerate the world towards the cliff as every dick, tom, and jane goes out and tries build some techno-solution with a negative EROI. For instance Congress will mandate 10s to 100s of billions in shale, biofuels, or whatever the MSM has touted as "the solution". They'll enact spending get fed dollars back into their states that help them get re-elected. They don't even care if it works, just as long as they get re-elected.

In addition, the worlds leading exporter will cut off the imports to the west in order preseve their precious reserves for there own domestic consumption. This will almost certainly lead to miltary conflict. You cannot just look at PO from just an energy propective. One must also consider the geopolitical ramifications too.


Did you get a chance to check out that PDF over at urbansurvival.com I posted above?  I was curious what your reaction and comments might be.  It's a flow chart diagramming the constraints we face heading into the next 40 years.  Quite detailed, albeit a bit disorganized in some ways.

Hello Tate423,

Sorry for my late reply.  Yes, the flowchart is a good effort at visualizing future potentialities, but instead of starting off with abrupt climate change[ACC] --I think they should have started off with Peakoil AND incorporated ACC progressively into the flowchart-- my hunch is that the Hubbert Downslope will be more serious sooner than ACC. But ACC is obviously the bigger long-term threat.

By initially focusing on energy and the Liebig's Constraints that will necessarily arise from detritus depletion: the collapse of global shared carrying-capacity can be roughly flowcharted and broken down into geographic energetic-distance-limits [logistics].  The resultant outbreaks of political upheaval, infrastructure shrinkage, systemic vulnerabilities, radical simplification of organizational complexity, etc, can then be intermixed and extrapolated further with ACC's growing desertification, species extinction and migration, weather effects, etc.

To my way of thinking, this would be a much more predictive flowchart, but if I had unlimited funds and access to a supercomputing supercluster--I could really make a comprehensive model with hundreds of logical branches and loops, thousands of constants, tens of thousands of variables: then run a zillion iterations to refine it.

Ideally, it could include Westexas's Export Depletion Theory, Duncan's Olduvai Gorge Theory, monetary theories, and a bunch of other concepts that I can imagine to gauging human reaction to stress along the lines of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.  In short: Foundation.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

Bob, just some of the problems here.  The temperature in the reservoir - and therefore the temperature of the oil as it arrives at surface is probably way over 100C (normally at this depth you'd be getting on for 200C - but the GOM has gone down so fast its hasn't had time to warm up yet).  The sea floor temperature is likely around 5C and the surface 25C.  These tempaertaure changes alone create massive engineering problems.  Then there is the gas dissolved in the oil - as this comes out of solution on the way to surface, the bladder would quite simply burst. Then there is the problem of water production later in field life.... and so on.  What you would need is the equivalent of a Crazyhorse (sorry Thunderhorse) platform on the sea bed - and I dare say bp may deliver that one day by chance or by design. Did you ever see The Abyss - at some point the length of pipes involved may just make submarine steel rigs a reality.

The problem of food to fuel combined with global warming I think is a very serious threat.

Hello CryWolf,

Thxs for pointing out these engineering difficulties--helps show the myriad ways the offshore ERoEI will be much lower than onshore recovery methods.  Makes one wonder at what point does deepwater ERoEI = Canadian oilsands ERoEI?  I certainly hope they are required to case the wellbore so that they won't have an oceanic environmental disaster like the recent toxic mega-mud surface ejection in Java.  BTW, does anyone know if this Java event has been shutoff yet?

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

Bob, I think EROEI for oil production will be falling across the globe.  If oil production could rise then this wouldn't matter as much, as you just produce more to cover the energy cost.  With static or falling production, however, falling EROEI is very bad news, resulting in dwindling net energy.

As far as off shore developments are concerned there was a major shift from gigantic gravity structures that sit on the sea floor to floating systems and this I imagine will have reduced the energy expenditure embedded in infrastructure.  However, I believe floating systems rely on GPS to keep the structures on station - so the enrgy cost of mainting a satellite system would need to be included.

In terms of energy expenditure you just need to think about the amount of steel and cement needed to case a well 27000+ ft long - an onshore well may be an open hole completion (no casing) about 2 to 5000 ft long.

Your idea of unmanned ocean floor production facilities is in fact not as daft as it might sound.  It wouldn't surprise me if companies develop un-manned sea floor process facilities that perform first stage separation of oil - gas - water.  I'm not sure, but this may be done already in some places.  If you do this then you just need 3 risers - one for oil, one for gas and one for water (which would then be re-injected).  If you don't do this you need a riser for each production well - and there may be 20 to 30 of these on giant platform.

Another cost / energy saving solution deployed by Shell in the North Sea has been to do virtually no liquids processing off shore in their Goldeneye Field.  Produced liquids are piped straight to shore using what is called multi-phase flow.  What you end up with is gas and great big slugs of liquid in the pipeline - and this provides an engineering challenge.

Unmanned ocean floor production facilities is presently under development in the Norwegian and Barents seas.
These are the Ormen Lange and Snow White (Norwegian: "Snøhvit") gas fields.

The development concept is called subsea to shore.
The challenge of the multiphase flow pipelines, is the formation of natural gas hydrates. This will be solved by injecting antifreeze into the pipeline.

The other major technical challenge is subsea multiphase compressors. These will be required at both the Snow White and Ormen Lange fields. The problem lies in dealing with heat dissipation in such high pressures. Also, the components must be robust enough to last for 30 years, which is especially difficult for a power supply which is HVDC.

Subsea separation is being done today in conjunction with the Troll field in the North Sea: http://www.hydro.com/en/our_business/oil_energy/production/oil_gas_norway/troll_pilot_expectations.h tml
This is at 340m depth.

Unfortunately, I don't think oil production can be done by subsea to shore because oil can't be safely transported in the multiphase pipelines. Not sure about this though.

That would have to be one hell of a submarine to go down to 7000 feet below sea level and load up on 2 million barrels of oil.

Submerging the oil platform would be no small task either.

Thinking about these things really gives you some idea of the complexity in getting oil from deep water.

If you've seen The Abyss then you'll know that it is one Hell of a submarine.  7000 ft of pipe fillled with a hot oil, gas and water mixture, clagging up with scale and organic crud is also one hell of a problem.
If I recall correctly, most subs can only withstand depths to a few hundred meters.
Checking online, pressure at 5,000 feet below sea level, in salt water, would exert 2,182 lb of pressure on every square inch of the hull. That is a hell of a lot of pressure.

US Navy subs can dive "deeper" then 800 feet.  The real depth is classified.  I'm guessing a few 1000 feet max.  How you could build a sub the size of a VLCC that wouldn't buckle at even modest depths is beyond me.  Never mind one that could go to 7000.

A pipeline seems more realistic.

Submersibles of the kind needed to go into the 7,000 ft waters are in use today for ocean bottom studies, they cost about $10 to 25 million dollars, They usually hold 1 to 5 people and can get down to the murky depths and high pressures.   Making a fleet of them for Oil Well Head work Is possible.  Going to the moon is about as easy. But it costs more because of the safety involved with space.

You will see that with everything you have a cost.  If the price of Oil stays high enough you should be able to get some of the oil out, but if the price goes down enough to please people, getting this oil out won't happen.

As the roller coaster ride begins, getting off or on is totally impossible in most cases.


I wasn't trying to imply we couldn't take a small manned sub to that depth.  As you noted for 10-25 million we can do that today, and certainly they can be used to do a lot of work on the sea floor.

Creating a submersible VLCC however is an entirely different matter.

Huge Bladders???  

We already have them in Scotland.
Hello Cry Wolf,

The saying goes that you can never truly buy beer, but only temporarily rent it-- greatest all-time tragedy I can comprehend.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

Has anyone done a HL on tar balls washed upon the shorelines of the world?The eroei has to be excellent for beachcombers harvesting them and using them for a source of energy.
So as I said, this Jack discovery is great news

Unless you believe in global warming.

Yep, I believe in global warming as an even bigger threat dispalced about 30 years after PO. This discovery is entirely irrelevant in the contexts of both global warming and peak oil.  Where it is relevant lies in boosting the values of pension funds and in easing the potential chaos of the down curve - providing a bit of breathing space ( a few weeks at least) to come up with sensible nuclear and renewable options.
Of course, the real effect will be to delay any required action for a time greater than the additional breathing time granted by the new discovery.
Jack is great news.
perhaps Im mistaken, but my oil patch friends tell me Jack was discovered over a year ago...wondering why its such big news now? Perhaps the size probabilities have increased..
I was using a broader definition of Jack.
Posted over at Barron's Online earlier today (subscription required, unfortunately).


Alberta's Princely Sway Over Gas Imports

UBS Investment Research

A RAMP UP IN CANADA'S gas-intensive oil-sands industry, specifically in the province of Alberta, has significant implications for U.S. gas imports.

A study by the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) titled, "Spreading the Wealth Around: The Economic Impact of Alberta's Oil Sands Industry," estimates that the amount of natural gas required by the province to tap into its oil reserves over the next 15 years would be 17.3 trillion cubic feet, close to half of the 39.4 trillion cubic feet of established reserves in Alberta.

Consequently, as Canada's oil-sands industry shifts into higher gears, imports to the U.S. should continue to experience a marked decline.

The Energy Information Agency (EIA), which is projecting a 1.9% annual growth rate in Canadian domestic gas consumption, predicts that by 2010 Canada's falling exports will be overtaken by LNG (liquefied natural gas) as the main source of U.S. gas imports. Put into perspective, as recently as 2003 Canada supplied almost 90% of U.S. net natural-gas imports.


I know some readers follow natural gas pretty closely, so I thought this would be worth posting.

You would think that kind of drop makes sense, if they need the little that's left for their own consumption, but not so fast: NAFTA stipulates that Canada is not allowed to lower its exports of either oil or natural gas to the US. Bit of a problem. Section 605 says that the amount of oil/gas delivered must be within range of what was sold in the 36 months prior to delivery.

I just finished an article for a magazine about Canada's plans to build LNG terminals, one of which will be eerily close to a town on the St. Lawrence river. The people there are wondering why a country that exports natural gas has to build these floating bomb installations.

The answer, of course, is NAFTA. That and the fierce resistance in the US against similar installations. Dave Cohen has written on natural gas and oil sands here, and asked the question: where will they get it? Somehow another question, with two meanings, seems appropriate: when will they get it?

One more twist: much of the LNG for the new Canadian teminals will come from Russia (Gazprom). A percentage equal to NAFTA obligations will have to be delivered to the US. At present that is over 60%. However, if Russia would close the tap suddenly, Canada's obligation quota to the US stands, not as a percentage, but as an absolute.

That means that there is a theoretical (?!) chance that Canada has to sell more than it has, let alone have any gas left for itself.

Of the oil produced with the increasing volumes of natural gas, in the oil sands, 65% has, under NAFTA, to be sold to the US.

Sometimes I think it's maybe a good thing Canadians are so completely unaware of what goes on. There's crazy, and then there's utterly ridiculous.

Just curious, what would it take for Canada to get out of NAFTA? Or at least, the "we will share our oil/gas with the USA" clause?
We would have to re-open the agreement and renegiotiate, which would require the agreement of the Americans.  Their answer would be NOPE, i.e. "Not On Planet Earth".  The other way out would be for Canada to declare "Force Majeure" and abrogate, but I don't know if we could pull out of just the one article.  That approach would require a Caandian federal government willing to stand up to the Yanks, which is an unlikely prospect at the moment.

My guess is that we will abrogate in about ten years, once the shrtages really start to bite and the domestic political liabilities of staying in finally outweigh the international liabilities of pulling out.

I am sorry, but Canada can unilaterally withdrawl from the treaty.  This is treaty and not law.  There is a huge difference.
Yes, you're right, I was wrong.  Six months it is.  I don't think there is a provision for unilaterally voiding sections of the agreement, though.  So to get rid of 605 I guess we either need to get the Americans to agree to renegotiate that section, or withdraw from the agreement and build a new one without that clause.  Despite there being no need for force majeure, that hardly seems more likely.
Unless we form a N. American Union, then it wouldn't matter since we'll all be sharing the same country, I mean union.
I believe it requires only six months notice for any of the partners to NAFTA exit from the agreement as a whole. Changing just part of it would require the partners to reopen negotiations and is unlikely to happen.
Hello WKO,

Sarcastic post ahead!

Does NAFTA have a reverse energy-sharing provision?  Since the combined exhaustive effort of the US MSM and politicians worked very hard to find this mind boggling, super-huge undersea reservoir-- does the US have to export a required % to Canada?  My guess is that American Cornucopians will not want to share this bounty postPeak.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

When looking at how long it took to even come close to a deal in the softwood industry, I dont see something hapening too quickly.

With the current government, I think they would prefer generate NG from thin air than say no to their best buddies.

I get the picture of our Premier talking to Bush over the phone :

"Well you know George, we are trying our best here.  But as you can see, half of Albertians are freezing even if they have money to pay for the gas.  I know we are using a lot for processing the Tar sanz and what's left is sent to you, but could you spare some cubic feet a year so we could keep at least the Parliament of Alberta heated? "

Bush :

"I'll have to ask someone to form a comitee that will decide who's gonna be part of a solution finding comitee that will work together on a joint US-Canada negociation team to see where Canadian could save yet more nat gas so they could pay less for energy and go see the Holliwood movies more.  This would increase the available nat gas for making the ethanol we all need badly here to run our carz."

Harper :

"Speaking of carz, would it be too far fetched if you could find a way to keep our carz industry running in Ontario with just a trickle of nat gas?  Do you think you could spare some coal from your big reserves? Pretty please?"

Bush :

"Well, that was the reason I called today in the first place.  I have talked with Ford, Chrysler and GM and they told me that the only solution they had to solve the slump in car sales, the payment of US worker health benefits and retirement plan is to close all plants in Canada.  They told me that the fellow Canadians are all turning into MPV or BPE (Moose Powered Vehicle and Beaver oil Powered Engine)so it would only be of small consequence to your people.  And think of all the gasoline your citizens will save for not having to drive to work!  It will be amazing and help you reach that damn Kyoto agreement and win those frogging Quebecers vote. I have it all stetled for you already."

Harper :

"I understand, but do you think..." cutted by Bush saying :

"I'm glad you understand the issue so well.  Just do you usual media appearance and wait for my new instructions for the next month, it will be sent to you by fax or telegraph wichever new tecnology you have up there.  Have a good day"

Harper to the rest of Ministry caucus :

"Well, I just had great news from our neighbourghs : they will not invade us and we have found a way to reach the goals of the Kyoto agreement"

  1. It's 6 months notice to abrogate NAFTA.

  2. Under Canada's constitution, jusrisdiction of all natural resource is provincial NOT federal.
In Canada, jurisdiction over energy is divided among the federal, provincial, and territorial governments. Provincial governments have jurisdictional responsibilities over the exploration, development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources, as well as over sites and facilities for the generation and production of electrical energy within their borders. Federal jurisdiction in energy is primarily associated with regulation of interprovincial and international trade and commerce, and the conservation and management of non-renewable resources on federal lands.

North America - The Energy Picture

Federal jursidiction is presided over by Canada's National Energy Board (NEB).

The NEB monitors supply (provided by the provinces) and demand of oil and NatGas to ensure quantities exported does not exceed surplus remaining after Canadian requirements have been met.

Applied Materials bets on solar cells as growth engine:


Independent stations priced out

    The number of gas stations in New Hampshire is at its lowest in at least 10 years, according to an annual count by National Petroleum News. In the first quarter of 2006, the state had 800 gas stations, down 181 from last year. Experts say the decline is largely due to the challenges independent owners...face in staying profitable.

I know of a number of stations in Burnsville, NC that this has happened to.

...If built, the UPC project could power 15,000 to 20,000 homes. Bryant said that's not enough of a benefit to warrant the unsightly presence of 26 towers dotting the surrounding mountaintops.

"It's not a good tradeoff," he said. "It's not worth what you're trading off to trade four montaintops (for) this little amount of power."

If those 15 - 20,000 homes were twice as energy efficient it'd be 30 - 40,000 homes that those wind turbines would power.  I wonder if that'd be a better tradeoff for him.  Of course, if they found coal in those picturesque mountains...they'd just pop the top off them, dump them into the valley, and pluck the coal out.  Complete destruction known as mountain top removal...PRETTY!

Of course, if they found coal in those picturesque mountains...they'd just pop the top off them, dump them into the valley, and pluck the coal out.

Not in Vermont, they wouldn't.  I hadn't realized how protective they were of their ridgelines.  

which is actually a bad thing, because VT would benefit from windpower.  We dont complain about telephone wires and poles - eventually wind turbines will be the same thing.
We dont complain about telephone wires and poles

Oh, yes we do.  The "good" neighborhoods these days have underground cables.  No ugly poles and overhead wires.  At considerably higher expense, of course.

Though my impression, with this Vermont thing, is that a big part of their objection is that the power will be sent to the big cities...leaving them with the cost but not the benefits.  I have a feeling this is going to be more and more of an issue.  Like that region in Bangladesh that is demanding that they get to use the power generated in the area first, rather than have it rationed over the whole nation.

Yes. We have that problem here in Maine, where FPL owns the dams on a number of rivers and refuses to accomodate the wildlife. Exporting power and profit from the state, chopping up our resources. This is same issue as Canada getting out of NAFTA. Local communities run up against GATS and WTO if they try to stop it. The states, however, still have the authority to kick corpos like FPL out. Revoke their charters, force them to sell to locals. That of course requires citizens not consumers, etc.... People say it's against the law to stop it, can't do anything about it. Baloney.

cfm in Gray, ME

Yep.  This is something I'm always stressing, the need to take into account the time delay for change dictated by human nature.  In time, a lot of the "I don't want wind turbines to be visible anywhere" people will either change their minds or be shouted down.  If nothing else, people will be convinced when they see that wind power will actually be cheaper than burning fossil fuels, in time; there are already places in the US where utilities have waiting lists of customers who want to switch over to the cheaper, green power.

Personally, I love the looks of modern turbines.  When my wife and I visit her family, we get to see the 12-turbine wind farm near Wilkes-Barre, PA (which will supposedly be expanded).  Areas like W-B are perfect for wind power--lots of sizable mountain ridges surrounding small to mid-size cities.  

There's one thing that's baffled me thusfar...most people seem to object to windpower because of aesthetics.  Why haven't the companies that produce these things discovered camouflage?  They're all painted stark white.  Throw mural around the base, paint the casing and blades blue, make them dissapear into the background, but visible enough up close that birds and whatnot don't get slaugtered.
I think modern wind turbines are beautiful.  In a sort of Danish-modern way.  ;-)  IME, they are not painted white; they're silver, the color of the polished steel and aluminum they are made of.

They do get pretty ugly as they age, though.  They stop looking like modern sculpture, and start looking like rusting hulks.

Though perhaps some people like them better that way.  I know in "scenic" or "historic" areas, they sometimes use rusted light poles, guardrail, bridgerail, etc.  This is supposed to look more "rustic," and blend in better than steel or aluminum.  Personally, I think it looks hideous.  Like a junk yard.  But that's just me.

Weber grills use a porclene paint this is baked onto the silver series.  It can't come off by nature.  I wonder how much it would cost to coat an entire wind turbine in the stuff to lower future maintenance costs.
I think you have a higher confidence in camouflage paint than is warranted. Painting them blue or air force grey is hardly going to make them disappear. ;-)
"I think you have a higher confidence in camouflage paint than is warranted. Painting them blue or air force grey is hardly going to make them disappear. ;-)"

heh... not so much "dissapear" as in Romulan cloaking technology :) but to not be so damned obvious.

In order to get around some of the laws here, there are a number of cell phone towers that look like giant religious crosses and I recall that a couple of years back there was a cell phone company that wanted to get service into some of the national parks and they proposed to make their towers look like trees.  I'd bet though, that with a little terrain matching matte finish paint, the "You want to put giant shiny twirly things on my pretty hill?!" could possibly be replaced in a number of instances with "eeehhhhhh...ok"

OK, I was searching for some information on disappointing oil test drilling in the Sakha region (East Siberia, Yakutiya) and here's what I got from Mosnews.

25 Percent of Russians Have Sex While Driving

About 25 percent of Russians have had sex while driving, a poll released by KRC Research and Goodyear revealed. And this is just one of the things that make them the worst drivers in Europe.

According to the research, Russians do not use seatbelts, break speed-limits, drive through red lights, drive drunk and have sex while driving much more often than other Europeans do.

The odd thing is they don't think all this is bad.

There's a picture, too.

Just a humorous change of pace? Or maybe, as someone said once, it's just a Senior Contributor Moment.

Hello Dave Cohen,

That photo is Hilarious in a tragic way!  The Thermo-Gene Collision distilled down to the very basic two ways of removing people from the Gene-Pool. LOL!

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

But if you use a former US president's definition of sex, the percentage drops drastically.
The lastest issue of MAD magazine has a whole pages of what the Oil Companies are doing with those profits they are making.  

Nothing on Peak Oil in there yet though. Only then will we know we have hit the mainstream.

Hello TODers,

Please mentally visualize the following:

The nearest gas-station to my house has been closed for some time with weeds sprouting up through the pavement, peeling paint, broken windows, wind-blown trash piling up, gas-pumps long gone, broken liquor bottles, etc-- a depressing, melancholy scene to us Peakoilers-- all surrounded by a high chain-link fence.

What is now most ironic about this sad tableau is that the chain-link fence is now covered with politicians' election posters basically proclaiming, "Vote for me to get your Cornucopian Horn of Plenty".

Perhaps some other TODer with a digital camera can upload a neighborhood photo similar to the scene I just described.  

Sad.  =(

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

"Cornucopian Horn of Plenty" - I wonder how many people these days would understand the redundancy in that.  When I first heard "cornucopian", I imagined one of these guys with a cornucopia and wondered what the connection was.  I also had no idea that the term "cornucopian" was hatched back in the 70s or earlier.  I first heard it last year.  "Beyond Oil", which someone recommended a while back and which I bought not knowing what it was, is a real gem.  They pretty much predicted the 90s and that we would start having problems with oil supply now.  Lots of references to "cornucopians" in there.
Hello Kjmclark,

Thxs for responding.  The above abandoned gas-station is on a busy intersection in Phx--thousands of vehicles pass it everyday--I constantly wrack my brains trying to conceive of some method to get all these vehicular occupants to truly realize what is 'going down'.  If I could, then this would rapidly become the main "must-see" Peakoil display in the Valley of the Sun.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

A gas station destroyed by Katrina.
One year later, what have we learned?
CNBC desperately in need of new talent. Earlier the Sharron Asspherson was saying that the OCtober contract was down because of the oil discovery. Does she even have a high school degree?
Wow !! another great day of comments on TOD.  Houseing bubble, GOM discovery and bladders of oil from the ocean floor.   Good nite all.    
I think Katie Couric (new CBS anchor person) is looking for a great sign off line. Another long day-Good nite all. That's a good one.
We had one, and I don't think that's it, but I forget what it was.
Something like:

The glass is half full.

Pleasant Peak Oil to y'all.

Not to mention personal and religious attacks, blazing rebuttals, and rampant frustration.

Good nite, indeed.

Certified doomer, I actually listened to Carter, graduated as an engineer, watched Rte 128 ( high tech row) roll up and go away. Did job interviews, fresh from school up against practicing engineers who were desperate for work.

It was not a good time. I decided I was smart, and capable, and went to the woods. No parents to support it, or trust funds, I moved my 2 kids into a hole in the ground, a capped foundation. Hand pumped water into a washing machine to do diapers. The day we moved in we had $22 left. Best thing I ever did, I owe no one, my kids grew up with miles of forest.

I grew 3 different ideas, business.. sold 2 kept one to run from home. You can do that when you are free of the system.

I see a huge amount of how to change things here that will never get off the ground. Someone posted yesterday I think, about self reliance. Todd, or Mort.. not sure but I'll take that kind of thread over the religious idiots that seem the be attracted here.

I go out at night to look at the stars, to feel the wind in the trees. My home, I built, my family is secure, the earth is kind to me and I am kind to it.

Dave Cohen:

Thanks for your link to the World Oil article.  In regard to the Wilcox.. it is a common drilling target onshore Louisiana and Mississippi and Texas.  There are other known reservoir rock below it also.  It was only a matter of time and money before it became a deepwater target.

I would be interested to know the amount of time it took to drill this wildcat well from spud to TD.   At a rig day rate of $500k per day, plus another $200k per day for services I would imagine the economics would be interesting.  6k barrels oil per day sounds good but it would seem to me that they really need some 20k barrels per day wells to make this work.  Of course the economics would look better with $200 barrel oil.

I am going to pull a number out of the air at $100 million per well completed with a 60 day drill schedule.  Longer than that and the price goes up.  Gets to be a long payback time at 6k barrels per day.  This will be a challenging field to develop.  Geologically these same formations are drilled with regularity onshore to the north.  Cost of drilling goes up exponentially the deeper you drill, disregarding regarding the water depth (which is a seperate issue).  Since these depths are at approximately 28,000 ft it could be that a new class of rigs will have to be developed.  That is a lot of pipe hanging in a derrick. Although the drilling contractor has not been mentioned in the info that I have read, this is what I think they drilled it with:


Since most of the information on this discovery is "tight hole", it will be conjecture as to its importance.  Significant to me is that the flow rates are not higher.  Im glad they found it though and I wish them luck with this project.

A well balanced article about the large find, which lowers the highend numbers a bit (It still remains a very large find, though):

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?dist=newsfinder&siteid=google&guid=%7B69DC7 C90-7B23-468D-A612-33A409EC4BDA%7D&keyword=

Devon's stake in four discoveries and 19 prospects in the lower tertiary could add between 2 billion-5 billion barrels of oil equivalent to the company's reserves, Stephen Hadden, Devon's senior exploration and production vice president, said during a conference call with investors.

Challenges remain, however, as lower tertiary reservoirs lie under thick layers of salt that throw off conventional imaging equipment.

Being able to map these reservoirs beneath the salt is "absolutely critical" to success in the lower tertiary, Hadden said.

The 15 billion barrels comes from extrapolating this find and is explained as follows:

Deepwater lower tertiary discoveries could have at least 15 billion barrels of reserves, said Pickering Energy's Heikkinen.

The question is whether these discoveries will yield enough oil at fast enough rates to be considered commercial. The data obtained at the Jack test extrapolates to other lower tertiary finds, Devon said.

"We continue to be very optimistic with what we see in relation to the reservoirs," said Devon's Hadden.
Oh, and each well will cost between $80 and $120 million to drill.

$100 million per well.
6000 barrels per day.
$68 per barrel.

6000 * 68 = $408,000 revenue per day.

$100,000,000 / $408,000 = 245 days to pay off.

That doesn't seem that bad to me.  A lot of risk though out there in the middle of the GOM - that's for sure.