Comments on Next Big Future: Oil mega project status, Saudi, Russia, deepwater ...

It is worth keeping an eye on it. We are past real...

2008-04-13T15:18:00.000-07:00

It is worth keeping an eye on it.

We are past really cheap oil.
Plus there is peak lite where growing demand (from developed countries, China, India) pressures even modestly growing supplies.

Plus we should not be relaxed about it. If some of the big sources experience problems (say Iran from being attacked by the US or Nigeria with more unrest) plus there should not be messing around with ineffective policies.

But I think the talk about past peak and extreme decline is overdone.

Ok, so the bottom line as you see it is that the H...

2008-04-13T13:27:00.000-07:00

Ok, so the bottom line as you see it is that the Hubbert Peak folks (and their Web sites) should just pack up and go away because we're just not there yet. As long as prices stay high (and they will) production will increase, at least until the high prices enable alternative sources of energy to mature to the point that they can take up the slack when peak oil finally does (yawn) wander by.

Very nice, Brian.It looks as if production will ba...

2008-04-13T12:15:00.000-07:00

Very nice, Brian.

It looks as if production will barely keep up with demand, while keeping prices in the $100 bbl range.

It will take 5-10 years for the big investments in solar and biomass to start kicking in. Perhaps Craig Venter and his competitors will be able to show some progress in synth-bio and bio-energy by then as well.

Oil doesn't have to last forever. Just long enough for alternatives to begin kicking in fast and strong enough to support most of the infrastructure of civilisation.

Within 20 years, some of the miracles of nanotechnology should begin to hit the market.

Dan it is another way to look at it as a theory th...

2008-04-13T07:39:00.000-07:00

Dan it is another way to look at it as a theory that 3 million to 3.5 million b/d from megaprojects is needed to offset decline in production + small projects.

If decline is 4-5 million b/d and small projects is 1 to 2 million b/d then between 2 to 3 million b/d is needed to offset decline.

The data was gathered by 1. Samuel Foucher2. Stuar...

2008-04-13T07:37:00.000-07:00

The data was gathered by

1. Samuel Foucher
2. Stuart Staniford
3. Tony Eriksen
4. Publicus 21:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Phil Hart (talk) 06:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The megaprojects taskforce.
http://www.theoildrum.com/user/Stuart%20Staniford
Staniford writes for theoildrum and I think seekingalpha.

They got the info from reviewing 60-100 reports from the major oil companies. I got some new info by looking at the latest press and reporting on the biggest of the big in 2008 and 2009.

2009 shows it should also be adding 7 million b/d

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_Megaprojects/...

2008-04-12T22:29:00.000-07:00

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_Megaprojects/. Each year has a graph showing total new supplies:

2005: 4 million barrels/day
2006: 4
2007: 3.5
2008: 7
2009: 5
2010 4

So 2008 is up a few million barrels per day (supposedly), from the 2007 situation which supposedly was of little or no excess production capacity. How much time does 3 million extra barrels/day buy us before capacity is again even with demand? 1 year? 2, maybe, before demand grows to the break even point? So I think there is more to this story. But you know, the data could be suspect too. Who generates the data and what are their interests in publicizing it?