Interim Senate Report Released

[CaptR]

An interim report has been released by the Senate. The report entitled "Australia's future oil supply and alternative transport fuels" states that "Air transport is the most fuel intensive industry; hence it is expected to be the most adversely affected industry. Modelling of a permanent doubling in the world oil price, commissioned by the Queensland Government, projected air transport activity to be some 27% lower by 2016-17 than it would otherwise have been without increases in fuel price".

A decline of 27% will be a start only, as peoples disposal income reduces, this means less travel, less bums on seats means...........will let you figure this out.......

This posting follows other threads related to the coming decline in aviation. The final report from the senate is expected in Oct.

Regards
Capt R

[Wizofoz]

projected air transport activity to be some 27% lower by 2016-17 than it would otherwise have been without increases in fuel price".


It's not projecting a contraction, it's saying the expected expansion will be less than it would have been without the fuel hike.

[Chimbu chuckles]

There is PLENTY of oil...the more likely scenario is that the oil price will suffer a severe correction when the media starts reporting the facts rather than the BS.

This from a fella who tracks inventory, production etc...and has been doing so for 30 years

Despite the ups and downs in the media, real news in the oil industry fundamentals is pretty boring these days. The US refining industry has had an opportunity to breathe while making great profits the past couple of years. For an industry that ran at near cost for years, this is a surprising turn of events and they must be wondering just how long their fortunes can last.

Refining rates in the US are holding steady at an average crude oil input of around 15.8 million barrels per day, or 92 percent capacity. Although you might hear that this operating rate is high, compared to the past 25 years, it is remarkably low. The lighter load should give refiners an opportunity to improve processing equipment and to operate more efficiently. High product prices also allow refiners the luxury of purchasing the very best quality crude oils -- light, sweet crudes -- which are easy to refine, making their job even easier.

The most troubling problem for them may be the addition of ethanol to gasoline, which is blending problem more than a refining problem. On the other hand, they are selling more finished gasoline as a result of adding ethanol, so why complain? In fact, One has to wonder how the requirement for the addition of ethanol managed to get so far without a public outcry. Afterall, one only gets half the energy out of each gallon of ethanol -- which means the consumer has to purchase more fuel to go the same distance. Thus, at a time when consumers are facing the highest gasoline prices, they are also purchasing fuel that gives them lower miles per gallon!

On the oil production front, you may have recently heard in the news that there are huge reserves of shale oil in the US and heavier, higher sulfur oil in Saudi Arabia that have not been tapped -- but could be. By the way, these reserves have been known for many, many, years. Certainly, at the current prices both of these huge reserves could be produced profitably. And, despite some news stories, US refiners will have no problem refining these crudes (they made all of the necessary changes to their equipment in the 1980's) -- and clearing a profit at current product market prices. Industry's problem is this -- if they start down the path of producing these large reserves, they must invest huge amounts of money. Development of shale oil reserves make take several years. Development of Saudi reserves would be much shorter. By the way, steam flooding is not a new technology -- it's been around for more than 50 years and is a proven technology. One important fact, though, is that once you begin steam flooding a field, you don't want to stop until you have flushed out as much oil as you can. Thus, it is extremely important that the forecast for oil prices over 10 years or more justifies the investment.

Therein lies the producer's conundrum. As the production comes on line it will become evident how much crude oil is really available (it's a huge number!) -- so much that the price of oil will probably crash. The Saudi's would have to continue steam production of their heavy oil once they got started, possibly flooding the market. If the price were to crash below $45/bbl, production of shale oil would have to stop (again - this happened already in the 1980's). So, is it better to suffer the world's anger, make huge profits, and keep the supply lean -- or to invest large amounts of profits in production ventures that will likely end the era of high profits? The answer is obvious, so for awhile it looks like high prices are sustainable. However, if the only thing sustaining the futures market is the story that the supply of crude oil is running out, then buyer beware -- there is no real data to support that theory.

So, back to the EIA data and how US refineries are operating this week. Refining rates were down slightly from the previous week at 15.8 million barrels per day, or 92.5 percent capacity. Input Rates are holding at this level primarily because gasoline and distillate stocks are extremely high in the two largest refining regions - PADDs III (Gulf Coast) and V (West Coast). gasoline inventories / distillate inventories .

Refiners shifted emphasis from gasoline to kerosene (jet fuel) and then boosted imports of distillate by 100% (all in PADD I) to maintain the build rate for winter heating oil. The increase in imports suggests a temporary advantage of purchasing distillate for direct delivery by tanker to East Coast refineries, rather than making it in PADD III (where inventory management appears to be difficult because of all of the product on hand) and shipping it to those refineries.

Crude oil inventories remain very high for the US. But, at times of international unrest, it is probably better to be sitting on full tanks rather than empty ones. However, if they maintain the current inventory levels through the end of the year, there may be an extra flow of cash to the US treasury in taxes as refiners pay on the new, high valued crude oil in storage. Of course, the alternative would be to pull down inventory levels by December 31st. Last year was the first year refiners actually left a lot of expensive crude oil in inventory at the end of the year, resetting their minimum inventory levels. To get back to that minimum, they would have to make about 17 million barrels disappear from inventories between now and December 31. Crude Oil Inventories

[Chimbu chuckles]

Or this one

What is really wrong with the market now is that crude oil inventories are full all over the world. And while China represents a great opportunity for growth in demand, it's demand will not materialize until they build roads and drive cars in quantity. Meanwhile, the US remains the major purchaser of crude oil in the world -- the swing buyer, if you will. Theoretically, US demand should dictate crude oil prices. If so, with US demand about to crash for lack of tanks to store crude oil in, prices should follow.

Again, theoretically, as inventories rose over the past year, prices should have fallen. Instead, commodities traders have consistently pushed prices higher. Now, when inventories start to fall because there is no place to put crude oil and demand slacks, the commodities traders will suggest the drop in inventories reflects a shortfall in production and drive prices up further. This is clearly a broken market. Eventually, one would think the old adage, "what goes up must come down" will catch up and there will be a severe correction.

But it is not obvious that the correction will occur without government intervention. In the US, there are a number of reasons to maintain high prices. For instance, a drop in prices would put a lot of unplanned cash into the US economy. High prices provide indirect foreign aid from the US to all foreign crude oil producing countries. And in the long run, the US consumer needs to conserve and we need to become less dependent on petroleum. So, the government may not be very interested in looking too deeply into this situation, leaving a small number of commodities traders in control of everyone's fuel budget.

As for security -- the US is in the best position it can be regarding supply disruptions. We have enough crude oil to operate normally for 70 days if all OPEC sources of crude oil suddenly disappeared. The loss of one or two producing regions, even Nigeria and Iran would have virtually no impact on US refining for months, if at all.

[CaptR]

The important point to remember is that the QLD study only looked at a doubling of fuel prices, it did not consider Peak Oil - which is what the Senate looked at. As reported in the Age newspaper today, A CONTROVERSIAL theory that global oil production will peak within 25 years has been embraced by a Senate committee with the warning: be worried now.

The Senate committee heard that Australia's self-sufficiency in oil was expected to decline sharply in the next 20 years. Geoscience Australia, a Commonwealth agency, predicted that self-sufficiency would drop from 84 per cent to 20 per cent. The agency forecast that crude oil production would continue at about 550,000 barrels a day until about 2009, then decline to about 224,000 barrels by 2025. Meanwhile demand for petroleum, currently about 750,000 barrels a day, was projected to rise to more than 800,000 barrels a day by 2009-10 and more than 1.2 million barrels by 2029-30. "There is no universal panacea, no one perfect solution," the report says, pointing out that supply and demand responses were needed. Australia, traditionally a net exporter of oil, now imported more and the committee heard that imports could exceed exports by between $12 billion and $25 billion by 2015.

Geopolitical factors also include the failure of the global market. Unlike other commodities, 80% of the worlds oil is owned by countries, which are entering into long-term energy supply agreements that are in effect energy treaties. China has signed agreements with Iran and Venezuela for oil and Turkmenistan for gas. It should not be assumed that surplus energy will be available for purchase, even if countries like Australia and the US have the finance. (this will make life interesting - espicially for aviation!)

The Senate report states that "The Federal Government must begin preparing Australia to reduce its dependence on oil, starting with substantial investment in public transport and redesigning our cities". The committee's final report is due on October 19.

Now that the Australian Senate recognises the risks, it would be prudent for the general public to do the same. If one ask a group who has fire insurance on their homes or apartments. Usually, nearly every hand is raised. Then ask how many have ever actually collected on a claim for a fire. Only very rarely does even one person raise his or her hand. Why do you have the insurance then? The answer, of course, is that even though house fires are quite rare, their consequences can be quite severe. And so, we routinely insure against events which are rare because they have severe consequences. We do this with life insurance. We do it implicitly with many health insurance plans which have coverage into the millions of dollars--even unlimited coverage--that in all likelihood we will never need.

Another useful illustration is the stock market. If I could prove to you that you could be certain the stock market will go up nine years out of the the next 10, you would be at ease with your investments in stocks and you might even increase your investment in them. Everyone seems comfortable with that thought.

Now, let me add one more piece of information to this scenario, In one of those years the stock market is almost certain to go down 80 percent. This completely changes the calculus because the element of probability is combined with the element of severity.

We must combine these things in our discussion of peak oil. No one knows when oil will peak for certain. Should we really speak in terms of whether a prediction for the peak of now, 2010 versus 2037 is correct? No one will know which is correct until after the fact. While the actual date of the peak has huge implications for what we should do now, it is the severity of the consequences of a peak which should be our focus. Are we adequately prepared for a peak even if we believe there is a low probability that it will occur in the next few years?

We should talk in terms of probability rather than absolutes. For example, can we rule out a peak entirely in the next few years - No - you cannot as highlighted by the Senate report. Can we reasonably say that the consequences of a peak are something we don't really need to worry about? In the world of probability, it matters whether you are worrying about a minor risk such as getting a hangnail or a major risk such as getting your arms chopped off. When it comes to the consequences of peak oil, "getting your arms chopped off" is a closer analogy.

[Ejector]

Yeah, fo course there is plenty of oil, it just comes down to profit, greed & short term gain by dodgy powerfull groups. Also the polution issue.

Can U please post the links to these stories?

EJ

[Chimbu chuckles]

http://oil-gasoline.typepad.com/george_clemen_oilgasoline/

Above is the link...I notice tonight that oil is $65+ change/barrel and heading south on reports that Iran is making nice noises as are the Palestinians...the Saudis are claiming their 'flood the market' with product strategy is working and have no plans to 'defend any floor' in the price.

Without the futures traders manipulating the market we would not have seen prices over $40 odd/barrel...yes significantly higher than it was but hardly portense of the world ending.

We may see a few more upward spikes but I believe the overall trend will be down....it is just unsustainable for a small group of traders to keep the world bluffed much longer.

If Peak Oil was even a vague reality in any medium term sense Oil companies WOULD NOT be building refineries...why waste billions on a product that won't be there to pump and refine when the current refineries could cope admirably with a constricting raw supply?

The profiteers have had their fun and made a bundle...the world is awash with raw product to the point that refineries in the worlds biggest market are reducing orders...they have no where to put it short of mooring hugely expensive ships offshore full of 'relatively' cheap oil while their storage facilities are full of expensive oil.

To suggest we won't be able to import oil at reasonable cost is to assume that India and China have forward bought every barrel of oil...that is just plain stupid when the OPEC countries biggest worry is that they have flooded the market already and if they start steam flooding heavy oil wells they will cause the price to crash uncontrollably.

The price of a barrel of oil has sat at stupid prices the last year or so and it is not unreasonable to expect, in time, that the correction will be equally extreme before settling back to something approaching 'normal'.

The yanks have 1.2 TRILLION barrels of oil locked in oil shale deposits (70% + of the known world oil shale deposits) locked away on GOVT OWNED land which can, apparently, be mined profitably at 1/2 the current price/barrel. They have known about this stuff for 60+ years and that is why the Govt bought the land...so one day when they need it they won't have any arguments getting it out...and this on top of new oil finds I have read about in the last days off shore.

Australia has something like 5% of the worlds known oil shale deposits...plus CRAP LOADS of coal that can be refined into oil.

The Saudis and sundry South American countries have many TRILLIONS of barrels of heavy oil which can be unlocked by steam flooding.

The Canadians have trillions of barrels of oil sands...heat is the answer again. Then we have the Russians and Nigerians..what does Iraq have under it...do we believe they have had a really good look in the last 40 years? The Iranians...sooner or later the population will get sick of the pricks currently running their lives.

Was chatting to a mate in AKL the other day and he has read reports of potential huge quanities of oil under the seas south of NZ...deep sea drilling technology is a boom area of technology that is solving problems at a rapid pace...they also have VAST coal deposits.

What lays deep under the southern ocean below Australia?

What lays deep under the Antartic?

I predict in a year or so we will be wondering what the Peak oil fuss was about (yet again!!). The ME does NOT hold all the cards when it comes to oil supplies...they may hold many of the cheap cards....but if the world can stand $40/barrel oil the ME would be stuffed in short order as to it's ability to frighten us.

Do I think the world will one day run out of oil?

Probably...but I refuse to worry about what will happen in 1000 yrs time.

We had REALLY cheap oil for many decades...although in inflation corrected numbers it wasn't really any cheaper than 3 or 4 years ago...I think we can live with oil in the $30-40 range...and that is where I think we'll see it in the not too distant future. Even the Futures Traders started saying a month ago that that was what a barrel was 'really worth' when it was closer to $80/barrel...the rest was just a premium based on geopolitical fears....that they were happy to feed on.

No one REALLY gives a truly MEANINGFULL **** about pollution...with the possible exception of deep greenies...not if it means ending our current life styles...and you have seen my views on anthropogenic global warming:ugh:

In fact the world is a remarkably clean place when you compare it to the pre oil era. Oil used to power cars and power stations and natural gas used for heating etc, etc is what made the western countries as clean as they are...if we were still riding horses and using coal the whole western world would look like Manchester did 60 years ago.

Burning oil and natural gas has not destroyed the environment...it has SAVED it.

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Chuck, luv ya work!

CaptR... those put options expired yet?

[404 Titan]

The_Cutest_of_Borg

You beat me to it. I suspect that if our little peddler of rubbish CaptR hasn’t lost his shirt yet he is certainly feeling the heat considering the cost of crude oil is about 20% below what it was when he admitted to making strategic investments based on the demise of the aviation industry and the continued rise in oil prices. As I said before he has an ulterior motive for coming on here and trying to tell us the sky is falling in, especially now considering his investments are potentially about to going down the toilet if they haven’t already? People should bare this in mind before taking his word as fact.:yuk:

[Brian Abraham]

Managing Volatility Through Informed Policy Making

Mark Nolan, Chairman, ExxonMobil Australia
Speech to SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Adelaide
11 September 2006

Good morning.

Conference Chairman, Mr. Wilf Lammerink; the Federal Minister’s representative and Head of the Resources Division in the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources – Mr John Hartwell; the Hon Michael O'Brien, MP, Member for Napier and Parliamentary Secretary to the South Australian Premier; Mr. John Ellice-Flint, Chief Executive Officer, Santos Ltd; Dr. Eve Sprunt, 2006 SPE President; ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I am delighted to be able to address members of the Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Equally my company ExxonMobil is proud to be involved and to support this Conference as a co-principal sponsor.

As a science and technology based company, we understand the benefits that can come from engineering professionals sharing their experience, knowledge and technical expertise. Forums such as this provide the best opportunities for this to occur.

As an industry we have always been confronted with technical challenges as we work to meet society's energy needs. We have learned that much can be gained by bringing together the people who are most often charged with overcoming these challenges – petroleum engineers.

While debates will always rage over the many important public issues of the day, there is no question that our ability to maintain and improve our quality of life is inextricably linked to meeting our need for affordable, reliable energy.

This is no mean feat.

To give some context to the scope of the global challenge confronting us in the energy sector, I would like you to consider the following :

Over 80 million barrels of oil and close to 300 billion cubic feet of natural gas are required every day, just to keep the world running. That’s about 800 times the oil and gas we produce from Bass Strait each day.

And this global demand is growing. We expect it to increase by almost 1.7% per year to 2030.

That may not sound like much until you realise that stated another way, it means that globally we will need about 50 percent more energy in 2030 than we use today.

All major forecasters agree that oil and gas will continue to be the world’s primary sources of energy through this period, accounting for about 60 percent of the energy mix – and total fossil fuels, that is oil, gas and coal, will account for about 80 percent.

While there are many important additional sources of energy such as nuclear, hydro, biomass, wind and solar, their current contribution to the daily task of fuelling the modern world is limited by a range of technical, economic or environmental factors.

The simple fact is considering the scale and long-term nature of our industry, there are no quick fixes or short-term solutions to the energy challenge.

The Oil and Gas industry operates in a dynamic, volatile environment. However, with over 100 years’ experience we have become accomplished at looking beyond the short-term volatility and identifying long-term trends.

It is our long term forecasts that we rely on when we consider our corporate investment strategy.

In politics, time is measured in 3, 4 or 6 years, based on the election cycle.

In the energy industry, time is measured in decades, based on the lifecycles of our projects. As many in this room will know, the energy we rely on today from Bass Strait is the result of investment decisions made more than 40 years ago.

So what does this mean for policymaking and our industry? It means, given the scale and long-term nature of our business, effective policies must be stable, predictable and long-term in their focus.

History teaches us that hastily crafted measures in reaction to short- term volatility will most likely have unintended negative consequences.

So I would like to focus on how we as an industry and as engineers can play a role in promoting a better understanding of the enormous technical and commercial challenges we face, and how public policy decisions should assist not impede us in meeting the future energy demands.

As an industry we need to be more courageous and vocal in conveying our views on the basic realities of the global energy market, and less concerned with garnering public applause.

I would therefore like to briefly highlight three areas where we can do this.

The first of these is on the issue of global oil resources.

We have been very successful in the oil industry for a very long time so we in the industry know that the world is not in danger of running out of oil any time soon.

We hear all sorts of so-called experts predicting the end of the world's oil supplies. Or the end of what they call the era of easy oil.

There has never been an era of “easy oil” – our industry has constantly operated at the technological frontier. Oil only seems easy after it has been discovered, developed and produced.

These peak-oil predictions are not new. They have been occurring, particularly at times of high prices, regularly since the 1920s.

The fact is that the world has an abundance of oil and there is little question scientifically that abundant energy resources exist.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the Earth currently has more than three trillion barrels of conventional recoverable oil resources. So far we have produced one trillion of that.

Conservative estimates of heavy oil and shale oil push the total recoverable resource to over four trillion barrels.

It is also important to note that as an industry and as a society we have always underestimated the global resource base and the ability of technology to extend both the life of oil and gas fields, and to find new resources.

We should not forget that we can recover almost twice as much oil today as when we first discovered it over 100 years ago. And when you consider that a further 10% increase in recoverability will deliver an extra 800 billion barrels of oil to our recoverable total we have reason to be sure that the end of oil is nowhere in sight.

More importantly however we have a responsibility to communicate these basic facts to opinion leaders so that they can make sound, long-term policy decisions.

A second area which I believe would benefit from a greater input of factual information is the debate over the pros and cons of different energy sources.

We as individuals and as companies can do more to scrutinise and communicate the full cycle analysis of energy alternatives.

For example, how commercially and environmentally viable is ethanol as a transportation fuel, when you consider the energy needed to plough the field, sow the sugar cane, wheat or corn crop, harvest the produce, transport it to the ethanol plant and run the ethanol plant?

Ethanol stands the best chance of achieving a viable, long term role as a transport fuel in Australia if it is now left to the market to determine how and where it is best used.

ExxonMobil is not opposed to the use of ethanol in petrol where this is commercially viable and is acceptable to consumers. However, we are strongly of the view that, with the assistance it has already been given, the ethanol industry should now be prepared to compete with other fuels on a level playing field.

And we therefore endorse the Federal Government’s rejection of a mandate as a way to grow the use of ethanol based fuel.

The final issue I would like to touch upon today is how we manage the risk posed by global climate change, where, populist views and thorough, risked based engineering analyses are often a long way apart.

ExxonMobil recognizes that the risk of climate change, and its potential impacts on society and ecosystems, may prove to be significant.

Our approach is to take sensible economic actions now to improve efficiency and reduce emissions while pursuing research designed to better understand scientific issues, and to achieve technology breakthroughs that could dramatically reduce future emissions.

ExxonMobil operates in over 200 countries and recognizes that climate change is a global issue requiring governments to work towards global solutions.

In this context an effective climate change policy should have clear objectives that identify that economic progress is needed to fund environmental improvement, particularly in developing countries.

Policies should promote sensible, economic actions now to reduce emissions; recognizing that only technology can provide a long term solution to reducing emissions.

And finally, Government policies will only be truly effective if they engage all countries including the developing world.

One policy proposal, to address climate change and manage greenhouse emissions, being canvassed in Australia is the establishment of a carbon price signal through an emissions trading scheme.

From our perspective the reliance on an emissions trading scheme is a short-term response to a long-term risk issue.

It is not an effective way to address the long-term risks of climate change as it will not motivate cost-effective long term investments. This is because:
there is great uncertainty over future targets and commitments;
fiscal and regulatory measures are reversible by sovereign governments; and
the property rights in future credits are vague.
From our perspective any policy measure under consideration must motivate long-term commitments in research and development, and in investment in order to lead to cost-effective greenhouse gas mitigation.

That is why we applaud the decision by the Australian Government to become a signatory to the Asia Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate as an important step in the development and deployment of technology aimed at the main sources of emissions growth in the Asia-Pacific region.

In conclusion, my message to you today is that, as engineers and scientists we in the energy industry must speak up and bring a long-term focus and greater clarity to public policy debates. It is particularly important that we do this in volatile times like the present.

There is no doubt that we face formidable commercial and technical challenges in our daily work but we also need to work harder to share our knowledge with our political leaders and the broader public.

This is the kind of leadership we all need to demonstrate to meet the energy challenges we face and ensure that we really do thrive on the current volatility.

Thank you.

PS According to an item on telly the other night Exxon/Esso/Mobil have a ad running in the US saying CO2 is good for the atmosphere, the more the better. Apparently the trees love it.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Read this

http://mclean.ch/climate/Eye_opening.htm

Plants and trees do like CO2...it is widely accepted that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will increase growth rates of most every form of flaura. Sundry crops are merely flaura that has been steared in a direction we want it to go so we can eat the ****.

[Crossbleed]

Well, holy ****! If that's the gospel then, you reckon I should just back the HQ ute into mum's greenhouse and fire'er up? That'll get the tomatos goin!! NOT.
I can see it now.
Mum:"What the hell are you doing to my greenhouse ?!!"
CB: "Hey mum don't you know thatit is widely accepted that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will increase growth rates of most every form of flaura."
Mum"Oh really? And I suppose Coke's good for your teeth, too? Get that bloody ute outta' my plants"
CB:"yes, mum"
Mum: "and stop spending so much time on that bloody intranet, emails, thing. It's obviously affecting your ability the think rationally!!"
CB:"yes,mum"

[Chimbu chuckles]

I am not suggesting that backing your V8 up to the greenhouse is the same thing....a bit more CO2 is not bad...20 times is.

If it's so terrible why was the planet so green 100 of 1000s of years ago...when Co2 levels were so much higher than now?

I truly am at a loss to understand why people are so threatened by a less hysterical view of our future:confused:

You might want to read this and then tell my daughter she has been lied to in GCSE Biology.

http://homeharvest.com/carbondioxideenrichment.htm

Co2+water+sunshine=photosynthesis

[CaptR]

Oil is recognised as a finite resource by all governments and the oil industry. Given this oil will peak at some point - unlike a car that runs at 100km/hr until the pertol runs out, an oil reservoir doesn't keep producing oil at a maximum rate and suddenly stops. It will peak, plateau and the decline over time. Of the 65 largest oil producing countries in the world, up to 54 have past their peak of production and are now in decline, including the USA and the North Sea.

"It is also certain that the cost of preparing too early is nowhere near the cost of not being ready on time”. WA Planning and Infrastructure Minister, (MacTiernan (2004)) very presciently said this about Peak Oil. In a later speech, she also said "..we see the urgent need to prepare for a future where the supply of cheap oil is coming to an end. Already growth in demand for oil is probably outstripping growth in supply, but production itself is likely to peak, maybe as early as 2006. But more conventionally 2010 – 2015. Our Government is very conscious of the vulnerability of Western Australia to such a change."

This urgency echoes the findings of the US DOE report (Hirsch et al, 2005), which documents the lead times needed to have mitigation and adaptation strategies in place before Peak Oil hits.

To evaluate other energy sources it helps to understand the concepts of Net Energy, or the Energy Returned on Energy Invested ratio (ERoEI). One of the reasons our economies have grown so abundant so quickly over the last few generations is precisely because oil has had an unprecedently high ERoEI ratio. In the early days of oil, for every barrel of oil used for exploration and drilling, up to 100 barrels of oil were found. More recently, as oil recovery becomes more difficult, the ratio has become significantly lower. Certain alternative energy 'sources' may actually have ERoEI ratios of less than one, such most methods of industrially producing biodiesel and ethanol. That is, when all factors are considered, you probably need to invest more energy into the process than you get back.

Hydrogen, touted by many as a seamless solution, is actually an energy carrier, but not an energy source. Hydrogen must be produced using an energy source such as natural gas or nuclear power. Because of energy losses in transformation, the hydrogen will always contain less energy than was invested in it.
Some alternatives such as wind and hydro-power may have much better ERoEI, however their potential expansion may be limited by various physical factors. Even in combination it may not be possible to gather from renewable sources of energy anything like the amount of energy that industrial society is accustomed to. Whereas fossil fuels might be considered a massive energy inheritance, and one spent perhaps unwisely, renewables are much more akin to a hard won energy wage.
For certain tasks, such as air travel, no other energy source can readily be substituted for oil. As noted by the Hirsch Report, alternative energy infrastructures require long periods of investment, on the scale of decades, to be widely implemented. As Chevron Texaco state on one of their websites, the era of easy oil is over.

In regards to shares and options, these are a long term investment. In late 2004 when providing hedging advice to the aviation industry we planned on oil being between $45 - $100 barrel between 2005 - 2010, $70 - $145 from 2010 - 2015, $130 - $200 to 2020 and thereafter the sky was the limit....oil prices will rise and fall, however the trend will be to rise. We will all look back in a few years and know what was or was not right......the risk of having a mitigation option for oneself and ones family is cheap when one considers the possible consequences as the cost of not having any options is to high...

Best Wishes
Capt R

[Chimbu chuckles]

Absolute rubbish.

From Brian's post above. The first of these is on the issue of global oil resources.

We have been very successful in the oil industry for a very long time so we in the industry know that the world is not in danger of running out of oil any time soon.

We hear all sorts of so-called experts predicting the end of the world's oil supplies. Or the end of what they call the era of easy oil.

There has never been an era of “easy oil” – our industry has constantly operated at the technological frontier. Oil only seems easy after it has been discovered, developed and produced.

These peak-oil predictions are not new. They have been occurring, particularly at times of high prices, regularly since the 1920s.

The fact is that the world has an abundance of oil and there is little question scientifically that abundant energy resources exist.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the Earth currently has more than three trillion barrels of conventional recoverable oil resources. So far we have produced one trillion of that.

Conservative estimates of heavy oil and shale oil push the total recoverable resource to over four trillion barrels.

My bolding.

[CaptR]

Exxon Mobil - an interesting company with different views from those within.........and everyone is entitled to their own viewpoint.

Exxon-Mobil in a statement by the President of the exploration company continues to take the lead in emphasising the difficulty of meeting oil demand (The Lamp vol. 85/1 p20). It is another way of describing an imminent peak in production.
"Our industry can certainly be proud of its past achievements. Yet the challenges we will face in the coming years will be every bit as great as those encountered in the past, due in part to ever-increasing global energy use. For example, we estimate that world oil and gas production from existing fields is declining at an average rate of about 4 to 6 percent a year. To meet projected demand in 2015, the industry will have to add about 100 million oil-equivalent barrels a day of new production. That’s equal to about 80 percent of today’s production level. In other words, by 2015, we will need to find, develop and produce a volume of new oil and gas that is equal to eight out of every 10 barrels being produced today. In addition, the cost associated with providing this additional oil and gas is expected to be considerably more than what industry is now spending.
Equally daunting is the fact that many of the most promising prospects are far from major markets — some in regions that lack even basic infrastructure. Others are in extreme climates, such as the Arctic, that present extraordinary technical challenges."

Again without any press conferences, grand announcements, or hyperbolic advertising campaigns, the Exxon Mobil Corporation, one of the world's largest publicly owned petroleum companies, has quietly joined the ranks of those who are predicting an impending plateau in non-OPEC oil production. Their report, The Outlook for Energy: A 2030 View, forecasts a peak in just five years.

According to a recent statements from ExxonMobil (highlighted by Brian and Chimbu) peak oil is "decades" away and Americans can disregard the "theory" of peak oil - aside from their recent statement, recently they also ran a Peak Oil Advertisement in The Washington Post and The New York Times which claimed that peak oil is "decades" away and attempted to discredit what it called the "theory" of peak oil. ExxonMobil may be the world's most profitable energy company, but it is important to recognize this ad as being both innaccurate and misleading. ExxonMobil's own production statistics tell the story:
Since 1997, oil prices have quadrupled, yet ExxonMobil, the world's largest and most profitable private oil company, has not increased production at all. In no other industry, would a quadrupling of prices yield no increase in supply. Certainly, if Ipod prices had jumped in this fashion, Apple would find someway to manufacture more. So why isn't ExxonMobil producing more oil? It turns out that nine of the top ten IOCs have flat or declining production. BP is the solitary exception, due in part to one of its subsidiaries seizing an opportunity to get access to Russian oil.
Lee Raymond and ExxonMobil may not believe in peak oil, but Chevron's Dave O'Reilly has been broadcasting a very different message. In ads that company has been running in major newspapers and magazines, we are told that we the world is using two barrels for every one it finds. "One thing is clear: the era of easy oil is over," say the ads. As for British Petroleum, a senior executive recently noted that "Discovered hydrocarbon volumes have been declining since the end of the ’60s. The deepwater theme of the ’90s and a renewed search for gas has helped to reverse this trend but the last few years have been poor for exploration.
The number of supergiantfields and the number of giant provinces have fallen off markedly in recent decades. Field sizes are declining..." In short, BP also recognizes that peak oil is not a question of whether, but of when. Based on the best available data, some of which leaves a lot to be desired, the peak is likely to occur in 2011, plus or minus four years.
The world may not be at global peak oil production today, but informed people do not need the binoculars shown in ExxonMobil's cartoon in order to see the peak from where we are now. Perhaps ExxonMobil needs them because their vision is clouded by recent record profits.

Lets look as some of their recent statements - Contrary to the theory, oil production shows no signs of a peak... Oil is a finite resource, but because it is so incredibly large, a peak will not occur this year, next year, or for decades to come.Well this is true as far as it goes, but what they fail to mention is that demand is escalating far ahead the discovery of new sources. So sure, the peak may not occur for 2, 5 or 10 years, but so what! It's irrelevant because affecting a full transition away from oil in the time remaining may not be possible unless we start now. As a large scale, broad-based transportation fuel, oil currently has no equal. Demand for it is increasing to support economic growth worldwide. Thankfully, there is enough potential supply to meet this demand.

Though they are correct in stating that oil, in this limited context, has no equal, they ignore three critical indictments. First, using oil is not the problem. How we use oil, by pumping it individually into our gas-tanks, is the problem. Second, with the exception of coal, no fossil fuel is more damaging to the environment than oil. So a fuel that costs twice as much to produce for the same energy output but with half the emissions, might be a better choice in order to help us avoid environmental catastrophe. Third, the last sentence is quite simply disingenuous bull****. Big Oil routinely includes economically infeasible sources such as Canada's tar sands as a "potential" supply - at the levels the globe currently consumes - no way! Finally, notice the scary implication: Oil is necessary to sustain worldwide economic growth.

So why would Big Oil embark on a campaign to discredit "peak oil". Well, consider the source. ExxonMobil, of all the major suppliers, has the smallest reserves and infrastructure devoted to natural gas, the most likely "bridge energy" that we'd use while transitioning to something new. Thus, ExxonMobil will push oil use even if it means pumping and processing every last drop. But don't let yourself be fooled. The reality of "peak oil" is undeniable and in the meantime if we let Big Oil pull the wool over eyes, we may fail to make the preparations that are necessary to transition the world to a new energy infrastructure.

Cheers
CaptR

[Chimbu chuckles]

That seemingly ignores heavy oil reserves, oil shale/sand reserves and coal liquification....and the fact that for most of the last 20 yrs no one was looking for the stuff because at $12-20/bbl it was not worth it. If PO is really < 10 yrs away why has it dropped 20% in price in the last 6 weeks? Demand has not risen hugely in the last 2 yrs....futures traders just found a potential in China and India which has not actually been realised yet.

Oil may never be $12/bbl again like it was 4 years ago but neither will it be $100/bbl+++ in any of our life times.

But you knock yourself out...I am not.

[pakeha-boy]

Oil ay...H,mmmmmmmmmmmmm...hopefully the oil that my misses buys for when we play ..."hide the snarler' doesnt get that expensive,...there ,s no way I,m going to pay that type of money....CRIKEY MATE!!!!.....my "drilling' expenses are free.....and I,m an independant drilling company.....old parts for sure....but mate!...I always find oil:E :ok: ...interesting reading men

[Hugh Jarse]

H,mmmmmmmmmmmmm...hopefully the oil that my misses buys for when we play ..."hide the snarler' doesnt get that expensive
Just use a little more foreplay;) Then you wont need oil, dude :ok: :E

[CaptR]

A recent analysis for the U.S. Department of Energy addressed the question of what might be done to mitigate the peaking of world oil production. Various technologies that are commercial or near commercial were considered:

1. Fuel efficient transportation,
2. Heavy oil/Oil sands,
3. Coal liquefaction,
4. Enhanced oil recovery,
5. Gas-to-liquids.

It became abundantly clear early in this study that effective mitigation will be
dependent on the implementation of mega-projects and mega-changes at the maximum possible rate. This finding dictated the focus on currently commercial technologies that are ready for implementation. New technology options requiring further research and development will undoubtedly prove very important in the longer-term future, but they are not ready now, so their inclusion would be strictly speculative.
A scenario analysis was performed, based on crash program implementation worldwide – the fastest humanly possible. The timing of
oil peaking was left open because of the considerable differences of
opinion among experts. Consideration of a number of implementation
scenarios provided the following startling insights:

• Waiting until world oil production peaks before taking crash program action
leaves the world with a significant liquid fuel deficit for more than two
decades.

• Initiating a mitigation crash program 10 years before world oil peaking helps
considerably but still leaves a liquid fuels shortfall roughly a decade after the time that oil would have peaked.

• Initiating a mitigation crash program 20 years before peaking offers the
possibility of avoiding a world liquid fuels shortfall for the forecast period.
The reason why such long lead times are required is that the worldwide scale of oil consumption is enormous – a fact often lost in a world where oil abundance has been taken for granted for so long. If mitigation is too little, too late, world supply/demand balance will have to be achieved through massive demand destruction and shortages, which would translate to extreme economic hardship. On the other hand, with timely mitigation, economic damage can be minimized.

The above is the TESTIMONY OF Dr. ROBERT L. HIRSCH, SENIOR ENERGY PROGRAM ADVISOR, SAIC. BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY. Hirsch was engaged to provide the US Doe (Department of Energy) a risk assessment re Peak Oil. For indepth information re feasibility of other energy sources have a read of the former posts re "decline of aviation" - this covered hydrogen, tar sands, shale etc.

As for fluctuations - it is to be expected.......short-term market fluctuations in price have absolutely no relevance to the debate over the life expectancy of the world's crude oil supply.This is 99-per-cent physical; 1-per-cent economics. There is only so much oil in the ground and we have now or are about to reach the peak of productive capacity - In the United States, the Department of Energy has asked the National Petroleum Council, an industry information group, to investigate peak-oil claims. In Australia, a senate committee has concluded that our government should plan for an imminent decline in world oil production, while Sweden plans to end its oil dependency by 2020. James Williams, a veteran energy economist at WTRG Economics Inc., said the peak-oil theorists make a legitimate point -- over the long-term.

The soaring price of fuel poses a greater commercial challenge to Qantas than terrorism, SARS or the Asian tsunami, airline boss Margaret Jackson says.

In a lecture in Canberra on Wednesday, the Qantas chairwoman said she did not know how high fuel prices would go, or how long they would stay at record levels. Ms Jackson said the price of fuel was having a major impact on Qantas' business - more so than the commercial and logistical challenges the airline faced after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the bombings in Bali a year later and the SARS epidemic which disrupted the aviation industry.

Recently the head of the International Air Transport Assn. said that based on $47 per barrel oil, the airline industry will lose $6 billion in 2005. Almost no one is predicting any reduction in oil prices within the next few years, and there's a quickly growing consensus that we may have already entered the era of permanently expensive oil (hence these discussions, senate enquiries and the like). I think it's clear that, barring any stunning technological advancement, we're seeing the beginning of not just a downsizing and realignment of the airline sector but its complete transformation into a much-higher-priced, lower-volume boutique industry. For the sake of those who are employed in that industry, I hope I'm wrong.

In the interim, lets wait and see what occurs over the coming years - that's the problem with a peak in production - one can never tell until it has occured (unless all countries allowed third party independant audits of their reserves - then one could work out when the peak would occur - unfortunatley that has never happended and is likely to never occur).....

Enjoy the remainder of the weekend........

Cheers
Capt R

[Chimbu chuckles]

I will...you can sit in your warm bath with a sharp razor blade:}

I just filled my diesel 4WD...cost me $20:ok:

[Chimbu chuckles]

Well who would have think it.:rolleyes:

On CNBC last night light sweet crude at US$60.50 and still heading south...reports that Traders now buying futures 'in the 40s'.

The thought that those dickwits who bought futures at US$100 are now suffering greatly gives me a warm, happy feeling inside.:E :D :ok:

[404 Titan]

Chimbu chuckles

I was watching the same show on CNBC and thinking the same thing. It just made me laugh because I have always trusted my gut feeling when to make investments or not. When experts were saying two and a half years ago that Sydney house prices would continue to rise for the foreseeable future, I had a gut feeling based on rational economic analysis and speaking with people that the bubble was about to burst. Same with oil. Two months ago when I heard demand for oil in Australia and the US had fallen by 5% in 12 months because of the very high prices, I knew the writing was on the wall for the continued rise in oil prices but the idiot annalists and speculators were still talking the market up. Obviously because they had a vested interest. Just like our friend CaptR.:yuk:

[inthefluffystuff]

To All

Perhaps we should go back to Hot Air balloons as enough hot air seems to be created by Canberra and a few gloomers on this forum, just imagine Dixon could cut the f***k out of engineers and save a packet?

[MarkD]

all that wine lying around (there's a glut apparently?) I'm surprised there seems to be little interest in making ethanol out of it, except for one or two small projects. Apparently the Europeans are making ethanol out of all sorts of crap vino. Obviously Aussie vino is rarely crap, as my wine rack can attest, but still...

[CaptR]

Scientific American (Sep 06 issue) and the latest Bulletin Magazine make interesting reading (both subscribe to a peak in oil production)...

Although this discussion about near-term pricing is a distraction, it has very little to do with Peak Oil. The fact of the matter is that global oil production has ceased increasing for quite some time now, regardless of a continuous run up in prices over the last few years. Prices are going down presently, not because there is more supply, but because demand growth has droped off and demand for the marginal barrel cannot, at the current point in time, stand a $77 price.


Peak oil is about production capacity, and production capacity is extremely insensitive to short term pricing. Making statements based on short term price changes of oil is like making statements on global warming based on the daily fluctuations of temperature in Sydney.
Also of interest is the lack of spending on exploration. Russ Roberts from Exxon Mobil said recently that the "Potential crude price is a relatively minor consideration because it is an unknown," and that more important factors include government approvals and industry technology. "Perhaps the best example is that our capital and exploration investment was $15 billion in 1998 when crude traded as low as $10 a barrel, and it was $15 billion in 2004 when crude oil was about $40 a barrel,". So much for investing large amounts of money as they earn more profit......

[CaptR]

The following article from the Houston Chronicle a few hours ago - can be found on http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/4208727.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/4208727.html)

U.S. Energy Department study concludes crude production will peak, requiring other energy forms


Last September, a Chronicle editorial warned that global oil production would peak in this decade or the next, and then inexorably decline. Given that likelihood, the United States would have to embark on a crash program to develop alternative energy sources or endure crippling increases in the price of energy.
Last week, a study performed for the U.S. Department of Energy concurred with the editorial's conclusions.
try{OAS_AD('Middle');}catch(e){}

The study, led by Robert Hirsch, warned that the world should be spending $1 trillion per year developing alternative energy sources — including tar sands, oil shale and gas liquefaction — to avoid having its economy crippled by oil shortages and the resulting chaos. The study recommends a 20-year lead time, so it might already be too late to prevent a crunch.
The report said the timing was uncertain. Hirsch predicted peak oil production could come in five years, almost certainly by 2020.
Actually, the world would not have to arrive at peak production in order to experience severe shortfalls in oil supplies. The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina showed what even a minor constriction in supply can do to drive prices skyward. Apart from natural disasters, wars, political unrest, government intervention, deteriorating equipment, accidents or any combination could interrupt the supply of oil.
Demand for gasoline in the United States is dropping with the end of the summer vacation season. Consequently, prices also are dropping. But this trend is extremely temporary.
Demand for oil in China, in India and throughout the developing world will continue to grow. Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson predicts that world demand for crude will increase 50 percent in a decade.
Bloomburg News reported that the Energy Department study found that conventional oil production reached "soft and sudden" peaks in Texas in 1972, North America in 1985, Great Britain in 1999 and Norway in 2001. These dates were predicted by formulas used by proponents of the peak oil theory to predict the crest of global oil production.
Perhaps the report's most serious conclusion is that the free market and private industry alone will not prevent economic catastrophe from energy shortages. Government must have a policy for managing the transition from conventional crude oil to other energy forms.
Hirsch, a consultant and former government official overseeing research into solar and other renewable energy forms, said the conversion from oil could be compared to the race for the moon or the mobilization for World War II. Consumers, he said, could not rely on oil companies to get the huge job done.
If oil company managers disagree, they need to demonstrate where all the oil is going to come from to meet rising demand, or propose their own plans for developing alternative sources.

US DoE, Australian Senate, Swedish Govt, NZ Government and many other respected institutions recognise peak oil......must be more to this than what the oil companies say......if they are taking it seriously, how will it affect you?

[Chimbu chuckles]

Remember the bath water needs to be really hot and the razor blade really sharp:ok:

[Crossbleed]

:( Who gives a rat's arse whether it runs out tomorrow or in 40 years time or 200?? The point is, surely, that it is running out and will eventually run out entirely. We may quibble about when, but this should be the clarion call to our generation to get of the collective backsides and find a better way to do it. Peak Oil is a distraction IMHO to the bigger issue. The tea-towel heads don't lift anything heavier than money, so they're hardly going to plough any dough into R&D for alternate sources of juice.
When my newborn comes swaggering home from Uni in 20 years time and asks me what my generation did about global warming what am I going to say?
"Well, young feller-me-lad, back in 2006 there was a lot of talk in the papers and such about peak oil and greenhouse gasses and all that stuff, with equally august, learned institutions and others yapping about peak oil and oil running out and getting too expensive, but when all the hubbub died down and the price of the black stuff fell again we all heaved a collective sigh of relief and pretty much went back to sleep again"
Do ya wanna hear about the 80's or your dear old great-great-grandfather the Hippie?"
"Piss off Dad"
Righto.

[Chimbu chuckles]

What if he asks "Dad why did your generation bankrupt the planet over something that was unproven at the time when so many scientists were saying global warming was a natural cycle?

"Well the doomsayers got most of the publicity because the media thought it made better TV"

In my view extreme views on most anything are generally suspect...I always look to the middle ground for what is most likely to be the true situation.

The world has abundant reserves of oil....just (maybe) not so much light sweet crude. The technolgy required to extract that heavier oil/oilshale and oil sands and refine it profitably at a MUCH lower price than is current ($59.50 Today) and is a mature technology. China has the biggest oil shale reserves after the US.

Tonight I was watching CNBC and they had stories about a strong push in the US market to follow the EU market down the path of diesel technology. Car manufacturers have been making huge strides in 'green' diesel cars...they are not the polluters they were even 5 years ago. Australia is a long, long way behind the EU on clean diesel engine technology...although nowhere near as far behind as the US. I noticed when I was in Australia last, a week or so ago, diesel was 10+ cents a liter more expensive than premium petrol...that is a rediculous state of affairs and is reflective of nothing more than a greenies driven pollution tax based on outdated diesel technology. Where I live diesel is 3/5ths the price of petrol.

The EU has about 50/50 diesel/petrol road transport. Diesel is 20-25% more efficient than petrol. Converting the US population over to a similar % of diesel cars as the EU/UK would save the US importing hundreds of millions of barrels/day of crude. That ALONE would see the price of oil tumble into the toilet.

If 10% of the remaining vehicles were powered by LPG/Hybrid etc the demand for crude would drop right through the floor.

All it takes for this to happen is Govt will....if the Govts were really that worried about peak oil they would be doing a fecking sight more than they are to foster these technologies.

China, despite it's population, is a largely empty, windy, barren country...I know as I have flown over large chunks of it. They are getting into windfarm electricity generation in a huge way. They also have some of the most fecking humoungous river systems you have ever seen and, as has been seen with their 3 Gorges Dam/hydro scheme, the will to spend in that area too. I will say that I think hydro has more minuses than pluses when all the impacts are taken into account...but to suggest they are going to slurp up vast extra quantities of oil just to feed a blooming middle classe's desire for cars and that spells disaster is panicking over nothing...remember what I said about the 'middle ground'?

They don't want to be dependant on the ME anymore than any other country. The Chinese are a very clever society...they have been taking the best parts of invading technogies going back to the Mongol Hordes. Yes they have a different form of govt that leaves a lot to be desired in many respects but they are not hamstrung by the beaurocracy that the west is...if the central govt says install 20000 wind turbines here, here and 10000 more way the **** over there it just happens....RFN, not over the next 20 years because no bastard wants a wind farm next door to his house.

In the same way that the communist govt is tinkering with free market economies in Shanghai, Macau and Hong Kong they will obsorb the best of modern technologies in cars/trucks/rail/power generation because it makes sense to do it from an ecomonic point of view. It is the technology that will help to assure the strong economic potential everyone says they have actually happens.

Between hybrid cars, diesel, LPG, bio diesel, windfarm power generation, atomic power generation, hydro, solar and other technologies there are many alternatives to petrol for running cars and crude oil usage in generating electricity.

This latest oil scare has countries thinking about and implementing change...not because of peak oil per se but because they don't want to be any more dependant than necesary on other countries/regions for essential energy supplies. They will diversify out of self interest and that will drive the demand for oil down.

The EU has made huge strides in these areas...the US must follow...China will follow and Australia has absolutely no excuse for not mandating higher %s of diesel (mandate the latest technology and remove the rediculous taxes) and LPG (already doing it) usage.

The EU went down these paths because of a strong public will driven by fear of global warming. I am utterly convinced that global warming is not anthropogenic in nature and will not be as extreme as the doomsayers suggest....remember that middle ground again...but all the above will lead to a cleaner world and that is just more pleasant.

What we as a society must do is reject the extreme and embrace the middle argument. If we blindly race down the path indicated by the extreme Greens and Peak Oil Doomsayers we risk wasting Trillions of $ on problems that no absolute evidence exists to support.

Do we want that legacy hanging over our children?

[Chimbu chuckles]

If you have broadband, or are really patient, click on the link below.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4468713209160533271

It is a 25 minute long documentary done by the University of Calgary showing that anthropogenic climate change is a load of BS.

This shows the lie that greenies live every day...and the wasteful nature of their Greeny inspired taxes that cost all of us a great deal of money and if left unchecked could bankrupt our children via the sick joke that is the Kyoto Treaty.

This shows the lie that causes those of you who drive diesels why you are paying 2 or 3 times the price you should be paying because the greenies have convinced the govt it is a dirty fuel and should have a greenhouse tax applied.

Where I live in Asia I pay 31 cents/liter for diesel, 38 cents a liter for standard and 53 cents a liter for premium...and the only difference is the Govt here doesn't charge any taxes on fuel....the rest of the price you pay is tax and GST on tax.

Our esteemed Govt is even charging people to use Bio Diesel such excise as to have it at the same price as ordinary diesel and premium petrol.

Just this evening I saw a US oil company executive talking about the oil shale deposits in Colorado (trillions of barrels) and the new light sweet crude find in the GOM that is estimated between 3 and 15 BILLION barrels....just say it ends up being 7-10 billion...those two resources alone are 600 yrs worth of driving, flying and generally fecking about.

It is long past time the Oz voting public started voting for some common dog **** in Govt when it comes to climate change and removal of punitive greenie taxes:ugh:

[Sunfish]

Chimbu, down here in Victoria we have had ten years of below average rainfall, its shaping up to be a record summer for drought and bushfires as well. I dont give a rats what the University of Calgary says, I care what CSIRO says and they say that there is incontrovertible evidence that the planet is warming and human produced carbon dioxide is the main culprit.

Here is a hint, look up the group "Friends of Science" that paid for your video on Sourcewatch and you will find they are a PR front for the oil industry.

Translation: The video you refer to is pure public relations BS.

[Chimbu chuckles]

http://mclean.ch/climate/Murray_Darling_rainfall.htm

10 years hey?

And just what is 'normal rainfall'?

Australia is a dry continent...it could just be that the last 10 years are actually normal. I would put it to you that the only reason Australia is having 'water shortages' at present is because there are TOO MANY people competing for that resource. I cannot put my hand on it at the moment but I remember reading somewhere that the total population the continent of Australia can support is something less than 20 million.

Is the AUSTRALIAN BOM a front for big oil PR too?

[Sunfish]

Chimbu mate, don't take graphs from climate change sceptics, go to the real Bureau of Meterology "climate change" page and read it. The climate is changing and the most likely culprit is us.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/

[bushy]

People in the northern hemisphere can see every day, with their own eyes,the reduced visibility that seems to be normal there.They have probably got used to it and do not know any different.
My son is in France at the moment, and the photos he sends home all have a big haze, just like simpson desert dust.
And it is not new. I went over to uk on a ship decades ago, and you could see the haze, and feel the watery sun after we got near the "big smoke"
On one of the long summer evenings in Oxford, I commented "look at the moon, it's all red" The Poms all looked at me strangely for a long time, and then someone said "that is the sun"
I also remember one of the first Airbusses ferrying out to Australia, via Alice Springs. On descent into Alice Springs he commented "you have the cleanest air in the world" And most of the time we do.

This may, or may not mean we heve serious problems. I just do not know.
But I hope we can keep our part of the world in good condition, and not make a huge mess of it like they have in Europe.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Here is the same graph only this time the link is from your BOM website Sunfish.

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi

The graph is the same one that I linked to (and the preamble in my link said it was from the Australian Bureau Of Met) and shows the same thing. It does NOT support your contention that down here in Victoria we have had ten years of below average rainfall

The thing I like about that site I posted the link to is that he doesn't post his own unsupported opinion...he posts the data from scientific bodies all around the world...and then disects it.

Here is another link from the BOM website...it shows the same information as was shown on that video...an increase of less than 1 degree over 100 hrs.

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi

The the scientists on that video were NOT saying global warming is not a reality they were saying that CO2 put into the atmosphere by modern life is not the cause.

Here is an interesting link written by an oceanographer who has been at it for 60+ years.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html

Ice cores anyone?

http://mclean.ch/climate/Eye_opening.htm

And my favorite climate computer modelling. That is where all the GW doomsayer BS comes from...they feed what they believe is happening into a computer as the one true answer and then **** with the parameters, most of which are a mystery, and then wonder why it doesn't work that way in the real world.

http://mclean.ch/climate/models.htm

My favorite quote from that article

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." [my emphasis added]

NASA tells us now the hole in the Ozone layer is closing and will be gone in about 60 years...are we expected to believe that the miniscule population/square KM that exists in the southern hemisphere caused that HUGE reversal in a mere 10 odd years by cutting back a bit on CFCs when the huge population in the northern hemisphere was not able to cause a similar hole at the north pole in the first place?

I don't.:ugh:

[CaptR]

The following are worth a read for those who are interested -

http://www.ministers.wa.gov.au/mactiernan/docs/speeches/STEP%20Final.pdf

http://www.catalystmagazine.net/issues/story.cfm?story=1064

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/12/26/8364646/

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0406/feature5/

http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2031/a/67096

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/drivenbyoil/pip/krpen/

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=arur.i7moHMs&refer=news

http://www.moneyweek.com/file/19045/what-is-the-peak-oil-theory-of-value.html

[VH-Cheer Up]

Here is the same graph only this time the link is from your BOM website Sunfish.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi

Interesting graph (http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi)that one; For personal enlightenment, go back to it, and select another variable- try any of the temperature variables.
Max, Min and Mean temperatures are all trending upwards over the last century, and diurnal variation is trending downward. Translation: This part of the world's been getting hotter consistently and it doesn't shed that heat at night.
It's a delicate balance, and a degree or so probably makes a lot of difference to the polar icecaps (http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1750949.htm).
Look on the bright side. Over here in the Yarra Ranges foothills, I could be sitting on prime absolute waterfront in a few more years.
Avalon might be in for a bit of a problem though. Bring back the era of the flying-boat.
VHCU

[Chimbu chuckles]

Suzuki is a borderline eco extremist...and as usual he is pushing an emotional button for maximum effect.


Environmentalist David Suzuki says the Great Barrier Reef is in "bad shape" and he has noticed "huge changes" over the 18 years he has been visiting the area.

The well-known Canadian scientist spoke at an ecological design conference in Cairns, in far north Queensland, last night.

Dr Suzuki says Australians, and particularly the Federal Government, need to start doing more to address global warming and climate change.

"This wonderful treasure that you have ... the Great Barrier Reef, is at enormous risk," he said.

"In the same way as in Canada where one of our great icons, the polar bear, [is at risk].

"Polar bears are going to be gone in 20 years because the ice sheet is melting so rapidly, they don't have anything to go out on and hunt.

"Things are being pulled apart by the consequences of the warming planet."

For most of the year the temps at the North (and South) Pole are well below freezing. 20,30,40 degrees below zero. If the (short) summers are a few, say 2 degrees warmer, and the (much longer) winters also get 2 degrees warmer just how much ice will really permanently melt?

What is the difference between -30 and -28 degrees C?

Watch ice melt in a glass of water and see the difference in water level after...it will be zero...for there to be catastrophic sea level rise all the continental ice would need to melt. The sea ice (all the north polar ice) will have no effect on sea levels if it melts...remember the US and Russians spend a lot of time under the northern hemisphere ice in their nuclear subs?

Sukuki can spout off to his hearts content about the great barrier reef and I will match it with the 38 years my mate Max Benjamin has owned and run Walindi resort in Kimbe Bay, East New Britain, PNG. One of the (world recognised) premier reef diving spots on the planet...a reef ecosystem that leaves the GBR for dead in reef diversity if not outright acreage. He has been watching 'his' reefs bleach and recover unharmed all that time...off an on for 40 years....and not all at once although some years have been worse than others. I have discussed this with him and he cannot pick a trend...and he is a greeny who makes his living off an ecosystem he loves more than life itself.

Click on the Greenland Ice Cores link in my post above and see that the Greenland was in fact 3 to 4 degrees warmer 3 thousand odd years ago...yet not only did the polar bears survive but they are finding deep frozen (meat and hair still there) Wooly Mammoths that have been under ice for millions of years...so it seems like even 4 degrees warmer (about what the real extremist eco-idiots predict is worst case) aint gonna melt all the ice:ugh:

As an aside do you think the Vikings that first populated and named "Green"land would have called it green if it was as frozen as it is today...and hung around and farmed what is now permafrost...or would they instead have pronounced the place fecking useless and got back in their boats?

What REALLY ****s me about the GW debate is that it has become so politicised that facts, let alone common sense, are NEVER juxtaposed against the doomsayer predictions that are almost solely based on computer modelling....because it isn't PC:ugh:

[Chimbu chuckles]

Seems we have used in the last 100+ years 1/3 of the known recoverable 'conventional' oil and 1/5th of the total recoverable reserves if you include non conventional oil.

Likelyhood of using up the remainder in the next 100?


Long Term Crude Oil Supplies
September 25, 2006 - Prices of crude oil futures have spiraled upward for months on stories of shortage of supplies in the long run. Unfortunately, over the past 100 years, the oil industry wrote contracts for produced and delivered oil priced at the current "marker crude", often a published trade in the spot market. In recent years, spot trades have been tied to the more active futures market. Thus, a shift in the futures market can immediately influence today's delivered price of crude oil under contract. The thousands of contracts out there are not likely to be modified -- especially since the current linkage produces a most lucrative situation for the current owners of crude oil production.

The problem is that the soothsayers are running out of rational information to sustain their unrealistic stories of impending shortages. Let's take a look at some facts:

Exxon, in its 2006 Annual Report says "

"ABUNDANT OIL RESOURCES EXIST

In assessing global demand for oil, we also take into account the worldwide oil resources that will supply this demand. We estimate recoverable worldwide conventional oil resources at 3.2 trillion barrels, with additional frontier resources (extra heavy oil, oil sands, oil shale) bringing this total to 4 to 5 trillion barrels. Of this amount, approximately 1 trillion barrels have been produced. These global resources will support liquids production growth through at least the 2030 time horizon, with growing contributions from OPEC countries and the Russia/Caspian region. "

Since this document was published early 2006, these reserves estimates are probably based on an average price of around $45 per barrel. From a Petroleum Engineer's perspective, the quantities could easily double, maybe triple at $60 per barrel. You can see that pricing futures just 3 to 6 months out based on supply shortfalls is based on fictitious assumptions.
What about natural gas? One of those fascinating things Petroleum Engineers know is that there are huge quantities of natural gas out there waiting to be tapped. Of course, it costs money to find and produce it -- and you have to get it to market. But prices will rise as necessary to make that happen. In the short term, there is no shortage. So, again, you can see that pricing futures just 3 to 6 months out based on a supply shortfall is really not very realistic. Even after the hurricanes of 2005, you can look back and see that no one went without natural gas. The supply system in the US is highly integrated, allowing gas supplies from a number of locations to reach almost any destination in the US. Although there is a lot of work behind the scenes to redirect flow and handle the accounting, the gas can be -- and was -- delivered.

From the Exxon Report:

"BREAKTHROUGH TECHNOLOGY UNLOCKS TIGHT GAS
Worldwide, enormous quantities of natural gas are locked up in “tight” reservoirs characterized by very low flow rates. Many of these resources have been known to industry for decades, but have been categorized as “uneconomic” due to the cost required to effectively connect the gas in the reservoir to a wellbore. ExxonMobil has developed and patented industry-leading technologies to unlock these tight gas resources. Our multi-zone stimulation technology (MZST) rapidly creates numerous fractures (cracks) in the reservoir rock so that gas can flow more easily to the wellbore. Compared to conventional approaches, MZST provides a dramatic improvement in our ability to quickly execute many high-quality fractures. In recognition of this breakthrough, MZST was awarded the Platts 2005 Global Energy Award for the Most Innovative Commercial Technology of the Year."

OPEC Forecast

September 19, 2006 -- The OPEC September quarterly report offers a very balanced analysis of the current situation in the world and US markets. Here are a couple of highlights from the summary about OPEC crude oil:

"The OPEC Reference Basket was volatile in August amid mixed developments. Pipeline outages in Russia and Alaska pushed prices to record-highs with the Basket peaking at $72.67/b on 8 August. However, easing geopolitical developments calmed market sentiment, allowing the Basket to drop below the $63 level by the end of the month. In August, the Basket averaged $68.81/b. Other factors behind the down trend were lower refinery run rates in Asia due to weaker margins, the end of the US driving season and ample winter distillate supplies ahead of winter. The Basket fell further in the first weeks of September, dropping to $59.22/b on 14 September, a loss of almost $14/b since the previous month’s peak, demonstrating yet again the degree of volatility in the market.

"The demand for OPEC crude in 2006 is expected to average 28.9 mb/d, representing a downward revision of 0.2 mb/d versus last month. In 2007, the demand for OPEC crude is expected to average 28.1 mb/d, representing a decline of 0.8 mb/d versus 2006. On a quarterly basis, the forecast shows that demand for OPEC crude is expected at 29.2 mb/d in the first, 27 mb/d in the second, 28 mb/d in the third and 28.4 mb/d in the fourth quarter."

The report is extensive and provides details about current and future US and international markets. However, I question the suggestion that the shift to ultra-low diesel in the US this October might firm up prices in the US market. My experience with these product quality shifts is that by the time refiners are required to make a new product, the major refiners have already been making the product for 6 months to a year (or longer!), so the transition is actually transparent. It's always amusing, and of course the oil companies love it, when the media and soothsayers drive up prices on the stories that the refineries won't be able to make the product. If they could not make it, the regulatory agency would have delayed the implementation date. It has always happened that way and is not likely to change in the future.

[Chimbu chuckles]

CaptR I read all your links that I was able to access...some of it was extremely well written and makes a lot of sense....much of it was doomsayer wetdreams.

The world must certainly learn to be more sensible with its resources. I completely agree that the world economy cannot spiral ever upwards as the Globalisation freaks would suggest. I agree that shipping product all over the world is wasteful of resources and the world should move back to a more localised production and consumption model.

The anti GW scientists are not saying the world weather is not changing....they are saying that it is constantly changing and has been constantly changing since time began. They are suggeting there is no evidence that it is changing as quickly as some suggest and that there is equally no evidence that it is unduly influenced by man.

I was watching a program this evening about the Australian continent and how millions of years ago it was mostly covered in rainforest...of which a very few small pockets remain. The continent now called Antartic was similarly covered in rainforest...warm, wet and covered in furry animals that were the predecesors of todays Marsupials.

Over MILLIONs of years it has slowly evolved, and no doubt continues to evolve, into the driest inhabited continent on the planet...while the Antartic evolved into a big chunk of ice covered rock.

What caused that?

I am fairly certain it wasn't mankind burning fossil fuel because the fossils were still walking around and yet to be turned into fuel.

Scientists with open minds are starting to realise that the sun's activity is also constantly changing...in a 1000s of years timeframe...and that it is far more likely to be effecting earth's climate on a global scale than we are.

What would you propose we do about that?

How much money do you think we should spend on Kyoto when it is highly likely we may need large chunks of that money to help populations adjust to a more gradual, natural climate change which is WAY outside of our ability to control?

Would you like to see BOTH SIDES of the GW debate given equal time in the media so everyone can make informed decisions about what we can and cannot control or would you prefer instead the current situation to continue?

A situation where only the 'GW is all our fault' mob get the coverage.

[CaptR]

Chimbu - looks like you have a minority position re GW given this weeks Govt GW annoucements?

Interesting article in Reuters - http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=reutersEdge&storyID=2006-10-26T184821Z_01_N26302200_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENERGY-PEAKOIL.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage2

Cheers
CaptR

[Chimbu chuckles]

Oh well if our Govt says it is so then it must be so:rolleyes: