Whither Peak Oil?

"Unprecedented inelasticity in recent years."

- a comment from "Mitch"

Sorry folks, it's been a while since we've posted!  It's not that there's no more Peak Oil - rather we've been busy with other things, and we've said quite a bit about the topic in the past.  Not much has changed, if anything.  But an update is warranted in order to address comments from friends and followers - comments such as "Gee, I guess Peak Oil has been postponed?", or "I guess we don't have to worry about Peak Oil anymore!"  Often they have a smile on their face ...

These comments come in the wake of a plethora of articles like:  Sad News for Peak Oil Disciples

So what's the thesis here, what are they talking about?  The gist is that the recent application of horizontal, multi-stage completions to shale oil plays, coupled with a future increase in Canadian tar sands oil will lead to record oil production rates for North America and lessen dependence on foreign oil; some go as far as to say that the USA will become energy independent.  So, no more problems with Peak Oil, huh?

With all due respect to the smart people making those comments, you have to wonder why current oil and gasoline prices (over $95/bbl, around $4/gallon) don't make more of an impression on them, compared to a few news stories on shale oil booms.  However, many people have been touched in a positive way by the recent shale gas and shale oil booms.  Those who live in South Texas, or West Texas, or North Dakota, or the eastern Ohio (or a number of other places around the country) have front row seats to the drilling activities which are providing jobs and business opportunities to virtually everyone in those places.  It you are ever in Carrizo Springs, Texas, drop by one of the few cafes at lunch time (if you can get a seat) and notice all the smiles around the room!  What fool would worry about there ever being not enough oil when you're in the midst of booms like these?

We would have to say that the confusion we have spoken of before is once again on the prowl.  And understandably so - how can anyone, even those of us who keep pretty close tabs on the "oil patch", sort through all of the stories and statistics?
 
So, if we have so much more oil production rate available now, why is oil currently so expensive?  Granted, things are getting more and more tenuous in the Middle East, but most analysts only allocate a $20 - $30/bbl premium for that worry.   Recall  when oil was $12/bbl (we do, only too well), as recently as 1999.  So?  Well, there hasn't been that much inflation (8X) since then!  So if Peak Oil has gone away, what gives?  Big Oil conspiracy?  We think not.  Something else is [still] going on.  See the quote from "Mitch" above, which expresses Peak Oil in a very few words.

Back in June an analyst wrote an article tweaking Dr. Colin Campbell's graphs.  (As you may recall, Dr. Campbell is one of the modern fathers of Peak Oil.).  It was a good article, but our response was this:

When you consider Peak Oil on the scale that it needs to be considered,

that of a ship executing a turn, then the graph of Dr. Campbell's

estimates is remarkably correct, and still plenty scary. A few million

barrels more per day in supply due to shale oil, other discoveries, a

few million barrels per day less in demand due to the worldwide

recession - these things are "noise" in the bigger picture - which is

shown with sufficient accuracy on both Campbell's and Deffeyes' graphs.

Shale oil and shale gas are important resources that need to be

developed. Natural gas needs to be utilized in vehicles. These things

won't "fix" Peak Oil. We need a lot fewer vehicles, a lot more mass

transit retrofits. We need a focus on conservation as well as new

energy supplies, both fossil and renewable. The good news is, these

things are happening - we just need to speed the efforts. And we need

to realize that these things are not mutually exclusive. They are part

of the "all of the above, silver BB solution" that

we need to continue to pursue, but at an accelerated rate. We waste

valuable time and resources arguing that we shouldn't be doing one,

should only do the other, etc. We need them all.

So, yes, a little more oil and a little less consumption, but they

amount to "noise" in the longer term view. Consider them temporary

reprieves. Consider them not an invalidation of Peak Oil, but rather

one more chance, a little more time to ramp up the actions which

Dr. Hirsch et al said could take 20 years, if severe consequences were

to be avoided.

Recently, one of the authors over at Seeking Alpha wrote a very succinct article explaining his continued bullishness on oil, as well as why he was bullish in the first place: 
EOG's CEO Mark Papa Is Still Bullish On Oil Prices, Should Investors Be Bullish On EOG?

The above article features a nice quote from Mr. Papa's recent conference call with analysts, wherein he does a high-level vetting of the shale oil plays, and further explains why it is unlikely that international unconventional oil and gas plays will take off anytime soon:

"Now I'll provide our views regarding macro hedging and the concluding remarks. Regarding oil, we still think the global supply-demand balance is tight, and we expect prices to strengthen throughout the remainder of the year. Two recent concerns I've heard from oil bears involve horizontal shale oil. One concern is will the U.S. create enough shale oil to affect global supply. EOG's forecast is an increase in the U.S. of 2 million barrels of oil per day by 2015, which, we believe, will not impact a 90 million barrel of oil a day global market. We think there are only 3 consequential horizontal oil plays in North America: the Eagle Ford, Bakken and Permian, and that all other alleged oil plays are either inconsequential on a national scale or really NGL plays.
The second concern relates to possible international horizontal oil shale plays and their potential impact on supply. My answer there is maybe it will happen, but it's not likely for another 10 years at least. Remember, it's been 10 years since horizontal drilling unlocked shale gas in the Barnett, and no one yet has found commercial shale gas outside North America. Also, the key to commercial shale oil or gas is the ability to drill thousands of wells at low per-well cost, and whether this can be done internationally is likely problematic."

So, let's look at the two main components that are touted, currently, regarding growth in oil supply:

Consequential Shale Oil Plays (Eagle Ford, Bakken, Permian)
The production in these plays is changing (increasing) so rapidly that even when you have access to lots of data, you still get behind.  Also, we've seen recent articles published by even the Wall Street Journal (Expanded oil drilling helps US wean itself from Mideast, 6/27/2012) that are far out of date with respect to current rates.

Here are what we believe to be some hard datapoints:

Bakken:  produced 594,349 BO/D in June, 2012  
https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/stats/historicalbakkenoilstats.pdf


From Oil & Gas Journal, Bakken's maximum potential oil production rate explored:  This article analyzes the total Bakken resource base and the logistics required in order to generate certain peak production rates, as well as one of the leading operator's reserve estimates.  Three models look at 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 MMBO/D peak production rates by 2020.  According to the article, rates above 1.0 MMBO/D might be difficult to achieve by 2020, due to logistical constraints. 

For comparison, Prudhoe Bay (on the North Slope in Alaska) has been the USA's largest field to date, producing 13 billion barrels, and peaking at a rate of 1.5 MMBO/D from 1980 - 1988.

Depending on which estimate you use, the Bakken has been touted at having 4 - 24.3 billion barrels of recoverable crude.  Reserve numbers on the upper end of these estimates would "jive" with peak production rates of around 2 MMBO/D, based on observations from around the world.

Eagle Ford:   According to an article published in the Wall Street Journal (1/3/2012), the Eagle Ford "produced 109,000 BO/D in August, 2011 and is expected to quadruple in next 5 years" (so that would imply around 440,000 BO/D by 2016).  But the graphs from the Railroad Commission of Texas show the total crude and condensate to have averaged about 270,000 BO/D in the first 5 months of 2012.

http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/eagleford/EagleFordOilProduction.pdf


The above link is only updated through May, 2012, currently.  Also, it shows totals for the first 5 months of 2012, rather than monthly entries.  Generating an average production from this data can be misleading, as averages are not useful in characterizing a rapidly growing series.  A Railroad Commission representative told us in July that the Eagle Ford was producing 700,000 BO/D, but that number likely included NGL's.  It's not hard data, but an educated guess would be that the Eagle Ford is producing around 500,000 BO/D (crude + condensate), currently.  It's easy to see how confusion abounds. 

Permian:  The "Permian" is the catch-all descriptor of horizontal and vertical, Permian Basin plays (not to be confused with the historic Permian plays) - namely, the Wolfberry, Avalon, Bone Springs, Wolfcamp, more. An industry source tells us they believe the Bone Spring and Wolfcamp will average about 185,000 BO/D in 2012.

Bottom-Line:

A recent analysis by the firm Wood MacKenzie may provide the most realistic estimate of current and projected production rates from the shale oil plays. This work was quoted in the Oil & Gas Journal, September 3, 2012:

• Current (2012) rate from "tight oil":  1.6 MMBO/D

• Projected 2020 rate:  4.2 MMBO/D, with 1.3 MMBO/D from the Bakken and 1.3 MMBO/D from the Eagle Ford (correctly includes condensate, but not NGL).  The balance (1.6 MMBO/D) would come from the Permian plays (440,000 BO/D), Niobrara, Utica, Mississippian, Austin Chalk and Monterrey.

So, the bottom-line is that these unconventional, aka shale oil, aka tight oil plays are believed to be capable of providing an incremental 2.6 MMBO/D by 2020.

Growth in Canadian Tar Sands Production
So, in addition to the shale oil (Eagleford, Bakken and Permian, primarily) there is the "tar sands growth" story.  Collectively, the unconventional oil and tar sands growth stories make up the overall, "North American energy independence" story. (sans Mexico, of course -  Mexico was conveniently removed from North America in the articles we have reviewed).  So, what about the tar sands contribution?

Well, back in 2009 we wrote about the dashed hopes for scaling up the Alberta tar sands, about how expectations/projections continually were "written down", year after year:

Well, that was 3 years ago.  Where are the actuals now, compared to the above predictions?  According to CAPP (the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, 6/5/2012), the 2011 actual production from the tar sands was 1.6 MMBO/D.  So, with billions of dollars in expansion and near record oil prices, production has increased about 0.3 MMBO/D since 2008, ie in 3 years.  This 6/5/2012 report goes on to project  far greater outputs ... far in the future (much like other long term projections done in the past), namely 5.0 MMBO/D by 2030.  Here's the CAPP table from 6/5/2012:

Remember, production has only climbed from 1.3 MMBO/D to 1.6 MMBO/D in 3 years, and this in a environment of near record oil prices.  The "at least 2 MMBO/D by 2018" from the 7/2009 prediction sounds do-able, but another 3 MMBO/D on top of that?  Recall that 5.0 MMBO/D was the prediction for 2015, back in 2008.  The rock is certainly there, it is a matter of logistics, energy sources, water and environmental issues.  They have certainly convinced the Chinese and Koreans to invest (also from the CAPP report, looks like $18.4 billion, Canadian):

Bottom-line:  An incremental 1.6 MMBO/D from the Canadian tar sands by 2020, according to the CAPP projections.  So, it appears that our oil exporter from the North is likely to be able to continue to supply the US at rates at or above those in the past.


Summary
Overall, the new shale oil plays and the Canadian tar sands appear to be capable of adding an incremental - North American - production rate of around 4.2 MMBO/D, by 2020.

Our other geographic partner in North America - Mexico - is another story.  Mexico is expected to have a difficult time maintaining its current rate of 2.5 MMBO/D, according to an article in the September 2012 issue of the Oil and Gas Investor. Mexico's production dropped precipitously in 2004 - 2009, when the giant field Cantarell declined from 2.1 MMBO/D to less than 500,000 BO/D.  A substantial and successful effort by Pemex has stemmed the declines for a time, and held production at 2.5 MMBO/D, recently.  However, they have been running their Cantarell-like field, KMZ, in a hard fashion, and there is worry it can't keep up.  Their Chicontepec onshore operations continue to disappoint, producing only 70,000 BO/D, despite $1.5 billion invested on an annual basis.  A recent deepwater discovery may have found 400 MMBO, but it may take a decade to bring this on production, based on the timeline from Shell's nearby Perdido Project.

According to the EIA, in 2011 the USA produced 5.7 MMBO/D, and consumed 18.8 MMBO/D. (The world consumes about 90 MMBO/D).  The USA imported 8.4 MMBO/D in 2011.  (The difference between total consumption and production plus imports is made up via NGL and other extraction gains.  As previously discussed, NGL is not currently comparable to crude and condensate for the purposes of solving what would be an acute transportation crisis in the USA - due to to the lack of current infrastructure and vehicles.)

So, the incremental production projected to be available by 2020 from the shale oil plays - 2.6 MMBO/D - should be able to reduce our imports from 8.4 MMBO/D down to "only" 5.8 MMBO/D.  This assumes oil production from other domestic fields is flat (ie, any declines are offset by other discoveries - not necessarily a good bet, based on the curve below), and that the market (consumption) stays the same (ie, doesn't increase or decrease).

Bottom-line:  The shale oil plays represent an opportunity to reduce foreign oil imports by 30 % or more, thereby substantially reducing the balance of payments (outflow of dollars from the USA).  At the same time these plays will provide opportunities for jobs and small businesses across the country at a time when such opportunities are rare.  The shale oil plays will reduce but not eliminate our reliance on foreign oil.  Should a supply disruption occur over the next decade, we will be better off having this production than not.  The natural gas and NGL from these plays will provide high-quality, low-carbon heat energy for electricity as well as feedstock for plastics - which could help jumpstart manufacturing.  Overall, these plays don't solve the much larger issue of Peak Oil, but they do help "buy time".  They grant us a reprieve, a short stay of execution, a chance to avoid more of the "severe consequences" outlined in the Hirsch Report.  Namely, they give us more a little more time to accelerate the implement conservation, mass transit solutions and natural gas vehicles and infrastructure, as well as to continue alternative energy and conservation research efforts, while we also continue the development of both fossil and renewable energy sources.  Our challenge will be to use this time wisely, making progress on the all of the above, while we seek to avoid the time-wasting divisiveness that has tended to characterize so many discussions about energy and conservation.

Endnote:  So what's to be expected, price-wise?  If an incremental 4.2 MMBO/D is brought to the market by 2020 and this capacity is not offset by an increase in demand or a drop in supply elsewhere, then oil prices could plummet.  Some would be further convinced there was "no such thing as Peak Oil" (but this would still not be the case).  However, much has been written about drops in exports that are likely between now and 2020, including a recent Citigroup article.  Like rust, decline never sleeps - Ghawar in Saudi Arabia is getting older by the day.  Earlier IEA forecasts counted on finding "a number of Saudi Arabias" in order to keep the world supplied over this period.  And then there is the possibility for some other severe supply disruption in the Middle East.

Cantarell Update, September 2009: The Peak Oil PosterChild Continues To Plummet

As we last reported, in May 2009, Cantarell Field's April 2009 production averaged 713,000 barrels per day, down from 862,060 barrels per day in late 2008.

Now, according to a September 9, 2009 article in the Wall Street Journal, Cantarell is down to 500,000 barrels per day. (presumably for August 2009, and not yet plotted on the above graph). This represents a 30 % drop over only 4 months, which far exceeds the last calculated decline rate of 35 % PER YEAR.

A subsequent article in the Oil and Gas Journal, dated September 14, 2009, quoted PEMEX's recent prediction that total production will average 2.5 MMBO/D in 2010 (Mexico's total oil production averaged 3.4 MMBO/D in 2004). The article notes that this rate is down 4 % from the first half of 2009, and down 5.7 % from previous estimates. According to PEMEX, actual production was 2.561 MMBO/D in July 2009, so it is difficult for us to imagine that production could average 2.5 MMBO/D in 2010, given the precipitous decline of Cantarell and small increases seen in the KMZ and Chicontepec fields.

The OGJ article went on to state that exports were 1.2 MMBO/D in the first half of 2009, down 14.8 % from that period in 2008.

Background: Cantarell Field was producing 2,100,000 barrels per day in late 2004. Cantarell, at that time, supplied around 2.5 % of the world's liquid hydrocarbons (not just crude, but also condensate and natural gas liquids). So, here is a substantial portion of the world's oil production that is declining at a rate MUCH greater than 5 % per year ...

Oil exports supply 40 % of the Mexican government's annual budget. (This figure was reported in the recent WSJ article, but it has been quoted since 2007, or thereabouts.)

A few important questions:

• What will replace oil exports in Mexico's revenue budget - in a couple of years or less - when they have no oil to export?
• Mexico will need to import oil shortly after the exports stop - where will they get the oil, and what will they use to pay for it?
• Where will the US obtain the 1.3 MMBO/D that Mexico has supplied, in recent years?

For more information, please see our previous postings at:

http://peakopps.blogspot.com/search/label/Cantarell%20Field

Raymond James reports on Mexico's Oil Production Decline

On June 15, 2009, the highly-regarded energy investment banking firm of Raymond James published a brief discussion of Mexico's oil exports, and of Cantarell Field. Their Raymond James Energy "Stat of the Week" paper was titled "Aye Carubma! Mexico's Oil Production Continues to Slide".

As previously noted on this blog, the Wall Street Journal picked up on the significance of this issue in early 2006. Nevertheless, most folks have never heard of Cantarell Field, and don't understand the significance of the near term loss of 1.4 million barrels of oil per day (MMBO/D) of oil imports into the United States, from Mexico. Nor do most folks realize that oil revenue provides some 40% of the total revenue for Mexico, the country! What happens when most of this goes away, in a year or two?

Highlights from this article:

Mexico's crude production currently accounts for about 7% of Non-OPEC production, and roughly 4 % of the world's.

"The falling output is the result of steep decline rates from maturing oil fields (mainly Cantarell Field), a lack of foreign investment, and a high tax burden on Pemex." (MP Note: Their deepwater needs to be developed, and they need help from US and other foreign companies in order to do so. And "living off PEMEX" needs to be stopped. Unfortunately, neither will make up for the decline of the huge, unique, now elderly field known as Cantarell.)

"These declines are so bad that Mexico may become an oil importer within the next five years." (MP Note: emphasis is theirs, and it understates the problem. What will they use to pay for the oil? What will they use to pay for the things that their oil revenue currently pays for?)

As we have mentioned in the past ,Cantarell Field in particular, and Mexico in general, are "Poster Children" for why some of us are really concerned about what is sometimes called "Peak Oil". Namely, we're not finding any more of these wonderful, easy to develop and produce, supergiant oil fields (Tupi doesn't compare), and production from the ones currently producing in the world can go away very, very quickly - as we see with Cantarell.

It is interesting to note that the RJ article doesn't relate the Mexico/Cantarell Field decline to "Peak Oil"; this despite the fact that their last article even focused on the fact that "Peak Oil" likely occurred in 2008! Also, they fail to point out where the US will obtain the oil it currently imports from Mexico. There may be a little surplus in the world, currently, due to the economic activity-based decline in demand, but that will likely be gone due to further depletion, within a year or two. Our guess is that it will be far sooner than five years when Mexico stops exporting.

Cantarell Update, May 2009

Cantarell Field, the world's second or third largest field, produced at a rate of 713,000 barrels per day in April, 2009. In late 2008 (perhaps December) it was producing at a rate of 862,060 barrels per day. This is an annual decline rate of around 35 %, which is not unusual for a solution gas drive field. Most projections of worldwide decline quote overall decline rates of around 5 % per year. Cantarell was producing 2,100,000 barrels per day in late 2004, or around 2.5 % of the world's liquids (not just crude, but also condensate and natural gas liquids). So, here is a substantial portion of the world's oil production that is declining at a rate MUCH faster than 5 % ...

For more information, please see our previous postings.

From: www.upstreamonline.com, May 21, 2009:

Mexico oil exports plummet
By Upstream staff

Mexican oil exports plunged 18.2% in April to levels unseen since 1990 outside hurricane seasons, in more grim news for a key economic motor relied on for a major chunk of government revenues.

Crude export volumes tumbled to 1.177 million barrels per day as yields at Mexico's aging Cantarell field continued to plummet, state oil monopoly Pemex said today.

Oil production declined 4.2% year-on-year to 2.642 million bpd in April, the fourth month in a row that it has been below a targeted level of 2.7 million bpd, according to a Reuters report.

Oil revenues are a key plank of Mexico's economy and the slide in exports was the latest gloomy data for a country already knocked into recession by a drop in US demand for its factory exports.

Tourism revenues have also been dented this year by the H1N1 flu outbreak.

The government depends on oil earnings to fund more than a third of its budget.

The head of the central bank warned this week that a plan to wean Mexico off of its dependence on oil was urgently needed given the dim prospects for boosting output in the medium term.

Mexico is a top three oil supplier to the United States but production has declined steadily since 2004 as the country struggles to replace capacity lost at Cantarell.

The United States risks becoming more dependent on less politically stable sources of oil as Mexico's output dwindles.

Cantarell, which was pumping more than 2 million bpd in 2004, yielded only 713,000 bpd in April, down more than 35% from a year ago, according to energy ministry data.

The latest fall at Cantarell was partially offset by increased output at the nearby Ku Maloob Zaap offshore heavy oil field.

Ku Maloob Zaap, which recently overtook Cantarell as Mexico's biggest producer, yielded a record 814,000 bpd in April, near the maximum 820,000 bpd Pemex thinks it can produce.

Output at Ku Maloob Zaap is expected to begin to decline to 810,000 next year, however.

Pemex has vowed to end this year with oil output at 2.7 million bpd.

Executives say meaningful increases in production from the Chicontepec onshore project starting in July should reverse the trend of declining output in the first half of the year.

Analysts remain skeptical that Pemex will be able to achieve its production goals at Chicontepec, where billions of barrels of crude oil are tightly locked in isolated geological formations, making oil production costly and challenging.

Mexico's deep economic recession has cut at least temporarily Mexico's need for costly gasoline imports.

Pemex said gasoline imports dropped 4.6% to average 302,700 bpd over the first four months of the year.

Mexico depends on imports for approximately 40% of its gasoline supplies due to a shortage of domestic refining capacity.

Construction on a new 300,000 bpd refinery is due to start next year although the plant will not be finished before 2015.

Cantarell Field at 862,060 barrels per day

NOTE: See our postings of March 19, June 21 and August 31, 2008.

Cantarell Field,which first produced in 1979, is the second or third largest oil field in the world.
Cantarell's production rate was 2,100,000 barrels per day in 2004.
In 2005, production began to decline, for the first time.
As shown in the title, production has declined from 2,100,000 barrels per day to 862,060 barrels per day, in just 4 years.

This is why we call Cantarell Field the "Peak Oil Poster Child".

Pemex Oil Production Drops 6.5% on Cantarell Field (Update2)
By Andres R. Martinez

Dec. 22 (Bloomberg) -- Petroleos Mexicanos, the state-owned oil company, said crude oil output fell 6.5 percent in November from the year-earlier period as production at its Cantarell field declined at a faster-than-expected rate.

Production dropped to 2.711 million barrels a day, from 2.901 million barrels a day a year earlier, the company known as Pemex said today on its Web site. In an e-mail, Pemex cited Cantarell, its largest field, as the reason for the drop.

The Mexico City-based company in October lowered its 2008 output forecast by 3.6 percent to as low as 2.7 million barrels a day after interruptions from hurricanes. It was the third time Pemex reduced its forecast this year, after a faster-than- expected decline at Cantarell, the world’s third-largest field.

Cantarell’s output fell 33 percent, more than twice as fast as government estimates, to 862,060 barrels a day from a year earlier. Declining pressure at Cantarell has made it more expensive and harder to continue pumping oil from the offshore deposit.

Cantarell accounted for 32 percent of Pemex’s total output, half of the 65 percent it once represented at its peak.

Oil exports fell 20 percent to 1.511 million barrels a day, according to a chart on Pemex’s Web site.

Mexico is the third-largest supplier of crude to the U.S. Canada and Saudi Arabia are the first- and second-largest suppliers.

Crude oil for February delivery fell $2.45, or 5.8 percent, to settle at $39.91 a barrel at 2:43 p.m. on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Oil has tumbled about 72 percent from a record $147.27 a barrel on July 11.

Natural-gas production jumped 19 percent to a record high of 7.239 billion cubic feet a day in November.

To contact the reporter on this story: Andres R. Martinez in Mexico City at amartinez28@bloomberg.net

Selected slides from the 2008 ASPO-USA Conference

The 2008 ASPO-USA Conference held September 21-23, 2008, in Sacramento, California, featured excellent speakers and significant content. Several nice versions of notes from the Conference have now been published. Further, essentially all of the presentations from the Conference are available in PDF form on the ASPO-USA site at:

http://www.aspo-usa.org/aspousa4/proceedings/

However, if you are like many of us, you may feel as though you don't have the time to download and view all of these presentations, as good as they may be. So, in an effort demonstrate the quality of the content in these presentations, and also as a convenient reference, a selection of slides from a number of the presentations is posted below. The captions shown above each slide indicate this author's comments; the author of the presentation is shown in parentheses, if not on the slide.

Specifically, below you'll find a map showing the locations of that offshore oil which we all keep talking about; the location of ANWR and the relative size of the portion they wish to develop in comparison to the wilderness area; a neat graphic which makes each country's geography proportional to its oil endowment; interesting insights into China's oil and coal consumption; coal reserve info; coal plant efficiency, clean coal and sequestration efficiencies; carbon emissions of coal v. natural gas and much more.

Note: Only a portion of the presentations are represented here; by no means is that reflective of the quality of the presentations not represented here. It is well worth viewing each of the presentations at the ASPO link shown above.

Clean bar graphs showing world importers, and exporters.



Graphical explanation of how much needs to be found, just to "break even".



Big map of N Alaska - where ANWAR, Prudehoe are located.
(Gill Mull)

The "1002 Area", less than 10% of ANWR, where the oil is.
(Gill Mull)


Estimates of "undiscovered" oil in each of the N. Alaska areas.
(Gill Mull)


Simple graph showing US oil production decline, and that of Alaska.
(Gill Mull)

But: diminishing returns from areas added in Alaska, to date.
(Gill Mull)



A startling conclusion.
(Gill Mull)


Neat graphic showing oil producing countries, with their geography proportionately scaled to reflect their oil endowment.
(Jeremy Gilbert)


Excellent - here is how much oil is theoretically available
in each of the prohibited access, offshore areas.
(Jeremy Gilbert)


Ranking of world's largest oilfields.
(Jim Buckee)


Composite map identifying major fields in the Middle East.
(Jim Buckee)



Various named portions of Ghawar, the world's largest oilfield.
Note: Best quality reservoir is in the North, quality gets progressively poorer going South.
(Jim Buckee)

Macro diagram of Middle East deposition and "goodosity".
(Jim Buckee)



Ghawar basics. Has produced 59 - 66 % of what it will ultimately produce.
Note: "Peak Oil" peak rate usually occurs near 50 % depletion, due to physics.
(Jim Buckee)


Mexico's Cantarell - the significant decline is a relatively new phenomenon.
(Jim Buckee)


World Ethanol & "XTL" production and forecast.
Yes, we need it. No, it won't get us out of bind, alone.
(Jim Buckee)




Who, really, is "Big Oil". Hint: Not ExxonMobil, BP or Chevron.
(Jim Buckee)



Lots of estimates on the total endowment of recoverable oil,
but they seem to average around 2 trillion barrels; we've produced about 1 trillion.
(Jim Buckee)



Energy Conservation is first!
(Andy Weissman)

Plan is needed, use the "ripest" options, must begin immediately!
(Andy Weissman)

Thinks gas demand is being underestimated, with grave consequences.
In the end, gas & electricity will likely trade near BTU par with oil.
(Andy Weissman)

Not just an oil/liquid fuels problem - electricity & gas, too.
(Andy Weissman)

Economic effects of natural gas price parity.
Note: this conference was about 3 weeks ago; since that time
our economy has already become crippled! Wow.
(Andy Weissman)


But oil dependence is still the biggest issue. Mr. Weissman seems to understand the seriousness of the situation.
(Andy Weissman)

Potential economic effects.
Note: This conference was about 3 weeks ago; since
that time, California has gone into crisis again - to the tune
of $7 billion.
(Andy Weissman)

This was fresh information for me. But not surprising.
LNG near parity with oil in some markets.
(Andy Weissman)


Five Essential Steps (1-3 shown)
(Andy Weissman)


Five Essential Steps (4-5 shown)
(Andy Weissman)

New approach is needed.
(Andy Weissman)


Action needed now!
(Andy Weissman)


Differences in product costs due to shipping, with higher oil prices.
(Jim Puplava)



Where China get's it electricity. Coal.
(David Fridley)


China's oil is largely for "non-discretionary" uses. In other words,
it is more painful for them to do without. Think about it.
(David Fridley)


Trouble: They will even have a problem with coal.
Exports are going down, imports are going up.
Imports only started a few years ago ...
(David Fridley)



Energy used by the world, by region and by fuel.
(David Hughes)


How many more years of coal do we have in the US?
(David Hughes)


Type of hydrocarbons used by world, versus left in the world.
(David Hughes)




When coal production may "peak", and each country's contribution.
(David Hughes)


How clean can you get "clean coal", what does it do to the plant efficiency?
(David Hughes)


Comparison of Carbon Capture and Storage systems (CCS),
efficiencies of various plant technologies, with and without CCS.
(David Hughes)


Comparison of Carbon Capture and Storage systems (CCS),
capital costs of various plant technologies, with and without CCS.
(David Hughes)



Efficiencies: Heat Capture v. IGCC with CCS
(David Hughes)


An important, big picture message from Mr. Hughes.
Conservation should be first and foremost.
Further plant complexity is only a stopgap.
(David Hughes)



Complexity v. Simplicity: Sustainability is found at the balance point.
(David Hughes)


A bigger, big picture.
(David Hughes)


Power Down - or Collapse. That is the question.
Note: Mr. Hughes is quite cognizant of the other forms
or alternate and conventional energy.
(David Hughes)


Coal reserves by country.
(Michael Webber)


How much coal is left in the US?
(Michael Webber)


Coal plant efficiencies.
(Michael Webber)


Coal to liquids (CTL) economics.
(Michael Webber)


How do coal, oil and natural gas compare, carbon-emission wise?
(Michael Webber)


Diagram of carbon capture at a coal plant.
(Michael Webber)


US Air Force is the world's largest energy consumer! Wow!
They are evidently concerned about their liquid fuel sources.
(Michael Webber)


Truth about Brazil's reported energy independence!
Hint: It takes a lot of oil for them to be independent.
(Robert Rapier)


Brazil v. US - oil consumption & production, per capita.
(Robert Rapier)


Proposed solutions.
(Robert Rapier)


Additional recommendations.
(Robert Rapier)