Cheap peek oil, we must be there............

[Mega]

.........if not we close:-
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-1...il-gas-miracle
Mike

[Forrest]

Re: Cheap peek oil, we must be there............

Long since in my view...everyone else is lying about it. I wonder how long that article will stand before some reporter gets someone at Shell to walk it back. After all, isn't Voser the 'failed' CEO? He must not understand all the variables...or something.

[GRG55]

Re: Cheap peek oil, we must be there............

Long since in my view...everyone else is lying about it. I wonder how long that article will stand before some reporter gets someone at Shell to walk it back. After all, isn't Voser the 'failed' CEO? He must not understand all the variables...or something.

The "failed" Shell executive is Philip Watts, who was asked to resign as Chairman by the Shell Board in 2004 after the infamous Shell reserves scandal which resulted in a 3.9 billion barrel writedown, or about 20% of Shell's worldwide reserves at the time.

Voser stepped into a difficult role leading a major multinational petroleum company during this time. Rex Tillerson at Exxon, Tony Hayward at BP and most of their peers haven't done much better over that same period.

Shell's difficulties were already known when it posted 2nd Q 2013 financials. Here's a thread with some discussion among various iTulip members of the implications for Shell and unconventional resource plays when those results were released:

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...145#post264145

[Forrest]

Re: Cheap peek oil, we must be there............

The "failed" Shell executive is Philip Watts, who was asked to resign as Chairman by the Shell Board in 2004 after the infamous Shell reserves scandal which resulted in a 3.9 billion barrel writedown, or about 20% of Shell's worldwide reserves at the time.

Voser stepped into a difficult role leading a major multinational petroleum company during this time. Rex Tillerson at Exxon, Tony Hayward at BP and most of their peers haven't done much better over that same period.

Shell's difficulties were already known when it posted 2nd Q 2013 financials. Here's a thread with some discussion among various iTulip members of the implications for Shell and unconventional resource plays when those results were released:

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...145#post264145

Thanks for the correction, GRG...I don't want to trash the wrong person...although I don't actually know if Watts could have done all that much better than he did. He can't put oil where there is none...the article that Mega referenced is about the illusive, if not imaginary nature of the New American Oil Rush. My comment was more about the fact that everyone is lying about how much oil there is to get out of the fracking fields. I was actually surprised at Voser's honesty about the nature of the reality we face.


Peter Voser says he regrets Shell’s huge bet on US shale



The journalist mentioned, Daniel Yergen, on the other hand was very unhappy about the oil independence meme being contradicted.


"Not a day goes by without a story in the MSM by some industry shill like Daniel Yergen about the imminent energy independence of the Great American Empire. Shale oil and gas will revolutionize the American energy prospects. We have hundreds of years of oil and gas under our feet. We will be a net exporter in the next few years. A glorious future awaits. Politicians tout the billions of barrels to be extracted from Bakken, Eagle Ford and the hundreds of untapped shale formations across the country. Wall Street puts out glowing investment analysis papers promoting the latest IPO. There’s just one little problem. It’s all hype.
Royal Dutch Shell is one of the biggest corporations in the world, with financial resources greater than 99% of all the organizations on earth. Their CEO probably knows a little bit more about oil exploration than the Wall Street systers and CNBC bimbos. His company has poured $24 billion into shale exploration in the U.S. It has been a huge failure. They have already written off $2.1 billion. They are trying to sell huge swaths of land in the Eagle Ford area. They are losing money in the shale oil and gas business. If Shell can’t make it profitable, who can?
The flow rates are too low. The extraction costs are too high. Companies will only invest in ventures where they have a reasonable chance to make money. Shell is a rational company, led by a rational man. He says they can’t make money. Of course, if oil prices reach $150 and natural gas prices reach $8, then companies can make money. All of the cheap easily accessible oil and gas have been accessed. Only the expensive hard to access oil and gas are left. The shyters never mention these facts when they tout our future energy independence.
Reality is a bitch. The truth will set you free."


Thanks also for the link!

[vt]

Re: Cheap peek oil, we must be there............

Forbes denies it's a problem because of "other" factors:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2013/09/02/shale-gas-production-and-high-decline-rates/

[mkeplinger]

Re: Cheap peek oil, we must be there............

In less than 3 years, U.S. Oil Production is up about 29% (or 48 million bb/month). Is there a data source that shows they type of wells that are responsible for the increases?
For example, with data from eia.gov, I found that just two regions are accounting for almost 50 million bb / month.

North Dakota and Texas Field

The North Dakota is primarily production from the Bakken field. Any guesses as to when the production increases may start flattening out and then decreasing?
The Texas Field - is the huge increases (100% increase in < 3 years) coming from the now economical extraction of previous wells or new shale production?




I guess the second part of my "wondering" is when the increases in production in the U.S. may revert. I get the sense that a lot has to do with what portion of the new oil production is coming from shale vs. now economical extraction of old wells (past the easy oil) part.

[Forrest]

Re: Cheap peek oil, we must be there............

Yes...evidently if once you find oil at a site, you can keep on recovering it, presumably by moving away until the area refills from oil seeping in from adjacent areas, and then sticking your straw back in, and voila, there's still oil! Thus we are independent. I can't help wondering who buried the oil to be retrieved, just like salting a played out gold mine, but that's my cynicism showing.

The problem remains...it's not cheap to recover, and it's not new production. It is only continuing production. Without new standard oil fields being brought on of known oil deposits, the oil bonanza will dissipate into the lies and propaganda that are pumping a small measure of truth into a horrendous lie. But only to keep the $Dollar strong, of course...no one could possibly be making money on the financial side of the equation while the 'mountain' is crowed about, and everyone keeps hiding the 'molehill'.