Oil - Produced by the Earth?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

Now I wanted to post this separately. What does everyone know about the gas to liquid technology?

Recently advances have been made seriously dropping the cost involved. Natural gas can be turned into diesel, as well as other hydrocarbons.

This is important for a variety of reasons. They have found that adding the proper microbes to oil fields results in the production of methane, and in fairly large quantities. So once an oil field is no longer viable to pump, they can simply send the microbes in, and up comes methane. Then they can turn that methane into synthetic oil and synthetic fuel.

Currently every major oil company is investing heavily into this. In fact Chevron is already building a plant to produce 34,000 barrels a day of liquids.

Now realize that 3.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas is simply released into the atmosphere, or simply burned, just because it is not worth it to transport it. Plus 5 quadrillion (that’s 15 zeros, or 5X10^15) cubic feet of natural gas is not even being developed because of size and transportation issues.

But with this technology, the methane waste is suddenly turned into fuel, plus old nonproductive oil fields, and untapped resources are also turned into fuel.

Plus need be we can make the stuff. We have had a water treatment plant doing that locally for over a decade, possibly two.

What does this mean? I do not think we will ever hit a “peak”. This is a real replacement for crude, and possibly to the point that it has the potential of taking over a large share of the market relieving any pressure on crude production.

And by the time this would “peak” oil and synfuel will become an outdated source of energy.

62

“There is a slight problem with that argument though. Yes oil production has declined since 2005, this is true, but only because OPEC has decided to cut production. And unlike the 90’s, members are actually cutting the supply. Maybe not as much as they agree too, but they actually do it. .5 million barrels a day cut results in 180 million barrels a year reduction.”

I guess that’s the trick, eh? For example, for the last two years, Saudi Arabia has promised to increase production, yet hasn’t been able to. On top of that, there is pretty good proof the Saudi’s, (and the rest of OPEC) artificially inflated reserves estimates.

63

[quote]joeisdead wrote:

I guess that’s the trick, eh? For example, for the last two years, Saudi Arabia has promised to increase production, yet hasn’t been able to. On top of that, there is pretty good proof the Saudi’s, (and the rest of OPEC) artificially inflated reserves estimates.[/quote]

Gee, why would they be dragging their feet? It’s not like they suddenly have tons of cash flowing into their bank accounts right now is it?

You have to understand the game they are playing. They recently said they were going to invest $90 billion in boosting their oil production over the next 5 years, and this was just three days after they said they didn’t want to increase production because it would “destabilize the market”.

The peak oil argument is that their increases in reserves are made up, but they have actually trailed the non-OPEC countries, which are more verifiable, meaning that their numbers are actually more believable, if not understated.

Again there is no reason to hide it if production is actually declining because it would increase prices all by itself, which would benefit them.

64

“Again there is no reason to hide it if production is actually declining because it would increase prices all by itself, which would benefit them.”

They need to keep investing such massive amounts just to keep production sustained at its current levels. They’re already using less than ideal methods than include pumping water into wells. Personally, the Saudi’s have made so many contradictory statements about production and capacity, I feel more confident rely on former industry workers rather than the Royal Family. As is, they have NOT been able to hide the fact that their production has been falling in major fields like Ghawar. Yet, they continue to keep promising to increase production, as to not have investor cofindence mauled.

Think about it: Why invest in Saudi oil if all major fields are in decline? It’s a risky proposition to begin with. Better to invest in Brazil, or Mexico, or any new fields, for that matter.

65

[quote]joeisdead wrote:

They need to keep investing such massive amounts just to keep production sustained at its current levels. They’re already using less than ideal methods than include pumping water into wells. [/quote]

This is one of the methods used to increase the amount of oil that a field can produce. There is really nothing unusual to this. As I stated earlier there is research into pumping CO2 into these fields that has also been successful.[quote]

Personally, the Saudi’s have made so many contradictory statements about production and capacity, I feel more confident rely on former industry workers rather than the Royal Family. As is, they have NOT been able to hide the fact that their production has been falling in major fields like Ghawar. Yet, they continue to keep promising to increase production, as to not have investor cofindence mauled. [/quote]

As a member of OPEC, I think they need to convince OPEC to change the numbers. Plus if there is an increase, the OPEC countries would want it spread out across all countries.

OPEC used to be known for being unable to follow the agreements they made about controlling their production. They kept overproducing. They made agreements, but none of the countries ever followed it.

I remember when it was reported that things had changed, and that suddenly OPEC got their act together. And people were believing they would actually keep a cap on production. (They are still overproducing, but not barely like they were.) This was shortly before prices began to climb. (And I started complaining about gas hitting $1.29 a gallon.)

And Ghawar is one of the oldest fields still producing anywhere.

There is the following quote by Peter Jackson of CERA:

“There is no technical evidence that Ghawar is about to decline,” Mr Jackson said.

This is also part of the article I found this in:

A landmark study of more than 800 oilfields by Cambridge Energy Research Associates has concluded that rates of decline are only 4.5 per cent a year, almost half the rate previously believed, leading the consultancy to conclude that oil output will continue to rise over the next decade.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23073345-11949,00.html

Are you sure you are not getting your information from Peak Oil websites?

Why does this even matter? They are not looking for investments because their fields are nationalized, and they are the ones who pump it, and sell it, and if they need to invest in some field, they sure as hell have got all the money they need.

This is also why they can sell gas to their own people for $0.45 a gallon.

66

Oh yeah, this is starting to get boring. Not sure how it can really continue without regurgitating what has already been said.

By the way deadjoe, are you here just for this debate, or the full website?

67

I agree.

I love reading articles on the main site, and I like to browse the rest of the forums. I’m trying to get my squat up in hopes of entering a PL contest next year.