Shell Says Brazil Oil Sites Are Viable

[NVMojo]

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (AP) - Four offshore oil exploration areas owned jointly by Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Brazilian state-run oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA, and Exxon Mobil Corp. are commercially viable, Shell's Brazilian unit said in a statement Monday.

The four areas are within the BC-10 offshore block located about 74 miles off the coast of Brazil's southeastern state of Espirito Santo.

Shell and Petrobras each have a 35 percent stake in the block, while Texas-based Exxon Mobil has 30 percent.

The block which has reserves estimated at 400 million barrels of oil, could produce between 60,000 and 100,000 barrels a day of crude as of 2009, according to Shell.

more...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/invest-corp/2005/dec/26/122607899.html

[Oerdin]

1. South America and Africa

Are two large off shore areas which are only just beginning to be exploited for oil. The peak oil people ignore things like this. There are a lot of sources for oil still out there but they're going to be in ever more remote and difficult places to reach. We won't just run out but the price will rise as the easiest to exploit locations run out.

[Strelnikov_]

23. Since When Has Peak Oil Been About Running Out?

Peak oil is the end of easy oil. Production rate and price will suffer. Finds like this will never offset depletion of the easy oil mega giants (Gharwar, Cantarell, etc.).

More (and more and more) Reich-Wing talking points.

[lapfog_1]

2. Wow

a whole .13 percent of the current oil production of the world. So, let's see. We need only find 769 more oil fields of this size and we are good for another 5 to 10 years. Cool!

(heavy sarcasm!!!)

[Oerdin]

3. OK

We can check back in 5 to 10 years and see if oil has run out. I wouldn't hold my breath. ;)

Just the basic facts. We've just begun to look off shore in South America & Africa, haven't seriously started hunting in the artic or antartic, nor in most deep water places (which make up 70% of the earth's surface,) nor even for deep wells on land. There is more oil out there, by far, then all of mankind has ever burned to date.

The problem is that it is going to come from more and more remote locations and it is going to cost more and more to get at. We should be conserving just based upon that fact not to mention the enviromental aspect. The headless chicken, sky is falling claim that we will run out of oil and society will degenerate to a preindustrial state (which I have heard a minority of people at this website support) is just rubbish. Prices will keep going up but we won't run out for a very long time. Eventually the economics will shift and it will be cheaper to use other energy sources but that may take a while. It would be prudent to conserve and to diversify but the oil shock of the 1970's shows that's politically difficult to maintain.

[IDemo]

4. Sources, please

"There is more oil out there, by far, then all of mankind has ever burned to date."

Really? By this, you're calling Hubbert not only wrong, but utterly foolish.

I would be interested to hear where you obtained the data to derive such a statement. Are you a petroleum geologist?

[Oerdin]

5. No, not a petroleum gelogist.

Just a just a registered professional geologist in the state of California. I work in the enviromental industry instead of the petroleum industry so feel free to discount what I say if you wish. I do get tired of hearing utter nonsense though. The problem with Hubbert is he's been preaching his end of times story for 30 years now and he's been wrong about so much. I honestly think it is more an article of faith for him then sound science. Oil is a nonrenewable resources so we should conserve it, however, Hubbert greatly underestimates the amount out there. We literally have 70% of the earth's surface left unexplored for oil. Right now prices aren't high enough to make the deep water platforms needed to recover those reserves but as prices slowly rise more and more platforms will be made in deeper and deeper water.

Eventually the price will rise so much that people will switch to other energy sources. The predictions I've seen on this very site that the world economy will collapse because no one can get oil simply don't add up though.

[lapfog_1]

7. I'm not even sure where to begin here

"The problem with Hubbert is he's been preaching his end of times story for 30 years now and he's
been wrong so much"

Actually, Hubbert talked about peak oil in terms of predicting the decline of the US based
oil production. And he was spot perfect on.

Here is the Wikipedia entry on the subject:

The Hubbert peak theory, also known as "peak oil", concerns the long-term rate of conventional oil (and other fossil fuel) extraction and depletion. It is named after American geophysicist M. King Hubbert, who created a model of known reserves, and proposed, in 1956, in a paper he presented <1> at a meeting of the American Petroleum Institute, that oil production in the continental United States would peak between 1965 and 1970; and that world production would peak in 2000.

U.S. oil production peaked in 1971 <2>, and has been decreasing since then. Global production did not peak in 2000. Supporters of peak theory suggest Hubbert's model did not account for the 1973 and 1979 OPEC oil shocks, which effectively reduced global demand for oil, thus delaying the peak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

Anyway, Hubbert has not been proved wrong, period. If anything, he has been proved correct.

The point is, a 100 MBPD oil field, even when put into production, won't make a dent in the marketplace. Despite a rise in prices to over $50 / barrel, there haven't been any significant oil finds in 20 years, and that includes the Arctic National Wildlife preserve.

We need to prepare now (if it's not too late) to move beyond the age of oil. For our environment,
for national security, and for the future of humanity, we need to do this. And, at the same time,
we need to limit population growth (in fact, we need to plan now for population reduction). This planet cannot sustain 7 to 10 billion humans, especially to a quality of life (resource consumption) that billions now believe is within their grasp.

There was another thread here recently where someone was complaining that a freeper relative was saying that the reason gasoline prices have risen so much is that "liberals" have kept any new gasoline refineries from being built. But that is bullshit (as many responders to the thread pointed out). Oil companies have no interest in building more refineries... because they know
that they won't need them, there is enough refining capacity now (with some new ones built in
other regions of the world and improvements in efficiency) to process all of the oil they intend
on pumping... ever.

[Oerdin]

13. You are simply wrong

"Anyway, Hubbert has not been proved wrong, period. If anything, he has been proved correct."

You are simply incorrect.

http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1300.html

"In 1956, Marion King Hubbert forecast that world oil production would peak sometime between 1993 and 2000; although his prediction for global oil production was wrong, he did correctly anticipate that U.S. oil production would peak in the early 1970s."

The US's production decrease has many reasons. Part of it is that there is less oil but much more of it has to do with the expense of doing business in the US, the fact that much of the US oil is "soar" (meaning has hydrogen sulfide gas in it which makes it more expensive to refine, tends to be thicker and thus more difficult to pump and refine, and similiar factors. Most of the middle eastern wells are light sweet crude (meaning they're cheap to get and easy to refine) so they have a competitive advantage which means they can pump more cheaply then we can. Much of this decline is simply relative cost differences compared to other producers. It costs a lot of money to develop new wells or even to restart existing capped wells so oil companies won't do it unless they're sure prices are going to stay high enough long enough to justify the expense. Most of them have come to the conclusion prices will stay relatively high and the US is currently experiencing a drilling boom though this has been partially off set by hurricane damage in the Gulf Coast region.

Hubbert's central thesis was that oil production would decline because we'd run out of recoverable reserves and that is fundimentally false. US oil production declined not because our reserves declined, they're higher then ever, but because we couldn't compete against cheaper foreign sources.

[Strelnikov_]

24. "Most Of The Middle Eastern Wells Are Light Sweet Crude"

Is that why the Saudi's recently stated that all the excess capacity they have to offer is heavy sour?

Also, I wonder how Venezuela is able to keep pumping, considering most the their oil is heavy sour.

How about those tar sands, kinda heavy. Considering the money being thrown at the tar sands, don't you think those capped wells all over Texas we keep hearing about would have been uncapped by now?

More (and more) Reich-Wing talking points.

[IDemo]

8. There's no 'running out'. But the running short is a killer

The phrase "run out of oil" has no place in discussions of peak oil, natural gas, or any other resource. It's not 'running-out' per se we have to worry about, it is maintaining a high enough volume of production to fuel an ever expanding economy. Geologists have been looking for this stuff for many decades, and have a very good idea about where the economically recoverable deposits are, most having been developed and well on the path to depletion by now. The 'promising new discoveries' seen over the past two decades have been primarily in difficult areas, geologically or politically, of poor quality, or low volumes. These make for good news bites, but generally don't add much to the total energy equation.

Colin Campbell: "Don't worry about oil running out; it won't for very many years," the Oxford PhD told the bankers in a message that he will repeat to businessmen, academics and investment analysts at a conference in Edinburgh next week. "The issue is the long downward slope that opens on the other side of peak production. Oil and gas dominate our lives, and their decline will change the world in radical and unpredictable ways," he says."

Campbell reckons global peak production of conventional oil - the kind associated with gushing oil wells - is approaching fast, perhaps even next year. His calculations are based on historical and present production data, published reserves and discoveries of companies and governments, estimates of reserves lodged with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, speeches by oil chiefs and a deep knowledge of how the industry works.

"About 944bn barrels of oil has so far been extracted, some 764bn remains extractable in known fields, or reserves, and a further 142bn of reserves are classed as 'yet-to-find', meaning what oil is expected to be discovered. If this is so, then the overall oil peak arrives next year," he says.

If he is correct, then global oil production can be expected to decline steadily at about 2-3% a year, the cost of everything from travel, heating, agriculture, trade, and anything made of plastic rises. And the scramble to control oil resources intensifies.

Your link draws much of its info from the Oil and Gas Journal, which states: "many large new deposits are waiting to be found." The scale of what represents "large" in a new oil discovery has changed dramatically over the past 50 years. A billion barrels sounds like a lot, but is only about 12 days of global usage. And, that billion barrels is almost certainly not the 'sweet light crude' that Saudi Aramco has enjoyed from its giant Ghawar oilfield.

The SPE also references the USGS, which laughingly agreed to embrace Saudi Aramco's spurious increase (effectively double) in its latest stated reserves, after having done the same thing around 1990.

[fedsron2us]

10. As a professional geologist I am sure you are aware Hubbert died in 1989

so I very much doubt whether he has been making any 'end of time pronouncements' for the past 16 years.

[Oerdin]

21. Believe it or not.

Few people in my industry know or care much about Hubbert. They've no doubt heard his theories but dropping that name isn't likey to stir much reaction out of them. They'v other things they think about and worry about on a daily basis.

[Oerdin]

6. BTW here is a good source.

An objective view made by scientists who work in the field and who understand it inside and out.

http://www.spe.org/spe/jsp/basic/0,,1104_1008218_1109511,00.html

[blindpig]

9. Concerning your link...

No vested interests there, eh?

[Oerdin]

12. By that logic

We shouldn't ask automechanics about cars, muscians about music, computer programers about computer programs or any one else about the industry they know best. It may surprise you but geologists & petroleum engineers tend to know their industry very well.

The fact remains that the dispite decades of claiming the end is near today our recoverable reserves, that is the percentage of known reserves which we can expect to get out of the ground, are higher then ever and we're adding plenty more. Should we conserve? Oh yes, if only because using resources more efficently is good policy and because doing so will help improve the environment. Will prices rise? Yes again, it simply costs more to build off shore platforms or pipelines to ever more remote areas then it does to pump from shallow wells in Texas or the Persian Gulf. Will there ever be mass shortages due to the world running out of oil? Not likely; at least not for a very long time.

Since most of our oil is imported it makes economic sense for the US to consume less since it will reduce our sizable trade deficit much of which is composed of imported oil. For this reason you'll find I consistantly support large increases in CAFE standards as well as a switch to nuclear power. doing so will help the environment and decrease the amount of dollars leaving the American economy which wind up in the hands of dictators and people with ideologies incompatable with western style democracy.

[poopfuel]

14. oh, brother- nuclear power!

1. Where are you going to put the waste?
2. Who is going to mine the uranium for you and what happens when it runs out?
3. Will you move next door to all the nuclear power plants out there? Or are sites only to be put in poor people's neighborhoods?
4. Will you compel Nevadans to put all the waste in their mountain?

Issues you ignore revolve not around the issue of how much oil there is- there is a lot- but the quality (heavy crude) and the expense and pollution (tar sands, shale) involved in pulling it out. Most of our energy consumption is from vehicle usage anyway,it's not about power plants now, is it? Conservation, while honorable, is a drop in the bucket.

Thanks for sticking nuclear power plants in my back yard. I feel safer already! BTW, are you paying the insurance costs for the plants as well?

For the best alternative to fossil fuels and imported oil, see
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x35706 entry 55

[newyawker99]

15. Hi poopfuel!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Oerdin]

16. Gee, I never get tired of refuting the same old claims.

It isn't like those answers have been provided in two or three dozen threads before. Nope. It doesn't bother me in the slightest to continually keep answering the same, previously answered, questions. The anti-nuclear nuts are like the flat Earthers because they plug their ears and then refuse to acknowledge reasonable discourse or answers from the other side. They'll ask the same question twenty times, and ignore all the answers, vainly hoping that no one else will pay attention to the real solutions which have been given or the examples of why their arguments are logical fallacies. I have no time to answer people who stuff their ears with cotton and refuse to honestly debate the answers.

[rustydad]

18. Hubbert missed one thing...

Technology changed the curve. With new drilling techniques like horzontal and bottle brush oil can be removed quicker. The curve on the downside then becomes much steeper. That may delay *Peak* a few years but make the after peak much worse. Bob

[NNadir]

11. Even if the core of the earth proved to be 100% recoverable petroleum...

...it would still not be a good idea to burn it.

Petroleum, coal, and natural gas are unacceptably dangerous fuels. This has nothing to do with their relative availability, although we should all recognize that increasingly complicated modes of recovery are inherently more dangerous than simpler methods. Instead the danger has everything to do with the atmosphere.

[rustydad]

17. Damed if we do, damed if we don't....

Most experts agree that we have likely use 1/2 of the recoverable oil in the world. The low hanging fruit. The second half is going to get much harder to recover. The costs will climb and economies will pay a heavy price. On the other hand if we do manage to burn the second half we surely will roast the planet. Perhaps it is already being roasted as it take 100s of years to purge the atmosphere of CO2. Die-off or burn-off, does it matter which? Bob

[philb]

19. Futher supports Brazil's leader as a true world leader & spokesman

for many in the developing countries

[Sven77]

20. i dont think we'll hit peak oil anytime soon

enviromentalist groups funded by the oil companies telling us we are running out of oil.

I like what Brazil is doing

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0417-23.htm

In Brazil, by law, all gasoline contains a minimum of 25 percent alcohol. Yet ethanol is so popular it actually accounts for 40 percent of all vehicle fuel.

By 2007, 100 percent of all new Brazilian cars may be able to run on 100 percent ethanol. Brazilian sugar-cane-fed biorefineries will be capable of producing sufficient ethanol to allow the entire fleet, new and old cars alike, to do so.

[Oerdin]

22. It's a good program

Though an expensive one. Brazil has a problem in that the rich countries all subsidize the hell out of their farmers making it very hard for an honest farmer in Brazil to make a living. Brizil produces a lot of sugar cane which they didn't have a market for due to decreases in per capita consumption of sugar over the last 30 years but also because of subsidized farm products such as corn syrup and sugar beats. Thus the Brazilian government sought new domestic uses for its sugar crop hoping to off set the importation of other goods. They settled on ethanol blended gasoline because sugar easily produces large quantities of ethanol and that would mean that Brazil could slash their importation of foreign oil.

It has been a win-win situation for Brazil's farmers and the nation's balance of trade. Until about a year ago it did mean that Brazilians paid more for gas then other Latin American countries but now the economics have shifted and ethanol blends are slightly cheaper then regular unleaded gasoline.

[Strelnikov_]

25. Peak Oil Awareness Began As An Internet Based Sharing Of Resources

And, again, since when is peak oil 'running out of oil'.

Peak-oil denial is a Reich-Wing propaganda effort to keep us hooked on petroleum as we enter the peak earning years for those holding the oil. The pusher wants to keep us hooked so they can jack up prices when the panic sets in.

Peak oil = peak profits.