Exxon President Slams Peak Oil Concept

by **eric144** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:48 pm

It's the same trick with global warming. There are some very vocal anti- global warming groups out there. It takes a greenpeace smart ass about 24 hours to discover (from their published accounts !!) they are sponsored by Exxon and support Mr Bush. The smart ass then proudly tells the world of his amazing discovery. It proves that global warming is real. Doh ! Fourteen out of fifteen sheep could have done the same.

by JD » Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:54 pm

Right on eric144. So the President of Exxon is a lying SOB. Gotcha. You don't go so far to say so, but it is safe to assume you believer ALL Oil Company Presidents are liars, and simply say what will make them money. Of course by extension so would the President of Chevron. Each President and company has a different position on Peak Oil. So which one is lying about peak oil? But as oil company Presidents they are both lying...... Ooops logic bust. Reality is of course more nuanced. In reality; I think oil companies want to downplay peak oil as it implies limits to their corporate longevity and viability. It is hard after to grow your company on a declining resource base. So you can take too choices with which to promote your company. Choice one is that "we'll be making oil at above current rates in decades to come"; this is the Exxon choice. Choice two is that "look you'd better own oil now as the price of the stuff is going to the moon with impending shortages"; this is the Chevron choice. I could absolutely see different companies chosing different messages depending on their resource base. Hmmmm..... maybe not everyone is lying to me all the time but people are saying different things for real reasons. Is that more rational than kneejerk conspiracy theorization?

by **eric144** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:04 pm

"Each President and company has a different position on Peak Oil. " THAT is the lie. All industries are cartels, particularly oil. Competition is an illusion amongst major companies. There have been some giant anti-trust cases in the EU recently. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=eric144>eric144</A> at: 11/9/05 6:42 pm

by **wintler** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:23 pm

I find it pretty telling that the whole substance of peak oil 'debate' on RI consists of ad hominem judgements - R.Heinberg sounds like a Thulian and resided at a suspect community, so must be a fascist; PO debunkers sound like Exxon CEO so PO must be true; C.Campbell worked for Shell so its all a NWO plot (but still no ghost of an idea how). Its all "my prejudice times my assumptions divided by bias of fav.info source = ..no worries!". To say "We've done peak oil on this site and done it again and again" (DE) is just nonsense - it has been referred to, some people mentioning it have been labelled and defamed, but NO-ONE has even attempted anything like a rebuttal of the quantitative evidence of ASPO, C.Campbell, J.Leherrere, R.Duncan, W.Youngquist, L.Magoon, S.Bhaktiari, Al Hussaini, ... Sure, its been alleged that oh cos C.Campbell worked for an oil company he must therefore be lying, as must anyone who makes any similar noises, but frankly, i've had more intelligent conversations with drunks on trains. Personally, i give a whole lot more weight to: -the failure of last 5yrs exploration to find enough oil to pay its way -the oil/gas wars ongoing in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Columbia ... -the US' recent enthusiasm for the 'plight' of western Africa (all those poor Africans with all that oil (actually not very much oil) they can't afford to extract - guess we'd better build half a dozen military bases) -the jump in refinery fires as light-sweet refineries try to process heavy-sour crude ('bottom of the barrel' mean anything to anyone?) -the Saudi's constant failure to deliver on promises (going back 2 yrs now) for millions more barrels/day -the 35-50+% salt water coming out of Saudi's Ghawar field ...www.energybulletin.net I could go on, and on, but i know nonspooky events and boring old numbers aren't even heard here. And thats a shame, cos it puts all the work done here on 'deep politics' at a terrible disconnect from the situation of the physical biosphere we homicidal apes are so busy consuming and excreting. I'd like to give the deep politics stuff more credence, but when i see it being used only to obscure real physical issues i have to wonder if its not just another entertainment to keep the cattle quiet. And Blacklight? a) where is a working model? b) HOW does it (supposedly) evade the laws of thermodynamics, putting out so much energy on so little fuel? d) how long before can build sev.hundred million mobile working models to run even just US transportation?

by **heath7** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:56 pm

Mr. Exxon is going to say whatever he feels to be selfishly appropriate, whenever he feels it to be selfishly appropriate, as will Mr. BP, Mr. Shell, and even Mr. Citgo. The truth has nothing to do with it.

by **Bismillah** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 10:00 pm

"I find it pretty telling that the whole substance of peak oil 'debate' on RI consists of ad hominem judgements" "it puts all the work done here on 'deep politics' at a terrible disconnect from the situation of the physical biosphere we homicidal apes are so busy consuming and excreting." Exactly. And it really needed to be said.

by **Dreams End** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 10:44 pm

Well, maybe with oil company RECORD PROFITS, the oil companies can invest in some new tech, eh? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Record profits that major oil companies reported this week are prompting demands from politicians in both parties for an investigation into consumer gouging as gasoline prices spiked after the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. ExxonMobil Corp. reported $10 billion in net income in the third quarter, the largest ever by a U.S. energy company. ExxonMobil's earnings announcement that profits rose 75 percent from last year followed a BP announcement of $6.5 billion in profits, up 34 percent and ConocoPhillips reporting its income grew to $3.8 billion, up 89 percent. Shortly after the Exxon Mobil announcement, while he was standing on the floor of the New York Stock Exhange, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) called for congressional hearings and investigation into oil company profiteering. "If there are those who abuse the free enterprise system to advantage themselves and their businesses at the expense of all Americans, they ought to be exposed, and they ought to be ashamed," Frist said. Politicians are taking aim at big oil as public opinion surveys find consumers across the country up in arms about energy costs. The petroleum industry is urging a cautious attitude in Congress amid all the accusations of price gouging. An American Petroleum Institute analysis asserts that the massive increase in earnings simply reflects the size of the oil industry. API insists that oil industry earnings, when measured against sales, are in line with other industries' earnings the last five years.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/oil_price_probe.html">www.consumeraffairs.com/n...probe.html</a> But seriously, JD, you better go read what's in the archives, because we've done beaten this one to death. Since I don't receive insider reports directly from the oil industry, I find that looking into the background of those reporting those findings to me to be important. And if they have an agenda, I want to know it. Personally, I assume that corporations lie all the time. I think that's a pretty wise attitude, myself.

by **Prac** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:12 pm

Hi people If you really want to understand the importance of the great OilCo scam in forming the Matrix within which we live, all you need to start from is the data below. <img src="http://prac.lindalane.com/Oil_costs.jpg" style="border:0;"/> Is anyone interested? Peak Oil or not, the Oil Cos have shaped just about every aspect of our received Reality. Its falling apart... right now. _________ What's done in this world is what's paid for... ...Who's had the Money

by **Prac** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:26 pm

PS sussurus2's post in the Blacklight thread should not be dimissed or allowed to disappear into obsurity. <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=1807.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...1807.topic</a> What's done in this world is what's paid for... ...Who's had the Money

by **Dreams End** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:39 pm

prac, I like that you give data, but I'm wondering about the significance of 40-year-old data on production costs. Care to fill in the less astute among us? (i.e. me).

by JD » Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:43 pm

I was just typing the same reply. The relevance eludes me. I don't have data at hand but would guess in North America average F&D costs are in the $15/bbl range while operating costs are about $10/bbl.

by **Prac** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:58 pm

DE and JD Don't be so slack. Think. Some rigorous intuition. Some clues to help. Margins and prices. And is there still an indigenous US oil industry. The world we have now has been shaped by the investment decisions of profitable corporations. They were doing it 40 years ago. How did things change in the intervening period? As I usually sign off: What's done in this world is what's paid for... ...Who's had the MoneyEdited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=prac@rigorousintuition>Prac</A> at: 11/9/05 9:00 pm

by JD » Thu Nov 10, 2005 12:39 am

I'm still rather at a loss to understand the relevancy of a 40 year old cost structure. I did have a bit of fun looking at the data though! Hey – I’m up for some Rigorous ANALYSIS – fuck the intuition part! I’m a Petroleum Engineer and am equipped to do so! So for the period indicated and based on achieving a recycle ratio of 2x and assuming a 1/8 royalty structure, I'd guesstimate then that US producers needed to average an average sales price of $3.30 to be profitable in the time period quoted. Maybe they were developing longer reserve life projects then and could get away with a bit lower sales price. Now comes the cool part..... nominal oil prices were about $3 in that time period. <a href="http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp">inflationdata.com/inflati..._Table.asp</a> Talk about market efficiency! Let’s dial forward to today. Let's assume an average of $15/bbl F&D costs, and say $8/bbl operating costs, along with 20% royalties payable on average. Definition of finding and development costs: capital spent / reserves developed, in $/bbl Definition of netback: sales price less operating costs and royalty, in $/bbl Definition of recycle ratio: netback / finding and development costs, dimensionless Plugging in the numbers above, for a recycle ratio of 2x a company needs to sell oil at $57.70. Hey - we're back into where things should be. Maybe the efficient market hypothesis has merit (I've never been a huge fan of it!) The recycle ratio of 2x takes into account time value of money effects; generally people use it without understanding it. One time I did a big table on this and found it works with reserves life indexes in the 6 to 9 year range and discount factors in the 8 to 15% range. Selling oil for any less you are losing money. Oil prices have only recently got to the point where domestic production is now profitable on a full cycle basis. Yet foolishly they are not able to collude well enough to keep input costs down so they can make a large economic rent. The silly oil companies should form a cartel or something so they can make a good long term return on investment! Dial back to pre-OPEC days and that's the way things really did work. It doesn't work that way anymore as no one has enough market dominance to impose it. Too many players in the market; for example state owned oil companies like PDVSA just don't play ball. Independants are the same; they just don't play ball and can't be kept down. OK after all that - wtf is the point Prac? That the market is efficient and oil sold then and now for what it should have? ************** Ziff: Western Canada F&D costs rising By OGJ editors HOUSTON, Nov. 9 -- Finding and development costs for natural gas and conventional oil in Western Canada, excluding revisions, have increased 12% to $2.40/Mcf during 2004 compared with the previous year, according to Ziff Energy Group, Calgary. The increase primarily is attributed to smaller recoveries from new gas and oil wells, Ziff said in its annual Western Canada F&D and Reserve Replacement Cost study. Within 8 regional gas strategy areas, 3-year F&D costs were $1.70-3.00/Mcf, and in 5 oil strategy areas, F&D costs were $9-15/bbl. The study found increases in F&D costs for each strategy during the last 5 years.

by **AnnaLivia** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 12:45 am

"If there are those who abuse the free enterprise system to advantage themselves and their businesses at the expense of all Americans, they ought to be exposed, and they ought to be ashamed," Frist said. talk about HUBRIS! that line oughta be carved on that useless peckerhead's tombstone someday. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/mad.gif ALT=">:"> i don't think this issue is simple at all. maybe some of you have this all nailed down, congratulations to you. but i sure don't, and i think it's very important. tick tock. not that it's right, but it is by law that CEO's are beholden to their investors and not to the good of society, right? shouldn't that be remembered when examining their motives? i hope this discussion continues. especially the nuke stuff. i have in the past worked against nuke power, but i am re-examining that position. no, it isn't a de-centralized source, and i'm sure not saying it's safe. but the Dezakin guy who recommends it also says he does so because the technology is ready to go, and we're gonna need it for sure, and he also says that's really only until we can go solar. back later. (btw, i heard Richard Smalley died recently of cancer?) RIP (and the stormfront thang, JD, was about the nazi movement trying to spread their filth around other sites by using subtlety and evasiveness. basically, just...YUK and PUKE.)

by **wordspeak** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 1:00 am

a rebuttal of the "quantitative evidence" ? Well, I know that this piece from Michael Lynch has been posted here: <a href="http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/world-oil.dir/lynch/worldoil.html">sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/j...ldoil.html</a> The relevance of the Peak Oil supporters pushing population reduction/eugenics and being connected to ultra-elites and, in Heinberg's case, bizarre Nazi new-ageism? Are you serious?

Exxon President Slams Peak Oil Concept

Re: Off to the bar

More Nuanced

Re: More Nuanced

oh brother..

Re: oh brother..

Very well said, Wintler.

Re: Very well said, Wintler.

Oil and the economics of abundance

Re: Oil and the economics of abundance

Re: Oil and the economics of abundance

40 Year Old Data

Re: Oil and the economics of abundance

Frick the Intuition - Let's Get Rigorous!

quickly before i break for supper

Wintler and co.

Who is online