Goldman Sachs claims Saudi has peaked

Standuble · Post by **Standuble** » 19 Jul 2011, 22:51

I interpreted "this is it!" as confirmation that peak oil has officially occured and its not just speculation from the IEA and others. It's because in many circles SA is perceived to now be the swing producer, if it peaks then essentially the world has peaked as there are few others out there increasing in production of the cheap, sweet stuff. Whether that is true or not is debatable (it depends on Russia really which is believed to be in declined in conventional areas.)

IMO there is a big difference between a peaking of conventional oil and total peaking e.g. peaking of other sources e.g. shale oil. But as the unconventional stuff needs very expensive, modern technology to be maintained, a loss of cheap crude could lead to its decline. The modern world was built and has always run on crude, not shale. If the last, great crude producer is on its way into decline then we should consider the possibility the scales have now been tipped.

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 20 Jul 2011, 00:36

[quote="Standuble"]

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 20 Jul 2011, 09:51

adam2 wrote:
Oil production elswhere is being constrained by unrest, and might in theory increae if peace breaks out.

If peace breaks out in Libya then clearly oil production will rise....but as you say in your post, there's depletion going on everywhere-else, all the time.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 20 Jul 2011, 12:12

And, sadly, we shouldn't count on world peace breaking out by tea-time.

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 20 Jul 2011, 17:32

[quote="UndercoverElephant"]

Kentucky Fried Panda · Post by **Kentucky Fried Panda** » 20 Jul 2011, 17:43

RGR wrote: If I were forced to choose between the two, I would bet that Venezuela will be the last great producer standing.

Prove it, with facts!

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 20 Jul 2011, 19:47

[quote="Kentucky Fried Panda"]

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 20 Jul 2011, 20:41

I suspect you're right, however I don't agree with the first line of the article:

RGR wrote:http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2386

An estimated 513 billion barrels of technically recoverable heavy oil are in Venezuela’s Orinoco Oil Belt.
......
The estimated petroleum resources in the Orinoco Oil Belt range from 380 to 652 billion barrels of oil (at a 95 and 5 percent chance of occurrence, respectively).

Anyone with a basic understanding of statistics will know that there isn't a linear interpolation between the 5 and 95 percent points - so the declaration of 513 bbl is somewhat optimistic - and a really basic error to make.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 21 Jul 2011, 02:01

I've split this post. Discussion about trollism is in "RGR. The Troll" in General Discussion. It's quite a good, to the point discussion on the OP now.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 21 Jul 2011, 08:44

Except that those of us who are trying really hard not to feed the trolls are not contributing to this discussion. It isn't working because Admin are providing all the food they crave

DominicJ · Post by **DominicJ** » 21 Jul 2011, 09:39

is posting the same comment on three threads not trolling?

frank_begbie · Post by **frank_begbie** » 21 Jul 2011, 13:56

RGR wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote: A "troll" is somebody who join a forum with the sole intention of disrupting threads and causing arguments, and no interest in having a two-way exchange of ideas, or learning anything. You, my friend, are about the clearest example of a troll I have ever encountered.
Correcting inaccuracies is not disruption, it is clarification. Pointing out edited information, censorship and definition changing is not an intention, but a desire to differentiate propaganda from real information. Using experience gained in the field to refute nonsensical ideas advocated by amateurs who don't even know what the field looks like is called education. Neither of the these two actions is "causing" arguments by any stretch of the imagination, and would not even be necessary if certain posters knew any more about the oil and gas business and its particulars, its history and practice, or the science which backstops it then those ignorant enough to confuse everyone who disagrees with them as sock puppets in an attempt to protect the sanctity of their echo chamber.

Talk about a run on sentence!

You talk like a politician.
Enough said.

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 21 Jul 2011, 15:43

[quote="Bandidoz"]

happychicken · Post by **happychicken** » 21 Jul 2011, 17:01

If I am a consumer, and I am, and I put gasoline in my tank, what does it matter that it comes from light, sweet crude (conventional such as Ghawar or unconventional such as Bakken) or heavy oil (such as Venezuelan extra heavy or South Belridge heavy) or was created from syncrude constructed from natural gas or Canadian tar sands?

It matters because the world cannot afford unconventional, heavy or tar sands oil