I think the whole capitalism/socialism debate is interesting enough and has come up a few times recently that it should have its own thread so i've bumped one from about a year ago.
This Comparison of world views demonstrates many of the problems that are common to both systems.
Edit: This discussion is off topic, perhaps it could be continued in the thread It's capitalism or a habitable planet
Oil Production: Will the Peak Hold?
Moderator: Peak Moderation
-
21st_century_caveman
- Posts: 208
- Joined: 23 May 2007, 20:43
- Location: Still on this feckin island
-
fifthcolumn
- Posts: 2525
- Joined: 22 Nov 2007, 14:07
RalphW wrote;
Nb, this however does not add anything to the debate.
I was in Vietnam last year and was surprised to find out that they have a 2 child maximum policy in all non rural areas.China is the ONLY country in the world which has made any serious attempt to actively constrain its population. Unpleasant, but if they hadn't, they would have had widespread famine by now. (India's attempts were incompetent).
Nb, this however does not add anything to the debate.
-
RGR
-
RGR
RGR,
Have I got the following right?
1. The initial reverse figure is the amount of oil that can be extracted from any given field using the methodology and technology available at the time.
2. New technology or methodology can increase the size of the reserve (I presume the amount that's already been extracted is subtracted to give the new reserve figure?).
Sorry if I seem to be seeking clarity on the bloody obvious.
Have I got the following right?
1. The initial reverse figure is the amount of oil that can be extracted from any given field using the methodology and technology available at the time.
2. New technology or methodology can increase the size of the reserve (I presume the amount that's already been extracted is subtracted to give the new reserve figure?).
Sorry if I seem to be seeking clarity on the bloody obvious.
-
RGR
-
Norfolk In Chance
- Posts: 157
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Suffolk
Thanks RGR.
I keep forgetting that the critical factor in applying the new tech and implementing new methods is waiting for the price to be right so that they are profitable. Easy done when you are so used to the oil industry as a whole seemingly swimming in money.
My old school friend's father works for Shell/BP and was the main project manager for the oil drilling ships that were first built in the mid-90's. He said they'd had the know-how for years to be able to build them, but the costs of building a new ship were prohibitive until the Soviet collapse and they could buy former submarine repair ships (as they were exactly the right size) and refit them.
Would the following scenario be correct then:
A field is getting "old" and the pressure is falling off, so water is injected into the field to keep the pressure up as the pumps that are in place only work at their optimal flow rate under a given pressure. Sitting on the drawing board are plans for a new pump that can work at a lower pressure with no (or less) water injection required, but the same (or slightly lower) flow rate. Unfortunately, the price for oil isn't yet high enough to start testing, let alone full blown manufacture, so that's where it will stay until the price is right. And, once in place, these new pumps will allow for more out to be recovered, therefore, the reserve has "grown".
Given the above, could that explain the activity we've been seeing in Saudi with new wells being put in place? (A case of "out with the old and in with the new"). Or am I barking up completely the wrong tree?
I keep forgetting that the critical factor in applying the new tech and implementing new methods is waiting for the price to be right so that they are profitable. Easy done when you are so used to the oil industry as a whole seemingly swimming in money.
My old school friend's father works for Shell/BP and was the main project manager for the oil drilling ships that were first built in the mid-90's. He said they'd had the know-how for years to be able to build them, but the costs of building a new ship were prohibitive until the Soviet collapse and they could buy former submarine repair ships (as they were exactly the right size) and refit them.
Would the following scenario be correct then:
A field is getting "old" and the pressure is falling off, so water is injected into the field to keep the pressure up as the pumps that are in place only work at their optimal flow rate under a given pressure. Sitting on the drawing board are plans for a new pump that can work at a lower pressure with no (or less) water injection required, but the same (or slightly lower) flow rate. Unfortunately, the price for oil isn't yet high enough to start testing, let alone full blown manufacture, so that's where it will stay until the price is right. And, once in place, these new pumps will allow for more out to be recovered, therefore, the reserve has "grown".
Given the above, could that explain the activity we've been seeing in Saudi with new wells being put in place? (A case of "out with the old and in with the new"). Or am I barking up completely the wrong tree?
Agreed!RGR wrote: People will do without one thing ( of lesser importance ) to be able to continue doing another ( of more importance ). The cost difference between the two determining how much of one must be stopped, for how much of the other to continue.
People will not change their behavior without economic FORCE being applied.
The free market does a wonderful job of applying economic FORCE to exactly the point where said FORCE needs applied.
Agreed, but with a few caveats. That only works on an individual level. i.e. I would give up driving if I couldn't afford to drive and eat, but America will not give up driving even thought it means others will not be able to eat. This is because the prices of food and fuel are now linked via biofuel.Sally wrote:Agreed!RGR wrote: People will do without one thing ( of lesser importance ) to be able to continue doing another ( of more importance ). The cost difference between the two determining how much of one must be stopped, for how much of the other to continue.
People will not change their behavior without economic FORCE being applied.
The free market does a wonderful job of applying economic FORCE to exactly the point where said FORCE needs applied.
Jim
For every complex problem, there is a simple answer, and it's wrong.
"Heaven and earth are ruthless, and treat the myriad creatures as straw dogs" (Lao Tzu V.i).
For every complex problem, there is a simple answer, and it's wrong.
"Heaven and earth are ruthless, and treat the myriad creatures as straw dogs" (Lao Tzu V.i).
I have a feeling we may well see some demand destruction in the States this year from a combination of higher fuel prices, higher food prices and the credit crunch. I doubt it'll be a significant level of reduced demand, probably <5%, but it'll be interesting to watch the figures.SunnyJim wrote: Agreed, but with a few caveats. That only works on an individual level. i.e. I would give up driving if I couldn't afford to drive and eat, but America will not give up driving even thought it means others will not be able to eat. This is because the prices of food and fuel are now linked via biofuel.
Even if the US's % destruction is small, it could be significant in global terms, due to their large percentage of the global consumption pie.syberberg wrote:I have a feeling we may well see some demand destruction in the States this year from a combination of higher fuel prices, higher food prices and the credit crunch. I doubt it'll be a significant level of reduced demand, probably <5%, but it'll be interesting to watch the figures.