Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Sawyer

New Members
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sawyer

  • Rank
    HPC Newbie
  1. The Boomers have certainly taken more than their fair share - but the young have the power to change it. If there were no FTBs for a period of 5 years, we'd very soon see those house prices come back down...
  2. The future of transport is electric in my view, but the question is how long will it take to treble our current power generation capacity? And what do we use as fuel? The infrastructure changes needed to adapt to a new system of transport are massive and will take decades to build, and trillions of dollars of investment. And the main problem is not how much oil we use here, but how much China, India and the rest of the devleoping world use. There's no silver bullet, and we need to plan for the future now.
  3. ...and you've got to admit that the dingo solution is inspired, from a certain point of view...
  4. Just trying to push the irony button. Some smart people on here - you've undoubtedly heard of reductio ad absurdum?
  5. And no one would argue with the unfairness of people exploiting the system. It's just not my experience, or anyone I know. Maybe I live in the wrong area, but I don't know of anyone out of work and enjoying such a comfortable lifestyle - quite the reverse in fact. I judge a society on how they treat the least well off. No doubt some will exploit this, but we can find examples of unfairness all round. Some people will always avoid work, but I'd rather my taxes funded a basic living for anyone, even those not "contributing". The alternative is far worse in my opinion.
  6. Unfair, though I am being disingenuous I agree. Let's put it this way. "Sir" Fred Goodwin - never claimed benefit. Maximum liability to tax payer = £325 billion Father, three children lives 40 years = £760,000 (most going straight back into the economy and what might the children contribute?). Probably out of work because of Fred. Let's get our priorities straight.
  7. I'm willing to give you the axe if you'll wield it. God how I hate poor people.
  8. I think everyone on this board is agreed. Kill poor children. Let only rich children survive. They will obviously have an innate work ethic. The world will be a better place. Where's the argument?
  9. You're right. It's fortunate this government is so incompetent otherwise we might have actually ended child poverty! A lucky escape for all of us on this board who want to see more of it!
  10. I am so furious that this man's children don't have to share the hopelessness and poverty that unemployment brings that I am about to burst!! Those kids ought to be in the poor house with their old man!! Or better yet sent to work pick-pocketing the shoppers along Oxford Street! Whatever happened to good old Victorian values? Best of all solutions: feckless father (for unemplyment obviously means lazy, particularly in this job-rich environment) should be sent to prison and the children should go to an orphanage. I'm in favour of child poverty and hate what this government has done to end it
  11. It's hard to come up with an industry-wide number for reserve replacement. Two factors come into it: 1. Organic (discovery through exploration) and inorganic (acquiring exsisting proved acreage) 2. SEC accounting rules There has been ongoing consolidation in the oil sector with fewer companies out there (remember Texaco, Arco, Fina, Elf, Amoco....etc etc). Despite this, if you look at oil output from the oil majors it has actually been declining over the past 10 years. They do also dispose of older, harder to produce fields as well as buying, so it does cut both ways to an extent. I would say that most do now rely on acquisitions over organic methods for really sizable increases in booked reserves. The accounting rule situation applies to proven, probable and possible oil reserves. These need to be defined by a set of particular tests and standards which depend upon the economic viability of production. Cost levels and oil prices at year-end consequently play a big part here in the calculation. It can affect the booked reserve total quite significantly. So it isn't easy to get a really clear picture, but looking across the industry I see more numbers in the 30-70% range than 100+, and it is fair to say many of the best ratios are from companies spending quite a bit of money on proved acreage or smaller companies. Major oil produces less than 25% of the world's total - it's the national oil companies which are today's real players.
  12. I'm actually compelled to make my first post to correct some errors, including many from those apparently "in the industry". An easy mistake to make - you're confusing total hydrocarbon production with liquid oil production. The BP hydrocarbon number includes natural gas, the 81.5 million b/d does not. In terms of liquid oil, BP produced 2.4 million b/d on average in 2007 with global oil production averaging 85 million b/d - equal to about 2% of total oil produced. This is simply not true, even when you include natural gas (oil majors like to wrap oil and NG up as "hydrocarbons" to provide a nicer, shinier reserve replacement ratio). Here's BP's total RRP from 2004-2006 (including NG): 2004: 95.7% 2005: 72.4% 2006: 86.5% For just liquids: 2004: 84.1% 2005: 60.5% (we're getting worried...) 2006: 123.9% (thank goodness for mergers & acquisitions!) What is happening now neither proves nor disproves peak oil. It's quite simple, oil demand has collapsed. In 2008 we were pushing the limits of supply, demand has since collapsed by over 1 million b/d which is unprecednted. We're also seeing major projects coming on stream from Saudi Arabia to Brazil - all at the wrong time (as far as the oil industry is concerned). All of that supply has been piling up in global storage, and even on sea (tanker rates are so low that traders are buying oil and selling forward while using parked up tankers to hold the oil - it's a no brainer play given the contango in the forward market). So spot prices have collapsed - falling demand, rising supply and lots in storage. So OPEC is cutting, but they can't cut quickly enough to balance the market, and each cut means we have more excess capacity available. That reduced the risk of a supply disruption. But all of that is a demand-side equation. If we hadn't walked into this fianancial chaos and maintained trend demand growth rates we genuinely would be pushing the limits. This economic disaster is buying much needed time to prepare for a transition away from oil (or if we never recover the problem might vanish!). Let me put it in simple terms. Existing production is declining at 5% per year (according to latest IEA estimates it's more like 8%, but lets be generous). That means you need to replace 5% of 85 million b/d to stand still each year. That's 4.25 million b/d (equivalent to 1 Iran or 2 BPs). Add in trend demand growth of 1.2% per year (recently it has been higher, but I'm trying to be optimistic!). That's another 1 million b/d. Lets say those rates of growth and decline don't change (decline definitely will, but I'm still being really, really optimistic!). Over 20 years we need to add 100 million b/d of new production. In case you didn;t notice, it has taken us 150 years to get to a mere 85 million b/d, and we've already found giant, supergiant and elephant fields! No more of those left. Even if you accept the myth that oil is essentially limitless (like those amusing "recoverable oil resources available" charts), I'm not sure we have the time sclae or money to physcially add that production. I don't think we can do it. The only conclusion is that total oil production will decline. We need a new liquid fuel, greater efficiency and a miracle. When (and if) we come out of this economic tailspin we've got major energy problems looming. Bring on nuclear fusion! FAST!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.