anaconda
Loading...
Symbols:
Loading...
Symbols:
Hedge Fund Jobs
Job Seekers: Search jobs by category, get job alerts by email or live feed, apply online See full list of jobs »
Employers: See all recruitment options, get applications online or by email Post a job »
Trading Center
- Free E-Newsletters
- About Seeking Alpha
- About Us
- Contact Us
- What's New
- Readers Feedback
- Advertise With Us
- Contributors
- Contribute an Article
- Feature Your Book
- Our Contributors
- Anonymous Contributions
- Dispute an Article?
- Legal
- Terms of Use
- Privacy
- Copyright
Latest Comments36 Comments
Dollar Higher on 3 Ps - Paulson, Plosser, Price of Oil
That said, oil is leading the Dollar and not the other way round.
The "fever" has broken in the oil market and the bulls have taken a "breather" from their earlier "Peak" oil frenzy -- there is no "Peak" oil in the "near" future -- within an economically meaningful time frame.
Without the bulls being able to scream "Peak" oil at the bar with their whiskey, the oil market is settling down.
Huge investment is being made in deepwater, ultra-deep drilling rigs for a substantial "push" on the world's continental margins -- the "new frontier" in oil exploration.
Ghawar -- the Saudi oil field and largest in the world, is an example of continental margin oil -- Ghawar is unique in that it's onshore as is most of its sister oil fields in the Middle East.
That is why Ghawar has been unique -- but now that the "rest of the continental margin" is beginning to be explored offshore and huge oil finds are being made (offshore Brazil) "Peak" claptrap is fading.
And a healthier economy is the result -- which bulsters a slightly rising Dollar. If the United States is open for business, the dollar has a slightly higher value.
Yes, the banking debacle has still not "cleared decks," but the market is "figuring in" the losses in that sector of the economy -- other sectors have reason for optimism on the steadying oil market.
So, with the oil fever broken, traders are starting to look into other avenues (market sectors) to make profit.
Good, oil should be a "work horse" and not a "show horse" in the world economy: Oil is a means to an end: economic productivity and growth, not an end in itself.
Oil Is Mastery for the real scoop on the oil supplies and the oil market.
Confirmatory Bias and Oil Investing
href="oilismastery.blogspot.... /"> Oil is Mastery.
Confirmatory Bias and Oil Investing
To believe the law of supply and demand has been suspended is "IDIOCY."
Demand has gone down in the U.S., that's the facts, Jack, including diesel.
China and India and the rest are also subject to the law of supply and demand -- their prices for gasoline and diesel are going up, too.
China and to some extent India subsidize their oil consumption, which does diminish the demand destruction, but I read prices are increasing in China, too.
The continental margin is where the largest oil deposits are located (excepting the Middle East, which is a continental margin, but above sea level) -- this has just begun to be explored.
Your attempted insults fail to prove your point.
Because it is YOU that have ignored too many facts.
But I invite you to check out Oil Is Mastery to get the facts.
<a
href="oilismatery.blogspot.c.../ ">Oil Is Mastery.
Confirmatory Bias and Oil Investing
Gotta follow up on those tar sands, since you make so much of them. The enormous quantities of hydrocarbons in the Athabasca tar sands in Canada would have required vast amounts of source rocks for their generation in the conventional discussion, when in fact no source rocks have been found.
Oil is an ultramafic mineral.
Confirmatory Bias and Oil Investing
The tar sands? You're the one that needs organic detritus to "cook" in the crust, but there's no evidence to support the idea that the tar sand was ever deep enough to "cook." Abiotic theory doesn't require made-up words to describe make believe "processes." Rather, millions of years ago there was a massive 'outpouring' of hydrocarbons to the surface and it has been degrading ever since.
Sulphur is many times mixed in with crude oil, as in 'sour' crude oil. Sulphur is a 'solfataric' mineral that emanates from vents -- sorry, there aren't any large organic detritus sources of sulphur.
Lignite is brown coal that derives from peat bogs -- the one organic source of "coal." Its composition is materially different from anthracite coal or hard coal.
Guess, you gave up on your previous point -- yes, there is plenty of oil in igneous rocks.
The Lost Soldier Field in Wyoming has oil pools at every horizon of the geological section, from the Cambrian sandstone overlying the basement to the upper Cretaceous deposits. A flow of oil was also obtained from the basement itself. Hydrocarbon gases are not rare in igneous and metamorphic rocks of the Canadian Shield.
Potash and dolomite are examples of how wrong geology is at times. Dolomite is an ultramafic (formed in ultra-high heat and pressure) and is found in association with oil in 80% of the oil discoveries in North America, There is the Dolomites mountain chain in Italy (comprised of dolomite), yet geology has no answer because they think it's strictly a sedimentary mineral.
Potash is another mineral that geology holds as sedimentary, but evidence suggests it isn't. It's a mineral that is made of potassium carbon and oxygen -- K2CO3, there are variations -- such is the case with most minerals.
Sorry to disappoint you but coal seams are also abiotic -- 800 foot coal seam in Australia -- sorry, that isn't from organic detritus
Subsidence doesn't disprove or prove either theory.
Your response to Ghawar doesn't explain how all that organic detritus collected at one spot.
Also, 70% of the giant oil fields are located over tectonic faults.
Jack, you're breaking down "geologists say" isn't proof of anything.
Actually, Colorado "oil shale" are the sedimentary remains of lakes where heavy oil, high atomic weight oil, C215H330 leached into the lakes from oil seeps in the raparian watershed. Just like the hundreds of heavy oil seeps in California and in Iraq where oil bubbles from the ground like in the Beverly Hill Billies.
C215H330 atomic weight hydrocarbons doesn't come from marine algae.
Bitumen is also heavy atomic weight long chain hydrocarbons where the volatiles have evaporated oil to leave the solids behind.
Bitumens have been found in igneous rock in Syria with no evidence of sedimentary rocks in the area.
Confirmatory Bias and Oil Investing
Good ploy -- change the subject -- don't respond to my point about diamondoids and your obvious mistaken diamond comment.
But going to your new point: "oil is not found in igneous formations (otherwise all of the canadian precambrian shield would be full of oil).
Wrong, again. There is oil found in igneous formations, i.e., the White Tiger oil field off Vietnam's coast and many other examples.
And, yes, there is oil found in precambrian formations. And as far as the Canadian shield -- where do you think all that tar sand came from. Tar sand is generally a high atomic weight, long chain hydrocarbon that never was buried deep enough, according to "fossil" theory to create kerogen. "Diagenesis" is a made-up word for a made up "process" that has no scientific basis or experimental backup.
John says: "oil is found in sedimentary formations where there is a caprock to stop upward migration (otherwise you have a labrea or trinidad type tar pit)."
Correct. But the 'source' is not remnant of organic detritus.
The Saudi oil field Ghawar is the largest oil field in the world. The Ghawar complex is performing extremely well. The field has been on production since the 1950s and is steady at roughly 5 million bopd.
A 19 mile cube of oil has been produced at Ghawar. Roughly 100,000 feet high -- organic detritus supplied that?
But getting back to my point -- what about diamondoids in all oil?
And, again, no diamonds aren't formed in the crust.
Confirmatory Bias and Oil Investing
The conclusion is straightforward enough: diamondoids, like diamonds, are created in the mantle in conjunction with oil.
John S. Gordon, you idea isn't confirmed by science -- the crust is an environment of methane creation and hydrocarbon destruction.
Certainly not diamond creation.
Try getting your science right and you might have an once of credibility.
Oil is an ultramafic mineral (formed in ultra-high heat and pressure) and obeys the rules of all mineral formation dictated by heat and pressure gradient. By the way, this also dictates oil's formation & dissolution.
Oil is a mineral -- unique in certain respects, but still a mineral.
Earnings Preview: Schlumberger Ltd
Oil is an abiotic mineral . <a
Href=“http://oilismast... “> Oil Is Mastery.
The people involved with deepwater, deep-drilling know oil is abiotic.
Confirmatory Bias and Oil Investing
starkoski: You are right, geology beats psychology -- but geology is wrong about the origin of oil. Oil is a mineral. Why do you think the oilfield services companies are riding high? If there wasn't much more oil out there to find, it wouldn't matter how high was the price of oil. Oilfield services companies are in the business to find oil.
The U.S. plateau in the '70s was when oil was regulated, some as low as $3 a barrel -- big surprise oil companies weren't looking for oil.
The continental margin is where the truly big deposits of oil are and that has just begun to be explored.
That's why day rates for deepwater, deep-drilling rigs are at record highs.
'Markets' are determined, not so much by the logic of words as by the sterner logic of facts.
Demand destruction is real -- "Peak" oil is false.
"Peak" oil is rubbish -- <a
Href=“http://oilismast... “> Oil Is Mastery.
If you want to look at the science of oil then Oil Is Mastery is the place -- your blind devotion to "Peak" oil will make you a poor fellow.
Your arogance will be your downfall.
Confirmatory Bias and Oil Investing
If you are long on oil -- your greed is turning to fear.
Greed and fear -- at its most basic 'the market' is controlled by these two emotions.
There is no "peak" of oil in the foreseeable future.
Oil is a mineral, not the remnant of 'organic detritus'.
The scientific basis is clear.
And, yes, geologists have been caught up in the above psychology for decades. check out <a
Href="oilismastery.blogspot..../ "> Oil Is Mastery. And learn the truth about oil.
The 'Peak Oil' Myth: New Oil Is Plentiful
I gree with your analysis except for one HUGE assumption you make: That the energy required to produce the energy will go to a 1:1 ratio as quickly as you imply.
Corn ethanol is less than a 1:1 ratio, I think its about 1 33:1.
That's why corn ethanol is ludicrous to make.
(can only be made with government subsidies)
In the big scheme of things, ultra-deepwater, deep-drilling is still substantially over the 1:1 ratio -- I don't know the exact ratio, but oil companies wouldn't invest in it if it was less than 1:1 ratio.
Almost all hydrocarbons are over a 1:1 ratio. But admittedly some get pretty close to 1:1 ratio to the point they are marginal for economic production.
Liquid hydrocarbons -- oil and gas condensates don't fall into that category.
So your "Peak" gloom and doom, while is right on the analysis of the energy cost to produce energy, is wrong on how soon it will get there, if it gets there at all within a meaningful economic horizon. Over 30 years away and it has no impact on the economics of today.
That's what this blog commentary is about -- the economics of oil today. Not 30,50, or 60 years from today.
Go back asleep and wakeup 30 years from now and cry your "doom and gloom", otherwise you're wasting my time and more important for you -- your time.
So is pointless to "doom and gloom" about it now.
The 'Peak Oil' Myth: New Oil Is Plentiful
Nice "trick." Use a theoretical argument to squeeze "Peak" under the tent flap, like the perverbial camel's nose. Then, once an acknowledgement is given to the theoretical, bulldoze on to your real point: "Peak" is now, sorry charlie, it still doesn't wash.
And you crap in your own nest. You get greedy, which makes this writer look at your original reasoning more closely. And after doing so, it is clear your theoretical argument about "peak" is garbage too.
If oil is regenerating faster than it is being consumed -- "Peak" will NEVER happen.
Now this writer doesn't know if it is or not -- but for you to declare "peak" as a fact based on that fraudulent -- yes, fraudulent reasoning, makes this writer question all your other spin.
So lets look at it.
1) "[T]hey have been [depleting] since the first well ever drilled."
Sorry, but this type of argumentation is as fraudulent as your openning original line of about "theoretical peak."
The rational is false. Were they worried about "Peak" at the time of the first oil well? Actually, they were, as the history of the oil industry is repleat with warnings of "Peak." EACH TIME WRONG!
"Flat or most likely declining" This is PURE speculation on your part.
Your style: distract and then frame argument from your perspective.
But this writer put out the first facts: The continental shelf and margin are unexplored. The total verticle depth is reaching Abiotic oil that "fossil" theory said wasn't even there.
There are plenty of areas to explore and increase "flow rate," also we have no idea if these nationalized oil companies are maxed out on "flow rate" or not. This writer suspects there is a combination of under-investment and wanting to "squeeze" the market.
Oil is oil -- there is "easy" and "hard" oil, but the basic commodity is the same -- it's all Abiotic hydrocarbons.
Which from the very first comment, this writer acknowledged deep offshore oil, is expensive oil: $70 a barrel to "lift."
That has nothing to do with physical "Peak." When oil dipped briefly below $10 in the late 90's, the oil companies quit investing. That has effected the was is happening now. So, while this writer agrees you need to increase oil production, there is a logical reason why there has beed a plateau.
Not a decline like you falsely state.
3) In this aspect, actually, this writer agrees with you. But the new oil fields off shore like that Shell field in the Gulf of Mexico rumored to have 100 BILLION barrels, is a sample of the oil deposits that will be found where "Fossil' theory geologists said there would be NONE.
4) Makes sense from an oil chemistry and Abiotic theory point of view that heavier oil will be at the bottom. Agree with your point.
5) Oil will get more expensive to produce, but that's not physical "Peak", that's an argument for economic "Peak." Two completely different arguments -- even the oil companies acknowledge "economic peak." Which in itself, will have some unknown moderating effect on price in the future.
The last part of your argument is an expansion on the your "replacement"... strain argument. There is replacement oil -- lots of it. No "Peak" now, Again, like before, someday. NOT TODAY.
--------------
To martinpw: The science is there and convincing.
1) The 15,000 "oil window" limit corollary of fossil theory is garbage, oil has been discovered below 20,000 feet deep 20 times over and more.
2) "Source rock" has been debunked.
3) Biomarkers has been debunked
4) Diamonoids prove oil comes from the mantle (hint Diamondoids are diamonds and they are only greated "At Depth" in the mantel.
5) Helium in oil
6) hydrocarbons in 'solfataric' vents -- sulphur like vents.
7) The known association between the world's biggest oil deposits and tectonic faults all over the world.
8) the Brazilian deep finds are way beyond the "oil window," causing stupid oil geologists to make claims about "burial age and maturation," as if 24 million years isn't enough if there is an "oil window," to crack the oil into methane gas. Sorry, martinpw that argument doesn't pass the smell test.
Sorry, martinpw, Russian CEO's don't talk to anybody publically -- remeber that's Putin's world. People keep their mouths shut.
As for the, Westerns like BP, do you really think they are going to come out and say, " guess what, we were wrong all those years, we put out, those cuddly commercials with dinosaurs in them - oil is practically unlimited." This writer doubts that.
Actually, the two rival "schools" of thought have the same scientific burden to prove their "case." Each starts at the same "starting line."
but you putting out that old canard allows people to assess your regard for scientific principles -- it's far more likely you are a shill for "Peak" oil because you are long on oil.
Although, in terms of practical reality, you are right. The science for Abiotic Theory must be flawless -- It is flawless.
Come on over to Oil Is Mastery website and argue any scientific point, martinpw, and this writer will crush your reasoing. That's how good the science is.
Do you got the 'guts' martinpw?
The 'Peak Oil' Myth: New Oil Is Plentiful
That is a thoughtful response. This writer suspects that regeneration is a function of crustal activity level. And it's possible that now is a moderate to quiet period, so there may not be a large regeneration rate at present.
------------------
AndyMan: If you put if that way, then there is peak. But let's talk "meaningful" peak. This writer maintains that "Peak" a hundred years from now is not meaningful in an economically quantifiable way, today.
When does it become an economically quantifiable factor?
30 years, 40 years, only 20 years? No, if "Peak" happens in 20 years in 2028, at some minor level it will be able to be quantified in the economics of today.
But 30 years, so "peak" in 2038? This writer suspects that is economically too remote.
But this writer is convinced there will be no "Peak" for at least 50 years, if not farther out than that.
"Peak" is when half of all oil supplies have been consumed by textbook definition, but "Peak" as a slang word most definitely means imminent, likely to happen soon, if some are to be believed, already has happened.
This is a far cry from someday there will be "peak."
The 'Peak Oil' Myth: New Oil Is Plentiful
The Oil Drum is not an investing website. It is an "Oil" website, run by folks that believe in "peak" oil. Who underwrites the website is the question, not that they advise where to invest, besides if the charge is true, do you think "speculators"... would be so 'ham' handed as to advertise its "purpose."
Second, of course, demand effects the price. But any dramatic drops in price will drive demand back up because oil is inherently is a productive substance. There will always be demand for oil -- unless it is banned.
-------------
To martinpw: Abiotic oil is real. The hard science supporting Abiotic oil is copious. At what rate petroleum is regenerated is unknown.
"Fossil" theory literally has NO HARD SCIENCE supporting it.
Google the website Oil Is Mastery. The website has direct links to scientific papers that support Abiotic oil and contradict "fossil" theory.
Why do you think Russia is the #1 oil producer in the world, more than Saudi Arabia. How? By using Abiotic Principles in their exploration strategies. Laugh if you want, but Russia is laughing all the way to the bank.
The science supporting Abiotic Oil is based on chemical and physical laws, "fossil" theory ignores the numerous violations of chemical and physical laws.
Oil is Mastery is the most complete Abiotic Oil website in the world.
Check it out and don't let stupwitts like martinpw spew ignorance.
The 'Peak Oil' Myth: New Oil Is Plentiful
Sure, ultra-deepwater, deep-drilling is expensive, averaging $70 a barrel to "lift." But the oil is here, there, everywhere.
Fact: proven reserves are at an all-time high.
Fact: Continental shelf and margin oil exploration is in its infancy.
Fact: "Somebody" thinks there's oil down there and is spending big bucks to get it.
Fact: For years, Iraq was "officially" set at 115 billion barrels, now it turns out Iraq has at least 300 billion, more than Saudi Arabia, which inturn probably has more yet.
Fact: Colin Campbell and the other shill mentioned have been caught in so many lies, its sick. And both have been crying "Peak" oil for years -- always wrong, along with Simmons and Pickens. A pack of hacks.
Fact: Most areas haven't been explored "At Depth" when it seems "everyday" oil is coming in at beyond 25,000 feet TVD.
Fact: The west coast of the Americas is virtually unexplored.
Fact: Demand destruction is happening in America, as this writer types. Gasoline demand has gone down in the first world.
Prediction: Demand destruction will happen in the second world -- as they are less able to absorb the cost -- and governments can't subsidize consumption indefinitely.
Sure, oil will never be "cheap" again. There are too many consumers outside the United States, but "Peak" oil was not here, is not here, and won't be here, anytime soon.
Sometimes, you "Peak" oil freaks are too much.
But, hey if you're long on oil and you made your contribution to "The Oil Drum" and the rest of the scare mongers -- this writer understands why your're shilling -- big time -- because $20 off the high and you're in Palookaville.
Better cover your position because there will be a "correction,"... not big, but down just the same.
Too high a price does cut demand. That's a law of economics that some shills forget!
You know what they say: "you can always con a con, because they start to believe their own schtick."
No "peak" for you charlatons. The 'game' is over.
Oil Is Mastery