Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
54. When the present Fracking oil bubble breaks around 2017-2018, $6 a gallon will be cheap.
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 09:17 PM
Apr 2014

Tight oil production, the proper name for Fracking, is expected to peak around 2017-2018. At that point, the oil produced by then existing Tight oil wells will be dropping so much that they will be no way that the new wells put into production will prevent total oil production from dropping, slowly at first, then as a rock. The reason for this is tight oil wells are good for about five years, with most oil being produced within the first 18 months of production. Since the expected biggest wells are drilled first, and later on you move onto smaller oil fields, production of oil will increase till around 2017-2018 then drop.

At that point, oil is expected to go through the roof. Right now, oil has to be at least $80 a barrel of roughly $3.29 a gallon (including gasoline tax and cost of refining and distribution) for Tight oil wells to be profitable. When the price drops below $80 a barrel, production does NOT stop for most of the money into existing wells would have been already spent (thus you minimize loss by producing oil at whatever price you can get), but you do NOT drill any new wells (thus till the price goes over $80 a barrel, oil production drops, till it hits bottom and then spring back to a point when Tight oil is once again profitable). So far the price of oil has stayed over $80 a barrel so tight oil is being produced. No one is foreseeing a drop in the price in the near future.

On the other hand, come 2018, the price of oil is anyone's guess, for cost to produce will no longer be the restriction on price, the restriction will be how much will people pay? One of the reason for the economic collapse in 2008 was the price of gasoline per gallon was nearing Minimum wage per hour. In other countries, when the price of oil reached the prevailing lowest wage on a per hour basis, you saw a drop in gasoline usage, and thus a drop in demand (and the wreck of the economy). In the US, till 2008, you NEVER had a year where oil usage did NOT increase over the previous year. Since 2008, US usage of oil has actually DROPPED, do to the high price for gasoline. In 2008 the price of gasoline exceeded $4 in many parts of the US, when Minimum wage was $5.25 per hour. I did a calculation at that time period that showed that at $5 a gallon. people can NOT drive to work and pay for rent (if in public housing) and food. If the low income earner is NOT living in public housing (and most such workers are NOT is such public housing), the rent is much higher and the numbers are hit a lot sooner. Thus when the price of gasoline hit $4 a gallon, you had people who no longer could afford the gasoline to get to and from work. The economy tanked at about the same time (and I suspect this was the spark that caused the subsequent economic collapse, the actual cause was elsewhere, but minimum wage not being enough to someone to driver to work was the spark). Subsequent to that collapse minimum wage was increased to $7.15 a hour, and now there is talk of raising it again to $10 an hour and I suspect the reason for both increases is concern as to the future price of gasoline.

Now 2018 is four years away, but 2008 was Six years ago. Thus we are nearer 2018 then 2008. Thus $6 a gallon MAY not be that far away.

http://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/sieminski_01212013.pdf

The Energy Information Agency (EIA), based in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (of my suspicions of them later), says the price of oil will be anywhere between $80 and $250 a barrel, with the most likely price $150 a barrel, or roughly a 1/3 more then it is at present (Worse case would be three times the present price).

Now the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the #1 oil exporter (#2 in production, #1 in production is Russia, which is the #2 exporter, the difference is internal use), but is NOT considered a reliable source for its own oil supply (and if Saudi Arabia production has peaked, which some suspect, then the bets will be on a price of at least $250 a barrel by 2035 if not 2025). The #3 producer of oil is the US. These three nations, The US, Russia (both as the present Russian Federation and the former Soviet Union) and Saudi Arabia have been the top three oil producers since the 1960s (if NOT the 1950s). US and Russia have been in the top three since oil production started in the 1860s. It was popular to say as late as the 1990s that the reason for this is these three nations were the most explored for oil and oil fields as rich existed elsewhere. The problem is no one has found them. Oil fields have been found elsewhere but no where near the size OR number of fields as the big three (The US has the most oil fields, collectively bigger then any other countries total oil fields, Saudi Arabia has one big oil field, the biggest ever found, Russia is between these two extremes).

Now, the EIA report is NOT without critics. One Critic did the following chart, after correcting what he saw as errors in the 2013 EIA report (Including using "Natural Gas Liquids" as replacement for oil on a barrel to barrel basis, when the energy in a barrel of "Natural Gas Liquids" is just 70% of what is in a barrel of oil):

In effect while the EIA is predicting 100 million barrels of oil being produced by 2035, he is saying it will be closer to 40, while below today's 89 million barrels of oil.

You must understand the last big oil discoveries were in the 1960s and most of these came on line in the 1970s (including two huge Siberian Fields, the North Sea and the North Slope of Alaska). It is these fields AND the elephant fields of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and Iran that have seen production increases since the 1970s, The problem is the North Sea is in rapid decline (Britain is now a Net Oil IMPORTER), the North Slope is in rapid decline (and the push for developing the Alaska Wildlife refugee is that such oil, can use the existing pipeline, but, at best, is expected to produce over a 20 year period, what the US uses in Six months). The countries of OPEC (including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and Iran) have been know to lie about how much oil they can produce since the 1980s (the more oil they claim they can produce the more any one member of OPEC can produce, do to massive cheating, except for Saudi Arabia all OPEC nations have been producing at full speed, with the possible exception of Iraq, every year since the 1980s).

Saudi Arabia controlled the price of oil by determining how much oil it would produce. If the House of Saud decided the price was to low, it cut production till the price went up, when the House of Saud decided the price of oil was to high, it increased production. That is what has happened since the early 1970s (prior to 1969, the Texas Railroad Commission did the same in regards to Texas oil production, setting world wide oil prices in the process, an old joke about OPEC was it was founded in 1960 so the Seven Sisters only had to go to one place and tell the members of OPEC what price the Texas Railroad commission had set for oil). The Texas Railroad commission loss its control over the price of oil in 1969 when it permitted maximum production of Texas oil, and the price continued to climb. One of the reasons the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973 was so effective was that for the first time in history the US was an net oil importer, and thus was hit hard by the embargo, something that even shocked the House of Saud at that time. Till Saudi Arabia finally decided to take on the issue of price by how much oil it could produced, prices were unstable. Once Saudi Arabia took over that role, you had stable prices till 2002 (except for the massive drop in demand in 1997 when the economic criss in the far east cut oil usage in the "Asian Tigers" so much that the price dropped more the Saudi Arabia wanted it to, but was corrected within a year).

In 2002, the price of oil started to go up and up. Saudi Arabia opened up its taps, but the price continued to go up and up as other producers of oil saw they production drop (Britain and Mexico are two examples of this). Indonesia, a member of OPEC became a net oil importer. Russian production declined in the 1990s do to its own economic problems, but increased after Putin came in charge around 2000. Recent Russia has reached a new peak in production at about 3/4 of what the Soviet Union produced in 1987 (The subsequent drop in income from selling oil, do to less oil being sold, is one of the caused of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989).

In sum, we are facing a steady decline in production of conventional oil, while world wide demand is increasing. The Recession has reduced demand for oil, but the real issue is can the new sources, tight oil (the proper name for Fracking), "Unconventional" oil, "Natural Gas liquids" and new conventional fields to be found and exploited be enough to meet the demand for oil? Till 2018 that looks to be the case, but after 2018 the doubts are growing and six dollars a gallon may be CHEAP.





http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/what-future-for-petroleum.html

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Not a CO2 neutral fuel if I'm reading it correctly. Fearless Apr 2014 #1
Perhaps not CO2 nuetral... its not quite clear on that point, however... Veilex Apr 2014 #6
True it may be cleaner. Fearless Apr 2014 #10
You can convert methane to Navy distillate using the Fischer-Tropsch process jmowreader Apr 2014 #26
The point is to make jet fuel -- jets can't carry nuclear reactors. eppur_se_muova Apr 2014 #49
The first article on this clearly talked about fueling ships jmowreader Apr 2014 #50
Except for Carriers and Submarines, the Navy presently use only oil burning ships happyslug Apr 2014 #52
If you're going to do that, you'd be better off putting the fuel maker in its own ship jmowreader Apr 2014 #53
Such a ship will have to have a nuclear generator happyslug Apr 2014 #55
Pretty crappy journalism not to address the carbon pollution issue AAO Apr 2014 #11
They didn't address any science. Gore1FL Apr 2014 #22
Sounds like it. AAO Apr 2014 #23
Carbon isn't the point; not carrying around tons of oil is (nt) Recursion Apr 2014 #35
The world isn't an either/or we can have both. Fearless Apr 2014 #38
Oh, I agree, I just meant that's what makes this a game-changer for the Navy Recursion Apr 2014 #39
Imagine if we used this research towards non-defense utilization... Earth_First Apr 2014 #2
If works as they say, I'd say it's safe to assume it will be used in the civilian world too penultimate Apr 2014 #4
Let's hope... Earth_First Apr 2014 #5
This isn't it. This is premium-price fuel. $6/gal, accepting their rosy projections. nt eppur_se_muova Apr 2014 #47
And the microwave oven! Invented from WW2 radar technology. nt 7962 Apr 2014 #27
Koch brothers not going to like this lobodons Apr 2014 #3
:) tofuandbeer Apr 2014 #7
This is ridiculous. Let me explain ... aggiesal Apr 2014 #8
It's not a 'solution to our energy needs'; you need electricity to run it muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #16
"Inventions" like that come up all the time, reported by less than reputable sources. pffshht Apr 2014 #37
If anyone knocked on his door, they didn't know shit about chemistry ... eppur_se_muova Apr 2014 #48
guessing... Locrian Apr 2014 #9
I believe that would defeat the purpose, no? penultimate Apr 2014 #12
From a naval point of view, it allows them to remain at sea longer muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #15
That makes sense for making jet fuel, but they seem to penultimate Apr 2014 #17
I think they're saying an aircraft carrier could produce fuel for its escort ships (nt) muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #19
Ahhh, that makes more sense and seems far less sci-fi. penultimate Apr 2014 #21
No, the purpose is to not have to carry around oil everywhere Recursion Apr 2014 #36
I think that's right muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #13
that assumes CO2 is a problem... hoosierlib Apr 2014 #25
About 150 years of science does point to CO2 causing atmospheric warming muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #40
Take a stats class...there is no statistical significance, just a correlation... hoosierlib Apr 2014 #41
The warming effect of carbon dioxide is about physics, not statistics muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #42
And the scientist in question... hoosierlib Apr 2014 #43
Bollocks. muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #44
and your college major was? hoosierlib Apr 2014 #57
Specifically, "This suggests other variables (more statistucally significant) influence temperature" muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #59
It is relevant... hoosierlib Apr 2014 #61
Are you saying that *you* understand, while the Royal Society and NAS don't? muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #64
Yes... hoosierlib Apr 2014 #65
So you think you're smarter than every scientist that works at a university anywhere in the world muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #66
Models are like that, approximations, at best. That doesn't mean they are wrong. bemildred Apr 2014 #45
Well gee hoosierlib Apr 2014 #58
So are you saying, "Correlation cannot indicate causation?" immoderate Apr 2014 #51
Sigh... hoosierlib Apr 2014 #56
So it appears that a correlation CAN indicate a causalty. immoderate Apr 2014 #60
Yes, it can indicate causality, but... hoosierlib Apr 2014 #62
A mathematical relationship does exist. It's called a correlation. immoderate Apr 2014 #63
You obviously know nothing of statistics analysis hoosierlib Apr 2014 #68
Just enough to compute a "least squares." immoderate Apr 2014 #69
Nothing from nothing, means nothing. AAO Apr 2014 #14
With reactors on board you wouldn't need to go around your elbow with this seawater scheme jmowreader Apr 2014 #28
Link to 2010 Navy Technical Report which covers this Bosonic Apr 2014 #18
Thanks - that says it's a little over 50% efficient muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #20
The technical details... hoosierlib Apr 2014 #24
Damn, I read that and understood every word - scary! groundloop Apr 2014 #32
Lots of Navy ships use jet engines for propulsion. oldbanjo Apr 2014 #29
Thermodynamically, more like Converting Electricity into Jet Fuel cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #30
Right. GeorgeGist Apr 2014 #31
It's a start. Not perfect, but anything that frees us from defending ffr Apr 2014 #33
This is indeed good news. daybranch Apr 2014 #34
over $1 BILLION per plant to produce $6/gal fuel, ASSUMING ... eppur_se_muova Apr 2014 #46
When the present Fracking oil bubble breaks around 2017-2018, $6 a gallon will be cheap. happyslug Apr 2014 #54
how much energy does it take to do this, and where does it come from? yurbud Apr 2014 #67
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»US Navy 'Game-Changer': C...»Reply #54