sartesian at earthlink.net
Wed Jul 16 15:03:28 MDT 2008
The life of the North Sea fields has extended far beyond original estimates,
beyond later estimates, and in particular estimates of the peak oil
The North Sea fields exhibit not one peak and decline, but
peak/decline/peak/decline and the output most certainly does not follow the
Hubbert bell curve.
I think that the major problem with North Sea oil, that force driving the
reduction in output is the deterioration of the infrastructure, platforms
that have already outlived their design life, requiring massive and costly
rehabilitation, and the introduction of more expensive machinery to get the
oil, the outlay for which can only be recovered over time. The economics
of such rehabilitation does not make economic sense to our oil majors.
Some smaller operators with much shorter time horizons have taken over some
fields and platforms to make their profit on the margin between productivity
I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but didn't Bush make it perfectly
clear just how important removal of supplies from the world scene was with
his threatening war every time the price of oil stabilized or declined, and
then going after Iraq when he thought he could get away with it after the
country had record several years of output near 3 million barrels a day
during the time of the great prices collapse in 1998? Didn't the price of
oil stabilize in 2002, with a decline in earnings among the oil majors, and
the plummeting of natural gas prices? And what happened after that? A war
and here we are.
As for controlling access to oil supplies, and keeping them away from
China--that's the kind of argument peak oil theorists use to explain US
actions in the Persian Gulf, Latin America, Africa.
The remark about Canada was meant as "irony," a "literary device."
More information about the Marxism