It seems to me it's somehow the other way around ?
Unless we assume the quantity of oil can be considered as infinite.
Oil companies stopped investing because they realised there is not that much oil left to find. And what is left (including substitute like synthetic fuel and other gimmicks) will be too expensive for the customer to buy anyway (and we are not even talking about EROI).
So in the end, there won't be more oil if there is more money. Whatever oil company may invest, it will not turn a profit. So they buy back their shares (that is, giving back the money to their investors) because they have no use for it anymore. And get more or less ready to downsize their business. If not closing it altogether.
Maybe. But I don't think so. If you are really willing to spend a lot (and I mean A LOT), it is still possible to produce a lot of liquid fuels. And, if you are subsidized by the state or by gullible investors, you can even make a profit. Not in energy terms, of course! EROEI always wins.
Yes. Up to a point, governments will be ready to buy very expensive fuel for their armies and other sectors deemed strategic without concern for direct profits.
Even EROEI might not be the limit. We could well end up with diesel with an EROEI somewhat inferior to one (obtained by electrifying tar extraction and refining process or synthetised from coal, algae or whatever) as diesel is so much more practical than electricity in so many situations. And indeed, it will be expensive and will need investments accordingly.
In the mean time, oil companies know full well they cannot extract the amount of oil needed to sustain the actual economy during a lot longer. Whatever the investments. All they want is money from governments and central banks afraid of the social consequences of oil scarcity (or from gullible outsiders thinking that trees can reach the sky). This way they can prop up their share price for as long as it takes for insiders to get quietly out with the maximum of profit to invest elsewhere. The same old logic : mutualizing losses, privatizing profits…
that is just the energy outlook from exxon according to quark's blog global crude oil collapse will begin after 2030 our current well's have enough to 2030 or did i misread or misunderstood that ?
Many thanks Ugo for Seneca Cliff, Exxon style! For what it is worth, there are likely knock-on effects if reduced industrial consumption in other sectors downstream from primary oil/energy alters the so-called 'economies of scale'. For example, 'scale' has significantly reduced the unit price to the 'consumers' of solar panels and LED lights, whatever the other costs of production. Presumably the 'virtuous' (sic) spiral can quickly go the other way? This will play very differently in the very different parts of the world we find ourselves in?
And ‘the military costs’, both directly as a share of production and indirectly by altering access to ‘new resources’ (including access by Exxon) appears set to double, at least here in offshore Europe / UK? ‘Rearmament’ to wartime levels is being proposed in some government circles here.
Oil is a cyclical industry with a 20-30 years period.
We are at the end of one cycle and the beginning of a new one.
Oil prices will rise, profits will rise, investments will rise and finally production will rise and prices will begin to slide. But that will take a generation...
Unless a major invention (light bulb/electricity, combustion engine, etc) changes things, this is the hard cold truth... The delusions of climate change advocates or woke extremists cannot change a simple fact: economy is transformed energy. No energy, no economy.
And you cannot expect 8 billion people to just sit and wait.
They want to grow just like the west did and will do anything to get there, including using oil.
It is possible, indeed. If the industry wants to survive, it must start a new cycle. It is to be seen if they'll find the needed financial resources. I believe that there is a good chance that, this time, the stress on the system will be too high and the whole shebang will go to pieces. But, as I say in my post, we cannot rule out a new 20-30 years cycle. If they want to move to synthetic fuels, they can. And there is nothing that scientists can say about climate change that can stop them. Although climate itself eventually will.
But for production to rise again for a new cycle, you need 2 things in addition of investments.
Either large untapped and easy to access oil fields or a mass of customer with high purchasing power to buy expensive oil from difficult to access fields (or suitable combination of both).
But large untapped oilfields (with EROI above 1) don't exist anymore and purchasing power actually depends on their very existence...
You don't need new oil fields -- they don't make 'em anymore, you know? If you want liquid fuels, you can make them from coal or from oil shales. It is awfully expensive, probably with EROI <1, and a disaster for the ecosystem. But if they want, nobody can stop them. Didn't you hear that "they" think they can create their own reality?
Exactly. But as I just say, up to a point. As oil companies are buying back their stock, that means some investors are cashing out. But they need money to do that. And that could be why they pretend with money they can sustain the oil production...
Una conseguenza è che il costo del barile aumenterà, prima o poi, facendo saltare i conti dei patiti delle auto diesel. È una cosa che non tengono mai in conto quando fanno sfoggio di sicumera ridicolizzando le "auto a pile".
It seems to me it's somehow the other way around ?
Unless we assume the quantity of oil can be considered as infinite.
Oil companies stopped investing because they realised there is not that much oil left to find. And what is left (including substitute like synthetic fuel and other gimmicks) will be too expensive for the customer to buy anyway (and we are not even talking about EROI).
So in the end, there won't be more oil if there is more money. Whatever oil company may invest, it will not turn a profit. So they buy back their shares (that is, giving back the money to their investors) because they have no use for it anymore. And get more or less ready to downsize their business. If not closing it altogether.
Maybe. But I don't think so. If you are really willing to spend a lot (and I mean A LOT), it is still possible to produce a lot of liquid fuels. And, if you are subsidized by the state or by gullible investors, you can even make a profit. Not in energy terms, of course! EROEI always wins.
Yes. Up to a point, governments will be ready to buy very expensive fuel for their armies and other sectors deemed strategic without concern for direct profits.
Even EROEI might not be the limit. We could well end up with diesel with an EROEI somewhat inferior to one (obtained by electrifying tar extraction and refining process or synthetised from coal, algae or whatever) as diesel is so much more practical than electricity in so many situations. And indeed, it will be expensive and will need investments accordingly.
In the mean time, oil companies know full well they cannot extract the amount of oil needed to sustain the actual economy during a lot longer. Whatever the investments. All they want is money from governments and central banks afraid of the social consequences of oil scarcity (or from gullible outsiders thinking that trees can reach the sky). This way they can prop up their share price for as long as it takes for insiders to get quietly out with the maximum of profit to invest elsewhere. The same old logic : mutualizing losses, privatizing profits…
that is just the energy outlook from exxon according to quark's blog global crude oil collapse will begin after 2030 our current well's have enough to 2030 or did i misread or misunderstood that ?
Many thanks Ugo for Seneca Cliff, Exxon style! For what it is worth, there are likely knock-on effects if reduced industrial consumption in other sectors downstream from primary oil/energy alters the so-called 'economies of scale'. For example, 'scale' has significantly reduced the unit price to the 'consumers' of solar panels and LED lights, whatever the other costs of production. Presumably the 'virtuous' (sic) spiral can quickly go the other way? This will play very differently in the very different parts of the world we find ourselves in?
And ‘the military costs’, both directly as a share of production and indirectly by altering access to ‘new resources’ (including access by Exxon) appears set to double, at least here in offshore Europe / UK? ‘Rearmament’ to wartime levels is being proposed in some government circles here.
Yes... the whole thing is in movement. We have to see which factor will force the future in a certain direction
Allow me to disagree Ugo...
Oil is a cyclical industry with a 20-30 years period.
We are at the end of one cycle and the beginning of a new one.
Oil prices will rise, profits will rise, investments will rise and finally production will rise and prices will begin to slide. But that will take a generation...
Unless a major invention (light bulb/electricity, combustion engine, etc) changes things, this is the hard cold truth... The delusions of climate change advocates or woke extremists cannot change a simple fact: economy is transformed energy. No energy, no economy.
And you cannot expect 8 billion people to just sit and wait.
They want to grow just like the west did and will do anything to get there, including using oil.
It is possible, indeed. If the industry wants to survive, it must start a new cycle. It is to be seen if they'll find the needed financial resources. I believe that there is a good chance that, this time, the stress on the system will be too high and the whole shebang will go to pieces. But, as I say in my post, we cannot rule out a new 20-30 years cycle. If they want to move to synthetic fuels, they can. And there is nothing that scientists can say about climate change that can stop them. Although climate itself eventually will.
But for production to rise again for a new cycle, you need 2 things in addition of investments.
Either large untapped and easy to access oil fields or a mass of customer with high purchasing power to buy expensive oil from difficult to access fields (or suitable combination of both).
But large untapped oilfields (with EROI above 1) don't exist anymore and purchasing power actually depends on their very existence...
You don't need new oil fields -- they don't make 'em anymore, you know? If you want liquid fuels, you can make them from coal or from oil shales. It is awfully expensive, probably with EROI <1, and a disaster for the ecosystem. But if they want, nobody can stop them. Didn't you hear that "they" think they can create their own reality?
Exactly. But as I just say, up to a point. As oil companies are buying back their stock, that means some investors are cashing out. But they need money to do that. And that could be why they pretend with money they can sustain the oil production...
Una conseguenza è che il costo del barile aumenterà, prima o poi, facendo saltare i conti dei patiti delle auto diesel. È una cosa che non tengono mai in conto quando fanno sfoggio di sicumera ridicolizzando le "auto a pile".
E ben gli starà!