Did you catch that? Bush admits Saudi oil is limited (declining?) - New England Patriots Forums

***PressCoverage*** · 01-17-2008, 05:15 PM

"If they don’t have a lot of additional oil to put on the market, it is hard to ask somebody to do something they may not be able to do."

or, watch it here, at the 1:50 mark...

so there you have it...

the sitting president of the United States of America, who recently admitted, “America is addicted to oil,” made a comment, after meeting with King Abdullha, that Saudi Arabia might not be able to raise oil production. Of course there are people, knowledge [sic] people who have been saying this for at least a few years, but here is our president saying it in an interview with a major news network. This must have thrown his handlers into an uproar. No doubt this points to an exciting year, because in terms of oil production as Saudi Arabia goes, so goes the world.

***PressCoverage*** · 01-18-2008, 02:15 AM

on a related note, an important story came out today, Thursday, that was long-awaited... especially glowing for those (still the majority) who are adamant that Peak Oil is a myth...

CERA released it's report on the status of global oil reserves... Cambridge Energy Research Associates... this report, no doubt, will be referenced for months/years in the debate over Peak Oil by the "nothing-to-fear, keep-shopping" crowd... needless to say, the report was very rosey for Big Oil and market stability...

whatever your take, it's an important story, and you all should read it if you plan on talking about the energy crisis... here are the first few paragraphs:

CERA v. peak oil
David Ebner, January 17, 2008 at 11:37 AM EST

CERA, the Boston energy consultancy, took another swing at peak oil on Thursday morning, announcing what it called "the missing link for understanding the future of world oil supply."

That link? Decline rates, as in how quickly do production rates in the world's oil fields slide each year. The figure is indeed key because the rate indicates how much oil needs to be found just to make up current-year declines, never mind increasing the world's total output.

Cambridge Energy Research Associates, after analyzing 811 oil fields (that account for two-thirds of global production and half of proved and probable reserves), concluded that the world's annual oil production decline rate is 4.5 per cent - about half of the 8 per cent CERA said is cited in many studies.

“Some of the more gloomy, pessimistic ‘peak oil’ views about the future of oil supplies that are current today result from an assumption of high decline rates,” Peter Jackson of CERA said in a release Thursday, adding that there has been an “information vacuum” that has led to “widely differing estimates of the potential future availability of oil. This new analysis provides the basis for more confidence about the future of available oil.”

<snip>...

Underlying CERA’s analysis is a likely assumption that Middle Eastern reserves are what those countries say they are. Dan Yergin started CERA and is the author of The Prize, the Pulitzer-Prize winning history of the oil business. He is also close with top officials in Saudi Arabia - some industry players argue he’s too close - and in November received a special award for his work from the kingdom (and, it is rumoured, $100,000 in cash) when it held a summit of OPEC leaders).

---------------

a blogger response, a Houstonian, then presents the public quote history from CERA:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3487

CERA 2003 "expects world oil prices to drop after any war to the low to mid $20 range."
CERA 2004: "Oil prices are expected to remain in the upper $20 to low $30 per barrel range through 2005"
CERA 2005: "slip well below $40 a barrel as 2007-08 nears."
CERA 2007 "World oil prices will drop to the low $60 range by the beginning of next year"

After years of being completely wrong on forecasting the price or production rates of oil, does anyone still believe a word Yergin and CERA says about the future of oil? He is a great historian, but would be the world's worst energy hedge fund manager. Fortunately for him, he is only paid to deliver good news by his investor relations clients. If he ever changes his tune, we will be hearing form [sic] some other well funded oil 'prophet'.

oops...

***patsfan13*** · 01-18-2008, 03:27 PM

I don't know how close we are to peak oil, I don't know enough, plus there are other undiscovered reserves and reserves we aren't yet aware of. But the author of the article in post #2 brings up good points that should be taken seriouisly.

[url]http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3207311.ece[/url

Quote:

A landmark study of more than 800 oilfields by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (Cera) has concluded that rates of decline are only 4.5 per cent a year, almost half the rate previously believed, leading the consultancy to conclude that oil output will continue to rise over the next decade.

Peter Jackson, the report's author, said: “We will be able to grow supply to well over 100million barrels per day by 2017.” Current world oil output is in the region of 85million barrels a day.

The optimistic view of the world's oil resource was also given support by BP's chief economist, Peter Davies, who dismissed theories of “Peak Oil” as fallacious. Instead, he gave warning that world oil production would peak as demand weakened, because of political constraints, including taxation and government efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Speaking to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil, Mr Davies said that peaks in world production had been wrongly predicted throughout history but he agreed that oil might peak within a generation “as a result of a peaking of demand rather than supply”. Speaking to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil, Mr Davies said that peaks in world production had been wrongly predicted throughout history but he agreed that oil might peak within a generation “as a result of a peaking of demand rather than supply”.

These posts on energy are interesting and important PC.

***patsfan13*** · 01-18-2008, 03:38 PM

Here is another artile referencing Bush going hat in hand to the Saudi's to talk about oil production:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24527

Quote:

As humiliating as it is for the United States to be put in a position where our economy is held hostage to foreign oil producers who can make or break our nation simply by limiting their petroleum production, thus causing the price of oil to skyrocket, it is even more shameful that we have allowed the so-called environmental movement to escape the blame for our predicament.

Make no mistake about it, you are paying exorbitant prices at the gas pump solely because the environmental terrorists and their Democrat allies in Congress have all but shut down our domestic oil production while refusing to allow the exploration and creation of new sources of this resource so vital to our economic health. .....

George Bush should point the finger of blame at Mrs. Pelosi and Sen. Reid and their environmentalist co-conspirators for refusing to enact an energy policy that dictates drilling in ANWR and the Florida Gulf -- where the Chinese and Cubans are drilling for the huge plentiful supply of oil beneath the seas to their heart’s content. We should also be harnessing nuclear power, and mining clean coal now locked up for alleged environmental reasons in well over a million acres of land in southwest Utah in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, which contains at least 7 billion tons of coal worth over $1 trillion.

This article was written by Mike Reagan, wish I could have posted more he does rip Bush for how he is dealing with the Saudi's.

***patsfan13*** · 01-18-2008, 03:42 PM

Then there is the head in the sand approach to numes taken by the politicans. They rip dems but a lot of pubbies are just as culpiable as the dems:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...85465316288156

Quote:

At a debate Tuesday, the Democrats' three blind mice were asked if they would kill the nuclear waste repository project at Yucca Mountain 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas. All said they would, demonstrating once again their party's energy policy consists mainly of hot air from the podium.

.....

Over the past four decades, America's reactors have produced about 56,000 tons of used fuel. Jack Spencer, research fellow for nuclear energy policy at the Thomas A. Rowe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, says this "waste" has enough energy to power every U.S. household for a dozen years.

As we've noted, France long ago achieved energy independence by relying on nuclear energy for most of its power needs. But it also leads the world in processing this waste to create even more energy.

The French have reprocessed spent nuclear fuel for 30 years without incident. There have been no accidental explosions, no terrorist attacks, no contribution to nuclear proliferation. Their facility in La Hague has safely processed more than 23,000 tons of spent fuel, or enough to power the entire country for 14 years.

No vision or leadership on energy. Thisis hurting our economy and especially the poor who have to pay more to heat their homes.

***Harry Boy*** · 01-18-2008, 04:55 PM

Stop Using Oil