Keresés

Az USA olaj politika szimulátor.:-)

Russia to run out of oil in six years?! - 04/13/2004 13:40

Taking into account today's tempos of oil extraction, existing oil supply in Russia will last only until 2010, stated head of the department of fuel and energy resources and water works of the Ministry of Russian Natural Resources, Rinat Murzin.

The point is that the level of oil reproduction is significantly lower than the amount of oil that is being extracted. In 2002 oil reserves have increased by 254 million tons with oil extraction of 380 million tons. In 2003, before the initial estimates, oil reserves equaled to 240 million tons, whereas oil extraction has increased up to 421 million tons. The Ministry of Natural Resources blames oil companies for today's situation, since they practically totally refrain from conducting exploration works.
.........
In the meantime, the Ministry official's statement regarding the fact that 2010 could be marked by major oil crisis isn't taken seriously by the experts, since it all concerns the actual compatibility of today's oilfields and companies' future plans concerning oil extraction. Overall, the situation is such that with today-s tempos of oil extraction, oil workers will be able to hold out for several more decades.
........

As far as geological scouting is concerned, analysts assume that no administrative measures could change the existing situation. ?Companies will continue to conduct active geological scouting only in case a proper law of earth's reserves will be passed. Then, the companies will be guaranteed that after investing in geological analysis, they will have a chance to add those resources to their balance sheet and trade them, just as it is done in the world. Today, our companies lack such guarantees,¦ considers the analyst of the ?FINAM¦ company, Marina Lukashova.

Naszóval,a ruszki term. erőforrások minisztériuma szerint ha nem tesznek semmit,akkor 2010-re durva termeléscsökkenés lesz.A jelenlegi telepek nem tudják fentartani a tempot.
(ez egybeesik az ASPO állítáásval)
Namármost,fő problémaként a bürokráciát és a jogi garanciák hiányát nevezte meg,mint hátráltató tényezőt,és az új lelőhelyek kiaknázásátol reméli a kitermelés tempojának növelését.

http://www.worldoil.com/magazine/MAGAZINE_DETAIL.asp?ART_ID=2297&MONTH_YEAR=Apr-2004

Norway and the UK: Promises and problems. Upstream activity on the Norwegian and UK Continental Shelves is dwindling. Fields are depleting, and platforms are shutting down. Exploration decreases, and the discoveries made are of diminishing sizes. Few major development projects remain, and investment levels are falling.

After the UK, Norway has matured and shows no signs of further growth, due more to politics than geology. Both countries need to stimulate increased exploration; develop new, smaller fields linked to infrastructure; and increase field output. Industry executives claim that Norway's high petroleum tax rate is the major reason why oil companies do not consider many projects to be sufficiently profitable. Although Norway's oil output will decline (unless industry incentives improve), natural gas is set to increase further.

.............

Unless investment increases and exploration rebounds (followed by field development), reserves will not be renewed. In turn, output will gradually decline, negatively affecting Oslo's revenues, as well as Europe's degree of self-sufficiency. The case for reform in Norway is compelling.

Norway aims to capture economic rent from large oil fields, taxing net income at 78% with six-year depreciation. The absence of a ring fence means that new prospect development costs can be offset against current revenues, favoring incumbent firms and capital-rich newcomers that can buy into producing assets vs. smaller, capital-poor companies and marginal prospects. Britain, with a 40% corporate income tax and immediate depreciation, is more attractive to newcomers, but the ring fence deters marginal prospect investment. For both countries, what is not found and developed cannot be produced and taxed.
......................
Interest in high-cost, high-tax Norwegian prospects has waned. Norway's maturity as an oil province is due as much to rigorous regulatory and fiscal conditions as to geology (measured by costs and field sizes). Through the 1990s, the average, weighted production cost, including development, operations and abandonment, declined in both countries. Norway's cost advantage stayed constant, thanks to larger fields, indicating the importance of field size in economics. For nearly all prospects, total production costs are below $12/bbl, and operating costs tend to be below $5/bbl.

...........

In the UK, where officials face declining output, the priority is to stimulate activity through such means as more favorable licensing terms in offshore, deepwater areas west of the Shetlands. Elsewhere, new entrants are picking up assets sold by the majors, so future drilling prospects could be better than expected. The ambition is to sustain annual investment at £3 billion and combined output at 3 million boed, to prolong self-sufficiency.

Anglia és Norvégia hasonló cípöben jár mint oroszó.A termelés angliában már csökken,Norvégiában pedig csökkeni fog.A termelés szinten tartására/bövítésére a gyógyírt a beruházás ösztönzésében,a probléma gyökerét pedig a magas adókban és a szabályozás rossz voltában látják.

Szorgalmazzák a kisebb mezők kitermelését,illetve a nagy mélységű kitermelést.

Mindezek melett a jelenlegi kitermelési ktsg 12$,ami előrevetíti hogy milyen ár melett éri majd meg a mélyebb területek kiaknázása....
(továbbá,hogy mit kezd magával a norvég és britt kormány olajbevételek nélkül).

Sterling set to fall as oil revenue dries up

The pound is set to come under pressure as its near 30-year status as a "petrocurrency" comes to an end, a new study predicts.

The Centre for Economic and Business Research will issue its latest quarterly business forecasts today, which will show the euro rising against sterling by as much as 23 per cent over the next four years as the balance of payments deficit continues to balloon.

The widening deficit will be exacerbated by a turnaround in the UK's net position in traded fuels. Official forecasts for UK oil production show production by 2008 will be down to 56 per cent of its peak. Gas production will also be falling at the same time, albeit at a slower rate. By 2008, UK gas production will be down to 70 per cent of its peak level.

"The result is that the Ł7bn trade surplus in fuel in 2000 is forecast to turn around to a deficit of about Ł4bn by 2008, a turnaround worth more than 1 per cent of GDP," the CEBR says in its report.

Before North Sea oil production began in the late 1970s, sterling had traditionally been a weak currency. But rising production of oil and gas from the UK's offshore fields eventually led the country to enjoy a surplus in its fuel trade worth 2 per cent of GDP by 1983. The IMF estimated this was worth a 23 per cent appreciation in sterling, which duly rose in value over the period.

"But when the underlying dynamics of slowing UK growth and the turnaround from petrocurrency status become fully understood by the markets, a fall in the pound becomes highly likely," the CEBR says.

The UK's current account deficit is predicted to reach Ł38.7bn by 2008 from last year's Ł18.8bn. The CEBR says this is forecast to reflect the lack of competitiveness of the UK economy. The benefits of a weaker currency will take time to feed through, and although higher interest rates compared with Europe will support the pound in the short term, this gap will narrow after 2006.

"If a sharp fall in sterling were to coincide with a loss of consumer and business confidence, the [Bank of England] Monetary Policy Committee would have considerable difficulty in preventing a hard landing as economic activity reaches its capacity limits," the CEBR says.

Oil Consumption to Rise Faster Than Expected in 2004, IEA Says

The International Energy Agency, an adviser to 26 industrialized countries, raised its forecast for world oil consumption this year for the sixth straight month as the U.S. economy recovers and demand surges in China.

Global use of gasoline, diesel and other fuels will rise by 1.7 million barrels a day to almost 80.3 million barrels daily, the biggest gain since 1997. The increase is 60,000 barrels a day more than the IEA forecast last month. In the second quarter, demand will be 300,000 barrels a day higher than previously expected, the Paris-based agency said in a monthly report. ``The driving force is the expanding economy,'' Klaus Rehaag, editor of the report, said by telephone from Paris. ``We have a significant recovery from the recession that's primarily driven by the U.S. At the same point in time, China and India are expanding extremely rapidly.''

The latest increase in the demand forecast comes as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, source of a third of the world's oil, plans to cut supply this month on concern of a drop in prices. Crude oil in London has risen 15 percent to more than $33 a barrel since OPEC announced the plan Feb. 10.

The IEA also cut its estimate of oil supply from countries that don't belong to OPEC. Those nations will boost output by 1.27 million barrels a day this year, 185,000 less than forecast last month, to 50.24 million barrels a day, because of lower expectations for regions including the North Sea.

Oil demand normally falls in the second quarter because of warmer weather in the U.S. and Europe. The IEA said consumption will decline by 2 million barrels a day in the period, rather than the 2.3 million barrels expected a month ago, largely because of China. China Fuels Gain ``China's fast-rising energy consumption fuels most of the growth in global oil demand,'' the IEA report said. ``Second- quarter apparent demand may again exceed expectations, despite seasonal maintenance at several large refineries.''

China last year surpassed Japan as the second-largest oil consumer after the U.S., because of rising car sales and increased use of oil to fuel power plants. Chinese demand will rise by 13 percent this year to 6.20 million barrels a day, the IEA said.

The expected growth in world demand this year is the largest in absolute terms since 1996-1997, before Asia's fiscal crisis, when demand also rose by 1.7 million barrels a day, Rehaag said. In percentage terms, it matches the 2.1 percent rise in 2003.

Fuel inventories are declining as demand accelerates. The IEA, set up as a counterweight to OPEC in 1974, has criticized OPEC's policy of managing supply, saying it is contributing to a ``more fragile'' market. Fuel Inventories

Inventories of crude and fuels held in the 30 nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development fell by more than 1 million barrels a day in February to 2.46 billion barrels, the IEA said.

The decline left stocks 124 million barrels above those of a year ago. Inventories equaled 52 days of demand, 2.5 days more than 2003's level, the IEA said.

OPEC at a meeting in Vienna on March 31 reaffirmed a February decision to lower its output quota by 1 million barrels a day, or 4 percent, as of April 1. Members are still pumping more oil than the quota because prices are rising.

The 10 OPEC nations outside of Iraq who agree to quotas produced 25.8 million barrels a day in March, 2.3 million more than their collective target as of April 1, the IEA said. In Iraq, daily supply rose to 2.4 million barrels a day.

Some OPEC countries said the IEA's forecast of a decline in second-quarter demand justified the reduction in quotas. The IEA raised its estimate of the need for oil from the group, also known as the call on OPEC. OPEC Call

Demand for OPEC oil will drop to 24.3 million barrels a day this quarter, 300,000 barrels a day more than expected last month, from 26.2 million a day in the first quarter. In 2004, the call will average 25.9 million barrels a day, up 100,000 barrels from last month's estimate, the report said.

Crude oil prices have been above $22 and $28 a barrel, OPEC's official target range, since December. As long as prices are high, most members aren't likely to comply with the accord to pump less oil, the IEA said. ``Cuts in actual April supply are likely to be modest, confined to perhaps Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and possibly Iran,'' the IEA said. ``Cuts from elsewhere within the organization for April look elusive in the absence of any sustained drop in prices.'' Source: Bloomberg

Lényeg:a világ olajfogyasztása gyorsabban növekszik a vártnál,miközben a termelés lassaban nő a vártnál.
Az igaz,hogy az OPEC bejelentett egy kis termeléscsökkentést,de ez gyakorlailag 0 hatású,mivel a tagok jelenleg a magas árak miatt annyit nyomnak a csővekbe ami belefér.gyakorlatilag 2,7 millió hordóval több megy ki az engedélyezett menyiségnél.
Namármost,ez annyit jelent,hogy az 1 millió hordós csökkentés az árak 28 $ alá sülyedésekor jelentenek csak valós csökkentést,addig mindenki gőzerővel nyomul.

Ha ez így folytatódik tovább,akkor az ídők végezetéig...:-)

HOUSTON- With remarkably little public debate in Congress or in the current political campaigns, the United States is drifting toward a future where up to 25 percent of its natural gas supplies will come from foreign sources.

Long blessed with an abundant and inexpensive supply of natural gas for heating, industry and electrical power generation, consumers and the gas industry have watched as demand overtook supply in the past three years and prices have moved inexorably upward.

With no reversal in sight, producers are turning to liquefied natural gas, or LNG, which would be imported from the Middle East, Asia and Africa.

It will require a gargantuan capital investment for large receiving ports along the U.S. coast, including the Gulf of Mexico. The energy industry, environmentalists and neighbors to those proposed ports are expected to clash.

"A tsunami of LNG tankers is headed toward U.S. ports," Hillard Huntington, director of the Energy Modeling Forum at Stanford University, told a liquefied natural gas conference in Houston last month.

.......

Texas will be a major linchpin in the new LNG industry. Irving-based Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest energy producer, has announced a planned investment of $12 billion to $15 billion for an LNG conversion facility in the Middle Eastern kingdom of Qatar. That LNG would be received at two terminals Exxon Mobil has proposed for the Texas Gulf Coast, at Ingleside in San Patricio County, and at Sabine Pass at the Louisiana border.

........

"We're at the same point with LNG that the world was in the late 1950s with crude oil," Sweetnam said.

Of course, since the 1950s the United States has switched from having a net surplus of crude oil to being the world's largest importer of crude, with a host of political and geostrategic implications.

"Energy independence" has been a mantra for politicians for three decades - ever since OPEC used its embargo power in 1973-74 to withhold crude oil from the U.S. market. But a political consensus has yet to develop.

Az usa nagyjábol ott tart,ahol tartott az olajjal az 50'-es,60'-as években.Önellátó,de közeledett az a pont amikor egyre inkább külföldi forrásokra támaszkodik.

Gyakorlatilag marada a szén és az atom mint amerikai energiaforrás,a magasabb élőmunkaköltségekkel és a szén esetében a durva közvetlen táj(salak) és durvább területi(savas eső),iletve glob. környezeti károkkal...

Na,kezdenek felébredni a fijuk...:-)

http://www.energycrisis.com/gas/

Conclusions
Gas reserves are much more difficult to assess than oil, and much more susceptible to economic factors, the most important of which is transport (pipelines/LNG). The USA is more depleted than anywhere else.

Any proposal to use natural gas as the primary substitute for oil in the transportation sector represents at best a temporary solution, and at worst a distraction of human industrial resources (consuming time and capital, while oil and gas remain economic, to produce a fleet which will then soon become obsolete, rather than using the remaining economic reserves to create a lasting solution), as well as a waste of natural resources of great potential value to future generations.

Az erőművek 1000 MW-os teljesítményűek, darabjuk 1,5 milliárd USD.

Vannak akik úgy érzik, hogy nem kéne Kínát új reaktortechnológiával jutalmazni, mivel a tervek szerint Pakisztánnak fog segíteni két tenyésztőreaktor megépítésében, ahol a pakisztánok plutóniumot fognak előállítani.

A tervek szerint a kínaiak hónapok múlva kiírják az első tendert 4 atomerőműre.
A fő esélyesek az Usák Westinghouse és a Francia Areva cég Framatome leányvállalata.

A kínaiaknak van már 9 működő reaktoruk, Orosz, Japán, Kandai, Francia és saját gyártmányúak, 6.400 MW összteljesítménnyel az áramellátás 1,5%-át adják. Az 2020-ig felépülő 32 erőművel az atomenergia 8%-al részesedne az áramtermelésben. Egy tavalyi konferencián a kínaiak azt mondták, hogy szénerőműveiket meg kell kétszerezniük, ha lépést akarnak tartani a növekvő energiaszükséglettel.

Cheney to Promote American-Made Nuclear Reactors to China

WASHINGTON (AP) - On a trip to China next week to talk about high-stakes issues like terrorism and North Korea, Vice President Dick Cheney will have another task - making a pitch for Westinghouse's U.S. nuclear power technology.
At stake could be billions of dollars in business in coming years and thousands of American jobs. The initial installment of four reactors, costing $1.5 billion apiece, would also help narrow the huge U.S. trade deficit with China.

China's latest economic plan anticipates more than doubling its electricity output by 2020 and the Chinese government, facing enormous air pollution problems, is looking to shift some of that away from coal-burning plants. Its plan calls for building as many as 32 large 1,000-megawatt reactors over the next 16 years.

No one has ordered a new nuclear power reactor in the United States in three decades and the next one, if it comes, is still years away. So, China is being viewed by the U.S. industry as a potential bonanza.

Cheney's three-day visit to Beijing and Shanghai next week is part of a weeklong trip to Asia that will also include a stop in Tokyo. He departed Washington on Friday.

A senior administration official, briefing reporters about the trip, said Cheney will not "pitch individual commercial transactions." But he intends to make clear "we support the efforts of our American companies" and general access to China's markets, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Some critics are concerned about such technology transfers.

"This pitch could not be more poorly timed," Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, told a hearing of the House International Relations Committee recently.

Citing recent Chinese plans to help Pakistan build two large reactors that are capable of producing plutonium, he said it is not the time for China to be rewarded with new reactor technology. U.S. officials said the Chinese have given adequate assurances that such sales will not pose a proliferation risk.

Bid solicitations for four new reactors are expected to be issued by the Chinese within months.

The leading competitors are U.S.-based Westinghouse Electric Co. and a French rival, Areva, which is peddling its next-generation reactor built by its Framatome subsidiary.

Westinghouse is putting its hopes on its 1,100 megawatt AP1000 reactor, an advanced design that is still waiting approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission before it can be built in the United States. Westinghouse, owned by the British nuclear firm BNFL, is the only U.S.-based manufacturer of a pressurized water reactor, the type of design China has said it wants to pursue.

"Clearly the China market is very important to the industry and a supplier like Westinghouse," said Vaughn Gilbert, a spokesman for the Pittsburgh-based reactor vendor. "The Chinese market is one that we're pursuing."

Each of the AP1000 reactors are expected to cost about $1.5 billion. "We would assume there would be more than one order," Gilbert said, since China has indicated it wants a standardized design across its reactor program. A successful bid could mean 5,000 American jobs, Gilbert said in an interview.

For the nuclear industry, the potential windfall goes beyond building the power plants.

"The opportunity is not just in selling the Chinese a number of reactors, but engaging them for a longer term in a strategic partnership," says Ron Simard, who deals with future plant development at the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry trade group. That could mean future construction contracts as well as plant service business.

The reactor business has been nonexistent in the United States since the 1970s. No American utility has ordered a new reactor since the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident.

So, vendors like Westinghouse are relying on business elsewhere, especially Asia.

China currently has nine operating reactors, including French, Canadian, Russian, and Japanese designs as well as their own model, producing 6,450 megawatts of power, or about 1.4 percent total capacity. Chinese officials have estimated that by 2020 the country will need an additional 32,000 megawatts from its nuclear industry, or about 32 additional reactors.

Even with the surge in reactor construction, nuclear power will only account for 8 percent of China's future electricity needs. Chinese officials said at an energy conference in Washington last year their country must more than double its coal-fired generation and build more dams, erect windmills and tap natural gas to meet future electricity demands.

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntr41081.htm

Russian decision to accept Japanese pipeline plan stuns China
25-02-04 Chinese oil industry officials are refusing to believe that Russia has rejected their plan to pipe massive amounts of oil from Siberia into their booming economy, opting instead on a Japanese plan for a pipeline to the Pacific coast.
A decision announced by Russian energy minister Igor Yusufov is reverberating around east Asia as the rival bids for Siberian oil in the huge Angarsk field appear to have been resolved in Japan's favour.

Mr Yusufov said Moscow wanted the state-run Transneft to build a 3900 km crude oil pipeline to the Pacific coast near the port of Nakhodka for export to Japan, the US and other customers in the Pacific. Japan has offered $ 7 bn ($ 9 bn) in finance.
A rival proposal backed by Russia's biggest oil company, Yukos Oil, to build a shorter $ 2.8 bn pipeline to China's north-east oil centre of Daqing and give China exclusive access to the oil may be abandoned, he said, adding: "China will have equal access to buy oil in the area close to Nakhodka."

...

http://www.ekonomist.co.yu/en/magazin/perspectives/0502/sopt/oil.htm
Turkey - regional node
At the end of March, Greece and Turkey agreed to build the first joint gas pipeline to transport gas from the Caspian Sea as of 2005. The 285km gas pipeline would travel from the Dardanelles Straits to the Greek border city of Komotini, and further to the east, to the coastal Greek town of Alexandropolis. The pipeline will travel 200 kilometers inside Turkey and 85 kilometers in Greece, and will be linked with the existing and planned networks taking Caspian gas to southern Europe.
The pipeline is the result of a three-year financial and technological study earning the Greek Depa company and its Turkish counterpart, Botas, enough credibility for resuming the works. The $300m deal will bring 500,000 cubic meters of Azerbaijani, Russian and Iranian gas to Greece on a daily basis. The well-versed say, however, that cooperation in the field of energy will also improve political and economic relations between the two countries.

Úgy néz ki,hogy japán 7 milliárd $-ért építet egy csővezetéket , míg kína ajánlatát viszaútasították,amit kína nagyon rosz néven vesz(br valsz épíenek késöbb egy leágazást...)

Továbbá,törökó csővezetékcsomóponként fog müködni,mertugye a FSU (réi szu) és az iráni gáz rajta keresztül juthat európába...Mertugye az északi ternegi gázlelőhelyek merülnek ki,így iránbol fog az eu földgázt imoprátlni(ezaz amit az usa nem tud nagy bánatára megcsinálni,és ezért van stratégiai előnyben európa.szárazföldröl elérhető az ismert földgázkészletek 80%-a)

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/Business2.asp?ArticleID=116311

Arab gas consumption set to overtake oil demand in 2005

By Nadim Kawach

Bureau Chief

Abu Dhabi: Gas consumption in the Arab world is set to overtake oil demand in 2005 as many regional countries are switching to the cleaner source of energy in power generation and other sectors, according to official forecasts.

The bulk of the demand growth will be recorded in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other countries with relatively high energy consumption and steady growth in their industrial sector, the Organisation of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (Oapec) said in a report on future energy consumption in the region.

Between 2005 and 2015, consumption of oil products, excluding those used in power generation, is projected to grow by around 1.6 per cent from 3.4 million barrels per day to 3.9 million bpd, the 10-nation group said.

Gas demand is expected to surge by 3.5 per cent from 3.5 million bpd equivalent to around 4.9 million bpd/e in the same period.

Total energy consumption, including oil, gas, coal and other sources not used in power generation, is forecast to grow by 2.6 per cent from 7.1 million bpd in 2005 to eight million in 2010 and nearly 9.19 million bpd in 2015.

"Expectations are that the share of the gas in the Arab energy market will rise from 48.9 per cent in 2005 to 53.3 per cent in 2015 to overtake the oil share, which will decline from 47.4 per cent to 42.8 per cent," Oapec said.

"The other energy sources, including coal, wind and hydroelectricity, will remain almost unchanged, with their market share standing at 3.7-4 per cent."

Tehát az arab államok csökkenteni akarják az olaj,és növelni a földgázfelhasználásukat,ami logikus lépés tekintve hogy az olajat sokkal könyebb nagy távra szállítani,így a földgáz helyben felhasználása jelentös töbletpénzt hozhat

According to the report, the industrial sector in the region is the main consumer of energy, with a share of 35.2 per cent. The communication sector ranks second, with a consumption of 24.4 per cent in 2002.

"Consumption of oil, gas and other sources in the Arab world is influenced by economic growth, energy policies, consumption in previous years, expansion of some sectors and prices of energy. As a result, growth in consumption in some members is much higher than growth in other members."

In a separate study last year, Oapec said Arab states need to invest at least $100 billion to expand their oil and gas sectors to face growing demand in the local and foreign markets.

It noted that the bulk of the expansions would take place in the Gulf, which controls more than 60 per cent of the world's total recoverable oil reserves and 40 per cent of the global gas wealth.

The projects along with expansions in other producing countries will push up Opec's sustainable output capacity from around 30 million bpd in 2000 to 38.4 million in 2010, to 44.8 million in 2010 and 60.2 million in 2020.

A breakdown showed the UAE's capacity will climb from 2.5 million bpd in 2000 to three million bpd in 2005, to 3.7 million in 2010 and 5.1 million in 2020.

Saudi Arabia will lift capacity from 9.4 million bpd to 12.5 million then to 14.6 million and 22.1 million in the same period.

Nos,tehát a 100 milliárd $ beruházs kellene az elkövetkezőkben.Ráadásul gyakorlatilag meg akarják töbszörözni az olajtermelésüket,miközben az elmult ídőszakban az oroszok pont azért tudták felfuttatni az olajtermelésüket,mert az arabok nem tudtak elég olajat termelni a világnak.
Így a 15 év alatt 2*-es termelésnövelés enyhén szólva kétséges....

A következő cikk az olaj és ház journalbol van.

http://ogj.pennnet.com/articles/web_article_display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&ARTICLE_CATEGORY=GenIn&ARTICLE_ID=202061
Analyst: Oil shortfalls to drive price increases, dictate alternatives

By OGJ editors

HOUSTON, Apr. 2 -- The world is facing a future of oil price increases that will occur sooner than many people now believe, concluded Canterbury, England,-based energy analysts Douglas-Westwood Ltd. in the third edition (2004-50) of its World Oil Supply Report published Wednesday.

Leading to that judgment are three fundamental findings study author Michael R. Smith of EnergyFiles Ltd. said were "strongly evident" from the study: increasing oil demand coupled with falling reserves and a decline in discovery.

Declining reserves
The unprecedented rate of global oil reserves drawdown will be a major factor, Smith said. Although 99 countries have or can produce significant volumes of oil, 52, including the US, are already well past their peak (greater than 5 years), while another 16, including the UK, Norway, Australia, and China are at peak or will reach it soon, the analyst said. The remainder will peak within the next 25 years, he added.

The report, Douglas-Westwood said, "further adds to the debate begun by Shell's downgrading of oil reserves," which was followed by a number of other oil companies' doing the same (For an analysis of Shell's reserves picture, see OGJ, Apr. 5, 2004, p. 43).

tehát már az iparban is kezdik elismerni azt,hogy a világ kőolajkútjai száradnak kifelé
"Perhaps all of Shell's 'lost' reserves may eventually be converted back to proven, but the problems of Shell and other oil companies do raise questions as to the present day economic value of global reserves and the validity and soundness of processes to estimate them," Smith said. "Cuts in oil companies' proven reserves may indicate new shortages in underreported volumes that were once used to counterbalance overreported volumes," Smith said.

Iraq and OPEC
Smith forecast a short period of oversupply by the former Soviet Union and from deep waters, but said that to offset declines elsewhere, large capital investments would be required within OPEC countries after 2008 to rapidly increase production by at least 1-2 million b/d annually. "It is likely that by then the world will begin to see sustained growth in oil prices," he reported.
tehát kemény befektetésekre van szükség a termelés felfuttatásához.Ha ez lehetséáges egyáltalán...
"OPEC cohesion continues, and it is assumed that Iraqi will continue to be a member of OPEC and that its output ultimately will combine with theirs.

"Iraq is probably the most underexplored country in the world in relation to its productive potential. Once stability is achieved, a field development program must begin with very large infrastructure projects and huge investments, said Smith. "However, whether companies will be willing to take on the political and geological risk, remains to be seen."

Iraq is likely to achieve 2.5-3 million b/d of oil by the end of 2005, and maintain a level near this within OPEC for 3-4 years, before ramping up output, he said.

"Within 5 years the share of production that OPEC provides can increase once again without reducing the price."

Rising demand
However, "by 2008 all OPEC countries will need to begin to increase production as much as they can to meet even modest demand growth," the analyst said. As reserves dwindle, oil demand continues to soar.

Global demand in 2003, led by China, grew by 2.6%, the analyst said. China's surge in oil-fired power generation capacity and a 75% jump in sales of passenger vehicles resulted in its 10% demand increase. Although unsustainable, China's demand growth is nonetheless expected to remain the highest in the world, Smith said.

"When you consider that the number of cars on British roads increased from around 2 million in 1950 to 25 million now, and revenue-passenger kilometers on the world's air transport has tripled from 1 trillion to 3 trillion since 1978, it stands to reason that economic growth in China will have a dramatic effect on automobile and airline oil usage," he said.
tehát kína rá lesz cuppanva az olajra,és egyre nagyobb mértékben ahogy gazdasága növekszik...És ahogy a kínaiak is autót és nyugati életmódot akarnak
Declining discovery rates
Douglas-Westwood said that, in forecasting the likely future oil production profile of all existing and potential oil-producing countries, the study considered both known and 'yet-to-find' oil, condensate, and natural gas liquid resources onshore and offshore, in deep and shallow water, and the use of conventional and unconventional extraction methods.

The author drew from the EnergyFiles Ltd. oil and gas supply information system to evaluate regional and global oil production limits and to define the year in which oil supplies would no longer be able to meet a given global demand.

Smith said the 'glut' of oil commentators predicted through 2003-04 failed to materialize. . . . Projects have been delayed, and opportunities are receding for significantly increasing output outside of deep waters or OPEC countries. "Only Russia, Kazakhstan, and Azerbaijan can truly lay claim to significant conventional oil reserves, and projects here have been very slow to get off the ground," he said.

Although discoveries continued in deep and ultradeep Gulf of Mexico and Angola waters, no new oil provinces were identified last year. Deep waters currently are responsible for only 4% of production and are expected to reach only 10% of total capacity, the report indicated.

"The declining oil discovery rate is a signal that opportunities are limited and that production must decline in the future," Smith said. "The question is when?"

Smith said that, beyond 2020, the world's known and estimated yet-to-find reserves and resources could not match even the current level of production. And just a 1% growth in global economic activity would increase demand to the point that a production peak could occur as early as 2016. "Although the response will be complex, this will ultimately result in a sustained increase in oil prices."

Rapid action needed
In order to face a world with higher energy costs, consuming nations, users, suppliers, and service corporations must take rapid action now, the author stressed. The first step is to understand the data and determine just where the sources of the world's oil will be over the next 20 years or so. The second step is to consider alternatives, many of which are expensive, environmentally questionable, and still are ineffective as oil substitutes because of transportation issues.

"All governments must review energy supply security now and develop policies and budgets consistent with impending shortfalls in oil supply in the coming years," said Smith. "Japan and China are competing for Russian oil [while] a number of countries in Western Europe are already facing up to the prospect of energy supply shortfalls and [are] beginning major programs to encourage renewables. However Europe, Asia, and North America will need a lot more than renewable energy to overcome the long-term supply squeeze. Furthermore, alternative transport fuels such as hydrogen made from natural gas would probably require at least 15-20 years to bring on stream fully.

"Ultimately oil companies and countries alike must cope with declining production and locate and compete for new energy supplies by diversifying, increasing imports, or developing indigenous alternatives," Smith continued. "When and to what extent they can do this—and the degree to which the exporting countries can and will rapidly increase oil and gas production to meet new external demands—are fundamental to global economic health."

Tehát rososzó helyzete egyre inkább felértékelődik.Kína és japán gáz és olajügyben egyre inkább rá lesz utlva...
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8209-1059864,00.html

Shell's Russian gas project shoots $2bn over budget

SHELL’s troubled management faces new questions over internal accounting procedures today, as The Times reveals that one of the oil major’s key gas projects has spiralled more than $2 billion (£1.09 billion) over budget in just two months.

Sources close to Shell’s Sakhalin-2 natural gas development in Eastern Siberia have confirmed that the total cost of building Russia’s largest energy project is now more than 20 per cent in excess of the $10 billion budget presented to analysts in February.

Russia’s first liquefied natural gas project (LNG), Sakhalin was lauded as the biggest ever foreign investment in Russia and was granted the privilege of a special ring-fenced tax structure, one of a very few such agreements sanctioned by the Kremlin. Contracts have been signed with Japanese power generators, including Tokyo Electric, for the 17 trillion cubic feet of gas in the Piltun and Lunskoye fields, north of Sakhalin island

Tehát japán egyre inkább ráál az usa energiahordozóira.A fenti egyben példa arra,hogy mire lehet számítani ha LNG forrásokbol probálja meg az usa potolni az olcsó földgázutánpotlását...

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/04/05/046.html

Russian plans to build more than $20 billion of oil and gas pipelines supplying China, South Korea and Japan may help Asian refiners cut oil bills that are as much as $10 billion a year more than they would pay in Europe or the U.S.
...
Russia is vying with Saudi Arabia, the largest oil producer, to supply to China and Japan, the world's No.2 and No.3 consumers. Russian output grew 12 percent in the first two months of this year to 8.9 million barrels a day against the Saudis' 8.4 million. Saudi Arabia can produce as much as 10 million barrels a day, with more than 40 percent of output going to Asian buyers
...
Russia and other non-OPEC producers such as Kazakhstan have been taking market share from members of the oil group as it cuts output. Kazakhstan's oil production has risen 10 percent to 965,000 barrels a day.
...
China, which last year overtook Japan as an oil consumer, may boost crude imports by more than 9.8 percent this year to ease domestic fuel shortages, the government said on March 24.

És végül az új ASPO newletterből...

Aramco announced that it is using multiple branched horizontal wells in Ghawar, its largest field, to hold production as high as possible at the expense of accelerating depletion. The poor old lady really is coming to the end of her life, and she may be spared any lengthy terminal suffering, as these wells die overnight when the water reaches them.
Engineers familiar with the field explain its unusual features. A tar deposit has formed at the oil water contact, which impedes the natural water drive in the east, explaining the practice of massive water injection above the tar mat along the periphery. There is an active water drive on the west flank, giving a tilted oil-water contact. The engineers think that a recovery factor of 50-55% is the best to be hoped for from any traditional extraction process.

Naszóval Ghawar,ami a szaudiak termelésének fleét adja,már erősen döglödik.Uygan névleg még sok olaj van benne,de a nyomást biztosító víz egyre nagyobb aránya miatt a kutakbol egy ídő után nem olaj,hanem víz fog csorogni(és mivel a talajba tengervízet nyomtak bele a nyomsá fentartása érdekében,ez az olajos-sós-vízes trutyi nem sok mindenre használható...)

Mindenesetre eléggéoptimista kijelentésnek tűnik,hogy tartani tudják a tervezett fejlsztésbővítést,inkább valószínű hogy jó ha a termelési szintüjekt tudják tartani.
Alapvetően,ha tehetik,akkor miért nem radirozták le a ruszkikat a 12$-es kitermelési költségükkel,amikor nekik csak pár $ a költségük?Ha duplájára nyomták volna a termelést,még 12$-es olajárnál is meg lett volna a bevételük,de a ruszkik akkor már megdöglöttek volna.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1185292,00.html
Bush attacks environment 'scare stories'

Secret email gives advice on denying climate change

Antony Barnett in New York
Sunday April 4, 2004
The Observer

George W. Bush's campaign workers have hit on an age-old political tactic to deal with the tricky subject of global warming - deny, and deny aggressively.
The Observer has obtained a remarkable email sent to the press secretaries of all Republican congressmen advising them what to say when questioned on the environment in the run-up to November's election. The advice: tell them everything's rosy.

It tells them how global warming has not been proved, air quality is 'getting better', the world's forests are 'spreading, not deadening', oil reserves are 'increasing, not decreasing', and the 'world's water is cleaner and reaching more people'.

Jó őreg kampánytrükk.
"Atlantisz nem fog elsülyedni..."

Elolvastam a Fehér Ház Energia Politikáját, melyet Dick Cheney saját kezüleg írt alá 2001 Május 16-án.

Vannak benne érdekes dolgok, melyeken nem árt elcsodálkozni :))

Szemelvények:

Estimates indicate that over the next 20 years, U.S. oil consumption will increase
by 33 percent, natural gas consumption by well over 50 percent, and demand for
electricity will rise by 45 percent.

Tehát a következő 20 évben Usákia olajfogyasztása 33%-al, gázfogyasztása 50%-al és elektromos áramfogyasztása 45%-al fog növekedni. 
Tudomásul vettük.

We have a similar opportunity to increase our supplies of electricity. To meet
projected demand over the next two decades, America must have in place
between 1,300 and 1,900 new electric plants. Much of this new generation will be
fueled by natural gas. However, existing and new technologies offer us the
opportunity to expand nuclear generation as well. Nuclear power today accounts
for 20 percent of our country's electricity. This power source, which causes no
greenhouse gas emissions, can play an expanding part in our energy future.

Az elkövetkező húsz évben 1300..1900 új erőművet kéne építeni.  Elsősorban gáz-erőművek lesznek, de az atomerőművet sem kéne figyelmen kívül hagyni. 
Itt egy kicsit csodálkozunk, hiszen 2000 Júniusában volt a hatalmas gáz-krízis, és tudvalevő, hogy gázkészletek fogytán vannak Észak-Amerikában, és akkor hogyan lehetséges, hogy 2001 Májusában még mindig a gázerőmű a sláger?

For example, about 90 percent of all new electricity plants currently under
construction will be fueled by natural gas. While natural gas has many
advantages, an over-reliance on any one fuel source leaves consumers
vulnerable to price spikes and supply disruptions. There are several other fuel
sources available that can help meet our needs.
Currently, the U.S. has enough coal to last for another 250 years. Yet very few 
coal-powered electric plants are now under construction.

Itt pontosítjuk: az újonnan építendő erőművek 90%-ban gázerőművek lesznek. Mivel azonban nem szabad egyetlen nyersanyagra alapozni az elektromosáram termelést, ezért figyelembevesszük, hogy Usákiának még legalább 250 évre elegendő szén-készlete van.
Itt még jobban csodálkozunk.  90%-ban olyasmire alapozni az áramtermelést, ami már most fogytán van?

Other nations, such as Japan and France,  generate a much higher percentage
of their electricity from nuclear power. Yet the number of nuclear plants in
America is actually projected to decline in coming years, as old plants close and
none are built to replace them.

Japánban és Franciaországban nagyobb arányban használnak atomerőművet áram előállítására.  Usákiában csökkenni fog az atomerőművek száma, mert a régiek kiöregednek, és újakat nem építenek.
Ez érdekes hozzáállás.  Az atombomba programot felújítják, de az atomerőműveket bezárják.  Én fordítva csinálnám: a bombákat szétszedném, és az Urániumot és Plutóniumot felhasználnám az atomerőművekben - de biztos bennem van a hiba.

Over the last three decades, the United States has significantly improved its
energy efficiency by developing and expanding the use of energy efficient
technologies.  Although our economy has grown by 126 percent since 1973, our
energy use has increased by only 30 percent..

Usákiában növekszik az energiafelhasználás hatékonysága: 1973-tól a GDP 126%-al növekedett, de az Energiafelhasználás csak 30%-al.
Itt még ábránk is van:



Az ábrán piros vonal jelképezi Usákia tényleges energiafelhasználását, a kék vonal pedig azt jelképezi, hogy mennyi lenne az energiafelhasználás, ha a hatékonyság nem változna, hanem megmaradna az 1972-es szinten.  Aztán elmagyarázzák nekünk, hogy ha a hatékonyság nem változott volna 1972 óta, akkor 1999-ben 70 quadrillió BTU-val nagyobb lenne az energiafogyasztás.  Ez azt jelenti, hogy 1999-ben a piros és a kék vonal között 70 egységnek kéne lennie, de én csak 20-at látok.  Másszóval Dick és bandája bekaphatja.

Van másik ábra is:



Itt pirossal van jelölve egy Usákra eső energiafogyasztás 1970-től 1999-ig.  Látható, hogy egy fő energiafelhasználása csak picit növekedett az idő folyamán.  A népesség növekedett, de ez nem látható, ellenben a GDP kb. a kétszeresére nőtt, miáltal az egy dollár GDP-re eső energia csökkent (kék vonal). 
Ez már megint egy olyan tiszta közgazdasági megközelítés, hogy jön, hogy megcirogassam annak a közgazdásznak a buksiját, aki ezt legelőször kitalálta.  Azzal szokták ugyanis nyugtatgatni a közgazdászok a széles hallgatóságot, hogy egyre kevesebb energia kell egységnyi GDP előállítására, így hát előbb utóbb elérjük azt az utópisztikus állapotot, amikor iciri-piciri energiával hatalmas GDP-ket tudunk majd előállítani, és akkor mindenki boldog lesz, mert a plebs akkor boldog, ha magas a GDP.   Ez csak addig igaz, amíg nincs energiahiány.  Mihelyst előáll az energiahiány, akkor a plebs az elsődleges szükségleteit fogja kielégíteni: enni akar, meleget szeretne otthon, és egy-két ruhadarabot.  Az olyan úri huncutságokra - mint pl megnézni a Terminátor legújabb részét, vagy megvenni a Micro$oft legújabb Office csomagját - aligha jut pénz, miáltal a különösen energiahatékony GDP igencsak összemegy.

Of the approximately 43,000 MW of new generating capacity that power
companies planned in 1994 for construction from 1995 to 1999, only about
18,000 MW were actually built. Although plans have been announced to build
more capacity than the country will need over the next five to seven years, this
new construction assumes market and regulatory conditions that are not yet
assured. Over the next twenty years, the United States will need 1,300 to 1,900
new power plants, which is the equivalent of 60 to 90 new power plants a year

1994-ben azt tervezték, hogy 1995 és 1999 között 43.000 MW összteljesítményű erőművet kéne megépíteni.  Ténylegesen megépült 18.000 MW.
A dereguláció jótékony hatása.
A következő 20 évben évente 60..90 új erőművet kéne kéne megépíteni.
Hajrá Samu Bácsi!

There are roughly 5,000 power plants in the United States, and they have a total
generating capacity of nearly 800,000 mega watts. (...) Over the next ten years,
demand for electric power is expected to increase by about 25 percent, and more
than 200,000 megawatts of new capacity will be required. However, under
current plans electric trans mission capacity will increase by only 4 per cent. This
shortage could lead to serious transmission congestion and reliability problems.

Jelenleg Usákiában mintegy 5000 erőmű 800.000 MW összteljesítményt produkál.  Az elkövetkező 10 évben 25%-al több, azaz újabb 200.000 MW-nyi erőművet kéne üzembe helyezni.  Ezeket be is kéne kötni az elektromos hálózatba, de a tervekben csak 4%-os hálózatbővítés szerepel.
Van egy egyszerű megoldásom: változtassák meg a terveket, úgy, hogy az elektromos hálózat bővítése igazodjon az erőművekhez (hogy mindenre nekem kell gondolnom :))

After peaking in 1982, coal prices have generally declined. This trend is projected
to continue through 2020, reflecting an expanding shift into lower-cost western
coal production and substantial increases in productivity. While coal is expected
to remain the dominant fuel in meeting increasing U.S. electricity demand
through 2020, energy policy goals must be carefully integrated with
environmental policy goals. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and related
state regulations require electricity generators to reduce emissions of sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxide.

A szén ára 1982 óta csökkenőben van, és ez a trend marad 2020-ig (legalábbis a Dick szerint :))
2020-ig a szén marad az áramtermelés domináns üzemanyaga, de csökkenteni kell a kén-dioxid és a nitrogén-oxid kibocsájtást. 
A szén-dioxid kibocsájtásról szén-erőművek kapcsán nem nyilatkozunk, ezt az atomerőművekről szóló fejezet kapcsán méltatjuk.

Van ábránk is:



Az ábrán azt láthatjuk, hogy hány centbe kerül egy kWh előállítása az üzemanyag tipusától függően.  Látható, hogy a szén és az atom a legolcsóbb, és az is látható, hogy a grafikon '98-ban hirtelen megszakad. 
Vajon miért ???
A következő paragrafusban megvilágosodunk :))

Nuclear energy is the second-largest source (20 percent) of U.S. electricity
generation. Nuclear power is used exclusively to generate electricity. Nuclear
power has none of the emissions associated with coal and gas power plants,
including nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, mercury and carbon dioxide. Costs of
electricity generation by nuclear plants compare favorably with the costs of
generation by other sources.
 ...
 Currently, no plans exist to construct any new nuclear plants. However, due to
more favorable conditions, the decline in nuclear energy generation has not been
as rapid as was predicted only a few years ago, as evidenced by increased re-
licensing.
Under existing policy, natural gas generating capacity is expected to constitute
about 90 percent of the projected increase in electricity generation between 1999
and 2020. Electricity generated by natural gas is expected to grow to 33 percent
in 2020, a growth driven by electricity restructuring and the economics of natural
gas power plants.

A nukleáris energia 20%-al részesedik Usákia áramtermeléséből.  Az atomenergia nem bocsájt ki káros gázokat, és olcsó.
...
Jelenleg nincs tervbe véve új atomerőmű létesítése.
Az 1999 és 2020 között építendő új erőművek 90%-a gázturbinás lesz, a földgáz részesedése 2020-ra eléri a 33%-ot.
Ez a 90% már harmadszor jön elő.
És ez volt az a pont, amikor megvilágosodtam.  Az előbb láthattuk, hogy az ábra félbeszakadt 1998-ban.  Most meg azt olvashatjuk, hogy 1999 és 2020 között mi fog történni, holott ez a jelentés 2001 májusában készült.
Kezdjük már érteni?  Ez a f@szfej Dick és bandája vette az 1998-as jelentést, néhol kijavították a dátumokat, néhol pedig elfelejtették, néhol kicserélték a grafikonokat és volt ahol maradt a régi. 
Ellenben a koncepció maradt a régi!  1998-ban Clintonék még nem tudták, hogy fogytán a földgáz, ezért akkor természetes volt, hogy mindenki happy és a földgáz mindent megold.  Azonban Dick-nek 2001-ben egy új koncepcióval kellett volna előállnia, ami tükrözi azt a tényt, hogy fogytán a földgáz! 
Persze kissebb gondja is nagyobb volt annál.  2001 májusában már az egész banda Irak lerohanásának mikéntjét tervezgette, nem volt nekik idejük doksi szerkesztgetésre, hiszen az ő koncepciójuk más természetű volt:
Irakot lerohanni - menni, lopni, győzni!

There are a number of reasons why nuclear energy expansion halted in the
1980s. Regulatory changes implemented after the Three Mile Island incident in
1979 lengthened the licensing period to an average of fourteen years, resulting in
large cost overruns. Increased public concern  about the safety of nuclear energy
after the accident often resulted in active opposition to proposed plants. As a
result, the last completed nuclear energy plant in the United States was ordered
in 1973.

A Three Mile Island-i incidens miatt leálltak az Usákok az atomerőművek építésével.  Az utolsó üzembehelyezett atomerőművet még 1973-ban rendelték meg.
Érdekes hozzáállás.  Egy incidens miatt leállítják az új atomerőművek üzembehelyezését, ugyanakkor a meglévőeket a maximum fölött pörgetik - hiszen energia az kell - és imádkoznak, hogy ne legyen incidens. 

Konklúzió: Megállapíthatjuk, hogy egy mindenre elszánt, de tehetségtelen bűnbanda biztos kézzel vezeti Usákiát az örök földgázmezőkre.

Cost of War compared to College Scholarships

A lényeg:ha az usa-t ilyen árakra készítették fel,akkor nem csoda hogyversenyképtelenek vagyunk mink itten.

Tehát a talált gázlelőhelyek egyre kisebbek és egyre gyorsabban merülnek ki.

Ez az olajnál is így van.  Hanem azért vizsgáljuk meg közelebbről az Usák gázhelyzetet.  Kezdjük az árakkal.



Itt van ez a grafikon, amiből kiderül, hogy az elmúlt évben a gáz ára 5,5 $ millió BTU-nként.
Először is számoljuk át a dolgokat, hogy ne csak értsük, hanem érezzük is, miről van szó :))
1 millió BTU az annyi mint 31 m³ gáz, ennek ára 5,5 $ , azaz 1100 Ft.
Tehát Usákiában a gáz ára 35 Ft / m³  és jajveszékelnek a fogyasztók, hogy "jajmileszvelünk, tönkremegyünk".
Eközben - a múlt havi gázszámlám tanúsága szerint - Magyarországon a gáz ára 49 Ft / m³  (ÁFA nélkül) és jajveszékel a MOL, hogy "jajtönkremegyek".
( az előbbi számításban felhasznált adatok: 1 BTU = 1055 Joule,  1 m³ gáz energiatartalma 34 MJ , a magyar ár 1,437 Ft / MJ , 1 USD ~ 200 Ft)

No de fogadjuk el, eddig szinte ingyen folyt az Energia az Usákoknál, most pedig úgy néz ki, hogy lassan felzárkóznak a világpiaci árakhoz, és ez fájdalmas tapasztalat.


41 Month Natural Gas Crisis has Cost U.S. Consumers Over $111 Billion


Ebben a cikkben a szerző úgy gondolja, hogy a politikusok átverték a derék választópolgárokat, és ezért a derék választópolgárok 111 milliárd dollárral nagyobb gázszámlát kellett fizetniük Usákiában az utóbbi 41 hónapban. 
A történet röviden: liberalizálták az energia-szektort, minekutána az állam levette a kezét a hosszútávú tervezésről, mert a "piac majd megoldja".  Igen ám, de a befektetők valahogyan ódzkodnak a hosszútávú, 30-40 évre szóló befektetésektől (atom- és szénerőmű), jobb szeretik az 5..10 évre szóló befektetéseket.  Így aztán mindenki gázerőműveket kezdett építeni, mert az olcsó, és környezetbarát.  Amíg nem voltak gázerőművek, addig a gáztartalékok képzése normális mederben folyt: télen fűtöttek a gázzal és lemerítették a tartalékokat, nyáron pedig feltöltötték a tartalékokat.  A gázerőművek miatt változott a helyzet: nyáron a gázszolgáltató szeretné feltölteni a tartalékokat, az áramszolgáltató pedig szeretne áramot szolgáltatni a klímaberendezések működtetéséhez, miáltal egymásralicitálnak és feltornázzák az árakat.
Konklúzió: ha végesek a források, akkor a liberalizálás nem megoldás, ilyenkor bizony a jó öreg tervgazdálkodással többet lehet elérni.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/apbiz_story.asp?category=1310&slug=Natural%20Gas%20Boon

Naszóval,a mezei fúrómunkás kommentálja az usa gázpiaci eseményeit,illetve az elmúlt 10 év erőműépítéseit azzal,hogy így szinte bizot az állása a 10 év múlva esedékes nyudíjazásáig.

Az elmúlt tíz évben a földgázerőművek 56%-al több gázt égettek el,és a földgáz lett a legdinamikusabban növekvő energiahordozó.

DE

"We're finding smaller pockets of natural gas, producing them at a higher rate quickly, and the decline rates are going up," Talbott said. The decline rate is a measurement of how quickly a gas reservoir is being drained.

Tehát a talált gázlelőhelyek egyre kisebbek és egyre gyorsabban merülnek ki.Egyszerűe beláthetó, hogy ha egy gázlelőhely feltárása többe kerül,mint amit adni tud,akkor attol kezdve nem éri meg bányászni még akkor sem ha a földbe maradt mennyiség a teljes készlet 90%-a.

From 1990 to 2000, U.S. energy use increased from 25.3 percent to 27.3 percent of total world consumption.

Bár első látásra elég nagy telhetetlenségnek tűnik az Usákok részéről, hogy nekik van a legnagyobb részesedésük a világ energiaforrásaiból, és ezt még tovább fokozzák, de úgy gondolom, hogy ezúttal azért növekedett a részesedésük, mert 1990-ben a SZU és Kelet-Európa ripityára ment, miáltal Energiafogyasztásuk felére vagy még annál is kevesebbre esett vissza.  A többi megállapítás helytálló.

Hanem a http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1614 link igen tanulságos. 
Engedelmeddel szaklektorálom :)) 

Robert Bryce: Cronies: Oil, The Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America’s Superstate
című, júniusban megjelenő könyvéből olvashatunk részleteket a TexasObserver honlapján.

Bush's Greatest Failure

Busht mindenféle deficittel, Iraki háborúval, stb csesztetik az ellenfelei, de a legnagyobb hibáját soha nem vetik a szemére: hanyagolja Usákia hosszútervű energiapolitikáját.

Democrats are attacking George W. Bush on many fronts: the lousy intelligence that led to the Second Iraq War, his go-it-alone foreign policy, the faltering economy, the paucity of new job creation, his penchant for deficit spending, his questionable record while serving in the Texas Air National Guard, and even his syntax and invention of words like “nucular.” All of those things are being used to bludgeon Bush.

But all of them pale when compared to the most important issue in America today: energy. George W. Bush’s greatest failure as the 43rd president of the United States has been his lack of serious action on energy policy at a time when the world desperately needs leadership from America. Global energy consumption is soaring. Oil and gas production is faltering. Almost every month, new studies come out that corroborate the harm being done to the world’s atmosphere by carbon dioxide, which comes from the burning of fossil fuels. And yet, Bush has done nothing to address America’s long-term energy needs or deal with the greenhouse gas problem.

Ha valaki nem tudná, hogy miért nem támadják ellenfelei Bush Achilles sarkát, akkor elmagyarázom: azért mert Bush ellenfelei sem szándékoznak szembenézni a közelgő problémákkal.  Hogyan is lehetne választást nyerni, a "Szavazzatok rám, mert én majd racionális megszorító intézkedéseket fogok bevezetni!" választási szlogennel?

...

In 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney headed the National Energy Policy Development Group, which was charged with assessing America’s energy situation. The resulting 170-page report, “Reliable, Affordable, and Environmentally Sound Energy for America’s Future” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy), begins by saying that America now “faces the most serious energy shortage since the oil embargoes of the 1970s.” And while the report includes two chapters on efficiency and renewable energy, the bulk of the document focuses on ways to produce ever-increasing amounts of energy from coal, natural gas, and oil. The report doesn’t mention the possibility of declining world oil production. It gives little discussion to the issue of greenhouse gases or global climate change except when discussing the benefits of nuclear power plants, which, the report says, have “a dependable record for safety and efficiency and discharge no greenhouse gases.”

Cheney’s report can be summed up thusly: America doesn’t need more efficiency or renewable energy because there’s always going to be plenty of oil available. We can produce our way out of our energy predicament.

Dick Cheney Nemzeti Energiapolitikai jelentése egy szóval sem említi, hogy fogytán az olaj és a földgáz, az üvegházhatás problémát csak az atomerőművek kapcsán említi, méltatván azt a tényt, hogy az atom nem szennyezi a levegőt.  A Cheney jelentés összefoglalása: Usákiának nincs szüksége energiahatékonyságra és megújuló energiaforrásokra, mert mindig lesz elég foszilis tüzelőanyag; a szén-dioxid kibocsájtás miatt gond egy szál se.

...

Bush’s Failing and His Opportunity
George W. Bush doesn’t recognize any of these facts. Instead, his only discernible energy policy move has been to ignore the energy precipice on which America now teeters. The Second Iraq War, like the First Iraq War, was fought in order to gain a measure of control over the oil that flows out of the Persian Gulf. America is now spending about $1 billion per week to keep U.S. troops in Iraq. And those troops are likely to be there for the foreseeable future. But all of that expense, in both human lives and dollars, hasn’t made America’s energy supplies in the Persian Gulf any more secure. Nor have they allowed the region to produce any more oil.

Az I. Öbölháborúnak és a II. Öbölháborúnak egyazon célja volt: ellenörzést szerezni a Perzsa Öböl olaja felett.  Usákia heti 1 milliárd dollárt költ a csapatai Iraki tartózkodása miatt.  Ez veszteséges.  Napi 2,8 millió hordó olaj, az olaj hordója 35$ az annyi mint napi 100 millió dollár, az annyi mint havi 3 milliárd dollár bevétel az olajból, és havi 4 milliárd dollár hadiköltség.  Nem csoda, hogy Busht saját csapatából is csesztetik, vagy pedig sokan elhagyják a süllyedő hajót.

...

Bush has the political capital to deliver a clear and compelling message to the world’s biggest oil companies and to the American people. That message could be a simple one. I’ve even gone to the trouble of drafting his speech, which could go something like this:

My fellow Americans, our country has grown strong and prosperous thanks to our vast energy reserves. We have a wealth of coal, natural gas, and oil, and we are going to be dependent on those fuels for many decades to come. But the time has come to use them more wisely, more efficiently. Four decades ago, President John F. Kennedy challenged America to put a man on the moon within 10 years. With great courage and at great sacrifice, that goal was achieved. Today, we face a challenge similar to the Space Race. We must become more self-sufficient and more judicious in our energy spending habits. Today I am introducing the Mother of All Energy Bills, a decade-long, $1 trillion research effort that will spur the development of fuel cells, photovoltaic cells, ultra-high-efficiency power plants, zero-emission engines, and other technologies that can help reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide. We must begin this effort today. And we must be totally committed to it.

Bryce szerint Bushnak megvan a politikai tőkéje, hogy egy 1 trillió dolláros energiatakutatási programot beindítson, Roosevelt Manhattan tervéhez vagy pedig Kennedy Appollo programjához hasonlóan. 
Itt én erősen kételkedem.  Bushnak lehet, hogy van hitele az olajbárók szemében, de aligha képes megmozgatni az Usák értelmiséget.  Bush mondta már, hogy menni kell Irakba, aztán mondta, hogy menni kell a Marsra, most pedig előáll egy harmadik valamivel - miközben az értelmiségi mindig tudta, hogy nem kell menni Irakba; nem tudja, hogy miért kéne menni a Marsra, tudja ugyan, hogy nagyon nagy szükség lenne új és tiszta energiára, de ha Bush hirdeti meg a projektet, akkor biztosan valami bűzlik...
Szóval Bush eljátszotta már a becsületét, az a legjobb, ha nem hirdet semmilyen Energiaprojektet, és átadja a kormányt egy olyasvalakinek, aki még nem csinált a szájából segget.

Látszik hogy a 2000 végi-2001 eleji energiaszivás(gáz) idején volt ilyen alacsony a készlet.

DE

Azóta nem történ a fogyasztási oldalon nagyobb módosulás,pontosabban ha történt is,akkor egyszerre kelett történnie.Namármost,mivel a tavalyi nyár enyhe volt,így a fogyasztásnövekedés kizárható.
Tehát marad a termelői oldal kiesése.
Ez pedig azt jelent(het)i,hogy az usa gáztermelése eléri Hubbert-peakot.Ami többek szerint szakadék.Mivel a gázkutak száma mint állat növekedett,így feltételezhető hogy drasztikus fogyasztáscsökentésel lehet ismét stabilizálni a piacot.

Vagy tévedek.

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/company/cnn20205.htm

http://www.greatchange.org/ov-thomson,convince_sheet.html

"Gas will peak in 2020": Problem with gas is that it has a different depletion profile with a long plateau defined by market and pipeline. When the plateau ends it ends abruptly. I think the US is now on the edge of this cliff." Colin Campbell, private E-mail May-June 2000. Brian Fleay, at http://www.hubbertpeak.com/gas/ "The two largest resources not yet in production are in the Sahara and Niger Delta. It can be supposed that gas pipelines will be built soon from the Middle East to Europe and the Indian subcontinent, so that production will rise in steps as the linkages are made. If one assumes a 1% increase over the next 5 years followed by a 4% increase thereafter as oil becomes expensive, the midpoint of depletion (more or less the gas "Hubbert Peak") would come around 2018 at about 120 Tcf/annum. Gas reserves are much more difficult to assess than oil, and much more susceptible to economic factors, the most important of which is transport (pipelines/LNG). The USA is more depleted than anywhere else. Any proposal to use natural gas as the primary substitute for oil in the transportation sector represents at best a temporary solution, and at worst a distraction of human industrial resources (consuming time and capital, while oil and gas remain economic, to produce a fleet which will then soon become obsolete, rather than using the remaining economic reserves to create a lasting solution), as well as a waste of natural resources of great potential value to future generations."

http://www.greatchange.org/ov-thomson,convince_sheet.html

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4638859/

This is not to say that America shouldn’t use energy or that there’s anything inherently bad about America’s energy usage. These facts simply underscore an obvious truth: America’s economy was built on cheap energy, and America must continue to have cheap energy in copious quantities to continue having a high standard of living. But the era of cheap oil is over. As production declines and consumption increases, prices will rise and that will have devastating effects on the American economy.

http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1614#top

"szvsz nem minden az olaj..jó kormányzás kell.."


Igazad van, az olaj nem minden, de sok minden.  

Íme, így alakult az a Világ egy főre eső olajtermelése az 1920-as évtől.  [ b/c/year = barrel / capita / year = hordó / fő / év ]
Megjegyzendő, hogy a Világ olajtermelése még mindig növekszik, de a Népesség még ennél is gyorsabban szaporodik, ezért van az, hogy a hordó per kopf az csökken.

Ez pedig a világ Energiatermelése per kopf, 1920-tól, ekvivalens olajhordóban kifejezve. [ boe/c/year = barrel of oil equivalent / capita / year ]
Észrevehetjük, hogy ez a grafikon elég jó közelítéssel jellemzi az emberiség életszínvonalának alakulását 1920-tól. 
Tehát igazad van - az olaj nem minden - az Energia viszont majdnem minden.
Természetesen a fenti grafikon a világátlagra vonatkozik, egyes országok ettől lényeges eltérést mutathatnak, de az országon belül is érvényes: az életszínvonal és az Energiatermelés szoros korrelációban vannak.  (az életszínvonal alatt jelen esetben a fizikai megélhetést értjük, az olyan paraméterek mint szólásszabadság, véleménynyilvánítás, ... stb nehezen ábrózolható grafikonon)

Bár a GDP egy eléggé humbug szám, attól függően, hogy éppen mit hogyan számolnak, de ha egy hosszabb periódusra nézzük, egy olyan országra, mint pl Usákia, ahol valamelyest kialakult hagyományai vannak a GDP számításnak, akkor megállapíthatjuk, hogy az olaj ára és a GDP fordítottan arányosak egymással. 
A fenti ábrán látható Usákia GDP-je (pirossal) valamint a VilágPiaci Olaj ára (kékkel). Könnyű észrevenni, hogy fölmegy az olaj ára (kék), lejön a GDP (piros). 

Ez még nem az olajcsúcs hatása.Amikor a benzin gallononként 5-6$ lesz,akkor fogunk az olajcsúcs elején tartani.

Egyébként a magas adók europában paradox módon pont a sokkot csökkentik.Ami az usa-ban 3*-os drágulás,az európában 50%-os.

THE END OF SUBURBIA: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of The American Dream

Since World War II North Americans have invested much of their newfound wealth in suburbia. It has promised a sense of space, affordability, family life and upward mobility. As the population of suburban sprawl has exploded in the past 50 years, so too the suburban way of life has become embedded in the American consciousness.

Suburbia, and all it promises, has become the American Dream.

But as we enter the 21st century, serious questions are beginning to emerge about the sustainability of this way of life. With brutal honesty and a touch of irony, The End of Suburbia explores the American Way of Life and it's prospects as the planet approaches a critical era, as global demand for fossil fuels begins to outstrip supply. World Oil Peak and the inevitable decline of fossil fuels are upon us now, some scientists and policy makers argue in this documentary. The consequences of inaction in the face of this global crisis are enormous. What does Oil Peak mean for North America? As energy prices skyrocket in the coming years, how will the populations of suburbia react to the collapse of their dream? Are today's suburbs destined to become the slums of tomorrow? And what can be done NOW, individually and collectively, to avoid The End of Suburbia ?

Directed by Gregory Greene. Produced by Barry Silverthorn.

Video duration: approx. 80 minutes

Hosted by Barrie Zwicker. Featuring James Howard Kunstler, Peter Calthorpe, Michael Klare, Richard Heinberg, Matthew Simmons, Mike Ruppert, Julian Darley, Colin Campbell, Kenneth Deffeyes, Ali Samsam Bakhtiari and Steve Andrews.

DVD BONUS: Includes the vintage short films, In the Suburbs and Destination Earth..

Meg aztán alapvetően,ha van egy LNG terminál a földközi tengeren,akkor ha azzal az usá-t akarják ellátni,többszörösére kell növelni eleve a tankerek számát,vagy az indítót töredék kapacitáson müködtetni.

Mindenesetre,a kriogén gázokkal nem jó dolog játszani.Ha a tankerböl csak simán kiömlik a gáz,már az magában jépályát tud csinálni.
A biztonsgái szelepek/kompreszorork megrongálása az LNG tankeren pedig a párolgás miatt is robbanáshoz tud vezetni(1 köbm metánfolyadék 1000 köbméter metángázzá akar átalakulni...)

"Az álatalad is propagált magyarázattal az a baj, hogy csak a Kaliforniai áremelkedést lehetne megindokolni, holott Usákia-szerte mindenhol növekszik az üzemanyag ára."

Persze ,kb 20 centet 1 ev alatt ,legalabbis itt.
Mindenesetre te MO-on meg mindig 3szor annyit fizetsz erte.

Tudom, hogy a hivatalos magyarázat valami állítólagos olajfinomító-kapacitáshiány, de az Usák olaj-lobbi (a Bush bandával az élen) már kiviselte magát nálam, úgyhogy engedelmeddel én ezt nem veszem be.
Az álatalad is propagált magyarázattal az a baj, hogy csak a Kaliforniai áremelkedést lehetne megindokolni, holott Usákia-szerte mindenhol növekszik az üzemanyag ára.

A benzin elsosorban Kaliforniaban ment fel,de ennek mas okai voltak,itt most is 1.58 a regular.es 1,78 a super. Legalabbis reggel az utca vegen levo kutnal meg annyi volt.Ez csak akkora novekedes ami az olaj vilagpiaci arabol kovetkezik. Floridaban 8 evvel ezelott is 1.35 koruli voilt a benzin amig itt 1 dollar korul.Kaliforniaban 1 dollarral tobb,de mindig volt eleg tetemes kulonbseg kalifornia allam specialis kornyezetvedelmi eloirasai miatt ,hogy csak bizonyos osszetetelu es adalekanyagokat tartalmazo benzinek hozhatok forgalomba.Es pl a texasi nem hozhato be,aminek szallitasi koltsege kb 1 cent lenne gallononkent.Viszont a kaliforniai finomito kapacitas nem eleg erre es tobb finomito jelenleg felujitas alatt van.Vagyis a dolog sokkal osszetettebb.

Igen itt egyetértünk. Nagy a gyanúm, hogy mostanában azért drágul Usákiában a benzin, mert a nehézolajat kell megmunkálni, ehhez pedig földgáz kell, a földgáz ára pedig hirtelen az egekbe szökött...

Valahol olvastam, hogy 3 hordónyi olaj olajpalából történő előállításához 2 hordónyi olaj energiájára van szükség. Ez éppen csak alig nyereséges művelet - és hiába szökik a magasba a kőolaj ára, ez ígyis-úgyis éppen csak megéri szcenárió.

Érzésem szerint a grafikonokon a bruttó olajmennyiséget tüntetik föl, pedig sokkal tanulságosabb lenne a nettó olajmennyiség feltüntetése, ahol figyelembe veszik, hogy 3 hordó nehézolajból 2-őt vissza kell forgatni a termelésbe.

Nagyon bölcs gondolat, hogy nem akarod kipróbálni. Azért van némi különbség aközött, hogy a laboratóriumban kicsöppen egy kis LNG vagy pedig felrobbantanak egy hatalmas LNG tartályt.
Itt van James A. Fay professzor (MIT) tanulmánya, azt vizsgálja, hogy mi történne, ha a tenoristák léket robbantanának egy LNG-t szállító hajón. Egy ilyen hajón tipikusan 25.000 m³-es tartályokban van az LNG, egy tartályban 10,5 tonna LNG van.
A professzor vizsgálata 14.300 m³ LNG kiszabadulását és 3,3 perc alatti elégését tanulmányozza.
A végeredmény: egy nagyon nagy halászlé.

Spills and Fires from LNG Tankers in Fall River (MA)
By Professor James A. Fay, MIT

The fire that would ensue from a boat bomb attack on a tanker would be of unprecedented size and intensity. Like the attack on the World Trade Center in New York City, there exists no relevant industrial experience with fires of this scale from which to project measures for securing public safety. Lacking such experience, we must rely on scientific understanding to predict their characteristics, based upon laboratory and field experiments of much smaller fires.

The author has developed a mathematical model for the spills and fires from liquefied fuel marine tankers which is based upon published scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals (Fay, Model of Spills and Fires from LNG and Oil Tankers, Journal of Hazardous Materials, B96, 171-188, 2003). The purpose of this article is to apply this research to the case of Fall River (MA) harbor.

...

Maximum Pool Size and Fire Duration

To illustrate the characteristics of such spills in Fall River harbor, we consider a typical spill of LNG. (The relevant spill parameters are listed in Table 1.) The LNG spill volume is 14,300 cubic meters or 3.8 million gallons. Provided the vessel hole area is greater than ten square meters, the maximum pool fire area is 180,000 square meters (44 acres) and radius is 340 meters (1115 feet), while the fire duration is 3.3 minutes.

Table 1: Physical parameters of a typical LNG tanker spill
Spill volume 14,300 cubic meters = 3.8 million gal.
Fire duration 3.3 minutes
Maximum pool area 180,000 square meters = 44 acres
Maximum pool radius 340 meters = 1115 feet
Average heat release rate 1,500,000 megawatts
Distance to average heat flux of 5 kilowatts per square meter 1100 meters = 3600 feet

The pool fire, initiated at the time of the explosion, grows in area in proportion to the time since initiation, reaching maximum extent at the end of the burning process. Maximum pool size for an LNG spill located at the proposed LNG terminal: the outer edge of pool fire extends to both east and west shores of the Taunton River. For a spill anywhere along the path of an LNG tanker approaching the terminal, the pool fire would reach Fall River shore. It is most certain that combustible buildings long the waterfront would be ignited by contact with the pool fire.

The extent of the pool fires, which spread to distances greater than the ship length in a short time, would make it impossible to move the stricken vessel away from the waterfront areas. The potential for retarding the pool spread is nonexistent.

Pool Fire Thermal Radiation:

Burning LNG emits thermal radiation that, if intense enough, can cause skin burns on humans exposed to the radiation and can ignite combustible materials on buildings. The more intense the radiation, the shorter is the exposure time needed to cause a skin burn or combustible material ignition.

For human skin exposure to flame thermal radiation, a thermal flux of 5 kilowatts per square meter will result in unbearable pain after an exposure of 13 seconds and second degree burns after an exposure of 40 seconds. Exposure to twice that level, 10 kilowatts per square meter, for 40 seconds is the threshold for fatalities (K.S.Mudan, Thermal radiation hazards from hydrocarbon pool fires, Progress in Energy Combustion Science, 10, 59-80, 1984). Wood can be ignited after 40 seconds exposure at a thermal flux of 5 kilowatts per square meter.

We have chosen a thermal flux of 5 kilowatts per square meter a a criterion for the limit for significant damage to humans and combustible materials and have calculated the distance from the spill site at which that flux would be experienced (These distances are based upon an analysis contained in Fay, Model of large pool fires, submitted to the Journal of Hazardous Materials). As listed in Table 1, this distance is 1100 meters (3600 feet or 0.68 mile) for an LNG spill.

For an LNG spill, the thermal radiation damage zone encloses 940 acres, including about 400 acres of land area in Fall River. Within this zone, extending 3600 feet from a spill site in the main channel of the Taunton River, skin burns to humans exposed for only a fraction of a minute will occur, and building fires can be induced. Beyond the shorefront, at 1600 feet from the spill site, where the thermal radiation flux is 10 kilowatts per square meter, fatalities can ensue.

One cannot exaggerate the thermal intensity of the LNG pool fire. It's average heat release rate is about twice the average thermal power consumption of all U.S. fossil fuel electric power plants.

Conclusion:

The analysis summarized in this report, based upon studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, sets forth the physical characteristics of the fires to be expected from a boat bomb attack on an LNG tanker in Fall River harbor. The major conclusions are:

The magnitude of the resulting liquid cargo pool fires are unprecedented in scale. There is no possibility of ameliorating the fire's effects, much less extinguishing it, during the short time (several minutes) of burnout.
At any point along the inner harbor route of ship travel from sea to berth, pool fire thermal radiation that can burn and even kill exposed humans, and ignite combustible buildings, will be experienced along and well inland from the waterfront.