Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Countdown to $200 oil (5) - Supply side follies

by Jerome a Paris Mon May 19th, 2008 at 11:57:05 AM EST

Not Enough Oil Is Lament of BP, Exxon on Spending

Never have so many oil and gas companies spent so much to produce so little.

That's the challenge facing Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell Plc, BP Plc, Chevron Corp., Total SA and ConocoPhillips, which will spend a record $98.7 billion this year on exploration and production, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. estimates. Costs more than quadrupled since 2000 as explorers targeted more challenging reservoirs and demand rose for labor and material.

(...) Drillers could access only 7 percent of known world reserves in 2005, down from 85 percent in 1970 after Middle Eastern nations took control of their fields, according to a July report by the National Petroleum Council in Washington. (...) ``What is happening is something different. The international companies are denied access to areas of abundant oil within OPEC, and it's getting costlier in other areas.''

What this says is that oil majors are dying animals, with shrinking access to oil, and skyrocketing costs for those fields they still have access to. Indeed, a big sign of that is that they spend more of their money buying back their own shares (effectively liquidating themselves) rather than investing. Of course, the ever-increasing oil prices allow them to mask these worrying underlying trends under comfortable-looking profits.

Oil Producers Mask Decade's Worst S&P 500 Profit Drop Take away Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips and profits at U.S. companies are the worst in at least a decade.

Without the $70 billion that oil producers earned in the last two quarters, profits at companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 Index tumbled 26 percent and 30.2 percent, the biggest decreases for any quarter since Bloomberg started compiling data in 1998.

(...) ``The oil sector saved the market,'' said Dwane. ``Ex-oil, the numbers show falling earnings and with data highlighting a U.S. recession, we can expect more earnings downgrades.''

(...) Exxon, Chevron and ConocoPhillips, the three largest U.S. producers, all produced less oil in the first quarter. Chevron['s] reserves fell to the lowest in almost a decade last year

Interesting combination: lower oil production, exploding production costs and capturing a shrinking fraction of oil profits has not prevented oil companies from enjoying record high profits. And these profits have in turn masked the fact that US corporate profits are otherwise in the doldrums (even excluding the devastated financial sector).

So high prices are masking the slow elimination of the oil majors, whose profits are themselves hiding the weakness of the US corporate world.

Optimists cling to the notion that this is self-correcting, ie that the recession underway will cause oil demand to shrink and prices to recede, thus allowing all of these phenomenons to go into reverse. But this ignores the fact that demand is already shrinking in the US and Europe. We are no longer driving demand: beyond China, which could be argued to have an economy still to some extent dependent on the health of our own (even though this is highly debatable), it is oil producers like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia or others that are enjoying the fastest demand growth - and with current prices (both external, driving their revenues, and internal, driving demand as they are kept very low) this is unlikely to change.

With that in mind, you'd expect policy to start focusing on what we can control (ie our demand) rather than to keep on doing little but the all-too familiar - and unwholesome - combination of an arrogant sense of entitlement, casual recourse to raw threats and the most abject begging towards Saudi Arabia et al.

But hey, oil profits are flowing, supply-side policies are working!

Included in the irregular Countdown to $200 oil series.


Display:
And how might the ever-increasing profits the oil companies are bringing in affect the ability of companies in other important sectors to generate the capital they need to invest in new ventures/processes?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 12:22:10 PM EST
you'd expect policy to start focusing on what we can control (ie our demand) rather than to keep on doing little but the all-too familiar - and unwholesome - combination of an arrogant sense of entitlement, casual recourse to raw threats and the most abject begging towards Saudi Arabia et al.

Except in the sphere of the military where they are susceptible to any snake-oil salesman peddling some new hi-tech gizmo, politicians are incapable of looking forward, anticipating events and planning for them.

In the situation we are in, it would be electorally suicidal for a politician to go to the people and say "our lifestyle, as we know and enjoy it, is over. Get used to it, tighten your belts, austerity is here, now and forever till we completely transform our economies, probably not in your lifetime"

It's easy to carry on regardless, believe those respectable paid-for experts who tell you everything will be fine and the generous lobbyists who support them. that or believe a bunch of DFHs who want us to prepare for something they'd rather believe will never happen".

That's the Lawson doctrine, it's all too expensive and will never happen. So let's carry on, in the long run we're all dead anyway.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 12:44:40 PM EST

In the situation we are in, it would be electorally suicidal for a politician to go to the people and say "our lifestyle, as we know and enjoy it, is over. Get used to it, tighten your belts, austerity is here, now and forever till we completely transform our economies, probably not in your lifetime"

As Jimmy Carter's famous "hairshirt" TV address demonstrated in spades.  However that does not preclude subtler approaches.  Telling people to go freeze in the dark is pointless, especially if that is the likely outcome of current policies.

Telling people that we WILL freeze in the dark for the next 40 years UNLESS we rapidly change policies, and that short term solutions are available if we will embrace them MAY be better received. Tell them that current US Energy Policy serves primarily to insure that Big Oil squeezes the last possible dollars out of their vanishing reserves. Tell them that there are presently feasible alternative energy policies that could, within a few years, cut domestic oil consumption by more than half, (PHEVs for commuters), NREL and at least reduce our balance of payment deficit and exposure to Mid East political risk. while employing significant numbers of Americans to in sustainable energy, carbon capture and sequestration, cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel, etc.  Sell both the peril and the promise.  

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 10:05:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Telling people that we WILL freeze in the dark for the next 40 years UNLESS we rapidly change policies,

There are an awful lot of people telling politicians and tradmeds that there is no such inevitability. If they don't believe it, why should they risk their electability ?

They are backward looking people, solving yesterday's problems, not tomorrows.
They are lawyers, for whom there is always a counter argument.
They are economists for whom nothing is true unless it is measureably demonstrable on a balance sheet, FUD (future undetermined or Fear, uncertainty doubt) is not a quantity.
What they re no are visionaries, they cannot project forward beyond the next electoral cycle. They cannot do the right thing if it loses them an election, they dare not.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue May 20th, 2008 at 06:49:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWAT00953020080520?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&r pc=22&sp=true

Plus, if OPEC doesn't agree to ship more oil to the U.S. so we can keep on with our current "lifestyle," we will SUE them. So there!

The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation on Tuesday allowing the Justice Department to sue OPEC members for limiting oil supplies and working together to set crude prices, but the White House threatened to veto the measure.

The bill would subject OPEC oil producers, including Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela, to the same antitrust laws that U.S. companies must follow.

The measure passed in a 324-84 vote, a big enough margin to override a presidential veto.


by asdf on Tue May 20th, 2008 at 04:40:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How do the oil producing states actually produce the oil? Do they have the knowhow and technical facilities or do they subcontract to specialized firms?

The lesson that IBM learned (the hard way) was that there is more money to be made from telling people how to use computers than selling (and making them) themselves. So, perhaps, the big oil firms will transition into service providers.

If they don't have this capability right now they can afford to buy it. Buying Halliburton might be expensive, but not for Exxon. Not controlling supplies may even be a blessing in disguise, as the stocks decrease the value of the holdings declines, but the amount need to be paid to service providers to extract it goes up.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 12:44:52 PM EST
rdf:
So, perhaps, the big oil firms will transition into service providers.

This trend has been clear for some time.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 01:06:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How do the oil producing states actually produce the oil? Do they have the knowhow and technical facilities or do they subcontract to specialized firms?

My understanding is that some do - Aramco, Petrobras - other don't - Pemex.

by Francois in Paris on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 02:03:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Some do, or are able to hire Western oil-service companies - the Halliburtons and Schlumbergers et al - (like Aramco, or the Russians). Some have the competence but are hindered by domestic political considerations (at various times: PDVSA, Pemex, the Russians).

But generally, oil service companies have more access than oil majors.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 02:57:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, I don't think there is any oil company which 100% autonomous for technology. Even the sharpest western oil companies depends on service suppliers like KBR and Schlum.

What I doubt is how much unique expertise those western companies have to offer to national companies. I'm not convinced the market is so big.
 

by Francois in Paris on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 03:12:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What the oil majors offer is the ability to coordinate massively complex projects, and to be a credible counterparty to all other players in large projects.

As the example of LNG shows, this is a very rare and hard to replicate competence - no LNG project has ever been run without an oil major involved and in charge.

That requires managerial competence, technical competence (in both cases to hire and control the sub-contractors), a very strong balance sheet, and political 'survafe' (to deal with politicians locally and at home).

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 03:39:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Too bad most new fields aren't massive, even if they are massively complex.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 04:14:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
and crossposted on dKos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/19/151413/229/242/518422

Thansk for your support

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 03:33:57 PM EST
Bush to Arab Nations: You're Running Out of Oil

PRESIDENT George Bush yesterday told leaders of the oil-
rich states of the Middle East that they must face up to a future
without their precious hydrocarbons.

In a stark warning, he said their supplies were running out and urged
them to reform and diversify their economies. The outgoing United
States president told the World Economic Forum, meeting in the
Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, that it was time to "prepare for
the economic changes ahead".



In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 04:17:26 PM EST
Looks like he finally read Jérôme! :-) Should have done so much earlier.
by Fran on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 04:21:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In effect, he's saying "Pump more to keep us from reforming our economy.'

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 04:40:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Isn't that exactly what Iran is doing with its nuclear program?
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 05:35:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
First smart thing that guy ever said. An accident.

Even better, he may be right.

I did a back of the envelope calculation a little while ago, based on the LANL Green Freedom proposal (urgh, what a bad name).

How much it would cost to generate FT diesel out of uranium and, literally, thin air with CO2 atmospheric capture in the cooling towers by dissolved potassium carbonate?

Assuming a much more conservative setup (FT with H2/CO2 reformer rather than direct methanol/MTG) and more conservative cost estimates than the LANL folks, I came at about $200/bbl, $95/bbl in OPEX and fuel cycle costs and $105/bbl to repay for the installation over 25 years at 5% interest rates.

As the final product is neat fuel - diesel, naphtha and LPG - ready to use without refining, that would make it competitive with crude at about $170/bbl or so.

by Francois in Paris on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 05:38:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I deleted 208 emails today.  This is about a weeks worth of people trying to sell me shit or tell me the bank of Nigeria has a check for me that would ensure my future lesure lifestyle.  As an American prole/peasant/no account whatever the future looks dim so we have as well explore the history which got us here.
http://www.projectcamelot.org/index.html
Maybe there is not more to be had and maybe not.
by Lasthorseman on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 10:15:46 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]