Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ian_whitchurch

  1. In reply to: tradem on Tuesday 02/05/06 06:56pm Tradem, Samotlor doesnt do anything close to 1mmbd these days. I'd be surprised if they still did 560 000 bopd. Kahuna, BTW, I'm really enjoying this. You rock. You should be working in an office with white-suited waiters and painters by Arthur Boyd on the wall, earning seven-figure salaries with eight-figure bonuses when you get it right. My personal 'who do I trust' list has Matt Simmons, the Peoples Daily and Kahuna on it. OK, the Skrebowski article is where we start. Me, I'd like to amend the table by adding "known declines" - we stick a line on the bottom with "Cantarell (200)", another with "Burgan (250)" and so on. That would rock, as we could balance known production increases with known declines and actually add some facts to the argument. BTW, my gut is also saying that we'll go back to $55-65 oil, assuming George W doesnt do somethign amazingly f!cking stupid with Iran ... I'd also argue that the Saudis were able to hold oil prices when they had a cushion of 2 mmbd in their own right, an other cushions of 2 mmbd existed in other places. We dont have them now, which is why it stays north of USD50. And if you can't make money as an oiler at USD50, you really, really need to find another line of work. Ian Whitchurch
  2. In reply to: tradem on Tuesday 02/05/06 06:15pm Tradem, Nothing personal, but I'd prefer something a little more footnoted. Ian
  3. QUOTE (mooomooo @ Tuesday 02/05/06 05:17pm) Moomoo, It's not about hard, it's about the rate and the cost-benefit. The WW2 project was amazingly, horribly not cost-efficient - there's some stuff in Yergin's The Prize about how IG Farben etc wanted to bail on it. CTL is also really, really hard to scale up to the hundreds of thousands of barrels per day - which is about what we are going to lose each year for about five years for decline at Burgan and Cantarell. There was stuff on this very thread about one fo the flagship Chinese CTL projects. The big thing that makes me cynical about CTL, Oil Shale etc is the acute lack of Bankable Feasibility Studies for CTL etc projects. Show me a BFS, show me CapEx, Opex, Water and Power usage, and then we argue about whether to build em. The other non-trivial factor is that as the price of oil goes up, so does the cost of energy in general, as oil-fired power stations, oil-fired heating etc gets replaced by other stuff. Yep, that includes the coal feedstock for CTL. Tradem, Any chance of getting that table updated for bopd ? The table I was asking Kahuna about was the projects that arent currently producing, but should be in the next couple of years. Some of them were quite chunky - in the 250-400 000 bopd range. Ian
  4. In reply to: kahuna1 on Tuesday 02/05/06 09:58am Kahuna, You remember that table you had of new projects that should be coming on line in the next year or two ? Would it be possible to get that reposted somewhere, so we can update it as and when news comes available . As to higher prices causing demand destruction, the evidence is that it doesnt - http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Usa/Oil.html is somewhere to check out (much as I dont rate eia's forecasting, they are OK when looking backwards). Note that 1985's $20 oil demand was 15 mmbd, while 2005's demand for $30 oil was 20 mmbd. Demand growth slowdown, I'll buy, but not demand destruction. In the end it's going to be new projects vs decline rate plus increased demand from a developing third world. Remember, 'peak oil' is not 'running out of oil' - it's hitting a limit on how much you can pull out per day. Finally, I'll believe hybrids when I see a $15000 4 cylinder hybrid that does 50 mpg selling in Auto Alley. They are part of the solution, however. And dont get me started on Little Johnny Howard f!cking up ethanol to protect a mate at Manildra. Because he was lazy, stupid and unwilling to use regulation right, I have signs at my local servo advertising 'No Ethanol'. Nice one, Johnnie. And if it's part of the solution, why have punitive taxes to prevent me importing cheap Brazillian ethanol, rather than expensive Saudi crude ? Thats right, because John Howard's little mate at Manildra needs to be protected. Ian Whitchurch
  5. Vickos, To put Silver Springs in perspective, there has been one Cooper Basin New Era discovery that sustained 1000 bopd+ in the long run - Worrior. There are a number of small fields that are being produced at total rates lower than 100 bopd (ie Aldinga). Basically, at todays prices, you'll produce at 50 bopd - remember, drilling the well is a sunk cost, so the decision to produce is based on your cost to complete the well as a producer, which tends to be around $600-$750k in the Cooper, rather than the $1.3-$2m to drill. Ian Whitchurch
  6. In reply to: pski on Tuesday 02/05/06 01:00pm Pski, If you think Silver Sands was a disappointing result, then you need to spend more time analysing wells. 2 layers, one at 200 bopd, one at 800 bopd ... if that was in Texas, you'd have front page news. Ian Whitchurch
  7. In reply to: theadder on Monday 10/04/06 11:59pm 7 down, and Centrebet now has Australia as longer odds than Bangladesh. Go the Tigers - clean them up, then bat them into the dirt. Again. Ian Whitchurch
  8. I can't really add to this. "I am looking forward to seeing what Masrafee, Shahadat, Rafique and Haque do when it's their turn to bowl later today. Especially against a tired, jetlagged Australian side that was arrogant and incompetant enough to think they could step off a plane and play Test cricket with no warmup games. I've been following the Tigers for a long time, and this day was coming." Ian Whitchurch
  9. In reply to: theadder on Monday 10/04/06 04:13pm TheAdder, Let me remind you where this game is being played. Fatullah, a suburb of Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh. Which is on the subcontinent. Which is known for it's low, slow, turning pitches, and has been since the Nawab of Pataudi was playing for the MCC. You are stating the the pitch is playing like ... drumroll ... a traditional subcontinental pitch. And you are also stating that the Australian bowlers dont know how to bowl on it, or do know and can't execute. Well, McGill seems to have some clue, with his use of sliding topspinners. Lets see Australia bat on it. I'm ready to make a sporting proposition that Rafique will get more wickets than Warne, and Masrafee more than Lee. Ian Whitchurch
  10. In reply to: balance on Monday 10/04/06 03:38pm TheAdder, "A batsman's paradise" ... which would explain the amount of turn that MacGill and Warne were getting, right ? Lee and Clarke bowled crap, and got hit. Gillespie didnt, and got wickets. There's something in that for all of us - if you are bowling on a traditional subcontinental pitch, dont expect to be able to do what you do in Perth. Filament, Worst Statistics Ever by Warne. And he deserved all of it. Balance, The arrogance was on the part of the ACB. But it was arrogance none the less. And when Bangladesh have just scored 6-406 against Australia is probably not the time to be arguing against their Test credentials. Ian Whitchurch
  11. In reply to: theadder on Monday 10/04/06 10:19am The Adder, Did you actually watch any of the game ? There's turn in that pitch - a *lot* of turn. It is is slow, low, turning track - a traditional subcontinental pitch. Gillespie bowled to the conditions, and got rewards. Clarke and Lee didnt, and they got thumped. MacGill bowled well, and was always a danger. A tired Warne bowled crap, and got belted for his worst ever Test figures. I am looking forward to seeing what Masrafee, Shahadat, Rafique and Haque do when it's their turn to bowl later today. Especially against a tired, jetlagged Australian side that was arrogant and incompetant enough to think they could step off a plane and play Test cricket with no warmup games. I've been following the Tigers for a long time, and this day was coming. Ian Whitchurch
  12. Filament, You got anything to add, mate ? Ian Whitchurch
  13. ian_whitchurch


    In reply to: number8 on Tuesday 04/04/06 06:33pm Number, It's an unfortunate fact of life that companies tend to be very forthcoming about good news, but bad news has to be pulled out a bit at a time. Generally speaking, if they go quiet about something they were talking about before, assume the news is bad. Ian Whitchurch
  14. ian_whitchurch


    In reply to: User on Monday 03/04/06 07:03am User, "Unrisked" means "If absolutely everything hits", which it wont. Ian Whitchurch
  15. QUOTE (kahuna1 @ Wednesday 29/03/06 08:19am) Kahanua, I'm not going to go thru it in detail right now, but AGC gets two specific mentions on page 15 ... 450 mbd in 2006, 1 mmbd by 2008, which is a bit above your numbers, if I read your stuff right. Ian
  16. In reply to: geoq on Monday 27/03/06 07:33pm Matthew Simmons has released their Macro Energy Outlook 2006. http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/011806%20SOM.pdf is the URL - if it doesnt work, go to the site, then go thru "our research" into "current researchreports". Lots of good stuff - more than I can summarise, or hit with a stick. OPEC projects, non-OPEC, canadian tar sands estimates, the works. Go read it. Ian Whitchurch
  17. In reply to: kahuna1 on Monday 27/03/06 08:51am Kahuna, These are big-ass infrastructure projects, with massive lead times. If it was going to gather steam over the next 10 years, they need to start figuring out sites, BFS's, railroads from production to the plant and so on now, and I see absolutely no evidence of this happening. I see a lot of weight on the Chinese CTL (ie your post of 1/3), but when you dig, there isnt that much there - remember, that 5 million tons a year is after they get stage B built. Stage A is only 1 million tons, after all. Ian Whitchurch
  18. In reply to: subbii on Sunday 26/03/06 04:31pm The story from the World's Finest Oil Newspaper first, then my commentary after. Peoples Daily, 24 Jan 2005 China's first coal liquefaction scheduled to ease import burden China's first coal liquefaction project is expected to begin operating in 2007 to ease import burden, with an initial annual oil output topping one million tons, Monday's China Daily reported. Shenhua Group, one of China's largest coal producers, embarked on an ambitious project last year in Erdos, a city in North China's Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. By transforming coal into refined oil after a series of processes in an environment of high pressure and temperature, the Shenhua coal liquefaction project will offer an efficient way to quench China's thirst for energy. "The project consists of two phases of construction, and after the second is complete the plant aims to yield five million tons of oil products annually and greatly reduce China's reliance on crude oil imports," Zhang Yuzhuo, vice-president of Shenhua Group Corp. Limited, was quoted as saying. It is estimated that by 2013, ten percent of oil imports will have been replaced by coal-liquefied oil. The coal liquefaction technique has drawn growing attention recently due to skyrocketing international oil prices. "The fluctuating international oil market has a negative impact on China's robust economy, making coal liquefaction even more important in terms of energy safety and China's sustainable development," Zhang said. According to Zhou Dadi, director of the Energy Research Institute under the National Development and Reform Commission, China would have to pay another 58.1 to 66.4 billion yuan (seven to eight billion US dollars) if the price of crude on the international market climbed by 10 US dollars per barrel. Statistics indicated China's consumption of oil in 2003 topped 252 million tons, with net imports making up 91.1 million tons. And China's reliance on oil imports is expected to hit 60 percent by 2020. A report released from the Ministry of Land and Resources states that China's coal reserves that can be directly utilized reached 188.6 billion tons by the end of 2002. However, this coal-to-oil technique has faced critics in the past over whether its price is competitive. Some scholars doubted that coal liquefaction could turn a profit after the market price of coal climbed to over 500 yuan (60.2 US dollars) per ton. In the feasibility report of the Yunnan Xianfeng coal liquefaction project, the cost of coal as raw material is calculated at 81.9 yuan (9.8 US dollars) per ton. And most enterprises use 90 yuan (10.8 US dollars) per ton as the benchmark when launching such projects. "The surging price of coal, to a large extent, resulted from the growing fees in transportation and circulation," said Zhang. "The mine-mouth price remains almost the same compared with several years ago, and our mining costs saw no rise." As the raw materials for the Shenhua project come directly from the Shenhua coal mine, the rising costs of transportation and circulation will bear no influence on the company's coal liquefaction project. Moreover, international indicators show that if the cost of liquefied-coal oil ranges from 22 to 28 US dollars, the process is still profitable. "We can further reduce the coal liquefaction cost by adopting domestic equipment, optimizing techniques and reducing energy consumption," Zhang added. Currently, about 60 percent of the equipment involved in the first phase of the plant's construction is domestically made. And the figure is expected to rise to 80 percent when the second phase begins. Although coal liquefaction promises to help ease China's oil shortage, huge potential risks are involved in its large-scale production which prevent the launching of similar projects. "We are striving to reduce the risks by co-operating with world leaders in equipment supply and project contracts," Zhang said. "It took us four years to optimize the Shenhua coal liquefaction technique." In December, Shenhua signed a contract valued at 54.8 million yuan (6.6 million US dollars) with Honeywell International, a world leader in the high-tech industry, to introduce Honeywell equipment to the coal liquefaction project. Shenhua is also working on a series of coal transformation projects. It has signed letters of intention with Kerry Group and The Dow Chemical Company on coal-to-olefins and coal-to-polyolefin projects. An insider who declined to be named said the National Reform and Development Commission is thinking of making coal liquefaction one of China's 10 key construction projects this year. ******** OK, quick comments ; price of coal has gone up too, and it's currently well above what most CTL projects were based on. The miners are claiming the 'mine gate' price hasnt gone up by anywhere near as much, so CTL is still economic for them. As far as quantities, I'm going to repeat the key para "The project consists of two phases of construction, and after the second is complete the plant aims to yield five million tons of oil products annually and greatly reduce China's reliance on crude oil imports," Zhang Yuzhuo, vice-president of Shenhua Group Corp. Limited, was quoted as saying. 5 million tons is 35 million barrels, or 100 000 barrels a day - and this is the flagship project for CTL, worldwide. China currently imports about 2 million barrels a day. "Greatly reduce" nope. "Make a contribution towards" I'll buy. Ian Whitchurch
  19. ian_whitchurch


    In reply to: yogi-in-oz on Thursday 09/03/06 08:23pm 13th of the third, huh ? Ian Whitchurch
  20. Kahuna, You've made some pretty friendly assumptions - you're assuming the existing production base will decline by only 10% over 5 years, and you're assuming demand will only increase by 1 mmbd from China and India put together, and you are assuming that all the existing big projects will come onstream on time and to targets. And it still gets a mere 5 mmbd cushion. Shift either of these assumptions, and you are left with the current tight supply/demand situation. Is it more likely that everything is going to go right, or that some things will go wrong ? The top of the list is higher than expected demand. And demand has overshot estimates repeatedly in the last ten years. Ian Whitchurch
  21. Kahuna wrote "Biggest was the Saudi's who were leaned on by the US and asked to increase production capacity to 15 mmboe a day which they responed by telling the US to get nicked ... but they did agree to expand production capacity and announced two new projects adding 1.5 mmboe a day to the numbers." It is my belief that the Saudis simply cannot do this, at least not for oil. That little "e" may be the weasel phrase - they possibly could ramp up pipeline-connected natural gas (*), but that isnt the issue - it's oil, especially light sweet oil. Basically, we'll get to see if the Saudis are tapped out - me, I think they are. Nasiryah is their only post-1960s field, and while in the billions of barrels, it doesnt and wont deliver millions of barrels per day. The risk is that if they do try and push Ghawar etc too hard - and they have to push them too hard to get a 30% production boost - then they go into far more rapid decline. Finally, we're currently at 85 mmbl/d, having gone up 1.6mmbl/day in the last year. I can more easily see 90 in 2010 than I can 88.5 ... and not much has to go wrong to drop 93 down to 90. Ian Whitchurch (*) LNG tankers are a constraint on LNG trade, even if you have the infrastructure at both ends.
  22. Oh yeah, and this is a good piece about Samotlor http://www.tnk-bp.com/operations/explorati...jects/samotlor/ This is what the world's great fields are dealing with - endgame stuff. Ian Whitchurch
  23. Kahuna, Yes, there is new production coming on line. But we've got current production of, what, 85 mmbd, so if you plug in a generalised 3% decline number for current production, thats about 2 million barrels per day per year to stay ahead. And remember, Cantarell is in trouble, and Burgan is in trouble ... and they are the #2 and #3 fields in the world. Thats what I see the new projects coming in at about - couple of mmbd per year between them. Add in a mmbd for China and India - and they are doing that - and remember we dont have the comfortable 5-10 mmbd cushion we used to. Basically, the market will bounce around, but the world is burning every barrel as and when it can get pulled out of the ground. I can see 50, but I really can't see it going lower than that. Ian Whitchurch
  24. In reply to: apache123 on Monday 13/02/06 12:07pm Apache, Canada's new reserves are tar sands. And tar sands are a bitch to scale up to millions of barrels a day - you can do it, it just takes lots of natural gas, and lots of infrastructure. Lots, lots more than conventional oil. Ian Whitchurch
  25. ian_whitchurch


    In reply to: drarthur on Thursday 09/02/06 01:13pm Can someone please pass these three words of advice to the new Mosaic directors. Transparency. Transparency. Transparancy. Ian Whitchurch, who still wants a one-page summary of MOS' assets, the categorised reserves for each and their status
  • Create New...