NationStates Jolt Archive

Mexico, 3rd largest importer of oil to the US, will be out of oil in seven years. If eth proper investments are made, they claim they can add another 2.9 years. Their chief field, Cantarell, is the second largest field in the world.

Mexico, Jul 27 (Prensa Latina) Petroleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) announced that oil reserves may run out in seven years.


"Supplies of this economically exploitable resource are running out," informed a report sent by the state owned company to the United States stock market.



Until December 31, 2005 the report says proven reserves were about 8.978 billion barrels, while yearly production was 1.322 billion tons. If this rhythm continues oil will run out in the time stipulated..



El Universal newspaper reports that experts of the PFC Energy Advisory company based in Washington pointed out that investments for PEMEX exploration is also running out of time.



Even if heavy investments were made now, new oil fields would take from six to eight years to be ready and, consequently, Mexico may have to import oil to satisfy the internal market, it warned.



The newspaper quotes Carlos Ramirez, PEMEX spokesman as saying that if necessary investments were made, this would provide another 2.9 more years to what is foreseen with the proven developed reserves.



The director of the state owned company, Jesus Reyes, insisted that these are difficult moments due to a reduction of production in Cantareli, the main oil field in the country.

http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7BF1F8B8FE-DA99-4717-8FBD-2B3C4F90FBA3%7D%29&language=EN

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/oil-ends-above-78-record/story.aspx?guid=%7BA4E4B026%2DD25A%2D4B7E%2DABF5%2D9E3C898413D6%7D

Oil ends above $78, a record close for a benchmark contract

By Myra P. Saefong
Last Update: 3:04 PM ET Jul 31, 2007


SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- September crude closed at $78.21 a barrel Tuesday, marking the strongest closing level a benchmark contract has ever seen on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The contract gained 1.8%, or $1.38, for the session, after reaching a record intraday level of $78.25. Prices are still below the absolute, benchmark contract, all-time high of $78.40 reached in electronic trading in mid-July of last year. September contract finished the month of July with a gain of 10.2%.

Okay, someone has to see the significance of this. At least I would expect Vetalia to have a comment. This is REALLY important.

The significance of an alarmist headline with little actual relevance to the message within?

Really - The whole thing is a non-event. Essentially it is saying that Mexico recently figured out that it needs to invest more in their capacity and refineries.

The significance of an alarmist headline with little actual relevance to the message within?

Really - The whole thing is a non-event. Essentially it is saying that Mexico recently figured out that it needs to invest more in their capacity and refineries.

I guess you didn't read the article.

Petroleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) announced that oil reserves may run out in seven years.

The newspaper quotes Carlos Ramirez, PEMEX spokesman as saying that if necessary investments were made, this would provide another 2.9 more years to what is foreseen with the proven developed reserves.
the headline was absoluletly reflective of the message in the article.

Okay, someone has to see the significance of this. At least I would expect Vetalia to have a comment. This is REALLY important.
One less oil company in the world, and US refineries will have to import from somewhere else. The fact that Mexico runs out of oil might be sad for some Mexicans, but I don't think it's much more significant than when Dubai ran out.

Things will only get really interesting once the North Sea stops delivering decent quanities.

One less oil company in the world, and US refineries will have to import from somewhere else. The fact that Mexico runs out of oil might be sad for some Mexicans, but I don't think it's much more significant than when Dubai ran out.It's four million barrels/day off teh world market which means that, in order to keep prices where they are, we'd need to find four million barrels/day to add to the world market and then some to make up for demand increases.

Things will only get really interesting once the North Sea stops delivering decent quanities.


You mean this North Sea?

http://www.kci-com.com/ezine_images/northsea.jpg

North Sea oil production fell ten percent (230,000 barrels) in 2004, and fell an additional 12.8% in 2005. This was the largest decrease of any other oil exporting nation in the world, and has led to Britain becoming a net importer of crude for the first time in decades, as recognized by the energy policy of the United Kingdom. [3]. The production is expected to fall to one-third of its peak by 2020[citation needed].

One less oil company in the world, and US refineries will have to import from somewhere else. The fact that Mexico runs out of oil might be sad for some Mexicans, but I don't think it's much more significant than when Dubai ran out.

Things will only get really interesting once the North Sea stops delivering decent quanities.

It's also far more significant than when Dubai ran out because we had other places to go to make up for the shortfall.

So what?

Seriously, what's your overall point here?

EVERYBODY PANIC! or are you posing a solution?

So what?

Seriously, what's your overall point here?

EVERYBODY PANIC! or are you posing a solution?

I think the world has reached Peak Oil production and I think people should know about it and prepare for it.

We really should reduce our usage of decomposed dinosaur, oil supply is not infinite.

I think the world has reached Peak Oil production and I think people should know about it and prepare for it.

Yes. Yes it has.

I think people aren't paying attention, though, because you sound like a doomsayer, and people tend to ignore doomsayers even if they are correct, as you are.

Mexico's petroleum industry is broken...I don't think there's anything they can do to stem the tide.

I guess we are going to have to invest more heavily in alternative fuels for cars.

You all do not think this is a ploy to strengthen oil prices? I mean the higher the per barrel means more profits for Mexico. If the Saudi's wanted to say the same thing they would profit tremendously. Just a thought. Anyway I am not worried about the US running out of fuel. It may cost more but we have enough arable land to supply our energy needs in bio-fuels.

I just find it very amusing that the US will in time have no choice but to deal with Chavez, because Venezuela has the largest oil tar field in the world, which has at least 1700 billion in it, maybe much more.

You mean this North Sea?
Yeah, that one. The gag is to see what happens when Europe loses the little capacity it has to supply its own oil and gas, particularly with regards to Gasprom-country.

It's also far more significant than when Dubai ran out because we had other places to go to make up for the shortfall.
And now they don't?

Canada's oil sands can make up for this without breaking a sweat. It's more expensive, but that's the reality of it. And over time, as oil gets more expensive alternative materials and resources become more attractive financially and the switch is made.

There is many things I worry about. Peak oil isn't one of them.

I just find it very amusing that the US will in time have no choice but to deal with Chavez, because Venezuela has the largest oil tar field in the world, which has at least 1700 billion in it, maybe much more.
Tar field =/= oil.

That's what we've been saying the whole time: it requires expertise and money to develop Venezuela's reserves, and he keeps annoying the experts and the people with money, both at home and abroad.

And besides, you're assuming that "in time" Chavez will still be in power. May I ask whether that is because you don't think he'll be voted from office or step down once he reaches his term limit?

Oh, wait. I forget (http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/news-2549--12-12--.html). :rolleyes:

You all do not think this is a ploy to strengthen oil prices? I mean the higher the per barrel means more profits for Mexico. If the Saudi's wanted to say the same thing they would profit tremendously. Just a thought. Anyway I am not worried about the US running out of fuel. It may cost more but we have enough arable land to supply our energy needs in bio-fuels.

IT'S A CONSPIRACY!

No. It's not a ploy to boost profits. It's simple supply and demand.

And we do not have anywhere near enough arable land to support our energy needs in bio-fuels, unless you've figured out a way to keep people from requiring food.

Yeah, that one. The gag is to see what happens when Europe loses the little capacity it has to supply its own oil and gas, particularly with regards to Gasprom-country.


And now they don't?

Canada's oil sands can make up for this without breaking a sweat. It's more expensive, but that's the reality of it. And over time, as oil gets more expensive alternative materials and resources become more attractive financially and the switch is made.

Without breaking a sweat? You need to read a little more about the oil sands of canada.

6. How about the Canadian oil sands? I've heard that production may triple by 2020.

While we hear a lot about the oil sands, the amount of oil they produce is not all that large. In 1997, oil sands accounted for 0.8% of world production. By 2005, production had grown to just under 1 million barrels per day, or 1.2% of world production. Even if production tripled, it would still be small compared to what is needed.

One factor impeding growth is the fact that current production methods require large amounts of natural gas, and this is in short supply. One idea under consideration is to build nuclear plants - eight would be required if production were to scale up to 4 million barrels a day. Given the time and expense of building nuclear plants, development is likely to take several years.

http://www.energybulletin.net/32248.html

Here's what Canada's energy department says about teh oil sands:

Annual oil sands production is growing steadily as the industry matures. Output of marketable oil sands production increased to 966,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) in 2005. With anticipated growth, this level of production could reach 3 million barrels per day by 2020 and possibly even 5 million barrels per day by 2030. This degree of activity would support the development of other key industries and see Alberta become a Global Energy Leader.

http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/89.asp

Possibly even 5 million barrels/ day! :)

Wow, that's almost enough to make up for Mexico's lost production and possibly part of the North Sea's. nevermind Alaska's, Saudi Arabia's, venezuela's, Iran's...

By 2020 we may lose as much as 10 million barrels/day of production.


There is many things I worry about. Peak oil isn't one of them.We're about to find out. I hope you're right, but I pay very close attention to world oil production on a daily basis and I think you're very, very wrong and what's more I think you're going to find that out very, very soon.


Tar field =/= oil.

That's what we've been saying the whole time: it requires expertise and money to develop Venezuela's reserves, and he keeps annoying the experts and the people with money, both at home and abroad.

And besides, you're assuming that "in time" Chavez will still be in power. May I ask whether that is because you don't think he'll be voted from office or step down once he reaches his term limit?

Oh, wait. I forget (http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/news-2549--12-12--.html). :rolleyes:

Venezuela's heavy oil is better in every respect than Canada's tar sands. It can be drilled, it flows and it's easier to refine. Venezuela has tar. Canada has tar mixed with sand. So far their production hasn't kept pace, but that's because they haven't invested enough and because their conventional production is still so high.

http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/89.asp

Possibly even 5 million barrels/ day! :)

Wow, that's almost enough to make up for Mexico's lost production and possibly part of the North Sea's. nevermind Alaska's, Saudi Arabia's, venezuela's, Iran's...

By 2020 we may lose as much as 10 million barrels/day of production.


You don't think that could be speeded up and increased if necessary though?

You don't think that could be speeded up and increased if necessary though?

I'm not a petroleum engineer, but I also know of no petroleum engineer that says differently and I read about it a lot. You have to consider the basic physics involved.

Conventional oil: Drill a hole and watch it shoot out of the ground.

Tar sands: Dig a pit mine with gigantic, building sized tractors. Get gigantic building sized dump trucks to carry two tons of tar sand out of the pit and take to a furnace. Heat the sand to several hundred degrees using much more valuable natural gas. Crush the heated 2 tons of sand and WALLAH! You have on barrel of oil.

Just in terms of productive capacity that process could never make up for the loss of easy, light, flow-like-water oil and that's what we're losing.

Think of a bank account. The tar sands are claimed to hold a trillion or more barrels of oil. People hear that and they think, "Problem solved!" But it's not just total quantity that matters. What if I told you that I was giving you a bank account with $1 billion in it. You'd think, "damn I'm rich!" But when I dropped the caveat that you could spend no more than $5/day you'd realize that that $1 billion wouldn't be enough to even feed you much less buy that private Lear jet you were thinking about.

The United States, for example, burned 7.5 billion barrels last year, but we don't need 7.5 billion barrels per year - we need 24 million barrels per day. The tar sands will be a help in preventing a steeper decline than we would otherwise have, but it will not produce fast enough to prevent Peak Oil.

I'm not a petroleum engineer, but I also know of no petroleum engineer that says differently and I read about it a lot. You have to consider the basic physics involved.

Conventional oil: Drill a hole and watch it shoot out of the ground.

Tar sands: Dig a pit mine with gigantic, building sized tractors. Get gigantic building sized dump trucks to carry two tons of tar sand out of the pit and take to a furnace. Heat the sand to several hundred degrees using much more valuable natural gas. Crush the heated 2 tons of sand and WALLAH! You have on barrel of oil.

Just in terms of productive capacity that process could never make up for the loss of easy, light, flow-like-water oil and that's what we're losing.

Think of a bank account. The tar sands are claimed to hold a trillion or more barrels of oil. People hear that and they think, "Problem solved!" But it's not just total quantity that matters. What if I told you that I was giving you a bank account with $1 billion in it. You'd think, "damn I'm rich!" But when I dropped the caveat that you could spend no more than $5/day you'd realize that that $1 billion wouldn't be enough to even feed you much less buy that private Lear jet you were thinking about.

The United States, for example, burned 7.5 billion barrels last year, but we don't need 7.5 billion barrels per year - we need 24 million barrels per day. The tar sands will be a help in preventing a steeper decline than we would otherwise have, but it will not produce fast enough to prevent Peak Oil.

Yea, I can see how the easy oil is gone. I was more wondering though if the projections for capacity were based upon economic assumptions or some type of physical considerations. In other words, say you are right about this being it, and oil goes to $200 a barrel and stays there: could that massively increase the pace of development of the tar sands, or is there some physical reason limiting it to the current rate of expansion?

I'm not a petroleum engineer, but I also know of no petroleum engineer that says differently and I read about it a lot. You have to consider the basic physics involved.

Conventional oil: Drill a hole and watch it shoot out of the ground.

Tar sands: Dig a pit mine with gigantic, building sized tractors. Get gigantic building sized dump trucks to carry two tons of tar sand out of the pit and take to a furnace. Heat the sand to several hundred degrees using much more valuable natural gas. Crush the heated 2 tons of sand and WALLAH! You have on barrel of oil.

Just in terms of productive capacity that process could never make up for the loss of easy, light, flow-like-water oil and that's what we're losing.

Think of a bank account. The tar sands are claimed to hold a trillion or more barrels of oil. People hear that and they think, "Problem solved!" But it's not just total quantity that matters. What if I told you that I was giving you a bank account with $1 billion in it. You'd think, "damn I'm rich!" But when I dropped the caveat that you could spend no more than $5/day you'd realize that that $1 billion wouldn't be enough to even feed you much less buy that private Lear jet you were thinking about.

The United States, for example, burned 7.5 billion barrels last year, but we don't need 7.5 billion barrels per year - we need 24 million barrels per day. The tar sands will be a help in preventing a steeper decline than we would otherwise have, but it will not produce fast enough to prevent Peak Oil.

Yea, I can see how the easy oil is gone. I was more wondering though if the projections for capacity were based upon economic assumptions or some type of physical considerations. In other words, say you are right about this being it, and oil goes to $200 a barrel and stays there: could that massively increase the pace of development of the tar sands, or is there some physical reason limiting it to the current rate of expansion?

How will this effect the Taco Supply??? :eek:

You all do not think this is a ploy to strengthen oil prices? I mean the higher the per barrel means more profits for Mexico. If the Saudi's wanted to say the same thing they would profit tremendously. Just a thought. Anyway I am not worried about the US running out of fuel. It may cost more but we have enough arable land to supply our energy needs in bio-fuels.

We produce a significant portion of the food in the world. If we divert our arable land to fuel production care to guess how many will starve?

How will this effect the Taco Supply??? :eek:

Biofuels have increased the cost of Taco flour already Goofballs. :(

Yea, I can see how the easy oil is gone. I was more wondering though if the projections for capacity were based upon economic assumptions or some type of physical considerations. In other words, say you are right about this being it, and oil goes to $200 a barrel and stays there: could that massively increase the pace of development of the tar sands, or is there some physical reason limiting it to the current rate of expansion?

Just the process that I described should give a good hint as to it's productive capacity. But think about even more problems. First, the process of diging up two tons of sand, trucking it to a furnace, heating it up and squeezing out just one barrel of oil has it's limits when compared to just punching a hole and watching it shoot out.

Just compare this methode of production:

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/6/65/Oil_sands_open_pit_mining.jpg

To this:

http://www.priweb.org/ed/pgws/history/spindletop/images/Spindletop_gusher_410pxl.jpg

For the last 75 years we've lived off the energy return provided by the latter. In addition to that, it is a mine. Since all material has to be trucked to a central location for processing, over time those trucks will have to drive farther and farther to bring the sand to the furnaces or nuclear power plants, further slowing the rate of production.

Remember, the people who are making the predictions for oil sands production are engineers and economists very familiar with the process and the numbers they site are probably more optimistic than pessimistic, but even if it does increase the pace of production substatially, it is unlikely that tar sand development can ever do more than slow the decline in world oil production - something that can help mitigate, but not prevent the economic consequences of declining world oil production.

Just the process that I described should give a good hint as to it's productive capacity. But think about even more problems. First, the process of diging up two tons of sand, trucking it to a furnace, heating it up and squeezing out just one barrel of oil has it's limits when compared to just punching a hole and watching it shoot out.

For the last 75 years we've lived off the energy return provided by the latter. In addition to that, it is a mine. Since all material has to be trucked to a central location for processing, over time those trucks will have to drive farther and farther to bring the sand to the furnaces or nuclear power plants, further slowing the rate of production.

Remember, the people who are making the predictions for oil sands production are engineers and economists very familiar with the process and the numbers they site are probably more optimistic than pessimistic, but even if it does increase the pace of production substatially, it is unlikely that tar sand development can ever do more than slow the decline in world oil production - something that can help mitigate, but not prevent the economic consequences of declining world oil production.

So then how do you recommend we deal with this? Are we going into "stockpile food and ammo" mode or are there ways to mitigate or stop the economic backlash from doing to much damage? Alternate fuel sources? Improved efficiency in oil use? What?

Biofuels have increased the cost of Taco flour already Goofballs. :(

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/ranting.gif

How will this effect the Taco Supply??? :eek:

Funny you should ask:

The humble tortilla is putting a pinch on the wallets of taco lovers all over Chicago.

There's a growing demand for corn for the gasoline additive ethanol. And with more corn being exported, prices have risen upward of $5 a bushel, the highest in at least 10 years, said Bob Young, chief economist for the American Farm Bureau Federation.

That's translating into more-expensive tortillas in grocery stores across North America. Representatives from Chicago tortillerias La Mexicana, El Milagro and Sabinas Food Products Inc. have all seen about a 40 percent increase in corn flour prices in the last two weeks and are starting to pass the costs on to their customers.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20070126/ai_n17164492

So then how do you recommend we deal with this? Are we going into "stockpile food and ammo" mode or are there ways to mitigate or stop the economic backlash from doing to much damage? Alternate fuel sources? Improved efficiency in oil use? What?

Yes.






I don't know, but we have to prepare at least mentally to live in a different world. I would encourage people to read about the problem and come to their own conclusions about how severe the consequences will be and what they think they should do to prepare. Personally I'm back in school getting a geology degree because I think it will be an important profession - I think it will be important to be important. I would suggest getting out of debt if you are in debt. I would suggest planting a good garden. I would suggest getting to know your neighbors. A lot depends on how fast the decline is. Also, leadership will be important - we've had probably the worst most incompetent leadership imaginable at the worst possible time over the last 6 1/2 years...

Beyond that, who knows?

Yes.






I don't know, but we have to prepare at least mentally to live in a different world. I would encourage people to read about the problem and come to their own conclusions about how severe the consequences will be and what they think they should do to prepare. Personally I'm back in school getting a geology degree because I think it will be an important profession - I think it will be important to be important. I would suggest getting out of debt if you are in debt. I would suggest planting a good garden. I would suggest getting to know your neighbors. A lot depends on how fast the decline is. Also, leadership will be important - we've had probably the worst most incompetent leadership imaginable at the worst possible time over the last 6 1/2 years...

Beyond that, who knows?

There, you see, that right there is what keeps you from sounding like a prophet of doom when you post articles like this.

I agree, shit's gonna hit the fan in probably the next decade if something doesn't happen soon. We need to start looking for other sources of energy and fuel. Barring that, we need to improve the efficiency of the processes that use oil. Anything to make the present supply last longer. Research what we can do, improve upon what we already know what we can do, and maybe we'll make it out of this without a complete economic shakedown.

There, you see, that right there is what keeps you from sounding like a prophet of doom when you post articles like this.

I agree, shit's gonna hit the fan in probably the next decade if something doesn't happen soon. We need to start looking for other sources of energy and fuel. Barring that, we need to improve the efficiency of the processes that use oil. Anything to make the present supply last longer. Research what we can do, improve upon what we already know what we can do, and maybe we'll make it out of this without a complete economic shakedown.

The predicted consequences of Peak Oil range from a new stone age to everything we need to avoid that coming online just in time and the peak flowing under us like a wave under a boat. Personally though I think both are possible I think they are also both about as likely as the other. The actual effect of Peak Oil will probably, like most things in life, end up being somewher in the middle. What people need to understand about the middle between the stone tools and the boat is that it is not a very nice place to be if you don't prepare for it. I think the economic consequences will be severe and will include very high unemployment, a breakdown in many of the services we have come to take for granted, high food prices, a dramatic decrease in the middle class and the acompanying social and political tension, I think globalization will be reversed and we will have to learn how to do things locally again for everything from food production to manufacturing to retail to sports and recreation. We'll be forced to be on a first name basis with our neighbors again. I'm not saying that cities and states and countries will break down, many may, but our lives will be a lot more local and a lot less mobile than they have been in anyone alive's memory.


The caveat to al of this is if we decide we need to fight with everyone over what's left. Russia is making noise about annexing the North Pole because of the oil and gas there. Canada, the US and Norway may have something to say about it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2155477.ece

Russia is making an audacious grab for the vast energy riches of the Arctic with an underwater mission to plant its flag beneath the North Pole.

A team of explorers plans to descend 4,300 metres (14,000ft) to the seabed in a miniature submarine tomorrow to stake Russia’s claim to an area of ocean the size of Western Europe. The polar expedition aims to prove that the Lomonosov Ridge, an underwater shelf that runs through the Arctic, is an extension of Russian territory.

Mexico, 3rd largest importer of oil to the US, will be out of oil in seven years. If eth proper investments are made, they claim they can add another 2.9 years. Their chief field, Cantarell, is the second largest field in the world.

More than that, Mexico will be unable to cover its own needs within the next five to six years. Ku Maloob Zap is supposed to be as big as Cantarell, but much harder to extract from. Even if investment started now it would take about 10 years for it to start producing, and who knows if it can reach extraction levels as high as those of Cantarell at its peak.

Well that's settled then. A handful of people on an internet forum will think twice about how they use oil products and the problem will somehow be solved. Eh?

How about convincing the US administration and it's 'friends' in Big Oil to change their attitudes as drastically? How about explaining to India and Communist China that they aren't allowed experience their economic and industrial/techn. boom because we'd like them to use a little less of oil based products in the future?

A few individuals don't mean shit. Unless they're the ones in power.

Dan, a lot of people have been saying what you have posted here, for years. The power players ignored them too.

Good.

Well that's settled then. A handful of people on an internet forum will think twice about how they use oil products and the problem will somehow be solved. Eh?

How about convincing the US administration and it's 'friends' in Big Oil to change their attitudes as drastically? How about explaining to India and Communist China that they aren't allowed experience their economic and industrial/techn. boom because we'd like them to use a little less of oil based products in the future?

A few individuals don't mean shit. Unless they're the ones in power.

Dan, a lot of people have been saying what you have posted here, for years. The power players ignored them too.

You can make exactly the same post about every single thread ever posted on this forum.

We're about to find out. I hope you're right, but I pay very close attention to world oil production on a daily basis and I think you're very, very wrong and what's more I think you're going to find that out very, very soon.
Oooh, now I'm scared. ;)

Look, terrorism didn't work for me, SARS and Bird Flu didn't work for me either. Hell, not even climate change really phases me all that much. So far they haven't really come up with a scare campaign that appealed to me.

It's really quite simple: less oil = more expensive oil = more expensive products that use oil = relatively more attractive substitutes for oil = more research into those = problem solved.

Just why would anyone think everybody's just gonna sit and wait until there's one sudden crash?

Venezuela's heavy oil is better in every respect than Canada's tar sands.
Except for the government that controls them, which is sorta important. PDVSA can't invest any more because the government will have to continue to raid their budget to buy votes.

Oooh, now I'm scared. ;)

Look, terrorism didn't work for me, SARS and Bird Flu didn't work for me either. Hell, not even climate change really phases me all that much. So far they haven't really come up with a scare campaign that appealed to me.

It's really quite simple: less oil = more expensive oil = more expensive products that use oil = relatively more attractive substitutes for oil = more research into those = problem solved.

Just why would anyone think everybody's just gonna sit and wait until there's one sudden crash?


Except for the government that controls them, which is sorta important. PDVSA can't invest any more because the government will have to continue to raid their budget to buy votes.
You're right. I don't know what I was thinking. I mean, when you look back through history it's not like anything bad ever happened.