tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32583055.post3078494391196028384..comments2008-03-01T14:07:35.472-07:00Peter McKenzie-Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06328673407558511310pmbcomm@hotmail.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32583055.post-4323890656455720902008-03-01T14:07:00.000-07:002008-03-01T14:07:00.000-07:00Sure, most of the oil we now consume is conventional oil. I would give the oilsands even greater resource in place than you do -- if you include the carbonate triangle, maybe more than a trillion barrels. But all the investment in Alberta of the last few years is going to develop production of how much? Maybe 4 million bbl/d within the next ten years -- maybe less. That's not a lot when you consider that the world's conventional oil producibility is declining at a rate -- I recently read 3.6% per year, I think -- that the oilsands can't begin to replace. Venezuela has the vast Orinoco oil sands. Do you think Hugo Chavez is going to attract much capital into that country to develop it? Do you think ExxonMobil would like to kiss and make up? Also, of course, heavy oil development comes with big environmental price tags -- ask the people in north-eastern Alberta.<BR/><BR/>If ConocoPhillips only replaced 15% of production last year, it's because of underinvestment. Increasingly, there are no places left for corporate oil to explore, and national oil companies are mostly inefficient users of capital. Saudi Aramco, for example, has 6000 princelings to support, and a bunch of Wahadists to keep under control. <BR/><BR/>You are right that there has been vast investment in the oil industry around the world in the last few years, but it has not led to the development of new, long-term production. It has at best accelerated the rate at which existing fields are being produced, and it has reduced the available unexplored acreage around the world. Probably the best place to explore in the world right now is India, and the Indian government has no expectation of ever being energy self-sufficient. I don't think this is alarmist. We are facing huge problems.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32583055.post-1807658967990612732008-03-01T08:51:00.000-07:002008-03-01T08:51:00.000-07:00The claims you make in that article seem quite contrary to the evidence we have right here in Canada.<BR/><BR/>"It took about 250 million years to create all this oil, and we have used about half of it in the last three generations." I'm guessing you are talking about conventional oil here. What of the unconventional reserves (i.e. oil sands)?<BR/><BR/>"There’s been a classic cycle of underinvestment." I don't see any evidence of that in Canada, especially in the last 5 years.<BR/><BR/>"80% of the world’s reserves are national oil". Are you talking about conventional oil here too? And if so, why would you choose to ignore (or disbelieve) 173 billion barrels of proven oil sands reserves in Alberta?<BR/>http://www.ercb.ca/docs/products/STs/st98_current.pdfRalphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00037504544742962130noreply@blogger.com