Shell Chief Executive Says `Easy Oil' Is Gone

[Jcrowley]

Total, Shell Chief Executives Say `Easy Oil' Is Gone (Update1)

By Stephen Voss and Tara Patel

April 5 (Bloomberg) -- The days of so-called ``easy oil'' are over, making it harder to meet demand without complicated and expensive projects, the heads of two of Europe's largest oil companies said today. The International Energy Agency, an adviser to energy importing nations, estimates oil supply will have to rise 39 percent to 116 million barrels of oil a day by 2030 from about 86 million barrels a day now to meet world demand.

Meeting such targets with conventional oil sources will be ``extremely difficult,'' Christophe de Margerie, the chief executive officer of Total SA, Europe's third-largest oil company and its largest refiner, said at a conference in Paris today. New supply will be based on ``huge high-tech'' projects.

Jeroen van der Veer, the chief executive officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Europe's largest oil company, said countries no longer seek Shell's help with conventional reserves, such as onshore oil or gas that's cheaper to develop than offshore fields.

``We can't expect profits in easy oil,'' Van der Veer said at the same conference. ``If there is easy onshore oil, people don't need Shell.'' He said there are enough opportunities for international oil companies to invest in complex, large oil and gas projects using new technology.



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aH57.uZe.sAI&refer=energy

[Spinzonner]

1. Apparently 'Easy Money' is still widely available

by manipulating the market.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

16. Supply-side economics ultimately biting the suppliers in the arse?

OH! GOD!

I! HOPE! SO!!!!!!!

:bounce:

[Vexatious Ape]

2. Scary stuff.

We have the wrong folks in power to handle this.

[Rex]

3. Whatever, you bloodsucking motherfucker.

I hope you and all the people getting rich off of us poor working sods, rot in Hell for all eternity.

[SammyWinstonJack]

4. But "easy money" is still widely available, right, you lowlife price gouging scumbag!

[Kagemusha]

5. I'm sure many will read the title and assume he said something way different

than what the body actually says he said.

Which is that *Shell* can't expect profits from easy oil, because if it exists, countries won't ask Shell to take it out of the ground. They'll nationalize.

[cassiepriam]

6. Shell will just have their pal Shrub invade the country and steal the oil. .

[SammyWinstonJack]

7. Yep and george will gladly oblige them!

[cassiepriam]

8. And shrub will look the other way when Shell gouges us at holiday time.

How much does Shrub make on all of this sweetheart dealing?

[Deja Q]

9. Well, profits are supposed to go back into the business. When will they pony up?

[Disturbed]

11. That Iraqi Oil aint easy.

It's hard work.

[Turbineguy]

13. Iraqi oil was easy oil

Bush and his buddies made it difficult. And that was after making it more valuable. About half of what we pay for gasoline can be considered "Bush Tax". If you are a middle class Republican, remember: Bush is your friend.

[Deja Q]

15. A freepie on another website suggested Iraqi oil was going to China...

:wtf:

Yes, freeper.

If he's right, then this war isn't about oil...

[Jcrowley]

20. What happened there

was that the first contracts were given to China and India(?). That was reported last week and picked up all over The Net. However a few details were conveniently glossed over in many of the stories. The first being that the amount of oil in agreed to in those contracts is comparatively miniscule. The second detail omitted is that some of those were just honoring old contracts. Thirdly, it hasn't happened yet.

More on that:
But none of this suggests Western firms like ExxonMobil (Charts), Chevron (Charts), BP (Charts) and Royal Dutch Shell (Charts) will be completely cut out of the action.

First, their technical prowess is world renowned.

"I have not heard anything from any Iraqi ministers against U.S. oil companies," said Aljibury. "In fact, I have heard the opposite. They are the best in field exploration and development. They want them."

Second, Iraq's oil contract game has just begun.

According to a letter supplied by John S. Herold's Ruppel, memorandums of understanding have been signed with all the oil majors for several years. And Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani has said the country plans to tender for major oil projects in the second half of 2007.

Steve Kretzmann, executive director of Oil Change International, an industry watchdog group, criticized the draft oil law for allowing long-term oil contracts to be awarded to foreign oil firms, a practice he said was unique in the Middle East.

"Giving out a few crumbs to the Chinese and Indians is one thing," said Kretzmann, who noted the draft law was seen by both the Bush administration and the International Monetary Fund before it was given to Iraq's parliament. "But the real prize are the contracts that award long-term rights. I think the are biding their time."

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm

[Monkeyman]

10. I need not say a word you said it all for me

[Skink]

12. Iraq is where the easy oil is.

The oil companies knew this back in 25 when they agreed to not drill there.

[Warren DeMontague]

14. Tell it to the people who seem to think cheap gas is a birthright.

Apparently some folks think it's just gonna keep coming up out of the ground forever.

[Deja Q]

17. No, but alternatives do exist that the oil men could easily exploit and

remain rich; without losing their livelihoods.

Anything's possible. If we put our minds to it.

Which reminds me, where are the new jobs for people to put their collective thoughts and talents to proper use?

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Dunno.

But, I agree. I think it's well past time we find other ways to power our stuff. Not go back, but forward.

But I look at the oil situation and in many people, I see something typical of any addiction: a shitload of denial.

[JohnyCanuck]

19. Latest post on Jim Kunstler's blog

SNIP

The EIA has to be more reality-based about current activity than their future projections, because the current import-export and refinery figures are out there for other people and other data-gathering organizations to see. The EIA's future projections are a joke. They are based on the fantasy that everything will be okay despite what we see happening now. The EIA projects that all the world's oil producers will increase their oil production hugely by 2030. They see Saudi Arabia shooting up to 17.1 million barrels a day when, in fact, Saudi production fell 7 percent just over the past year alone to 8.4 mm/b/d. They see Mexico shooting way up, despite the announcement last year by Pemex that the Cantarell field (60 percent of Mexico's total production) is crashing at a minimum rate of 15 percent a year. They see Russia zooming way up, despite the fact that Russia is probably past the 70 percent mark of its original total reserves. If you go to this EIA chart, you'll see practically everybody's production shooting way up in the decades ahead, even the US, which, in reality, has seen nothing but steady annual decline for more than thirty years (we produce half now of what we did in 1970).

The EIA is a perfect reflection of the public it serves. It appears to conduct daily business in a responsible way while it resolutely refuses to face the obvious realities of the future. My own town is a good example of non-reality-based planning. Our mayor announced last week that we are going to construct a 1500-space parking structure to go along with an expansion of our minor-league convention center, all based on money raised through bonds. I can't imagine a worse investment. The last thing this town will see in the years ahead is an increase in motor-oriented tourism. And the last thing that business organizations will spend their money on in a future of energy scarcity and diminished revenues will be trade shows.

http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2007/04/spring_break.html#comments