Showing posts with label oil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oil. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

More Hypocrisy from Advocates of Smaller Government

In the May 25, 2010 Florida Times-Union blog entry, "Small-government Rubio said it may be time for federal takeover of cleanup ops", David Hunt highlights the hypocrisy inherent in many advocates of free markets, smaller government and lower taxes. When insufficiently regulated markets create socially undesirable outcomes, such as the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, those harmed by the market failure scream that the government should do more. You cannot have it both ways. It is easy to support free markets and smaller government when one fails to consider the negative consequences. Rational economists argue those consequences always should be considered.

According to David Hunt's blog:
During a campaign stop in Jacksonville, former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio said he's been disturbed by the lack of technology to harness the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico.

Although Rubio presents himself as a small-government candidate for U.S. Senate, he said it may be time for a government takeover of operations.

Here's what he had to say:

There's an increasing loss of patience with British Petroleum and, quite frankly, with the federal government. I think one of the things we've learned, sadly, is that cleanup technologies have not advanced at all over the last 30 years. They're basically making it up as they go along. The fact that they were drilling at such a deep level, and there wasn't the technology to deal with a spill if it happened, is in and of itself frightening. Those questions have to be answered.

Priority number one has got to be focus on preventing this from getting worse. If that means the federal government has to step in and take over than that's what needs to happen.

The second thing, we need to figure out why this happened so that it never happens again. You know how when there's an airline accident, how the FAA treats that very seriously? They investigate it down to the thread as to what caused that accident so that airline travel in America is exceedingly safe. The same needs to happen here.

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Test your understanding of economics in the news: Is this a change in supply or a change in demand?

Click on the image above to enlarge it.

In the January 6, 2010 Wall Street Journal article "Cramped on Land, Big Oil Bets at Sea," Ben Casselman and Guy Chazan report that oil companies exploring in deep ocean waters have discovered "unexpectedly large quantities of oil -- oil that only they have the technology and financial muscle to find and produce."

Using the ceteris paribus assumption that ignores other potential changes, what is the likely effect of this discovery on the market for oil?

Is this change in the oil market (a) an increase in the supply of oil, (b) a decrease in the supply of oil, (c) an increase in the demand for oil, or (d) a decrease in the demand for oil? Will the equilibrium price of oil increase or decrease as a result of these newly found oil reserves?

Read the article below and then illustrate this price change with a graph that shows the initial positions of the supply and demand for oil and the new positions of the supply and demand curves. (Hint: Only one of the curves shifts.) There is a link at the bottom that provides the answer.
Big Oil never wanted to be here, in 4,300 feet of water far out in the Gulf of Mexico, drilling through nearly five miles of rock.

It is an expensive way to look for oil. Chevron Corp. is paying nearly $500,000 a day to the owner of the Clear Leader, one of the world's newest and most powerful drilling rigs. The new well off the coast of Louisiana will connect to a huge platform floating nearby, which cost Chevron $650 million to build. The first phase of this oil-exploration project took more than 10 years and cost $2.7 billion -- with no guarantee it would pay off.

Chevron came here, an hour-long helicopter ride south of New Orleans, because so many of the places it would rather be -- big, easily tapped oil fields close to shore -- have become off-limits. Western oil companies have been kicked out of much of the Middle East in recent decades, had assets seized in Venezuela and seen much of the U.S. roped off because of environmental regulations. Their access in Iran is limited by sanctions, in Russia by curbs on foreign investment, in Iraq by violence.

So, Chevron and other major oil companies are moving ever farther from shore in search of oil. That quest is paying off as these companies discover unexpectedly large quantities of oil -- oil that only they have the technology and financial muscle to find and produce.

In May, the first wells from Chevron's latest Gulf of Mexico project came online. The wells are now pumping 125,000 barrels of oil a day, making the project one of the gulf's biggest producers. In September, BP PLC announced what could be the biggest discovery in the gulf in years: a field that could hold three billion barrels.

Beyond the Gulf of Mexico, companies have announced big finds off the coasts of Brazil and Ghana, leading some experts to suggest the existence of a massive oil reservoir stretching across the Atlantic from Africa to South America. Production from deepwater projects -- those in water at least 1,000 feet deep -- grew by 67%, or by about 2.3 million barrels a day, between 2005 and 2008, according to PFC Energy, a Washington consulting firm.

The discoveries come as many of the giant oil fields of the past century are beginning to dry up, and as some experts are warning that global oil production could soon reach a peak and begin to decline. The new deepwater fields represent a huge and largely untapped source of oil, which could help ease fears that the world won't be able to meet demand for energy, which is expected to grow rapidly in coming years.

For oil companies, the discoveries mean something more: After a decade of retreat, large Western energy companies are taking back the lead in the quest to find oil. "A lot of people can get the very easy oil," says George Kirkland, Chevron's vice chairman. "There's just not a lot of it left."

There are challengers to Big Oil's deepwater dominance. Brazil recently has moved to give a larger share of its offshore oil to its state-run oil company, Petrobras. A handful of smaller companies, such as Anadarko Petroleum Corp. and Tullow Oil PLC, have had success offshore, particularly in Ghana, where giants like BP and Exxon Mobil Corp. are now playing catch-up.

The enormous investments of time and money required for such projects have made many experts skeptical that they can ease the long-term pressure on global oil supplies. The scale of the projects means that few smaller companies have the resources to take them on. Devon Energy Corp., an independent producer based in Oklahoma City, recently announced plans to abandon its deepwater-exploration business to focus on less-expensive onshore projects, which is says will produce a better return.

"This is technology capable of going to the moon," says Robin West, chairman of consulting firm PFC Energy, involving "extraordinary uncertainty, immense levels of information processing, staggering amounts of capital."

Offshore drilling is almost as old as the oil industry itself. In the 1890s, companies began prospecting for oil from piers extending off the beach near Santa Barbara, Calif. Gulf Oil drilled the world's first fully offshore well from cedar pilings on a shallow lake near Oil City, La., in 1911.

From there, the industry pushed gradually outward, from the Louisiana bayous in the 1920s into the Gulf of Mexico, where Kerr McGee drilled the first well out of sight of land in 1947.

The push into deeper water has come in the past decade.

"What has enabled us to do that is technology," says David Rainey, BP's head of exploration for the Gulf of Mexico. "We have been pushing the limits of seismic-imaging technology and drilling technology."

Perhaps a bigger reason for the recent emphasis on deepwater exploration is that companies had few other places to go. In the early decades of oil exploration, Western companies were the only ones with the technology to manage big oil projects. But as technology spread and state-run oil companies became more sophisticated, foreign governments have relied less on outside help and have demanded greater control of their own oil resources.

With a few exceptions, state-run companies have largely stayed out of the deep water, with its enormous technical challenges and multibillion-dollar investment requirements. Western companies have steadily pushed farther offshore, not just in the Gulf of Mexico but in places like Nigeria, Malaysia, Norway and Australia.

At the same time, traditional oil fields have begun to dry up. In Mexico, the world's seventh-largest oil producer, daily production has dropped 23% since 2004 as output from its giant Cantarell field fell sharply. Other countries have seen their own, mostly smaller, declines.

Falling output from old fields has stoked fears that world-wide production could be nearing its peak. Global oil reserves -- a measure of oil that has been found but not yet produced -- fell in 2008 for the first time in a decade, according to BP's annual statistical review. Moreover, there are signs demand could soon catch up to supply. Global oil consumption has risen by 5.4 million barrels a day in the past five years, while production has risen by just 4.8 million barrels a day.

Such fears helped drive a rapid run-up in oil prices to nearly $150 a barrel in July 2008. The global recession cooled demand, driving down prices, although many experts expect prices to rise again when the economy recovers. Already, prices have rebounded to about $80 a barrel, from under $35 in December 2008.

Rising prices have spurred offshore exploration. By 2008, about 8% of global oil production came from deepwater fields.

Yet even the biggest deepwater projects aren't enough to put a dent in global supply problems on their own. The world's largest deepwater platform, BP's Thunder Horse in the Gulf of Mexico, produces 250,000 barrels of oil a day, just 0.3% of global consumption.

"These discoveries are changing the debate," says Ed Morse, chief economist for LCM Commodities, a brokerage firm. What remains unclear, he says, is whether the deepwater projects will ensure that new discoveries continue to meet demand.

Many in the industry argue the new fields have expanded the limits of where the industry can find oil, potentially delaying a decline in global production.

"There are vast unexplored areas in deep water, so tremendous opportunities for growth," says Steven Newman, president of Transocean Ltd., which owns the Clear Leader rig.

The push into deeper water hasn't always been smooth sailing. Offshore projects are expensive, time-consuming and prone to failure. Chevron boasts of a 45% exploration overall success rate in recent years, a remarkable run by industry standards, but one that also means the company has spent billions on projects that haven't panned out.

Chevron's successes have outweighed its failures. It was expected to be the fastest-growing big oil company in 2009, as measured by oil production, in large part because of new offshore projects in the Gulf of Mexico and off Brazil. Other companies that have embraced offshore exploration, such as BP, are also seeing big growth, while those that haven't are scrambling.

Exxon, which hasn't emphasized deepwater exploration as much as competitors, recently offered $4 billion for a stake in an oil field off the coast of Ghana.

Chevron made its big offshore bet in the 1990s, when it began buying up leases in the Gulf of Mexico that were in such deep water, the technology didn't yet exist to drill there. Confident that technology would catch up, the company in 1996 bid in and won a U.S. government auction for the right to explore for oil in several areas of the gulf, in hopes that a fraction would turn into producing fields.

Chevron then spent six years analyzing its new holdings, figuring out which were most likely to hold oil. The key tool in its arsenal: seismic imaging, a sonar-like process in which sound waves are shot into the rock, and their echoes are picked up by sensors on the surface.

Adding to the challenge: The oil that Chevron was pursuing lay beneath a thick layer of salt, which disrupts seismic sound waves and blurs the images like a smudge on a camera lens. The company had to analyze the data with supercomputers to clear up that distortion.

The analysis revealed a potentially huge oil reservoir. Even so, Chevron estimated it had only a one-in-eight chance of finding commercial quantities of oil. The only way to know for sure was to drill.

So, in 2002, Chevron spent about $100 million to sink its first well in the field, which came to be known as Tahiti. That well needed to hit a 200-foot-long target from five miles away -- akin to hitting a dart board from a city block away.

"You have to roll the dice, and the dice roll now is north of $100 million," says Gary Luquette, president of Chevron's North American exploration and production division.

Chevron's first Tahiti well struck enough oil to make it worth more drilling to see how big the field might be. By 2005, the company had learned enough to go forward with the project. That required building a 700-foot-tall, 45,000-ton floating oil-production platform, and drilling a half dozen wells to feed oil to it. Tahiti produced its first commercial quantities of oil in May.

On a recent morning, the Clear Leader rolled on the waves 190 miles south of New Orleans, held almost perfectly in place by its satellite-controlled navigation system and six Korean-made engines.

In a cabin on the ship's deck, a team of drillers in coveralls monitored computer terminals as they used joysticks to control a drill bit more than 12,800 feet below. The oil they were targeting lay another 14,000 feet underground -- an easy reach for a ship that can drill down 7.5 miles.

The well is part of a second phase of the Tahiti project, which will require drilling several more wells and expanding the floating platform -- an additional $2 billion in spending, still with no guarantee of success.

Kevin Ricketts, a Chevron engineer who worked on both phases of the Tahiti project, recalled looking up at the massive platform while it was still on shore, and reflecting on how his team's analysis had led to its construction.

"I'd never seen anything that big," Mr. Ricketts said. "I thought, holy moly, our production forecast led to that thing being built. I sure hope we're right."

CLICK HERE FOR THE ANSWER.

Thursday, September 3, 2009

Test your understanding of economics in the news: Is this a change in supply or a change in demand?

In the September 1, 2009 article "BP Makes `Giant´ Oil Find in Gulf of Mexico," Tom Bergin explains that the discovery of new oil reserves in the Gulf of Mexico may affect the future price of oil. Using the ceteris paribus assumption that ignores other potential changes, what is the likely effect of this discovery on the market for oil?

Is this change in the oil market (a) an increase in the supply of oil, (b) a decrease in the supply of oil, (c) an increase in the demand for oil, or (d) a decrease in the demand for oil? Will the equilibrium price of oil increase or decrease as a result of these newly found oil reserves?

Read the article below and then illustrate this price change with a graph that shows the initial positions of the supply and demand for oil and the new positions of the supply and demand curves. (Hint: Only one of the curves shifts.) There is a link at the bottom that provides the answer.
LONDON (Reuters) - Oil major BP Plc said it has made an oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico, which analysts believe could contain over 1 billion barrels of recoverable reserves, reaffirming the Gulf's strategic importance to the industry.

BP said in a statement on Wednesday that it had made the "giant" find at its Tiber Prospect in the Keathley Canyon block 102, by drilling one of the deepest wells ever sunk by the industry.

Further appraisal will be required to ascertain the size of volumes of oil present, but a spokesman said the find should be bigger than its Kaskida discovery which has over 3 billion barrels of oil in place.

Estimates of recoverable reserves range from around 20 percent of oil in place.

"Assuming reserves in place of 4 billion barrels and a 35 percent recovery rate, BP's proven reserves .. would rise by 868 million barrels -- equivalent to 4.8 percent of the group's 18.14 billion barrels of proven reserves," Aymeric De-Villaret, oil analyst at Societe Generale said in a research note.

BP, the biggest oil producer in the U.S. and biggest leaseholder in the Gulf of Mexico, has a 62 percent working interest in the block, while Brazilian state-controlled Petrobras owns 20 percent and U.S. oil major ConocoPhillips owns 18 percent.

Iain Armstrong, analyst at Brewin Dolphin, said the discovery may have implications for long-term oil prices.

"It will ease concerns about peak oil because it shows there is life left in these mature areas," he said, adding that it could be the second half of the next decade before the find is producing.

The discovery also bodes well for other exploration in that part of the Gulf of Mexico, including at Royal Dutch Shell's nearby Great White field, Jason Kenny, oil analyst at ING in Edinburgh, said.

BP shares, which had been trading slightly down ahead of the statement, closed up 4.3 percent at 541 pence, outperforming a 1.75 percent rise in the DJ Stoxx European oil and gas sector index.

The Gulf of Mexico has become increasingly important to Western oil majors as oil rich-countries such as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Russia reserve their richest fields to be developed by their state-owned oil companies.

The Gulf is especially attractive because it offers high profit margins, due to relatively low taxation compared to countries such as Russia and Nigeria, and because of the low political risk.

As nearer-shore discoveries dry up, companies have pushed further out to sea, which has forced them to develop new technologies to detect and extract the oil.

The prospects for massive discoveries in the deep water of the Gulf of Mexico is also good news for U.S. politicians' ambitions to reduce the country's reliance on imported oil, although oil executives doubt the U.S. is capable of becoming self sufficient in oil.

CLICK HERE FOR THE ANSWER.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Looking for someone to blame for U.S. dependence on foreign oil? How about Ronald Reagan?

"Had Reagan left those CAFE standards in place, and the US had continued to conserve oil at the same rate as it had from 1979-85, the US today would be importing not a single drop of oil from the Persian Gulf." - Paul Abrams in his September 3, 2008 article "There is a 'Villain' In Our Dependence on Foreign Oil and His Name is Ronald Reagan." The article says:
Republicans in Minnesota have become born-again alternative-energy zealots, not to save the planet from global warming (their VP candidate does not believe that man's activities contribute to the problem), but for another laudable goal, eliminating our dependence on foreign sources of energy. At least they get that part of it.

At the same time, in nearly every other phrase, the Republicans will praise Ronald Reagan in worshipful terms. They will attempt to be courteous to the 2 George Bushes, but will immediately cover themselves by referencing Reagan. Indeed, as soon as George W finished his speech yesterday praising John McCain, the convention cut to a picture of Reagan. God is alive and well in St. Paul.

Yet, if there were a single major villain responsible for our dependence on foreign oil it is Ronald Reagan himself.

During the rise in the oil prices following the Iranian revolution, President Jimmy Carter announced policies that would prevent the US from ever importing a single drop of oil more per year than in 1979. The program included subsidies for alternative energies and serial increases in the efficiency (C.A.F.E. = corporate average fuel economy) standards for automobiles

Carter called it, presciently, "the moral equivalent of war". Anyone today doubting Carter's insight? Any takers at the Republican National Convention?

Regrettably, a Republican PR operation realized that the acronym spelled out "m.e.o.w", and they pounced on the program using "meow" to ridicule it. Ronald Reagan then convinced the American people that conservation was beneath them, and he not only cut the subsidies, he also phased out the CAFE standards.

It may bear repeating the obvious: every gallon of oil saved by efficiency is a gift that keeps on giving, year-after-year another gallon is not burned. By contrast every gallon produced is used once, and is then gone forever. Of course, oil companies do not make money when you do not burn that gallon every year.

And, now, the tragic truth: had Reagan left those CAFE standards in place, and the US had continued to conserve oil at the same rate as it had from 1979-85, the US today would be importing not a single drop of oil from the Persian Gulf. Not one. Zilch. Zorch. Nada. (See, e.g., Amory Lovins, "Energy Security Facts", Rocky Mountain Institute).

Imagine what benefits there would have been had Reagan not used the Iranian situation for partisan political gain. Start with Detroit. Instead of being far behind the efficiency curve, and losing out to foreign competitors (from countries where the price of gasoline was higher, and thus were producing higher efficiency engines), US automakers would be healthy, and right in the thick of it. Employment levels would be up in Michigan, and high wage jobs would be growing not shrinking. Add to that US ingenuity, and we may well have been the leaders in the world in fuel-efficient and/or alternative energy using automobiles.

Jump now to our foreign debt. Instead of being beholden to close allies like China to hold (and not demand payment) of our debt, our balance of payments would be, if not positive, at least not nearly so negative. The dollar would be higher, as countries would have more confidence in the greenback's value.

Consider our foreign policy. We would no longer be at the mercy of rogue nations, and those countries would not have the resources to support their terrorist activities and their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. To be sure, North Korea and Pakistan, and even Israel, have shown that even poor nations can develop nuclear weapons, but North Korea has done so in part because they believe there is a potential market for their technology among the oil-producing states and Pakistan was likely funded by Libya and other oil-producers. Israel was aided by France. Without dealing in absolutes, we can confidently assert that the world would have been a far less dangerous place.

Consider health. Our air would be cleaner. Asthma rates in children have doubled almost every decade, and asthmatic attacks have become a major cause of absences among schoolchildren. Large populations of young children chronically inhale steroids to prevent such asthmatic attacks.

Oh yes, what about the small matter of global warming? Let us just say that our challenges in preventing future catastrophe would be far less daunting. To warm the cockles of Republicans' hearts, Al Gore may never have won the Nobel Prize.

Ronald Reagan does not deserve all the blame. Having outflanked the Democrats politically on both energy and tax policy, the progressive impulse among the opposition vanished with Reagan's landslide victory in 1984. Bush, always trying to ape Reagan to outdo his father, managed to cancel the remaining tax-credits for purchasing hybrid cars, weakened efficiency standards for nearly everything, provided enormous tax breaks for Hummers and other gas-guzzlers.

Outside the Republican convention, however, that victory rings very hollow 25 years, two World Trade Center towers and two Persian Gulf Wars later.

The next time you fork out $50 to fill your tank with gas, or send your son or daughter off to Iraq, thank Ronald Reagan (with a tip of the hat to George W Bush).

A similar account of this story occurs on pages 14-16 of Thomas L. Friedman's Hot, Flat, and Crowded.