Guest Post: Russia Claims New Arctic Hydrocarbon Finds Effectively Double Nations Reserves

Tyler Durden's picture

Your rating: None

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 10/06/2011 - 12:29 | 1746154 Smithovsky
Smithovsky's picture

Take everything they say with a big grain of salt.

And three shots of vodka.  

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 12:30 | 1746185 tired1
tired1's picture

When will NATO attack?

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 12:39 | 1746228 Ahmeexnal
Ahmeexnal's picture

But...but...TRAV7777 said peak oil was here!!

What a fucktard!

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 12:42 | 1746249 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

It is here. We will never go over 90 million barrels of crude daily.

Thank god for a long, long plateau, plus trillions of cubic feet more natural gas than expected.

We will muddle through with civilization intact.

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 12:43 | 1746251 Xibalba
Xibalba's picture


Thu, 10/06/2011 - 12:57 | 1746318 redpill
redpill's picture

In Mother Russia, Milkshake drinks YOU!!

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 13:25 | 1746436 Haddock
Haddock's picture

We now control all your base.

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 13:29 | 1746452 Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

Can never control all your base. Can only debase your base.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 00:23 | 1748611 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

LOL.  I wonder how many dinosaurs lived in the arctic ocean and then ended up under the seabed.  Oh that's right abiotic oil is a "crazy" Russian conspiracy theory.  Those communists are such liars.  LOL. There's no oil there.  Anyway the arctic is ours.  How dare they lie about phony oil that's ours?  Even if the oil is there, then peak oil becomes a oil plateau, which will be even more devastating.  LOL.

Like you guys even knew that oil was there.  Time to gas up the SUV. LOL. Go back to the oil drum you freaking clowns.  ROTFLMAO.

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 14:19 | 1746675 optimator
optimator's picture

Thanks for reminding me to have a nice white, or maybe black, Russian.

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 12:54 | 1746293 Clorox Cowboy
Clorox Cowboy's picture

Sadly you're incorrect.  Plateau is good while it lasts, but even more devestating once it ends.  It prolongs extraction at rates that are unsustainable and when the downslope of production arrives, it will be steeper than if we had seen a "clean" peak.  Sort of like the debt crisis we're witnessing now...each effort to preserve status quo only adds more future misery.

Also, each time we see demand destruction due to high prices in the oil market, a portion of that demand does not recover.  Less demand = lower future price peaks = less incentive to extract the expensive oil (arctic, deep-water, oil sands, shale, etc) = a shorter plateau, not a longer one as you assume.

From where I stand, civilization (as we know it) is unsustainable and will not make it through the next 25 years intact.  Not sure what the future looks like, but I am 98% certain it will be much more unpleasant than today.

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 12:56 | 1746315 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

My investment time frame is thirty years for me and my kids. Civilization just has to last long enough so that we are lords, not serfs!

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 13:01 | 1746330 Clorox Cowboy
Clorox Cowboy's picture

Sure, civilization will probably be here in 30 years, you'll just need to adjust your definition of what is "civilized".  

"Investments" will probably not be here in 30 years, at least if you're talking about the average person participating in financial markets, as that type of investment requires a higher level of civilization to operate.  Your children will likely BE your investment in 30 years, since you will depend on their manual labor for basic survival.

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 13:07 | 1746350 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture


Not if we are holding a couple of large, landed estates. Manual labor is for the little people.

Hey what was that rule called where the manor lord got to fuck all the brides of the village people?

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 13:30 | 1746457 tonyw
tonyw's picture

Droit du seigneur

From wikipedia: an alleged legal right allowing the lord of a medieval estate to take the virginity of his serfs' maiden daughters. There is no historical evidence for such a right ever having existed.


Of course if you are the manor lord then you don't really need the right, they'll come to you out of their own free will, but surely you should already know that or are you having a few problems in that area:-)


Thu, 10/06/2011 - 13:56 | 1746576 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture


Yes I know they will gladly sell me their daughters for permanent employment in my fields.

Just trying to annoy the plebes. I am a troll!

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 14:09 | 1746616 Shirley Wilfahrt
Shirley Wilfahrt's picture

Apparently such a shitty one that you actually have to tell folks that you are a troll....


That's not trolling....that is simply being an inane douchebag.


Thu, 10/06/2011 - 16:08 | 1747177 Rynak
Rynak's picture

He may say that he's trolling "now", but his mindset actually isn't the slightest bit different, than is "normal" for him - except of perhaps, that he's using less sugar now.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 14:40 | 1750519 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

and what evidence would you be referring to? bloody sheets? used condoms with the family crest printed on the tip?

the droit du seigneur applied only to one night i.e. the bride's wedding night. seigneurs don't like 'sloppy seconds'

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 14:23 | 1746692 Are you kidding
Are you kidding's picture

Do you remember what happened to him AFTER?

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 13:03 | 1746334 Gold Man-Sacks
Gold Man-Sacks's picture

I just love you "experts" who "know" how much oil is INSIDE the Earth.  Just like with the idiotic Global Warming nonsense, you arrogant pricks think you're just so omniscient.  What exactly are your credentials, Mr. Clorox Cowboy?  Daily reads of the Huffington Post does not qualify as all-knowing, ummmm-k?

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 13:08 | 1746357 Clorox Cowboy
Clorox Cowboy's picture

I don't know how much oil is inside the Earth, but you missed my point.  It doesn't matter if there's oil underneath the arctic or a mile under the sea...there could be trillions of barrels down there and it wouldn't matter, because the economy obviously will not support the prices that would be required to profitably extract it.  We've found all the easy, cheap oil and most of it is in Saudi Arabia.  This new find in Russia is a pipe dream because no consumer will be able to afford to buy it.  It's too expensive.

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 22:10 | 1748298 Bringin It
Bringin It's picture

Cowboy - tell him to google EROI.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 00:27 | 1748623 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

And just how do you know if it will be too expensive to bring to the surface?  What percentage of that cost makes up the final cost of a gallon of gas?  Which is a bigger percentage, actually producing the oil or banker/speculator skim?

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 13:44 | 1750280 Gold Man-Sacks
Gold Man-Sacks's picture

I get your points on EROI.  I just think it's incorrect.  Look at what fracking has done to NG prices.  My point is you don't know the future.  You don't know what new discoveries will be found, both in reserves and technologies.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 14:55 | 1750590 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

if you don't know what new discoveries of reserves and technologies to expect, and you are POTUS or Chairman of the Fed how do plan for the next year and the year after that? POTUS probably has more facts into the available proven reserves than anyone alive. should he poll the sheeple to make his decisions?

don't POTUS and Bernanke have to make their decisions based on the the worst case and not the best case senarios?

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 13:09 | 1746360 trav7777
trav7777's picture

You'd be hard-pressed to write a more stupid rebuttal than that.

You fuckin retards still talking about reserves when they are irrelevant.  And you think you have something to say about Peak Oil?  The sheer audacity of your arrogance astounds me.

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 13:19 | 1746412 Gold Man-Sacks
Gold Man-Sacks's picture

Your limited cranial capacity easily explains your astoundedness.


Thu, 10/06/2011 - 13:40 | 1746505 Sophist Economicus
Sophist Economicus's picture

I'm shocked that many dinosaurs lived in the arctic to create such a pool of 'fossil fuels'. ;)

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 13:43 | 1746515 trav7777
trav7777's picture

you're not quite stupid enough to believe oil comes from dinosaurs or other large animals, are you?

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 14:18 | 1746665 Sophist Economicus
Sophist Economicus's picture

Uhmm, this symbol. " ;) " is a wink, which in the above situation mean 'said in jest'

Come on trav, lighten up

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 13:35 | 1750251 Gold Man-Sacks
Gold Man-Sacks's picture

Don't take in personally.  Peak Oil has made it too expensive for Trav to afford Vaseline.  Chafing, you know.

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 14:26 | 1746710 mophead
mophead's picture

"I'm shocked that many dinosaurs lived in the arctic to create such a pool of 'fossil fuels'. ;)"

Yup. Don't forget there were 57 quadrillion gnats there too. Lies, damn lies, then peak oil.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 04:30 | 1748874 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

before the earth's axis shifted the Arctic was a little bit like Miami Beach.
:o )

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 16:14 | 1747203 Thunderlips
Thunderlips's picture

Know where antarctica was 500 Million years ago?  Not near the South Pole.

How about the Arctic?  Millions of years ago, it was warm and lush:


Geography and Climate changes without humans.

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 13:42 | 1746509 trav7777
trav7777's picture

you're is impossible to be able to fully comprehend the depths of your stupidity

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 14:22 | 1746690 TravsMom
TravsMom's picture

Are you looking at your mirror again?

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 00:29 | 1748627 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

When was the first time you heard of fracking or the abundance of natural gas in the USA?  You have no idea at all where undiscovered reserves are or how they'll be retrieved.  You and the other oil drum idiots had no idea about this oil two years ago.

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 13:29 | 1746455 dirtbagger
dirtbagger's picture

Chlorox -

Don't you understand the concept of product substitution when price increases?  At some price point there will be energy substitution, likely resulting in less activity requiring energy input.   I came to this urealization last night as I was washing down my Alpo with Gallo wine

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 19:26 | 1747934 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

two things.  the right side of the peak oil graph will not look  like the right side of a bell curve graph new production and improvement in extraction technology will counter the loss from existing wells.

When the pentagon 'guestimate' of how much reserves we have reaches the red line of what the military wants, who know that there won't be rationing. 

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 13:38 | 1750268 Gold Man-Sacks
Gold Man-Sacks's picture

Priced in gold, oil's cheaper than back in the early 60s.  Do some homework, tard.

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 22:33 | 1748363 iNull
iNull's picture

The only barrier to accepting peak oil is psychological. Namely, denial. People simply cannot accept, will not accept, that when you have a finite amount of resources and a population that is growing exponentially consuming those resources, then the resources will peak and eventually either run out or be too cost ineffective to extract. Which BTW is what you do with resources, you extract them, you do not "produce" them which is why the term oil production is a misnomer.

This debate is so old it's surprising that we still keep having it. Oil peaked worldwide in 2006. There is no longer any debate about that from the scientific or engineering community or the world's largest energy agencies. It's behind us. We're past it. Case closed.

We can however debate the length of the plateau and the cumulative energy area map and what resources will take the place of oil, e.g., coal or natural gas. But as for PO, only religious crackpots and oil company PR people (like Exxon) are still in denial about that. Everyone else has moved on.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 00:32 | 1748633 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

Apparently the Russians are also in denial.  Go tell Putin to start reading the oil drum.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 11:21 | 1749744 Baptiste Say
Baptiste Say's picture

"It is here. We will never go over 90 million barrels of crude daily."




Given demand is somewhere in the low 85 million barrels per day why would you expect us to go beyond 90 mbbl per day?

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 12:45 | 1746260 Clorox Cowboy
Clorox Cowboy's picture

It's not about total supply of oil in the's how much can be extracted and at what price.

Peak (cheap) oil arrived several years ago.  These new finds will be expensive to extract and as we've seen twice (2007 and 2011), the world economy cannot handle oil prices at the levels necessary to make arctic drilling an attractive investment.

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 12:51 | 1746283 mcguire
mcguire's picture

well, not according to this, where global warming and melting of the artic ice cap makes it easy to extract... lemonade from lemons...  it might be waterworld, but the price of oil extraction will go down for the first 100 years... phew! 

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 12:55 | 1746311 Clorox Cowboy
Clorox Cowboy's picture

I hope you're not even remotely serious.

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 13:14 | 1746393 Gold Man-Sacks
Gold Man-Sacks's picture

The oil shock of 2008 (not 2007) was caused by the moronic Bush stimulus.  To no surprise, giving everyone $600 does seem to have an affect on oil and gas prices.  It had nothing to do with Peak Oil.  If it did, why did the price drop back to $35?  Shouldn't we have less oil now than we did back in 2008?  Did the demand change that much?

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 13:16 | 1746399 Clorox Cowboy
Clorox Cowboy's picture

Yes, the demand did change that much.  We had this little thing called a "financial meltdown" if you recall.

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 13:39 | 1746498 Gold Man-Sacks
Gold Man-Sacks's picture

OMG, the world oil demand changed a whole 2.3%!  Surely, that justified a 76% price drop.  Debating an unarmed man is not fair, so I'll stop.


Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!