Columbia, reports the Financial Times of
07-19-04 has "put itself back on the oil maps" due to "improved security" and
revised tax laws. The Clinton-era military aid, along with the
assassination of workers' leaders, high prices, and reduced taxes have
brought ExxonMobil, Burlington Resources, and Shell back to the offshore Tayrona
bloc and the onshore Magdalena Valley.
The number of new exploration wells is the highest
drilled since 1990. 1990? Does that year ring a bell with
anyone?
Speaking of bells, Columbia's production hasn't
exactly followed the Hubbert's bell curve, remaining relatively static
until 1995 when daily output jumped some 40 percent, jumping
another 33 percent from 1997 to 1999, then dropping 12 percent in
2000. Oh well, those pesky details.
Here's another one for those who got their Jones
on..., this one about the elasticity of "reserves."
Columbia's proven reserves in 1990 measured 3.2
billion barrels; in 2003, 1.6 billion barrels. Oh my God.........the
party's over; the hydrocarbon era is done.....wait a minute.....
Between 1990 and 2003, Columbia produced 2.9
billion barrels of oil. How can we subtract 2.9 billion from 3.2 billion
and still have 1.6 billion? Because reserves are an economic, not
geological,
calculation.
|
- Re: Does any of this ring a bell? sartesian
- Re: Does any of this ring a bell? Louis Proyect
- Re: Does any of this ring a bell? sartesian