HARTO de los políticos y del populismo, ¿Y tú?

Ejem... cof cof!!


Primero: Al menos por donde yo andaba ese dia (Coyoacan, D.F.) Si habia mucha gente participando en la consulta verde.



Segundo: Esta contemplado hacerse la consulta a nivel nacional. Pero no es tan sencillo Danny.

Tercero: Podrias hacer una pequeña encuesta aqui, en este blog. (Hay cientos de herramientas disponibles para ello en la web, incluso bloger tiene su propia herramienta y no se puede votar dos veces)... Es mas!!...

Aqui te tengo dos ejemplos de como podrias hacer las encuestas:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

¿Esta usted a favor de la privatizacion de PEMEX que propone el espurio de FeCal? Respuestas:

A)Al diablo con su maldita propuesta, yo se que solo quiere dinero.

B)Si, soy un panista neoliberal nazi esclavo de Telerisa

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Encuesta 2

¿Esta usted a favor de fortalecer pemex con la bondadosa y bien planeada propuesta de nuestro guapo y carismatico presidente constitucional Felipe Calderon?

A)Si o si.

B)Claro!! yo amo al presidente Calderon!!

C)Lo que sea con tal de llevarle la contra a AMLO... (Esta opcion es para ti Danny, MUAHAHAHA)

D)NO. Soy un maldito pg fan al que le fascina la violencia, quiero ver a mexico arder en llamas y en la cima del poder a AMLO, declarando el 3 Reich.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

¿Cual de las dos encuestas te gusta mas Danny? Ahi escogele, luego hablamos.
 

Ups... nuevamente se me paso decir algo mas:

Dijiste al final:

"¿Quién garantizará los resultados de la "consulta ciudadana"? ¿los mismos que acaban de anular su cochinero?"

Bueno Danny...

Continuan con la eleccion, te enojas.

Anulan la eleccion, te enojas.


Te aseguro que si hubieran declarado a Encinas vencedor de la contienda, ahorita estarias diciendo:

"Claro!! se quejan de que calderon viene de una eleccion sucia y ellos declaran a encinas presidente del partido, desde una eleccion mucho peor, tenian que ser perredistas, malditos incongruentes!!"

Pero ahora, como anularon una eleccion... ya no merecen confianza ¿verdad? "Hacen puros cochineros"


¿Quien te entiende Danny?
 

Dany, regresando al tema del "peak oil" global, parece que el Artico no tiene tantas reservas como muchos pensaban. Y, sobre lo que me habías comentado de un gran yacimiento -nuevo, sin explotar- en Arabia Saudita, una vez que lo empiecen a explotar, no creo que lo exploten al 100%. Es claro que, a medida que la producción mundial vaya en declive, el crudo simpre será más valioso en el futuro.
Y los árabes harán más negocio no produciéndo al 100%, sino optimizando la producción para alargar mucho la vida de ese yacimiento. ¿no crees?
Saludos.
George.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/why-the-artic-wont-keep-our-cars-running-oil-reserves-lower-than-thought.php
 

Dany,
En un yacimiento nuevo, hay estimaciones sobre cuánto petróleo tiene, pero el petróleo que es factible de sacar (ultimate recovery) sólo es factible de calcular bien una vez que el yacimiento está produciéndo petróleo,
sólo con cálculos basados en la producción.

Los hallazgos recientes en aguas profundas de Brasil pueden tener más de 40 mil millones de barriles, pero no se sabe si sólo se podrán extraer la mitad de esas reservas, ó más de la mitad ó menos de la mitad.

Lo mismo aplica para las reservas en aguas profundas del golfo de México.

Comentario interesante sobre estimación de reservas en un yacimiento.
Por un geólogo experimentado.
(tomado de: The Oil Drum)

ROCKMAN on July 16, 2008 - 1:39pm
You’ve hit the problem right between the eyes as with respect to recoverable reserve estimation. I’ve been a career development geologist for 33 years and have spent many thousands of man-days working on the same issues. I suspect you’re aware of many aspects of the process but I’ll expand for everyone’s benefit. There are two basic approaches to recoverable reserve estimation: volumetric and production decline. Volumetric analysis has always (and will continue to be) a rather inaccurate approach. Even when there seems to be enough geologic control to accurately map the volume of oil existing in the reservoir you’re still left with the uncertainly of recovery efficiency. Most large oil reservoir are produced by water-drive: the nature of oil to float on water. As oil is produced the water pushes the remaining oil upward. The problem with analyzing such a dynamic system is the inability to predict with any accuracy how effectively the water pushes the oil out. In reservoirs with very thick oil as little as 15% of the oil is recovered. In light oil reservoirs recoveries can be 60% or higher. But there are more variations possible. The character of the pore connections in one light oil reservoir may allow a 60% recovery while another reservoir with the same quality oil might recover only half that volume. The bottom line: while the in place volume may be fairly accurate, recoverable estimates are much more art then science. But before the reservoir produces this is all you have to work with.

By far the most accurate method to estimate ultimate recovery in such reservoir is by production decline. After X number of years the wells will start producing water with the oil. In most cases, it then becomes relatively easy to estimate ult rec (this is why Saudi has a very good estimate of Ghawar's future production potential even though they won't share that info). There are certain natural power law functions that exert control over the process at this point. But this data isn’t available for years after the discovery is made. From analyzing hundreds of field studies the great majority of ult rec estimate errors were do to optimistic assumptions used in the volumetric analysis. Not fraudulent expectations but utilizing the high side of the different variables. Needless to say, pressure from the management of public companies on the staff to be realistic but estimate high has driven much of the process. Even when outside engineering auditors are used they can still be pushed with technical arguments to be more optimistic (to toot my own horn, I was pretty good at getting the numbers I wanted). And, to be honest, some of those “independent outside auditors” were nothing but “reserve whores” who would gladly skew the numbers if their invoices were high enough. (and, yes, we really would call them that behind their backs).

But I have some questions for Kebab et al. Where is the USGS coming up with their raw data? I have never seen the Survey or any other gov’t agency supplied with any data that would allow any measure of analysis. From a practical matter they couldn’t do such analysis if they did have access to the data. I recall back in the 70’s when the Feds required the Big Oils to supply them with all internal mapping and evaluations of fields in the OCS. The Feds wanted to see if Big Oil was hiding reserves. I knew one of the Survey geologists in charge of collecting the data. He told me that all he and his cohorts could do was log in the data. Analyzing the data with the current staff would take many decades so they didn’t even start the analysis process. I suspect those millions of bit of data are still sitting in a warehouse in New Orleans…if they weren’t destroyed by Katrina.

I’m guessing they are getting reserve estimates from the operators. Same question would go towards your source of data. You guys are very clever and your hard work is greatly appreciated so I hope this next point isn’t taken badly. Are you getting some of you reserve growth numbers from the public companies themselves? And if you are, are you able to distinguish reserve growth via the drill bit vs. growth through acquisitions? Acquisitions have been my focus for almost 20 years. I can only make a wild guess but at least 50% of the reserve growth of the companies I’ve dealt with has come from buying someone else’s field and not discovering new reserves. Thus it wasn’t so much reserve growth (although that’s how they market it to the public) but reserve transfer. I know that sounds so basic so please don’t take offense if you have taken this into account. But that question has been bugging me ever since I started reading about “reserve growth” here and elsewhere.

And, no, Elwood. In 33 years I’ve never seen a company keep two sets of books. I’ve always dealt with public companies and they always threw out the biggest reserve numbers they could w/o getting busted by the SEC (and some actually did get busted). They might secretly talk amongst themselves about how inflated their reserves might be. And don’t even ask me about the scum bag oil promoters I’ve dealt with and the outright lies of exaggerated reserves they would pitch to private investors. For a while I represented such screwed investors. But between the immorality on one side of the table and the ignorance on the other I couldn’t take any more and I no longer play expert witness.


También checa esto:
(del reporte de Energy Watch Group)

CONCLUSIONS


The major result from this analysis is that world oil production has peaked in 2006.
Production will start to decline at a rate of several percent per year. By 2020, and even more by 2030, global oil supply will be dramatically lower. This will create a supply gap which can hardly be closed by growing contributions from other fossil, nuclear or alternative energy sources in this time frame.

The world is at the beginning of a structural change of its economic system. This change will be triggered by declining fossil fuel supplies and will influence almost all aspects of our daily life.

Climate change will also force humankind to change energy consumption patterns by reducing significantly the burning of fossil fuels. Global warming is a very serious problem.
However, the focus of this paper is on the aspects of resource depletion as these are much less transparent to the public.

The now beginning transition period probably has its own rules which are valid only during this phase. Things might happen which we never experienced before and which we may never experience again once this transition period has ended. Our way of dealing with energy issues probably will have to change fundamentally.


The International Energy Agency, anyway until recently, denies that such a fundamental change of our energy supply is likely to happen in the near or medium term future. The message by the IEA, namely that business as usual will also be possible in future, sends a
false signal to politicians, industry and consumers - not to forget the media.

http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Oilreport_10-2007.pdf

También checa esto:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/06/world-oil/roberts-text

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7523118.stm
 

Hay un dicho en Arabia Saudita que dice:

“My father rode a camel, I drive a car, my son flies an airplane, his son will ride a camel”