Jump to content
José

Prix du pétrole : du puit à la pompe

Recommended Posts

Tous les gisements possibles et imaginables ne sont pas encore accessibles. Jusqu'à quelle profondeur peut-on raisonnablement creuser, dans l'état actuel de l'art, pour extraire du pétrole ? Et quid de l'offshore profond ?

Pour l'état de l'art, je conseille d'étudier la barge Girassol de Total.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tous les gisements possibles et imaginables ne sont pas encore accessibles. Jusqu'à quelle profondeur peut-on raisonnablement creuser, dans l'état actuel de l'art, pour extraire du pétrole ? Et quid de l'offshore profond ?

Quelques réponses avec undossier datant de 2005 et un résumé, toujours sur le site de l'IFP.

- Actuellement le record off-shore est de 2200 m et s'appreterait à être repoussé à 3000 m.

- En ce qui concerne l'in shore, les profondeurs maximums pratiquées actuellement sont de l'ordre de 5 000 m et pour dépasser 6000 m, il y a de sérieux verroux "technologiques" aussi bêtes que le flou de l'échographie 3D à ces distances en raison des perturbations géologiques, la manipulation d'un foret de 5 km de long faisant 5 ou 6 tours sur lui-même avant de forer la roche, devant être remonté souvent parceque les roches y sont plus dures, et mettant 20h à être remonté et changé, donc chaque forage complet prend entre 6 mois et un an à ces profondeurs. La question est particulièrement intéressante : on a tout lieu de croire qu'il y a de grands réserves à ces profondeurs. En raison d'une température de l'ordre de 200 °C, leur forme est souvent plus liquide et plus gazeuse que celle des nappes proches de la surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On me dit en effet que les seuils des plateaux continentaux, entre autres régions "exotiques", pourraient se révéler prometteurs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Il paraîtrait même que la tectonique fabrique du pétrole en masse, et non la décomposition de matières organiques fossiles :icon_up: (bon, j'y crois pas).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Il paraîtrait même que la tectonique fabrique du pétrole en masse, et non la décomposition de matières organiques fossiles :icon_up: (bon, j'y crois pas).

Abiogenesis of oil. Personne à part un illuminé n'y croit. En revanche la tectonique nous apporte de l'uranium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peak Oil Again?

Is "social meltdown" imminent?

Ronald Bailey | November 6, 2007

Crude oil prices hover between $90 and $100 per barrel and U.S. gasoline prices are again north of $3 per gallon. Since 2002, the price of a barrel of oil has risen more than four-fold. Are we running out of oil? A new report by the German think tank Energy Watch Group (EWG) says so. The EWG report argues that the world reached the peak of oil production last year and supplies will fall from about 81 million per day now to just 39 million by 2030. "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," declared EWG founder Joerg Schindler. This fast onset of oil supply shortfalls, warns the EWG report, could trigger the "meltdown of society."

At the heart of the EWG analysis is its drastic downward revision of estimated world oil reserves. The Oil & Gas Journal estimates that world oil reserves are 1.3 trillion barrels and BP offers an estimate of 1.2 trillion barrels. By including unconventional sources of oil, Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) triples reserves to 3.7 trillion. The EWG derives its figures by joining other peak oil proponents skeptical of Middle Eastern reserve claims. Like other oil peakists, they believe that Middle Eastern governments are lying about how much oil they have in the ground and, as a result, slash over 300 billion barrels from their total, calculating world reserves at only 854 billion barrels.

First, a bit of perspective. Daniel Yergin, chairman of CERA, noted that this is the fifth time the world is said to be running out of oil. "Each time—whether it was the 'gasoline famine' at the end of World War I or the 'permanent shortage' of the 1970s—technology and the opening of new frontier areas has banished the specter of decline," asserted Yergin. "There's no reason to think technology is finished this time."

Higher prices do generally mean that supplies are becoming relatively scarcer. So what is causing today's scarcity? Most people have forgotten that by the mid-1990s, the price of oil dropped to around $10 per barrel. Why? Because the world was awash in oil relative to demand. The oil crisis of the 1970s provoked so much field development that there was a 25 percent excess capacity. Low prices also meant that there was very little incentive to invest in projects to increase supply. For example, when oil prices collapsed in the 1980s, the number of exploratory drilling rigs in the United States fell from 4500 to under 1000.

At the beginning of the 21st century, economic growth in India and China surged after they finally managed to shrug off the shackles of socialist planning. Strong world economic growth soaked up the excess production capacity, which has now fallen to around 2.5 million barrels per day. Generally a cushion of 5 million barrels per day is necessary to keep prices low. Most of the excess capacity is in Saudi Arabia. The world currently consumes about 86 million barrels per day.

Fearing that the U.S. economy was about to slow down, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) cut exports by 500,000 barrels per day in early 2007. Now afraid that higher oil prices will provoke a world economic recession and reduce the demand for their product, OPEC has opened the spigots by 500,000 barrels in November.

The rise of resource nationalism is also bedeviling oil supplies. Some 77 percent of world reserves are owned by governments—and they are trying to extract as much revenue as possible from them. The result, according to an October 31st report by the investment firm Goldman Sachs, is that greedy governments are killing incentives to bring new supplies to market.

"West Africa, Russia, the UK, Canada, and various Latin American countries have pursued very aggressive tax regimes on oil production profits, with Venezuela even shifting to the extreme of the nationalization of its assets," notes Goldman Sachs analsysts. "These policies substantially increase the costs of production and the price of oil required to incentivize investment. Over the past few weeks, Canada, Nigeria, and Kazakhstan have all suggested higher government royalties on production." For example, the Washington Post reported that above certain thresholds, Russian taxes siphon off $19.15 of a $20 a barrel price increase.

In addition, the International Energy Agency (IEA), the energy watchdog which was established by the developed countries during the 1970s oil crisis, finds that government oil companies are failing to invest enough to keep oil supplies flowing. Claude Mandil, head of the IEA warned last year that his agency's World Energy Outlook 2006 report "identifies under-investment in new energy supply as a real risk." In other words, the world could experience an even worse oil supply crunch because of the economic incompetence of governments in places like Venezuela, Iran, Mexico, and Nigeria.

Interestingly, despite a four-fold increase in the price of oil, world economic growth has been pretty robust. For example, the U.S. economy grew at 3.9 percent rate last quarter and inflation and unemployment remain low. Why? In September 2007 paper entitled, "Who's Afraid of a Big Bad Oil Shock," Yale University economist William Nordhaus speculates that the reaction of consumers and businesses to steep oil price increases is muted because they regard them as temporary. In addition, the cost of energy is less important to the budgets of businesses and consumers.

In 1980, when oil reached $101.70 per barrel in real terms, spending on gasoline was 4.5 percent of GDP, 7.2 percent of consumer expenditures, and 6.2 percent of personal disposable income, according to a March 2005 report by Goldman Sachs. If oil prices reach $105 per barrel, the report noted that gasoline spending would reach 3.6 percent of forecasted GDP, 5.3 percent of consumer expenditures, and 5.0 percent of personal disposable income. Prices would have to rise to $135 per barrel to equal 1970s levels. In addition, it takes only half as much energy to produce a dollar of GDP today than it did in 1980.

Instead of the "meldown of society," a likely and painful scenario is that greedy and incompetent government oil producers will continue to under-invest, causing a shortfall in supplies that will drive up prices and provoke a global economic slowdown. Expensive oil also encourages consumers and businesses to invest in energy efficiency that will combine with the slowdown to cut demand. Reduced demand will drive down oil prices as steeply as they rose. Some day peak oil production will be reached, but most oil reserve estimates suggest that there are good reasons to doubt that that day is now at hand.

http://www.reason.com/news/printer/123349.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Car En Vérité Je Vous Le Dis, J'ai La Science Qui Me Permet De L'Affirmer.

Allelujah, allelujah !

Pouf ! Comme Ca En Vérité Je Vous Le Dis Pouf !

Fini les barbecues arrosés d'essence entre amis ! Fini les courses de dragsters ou de F1 ! Fini les meeting aériens ! Bientôt, les 24H du Mans se courront à vélo, et les trains seront à pédales !

La vie va être d'un triiiiiiiste.

Non. Les vrais pessimistes le situent en 70. Mais comme ils se sont plantés, ils l'ont ensuite situé en 1980. Puis en 1990. Puis en 2000. Puis …

Can't you see a pattern, here ?

Besancenot !

J'ai bon ?

Quelle différence y a-t-il entre un canard ?

Que fait James Bond ?

Une bonne partie des décroissants voient les vrais libéraux comme le facteur de Neuilly voit de vrais ouvriers : très rarement.

Bon. Allez. :doigt:.

Typiquement le genre de réaction puérile qui fait qu'on n'est pas sorti de l'auberge, marché ou pas … :icon_up:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Faux. L'hélium a un rayon 4 fois inférieur.

A condition d'accorder à un atome isolé le statut de molécule, ce qui est cavalier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typiquement le genre de réaction puérile qui fait qu'on n'est pas sorti de l'auberge, marché ou pas … :icon_up:

Pas d'accord. C'est un forum de réflexion et de détente avec pseudos. Dans une mesure raisonable, les remarques fun y ont leur place. La seule remarque qui m'agace dans cette liste est le "nonossage recquis" dont je crois comprendre qu'il appelle la modération à la censure immodérée. En tout cas les remarques fun ne dispensent pas leurs auteurs de fournir des réponses de fond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
…"nonossage recquis" dont je crois comprendre qu'il appelle la modération à la censure immodérée.

Soit rassuré : il ne s'agit nullement de censure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typiquement le genre de réaction puérile qui fait qu'on n'est pas sorti de l'auberge, marché ou pas … :icon_up:

Je trouve ça ssez savoureux venant d'un intervenant dont la qualité générale des interventions se situe bien en-dessous de ce post…

La seule remarque qui m'agace dans cette liste est le "nonossage recquis" dont je crois comprendre qu'il appelle la modération à la censure immodérée. En tout cas les remarques fun ne dispensent pas leurs auteurs de fournir des réponses de fond.

Il ne s'agit pas de censure (et la censure n'est appliquée que pour des cas bien précis pour éviter les querelles inutiles). Le nonossage, c'est le positionnement de l'individu nonossé en petit nonosse pour les forumeurs qui peuvent le machouiller à loisir (c'est en quelque sorte l'inverse de la censure).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pour en revenir à la fin du pétrole bon marché… même s'il y a des capacités de production excédentaires, les pays producteurs ne vont ils pas limiter leur production afin de maintenir les prix à ces niveaux, voire plus?

le niveau de prix soutenable qui ne provoque pas de chute de la demande semble avoir été franchement révisé à la hausse, pourquoi s'en priver?

et si la prod se concentre de plus en plus vers qq principaux pays (arabie s. en tête) comme on le dit, il sera facile de maintenir des quotas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Socialist oil death spiral

Richard W. Rahn

November 6, 2007

Socialism always plants the seeds of its own destruction, and state-owned oil is no exception. Most people do not realize that about 90 percent of the world's liquid oil reserves are controlled by governments or state-owned companies. Exxon Mobil, the world's largest privately owned oil company, owns only 1.08 percent of the world's oil reserves, and the five largest private global oil companies together own only about 4 percent of the world's oil reserves.

There is enough liquid oil in the ground to last generations; and when oil sands and oil shale are included, there is enough oil to last centuries. If there were a truly free market in oil, with both the reserves and production owned and controlled by many competitive companies, the price of oil would be a fraction of today's price.

The high price of oil is a direct consequence of artificial supply constraints imposed by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and other countries, including the United States, and the incompetence and mismanagement found in most state-owned oil companies. OPEC is an international government cartel made up of Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Libya, Angola, Algeria, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela. These nations control about 77 percent of the world's known liquid crude oil reserves.

Most of these countries and other major oil producers that rely on mainly state-owned companies, such as Russia, have underinvested in exploration and development of new production facilities and mismanaged the ones they have. (If politicians understood the facts and were truthful, they would rant against "greedy" socialists rather than private oil companies.)

Venezuela, despite having perhaps the sixth-largest oil reserves in the world, has falling production because of the mismanagement by the Chavez government. Mexico also is suffering from falling oil production because the government refuses to allow private oil exploration and production companies, and the state-owned oil company, Pemex, is corrupt and incompetent. By contrast, the U.S. only has about 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, but produces little more than 8 percent of global production, largely because they are privately owned and managed.

A decade or two from now, the socialist states will have severe regrets for their current misbehavior, and this is why. When prices rise, people seek alternative sources and substitutes for the high-priced commodity. When oil prices are above $30 or $40 a barrel, suddenly the Canadian oil sands and Colorado oil-bearing shale become economic, and those reserves are larger than known liquid oil reserves.

The short-run problem is that development of oil sands and oil shale requires enormous up-front investment and many years. Canadian oil sand production is now ramping up rapidly, but it will be a few years before it can replace most of North America's needs for oil from outside the continent.

Recently, there has been additional good news. Shell Oil has announced its new in-situ (i.e., in-ground) extraction technology in Colorado could be competitive at prices of more than $30 per barrel. However, it will take quite a few years to get into major production.

Despite the current infatuation with biofuels, they are unlikely to ever produce more than a small share of the market because they are not price competitive with liquid, sand and shale oil when all attendant costs are taken into account, such as higher food prices. Petroleum accounts for about 40 percent of U.S. energy supply and about two-thirds of it is imported. Most petroleum is used for transportation, which accounts for about 28 percent of U.S. energy use.

Now, for the really good news. The new car you purchase a decade from now is almost certainly to be totally electrically powered. Huge strides are being made in battery technology, and even existing batteries have just about reached the point where they are sensible for automobiles. Mitsubishi has just come out with an all-electric car, the sport MIEV. And Nissan and Renault have announced they will be in full-scale production of electric cars by 2012.

As people move to electric cars, the need for gasoline and imported oil will quickly disappear. Nuclear and clean coal plants must expand to produce the additional electricity, but they produce energy at a fraction of the cost of petroleum. The new battery technology will also help solar and wind power become more economically feasible because they will be able to store it. Even so, solar and wind will only be a small part of our energy future because of their inherent production limits.

In sum, a decade from now, the world will no longer be held hostage by the socialist OPEC cartel. Liquid fuels (oil) are mainly needed for transportation; but when electricity takes over much of that market, America, Europe, China and Japan will find they can produce all of the electricity they need from nuclear, coal, hydro, biomass, geothermal, solar and wind resources.

North America will also be independent from foreign oil because of the oil sands and oil shale developments, which are likely to be protected from drastic reduction in world oil prices. OPEC and its fellow travelers will be left with a far less valuable commodity, because their present, shortsighted, high oil price strategy is causing their customers to develop economically and environmentally sound alternatives more quickly than if there had been a truly global free market in oil.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d…1012/commentary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soit, mais à qui devrait-il appartenir, tout ce pétrôle réquisitionné manu militari par les "national socialismes" les plus archaiques? Je me demande jusqu'à ce jour comment déterminer le juste propriétaire d'une nappe pétrolifère dans un marché libre.

PS: Mais faut il se leurrer pour autant: l'énergie atomique viable, sans contrôle gouvernemental :icon_up: ?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PS: Mais faut il se leurrer pour autant: l'énergie atomique viable, sans contrôle gouvernemental :icon_up: ?!

Une certitude: nous aurions moins de missiles et autres bombes pointés sur nos tronches. Nous n'aurions pas connu Tchernobyl non plus ni Hiroshima/Nagazaki.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Une certitude: nous aurions moins de missiles et autres bombes pointés sur nos tronches. Nous n'aurions pas connu Tchernobyl non plus ni Hiroshima/Nagazaki.

De fait puisque, sans les contraintes gouvernementales (protocole de Kyoto, sécurité, normes anti-pollution, etc…), l'énergie nucléaire n'aurait jamais été aussi compétitive face au charbon ou au pétrole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Je crois savoir que le composant essentiel d'une centrale nucléaire était en effet au départ un moteur de sous-marin nucléaire, on sait que les joujous militaires n'ont engénéral pas de coût ni de prix (sauf pour nous les payeurs bien sûr).

Ce sont les charges de démantèlement notamment qui sont plus que floues, en tout cas qui ont tendance année après année de croître, bizarrement (à parc de centrale constant).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cheap Dirty Fuels Versus Costly Clean Fuels

Which will win the race to fuel the future?

Ronald Bailey | November 13, 2007

Burning fossil fuels loads the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, and that's raising the earth's average temperature. This raises the question: Will today's higher oil and gas prices necessarily spark the development of low-carbon, climate-friendly transport fuels? Unfortunately, energy produced from unconventional sources of fossil fuels is still often cheaper than many other proposed alternative fuel supplies. In addition, some allegedly green fuels aren't all that green.

Let's look at the fossil fuel conundrum. With oil at $100 per barrel, all kinds of alternative petroleum sources become more attractive. Consider the ongoing development of the Alberta tar sands in Canada. The reserves locked in these sands amount to 179 billion barrels of oil. The oil sands production cost estimates range from $25 to $40 per barrel. This was not economical just ten years ago when oil was selling for around $10 per barrel, but it looks great when the price of crude is hovering near $100 per barrel. Today, more than 1.1 million barrels of oil flow from the oil sands and production is projected to grow to more than 3 million barrels per day by 2015. However, producing oil from tar sands uses 2 to 5 barrels of water for each barrel of oil, scrapes large portions of the landscape bare which must then be reclaimed, and releases up to three times as much the chief global warming gas, carbon dioxide, as conventional oil production.

A similar analysis applies to the oil shale in the Green River Formation in the western United States. That formation contains an estimated 1.1 trillion to 500 billion barrels of recoverable crude according to a 2005 RAND Corporation report. That report suggests that it is economical to produce oil from Green River sources when oil prices are above $30 per barrel. Again, obtaining crude from oil shale is a dirty process, consuming 3 barrels of water per barrel of oil produced and releasing considerably more atmosphere warming carbon dioxide than conventional oil production.

In terms of global warming potential, an even more worrisome proposal is turning coal into liquid fuels. A brief from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) finds that transforming coal to liquid transport fuels becomes economical when oil is $50 per barrel. The AAAS brief suggests that sequestering the excess carbon dioxide emitted from the process would increase production costs by $5 per barrel. And even in that case, the coal fuels would release 10 percent more carbon dioxide than conventional hydrocarbons. Coal to liquid fuels would have all of the environmental and health consequences associated with conventional coal mining. The AAAS brief cites an estimate that it would take an additional 250 million tons of coal, equivalent to 25 percent of the United States current annual production, to replace 10 percent of the country's present consumption of liquid transportation fuel.

What about so-called green alternatives like electric cars, hydrogen fueled cars or biofuels? Can they compete with these alternative oil supplies? Let's start with bioethanol produced from corn. Bioethanol is almost as contentious a fuel as petroleum. Since ethanol is a refined fuel, the easier comparison is with the price of gasoline. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) notes even as oil prices have climbed, the price of a gallon of ethanol produced in the U.S. has generally been higher than the price of a gallon of unleaded gasoline. Also, one must take into account the how plowing up additional land to produce biofuel crops affects the natural environment and growing concerns about the effect of biofuels on the price of food. The EIA notes that if oil prices fall to below $50 per barrel that cellulosic ethanol based on current technologies will not be cost competitive.

What about the much-ballyhooed hydrogen economy? The idea is that cars would run on fuel cells that would burn hydrogen and emit only water vapor. But where will the hydrogen come from? Ideally it would be produced by electrolysis—splitting water molecules using electricity. As engineer Robert Zubrin notes, however, hydrogen currently costs about $100 per kilogram and a kilogram of hydrogen contains about as much energy as a gallon of gasoline. Other sources of hydrogen include methane or even coal which have all the environmental downsides discussed above. Besides why waste perfectly good electricity to make hydrogen which will be used to make more electricity in fuel cells to propel automobiles? Why not use electricity directly?

So why not electric cars? Are they an economically feasible and environmentally friendly solution to our dirty liquid fuels conundrum? Current battery technologies are not up to the task, but nanotechnology may now be coming to the rescue. For example, Phoenix Motorcars is ordering NanoSafe batteries from the Reno, Nevada-based company Altairnano to fuel its all-electric trucks. These lithium ion batteries can be charged in 10 minutes at a commercial 480 volt station or in six hours using home power. The trucks can accelerate from 0 to 60 in 10 seconds with a top speed of 95 miles per hour and can go 100 miles before recharging. Amazingly these batteries can be recharged 20,000 times. Typical lithium ion batteries can be recharged only 500 to 1000 times, and lead acid batteries won't last more than 700 cycles. Nanosafe batteries replace combustible graphite in typical lithium ion batteries with nanoscale titanium.

How could a fleet of electric cars be fueled? In 2006, a U.S. Department of Energy study concluded that if 84 percent of all cars and light trucks were plug in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), fueling them would not require any additional electric generation capacity. The study assumes that the PHEVs would travel an average of 33 miles per day solely on electric power and could be charged using off-peak power at night. PHEVs have gasoline engines that kick in for longer trips. In addition, electric utilities would develop a smart grid that would allow them to draw power from vehicle batteries hooked into the grid as a way to cover peak power periods, such air-conditioning on summer days or winter cold snaps. The big environmental upside is that the U.S. could dramatically cut back on greenhouse gas emissions from its transport sector.

While progress is being made in improving battery performance, current nano-batteries are not yet cheap. They add at least $6,000 to $10,000 in costs to a vehicle. For example, Phoenix Motorcars is adapting the Korean-made Ssangyong Actyon truck to all-electric. The regular version of that truck goes for $25,000 in Australia (not available in the U.S.) and Phoenix will sell its all-electric version for $45,000. The DOE PHEV study finds that when compared to 27.5 miles per gallon internal combustion vehicles, the break-even premium for a PHEV at $2.50 per gallon is $3,500 at when electricity costs $0.12 per kilowatt hour. At $3.50 per gallon, the premium rises to more than $6,500. So, current versions of PHEVs, using nanotech batteries, are not yet economical in comparison to gasoline powered vehicles.

Biotechnology is another possible pathway to a post-petroleum future. For example, the privately-held biotech company, LS9, based in San Carlos, CA. aims to use synthetic biology to skip over ethanol to directly produce gasoline. LS9 co-founder and Harvard University geneticist George Church describes synthetic biology as "treating biology the way you would treat large-scale integrated circuits. We've been dealing with one part at a time or a small number of parts. Synthetic biology is engineering of new systems using parts that we trust." Another way to think about it is that biologists want to do to biology what engineers have done to electronics and chemists have done with chemistry.

If LS9 succeeds, it would mean no need to change our current transportation infrastructure. LS9 has modified bacterial metabolic pathways so that their designed microbes can eat cellulose and excrete hydrocarbons that can be refined into gasoline and other petroleum products. In 2008, LS9 plans to build a pilot plant to test and perfect the process, and hopes to be selling biocrude to refineries within three to five years. Keep in mind that the source of the cellulose to feed LS9's microbes will also have important environmental implications.

If the goal is to encourage low-carbon transport fuel alternatives as a way to help prevent excessive man-made global warming, the carbon content of fossil fuels must have a price. A price on carbon emissions would steer inventors and consumers toward low-carbon alternatives. In practice, this would involve imposing either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade carbon market. In the meantime, the technological race for fueling the 21st century's vehicle fleet is on, and unconventional fossil fuels are in the lead.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/123464.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Today, more than 1.1 million barrels of oil flow from the oil sands and production is projected to grow to more than 3 million barrels per day by 2015

c'est bien le problème, la production des sables bitumineux ne progresse pas assez vite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ce sont les charges de démantèlement notamment qui sont plus que floues, en tout cas qui ont tendance année après année de croître, bizarrement (à parc de centrale constant).

Le probleme majeur du nucléaire est qu'il ne peut se développer sans soutiens publics..

En angleterre, on a des chiffres pour le démantèlement des installations : 103 milliards d'euros. Or, en France, on a à peu près cinq fois plus d'installations nucléaires. Donc on peut logiquement évaluer à 500 milliards d'euros le prix du démantèlement des installations nucléaires françaises.

EDF annonce avoir budgété quelques dizaines de milliards, et encore, cet argent n'est pas mis à part dans ce qu'on appelle un "fonds dédié" et dont on serait sûr de pouvoir disposer le moment venu. Donc finalement, étant donné qu'EDF est toujours une entreprise extrêmement endettée, on peut dire que l'argent du démantèlement des installations françaises n'existe pas. Et qui va raquer ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oil Officials See Limit Looming on Production.

Et pas dans un journal gaucho-ecolo

A growing number of oil-industry chieftains are endorsing an idea long deemed fringe: The world is approaching a practical limit to the number of barrels of crude oil that can be pumped every day.

Lien WSJ

Limite de production annoncée par les Majors.

Il ne reste que les experts payés par l'Etat (EIA, IEA) pour croire que la production va monter à 116 mbbL/d en 2030

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Il ne reste que les experts payés par l'Etat (EIA, IEA) pour croire que la production va monter à 116 mbbL/d en 2030

L'Histoire distribuera les points :icon_up:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L'Histoire distribuera les points :icon_up:

Enfin, Jesrad, comme tu le sais très bien, nous allons tous mourir dans les affres du Pludepétrol. L'Histoire ne sera plus écrite par personne…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NEW YORK (AFP) - Le pétrole a attaqué l'année en fanfare, avec le franchissement du seuil symbolique des 100 dollars le baril à New York, profitant de tensions géopolitiques accrues et de la faiblesse persistante du dollar, qui ont également poussé l'or, autre reine des matières premières, à un sommet.

Spéciale dédicace à Jesrad, le roi du pétrole :icon_up:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Un pari de 100 000$ sur les perspectives de production du CERA

Wager Challenges CERA Oil Supply Prediction

Group bets $100,000 against CERA supply forecast

Pour l'instant le CERA n'a pas répondu, pourtant le dernier pari du genre dont je me souvienne avait été gagné par l'optimiste Julian Simon. Pour ce pari c'est le CERA l'optimiste et comme les pessimistes se sont toujours trompés…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.lesechos.fr/info/energie/4730653.htm

La crainte d'une pénurie durable et généralisée commence à hanter les marchés pétroliers

La flambée des derniers jours témoigne d'une prise de conscience brutale : l'approvisionnement en brut risque d'être beaucoup plus problématique que prévu et le « pic pétrolier » apparaît comme une menace bien réelle. A cause du vieillissement des gisements existants et du manque d'investissement, l'Agence internationale de l'énergie pourrait sérieusement abaisser ses prévisions de production mondiale.

Il y avait, mercredi, quelque chose de surréaliste à lire les déclarations des dirigeants des grandes compagnies pétrolières anglo-saxonnes, interrogés par des sénateurs américains sur la flambée des prix du brut. Au moment où le baril franchissait allègrement la barre des 135 dollars, tous, ou presque, s'étonnaient de cet embrasement, en estimant que le prix de l'or noir devrait plutôt se situer aujourd'hui entre… 35 et 90 dollars le baril ! La fourchette est large. Elle illustre bien le désarroi d'acteurs pétroliers confrontés à une situation inédite. Ou n'osant pas formuler à haute voix le diagnostic que tout le monde redoute.

Les Echos qui parlent de pic pétrolier. Ils ont été infiltrés par des malthusiens??

Ils devraient savoir que les investissements permettront de trouver du pétrole et d'augmenter la production.

C'est étrange que les marchés réagissent comme ça alors que des "grosses" découvertes sont faites au brésil (Tupi et Carioca), découvertes qui se dégonflent à chaque communiqué de presse.

A noter que pour la première fois le prix sur les futurs à 2016 sont supérieurs aux prix spot, avec une augmentation de 60% depuis janvier pour les futurs contre seulement 39% pour le spot.

http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/200…l?xtor=RSS-3208

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On est tous foutuuuuuuuuuuuuuus !

(je sais, c'est répétitif - je vais poser un petit ™ )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On est tous foutuuuuuuuuuuuuuus !

Mais non seulement les marins pécheurs pour le moment.

Plus sérieusement, que la question de la disponibilité d'énergie ne vous intéresse pas je peux le concevoir, mais ce n'est peut être pas le cas de tout le monde sur le forum.

Vous remarquerez que je ne fais que pointer sur deux articles qui me semble intéressant, dont un issu d'un journal économique qui ne peut être qualifié d'écolo/gaucho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mais non seulement les marins pécheurs pour le moment.

Le cas des marins pêcheurs n'a rien à voir avec le prix pétrole (ou si peu) : la flotte de pêche française n'est pas rentable car surdimensionné suite aux subsides européens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...