Don’t worry, just a little bump - $70 is just around the corner. Short traders just keep making those margin calls, mortgage the house if you have to. Fortunes await you! PO is for pansies and doomers. At $70 short some more ..... it is going back to $22 .... the world is awash with oil ........ reality has nothing to do with it, its all in those charts!!!!!!!!!!
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1966 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:31 pm Post subject: Re: Catalog of recent oil discoveries
This link refers to the chart, with the associated blurb clearly suggesting that the figures correspond to production from the discovered fields, not the less useful figure of OOIP.
I tried to find that OOIP chart. I'm sure I saw it within the last week but can't find it, at the moment. However, to avoid further hours of searching, I decided to get a rough idea of the total of the discoveries in the chart you posted. Just eyeballing the chart up to 2006 (the last year that isn't a future prediction), I totalled 1,740 billion barrels. I don't think discovery before 1930 would significantly affect the total, which is near enough to what the current URR is, without future discovery, for me to conclusively state that the chart is URR, not OOIP, which would be at least double that total.
So, as someone else said, your additions to the chart, Oil-Finder, are not accurate and the data you present does not really make the case you set out to achieve. Charting URR would be more useful.
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:56 pm Post subject: Re: Catalog of recent oil discoveries
TonyPrep wrote:
This link refers to the chart, with the associated blurb clearly suggesting that the figures correspond to production from the discovered fields, not the less useful figure of OOIP.
Um, OK if I understand you correctly, then that is just . . . dumb.
If I understand you correctly, you're saying the big long bars from fields discovered in the 40's-80's are big because that's how much oil they've cumulatively produced.
Well . . . DUH!!!!!!! The reason why they've produced so much is because they've been around so long!!! And the reason why the more recent finds don't have big long bars is because they've only been around since fairly recently, and thus haven't had as much time to cumulatively produce as much oil!
Gosh, I thought that would be obvious. So if that's what you mean, that isn't even a chart of the size of "discoveries," it's a chart showing cumulative production of oil fields since they started producing.
But then if those blue bars represent cumulative production from each year's discoveries, then what is that squiggly black line which says "production" for????
But if that's not what you meant, please correct me.
TonyPrep wrote:
I tried to find that OOIP chart. I'm sure I saw it within the last week but can't find it, at the moment. However, to avoid further hours of searching, I decided to get a rough idea of the total of the discoveries in the chart you posted. Just eyeballing the chart up to 2006 (the last year that isn't a future prediction), I totalled 1,740 billion barrels. I don't think discovery before 1930 would significantly affect the total, which is near enough to what the current URR is, without future discovery, for me to conclusively state that the chart is URR, not OOIP, which would be at least double that total.
So, as someone else said, your additions to the chart, Oil-Finder, are not accurate and the data you present does not really make the case you set out to achieve. Charting URR would be more useful.
As I've already said multiple times, it is basically impossible for me to get URR for each of these discoveries. Only a handful of them have even stated how much of their discovery might be recoverable, and as you know, estimating URR is just guesswork anyway, especially concerning a newly-discovered field which hasn't even begun production. So once again, as imperfect as this methodology is, it's the best (and, really, only) way to do an on-going accounting of recent oil discoveries.
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:15 pm Post subject: Re: Catalog of recent oil discoveries
Oh, I almost forgot . . .
If you say those blue bars prior to 2005 total about 1.74 trillion barrels, and we can take into account that civilization has used up about 1 trillion barrels to date. According to BP, world proven reserves at the end of 2005 were 1.2 trillion barrels. 1.2 trillion current reserves + 1 trillion consumed to date = 2.2 trillion barrels "proven" oil, past and present. This is greater than your cumulative figure of 1.74 trillion barrels discovered to date. Where did the other 460 billion barrels come from? Thin air?
It's for reasons like this why I don't really take that peak-oil-discovery chart very seriously, but since peak oilers like to cite it so often I find it to be a useful comparison anyway.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1966 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:52 am Post subject: Re: Catalog of recent oil discoveries
Oil-Finder wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
This link refers to the chart, with the associated blurb clearly suggesting that the figures correspond to production from the discovered fields, not the less useful figure of OOIP.
Um, OK if I understand you correctly, then that is just . . . dumb.
If I understand you correctly, you're saying the big long bars from fields discovered in the 40's-80's are big because that's how much oil they've cumulatively produced.
Well . . . DUH!!!!!!! The reason why they've produced so much is because they've been around so long!!! And the reason why the more recent finds don't have big long bars is because they've only been around since fairly recently, and thus haven't had as much time to cumulatively produce as much oil!
Gosh, I thought that would be obvious. So if that's what you mean, that isn't even a chart of the size of "discoveries," it's a chart showing cumulative production of oil fields since they started producing.
But then if those blue bars represent cumulative production from each year's discoveries, then what is that squiggly black line which says "production" for????
But if that's not what you meant, please correct me.
Happy to. Production refers not to historical production but to total production, ever. This is a chart of discoveries of URR, updated whenever different proven reserve numbers are published.
Oil-Finder wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
I tried to find that OOIP chart. I'm sure I saw it within the last week but can't find it, at the moment. However, to avoid further hours of searching, I decided to get a rough idea of the total of the discoveries in the chart you posted. Just eyeballing the chart up to 2006 (the last year that isn't a future prediction), I totalled 1,740 billion barrels. I don't think discovery before 1930 would significantly affect the total, which is near enough to what the current URR is, without future discovery, for me to conclusively state that the chart is URR, not OOIP, which would be at least double that total.
So, as someone else said, your additions to the chart, Oil-Finder, are not accurate and the data you present does not really make the case you set out to achieve. Charting URR would be more useful.
As I've already said multiple times, it is basically impossible for me to get URR for each of these discoveries. Only a handful of them have even stated how much of their discovery might be recoverable, and as you know, estimating URR is just guesswork anyway, especially concerning a newly-discovered field which hasn't even begun production. So once again, as imperfect as this methodology is, it's the best (and, really, only) way to do an on-going accounting of recent oil discoveries.
I understand that but you should, therefore, correct your adjustment of the chart, because the adjustment you made was on the estimates of OOIP from the discoveries you list, not the URR, as the rest of the chart shows. In fact, you should probably remove the chart altogether, since you can't accurately update it.
If you can't estimate URR (and I'd be surprised if you could), what do you think the usefulness of the data is? It clearly shows that exploration is ongoing and appears to show a trend to more difficult areas (e.g. Jack, where production is not even assured). But as some kind of proof that peak is way off, it fails.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1966 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:00 am Post subject: Re: Catalog of recent oil discoveries
Oil-Finder wrote:
Oh, I almost forgot . . .
If you say those blue bars prior to 2005 total about 1.74 trillion barrels, and we can take into account that civilization has used up about 1 trillion barrels to date. According to BP, world proven reserves at the end of 2005 were 1.2 trillion barrels. 1.2 trillion current reserves + 1 trillion consumed to date = 2.2 trillion barrels "proven" oil, past and present. This is greater than your cumulative figure of 1.74 trillion barrels discovered to date. Where did the other 460 billion barrels come from? Thin air?
It's for reasons like this why I don't really take that peak-oil-discovery chart very seriously, but since peak oilers like to cite it so often I find it to be a useful comparison anyway.
Except you haven't used it for any meaningful comparison.
Don't forget that I simply eyeballed the chart to try and get a rough idea of the total oil that the chart represents, in order to determine the validity of your claim that it was a chart of OOIP discoveries. That 1.74 trillion barrels could be a few hundred million out, either way. So don't try to use that figure as some kind of justification for the way you used the chart. Of course, the BP figure could be right or not. As I understand it, the BP figure is a mixture of regulated reports of proven reserves and, unregulated reserves reports from OPEC, which, I think, may include up to P50 reserves. They may be right but it looks like you have taken it as gospel. That's up to you, of course, but it's possible that, if my 1.74 figure is about right, that the BP figure (which they have no way of checking, either) is wrong. I'm sure that most people would at least admit to that possibility.
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:28 am Post subject: Re: Catalog of recent oil discoveries
TonyPrep wrote:
Happy to. Production refers not to historical production but to total production, ever. This is a chart of discoveries of URR, updated whenever different proven reserve numbers are published.
OK I'm still not following what you're saying.
The black squiggly line represents yearly production - correct?
So then the blue bars represent the size of discoveries for each year - correct?
If the black squiggly line represents yearly production, then the blue bars cannot also represent total production, because it is obvious from comparing the two that the area beneath the blue bars is much greater than the area beneath the black squiggly line. If both represented production, they should both be equal in area, but clearly they are not.
However, if the blue bars represent the size of discoveries for each year, you still have not proven that they represent URR rather than OIP, you're just saying they do without providing me any evidence. I'm still waiting for a link.
If the blue bars are adjusted over time whenever new information about a reserve size comes in, then how come there isn't a bar going all the way up to 170 bbl in 1948, when Ghawar was discovered? Heck, there isn't even a bar going all the way up to 60 bbl in 1948, in reference to someone's claim than an audit of Ghawar in the 70's said that Ghawar only had URR of 60 bbl's. But I doubt that Ghawar only has 60 bbl of URR because to date it has already produced 60 bbl (source), and yet it is still producing.
So frankly I think you and some others here are just making this up.
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:34 am Post subject: Re: Catalog of recent oil discoveries
TonyPrep wrote:
I understand that but you should, therefore, correct your adjustment of the chart, because the adjustment you made was on the estimates of OOIP from the discoveries you list, not the URR, as the rest of the chart shows. In fact, you should probably remove the chart altogether, since you can't accurately update it.
If you can't estimate URR (and I'd be surprised if you could), what do you think the usefulness of the data is? It clearly shows that exploration is ongoing and appears to show a trend to more difficult areas (e.g. Jack, where production is not even assured). But as some kind of proof that peak is way off, it fails.
I will remove the chart when someone demonstrates to me beyond any reasonable doubt that the blue bars on the chart represent URR or even cumulative production, not OOIP. The only attempt to do so showed me a chart which included "seismic" discoveries, which I discussed above. But no one has provided any links so far showing me that the blue bars on the chart represent what you and others are claiming they represent. And now I am getting convoluted explanations from you that the blue bars on the chart represent total cumulative production of each discovery -- or no wait! - maybe they really represent URR. Or what do they represent?
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:39 am Post subject: Re: Catalog of recent oil discoveries
TonyPrep wrote:
Except you haven't used it for any meaningful comparison.
Don't forget that I simply eyeballed the chart to try and get a rough idea of the total oil that the chart represents, in order to determine the validity of your claim that it was a chart of OOIP discoveries. That 1.74 trillion barrels could be a few hundred million out, either way. So don't try to use that figure as some kind of justification for the way you used the chart. Of course, the BP figure could be right or not. As I understand it, the BP figure is a mixture of regulated reports of proven reserves and, unregulated reserves reports from OPEC, which, I think, may include up to P50 reserves. They may be right but it looks like you have taken it as gospel. That's up to you, of course, but it's possible that, if my 1.74 figure is about right, that the BP figure (which they have no way of checking, either) is wrong. I'm sure that most people would at least admit to that possibility.
Well, whatever. Let's first resolve what the blue bars on the chart mean before we get into anything else.
I do want this project to be as thorough and consistent as is reasonably possible given the limitations of my methodology, so I'm more than willing to take suggestions. But . . . one thing at a time.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1966 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:49 am Post subject: Re: Catalog of recent oil discoveries
Oil-Finder wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
Happy to. Production refers not to historical production but to total production, ever. This is a chart of discoveries of URR, updated whenever different proven reserve numbers are published.
OK I'm still not following what you're saying.
The black squiggly line represents yearly production - correct?
So then the blue bars represent the size of discoveries for each year - correct?
If the black squiggly line represents yearly production, then the blue bars cannot also represent total production, because it is obvious from comparing the two that the area beneath the blue bars is much greater than the area beneath the black squiggly line. If both represented production, they should both be equal in area, but clearly they are not.
However, if the blue bars represent the size of discoveries for each year, you still have not proven that they represent URR rather than OIP, you're just saying they do without providing me any evidence. I'm still waiting for a link.
If the blue bars are adjusted over time whenever new information about a reserve size comes in, then how come there isn't a bar going all the way up to 170 bbl in 1948, when Ghawar was discovered? Heck, there isn't even a bar going all the way up to 60 bbl in 1948, in reference to someone's claim than an audit of Ghawar in the 70's said that Ghawar only had URR of 60 bbl's. But I doubt that Ghawar only has 60 bbl of URR because to date it has already produced 60 bbl (source), and yet it is still producing.
So frankly I think you and some others here are just making this up.
As I understand it, as each field is discovered, it goes onto this chart as soon as an estimate of URR for that field is known. As a field's recoverable reserves get revised, the data in the chart is adjusted, backdated to the discovery of that field. So add up all the bars and you get an estimate of the total oil that is currently thought to be recoverable. This total obviously includes oil that has already been produced but is higher than that figure, except for fields that are now shut (leaving aside those that might be reopened later, as technology may allow). The area below the black line is the amount of oil produced to date and will be a proportion of the total of the discovery bars. Both numbers will converge over time.
That's a good point about Ghawar. An article on TheOilDrum suggests that Ghawar URR may be about 100 billion barrels. So why isn't there a bar at least up to 100 on the chart? Well, the first thing to say is that this could be regarded as further proof that the chart is not for OOIP, though that doesn't explain the problem. If anyone would care to suggest an explanation, please do. I can think of only one explanation, at the moment. It is that Ghawar was originally thought to be several fields and only came to be regarded as one field much later after the original discovery. It may be that it is still officially regarded as separate fields. From Wikipedia: "Historically Ghawar has been subdivided into five production areas, from north to south, 'Ain Dar and Shedgum, 'Uthmaniyah, Hawiyah and Haradh."
Last edited by TonyPrep on Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:09 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:55 am Post subject: Re: Catalog of recent oil discoveries
I did a quick search of the citation in the bottom-right corner of the graph to see if I could find anything (that is, the "ExxonMobil 2002" thing). But I still don't find anything that says it is either OOIP or URR.
http://www.oilcrisis.com/laherrere/Copenhagen2003.doc
^
Page 12 has a hand-drawn chart very similar to the one I've shown:
"Global Discovery of Petroleum Liquids (includes conventional oil plus condensate (called NGL)) shows annual discovery data, and cumulative discovery (revisions backdated to original field discovery date.)"
^
What does that mean? It just says, "discovery." There are several other attempts at similar charts on that document, but all they talk about is "discoveries," they do not specify what kind (OOIP or URR) of discoveries.
That's the only reasonably technical document I could find which appeared related to the citation on that graphic.
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:01 am Post subject: Re: Catalog of recent oil discoveries
TonyPrep wrote:
As I understand it, as each field is discovered, it goes onto this chart as soon as an estimate of URR for that field is known. As a field's recoverable reserves get revised, the data in the chart is adjusted, backdated to the discovery of that field. So add up all the bars and you get an estimate of the total oil that is currently thought to be recoverable. This total obviously includes oil that has already been produced but is higher than that figure, except for fields that are now shut (leaving aside those that might be reopened later, as technology may allow). The area below the black line is the amount of oil produced to date and will be a proportion of the total of the discovery bars. Both numbers will converge over time.
Well, once again, if you can prove to me beyond any reasonable doubt that those blue bars on the chart only represent the URR of each discovery as opposed to OOIP, I will remove the chart. But even the Word document I just linked above (which appears to be as close to the original source as I can find), is still inconclusive. All it says is "discovery" or "discoveries" without being any more specific.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1966 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:02 am Post subject: Re: Catalog of recent oil discoveries
Let me put it another way, Oil-Finder. The chart clearly doesn't show OOIP numbers (I assume you agree with that, otherwise please explain why the numbers are so small, either for individual years or in total). So what do you think the chart represents? If you don't know, then that would be another reason to withdraw the chart, since you will be trying to alter a chart that you don't understand.
Joined: Apr 06, 2006 Posts: 2835 Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:06 am Post subject: Re: Catalog of recent oil discoveries
Oil-Finder wrote:
If the black squiggly line represents yearly production, then the blue bars cannot also represent total production, because it is obvious from comparing the two that the area beneath the blue bars is much greater than the area beneath the black squiggly line. If both represented production, they should both be equal in area, but clearly they are not.
They aren't the same - who said that? URR, OOIP, and production are all different figures...
Quote:
However, if the blue bars represent the size of discoveries for each year, you still have not proven that they represent URR rather than OIP, you're just saying they do without providing me any evidence. I'm still waiting for a link.
When appraised in the 1970s, the field was assessed to have 170 billion barrels of original oil in place, with about 60 billion barrels recoverable (1975 Aramaco estimate quoted by Matt Simmons). The second figure, at least, was understated, since that production figure has already been exceeded.
Quote:
If the blue bars are adjusted over time whenever new information about a reserve size comes in, then how come there isn't a bar going all the way up to 170 bbl in 1948, when Ghawar was discovered?
Just explained that one.
Quote:
Heck, there isn't even a bar going all the way up to 60 bbl in 1948, in reference to someone's claim than an audit of Ghawar in the 70's said that Ghawar only had URR of 60 bbl's. But I doubt that Ghawar only has 60 bbl of URR because to date it has already produced 60 bbl (source), and yet it is still producing.
Ack, you already linked to same Wiki page I reffed for you...
Are we on the same page with this terminology? They're not very exotic concepts.
The next step is to use information from appraisal wells to estimate the porosity of the rock. This is usually between 20-35%, meaning that 20-35% of the volume contains fluids rather than solid rock. This can give a picture of the actual capacity. Through core samples, the characteristics of the reservoir fluids can be determined, particularly the shrinkage factor of the oil (how much the oil will shrink as a result of being brought from the high pressure, high temperature environment of the reservoir to stock tank conditions at the surface.
With this knowledge, it is then possible to estimate how many stock tank barrels of oil are located in the reservoir. This is called the Stock Tank Oil Initially In Place (STOIIP). As a result of studying things such as the permeability of the rock (how easily fluids can flow through the rock) and possible drive mechanisms, it is possible to then estimate the recovery factor (what proportion of the oil in place can be reasonably be expected to be produced). This is normally between 30-35%. This finally gives a value for the recoverable reserves.
Quote:
So frankly I think you and some others here are just making this up.
Thanks!
You know that Campbell and every other early Peakist disregard the additions to reserves OPEC made in the 80s, right? Hundreds of billions of bullshit barrels. Talk about making stuff up. Or maybe they are for real - state secrets, you know.
Posted about your tally over at TOD this morning: Subthread. SWorm picked apart the first half of your 2007 finds, with links; he has you down to 10-14 Gb, mostly from Tupi and Jidong Nanbu. Best since 2000, and he considers it unlikely that this will be repeated year after year. I also thought it telling that Rapier/Brown/Patterson/Mearns/Staniford and the other big brains over there didn't even bother to respond. _________________ Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
You will receive no bill.
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:13 am Post subject: Re: Catalog of recent oil discoveries
OK, I have found what appears to be the original source for that chart - the Longwell 2002 report, "The Future of the Oil and Gas Industry: Past Approaches, New Challenges"
http://www.worldenergysource.com/articles/pdf/longwell_WE_v5n3.pdf
^
The chart is at the bottom of page 2 (figure 3). It won't let me copy any text, but if you read the paragraph just above the figure, you'll see it says nothing about whether the discoveries on the chart are OOIP, URR, or anything else. It just says they are "discoveries."
So I still see no evidence that these are URR figure. They are just "discoveries."
Joined: Apr 06, 2006 Posts: 2835 Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:31 am Post subject: Re: Catalog of recent oil discoveries
Similar to Colin's work, which I'm sure he did on his own. His paper is from 2003 October, BTW. _________________ Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
You will receive no bill.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
And the reason why the more recent finds don't have big long bars is because they've only been around since fairly recently, and thus haven't had as much time to cumulatively produce as much oil!
