Joined: Apr 17, 2004 Posts: 984 Location: Tulsa, Ok
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 7:50 pm Post subject: new curve
Ok, here is the idea. I attempt to be very realistic when looking at issues. I like to be optimistic and not pessimistic. Yet I want to know what the numbers really are and what possible variables are.
Optimistically, oil will be found regularly to keep the world in oil until alternate sources come online.
Pessimistically no more oil will ever be found.
I want to see the worst case scenario. Knowing that it can always get better. Just to see 'what if'.
So back to the graph shown in the monthly news letter at ASPO. The chart, in the middle of the page shows Future, new regular oil of 145 Gb. This 'new has not been discovered yet. Sooo...
Worst case is no more oil is discovered. What would the curve look like if the 145 Gb is removed from the declining side? _________________ Peace out!
Sorry to complicate what should be a relatively straightforward project with details.....
If the amount of reserves remaining is only 760gb, and the production up until present is 950 give or take, that means the curve is asymmetrical and non-hubbertian already, and we have already overpumped the peak, so the decline curve may be any of a variety of shapes.
It could, I guess, just follow the ASPO curve for awhile until reserves are run out. This would happen in about 2050.
I have three other scenarios, below. Others may wish to give other ideas. (By the way, this is for liquids only, does not include gas or heavy oil etc). All three are "production curves", namely, gbo pumped per year. Also, I spliced on an ASPO-like "verhulst curve" onto the historical data as a baseline. Maybe the ASPO people will give us the data points for their curve at some point so we can graph their curve onto our models for comparison.
The first curve starts with 30 gb/yr and annual extraction declines by 3% per year. This is probably pretty conservative, and more what you had in mind. By 2050, the remaining reserves are only about 13gb, so only about two years of pumping left.
The second curve is the "Nordic Decline" scenario, which is that the world depletes in the same pattern as the UK and Norway, which is 9% decline in the first few years after depletion hits, then slowing to 5% decline when the reservoir hits 50%, then 3% decline in the out-years. By 2050, we still have 360gb left, give or take, and we are pumping at a low enough rate for this to go on for awhile.
The third curve is the "average decline" case, per our "experience-based" decline curve we did last fall. This is the "average" global decline curve as experienced by those nations already in decline. Production decline is about 7% in the first three years after depletion hits, then stabilizes and levels off at 1-2% per year, for some number of years (60-65% of maximum production). No telling how long this can go on, but if this model is any indication, not too long, because you completely run out of oil in about 2040 if this is the case.
It depends on your outlook, of course, but in a way, you'd better hope for a steep decline in the early years, a-la the Nordic model. Reason: If the reserves are low like this, it is best to get off of the current pumping rate as soon as possible so as to preserve some reserves for the out-years. The longer we pump at the current rate, the faster TSHTF, if you do not mind me using that overworked phrase, provided reserves are limited like you say.
Joined: Apr 17, 2004 Posts: 984 Location: Tulsa, Ok
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:41 pm Post subject: cool
That is great!
I need to study this some.
When I read what Mathew Simmons has said lately. Basically he believes Sadia Arabia may not have the reserves to continue producing at the rates they have been. Most likely past peak.
Joined: Sep 25, 2004 Posts: 4542 Location: Boston, MA
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 8:44 pm Post subject:
15 billion a year production in 2013
That means 8 years till complete chaos...
I really hope they find that extra oil that *should* be there. I wonder if that oil will be worth anything in energy terms. Also, if all of this extra oil is heavy oil or artic/deep water, who is to say it will be found at all? We assume that the deep ocean has lots of oil, but we don't really know because we haven't found it yet. If it doesn't turn up, we are going to be in for a long and fast ride down.
3% is an almost random number. Many oil fields decline much faster. The North Sea is experiencing a 5%-7% decline (or so I'm told).
That is what is estimated that Saudi Arabia has to pump by then to keep up.
It won't happen, there is pretty good evidence that SA is max'd out already, despite what they are saying. Plus, when Ghawar collapses, which it likely has already, it will be precipitous.
Deep ocean oil, if it's there, is unreachable. Doesn't matter how much oil may be worth.
Much of the petroleum that is slated to come onstream soon is of a low quality.
There was big news that Venezuala sold a big supply to China just recently. What was glossed over was that the deal was for really heavy oil only good for pavement. The Chinese are the only people in the market for that type of oil.
Caspian Sea oil has a real high sulpher content, so does the new field in Alberta.
Oh yes, then there is the tar sands. What a joke, good oil after bad.
We're at peak now and the only thing that is going to slow it down is a catastrophic market crash.
I'm certainly hoping for a couple of more years, I'm not quite ready yet. _________________ Gravity is not a force, it is a boundary layer.
Everything is coincident.
Love: the state of suspended anticipation.
To get any appreciable distance from the Earth in
a sensible amount of time, you must lie.
Joined: Apr 17, 2004 Posts: 984 Location: Tulsa, Ok
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2005 7:19 am Post subject: billion or million?
Billion or million?
Day or year?
15 million a day production in 2013?
Quote:
Deep ocean oil, if it's there, is unreachable. Doesn't matter how much oil may be worth.
Much of the petroleum that is slated to come on-stream soon is of a low quality.
There was big news that Venezuela sold a big supply to China just recently. What was glossed over was that the deal was for really heavy oil only good for pavement. The Chinese are the only people in the market for that type of oil.
Caspian Sea oil has a real high sulpher content, so does the new field in Alberta.
Oh yes, then there is the tar sands. What a joke, good oil after bad.
Makes sense, I would point out that oil for pavement means other oils don't need to be used for pavement. The other oils mentioned can be used for other purposed but are less efficient when converted from the original state to the final usage state. Meaning more calories in to get calories out.
Cleaning the sulpher out takes energy.
I am actually somewhat ignorant of the entire processes involved but I can understand energy in to get energy out. _________________ Peace out!
Australia, by the way, had a really bad month in October, only 382,000 barrels pumped, 52% of its peak value, so maybe we should call this the "Aussie Slide" instead.
The point is, five years after the peak in Britain, and 4 years after the peak in Australia, the fields are only producing an average of 65% of their peak output. This is an average decline of 9% per year. So, if you apply this to the global rate (30 gb) that's 19.5 gb five years out, and at the same decline rate, couple more years until 15 gb.
These are the "worst case scenarios" and someone into geology will tell us that because the fields are relatively small and isolated there is no way to generalize this to the whole world. But, so is Ghawar.
In the case of the US, which is bigger and contains a lot of different fields, they were down 14% from the peak after 7 years, and the world average was down 22% from the peak after 7 years, so on a bigger scale, kind of a middling estimate is possible.
In each of these cases, the "cliff", as it were, was a lot more severe than those predicted by the ASPO graph and Hubbert-type analysis.
Joined: Apr 17, 2004 Posts: 984 Location: Tulsa, Ok
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2005 9:53 am Post subject: OIC
OIC, sorry, I thought the reference was to Sadia Arabia's swing roll. I had just said something about SA and was thinking of SA when I read Tyler_jc's post. I did miss something!
I was thinking of the expected swing role of SA. That being they would increase production to fill the gap being left from other countries decreasing domestic outputs. If Matthew Simmons is correct in his belief that SA is already peaking. This will not happen.
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2005 12:18 pm Post subject: Saudi swing role
The Saudi swing role is kind of interesting.
Most of the gloomy scenarios you see make the assumption that the rest of the world's pumping is roughly constant, and Saudi has to produce in order to satisfy all of the demand growth.
If you look at the whole list of countries, and who is shrinking and who is growing....
Only about 1/3 of the global capacity was coming from places where the production is shrinking, at least as of 2003 which is covered by the most recent BP review.
So if the depleting countries continue to deplete at the same rate, but the growing countries continue to grow at the same rate, there is actually enough non-Saudi non-depleting capacity to take care of demand for awhile "if" the overall demand growth rate is at some reasonable level.
The "reasonable level" is about 5%. Anything over that, and the non-Saudi growth is not enough to keep up, and Saudi must grow or there is a problem.
Also, lack of ability to grow at the 2003 rate that occurs among big producers such as Russia or China throws the pressure back on Saudi.
Also, this assumes a constant Iraq, which is kind of iffy.
Code:
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Production w growing Saudi 76737 80858 85710 91374 97947 105541
Production w static Saudi 76737 79506 82821 86735 91318 96648
demand at 2% growth 76737 78272 79837 81434 83063 84724
demand at 4% growth 76737 79806 82999 86319 89771 93362
Units are thosand bbl oil per day, source is the 2004 BP review.
Deep ocean oil, if it's there, is unreachable. Doesn't matter how much oil may be worth.
Sorry, you are wrong there. I work in that area, and we are already producing from nearly 2000m water depth off Brazil, and 1500m off West Africa. Within 2 years projects I am personally involved with will be producing nearly 1 million bpd from fields 1000m+. Average cost to develop and produce these fields can still be below $10/bbl with modern techniques.
New technology is already available to go deeper, and projects will soon be undertaken down to 3000m. I personally believe that even if technology allows us to go deeper, which it surely can, there will be little oil to be found below 3000m water depth.
There is heavy exploration ongoing in 1000+m water depth in areas such as West Africa, Brazil, Indonesia and Malaysia. The current steady string of discoveries in these regions is bound to continue for the next few years until the prime blocks are fully explored.
Much of the petroleum that is slated to come onstream soon is of a low quality.
...and the 1 million bpd of ultra-deep production I referred to above ranges between 29 and 41 degrees API, say an average around 32 API. That may not be sweet light Saudi crude, but it is easily transportable and refined. Our new ultradeep projects are in the same range.
Sure, there are some projetcs with sub 20 API oil under consideration, but they are very much in the minority. There are plently of better fields to be exploited first.
Deep ocean oil, if it's there, is unreachable. Doesn't matter how much oil may be worth.
Sorry, you are wrong there. I work in that area, and we are already producing from nearly 2000m water depth off Brazil, and 1500m off West Africa. Within 2 years projects I am personally involved with will be producing nearly 1 million bpd from fields 1000m+. Average cost to develop and produce these fields can still be below $10/bbl with modern techniques.
New technology is already available to go deeper, and projects will soon be undertaken down to 3000m. I personally believe that even if technology allows us to go deeper, which it surely can, there will be little oil to be found below 3000m water depth.
There is heavy exploration ongoing in 1000+m water depth in areas such as West Africa, Brazil, Indonesia and Malaysia. The current steady string of discoveries in these regions is bound to continue for the next few years until the prime blocks are fully explored.
Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware of the projects you mentioned. I am however quite sceptical of the production cost you mentioned. All in energy costs, I think, would be much higher. _________________ Gravity is not a force, it is a boundary layer.
Everything is coincident.
Love: the state of suspended anticipation.
To get any appreciable distance from the Earth in
a sensible amount of time, you must lie.
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
