Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??

Discuss research and forecasts regarding hydrocarbon depletion.

Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??

Unread postby WebHubbleTelescope » Thu 02 Mar 2006, 19:36:51

Pops wrote:
ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:The arguement over how to "grow" the volumes itself would lead to a pretty wild discussion I'm betting.


So I assume that (and the rest of the thread) means there isn’t agreement here as well.


The complement of "reserve growth" is called "backdating". Discovery curves are not static beasts, many would think set in stone long ago and never updated; in fact discovery curves are living beasts that continually get updated. Backdating gets applied to the USA discovery curves so when you apply that time translation it does indeed look like the discovery mirrors the production curves.

I think the basic disagreement is on the level of transparency in how backdating gets applied. I would suggest that discovery curves get plotted as a family of curves, with each curve showing a specific age progression. Some people think backdating does not get applied at all, leading to a more cornucopian view of 10x reserves than what the discovery curves show.

Below is an example of USA fractional growth over aged discoveries from the Attanasi and Root data.
Image
It's very noisy but the effect of as-defined reserve growth is there.
User avatar
WebHubbleTelescope
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu 08 Jul 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??

Unread postby ReserveGrowthRulz » Thu 02 Mar 2006, 21:57:17

Pops wrote:So I assume that (and the rest of the thread) means there isn’t agreement here as well.

In my little mind, that graph of discovery vs. production tells the story. If that graph can be proven wrong I would be more than happy for the extra time..


Then be happy! I might mention that just because its wrong doesn't automatically make the problem of Peak Oil disappear....it might have more to do with a long, drawn out, EXPENSIVE plateau, slower decline post peak. etc etc.

Pops wrote:According to what you just said regarding the argument as to how to pump up the estimates I wonder how you came to that conclusion. I'm not aruging with the conclusion, just wondering
.


Reserve growth, when fit back to their discovery date and plotted like R&A did, means that alot more oil was discovered, years and years ago, then was originally reported. And it means discoveries today aren't near as small as they appear.



Pops wrote:I do understand from reading some of your posts (not to mention your handle) where you stand on this subject, but I’m not sure exactly who TPTB are that you refer to. I guess what I’m asking is how do you come up with the figure of 10% of actual discoveries? Is that from 1900, 1950, 2000 or what?


The R&A paper, which has data grouped in a way reasonably represented by the graph WebHubble posted, extrapolates reserve growth through time, NOT production rate. The 10% number I throw out for initial discoveries is because a field discovered and starting to produce this year, is likely to have an ultimate reserve size 10X its initial discovery size, many years from now. So whenever I see a current "discovered" volume, I multiply it by 10 to get a feel for a more "ultimate" size.
User avatar
ReserveGrowthRulz
permanently banned
 
Posts: 813
Joined: Fri 30 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??

Unread postby WebHubbleTelescope » Thu 02 Mar 2006, 22:24:49

ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:So whenever I see a current "discovered" volume, I multiply it by 10 to get a feel for a more "ultimate" size.


And when you see a discovery from Russia, multiply it by 2 to get a feel for the ultimate size.

Unfortunately, the USA is not the center of the oil universe any longer, and we will have to realize that different regions have different reserve reporting philosophies.
User avatar
WebHubbleTelescope
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu 08 Jul 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??

Unread postby ReserveGrowthRulz » Thu 02 Mar 2006, 23:29:53

WebHubbleTelescope wrote:
ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:So whenever I see a current "discovered" volume, I multiply it by 10 to get a feel for a more "ultimate" size.


And when you see a discovery from Russia, multiply it by 2 to get a feel for the ultimate size.

Unfortunately, the USA is not the center of the oil universe any longer, and we will have to realize that different regions have different reserve reporting philosophies.


The Verma paper was more 3X or 4X, wasn't it? Misrepresenting what we don't like just for fun now?

Also, the US hasn't been the center of the universe for some time now, which is why North Sea reserve growth is important, Libya is just getting around to coming back on line and I'm betting its numbers, they SOON will be a changin, and the Middle East? They've changed before, they will change again. Offshore Africa seems to be a pretty hot spot right now as well....lets take bets now as to whether or not, when the studies come out on certain areas', that none of them will have 2 or less as a reserve growth multiplier? Any takers? Didn't someone post a link to a paper where there estimate was 3X or 4X? Matter of fact, I'm trying to think of ANYONE who has ever said reserve growth is only a 2X function, ANYWHERE.

What number WOULD you be willing to bet on Hubble, 4X? 3X 10X? Pick an area, we'll wait for another Verma study to come out....
User avatar
ReserveGrowthRulz
permanently banned
 
Posts: 813
Joined: Fri 30 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??

Unread postby nero » Fri 03 Mar 2006, 00:36:56

Pops wrote:I have seen lots of models of the production curve but not one of the discovery curve that attempts to include reserve growth.

Is there such a model?


Here ya go Pops happy to oblige. My favorite power point presentation:

Harper(BP) presentation to ASPO Berlin conference check out page 22 of PPT presentation

Interestingly earlier in the presentation he took a sample of north sea fields and looked at their reserve growth and came up with a number on average of about 33%. Different data sets give you different results is the key observation.
Biofuels: The "What else we got to burn?" answer to peak oil.
User avatar
nero
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat 22 May 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??

Unread postby WebHubbleTelescope » Fri 03 Mar 2006, 00:54:36

ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:
ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:So whenever I see a current "discovered" volume, I multiply it by 10 to get a feel for a more "ultimate" size.


And when you see a discovery from Russia, multiply it by 2 to get a feel for the ultimate size.

Unfortunately, the USA is not the center of the oil universe any longer, and we will have to realize that different regions have different reserve reporting philosophies.


The Verma paper was more 3X or 4X, wasn't it? Misrepresenting what we don't like just for fun now?

Also, the US hasn't been the center of the universe for some time now, which is why North Sea reserve growth is important, Libya is just getting around to coming back on line and I'm betting its numbers, they SOON will be a changin, and the Middle East? They've changed before, they will change again. Offshore Africa seems to be a pretty hot spot right now as well....lets take bets now as to whether or not, when the studies come out on certain areas', that none of them will have 2 or less as a reserve growth multiplier? Any takers? Didn't someone post a link to a paper where there estimate was 3X or 4X? Matter of fact, I'm trying to think of ANYONE who has ever said reserve growth is only a 2X function, ANYWHERE.

What number WOULD you be willing to bet on Hubble, 4X? 3X 10X? Pick an area, we'll wait for another Verma study to come out....


What is wrong with you? Here is the quote from Verma:
Volga-Ural and West Siberia provinces show most of their reserve growth in the first 5-7 years after discovery and little or no growth thereafter. It is difficult to compare the growth in Russian fields with those of the U.S. fields where growth continues even after 90 years, because in Russia oil fields are first evaluated over a 5-7 year period before being produced whereas in the U.S. both the evaluation and production of fields start shortly after their discovery.

So they say that most of the growth is during the first 5-7 years and this is the same period that the Russians evaluate over to get their first estimates of reserve. So they start with an estimate of 1x growth at the end of the 5-7 year period, which in USA terms would amount to a 5x growth (according to Attanasi&Root empirical observations) since we start estimating reserve growth since discovery day 1. So simple scaling from this point would suggest that the Russians can get another factor of 2x at best. This may even be high since Verma says the ultimate Russian reserve growth is 3-5x since the initial discovery, which includes the evaluation period, thus subsuming a significant fraction of the 3-5x growth. I'm sorry that this is such a puzzle, but blame it on the cryptic Verma for being so damn obtuse.

Rockdoc, PhD, also stated recently that:
Comparing US and Russian exploration is an apples and oranges argument. In Russia the traditional exploration technique was to drill an exploration well, if it was a discovery the field was delineated by further drilling prior to bringing the field on production, often they ended up with wells spaced at 100 acres prior to bringing the field onstream. As a consequence it is not surprising they have a better idea of ultimate reserves early on. In the US and many other places fields are brought on production as soon as they believe an economic reserve limit has been met....sometimes this can be with very few wells into the field. This type of development makes a lot more sense from the standpoint of economics....taking advantage of the time value of money.

The Russians simply have more information.....which is what reserves growth is all about.

It is all about estimating what the initial discovery is and from everything stated, Russia is much closer after the initial 5-7 year evaluation than the USA gets in their non-speculative immediate (i.e highly conservative) prediction. This Russian estimate does not constitute backdating because it is part of the evaluation. And about half of the USA growth occurs during the first 7 years, which is outside of an evaluation period. I know that you have no use for an evaluation period, preferring some magic, albeit non-speculative, pixie dust to sprinkle over the numbers to create a Peter Pan effect.
User avatar
WebHubbleTelescope
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu 08 Jul 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??

Unread postby WebHubbleTelescope » Fri 03 Mar 2006, 01:36:08

nero wrote:
Pops wrote:I have seen lots of models of the production curve but not one of the discovery curve that attempts to include reserve growth.

Is there such a model?


Here ya go Pops happy to oblige. My favorite power point presentation:

Harper(BP) presentation to ASPO Berlin conference check out page 22 of PPT presentation

Interestingly earlier in the presentation he took a sample of north sea fields and looked at their reserve growth and came up with a number on average of about 33%. Different data sets give you different results is the key observation.

U.K. North Sea shows lots of variability but yes indeed the average data suggests a growth of 1.2x . And Norway about 1.4x . Which is near the absolute version of your relative percentage of 33%.

And global average is about 3x from one of the graphs in the presentation:

Image

If you look at this data and take the start point of 5 years after discovery, then the growth is scaled back by 50% and it looks like my Russian estimate of 2x.

Once again, the ultimate reserve growth depends on your patience in attaining your first estimate.
User avatar
WebHubbleTelescope
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu 08 Jul 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??

Unread postby Pops » Fri 03 Mar 2006, 09:42:39

nero wrote:Here ya go Pops happy to oblige. My favorite power point presentation:


Yes sir – exactly what I was looking for, thanks all.

nero wrote:Different data sets give you different results is the key observation.


I know you all hate simplistic generalities but I would much appreciate your humoring me and evaluate these two statements:

"World discovery of oil peaked in the 1960s, and has declined since then."

"Today we consume around 4 times as much oil as we discover."


I think in light of reserve growth, the first is correct but the second isn’t.

Your thoughts?
If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.
-- Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 17642
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??

Unread postby ReserveGrowthRulz » Fri 03 Mar 2006, 16:21:15

nero wrote:
Pops wrote:I have seen lots of models of the production curve but not one of the discovery curve that attempts to include reserve growth.

Is there such a model?


Here ya go Pops happy to oblige. My favorite power point presentation:

Harper(BP) presentation to ASPO Berlin conference check out page 22 of PPT presentation

Interestingly earlier in the presentation he took a sample of north sea fields and looked at their reserve growth and came up with a number on average of about 33%. Different data sets give you different results is the key observation.


Page 22 shows a TRIPLING of reserves...not an increase of 33%, more like a 200% addition to the original number.
User avatar
ReserveGrowthRulz
permanently banned
 
Posts: 813
Joined: Fri 30 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??

Unread postby Pops » Fri 03 Mar 2006, 16:34:29

nero wrote:Interestingly earlier in the presentation he took a sample of north sea fields and looked at their reserve growth and came up with a number on average of about 33%.


Jeez, even I can understand what nero meant here, but he even explained his point - if it wasn't obvious:

nero wrote:Different data sets give you different results is the key observation.


I thought this was where the thoughtful, highbrow discussions take place...
If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.
-- Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 17642
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??

Unread postby ReserveGrowthRulz » Fri 03 Mar 2006, 16:54:46

WebHubbleTelescope wrote: So simple scaling from this point would suggest that the Russians can get another factor of 2x at best. This may even be high since Verma says the ultimate Russian reserve growth is 3-5x since the initial discovery, which includes the evaluation period, thus subsuming a significant fraction of the 3-5x growth. I'm sorry that this is such a puzzle, but blame it on the cryptic Verma for being so damn obtuse.


Figure 3, Curve A, 4.5X from "effective discovery".
Figure 4, Curve A, 6.5X from "effective discovery".
Figure 6, Curves A and B, 4.5X and 3X respectively, "effective discovery".
Figure 8, Curves A and B, 3.5X to 2.5X 6 YEARS after "effective discovery".

Let me guess, I need to go get a electronics engineer who invented the microchip to convert all those 3's and 4's and 5's into 2's for me because you don't like the figures in the paper? The one I like is the 6 years after discovery...and its STILL going to double at LEAST once again.....

Nah...I'm with you, just because Russia doesn't have the SEC, its not fair they STILL have reserve growth.

I might mention that all of Verma's graphs stop within 30 years or so...Hubberts low level time frame was about 60 years...so according to Hubbert, Verma still has some 30 years before he can get the entire Russian picture.

WebHubbleTelescope wrote:The Russians simply have more information.....which is what reserves growth is all about.


Yup....maybe they are twice as smart as American enguneers because they only have 1/2 the reserve growth? Maybe we need to send THEM all the microchip inventors....they might not know reserve growth from a diode but they could JAW them into reporting numbers you are happier with.

WebHubbleTelescope wrote:And about half of the USA growth occurs during the first 7 years, which is outside of an evaluation period. I know that you have no use for an evaluation period, preferring some magic, albeit non-speculative, pixie dust to sprinkle over the numbers to create a Peter Pan effect.


I thought RocDoc already told you that the US and Russia are different? And so you require pixie dust to explain differences in reserve growth? I don't...for the record, I used SPE Paper # 62616 as a reference.
User avatar
ReserveGrowthRulz
permanently banned
 
Posts: 813
Joined: Fri 30 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??

Unread postby WebHubbleTelescope » Sat 04 Mar 2006, 00:55:48

ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:The Russians simply have more information.....which is what reserves growth is all about.


Yup....maybe they are twice as smart as American enguneers because they only have 1/2 the reserve growth? Maybe we need to send THEM all the microchip inventors....they might not know reserve growth from a diode but they could JAW them into reporting numbers you are happier with.


Ya wanker, I did not write that. I quoted something that rockdoc wrote. Jaysus.
User avatar
WebHubbleTelescope
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu 08 Jul 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??

Unread postby WebHubbleTelescope » Sat 04 Mar 2006, 01:06:50

ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:
nero wrote:
Pops wrote:I have seen lots of models of the production curve but not one of the discovery curve that attempts to include reserve growth.

Is there such a model?


Here ya go Pops happy to oblige. My favorite power point presentation:

Harper(BP) presentation to ASPO Berlin conference check out page 22 of PPT presentation

Interestingly earlier in the presentation he took a sample of north sea fields and looked at their reserve growth and came up with a number on average of about 33%. Different data sets give you different results is the key observation.


Page 22 shows a TRIPLING of reserves...not an increase of 33%, more like a 200% addition to the original number.


No, the UK and Norway graphs show about 33% growth. Look for the fuzzy pink dots below, if it's not obvious enough.

Image
Image

More analysis HERE.
User avatar
WebHubbleTelescope
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu 08 Jul 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??

Unread postby WebHubbleTelescope » Sat 04 Mar 2006, 02:08:06

The average of 3x growth comes from a mix of low reserve growth areas (1.3x in UK and Norway), average growth areas (Russia), and high growth areas (10x in USA). And since the USA contributes less than 5% of global total, you can see how it can't have that much of an effect.

mean growth = sum(fraction[sub]i[/sub] x growth[sub]i[/sub])

where fraction[sub]i[/sub] is the fraction of total oil supplied from region i, in other words

sum(fraction[sub]i[/sub]) = 1.0
User avatar
WebHubbleTelescope
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu 08 Jul 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??

Unread postby nero » Sat 04 Mar 2006, 02:55:44

WHT wrote:The average of 3x growth comes from a mix of low reserve growth areas (1.3x in UK and Norway), average growth areas (Russia), and high growth areas (10x in USA). And since the USA contributes less than 5% of global total, you can see how it can't have that much of an effect.


I don't believe it works that way exactly. Different data sets have different standards. For instance if you are using SEC definition or are using proven+probable you would expect different results. Different eras also show differences in reserve growth. ( EG. less reserve growth in more modern data).

It is also very plausible that reserve growth is dependent on the size of the field and whether or not it is offshore.

Due to all that uncertainty I would hesitate to put a figure on what the reserve growth will be going forward. There has been a trend towards decreasing revision reserve growth. I am not sure why that is, but Cambpell's story that companies used to book the reserves from large fields conservatively so that they could smooth out their reserve additions sounds plausible.
Biofuels: The "What else we got to burn?" answer to peak oil.
User avatar
nero
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat 22 May 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??

Unread postby WebHubbleTelescope » Sat 04 Mar 2006, 10:26:25

nero wrote:
WHT wrote:The average of 3x growth comes from a mix of low reserve growth areas (1.3x in UK and Norway), average growth areas (Russia), and high growth areas (10x in USA). And since the USA contributes less than 5% of global total, you can see how it can't have that much of an effect.


I don't believe it works that way exactly.


OK, it works that way approximately. That's why we can call it an average. We have these people screaming that reserve growth is 10x at least, with no admission that the discovery curves are a living set of data that can get backdated. Unless we provide a bit of a smackdown, it is just another way to give a cornucopian outlook where there is likely none.
User avatar
WebHubbleTelescope
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu 08 Jul 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??

Unread postby WebHubbleTelescope » Sat 04 Mar 2006, 10:40:44

nero wrote:
WHT wrote:The average of 3x growth comes from a mix of low reserve growth areas (1.3x in UK and Norway), average growth areas (Russia), and high growth areas (10x in USA). And since the USA contributes less than 5% of global total, you can see how it can't have that much of an effect.


It is also very plausible that reserve growth is dependent on the size of the field and whether or not it is offshore.


Did you not notice in the quoted bit that UK and Norway are offshore? And that they show up with much lower reserve growth? At some point you would expect reserve growth in these areas to stop, as the rigs get abandoned due to high cost and steeply diminishing returns.
User avatar
WebHubbleTelescope
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu 08 Jul 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??

Unread postby ReserveGrowthRulz » Sat 04 Mar 2006, 12:38:48

WebHubbleTelescope wrote:
No, the UK and Norway graphs show about 33% growth. Look for the fuzzy pink dots below, if it's not obvious enough.

Image
Image

More analysis HERE.


The reference was Page 22...neither of the graphs you are showing come from page 22. What is it with people just winging off references which have nothing to do with the points they are trying to make? If I ever did that the editing staff would hand me my head.....
User avatar
ReserveGrowthRulz
permanently banned
 
Posts: 813
Joined: Fri 30 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??

Unread postby WebHubbleTelescope » Sat 04 Mar 2006, 14:04:23

ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:
No, the UK and Norway graphs show about 33% growth. Look for the fuzzy pink dots below, if it's not obvious enough.

Image
Image

More analysis HERE.


The reference was Page 22...neither of the graphs you are showing come from page 22. What is it with people just winging off references which have nothing to do with the points they are trying to make? If I ever did that the editing staff would hand me my head.....


Jaysus KayRiceTea, I was the one that posted that graph on page 22 in this here very thread if you care to page back several posts. Well I will post it again below
Image
This graph shows sources including and other than Norway and UK. Clearly reserve growth has an average value with a large spread (or standard deviation) in values.

Editing staff? What do you work for, a high school paper?
User avatar
WebHubbleTelescope
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu 08 Jul 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sat 04 Mar 2006, 17:46:29

Hey as far as I'm concerned this is all great discussion. I admire any attempt to quantify reserves growth. That being said a drive by shooting from a plane flying at 5000 feet elevation is usually not very effective. There are a number of reasons for reserves growth and I think the effect on how that would look on any given field production profile is completely different. There is reserves growth through continued drilling of a known reservoir in a given field, sometimes they find compartments they did not know about, sometimes they find a difference in reservoir characteristics in part of the field, sometimes they find the intial field boundaries such as faults are not effective and the field is laterally more extensive than originally assumed. There is also reserves growth through improved recovery efficiency. As an example intial look at a given field might tell us from the PVT properties of the oil that primary recovery with no intervention will be about 30% so away we go to development....a bit more drilling and we start to think...hey just a tick....if we inject water we can get this puppy up to 40% and away we go with the injection scheme....a bit of production history and hold on...how about injecting some gas as well....maybe get that recovery factor up to 45% and so on. Another means of reserve growth is by encountering additional reservoirs in the same field that previously were unknown. This happens all the time. As an example Egyptian fields such as Ramadan and Belayim started off producing from one zone and as continued drilling occurred, often on the flanks of the structure additional reservoirs were found. Another means of reserve growth is simply through what I call the frontier of the unknown. Good examples of this are found in unconvential reservoirs such as fractured basement where the rock intersected by the borehole has seemingly limited storage capacity certainly less so than production history would tell us. What is happening is that there is better storage capacity away from the borehole ....fractures simply connecting to pods of good porosity. This sort of thing is completely unpredictable and the only way you will find out about it is through close spaced infill drilling or continued production history supported with lots of pressure measurements.
So I guess I am saying that the issue is fairly complex...the timing at which the reserves growth occurs in each of these cases is somewhat different . The question remains is that given this happens on a field by field basis how does this affect the overall growth curve for a given country?
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5906
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests