[rangerone314]

-Maybe. Maybe not. The "Uppsala Gang" just put out their own estimate of only 0.5% decline in total liquids a year through 2030.

What on earth does that mean??? Do existing fields decline by only 0.5% ??? What declines by 0.5% ???

I think he means NET decline, and the % he came up with would be accurate to Uppsala estimate... going from what 85 to 75 in 20 years is about 0.5%

[mcgowanjm]

-Maybe. Maybe not. The "Uppsala Gang" just put out their own estimate of only 0.5% decline in total liquids a year through 2030.

What on earth does that mean??? Do existing fields decline by only 0.5% ??? What declines by 0.5% ???

I think he means NET decline, and the % he came up with would be accurate to Uppsala estimate... going from what 85 to 75 in 20 years is about 0.5%

570 of the 800 largest oil fields declining by 6.4% per year.

WORLD OIL PRODUCTION FORECAST - UPDATE NOVEMBER 2009 Posted by ace. The Oil Drum, November 23, 2009 - 12:45am
World oil production peaked in July 2008 at 74.74 million barrels/day (mbd) and now has fallen to about 72 mbd. It is expected that oil production will decline at about 2.2 mbd per year as shown below in the chart. The forecasts from the IEA WEO 2008 and 2009 are shown for comparison. The IEA 2009 forecast has dropped significantly lower than the 2008 forecast. The IEA 2009 forecast also shows a slight decline from 2009 to 2012 implying that the IEA possibly agrees that world oil peaked in July 2008. The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the International Energy Agency (IEA) should make official statements about declining world oil production now to urgently increase the focus on oil conservation and alternative renewable energy sources.

In fact, in 2008 the IEA conducted for the first time[3] a detailed field-by-field analysis of global oil production and its findings are bleak. Asked by a journalist on what the previous analysis relied on, the Chief-Economist of the IEA admitted, “it was mainly an assumption”[4]. In the 2008 World Energy Outlook (the key document on oil used by OECD countries), they have analysed about 800 fields, which account for ¾ of global reserves and more than 2/3 of global oil production[5]. They come to the conclusion that decline rates are far higher than previously thought, between 6.7 and 8.6% a year[6]. As result, they now estimate that to maintain the current levels of oil production (about 85 MBD) by 2030 the world would need to develop and produce 45 MBD; as said by Dr. Fatih Birol, approximately four new Saudi-Arabias[7].

FOUR. NEW. SAUDI. ARABIAS.

[rangerone314]

FOUR. NEW. SAUDI. ARABIAS.

How many new Saudi Arabias are needed to be discovered to ONLY decline by about 10,000,000/bbl day by 2030? (I would assume LESS than to KEEP production at 85 MBBL)

Saudi Arabia is about 8MBBL so I would figure 2.8 Saudi Arabias.

Brazil's fields are pretty huge and their production has been increasing for over 10 years... so the Uppsala decline projection is feasible. It won't lead to zombie hordes (except some poor places like HAITI) but it would lead to significant hardship.

[mcgowanjm]

How many new Saudi Arabias are needed to be discovered to ONLY decline by about 10,000,000/bbl day by 2030?

That's extremely misleading. Ex. I can say that entire amt
declines on Jan 1, 2030 and the implication of your sentence is fulfilled. You know better. See Fat Tails after Asymptote creating
Dragon Kings for details.

(I would assume LESS than to KEEP production at 85 MBBL)

You're also (assuming) that 85 MBBL is useful Tulsa Refinery ready and not closer to dirt.

Saudi Arabia is about 8MBBL so I would figure 2.8 Saudi Arabias.

A Saudi Arabia is a field that costs $1.50 Max to pull light sweet. Brazil's are nowhere near a Saudi replacement. And drilling Mt Everest distances thru DeepWater will be like going to anotherworld.

Brazil's fields are pretty huge and their production has been increasing for over 10 years... so the Uppsala decline projection is feasible.

No it's not. For the above reasons.

It won't lead to zombie hordes (except some poor places like HAITI) but it would lead to significant hardship.

Obama last nite unveiled a policy flying in the face of 67%
of the American Populace demands.

Oct '11, the greatest event in the history of your life, is what it'll lead to.
Olduvai Gorge producing the Dragon King.

[rangerone314]

Obama last nite unveiled a policy flying in the face of 67% of the American Populace demands.
Oct '11, the greatest event in the history of your life, is what it'll lead to.
Olduvai Gorge producing the Dragon King.

What is your belief about what will happen October 2011?

[davep]

What is your belief about what will happen October 2011?

He'll be able to buy alcohol

[Jonathan_Hoag]

Hubbert, in 1956 when he made his prediction of world oil peak in about 2000 at 13 billion barrels a year, calculated that his "fields yet to be found", otherwise known as, "ain't been found", comprised 75% of his total estimate of what the world contained.

13 billion bpy is 35 million bpd. Hubbard seriously underestimated what the production would be in 2000.

[shortonsense]

Hubbert, in 1956 when he made his prediction of world oil peak in about 2000 at 13 billion barrels a year, calculated that his "fields yet to be found", otherwise known as, "ain't been found", comprised 75% of his total estimate of what the world contained.

13 billion bpy is 35 million bpd. Hubbard seriously underestimated what the production would be in 2000.

Yup. He also missed world gas production and US gas production by a mile, and so far at least one additional peak. Nearly the only place his method has worked has been oil production in the US.

[mcgowanjm]

Hubbert, in 1956 when he made his prediction of world oil peak in about 2000 at 13 billion barrels a year, calculated that his "fields yet to be found", otherwise known as, "ain't been found", comprised 75% of his total estimate of what the world contained.

13 billion bpy is 35 million bpd. Hubbard seriously underestimated what the production would be in 2000.

Yup. He also missed world gas production and US gas production by a mile, and so far at least one additional peak. Nearly the only place his method has worked has been oil production in the US.

Most operators project at least 40 years of production for their wells. I project to an economic limit of 2,000 Mcf per month because this is the threshold below which cost exceeds revenue based on $3.50/Mcf netback gas price, a 25% royalty, and average operating costs from operator 10-K SEC filings.

I use 15% because this is corresponds to the decline rate for Barnett Shale wells with the longest production history.

The US Geological Survey estimates technically recoverable Barnett gas resources of 26 Tcf, and many operators believe that this is too low. My calculations suggest that the Barnett EUR, based on 11,817 horizontal and vertical wells, will be about 8.8 Tcf. An additional 23,000 wells are required to reach 26 Tcf, at a cost of more than $75 billion for leasing, drilling, and completion alone.

(New News-the wells cost double my previous est. per
Heading Out @ TOD=

Prices for drilling these wells run on the order of $5 million apiece, and Chesapeake has, in the past, noted that it takes $4.00/kcf to bring in enough money to cover those costs – with a good well. (Note that this is the Henry Hub price, consumers should add about $3 to this to get the residential price). Those numbers are considerably higher than the ones that Mr. Berman used with his calculation two years ago that only 28% of the wells will be financially remunerative.

He recently (April 2009) expressed similar concerns about the Haynesville wells – though his production decline numbers are stunningly higher – as much as 20-30% in a month, for an annual decline rate of 80-90%. The costs that he cites are up at the $7.5 to $9.5 million range for the wells, with a net final cost that the producer has to pay in the region of $7.25/kcf. He therefore concludes that the breakeven point for wells in the Haynesville lies at a price of around $9/kcf Henry Hub; with a minimum reserve of some 2.5 Bcf. He upgraded that opinion in June expressing a concern, that I echo, with the availability of natural gas from a variety of sources (including the Rocky Mountain Express and increased LNG shipments) which will make it difficult to sell gas from formations such as the Haynesville, at a profit.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5868

OUCH No wonder PetroHawk had Berman fired

Horizontal completions only result in a 31% improvement in reserves for about 2.5 times the cost. Put another way, the nominal unit cost (leasing, drilling and completion costs only) of gas from a horizontal well is approximately $4.30/Mcf compared to $2.05/Mcf from a vertical well.

A final surprise is that well performance in the Barnett Shale has not improved over time because of new completion technologies or better knowledge about drill site selection and reservoir distribution, as many people assume.

I'm sure Hubbert would agree with Berman on all the above. And that Hubbert's Curve with EROEI included gives the same linearization.


Every bit of data tends to corroborate that the dispersive discovery model works quite effectively in both providing an understanding on how we actually make discoveries in a reserve growth fashion and in mathematically describing the real data.
[/quote]

And of course the Ultimate Caveat which you yourself stated:

Nearly the only place his method has worked has been oil production in the US.

And why doesn't Hubbert work with the World as well? [quote]

[TheDude]

Yup. He also missed world gas production and US gas production by a mile, and so far at least one additional peak. Nearly the only place his method has worked has been oil production in the US.

GraphOilogy : The Hubbert Parabola has HL graphs for nations that fit well/don't fit well/are at too early a stage to tell. 9/20/21 out of 50 are in these respective categories.

[mcgowanjm]

Yup. He also missed world gas production and US gas production by a mile, and so far at least one additional peak. Nearly the only place his method has worked has been oil production in the US.

GraphOilogy : The Hubbert Parabola has HL graphs for nations that fit well/don't fit well/are at too early a stage to tell. 9/20/21 out of 50 are in these respective categories.

I'd like to see those updated and EROEI put with each.

All investors know that it matters not just how much money you get back for your investment, but how soon. A 2x return in a couple of months is something to brag about, a 2x return over 30 years is a low-yield bond investment, and probably hasn’t even kept up with inflation.

The same is true for EROI, and means that users of EROI who are trying to compare future sources of energy with historic ones are probably taking an overly-optimistic view.

[shortonsense]

GraphOilogy : The Hubbert Parabola has HL graphs for nations that fit well/don't fit well/are at too early a stage to tell. 9/20/21 out of 50 are in these respective categories.

I'd like to see those updated and EROEI put with each.

As has been mentioned here before, EROEI at the field level, or country level for that matter, cannot be calculated until the field is empty and the person doing the calculating knows how much energy went in and how much energy came out. Not that it matters, considering how irrelevant EROEI is, but I just thought I would mention it.

All investors know that it matters not just how much money you get back for your investment, but how soon.

Yeah, but they don't use EROEI to measure success either.

[shortonsense]

Hello everyone Just checking in with the troll. What's the bad boy up to now?

Apparently, having been skunked by MadDogs personal experience with lack of EROEI measures in the oil and gas biz, some are trying to expand it as a measure of success into the investor world. No proof provided ( of course ) but we are all hopeful some will be provided. Happy Holidays Pstarr!

[shortonsense]

Do you really believe Maddog, a middle level manager at a filthy tar-sands operation is a the final word on modern science?

Maddogs expertise veers into the technical as well as the managerial, and he has mentioned his work in shale gas quite extensively, and has experience pertinent to any question about the oil and gas business in general, particularly when compared to those who simply make up whatever fanciful story they wish and pretend its true. So yes....around here...unless contradicted by RocDoc or the like, is quite definitive.

Fossil-fuel have been cheap for generations and we’ve lost respect for this one-time planetary gift. Soon we will not have the luxury of pricing a pint of precious gasoline less than a beer.

Such is the claim...and at PO+5, I'm not even sure the inaccuracy of it matters anymore. Crude has been trending more expensive for 2 generations now, the other fossil fuels I haven't researched. But lets say that the BTU weighted average of all fossil fuel use has been "cheap" for generations....I would only venture that it is good that we have so much more left as we continue our transition to a cleaner and more renewable future.

Surely this makes sense to even you? With substantial supplies remaining to be tapped ( of fossil fuels, not just crude ) we have many options and quite a bit of time to decide what to transition into. Nukes, renewable, solar mixes perhaps?

Eroei is only really valid measure of primary energy acquisition.

In some alternate universe perhaps. Certainly humans don't use it that way in this one.

Your other remarks, here and in other discussions, are once again therefore suspect

How nice of you to refute me without using foul language! You are to be applauded for your restraint.....but as far as my remarks being suspect...well....I do try and stick to facts, and a minimum of speculation. Are you concerned with any particular facts related, in this thread, to how key oil figures were distorted, or how the timing of such a claim, might have been only a cheap shot without substantiation?

[shortonsense]

Fossil-fuel have been cheap for generations and we’ve lost respect for this one-time planetary gift. Soon we will not have the luxury of pricing a pint of precious gasoline less than a beer.

Such is the claim...and at PO+5, I'm not even sure the inaccuracy of it matters anymore. Crude has been trending more expensive for 2 generations now, the other fossil fuels I haven't researched. But lets say that the BTU weighted average of all fossil fuel use has been "cheap" for generations....I would only venture that it is good that we have so much more left as we continue our transition to a cleaner and more renewable future.

depends on your timeline. It was cheap in 1920, cheap in 1940, cheap in 1960, cheap in 1980 and started to get very expensive. 100 years of bad habits don't change easily.

The trend is clear. Certainly oil achieved its "beginning of cheap" with the discovery of East Texas field in 1930 or so...so the 20's? Nah...and it ended in the late 60's...trending upwards ever since. So 2 generations to change bad habits.....I think things are changing swimmingly...for example, you wouldn't happen to know how much per capita crude consumption has dropped in the US since cheap oil ended in the late-60's do you? Seems like using less is certainly a change...and one in the right direction.

Eroei is only really valid measure of primary energy acquisition.

In some alternate universe perhaps. Certainly humans don't use it that way in this one.

That is ludicrous and I already explained why. Repeating misinformation endlessly does not change its status. Look it up.

You only say look it up because you know it isn't possible...nobody uses EROEI measures for successful economic activity. Not even you.