Exploring Hydrocarbon Depletion
NEW! Members Only Forums!
Access more articles, news & discussion by becoming a PeakOil.com Member.
Maugeri wrote:the huge differences in permeability, porosity, and thickness of a shale/tight oil formation require many more exploration wells be drilled in different areas of the field before making it possible to have an idea of the effective recoverability rate from the whole formation.... it is impossible to make any reasonable evaluation of the future production from a shale/tight oil formation based on the analysis of a few wells data and such limited activity.
We must conclude that the key assumptions about reserve growth and its effect on decline rates in Maugeri’s report are muddled, speculative and unverifiable. And sprinkling those assertions with repeated declamations about how peak oil is a non-issue, insisting repeatedly that the only real constraints on his scenario have to do with political decisions and geopolitical risks, suggests that his report is more about grinding a political axe on behalf of the oil industry than offering a serious or transparent analysis. Finally we must note that Maugeri is well known for his hostility to peak oil, as is BP, which funded his report. After taking real-world risks, costs, and restrictions into account, the case for peak oil—which is about production rates, not production capacity or reserves—seems far more realistic.
When I challenged Mr Maugeri about the discrepancy between the 2-3% decline rate and the 1.4%, he said the difference was explained by reserves growth – the tendency to squeeze more oil than originally expected from existing fields, through new technology, the exploitation of secondary reservoirs and so on. But in that case he seems to have counted it twice, to judge by his quote in the paragraph above. Or possibly even three times, since the notion of reserves growth is already accounted for in the existing estimates. Both the IEA and IHS-CERA numbers are observed overall decline rates: they reflect the actual loss of production that happened after – or in spite of – all the industry’s investment to boost flagging output at existing fields.
dinopello wrote:Dr. Rock has a terrible bedside manner.
Technology and geology I think will have less of an influence on how oil is produced and economics will be more and more influencial. The tight market and volatile prices are a recipe for (those in the know and with the staying power) making lots and lots of money, which in turn makes the system more volatile. Nobody wants the whole thing to collapse though, so there is that.
Pops wrote:And yet another, this time with a reaction from Maugeri, h/t Energy Bulletin
MONBIOT PEAK OIL U-TURN BASED ON DUFF MATHS
Maybe their calculators didn't work in reverse?dinopello wrote:Pops wrote:And yet another, this time with a reaction from Maugeri, h/t Energy Bulletin
MONBIOT PEAK OIL U-TURN BASED ON DUFF MATHS
Maugeri's credentials are impressive. But, those simple math errors on something you intend to widely disseminate are embarrassing - even for a business/econ PhD. Maybe they are not use to calculating declines, only growths ?
Yibal is a classic example of the consequence, and suggests that the heroic efforts by Saudi Arabia are now hitting the same wall. Rapid depletion.
It it obvious to anyone who has followed the peak-oil story that fracted horizontal wells are prone to the same EOR/tertiary phenomena--increased field production/accelerated field depletion and that anyone like Maugeri who doesn't recognize this is barking down the wrong christmas tree. I stand by my comments
You probably do, but it is not a point I am interested in.
I am not interested in your tiresome minutiae and patronizing lectures. I respect your knowledge but I have no need for your obfuscation and disassembly. I know enough to argue that Maugeri is a clown, Harvard University is lazy and corrupt, and BP should be shut down and nationalized. I also know damn well that your defense of these SOB's is indefensible.rockdoc123 wrote:You probably do, but it is not a point I am interested in.
my point is simply you have no idea what you are talking about regarding this subject. And based on the fact that has never stopped you before from expressing a view I'm not surprised you aren't interested.
It has become quite apparent that fracted shale plays do not deplete in a hyperbolic fashion, rather precipitously. Exponentially. Hence Maugeri's shale growth projections are nonsense.rockdoc123 wrote:There is intial “flush” production, a hyperbolic quick decline but then a levelling out at a lower rate, that rate capable of being maintained for a number of years which is predictable based on type curve EUR. blah blah blah
So you know your assumptions are wrong, as this has been debated ad infinitum here and at the theoildrum, hence you conclusions are baloney, and your defense of Maugeri is nonsense. Yet you lecture me?The primary difference between our analysis and the typical well profile proposed by operators is that we observe predominantly exponential (weak to moderate hyperbolic) decline in most of the individual well decline trends, rather than steadily flattening hyperbolic decline. For the Barnett and Fayetteville shale plays, we identify a two-stage exponential decline based on decline curve analysis (DCA) of individual wells; for the Haynesville Shale we observe predominantly exponential decline for individual wells.
So you know your assumptions are wrong, as this has been debated ad infinitum here and at the theoildrum, hence you conclusions are baloney, and your defense of Maugeri is nonsense. Yet you lecture me?
You may have specialized technical expertise in your chosen field, but you obviously don't understand the ecologic tragedies of human population overshoot, resource depletion (specifically peak oil) and non-point-source pollution (ie. global warming.) You are on the wrong side of a debate and I don't need you expertise anymore. If you were truly wise and expert in being human then you would work to make the adjustments we need, instead of defending BAU.
In putting forth this optimistic thesis, Maugeri apparently sets aside a variety of technical realities, including the difference between natural gas liquids (NGLs) and conventional oil, reserves depletion versus capacity declines, and proven reserves as opposed to speculative resources.
This is part II of a guest post by Jean Laherrère, long term contributor to The Oil Drum. Jean worked 37 years for TOTAL on exploration and production of oil and gas, and since his retirement has worked tirelessly to analyse the world's oil & gas data and developments.
In part I of this article Jean looked into Maugeri's concepts of production capacity and reserve growth. It showed how Maugeri's bottom-up analysis is based on optimistic assumptions regarding Iraq and by taking at face value the data published by OPEC. Furthermore, Jean pointed out that man of Maugeri's oil production forecasts are above any projections by any agency, most notably in the case of the US.
In this second part Jean dissects Maugeri's assumption on reserves growth, on which his optimistic production forecasts relay. It his shown how Maugeri wrongly extrapolates the effects of flawed reserve accounting in the US to the rest of the world. Maugeri's also fails to acknowledge the conflicting reports and reporting practices of the several agencies producing oil data at world level. There are also some important remarks on the Maugeri's concept of conventional oil and other details that bring into doubt the knowledge of this author on the field.
Neither you nor Rockdoc have handed me anything other than childish noise (you) and pompous distractions (Rockdoc). Here is a suggestion for both of you; Anti be a big boy, stand out from behind Rockdoc's academic apron and make a useful point . . . all by yourself. Critique Laherrère @ TOD for us. Okay? Rockdoc you there? How about you join the fun over at TOD, as I have suggested repeatedly in the past. Make fools of them. If you can. ha ha ha.TheAntiDoomer wrote:This thread is great, I love watching pstarr getting his dick handed to him by rockdoc. LOL
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests