Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Do you want oil production to peak, sometime in the reasonably near future?

Yes I do
103
53%
No I don't
93
47%
 
Total votes : 196

Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?

Unread postby Dry » Sat 29 Dec 2007, 05:06:51

no.......It isn't going to be pretty and I have small children. enjoy today and prepare for the future.
User avatar
Dry
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon 10 Dec 2007, 04:00:00

Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?

Unread postby Concerned » Sat 29 Dec 2007, 05:29:19

JohnDenver wrote:
Oil-Finder wrote:The only thing they really care about is that we stop producing and consuming so much oil.

That's not really true either. Sure the folks here talk a lot about how we need to do something about peak oil and carbon emissions. But mostly that's just their lips flapping. Basically, they're all a bunch of hypocrits living energy guzzling lifestyles, like Al Gore. They attack Bush&Cheney for waging a "War for Oil", and then fire up the SUV to go to a Peak Oil meeting.


Amen brother we're going over a cliff. I'm in the SUV up front and you're on my tailcoat riding your bike. :)

It's a wonderful world.
"Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box."
-Italian Proverb
User avatar
Concerned
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu 23 Sep 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?

Unread postby JohnDenver » Sat 29 Dec 2007, 06:11:16

thuja wrote:Those new projects are wonderful, because they offset the rapid declines happening in the major fields. But as you can see by the flattening of worldwide production, its getting harder and harder for those new projects to keep up with the rapid decline.


That last sentence is unsupported opinion. It's not clear that it's getting harder and harder to keep up with decline. It's very common for large multi-country blocks to plateau for decades. North America, for example, has been on an undulating plateau of about 14-15mbd for almost 30 years.

1979 13578kbd
1980 14063
1981 14344
1982 14790
1983 14838
1984 15226
1985 15304
1986 14792
1987 14730
1988 14642
1989 14014
1990 13856
1991 14182
1992 14050
1993 13899
1994 13807
1995 13789
1996 14052
1997 14267
1998 14182
1999 13678
2000 13904
2001 13906
2002 14069
2003 14193
2004 14137
2005 13695
2006 13700

Canada and Mexico kept up just fine with the decline of the U.S. for almost 30 years. So if it was getting "harder and harder", it was clearly doing so very very SLOWLY.

The FSU managed a plateau of about 12 years from 1978-1990 at roughly 12mbd:
1978: 11531
1979: 11805
1980: 12116
1981: 12260
1982: 12330
1983: 12403
1984: 12297
1985: 12040
1986: 12442
1987: 12655
1988: 12601
1989: 12298
1990: 11566

Asia-Pacific has been on a plateau of 6-7mbd for almost 20 years. South/Central America has logged a couple of long plateaus, most recently a plateau of about 6.5mbd for 10 years. Non-Opec has been on a plateau of roughly 35mbd since 1997:

1997 34925
1998 35028
1999 34887
2000 35507
2001 35415
2002 35933
2003 35673
2004 35661
2005 35343
2006 35162

Clearly, it's not so hard to "hold a plateau", so to speak.

If it weren't for these new projects, we would experience a dramatic worldwide decline rate. That was the point of the article I suggested reading.


The case where we don't bring on new projects is irrelevant to the real world, for obvious reasons. The only thing that matters is the net decline rate after new projects are added. And the latest word from the really smart people 8O is that the world will decline at a rate of less than 1% for 10 years after peak, and less than 2% for 20 years:
Hubbert Theory says Peak is Slow Squeeze

Technical reading, but well worth the effort thuja, if you really want to bring yourself up to speed on peak oil.

For example, Cantarell- one of the largest fields in the world, is declining at a 13% rate per year.


EIA C&C stats for Mexico after its peak in 2004 look like this:

2004: 3383kbd
2005: 3334
2006: 3256
2007: 3126 (9-month average)

That's an annual decline rate of 2.8%, not 13%. Even Mexico (during the collapse of Cantarell!) doesn't collapse like Cantarell. So why do you think that the decline rate of Cantarell has anything to say about the net decline rate of the world? It barely affects Mexico, let alone the world.

There are only a few of these big boys in the world. Another is Burgan in Kuwait (declining) and Ghawar in Saudi Arabia (most likely declining).


If Ghawar is declining, it's clearly nothing to worry about because Saudi Arabia has been on a level plateau for most of the last year. I also don't believe that you know whether Ghawar is declining, and thus (again) you are trying to pass off unsupported opinion as evidence.

We have not made a discovery of a massive field like these for decades. We are now exploting a lot of smaller fields and working on the harder to access and more difficult to refine fields.

All of this leads to some very scary prospects.

You haven't made any argument, or produced any data, to show that a scary outcome is PROBABLE. The U.S., Canada and Mexico have been operating on 90% small fields for decades, and they're still on the same plateau. All you have is a couple of really tired examples like Cantarell, and a big "What if?" That's it.

Like I said, if it weren''t for those new fields you are talking about we may be looking at decline rates in the double digits.

Yes, but with those new fields -- which are in fact there! -- we'll be looking at decline rates of 0, or even growth. There's not going to be a year where oil from new fields suddenly stops, and you need to incorporate that into your thinking if you want to be a realist. The decline in oil from new fields, when it happens, will be slow and incremental. It's not going to drop from 8mbd one year to 0 for all years thereafter, unless we get hit by an asteroid etc.
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Sat 29 Dec 2007, 06:29:59

JD,
And what about EROEI of these smaller or unconventional fields?
We may end up with the same or slowly falling nominal output for long time, but less and less of oil will remain available to the market.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7342
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Sat 29 Dec 2007, 06:37:46

bl00k wrote:
Definition of pollution:
undesirable state of the natural environment being contaminated with harmful substances as a consequence of human activities

'Undesirable'. By whom? Human beings.

Undesirable for overall life support system of the Earth.
Th Earth can't be polluted. We see certain things as 'pollution', we call it pollution because it harms the condition of the Earth as we like to see it because that specific condition is best for us to live in/survive.

Argumentation above borders with absurdity.
You are perhaps confusing "pollution" with physical destruction of the Earth in Star Wars fashion.

It harms overall life support system, essential for humans and non-humans.

Exactly, 'life support system'. The thing that's essential for humans and non-humans. NOT essential for Earth to exist.

Again, you are confusing "pollution" with physical destruction of the planet.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7342
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?

Unread postby TheDude » Sat 29 Dec 2007, 06:47:43

Oil-Finder wrote:I don't find it too hard to believe they can find 5 new Saudi Arabia's.


Image

From Finding Needles in a Haystack by WebHubbleTelescope, who posts here on occasion.

Oil-Finder wrote:Those are just production declines from existing fields, not total worldwide oil production declines. Contrary to popular belief, there *are* new oil production projects coming online.


The OD article thuja linked to is called Estimating the World Production Decline Rates from the Megaproject Forecasts.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia

Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?

Unread postby Twilight » Sat 29 Dec 2007, 10:16:18

I doubt anyone is going to find a new Ghawar, let alone five. That would be like expecting the entire geological profession to suddenly slap their foreheads and say "Oh shit, we missed a spot!" I give credit where it is due when it comes to professional competence.

I have seen the UKCS decline rate go from 6-7% immediately post-peak to more like 10%, 12% these last couple of years, which is pretty easy for anyone to do, the numbers are an important economic indicator and tend to be buried monthly in a one-line item in a newspaper. That's what technology does the world over. I never doubted that the last drip of new additions would bring the global average decline rate down to 3% or so, but over a long period that's quite bad enough.

We are still on the bumpy plateau, clearly depletion in existing fields is still being offset by new additions. If we don't roll off the plateau next decade, I will admit I backed the wrong horse on timing these last ten years. But that has yet to be put to the final test. It will be interesting to see what happens. As Campbell says, all numbers are wrong, the question is by how much? I will have a much better idea in another five years. You live and you learn.
Twilight
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Fri 02 Mar 2007, 04:00:00

Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?

Unread postby LoneSnark » Sat 29 Dec 2007, 12:36:31

Yes, but with those new fields -- which are in fact there! -- we'll be looking at decline rates of 0, or even growth. There's not going to be a year where oil from new fields suddenly stops, and you need to incorporate that into your thinking if you want to be a realist. The decline in oil from new fields, when it happens, will be slow and incremental. It's not going to drop from 8mbd one year to 0 for all years thereafter, unless we get hit by an asteroid etc.

That oughta do it. Thanks very much, Ray. Keep up the good work :-)
User avatar
LoneSnark
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00

Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?

Unread postby thuja » Sat 29 Dec 2007, 14:24:42

JohnDenver wrote:
thuja wrote:Those new projects are wonderful, because they offset the rapid declines happening in the major fields. But as you can see by the flattening of worldwide production, its getting harder and harder for those new projects to keep up with the rapid decline.


That last sentence is unsupported opinion. It's not clear that it's getting harder and harder to keep up with decline. It's very common for large multi-country blocks to plateau for decades. North America, for example, has been on an undulating plateau of about 14-15mbd for almost 30 years.

1979 13578kbd
1980 14063
1981 14344
1982 14790
1983 14838
1984 15226
1985 15304
1986 14792
1987 14730
1988 14642
1989 14014
1990 13856
1991 14182
1992 14050
1993 13899
1994 13807
1995 13789
1996 14052
1997 14267
1998 14182
1999 13678
2000 13904
2001 13906
2002 14069
2003 14193
2004 14137
2005 13695
2006 13700

Canada and Mexico kept up just fine with the decline of the U.S. for almost 30 years. So if it was getting "harder and harder", it was clearly doing so very very SLOWLY.

The FSU managed a plateau of about 12 years from 1978-1990 at roughly 12mbd:
1978: 11531
1979: 11805
1980: 12116
1981: 12260
1982: 12330
1983: 12403
1984: 12297
1985: 12040
1986: 12442
1987: 12655
1988: 12601
1989: 12298
1990: 11566

Asia-Pacific has been on a plateau of 6-7mbd for almost 20 years. South/Central America has logged a couple of long plateaus, most recently a plateau of about 6.5mbd for 10 years. Non-Opec has been on a plateau of roughly 35mbd since 1997:

1997 34925
1998 35028
1999 34887
2000 35507
2001 35415
2002 35933
2003 35673
2004 35661
2005 35343
2006 35162

Clearly, it's not so hard to "hold a plateau", so to speak.

If it weren't for these new projects, we would experience a dramatic worldwide decline rate. That was the point of the article I suggested reading.


The case where we don't bring on new projects is irrelevant to the real world, for obvious reasons. The only thing that matters is the net decline rate after new projects are added. And the latest word from the really smart people 8O is that the world will decline at a rate of less than 1% for 10 years after peak, and less than 2% for 20 years:
Hubbert Theory says Peak is Slow Squeeze

Technical reading, but well worth the effort thuja, if you really want to bring yourself up to speed on peak oil.

For example, Cantarell- one of the largest fields in the world, is declining at a 13% rate per year.


EIA C&C stats for Mexico after its peak in 2004 look like this:

2004: 3383kbd
2005: 3334
2006: 3256
2007: 3126 (9-month average)

That's an annual decline rate of 2.8%, not 13%. Even Mexico (during the collapse of Cantarell!) doesn't collapse like Cantarell. So why do you think that the decline rate of Cantarell has anything to say about the net decline rate of the world? It barely affects Mexico, let alone the world.

There are only a few of these big boys in the world. Another is Burgan in Kuwait (declining) and Ghawar in Saudi Arabia (most likely declining).


If Ghawar is declining, it's clearly nothing to worry about because Saudi Arabia has been on a level plateau for most of the last year. I also don't believe that you know whether Ghawar is declining, and thus (again) you are trying to pass off unsupported opinion as evidence.

We have not made a discovery of a massive field like these for decades. We are now exploting a lot of smaller fields and working on the harder to access and more difficult to refine fields.

All of this leads to some very scary prospects.

You haven't made any argument, or produced any data, to show that a scary outcome is PROBABLE. The U.S., Canada and Mexico have been operating on 90% small fields for decades, and they're still on the same plateau. All you have is a couple of really tired examples like Cantarell, and a big "What if?" That's it.

Like I said, if it weren''t for those new fields you are talking about we may be looking at decline rates in the double digits.

Yes, but with those new fields -- which are in fact there! -- we'll be looking at decline rates of 0, or even growth. There's not going to be a year where oil from new fields suddenly stops, and you need to incorporate that into your thinking if you want to be a realist. The decline in oil from new fields, when it happens, will be slow and incremental. It's not going to drop from 8mbd one year to 0 for all years thereafter, unless we get hit by an asteroid etc.


JD- a few points- one is that I am glad to see at least you are not siding with any CERA hogwash. You seem to embrace that we are in a plateau phase now. As to a long extended plateau- I think (and hope) for that possibility. I think that will make the difference between the possibility for some transition and utter collapse. So lets hope you are right.

Even with that model- where decline rates are quite modest for a decade or two- there is still the very dire problem of demand outpacing supply. We are experiencing that problem right now and we have only just begun. I am not as doomeristic as many here (I live in a city!) but I see that even modest declines or just a long term plateau spells trouble.

In terms of Cantarell I'm just going to have to say you are wrong on that one. Here's a link...

Cantarell

that talks about that 13% decline. It looks worse this year...

And that is what puts the fear of God in me- its those gigantic fields that look very precarious. Since you read The Oil Drum, here is a piece earlier this year about a drop in Saudi production most likely caused by Ghawar declining...

Ghawar

Anyways- no need to get nasty- like I said I am glad you are not as cornucopian as Oil-Finder who has dreams of 5 undiscovered Ghawars out there. I am open to the idea that we could have a long plateau- and I think a number of others here are open to it as well.

But I will say that the link you gave me of Stuart's paper is more than two years old and new data has come in...most distinctly the declines in the big fields. So lets hope for your model but I think we need to be prepared for decline rates that are a little worse in the future. We'll see...
User avatar
thuja
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2202
Joined: Sat 15 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?

Unread postby thuja » Sat 29 Dec 2007, 14:32:08

Oil-Finder wrote:
thuja wrote:We have not made a discovery of a massive field like these for decades.

Actually, that's not true.

But we'll save that for another thread.


Ghawar, Burgan, North Sea- these were all discovered back in the 40's, 50's and 60's...

Cantarell was discovered in 76- over 30 years ago. The big boys have been found. Sorry no 70 billion barrel Ghawars undiscovered out there...

At least JD understands this...
User avatar
thuja
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2202
Joined: Sat 15 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?

Unread postby thuja » Sat 29 Dec 2007, 14:43:48

By the way- JD could you source your production levels for US and Canada. I think you are mixing in Nat. gas as well. From my reading US oil production has dropped much more significantly since its peak in 1970.
User avatar
thuja
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2202
Joined: Sat 15 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?

Unread postby Revi » Sat 29 Dec 2007, 15:21:54

If you are not making much money even a long bumpy plateau is a nightmare. The have nots aren't even in the game. They were hoping that a rising tide would lift all boats, and that they could get that scooter and start using a little gas next year. As things get even a little tougher we will see things get really bad for those on the bottom, while the upper classes barely notice.

Right now heating oil is at $3.24 and holding. It actually went down last year, but this year it seems like it may even rise from there. A lot of people can't afford even to heat their houses at that price. Meanwhile I'm sure that there are lots of houses down on the coast of Maine that are heated year round while their owners are in Monaco trying their hand at the baccarat tables and drinking pastisse.

Even a plateau is a drag if you are on the edge. Some people fall off quicker than others. Maine is on the edge, so we can see it happening already.
Deep in the mud and slime of things, even there, something sings.
User avatar
Revi
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7417
Joined: Mon 25 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Maine

Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?

Unread postby Lumpy » Sat 29 Dec 2007, 15:53:09

No, I don't want peak oil in the "reasonably near future" (whatever that means.)

What I do want, that will be brought on by less oil availability is
1. relocalization of economies/communities
2. re-establishment of values based on relationships (people-to-people, people-to-nature, people-to-higher power, etc), NOT on things
3. the instrinsic value of work as a means of establishing and maintaining self-esteem, lessening the incidence of depression, etc (all of this based on our built-in need to be productive)
4. decline in debauched life-styles that are based on "disposable-item consumerism"

and some more stuff that I don't have time to type out right now ... but you get the idea.

Lumpy
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
Lumpy
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri 16 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Rural Western Idaho

Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?

Unread postby Nicholai » Sat 29 Dec 2007, 16:47:50

Thuja,


At this point, Oil Finder will make a new thread about '800 billion barrels of Chinese Oil Shale' and various other massive P2 and P3 deposits. He will talk about new and more economically feasible oil that can be produced and how we will carry on for centuries to come (unscathed).
User avatar
Nicholai
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri 15 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: St.Albert, AB

Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?

Unread postby thuja » Sat 29 Dec 2007, 16:52:49

Wow- I don't know how I missed him- is he our only CERA believer here? If so he is a precious find...lets not be too mean...
User avatar
thuja
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2202
Joined: Sat 15 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?

Unread postby Nicholai » Sat 29 Dec 2007, 17:09:27

Oh and he also thinks we are not experiencing a population overshoot and our population growth will be regulated by reduced fertility and contraceptive use.......and that oil will last for centuries to come....... 8O

Link
User avatar
Nicholai
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri 15 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: St.Albert, AB

Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?

Unread postby thuja » Sat 29 Dec 2007, 17:10:58

Hmmmm..thats good because that isthe "normal" way of thinking about things- we need to engage "normal" people.
User avatar
thuja
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2202
Joined: Sat 15 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?

Unread postby TheDude » Sat 29 Dec 2007, 17:31:36

JohnDenver wrote:
For example, Cantarell- one of the largest fields in the world, is declining at a 13% rate per year.


EIA C&C stats for Mexico after its peak in 2004 look like this:

2004: 3383kbd
2005: 3334
2006: 3256
2007: 3126 (9-month average)

That's an annual decline rate of 2.8%, not 13%.


US Imports from Mexico actually increased in 2006, from 606,751 to 622,408 for the year which is about 1.7 mbpd. EIA

Ron Patterson has some interesting info on Mexico/Cantarell at today's Drumbeat: Subthread.

Darwinian wrote:According to the Department of Energy’s Energy Assurance Daily of December 28, Cantrell is declining at 23% per year.


Oh, poopy.

Darwinian wrote:It works like this. IF Cantrell continued to decline at 23% then the output would be, in millions of barrels per day:

2007 1.28
2008 0.99
2009 0.76
2010 0.58
2011 0.45
2012 0.35
2013 0.27
2014 0.21

Of course there is no rule that says that a 23% decline rate must be maintained. It could be 15% or it could go to 30%.


For the record.

Westexas brings up net declines:

The net decline rate for the Lower 48, about -2%/year year, is probably the best case for the world, since we had intensive drilling and enhanced recovery efforts in the Lower 48.


Shoring up your BAU attitude, JD. Jeff never says to hit the snooze button, though. You might ask him why we should care about these "gentle" declines.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia

Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?

Unread postby Oil-Finder » Sat 29 Dec 2007, 18:54:42

TheDude wrote:
Oil-Finder wrote:I don't find it too hard to believe they can find 5 new Saudi Arabia's.


Image

From Finding Needles in a Haystack by WebHubbleTelescope, who posts here on occasion.

That is soon about to be turned on its head. But more on that a bit later, in another thread I intend to start soon.
User avatar
Oil-Finder
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Seattle

Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?

Unread postby Oil-Finder » Sat 29 Dec 2007, 19:22:39

thuja wrote:
Oil-Finder wrote:
thuja wrote:We have not made a discovery of a massive field like these for decades.

Actually, that's not true.

But we'll save that for another thread.


Ghawar, Burgan, North Sea- these were all discovered back in the 40's, 50's and 60's...

Cantarell was discovered in 76- over 30 years ago. The big boys have been found. Sorry no 70 billion barrel Ghawars undiscovered out there...

--> WRONG #1 <--
. . . "That whole area contains reserves of at least 50 billion barrels, as a conservative estimate," said Marcio Mello, for 26 years a researcher at Petrobras’ technology centre, who is now a partner in the consulting firm HRT Petroleum and head of the Brazilian Association of Petroleum Geologists (ABGP).

The government quotes a figure of 70 billion barrels in the three basins, and some people venture an estimate of over 100 billion barrels. If proven, Brazil’s reserves would approximately match those of high volume exporters like Kuwait and Venezuela, although they could not compare with Saudi Arabia’s. . .


--> WRONG #2 <--
The Bohai Bay in northern China may hold oil reserves equivalent to 20 billion mt (146 billion barrels), with half of it still undiscovered, the official China Daily reported Thursday, citing an upstream expert with the Chinese Academy of Engineering.

The Bohai Bay rim is believed to have about 60 structures similar to the newly found Jidong Nanpu oil field, the report cited CAE's Zhai Guangming as saying. Zhai is also the first manager of the Jidong Oilfield Co. under Chinese state-owned China National Petroleum Corp, according to the report.

The CAE professor, however, also noted that these undiscovered structures would be more difficult to find.

CNPC's publicly-listed business arm PetroChina last Friday said its discovery of the Jidong Nanpu oil field in the shallow waters of the Bohai Bay has a total of four oil-bearing structures. It has confirmed geological reserves of 1.02 billion mt (7.46 billion barrels) of oil equivalent, including 905.6 million mt (6.62 billion barrels) of crude reserves and 140.1 billion cubic meters (4.95 Tcf) of gas.


--> WRONG #3 <--
Price (unpublished) used a more complete database and estimated that the Bakken was capable of generating between 271 and 503 BBbls of oil with an average of 413 BBbls. New estimates of the amount of hydrocarbons generated by the Bakken were presented by Meissner and Banks (2000) and by Flannery and Kraus (2006). The first of these papers tested a newly developed computer model with existing Bakken data to estimate generated oil of 32 BBbls. The second paper used a more sophisticated computer program with extensive data input supplied by the ND Geological Survey and Oil and Gas Division. Early numbers generated from this information placed the value at 200 BBbls later revised to 300 BBbls when the paper was presented in 2006.
...

How much of the generated oil is recoverable remains to be determined. Estimates of 50%, 18%, and 3 to 10% have been published.
User avatar
Oil-Finder
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Seattle

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests