Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE EIA Thread pt 3 (merged)

Discuss research and forecasts regarding hydrocarbon depletion.

Re: EIA Changes Methods

Unread postby Subjectivist » Fri 04 Sep 2015, 14:29:16

Pops wrote:
Subjectivist wrote:It would be nice if projection out for say, the next three years are more accurate.

Actually the change is to reports of the recent past, last month; not the future.

Reports of last months production will be based on surveys of last months production, not extrapolations based on surveys from months and months ago.


Oh, I thought these were the numbers they would be using for future projections as well?
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4250
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: EIA Changes Methods

Unread postby Apneaman » Fri 04 Sep 2015, 14:56:03

Why now?
Apneaman
permanently banned
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed 08 Oct 2014, 00:24:47

Re: EIA Changes Methods

Unread postby efarmer » Fri 04 Sep 2015, 15:36:21

Outcast_Searcher wrote:
efarmer wrote:Knowing how crucial energy including petroleum is to the nation, and that the EIA report
is public information, I have to assume this is just to bolster the public report acceptance. I have to
assume policy makers and the industry all have much more accurate, and market dynamic responsive
tools and that they have used them and perfected and refined them continuously for many decades.
If this system was an aircraft, it's creators would drive or ride on trains when they traveled.

Interesting, and a good point. For industry, this sounds likely.

For policy makers, I'm less sure. First, the government isn't exactly consistent as far as doing things well. Second, if they have much better data, given that they are servants of the public, shouldn't they be providing that data to the public (and especially the taxpayers which fund them?) Or are they going to claim this is some sort of secret "national security" data, or some such BS?


For policy makers, the 1973 Opec Embargo and other events taught them that like military secrets required for national security, energy information and vulnerabilities are just as crucial, if not directly linked as shown by our military campaigns in Afghanistan during a period of Central Asia to Europe pipeline intrigue, and Iraq of course. National Security reasons shield public servants from being diligent public informants.

President Trump will fire all of these people, and Vice President Nugent will fly to Asia and the Middle East and employ his special guitar hot licks and shooting iron charm. I do imagine the Islamic world will decline on his Casino building for World Peace offer, but at least he will have made the effort.
User avatar
efarmer
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1998
Joined: Fri 17 Mar 2006, 03:00:00

Re: EIA Changes Methods

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Fri 04 Sep 2015, 15:40:25

Apneaman wrote:Why now?
They've probably been working on it for 10 years.
"I could go on, but let’s veer off in another direction instead."

– The Archdruid
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7279
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: EIA Changes Methods

Unread postby Synapsid » Fri 04 Sep 2015, 16:54:34

Y'all,

The lagged state data refers to the states' reporting agencies not reporting data to the EIA in a timely manner. The lags were different in different states; in Texas, the biggest producer, there was about an 18-month delay before the accumulated reporting was completed.

The EIA has begun requesting data from the states in a more standardized fashion.

Things should get better with Texas' reporting anyway, as I believe the good folks at the Texas Rail Road Commission have begun using them computer thangs where they had been working with paper and pencil.

As to our policy makers having much more accurate production information than is available to the public: the President does, if the CIA has been doing its job (and if the Fed. government subscribes to DrillingInfo maybe). The intelligence arms of the Departments of State and of the Treasury too, would be my guess. Look up the flow chart for the US intelligence effort sometime; it's an eye-opener.
Synapsid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 20:21:50

Re: EIA Changes Methods

Unread postby Synapsid » Fri 04 Sep 2015, 17:01:18

Correction to my post:

The EIA has begun requesting data in a standardized fashion from the producing companies, a much more direct approach than from the regulating agencies of the states.

blasted computers write what I type, not what I mean
Synapsid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 20:21:50

Re: THE EIA Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby tita » Wed 02 Nov 2016, 09:39:21

October monthly report is out. I've made some calculation, substracting federal offshore and Alaska production from the total US production. The idea is to see how LTO is doing.
From jan 2014 through march 2015, the production increased with an average of 100kb/d each months, with only one month with a decrease. We got a whopping 1.4Mb/d increase in just 14 months.
But since, production only decreased, with an average of 60kb/d each months. Production retreated by a little more than 1Mb/d in 17 months. Of course, this include any lower 48 onshore production (conventionnal, stripper wells and LTO). August 2016 saw an increase, largely due to offshore. Lower 48 onshore decreased again by 60kb/d.
User avatar
tita
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Fri 10 Jun 2005, 02:00:00

Re: U.S. proved natural gas, crude oil reserves soar - EIA

Unread postby pstarr » Wed 07 Jun 2017, 12:28:04

reserves soar . . . and then land on a branch and take a crap:

Oil companies’ proved reserves decline for second consecutive year as finding costs remain near historical average

This Week in Petroleum
Release date: June 1, 2017


Image
Information in the 2016 annual reports of 68 publicly-traded oil companies indicates that their aggregate proved reserves declined in 2016 for the second consecutive year. In addition, reported finding costs—which are exploration and development expenditures per barrel of proved reserves added—remain near their historical average. The decline in proved reserves was heavily concentrated in a few companies that wrote down Canadian oil sands projects. However, low extensions and discoveries also contributed to fewer proved reserves additions. Together, the downward revisions, the amount of oil produced (withdrawn), and the lower extensions and discoveries led to a net decline in reserves.

Canadian oil/tar sands took the biggest hit

Image

The consumer doesn't want to or can't pay for +~$50/barrel for oil, but that price point doesn't support new projects or expensive extensions to existing difficult plays like tar sands or GOM
Image
/sarc
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26769
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: U.S. proved natural gas, crude oil reserves soar - EIA

Unread postby asg70 » Wed 07 Jun 2017, 12:41:24

pstarr wrote:The consumer doesn't want to or can't pay for +~$50/barrel for oil


Patently false statement.

BTW, scroll up in the thread where you claimed in 2010 (7 years ago) that doom hadn't taken a holiday.

pstarr wrote:Don't worry peakers. Doom has not taken a holiday. :twisted:


Well, it did, and it's still on vacation. But you've chosen to troll this board 365 days a week from then until now suggesting otherwise. What a waste of a life...
“If and when the oil price skewers for 6 months or more substantially above the MAP, then I will concede the Etp is inherently flawed"
--Onlooker, 1/1/2018
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1463
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: U.S. proved natural gas, crude oil reserves soar - EIA

Unread postby KingM » Wed 07 Jun 2017, 12:55:55

25,000 posts. Let's say each of his posts averages about 100 words, or roughly a paragraph. A novel is about 75,000 words, so he's posted 30 novels worth of material to these threads over the years.

I find myself wondering if 15 years from now people will still be predicting imminent doom on this forum. It's been going a while, so why not?
User avatar
KingM
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 722
Joined: Tue 30 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Second Vermont Republic

Re: U.S. proved natural gas, crude oil reserves soar - EIA

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Wed 07 Jun 2017, 13:11:56

asg70 wrote:
pstarr wrote:The consumer doesn't want to or can't pay for +~$50/barrel for oil


Patently false statement.

BTW, scroll up in the thread where you claimed in 2010 (7 years ago) that doom hadn't taken a holiday.

pstarr wrote:Don't worry peakers. Doom has not taken a holiday. :twisted:


That's one of his current memes of doom. Claiming (completely incorrectly) that consumers can't "afford oil products" at current prices -- parroting the ETP doom theme.

Of course, we never get a useful answer, when folks point out that the global economy grew just fine in the 2010-2014 period when the global price for crude oil averaged roughly twice what it is recently. And that the global economy is continuing to grow since then, so how is it that people suddenly can't afford oil when it's now roughly TWICE as affordable?

Apparently there is no end to the doomer enthusiasm for predicting short term economic doom, no matter how often or how long they are proven wrong.

Meanwhile, as a moderate, who just tries to look at the data and extrapolate trends, I'm just happy to see that as usual, we continue to blunder along. At least we see signs of progress (like green energy, even if slower to be adopted than I'd like), even as the ongoing stupidity (i.e. global BAU growth at any cost) continues apace.

Unless and until I see clear signs for several years (not a day or a week) that good things or bad things re the overall system are CLEARLY winning out -- then the data, to me, strongly supports the moderate POV for the next 50 years or so anyway. Why? I'll cite the many lessons of history, and how adaptable humanity is (even if people only adapt when pressured to do so).
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4420
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: U.S. proved natural gas, crude oil reserves soar - EIA

Unread postby pstarr » Wed 07 Jun 2017, 13:15:33

None of you three low-grade morons read what EIA said. The finding costs remain average, but there . . .
/sarc
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26769
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: U.S. proved natural gas, crude oil reserves soar - EIA

Unread postby shortonoil » Wed 07 Jun 2017, 14:11:52

The consumer doesn't want to or can't pay for +~$50/barrel for oil, but that price point doesn't support new projects or expensive extensions to existing difficult plays like tar sands or GOM


$50 oil; that couldn't have anything to do with the entire industry going broke could it? But let's not let a few details like reality get in the way! click to enlarge
Attachments
P&Ljpg_Page1.jpg
P&Ljpg_Page1.jpg (45.67 KiB) Viewed 4770 times
User avatar
shortonoil
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 5255
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: U.S. proved natural gas, crude oil reserves soar - EIA

Unread postby pstarr » Wed 07 Jun 2017, 14:16:32

shortonoil wrote:
The consumer doesn't want to or can't pay for +~$50/barrel for oil, but that price point doesn't support new projects or expensive extensions to existing difficult plays like tar sands or GOM


$50 oil; that couldn't have anything to do with the entire industry going broke could it? But let's not let a few details like reality get in the way! click to enlarge

thanks for the correction: +~$50/barrel oil doesn't support oil companies. period.
/sarc
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26769
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: U.S. proved natural gas, crude oil reserves soar - EIA

Unread postby pstarr » Wed 07 Jun 2017, 15:01:30

Well, we got the usual insults, distractions and BS compliments from the usual coterie of trolls, thugs, schoolyard bullies, and lightweight narcissistic nerds . . . but nothing of consequence. Cut and run guys?

Have data?
/sarc
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26769
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: U.S. proved natural gas, crude oil reserves soar - EIA

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Wed 07 Jun 2017, 16:35:14

pstarr wrote:Well, we got the usual insults, distractions and BS compliments from the usual coterie of trolls, thugs, schoolyard bullies, and lightweight narcissistic nerds . . . but nothing of consequence. Cut and run guys?

Have data?

Got a mirror? Got Google?
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4420
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: U.S. proved natural gas, crude oil reserves soar - EIA

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 07 Jun 2017, 17:13:03

vtsnowedin wrote:22 billion barrels and we use 20 million barrels a day!!! Works out to just three years and change. 2014 ought to be a real interesting year any way you look at it.


Indeed. And a beautiful example of why R/P ratios aren't worth much, when doing long term forecasting. In this case just a few years...a few years ago....
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: U.S. proved natural gas, crude oil reserves soar - EIA

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 07 Jun 2017, 17:15:40

pstarr wrote:
shortonoil wrote:
The consumer doesn't want to or can't pay for +~$50/barrel for oil, but that price point doesn't support new projects or expensive extensions to existing difficult plays like tar sands or GOM


$50 oil; that couldn't have anything to do with the entire industry going broke could it? But let's not let a few details like reality get in the way! click to enlarge

thanks for the correction: +~$50/barrel oil doesn't support oil companies. period.


You mean, except for all the ones it has...for years now?
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: U.S. proved natural gas, crude oil reserves soar - EIA

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 07 Jun 2017, 17:19:31

Xenophobe wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:22 billion barrels and we use 20 million barrels a day!!! Works out to just three years and change. 2014 ought to be a real interesting year any way you look at it.


In 1981, when we were consuming about the same amount of crude as we do today, US reserves were about 29 billion. About 4 years later after we used them all up, we arrived in 1985....and GOSH NAB IT!! We still had 28 billion in reserves. WHAT!! And it turns out...1985 wasn't an all bad year!

OJ went to the Hall of Fame (hah!), MOVE got wiped out in Philly, Rt66 ceased being an official highway, Ramirez got taken off the streets, not all bad, eh?

And so here we are, another quarter century later...and we have 20 billion in reserves? Imagine that! How many new Saudi Arabia's have we discovered since 1985? Must be at least a couple, eh? :lol:


How is it that this poster, who obviously knows something about the sleight of hand tricks of doomers, got himself banned for..KNOWING something? That something mostly being that peakers aren't very good at accounting for all the reasons why the prior peaks, or claimed peaks along the way, went bad, and want nothing to do with correcting the logic fallacies they built in their arguments?

This same thing happened to Mr. Reserve who...as it turned out....was discussing the power of the shales before they were even visible to us regular folk. Was this a regular thing back "in the day", everyone who wasn't on the pstarr herdthink bandwagon got the boot?
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: U.S. proved natural gas, crude oil reserves soar - EIA

Unread postby pstarr » Wed 07 Jun 2017, 17:34:24

Outcast_Searcher wrote:
pstarr wrote:Well, we got the usual insults, distractions and BS compliments from the usual coterie of trolls, thugs, schoolyard bullies, and lightweight narcissistic nerds . . . but nothing of consequence. Cut and run guys?

Have data?

Got a mirror? Got Google?

You have a lot of nerve. I just posted the most recent EIA report, "This Week in Petroleum Release date: June 1, 2017" to discuss collapsing reserves. And so you dig up a 7 year old comment, and harp on and on on your tiresome doomer meme. What about the report? Anything about the oil business, geology, peak oil?

Nothing to say about falling global oil reserves, collapsing GOM development, and hemorrhaging oil companies?
/sarc
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26769
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

PreviousNext

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest