Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The Coming Oil Flood

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

Moderator: Pops

Re: The Coming Oil Flood

Unread postby pstarr » Sun 08 Jan 2017, 16:29:43

spike, you must know by now that reserve and resource numbers are meaningless, ginned every which way to benefit oil traders, industry flacks, and crappy analysts.

So for instance trillions of barrels oil-equivalent Green River shale and Orinoco super heavy will never be produced . . . at any price. We can assume new Arctic is also dead . . . Shell and BP pulled out long ago. GOM pre-salt has amounted to squat. Brazilian Congress Authorizes Sale of Petrobras “Pre-Salt” Fields.

There is little or nothing left to find. You know in your heart of hearts Jean Laherrère was correct in 1998 Scientific American article, that a failure to discover new fields (peaked circa 1970) would be cause new production failures in 40 years hence. Guess what? 40 years is up. He's right. You're wrong.

Peak oil is even now obvious to the bankers. HSBC isn't reluctant to remind us that 80% of all fields are in decline ("Will mature field declines drive the next supply crunch") So while there is a supply glut . . . a decade of ridiculously high oil prices destroyed economies . . . there's now a greater demand dearth.
There's nothing deeper than love. In fairy tales, the princesses kiss the frogs, and the frogs become princes. In real life,the princesses kiss princes, and the princes turn into frogs

“Bitterness is like cancer. It eats upon the host. But anger is like fire. It burns it all clean.”
― Maya Angelou
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 25030
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: The Coming Oil Flood

Unread postby AdamB » Sun 08 Jan 2017, 20:42:17

rockdoc123 wrote:
Also, it is true that I didn’t ‘venture to guess’ how recovery factors might be raised to 35% in an op-ed article in a newspaper, but it’s hard to believe anyone with experience in the industry would challenge that.


I guess one would have to look at oil production and remaining reserves on a production/reserve weighted basis in order to come up with a reasonable ulitmate recovery number.


How about using the recovery factor distribution based on the USGS studying reserve growth in the US? It is argued that even this estimate is a bit pessimistic, particularly without accounting for changes in technology dependent upon price.

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20155091

The EIA has shown they have people capable of applying not just the idea as written up by the USGS, but can expand beyond those estimates of recoverability with changes in price or technology, up to the endowment size, which is far more geologically based then a geologists take on "technically recoverable".

https://www.eia.gov/workingpapers/pdf/trr.pdf


rocdoc123 wrote:As an example Aramco is now indicating they feel confident of getting 70% recovery from all of their fields. On the other hand the heavy oil fields which have high viscosities will be stuggling with recovery factors in the low teens. The shales are similarily challenged with recovery factors hovering below the 10% level. Not an easy calculation I'm afraid.


I've seen a few estimates that are higher than 10%, particularly in the areas with better deliverabiity and higher well densities.
AdamB
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1938
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: The Coming Oil Flood

Unread postby AdamB » Sun 08 Jan 2017, 20:48:04

pstarr wrote:spike, you must know by now that reserve and resource numbers are meaningless, ginned every which way to benefit oil traders, industry flacks, and crappy analysts.

So for instance trillions of barrels oil-equivalent Green River shale and Orinoco super heavy will never be produced . . . at any p
Peak oil is even now obvious to the bankers. HSBC isn't reluctant to remind us that 80% of all fields are in decline ("Will mature field declines drive the next supply crunch") So while there is a supply glut . . . a decade of ridiculously high oil prices destroyed economies . . . there's now a greater demand dearth.


A decade ago, peak oilers knew the world and US had achieved peak oil, by definition terminal decline.

And the industry proved them wrong quite profoundly, even if some holdouts can't admit that they participated in the earlier hysteria with as much enthusiasm as they are currently applying to the NEXT hoped for peak event.

Some might have not noticed because they were too busy cheerfully celebrating victory over poor dead sea mammals..and yes..I have the pictures to prove it, right Pstarr?
AdamB
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1938
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: The Coming Oil Flood

Unread postby pstarr » Sun 08 Jan 2017, 21:28:54

AdamB wrote:
pstarr wrote:spike, you must know by now that reserve and resource numbers are meaningless, ginned every which way to benefit oil traders, industry flacks, and crappy analysts.

So for instance trillions of barrels oil-equivalent Green River shale and Orinoco super heavy will never be produced . . . at any p
Peak oil is even now obvious to the bankers. HSBC isn't reluctant to remind us that 80% of all fields are in decline ("Will mature field declines drive the next supply crunch") So while there is a supply glut . . . a decade of ridiculously high oil prices destroyed economies . . . there's now a greater demand dearth.


A decade ago, peak oilers knew the world and US had achieved peak oil, by definition terminal decline.

And the industry proved them wrong quite profoundly, even if some holdouts can't admit that they participated in the earlier hysteria with as much enthusiasm as they are currently applying to the NEXT hoped for peak event.

Some might have not noticed because they were too busy cheerfully celebrating victory over poor dead sea mammals..and yes..I have the pictures to prove it, right Pstarr?

I only ever claimed that conventional production had peaked. But that is not the topic of this thread. It seems you don't agree with HSBC? Take it up with them

I have flagged you AdamB. Again. The photograph is of my wife, during our weekly bird mortality survey for the Univ. of Washington is private. I did not post that image, or its location anywhere (other than Facebook). You continue to stalk me in lieu of a cogent argument.
Cyberstalking is a criminal offense under various state anti-stalking, slander and harassment laws.

Your behavior is repetitive and deranged, and detracts from the seriousness of this web site and my involvement with it.
There's nothing deeper than love. In fairy tales, the princesses kiss the frogs, and the frogs become princes. In real life,the princesses kiss princes, and the princes turn into frogs

“Bitterness is like cancer. It eats upon the host. But anger is like fire. It burns it all clean.”
― Maya Angelou
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 25030
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: The Coming Oil Flood

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 09 Jan 2017, 04:17:40

Adam stop going out of your way to annoy Pstarr with ad hom arguments. Attack his data not his family. Consider this a warning, we have been over this already. Play nice.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13656
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: The Coming Oil Flood

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Mon 09 Jan 2017, 11:55:28

How about using the recovery factor distribution based on the USGS studying reserve growth in the US? It is argued that even this estimate is a bit pessimistic, particularly without accounting for changes in technology dependent upon price.


I don't think that will work given that the recovery factor Aramco is now looking at for all of their fields is 70% which seems to sit above the 90 percentile of the USGS distribution that was used to predict recovery (i.e. 90% are lower than that number). And if you were to apply the distribution to any of the shales you would end up with ultimate recovery that is at least double what most of the current research suggests may be obtainable with current technology. My own view on this is it really requires a bottoms up analysis as every reservoir is somewhat different and the details need to be considered unless all you are after is a wild ass guess.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: The Coming Oil Flood

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 09 Jan 2017, 13:43:35

Doc - "...unless all you are after is a wild ass guess." But isn't that what many armchair quarterbacks do? IOW make some undocumented WAG that can only be shown wrong by doing an huge amount of work to document their statement was complete BS? They love to toss the "averasge" of this or that without actually doing the real math. IOW "If you won't spend countless hours researching to prove me wrong then I might be correct."
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9946
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: The Coming Oil Flood

Unread postby AdamB » Mon 09 Jan 2017, 19:39:01

rockdoc123 wrote:
How about using the recovery factor distribution based on the USGS studying reserve growth in the US? It is argued that even this estimate is a bit pessimistic, particularly without accounting for changes in technology dependent upon price.


I don't think that will work given that the recovery factor Aramco is now looking at for all of their fields is 70% which seems to sit above the 90 percentile of the USGS distribution that was used to predict recovery (i.e. 90% are lower than that number).


The USGS allowed for the possibility of fields recovering far above the 46% at the mean in their work. 85% or so looks to be the maximum. Which means when you run that density function against a field already at 70%, then the function can be used to calculate the volume difference between those two recovery factors, when applied to the original in place numbers, as the USGS describes.

They first used this system back in 2012 when they did their global reserve growth estimate. Others have noticed the work, I know of 1 group using it, and another thinking about it.

rockdoc123 wrote:And if you were to apply the distribution to any of the shales you would end up with ultimate recovery that is at least double what most of the current research suggests may be obtainable with current technology.


The USGS distribution is specific to discrete accumulations, which most certainly do NOT include source rock oil and gas.

rocdoc123 wrote:My own view on this is it really requires a bottoms up analysis as every reservoir is somewhat different and the details need to be considered unless all you are after is a wild ass guess.


Wouldn't it be nice if any one organization had the resources to make that possible. The USGS, certainly having the expertise for this kind of work, but if they didn't have the resources necessary to study every field within the IHS database, it is difficult to argue that anyone else does either.

But it is certainly the best effort I've seen within scientific pubs for this type of work.
AdamB
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1938
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: The Coming Oil Flood

Unread postby pstarr » Mon 09 Jan 2017, 19:41:32

Can someone explain what AdamB is talking about?
There's nothing deeper than love. In fairy tales, the princesses kiss the frogs, and the frogs become princes. In real life,the princesses kiss princes, and the princes turn into frogs

“Bitterness is like cancer. It eats upon the host. But anger is like fire. It burns it all clean.”
― Maya Angelou
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 25030
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: The Coming Oil Flood

Unread postby AdamB » Mon 09 Jan 2017, 19:49:07

pstarr wrote:Can someone explain what AdamB is talking about?


I recommend reading the part that explains the how Figure 4A was generated. It is called science, in this case a USGS Scientific Investigation Report (SIR).

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20155091
AdamB
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1938
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: The Coming Oil Flood

Unread postby pstarr » Mon 09 Jan 2017, 19:56:33

AdamB wrote:
pstarr wrote:Can someone explain what AdamB is talking about?


I recommend reading the part that explains the how Figure 4A was generated. It is called science, in this case a USGS Scientific Investigation Report (SIR).

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20155091

The question was not directed to you.
There's nothing deeper than love. In fairy tales, the princesses kiss the frogs, and the frogs become princes. In real life,the princesses kiss princes, and the princes turn into frogs

“Bitterness is like cancer. It eats upon the host. But anger is like fire. It burns it all clean.”
― Maya Angelou
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 25030
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: The Coming Oil Flood

Unread postby ralfy » Tue 10 Jan 2017, 06:08:31

Reserves <> production. That's why production costs keep rising even with a "flood" of numbers.

Also, it's a waste of time warning members as new accounts can be created.

Given that, it's best to use the ignore function.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4465
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: The Coming Oil Flood

Unread postby spike » Tue 10 Jan 2017, 08:19:10

I have seen various estimates of the global recovery factor but never good documentation for the calculation. There are clearly some fields that go above 60% (light untight oil), but it depends in part of whether you are talking 'theoretically' recoverable or 'recoverable with equipment in place.' In some countries, like Iraq, the recovery factor is probably still low in some old fields, but new investment is raising it. Saudis are referring to what they expect to achieve in the future, I think, not what they can do now.
User avatar
spike
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon 15 Nov 2004, 03:00:00

Re: The Coming Oil Flood

Unread postby pstarr » Tue 10 Jan 2017, 12:02:34

ralfy wrote:Reserves <> production. That's why production costs keep rising even with a "flood" of numbers.
That doesn't make sense. 'Reserves', describes (doesn't measure) the current and finite amount of oil presently in the ground. Whereas 'production' is a measure of oil extraction over time.

ralfy wrote:Also, it's a waste of time warning members as new accounts can be created.

Given that, it's best to use the ignore function.

Why would I debate the intern? He's just reading a script and posting nonsense. My job is to call out factual, logical and tactical stupidity. You'd go out of your mind reading his technical posts. They're just traps, misdirection. Have no meaning.

AdamB is fishing for something, a job or diploma.If believes he/she will accrue credit points, or tips, or whatever, I am more than happy to oblige. It's fun :)

These trolls change their handle all the time . . . but the behavior stays the same. ennui/mos did it. So did reservegrowthrulz. You look for non-contextual language patterns. Idiosyncratic expressions, repetitive and curt insider/professional phrasing logical fallacies, etc. That sort of thing.
There's nothing deeper than love. In fairy tales, the princesses kiss the frogs, and the frogs become princes. In real life,the princesses kiss princes, and the princes turn into frogs

“Bitterness is like cancer. It eats upon the host. But anger is like fire. It burns it all clean.”
― Maya Angelou
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 25030
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: The Coming Oil Flood

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Tue 10 Jan 2017, 12:18:54

Saudis are referring to what they expect to achieve in the future, I think, not what they can do now.


yes and no. In a SPE paper published some years ago Aramco scientists looked at wettability of key reservoirs in the northernmost part of the Ghawar trend. What they determined was that the ultimate recovery would be ~70% under existing field development plans. At the time the recovery from that portion of the trend was around 50% and apparently it has continued to produce. The announcement by Aramco that they are confident they will achieve 70% recovery from all their fields was made this year. Although it seems to be the first response of folks to accuse the Saudis of lying it is important to remember that they were well out in front of the pack in terms of oilfield management practices. They had the first multi-million cell full field model running on a super computer back when most folks were still using something with way less than a gigabyte of hard drive space. They pioneered the MRC (maximum reservoir contact) wells along with SMART completions and implementation of downhole abandonment of single laterals followed by drilling of new laterals with expandable liners, all of which have gone a long way to improving overall primary recovery. Now they are experimenting with CO2 injection and if you wander around on the ONEPETRO site to look at recent SPE publications there seems to be a lot going on with regards to understanding in excruciating detail how recovery can be improved.
So yes they are suggesting what they will eventually get but I believe that is under the current technology they are already implementing. This is a lot different than say someone who is developing heavy oil by steam flood suggesting they will eventually have technology that can improve recovery to 30%.
And something that needs also to be considered is that when we talk about ultimate recovery we are talking about ultimate economically recoverable. There are some fields currently producing that could have their recovery improved by implementation of existing technologies, the problem is the economics don't work, the upfront investment is too high for returns that are generally realized at the end of the production curve, time value of money being your worst enemy.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: The Coming Oil Flood

Unread postby ralfy » Wed 11 Jan 2017, 05:55:48

pstarr wrote:
ralfy wrote:Reserves <> production. That's why production costs keep rising even with a "flood" of numbers.
That doesn't make sense. 'Reserves', describes (doesn't measure) the current and finite amount of oil presently in the ground. Whereas 'production' is a measure of oil extraction over time.


Apparently, that's not the case for Adam, which is why I put him in my ignore list some time ago. I saw the same thing with RGR and PeakProphet in other sites: we're saved because of reserves. And in case that's wrong, the magic of solar energy will. Other points include the magic of supply and demand: we're saved by peak demand thanks to the magic of solar energy, and in case that doesn't work, the magic of funny money will.

Why would I debate the intern? He's just reading a script and posting nonsense. My job is to call out factual, logical and tactical stupidity. You'd go out of your mind reading his technical posts. They're just traps, misdirection. Have no meaning.

AdamB is fishing for something, a job or diploma.If believes he/she will accrue credit points, or tips, or whatever, I am more than happy to oblige. It's fun :)

These trolls change their handle all the time . . . but the behavior stays the same. ennui/mos did it. So did reservegrowthrulz. You look for non-contextual language patterns. Idiosyncratic expressions, repetitive and curt insider/professional phrasing logical fallacies, etc. That sort of thing.


As I showed in an earlier message, one graphic used by PeakProphet (identified as RGR) in another forum, together with the same argument connected to it, was also given by Adam here.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4465
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: The Coming Oil Flood

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 11 Jan 2017, 09:13:11

pstarr wrote:
AdamB wrote:
pstarr wrote:Can someone explain what AdamB is talking about?


I recommend reading the part that explains the how Figure 4A was generated. It is called science, in this case a USGS Scientific Investigation Report (SIR).

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20155091

The question was not directed to you.


Doesn't matter. I am ever helpful for those wanting to learn from the likes of our local industry folks, or dedicated and objective scientists, particularly those that knew back when peak oil was happening that it really wasn't happening. Hard to beat that level of credibility in the peak oil world.
AdamB
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1938
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: The Coming Oil Flood

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 11 Jan 2017, 09:15:38

ralfy wrote:Reserves <> production. That's why production costs keep rising even with a "flood" of numbers.

Also, it's a waste of time warning members as new accounts can be created.

Given that, it's best to use the ignore function.


Some might consider avoiding better informed opinions to be a benefit, indeed. But doing so is exactly how peak oil went from being a "thing" a decade ago to obscurity, avoiding those who knew it wasn't about to happen, and why, and substituting faith and belief instead of considering their opinion as well.
AdamB
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1938
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: The Coming Oil Flood

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 11 Jan 2017, 09:33:11

pstarr wrote:
ralfy wrote:Reserves <> production. That's why production costs keep rising even with a "flood" of numbers.
That doesn't make sense. 'Reserves', describes (doesn't measure) the current and finite amount of oil presently in the ground.


It does not. Original oil in place estimates are the current finite amount of oil in the ground.

Reserves are but an economically producible subset.

A tutorial from the energy statistic and analytic folks paid for by your tax dollars, that citizens of the country might understand this complex issues.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=17151
AdamB
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1938
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: The Coming Oil Flood

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 11 Jan 2017, 09:50:04

ralfy wrote:
pstarr wrote:
ralfy wrote:Reserves <> production. That's why production costs keep rising even with a "flood" of numbers.
That doesn't make sense. 'Reserves', describes (doesn't measure) the current and finite amount of oil presently in the ground. Whereas 'production' is a measure of oil extraction over time.


Apparently, that's not the case for Adam, which is why I put him in my ignore list some time ago. I saw the same thing with RGR and PeakProphet in other sites: we're saved because of reserves.


See what I mean by not listening to the folks who understand some of this? Pstarr was wrong about what reserves even are, but because you exclude the opinions of folks who do know, you fall for it as well. No different, as just one example, of someone having learned what they know from a website like LATOC back in the day. Asking an unemployed lawyer, since having moved up to astrologist, about topics he has no training, experience or understanding of can only lead one astray.
AdamB
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1938
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 15 guests