[Outcast_Searcher]

Year end 2015 US proved oil reserves declined year over year. The level is about the same as in 1975. The 2016 EIA data should be published shortly.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_cplc_dcu_NUS_a.htm

https://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoil ... serves.pdf

To be clear, I'm claiming reserve replacement is adequate over the long run.

It wouldn't surprise me if we've seen a big drop overall in the past few years, spurred by low oil prices, on average during that time. That's noise. Since globally, people can CLEARLY afford oil products with oil below $100 regardless of how many times ETPers claim they can't (without any evidence), if signs of impending shortages truly arise, higher prices will allow plenty more E&P, as needed.

[marmico]

most of that was from reserve revisions.

Of course. Proven reserves are price sensitive. December 2015 year end WTI was ~$37. Assuming a 2017 year end price of ~$57 WTI, I would expect 2017 reserves to be higher than those in 2015.

[Outcast_Searcher]

most of that was from reserve revisions.

Of course. Proven reserves are price sensitive. December 2015 year end WTI was ~$37. Assuming a 2017 year end price of ~$57 WTI, I would expect 2017 reserves to be higher than those in 2015.

If all the resources were recalculated frequently, say every year end, then sure. (i.e. reported reserves at time X, with time delays, might be quite a ways from actual reserves at current price X).

But given how the oil resources are reported for places like Middle Eastern OPEC countries, unless I'm missing something, that doesn't happen.

It seems to be more of a piecemeal approach.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Reserves are not being replaced, and water cut is increasing. If you can't figure out where that is leading to you need to go back to your game of Pickup Sticks at the local funny farm.

Saying the same thing endlessly, without credible backing, coupled with your habit of name calling in the style of a 5 year old whenever you're losing an argument makes your reference to the funny farm especially ironic.

Kinda like Outcast_Searcher rambles on endlessly about the hoax of "Green" Energy with no credibility

2016 statistics, from:

https://blog.energybrainpool.com/en/pow ... eneration/

Coal 64%
Gas and other thermal 8%
Nuclear 3.5%
Hydro 19%
Wind 4%
Solar 1%

So in your world, energy sources are 100% static?

Ever hear of the EIA? The IEA? Inside EV's? BP? etc?

Go ahead, show me all the credible sources that show that solar, wind, etc. green energy sources have NOT increased by a large percentage over the previous decade.

And show me all the CREDIBLE sources of how such green energy sources are projected not to increase substantially over the coming decade.

You can't. Go away. The adults are talking here.

[onlooker]

Outcast and others remain in their fantasy world. Good article here about the diverse considerable limitations of Renewable energy
http://nov79.com/renw.html

[ROCKMAN]

Outcast - The SEC once used the closing oil price on 31 December for reserve determination. Changed a few years ago. Now it uses an average price determined I think monthly. I'm sure Doc can offer details. But the SEC reserve determination only applies to US publicly traded companies. Neither private US companies nor any international companies have their reserves independently audited as US publicly traded companies as far as I know. IOW they are free claim half of what they estimate or 3X as much and no one is in a position to dispute their numbers. They can provide you with maps, production numbers, etc. and you have no way to confirm the accuracy. You're certainly free to not believe them but you have no FACTS available to prove them liars. For I instance I can write an article claiming my horizontal redevelopment project has added 5 million bbls of proven reserves. You can't prove me a liar. And since I work with a private company and claim confidentiality of my trade secrets I don't have to prove sh*t to you.

Nothing personal, buddy. Just good business. LOL.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Outcast - The SEC once used the closing oil price on 31 December for reserve determination. Changed a few years ago. Now it uses an average price determined I think monthly. I'm sure Doc can offer details. But the SEC reserve determination only applies to US publicly traded companies. Neither private US companies nor any international companies have their reserves independently audited as US publicly traded companies as far as I know. IOW they are free claim half of what they estimate or 3X as much and no one is in a position to dispute their numbers. They can provide you with maps, production numbers, etc. and you have no way to confirm the accuracy. You're certainly free to not believe them but you have no FACTS available to prove them liars. For I instance I can write an article claiming my horizontal redevelopment project has added 5 million bbls of proven reserves. You can't prove me a liar. And since I work with a private company and claim confidentiality of my trade secrets I don't have to prove sh*t to you.

Nothing personal, buddy. Just good business. LOL.

Thanks for the info and the perspective, Rockman.

The reason I brought that up was the silly season estimate numbers which have been used by the Middle Eastern OPEC countries for decades, where politics, desire to maximize countries' production quotas, etc. seem to have at least as much weight as following production trends, geology, etc. (at least, to this layman).

Your insight pretty much confirms what I'd thought the risk might be, in terms of such numbers.

Of course, this is pretty much true of industry in general. For example, Musk tells investers what (we hope) he believes re production estimates. Not only does he not have any accountability re being remotely close to correct -- he doesn't even have to disclose monthly production to let investors benchmark actual progress against marketing claims.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Outcast_Searchers Fantasy World is not coming to fruition. And never will.

The mindless, eternal pathetic bleat of the fast crash doomer. Nothing ever changes. Nor will it ever. Because I refuse to believe it is so. Because I don't want it to.

Your signal to noise ratio is consistently just about zero. Congrats.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Outcast and others remain in their fantasy world. Good article here about the diverse considerable limitations of Renewable energy
http://nov79.com/renw.html

Yes. All green energy devices are pure fantasy. None exist. None are being produced. Nothing ever changes.

And what color is the sky in your world?

https://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/

Notice the trend in every month for the graph. But none of that can be true because DOOM!

If the predictions of your ilk came true more than, say, 1% of the time, you just might have more credibility. However, that would require you to look at the world and admit that things the MSM reports on actually HAPPEN now and again -- even when they don't fit the meme of constant doom in our face.

And we can't have THAT at any price, now can we?


By the way, you should check your sources out just a bit. The home page for your source (link at the bottom of the page link you provided), has link number three for pure AGW denialist garbage. That's right: QUOTE: "Global Warming contrived through fake science".

So what does that say about the rest of the nonsense this source posts on their anti-science screed blog?

I'll leave it to you to reason that out. But hey, thanks for playing.

[ROCKMAN]

Outcast - "...seem to have at least as much weight as following production trends, geology, etc. (at least, to this layman)." And to just beat that dead horse one more time: neither the laymen or the pros have the data. You and I have no way of knowing how much oil is coming out of every Saudi well. Hell, we can't even verify how many wells the KSA has. Hell, how much oil has India reported it has produced that was really Iranian oil produced during the so called embargo? Hell, the most powerful military on the planet couldn't stop ISIS from moving millions of bbls to Turkey and we were free to bomb the sh*t out of them. LOL.

At least in this country if I claim to have drilled X hz wells in that Texas field you can confirm it from the public data base. Likewise with the amount of oil produced. But not the geology or details of how I drilled or completed those wells. I'm not required to provide the Texas Rail Road Commission with that data. Almost no other country has such a publicly available AND VERIFIED data base.

[rockdoc123]

The SEC once used the closing oil price on 31 December for reserve determination. Changed a few years ago. Now it uses an average price determined I think monthly. I'm sure Doc can offer details. But the SEC reserve determination only applies to US publicly traded companies. Neither private US companies nor any international companies have their reserves independently audited as US publicly traded companies as far as I know.

It is now the average price over the year. Hurt like hell in 2015...a bit better in 2016 and likely much of the downgrade P1 reserves from 2015 will be recovered to full status in 2017.

SEC does capture a lot of international production simply because there are a number of large international oil and gas companies that trade on the NYSE. So all of the reserves, production, finances of Exxon or Shell or Chevron are audited and reported to the SEC regardless of their location. There are identical rules in Canada (Financial Instrument 51-101) and the UK with regards to reserve reporting and I believe also in Australia. When Aramco does it's IPO whether it is listed in the US or London it will also have to provide audited reserves to the regulatory body. In places like Indonesia, Malyasia, Egypt, Sudan, etc all companies are required to report production to the National Oil Company or the regulatory body. Without this it would be impossible to calculate out taxes or cost recovery. Even in places like Louisiana and Texas I believe that production is well tracked even for the private companies otherwise calculation of severance taxes would be impossible.

[vtsnowedin]

I think all this argument about replacing reserves is a crock of S### !^. Not withstanding the industries ways of accounting their future prospects. (somebody set the rules and they have to go by them) nobody has ever replaced a reserve once they have pumped out a field. When they say they have replaced reserves all they are saying is that they have found a place and secured the rights to drill in a as yet unexploited area so they know where they will be drilling next year or next decade. That did not create that oil or change the total number of barrels that will in the end be pumped out of the ground.
When oil gets to $300 to $500 a barrel a lot of has been fields today will have a new life as they squeeze out every last drop from them, and all the accounting of their reserves will have to be revised.

[onlooker]

Within this Forbes article, you will find that 2017 graph
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/20 ... d8ebe124f0

[rockdoc123]

When they say they have replaced reserves all they are saying is that they have found a place and secured the rights to drill in a as yet unexploited area so they know where they will be drilling next year or next decade.

No it is defined pretty well by everyone in the business. When you produce "reserves" those are proved producing reserve barrels that have left the barn. In order to replace reserves the exact amount of produced must be either elevated from existing "probable' or "possible" or "contingent resource" to the proven reserve category or additional proven reserves must be discovered by the drill bit. Reserves cannot be credited by having the rights to drill as the definition is very explicit. It has to have been discovered, proven to produce and proven to produce economically at the current price. If it is drilled but uneconomic at the moment it is classified as "resource", either as contingent resource (has been drilled and proven productive ) or prospective resource (not drilled as yet but demonstrated to be there through adjacent wells or seismic). So when E&Y or BP talked about reserve replacement they mean that the produced reserves have been replaced by proven reserves.

[vtsnowedin]

Also, ask yourself why the entire planet is so slow and reluctant to diversify away from FF.

Could it be that fossil fuels are still readily available at modest prices and still deliver more utility for dollar paid then any of the alternatives?
When that equation changes people will change, but not until it changes.

[farmlad]

The fact that everything costs money (i.e. all energy inputs) and the oil industry will not operate if it is not making money is all one needs to know.

Rockdoc
Wow I had no idea that you oil industry folks were that principled, Do you guys all like live in a monastary? You sure are some saints compared to us farmers. So long as we can keep our hands on the family farm we will farm, we have no idea how to do anything else. So long as the banker keeps forking it out we don't even think about quiting. We will twist and bend the books for him and talk up our greatest plans and If he still refuses to lend more we run up the credit cards.

The last thing we would ever think of doing is show any indication to the neighbors that we have run the family farm into the ground. We will lie and cheat to buy the latest combine, we will hire illegals and pay them all slave wages, you name it, until the day the bank takes it all away. But until that day No one could have seen it coming.

But I sure do appreciate you all's looking out for all us heathens and devils.

[rockdoc123]

Wow I had no idea that you oil industry folks were that principled, Do you guys all like live in a monastary? You sure are some saints compared to us farmers. So long as we can keep our hands on the family farm we will farm, we have no idea how to do anything else. So long as the banker keeps forking it out we don't even think about quiting. We will twist and bend the books for him and talk up our greatest plans and If he still refuses to lend more we run up the credit cards.

well, I guess the first thing you should do is actually post something in the English language that the rest of us can understand. You apparently have a rant, unfortunately, it does not seem to be in any language I have in my vocabulary and I do have 4 so that is surprising.

[Cog]

As near as I can cipher out, by my knowledge of doomer-speak, farmland believe the oil industry is perpetuating some sort of scam on the American people. They know they are broke and instead of doing the logical thing like laying down their drill pipes, shut down their oil production, and go home to die in the dark, they continue the scam by borrowing money. That is my best interpretation of it. This is also pretty much what shorty and the rest of the ETP mafia think about the situation as well.

[onlooker]

Okay, can Doomers and non Doomers agree that we came to rely too much on FF and we are not transitioning fast enough to accommodate in the years to come our modern ways of living

[Cog]

Okay, can Doomers and non Doomers agree that we came to rely too much on FF and we are not transitioning fast enough to accommodate in the years to come our modern ways of living

That depends on what the downslope of oil depletion looks like. A shark fin or a more gradual bell shaped curve. There are of course doomers here that would argue that the planet can not support 7.5 billion people regardless of what transition we make to alternative power sources and that our modern way of life should be rejected. Throw in the climate change doomers who say our goose is cooked no matter what we do.

Its not an easy question to answer onlooker.