[dorlomin]

I notice that the wiki megaprojects and been left to wither. The question is, is there somewhere where I can get an over view of the coming major projects for the next couple of years?

What are the big ones we are expecting?

[Pops]

There are tens of billions of barrels of 7 & 8 year old press releases in this thread indicating an historic Oil-Glut is about to happen at any minute. These are Official Press Releases, Media Accounts and Blog Posts and should not be taken lightly.

There's even a chart:

[ROCKMAN]

Interesting chart Pops…thanks. I wonder how many will notice that big gains in the amount of newly discovered oil reserves doesn’t lead to big gains in production rates. In fact, the big jump in discoveries during the mid-70’s was followed by a drop in global production? In fact just eyeballing the chart: it took many times the amount of oil discovered to get us from 2 billion bo/yr to 20 billion bo/yr as it took to get us from 20 billion bo/yr to 25 billion bo/yr. The implication would seem to be that while we are finding some more oil what we’re doing a much better job of is getting it out of the ground faster. Which is good for the current consumers but not so good for future consumers as we drain the resources faster leaving them less.

Turning 63 yo this Saturday I’m OK with this dynamic. LOL.

[Pops]

I was being facetious there ROCK, sorry.

Oil-Finder (AKA OilFinder2 AKA Copious Abundance) jiggered up that chart using his press release figures as proof peakers were wrong on all counts. Of course the original chart was backdated reserves and his additions for 06 & 07 were oil in place but not just any oil in place, Press Release and Media Account Guesses at Infinite Cornucopia - Oil In Place (PRMAGIC-OIP)

Paper Barrels.

[ROCKMAN]

Pops _ Wasn't sure. LOL. But if that chart is his 'happy picture' it shouldn't bring a smile to the face of any oil consumer or him. Especially when you realize that that recent big bump up in reserves is due to using a higher oil price to move so much oil from the proven/uneconomic category to proven/economic classification. In that sense yes...a lot of paper bbls as you put it. But again the increase in those paper bbls hasn't come close to delivering a production rate increases comparable to that brought on by those real bbls of long ago.

[Pops]

Seriously I thought it would be the sub-salt in the Atlantic "all along the E coast of S America" as I remember. But reality is different there too, just too deep, too expensive.

“There were a lot of government authorities saying the reserves of Brazil were 50 billion barrels, 100 billion barrels, even 240 billion barrels, more than Saudi Arabia,” said Wagner Freire, an oil geologist who worked for 35 years at Petrobras, where he oversaw exploration and production. “Lots of wells have been drilled in the pre-salt area, and the well comes up dry.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/bra ... story.html

[ROCKMAN]

Being a career development geologist I’ve pissed down the leg of an exploration geologist and called it rain more than once. LOL. But the reality for an explorationist is that if you don’t present pie-in-the-sky projections you don’t get your sh*t drilled. I know they are typically being much too optimistic and they know it as well as the folks they are trying to talk into drilling their prospect. The problem is when “civilians” get their hands on that info and think it’s true. I’ve mentioned in before: I don’t run typical economic analysis on wildcat projects for a simple reason: every exploratory well ever proposed has a fantastic economic outcome using the UNRISKED reserve analysis. How some companies handle it: project A target = 5 million bo. Probability of success = 20%. So they use 0.20 X 5 million bbl = 1 million bbls. And then run the economics for a 1 million bbl discovery.

Which, you might imagine, I consider equally foolish. They don’t know that the Ps is 20% any better than its 80% or 1%. They just make up a number hoping that in the long run they average out like so. And rarely have I ever seen any company do that in my 40 years. Which is exactly why every exploration geologist boosts the target size as large as possible because they know their numbers will get “a haircut”. And yes: that is the actual technical term we use. When I look at a deal I seek flaws that would kill the deal completely. If those aren’t there then I look for a reasonable amount of logic that it might possibly work. Which doesn’t necessarily equate to being low risk. I’ll drill risky wells that make sense which also have a very attractive return IF IT WORKS.

And it’s always good to remember that many of the folks projecting future reserves won’t lose a penny if they are wrong. In fact, they might often be wrong and continue to collect a paycheck until retirement. Doesn’t work that way for the folks who actually make decisions about

[Keith_McClary]

There's even a chart:

I was recently looking for an update of that chart (not the jiggered version).

[copious.abundance]

There are tens of billions of barrels of 7 & 8 year old press releases in this thread indicating an historic Oil-Glut is about to happen at any minute. These are Official Press Releases, Media Accounts and Blog Posts and should not be taken lightly.

My catalog was never a listing of development projects, it was a listing of discoveries. I added an "Estimated production startup date" line after some people suggested I do so, but in the majority of discoveries they aren't even sure when production will start up, so it wasn't a particularly useful line.

The megaprojects Wikipedia has died because peak oil has died. Simple as that.

[ROCKMAN]

Pstarr - From your lips to Dog's ear. LOL.

[Keith_McClary]

The megaprojects Wikipedia has died because peak oil has died. Simple as that.

Yah, them new megaprojects just keep rollin' in. Too many to count. Even OF can't keep up with 'em.

[Pops]

There's even a chart:

I was recently looking for an update of that chart (not the jiggered version).

I haven't seen that particular chart later than '08 or so but Laharrere's forecast is basically discoveries shifted forward 40 years:

[Subjectivist]

There's even a chart:

I was recently looking for an update of that chart (not the jiggered version).

I haven't seen that particular chart later than '08 or so but Laharrere's forecast is basically discoveries shifted forward 40 years:

I think that coal figure is "minable" coal, the stuff that is shallow enough for strip mining or shaft mining. There is something like four times that much coal already known to exist in seams more that 500 feet down that can be recovered via underground gasification. I have been adding to that thread as I find more data, aparently the UK and China are both very interested in it and there are projects in the America and Canada as well. The produced CO/H2 gas has about half the energy content of methane so it costs about twice what methane from a pipeline costs in North America. If you are far from a natural gas pipeline or you are in Asia or Europe it is price competitive with conventional natural gas.