Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Ultimately Recoverable Oil 84% Gone?

Discuss research and forecasts regarding hydrocarbon depletion.

Ultimately Recoverable Oil 84% Gone?

Unread postby Pops » Mon 15 Oct 2012, 10:35:42

shortonoil wrote:We have now extracted 84% of the the world's URR of petroleum.


That is a pretty remarkable statement. Where do you get that estimate?
If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.
-- Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 17642
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Inflation or Deflation? What will Peak Oil cause?

Unread postby shortonoil » Thu 18 Oct 2012, 09:46:38

Pops said:

That is a pretty remarkable statement. Where do you get that estimate?


Several years ago Colin Campbell and Jean Laherrere made the assessment that 40% of the 4100 - 4300 Gb of OOIP would be extractable. The petroleum industry did not take very kindly to their statement. It was immediately refuted by a number of "experts". To date we have extracted 1403 Gb of Campbell and Laherrere's 1720 Gb of URR (.4 X 4300), giving 82% of URR.

For almost two years our group, The Hill's Group, has been developing a model that we feel (among other things) will emphatically prove that Campbell and Laherrere were correct. The 84% mentioned in the post above was the worse case scenario, the best case is 76%. This discrepancy arises because we have determined that the EIA data set with which we are working is in error by 4.7%; we just don't know in what direction!

Anyway, we are sure that more than three-quarters of the extractable reserve has been removed. Obviously, the petroleum industry would not want this generally known; even though we are quit sure that there are those in the industry who are aware of it. Yergin's comment of no "Peak in sight" only proves that he needs driving lessons; he hasn't looked in the rear view mirror in quite awhile!
User avatar
shortonoil
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 5149
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Inflation or Deflation? What will Peak Oil cause?

Unread postby Pops » Thu 18 Oct 2012, 11:07:30

In the last ASPO newsletter (4/09) the number for "regular oil" was 1900Gb, inc. "unconventional" = 2425Gb
If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.
-- Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 17642
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Inflation or Deflation? What will Peak Oil cause?

Unread postby pstarr » Thu 18 Oct 2012, 11:21:12

shortonoil wrote:Pops said:

That is a pretty remarkable statement. Where do you get that estimate?


Several years ago Colin Campbell and Jean Laherrere made the assessment that 40% of the 4100 - 4300 Gb of OOIP would be extractable. The petroleum industry did not take very kindly to their statement. It was immediately refuted by a number of "experts". To date we have extracted 1403 Gb of Campbell and Laherrere's 1720 Gb of URR (.4 X 4300), giving 82% of URR.

For almost two years our group, The Hill's Group, has been developing a model that we feel (among other things) will emphatically prove that Campbell and Laherrere were correct. The 84% mentioned in the post above was the worse case scenario, the best case is 76%. This discrepancy arises because we have determined that the EIA data set with which we are working is in error by 4.7%; we just don't know in what direction!

Anyway, we are sure that more than three-quarters of the extractable reserve has been removed. Obviously, the petroleum industry would not want this generally known; even though we are quit sure that there are those in the industry who are aware of it. Yergin's comment of no "Peak in sight" only proves that he needs driving lessons; he hasn't looked in the rear view mirror in quite awhile!
Where/where will your conclusions be published?
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26526
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Inflation or Deflation? What will Peak Oil cause?

Unread postby pstarr » Thu 18 Oct 2012, 15:34:58

meant to say "where/when"
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26526
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Inflation or Deflation? What will Peak Oil cause?

Unread postby shortonoil » Fri 19 Oct 2012, 11:15:07

pstarr said:
Where/where will your conclusions be published?


Probably this coming March.

Pops said:
In the last ASPO newsletter (4/09) the number for "regular oil" was 1900Gb


If conventional crude URR was 1900 Gb, world wide water cut would be about 17%; very doubtful
User avatar
shortonoil
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 5149
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Inflation or Deflation? What will Peak Oil cause?

Unread postby Pops » Fri 19 Oct 2012, 12:34:32

shortonoil wrote:Pops said:
In the last ASPO newsletter (4/09) the number for "regular oil" was 1900Gb


If conventional crude URR was 1900 Gb, world wide water cut would be about 17%; very doubtful

Heh heh, you quoted Campbell "from several years ago" and I quoted Campbell's last newsletter.

:?:

.
If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.
-- Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 17642
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Inflation or Deflation? What will Peak Oil cause?

Unread postby shortonoil » Fri 19 Oct 2012, 16:45:11

Hi Pops,

The 17% water cut number above I sort of pulled out of my _____. When I got back to the office I ran the numbers, and here is what I got:

    Produced barrels 2035.......1911 Gb
    Water Cut (fx) 2012......... 23%
    Proved (P1)................... 2730 Gb
The numbers above give an RF of 70% of proved, which is likely, but the rest doesn't work very well. Since our best fit model produces fx (surface water cut) of 47% for 2012, and field reports indicate that it must be greater than 35%, I doubt the 1900 URR number (as P1 goes up, fx goes down for % extracted). You know what they say, 90% of all oil figures are pulled out of the thin air. That's because it is so easy to do!

Our best fit model to date gives:
    Produced barrels 2028.....1744 Gb
    Water Cut (fx) 2012........47%
    Proved (P140)...............2285 Gb
Our model differs from ASPO on URR by about 9%, which is approaching margin of error levels. They are just a little more optimistic than we are because they don't want to have to go home and tell their wives that they are going to have to give up the SUV, and get out the bike. Anyway, I don't think there is much question as to why oil prices have increased over 450% in the last decade; the bottom of the barrel is not very far away!
User avatar
shortonoil
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 5149
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Inflation or Deflation? What will Peak Oil cause?

Unread postby shortonoil » Sun 21 Oct 2012, 12:08:38

Hi Pops,

Now that you have accused Campbell of contradicting himself (which seems doubtful), which of his projections are we to believe; the 1720 Gb, or the nice round, easy to work with, convenient 1900 number? Taken at face value one of them has to be wrong! The most likely explanation for the discrepancy (politics excluded) is that one quote was stated in RB (reserve barrels) and the other in STB (stock barrels). With a Bo (oil formation volume factor) of 1.1 the two workout about right. Since none of us were at the ASPO meeting to hear the conversations that led up to the 1900 number, we just don't know.

Anyway, you quoted ASPO, not Campbell. Unless Campbell has managed to grow several hundred extra arms and legs recently, he is not ASPO. Maybe someone at ASPO got out their Ouija board and conjured up 1900! The 1900 comes from changing the RF (recovery factor) from 40% of OOIP to 44%. Then of course there is the last explanation; Campbell - Laharrere made a better team than Campbell?

As long as an application (and its extensions, Welge, Stiles and etc.) of the Buckley-Leverett equation is used as the sole method for determining world reservoir status, this question will remain open ended. It makes assumptions, and the most grievous of them is that the reservoir structure is homogenous. Any Reservoir Engineer will tell you that initial estimates are almost always optimistic. They spend a lot of time tweaking and testing to get accurate projections for a field! Determining reservoir status for the world (48,000 fields) is in an altogether different league. One that is probably outside the scope of conventional methodology for the level of accuracy that we are seeking here.
User avatar
shortonoil
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 5149
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Inflation or Deflation? What will Peak Oil cause?

Unread postby Pops » Sun 21 Oct 2012, 13:10:32

:lol:

I didn't accuse anyone of anything, I simply quoted the last newsletter, did you follow my link above?

It is still described in the link at the ASPO site as:
The ASPO Newsletter is written by Colin Campbell and comes approximately once every month. ASPO Ireland has them available from their site.

Colin Campbell's newsletter (external link)

And if you'll notice the endnote on the newsletter I linked says:
This newsletter is produced and distributed for perusal primarily by ASPO members.-
Permission to reproduce items from the Newsletter, subject to acknowledgement, is expressly granted.
Compiled by C.J.Campbell, Staball Hill, Ballydehob, Co. Cork, Ireland.



I think it's fairly obvious who's numbers it refers to. The 1900Gb appears on the August 2001 newsletter under the heading:
ESTIMATED CONVENTIONAL OIL PRODUCED TO 2075 IN... All Fields
And in the last newsletter linked above – although the label is changed to:
"ESTIMATED PRODUCTION TO 2100 [rather than 2075]

I'm not sure why you need me to C&P that for you or why the ASPO newsletter seems to be such a surprise. Had you not seen it before?

In fact back in the '98 SciAm article they said essentially the same:
We have used other methods to estimate the ultimate recovery of conventional oil for each country [see box on next two pages], and we calculate that the oil industry will be able to recover only about another 1,000 billion barrels of conventional oil. This number, though great, is little more than the 800 billion barrels that have already been extracted.
h/t http://dieoff.org/page140.htm

When they say "oil industry will be able to recover" I take that to mean URR, recoverable oil, not OOIP, oil in place but not necessarily extractable, so not subject to any adjustment for water cut? Isn't that right? I think that's where we're differing.
.
If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.
-- Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 17642
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Inflation or Deflation? What will Peak Oil cause?

Unread postby shortonoil » Sun 21 Oct 2012, 13:35:44

Pops said:

The 1900Gb appears on the August 2001 newsletter under the heading:
ESTIMATED CONVENTIONAL OIL PRODUCED TO 2075 IN...


2075............. Is this a joke? We could hit 1900 by 2075 if we started extracting it 1 (one) bucket at a time (which may be done). Why didn't you post the whole thing to start with, and save us all a lot of time? And yea, I've seen it. Just never took it seriously, its sort of an absurd statement!

LOL: Thanks Pops, best laugh I've had in quite while!!!
User avatar
shortonoil
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 5149
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Inflation or Deflation? What will Peak Oil cause?

Unread postby Pops » Sun 21 Oct 2012, 16:32:54

shortonoil wrote:For almost two years our group, The Hill's Group, has been developing a model that we feel (among other things) will emphatically prove that Campbell and Laherrere were correct...

And yea, I've seen it [their forecast]. Just never took it seriously, its sort of an absurd statement!

You didn't take the SciAm Article or the 100 ASPO newsletters seriously?

I don't get it, you say you've been working for two years on this model based on Campbell and Laherrere's forecast and vow to prove them correct but then when I post their actual work and forecast of production you say it's absurd and you never took their forecast seriously...

So which is it, are you going to vindicate them or poke fun at them?
If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.
-- Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 17642
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Inflation or Deflation? What will Peak Oil cause?

Unread postby evilgenius » Mon 22 Oct 2012, 11:58:35

Let's not devolve into nit picking over the tail end of a certain curve. Instead, what can we infer about the rate of production in any specific area? For starters we ought to consider Saudi Arabia. Rumor has it their water cut is high. They have been trying to bring a new field online, I can't remember its name. A year or two ago I read an article speculating that much of their daily output could be delivered from a high volume forced extraction regime in this new field. Could it be that the rate of flow out of Saudi Arabia could drop precipitously over a short period of time? Perhaps that's not a short term worry and the real worry is still satellite oil fields outside of the Middle East? Maybe, whether through lack of investment or depletion, world wide satellite production capacity is headed for a collective drop?

Right now the world economy is not ready to demand all of daily output in a manner that would lead to excessively inflating oil prices. Any examination of the equilibrium reached by the world oil markets surely has to take that into effect as well. Plus there is the credible political threat to output looming in the wrangle that the Arab Spring has become. What kind of danger does that present for political constriction of output, before the hard physical reality can impose it? I think this is very interesting because if political upheaval comes with significant infrastructure damage then the cost to renew output can actually become too high and a lot of oil that would have been otherwise produced could wind up locked in.
User avatar
evilgenius
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2245
Joined: Tue 06 Dec 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Stopped at the border.

Re: Inflation or Deflation? What will Peak Oil cause?

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 22 Oct 2012, 12:48:32

shortonoil wrote:Now that you have accused Campbell of contradicting himself (which seems doubtful), which of his projections are we to believe; the 1720 Gb, or the nice round, easy to work with, convenient 1900 number? Taken at face value one of them has to be wrong! The most likely explanation for the discrepancy (politics excluded) is that one quote was stated in RB (reserve barrels) and the other in STB (stock barrels).
I think the 1900+ number includes Condensate and the 1720 number does not.

Colin J.Campbell wrote:Ultimate recovery 1950 Gb

These estimates are broadly consistent with those presented in 2000, but we now take a different view of the treatment of Condensate, including that from the gas-caps of oilfields with oil. It largely explains the increase in the estimated ultimate recovery.
Peak Oil: an Outlook on Crude Oil Depletion
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Inflation or Deflation? What will Peak Oil cause?

Unread postby Pops » Mon 22 Oct 2012, 14:46:51

Thanks Kub, the question isn't 1700 or 1900 per say, the question is whether the number is OOIP or URR and as you point out it seems pretty obvious it's the later. IOW no need to calculate a recovery factor or water cut or much of anything, it is what it is.

So from your link 873Gb produced through '02 + 27gb/year (75Mb/d) since = 1143gb produced to date from a 1950 UPP = 807Gb remaining, which is twice what ShortOnSense originally mentioned

and why I said it was a surprising statement. :lol:


Evil, the problem with all these forecasts is that the further we are from the time that the transnationals were operating the big fields the less we really know, that is assuming that what the Seven Sisters revealed was even remotely accurate. National oil companies control 90% of world reserves, so really, any guess is going to be subject to a large and essentially unknowable margin of error - not just geologic or economic error but at least as importantly, political manipulation.

The best we can do is look at the tangental evidence, how much oil comes from a cheap, conventional, onshore, vertical hole and how much comes from some new miracle (expensive) technology, how much is easily refined and how much needs to be first mined and converted to something refinable... but you know all that.
If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.
-- Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 17642
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Inflation or Deflation? What will Peak Oil cause?

Unread postby shortonoil » Wed 24 Oct 2012, 13:04:10

Pops said:
I don't get it, you say you've been working for two years on this model based on Campbell and Laherrere's forecast and vow to prove them correct but then when I post their actual work and forecast of production you say it's absurd and you never took their forecast seriously...


We don't take such projections seriously because there is no way to validate such extended futuristic estimates (the discussion began over Campbell and Laharrere's statement that 40% of OOIP would be extractable, producing 1720 Gb). It makes one wonder why anyone would do it?

In this case, our model shows 1744 Gb produced by 2028. If we accept ASPO's 2100, 1900 Gb cumulative projection estimate it would mean that average production between 2028 and 2100 would be 5.9 Mb/d. Enough production to supply California, Texas and New York state.

After the '28 oil production collapse begins there will, of course, be residual oil remaining. Whether or not there will be enough of the integrated global economic system still intact to produce and use that oil is speculative at best. The irony of it all is that basing such long range forecasts on such insufficient data smacks of the hubris that got us into this situation to begin with. It was always assumed that when the "oil ran out" (so why worry about using it judiciously), a new technology would be awaiting in the wings to replace it. King Oil is dying, but no Knight in shining armor has appeared to take his place!

kublikhan said:
I think the 1900+ number includes Condensate and the 1720 number does not.


But our 1744 Gb number does.

Pops quoted

So from your link 873Gb produced through '02 + 27gb/year (75Mb/d) since = 1143gb produced to date from a 1950 UPP = 807Gb remaining, which is twice what ShortOnSense originally mentioned


The US has been producing oil since 1859 (remember Drake). Cumulative production by 1900 was 34 Gb, by 1960 it was 356 Gb. Poland and Baku were also producing considerable quantities by the early 1880's. By 1900 oil was being commercially produced in many regions of the world. It looks like the link above left out a few Gb.
User avatar
shortonoil
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 5149
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Ultimately Recoverable Oil 84% Gone?

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Sun 28 Oct 2012, 12:40:58

Strange to think that we've gone through over 10% of URR since PO.com started.

1Gb since this thread started.

We should have a fuel gauge instead of the logo.
"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: Ultimately Recoverable Oil 84% Gone?

Unread postby dolanbaker » Sun 28 Oct 2012, 14:24:18

Keith_McClary wrote:Strange to think that we've gone through over 10% of URR since PO.com started.

1Gb since this thread started.

We should have a fuel gauge instead of the logo.

Then we'd be forever arguing about whether the gauge is down far enough, it will never reach zero though!
This could be what the conventional oil reserves gauge would look like.
Image
but the resources gauge would be more like this!
Image
and my personal gauge is more like this!
Image
Ronald Coase, Nobel Economic Sciences, said in 1991 “If we torture the data long enough, it will confess.”
User avatar
dolanbaker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Wed 14 Apr 2010, 09:38:47
Location: Éire

Re: Ultimately Recoverable Oil 84% Gone?

Unread postby Quinny » Sun 28 Oct 2012, 15:39:59

As a realtive ignoramous I don't really understanf the argument going on here. Could someone simplify and enlighten me please?
Live, Love, Learn, Leave Legacy.....oh and have a Laugh while you're doing it!
User avatar
Quinny
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3335
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Ultimately Recoverable Oil 84% Gone?

Unread postby Pops » Mon 29 Oct 2012, 07:36:49

As I understand, Shortonoil started with a campbells estimate of the total amount of oil in the ground and then Shortonoil calculated how much of that could ultimately be produced.

I pointed out that Campbell has published his own estimate of ultimate production (going back to '98 at least) and Campbells own estimate of the amount remaining is different.

After that I haven't really been able to keep up either. His last comment on Campbells estimate was "We don't take such projections seriously because there is no way to validate such extended futuristic estimates." then goes on to estimate ultimate future production.

Maybe I'm being obtuse? Does anyone have a different take?

Here is the page from the last newsletter (scroll down for the table:)
ASPO news.jpg
ASPO news.jpg (107.86 KiB) Viewed 7419 times
If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.
-- Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 17642
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Next

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests