Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on July 29, 2014

Bookmark and Share

Colin Campbell – Calculating the Peak of Oil Production

Colin Campbell – Calculating the Peak of Oil Production



13 Comments on "Colin Campbell – Calculating the Peak of Oil Production"

  1. Plantagenet on Tue, 29th Jul 2014 6:43 pm 

    Colin Campbell didn’t foresee that fracking and LTO production would falsify his prediction on the timing of peak oil. The peak in gobal oil production is definitely coming, but it will occur 10-20 years later then Campbell predicted.

  2. Arthur on Tue, 29th Jul 2014 10:12 pm 

    Agree with Plant that mr ASPO underestimated the effects of fracking, postponing the ASPO-2000 picture with 10-20 years into the future. New technologies could even pusf the fossil horizon even further into the future (methane hydrates). Obvuously we should not do this but instead go full throttle on renewables now.

  3. dashster on Tue, 29th Jul 2014 10:16 pm 

    “but it will occur 10-20 years later then Campbell predicted.”

    If it occurs 10-20 years later than Campbell predicts, than that would be so much better than what the IEA, EIA and Yergin predict. No harm in predicting too soon. Tremendous harm in claiming it is so far off that it is not necessary to predict a peak. We listen to the IEA, EIA and Yergin and not Campbell to our detriment.

  4. dashster on Tue, 29th Jul 2014 10:18 pm 

    “Agree with Plant that mr ASPO underestimated the effects of fracking, postponing the ASPO-2000 picture with 10-20 years into the future. ”

    Guys, how’d he do on predicting price? With regard to price predictions – Campbell 1, EIA 0 IEA 0 Yergin 0

    It is surreal that people want to focus on a reduced rate of increase to discredit Campbell, and forget about the huge price rise that validates Campbell and discredits the IEA, EIA and Yergin.

  5. Dave Thompson on Tue, 29th Jul 2014 10:21 pm 

    Americas bust, LTO. With a 40 to 60% depletion rate LTO year over year might last to 2020 on the up side. Why do the trains haul the stuff? The pipe lines will not be needed soon. The trains will haul till they don’t. 10 t0 20 years of LTO? I don’t think the upswing will last that long.

  6. Northwest Resident on Tue, 29th Jul 2014 11:22 pm 

    Anyone who thinks peak oil is a distant event should read the article linked below. Read the many comments to get the full picture.

    peakoilbarrel dot com/anticipating-peak-world-oil-production/

  7. Northwest Resident on Tue, 29th Jul 2014 11:46 pm 

    That peakoilbarrel link above ain’t bad, but this is the one I really meant to post:

    peakoilbarrel dot com/world-crude-oil-exports/

  8. rockman on Wed, 30th Jul 2014 7:13 am 

    Arthur – “…mr ASPO underestimated the effects of fracking”. Did he? Here’s a question only Campbell can answer: Did he not understand the potential of frac’ng such reservoirs as the shales or did he not anticipate $100/bbl oil and the effect it would have on drilling low yielding reservoirs such as the shales?

    I know to many it might seem like we just discovered that the shales et al had oil/NG in them and in response developed all this “new” technology to exploit them. In reality neither is true. The oil in the Bakken and Eagle Ford Shale has been known FOR OVER 50 YEARS. Both formations HAVE BEEN FRAC’D AND PRODUCED 50 years ago. I personally drilled and frac’d an EFS well 25 years ago. Rather crappy well as it turned out. Bigger fracs now?? Hardly: 35 years ago in a tite carbonate shale I pumped a frac that was 10X larger the typical frac stage pumped into Bakken and EFS wells to day. But…but…but…what about horizontal drilling? About 20 years ago THE HOTTEST OIL PLAY on the planet has the HORIZONTALLY DRILLED Austin Chalk (a tite carbonate “shale”) in Texas.

    We have folks here that like to portray the tech being used today as some sort of miracle development. There is no significant tech that has suddenly been developed. The last tech improvement of note was the “slick water frac” which is nothing more than a change in the nature of the water used to pump a frac. And even that isn’t very new: the oil patch has been using it for 15 years.

    So here’s a parallel hypothetical: if oil suddenly fell to $40/bbl and most of the shale drilling came to a halt would you criticize those who had projected big production from the formations to have overestimated “the effects of frac’ng”? I doubt it: the obvious explanation would be that they didn’t anticipate the effects of lower oil prices. So perhaps Campbell error wasn’t underestimating the capability of any existing technology…it was not anticipating a 300% increase in the price of oil.

    And now a not so hypothetical situation…and a personal one. As I’ve pointed out before I’ve just begun drilling horizontal wells in a “depleted” oil reservoir. And it’s far from “tite”: it’s a very porous sandstone. There’s over 4 BILLION bbls of residual oil in this trend. And I’m using the same technology that was developed over 20 years ago to do it. In 1994 I drilled 4 similar wells in a NG reservoir in La state waters. I generated this “new” idea to for my latest effort 15 years ago. And I couldn’t talk anyone into drilling my wells back then. So did all of those folks that rejected my idea not “anticipate” the effects of this technology? Ridiculous conclusion: the technology was well known throughout the industry. My idea was rejected because it did produce a sufficient ROR with $35/bbl oil. Just as drilling and frac’ng the Bakken and EFS, which could have been just as easily done 15 years ago, was of little interest at the same time.

    If 20 years ago you would have asked any experienced petroleum geologist if there would be a drilling surge in the B or EFS in the future he couldn’t answer you without giving him a price projection: $35/bbl oil – NO…$95/bbl oil – Yes. The same with my current project: I just stuck it in my file cabinet and waited for the price to increase to a level that would justify doing it. BTW there’s a very large and not well known company, Energy XXI, doing the same thing I’m but are doing it in the old oil fields out in the offshore GOM.

    And this has been the sloppy weakness of folks who have tried to predict future oil production. Any projection (high or low) is foolish if it doesn’t include a price forecast. Had Campbell clearly stated his projections was based on $35/bbl oil no one could criticize him for being wrong about that production level. All anyone could do is criticize his price projection. And this simple fact holds true for every cornucopian that projecting prolonged development of the tite reservoirs: if prices drop significantly they would be subject to the same criticism for being wrong. Unless, of course, they had clearly stated their projection was based upon rather high oil prices.

    So…a show of hands please: everyone who predicted $95/bbl oil today in 1999 when oil dropped to $15/bbl. Hmm…I don’t think I see any raised hands. LOL. I don’t mean to insult anyone but predicting the future production of any commodity without moderating that projection with a price platform IS STUPID.

    The next time Apple puts out a new cell phone how many will they sell? Without knowing the price of that future phone no one can make a logical projection. They are free to make a WAG but so what? Someone eventually wins the lottery. Would that mean they are really smart when it comes to picking lottery numbers? So 2 years ago some correctly predicts how much oil is coming out of trend A today. Are the really that smart or did they just assume we would have $95/bbl oil today? And if oil were actually much lower today and their prediction proved very wrong would they be criticized for their lack of understanding of the technology?

  9. shortonoil on Wed, 30th Jul 2014 8:55 am 

    If you attempted to run the world on the condensate, and ultra light crude coming from most shale, it would shut down tomorrow. Comparing shale production with conventional crude is like comparing a 20 mule team with 20 goats. If Borax had been using shale production to power the shipping of their products, it would still be sitting in the desert.

    Graph# 20 at our site (Exergy vs API) shows the impact that the density of petroleum plays in determining the capacity of crude to deliver energy.

    http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_011.htm

    By the time you get to naphtha (pentane) it is good for making polystyrene, and as as King Ker II found out in 600 BC, burning down other people’s houses. To say that Campbell missed the peak is an oxymoron. He missed peak conventional (the only oil that matters) by 5 years.

    Of course, the world has progressed. Instead of simply burning down other people’s houses, we now first burn up a train.

    http://www.thehillsgroup.org/

  10. Arthur on Wed, 30th Jul 2014 9:12 am 

    Rockman, you could be correct on most if not all the things you say. And I have to admit I was not aware of the 35$ precondition of the ASPO-2000 graph, you say Campbell added as fine print to his theories. As an informed layman concerning everything connected to fossil fuel (I am a trained engineer in renewables, produced solar cells all by myself in obscure laboratories and designed windturbines, using a Burroughs mainframe, yep with punchcard Fortran software, although in the last year I hacked the mainframe and did calculations in Basic on my Commodore64, against intense, yet fruitless opposition of my professor.lol.

    What I DO remember was the unqualified Bellcurve shaped graph, as promoted by ASPO and disciples like Heinberg, about peakoil-plateau between ca. 2007-2013, and steep decline afterwards.

    I never heard Heinberg or Campbell contemplating the possibility of the US becoming the largest oilproducer on the planet, by the middle-end of this decade.

  11. stoney on Wed, 30th Jul 2014 9:26 am 

    Colin Campbell’s main focus was always on “regular conventional”, i.e. cheap oil and I think the core of his message has been that our modern economy is based on cheap oil and when it peaks the economy will run into trouble. Expensive sources of oil can at best give us a slight delay of the total peak or smoothen the decline after peak.

    One way to think about it: Regular conventional peaked around 2005 at c.a. 65 mb/d (as Campbell predicted) and is indisputably in decline. In comparison, if you lump everything else together, deepwater, polar, tarsands, orinoco XH, LTO, GTL, CTL, biofuels etc. the combined output of all these sources could probably at best reach half of the regular conventional peak, if that.

  12. igmar graf on Sat, 20th Dec 2014 2:23 am 

    Colin WAS AND IS RIGHT Peak Oil happened
    in 2006-10.
    Fracking is not conventional oil…
    The price today is 58-60 $ and the output
    around the world is sinking except for this very short (huge)spike in the US.
    By 2016-18 it will become evident what Colin meant even to the emptiest of Airheads

  13. Nony on Sat, 20th Dec 2014 7:42 am 

    Colin screwed up. Just like he did in 1989! The whining about fracking (when it trades at WTI price and influences it) is a total JOKE. You peakers were saying the oil would be too heavy (!) back in the day. You screwed up and won’t admit it. Cry, cry, cry.

    Cornies who said technology/America would save the day were right, right, right. They didn’t know about fracking specifically…but they did know econ and they had less bias and they knew the LONG and REPEATED wrong doomer predictions.

    P.s. I have several gas stations in my town offering 1.99 now! Take that “POD”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *