[WebHubbleTelescope]

Much of your argumentation strikes me as disingenuous. One perfect example was how quickly and irrationally you disparaged a journal which published one of Mike Lynch's publication (in the Mike Lynch thread). Furthermore, your repeated name-calling of Mike Lynch and others, which you try to rationalize as your righteous inability to suffer fools, borders on juvenile.

So I disparaged an obscure economics journal. I basically took a potshot at an inanimate object. Mr. Journal, sir, I apologize for awaking you from your nap in the dank corner of my local library's stack and calling you barely refereed.

I also like the righteous part, it makes me sound like the Samuel L. Jackson character in Pulp Fiction.

[dub_scratch]

Why don't the optimist ever produce a model?

Yea, you would think that if they are so confident about supply giving us the peak later scenario, a depletion model would be easy.

So we've now moved on to proving the negative? Great! I contend that the sun won't rise tomorrow. The onus is on you to prove that it will. *shaking my head in disbelief*

Oh great, the oil age is like the sun-rising age-- just as enduring. Yep, we've been existing as a species for hundreds of thousands of years with the sun rising every day. And for just about as long, say 100 years, industrial civilization has been kicked into accelerated growth on petrol.

Give me a break, DigitalCubano!

Actually, what I am asking the cornucopians is to prove a positive. If I were to claim that my unexplored back yard contains 100 billion barrels of oil, do we assume that as true until someone proves that it doesn't? No. We have to operate our sense of reason in the opposite direction. If you say there is oil, then prove it. If you don't or can't, then we must assume it is not there until you can.

The cornucopinas are the ones who rely on the lack of proof of the negative. That in fact is exactly what Lynch does when disputing the idea of a world is running out of undiscovered oil. I've had him tell me over on the Lynch thread that Saudi Arabia has 100 to 200 billion barrels undiscovered and that since Campbell, Simmons or whoever can't prove that is doesn't exist, it must be there.

Bass ackwards logic, anyone?

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

Actually, what I am asking the cornucopians is to prove a positive. If I were to claim that my unexplored back yard contains 100 billion barrels of oil, do we assume that as true until someone proves that it doesn't? No. We have to operate our sense of reason in the opposite direction. If you say there is oil, then prove it. If you don't or can't, then we must assume it is not there until you can.

I would have thought the USGS World Assessment totalling some 3000 GB as an ultimate would satisfy this requirement? Its bashed by Colin and Co. fierce enough that it sure LOOKS like a number they are extremely unhappy with.

And I haven't noticed most people arguing with the basic idea that it is POSSIBLE, some day, some time, there will be a peak, or at the very least a long, drawn out plataeu. The assumption they make with appears to irritate the Doomers the most is does this particular event actually MATTER.

[dub_scratch]

Actually, what I am asking the cornucopians is to prove a positive. If I were to claim that my unexplored back yard contains 100 billion barrels of oil, do we assume that as true until someone proves that it doesn't? No. We have to operate our sense of reason in the opposite direction. If you say there is oil, then prove it. If you don't or can't, then we must assume it is not there until you can.

I would have thought the USGS World Assessment totalling some 3000 GB as an ultimate would satisfy this requirement? Its bashed by Colin and Co. fierce enough that it sure LOOKS like a number they are extremely unhappy with.

Did the USGS prove that all that 3000 bbls of URR is there? From what I understand, they used statistical voodoo to jerk the number up that high.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

I could be wrong, but the "thing" that I believe the USGS quantifies is "undiscovered resources". Their methodology hardly qualifies as "statistical voodoo" and has been peer reviewed by NPC and AAPG core if I recall the credentials correctly, but I could be wrong. I know they have a CD out and papers covering all the details if anyone is interested, I think I've got one laying around the office which I collected at an AAPG meeting somewhere a few years back. As to what YOU consider "undiscovered resources" to mean beyond how they define it, thats another interesting question.

Anyway, after you look at what they've done, it becomes more than obvious that they have researched this particular topic alot harder than Colin and Co. have, both in terms of man hours and scientific research on the topic, from my personal prespective.

Now, as far as do they "prove" its there, again, that gets into what you consider "proof". As far as their quantity and quality of work, that pretty much swamps Colin and Co., but "proof", thats a tough one. Proof to the standard of a judge? Proof to the standard of every man, woman and crackpot on the planet? Evolution hasn't been "proved", but in a hundred years of crackpots and shots at it, no one has "disproved" it either, so that does mean its proved? I dunno. Scientific method doesn't work that way.

So which is more "likely" is an interesting question. The Doomers have been going on since the dawn of man, and as far as I can tell haven't been right YET. So...my question is....why does anyone think they might be right THIS time? And how is THIS time different than the transition ( and the Doomers that came with it ) from stones to bronze, bronze to iron, iron to steel, firewood to whale oil, whale oil to coal, coal to crude, etc etc.

[rockdoc123]

yes it is funny how people like to slam the USGS when they actually do not understand the numbers or how they were derived. They report resources undiscovered which are in place numbers. Their methodology is ground up in that they first look at source rock, reservoir distribution and size distribution of discovered fields. It is a sound method to my mind. Why are the numbers so high...well first off they are in place so basically you could divide by about 3. Also they are unrisked. There are a number of elements that have to come together in order for petroleum to be trapped....even though we may think it is highly probable that oil will be present in a basin the trap maybe breached...the migration pathway might be convolute etc. As a consequence you need to apply a risk figure....a good number when looking at most basins is probably somewhere between 25%-40%. So when it is all said and done the actual number from the USGS study is probably not that unreasonable in many areas. I am actually doing a bit of work on this now.

[dub_scratch]

Now, as far as do they "prove" its there, again, that gets into what you consider "proof". As far as their quantity and quality of work, that pretty much swamps Colin and Co., but "proof", thats a tough one. Proof to the standard of a judge? Proof to the standard of every man, woman and crackpot on the planet? Evolution hasn't been "proved", but in a hundred years of crackpots and shots at it, no one has "disproved" it either, so that does mean its proved? I dunno. Scientific method doesn't work that way.

Oh I see. We've got a double-standard with regard to 'proof'. When Colin & Co. assert low additions to URR coming from exploration and reserve growth, critics like Lynch jump up and down yelling "where's your proof, where's your proof, where's your proof!!!!" But when the table is turned on those who do claim more oil, the criteria for what constitutes 'proof' is not the same. It's cornucopian weasel wisardry. The magic of mushy reasoning. Nobody has disproved the USGS report. So there you have it-- proof. And hell, they worked on their statistical guesses a long time-- more proof. The standard of proof is different for the cornucopian.

So which is more "likely" is an interesting question. The Doomers have been going on since the dawn of man, and as far as I can tell haven't been right YET.

Doom? I don't believe I said anything about doom. I'm talking about oil from a skeptic’s point of view. But doom & collapse? Why change the subject?

I guess your implicit assumption is that oil depletion is doom for civilization. Why are you such a fatalist ReserveGrowthRulz? And since you argue that there will be a peak in oil later, you are resigned to the idea that civilization collapse will be later too-- perhaps conveniently out of your lifetime. It's great that your so concerned about the legacy of the oil age in your defense of its expected endurance. ReserveGrowthRulz, I don't know why you have problems with doomers. Your inference tells me that you are one of them.

I, on the other hand, am kind of a hopeless optimist who thinks it is possible for western civilization to endure beyond the end of cheep oil by making drastic lifestyle changes (i.e. dump the car culture) and making some technological changes (i.e. use communications to help us dump the car culture). I get allot flak from doomer peakers who disagree. I tell them that ridding ourselves of some creature comforts is not the same as doom, but they don't agree.

So...my question is....why does anyone think they might be right THIS time? And how is THIS time different than the transition ( and the Doomers that came with it ) from stones to bronze, bronze to iron, iron to steel, firewood to whale oil, whale oil to coal, coal to crude, etc etc.

It's obvious that you have not studied history that tells us many civilizations have collapsed because they could not make that transition. I recommend Jared Diamond's book collapse where you will see that the transition that you are expecting is not exactly guaranteed.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

They report resources undiscovered which are in place numbers.

Actually, if you go through their latest national and world assessments, they are NOT in place numbers. Some of the older ones might have been, or some studies for small areas, but the 2000 World and the 1995 and most recent national studies are most definitely NOT in place. "Technologically recoverable" which isn't in place at all.

Their methodology is ground up in that they first look at source rock, reservoir distribution and size distribution of discovered fields. It is a sound method to my mind. Why are the numbers so high...well first off they are in place so basically you could divide by about 3. Also they are unrisked.

For starters, SOME of the numbers might be high. But then, SOME are also low. The Barnett Shale in Texas springs to mind as something where the USGS numbers have been considered low. So the question of them being 3 times too high sounds awful subjective, particularly when the last conference I was at, the DOE had higher numbers than the USGS for certain basins in the US, as did some of the private consultants and those consultants with some government contracts. And they ARE risked, go dig into their forms, they have at least 3 different types of risk built into their forms from which they calculate their numbers.

There are a number of elements that have to come together in order for petroleum to be trapped....even though we may think it is highly probable that oil will be present in a basin the trap maybe breached...the migration pathway might be convolute etc. As a consequence you need to apply a risk figure....a good number when looking at most basins is probably somewhere between 25%-40%. So when it is all said and done the actual number from the USGS study is probably not that unreasonable in many areas. I am actually doing a bit of work on this now.

Then a thorough review of their risking structure might come in REAL handy. Also, if I recall, their results are reported as probabilities, so there has to be some other measure of uncertainty built in as well as the risking percentages built into their calculation forms.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

Oh I see. We've got a double-standard with regard to 'proof'. When Colin & Co. assert low additions to URR coming from exploration and reserve growth, critics like Lynch jump up and down yelling "where's your proof, where's your proof, where's your proof!!!!" But when the table is turned on those who do claim more oil, the criteria for what constitutes 'proof' is not the same. It's cornucopian weasel wisardry. The magic of mushy reasoning. Nobody has disproved the USGS report. So there you have it-- proof. And hell, they worked on their statistical guesses a long time-- more proof. The standard of proof is different for the cornucopian.

Boy I'm not sure we are talking about the same definition of "proof", which was my point in the first place. One thing that is more fact than proof is Colin has been declaring PEAK!! since about the late-80's and has been wrong, and as he gets further and further down the path of being wrong, he keeps upping his Ultimate numbers along the way. So we know as a FACT that he isn't right..and within a few months we'll know if the guy who declared Thanksgiving 2005 as Peak is or is not right, and 100 years from now we'll know if the USGS was right, or closer in their answer than Colin has been. But we already know the first Peakers were wrong in this latest round of sky is falling, as long as they keep pronouncing Peak sooner or later SOMEONE might be right....not that it matters, but it might.

I, on the other hand, am kind of a hopeless optimist who thinks it is possible for western civilization to endure beyond the end of cheep oil by making drastic lifestyle changes (i.e. dump the car culture) and making some technological changes (i.e. use communications to help us dump the car culture). I get allot flak from doomer peakers who disagree. I tell them that ridding ourselves of some creature comforts is not the same as doom, but they don't agree.

Well, then while I might talk about the Doom that Peakers seem to want to use Peak to cause, I would say I am as optimistic as you are.

It's obvious that you have not studied history that tells us many civilizations have collapsed because they could not make that transition. I recommend Jared Diamond's book collapse where you will see that the transition that you are expecting is not exactly guaranteed.

Oh...I never said that ALL civilizations made the transition down through the ages from one energy form to another, just that us, as the human race, has done better in general, and succeeded in general, as we progressed through time and technologies. I also never said it would be easy, or cheap, or painless, to make these transitions, just that they have been made. I think taxing gasoline to $7/gal in the States right now would be a good start to get people thinking about efficiency...put the money into paying down the national debt, finance better education, health care for everyone, whatever, as long as it isn't spent doing silly political stuff. And stand back and see how well SUV's sell then, and how much demand destruction can be caused by a price like that. Completely politically unacceptable of course.

[rockdoc123]

Actually, if you go through their latest national and world assessments, they are NOT in place numbers. Some of the older ones might have been, or some studies for small areas, but the 2000 World and the 1995 and most recent national studies are most definitely NOT in place. "Technologically recoverable" which isn't in place at all.

Hmmm.....I just went back through the write up for the 2000 assessment and cannot find reference to recoverable resources. All I see is undiscovered resources. By strict definition (SPE, AAPG, World Petroleum Congress) this means in place numbers not recoverable and undiscovered resource has two components...recoverable and unrecoverable. All the charts have as a heading undiscovered resources.

Perhaps I missed it somewhere but I do not see where they state these numbers as being recoverable. But now that I think about it the methodology they use my in fact imply that the resource has to be recoverable resource.

The terminology is screwed up if they are referring to recoverable numbers.

As to the Barnett shale....from what I have seen they typically have a tough time with unconventional resource estimation.

I will spend a bit more time pouring through the 2000 assessment. It has a very poor writeup with respect to methodology.

[WebHubbleTelescope]

Oh...I never said that ALL civilizations made the transition down through the ages from one energy form to another, just that us, as the human race, has done better in general, and succeeded in general, as we progressed through time and technologies.

As opposed to what? The orangutan race? The Martian race?

Face it, many of you petroleum engineers and geologists are hypocrites and caught in a deep catch-22. On the one hand, you make these predictions that are totally conservative and you have to "grow" them over time to make up for your job insecurity. Fair enough. But then you turn around and blame Campbell and company for using the original numbers as proposed and accuse them of being "doomers" because they keep missing the peak date. Of course you can fairly accuse Campbell of being naive, but some deep-seated intellectual dishonesty prevents most everyone else in the oil industry from alerting us just why Campbell has made his mistakes.

Fess up to where these "bad" numbers come from and we can take you seriously. Right now I believe Campbell more than your brethren because at least he is not a hypocrite.

Here's a suggestion on your road to redemption. Get rid of the euphemisms. Don't call it "reserve growth", but call it "improper calculation corrections". If you don't like that idea, I will give you a shovel and you can keep on digging a deeper hole.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

Here is the main report page.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-060/

In the executive summary I noticed "capable of addition to reserves" which sure as heck isn't in place numbers. I coulnd't find them saying "in place" anywhere, but in one spot I saw "with potential to be added to reserves" which again, doesn't sound like an inplace estimate of any kind.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

Face it, many of you petroleum engineers and geologists are hypocrites and caught in a deep catch-22. On the one hand, you make these predictions that are totally conservative and you have to "grow" them over time to make up for your job insecurity. Fair enough. But then you turn around and blame Campbell and company for using the original numbers as proposed and accuse them of being "doomers" because they keep missing the peak date.

What is an absolute riot is your complete mischaracterization of what actually goes on in the largest business on the planet. For starters, there were reserve estimates and reserve growth before the industry even INVENTED petroleum engineers...so your chicken or egg arguement goes right out the window, blaming it on a at least one profession which didn't exist until what, the 40's or 50's maybe? As far as Campbell using the "original" numbers....anybody who actually assumes they are better numbers because they are original is simply being silly. Lynch's work on Campbell changing his OWN numbers through time being the classic example of "gee... parrot what I say but please don't notice I'm using the same devices I criticize everyone else for".

Of course you can fairly accuse Campbell of being naive, but some deep-seated intellectual dishonesty prevents most everyone else in the oil industry from alerting us just why Campbell has made his mistakes.

Being naive? That isn't a word I've applied to Colin before.

Here's a suggestion on your road to redemption. Get rid of the euphemisms. Don't call it "reserve growth", but call it "improper calculation corrections". If you don't like that idea, I will give you a shovel and you can keep on digging a deeper hole.

So..the poor prototype petroleum engineer sitting around jawboning about the ultimate recovery of the California heavy oilfields has the right answer in 1910? And when he doesn't get it right, its because its "an improper calculation"?

Good one....and thanks again for proving why amateurs don't play this game.

[rockdoc123]

In the executive summary I noticed "capable of addition to reserves" which sure as heck isn't in place numbers. I coulnd't find them saying "in place" anywhere, but in one spot I saw "with potential to be added to reserves" which again, doesn't sound like an inplace estimate of any kind.

If they indeed mean recoverable it is not clear at all. The sentence which states addition to reserves I think is the one refering to reserve growth. Any comment with potential to be added to reserves unless it refers to the whole kit and caboodle does not refer to recoverable necessarily. Perhaps if you quoted the sentence I would understand?

I went through it once more (I have the CDs) and can find no mention of recoverable resource or technically recoverable resource. When the words undiscovered resource are used without the modifiers it is assumed they are referring to everything originally in the ground (by generally agreed definition of SPE, AAPG, WPC).

You might be completely correct....however it is not clear from the work that they are referring to technically recoverable resource....on the contrary the words they use infers the opposite. So either they abuse the terminology (possible) or they actually mean resource.

[WebHubbleTelescope]

Good one....and thanks again for proving why amateurs don't play this game.

So Campbell is an amateur?

[WebHubbleTelescope]

They report resources undiscovered which are in place numbers.

Actually, if you go through their latest national and world assessments, they are NOT in place numbers. Some of the older ones might have been, or some studies for small areas, but the 2000 World and the 1995 and most recent national studies are most definitely NOT in place. "Technologically recoverable" which isn't in place at all.

Cat fight!

I thought you guys had this all figured out.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

Good one....and thanks again for proving why amateurs don't play this game.

So Campbell is an amateur?

Nope...but those who use his work as a basis for their own, without understanding the caveats, limitations, and past accuracy of his method, and then pretend that their work is any better...tisk tisk....

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

You might be completely correct....however it is not clear from the work that they are referring to technically recoverable resource....on the contrary the words they use infers the opposite. So either they abuse the terminology (possible) or they actually mean resource.

RocDoc, I found this related to the 1995 Assessment...

http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/1002/noga1of2.html

halfway down the page there is this...

"In 1995, the USGS completed the National Assessment of Oil and Gas Resources. This assessment scientifically estimated the amount of oil and gas that could be added to U.S. proved reserves."

Thats added to proved reserves for sure...not in place.

Look at the third page of this one..

http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/WEcont/chaps/ES.pdf

I can't copy and paste out of the PDF but right there is "estimates the quantity outside the US that have the potential to be added to reserves" in the next 30 years. Page 3, top paragraph.

[WebHubbleTelescope]

Here is the main report page.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-060/

In the executive summary I noticed "capable of addition to reserves" which sure as heck isn't in place numbers. I coulnd't find them saying "in place" anywhere, but in one spot I saw "with potential to be added to reserves" which again, doesn't sound like an inplace estimate of any kind.

We pay for that crap? Did you get a load of the Monte Carlo spreadsheet program they stuck into that particular report? It requires a plugin:

EMCEE and Emc2 are Monte-Carlo simulation programs for assessing undiscovered conventional oil and gas resources. EMCEE allows a variety of distribution types for input, while Emc2 works with a specific set of distributions. They run as spreadsheet workbooks in Microsoft Excel. EMCEE and Emc2 require Crystal Ball, a Monte Carlo simulation program from Decisioneering, Inc. that runs in Microsoft Excel.

That program costs between $800 and $3000 and appears to do routine Monte Carlo computations.

If someone wants to do this kind of calculation without having to pay the government's consultants again with our tax dollars, let's do it here.

[WebHubbleTelescope]

Good one....and thanks again for proving why amateurs don't play this game.

So Campbell is an amateur?

Nope...but those who use his work as a basis for their own, without understanding the caveats, limitations, and past accuracy of his method, and then pretend that their work is any better...tisk tisk....

I find it funny how the simple idea of extracting oil out of the ground forever gets mystified, to the point that you have to have some secret entry to a kind of guild society to qualify as an expert on the subject. Face it, the process amounts to basically bean counting and you guys know it. The only reason we (as you refer to as amateurs) have to use probability and statistics is because of the paucity of non-proprietary data out there.

I suppose the competitive spirit in some of us causes a "better than thou" attitude to show through, but you have to remember that these predictions will become historical in short order, and the final autopsy will reveal what transpired.

Remember what I said, "reserve growth" is a clever euphemism for "bad estimates, revised".

Much like the "clear skies initiative" is a euphemism for "pollute freely".

Much like the "healthy forests initiative" is a euphemism for "clear-cut to your heart's desire".

Much like "oil sands" is a euphemism for "thick tar".