[dashster]

Steven Kopits, of oil field services consulting firm Douglas-Westwood, gave a talk recently in which he stated that conventional crude oil production had peaked in 2005 (he is not including tar sands or tight oil). In the current news item list, they have an article that says crude oil production - not including shale - has fallen back to 2005 levels, and shows EIA graphs supporting that. Why is there a discrepancy? Are tar sands included in the crude oil figures of the EIA?

[sparky]

.
Here we go again , it doesn't matter what is included in "oil"
if it can be refined and power a jet , a truck or a plastic syntetiser it IS oil
sure the "conventionnal crude is depleting , that's not exactly a surprise
but if the not so good , not so sweet , stuff cut the mustard , it's "oil"

[dashster]

.
Here we go again , it doesn't matter what is included in "oil"
if it can be refined and power a jet , a truck or a plastic syntetiser it IS oil
sure the "conventionnal crude is depleting , that's not exactly a surprise
but if the not so good , not so sweet , stuff cut the mustard , it's "oil"

So you would be willing to pay the same amount for an oil field with 800,000 barrels of oil in reserve as for land filled with bitumen equivalent to 800,000 barrels of oil after processing?

[peterjames]

.
Here we go again , it doesn't matter what is included in "oil"
if it can be refined and power a jet , a truck or a plastic syntetiser it IS oil
sure the "conventionnal crude is depleting , that's not exactly a surprise
but if the not so good , not so sweet , stuff cut the mustard , it's "oil"

You have left out quite a few steps there. It can be refined, it can also be sent to a market that wants to buy it, but its net value probably runs out by the time the guy who works at the boeing factory, gets to work. He just has to be thankful that conventional oil has produced sufficient net energy for the metal to be dug up to allow said plane to be built.

[AndyA]

He just has to be thankful that conventional oil has produced sufficient net energy for the metal to be dug up to allow said plane to be built.

Not really, a lot of the energy used in production most likely comes from coal and nat gas.

[peterjames]

He just has to be thankful that conventional oil has produced sufficient net energy for the metal to be dug up to allow said plane to be built.

Not really, a lot of the energy used in production most likely comes from coal and nat gas.

OTHER energy comes from natural gas and coal etc. Those workers driving out to the coal fields, do so in their petrol powered cars. Those bulk ore carriers, ship their products using engines powered by oils. Those workers flying out to the natural gas platforms, do it on oil powered helicopters. Those trucks carrying coal to the surface, are powered by oil.

[Pops]

Steven Kopits, ... stated that conventional crude oil production had peaked in 2005...
In the current news item ... says crude oil production - not including shale - has fallen back to 2005 levels ...
Why is there a discrepancy? Are tar sands included in the crude oil figures of the EIA?

Not sure what discrepancy you mean, they both appear to be saying the same thing.

I think the EIA's definition is anything that can flow through a pipe is crude and anything that flows out of a well is conventional.

Shale/LTO is oil produced directly from the layer of rock (ancient organic rich sedimentary rock) where all oil comes from, it's just that most oil recovered - "conventional" oil - has migrated out of that source rock and collected in "reservoirs" trapped by an even tighter, impermeable layer of rock. Shale/LTO is not in reservoirs and it doesn't flow out of a well without help from fracking.

Tar sands are also "unconventional" because they can't be produced from a well and don't flow without dilution. They are essentially undercooked crude and in Canada I guess they are near the surface due to glacial action. The EIA counts them as crude after they are diluted just like it counts LTO after it is fracked so it can come out of a well.

(I stand to be corrected on any of that - LOL)

So if you back out the unconventional sources, - here just subtracting LTO you see the plateau:



If you back out tar sands you'd see that plateau is a little more of a downslope, not much because CA isn't increasing much but some:

[ROCKMAN]

Pops makes a good point. And as much as I hate to jump into the middle of a good pissing contest I'll remind everyone that in the oil patch there is no such thing as conventional or unconventional OIL. There are conventional and unconventional RESERVOIRS. Which is the point Pops is making. There are heavy and sour oils coming out of CONVENTIONAL reservoirs that are worth much less that the production coming out of the UNCONVENTIONAL oil sands reservoirs. And there are medium sweet oils coming out of the UNCONVENTIONAL carbonate reservoirs in Alabama that are much more valuable than oils coming out of CONVENTIOANL reservoirs in Mississippi and the UNCONVENTIONAL Eagle Ford Shale reservoir. And the reason for that is due to the AL oils having a much more lucrative motor fuel yield.

I know this little post won't stop anyone from using the terms unconventional/conventional when referring to oil but I make the point that making generalizations based on such distinctions are going to be confusing and at times contradictory. But such is like, eh? LOL.

[Ron Patterson]

Pops wrote:

Tar sands are also "unconventional" because they can't be produced from a well and don't flow without dilution. They are essentially undercooked crude and in Canada I guess they are near the surface due to glacial action. The EIA counts them as crude after they are diluted just like it counts LTO after it is fracked so it can come out of a well.

Just to clarify, tar sands oil is not undercooked and is near the surface because there was no cap-rock to stop their migration toward the surface. It started out as conventional oil that was cooked deep in the earth in source rock. Then when it migrated toward the surface it encountered no cap-rock so it just kept going until it reached the surface, or very near the surface. There the light stuff either evaporated or was consumed by bacteria, leaving only the heavy stuff or bitumen.

The Green River Shale is an example of uncooked oil. That is called Kerogen.

[zaphod42]

Considering that oil price (WTI) in 2013 was at a record high, and that today it is somewhat higher than it was in '13 (http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHa ... 000__3&f=a), it really does not seem to matter what you call it. If adding 29% in 2 years via frac'ing has not moved the price, and the need for more and more wells due to higher depletion rates threatens supply in the near term, I would say we are in deep stuff.

I've been avoiding PO sites lately simply because they have not really made much of a difference that I can see, from any practical standpoint. No one at any significant level of government acknowledges the impact of oil price on the economy; most AGW advocates are more interested in coal (as they should be); and, no one has offered a clear idea on what to do that is plausible in the least degree.

At least Rockman is doing something about the need for oil today. And he can't really do much about geophysical reality, now, can he? Truly unconventional production remains expensive; there seems no way to avoid that. What is the present cost for new conventional oil, including exploration, proving, and production cost? How does that compare with frac'ing, or oil sands production? Those are the questions that point the way to our future. I suggest that people make serious plans on how to deal with that, rather than bandying about terminology.

Craig

[dashster]

Steven Kopits, ... stated that conventional crude oil production had peaked in 2005...
In the current news item ... says crude oil production - not including shale - has fallen back to 2005 levels ...
Why is there a discrepancy? Are tar sands included in the crude oil figures of the EIA?

Not sure what discrepancy you mean, they both appear to be saying the same thing.

How are they saying the same thing? One says peak in 2005, once says peak after 2005 - "FALLEN BACK TO 2005 LEVELS".
To me, there would be no discrepancy if they both said there was a peak in 2005. Or I would not consider there to be a discrepancy if they both said that there was a peak after 2005. But they both don't say there was a peak in 2005 and they both don't say there was a peak after 2005. They each have the peak in a different year than the other.

[Ron Patterson]

How can they possibly be saying the same thing? One says peak in 2005, once says peak after 2005 - FALLEN BACK TO 2005.
How do you not see a discrepancy in those two statements?

They are saying the same thing. Without tar sands oil and LTO oil crude oil production has fallen back to 2005 levels. However the EIA counts LTO oil and tar sands oil as Crude + Condensate. The EIA does not acknowledge any difference. And they should not because they both, LTO and tar sands are oil that is refined into other products, just like conventional oil.

[zaphod42]

How can they be saying the same thing? One says peak in 2005, once says peak after 2005

This is what I was talking about. Bandying about terms.

Okay, so there must be a 'real' peak, which is the absolute maximum 'conventional' production of crude oil ever. That will be what it is by its definition. There is also a 'peaking phenomena' that represents an 'undulating plateau' of production, at an average peak rate. When this ends, there will be a fall off in 'conventional' recovery. What practical difference does it make what you call it, or how you define it. The reality of the concept is that of limited resources in a closed environment.

Taking someone to task because they used a looser definition of 'peak oil' or a different one does not contribute to the underlying dilemma of of needing to find an alternate way to maintain our civilization as various resources peak and decline. Instead we engage in pedantic display and waste time.

Craig

[dashster]

How can they possibly be saying the same thing? One says peak in 2005, once says peak after 2005 - FALLEN BACK TO 2005.
How do you not see a discrepancy in those two statements?

They are saying the same thing. Without tar sands oil and LTO oil crude oil production has fallen back to 2005 levels. However the EIA counts LTO oil and tar sands oil as Crude + Condensate. The EIA does not acknowledge any difference. And they should not because they both, LTO and tar sands are oil that is refined into other products, just like conventional oil.

What does LTO stand for?

If somebody using IEA data is saying "without tar sands and tight oil, crude oil product has fallen back to 2005 levels", then they aren't saying the same thing as Kopits. Kopits says that without tar sands and tight oil, crude oil production peaked in 2005. It hasn't fallen back, to 2005 levels according to Kopits, it has fallen from 2005 levels.

[Tanada]

What does LTO stand for?

If somebody using IEA data is saying "without tar sands and tight oil, crude oil product has fallen back to 2005 levels", then they aren't saying the same thing as Kopits. Kopits says that without tar sands and tight oil, crude oil production peaked in 2005. It hasn't fallen back, to 2005 levels according to Kopits, it has fallen from 2005 levels.

LTO=Light Tight Oil, the stuff coming out of North Dakota is LTO.

[Pops]

Thanks Ron I was confused as usual.

Dashter, I think you are missing the forest looking for a tree. There is more variance between the different estimates of production than there is growth reported the last 10 years.

In the 2-300 year history of oil, a particular year, month and day are not of great importance. In fact I doubt there will ever be agreement on a date simply because the data is too obscured by politics and profit-motive. What is important here in real time is not a specific date but the trend, and the trend is increasing cost and stalled growth.

[Pops]

Here is an example of why it will be hard to ever put a definitive date on PO - even in hindsight. This is from EarlyWarning, Staniford's blog. It shows that KSA's estimated production sometimes varies nearly a million barrels a day depending on who's counting and that's just one producer.

[Ron Patterson]

Okay we need to define what oil is in order to determine when it peaks. I regard oil as what the EIA calls Crude + Condensate. That is as near as we can get from the published reports to crude oil. I do not regard propane and butane as oil. Hell, they even count ethane as a Natural Gas Liquid. They are bottled gas, not oil. The EIA includes them in their "Total Liquids" category and calls them Natural Gas Liquids.

But there is no general agreement as to whether oil peaks when C+C peaks or when Total Liquids peaks. For me I only track C+C and peak oil will be when C+C peaks. And that includes LTO, (Light Tight Oil) and tar sands. Sorry but they are both oil, not bottled gas like propane and butane and most certainly not ethane which is usually treated just methane.

Natural gas liquids (NGLs) are hydrocarbons—in the same family of molecules as natural gas and crude oil, composed exclusively of carbon and hydrogen. Ethane, propane, butane, isobutane, and pentane are all NGLs.

However the EIA, and virtually all other reporting agencies, calls pentane crude oil or more correctly condensate. But it is a liquid at sea level pressure and room temperature. So we just have to accept pentane as oil.

[zaphod42]

Okay we need to define what oil is in order to determine when it peaks.

Ron, I think we also need to define what 'peaks' means, if we wish to be true pedants. Do we mean, actual production, or do we mean a peak of oil available for export? I tend to believe that ELM standards have greater bearing on practical reality than simply, how much is produced.

What say you?

Craig

[Ron Patterson]

Craig, I agree with Jeffery that "Peak Exports" is the true peak oil for net importing nations. However I must use peak production as peak oil. That is the point where C+C peaks and begins to decline... forever.

I think that point will be sometime between 2013 and 2017.