Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Discussion of Harper[BP] ASPO presentation

Discuss research and forecasts regarding hydrocarbon depletion.

Discussion of Harper[BP] ASPO presentation

Unread postby nero » Thu 08 Jul 2004, 16:59:38

Thought I would kick off discussion of a thread about this ASPO presentation.

http://www.peakoil.net/iwood2004/pptBer ... perpdf.pdf

My thoughts:

The first seven slides clearly describes factors in reserve growth. And eye balling the figures it looks like the reserves about doubled over 10 years from discovery for the fields described.

The presentation then describes the Arrington aproach to estimating reserve growth. Observing in slide 10 that taking the 77-91 data you could estimate that a fields original reserves might grow by 10 times after 60 years.

This presentation addresses one of the concerns I've always had with the back dating of oil reserves to year of field discovery. That is that the newer data doesn't take into account the reserve growth that has yet to happen for the new field. So on slide 11 it adjusts for the expected growth and shows the discovery trend in the USA.

Then in slide 12 it throws a spanner in the works by saying that the predicted growth really depends on the data set used. The newer data being better than the older data. I think that this could be due to a couple of factors. Technology is getting better at the initial estimate or 2 the companies are depleting their unbooked reserves to keep the financials looking good. (I'm not sure if this is using proved or 2P numbers)

I don't know why the author doesn't update the Attanasi and Root data for the past 13 years. Anybody interested in doing that effort and posting that here (Soft_Landing?)

Slide 13 leads me to think that the unbooked reserves may be a factor in what is show in slide 12 as revisions have decreased in importance in the reserve additions

Slides 14 and 15 show reserves increased much more slowly over the first 20 years for UK and Norway. Doesn't say why though. Could be because the reserves are proved and probable as opposed to just proved. Anyway, it is very interesting. I wonder if the average is the weighted average or not?

Slides 16-20 show how ignoring reserves growth can lead to some missleading forecasts of reserves

Slide 21-22 comes back to the arrington approach to estimating future reserves growth this time for global production. But this time instead of growing by 6 times after 30 years as was shown in US data set the reserves tripled after 30 years. The reason for the difference is unexplained. I would hazard to guess it is a combination of factors, most importantly being different reporting regimes. I wonder a bit how exactly he got the data since (I believe) many countries such as SA don't break down reserve additions to individual fields (at least I wasn't aware that that data was arround). Can anyone correct me on this? Another possible factor is that the data is significantly newer and then would take advantage of the newer imaging technology.

Anyway it shows that the global effort to find oil has probably been much better in the past 20 years than Peak Oilers usually think, and that we are still probably finding a bit more oil than we use, as long as you factor in the predicted reserve growth.


Slides 23-24 repeat the process for global gas production.

All in all I thought this was an excellent presentation and wish I had seen it in person.
User avatar
nero
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat 22 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Unread postby nero » Thu 08 Jul 2004, 18:32:57

I hesitate to reply to my own post but I'll add an aditional thought or two.

The data that was used for graphs 21-22 was from IHS Energy(formery petroconsultants) I don't know how well they do at getting data field by field, but I'll guess they probably do the best job of anybody. I looked for anything from IHS to give me an idea of what they are thinking. I came across this presentation from May 2004, that is even more criptic than the BP one.

http://www.ihsenergy.com/company/events/presentations/usgs_resources.pdf

From the fact that he does not mention the Arrington method of estimating reserves growth I'd guess that that was Harper's addition not IHS. The X3 after 30 years reserve growth number that Harper uses is huge. I sure would like to know what Campbell etal. made of that reserve growth factor.

One suprising little tidbit though is slide 3 of this IHS presentation that shows the 1965 water cut was estimated to be 22% and the 2001 water cut was 38%. Do you possibly think this could be a world average water cut. Who could possibly have taken the time to calculate that data.
User avatar
nero
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat 22 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Reserve growth

Unread postby DoctorDoom » Fri 09 Jul 2004, 19:09:17

I'll have to read over those materials, thanks for posting them. One comment about reserve growth, though: it's dangerous to extrapolate from past growth ratios to new fields. Much of the growth has come from enhanced recovery techniques, as well as better technologies for determining where oil is located and how much there is. The benefits of all this technology are already in the estimates for a new field right from the get-go. This leaves you with (a) better knowledge of the field obtained over time by observing production trends, and (b) future technologies.
DoctorDoom
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun 20 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: California

Unread postby Soft_Landing » Sun 18 Jul 2004, 13:18:41

nero wrote:I don't know why the author doesn't update the Attanasi and Root data for the past 13 years. Anybody interested in doing that effort and posting that here (Soft_Landing?)


Does anyone know where I'd get the data from?

EIA publishes production by field each year & year of discovery for each field, however, without reserves for each field, I can't match up reserve adjustments with the source field's year of discovery. EIA publishes reserve amounts and adjustments by state, not by field.

If anyone can drop the data by, I'd love to put it together and post it up.

I think an update of the estimation of field growth factor, even if it were only valid for US lower 48, would be extremely interesting.

Cheers Nero, for putting this stuff up, real good reads.
User avatar
Soft_Landing
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri 28 May 2004, 03:00:00

Baseline depletion numbers

Unread postby DoctorDoom » Mon 19 Jul 2004, 12:16:53

Per Aaron's request, a sticky post with my baseline scenario. Other scenarios gratefully accepted. What we're looking for are models showing production over time, with the production subtracted from reserves so that we can look at the process of the gas tank running dry.

My model still needs some tuning, in particular it behaves badly for the next few years.

The next step, if I can ever get the data, is to add in some data re. alternatives, the main one being coal-to-liquids production, which I'm now convinced is going to start ramping up as the decline sets in.

The step after that is to plug in the consumption, and try to see what policy changes are going to be made (or forced) to deal with the deline without a general collapse.

Code: Select all
        +----- World ------+            +-- Saudi --+  ME 5
Year    Mb/day   Gb     R/P     Heavy   R/P    Mb/day  %world
2004    75.570  1127.9  40.9    0.000   82.7   10.234  28.9%
2005    75.440  1108.9  40.3    0.000   69.8   10.848  30.7%
2006    74.946  1089.7  39.8    0.000   65.1   11.499  32.7%
2007    74.653  1070.2  39.3    0.000   60.7   12.188  34.8%
2008    74.908  1050.2  38.4    0.000   56.5   12.920  36.8%
2009    75.325  1029.6  37.4    0.000   52.5   13.695  38.8%
2010    75.879  1008.5  36.4    1.000   48.8   14.243  40.4%
2011    77.273   987.0  35.0    1.200   46.1   14.812  41.7%
2012    78.073   964.9  33.9    1.440   43.5   15.405  43.4%
2013    78.909   942.3  32.7    1.728   41.0   16.021  45.1%
2014    79.769   919.2  31.6    1.901   38.5   16.342  46.3%
2015    80.241   895.7  30.6    2.091   36.9   16.668  47.7%
2016    80.565   871.9  29.7    2.300   35.3   17.002  49.3%
2017    81.000   847.8  28.7    2.530   33.7   17.342  50.8%
2018    81.497   823.4  27.7    2.783   32.1   17.689  52.0%
2019    81.857   798.7  26.7    3.061   30.6   18.042  53.1%
2020    82.010   773.9  25.9    3.367   29.1   18.042  53.9%
2021    81.899   749.0  25.1    3.704   28.2   18.042  54.9%
2022    81.923   724.0  24.2    4.075   27.2   18.042  55.7%
2023    81.953   699.0  23.4    4.319   26.3   18.042  56.3%
2024    81.771   673.9  22.6    4.578   25.3   18.042  56.9%
2025    81.408   648.9  21.8    4.853   24.4   18.042  57.5%
2026    81.010   624.0  21.1    5.144   23.5   18.042  58.1%
2027    80.698   599.2  20.3    5.453   22.5   18.042  58.7%
2028    80.301   574.5  19.6    5.780   21.6   18.042  59.1%
2029    79.865   550.0  18.9    6.127   20.6   18.042  59.5%
2030    79.335   525.7  18.2    6.494   19.6   17.862  59.6%
2031    78.571   501.6  17.5    6.884   18.9   17.683  60.0%
2032    77.884   477.8  16.8    7.297   18.1   17.507  60.3%
2033    77.273   454.3  16.1    7.338   17.3   17.331  60.5%
2034    76.287   431.1  15.5    7.265   16.5   17.158  61.1%
2035    75.048   408.2  14.9    7.192   15.7   16.987  61.7%
2036    73.680   385.7  14.3    7.120   14.9   16.477  62.0%
2037    71.935   363.6  13.8    7.049   14.3   15.983  62.6%
2038    70.176   342.2  13.4    6.978   13.8   15.503  63.2%
2039    68.439   321.2  12.9    6.909   13.2   15.038  63.8%
2040    66.781   300.8  12.3    6.840   12.6   14.587  64.3%
2041    65.121   280.9  11.8    6.771   12.0   13.405  63.4%
2042    62.395   261.9  11.5    6.703   12.0   12.320  63.5%
2043    59.625   243.8  11.2    6.636   12.0   11.324  63.9%
2044    57.041   226.5  10.9    6.570   12.0   10.409  64.0%
2045    54.508   210.1  10.6    6.504   12.0    9.569  64.3%
2046    52.138   194.5  10.2    6.439   12.0    8.798  63.6%
2047    49.406   179.8  10.0    6.375   12.0    8.090  62.9%
2048    46.584   166.1   9.8    6.311   12.0    7.439  62.7%
2049    43.966   153.2   9.5    6.248   12.0    6.842  61.8%
2050    41.274   141.3   9.4    6.186   12.0    6.293  61.3%
DoctorDoom
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun 20 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: California

Unread postby nero » Mon 19 Jul 2004, 14:28:09

Does anyone know where I'd get the data from?

EIA publishes production by field each year & year of discovery for each field, however, without reserves for each field, I can't match up reserve adjustments with the source field's year of discovery. EIA publishes reserve amounts and adjustments by state, not by field.


I was looking around the EIA, where is the field by field production data?
User avatar
nero
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat 22 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Unread postby Pops » Mon 19 Jul 2004, 14:55:54

I think Dr’s point shows up on slide 13 with newer fields growing less than old.

On a related topic, I saw the BP quarterly report some time back that had quite a large section entitled “Managing Decline” - that is quite revealing I think.

This presentation goes further in promoting the idea that things aren’t so bad.

There is no doubt more oil will be found, the most pessimistic think we’ve only recovered half of all recoverable.

P.S. I think there is another thread on this topic somewhere.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19081
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Unread postby Soft_Landing » Fri 01 Oct 2004, 09:43:57

Nero wrote:I was looking around the EIA, where is the field by field production data?


Sorry Nero, didn't see the question. You can always PM if you want a faster response...

EIA used to publish a report like this one each year... (this is 1993 - just what I have handy)

(warning: kinda big from memory)

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/petroleum/021693.pdf

Anyway, go to page 68, and from there on, you'll see production figures for individual fields. They don't publish for every field, but they publish Top 100 U.S. Oil a Fields as Ranked by Production within Proved Reserves Group, so it's pretty comprehensive.

Have fun...
User avatar
Soft_Landing
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri 28 May 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby stayathomedad » Mon 18 Oct 2004, 21:21:25

quick question, where do you think that production in saudi arabia is coming from? that is a lot they have to pump. just scratching my head over it, but your data, on first look looks a lot like the us government models. so i wonder why there is a discrepancy bteween these models, like aspo vs. regulatory data. do you know? i have been puzzled for a while about this. can you help me, as a matter of fact, all of us understand this.
It just gets better every day....
User avatar
stayathomedad
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun 18 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: wilmington, nc

Unread postby pup55 » Tue 09 Nov 2004, 11:58:00

Happy Graphing!

US-EIA: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/excel/aeotab_21.xls
EE: EnviroEngr per the previous post
Bakhtiari:http://www3.telus.net/public/a6a20277/
ASPO: Aspo website

Code: Select all
year   US-EIA   EE   Bakhtiari   ASPO
2000   75.7      74.0   75.0
2001   76.3      75.5   
2002   76.8      77.0   
2003   77.9      78.0   
2004   79.2   75.6   79.0   
2005   80.6   75.4   80.0   84.0
2006   82.0   74.9   81.0   
2007   83.5   74.7   80.5   
2008   84.8   74.9   80.0   85.0
2009   86.2   75.3   79.0   
2010   87.6   75.9   77.5   84.0
2011   89.1   77.3   76.0   
2012   90.6   78.1   74.5   
2013   92.0   78.9   73.0   
2014   93.4   79.8   71.5   
2015   95.1   80.2   69.5   
2016   96.8   80.6   67.0   
2017   98.6   81.0   64.5   
2018   100.3   81.5   60.5   
2019   102.2   81.9   58.0   
2020   104.1   82.0   54.5   65.0
2021   106.1   81.9      
2022   108.1   81.9      
2023   110.1   82.0      
2024   112.4   81.8      
2025      81.4      
2026      81.0      
2027      80.7      
2028      80.3      
2029      79.9      
2030      79.3      
2031      78.6      
2032      77.9      
2033      77.3      
2034      76.3      
2035      75.0      
2036      73.7      
2037      71.9      
2038      70.2      
2039      68.4      
2040      66.8      
2041      65.1      
2042      62.4      
2043      59.6      
2044      57.0      
2045      54.5      
2046      52.1      
2047      49.4      
2048      46.6      
2049      44.0      
2050      41.3      33.0
User avatar
pup55
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00

my bad

Unread postby pup55 » Tue 09 Nov 2004, 11:59:31

I inadvertently attributed the above forecast to EE rather than Dr. Doom, the rightful forecaster.

Sorry.
User avatar
pup55
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby Madpaddy » Tue 09 Nov 2004, 13:45:19

I'm a bit stupid

But do those figures show a peak in 2020 and an almost doubling of Saudi output?

Sounds hopeful to me
User avatar
Madpaddy
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2044
Joined: Fri 25 Jun 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby Permanently_Baffled » Tue 09 Nov 2004, 16:42:52

Why does peak Heavy oil happen so quickly in this model? , even the pessimistic ASPO dont even have heavy oil peaking in 2050!
User avatar
Permanently_Baffled
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: England

Re: Baseline depletion numbers

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 07 May 2005, 00:22:49

DoctorDoom wrote:Per Aaron's request, a sticky post with my baseline scenario. Other scenarios gratefully accepted. What we're looking for are models showing production over time, with the production subtracted from reserves so that we can look at the process of the gas tank running dry.

My model still needs some tuning, in particular it behaves badly for the next few years.

The next step, if I can ever get the data, is to add in some data re. alternatives, the main one being coal-to-liquids production, which I'm now convinced is going to start ramping up as the decline sets in.

The step after that is to plug in the consumption, and try to see what policy changes are going to be made (or forced) to deal with the deline without a general collapse.

Code: Select all
        +----- World ------+            +-- Saudi --+  ME 5
Year    Mb/day   Gb     R/P     Heavy   R/P    Mb/day  %world
2004    75.570  1127.9  40.9    0.000   82.7   10.234  28.9%
2005    75.440  1108.9  40.3    0.000   69.8   10.848  30.7%
2006    74.946  1089.7  39.8    0.000   65.1   11.499  32.7%
2007    74.653  1070.2  39.3    0.000   60.7   12.188  34.8%
2008    74.908  1050.2  38.4    0.000   56.5   12.920  36.8%
2009    75.325  1029.6  37.4    0.000   52.5   13.695  38.8%
2010    75.879  1008.5  36.4    1.000   48.8   14.243  40.4%
2011    77.273   987.0  35.0    1.200   46.1   14.812  41.7%
2012    78.073   964.9  33.9    1.440   43.5   15.405  43.4%
2013    78.909   942.3  32.7    1.728   41.0   16.021  45.1%
2014    79.769   919.2  31.6    1.901   38.5   16.342  46.3%
2015    80.241   895.7  30.6    2.091   36.9   16.668  47.7%
2016    80.565   871.9  29.7    2.300   35.3   17.002  49.3%
2017    81.000   847.8  28.7    2.530   33.7   17.342  50.8%
2018    81.497   823.4  27.7    2.783   32.1   17.689  52.0%
2019    81.857   798.7  26.7    3.061   30.6   18.042  53.1%
2020    82.010   773.9  25.9    3.367   29.1   18.042  53.9%
2021    81.899   749.0  25.1    3.704   28.2   18.042  54.9%
2022    81.923   724.0  24.2    4.075   27.2   18.042  55.7%
2023    81.953   699.0  23.4    4.319   26.3   18.042  56.3%
2024    81.771   673.9  22.6    4.578   25.3   18.042  56.9%
2025    81.408   648.9  21.8    4.853   24.4   18.042  57.5%
2026    81.010   624.0  21.1    5.144   23.5   18.042  58.1%
2027    80.698   599.2  20.3    5.453   22.5   18.042  58.7%
2028    80.301   574.5  19.6    5.780   21.6   18.042  59.1%
2029    79.865   550.0  18.9    6.127   20.6   18.042  59.5%
2030    79.335   525.7  18.2    6.494   19.6   17.862  59.6%
2031    78.571   501.6  17.5    6.884   18.9   17.683  60.0%
2032    77.884   477.8  16.8    7.297   18.1   17.507  60.3%
2033    77.273   454.3  16.1    7.338   17.3   17.331  60.5%
2034    76.287   431.1  15.5    7.265   16.5   17.158  61.1%
2035    75.048   408.2  14.9    7.192   15.7   16.987  61.7%
2036    73.680   385.7  14.3    7.120   14.9   16.477  62.0%
2037    71.935   363.6  13.8    7.049   14.3   15.983  62.6%
2038    70.176   342.2  13.4    6.978   13.8   15.503  63.2%
2039    68.439   321.2  12.9    6.909   13.2   15.038  63.8%
2040    66.781   300.8  12.3    6.840   12.6   14.587  64.3%
2041    65.121   280.9  11.8    6.771   12.0   13.405  63.4%
2042    62.395   261.9  11.5    6.703   12.0   12.320  63.5%
2043    59.625   243.8  11.2    6.636   12.0   11.324  63.9%
2044    57.041   226.5  10.9    6.570   12.0   10.409  64.0%
2045    54.508   210.1  10.6    6.504   12.0    9.569  64.3%
2046    52.138   194.5  10.2    6.439   12.0    8.798  63.6%
2047    49.406   179.8  10.0    6.375   12.0    8.090  62.9%
2048    46.584   166.1   9.8    6.311   12.0    7.439  62.7%
2049    43.966   153.2   9.5    6.248   12.0    6.842  61.8%
2050    41.274   141.3   9.4    6.186   12.0    6.293  61.3%


Do oyu have any fresh numbers to plug in next to these projections to test their accuracy?
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16155
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

aspo peak date

Unread postby Cool Hand Linc » Mon 06 Jun 2005, 20:16:16

Perm Baf,


May 2005 ASPO news letter shows

regular oil 2006

Heavy 2021

deepwater 2014

polar 2030

gas liquid 2027

These numbers also include 145 billion barrels of regular oil that have yet to be discovered.

If we keep using 82 million barrels per day. Thats just under 30 billion barrels a year...........

all averaged together 2007
Peace out!

Cool Hand Linc 8)
User avatar
Cool Hand Linc
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Sat 17 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Tulsa, Ok

Unread postby khebab » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 10:44:24

Question: the production numbers seems to be low, are we considering only conventional oil here?
______________________________________
http://GraphOilogy.blogspot.com
khebab
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Canada

well

Unread postby Cool Hand Linc » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 15:37:26

Heavy, deepwater, polar, gas liquid (condensate) are not conventional crude.

The dates I copied from ASPO are for the type listed next to the date.

So the answer to your question is 'no'.
Peace out!

Cool Hand Linc 8)
User avatar
Cool Hand Linc
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Sat 17 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Tulsa, Ok

Unread postby EnergySpin » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 17:16:39

Hi Dr Doom,
which formulas did you use?
SW implementation etc?
User avatar
EnergySpin
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

ASPO Spreadsheet-"All-Peak.xls"

Unread postby PeakOiler » Sat 12 Nov 2005, 10:33:29

Pardon my ignorance, but can anyone tell me where I might download the latest version of ASPO's "All-Peak" spreadsheet?

The version I have has a "Last Modified Date" of January, 2005. ASPO Ireland's website under the "Graphs and Country Profiles" tab relates that new graphs would be available last August.

I am also curious if the data in each ASPO Newsletter's "Country Assesments" tables will be updated, or have been updated elsewhere, and I'm just not looking in the right place.

Thanks in advance.
User avatar
PeakOiler
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3664
Joined: Thu 18 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Central Texas

Re: ASPO Spreadsheet-"All-Peak.xls"

Unread postby Taskforce_Unity » Sat 12 Nov 2005, 17:23:39

ASPO doesn't provide detailed data. The latest figures can be found in newsletter 59
User avatar
Taskforce_Unity
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 479
Joined: Mon 22 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Holland

Next

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests