[rockdoc123]

"Reserves are not being replaced, and can not be replaced. Which means that the oil age is ending. An extractive industry dies when its reserves get depleted." Obviously not true. new reserves are continuously being added. Maybe just slopping wording. Now how much is being replaced is a very different proposition. And runs into believing (or not believing) the new reserves numbers being tossed out.

and as I have said numerous times here the Ernst & Young study which looked at the top 50 companies who operate in the US (including their international numbers) more than fully replaced their produced proven reserves for the past 5 years. To understand the numbers requires understanding the difference between Proven, Proven producing, Probable and Possible reserves.
Extensions and discoveries of 2.7 billion barrels in 2016 drove a 128% F&D excluding revisions production replacement rate.

Independents continued to lead the pack, with a 2016 F&D rate excluding revisions of 187%, though this was somewhat tempered from the 239% they experienced in 2015. By contrast to the integrateds, Parsley Energy and RSP Permian posted F&D rates, excluding revisions, of 720% and 608% respectively, the largest of the companies in the study; however, notably their production volumes were near 10 million barrels. Large independents improved to 134% on the same basis, up from 110% in 2015. Chesapeake Energy led this peer group with F&D excluding revisions of 486%, followed by Marathon Oil at 398% and Antero Resources at 372%.

But no matter how many times I post this information Short continues with the meme that the industry is not replacing its reserves. It is very clear he does not understand the definition of Reserves nor the various categories.

[BahamasEd]

But no matter how many times I post this information Short continues with the meme that the industry is not replacing its reserves. It is very clear he does not understand the definition of Reserves nor the various categories.

It's only because, yes, we know that any one company can replace it reserves.

But where are you going to find the extra reserves for the planet 'EARTH'!!!

So give me world wide data please, as I'm not moving to Mars any time soon. We're at like 90,000,000 barrels a day right now, so show me where we found 90,000,000 barrels of new oil yesterday? or the day before?

[rockdoc123]

So give me world wide data please, as I'm not moving to Mars any time soon. We're at like 90,000,000 barrels a day right now, so show me where we found 90,000,000 barrels of new oil yesterday? or the day before?

the issue is that all assessments of current Reserves are based on Proven Reserves. What studies like E&Y and the BP annual assessment show is that Proved Producing reserves are being replaced year on year. I've posted it before and I'm not going to do it again but the information is easily accessible on BP site. E&Y include data from the companies who are active in the US but also overseas so much of that data is captured. BP collects it for the world. Year on year the reserve life for the world is not changing, that means proved producing reserves are being replaced. The problem with folks who want to jump on the ETP bandwagon is that very few actually understand the definition of Reserves or the categories nor how reserve growth actually happens. You seem to think it is some magical thing that people are pointing to when in fact it is a common occurrence of reserves being elevated in category year on year.

That 90,000 bbls/d of oil ....it is from continuous drilling of discoveries that is elevating probable reserves or possible reserves to proven reserves, or proven undeveloped reserves to proven producing reserves.

It is astounding to me how many people here toss the word "reserves" around without actually understanding what it means.

[GHung]

.... and it depends on what the definition of "is" is.

[rockdoc123]

.... and it depends on what the definition of "is" is.

and you actually think anyone here would understand your cryptic reference?

[onlooker]

.... and it depends on what the definition of "is" is.

and you actually think anyone here would understand your cryptic reference?

A certain Clinton said it
Oh and Rockdoc, I may not be an expert like you but I know enough to say that Reserves has an element of subjectivity to it. Various people can all argue over the amount of URR and none could be definitively shown to be wrong. For the standard definition in fact states precisely that "Ultimately recoverable resource (URR) URR is an estimate of the total amount of oil that will ever be recovered and produced. It is a subjective estimate in the face of only partial information."

[Yoshua]

The Etp Model states that the petroleum industry consumed 50% of the energy content in barrel of crude oil in 2012 to produce a barrel of petroleum.

Since 20% of the energy content in a barrel of crude won't make it as liquid fuels and the refineries import another 5% of the energy content in a barrel to refine a barrel, then that would already count for 25% of the energy content in a barrel of crude oil.

It isn't hard to imagine that the construction of refineries, upgrades, maintenance, workforce and infrastructure would consume another 10% of the energy content in a barrel of crude oil and the Total energy consumption would then reach 35% of the energy content in a barrel to produce a barrel of petroleum.

And as the quality of the crude oil goes down the energy intensity goes up.

[vtsnowedin]

The Etp Model states that the petroleum industry consumed 50% of the energy content in barrel of crude oil in 2012 to produce a barrel of petroleum.

Since 20% of the energy content in a barrel of crude won't make it as liquid fuels and the refineries import another 5% of the energy content in a barrel to refine a barrel, then that would already count for 25% of the energy content in a barrel of crude oil.

It isn't hard to imagine that the construction of refineries, upgrades, maintenance, workforce and infrastructure would consume another 10% of the energy content in a barrel of crude oil and the Total energy consumption would then reach 35% of the energy content in a barrel to produce a barrel of petroleum.

And as the quality of the crude oil goes down the energy intensity goes up.

No your math is wrong. Every bit of a barrel of crude becomes a useful product and is sold at market prices. Instead of a loss there are refinery gains of about one million barrels a day. That some products are not liquid fuels like road asphalt cement does not matter and they are sold at market prices that go up and down with the price of crude.
There is still gas and petroleum coke that are used up in the process but they are offset by the refinery gains and in the case of the still gas are just a direct substitute for natural gas so are being put to their highest use.
Again just read the EIAs data.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_ca ... _nus_a.htm
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_re ... blpd_a.htm

[Tanada]

The Etp Model states that the petroleum industry consumed 50% of the energy content in barrel of crude oil in 2012 to produce a barrel of petroleum.

Since 20% of the energy content in a barrel of crude won't make it as liquid fuels and the refineries import another 5% of the energy content in a barrel to refine a barrel, then that would already count for 25% of the energy content in a barrel of crude oil.

It isn't hard to imagine that the construction of refineries, upgrades, maintenance, workforce and infrastructure would consume another 10% of the energy content in a barrel of crude oil and the Total energy consumption would then reach 35% of the energy content in a barrel to produce a barrel of petroleum.

And as the quality of the crude oil goes down the energy intensity goes up.

Yup. Just that pesky little issue of the EROEI of crude refining not being anywhere near as bad as the ETP model projects to contend with and everything will be coming up roses.

[marmico]

Just that pesky little issue of the EROEI of crude refining not being anywhere near as bad as the ETP model projects

Bingo. The ETP Bozo maintains that refining energy consumed was 5900 BTU per gallon of crude processed in 1960, yet it in 2019 it will be 10-fold more. Those chemical/mechanical engineers that operate the refineries must be dumb founded. So would the cost accountants. The innumerate brigade never ceases to amaze.

[Yoshua]

Snow

I wrote ENERGY CONTENT not VOLUME. The Etp Model is analyzing Energy not Volume.

The still gas and petroleum coke is burned to refine the crude. Asphalt and lubricants are useful but not energy sources.

If 50% is used and refineries use 35% then refineries use 70% of the energy used by the petroleum industry.

[onlooker]

Precisely. EIA is primarily in the business of counting barrels. The Etp is trying to assess the energy content within those barrels both from an input to an output view. So all you naysayers can post EIA data forever onward but it is NOT deciphering the real energetic situation.

[Tanada]

Snow

I wrote ENERGY CONTENT not VOLUME. The Etp Model is analyzing Energy not Volume.

The still gas and petroleum coke is burned to refine the crude. Asphalt and lubricants are useful but not energy sources.

If 50% is used and refineries use 35% then refineries use 70% of the energy used by the petroleum industry.

And If the refiners use 5% and producers use 10% then 85% of the energy in the crude is available to the economy. See how that works? When you arbitrarily pick numbers you can make them result in whatever conclusion you want to achieve.

[Yoshua]

If one counts the energy content of a refined barrel, then the liquid fuels count 4,750,000 Btu / bbl according EIA's refined bbl.

4,750,000 / 5,880,000 = 0.8 = 80%

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/ind ... l_refining

[Tanada]

If one counts the energy content of a refined barrel, then the liquid fuels count 4,750,000 Btu / bbl according EIA's refined bbl.

4,750,000 / 5,880,000 = 0.8 = 80%

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/ind ... l_refining

This morning the Sun appeared to rise along the eastern horizon as the earth rotated.

Now that we have both stated facts irrelevant to the economic value of the ETP model why don't yu try getting back on topic?

[Yoshua]

The economic engine runs on those liquid fuels.

[rockdoc123]

I may not be an expert like you but I know enough to say that Reserves has an element of subjectivity to it. 

Various people can all argue over the amount of URR and none could be definitively shown to be wrong. For the standard definition in fact states precisely that "Ultimately recoverable resource (URR) URR is an estimate of the total amount of oil that will ever be recovered and produced. It is a subjective estimate in the face of only partial information."

And here you are confusing Reserves with Resources. When we talk about Reserve replacement we are talking specifically about the replacement of produced Reserves with either Proven Undeveloped, Probable or Possible Reserves. In the very odd case someone might make a discovery in a particular year that ends up having Proven Reserves associated as well. The definitions for each of these categories are quite precise, indeed I have a two volume set of the COGEH guidelines for Reserve reporting. So in terms of measurement of Reserve replacement there is very little room for subjectivity, especially since public companies are required to have a large part of their Proven and Probable Reserves independently audited each year. Resources is that amount of hydrocarbon that does not meet the “economic under current conditions” threshold and includes Contingent Resources (hydrocarbons that have been discovered by drilling but are currently uneconomic) and Potential Resources where hydrocarbons are anticipated to exist based on seismic data, analogs etc. The latter category is where there is subjectivity as there is usually not enough data to be precise.

But when talking about Reserve Replacement there is a considerable number of guidelines which must be followed, hence very little room for subjectivity. This whole process became much more exacting following the issue of the Sarbanes Oxley Act.

[AdamB]

Conversion to EV's ignore range issues, heating/cooling, battery expense/fragility/and replacement, lack of charger infrastructure, paucity of electrical transmission lines in rural and along interstate.

None of those have bothered the wife in some 3 years of EV use.

But you aren't talking from experience here are you, you are just lying through ignorance. Again.

You pretend range issues are a problem when you've never had a range problem, you pretend heating and cooling issue and yet you've never had that problem, you pretend batteries fail when among a large populaiton of EV'ers none of us have had batteries needing replaced, you know nothing about charger infrastructure because you've never charged an EV, and you've been told how where some of us live not immersed in the pothead culture and agriculture, we have them at corner stores, banks, government offices, and grocery stores.

And if you don't like your local grid, which in your case is probably fine because pot growers need lots of electricity I hear, then continue to happily emit CO2 on your way to wherever...eco people like yourself that aren't, really.

[AdamB]

If oil were the only source of energy you might be correct, it isn't, so you are incorrect.

His paper is available online for free, check it out. Assuming you don't just start laughing and give up because, well, he does have 2+2 MUST = 5 as a conditional for his scheme to work. And no, if oil was the only source of energy, he still wouldn't be correct.

Hi AdamB,

The paper was critiqued at the link below

http://peakoilbarrel.com/on-the-thermod ... lls-group/

I agree there are problems with the paper.

Oh boy, you think? I can't even get shorty to tell me if he wants me to change my footnote reference to the thing, I was considering giving it quite some attention in a way that would be quite....noticeable. I PMed him the best I can do considering he has no authors on the paper, and he is avoiding the question like the plague.

"Critiqued" doesn't quite have the connotation I have in mind, after having worked through more than a little of it now.

[AdamB]

If the Etp haters have a better methods they are free to share it and even take bets on it.

They tried. Gutless wonders like you and shorty either refused, or have already reneged. Such is your confidence in a random number generator, surprisingly it does reveal what you think, rather than just the nonsense you say.