[vtsnowedin]

Actually reserves look like this:


Without additions (can you name new additions, killerguy?) reserves are constantly drawn down. Via us drawing them down.

I keep coming back to this graph. If it's volumes are reasonably accurate, And I have no reason to doubt them, And you compare the total amont produced to the total discovered and likely to still be discovered it shows we have produced and burned through half of all the recoverable oil in the world.Is this not the very definition of peak oil? And we have produced the easy half.

[ROCKMAN]

vt - "...have produced and burned through half of all the recoverable oil in the world.Is this not the very definition of peak oil?"

Did you really mean to imply that you don't know the actual definition of PO?

[vtsnowedin]

vt - "...have produced and burned through half of all the recoverable oil in the world.Is this not the very definition of peak oil?"

Did you really mean to imply that you don't know the actual definition of PO?

I'm going back to King's original paper that predicted that the production curve would turn" concave" and then turn down at approximately the time half the conventional oil had been produced.
You got a better one?

[ROCKMAN]

Though new offshore fields aren't as common as onshore individually they can be many times as large. The good news: given the time large between discovery and first sales the economics are not as dependent on current or even mid-term oil prices. The bad news: based upon the offshore rig dynamic operators don't seem very optimistic about longer term oil prices:

Contractors exchanged prognoses of the lean offshore period during a recent conference organized by Pareto Securities ASA in Oslo. The optimistic takeaway was that offshore rig counts have just about hit bottom and may reach there by the middle of 2017. The Energy Information Administration forecasts oil prices could see beginnings of a rebound about the same time, but partly because of their cost and sophistication, deepwater operations could trudge along some months behind.

West Africa, where the bulk of the operations are deepwater, has seen a deep dive in terms of contracted rigs as well as rigs marketed to the region according to IHS Petrodata. This is indicative of the deepwater fleet globally.

[ROCKMAN]

vt - Yes, I believe I do have a better definition of PO. Actually it isn't mine...it's Hubbert's. From wiki:

Peak oil, an event based on M. King Hubbert's theory, is the point in time when the maximum rate of extraction of petroleum is reached, after which it is expected to enter terminal decline. Peak oil theory is based on the observed rise, peak, fall, and depletion of aggregate production rate in oil fields over time. It is often confused with oil depletion; however, peak oil is the point of maximum production, while depletion refers to a period of falling reserves and supply.

And if folks actually read his report instead of reading what others say he wrote there wouldn't be so many confusing and INACCURATE posts. So let's clear up some other misconceptions. For instance Hubbert clear states that the bell shaped production curve WILL NOT BE SYMETRICAL. Far too many don't understand that describing any distribution as "bell shaped" does not mean it is SYMETRICAL nor that the apex represents the midpoint of the cumulative. Hubbert SPECIFICALLY says the tail of the curve, beyond the midpoint, will stretch out longer then the first half. Which also explains why the midpoint doesn't the 50% of the URR. That very rarely happens with production from a well, a field, a trend, a basin or even an entire country. Doesn't matter small or giant field: search the cumulative production curve for Ghawar and Prudho Bay fields and you'll learn that only about 1/3 of the estimated URR was produced by the time they peaked.

But don't take my word (or Hubbert's) for it: lots of other credible sources (EIA, USGS, etc).

[vtsnowedin]

Oh I read the whole report. Just not yesterday. The shape of the tail was always immaterial. Also the final result will be modified by human interference,as forwarned is to be forarmed. KSA's is anything but random.

[ROCKMAN]

"The shape of the tail was always immaterial". The shape of the curve is absolutely critical: it is used to calculate the cumulative production vs time. IOW the area under the curve prior to the peak rate represents the pre-peak cumulative production. The area under the curve after the peak rate represents the post- peak cumulative production.

The slowly declining post-peak curves for almost all for wells, fields, trends, basins, countries, etc. have an area under the curve greater the the pre-peak area under the curve. IOW almost all post-peak production typically significantly exceed the pre-peak production. Such as Ghawar Field, Prudho Bay Field, etc.

[AdamB]

Actually reserves look like this:


Without additions (can you name new additions, killerguy?) reserves are constantly drawn down. Via us drawing them down.

I keep coming back to this graph. If it's volumes are reasonably accurate, And I have no reason to doubt them, And you compare the total amont produced to the total discovered and likely to still be discovered it shows we have produced and burned through half of all the recoverable oil in the world.Is this not the very definition of peak oil? And we have produced the easy half.

Estimates of oil volumes priced at less than $150/bbl (in 2008$) are approximately 7 or 8 trillion barrels. We have produced and consumed 1.3 trillion in human history. The graph is censored to only a particular subset of "oil", because if it wasn't, the spike of oil discovered circa 1935 would exceed the bounds of the Y axis. That spike makes it very easy to determine if one is dealing with just a favorite subset of oil (whatever is called "conventional" TODAY, because conventional YESTERDAY was different).

So sure, if you believe censored and partial information, don't understand how the term "conventional" has changed with time and technology, then all things are possible, and peak oil happened a decade ago, and resulted in real gasoline prices right now that are equivalent to those in the early 1970's. Gee....how horrifying peak oil turned out to be.

Of course, any time you begin your statement with a conditional that is the equivalent of "If you start off by assuming that 2+2=5, then obvious...." , anything is possible, believable, and can be claimed. 2+2<>5, and therefore whatever follows can be dismissed. Basic precept of science in fact.

[ROCKMAN]

Just thought of an interesting modification of that chart. Same histogram columns but break each column into different colored regions: the US, S and Central America , the ME, Russia, China, etc.

[vtsnowedin]

Actually reserves look like this:


Without additions (can you name new additions, killerguy?) reserves are constantly drawn down. Via us drawing them down.

I keep coming back to this graph. If it's volumes are reasonably accurate, And I have no reason to doubt them, And you compare the total amont produced to the total discovered and likely to still be discovered it shows we have produced and burned through half of all the recoverable oil in the world.Is this not the very definition of peak oil? And we have produced the easy half.

Estimates of oil volumes priced at less than $150/bbl (in 2008$) are approximately 7 or 8 trillion barrels. We have produced and consumed 1.3 trillion in human history. The graph is censored to only a particular subset of "oil", because if it wasn't, the spike of oil discovered circa 1935 would exceed the bounds of the Y axis.

Whose estimates go to eight trillion barrels. The graph shows discoveries of about 2.5 trillion barrels and agrees with your production figure of 1.3 trillion. So are you saying there are 5.5 trillion barrels of oil in tar sands etc. that we can extract profitably not shown on the graph?

[vtsnowedin]

Vt, you need to bone up on your abiotic. Adam has it hid away with his corn chips.

I should bone up on abiotic?
As soon as someone proves it exists I'll worry about it.

[AdamB]

It's not just not tar sands or even Super-Duper Heavy (orinoco is another trillion or so). Adam's figure certainly includes Saturian Methane and the nougaty stuff in the center of the earth.

Vt, you need to bone up on your abiotic. Adam has it hid away with his corn chips.

My numbers come from the IEA. Feel free to match your experience celebrating victory over sea creatures and getting a buzz on while enjoying the view of some clear cut logging against theirs any time you'd like.

[vtsnowedin]

It's not just not tar sands or even Super-Duper Heavy (orinoco is another trillion or so). Adam's figure certainly includes Saturian Methane and the nougaty stuff in the center of the earth.

Vt, you need to bone up on your abiotic. Adam has it hid away with his corn chips.

My numbers come from the IEA. Feel free to match your experience celebrating victory over sea creatures and getting a buzz on while enjoying the view of some clear cut logging against theirs any time you'd like.

The IEA has proved reserves at 1.6 trillion and that includes Venezuela's heavy oil. So you are still missing or making up 5 trillion.
https://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/ ... d=57&aid=6

[vtsnowedin]

"The shape of the tail was always immaterial". The shape of the curve is absolutely critical: it is used to calculate the cumulative production vs time. IOW the area under the curve prior to the peak rate represents the pre-peak cumulative production. The area under the curve after the peak rate represents the post- peak cumulative production.

The slowly declining post-peak curves for almost all for wells, fields, trends, basins, countries, etc. have an area under the curve greater the the pre-peak area under the curve. IOW almost all post-peak production typically significantly exceed the pre-peak production. Such as Ghawar Field, Prudho Bay Field, etc.

The shape of the curve is not critical. but you are right that the "Area" under the curve is. If you move the line up at one point it will have to go down at some other point to hold the area constant. KSA has flattened their production curve to a long plateau saving oil for "future generations" but eventually they will have a cliff and a very skinny tail. The USA not drilling in Federal lands or off the East coast has flattened our curve for now but we will drill those fields once all the cheap stuff in the middle east is gone making our tail considerably thicker.