[dissident]

https://www.aogr.com/uploads/content/w10-2_fig_2.jpg

Any overlap pretty much totally destroys any overlapping output.

Physics is something that boosters and assorted shysters do not care about. Tight oil and gas deposits are treated as if they are just the same as conventional. All we need is simply to throw more rigs at them and everything is hunky dory. As if the reserves are a function of the extraction rate. What breathtaking inanity.

[AdamB]

https://www.aogr.com/uploads/content/w10-2_fig_2.jpg

Any overlap pretty much totally destroys any overlapping output.

Physics is something that boosters and assorted shysters do not care about. Tight oil and gas deposits are treated as if they are just the same as conventional. All we need is simply to throw more rigs at them and everything is hunky dory. As if the reserves are a function of the extraction rate. What breathtaking inanity.

Nobody has ever claimed, including Mustang19, that he knows anything about the industry. Or physics. Or geology. Or the difference between mD formations versus D formations. He has announced quite openly that he is just here to troll.

Interestingly, your entire statement might apply to peak oil in general and the suckers that went for it hook, line and sinker a decade or two back. Hey...YOU wouldn't have been part of THAT crowd, now would you?

[dcoyne78]

AdamB,

The $200/bo has been run in the past, it comes pretty close to TRR for mean estimate, the zero oil price scenario would result in zero output in the future from tight oil, there are an infinite number of possible future oil price scenarios, running all of them would take a bit of time. See

https://peakoilbarrel.com/permian-basin ... aggerated/

You are thinking of this problem to much like a scientist. The answer isn't about absolute precision, think more like an arm waving economist instead. You don't need to run ALL prices to develop the outline of how they change production. Just enough to develop the outline. Turns out when you do this the results aren't unexpected, the model develops more oil and gas, and it develops it quicker. That part is easy, the larger issue is trying to figure out the demand response to accompany it. That one is the trick, what with environmental concerns, claims of action versus the expected reality of it, etc etc.

Yes I try to think like a scientist. In my Jan 2021 post I did exactly that, by using several different oil price scenarios and different TRR assumptions covering the USGS 90% confidence interval, i have also done models anticipating the transition to EVs for most land transport replacing a significant portion of demand for World C+C, this modelling has been integrated into my oil price scenarios. The EV transition models envision demand for C+C falling below supply of C+C around 2035 or so and the expectation is that oil prices will fall due to lack of demand. The rate at which this will occur is difficult to predict, potentially OPEC might open the taps in competion with each other (essentially the end of the cartel). This might drive oil prices to very low levels (perhaps to $30/bo or so) quite rapidly (maybe over a 3 to 5 year period. I have not run such a scenario, though it certainly could be included as a low price oil case.

In any case, I appreciate your criticism of my simple models as it helps to improve them. Your idea of going full stochastic is a good one, but I will need to develop some code to accomplish that. Integrating the demand side would also be an improvement, I agree with that suggestion as well. Anticipating consumer preference responses or shifts in demand indeed requires quite a bit of handwaving and although I have a Masters in economics and only a BS in Physics, I have a bit more comfort in Physics as a science than economics as a social science. In social science the knowledge often affects people's behavior as they try to game the system and then reduces the accuracy of the underlying theory a social behavior shifts. It is indeed a tricky subject, one without good solutions imo.

[AdamB]

AdamB,

The $200/bo has been run in the past, it comes pretty close to TRR for mean estimate, the zero oil price scenario would result in zero output in the future from tight oil, there are an infinite number of possible future oil price scenarios, running all of them would take a bit of time. See

https://peakoilbarrel.com/permian-basin ... aggerated/

You are thinking of this problem to much like a scientist. The answer isn't about absolute precision, think more like an arm waving economist instead. You don't need to run ALL prices to develop the outline of how they change production. Just enough to develop the outline. Turns out when you do this the results aren't unexpected, the model develops more oil and gas, and it develops it quicker. That part is easy, the larger issue is trying to figure out the demand response to accompany it. That one is the trick, what with environmental concerns, claims of action versus the expected reality of it, etc etc.

Yes I try to think like a scientist.

Obviously. But you mentioned you had a degree in economics as well, and if there are folks who specialize in story telling and shortcut taking, that gang is them. Try channeling more of that on occasion.

They do know things, even if they can only provide directionally reasonable answers rather than the kind scientists prefer.

[mustang19]

AdamB,

The $200/bo has been run in the past, it comes pretty close to TRR for mean estimate, the zero oil price scenario would result in zero output in the future from tight oil, there are an infinite number of possible future oil price scenarios, running all of them would take a bit of time. See

https://peakoilbarrel.com/permian-basin ... aggerated/

You are thinking of this problem to much like a scientist. The answer isn't about absolute precision, think more like an arm waving economist instead. You don't need to run ALL prices to develop the outline of how they change production. Just enough to develop the outline. Turns out when you do this the results aren't unexpected, the model develops more oil and gas, and it develops it quicker. That part is easy, the larger issue is trying to figure out the demand response to accompany it. That one is the trick, what with environmental concerns, claims of action versus the expected reality of it, etc etc.

Yes I try to think like a scientist. In my Jan 2021 post I did exactly that, by using several different oil price scenarios and different TRR assumptions covering the USGS 90% confidence interval, i have also done models anticipating the transition to EVs for most land transport replacing a significant portion of demand for World C+C, this modelling has been integrated into my oil price scenarios. The EV transition models envision demand for C+C falling below supply of C+C around 2035 or so and the expectation is that oil prices will fall due to lack of demand. The rate at which this will occur is difficult to predict, potentially OPEC might open the taps in competion with each other (essentially the end of the cartel). This might drive oil prices to very low levels (perhaps to $30/bo or so) quite rapidly (maybe over a 3 to 5 year period. I have not run such a scenario, though it certainly could be included as a low price oil case.

In any case, I appreciate your criticism of my simple models as it helps to improve them. Your idea of going full stochastic is a good one, but I will need to develop some code to accomplish that. Integrating the demand side would also be an improvement, I agree with that suggestion as well. Anticipating consumer preference responses or shifts in demand indeed requires quite a bit of handwaving and although I have a Masters in economics and only a BS in Physics, I have a bit more comfort in Physics as a science than economics as a social science. In social science the knowledge often affects people's behavior as they try to game the system and then reduces the accuracy of the underlying theory a social behavior shifts. It is indeed a tricky subject, one without good solutions imo.

No not really, you just make stuff up and consistently over predict oil production. But whatever

https://peakoilbarrel.com/oil-shock-mod ... more-22388

This was dcoynes original prediction, 8m tight production now when it's actually 7

[AdamB]

This was dcoynes original prediction, 8m tight production now when it's actually 7

As opposed to Mustangs claim that oil would average $0/bbl back in 2019? What is percentage miss on a predicted zero rather than a real $64, versus 7 instead of an 8? Call me crazy, but I'm betting that idiot trolls with no experience can't calculate their miss any better than their claim that eroei = 1/0 !

[mustang19]

This was dcoynes original prediction, 8m tight production now when it's actually 7

As opposed to Mustangs claim that oil would average $0/bbl back in 2019? What is percentage miss on a predicted zero rather than a real $64, versus 7 instead of an 8? Call me crazy, but I'm betting that idiot trolls with no experience can't calculate their miss any better than their claim that eroei = 1/0 !

That was never my claim, you pretend I am this "shortonoil" poster who just makes things up like Dennis.

[AdamB]

This was dcoynes original prediction, 8m tight production now when it's actually 7

As opposed to Mustangs claim that oil would average $0/bbl back in 2019? What is percentage miss on a predicted zero rather than a real $64, versus 7 instead of an 8? Call me crazy, but I'm betting that idiot trolls with no experience can't calculate their miss any better than their claim that eroei = 1/0 !

That was never my claim, you pretend I am this "shortonoil" poster who just makes things up like Dennis.

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...odds are...it's a duck.

And all modelers "make things up", it is the nature of operating in an environment (the future) where there are no facts. The measure of one's "making it up" is the quality of quantifying the underlying causal factors and processes that are known, in order to extrapolate reasonably. The system Dennis has built or described sure sounds like a short hand version of the what the EIA does within the AEO OGSM module, the one based on open source code that a claimed computer programmer/ engineer-that-can't-engineer such as yourself isn't smart enough to run. Even better, as it is open sourced and you, after all, are a claimed code-monkey, you could run scenarios against it, just as Dennis has done and certainly like the EIA has done, to try and tease out sensitives to your incompetent eroei = 1/0 ideas.

But you can't do any of this, you can't challenge Dennis' basis for his work, or the EIA for theirs, because you are just an admitted troll, an admitted engineer that can't engineer, who wants to pretend to not be the most discredited poster ever to appear on this website.

Looks like....walks like....sounds like....

[dcoyne78]

Dissident,

extraction rate determines the level of output for a given level of producing reserves. It is not used when doing a tight oil model, it is typically used in an oil shock model for conventional resources, discoveries, development times, and cumulative output determine producing reserves, producing reserves times the extraction rate gives output. For example if producing reserves (aka proved developed producing reserves) were 600 Gb and extraction rate was 5%, output would be 30 Gb. For the tight oil model we look at average well profiles using historical output data and decline curce analysis and the completion rate for new wells to model tight oil output for various tight oil plays (Bakken/Three Forks, Permian, Eagle Ford, and Niobrara) a rough estimate of the remaining US plays is modelled in a catch all "other tight oil" model due to lack of data for other plays to determine well profiles (and as a short cut).

[mustang19]

Dissident,

extraction rate determines the level of output for a given level of producing reserves. It is not used when doing a tight oil model, it is typically used in an oil shock model for conventional resources, discoveries, development times, and cumulative output determine producing reserves, producing reserves times the extraction rate gives output. For example if producing reserves (aka proved developed producing reserves) were 600 Gb and extraction rate was 5%, output would be 30 Gb. For the tight oil model we look at average well profiles using historical output data and decline curce analysis and the completion rate for new wells to model tight oil output for various tight oil plays (Bakken/Three Forks, Permian, Eagle Ford, and Niobrara) a rough estimate of the remaining US plays is modelled in a catch all "other tight oil" model due to lack of data for other plays to determine well profiles (and as a short cut).

But your estimate of new wells is completely made up, based on nothing, and all you are actually doing is using a misunderstood usgs estimate.

Your model is accidentally accurate because production went nowhere, so all that effort was pointless, but you still cling to it. Yet even then the global model is wrong because opec is cutting now.

Even if you accidentally over predicted production by a tiny amount in early 2021, completely by accident since you have no methodology, it's all gone now and the high prices have done nothing.

So basically I'm only replying because you at least tried and nobody else on this board even cares.

[mustang19]

Out of boredom I made a New Mexico hubbert curve, which follows pretty well and doesn't require the huge gap that wolfcamp does.

https://i.ibb.co/2PTgzRk/5-EA0-B268-7-C ... 0-E3-A.jpg

New Mexico has lower permeability, and smaller fields peak faster so I expect it to accelerate the wolfcamp decline.

NM is approximately half of wolfcamp production and that means the 50k per month previous growth of wolfcamp will fall to 25k, meaning overall production will fall by the same amount of it would otherwise be flat.

What this means is that even the optimistic scenario for wolfcamp is now not even enough to matter.

[AdamB]

But your estimate of new wells is completely made up, based on nothing, and all you are actually doing is using a misunderstood usgs estimate.

Quack quack. And yes, you don't understand USGS estimates. Any reason you wish to bring up yet another demonstrated ignorance on your part?

[mustang19]

But your estimate of new wells is completely made up, based on nothing, and all you are actually doing is using a misunderstood usgs estimate.

Quack quack. And yes, you don't understand USGS estimates. Any reason you wish to bring up yet another demonstrated ignorance on your part?

Your dumb posts are irrelevant if your predictions are wrong and mine are right.

[AdamB]

Out of boredom I made a New Mexico hubbert curve, which follows pretty well and doesn't require the huge gap that wolfcamp does.

So..."out of boredom means"....too stupid to figure out something that works? Or have you missed all the reasons why Hubbert's curve doesn't work, handed down to us across 65 years now?

[AdamB]

But your estimate of new wells is completely made up, based on nothing, and all you are actually doing is using a misunderstood usgs estimate.

Quack quack. And yes, you don't understand USGS estimates.

Your dumb posts are irrelevant if your predictions are wrong and mine are right.

The price of oil didn't average $0/bbl back in 2019 or so. So what are you good at predicting...bowel movements?

And I'm good at predicting. I predicted that your "work" would be laughed out of review, having needed but minutes to dispatch it myself, all those years ago. Not only did that come true, but it was so embarrassing in retrospect that now YOU even want to run away and hide from it.

Quack quack.

[mustang19]

But your estimate of new wells is completely made up, based on nothing, and all you are actually doing is using a misunderstood usgs estimate.

Quack quack. And yes, you don't understand USGS estimates.

Your dumb posts are irrelevant if your predictions are wrong and mine are right.

The price of oil didn't average $0/bbl back in 2019 or so. So what are you good at predicting...bowel movements?

And I'm good at predicting. I predicted that your "work" would be laughed out of review, having needed but minutes to dispatch it myself, all those years ago. Not only did that come true, but it was so embarrassing in retrospect that now YOU even want to run away and hide from it.

Quack quack.

So if you pretend I am this short person, why aren't they banned?

[AdamB]

Quack quack.

So if you pretend I am this short person, why aren't they banned?

Why would someone be banned for being a technical incompetent? It isn't against any rules, and even more amusingly, the people that fell for peak oil doom around the time this website fired up have it in common. It is a brand of a peak oil OG! Here, look at what a pompous sucker you were!

Being a mechanical engineer and because I have spent the bulk of my life in the mining industry, resource depletion is a very real aspect of any extractive industry for me. From the first time I read about PO I have been interested in the subject. Because I have seen an innumerable number of bad mining deposit studies over the years, I didn’t take PO as a matter of fact. I did all the research that was possible on the subject. I calculated to the best accuracy possible depletion rates of existing fields and applied PERT methodology to analogous estimates of potential field development and production. In general, I applied all the tools available to me to ascertain the probability of PO occurring in the foreseeable future. My conclusions are that PO has a very high probability of occurring in the very near future. A risk matrix of PO also gives a totally unacceptable potential for world wide disastrous consequences. Unfortunately, I find that I must agree totally with the studies done by Defeyes, Colin and Simmons.

Global peak oil 1990 (Campbell), global peak oil 2005 (Deffeyes) and "Ghawar is dying!" Simmons! An accountant who...wait for it...READ SOME SPE PAPERS!! Mike Lynch once famously stated that "If I want to know about water management in oil fields, I'll ask a reservoir engineer". Not that we'd have the time to talk to him, but hey, there is an economist with the right idea!

Apparently Short was an engineer that can't engineer either! Just like you!

[mustang19]

Quack quack.

So if you pretend I am this short person, why aren't they banned?

Why would someone be banned for being a technical incompetent? It isn't against any rules, and even more amusingly, the people that fell for peak oil doom around the time this website fired up have it in common. It is a brand of a peak oil OG! Here, look at what a pompous sucker you were!

Being a mechanical engineer and because I have spent the bulk of my life in the mining industry, resource depletion is a very real aspect of any extractive industry for me. From the first time I read about PO I have been interested in the subject. Because I have seen an innumerable number of bad mining deposit studies over the years, I didn’t take PO as a matter of fact. I did all the research that was possible on the subject. I calculated to the best accuracy possible depletion rates of existing fields and applied PERT methodology to analogous estimates of potential field development and production. In general, I applied all the tools available to me to ascertain the probability of PO occurring in the foreseeable future. My conclusions are that PO has a very high probability of occurring in the very near future. A risk matrix of PO also gives a totally unacceptable potential for world wide disastrous consequences. Unfortunately, I find that I must agree totally with the studies done by Defeyes, Colin and Simmons.

Global peak oil 1990 (Campbell), global peak oil 2005 (Deffeyes) and "Ghawar is dying!" Simmons! An accountant who...wait for it...READ SOME SPE PAPERS!! Mike Lynch once famously stated that "If I want to know about water management in oil fields, I'll ask a reservoir engineer". Not that we'd have the time to talk to him, but hey, there is an economist with the right idea!

Apparently Short was an engineer that can't engineer either! Just like you!

They were right in that north ghawar apparently peaked in 2000. That was when things really started to slide.

Almost the entire production growth after 1990 was secondary production and Russian heavy oil. It was in fact the conventional peak until conventional was expanded to include those resources.

Gasoline per capita is down since 2000.

[AdamB]

They were right in that north ghawar apparently peaked in 2000. That was when things really started to slide.

It isn't a surprise that someone like you who can't learn would still believe what you believed back then. You were a sucker back then, and still are.

Almost the entire production growth after 1990 was secondary production and Russian heavy oil. It was in fact the conventional peak until conventional was expanded to include those resources.

Well, Deffeyes and Simmons being dead, I am forced to guess that you wrote a letter to Colin and he told you this? You certainly don't know anything on your own, so it must have been one of your trusted sources, and there is only one left alive. The others peaked before oil did.

[mustang19]

They were right in that north ghawar apparently peaked in 2000. That was when things really started to slide.

It isn't a surprise that someone like you who can't learn would still believe what you believed back then. You were a sucker back then, and still are.

Almost the entire production growth after 1990 was secondary production and Russian heavy oil. It was in fact the conventional peak until conventional was expanded to include those resources.

Well, Deffeyes and Simmons being dead, I am forced to guess that you wrote a letter to Colin and he told you this? You certainly don't know anything on your own, so it must have been one of your trusted sources, and there is only one left alive. The others peaked before oil did.

They were right in a way that mattered, the growth was so feeble it didn't track population.