Darian S wrote:no one disputes peaks within cycles of development. Around here, we have even discussed the sine wave of oil production being far more representative than this nonsense single peak stuff. And yes, go study the areas that the EIA applies the Oil and Gas Supply Module to, and you will see that there is area to drill, they have quantified it, and if the price is right, any model worth its salt will go drill wells. Exactly what happened, and has continued to happen. There will come a time when there are fewer areas. And then we can begin to talk about the next cycles of development.
So you claim that just as much production as the recent U.S. total shale play can again be brought online after the current production drops?
I didn't say that. I said that the EIA keeps track within their modeling system of the drillable locations and expected results, and when they run low on drillable locations, by definition the natural decline will bring down the rate of the whole.
What happens to price during this exercise will dictate what happens next...just like it did last time.
Darian S wrote: And not just one cycle but multiple such cycles lie in the future?
Possibly as many as there are additional resources to be developed, or large resources that are currently not being exploited at anywhere near their possible rates. Go count them up, and you'll know the potential. Peakers never did, which is obviously why they keep getting it wrong.
Darian S wrote:The easiest and most profitables spots were drilled, and I've not heard of equally as large available reserves for the U.S to allow for multiple such cycles.
The same was said BEFORE the resource plays came on line. Go add up the resources and their endowment, and do it right. I should mention, this work is already being demonstrated at modeling conferences last summer, and it wasn't being done by the same fools that do peak oil all decline, all the time modeling. They are doing it right, and are basically answering every question you have asked so far, and within the context of cost and price.
Darian S wrote: Do you claim the IEA believes there are multiple large fields left untapped allowing for multiple cycles of further future shale plays?
Ask the IEA. They fall into the category of people who were stupid enough to fall for the shrieking of peak oil more than a decade ago, so their understanding of resources is obviously flawed. The estimate of large fields left untapped are best quantified by the USGS in their total petroleum system assessment methods, updated for the world in 2012. If you wanted to, you could easily run their assessment method for any given probability, plug that into their field size class calculator, and put a number and size on all of them.
Darina S wrote:So until someone can identify exactly how much technically producible hydrocarbons (irrespective of price) exist around the world then any discussion regarding replacement by new discoveries is interesting but incomplete and hence wrong.
It's not just technically producible, but at what rate too and EROEI.
EROEI is irrelevant, as every person here with industry related experience has explained. No decision has been, is, or will be made based on EROEI for developing any well, field, project or basin. Ever. It is a peak oil red herring that dates back to at least 1982 or so when Charlie Hall used it to claim that all oil drilling in the US would stop by the year 2000. You know how that went, right? Don't ask academics with zero oil experience desperately trying to get tenure to speculte outside their experience, lest you get the egg on your face from the backsplash off of them.
Darian S wrote:
If we ignore prices and EROEI the vast majority can likely be recovered if you go through enough lengths.
The USGS generally does technically recoverable, and I know they ignore EROEI. You feel free to take your EROEI experience and the ridiculous use of it to predict the exact opposite of what happened and drop it in front of them, and let us know how loud the laughter gets behind you as you slink away.
Darian S wrote: But there comes a point were it may be easier to manufacture than to get the last drops out. Also it is not guaranteed that technological improvement will allow for adequate rate of extraction of the latter remaining resources.
Technology is not required to improve to recover all of the resources. The USGS has said so, and the EIA published a white paper on how it works, in terms of increasing recoverability. I'll stick with what the people who do this for a living know already. After all, neither of those 2 groups proved in real time that they were dumb enough to fall for peak oil on Thanksgiving Day, 2005.
Darian S wrote:Regards existing reserves. Are we sure the powers that be don't have incentives to overstate their existing reserves?
Reserves, as opposed to politically generated numbers called reserves, don't have a TPTB component, they have engineers and geologists who put together their best estimates, and as demonstrated by the scientists, these numbers are generally conservative. Not overstated on a volume basis at all. As far as what happens if you get an idiot in charge who just wants to make numbers go up and down for fun...well...you would have to talk to shorty about that, or some other peak oiler, they do it all the time, and you can ask them why.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."
Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"