[Dan1195]

Within the past couple of days I made an excel spreadsheet looking at average Type 3 depletion rates of all countries that have peaked using EIA data, since 1980, for Crude Oil only (incl. Unconv, but no NGL). For countries peaking before 1980, I used 1980 as the "peak date". This is what I calculated: (All numbers in 1,000 bd)

1980: 151.2 1991: 180.2 2002: 983.5
1981: 151.2 1992: 189.0 2003: 987.8
1982: 155.9 1993: 190.2 2004: 987.8
1983: 160.8 1994: 198.0 2005: 1028.8 (through May)
1984: 166.9 1995: 219.7
1985: 170.5 1996: 223.9
1986: 177.1 1997: 246.8
1987: 180.2 1998: 369.2
1988: 180.2 1999: 389.1
1989: 180.2 2000: 750.3
1990: 180.2 2001: 873.4

One thing that is noticed is that the rate increased in a big spurt in 2000, this was due to the North Sea and rest of the U.K. going into decline. 2005 data is of course not complete, but may be higher, especially if Mexico starts its decline. I think this explains which surplus capacity has disappeared more rapidly in the past 5 years. True, discovery rates has been down for a while, but depletion was not that much of a factor.

This gets to the crux of the problem. Being conservative we can expect Type 3 rates to increase to >1.2 mbd/y shortly. This means that in order for supply to meet growing demand, countries that can expand production have to come up with 3.2+ mbd every year just to meet demand assuming 2 mdb/y demand growth. Thats 20 mbd by 2010 (incl. this year)

[ohanian]

Code: Select all

year    raw     smooth  delta   deltadelta
1980   151.2         
1981   151.2   152.8      
1982   155.9   156.0   3.2   
1983   160.8   161.2   5.2   2.0
1984   166.9   166.1   4.9   -0.4
1985   170.5   171.5   5.4   0.6
1986   177.1   175.9   4.4   -1.0
1987   180.2   179.2   3.2   -1.2
1988   180.2   180.2   1.0   -2.2
1989   180.2   180.2   0.0   -1.0
1990   180.2   180.2   0.0   0.0
1991   180.2   183.1   2.9   2.9
1992   189.0   186.5   3.3   0.4
1993   190.2   192.4   5.9   2.6
1994   198.0   202.6   10.2   4.3
1995   219.7   213.9   11.2   1.0
1996   223.9   230.1   16.3   5.0
1997   246.8   280.0   49.8   33.6
1998   369.2   335.0   55.1   5.2
1999   389.1   502.9   167.8   112.8
2000   750.3   670.9   168.1   0.2
2001   873.4   869.1   198.1   30.1
2002   983.5   948.2   79.2   -119.0
2003   987.8   986.4   38.1   -41.0
2004   987.8   1001.5   15.1   
2005   1028.8         


Big jump around 1999 and big dip around 2002


[Liamj]

Agree Dan, and its a valuable point to remember. Govt/institutional optimism usually omits consideration of even current (primary/secondary EOR) depletion rates on net global production, so its an easy way to pop their bubbles.

Thought The Oil Drum explained issue of tertiary enhanced oil recovery methods well:
http://theoildrum.blogspot.com/2005/08/ ... equal.html
Wonders of technology eh.

[Taskforce_Unity]

Okay a few questions and some criticism

First of all the definition as given by Skrebowksi:

Type 3 Depletion: This occurs when a whole country is in decline, there are no compensating supplies within the country and customers can no longer get all the supplies they require. This means that customers now have to go to an alternative supplier for some or for all of their requirement.

What kind of decline percentages are you using for the north sea? Im using an annual decline rate of 7.8% for UK, 4.3% for norway and approximately 8% for Denmark (im using the Danish Energy Authorities decline figures they are somewhat around 8%).

Then i want to say that Type 3 depletion is too simple, it does not take into account new projects. Like the Buzzard field for the UK for example, it is scheduled to come onstream in late 2006 adding 190.000 b/d. Initial production will be 85.000 b/d and full production will be obtained in 2007.

[Dan1195]

I agree it has some shortcomings, it doesnt account for new projects coming online, or for that fact that poitical factors may appear to deplete a certain country more that it really is. At the same time. Depletion in a country may be masked by secondary/tertiary recovery methods, only to result it higher decline rates later.

Due to the fuzzy nature of oil data in general there are limits to the accuracy.

[Liamj]

Not sure what your issue is with Skrebowksi's Type 3 depletion, Taskforce_Unity, seems you are criticising definition-of-convenience cos it doesn't perfectly match the real world! Thats life Jim, in making approximations you accept a level of error.

The projected production of the Buzzard field is of course not really v.significant, tho no doubt be very welcome if 'n when it arrives. Projected (by investors) max production of 190k b/d = <10% of 2004 UK oil production 2004 of 2mil b/d
(ref 2mil b/d: http://www.oilandgas.org.uk/media/view-press.cfm/368)

UK production: 2.9m barrels per day in 1999, predicted to fall to only 1.6m bpd by 2007. Buzzard may not even cover 1 years type 3 depletion.


Not going to try and summarise it, but Ugo Bardi's recent paper "The mineral economy: a model for the shape of oil production curves" provides some pretty relevant & convincing modeling that suggests accelerated decline is inevitable with improved techhnology. Just in case you weren't worried yet
http://aspoitalia.net/aspoenglish/docum ... i_2003.pdf