[Pops]

What does "geoscience" have to do with swallowing every pronouncement made by whatever oil company/country shill as gospel?

It doesn't, if that is the only information Lahherrere uses.

You are wandering in circles.
First you wondered why JL dosen't use the old PC database
I showed he did so you complained that he adjusts for obvious misinformation
I said "because it is misinformation"
now you say he must be wrong if PC is all he uses.
But it isn't "all he uses" because he attempts to refine it's political errors.
LOL
The technical term here is "Gish Gallop"
Rather than simply accuse him randomly, why not read the article?

The plot posted above includes several datasets including EIA that he ran the HL on and got 5000GB and peak in 2040 because of NGPL.

This paper has a range of 2019 to 2040 for peak due to different classifications. The thing I've always liked about JL as long as I've read him, he has been very straightforward about how poor the data is and consequently how big a crapshoot are forecasts. I tend to take him at his word on that because he actually was affiliated with PC and presumably knows where their stats came from. Consequently he generally talks in 1000GB units, any more would be pretend to accuracy that's impossible based on the nature of the input. That he is down to billion barrel in this article accuracy is telling, for me at least.

[mustang19]

What does "geoscience" have to do with swallowing every pronouncement made by whatever oil company/country shill as gospel?

It doesn't, if that is the only information Lahherrere uses.

You are wandering in circles.
First you wondered why JL dosen't use the old PC database
I showed he did so you complained that he adjusts for obvious misinformation
I said "because it is misinformation"
now you say he must be wrong if PC is all he uses.
But it isn't "all he uses" because he attempts to refine it's political errors.
LOL
The technical term here is "Gish Gallop"
Rather than simply accuse him randomly, why not read the article?

The plot posted above includes several datasets including EIA that he ran the HL on and got 5000GB and peak in 2040 because of NGPL.

This paper has a range of 2019 to 2040 for peak due to different classifications. The thing I've always liked about JL as long as I've read him, he has been very straightforward about how poor the data is and consequently how big a crapshoot are forecasts. I tend to take him at his word on that because he actually was affiliated with PC and presumably knows where their stats came from. Consequently he generally talks in 1000GB units, any more would be pretend to accuracy that's impossible based on the nature of the input. That he is down to billion barrel in this article accuracy is telling, for me at least.

The total oil reserve is very well established, 2-3 tb, from the hubbert curve and geology.

The Permian basin is 75k miles and makes half the oil. That's 2% of the land area of America, and assuming 10% of the land is near fault zones where oil is, it's 20% of the land for half the oil. America is using basically all the land oil could form.

Within permain its all in a 300ft rock layer with 10% recovery, similar TOC, generation fraction and soluble fraction with 1/3 the land worth anything. That's a 200 trillion barrels of rock which reduce to 100-200b oil. Fitting more oil requires inflating the generation fraction, finding new benches and other things that I'm sure would happen by now. That puts total American reserves remaining around 200 billion barrels.

So if America consumes around five times more oil than average, on 100% of its land, then the other 95% of the world has 4Tx5=20T barrels, except that Permian TOC is exceptional so we get down to 5T. Then a large share of that is extra heavy and other ambiguous cases so the 50th percentile of what anyone considers oil neatly comes out to 2.5 trillion barrels.

Just five opec nations have 40% of these reserves. The areas of ghawar, burgan, Ahvaz, Zuluf, and Rumailia per reserve are ten times less than permian, given their better recovery. The relation between the amount of oil in the ground and just flat land area is constant around the globe and theres no other space left to put it. It's not a matter of discovery, discovery is logically impossible because oil is already so abundant it takes up the entire space.

So it's not really a matter of speculation, claiming there is an order of magnitude more reserves begs the question of where they fit, and the rest is just doing the detailed math on particular fields- which is what reserve estimates are so this debate is pointless because we don't have that data.

I would of course create a blog, pay mods to advertise it, and have something to do with my time. Even if just Adam, Gmark, snow and other trolls post there i welcome their trolls.

[AdamB]

What does "geoscience" have to do with swallowing every pronouncement made by whatever oil company/country shill as gospel?

It doesn't, if that is the only information Lahherrere uses.

You are wandering in circles.
First you wondered why JL dosen't use the old PC database
I showed he did so you complained that he adjusts for obvious misinformation
I said "because it is misinformation"
now you say he must be wrong if PC is all he uses.
But it isn't "all he uses" because he attempts to refine it's political errors.
LOL
The technical term here is "Gish Gallop"
Rather than simply accuse him randomly, why not read the article?

My apologies for not explaining in more detail. The graph you referenced didn't contain technical information, it contained numbers. Someone's reserve number, someone's cumulative, someone's discoveries. Those are just the top level numbers congregation members have been using since Hubbert.

When I mentioned a specific list of technical information inside of the old PC database (and the newer versions) that Jean doesn't appear to access, I mentioned formations inside of fields, porosity inside of formations, estimates of oil gravities, current and cumulative production at the field level, allowing recovery percentages to be recovered for ANY reserve or resource estimate, at the field level. With that information, you can build the distributions that underpin nearly all reserve and resource estimates. Including the effects of both secondary or tertiary production, as the field's development stage is another piece of information within the data.

So my claim was more...where is the work Jean has done that CAN be done with the PC database? Not recycling the same old prattle that had him sign on to a global peak oil back around 2002, and forcing him to continuously revise his numbers since then. It turns out that the only person worse at predicting global peak oils has been Colin.

The thing I've always liked about JL as long as I've read him, he has been very straightforward about how poor the data is and consequently how big a crapshoot are forecasts. I tend to take him at his word on that because he actually was affiliated with PC and presumably knows where their stats came from.

Thank you for bringing up why stochastic modeling is what remains to model future oil production. Being affiliated with PC was great! But that database now resides with IHS...how is his relationship with them?

Consequently he generally talks in 1000GB units, any more would be pretend to accuracy that's impossible based on the nature of the input. That he is down to billion barrel in this article accuracy is telling, for me at least.

Telling indeed. There is a reason why estimates of the type Jean uses, but doesn't tell you about, are point estimates off of density functions. Do you ever wonder why he neither explains those, nor shows them to you? Do you think he even understands them?

[Newfie]

Damn. I want a geoscience job that allows me to change/erase/exclude/include just things I want in order to reach the conclusion I want. Requiring ones research conclusions to be based on reality and all, what a drag.

Those estimates aren't "geoscience", more like geopolitical stock pumping. LOL
What does "geoscience" have to do with swallowing every pronouncement made by whatever oil company/country shill as gospel?

The problem of forecasting is not just that it is hard to know what's down there, it's that all the people who have the best information don't always have the same objectives as society at large.

I mentioned the Energy Trap idea, basically once decline sets in it will be harder to transition away from fossils — because it will take lots of fossil energy to transition. IOW, a manhattan project not in secret but one that out in the open syphoning off energy while everyone is waiting in gas lines.

The way out of the energy trap is to transition before fossils decline. That is society's best interest.
Is it in the best interest of oil companies/countries bottom line to transition and leave all that profit in the ground?

I believe that Dr Lovejoy made the sake argument some 10 years ago. He had changed his mind on nuclear and was supporting using existing reserves to build out nuclear.

[Gmark]

Damn. I want a geoscience job that allows me to change/erase/exclude/include just things I want in order to reach the conclusion I want. Requiring ones research conclusions to be based on reality and all, what a drag.

Those estimates aren't "geoscience", more like geopolitical stock pumping. LOL
What does "geoscience" have to do with swallowing every pronouncement made by whatever oil company/country shill as gospel?

The problem of forecasting is not just that it is hard to know what's down there, it's that all the people who have the best information don't always have the same objectives as society at large.

I mentioned the Energy Trap idea, basically once decline sets in it will be harder to transition away from fossils — because it will take lots of fossil energy to transition. IOW, a manhattan project not in secret but one that out in the open syphoning off energy while everyone is waiting in gas lines.

The way out of the energy trap is to transition before fossils decline. That is society's best interest.
Is it in the best interest of oil companies/countries bottom line to transition and leave all that profit in the ground?

I believe that Dr Lovejoy made the sake argument some 10 years ago. He had changed his mind on nuclear and was supporting using existing reserves to build out nuclear.

Petroleum products have a lot of essential uses besides being burned as fuel. The sooner we can get electrification going with solar, wind, nuclear, etc., the better, but we need a lot more of a push to make a market self-sustaining.

I would have purchased an electric car this year, but my area doesn't have the charging infrastructure in place.

[mustang19]

Damn. I want a geoscience job that allows me to change/erase/exclude/include just things I want in order to reach the conclusion I want. Requiring ones research conclusions to be based on reality and all, what a drag.

Those estimates aren't "geoscience", more like geopolitical stock pumping. LOL
What does "geoscience" have to do with swallowing every pronouncement made by whatever oil company/country shill as gospel?

The problem of forecasting is not just that it is hard to know what's down there, it's that all the people who have the best information don't always have the same objectives as society at large.

I mentioned the Energy Trap idea, basically once decline sets in it will be harder to transition away from fossils — because it will take lots of fossil energy to transition. IOW, a manhattan project not in secret but one that out in the open syphoning off energy while everyone is waiting in gas lines.

The way out of the energy trap is to transition before fossils decline. That is society's best interest.
Is it in the best interest of oil companies/countries bottom line to transition and leave all that profit in the ground?

I believe that Dr Lovejoy made the sake argument some 10 years ago. He had changed his mind on nuclear and was supporting using existing reserves to build out nuclear.

Petroleum products have a lot of essential uses besides being burned as fuel. The sooner we can get electrification going with solar, wind, nuclear, etc., the better, but we need a lot more of a push to make a market self-sustaining.

I would have purchased an electric car this year, but my area doesn't have the charging infrastructure in place.

But all that is fake, wind needs 1000 tons of concrete per mw at 30 mwh a ton while producing 20, etc. Also Germany is decommissioning turbines and Texas is rolling back regulation, etc. The only reason you support wind at all is that you didn't know what happened and have outdated information.

But I mean your posts are just lib and don't matter.

[AdamB]

I would have purchased an electric car this year, but my area doesn't have the charging infrastructure in place.

My garage has electrical outlets. Perfectly useful charging infrastructure. I've thought about using one of those charging stations you occasionally see out and about, but they seem so inconvenient compared to just parking the thing in the garage and plugging it in. Works for either of my EVs as well.

[Pops]

My apologies for not explaining in more detail. The graph you referenced didn't contain technical information, it contained numbers. Someone's reserve number, someone's cumulative, someone's discoveries. Those are just the top level numbers congregation members have been using since Hubbert.

Fair enough. I don't have an answer to how much well by well calculations he has done, if any. Or how much was back in the day or really how much needs to be done. His thing is the linearization and curve, which uses past production. His is pretty straight forward, discoveries minus production equals reserves, do the HL for a guess at reserve growth and yet-to-find, then plot the curve.

Rystad, that we started with here, claims to have done a well by well analysis. Pretty amazing to me but that's what they say. They came up with1700GB technical and 1300GB economical.
O&G, per a note on one of the charts says 1728GB remaining.
So if you take JLs 800GB -XH, add in 400GB of x-heavy ... voilá, 1200GB, ultimate of 3500GB

I don't know how O&G goes about it but likely 3 somewhat different approaches with similar results. That's R/P of 37 years—if wells ran full-tilt until they one day just stop, which of course they don't. Since production tails off, the longer the tail the closer the peak. And considering a good portion of the total is stuff that isn't going to ramp up overnight like LTO did, it is gonna be a long, low tail.

[mustang19]

I would have purchased an electric car this year, but my area doesn't have the charging infrastructure in place.

My garage has electrical outlets. Perfectly useful charging infrastructure. I've thought about using one of those charging stations you occasionally see out and about, but they seem so inconvenient compared to just parking the thing in the garage and plugging it in. Works for either of my EVs as well.

By 2030 the lithium in your car will be worth more than your car.

[AdamB]

My apologies for not explaining in more detail. The graph you referenced didn't contain technical information, it contained numbers. Someone's reserve number, someone's cumulative, someone's discoveries. Those are just the top level numbers congregation members have been using since Hubbert.

Fair enough. I don't have an answer to how much well by well calculations he has done, if any.

When working with discrete reservoirs, you don't need to work from well level data. That kind of work is specific to doing the continuous accumulations, and is basically a (total possible productive area/well drainage) X non-interfering(or not) well result = volume calculation. The USGS runs a methodology just like this, and Dennis does something similar. I've never seen Lahherrere mention much about doing well level analysis.

Rystad, that we started with here, claims to have done a well by well analysis. Pretty amazing to me but that's what they say. They came up with1700GB technical and 1300GB economical.

I can believe it. The Texas BEG has already done it. I began doing important basins on my own back around 2012-2014 when interest in my previous experience with light, tight oil and shale gas had me in high demand. Dennis and Co. have been doing important basins in a similar, if more aggregate, way.

[mustang19]

My apologies for not explaining in more detail. The graph you referenced didn't contain technical information, it contained numbers. Someone's reserve number, someone's cumulative, someone's discoveries. Those are just the top level numbers congregation members have been using since Hubbert.

Fair enough. I don't have an answer to how much well by well calculations he has done, if any.

When working with discrete reservoirs, you don't need to work from well level data. That kind of work is specific to doing the continuous accumulations, and is basically a (total possible productive area/well drainage) X non-interfering(or not) well result = volume calculation. The USGS runs a methodology just like this, and Dennis does something similar. I've never seen Lahherrere mention much about doing well level analysis.

Rystad, that we started with here, claims to have done a well by well analysis. Pretty amazing to me but that's what they say. They came up with1700GB technical and 1300GB economical.

I can believe it. The Texas BEG has already done it. I began doing important basins on my own back around 2012-2014 when interest in my previous experience with light, tight oil and shale gas had me in high demand. Dennis and Co. have been doing important basins in a similar, if more aggregate, way.

Does Dennis have a job? He's a professional engineer who thinks permian has 50% recovery?

Obviously you mean Kaplan and Ron but does Dennis have a job?

[Tanada]

Speaking of batteries for home use. I have often pondered the advantage for a grid based consumer of buying a power wall or two, then setting up a timer system so that from noon to say seven PM your house runs off the battery packs during the peak expensive power period. Then each night from say 9 PM until dawn the batteries recharge with the lower overnight rate electricity. This would in effect let you run your A/C and electrical cooking appliances for your evening meal, after work shower and what not that are the big power consumers on the cheap overnight rate power. This would benefit the consumer by saving charges and it benefits the utility by reducing peak demand during the afternoon and early evening hours. If you want to throw in some home solar or wind all the better.

[Newfie]

Tanada,

That is much like boat usage. Power is “cheap” when produced by solar. Then the batteries carry us when we have no solar, at night. The alternative is run the generator or motor. Wind is a bonus.

At odd times we can generate more power than we can store, or at a faster rate than he batteries can absorb, this power is then generally wasted, for example in big resistor banks or the wind is depowered. An alternative would be to use it to heat water.

[mustang19]

Tanada,

That is much like boat usage. Power is “cheap” when produced by solar. Then the batteries carry us when we have no solar, at night. The alternative is run the generator or motor. Wind is a bonus.

At odd times we can generate more power than we can store, or at a faster rate than he batteries can absorb, this power is then generally wasted, for example in big resistor banks or the wind is depowered. An alternative would be to use it to heat water.

This has nothing to do with peak oil, this is just a normal renewables blog at this point. Have fun burning to death from batteries.

[Gmark]

Speaking of batteries for home use. I have often pondered the advantage for a grid based consumer of buying a power wall or two, then setting up a timer system so that from noon to say seven PM your house runs off the battery packs during the peak expensive power period. Then each night from say 9 PM until dawn the batteries recharge with the lower overnight rate electricity. This would in effect let you run your A/C and electrical cooking appliances for your evening meal, after work shower and what not that are the big power consumers on the cheap overnight rate power. This would benefit the consumer by saving charges and it benefits the utility by reducing peak demand during the afternoon and early evening hours. If you want to throw in some home solar or wind all the better.

I haven't used one, but I have seen systems set up that way for both wind, solar electric, and solar hot water heating.

Timeshifting is one thing. The other is predictive, where the system knows from your history what your consumption is, and knows when it has enough charge + a safety factor, so switches from solar to utility and back again to optimize costs. It could even see the meteorological models so would know if the next day is going to be sunny, and predict what your charging capacity will be, and work with that.

Edit: I should add that this system I saw was a custom build. The owner had a solar hot water heater providing feedwater to the oil fired hot water tank. That was great that when there was demand for hot water, the oil fired tank would get preheated water. But he noticed that the 50 gal oil-fired tank was cycling the boiler to keep it's temperature up, while there was 200 gallons of 70C water just sitting there. That started him on the road to optimize it. So if the oil-fired tank was below it's set temperature and it wanted to cycle the boiler, he just had a second thermostat that would see he had all this solar hot water and keep the boiler off. If someone did laundry and it called for hot water, the system would see that it had these solar tanks at 70C, and a solenoid valve would feed solar hot water (and mixing valve) to provide the water. It meant his oil-fired water tank didn't cycle the boiler for months at a time.

Once he saw how well that worked, he then came up with the logic for handling the battery charging based on power costs, power consumption, and the forecast.

[mustang19]

Speaking of batteries for home use. I have often pondered the advantage for a grid based consumer of buying a power wall or two, then setting up a timer system so that from noon to say seven PM your house runs off the battery packs during the peak expensive power period. Then each night from say 9 PM until dawn the batteries recharge with the lower overnight rate electricity. This would in effect let you run your A/C and electrical cooking appliances for your evening meal, after work shower and what not that are the big power consumers on the cheap overnight rate power. This would benefit the consumer by saving charges and it benefits the utility by reducing peak demand during the afternoon and early evening hours. If you want to throw in some home solar or wind all the better.

I haven't used one, but I have seen systems set up that way for both wind, solar electric, and solar hot water heating.

Timeshifting is one thing. The other is predictive, where the system knows from your history what your consumption is, and knows when it has enough charge + a safety factor, so switches from solar to utility and back again to optimize costs. It could even see the meteorological models so would know if the next day is going to be sunny, and predict what your charging capacity will be, and work with that.

Edit: I should add that this system I saw was a custom build. The owner had a solar hot water heater providing feedwater to the oil fired hot water tank. That was great that when there was demand for hot water, the oil fired tank would get preheated water. But he noticed that the 50 gal oil-fired tank was cycling the boiler to keep it's temperature up, while there was 200 gallons of 70C water just sitting there. That started him on the road to optimize it. So if the oil-fired tank was below it's set temperature and it wanted to cycle the boiler, he just had a second thermostat that would see he had all this solar hot water and keep the boiler off. If someone did laundry and it called for hot water, the system would see that it had these solar tanks at 70C, and a solenoid valve would feed solar hot water (and mixing valve) to provide the water. It meant his oil-fired water tank didn't cycle the boiler for months at a time.

Once he saw how well that worked, he then came up with the logic for handling the battery charging based on power costs, power consumption, and the forecast.

It's ironic, now peak oil is happening we only have libs and all the experts got jobs.

[theluckycountry]

The latest EIA data I can find says that fracking in the USA produced 2.67 billion barrels of petroleum and natural gas liquids in 2020.

I'd like to see the data on how much oil coal and gas was used to extract that, and get it to market. I know if I fill my tank down at the local servo I will pay 10 cents a liter more than if I dive 20km up the highway. But the fuel I will burn going on that 40km round trip negates the savings, by a wide margin.

[mustang19]

Keynesianism fails because it requires consumer prices to fall faster than producer, which is backward if investment causes the recession. Otherwise profit grows and corrects.

Anyway carry on, whatever.

The latest EIA data I can find says that fracking in the USA produced 2.67 billion barrels of petroleum and natural gas liquids in 2020.

I'd like to see the data on how much oil coal and gas was used to extract that, and get it to market. I know if I fill my tank down at the local servo I will pay 10 cents a liter more than if I dive 20km up the highway. But the fuel I will burn going on that 40km round trip negates the savings, by a wide margin.

The produced water makes oil eroi close to 1. The transport cost is about a tenth of that.

[Pops]

The latest EIA data I can find says that fracking in the USA produced 2.67 billion barrels of petroleum and natural gas liquids in 2020.

I'd like to see the data on how much oil coal and gas was used to extract that, and get it to market. I know if I fill my tank down at the local servo I will pay 10 cents a liter more than if I dive 20km up the highway. But the fuel I will burn going on that 40km round trip negates the savings, by a wide margin.

Well to tank efficiency is around 85%
Well to wheel efficiency however is about 25%.
Mainly because gas ICE themselves are only 30% efficient, diesels 35%.

https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5138891
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... rspectives
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/e-C ... _275462874

[theluckycountry]

Well to tank efficiency is around 85%
Well to wheel efficiency however is about 25%.
Mainly because gas ICE themselves are only 30% efficient, diesels 35%.

Yeah, I'm familiar with the waste in my car engine pops, it's the efficiency of the fracking plays I was wondering about. It's not like they drill one or two wells that last for decades, they have to drill innumerable ones and then apply the fracturing sand and chemicals at high pressure to each one. It's all very energy intensive and done on the back of the cheap fuels we now use. I imagine the cost figures are based in dollars, not barrels of oil equivalent and I would just like to see that factored in.

I guess what I'm saying is I would like to know how much of the conventional oil is used to extract and transport the fracked oil, it can't be negligible on the scale they have been doing it surely. At the moment all I ever hear is X barrels of conventional + y barrels of fracking products = total production. I think ( X+Y- (X used to produce Y)) = T would be a more meaningful measure.

It's like EV's, "a single electric car battery weighing 1,000 pounds requires extracting and processing some 500,000 pounds of materials"
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/min ... lity-check

There are mountains or mining waste piling up all over the planet and untold millions of gallons of diesel used to extract it and no up front accounting. The average buyer is ignorant of these environmental aspects. They don't realize that in large part the high price on their EV is a reflection of the mining and processing that goes into building it and it's non-recyclable battery.