Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Daniel Yergin Thread (merged)

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Depletion

Unread postby EnviroEngr » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 14:14:15

Leanan wrote:
The big question is how much depletion will we see on the older fields?


Yes, that's the big question. No doubt some big fields are coming online in a few years. The question is whether they can offset the depletion of the aging giants. My guess would be "no," but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

But just looking at the limited data we have...I think Simmons is right. That expensive technology does increase production rates, but it doesn't really increase the total amount produced. A lot of oil people are still in denial about this, despite what happened with Yibal. But more and more, it's looking like Simmons was right. High-tech methods accelerate depletion, so decline for newer wells will be much steeper than it was for the old, American ones many models are based on.


Precisely and exactly the point. The area under the curve is a finite and fixed quantity, once everyone has agreed to the Ultimately Extractable Petroleum Reserves number. After that, the ONLY thing that can change is the Shape of the curve. In this situation in particular, it normally means a foreshortening of the abscissa value.
-------------------------------------------
| Whose reality is this anyway!? |
-------------------------------------------
(---------< Temet Nosce >---------)
__________________________
User avatar
EnviroEngr
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Richland Center, Wisconsin

Re: Depletion

Unread postby nth » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 14:53:44

EnviroEngr wrote:
Precisely and exactly the point. The area under the curve is a finite and fixed quantity, once everyone has agreed to the Ultimately Extractable Petroleum Reserves number. After that, the ONLY thing that can change is the Shape of the curve. In this situation in particular, it normally means a foreshortening of the abscissa value.



This reminds me of hearing people dismiss peak oil, yet agree that oil is finite.

WTF????
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Unread postby Leanan » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 15:33:54

Another way to look at it is that there are plenty of old fields that have new life based on these enhanced techs. BUT, there are also examples where these techs failed. AND they called the failures- mismanagement.
That is a cynical way of looking at it, but just as valid, imo.


LOL! Yeah, I could see that.

Simmons says slower is better. The more slowly you produce the oil, the more your total recovery is. I suspect when the dust settles, we'll find that high-tech methods can increase total recovery, but only for certain fields, in certain conditions. For many, perhaps most, it actually makes little difference or reduces recovery.

I was talking to someone in the oil business a couple of weeks ago, who claimed that technology such as water injection and superstraws never decreases recovery because it's only ever used when a field is on its last legs anyway. Not sure what to make of that, considering that they've been doing it at Ghawar for years.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby Jaymax » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 17:05:58

nth wrote:
Jaymax wrote:Yesterday's item at the Oildrum refutes the CERA numbers...

theoildrum

--J


This guy (lanqui) didn't get it right.
CERA uses BOE.
ODAC uses projected Crude Oil projection.


BOE including which energy sources? The ASPO predictions are BOE all oil and gas, and they can't offset peak post 2007.

CERA does not ignore depletions.


Have to admit, it seemed unlikely - but no-one seems to have produced a link to the CERA math yet, which is a bit troubling. What's to say if they did or didn't? They certainly (and distubingly) havn't set out their approach to depletion in the primary press information.

--J
Doomerosity now at 2 (occasionaly 3, was 4)

Currently (mostly) taking a break from posting at po.com. Don't trust the false prophets of doom - keep reading, keep learning, keep challenging your assum
User avatar
Jaymax
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Thu 16 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: England

Unread postby nth » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 18:22:54

Jaymax wrote:BOE including which energy sources? The ASPO predictions are BOE all oil and gas, and they can't offset peak post 2007.


Yes, the latest report here.
Does use everything, but previous reports don't.
From what I can tell ASPO aka Campbell is projecting under 30b barrels of oil for PO???
You believe that?

Also, gas is going to peak around same time?
You can look up the major gas projects and see that there are several million boe going to come online. There are several more plan, but don't have buyers/markets, so not being developed, yet.

No idea how they can justify PO and PG at that level.
Especially, ME is projected to be at a plateau.

To me, ASPO is probably predicting major drastic declines in old giant fields outside of ME. I am not an oil expert, but based on decline rates we see in Norway, England, and US. New oil fields have slow the decline rates, historically. And, new developments are scheduled for these countries, so the decline rate should be less steep when these new projects come online.

Have to admit, it seemed unlikely - but no-one seems to have produced a link to the CERA math yet, which is a bit troubling. What's to say if they did or didn't? They certainly (and distubingly) havn't set out their approach to depletion in the primary press information.

--J


Yergin did talk about depletion- not stats, but in general. He says that they evaluate the fields based on how much is being invested and what are the projected returns.

Anyways, there are major analysts who question and refute CERA.
CERA states they back their projections: 16mboepd in production capacity and not actual production.
So that means oil and gas companies are putting in place infrastructure to produce 16mbpd+. Actual productions may vary as we all know delays are abundant in this business.
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Unread postby Jaymax » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 20:16:17

nth wrote:
Jaymax wrote:BOE including which energy sources? The ASPO predictions are BOE all oil and gas, and they can't offset peak post 2007.


Yes, the latest report here.
...
From what I can tell ASPO aka Campbell is projecting under 30b barrels of oil for PO??? You believe that?


82 Mbbl/day conventional at peak - might be under by 1 or 2 at most. BP 2004 was pretty much bang on 80 Mbbl, so 82M/day (30G/yr) seems fair, yes.

Also, gas is going to peak around same time? You can look up the major gas projects and see that there are several million boe going to come online. There are several more plan, but don't have buyers/markets, so not being developed, yet.


The ASPO graph shows gas peaking about 2045 - not sure where you get same time from?

Point still stands - I can't find anything on the web where CERA talk about depletion and how they incorporate it into their models...

--J
Doomerosity now at 2 (occasionaly 3, was 4)

Currently (mostly) taking a break from posting at po.com. Don't trust the false prophets of doom - keep reading, keep learning, keep challenging your assum
User avatar
Jaymax
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Thu 16 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: England

Unread postby Antimatter » Wed 03 Aug 2005, 05:15:22

The CERA report does not include gas, they do include natural gas liquids (NGL), condensate, heavy/bitumen, deep water etc, hence the BOE term. They haven't forgotten about depletion of existing capacity, they talk about net capacity increase, though the increase does seem rather optimistic. There was a bit more detail in the Oil&Gas Journal about the report, they reckon the US will be down 470kb/d by 2010 (GoM deepwater will help), UK and Norway down 300-400kb/d each (probably a bit optimistic). The 16mb/d net increase is their high end estimate based on no disruptions etc. As for the greater share of unconventional, a lot of this is NGL/condensate which also comes flowing out of the ground through a straw as Aaron likes to say, and a driver cares not weather their fuel comes from deepwater, onshore, or condensate blended with heavy oil. The higher cost of these isn't really relevant, as long as one takes into account the different production profiles, as the market price of oil is well above the production cost of even the more expensive sources.

Leanan wrote:But just looking at the limited data we have...I think Simmons is right. That expensive technology does increase production rates, but it doesn't really increase the total amount produced. A lot of oil people are still in denial about this, despite what happened with Yibal. But more and more, it's looking like Simmons was right. High-tech methods accelerate depletion, so decline for newer wells will be much steeper than it was for the old, American ones many models are based on.


If you accept the ASPO URR, and think the decline will be rapid, then the peak will be a bit later. If you think peak is now and decline will be rapid, you need to use a smaller URR.

Aaron wrote:seahorse2 wrote:
Aaron or someone, spell out for me the significance of IHS Energy buying Cera. I understand the thought is it makes or taints CERA's opinions. But, I don't know anything about IHS Energy.



They give financial advice to energy companies...

I'll let your own experiences draw whatever conclusion from that you like.


IHS Energy was formerly Petroconsultants, the data source Campbell et al. relied on. Campbell reckoned the IHS/PC database wouldn't show reserve growth because it was P50, but it has shown significant growth, so ASPO 'corrects' it now, and draws from other sources (Wood Mackenzie and some others).

Whats interesting to me is that IHS also does a short term forcast to 2010, and comes up with less than CERA, a max of 13mb/d net increase. Their latest is in a pdf presentation here, pg 37. If the "either way" and "OPEC unknowns" come out at the lower end it would be 10mb/d net increase. (This is also all liquids, ie includes NGL, deepwater, heavy etc)

I don't want to sound like I'm defending the CERA report, I think they are too optimistic about decline rates and new tech. Although if production does climb rapidly in the next several years it would have more credibility. One should always read the source material carefully, rather than just what its critics say about it. There is often a lot of assumption and herd mentality in peak oil circles.
User avatar
Antimatter
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue 04 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Australia

Unread postby nth » Wed 03 Aug 2005, 13:12:23

Jaymax wrote:82 Mbbl/day conventional at peak - might be under by 1 or 2 at most. BP 2004 was pretty much bang on 80 Mbbl, so 82M/day (30G/yr) seems fair, yes.


Hrm BP is showing 80mbpd, but government agencies are showing 82mbpd. Some discrepancy here.
Also, we are supposedly producing more than 83mbpd all this year.

The ASPO graph shows gas peaking about 2045 - not sure where you get same time from?

Thanks for pointing this out. I was looking at the total peak. I screwed up.

Point still stands - I can't find anything on the web where CERA talk about depletion and how they incorporate it into their models...

--J


They talk about depletion on all their interviews.
No where do they talk about their models.
They only said field by field analysis. They never talk about their models.
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Just one more dumbass.

Unread postby killJOY » Wed 10 Aug 2005, 17:48:44

This is not to say the world is running out of oil. In The Prize, Daniel Yergin's epic history of the oil industry, Yergin points out that projections have always said the world would run out of oil in the near future. Somehow, new discoveries have always pushed this "imminent doom" further into the future. Today, forecasts are all over the map, but with at least 1 trillion barrels of known reserves, "imminent doom" is projected somewhere between 40 years and more than 100 years in the future.


just one more dumbass.

http://tinyurl.com/dzue7
Peak oil = comet Kohoutek.
User avatar
killJOY
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2220
Joined: Mon 21 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: ^NNE^

Unread postby BabyPeanut » Wed 10 Aug 2005, 17:58:15

August 1, 2005
. We begin this ominous month with the curious case of Daniel Yergin, who won the Pulitizer for his 1992 epic history of the oil industry, The Prize, later turned into a PBS megadocumentary. Since his big score, Yergin has set up a public relations firm called Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) which, in the spirit of the PR profession, seems to have become the main disinformation organ for its clients, the major oil companies.
. In a piece published in yesterday's Washington Post, Yergin takes the position that there is no problem with the global oil supply. Over the next five years, he says, both OPEC and non-OPEC producers will come up with an extra 16 million barrels a day, taking the world from its current 85 m/b/d to 101 m/b/d in 2010. This will happen, he says, because of "new technology" used to exploit unconventional sources of oil such as tar sands, ultra-deep-water developments, and natural gas liquids.
. More than a few elements of Yergin's pitch are shifty. The slyest one is that he does not mention that unconventional oil tends to be very uncheap, and since it is cheap oil that enables America's "non-negotiable" easy motoring way of life, and the debt-fueled suburban sprawl-building economy that has evolved to serve it, there may indeed be a problem further along in the pipeline, so to speak.
. Yergin also leaves out the fact that most (and perhaps all) of the world's major conventional oil fields are past peak and now depleting at between three and twenty percent a year -- and, ironically, as in the case of the North Sea, the more advanced the drilling technology, the more efficiently the oil is recovered, the greater the rate of depletion.
--More--
BabyPeanut
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3275
Joined: Tue 17 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: 39° 39' N 77° 77' W or thereabouts

Unread postby HonestPessimist » Wed 10 Aug 2005, 18:14:57

Not if the demands outpace the supplies in the next decade, especially with the booming economic rates in China and India. With larger population bases in both countries, demands and consumptions of supplies will certainly outpace that of the US and the EU. Oil would be depleted faster in both countries than it took the US 50 years to deplete half of the world's oil reserves.
User avatar
HonestPessimist
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri 25 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Unread postby Specop_007 » Wed 10 Aug 2005, 18:20:07

HonestPessimist wrote:Not if the demands outpace the supplies in the next decade, especially with the booming economic rates in China and India. With larger population bases in both countries, demands and consumptions of supplies will certainly outpace that of the US and the EU. Oil would be depleted faster in both countries than it took the US 50 years to deplete half of the world's oil reserves.


Because America is the only country using oil. :roll:

Thread title sums it up well for you i think...

"Just one more dumbass"
User avatar
Specop_007
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5586
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby HonestPessimist » Thu 11 Aug 2005, 19:28:33

Specop_007 wrote:
HonestPessimist wrote:Not if the demands outpace the supplies in the next decade, especially with the booming economic rates in China and India. With larger population bases in both countries, demands and consumptions of supplies will certainly outpace that of the US and the EU. Oil would be depleted faster in both countries than it took the US 50 years to deplete half of the world's oil reserves.


Because America is the only country using oil. :roll:

Thread title sums it up well for you i think...

"Just one more dumbass"


Are you really that stupid? :x

Just another dumbass, aren't you? Join the club. :roll:
User avatar
HonestPessimist
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri 25 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

"We are not running out of oil, no sireeee"

Unread postby something_awfull » Sun 28 Aug 2005, 03:13:47

Forum: The oil age is far from over

Rising prices are making people panic. But Daniel Yergin sees oil supplies increasing substantially in coming years, driven by technology that improves production

Sunday, August 28, 2005

We're not running out of oil. Not yet.

"Shortage" is certainly in the air -- and in the price. Right now, the oil market is tight, even tighter than it was on the eve of the 1973 oil crisis. In this high-risk market, "surprises" ranging from political instability to hurricanes could send oil prices spiking higher. Moreover, the specter of an energy shortage is not limited to oil. Natural gas supplies are not keeping pace with growing demand. Even supplies of coal, which generates about half of the country's electricity, are constrained at a time when our electric power system has been tested by an extraordinary heat wave.


Stacy Innerst, Post-Gazette
Click illustration for larger version.

Daniel Yergin is chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates and author of "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power." He wrote this for The Washington Post.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But it is oil that gets most of the attention. Prices up to $68 a barrel last week, driven by high demand growth, are fueling the fear of imminent shortage -- that the world is going to begin running out of oil in five or 10 years. This shortage, it is argued, will be amplified by the substantial and growing demand from two giants: China and India.

Yet this fear is not borne out by the fundamentals of supply. Our new, field-by-field analysis of production capacity, led by my colleagues Peter Jackson and Robert Esser, is quite at odds with the current view and leads to a strikingly different conclusion:

There will be a large, unprecedented buildup of oil supply in the next few years. Between 2004 and 2010, capacity to produce oil (not actual production) could grow by 16 million barrels a day -- from 85 million barrels per day to 101 million barrels a day -- a 20 percent increase. Such growth over the next few years would relieve the current pressure on supply and demand.

Where will this growth come from? It is pretty evenly divided between non-OPEC and OPEC. The largest non-OPEC growth is projected for Canada, Kazakhstan, Brazil, Azerbaijan, Angola and Russia. In the OPEC countries, significant growth is expected to occur in Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Algeria and Libya, among others. Our estimate for growth in Iraq is quite modest -- only 1 million barrels a day -- reflecting the high degree of uncertainty there. In the forecast, the United States remains almost level, with development in the deep-water areas of the Gulf of Mexico compensating for declines elsewhere.

While questions can be raised about specific countries, this forecast is not speculative. It is based on what is already unfolding. The oil industry is governed by a "law of long lead times." Much of the new capacity that will become available between now and 2010 is under development. Many of the projects that embody this new capacity were approved in the 2001-03 period, based on price expectations much lower than current prices.

There are risks to any forecast. In this case, the risks are not the "below ground" ones of geology or lack of resources. Rather, they are "above ground" -- political instability, outright conflict, terrorism or slowdowns in decision-making on the part of governments in oil-producing countries. Yet, even with the scaling back of the forecast, it would still constitute a big increase in output.

This is not the first time that the world has "run out of oil." It's more like the fifth. Cycles of shortage and surplus characterize the entire history of the oil industry. A similar fear of shortage after World War I was one of the main drivers for cobbling together the three easternmost provinces of the defunct Ottoman Turkish Empire to create Iraq. In more recent times, the "permanent oil shortage" of the 1970s gave way to the glut and price collapse of the 1980s.

But this time, it is said, is "different." A common pattern in the shortage periods is to underestimate the impact of technology. And, once again, technology is key. "Proven reserves" are not necessarily a good guide to the future. The current Securities and Exchange Commission disclosure rules, which define "reserves" for investors, are based on 30-year-old technology and offer an incomplete picture of future potential.

As skills improve, output from many producing regions will be much greater than anticipated. The share of "unconventional oil" -- Canadian oil sands, ultra-deep-water developments, "natural gas liquids" -- will rise from 10 percent of total capacity in 1990 to 30 percent by 2010. The "unconventional" will cease being frontier and will instead become "conventional." Over the next few years, new facilities will be transforming what are inaccessible natural gas reserves in different parts of the world into a quality, diesel-like fuel.

The growing supply of energy should not lead us to underestimate the longer-term challenge of providing energy for a growing world economy. At this point, even with greater efficiency, it looks as though the world could be using 50 percent more oil 25 years from now.

That is a very big challenge. But at least for the next several years, the growing production capacity will take the air out of the fear of imminent shortage. And that in turn will provide us the breathing space to address the investment needs and the full panoply of technologies and approaches -- from development to conservation -- that will be required to fuel a growing world economy, ensure energy security and meet the needs of what is becoming the global middle class.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05240/560905.stm


We wont 'run' out of oil, just the cheap variety. A lot of people think cheap oil is declining, but this article claims that during the same period that we might hit peak oil, they are claiming we'll be awash with oil. got rose coloured glasses?
User avatar
something_awfull
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat 13 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Re: "We are not running out of oil, no sireeee"

Unread postby Specop_007 » Sun 28 Aug 2005, 03:35:09

Specop would ask the sheep to get back in line.
Move along, nothing to see here. All is well, trust your government....

:(

Specop thinks we're going to be so utterly screwed in the future. 8O
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."

Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
User avatar
Specop_007
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5586
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Re: "We are not running out of oil, no sireeee"

Unread postby AirlinePilot » Sun 28 Aug 2005, 05:54:15

The Spec-man! Still talkin in third party talk! The spec-meister is speakin!!
Speccin out with the Specster! Allright!!!

:)

I loved that skit on Saturday night!
User avatar
AirlinePilot
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4378
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South of Atlanta

Re: "We are not running out of oil, no sireeee"

Unread postby Specop_007 » Sun 28 Aug 2005, 06:05:55

AirlinePilot wrote:The Spec-man! Still talkin in third party talk! The spec-meister is speakin!!
Speccin out with the Specster! Allright!!!

:)

I loved that skit on Saturday night!


Spec thinks you've been breathing too much pressurized air..... :P

:-D

Spec would also agree, that was a good skit on SNL.
But Spec prefers the "More Cowbell" skit. :lol:
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."

Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
User avatar
Specop_007
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5586
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Re: "We are not running out of oil, no sireeee"

Unread postby VinceG » Sun 28 Aug 2005, 06:39:22

Specop_007 wrote:Specop thinks we're going to be so utterly screwed in the future. 8O


I totally agree! We are utterly screwed! There will be a time in the future when oil will become really scarce...

This will probably happen in the next 200 years or so... :P

For now -> enjoy your SUV, keep buying those really cheap products at Wallmart and DON'T listen to depressing and unrealistic rhetoric on peakoil.com...
"In the U.S., fears are so exaggerated and out of control that anxiety is the number-one mental health problem in the country.", Barry Glassner
User avatar
VinceG
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Tue 12 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Netherlands

Re: "We are not running out of oil, no sireeee"

Unread postby savethehumans » Sun 28 Aug 2005, 06:44:17

Specop would ask the sheep to get back in line.
Move along, nothing to see here. All is well, trust your government....


Couldn't be put any better than that, Spec!! :-D

BTW--is VinceG being satirical, or is he serious? Hate to sound like a doofus, but I'm not quite sure. . . . :?
User avatar
savethehumans
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1468
Joined: Wed 20 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Re: "We are not running out of oil, no sireeee"

Unread postby VinceG » Sun 28 Aug 2005, 07:29:59

Well, I AM serious about the 'DON'T listen to depressing and unrealistic rhetoric on peakoil.com...' part...
"In the U.S., fears are so exaggerated and out of control that anxiety is the number-one mental health problem in the country.", Barry Glassner
User avatar
VinceG
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Tue 12 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Netherlands

PreviousNext

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests