[pup55]

I had to try this, it was suggested in the Lahererre paper the other day.
Some nations have a "double peak", for one reason or another. Maybe they have two fields that deplete at different rates, maybe there are other reasons.
So I composed a "double verhulst model" that consists of 2 sub-peaks, which can be used to model this phenomenon. If the peaks are close together, they look like one broad peak. If far apart, two little peaks. Peak size, orientation, width and ratio can be adjusted by adjusting the parameters of the sub-peaks.
I'll post the result of the Qatar peaks below. There is some funny stuff going on with them, by the way. It looked like they were going to peak out in about 2000, but somehow, some way, they managed to crank up the oilwells in 2003 for one more good pumping year. It will be interesting to see whether this was a death spasm or not by inspection of the 2004 data.
Also, they claim to have had 15 gb "ultimately recoverable" according to BP, but the model fits a little better if you assume lower.
Maybe SL will be nice to us and graph it for all to see.

Code: Select all

   Peak 1   Peak 2
n   7   12
qinf    8.00     7.00
t(1/2)   26   52
k   0.25   0.6
      
   Actual   predicted
1960   0.06   
1961   0.06    0.06
1962   0.07    0.07
1963   0.07    0.09
1964   0.08    0.10
1965   0.09    0.11
1966   0.11    0.13
1967   0.12    0.14
1968   0.12    0.15
1969   0.13    0.16
1970   0.14    0.17
1971   0.16    0.18
1972   0.18    0.18
1973   0.21    0.19
1974   0.19    0.19
1975   0.16    0.18
1976   0.17    0.18
1977   0.16    0.18
1978   0.18    0.18
1979   0.19    0.17
1980   0.17    0.17
1981   0.16    0.16
1982   0.12    0.16
1983   0.11    0.15
1984   0.13    0.15
1985   0.12    0.14
1986   0.13    0.14
1987   0.12    0.14
1988   0.13    0.13
1989   0.15    0.13
1990   0.16    0.13
1991   0.15    0.12
1992   0.18    0.12
1993   0.17    0.13
1994   0.16    0.14
1995   0.17    0.16
1996   0.21    0.19
1997   0.25    0.23
1998   0.27    0.27
1999   0.29    0.31
2000   0.31    0.33
2001   0.31    0.34
2002   0.29    0.34
2003   0.33    0.33
2004       0.32
2005       0.31
2006       0.30
2007       0.28
2008       0.27
2009       0.26
2010       0.25
2011       0.24
2012       0.23
2013       0.22
2014       0.21
2015       0.20
2016       0.19
2017       0.18
2018       0.17
2019       0.16
2020       0.16
2021       0.15
2022       0.14
2023       0.14
2024       0.13
2025       0.12
2026       0.12
2027       0.11
2028       0.11
2029       0.10
2030       0.10
2031       0.09
2032       0.09
2033       0.09
2034       0.08
2035       0.08
2036       0.07
2037       0.07
2038       0.07
2039       0.07
2040       0.06
2041       0.06
2042       0.06
2043       0.05
2044       0.05
2045       0.05
2046       0.05
2047       0.05
2048       0.04
2049       0.04
2050       0.04

[Soft_Landing]

I'm not going to post graph today - little bit of a break. Perhaps next week. I also tried the same thing, works a treat on france, I must say. As fun as it is, we need to remember that the more flexibility you give to a model, the more likely you are to find a spurious fit. I suggest that we only use multiple cycles of verhulst's when there is a clear geological basis for doing so (ie. multiple cycles of discovery). In the case of Qatar, it would seem that the dip in the middle of qatari production co-incides with the decline of OPEC quota's, of which qatar is a part. I am thus inclined to be skeptical of the value of the multi-cyclic model for Qatari production. France is a better bet - and an unbelievably good fit - as good as US lower 48 is for the standard Hubbert.

The pervasive theme - that these techniques work best for unrestricted free markets - persistent.

Another thing which you might like to try (for fun) is to model one verhulst as a negative.

I don't remember the exact numbers, and dont have them on hand now, but you can model world production with a major positive verhulst, say

Qinf : 2000
T1/2 : 1995
n: about 1 or 2
k: biggish

with one negative verhulst

Qinf : 200
T1/2 : 1990
n: very low (0.05?)
k: medium

these are all from memory, but fit it from there - you'll see it turns out surprisingly well fit.

On the other hand, there is no analytical justification for this kind of thing. Unless...

I haven't tried this yet, but what if you added a small positive Verhulst that was constrained to the same q-inf as the negitive one. Ie - what you have here is the negative Verhulst modeling the slow turn around of world consumed quantity as a result of the worldwide economic downturn. This negative verhulst gets subtracted from the underlying Verhulst. Then, the total Q-inf that gets removed from the underlying curve needs to get put back at sometime, so the latter positve Verhulst adds back production removed by the oil crisis related economic downturn.

All this just goes to show how much you can fool yourself if you let yourself get carried away. As you've gathered, I'm not at the machine that I normally use to model etc, so I wont paste any of these charts for a while. In the meantime, happy modeling.

[clv101]

This is interesting given that the UK gets 38% of electricty and most domestic heating from the North Sea's post peak gas supply.

Any idea how much gas this project is likely to supply to the UK?

http://www.energybulletin.net/3677.html

The UK uses ~1,200,000 GWhs of gas each year.

[Kingcoal]

Qatar has a lot of NG. I think that will be a trend in the coming years. Philadelphia is throwing around the idea of building a LNG port terminal on the Delaware River.

[clv101]

I'm just wondering whether this is a drop in the ocean or a little more. Darley has some information on LNG in his book High Noon for Natural Gas, I don't have it with me just now but it went something like this:

There are 150 LNG tankers in the world today.
Total capacity ~2 weeks US use.
Majority in long term contracts with Japan and South Korea.
Only 4 ship yards that make them.
Optimistically there could be 200 LNG tankers by 2010.

The point is that the carrying capacity of LNG tankers is going to be trivial for many years to come.

So I expect the Qatar deal is only going to be able to supply the UK with a few % demand which when faced with rapid production decline in the North Sea won't mean much at all.

[Permanently_Baffled]

I'm just wondering whether this is a drop in the ocean or a little more. Darley has some information on LNG in his book High Noon for Natural Gas, I don't have it with me just now but it went something like this:

There are 150 LNG tankers in the world today.
Total capacity ~2 weeks US use.
Majority in long term contracts with Japan and South Korea.
Only 4 ship yards that make them.
Optimistically there could be 200 LNG tankers by 2010.

The point is that the carrying capacity of LNG tankers is going to be trivial for many years to come.

So I expect the Qatar deal is only going to be able to supply the UK with a few % demand which when faced with rapid production decline in the North Sea won't mean much at all.

I think the UK is planning diverse supply sources. The 25 year Qatar deal is just part of the supply base. LNG is also planned from Malaysia for example, but also there will be supply by pipeline from Norway and Holland. The northern European pipeline from Russia is due to built by the end of the decade which will provide supply from Russia.

I have also read that Qatar is also investing in new tankers/trains to accomodate these new markets.

I have tried to look up quantities , but I cannot find anywhere !

PB

[Guest]

This is interesting given that the UK gets 38% of electricty and most domestic heating from the North Sea's post peak gas supply.

Any idea how much gas this project is likely to supply to the UK?

http://www.energybulletin.net/3677.html

The UK uses ~1,200,000 GWhs of gas each year.

Nice little article. I would think the UK will try anything to reduce its consumption of oil, which it has begun importing for the first time in a long time in 2004. (PS; that leaves Canada and Russia as the only oil exporting countries in the G8 - sign of peak oil?).


I dougt this is the biggest deal ever like it said in the article however. China signed a 500 billion$ deal, and is loking to sign for another 750 billion dollar deal in 2005 (involving oil and NG from Russia if I remember well).

A few UK stats (taken at beginning of 2004, thus 2004 values are estimates);

Head of State: Queen Elizabeth II (she's frowning at you gg! )
Prime Minister: Anthony (Tony) Blair, re-elected June 2001 (he wont get another term)
Population (2003E): 59.7 million
Location/Size: Western Europe, islands including the northern one-sixth of the island of Ireland between the North Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea, northwest of France/244,820 sq km (slightly smaller than Oregon)
Capital City: London
Language: English
Ethnic groups: English 81.5%, Scottish 9.6%, Irish 2.4%, Welsh 1.9%, Ulster 1.8%, West Indian, Indian, Pakistani, and other 2.8%
Religions: Anglican and Roman Catholic 40 million, Muslim 1.5 million, Presbyterian 800,000, Methodist 760,000, Sikh 500,000, Hindu 500,000, Jewish 350,000 (1991 est.)
ECONOMIC OVERVIEW
Chancellor of the Exchequer: Gordon Brown
Currency: Pound sterling
Exchange Rate (4/2/04): 1 US Dollar = 0.55 pounds
Gross Domestic Product (2003E): $1,794 billion
Real GDP Growth Rate (2003E): 2.3% (2004F): 3.0%
Inflation Rate (consumer prices, 2003E): 2.8% (2004F): 2.5%
Unemployment Rate (2003E): 5.1%
Merchandise Exports (2003E): $308 billion
Merchandise Imports (2003E): $384 billion
Merchandise Trade Deficit (2003E): $76 billion
Current Account Balance (2003E): -$39.4 billion
Major Exports: Food, beverages, and tobacco; crude materials, fuels, chemicals, machinery, transport equipment
Main Destinations of Exports (2002E): the United States (15.2%), Germany (11.8%), France (10.0%), Ireland (8.2%), The Netherlands (7.5%)
Major Imports: Food, beverages, and tobacco; crude materials, fuels, chemicals, machinery, transport equipment
Main Origins of Imports (2002E): the United States (13.7%), Germany (11.3%), France (8.5%), The Netherlands (6.8%)
ENERGY PROFILE
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: Patricia Hewitt
Energy Minister: Stephen Timms
Proven Oil Reserves (1/1/04): 4.7 billion barrels
Oil Production (2003E): 2.38 million bbl/d, of which 2.09 million bbl/d was crude oil
Oil Consumption (2003E): 1.69 million bbl/d
Net Oil Exports (2003E): 0.69 million bbl/d
Crude Oil Refining Capacity (1/1/04E): 1.82 million bbl/d
Natural Gas Reserves (1/1/04E): 22.2 trillion cubic feet (Tcf)
Natural Gas Production (2002E): 3.6 Tcf
Natural Gas Consumption (2002E): 3.3 Tcf
Natural Gas Net Exports (2002E): 0.3 Tcf
Recoverable Coal Reserves (2001E): 1.65 billion short tons
Coal Production (2002E): 32.6 million short tons (Mmst)
Coal Consumption (2002E): 64.2 Mmst
Net Coal Imports (2002E): 31.6 Mmst
Electrical Generation Capacity (2002E): 77.0 gigawatts (79.8% thermal, 17.9% nuclear, 2.0% hydro, 0.2% other)
Electricity Generation (2002E): 360.8 billion kilowatt hours (Bkwh)
Electricity Consumption (2002E): 343.9 Bkwh


Would anyone like to see the Qatar stats?

Oh, and by the way, I think this is the first time I see gas measured in GWhs! I think you mean the UK generates this much electricty using natural gas? As you can see from the stats I furnished, the UK has the potential to generate 538 267 GWhs of electricity from thermal sources. They are VERY dependant on coal, oil and NG!

Signed: Your friendly neighborhood Ailrickson

[Guest]

The stats from Qatar (data taken from 2003, some 2003 numbers are estimates. Sorry, these are the most recent numbers I have);


For a country that has less than 1 000 000 population, their economic and energy situation is pretty good! Even with increases in NG production (LNG) expected in the next 5 years, they will have supply enough to produce and export for the next 300 years! Oil production should maintain itself for another 20 years without peaking - just with proven reserves. The world will obviously peak before Qatar does.

But, if/when shit hits the fan, they will be an easy target. Heck, with their population even FRANCE would have a chance at winning a war against these guys.


COUNTRY OVERVIEW
Head of State: Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani
Independence: September 3, 1971 (from United Kingdom)
Population (2003E): 811,052
Location/Size: Persian Gulf/4,416 square miles, slightly smaller than Connecticut
Major Cities: Doha (capital), Umm Said, Dukhan, al-Khawr
Languages: Arabic (English widely spoken)
Ethnic Groups: Arab (40%), Pakistani (18%), Indian (18%), Iranian (10%), other (14%)
Religion: Muslim (95%)
ECONOMIC OVERVIEW
Currency: Qatari Riyal
Market Exchange Rate (11/25/03): US$1 = 3.64 Qatari riyals
Nominal Gross Domestic Product (2003E): $18.8 billion (2004F): $20.2 billion
Real GDP Growth Rate (2003E): 5.0% (2004F): 4.7%
Inflation Rate (consumer prices) (2003E): 1.2% (2004F): 2.5%
Current Account Balance (2003E): $4.5 billion (2004F): $4.6 billion
Major Trading Partners: Japan, United Kingdom, United States, Italy, Germany, France, South Korea
Merchandise Exports (2003E): $12.0 billion
Merchandise Imports (2002E): $4.8 billion
Major Export Products: Crude oil, LNG
Major Import Products: Machinery and transport equipment, manufactured goods, food and live animals
ENERGY OVERVIEW
Minister of Energy and Industry: Sheikh Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyeh
Proven Oil Reserves (1/1/03E): 15.2 billion barrels
Oil Production (1st ten months of 2003E): 928,055 barrels per day (bbl/d), of which 714,384 bbl/d was crude oil
OPEC Crude Oil Production Quota (effective since 11/1/03): 635,000 bbl/d of crude oil (not including condensate)
Natural Gas Liquids Production (1st ten months of 2003E): 177,671 bbl/d
Oil Consumption (2003E): 30,000 bbl/d
Net Oil Exports (1st ten months of 2003E): 898,055 bbl/d
Crude Oil Refining Capacity (1/1/03E): 137,000 bbl/d
Natural Gas Reserves (1/1/03E): 509 trillion cubic feet (Tcf)
Natural Gas Production (2001E): 1.1 Tcf
Natural Gas Consumption (2001E): 560 billion cubic feet (Bcf)
Net Natural Gas Exports (2001E): 580 Bcf
Electric Generation Capacity (1/1/01E): 1.5 gigawatts
Electricity Production (2001E): 9.3 billion kilowatthours
ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW
Total Energy Consumption (2001E): 0.6 quadrillion Btu* (0.16% of world total energy consumption)
Energy-Related Carbon Emissions (2001E): 9.6 million metric tons of carbon (0.15% of world total carbon emissions)
Per Capita Energy Consumption (2001E): 921.4 million Btu (vs. U.S. value of 341.8 million Btu)
Per Capita Carbon Emissions (2001E): 13.7 metric tons of carbon (vs. U.S. value of 5.5 metric tons of carbon)
Energy Intensity (2001E): 37,063 Btu/$1995 (vs U.S. value of 10,736 Btu/$1995)**
Carbon Intensity (2001E): 0.6 metric tons of carbon/thousand $1995 (vs U.S. value of 0.17 metric tons/thousand $1995)**
Fuel Share of Energy Consumption (2001E): Natural Gas (90.9%), Oil (9.1%), Coal (0.0%)
Fuel Share of Carbon Emissions (2001E): Natural Gas (88.3%), Oil (11.7%), Coal

[Kingcoal]

Another interesting note, Qatar was a big supporter of the Iraq war and even went so far as to build a billion dollar air base for coalition forces.

[Guest]

Another interesting note, Qatar was a big supporter of the Iraq war and even went so far as to build a billion dollar air base for coalition forces.

With the size of population they have, you cant blame them for looking to make as many 'friends' as they can possibly find. I think I would do the same - wouldn't you?

____________________
Gotta be me!

[tsakach]

RAS LAFFAN INDUSTRIAL CITY, Qatar - The rat's nest of pipes and columns snaking across the desert belies a secret process that will use cobalt to turn natural gas into a powerful, clean-burning diesel fuel.

By 2011, the Qatari plants should be producing 300,000 barrels of liquid fuels and other products daily. The largest GTL plant now producing is Shell's plant in Bintulu, Malaysia, which is churning out 14,700 barrels per day.

Gas to liquid, Washington Times 5-25-2005

[tsakach]

There are several possibilities for conversion of natural gas, gassified coal or biomass into fuels such as diesel and gasoline. This technology was originally developed in the 1920s but has only recently become economically feasible.

GTL has the potential to convert a significant percentage of the world’s estimated stranded natural gas deposits — estimated to be more than 3,000 TCF and today hold little or no economic value — into several hundred billion barrels of oil equivalent of great economic value to the companies and countries that control them.

GTL technology can also be used to convert vast coal deposits into synthetic crude oil and/or clean synthetic diesel fuel, thus enabling the monetization and use of these resources in an environmentally friendly way.

[pea-jay]

Its articles like this that drive me batty. Okay not batty but make my life more difficult. Inevitably someone holds it up as an examply why things will be okay in the end.

They wont. This project is doubly useless.

First of all 300K barrels of diesel per day by 2011 is a drop in the bucket compared to the 13MBd cited in the article as current usage. With depletion driven declines staring us down front and center it will take a project at least TEN times as large to offset declines and new growth. Maybe twenty times. If the worlds largest deposit of gas can only cook up 300K Bpd were still screwed.

Number two, this project uses natural gas (also facing depletion) in a remarkably wasteful manner. Not mentioned here but noted elsewhere GTL process as proposed consumes a significant amount of gas to turn into an insignificant number of barrels. Now we are chewing through our gas supply even faster than before. Insane.

Bahrains immense gas supply is still finite. GTL will ensure it disappears that much faster.

[baldwincng]

GTL has the potential to convert a significant percentage of the world’s estimated stranded natural gas deposits — estimated to be more than 3,000 TCF and today hold little or no economic value

There is no such thing as stranded gas anymore due to reduction in costs associated with LNG and the dramatic expansion of LNG trade that is taking place.

Natural gas is valuable as natural gas, idiotic to waste huge amounts of energy to make it into artificial diesel which gets blended at western refineries. The additional CO2 cost is huge.

Pretty much everything that uses oil can use natural gas (apart from aeroplanes) so why waste energy converting it, whether into diesel or hydrogen.

The world does have a lot of gas - this will be needed for transportation once we hit peak oil

[rockdoc123]

There is no such thing as stranded gas anymore due to reduction in costs associated with LNG and the dramatic expansion of LNG trade that is taking place.

unfortunately this is just not true. There are huge costs and logistics associated with LNG. Depending on where you are 10 TCF might be considered as a threshold size to make it work. There is also the problem with tankers.....figure out the number of tankers you need making continuous trips across the Atlantic to supply the eastern seaboard with continuous LNG. The ocean would be littered with ships....where are they all going to come from.....what are the costs to build them...remember as oil prices rise so does operating costs associated with LNG extraction, conversion, shipping and reconversion.

Yes the LNG business is dramatically expanding in places like India but not so in the US to this point in time. There are no new LNG reconverter plants....I believe there is now approvals in place for commissioning one and plans to upgrade existing facilities but in a nutshell not much has really changed in the US....lots of talk...not much action.

I could name a number of fields in various countries that have large quantities of stranded gas (look off the NW shelf of Australia as an example, Bangladesh as another)....the change in economics will have to be substantial to bring this gas to market and this would require cheaper means of converting and reconverting. Just having less oil and higher oil prices will likely not do it simply because as oil prices rise so do the costs associated with the LNG process.

[baldwincng]

I could name a number of fields in various countries that have large quantities of stranded gas (look off the NW shelf of Australia as an example, Bangladesh as another)....the change in economics will have to be substantial to bring this gas to market and this would require cheaper means of converting and reconverting

I am interested in knowing about these stranded supplies - sounds like a business opportunity given world's thirst for LNG

See Exxon's view on http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/Cit ... utlook.asp

They say on a chart showing international gas trade:

This chart shows the significant expansion in the interregional trade in natural gas, largely facilitated by dramatic improvements in the cost of producing and transporting natural gas in the form of liquefied natural gas, or LNG.

Overall, interregional trade is expected to more than double in the 20 years from 2010 to 2030. That includes a tripling of North American imports during that time, from 9 billion cubic feet per day to about 26 BCFD, which amounts to nearly a quarter of the total demand for natural gas in North America. Europe is expected to require the most dramatic increase in imports, with dependency rising to about 70% of demand.

Lots of LNG ships are being built with 3 re-gasification terminals being built in uk by 2007!! Once the ships exist and the regasification, the only cost at the 'stranded gas' is liquefaction plants - not that expensive really. Certainly making LNG only costs about 20% of making synthetic diesel!!

The US has no choice but to have around 20 new LKNG terminals in next 20 years. Especially if George W is right and US cars are to run on hydrogen which can only be made (in practice) from natural gas (imported as LNG!)

[Andy]

Here we go again. With LNG, to power transportation we lose twice. We lose about 20 - 25% just getting the gas across the ocean. We then lose another 10 - 20% in the lower efficiency of natural gas vehicles versus diesel vehicles. for instance. Hence we lose about 40 - 45% in aggregate. If we want transportation fuels, it makes sense to convert the gas directly to liquid fuel and pay the price of lower efficiency 55 - 60% overall at/near the wellhead. LNG only makes sense when it is going to be used for high efficiency stationary applications. Synthetic fuels production can also be done at a smaller scale than LNG trains which opens up more stranded gas opportunities. The equipment to make sythetic diesel may also be adaptable for other feedstocks like biomass, coal etc.

[Starvid]

Even if Andy is wrong which I figure he isn't, in the best of worlds natural gas still wouldn't be used since it adds to global warming.

[baldwincng]

Andy said:

Here we go again. With LNG, to power transportation we lose twice. We lose about 20 - 25% just getting the gas across the ocean. We then lose another 10 - 20% in the lower efficiency of natural gas vehicles versus diesel vehicles. for instance. Hence we lose about 40 - 45% in aggregate. If we want transportation fuels, it makes sense to convert the gas directly to liquid fuel and pay the price of lower efficiency 55 - 60% overall at/near the wellhead.

Total losses of LNG are around 10% in the liquefaction plant plus about 0.1% per day for shipping - ie typically another 1% from say Middle East - plus about 1.5 % for fuel gas to reheat the LNG at a regas plant - so about 12.5% losses in the chain. So for 100 units produced, 87.5% gets into the high pressure gas transportation system in UK, and around 86% to a customer off the low pressutre network. Use the LNG in a diesel engine, duel fuel (eg 70% CNG, 30% diesel) and we are talking of losses of only around 14% to get gas from Middle East into a useful form.

This is much more efficient that the idiotic, energy nightmare of converting beautiful clean natural gas into artificial diesel and blending this at refineries with normal dirty diesel. The LNG transportation energy cost is only 1/3rd of what Andy thought!

Gas for transportation, from LNG or pipeline, is fantastic for reducing global warming and fantastic for helping reduce impact of peak oil and buy time for energy efficiency and nuclear and wind etc.

[0mar]

Qatar floats on a mountain of gas basically. They have something like 800 trillion cubic metres of natural gas sitting in that tiny country.