shortonoil wrote:We have now extracted 84% of the the world's URR of petroleum.
That is a pretty remarkable statement. Where do you get that estimate?
shortonoil wrote:We have now extracted 84% of the the world's URR of petroleum.
That is a pretty remarkable statement. Where do you get that estimate?
Where/where will your conclusions be published?
In the last ASPO newsletter (4/09) the number for "regular oil" was 1900Gb
shortonoil wrote:Pops said:In the last ASPO newsletter (4/09) the number for "regular oil" was 1900Gb
If conventional crude URR was 1900 Gb, world wide water cut would be about 17%; very doubtful
The ASPO Newsletter is written by Colin Campbell and comes approximately once every month. ASPO Ireland has them available from their site.
Colin Campbell's newsletter (external link)
This newsletter is produced and distributed for perusal primarily by ASPO members.-
Permission to reproduce items from the Newsletter, subject to acknowledgement, is expressly granted.
Compiled by C.J.Campbell, Staball Hill, Ballydehob, Co. Cork, Ireland.
h/t http://dieoff.org/page140.htmWe have used other methods to estimate the ultimate recovery of conventional oil for each country [see box on next two pages], and we calculate that the oil industry will be able to recover only about another 1,000 billion barrels of conventional oil. This number, though great, is little more than the 800 billion barrels that have already been extracted.
The 1900Gb appears on the August 2001 newsletter under the heading:
ESTIMATED CONVENTIONAL OIL PRODUCED TO 2075 IN...
shortonoil wrote:For almost two years our group, The Hill's Group, has been developing a model that we feel (among other things) will emphatically prove that Campbell and Laherrere were correct...
And yea, I've seen it [their forecast]. Just never took it seriously, its sort of an absurd statement!
I think the 1900+ number includes Condensate and the 1720 number does not.shortonoil wrote:Now that you have accused Campbell of contradicting himself (which seems doubtful), which of his projections are we to believe; the 1720 Gb, or the nice round, easy to work with, convenient 1900 number? Taken at face value one of them has to be wrong! The most likely explanation for the discrepancy (politics excluded) is that one quote was stated in RB (reserve barrels) and the other in STB (stock barrels).
Peak Oil: an Outlook on Crude Oil DepletionColin J.Campbell wrote:Ultimate recovery 1950 Gb
These estimates are broadly consistent with those presented in 2000, but we now take a different view of the treatment of Condensate, including that from the gas-caps of oilfields with oil. It largely explains the increase in the estimated ultimate recovery.
I don't get it, you say you've been working for two years on this model based on Campbell and Laherrere's forecast and vow to prove them correct but then when I post their actual work and forecast of production you say it's absurd and you never took their forecast seriously...
I think the 1900+ number includes Condensate and the 1720 number does not.
So from your link 873Gb produced through '02 + 27gb/year (75Mb/d) since = 1143gb produced to date from a 1950 UPP = 807Gb remaining, which is twice what ShortOnSense originally mentioned
Keith_McClary wrote:Strange to think that we've gone through over 10% of URR since PO.com started.
1Gb since this thread started.
We should have a fuel gauge instead of the logo.
Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests