Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve!

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Heres the hubbert curve

Unread postby mustang19 » Wed 11 Nov 2020, 19:42:31

AdamB wrote:
Mustang19 wrote:
AdamB wrote: So...a good question for you to think about might be....where was Hubbert's estimate wrong? Because in industry, we use wireline logs and we can see the radioactive difference between dirt and hot shales. But I would love it if you could prove Hubbert wrong in his basic estimate of just a single hot black shale. You've got 65 years of published USGS work to do it with, and I'll certainly consider any other similarly qualified geologists take on the topic you'd like to reference.


For the most part I even dispute any of that.


Exactly!!! So...DO IT. You can find a copy of his seminal nuclear energy paper here, and it is the top of page 34 where he begins his calculations on this single interesting shale. So get cracking!! Can't say I've ever tried to refute this particular premise of his, as it appears he was just trying to make a point about the thousands of years we can use nuclear energy (Figure 30), but if you want to refute the man, more power to you!

Unless of course, you can't, and just want to object to real science, but can't figure out how?

mustang19 wrote:Did hubbert give a prediction for uranium? At least based on the hubbert curve its growth isnt great.


See reference, page number, and figure listed above.

I realize that you might not be completely familiar with this seminal work, believing initially that it was published in 1962, but I've provided the material to refute. Enjoy!

mustang19 wrote:https://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2 ... il-project

Here is a cite on the railway, of course it doesnt mention kerogen.


Of course. :-D

Is there a reason you thought kerogen was involved somehow? Current oil prices don't support kerogen development, there were 2 companies trying really hard back during the 2011-2015 high oil price period, but they never reached any kind of volume, it was mostly testing of concept. And none of them were trying to MOVE the stuff, they were doing their processes on it right there on location.

mustang19 wrote:Hubbert predicted coal would peak in 2150 because of slow growth. In reality china and west Virginia picked up. I think coal will peak in china in 2025 from the curve.


Coal is interesting, but only in retrospect. Abundant natural gas and rampaging renewables have absolutely wiped it out here in the US. Growing environmental concerns alone seem to be a substantial detriment to future coal development.


Yes, I remember, he said uranium would peak around 2000 and that sounds reasonable. Canada has been cutting and Australia is pretty stagnant. US production peaked long ago.

His argument is not actually about the primary uranium, it's about breeders. And he basically misunderstands how breeders work because they rely on plutonium.

This is not hubbert being wrong, per se, hes just not covering it in detail. All of the best breeders seem to use plutonium which is not really sustainable.
mustang19
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri 06 Nov 2020, 20:43:52

Re: Heres the hubbert curve

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 11 Nov 2020, 20:55:57

mustang19 wrote:Yes, I remember, he said uranium would peak around 2000 and that sounds reasonable.


I just provided you the reference, and the figure number, precluding you from saying this without me assuming you don't know what he said in the reference, and couldn't be bothered to even check the figure that makes your claim look ignorant. Do you have a conflicting reference post 1956 where he reneged on his prior claim, which for the record was NOT the year 2000.

mustang19 wrote:
Canada has been cutting and Australia is pretty stagnant. US production peaked long ago.


Irrelevant to Hubbert's energy and uranium availability calculations in 1956. Can you disprove them, or not?

mustang19 wrote:His argument is not actually about the primary uranium, it's about breeders.


Can you contradict his assessment of the energy content of uranium in hot shales, as opposed to your unreferenced claim about what DIRT contains, or not?

mustang19 wrote:And he basically misunderstands how breeders work because they rely on plutonium.


Yes, Hubbert was ignorant. Sure. Fine. But the claim you made, directly contradicted by his work from 1956, has nothing to do with how the uranium was used, the question was whether or not you and your claim of uranium in dirt, and if there is much left, is valid. So if Hubbert was wrong on uranium amounts, demonstrate how your estimate of not enough uranium is valid. And to do that, you'll need to demonstrate how he was wrong in his estimate.

mustang19 wrote:This is not hubbert being wrong, per se, hes just not covering it in detail. All of the best breeders seem to use plutonium which is not really sustainable.


The figure of Hubberts' in the provided reference directly contradicts your claim of there not being much uranium around. So now you are saying he was right with his estimate that there are thousands of years worth of it?

Do you realize you are now attempting to argue both sides of the answer, without apparently even have checked the reference provided that says your claim of uranium scarcity is incorrect?
StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 5453
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Heres the hubbert curve

Unread postby mustang19 » Wed 11 Nov 2020, 22:29:47

AdamB wrote:
mustang19 wrote:Yes, I remember, he said uranium would peak around 2000 and that sounds reasonable.


I just provided you the reference, and the figure number, precluding you from saying this without me assuming you don't know what he said in the reference, and couldn't be bothered to even check the figure that makes your claim look ignorant. Do you have a conflicting reference post 1956 where he reneged on his prior claim, which for the record was NOT the year 2000.

mustang19 wrote:
Canada has been cutting and Australia is pretty stagnant. US production peaked long ago.


Irrelevant to Hubbert's energy and uranium availability calculations in 1956. Can you disprove them, or not?

mustang19 wrote:His argument is not actually about the primary uranium, it's about breeders.


Can you contradict his assessment of the energy content of uranium in hot shales, as opposed to your unreferenced claim about what DIRT contains, or not?

mustang19 wrote:And he basically misunderstands how breeders work because they rely on plutonium.


Yes, Hubbert was ignorant. Sure. Fine. But the claim you made, directly contradicted by his work from 1956, has nothing to do with how the uranium was used, the question was whether or not you and your claim of uranium in dirt, and if there is much left, is valid. So if Hubbert was wrong on uranium amounts, demonstrate how your estimate of not enough uranium is valid. And to do that, you'll need to demonstrate how he was wrong in his estimate.

mustang19 wrote:This is not hubbert being wrong, per se, hes just not covering it in detail. All of the best breeders seem to use plutonium which is not really sustainable.


The figure of Hubberts' in the provided reference directly contradicts your claim of there not being much uranium around. So now you are saying he was right with his estimate that there are thousands of years worth of it?

Do you realize you are now attempting to argue both sides of the answer, without apparently even have checked the reference provided that says your claim of uranium scarcity is incorrect?


He basically is wrong, for the reasons you gave, because he counts u238.

Without that his estimates are a hundred times smaller and its unclear.
mustang19
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri 06 Nov 2020, 20:43:52

Re: Heres the hubbert curve

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 12 Nov 2020, 19:41:10

mustang19 wrote:He basically is wrong, for the reasons you gave, because he counts u238.


And your objection to u238 is that it is used to create pu239?

You want to pretend that pu239 isn't of use, and therefore deserves to be ignored? :lol: :lol: :lol:

mustang19 wrote:Without that his estimates are a hundred times smaller and its unclear.


Good thing he is counting something very useful then!!! And you are trying to exclude wonderfully useful resources to power the species across thousands of years....because...? You find obvious and quantified abundance disconcerting?
StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 5453
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve!

Unread postby dcoyne78 » Tue 24 Nov 2020, 14:33:17

Based on USGS TRR estimates of about 110 Gb and using different oil price scenarios with maximum Brent Real Oil Price (in 2019$) of $50, $62.50, and $75/bo, I get scenarios below. In my opinion the 62.50 and 75 dollar per barrel maximum oil price scenarios are more realistic than the $50/bo maximum oil price scenario.

The TRR estimate is based on USGS Williston mean TRR of 13 Gb, Eagle Ford mean TRR estimate of 15 Gb, Permian basin mean TRR estimate of 75 Gb, and my own guess for the rest of the US tight oil (excluding the previous 3 basins) TRR of 7 Gb. Economically recoverable resources range from 58 Gb to 78 Gb and note that if no further tight oil wells are completed after October 2020 the URR for US tight oil is likely to be about 27 Gb. The peak dates for the 4 favored scenarios range from 2026 to 2029 and from 8000 to 9200 kb/d, for the lowest of these scenarios, the peak month is actually in March 2020 and the secondary peak is slightly lower than the previous peak, this is for the lower of the two $62.50/bo peak oil price scenarios (58 Gb) which assumes a 500 well per month maximum completion rate in the Permian basin, the alternative scenario at the same oil price scenario assumes a higher Permian maximum completion rate of 700 new wells per month (the previous 12 month maximum average completion rate was about 490 new wells per month for the Permian basin).

Chart at

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wNTMYW ... sp=sharing

Can anybody explain why a chart cannot be uploaded?

Image
Image
Last edited by Tanada on Tue 24 Nov 2020, 16:17:50, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: attached graph most like fasiled attachment I could find.
dcoyne78
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013, 19:45:15

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve!

Unread postby dcoyne78 » Tue 24 Nov 2020, 19:48:12

Chart for US Tight Oil scenarios, TRR is 121 Gb

at link below

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t0Z8nH ... sp=sharing

price scenarios at link below

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T64J-v ... sp=sharing

If anyone has the ability to post these charts they can be downloaded from links and posted, I used to be able to do this, but the blog will no longer allow.
Last edited by dcoyne78 on Tue 24 Nov 2020, 19:53:10, edited 1 time in total.
dcoyne78
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013, 19:45:15

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve!

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 24 Nov 2020, 19:51:44

dcoyne78 wrote:Chart for US Tight Oil scenarios, TRR is 121 Gb

at link below

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wNTMYW ... sp=sharing

price scenarios at link below

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T64J-v ... sp=sharing

If anyone has the ability to post these charts they can be downloaded from links and posted, I used to be able to do this, but the blog will no longer allow.


Where might the price paths be for those expected volumes?
StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 5453
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve!

Unread postby dcoyne78 » Tue 24 Nov 2020, 20:03:33

See price scenarios at

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T64J-v ... sp=sharing

Note that for Permian Basin (about 65% of total ERR) I assume transport cost of $5/bo, I also model natural gas output and figure in natural gas and NGL sales in the economic model (NGL price is assumed at 25% of oil price), natural gas wellhead price assumed at $1.75/MCF and increasing to $2.20/MCF. Royalties and taxes assumed at 28.5% of wellhead revenue, average well cost assumed to be $9 million in 2019$, OPEX assumed at about $13/bo in 2019 %, interest rates assumed to be a nominal annual rate of 7.4% and discount rate is assumed at a nominal annual rate of 10%. The discounted net revenue over the life of the well nust be positive for the well to be completed for the price scenario assumed. The Average new well EUR (oil only) is about 420 kbo for the average Permian well based on shaleprofile.com data.
dcoyne78
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013, 19:45:15

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve!

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 24 Nov 2020, 22:02:42

dcoyne78 wrote:See price scenarios at

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T64J-v ... sp=sharing



Thanks! My apologies for not spotting the link previously provided.

dcoyne78 wrote:Note that for Permian Basin (about 65% of total ERR) I assume transport cost of $5/bo, I also model natural gas output and figure in natural gas and NGL sales in the economic model (NGL price is assumed at 25% of oil price), natural gas wellhead price assumed at $1.75/MCF and increasing to $2.20/MCF. Royalties and taxes assumed at 28.5% of wellhead revenue, average well cost assumed to be $9 million in 2019$, OPEX assumed at about $13/bo in 2019 %, interest rates assumed to be a nominal annual rate of 7.4% and discount rate is assumed at a nominal annual rate of 10%. The discounted net revenue over the life of the well nust be positive for the well to be completed for the price scenario assumed. The Average new well EUR (oil only) is about 420 kbo for the average Permian well based on shaleprofile.com data.


So another question, upon which of the variables in your system is the production rate most sensitive to? Also, have you calculated supply elasticity to your price and financial assumptions?
StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 5453
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve!

Unread postby dcoyne78 » Tue 24 Nov 2020, 23:05:36

adamb,

I have not tried to find supply elasticity. I set up a variety of oil price scenarios and make different assumptions about maximum well completion rate and the speed with which well completions ramp up.

There are 5 separate models (one each for ND Bakken/Three Forks, Eagle Ford, Permian, Niobrara, and other US tight oil plays) so creating enough different runs to create a supply curve is quite a lot of work.

I might be able to create some information based on the runs I have. Will have to think about it.

I have not tried to vary the financial assumptions, except price.
dcoyne78
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013, 19:45:15

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve!

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 25 Nov 2020, 02:19:08

dcoyne78 wrote:adamb,

I have not tried to find supply elasticity. I set up a variety of oil price scenarios and make different assumptions about maximum well completion rate and the speed with which well completions ramp up.


Based on the way you've built the component parts, even if your prices are limited to scenarios, you've certainly got it in there.

dcoyne78 wrote:There are 5 separate models (one each for ND Bakken/Three Forks, Eagle Ford, Permian, Niobrara, and other US tight oil plays) so creating enough different runs to create a supply curve is quite a lot of work.


I completely understand.

dcoyne78 wrote:I might be able to create some information based on the runs I have. Will have to think about it.

I have not tried to vary the financial assumptions, except price.


Price is certainly the main one. It sounds as though that you do these runs individually, which makes teasing out sensitivities difficult, each variable changing against all the others independently, multiple runs until you achieve a reasonable response just on that one variable, then fix it, and move on to the next.

If I may be so bold, what do you run this thing in? SAS, Fortran, Python, Visual Basic, MatLab, R?
StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 5453
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve!

Unread postby mustang19 » Wed 25 Nov 2020, 04:24:08

dcoyne78 wrote:Based on USGS TRR estimates of about 110 Gb and using different oil price scenarios with maximum Brent Real Oil Price (in 2019$) of $50, $62.50, and $75/bo, I get scenarios below. In my opinion the 62.50 and 75 dollar per barrel maximum oil price scenarios are more realistic than the $50/bo maximum oil price scenario.

The TRR estimate is based on USGS Williston mean TRR of 13 Gb, Eagle Ford mean TRR estimate of 15 Gb, Permian basin mean TRR estimate of 75 Gb, and my own guess for the rest of the US tight oil (excluding the previous 3 basins) TRR of 7 Gb. Economically recoverable resources range from 58 Gb to 78 Gb and note that if no further tight oil wells are completed after October 2020 the URR for US tight oil is likely to be about 27 Gb. The peak dates for the 4 favored scenarios range from 2026 to 2029 and from 8000 to 9200 kb/d, for the lowest of these scenarios, the peak month is actually in March 2020 and the secondary peak is slightly lower than the previous peak, this is for the lower of the two $62.50/bo peak oil price scenarios (58 Gb) which assumes a 500 well per month maximum completion rate in the Permian basin, the alternative scenario at the same oil price scenario assumes a higher Permian maximum completion rate of 700 new wells per month (the previous 12 month maximum average completion rate was about 490 new wells per month for the Permian basin).

Chart at

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wNTMYW ... sp=sharing

Can anybody explain why a chart cannot be uploaded?

Image
Image


That is all wrong. Well producutivty is declining as are rigs. Proppant load is increasing 3% monthly and since wells are the same and lateral length the only growth its already falling.
mustang19
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri 06 Nov 2020, 20:43:52

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve!

Unread postby dcoyne78 » Wed 25 Nov 2020, 10:01:36

Mustang,

That chart is not correct see kink below (Tanada put it up for me but it should be deleted.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t0Z8nH ... sp=sharing

The chart could be downloaded and posted by an editor, unfortunately my account does not allow me to post a chart.

If more wells are completed the output can increase even with falling well productivity (which my model assumes).

For the $75/bo max Brent real oil price scenario (2019$) the EUR of the average new Permian well starts at about 420 kb of oil over the life of the well (about 17.67 years) in Dec 2019 and gradually decreases over time as less productive areas are drilled, see chart at link below (EUR falls to 334 kbo by 2030 and to 269 kbo by 2040 (note that the Permian model has no new wells completed after Dec 2039 due to economic constraints, that is wells completed would not be profitable.)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LUypW4 ... sp=sharing
Last edited by dcoyne78 on Wed 25 Nov 2020, 11:36:31, edited 2 times in total.
dcoyne78
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013, 19:45:15

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve!

Unread postby dcoyne78 » Wed 25 Nov 2020, 10:56:20

AdamB wrote:
dcoyne78 wrote:adamb,

I have not tried to find supply elasticity. I set up a variety of oil price scenarios and make different assumptions about maximum well completion rate and the speed with which well completions ramp up.


Based on the way you've built the component parts, even if your prices are limited to scenarios, you've certainly got it in there.

dcoyne78 wrote:There are 5 separate models (one each for ND Bakken/Three Forks, Eagle Ford, Permian, Niobrara, and other US tight oil plays) so creating enough different runs to create a supply curve is quite a lot of work.


I completely understand.

dcoyne78 wrote:I might be able to create some information based on the runs I have. Will have to think about it.

I have not tried to vary the financial assumptions, except price.


Price is certainly the main one. It sounds as though that you do these runs individually, which makes teasing out sensitivities difficult, each variable changing against all the others independently, multiple runs until you achieve a reasonable response just on that one variable, then fix it, and move on to the next.

If I may be so bold, what do you run this thing in? SAS, Fortran, Python, Visual Basic, MatLab, R?


Adam,

I focus on the Permian (as a larger portion of the resource, 75 of 120 Gb for TRR and 50 of 80 for ERR for price scenarios and other financial assumptions I have chosen). The other basins use excel spreadsheets for the model but are not quite as detailed ( natural gas is just included by assuming there is some revenue from natural gas but far less detailed for the tight oil basins that are "non-Permian" tight oil.

The Permian model is done in Python.

Chart at link below has some indication of how supply responds to changes in price.

Some of the curves look at change in supply in response to the change from the $50/bo max oil price scenario to the $75/bo max oil price scenario, note that in the model decisions today are affected by expectations of future oil prices and we assume our oil producers expectations of future oil price match our scenarios. The delta p in the chart is the delta p at time t when the supply is measured, but the supply at any time t in this model depends on oil prices at all times t from Jan 2010 to Dec 2080, so this is nota standard price elasticity of supply. The curves that look at the difference between the 62.50 max oil price scenario and the $75 max price scenario should be compared with the flatter portion of the 50-75 price change scenarios (both at 500 well max completion rate in Permian and the 700 max completion rate in Permian) from delta price of 12.5 to delta price of 25 (horizontal axis).

Note also that a scenario for $87.50/bo maximum Brent price has almost no change in supply from the $75/bo max price scenario with 700 well max completion for Permian (same assumption made for $87.50/bo max Brent price scenario).

Chart at link below

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LS2lF1 ... sp=sharing

Some posts explaining the model

https://peakoilbarrel.com/us-light-tigh ... to-update/

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 4351.index

Also poster from AGU 2018 can be downloaded from link below (click on eposter link)

https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm18/meeting ... per/446221

Just after the poster was submitted, the USGS released their Delaware basin estimate of resources, it was about two time larger than I had assumed. The current model reflects the newer estimates.

Chart at link below reflects my adjustment in Dec 2018 to the new Delaware basin estimates

http://peakoilbarrel.com/wp-content/upl ... 0588-1.png

and comment explaining at link below

https://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-p ... ent-660588

This scenario used the AEO 2018 reference oil price case for Permian. I currently think the AEO 2020 reference oil price case beyond 2030 is likely too high (it goes to $105/bo in 2019$ by 2050) and is at roughly $75/bo for Brent in 2019$ in 2030.

some good links for more explanation of my LTO models at my response to this comment

https://peakoilbarrel.com/us-light-tigh ... ent-640009

Also a link to Bakken model spreadsheet ($75/bo mas Brent real oil pice scenario in 2019$), the file is large (14 MB) and can be downloaded at link below

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m5CfEZ ... sp=sharing
dcoyne78
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013, 19:45:15

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve!

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 25 Nov 2020, 12:15:04

mustang19 wrote:Image
Image

That is all wrong.


Coming from someone who doesn't know what kerogen is, you will understand that a proclamation like that is a bit...amusing.

mustang19 wrote:Well producutivty is declining as are rigs. Proppant load is increasing 3% monthly and since wells are the same and lateral length the only growth its already falling.


Well productivity certainly changes with time, lateral length, completion practice, company practice and philosophy all coming into play, etc etc. It goes up, or it can go down, depending on the particulars.

Proppant load going up indicates far more than you know, and isn't required to be a precursor to increased productivity. In many cases, it is an indicator of better half wing length control. Were you pretending to know something you don't know much about again, or did I misunderstand your implication for what you THINK higher proppant loading means?

Rigs are just a measure of speed of development. For the purposes of modeling, they can be related to price, although DC didn't explicitly say that, and I'm not about to assume anything about his work, as he appears perfectly qualified to have decided for himself if he wanted to include that particular indicator of development in his projection.

You have to understand mustang19, we've had some terribly ignorant fools present their "models" around here, fools whom misrepresented basic statistics, cherry picked data, confused correlation with causation, didn't once consult specialists in either modeling or reservoir dynamics, and after getting laughed out of an attempt at a technical review (and predicting the price of oil would hit $0/bbl a few years back) were embarrassed off the website for welshing on bets, among other things. They then tried to hide all the work that had made that embarrassment possible, scrubbing websites, images, you name it, in order that it not be flung back in their face should they return.

DC has done a reasonable job, his work being quite similar to how some folks at more than 1 government agency have tackled the same problem. They are able to operate at a higher level of resolution, having more information, but DC has accounted for the moving parts in a perfectly acceptable way, based on the data he has to work with in the public space.
StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 5453
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve!

Unread postby mustang19 » Wed 25 Nov 2020, 20:54:11

You have the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. Price collapses because civilization is ending and mass starvation.

And completions will never ramp up and you have no reason to believe that except other made up forecasts.
dcoyne78 wrote:
AdamB wrote:
dcoyne78 wrote:adamb,

I have not tried to find supply elasticity. I set up a variety of oil price scenarios and make different assumptions about maximum well completion rate and the speed with which well completions ramp up.




Based on the way you've built the component parts, even if your prices are limited to scenarios, you've certainly got it in there.

dcoyne78 wrote:There are 5 separate models (one each for ND Bakken/Three Forks, Eagle Ford, Permian, Niobrara, and other US tight oil plays) so creating enough different runs to create a supply curve is quite a lot of work.


I completely understand.

dcoyne78 wrote:I might be able to create some information based on the runs I have. Will have to think about it.

I have not tried to vary the financial assumptions, except price.


Price is certainly the main one. It sounds as though that you do these runs individually, which makes teasing out sensitivities difficult, each variable changing against all the others independently, multiple runs until you achieve a reasonable response just on that one variable, then fix it, and move on to the next.

If I may be so bold, what do you run this thing in? SAS, Fortran, Python, Visual Basic, MatLab, R?


Adam,

I focus on the Permian (as a larger portion of the resource, 75 of 120 Gb for TRR and 50 of 80 for ERR for price scenarios and other financial assumptions I have chosen). The other basins use excel spreadsheets for the model but are not quite as detailed ( natural gas is just included by assuming there is some revenue from natural gas but far less detailed for the tight oil basins that are "non-Permian" tight oil.

The Permian model is done in Python.

Chart at link below has some indication of how supply responds to changes in price.

Some of the curves look at change in supply in response to the change from the $50/bo max oil price scenario to the $75/bo max oil price scenario, note that in the model decisions today are affected by expectations of future oil prices and we assume our oil producers expectations of future oil price match our scenarios. The delta p in the chart is the delta p at time t when the supply is measured, but the supply at any time t in this model depends on oil prices at all times t from Jan 2010 to Dec 2080, so this is nota standard price elasticity of supply. The curves that look at the difference between the 62.50 max oil price scenario and the $75 max price scenario should be compared with the flatter portion of the 50-75 price change scenarios (both at 500 well max completion rate in Permian and the 700 max completion rate in Permian) from delta price of 12.5 to delta price of 25 (horizontal axis).

Note also that a scenario for $87.50/bo maximum Brent price has almost no change in supply from the $75/bo max price scenario with 700 well max completion for Permian (same assumption made for $87.50/bo max Brent price scenario).

Chart at link below

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LS2lF1 ... sp=sharing

Some posts explaining the model

https://peakoilbarrel.com/us-light-tigh ... to-update/

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 4351.index

Also poster from AGU 2018 can be downloaded from link below (click on eposter link)

https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm18/meeting ... per/446221

Just after the poster was submitted, the USGS released their Delaware basin estimate of resources, it was about two time larger than I had assumed. The current model reflects the newer estimates.

Chart at link below reflects my adjustment in Dec 2018 to the new Delaware basin estimates

http://peakoilbarrel.com/wp-content/upl ... 0588-1.png

and comment explaining at link below

https://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-p ... ent-660588

This scenario used the AEO 2018 reference oil price case for Permian. I currently think the AEO 2020 reference oil price case beyond 2030 is likely too high (it goes to $105/bo in 2019$ by 2050) and is at roughly $75/bo for Brent in 2019$ in 2030.

some good links for more explanation of my LTO models at my response to this comment

https://peakoilbarrel.com/us-light-tigh ... ent-640009

Also a link to Bakken model spreadsheet ($75/bo mas Brent real oil pice scenario in 2019$), the file is large (14 MB) and can be downloaded at link below

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m5CfEZ ... sp=sharing
mustang19
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri 06 Nov 2020, 20:43:52

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve!

Unread postby dcoyne78 » Wed 25 Nov 2020, 22:26:58

mustang19,

I disagree with the collapse meme, eventually electrification of transport will reduce demand for oil, I expect this to occur between 2035 and 2040, best guess 2037, of course nobody knows what will happen in the future so who is wrong or right about what is yet to occur is also unknown. Not really worth arguing over imho.

The scenario is based on USGS TRR mean estimates, for Permian, Eagle Ford, and Williston the most recent mean TRR estimates are 75 Gb, 15 Gb and 14 Gb or roughly 104 Gb, for other basins ( Niobrara Anadarko, and condensate from shale gas plays) my rough guess is a TRR of 17 Gb for a total US tight oil TRR of 121 Gb. For the $75/bo scenario (which is conservative in my opinion, the oil price is likely to go higher than this from 2028 to 2035) the ERR is about 79 Gb, about 65% of the TRR. Note also the TRR is uncertain with F95 TRR estimates as low as 80 Gb and F5 estimates of perhaps 160 Gb. If we assume about 65% of the TRR would be economically recoverable we would have 52 Gb for F95 ERR and about 104 Gb for F5 ERR.
dcoyne78
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013, 19:45:15

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve!

Unread postby mustang19 » Wed 25 Nov 2020, 22:39:06

dcoyne78 wrote:mustang19,

I disagree with the collapse meme, eventually electrification of transport will reduce demand for oil, I expect this to occur between 2035 and 2040, best guess 2037, of course nobody knows what will happen in the future so who is wrong or right about what is yet to occur is also unknown. Not really worth arguing over imho.

The scenario is based on USGS TRR mean estimates, for Permian, Eagle Ford, and Williston the most recent mean TRR estimates are 75 Gb, 15 Gb and 14 Gb or roughly 104 Gb, for other basins ( Niobrara Anadarko, and condensate from shale gas plays) my rough guess is a TRR of 17 Gb for a total US tight oil TRR of 121 Gb. For the $75/bo scenario (which is conservative in my opinion, the oil price is likely to go higher than this from 2028 to 2035) the ERR is about 79 Gb, about 65% of the TRR. Note also the TRR is uncertain with F95 TRR estimates as low as 80 Gb and F5 estimates of perhaps 160 Gb. If we assume about 65% of the TRR would be economically recoverable we would have 52 Gb for F95 ERR and about 104 Gb for F5 ERR.



Those arent TRR. Those are OIP.

Recovery rate for shale is terrible. It's going to be like 10%. Fracking is like blowing on a milkshake to get chocolate chips out, except every time you do that, other chips get stuck. It's a shell game.

The rig behavior is embarrassing right now.
mustang19
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri 06 Nov 2020, 20:43:52

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve!

Unread postby mustang19 » Wed 25 Nov 2020, 22:46:08

Image

Theres a physics calculation here. More depth and pressure means less recovery.

Theres also well interference although that's less studied.
mustang19
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri 06 Nov 2020, 20:43:52

Re: Wolfcamp! Here's The Hubbert Curve!

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 25 Nov 2020, 23:15:56

mustang19 wrote:You have the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. Price collapses because civilization is ending and mass starvation.


Oil collapsed in March of 1986. December of 1998. April of 2020.

So you are arguing that collapsing civilizations and mass starvation has been hidden from us 3 times in recent memory?

mustang19 wrote:And completions will never ramp up and you have no reason to believe that except other made up forecasts.


Well, at least Dennis is putting one out there. A quite well assembled one I might add. And you are of course wrong about completions, within in the context of price. Just as the world of oil was turned on its head by American E&Ps starting around 2010, it isn't as though all the wells have been drilled yet. Dennis used USGS information, and they've got a decent lock on CONSERVATIVE resource estimates.

Dennis uses those estimates, as is reasonable. Those geologists are top notch, we know this because they didn't fall for the bleatings of the peak oil sheeple over the past couple decades, even though the most accomplished peak oiler of all time was one of them way back when. They don't do useless thermodynamic calculations in these kinds of estimates, they don't do eroei calculations. They do geology, and well performance. Including publishing on some interesting stochastic well productivity measures that are relatively unique in well productivity world, and might lend themselves to the work Dennis is doing, should he decide to go full stochastic at some point in time.
StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 5453
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests