Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on November 25, 2016
Oil Reserves Increasing, Gas Reserves In Decline
Oil reserves increased in 2015 and gas reserves recorded a decline, according to Eni’s 15th World Oil and Gas Review published Thursday.
The annual statistics report on world reserves, production and consumption of oil and gas showed that oil output set another yearly record growth (+2.9 percent), driven by the Middle East and North America. Among the top ten producers, Iraq showed the biggest rise and the USA, the largest producer, kept growing for the seventh year in a row. Geopolitics still affect the production of Libya, Syria and Yemen, the report stated.
World oil demand grew by 2 percent, one of the biggest increases in recent years, stimulated by the rapid fall in oil prices that began in the second half of 2014, the report said.
In 2015, world gas production increased by 1.6 percent, driven by USA and Iran (+5 percent each). In Europe, Norway had a strong production increase (+8 percent), whereas European Union output continued to decline (-8.5 percent). In Russia, after the previous year’s decline, grew its output by 1.3 percent.
Gas demand started to rise again in 2015 (+1.7 percent against -0.2 percent in 2014) with a strong increase in some emerging markets (MENA +4.8 percent) but also in mature areas like North America (+2.2 percent) and Europe (2.2 percent). Asia stopped its continuous growth as a consequence of a slowdown in China (+3.1 percent vs +9.4 percent in 2015) and a strong decline in Japan and South Korea (-6.0 percent and -8.8 percent, respectively), due to the restart of nuclear plants and an increasing role for coal and renewables in power.
8 Comments on "Oil Reserves Increasing, Gas Reserves In Decline"
rockman on Fri, 25th Nov 2016 8:58 pm
“Oil Reserves Increasing, Gas Reserves In Decline”
Apparently the “experts” at Rigzone don’t know the difference between “reserve” and “production rate”.
Bob on Sat, 26th Nov 2016 9:25 am
We could increase our gold reserves by millions of tons if we counted the gold in seawater. Why do we count the oil in shale as reserves when we know it will never be produced? It is a fairytale we want to believe in; that is all.
rockman on Sat, 26th Nov 2016 10:13 am
Bob – That’s why the USGS is always switching back and forth between “reserves” and the made-up category of “resources”. I say made up because the vast majority of folks see “resource” as something that can be utilized TODAY. Consider what the Survey says about the Green River shale “resource”. From:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2015/3005/
“Estimates of how much of the Mahogany zone resource meets various combinations of these parameters were also determined. Of the 191.7 billion barrels of Mahogany zone oil in-place in the Piceance Basin, 32.3 percent (61.8 billion barrels) is associated with oil shale yielding at least 25 gallons of oil per ton (GPT) of rock processed, is covered by overburden 1,000 feet thick or less, and has a stripping ratio of less than 10. In the Uinta Basin, 14.0 percent (29.9 billion barrels) of the 214.5 billion barrels of Mahogany zone oil in-place meets the same overburden and stripping ratio criteria but only for the lower grade cutoff of 15 GPT.”
Wow! Hundreds of billions of bbl of oil “resources”. From a shale formation from which no company has ever reported producing one bbl PROFITABLY. And why? From a Bakken shale player:
“With that being said, the Green River Shale formation isn’t like any other shale formation in the United States because the fracking process has proven to be unsuccessful in the formation. Why? Well, unlike shale formations such as the Bakken or Eagle Ford, the oil shale in the Green River Shale formation has not responded to the methods used to convert the shale into liquid oil and gas. Commonly, producing oil from oil shale has been done in one of two ways: either the oil shale is brought to the surface and cooked, or an electric heater is placed deep beneath the surface at the base of the rocks to eat the shale, convert it into liquid oil and gas, and the bring it to the surface. Unfortunately, neither of these methods have proven economically viable to this point. In fact, both Shell and Chevron have abandoned their respective oil shale efforts in the Green River Shale formation after investing tens of millions of dollars into finding profitable extraction methods.”
So about 200 BILLION BBLS and not one profitable at $140+/bbl. But some day just watch those bbls of resources turn into reserves. Some day.
peakyeast on Sat, 26th Nov 2016 11:53 am
When they make a find they always advertise the total amount. Which is reasonable. However it is not reasonable that they forget to point out the usual % of extractable resource for the resource in question.
Actually they very often compare any find to Saudi Arabia as if that is the same quality of resource – even with shale oil. And that is outright manipulation with evil intent.
rockman on Sat, 26th Nov 2016 3:52 pm
Peaky – “However it is not reasonable that they forget to point out the usual % of extractable resource for the resource in question.”. Some peaky…sorry…meant picky points. LOL. USGS definitions:
resources – are those quantities of petroleum (both conventional and unconventional) occurring naturally within the earth’s crust and include both discovered and undiscovered accumulations.
reserves – are those quantities of petroleum anticipated to be commercially recoverable by application of development projects to known accumulations from a given date forward under defined conditions. Reserves must further satisfy four criteria: they must be discovered, recoverable, COMMERCIAL and remaining (as of the evaluation date) based on the development project(s) applied.
technically recoverable – Those resources producible using currently available technology and industry practices. USGS is the only provider of publicly available estimates of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources.
From the USGS:
“The Wolfcamp shale in the Midland Basin portion of Texas’ Permian Basin province contains an estimated mean of 20 billion barrels of oil, 16 trillion cubic feet of associated natural gas, and 1.6 billion barrels of natural gas liquids, according to an assessment by the U.S. Geological Survey. This estimate is for continuous (unconventional) oil, and consists of undiscovered, technically recoverable resources.”
Note: “…UNDISCOVERED, TECHNICALLY RECOVERABLE RESOURCES…”
The Survey goes on to say: “Undiscovered resources are those that are estimated to exist based on geologic knowledge and theory, while technically recoverable resources are those that can be produced using currently available technology and industry practices. Whether or not it is profitable to produce these resources has not been evaluated.”
So to repeat what the USGS says about the Wolfcamp’s 20 billion bbls: it is an estimate of “continuous (unconventional) oil, and consists of undiscovered, technically recoverable resources.”
And what does the Survey evaluation of the commercially recoverable number of bbls of oil from the Wolfcamp shale yield? In its own words…ZERO BBLS: “Whether or not it is profitable to produce these resources has not been evaluated.”
Yes: according to the USGS the Wolfcamp Shale contains 20 billion bbls of oil RESOURCES for which it HAS NOT evaluated the “profitability to produce” any of those 20 billion bbls of oil.
IOW the Survey isn’t prepared to classify even 1 of those 20 billion bbls as a “reserve” let alone offer an estimate of the recoverable percentage.
If anyone doesn’t agree with that last sentence they can take it up with the USGS: it’s their report…not mine.
peakyeast on Sat, 26th Nov 2016 3:58 pm
@rock: When I said resource I meant resource as you define it here.
But it wasnt especially meant for this article. It was meant in general in the MSM. Sorry for not making this clear.
When I wrote it I was thinking about the claim a few years ago that “4 Saudi Arabias” had been “found” in the US that was advertised the around the globe.
rockman on Sat, 26th Nov 2016 7:48 pm
Actually I’m not sure how I might have defined “resource” since I really have no use for the term. LOL. Have never used it anywhere but here. In my world there are just “reserves”. If it ain’t a reserve it ain’t sh*t. LOL. But between the USGS and the MSM I have no choice.
Truth Has A Liberal Bias on Sat, 26th Nov 2016 8:50 pm
The green river formation is oil shale not shale oil. Oil shale is kerogen. Shale oil is light tight oil. Big fucking difference peeps!