[mididoctors]

am i right in thinking if peak represents something close to 50% depletion AND the lifetime of field is significantly less than the period of oil history in question the symmetry of the production curve by field is irrelevant?

Boris
London

[nero]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a')m i right in thinking if peak represents something close to 50% depletion AND the lifetime of field is significantly less than the period of oil history in question the symmetry of the production curve by field is irrelevant?

[WebHubbleTelescope]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a')m i right in thinking if peak represents something close to 50% depletion AND the lifetime of field is significantly less than the period of oil history in question the symmetry of the production curve by field is irrelevant?

[ubercynicmeister]

Hi Khebab

Yours seems to be the most realism-based of all of the posts here.

This whole debate is seemingly assuming that the figures that the "curves" are based upon are actualy given from accurate data.

Read the following (NOT my post, someone else's) - it details how the figures are devied:

"You'll report whatever we WANT you to report!"

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('khebab', 'F')rom another thread (]http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic7566-60.html), the opinion of shakespear1 that seems to work in the oil industry:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shakespear1', 'K')hebab

Mr. Lynch appears to (From the ECONOMIST : Michael Lynch of DRI-WEFA, an economic consultancy) be a man that has not spent a lot of time scratching his head over seismic and logs. Not good credentials for me to understand what is going on, unless you want a voice to join the debate.

He apparently is "envisioning" something that might happen but that to this moment I have not seen. I have not seen any technology that was being introduced into the field on a large scale that can attack old fields and try to get beyond 20-30 % recovery. Old field for one have poor data, old rusty wells, majority of the wells probable in poor condition and with junk in them and if the field was water flooded with potential by-passed oil that will be tough to figure out where it is without good data. Data that an oil company will be hard pressed to spend as they are spending money on newer stuff.

Read this paper to try to understand this problem
http://www.dieoff.org/page197.htm

Look at Fig. 3 in this paper http://www.streamsim.com/papers/spe38889.pdf

Even though we are looking at a distribution of CO2, this is a helpful visualization of what HETEROGENEITY does to you. I NEVER have this "true" picture of the oil/gas saturation distribution down below. I never have the "true" permeability/porosity distribution in the reservoir. Thus when I sink a well and start to produce I really have no clue from where the oil came from and whether I left some behind.

We have much better software/hardware that could allow me to build finer models but I do not have the data to put in there.

We are doing more geostatistics now but the method of operation is still the same.

Head Geologist (Russia): When will I have your well placements?
I: In 4 weeks.
HG: Why so long? I need them in 2 weeks!!!!
I: Uhhh,
HG: In 2 wks or ....

End of discussion.

2 wks later

I: Here but rates will be around 300 m3/d
HG: WHATTTTTTT. We expect 500 m3/d.
I: Well that is what I am getting with this model. The area to the right is poor and the area given for drilling does not look good. Our geologist see high risk of poor reservoir here.
HG: I AM GOING TO FIRE YOU. Bring me a new forecast.

on and on ....

What happened?

We gave a new forecast and sweetened it ( too the risk ). Geology did not justify this. But the advice I got was to do it. We put our heads on the line.

The well was drilled and ... gave them close to 600 m3/d.

What happened? WE HAVE NO CLUE. Did they take our advice and get more data and try to get a picture of this reservoir? NOOOOO Just went on and drilled in another place where things looked good. And ... And they hit Crap. More data? Even after this NOOOO.

So will some of these companies spend money up front on old field to look for lost or upside potential. Maybe if the prices are in the 100 - 200 /bbl. Because in places where I have been they will not.

It is risky and you need to put up the money up front. Casino where people are risk avers when it comes to their careers. I would be if I could not get a guarantee that this magic bullet will deliver and increase of significant magnitude.

Water floods, CO2 and miscible floods are the best understood methods today. Some other methods have been tried but the reservoir heterogeneity works against it, thus short of mining down there I do not see anything at the moment to be this "ace" in the hole for the industry.

If people talk technology and mean computers and software then look out.

For your information you can et beyond 20-30 recovery if there is a strong water drive (lots of energy to move the oil along) In this case it could be around 60%. Sort of like a free water flood.

Are we at the PEAK? I go with Campbell and Laherrere. I read their work and it makes sense to me. Surprisingly in my circle of friends we do not discuss this much. Too busy working

Again, the US gov. MUST know this. You get the production data for the oil fields in Saudi etc, Decline It and voila you have a good idea of the total rates in the near future.

I am sure they get this data in real time ( remember many field are wired and transmit data ELECTRONICALLY ) by asking their workers in the NSA.
_________________
Regards

Henryk

[khebab]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ubercynicmeister', 'I')n that case, Cambell's predictions are the "let's play it safe" variety and the "other" predictions are of the "it's-always-worked-before-so-it-will-keep-going-that-way" variety.

[khebab]

An interesting tutorial on ressource depletion modeling (from MIT):

Overshoot and collapse

There is a use case on oil production and it gives a cumulative production that seems to follow a logistic curve.

[nero]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut the asymmetry of the curve is what makes Lynch go ballistic! I make this statement based on ludicrously stupid articles he wrote about a year ago.

[nero]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('khebab', 'A')n interesting tutorial on ressource depletion modeling (from MIT):

Overshoot and collapse

There is a use case on oil production and it gives a cumulative production that seems to follow a logistic curve.

[nero]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ubercynicmeister', 'T')his whole debate is seemingly assuming that the figures that the "curves" are based upon are actualy given from accurate data.

[WebHubbleTelescope]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut the asymmetry of the curve is what makes Lynch go ballistic! I make this statement based on ludicrously stupid articles he wrote about a year ago.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WebHubbleTelescope', ' ')We are both trying to hammer the point home because repetition is needed to make sure everyone understands this key framing technique used by Lynch.

[WebHubbleTelescope]

This is from Nero's article quote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he primary development since then in studies of “peak oil” has been the new availability of graphics software that enables unsophisticated analysts — knowledgeable of geology, perhaps, but not statistics — to make and misinterpret graphs. And, of course, the media delights in warnings of catastrophe, because stories about business continuing as usual are hardly news.

Michael C. Lynch is a U.S.-based consultant and is affiliated with MIT.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WebHubbleTelescope', '
')The right-wing nutcases actually use the framing technique quite a bit to sway opinion in U.S. politics.

[WebHubbleTelescope]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WebHubbleTelescope', '
')The right-wing nutcases actually use the framing technique quite a bit to sway opinion in U.S. politics.

[arretium]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'S')o why doesn't he get rid of that hokey step 1), and just say: "Whether it comes early or as late as the USGS says doesn't matter, we need to start weaning ourselves off oil now."

I'd be curious to see how Lynch responded to that. It would shift the point of debate from the unreliability of Campbell's predictions, to the absolute, undeniable certainty of peak oil, which is Campbell's strongest point.

[nero]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')ampbell bears part of the blame. He provokes the attack on his methods by pretending that they have a theoretical foundation.

He's using a 2-step argument:
1) My superior numerical methods predict the peak for 2008
2) Therefore we need to start preparing now

Step 1) is wrong. His methods are voodoo curve-fitting, as we all seem to agree. There is no theoretical foundation.

So why doesn't he get rid of that hokey step 1), and just say: "Whether it comes early or as late as the USGS says doesn't matter, we need to start weaning ourselves off oil now."

[nero]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('arretium', 'I') for one am grateful that campbell does take a stab at the date. He's "taking one for the team" for all of us.

You and I both know that if Campbell said it "doesn't matter [when], we need to start weaning ourselves off oil now", Lynch would say that free market technologies would come out of no where to save the day. You know that's his argument.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', 'I') agree, I think Deffeyes is really throwing himself on the grenade with the Thankgiving 2005 prediction. It gets the headlines this year but next year his credibility will have been blown. I think it's unfair because I think Deffeyes is making a point about the absurdity of specifying the precise year for the peak.

[mididoctors]

thank you for a decent conversation gentlemen

Boris
London

[2007]

... and - ehmm - it's official, peak oil is a conspiracy invented by Aspo in order for governments to ruin their economies.

Not!?

Via energyresources:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyres ... sage/75832

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')rom: "wilfrid02144" <mclynch@...>
Date: Mon May 23, 2005 12:44 pm
Subject: Re: reserves figures wilfrid02144
Offline
Send Email


Hi, Robert, I admit it's getting harder to keep up with the group, and
I usually ignore anything not directed to me.

Most of us in the industry have known for years that Middle East (and
other) reserves are not reliable. I did a model of Egyptian petroleum
and was astounded to find that historical reserve data was all but
useless.

But reserves are only slightly relevant to the question of resources.
That people still find multi-billion barrel fields in the Gulf, and
that some areas are still undrilled, suggests that we haven't worked
very far down the curve.

IF the URR does turn out to be 3 trillion, the peak could be 2025 or
so. But it depends also on demand; if everyone trades in their SUV
for a Prius, the peak will be a lot later. Or if ASPO convinces
governments to trash their economies, much, much later.
Mike Lynch

--- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "robert wilson" <wilson@t...>
wrote:
> --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "wilfrid02144"
<mclynch@a...>
> wrote:
> > ...Estimates of URR (ultimately recoverable resources) have grown
> > lately to over 3 trillion, from 2 trillion 20-30 years ago...
> > Mike Lynch
> Mike I appreciate your willingness to stay with er (and
> sci.geo.petroleum previously) all these years. Your post suggests
that
> you accept the reserve data provided by Saudi Arabia and other
> countries. If the URR for conventional oil turns out to be 3
> trillion , then what year (or range of years) would you expect
> conventional production to peak? I specifically refer to
conventional
> as I consider it to be less speculative than so-called 'shale oil'
etc.
> Robert Wilson SO CA