[GHung]

Rock says; "The doomers will eventually have their day. But it ain't today, tomorrow or even in the next few years."

I'm not so much of a doomer as a student of history. Current oil production and demand is being propped up by central bank policies, and they are running out of tricks up their sleeves. As you say, time will tell.

[Revi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', ' ')before we spend too much time talking about a Seneca Cliff perhaps we should wait at least until we can see over the top of the Seneca Hill. Don't you agree? After all we'll have plenty of time later to run around like our hair is on fire. But for right now we're still in the shower washing it. LOL. The doomers will eventually have their day. But it ain't today, tomorrow or even in the next few years.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GHung', 'A')damB said; "We already know that Hubbert's curve doesn't work..."

In what way? I don't know that.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Revi', 'I') appreciate the way Adam B gets the discussion going, but I really don't understand his points. He is really into tearing down our idols. I guess that makes him an iconoclast, sort've.

[GHung]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdamB', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GHung', 'A')damB said; "We already know that Hubbert's curve doesn't work..."

In what way? I don't know that.

[ROCKMAN]

"Well, here is a single chart showing it not working...". As already pointed out this is not Hubbert's curve. It one plots the production of the trends he was plotting it turns out his projection was surprisingly accurate.

Ghung - and back to my Seneca Hill of global oil productions. Notice I didn't call it a Seneca Mountain. The Seneca Cliff is a bad enough inflammatory exaggeration.

But looking at the chart of US oil production a Seneca Pikes Peak might be appropriate. LOL. Especially when you consider how fast the backside might decline.

[sparky]

.
something which might go Senecca way is that the conventional super giants are about done ,while the offshore fields have a pretty steep depletion curve , tigh oil is even worst .
one could conceive all the depletions coming together while few new oil giants are put into production .

As you said even when depleted oil wells still produce ,
but the real killer is that they were contributing to production while the total amount was increasing ,
living off depleting fields is a bumer and a half , secondary extraction is a weak substitute to opening new provinces

[ROCKMAN]

Sparky - "...secondary extraction is a weak substitute to opening new provinces". Actually many of those old giant fields you referred to are still producing a significant amount of their reserves thanks to enhanced recovery techniques such as pressure maintenance (Mexico's Cantarell Field), water floods (most of the Permian Basin fields) and infield drilling of horizontal wells (Ghawar Field) which includes the Rockman's field that went from 12 bopd to 500 bopd thanks to such wells. Although not all technically defined as EOR methods they are utilized for the same reason. But this is also why old field production will never see a Seneca cliff: once these fields have reached this stage their depletion rates are very, very low.

As you and others have mentioned the shales and the Deep Water GOM fields are a very different dynamic. Every individual shale well is its own Seneca cliff. But collectively they have actually developed a Seneca Mountain when viewing the US chart. And now that lower oil prices have cut the rig count we've started down the back side of this Seneca Mountain. But it's important to remember that the great majority of shale wells have entered a much lower decline rate phase. As a result while we are beginning to slide down the back slope of the Seneca Mountain there won't be a Seneca cliff ahead for the EXISTING production. OTOH a plot of new production might look more like a Seneca cliff.

Projecting DW GOM is trickier. Here's the yearly production since 1985.

https://www.data.bsee.gov/homepg/data_c ... ummary.asp

You'll see it plateaued around 2002 around 350 million to 450 million bbls per year. But the combination of relative short COMMERCIAL lives (6 to 8 years) and long lag times between discovery and first production makes projecting difficult. As a result it wouldn't be a surprise to see increased DW GOM oil production increase the next few years despite lower oil prices. Once $billions have already been spent companies will keep on schedule. Bottom line from 1985 to 2002 the DW GOM climbed an impressive Seneca Mountain from zero to 450+ million bbls of oil per year. Now on a plateau. Some DW projects early in their development phase could stall with the current lower oil price. But there's no detailed data available to make even a rough guess.

[SumYunGai]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'G')hung - So much of the debate seems to focus on a relatively rapid decrease in oil production due to the current LOWER oil price.

[sparky]

.
I'm a bit uneasy about the term "cliff" , this suggest a vertical drop , that will not happen
on the relationship between price and production
looking at rockman link ,it can be observed that a severe decrease in production followed the late 1980ies first bout of price drop ; I.E. a dip from 21Mb to 1989 10Mb , .
production took of again with the price , no such effect took place this time , so I guess it's a toss .

while it's intuitive and anecdotal to believe there is a direct strong link , as I do !
it's not really obvious if one looks at the numbers

[ROCKMAN]

SYG - Don't preach to me...go bitch at the folks posting oil production charts. Apparently you weren't paying attention to the flow of the conversation. LOL.

[SumYunGai]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'S')YG - Don't preach to me...go bitch at the folks posting oil production charts. Apparently you weren't paying attention to the flow of the conversation. LOL.

[dissident]

The cliff is way more likely than some gradual decline (BTW, cliff =/= infinite slope). The amount of both conventional and accessible unconventional oil in the ground is fixed. Extract it faster and you have less left and what is left is typically harder to recover, hence extraction rates fall with time (keyword: rates). The flattening of the Gaussian or the current plateau is due to high rates of extraction even under weak oil prices. (But some of the fracked oil production is down).

In order to have a gradual global production decline the extraction rates have to decline too. Mirroring the past increase in extraction rates. This is not happening. Extraction rates will be forced to fall in the future due to physical constraints (extraction of hard to get dregs). But for now this limiter is not kicking in. So the plateau must, by conservation of mass of potentially recoverable oil, come at the price of future production. The future production is being repartitioned to current production. By definition, the gradual Gaussian slope is made sharper and sharper with a jump from a plateau to a thin tail.

The only way out of this constraint is to have significant discoveries of new supply in the future. It is clear that this is not likely given the 40 year trend in discoveries.

[ROCKMAN]

SYG - "...you cleverly changed the subject from Seneca Cliff to a Seneca cliff in oil production." And once more play attention and you'll notice I was posting in response to the posts of others. And besides the vasdvasdt majority of the "Seneca" conversations are focused on predicted steep declines in oil production.

A better question is why are you changing the conversation from the Seneca dynamic to why the Rockman is posting what he's posting. Seems like wasted space IMHO. LOL.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonoil', '[')i]"AdamB said; "We already know that Hubbert's curve doesn't work..."

The primary reason that anyone would say that is probably because they don't understand the difference between a CDF and a PDF.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SumYunGai', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'S')YG - Don't preach to me...go bitch at the folks posting oil production charts. Apparently you weren't paying attention to the flow of the conversation. LOL.

[GHung]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdamB', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SumYunGai', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'S')YG - Don't preach to me...go bitch at the folks posting oil production charts. Apparently you weren't paying attention to the flow of the conversation. LOL.

[dashster]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdamB', '
')
Ugo Bargi has been pimping this idea pretty hard. Just another blogger who got it wrong the last time around, trying to recycle yet another version of already discredited ideas.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GHung', '
')As usual, Adam, you are being obtuse as to what Hubbert was actually predicting and what that was based on. You can't even build a good strawman. Ultimately, I don't even know why you are so focussed on proving Hubbert wrong when even our definition of what oil is has changed.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GHung', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdamB', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SumYunGai', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'S')YG - Don't preach to me...go bitch at the folks posting oil production charts. Apparently you weren't paying attention to the flow of the conversation. LOL.