Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Daniel Yergin Thread (merged)

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
Post a reply

Unread postby linlithgowoil » Mon 01 Aug 2005, 06:48:18

interesting read, but of course they dont share their data, unlike the other mega field project update which does.

id certainly be surprised if we saw 100+ mb per day by 2010-2015. I think we're near the all time limit, which may very well be around 90mb day, but that we cant hold this plateau for 10 years or possibly more. i dont think the decline will be all that great, because unconventional oil will be coming online to make up for existing depletion. i think a 2-3% decline after 2015-2020 is probable. by then, we may not even need as much oil - especially if we 'go nuclear' and start using electricity for transport.
User avatar
linlithgowoil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon 20 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Scotland
Top

Unread postby Aaron » Mon 01 Aug 2005, 08:57:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'i') think a 2-3% decline after 2015-2020 is probable.


And we all hope you are right...

Modern well depletion measurements say you're wrong though.

I'd say there's a 95% chance your wrong.

A 50% chance your half wrong.

And a 5% chance you're right on target.

"If you can make one heap of all your winnings

And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,

And lose, and start again at your beginnings

And never breath a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew

To serve your turn long after they are gone,

And so hold on when there is nothing in you

Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on";
"
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

Hazel Henderson
User avatar
Aaron
Resting in Peace
 
Posts: 5998
Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Houston
Top

Unread postby khebab » Mon 01 Aug 2005, 10:40:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')ur new, field-by-field analysis of production capacity

Where are the numbers coming from? nobody has access to the real field production numbers, they have been state secrets since the 80s!

garbage in, garbage out!
______________________________________
http://GraphOilogy.blogspot.com
khebab
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Canada
Top

Unread postby nth » Mon 01 Aug 2005, 15:48:47

I am so tired of people saying 16mb in extra supplies.
This is so damn misleading when they are saying 16mboe.
The problem is that we don't need natural gas. We need oil!

I am curious to know how much new oil do you guys estimate to come online by 2010?
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby nth » Mon 01 Aug 2005, 16:26:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('linlithgowoil', 'i')nteresting read, but of course they dont share their data, unlike the other mega field project update which does.

id certainly be surprised if we saw 100+ mb per day by 2010-2015.


You talking about this report?
Report

This report lists some 12mbpd of new production!
This does not include enhance recovery systems being invested in existing fields. Also, does not include sub100kbpd, which can add up to a couple hundred kpbd.

Not that I support Yergin, but your pessimism for 100mbpd seems to be very pessimistic. For people who believe in PO before 2010, they are saying Saudi Arabia will hit Peak by 2010 or before!

Simmons claims once Saudi hits peak, we all will, and he also believes we will hit peak soon. Please be advised that Simmons disputes Saudi data that is shown to the public. I am on Simmons side when demanding more data and third party validation, but I do not agree with him when he disagrees with Saudi data- this is data and not oil claims. Data that is provided by Saudi hired engineers. If these numbers are not what the engineers are seeing in the field, I think we will see a media leak by now- after all, these engineers are non-Saudi. And also, a few of these engineers no longer are on Saudi payroll! Of course, I can be wrong, but engineer data are believable to me unless proven otherwise. Remember this is different than Saudi claiming they have enough oil to keep production for next 50 years or whatever- that is not backed up by data that we can see.
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby dmtu » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 02:02:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('whatpeak', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dmtu', 'S')omeone remind me. I recognize the letters IHS but can't remember why the name is ominous.


Ominous to some

IHS is a Greek abbreviation


I was under the impression that it was about thsi consulting agency http://www.ihs.com/about-ihs/index.html
You observed it from the start
Now you’re a million miles apart
As we bleed another nation
So you can watch you favorite station
Now you eyes pop out your sockets
Dirty hands and empty pockets
Who? You!
c.o.c.
dmtu
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 538
Joined: Sun 04 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Western US
Top

Unread postby Leanan » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 10:13:43

They are extremely optimistic. I suspect they have that capitalist/economist mindset: invest enough money, and technological solutions will be found. They don't understand that technology tends to slow down as it matures, and that the kind of advances we saw in the '70s and '80s are unlikely to be repeated.

Look at the few numbers they do give us. Iraq will "only" increase production by a million barrels a day. Iraq's production could easily decrease, or stop if things get really bad, but they consider an increase of a million barrels a day a conservative estimate. They predict U.S. production will be flat. We've been in a pretty steady decline for 20 years, and suddenly, we're going to be able to stop it?

I bet a lot of their projected increase comes from Canada, too. Specifically, the tar sands. :roll:
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby ohanian » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 10:25:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('linlithgowoil', 'i')nteresting read, but of course they dont share their data, unlike the other mega field project update which does.

id certainly be surprised if we saw 100+ mb per day by 2010-2015.


You talking about this report?
Report

This report lists some 12mbpd of new production!
This does not include enhance recovery systems being invested in existing fields. Also, does not include sub100kbpd, which can add up to a couple hundred kpbd.

Not that I support Yergin, but your pessimism for 100mbpd seems to be very pessimistic. For people who believe in PO before 2010, they are saying Saudi Arabia will hit Peak by 2010 or before!

Simmons claims once Saudi hits peak, we all will, and he also believes we will hit peak soon. Please be advised that Simmons disputes Saudi data that is shown to the public. I am on Simmons side when demanding more data and third party validation, but I do not agree with him when he disagrees with Saudi data- this is data and not oil claims. Data that is provided by Saudi hired engineers. If these numbers are not what the engineers are seeing in the field, I think we will see a media leak by now- after all, these engineers are non-Saudi. And also, a few of these engineers no longer are on Saudi payroll! Of course, I can be wrong, but engineer data are believable to me unless proven otherwise. Remember this is different than Saudi claiming they have enough oil to keep production for next 50 years or whatever- that is not backed up by data that we can see.


You have made one BIG assumption. You assumed that the foreign engineers saw all the numbers.

That's not true. Each foreign engineers only saw a small part of the total numbers. To get the big picture , you need to put together all the small numbers to get the total numbers. By your logic, all the accountants in a big bank will know the bank's true financial situvation, whereas in real life only the chief accountant of the bank does.
User avatar
ohanian
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sun 17 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby nth » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 11:09:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ohanian', '
')
You have made one BIG assumption. You assumed that the foreign engineers saw all the numbers.

No, that is not my assumption.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')That's not true. Each foreign engineers only saw a small part of the total numbers. To get the big picture , you need to put together all the small numbers to get the total numbers. By your logic, all the accountants in a big bank will know the bank's true financial situvation, whereas in real life only the chief accountant of the bank does.


You are correct. But, I am not talking about how much oil Saudi Arabia has. That is why I don't believe in those generalizations that they can produce 15mbpd for 50+ years.

Have you seen the data presented by Saudi engineers?
If you have, I am more than willing to discuss the details.
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby nth » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 11:26:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', 'T')hey are extremely optimistic. I suspect they have that capitalist/economist mindset: invest enough money, and technological solutions will be found. They don't understand that technology tends to slow down as it matures, and that the kind of advances we saw in the '70s and '80s are unlikely to be repeated.



You nailed it!
They are optimistic.
Also, please read the fine print. They are talking about capacity and not actual production. They are talking about barrels of oil equivalent and not true crude oil. They also seem to take companies and governments' words for how much oil to expect. For instance Norway and England claim they will be able to stabilize their production instead of seeing continuous decline. Stuff like that.

They also believed in technology to prevent decline in production. I guess they think everyone can afford multi million dollar equipments and that they all work on all oil fields.

Also, they believe Russia will keep increasing. In actuality, we are seeing a plateau.

Nevertheless, we will see significant new productions in the coming years. All sources that analyze actual mega projects are projecting over 10mbpd in new productions coming online at the minimum by 2012 at the latest. The big question is how much depletion will we see on the older fields?
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby Leanan » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 12:39:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he big question is how much depletion will we see on the older fields?


Yes, that's the big question. No doubt some big fields are coming online in a few years. The question is whether they can offset the depletion of the aging giants. My guess would be "no," but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

But just looking at the limited data we have...I think Simmons is right. That expensive technology does increase production rates, but it doesn't really increase the total amount produced. A lot of oil people are still in denial about this, despite what happened with Yibal. But more and more, it's looking like Simmons was right. High-tech methods accelerate depletion, so decline for newer wells will be much steeper than it was for the old, American ones many models are based on.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby seahorse2 » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 13:20:05

Aaron or someone, spell out for me the significance of IHS Energy buying Cera. I understand the thought is it makes or taints CERA's opinions. But, I don't know anything about IHS Energy.
User avatar
seahorse2
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2042
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Aaron » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 13:35:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse2', 'A')aron or someone, spell out for me the significance of IHS Energy buying Cera. I understand the thought is it makes or taints CERA's opinions. But, I don't know anything about IHS Energy.


They give financial advice to energy companies...

I'll let your own experiences draw whatever conclusion from that you like.
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

Hazel Henderson
User avatar
Aaron
Resting in Peace
 
Posts: 5998
Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Houston
Top

Unread postby nth » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 13:41:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', '
')
Yes, that's the big question. No doubt some big fields are coming online in a few years. The question is whether they can offset the depletion of the aging giants. My guess would be "no," but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.


They are using BOE. There is a lot of natural gas and liquid gas coming online from now till 2010. It will be more than enough to cover any decline.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')But just looking at the limited data we have...I think Simmons is right. That expensive technology does increase production rates, but it doesn't really increase the total amount produced. A lot of oil people are still in denial about this, despite what happened with Yibal. But more and more, it's looking like Simmons was right. High-tech methods accelerate depletion, so decline for newer wells will be much steeper than it was for the old, American ones many models are based on.


There is a difference between mismanagement and technology failure. I think a lot of the enhanced recovery technics if managed properly do increase recoverables.

Another way to look at it is that there are plenty of old fields that have new life based on these enhanced techs. BUT, there are also examples where these techs failed. AND they called the failures- mismanagement.
That is a cynical way of looking at it, but just as valid, imo.
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby threadbear » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 13:50:04

Personally, I wouldn't trust Yergin, nor anything much in the Washington Post. You'll NEVER get more than half truth. Never.
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby cat » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 14:00:10

The Oil Drum talks about the CERA report today:

"Major Oil Projects Revisited or CERA meet ODAC"

http://theoildrum.blogspot.com/
User avatar
cat
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon 09 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Western Washington
Top

Unread postby Jaymax » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 14:03:22

Yesterday's item at the Oildrum refutes the CERA numbers...

theoildrum

--J
Doomerosity now at 2 (occasionaly 3, was 4)

Currently (mostly) taking a break from posting at po.com. Don't trust the false prophets of doom - keep reading, keep learning, keep challenging your assum
User avatar
Jaymax
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Thu 16 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: England
Top

Unread postby nth » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 14:13:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jaymax', 'Y')esterday's item at the Oildrum refutes the CERA numbers...

theoildrum

--J


This guy (lanqui) didn't get it right.
CERA uses BOE.
ODAC uses projected Crude Oil projection.

BIG BIG Difference!

IF you use BOE, you can account for the depletions. CERA does not ignore depletions.
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron