[Cyrus]

I'm not sure what to think of this:

Link to graph

What do you think? I belive its scenarios are ambiguous as they do not include the light sweet to heavy crude ratio, as well as the fact that depletion rates are impossible to predict.

[EnergySpin]

They are using curve fitting techniques assuming a Verhulst or a logistic curve depletion model. The pessimistic prediction is similar to the one I ran on my computer after smoothing oil production data (check the Verhulst modeling thread)
Mind you that sweet light crude probably peaked last year and those curves correspond to all liquid hydrocarbons.
It is not unreasonable for the realistic scenario to materialize ... but it will be an environmental nightmare.

[Cyrus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')but it will be an environmental nightmare.

[Cyrus]

Also there is a lot of theoretical production in here. Some of the production is said to be coming online but hasn't been even discovered yet.

[Cyrus]

Link to graph

[pup55]

It still all comes down to Saudi, don't you think?

[Taskforce_Unity]

Yes the graph is based on Total oil production. For the rest...

You guys are talking crap

I made those graphs as a preliminary outlook. At the moment im refining my report.

They are NOT based on curve fitting but on outlook on oil production projects

They are NOT based on theoretical production but on REAL projects that are PRESS released by companies.

It does NOT come down to Saudi Oil production... thats a bullshit argument (unless all 9.5 mb/d of crude oil prod. would go decline at 15% per year, an impossible scenario)


What it is is:

The CERA approach, field by field data for ALL new projects i could find (140 real, 20 potential), not just +75.000 bb/d. Decline on country basis (sometimes field to field when i have the data). And ofcourse some own interpretation on Saudi Oil Prod...

At the moment im tweaking stuff, changing the Saudi Arabian scenario and correcting errors (i made an error on mexican production for instance added 300.000 barrels too much).

And ofcourse making a report. The first version will be finished at the end of the week. After that i will do a second refining run and publish a Preview Draft version the week after that or something

Cheers,

Rembrandt from Peakoil Netherlands

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Taskforce_Unity', 'Y')es the graph is based on Total oil production. For the rest...

You guys are talking crap

I made those graphs as a preliminary outlook. At the moment im refining my report.

They are NOT based on curve fitting but on outlook on oil production projects

They are NOT based on theoretical production but on REAL projects that are PRESS released by companies.

It does NOT come down to Saudi Oil production... thats a bullshit argument (unless all 9.5 mb/d of crude oil prod. would go decline at 15% per year, an impossible scenario)


What it is is:

The CERA approach, field by field data for ALL new projects i could find (140 real, 20 potential), not just +75.000 bb/d. Decline on country basis (sometimes field to field when i have the data). And ofcourse some own interpretation on Saudi Oil Prod...

At the moment im tweaking stuff, changing the Saudi Arabian scenario and correcting errors (i made an error on mexican production for instance added 300.000 barrels too much).

And ofcourse making a report. The first version will be finished at the end of the week. After that i will do a second refining run and publish a Preview Draft version the week after that or something

Cheers,

Rembrandt from Peakoil Netherlands

[Shiraz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A'))Which assumptions did u have to make to generate the families of scenarios?

[Taskforce_Unity]

Im pretty confident yep.

A)Which assumptions did u have to make to generate the families of scenarios?

There's going to be a part of this in my report. Basicly , no refinery problems.... and no political/economical turmoil (except sometimes in the pessimistic scenario, example: iran)

B) Any estimate /preciction/assumption about the URR?

I think that it will lie near 2500 "peak" wise. As in when we peak the URR will lie near 2500. So that means the decline will begin somewhere around 2012.

I think ultimately URR might lie near 3000, it will probably increase while we go down the peak.

C)Specifically, what assumptions did you make about slippage rates?

Takes too much time to put that info down here now. Just wait 2 weeks and you can see for yourself. Just watch the frontpage

By the way of course it will be available in english...

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Taskforce_Unity', '
')I think that it will lie near 2500 "peak" wise. As in when we peak the URR will lie near 2500. So that means the decline will begin somewhere around 2012.

I think ultimately URR might lie near 3000, it will probably increase while we go down the peak.
.

[Taskforce_Unity]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', '
')Pretty interesting ... I got a number between 2300-2900
We will see ... post a link in case we forget.

[EnergySpin]

2300-2900 is the output of the Levenberg Marquadt algorithm (i.e. a nonlinear regression algorithm) depending on :
1) number of iterations (remember LS is an optimization heuristic in nonlinear regression)
2) keeping the number of iteration stable one looks at the CI
In fact by using the same dataset and the logistic curve I have generated almost all predictions from the pessimists (CC) to the optimists (USGS). Since the morons (ALL OF THEM) have not bothered to detail:
- stopping criteria for the optimization
- numerical precision/accuracy
- software package (something tells me they are using Excel ) which is well known to the statistics community to be pretty worthless (will post the references to an article that showed how flawed this program is for anything more than obtaining a mean, standard deviation)
I prefer not to trust anyone at this point and trust my own stuff (which is based on public hence crappy data).
One way I dealth with the data was to pre-filter them with the lowess smoother hoping that it will take out any linear bias (i.e. people fiddling with the data). When I get more time, I will use a multi-point Verhulst and the EM algorithm ... more about that in September

[clv101]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Taskforce_Unity', '
')What it is is:

The CERA approach, field by field data for ALL new projects i could find (140 real, 20 potential), not just +75.000 bb/d. Decline on country basis (sometimes field to field when i have the data). And ofcourse some own interpretation on Saudi Oil Prod...

[Taskforce_Unity]

Sounds interesting Energyspin, its really weird how totally flawed those URR models are. Ill ask my dad what he thinks of using the Levenberg Marquadt algorithm.

He's kinda like a Fanatic MAD mathematician (he will immediatly know what you are talking about). Anyway i have like a second project going on also with my dad (i'm not good at math but he is), going for a URR like approach (with all sorts of factors). Don't know were that is going to head though.

CLv101 i intend to do a piece on that in my report. Anyway what i can tell you sofar is that

CERA is too optimistic on depletion
Skrebowski is too pessimistic on depletion

Both are about right on new production probably (Skrebowksi has around 15.5 mb/d now (not in the 2004 reports but in the 2005 presentations he has) and Cera has 17.7 mb/d gross.

I have about 18 mb/d but i include ALL projects not just +75.000 (CERA) and +100.000 (Skrebowksi). And i still have to include some more projects.

[Shiraz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')oth are about right on new production probably (Skrebowksi has around 15.5 mb/d now (not in the 2004 reports but in the 2005 presentations he has) and Cera has 17.7 mb/d gross.

[Taskforce_Unity]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Shiraz', '
')I presume you have read the CERA report? This report costs big dollars right? Alternatively, is there some publically available detailed summary?

Do you know how CERA handled slippage? There was an Editorial by Cooke which criticized the CERA report based upon a number of assumptions, but the real one I would like to know about is slippage. Cooke implied there was no allowance for this. This seems crazy to me, and I can't really believe it. However, not being able to get my hands on the report, I cannot know.

[Antimatter]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Taskforce_Unity', '
')CERA is too optimistic on depletion
Skrebowski is too pessimistic on depletion

[Taskforce_Unity]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Antimatter', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Taskforce_Unity', '
')CERA is too optimistic on depletion
Skrebowski is too pessimistic on depletion

[Taskforce_Unity]

Just updated my project list

165 producing projects between 2005 - 2010
55 Potential projects between 2005 - 2010 (not included)
special --> Saudi Arabia Khurais project (not included)

World total Gross addition --> 21.7 mb/d
OPEC Gross addition --> 9.25 mb/d
Non OPEC Gross addition --> 12.45 mb/d

The new Net graph:

Link to graph