by WebHubbleTelescope » Sat 21 Jan 2006, 02:14:21
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReserveGrowthRulz', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', '
')As a start, using your favorite spreadsheet program, graph out the historical production. For the right hand side of the graph, you can test what would happen if production remains constant for the next few years. What does the production curve look like? How long can this go on before we run out of reserves?
I REALLY wish people would stop this beginner mistake kind of misdirection already. Reserves are not the RESOURCE base, if they were, we would have run out of EVERYTHING about 7 years after ANYTHING was discovered, because if you just track RESERVES through time, it turns out, for as long as there has been reserves, there has nearly always been the same AMOUNT of reserves ( expressed as reserves/rate = some amount of time), even after producing a few billion barrels of oil over the last X amount of time, X amount of production being an order of magnitude higher than what USED to be called reserves...30 years ago.
Reserves are simply a forecast ruled by engineers and accountants who figured out a long time ago that storing future production under ground, behind pipe or undeveloped, was better than investing a few gazillion dollars of capital in a week and then storing everything on the surface waiting 50 years for demand to catch up with their supplies.
Come ON people, learn some of the terminology already before presenting ANY of this stuff to someone who knows the difference between reserves ( SEC, international or make believe ), resources ( defined by whoever you want but at least mention them), EURs or Ultimates, PDP's, PDNP's, PUD's and if you know at least a FEW of the SPE definitions, that would be a good start.
No wonder you are so confused. I only use estimates of discovery volume in the ground. You can only pump out what you can discover. Thinking about reserves as some big tank you keep in the backyard is obviously misguided. I don't think anybody believes that.
If people in the oil industry can't get their act together, that is their problem. As engineers we have one way to measure capacitance, one way to measure mass, one way to count time. If the oilers make up their own measures for obfuscation purposes, then you basically need us unwashed masses keeping an eye out for the deceptions being promulgated.
Like I said before, this is basically a bean-counting exercise and I know that they know how much is under the ground. If they were to spill the beans, we would all be better off.
The analogy would be the weather forecaster who can estimate an average amount of snow that will fall tomorrow given some past historical conditions. However, for whatever agenda he has up his sleeve, he either wants to low-ball the number or high-ball it, thinking that no one really call him on it, because, after all, it is only a prediction. But people do really care, and they will fire the weatherman pronto and instead hire somebody that knows something about Bayes theorem. But the weird thing is that the weatherman clearly wouldn't have an agenda for purposefully getting it wrong, so he always tries to do his best.
So if an oil company was a farm, they would understimate the amount of irrigation needed (and the crops would dry out), they would wait to long to harvest (and the crops would rot), they would not rotate (and the nutrients would leach out of the soil), and when the local bank loan manager would question what happened, they would make up a sob story. And they wouldn't listen to the weatherman, because as they would tell you, "you don't need a weatherman to tell you which way the wind blows".
The whole attitude is about a gnat's eyelash away from believing in The Rapture. You know, God's will and all that jazz.