PeakOil is You
Cliff Oil
Re: Cliff Oil
by Novus » Tue 24 Jan 2006, 23:14:25
All of the worlds most aggressively exploited fields will have "Cliff" like fall offs in the 10% to 20% decline rates. These steap decline rates will mean that at peak production 60%-70% of the URR had been aleady depleated. We have the North Sea declining at 16% and Cantarell in Mexico declining at 14%. If Burgan or god forbid Ghawar decline at such rates we truely are in trouble. The last barrel of oil to be exported anywhere could be less than ten years away.
-
Novus - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2450
- Joined: Tue 21 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Re: Cliff Oil
by turmoil » Tue 24 Jan 2006, 23:30:01
Just to be clear (and I don't mean to speak for anyone else), oil(in this case) = liquid petroleum, not shale, or sands, or Natural gas.
Last edited by turmoil on Wed 25 Jan 2006, 21:31:16, edited 3 times in total.
"If you are a real seeker after truth, it's necessary that at least once in your life you doubt all things as far as possible"-Rene Descartes
"When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains however improbable must be the truth"-Sherlock Holmes
"When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains however improbable must be the truth"-Sherlock Holmes
-
turmoil - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1088
- Joined: Fri 13 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Richmond, VA, Pale Blue Dot
Re: Cliff Oil
by MonteQuest » Tue 24 Jan 2006, 23:41:05
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ubercynicmeister', 'L')OL, the problem is not going to be the "availablity" of Oil, Post peak. It'll be the damn price of it.
Yes, and there is far too little discussion of this fact. I don't care what basket of energies you can come up with, they will never be as cheap as oil (and all of it's distillates), as readily available, as energy dense, and as safely portable.
Not even close.
And they have to be.
If not close, even cheaper.
And they won't be.
Ever.
Peoples' "access" to energy will be severely curtailed merely by the cost.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest - Expert
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
Re: Cliff Oil
by MonteQuest » Tue 24 Jan 2006, 23:55:40
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('duke3522', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('27010', 'I') think that some alternative thought is needed, we all assume that peak oil takes place when half of the recoverable oil is gone. This may have been true in the 1970s when America peaked, but since then technology has improved allowing previously unrecoverable oil to be recovered. This newly recoverable oil was not factored into the peak oil equation when it was first introduced by Hubbard and as such most modern applications of the peak oil theory ignore it too. What I am trying to suggest is that peak oil may occur later than once 50% of recoverable oil is gone, lets say 75% for the sake of giving an example. We have therefore managed to keep an adequate production level going beyond the 50 % mark and we are now at the approach to a sheer drop when we reach a point where there is no possible method of extracting the rest. To give an example with made up figures as I dont have any info to calculate correct ones, it is possible that production will rise to a point where 30% of recovered oil is recovered and remain steady until 75% is recovered. When I say steady, it would not appear to be steady as world demand and the amount of oil being produced would dictate the quantity and speed of extraction at any given point of the worlds economic cycle. I have not seen any graph of North Sea production, but I do not believe that there was 50% of the recoverable oil left at Peak, or it wouldnt be such a severe decline now.
I suppose this might seem like a load of rubbish, no doubt those of you better informed than myself will correct me.
I suppose this might seem like a load of rubbish, no doubt those of you better informed than myself will correct me.
This is a very interesting idea. Let me see if I have it in hand here. The idea is that just because we pass the half way point of all oil reserves does not mean that production will begin to decline. That the possibility exists that due to improved technology a decline in production could be pushed out to where between 60-75% of recoverable oil has been consumed.
If peak oil production is being pushed out past the URR’s of oil then how can we have anything but an oil cliff.
I hope Monte or another of our resident experts will chime in on this subject.
27010 seems to assume that you will only use the recovery technology on the way down and not on the way up the production slope.
Sorry. As far as I know, new recovery technologies just make the decline rate greater once the field peaks if pushed too far to increase upslope production.
And I know of no depletion projections that do not factor in new technologies in recovery.
And it seems that an oil well, field, or region follows this bell curve no matter how much technology or how much money you throw at it.
Speed of Decline
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest - Expert
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
Re: Cliff Oil
by JustinFrankl » Wed 25 Jan 2006, 01:54:11
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ubercynicmeister', 'L')OL, the problem is not going to be the "availablity" of Oil, Post peak. It'll be the damn price of it.
Yes, and there is far too little discussion of this fact. I don't care what basket of energies you can come up with, they will never be as cheap as oil (and all of it's distillates), as readily available, as energy dense, and as safely portable.
Not even close.
And they have to be.
If not close, even cheaper.
And they won't be.
Ever.
Peoples' "access" to energy will be severely curtailed merely by the cost.
I am of the view that money, cost, utility, and value are really just approximations for energy. Oil will cost more due to the increased energy required to take it out of the ground, relative to everything else we need that energy for.
The reduced access is measured by increased cost, but it's still fundamentally that it requires increased energy, yes?
"We have seen the enemy, and he is us." -- Walt Kelly
- JustinFrankl
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 623
- Joined: Mon 22 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
