[pup55]

To follow up on nth's post in the current events thread:
and also the post this morning on the discussion thread:

Sprott

Here is a curve for Norway.

The first curve is the BP curve plus an assumed 400,000 barrel per day per year downward slope per this article (this is a 15% decline rate, and would be unprecedented).

The second curve is the Duncan and Youngquist prediction from 1997-2008 as predicted in 1997. In this case, the prediction was optimistic. Actual production never did reach 3.5 mbd.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_code('', '1971 6
1972 33
1973 32
1974 35
1975 189
1976 279
1977 287
1978 356
1979 407
1980 528
1981 512
1982 532
1983 661
1984 752
1985 823
1986 907
1987 1054
1988 1196
1989 1567
1990 1716
1991 1955
1992 2217
1993 2377
1994 2693
1995 2903
1996 3232
1997 3280 3369.863014
1998 3138 3413.69863
1999 3139 3452.054795
2000 3346 3471.232877
2001 3418 3452.054795
2002 3333 3452.054795
2003 3264 3432.876712
2004 3188 3410.958904
2005 2709.8 3390.410959
2006 2303.33 3375.342466
2007 1957.8305 3336.986301
2008 1664.155925 3298.630137')

[pup55]

Thanks to Ayoob who provided the link

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')orway (the other major North Sea oil producer) in the first four months of the
year saw its oil production similarly fall 10% compared to last year. Even more disturbingly, the month
of May alone saw a drop of 40,000 barrels per day versus April. If such a month-over-month rate of
decline continues then Norway will lose at least 400,000 barrels per day of production this year alone.

[RedViking]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', 'I')f such a month-over-month rate of
decline continues then Norway will lose at least 400,000 barrels per day of production this year alone.

[pup55]

[img][img]http://img334.imageshack.us/img334/2590/norwayprodforecast3mf.th.jpg[/img][/IMG]

Here's your graph.

The sprott estimate, the NPD estimate, and the Duncan and Youngquist 1997 prediction. It's still a pretty steep drop, I think.

[pup55]

http://peakoil.com/fortopic16045.html

To update this thread with the post from Torjus:

The new estimate is actually more pessimistic than the estimate last year by Sprott.

[Raminagrobis]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', 'T')o follow up on nth's post in the current events thread:
and also the post this morning on the discussion thread:

Sprott

Here is a curve for Norway.

[pup55]

Thanks for the post.

As you point out, Norway probably represents the best case scenario in terms of data transparency, and ability to determine reserves estimates.

This being the case, it should be an interesting test case for reserves growth due to technology advances. Also, a test case for how long a depleted field will remain viable after decline.

At a rate of 2.6 mbd/.95 gby the next 5 years will be interesting, at the current rate.

[khebab]

Here is the result of the Hubbert Linearization method:





It looks like a perfect textbook case for the Hubbert method!

[TorrKing]

khebab

If you are right our production will be nearly halved in 2010! I am growing even more doomerish as we speak.

Torjus Gaaren

[backstop]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Raminagrobis', '
')
TOTAL ULTIMATE PRODUCTION :

PAST : 20.5 Gb

FUTURE : 8.5 GB at least, 16 Gb at most.

In event event, there are now eating the 3rd quarter of the cake.

[khebab]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Torjus', 'k')hebab

If you are right our production will be nearly halved in 2010! I am growing even more doomerish as we speak.

Torjus Gaaren

[Raminagrobis]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('khebab', 'H')ere is the result of the Hubbert Linearization method:

It looks like a perfect textbook case for the Hubbert method!

[khebab]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Raminagrobis', 'N')ice curves indeed! Could you post the (matlab or whatever) code you used to generate them?

[rockdoc123]

Just wondering if you need to take into account the possibility that somewhere down the road the Norwegian gov't will decide to make the economic terms more attractive (currently one of the worst for producers). This could affect depletion in a couple of ways I think....1. would attract further exploration which, as an analog, we saw increased reserves and created a "double hump" on the depletion profile in the UK.....2. might result in reserve additions in-field due to better economics (ie. ability to bring on stream reserves previously left behind simply because economics were not there), we saw this happen in the UK as well. Just a thought.

[WebHubbleTelescope]

I gave a shot at modeling the Norway depletion curves starting from the discovery data. I used means of 5 years for the fallow, construction, and maturation periods, and a 10% depletion rate for years up to 1992. After 1992, like for the UK, I doubled the extraction rate over a 10 year period. The fit is decent and it gives much more insight than the ridiculous logistic curve formulations.

Like the UK, the model shows the offshore areas are rapidly depleting. The increase in the extraction rates as the production curves started levelling off forced the hands of the producers to pump harder.

[WebHubbleTelescope]

In the oil shock simulation, I used means of 5 years for the fallow, construction, and maturation periods, and a 10% depletion rate for years up to 1992. After 1992, like for the UK, I doubled the extraction rate over a 10+ year period.

Unshocked -- 10%

Shocked -- 10% to 20%



Note how close the profile of the shock perturbation approaches that of the UK North Sea model (chart below). In both cases, the increases in extraction rate occurred right around 1992, and essentially targeted the same 3 MBls/day sustainable production rate (competitive pressures perhaps?).


Like in the UK, the Norway model shows how the offshore areas can suffer rapid depletion. From the range of the parameters, the Brits developed and matured their rigs much more quickly than the Norwegians. The necessary increase in the extraction rates as the production curves started leveling off in the early 1990's became quite obvious; this basically forced the hands of each of the producers to pump harder. Without new discoveries, and continuous hammering on the extractive technologies, they will certainly see a steep decline before they put the expensively maintained rigs into mothballs as the North Sea oilers cut and and run and forever minimize their losses.

Reproduced from here:
http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2006/0 ... etion.html

[khebab]

For those interested, I posted a serie of new graphs on Norway like this one:




_______________________________________________________
GraphOilogy

[WebHubbleTelescope]

This is good stuff. Thank goodness for countries like Norway and the UK that require companies to report detailed production curves on individual fields.

[LadyRuby]

This graph also shows, so clearly, how the big fields are all behind us.

[WebHubbleTelescope]

And that each ensuing field has a progressively sharper peak.


(take a look at my post from January 6 which shows corrsponding increases in extraction rate)