Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Saudi Arabia isn't Texas

Discuss research and forecasts regarding hydrocarbon depletion.
Post a reply

Re: Saudi Arabia isn't Texas

Unread postby PraiseDoom » Sun 10 Jun 2007, 11:58:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WebHubbleTelescope', '
')But the reason that these USGS models don't work is not because they are guesswork, it's because most of these geologists are basically morons when it comes to understanding basic math and statistics.



So...the mathematicians and statisticians they employed when building the models didn't know what they were doing?

Do you have any references to how unqualified these mathematicians and statisticians are, or are you just speculating?
User avatar
PraiseDoom
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon 23 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Saudi Arabia isn't Texas

Unread postby WebHubbleTelescope » Sun 10 Jun 2007, 20:38:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PraiseDoom', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WebHubbleTelescope', '
')But the reason that these USGS models don't work is not because they are guesswork, it's because most of these geologists are basically morons when it comes to understanding basic math and statistics.



So...the mathematicians and statisticians they employed when building the models didn't know what they were doing?

Do you have any references to how unqualified these mathematicians and statisticians are, or are you just speculating?


No, not speculating, just inferring based on their shoddy work. I suppose they could be "qualified" but I would rather not place the blame at who taught them.

In particular, Attanasi & Root show little knowledge on how to use censored data to produce a model to predict reserve growth. See this:
http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2007/0 ... -data.html
User avatar
WebHubbleTelescope
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu 08 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Saudi Arabia isn't Texas

Unread postby PraiseDoom » Sun 10 Jun 2007, 23:19:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WebHubbleTelescope', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PraiseDoom', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WebHubbleTelescope', '
')But the reason that these USGS models don't work is not because they are guesswork, it's because most of these geologists are basically morons when it comes to understanding basic math and statistics.



So...the mathematicians and statisticians they employed when building the models didn't know what they were doing?

Do you have any references to how unqualified these mathematicians and statisticians are, or are you just speculating?


No, not speculating, just inferring based on their shoddy work. I suppose they could be "qualified" but I would rather not place the blame at who taught them.

In particular, Attanasi & Root show little knowledge on how to use censored data to produce a model to predict reserve growth. See this:
http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2007/0 ... -data.html


The analysis done over at TOD seems to indicate that the USGS reserve growth analysis using the Root and Attanasai procedure was more in the ballpark than anything else ever calculated, in part because no one else has the cajones to actually estimate it themselves and publish their estimate.

It seems like bashing them for not being perfect, in an environment so tricky that no one else even is willing to venture into, doesn't make them the doers of shoddy work at all, but brave adventurers into the unknown, much like Hubbert when he did his initial Peak Oil work?
User avatar
PraiseDoom
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon 23 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Saudi Arabia isn't Texas

Unread postby WebHubbleTelescope » Mon 11 Jun 2007, 01:35:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PraiseDoom', '
')The analysis done over at TOD seems to indicate that the USGS reserve growth analysis using the Root and Attanasai procedure was more in the ballpark than anything else ever calculated, in part because no one else has the cajones to actually estimate it themselves and publish their estimate.


Where did you see such a statement on TOD? Rembrandt K over at TOD recently did a review on reserve growth and had little to say on A&R besides this:
http://europe.theoildrum.com/story/2006/12/21/124953/88

I added some of these same comments back then
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2142/145579

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')It seems like bashing them for not being perfect, in an environment so tricky that no one else even is willing to venture into, doesn't make them the doers of shoddy work at all, but brave adventurers into the unknown, much like Hubbert when he did his initial Peak Oil work?


What's with this pretentious crap? It's either right or wrong; this isn't a game of horseshoes. All that R&A dis was show how not to analyze reserve growth.
User avatar
WebHubbleTelescope
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu 08 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Saudi Arabia isn't Texas

Unread postby peripato » Mon 11 Jun 2007, 21:57:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'T')he 1995 report didn't include the outliers because they didn't fit into a nice, neat model. The 1995 report also dramatically underestimated future reserves and reserve growth due to improvements in technology.

1) Estimates for the conventional oil ultimate already include future discoveries.
2) Explain how "reserve growth due to technological improvements" would significantly alter the timing of the peak? New technology primarily increases production rate and lowers costs, but rarely is it responsible for “reserve growth” in fields holding conventional oil.
3) If the model does not produce resullts that fit in with expectations of perpeual growth and progress then by all means throw it out.
User avatar
peripato
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Tue 03 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Reality
Top

Re: Saudi Arabia isn't Texas

Unread postby WebHubbleTelescope » Mon 11 Jun 2007, 22:57:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('peripato', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'T')he 1995 report didn't include the outliers because they didn't fit into a nice, neat model. The 1995 report also dramatically underestimated future reserves and reserve growth due to improvements in technology.

1) Estimates for the conventional oil ultimate already include future discoveries.
2) Explain how "reserve growth due to technological improvements" would significantly alter the timing of the peak? New technology primarily increases production rate and lowers costs, but rarely is it responsible for “reserve growth” in fields holding conventional oil.
3) If the model does not produce resullts that fit in with expectations of perpeual growth and progress then by all means throw it out.


Good points. I've tried several times to come up with a peak that moves significantly due to reserve growth, but come up empty handed. It all has to do with an extraction rate that easily matches the reserve growth rate, leading to a signifcant net depletion that will move the peak, at best, a few years to the right.

The perplexing thing about reserve growth is that there exist scenarios where we can get an infinite URR and still our peak does not shift much. Why the USGS people don't write about this amazing fact, I haven't a clue.
User avatar
WebHubbleTelescope
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu 08 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Saudi Arabia isn't Texas

Unread postby threadbear » Mon 11 Jun 2007, 23:19:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WebHubbleTelescope', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('peripato', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'T')he 1995 report didn't include the outliers because they didn't fit into a nice, neat model. The 1995 report also dramatically underestimated future reserves and reserve growth due to improvements in technology.

1) Estimates for the conventional oil ultimate already include future discoveries.
2) Explain how "reserve growth due to technological improvements" would significantly alter the timing of the peak? New technology primarily increases production rate and lowers costs, but rarely is it responsible for “reserve growth” in fields holding conventional oil.
3) If the model does not produce resullts that fit in with expectations of perpeual growth and progress then by all means throw it out.


Good points. I've tried several times to come up with a peak that moves significantly due to reserve growth, but come up empty handed. It all has to do with an extraction rate that easily matches the reserve growth rate, leading to a signifcant net depletion that will move the peak, at best, a few years to the right.

The perplexing thing about reserve growth is that there exist scenarios where we can get an infinite URR and still our peak does not shift much. Why the USGS people don't write about this amazing fact, I haven't a clue.


Web, In English? What's the upshot?
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Saudi Arabia isn't Texas

Unread postby WebHubbleTelescope » Tue 12 Jun 2007, 02:19:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WebHubbleTelescope', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('peripato', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'T')he 1995 report didn't include the outliers because they didn't fit into a nice, neat model. The 1995 report also dramatically underestimated future reserves and reserve growth due to improvements in technology.

1) Estimates for the conventional oil ultimate already include future discoveries.
2) Explain how "reserve growth due to technological improvements" would significantly alter the timing of the peak? New technology primarily increases production rate and lowers costs, but rarely is it responsible for “reserve growth” in fields holding conventional oil.
3) If the model does not produce resullts that fit in with expectations of perpeual growth and progress then by all means throw it out.


Good points. I've tried several times to come up with a peak that moves significantly due to reserve growth, but come up empty handed. It all has to do with an extraction rate that easily matches the reserve growth rate, leading to a signifcant net depletion that will move the peak, at best, a few years to the right.

The perplexing thing about reserve growth is that there exist scenarios where we can get an infinite URR and still our peak does not shift much. Why the USGS people don't write about this amazing fact, I haven't a clue.


Web, In English? What's the upshot?


The upshot is that the cornucopians can promise us unlimited quantities of oil but the trajectory of the arc won't make much difference in a global economy that is driven purely by productivity growth.

So that whatever increases we see in reserve growth will never match the original yearly increases in discoveries we saw in the last century. Which means that energy-based productivity increases will diminish unless we come up with alternatives to fossil fuels.
User avatar
WebHubbleTelescope
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu 08 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Saudi Arabia isn't Texas

Unread postby peripato » Tue 12 Jun 2007, 02:59:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WebHubbleTelescope', 'W')hich means that energy-based productivity increases will diminish unless we come up with alternatives to fossil fuels.

As an aside, there are no “alternatives” in energy. No new energy source we've ever come across has ever completely replaced its predecessor(s), only added to the mix of energy types in use. For instance when coal supplanted the burning of biomass was the latter replaced? No, the burning of wood is still an important source of energy for a significant part of the world's population. And when oil replaced coal, did we just stop using it? No, in fact its use, driven by increasing demand, is ramping up. Why? Because of the incredible amount of cheap energy that is released from burning it!

Giant wind farms and solar panel arrays being installed today are not in any way retiring fossil fuels, just supplementing them. Why? Because exponential economic and population growth means we altogether need to use more energy in order to support us. However industrial society, and all its attendant gadgets, like windmills and solar panels, was built on, and relies completely upon, non-renewable fossil fuels, with oil the master resource.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WebHubbleTelescope', 'S')o that whatever increases we see in reserve growth will never match the original yearly increases in discoveries we saw in the last century.

There is also the effect of disappearing up our own backsides with declining EROEI. Now that we have more or less crossed peak our energy goals are behind us. From here on in we are stuck in a game of chasing our shadows, and the more energy we try to obtain the more oil, NG and coal we are forced to burn. All the way to the bottom of the barrel.
User avatar
peripato
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Tue 03 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Reality
Top

Re: Saudi Arabia isn't Texas

Unread postby RobertRapier » Tue 09 Oct 2007, 18:12:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Armageddon', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Colorado-Valley', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'I')'m not certain, but I'm sure he'd be welcomed there. He seems to know what he's talking about!


He's prominent at The Oil Drum. He's a good guy, knowledgeable and he and West Texas have an interesting long-term discussion going about how eminent peak oil actually is.

Robert thinks we still have a few years ...


Robert is way too optimistic regarding SA. I always side with west texas on those debates.
and so do I, and it appears the majority at the Oildrum agrees that Mr. Rapier is no longer a major player. The ball is definitely in Stuart's court. I understand Stuart has submitted his analysis to Science magazine for publication.


Hello pstarr. Just doing some research for an essay I am working on, and came back across this. Given that Saudi's production has been constant since February, and therefore Stuart's March prediction that "Declines are rather unlikely to be arrested, and may well accelerate" has been falsified - while my opposite March prediction that "I think you will see their decline stop by summer" (it had already stopped, but the data weren't yet available) is what actually transpired - I thought I would bump this up top for you.

Cheers, RR
User avatar
RobertRapier
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue 05 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Saudi Arabia isn't Texas

Unread postby TheDude » Wed 10 Oct 2007, 01:03:32

Robert, will you be publishing another TOD article on this, and its ramifications? We're all keen on knowing what this will do in the face of declines elsewhere, how much the Saudis will earmark for domestic use (ELM), and all that.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Top

Re: Saudi Arabia isn't Texas

Unread postby RobertRapier » Wed 10 Oct 2007, 03:20:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ow vigilant of your Robert. It seems those tired reworked wells have managed another month's gasp. It's not summer yet.


One thing I have learned about hardcore doomers - they can never come out and say they were wrong. They can only come up with excuses: "I would have been right, if...."

But your comment above makes no sense. It isn't summer yet? Summer has come and gone. Saudi production had stopped falling by summer, as I predicted. So, presume I got lucky if you wish, but I did not. While I never wavered, I got lots of grief from the group-think set such as yourself who can only see evidence that supports their hypothesis. They seem to be incapable of looking at and incorporating contradictory evidence - it just doesn't exist or is handwaved away. They get into this positive feedback loop and work themselves into a frenzy, all the time ignoring bits of the picture. I was looking at the big picture. This is, after all, not a hobby for me as it is for most of the people making these predictions: I do this for a living. In fact, I am out the door in just a few minutes, headed to London to consult with one group on cellulosic ethanol, another group on butanol, and a third group on future trends in the sector. Whether you can ever come to admit it, there are those who grant that I do know what I am talking about. Ask Stuart.

A number of people in the first quarter were making dire predictions about Saudi. I bet I can go back and find that you were one of them. Saudi was going to be down to 8 million bpd or less by now. They were in free-fall. What did I say? That they were reducing production to meet demand. So, your "another month's gasp" is actually 9 months and counting (and they say they are going to raise production now), which means they were certainly setting on production back in March when I said they were.

Doomers love my ethanol and biofuel views - because it does fit into the doomer outlook. But start contradicting them on Saudi, and they get pretty nasty. But I will tell you this. I communicate frequently with Stuart, and his views on Saudi have changed since March. He now grants they they are in better shape than he thought. In fact, his views on URR have come around and are now very close to my own, and he is no longer enamored with the HL after the essays I wrote exposing it. And he does not subscribe to your "tired reworked wells" scenario. Given that Stuart is clearly your hero and a major player in your eyes, you may then want to revise your outlook on this.

Cheers, RR
User avatar
RobertRapier
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue 05 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Saudi Arabia isn't Texas

Unread postby RobertRapier » Wed 10 Oct 2007, 03:28:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'R')obert, will you be publishing another TOD article on this, and its ramifications? We're all keen on knowing what this will do in the face of declines elsewhere, how much the Saudis will earmark for domestic use (ELM), and all that.


Yes, I will be writing something up by year end. I said earlier in the year that I would revisit after we had more data. We now have more data, so I think we can learn a lot by going back, looking at forecasts, and see why they went wrong. I am hoping Stuart goes on the record soon. That will be a dark day for many doomers. People like pstarr will likely suddenly think he no longer knows what he is talking about.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think we should trust Saudi. And I recognize that Peak Oil will soon be upon us. But I also believe that we discredit ourselves by making dire predictions that never seem to come true. This is what I am seeking to avoid.

Off to London now, so no more responses from me.

Cheers, RR
User avatar
RobertRapier
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue 05 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Saudi Arabia isn't Texas

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 10 Oct 2007, 10:06:14

Robert....bang on. Being one of the few here who have been saying that the drop in production was likely voluntary (as the Saudis claimed) I feel somewhat vindicated as well. I also have had several disagreements on this board with folks who simply say ....well go to Stuart's analysis on TOD, it is obviously right. Unfortunately I think many people get sucked in when they see a whole lot of graphs and math arguments....hey that guy sounds like he's smart so he must be right. No matter how indepth his analysis it was always clear that you could not rule out a voluntary cut...it would look exactly like an involuntary one (Stuart said as much himself). Glad you stuck by your guns.
As you say there is really no way of telling where Saudi is going over the short term as it is currently impossible to know exactly what the decline rate in current fields is. If it is as I interpret the Saudis to have said....8% without intervention and 2% with intervention and all of the proposed projects come on stream as scheduled (they have already been pretty much bang on with their goals to date) they won't reach peak until about 2010 or so.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Saudi Arabia isn't Texas

Unread postby TheDude » Wed 10 Oct 2007, 10:47:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RobertRapier', 'W')e now have more data, so I think we can learn a lot by going back, looking at forecasts, and see why they went wrong. I am hoping Stuart goes on the record soon. That will be a dark day for many doomers. People like pstarr will likely suddenly think he no longer knows what he is talking about.


Being a mere layman myself, I'm hardly much cheered by this news in the light of the declines in Cantarell and the North Sea, and demand going ever higher. They've managed to keep the ship afloat for a few years, is all. If they were increasing production enough to make the more cornucopian projections a reality that'd be different.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')on't get me wrong. I don't think we should trust Saudi. And I recognize that Peak Oil will soon be upon us. But I also believe that we discredit ourselves by making dire predictions that never seem to come true. This is what I am seeking to avoid.


There's a good deal of dire reality to kick around though, you must agree. And not just in the oil industry.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Top

Re: Saudi Arabia isn't Texas

Unread postby threadbear » Wed 10 Oct 2007, 16:10:37

Dude, Dude, Dude. Listen, We can cut our consumption at least 20% or more, on a purely voluntary basis. That, together with a global economic slowdown, is going to reduce oil demand. Doesn't this make you happy? Isn't it a good thing that we will be able to wean ourselves slowly off oil, while dealing with infrastructure problems, like crumbling roads and highways, species extincitions, climate change and water shortages? The future looks so distressing I can't imagine anyone signing up as a cyber soldier to do anything but fight a GRATUITOUS use of gloom, not join the defeated in their war to snuff out all hope.

I watched a peak oil documentary this weekend, and by the end, had I not known a bit more about the topic than the documentary touched on, I would have walked into busy traffic. Not healthy
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Saudi Arabia isn't Texas

Unread postby TheDude » Wed 10 Oct 2007, 19:02:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'D')oesn't this make you happy?


Oh, I'm grinning ear to frickin' ear.

What did you learn about peak oil that stopped you? Was it The Answer? "I'm Dr. Phil, and Resource Depletion is No Laughing Matter."
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Top

Re: Saudi Arabia isn't Texas

Unread postby threadbear » Wed 10 Oct 2007, 20:23:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'D')oesn't this make you happy?


Oh, I'm grinning ear to frickin' ear.

What did you learn about peak oil that stopped you? Was it The Answer? "I'm Dr. Phil, and Resource Depletion is No Laughing Matter."


I've learned that we have more time to wean ourselves off oil, than I thought. I also see a groundswell of green consciousness developing, being pushed forward by corporate greed, anxious to capitalize on the diminishing role of oil. But mostly-- I see poor people. I see the U.S. starting to resemble a third world banana republic, the middle class becoming the poverty class. Many infotech employees becoming the new Bob Cratchetts, if population doesn't stabilize.

In the future I see Kunstler's clusterf***nation evolving around large extended families inhabiting mcMansions that previously housed between 2 to 4 people.

Most people fear poverty. I look forward to it as a form of involuntary simplicity, and only hope the pain is spread around as evenly as is possible and humane. Employees spend too many hours at soul destroying jobs, shuffling the paper detritus of a financialized economy, around. As consumption drops and oil slowly diminishes, it would be great if this kind of vapid but rapid churning is replaced with something more spirited and meaningful.
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Saudi Arabia isn't Texas

Unread postby sjn » Wed 10 Oct 2007, 20:46:28

Robert, I seem to recall you predicting that SA would increase production over the summer in response to falling inventories. We haven't seen this. What has happened is SA has increased internal consumption, while maintaining production levels, hence reducing exports. I think it's too soon for you to feel vindicated.

I suspect many other "doomers" will agree that we do not wish to see hope destroyed, just false hopes.
User avatar
sjn
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: Wed 09 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests



cron