Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE International Energy Agency (IEA) Thread pt 2 (merged) A

Discuss research and forecasts regarding hydrocarbon depletion.
Topic locked

Re: IEA's World Energy Report 2008

Unread postby AirlinePilot » Sat 08 Nov 2008, 09:56:02

Backdating is the only way to logically assess what you have and how reserves and reserve growth factors in to production and discovery. Campbell agrees, Simmons, and many others.

The only thing misleading here is Oilfinders take on it. ASPO is a valid and probably more accurate source than most. I'd suggest some time spent also over at the Oil Drum.

Figures lie and liars figure. There is no refuting historical discovery unless you are intentionally misleading folks with spin.
User avatar
AirlinePilot
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4378
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South of Atlanta
Top

Re: IEA's World Energy Report 2008

Unread postby AirlinePilot » Sat 08 Nov 2008, 10:00:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'N')otice the graph says "Revisions backdated." What that means is that they've adjusted the discovery sizes based upon how much it's actually produced since it was discovered. This will ALWAYS bias the older fields, for the simple reason that they've been around longer to produce more oil.

Logically one would assume, as many of the geologists know, that this is because those giant feilds are bigger than anything else we have found. Thats where the validity of backdating comes in. It confirms the fact that ever since the late 60's there have been no larger fields found to equate to those in that time frame. If there were, the graph would probably look different. Either that or someone somehwere has been hoarding discoveries and not producing even at very high prices.

Sorry Oily, doesnt pass the smell test.
User avatar
AirlinePilot
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4378
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South of Atlanta
Top

Re: IEA's World Energy Report 2008

Unread postby AirlinePilot » Sat 08 Nov 2008, 10:06:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Rogozhin', 'C')an I believe that the primary sources that provided the data for this graph are valid?

Yes. I'd suggest a visit to ASPO's website and a read through some of their newsletters. I dont miss them ever, they come out each month and they are very informative.

I'd suggest a look at Matt Simmon's book "Twilight in the desert" it has some excellent information about backdating and what it means within this debate.
User avatar
AirlinePilot
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4378
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South of Atlanta
Top

Re: IEA's World Energy Report 2008

Unread postby seahorse » Sat 08 Nov 2008, 10:17:11

They've been backdating reserves for a long time in the US but it still hasn't brought us out of decline. Maybe they will have more luck bring Cantarell out of decline with backdating or the North Sea.
User avatar
seahorse
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2275
Joined: Fri 15 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Arkansas
Top

Re: IEA's World Energy Report 2008

Unread postby VMarcHart » Sat 08 Nov 2008, 10:35:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '.')..enough to supply the world with oil for over 40 years at current rates of consumption.
No one is questioning that. There's enough oil to probably supply the world for 80 years. The big questions are, #1 at what price?, #2 who's going to control that last barrel?, and #3 then what after the last barrel?
On 9/29/08, cube wrote: "The Dow will drop to 4,000 within 2 years". The current tally is 239 bold predictions, 9 right, 96 wrong, 134 open. If you've heard here, it's probably wrong.
User avatar
VMarcHart
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1644
Joined: Mon 26 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Now overpopulating California
Top

Re: IEA's World Energy Report 2008

Unread postby Ferretlover » Sat 08 Nov 2008, 12:47:39

There are quite a few ASPO threads for those who wish to read about past reports. Use the 'thread title' search option, keyword: ASPO.
"Open the gates of hell!" ~Morgan Freeman's character in the movie, Olympus Has Fallen.
Ferretlover
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 5852
Joined: Wed 13 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Hundreds of miles further inland
Top

Re: IEA's World Energy Report 2008

Unread postby MrMonkey » Sat 08 Nov 2008, 13:33:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he world’s total endowment of oil is large enough to support the projected rise in production beyond 2030 in the Reference Scenario. Estimates of remaining proven reserves of oil and NGLs range from about 1.2 to 1.3 trillion barrels (including about 0.2 trillion barrels of non-conventional oil). They have almost doubled since 1980. This is enough to supply the world with oil for over 40 years at current rates of consumption.


It is not the amount of oil that is important. What good is 50 trillion barrels of oil if they can only be extracted 1 barrel / day for example?

Peak oil is all about failing to keep up the extraction rates - not about keeping up the reserves!
User avatar
MrMonkey
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed 28 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Denmark, Scandinavia
Top

Re: IEA's World Energy Report 2008

Unread postby copious.abundance » Sat 08 Nov 2008, 22:32:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'F')or example, when Prudhoe Bay was discovered in '68, they first announced it was a 5-10 billion barrel field. It has since produced something like 11 billion barrels, and is still producing. So, the folks who made that chart bumped up the graph by 1-7 billion barrels for the year 1968.

10 bbo by Aug 2006, according to BP factsheet. 10%/yr decline. That's increased slightly, I think. Can I have your copy of ASPO's data for that chart? BTW EIA lists 9384 mb proven reserves for Alaska in 1978.

I used the figure cited in the Wikipedia article, which says 11 billion barrels.

Regardless of whether 10 or 11 billion barrels has been produced from Prudhoe Bay so far, the point is that it is either at the top end of the original estimate, or more than double the original estimate (and still producing). If someone had made a chart in 1970 showing past discovery sizes, they probably would have shown a 7.5 billion barrel discovery for Prudhoe Bay in 1968 (assuming they split the difference between 5 and 10 billion barrels). Almost 40 years later, backdating has grown that to 10 or 11 billion barrels. This is an example of why I said that backdating ALWAYS biases those bars towards older discoveries, because the older discoveries have had more time to produce, giving the folks who make these charts more information on just how big the discoveries really were. This will also be true of discoveries made in 1948, 1901, 1930, 1888, 2005, 2027, and so on.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he same goes with all those giant Middle Eastern oil fields, and pretty much everything else, everywhere else. They did not figure out that Ghawar contained some 170 billion barrels (or whatever it is) until the early 70's when they did an audit. Yet the field was discovered in the late 40's.

Yes, and about 60 bbo has been produced of the 170 billion barrels of Original Oil In Place. Thought you'd learned the difference by now. Saudi Armaco say they've got 71 bbo to go, suggesting the whole field contains more reserves than the rest of the country, or they'll hit 85% recoverable. Believe what you want to!

Now you're nit-picking over numbers which don't even have anything to do with the topic.

Ghawar was discovered in 1948. Did they figure out that Ghawar contained 170 (or 120, or whatever number you please) billion barrels right away? No. Therefore, if someone had made one of these discoveries charts in 1950 or 1955, the year 1948 might have had a somewhat big bar over it, but it still would not have had bars as big as in 1930 or some other earlier years, because by 1950 and 1955 they did not fully grasp yet how big Ghawar was (other than it was "really big"). So, a chart made in 1950 or 1955 would have shown some large bars from the 20's and 30's, but the more recent bars from the 40's would have been smaller, thus giving the (false) impression that the rate of discoveries had been declining. It was not until the 60's and 70's - after Ghawar had been producing for some time and they'd had plenty of time to fully assess its size - that the bars from the late 1940's started to look really, really big and finally would have been bigger than the bars from the 20's and 30's.
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia
Top

Re: IEA's World Energy Report 2008

Unread postby joewp » Sat 08 Nov 2008, 22:48:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'T')his is an example of why I said that backdating ALWAYS biases those bars towards older discoveries, because the older discoveries have had more time to produce, giving the folks who make these charts more information on just how big the discoveries really were. This will also be true of discoveries made in 1948, 1901, 1930, 1888, 2005, 2027, and so on.


Boy, by this tortured logic, the bars in the early 1900s should be bigger than the bars in the 1960s, not smaller. After all, those fields have had over 100 years to produce, so backdating should have increased those discoveries, right? :roll:

Your trolling is still mildly entertaining, but you're getting old really fast with these desperate attempts to cling onto the oil age until you're in your old age and getting ready to die. I hope you're still posting here when the day comes that you finally understand the meaning of "finite".
Joe P. joeparente.com
"Only when the last tree is cut; only when the last river is polluted; only when the last fish is caught; only then will they realize that you cannot eat money." - Cree Indian Proverb
User avatar
joewp
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Keeping dry in South Florida
Top

Re: IEA's World Energy Report 2008

Unread postby copious.abundance » Sat 08 Nov 2008, 23:28:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('joewp', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'T')his is an example of why I said that backdating ALWAYS biases those bars towards older discoveries, because the older discoveries have had more time to produce, giving the folks who make these charts more information on just how big the discoveries really were. This will also be true of discoveries made in 1948, 1901, 1930, 1888, 2005, 2027, and so on.


Boy, by this tortured logic, the bars in the early 1900s should be bigger than the bars in the 1960s, not smaller. After all, those fields have had over 100 years to produce, so backdating should have increased those discoveries, right? :roll:

I knew somebody would say that.

You've made the mistake that I'm inferring that all oil fields are the same size (which they obviously aren't), and that the East Texas oil field, for example, should have produced more oil now than has Ghawar, simply because it was discovered earlier. Obviously this is also not true.

What is true is that the East Texas oil field has produced more of its ultimate potential than has Ghawar, by virtue of it having being in production longer. Thus, the bar on the discoveries chart for 1930 (the year the East Texas oil field was discovered) is closer to its ultimate size than is the bar for 1948 (the year Ghawar was discovered). The longer an oil field is around, the longer it has for them to figure how to coax ever more oil out of it, and therefore the bigger the bars get as they get older. Bars on the chart from, say, 1995, had not had nearly as much time to have as much of their oil coaxed from them, so they have not grown as much via backdating as have older fields. This is why I said that these charts are biased toward the older fields.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('joewp', 'Y')our trolling is still mildly entertaining, but you're getting old really fast with these desperate attempts to cling onto the oil age until you're in your old age and getting ready to die. I hope you're still posting here when the day comes that you finally understand the meaning of "finite".

In other words, you don't want large new oil fields to be discovered, because you hate oil. This hardly makes you an unbiased judge of oil discovery trends. :roll:
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia
Top

Re: IEA's World Energy Report 2008

Unread postby TheDude » Sun 09 Nov 2008, 00:32:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'N')ow you're nit-picking over numbers which don't even have anything to do with the topic.


You referred to Ghawar having 170 bbo, which is its OOIP. OOIP isn't URR. Your deceased geologist threw out that possible URR for the Bakken of 450 bbo; the USGS now states that the recoverable aspect is 100 times smaller, which finding you didn't want to acknowledge when it was announced, proving that you're capable of illogical behavior in defense of what you wish for as much as anyone else. Forget what the USGS considers the OOIP of the Bakken but didn't they say <5% recoverable? That's a lot of oil that simply can't be pulled out of the ground.

At any rate what matters are flows, I repeat for what must be the 10,000th time here. Tupi could have 500k bbo URR, it will still yield only a maximum 250kb/d, unless you think Thunder Horse's record can be topped somehow, which would take some doing; or if you wish to entertain a vision of Petrobras paving over the ocean solid with rigs. Treating the Santos Basin finds as equal to any onshore or shallow offshore supergiant field is misleading. Being deepwater they will be worked harder, peak sooner, and decline faster as well.

I'm not nuts about the ASPO graph either, btw. Something more nuanced could be thrown together, probably has too. Here's a more up-to-date/legible version:

Image

For those interested: Freddy H's page on URR Estimates, where he takes issue with ASPO's backdating.
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: IEA's World Energy Report 2008

Unread postby copious.abundance » Sun 09 Nov 2008, 01:54:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'N')ow you're nit-picking over numbers which don't even have anything to do with the topic.


You referred to Ghawar having 170 bbo, which is its OOIP. OOIP isn't URR.

Do I have to repeat this again??? It doesn't matter what the number is - choose any number you please! The point is, it took decades for the geologists and engineers to get a grasp on how big Ghawar was. Do you dispute this? If not, please provide proof that geologists and engineers had figured out by 1948 or 1949 that Ghawar was as big as they now know it is. But since I know you won't be able to provide this evidence, this is why the discoveries bar for 1948 has grown over time. Same with Prudhoe Bay in 1968. Same with the East Texas oil field in 1930. But this is less true of newer fields because they've had less time to produce and less time for geologists and engineers to fully assess how big these newer fields are. This is a mind-numbingly simple concept to grasp, but you, unwilling to grasp it, keep changing the subject to decline rates, the specific number of Ghawar's size, and other off-topic things.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'Y')our deceased geologist threw out that possible URR for the Bakken of 450 bbo; the USGS now states that the recoverable aspect is 100 times smaller, which finding you didn't want to acknowledge when it was announced, proving that you're capable of illogical behavior in defense of what you wish for as much as anyone else.

Oh, so now we're engaging in ad hominen attacks? :roll: But now that you mention it, your characterization of my reaction to the USGS report is not even correct! I remind you:
--> 9 posts down <--
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder', 'W')ell we have our answer - and I am fantastically disappointed

I acknowledged it - and I said I was disappointed. Then when the state of ND report came out later in the month, by then I was resigned but accepting of the results. Also, I was initially unaware of the USGS's methodology, which is why I was so initially shocked. Once I learned how they did their studies (thanks to KTH), I understood the reasoning behind the numbers more.

But while we're on the subject, the USGS report which came out in April was a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil the USGS said could be extracted from this area compared to what they said in 1995 (Read for yourself - 2nd paragraph). So, ironically, by citing the USGS report on the Bakken, you have proven my claim: As they begin to produce oil from a field over time and know more about it, the ultimate size of the reserve will increase.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'F')orget what the USGS considers the OOIP of the Bakken but didn't they say <5% recoverable? That's a lot of oil that simply can't be pulled out of the ground.
You hope.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'A')t any rate what matters are flows, I repeat for what must be the 10,000th time here. Tupi could have 500k bbo URR, it will still yield only a maximum 250kb/d, unless you think Thunder Horse's record can be topped somehow, which would take some doing; or if you wish to entertain a vision of Petrobras paving over the ocean solid with rigs. Treating the Santos Basin finds as equal to any onshore or shallow offshore supergiant field is misleading. Being deepwater they will be worked harder, peak sooner, and decline faster as well.
Give it up:
--> Petrobras CFO: 1M b/d from Tupi 'Not Out of Reach' <--

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'I')'m not nuts about the ASPO graph either, btw. Something more nuanced could be thrown together, probably has too. Here's a more up-to-date/legible version:

Image

For those interested: Freddy H's page on URR Estimates, where he takes issue with ASPO's backdating.
Good for Freddy.

Incidentally, another problem with these graphs is the assumed continuation of trends (even if, for the sake of argument, we accept the past discoveries bars as accurate). They simply extrapolate recent trends and continue them on forever. It never occurs to them tthat there might be good, non-geological reasons why discoveries lagged for a few decades (such as, sufficient reserves gained from the 40's-70's era, low prices, etc.). And it also never occurs to them those reasons might not continue forever, and that the recent trends could be broken. But of course, the ASPO and other peakers like those charts because they hate oil (or like doom), so they continue to advertise them.
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia
Top

Re: IEA's World Energy Report 2008

Unread postby AirlinePilot » Sun 09 Nov 2008, 02:23:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'B')ut of course, the ASPO and other peakers like those charts because they hate oil (or like doom), so they continue to advertise them.


That is a completely false assumption on your part oil. I frankly doubt any of us "hate" oil or embrace doom. We simply acknowledge what your choosing not to.

I personally would look forward to having that discovery chart start turning around right now! Somehow after watching this for the last few years it just doesn't appear that this cornucopian fantasy is going to come true.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', ' ')It never occurs to them tthat there might be good, non-geological reasons why discoveries lagged for a few decades (such as, sufficient reserves gained from the 40's-70's era, low prices, etc.). And it also never occurs to them those reasons might not continue forever, and that the recent trends could be broken.


"Might, Could, Maybe, possibly" Blah, Blah, Blah.

Do you hear yourself? Come up with the hard data proving the future holds increasing production. SIGNIFICANT increasing production/reserves, and you won't have such a tough time in here.
User avatar
AirlinePilot
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4378
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South of Atlanta
Top

Re: IEA's World Energy Report 2008

Unread postby copious.abundance » Sun 09 Nov 2008, 05:04:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'B')ut of course, the ASPO and other peakers like those charts because they hate oil (or like doom), so they continue to advertise them.


That is a completely false assumption on your part oil. I frankly doubt any of us "hate" oil or embrace doom. We simply acknowledge what your choosing not to.

Oh please, spare me. Need I show you the poll I made late last year where the majority of the people on this forum expressed a desire for peak oil to occur soon? Or how about this one where the thread starter wanted it to happen and soon, as did others in the thread.

And you can't possibly say with any seriousness that none of you guys "embrace doom!" :lol: Embracing doom is practically the modus operandi of at least half this forum!! :lol:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', 'I') personally would look forward to having that discovery chart start turning around right now!

That puts you in the minority on this forum.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', 'S')omehow after watching this for the last few years it just doesn't appear that this cornucopian fantasy is going to come true.

Patience, grasshopper.
Image
I've been cataloging those discoveries for less than 3 years.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', ' ')It never occurs to them tthat there might be good, non-geological reasons why discoveries lagged for a few decades (such as, sufficient reserves gained from the 40's-70's era, low prices, etc.). And it also never occurs to them those reasons might not continue forever, and that the recent trends could be broken.

"Might, Could, Maybe, possibly" Blah, Blah, Blah.

Do you hear yourself? Come up with the hard data proving the future holds increasing production. SIGNIFICANT increasing production/reserves, and you won't have such a tough time in here.
Oil production "might" fall off a cliff real soon.
The Saudis "could" be lying about their reserves.
"Maybe" we won't find alternatives to oil.
There are "possibly" fewer and fewer discoveries which will be made in the future.

Blah blah blah.
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia
Top

Re: IEA's World Energy Report 2008

Unread postby TheDude » Sun 09 Nov 2008, 05:35:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'G')ive it up:
--> Petrobras CFO: 1M b/d from Tupi 'Not Out of Reach' <--


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ood Mackenzie analyst Matthew Shaw recently also said production at Tupi could peak at around 1 million barrels, but expects the field's output to peak only by 2022.

He calls Tupi "one of the most significant oil discoveries in the last 20 years," only surpassed by the 12.9-billion-barrel Kashagan field found in Kazakhstan in 2000.


If the delays are anything like Kashagan you'll see first oil in 2022. Forgot about the multiple phases at Tupi but don't really expect much from them anyway - 30 kb/d Pilot next year, 70 kb/d EPT the year after - then 200 kb/d in 2015. This is all baked into the Megaprojects cake.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')ncidentally, another problem with these graphs is the assumed continuation of trends (even if, for the sake of argument, we accept the past discoveries bars as accurate). They simply extrapolate recent trends and continue them on forever.


You call a 40 year trend "recent"? Take a look at my thread on EIA forecasts to see some really sagging forecasts. Why aren't we producing 91 mb/d now? The ROI for E&P is at all time highs.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')It never occurs to them tthat there might be good, non-geological reasons why discoveries lagged for a few decades (such as, sufficient reserves gained from the 40's-70's era, low prices, etc.). And it also never occurs to them those reasons might not continue forever, and that the recent trends could be broken. But of course, the ASPO and other peakers like those charts because they hate oil (or like doom), so they continue to advertise them.


Like I said the price is right at the moment, and rigs are busy:

Image

The IEA doc addresses recent work:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he volume of oil discovered each year on average has been higher since 2000 than in the 1990s, thanks to increased exploration
activity and improvements in technology, though production continues to outstrip discoveries (despite some big recent finds, such as in deepwater offshore Brazil).

Maybe it's because we're just not finding giant oil fields anymore?

ImageImage

ImageImage

Courtesy of that renowned oil hater Matt Simmons, from his paper THE WORLD’S GIANT OILFIELDS. Feel free to punch this up with current production. Only individual new field to bust 1 mb/d will be Khurais - discovered 51 years ago.
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: IEA's World Energy Report 2008

Unread postby TheDude » Sun 09 Nov 2008, 05:58:21

To discuss something from the actual paper:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('IEA', 'W')e estimate that the average production-weighted observed decline rate worldwide is currently 6.7% for fields that have passed their production peak. In our Reference Scenario, this rate increases to 8.6% in 2030. The current figure is derived from our
analysis of production at 800 fields, including all 54 super-giants (holding more than 5 billion barrels) in production today.


By definition they have data for OPEC fields then; thus they have pierced the veil of secrecy in KSA etc.?
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: IEA's World Energy Report 2008

Unread postby RacerJace » Sun 09 Nov 2008, 07:41:52

Image

This might be a dumb question .. but.. shouldn't it be the total area represented by the discovery bars matched against the area under the production line. Sure, the actual oil produced is less than the oil in place but if you calculate the integral of the discovery curve and then compare to the integral of the demand curve you would see that we haven't yet produced anywhere near what we have discovered. This has bugged me for some time but I'm not much of a maths geek.. Am I missing something?

Maybe I'm still in the bargaining phase of PO induced grieving.

.
...
User avatar
RacerJace
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun 16 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Australia
Top

Re: IEA's World Energy Report 2008

Unread postby MD » Sun 09 Nov 2008, 07:53:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RacerJace', '
')
This might be a dumb question .. but.. shouldn't it be the total area represented by the discovery bars matched against the area under the production line. Sure, the actual oil produced is less than the oil in place but if you calculate the integral of the discovery curve and then compare to the integral of the demand curve you would see that we haven't yet produced anywhere near what we have discovered...


You are absolutely correct. The only true-known on that particular graphic is the consumption line, and the only relevant fact is the growing gap between discovery and production.

At least it's honestly represented based on what we know. I was at the 2005 US peak oil conference and some graphs were splashed up on the screen that were grossly biased and manipulated in favor of the peak-oil message, and this by the key-note speaker.
Stop filling dumpsters, as much as you possibly can, and everything will get better.

Just think it through.
It's not hard to do.
User avatar
MD
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4953
Joined: Mon 02 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: On the ball
Top

Re: IEA's World Energy Report 2008

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 09 Nov 2008, 08:15:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RacerJace', '[')img]http://www.energybulletin.net/image/primer/growing_gap.png[/img]

This might be a dumb question .. but.. shouldn't it be the total area represented by the discovery bars matched against the area under the production line. Sure, the actual oil produced is less than the oil in place but if you calculate the integral of the discovery curve and then compare to the integral of the demand curve you would see that we haven't yet produced anywhere near what we have discovered. This has bugged me for some time but I'm not much of a maths geek.. Am I missing something?

Maybe I'm still in the bargaining phase of PO induced grieving.


Every time someone puts that graph up in any of its many permutations I try and do a visual assessment of where we are on the consequences. No matter how hard I look at it however one thing seems clear, we have just recently cleared the buldge of excess discover from 1930-1945. It appears visually that from 1930-1980 as a whole we averaged 30 Gbbl/y in new discoveries. From 1981-2005 it looks to me to be about 10 Gbbl/y. 30*50=1500 Gbbl plus 10*24=240 equals 1740 Gbbl or 87% of the 2 Tbbl you here quoted frequently. On the other hand right up until 1983 based on that graph we always discovered more oil than we consumed. Cummutively we have used up about 1 Tbbl which leaves us with 740 Gbbl still 'in the bank' of discovered oil.

Another observation, clearly discoveries do not fit a smooth Hubbert/Bell distribution curve, above ground factors clearly played a major role in when oil was discovered.

It also looks like the production curve goes flat in 2004/05, however caution needs to be excercised because the production curve also went to a plateau from 82-85 and again from 90-94. The current plateau has to exceed 2010 to be longer than both of those, or go into terminal decline.

Question, how are 'unconventional' oil fields and production plotted on this graph? If they are not both plotted then the graph is faulty, if they are both plotted however where are the Athabasca and Orinoco belt bitumen sands? Both represent tremendous potential reserves and both are currently being produced at a low rate.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17094
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
Top

Re: IEA's World Energy Report 2008

Unread postby Maddog78 » Sun 09 Nov 2008, 09:36:35

The oil price crash of 85/86 severely curtailed exploration drilling.
The same thing happened after the price crash in 98/99.
The same thing is happening right now.
Don't you think this had some affect on finding new fields?
User avatar
Maddog78
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon 14 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top
PreviousNext
Topic locked

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests



cron