No one has addressed the OP's question. Lynch's point is that reserves have remained constant over time due to a combination of discovery and reserve growth, with reserve growth including increasing recovery factors.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lynch', 'W')hen a new field is found, it is given a size estimate that indicates how much is thought to be recoverable at that point in time. But as years pass, the estimate is almost always revised upward, either because more pockets of oil are found in the field or because new technology makes it possible to extract oil that was previously unreachable. Yet because petroleum geologists don’t report that additional recoverable oil as “newly discovered,” the peak oil advocates tend to ignore it. In truth, the combination of new discoveries and revisions to size estimates of older fields has been keeping pace with production for many years.
PeakOil is You
THE Michael C. Lynch Thread Pt. 2
Re: Michael Lynch: New discoveries keep pace with depletion
by JohnDenver » Tue 25 Aug 2009, 18:58:43
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ctually, the consensus among geologists is that there are some 10 trillion barrels out there. A century ago, only 10 percent of it was considered recoverable, but improvements in technology should allow us to recover some 35 percent — another 2.5 trillion barrels — in an economically viable way.
Here's some figures for the world (for the BP Stat. Rev.):
World oil reserves in 1980: 667 billion barrels
World oil reserves in 2004: 1211 billion barrels
Word oil production 1980-2004: 608 billion barrels
This is Colin Campbell's "Growing Gap" graph of discovery (Feb. 2006 version), which I have transcribed into a spreadsheet:
From the spreadsheet, we find,
World oil discovery 1980-2004: 339 billion barrels
So... The world started out with 667 b barrels in 1980, added 339 b barrels through discovery, and pumped out 608 b barrels. That gives us: 667 + 339 - 608 = 398 billion barrels.
Clearly, something has gone seriously haywire because the actual reserves in 2004 are 1211 b barrels, i.e. 813 b barrels more than we should have if discovery is the only way to increase reserves.
Why do we have 813 b barrels more reserves in 2004 than in 1980 if we're producing more than we discover?
Spurious additions to OPEC reserves won't explain it. OPEC reserves only increased by 486 b barrels from 1980 to 2004, so that still leaves us with 327 b barrels unaccounted for. That's 27 Prudhoe Bays which somehow got added to world reserves between 1980-2004, without being discovered. And that occurred in non-OPEC, a region which accounts for only about 15% of world reserves. So the crucial question is: how big is reserve growth/increased recovery in OPEC?
In the longer term, the issue is how far the recovery rate can be increased, and that's an interesting question. For example, it may be feasible to cook even more oil out of large fields with nuclear power or solar.
- JohnDenver
- Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2145
- Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Re: Michael Lynch: New discoveries keep pace with depletion
by TheDude » Tue 25 Aug 2009, 19:38:48
This was discussed at TOD 3 years ago: The Oil Drum | Reserves Growth and Production Flows.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')r. Leo P. Drollas, Deputy Director and Chief Economist for the Centre for Global Energy Studies has issued a response to Heading Out's Depletion estimates and the CGES. I feel that Drollas' comments deserve a response.
The argument concerns what is termed "reserves growth" which Drollas defines as
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')rowing knowledge tends to result in more oil reserves through oilfield extensions and revisions of reserves -- what is commonly known in the industry as `reserves growth' -- as well as through discoveries of new oilfields....
If there are no gross additions to reserves the depletion rate is equal to the world's rate of oil production as a percentage of global proven reserves (2.38% in 2005). However, gross additions have not been zero; indeed, since 1954 they have exceeded the world's production of oil.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')r. Leo P. Drollas, Deputy Director and Chief Economist for the Centre for Global Energy Studies has issued a response to Heading Out's Depletion estimates and the CGES. I feel that Drollas' comments deserve a response.
The argument concerns what is termed "reserves growth" which Drollas defines as
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')rowing knowledge tends to result in more oil reserves through oilfield extensions and revisions of reserves -- what is commonly known in the industry as `reserves growth' -- as well as through discoveries of new oilfields....
If there are no gross additions to reserves the depletion rate is equal to the world's rate of oil production as a percentage of global proven reserves (2.38% in 2005). However, gross additions have not been zero; indeed, since 1954 they have exceeded the world's production of oil.
Basically the riposte is the old canard about increasing world P1 by a third and only gaining about 5 years before peak sets in.
US production and P1:
To me this makes the whole reserves growth issue seem like nothing but a red herring, as Dave Cohen says in the TOD article. You'd as well focus on what comes out of curve fitting, and the most accurate production forecasts at this stage are coming from peak oilers: Jean Laherrère and Duncan/Youngquist.
Laherrère's Reserve Growth: Technological Progress has this to say as well:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')emaining reserves can be expected to remain constant if annual reserves growth for oil is 1 percent, equating to additions of 16 billion barrels per year. If, however, reserve growth is half smaller at 0.5 percent annually (8 billion barrels per year)--then the "oil deficit" will translate into a reduction in "remaining reserves", by approximately 10 billion barrels per year.
This "oil deficit" cannot be sustained indefinitely. If production continues to exceed discoveries, global oil production is certain to begin falling, reflecting the increasing scarcity of global oil reserves. This development can be expected to affect global oil supplies sooner rather than later. As shown in Figures 3-6, a study of the major U.S. oil fields and the world's giant oil fields suggests an aggregate annual field "growth rate" of only 0.5 percent. This estimate will continue to decline as the world's largest oil fields enter into the advanced stages of maturity.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
-
TheDude - Expert
- Posts: 4896
- Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
