[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonoil', 'W')e have now extracted 84% of the the world's URR of petroleum.

[shortonoil]

Pops said:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat is a pretty remarkable statement. Where do you get that estimate?

[Pops]

In the last ASPO newsletter (4/09) the number for "regular oil" was 1900Gb, inc. "unconventional" = 2425Gb

[shortonoil]

pstarr said:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')here/where will your conclusions be published?

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonoil', '[')b]Pops said:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n the last ASPO newsletter (4/09) the number for "regular oil" was 1900Gb

[shortonoil]

Hi Pops,

The 17% water cut number above I sort of pulled out of my _____. When I got back to the office I ran the numbers, and here is what I got:

Produced barrels 2035.......1911 Gb
Water Cut (fx) 2012......... 23%
Proved (P1)................... 2730 Gb

The numbers above give an RF of 70% of proved, which is likely, but the rest doesn't work very well. Since our best fit model produces fx (surface water cut) of 47% for 2012, and field reports indicate that it must be greater than 35%, I doubt the 1900 URR number (as P1 goes up, fx goes down for % extracted). You know what they say, 90% of all oil figures are pulled out of the thin air. That's because it is so easy to do!

Our best fit model to date gives:

Produced barrels 2028.....1744 Gb
Water Cut (fx) 2012........47%
Proved (P140)...............2285 Gb

Our model differs from ASPO on URR by about 9%, which is approaching margin of error levels. They are just a little more optimistic than we are because they don't want to have to go home and tell their wives that they are going to have to give up the SUV, and get out the bike. Anyway, I don't think there is much question as to why oil prices have increased over 450% in the last decade; the bottom of the barrel is not very far away!

[shortonoil]

Hi Pops,

Now that you have accused Campbell of contradicting himself (which seems doubtful), which of his projections are we to believe; the 1720 Gb, or the nice round, easy to work with, convenient 1900 number? Taken at face value one of them has to be wrong! The most likely explanation for the discrepancy (politics excluded) is that one quote was stated in RB (reserve barrels) and the other in STB (stock barrels). With a Bo (oil formation volume factor) of 1.1 the two workout about right. Since none of us were at the ASPO meeting to hear the conversations that led up to the 1900 number, we just don't know.

Anyway, you quoted ASPO, not Campbell. Unless Campbell has managed to grow several hundred extra arms and legs recently, he is not ASPO. Maybe someone at ASPO got out their Ouija board and conjured up 1900! The 1900 comes from changing the RF (recovery factor) from 40% of OOIP to 44%. Then of course there is the last explanation; Campbell - Laharrere made a better team than Campbell?

As long as an application (and its extensions, Welge, Stiles and etc.) of the Buckley-Leverett equation is used as the sole method for determining world reservoir status, this question will remain open ended. It makes assumptions, and the most grievous of them is that the reservoir structure is homogenous. Any Reservoir Engineer will tell you that initial estimates are almost always optimistic. They spend a lot of time tweaking and testing to get accurate projections for a field! Determining reservoir status for the world (48,000 fields) is in an altogether different league. One that is probably outside the scope of conventional methodology for the level of accuracy that we are seeking here.

[Pops]

I didn't accuse anyone of anything, I simply quoted the last newsletter, did you follow my link above?

It is still described in the link at the ASPO site as:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he ASPO Newsletter is written by Colin Campbell and comes approximately once every month. ASPO Ireland has them available from their site.

Colin Campbell's newsletter (external link)

[shortonoil]

Pops said:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he 1900Gb appears on the August 2001 newsletter under the heading:
ESTIMATED CONVENTIONAL OIL PRODUCED TO 2075 IN...

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonoil', 'F')or almost two years our group, The Hill's Group, has been developing a model that we feel (among other things) will emphatically prove that Campbell and Laherrere were correct...

And yea, I've seen it [their forecast]. Just never took it seriously, its sort of an absurd statement!

[evilgenius]

Let's not devolve into nit picking over the tail end of a certain curve. Instead, what can we infer about the rate of production in any specific area? For starters we ought to consider Saudi Arabia. Rumor has it their water cut is high. They have been trying to bring a new field online, I can't remember its name. A year or two ago I read an article speculating that much of their daily output could be delivered from a high volume forced extraction regime in this new field. Could it be that the rate of flow out of Saudi Arabia could drop precipitously over a short period of time? Perhaps that's not a short term worry and the real worry is still satellite oil fields outside of the Middle East? Maybe, whether through lack of investment or depletion, world wide satellite production capacity is headed for a collective drop?

Right now the world economy is not ready to demand all of daily output in a manner that would lead to excessively inflating oil prices. Any examination of the equilibrium reached by the world oil markets surely has to take that into effect as well. Plus there is the credible political threat to output looming in the wrangle that the Arab Spring has become. What kind of danger does that present for political constriction of output, before the hard physical reality can impose it? I think this is very interesting because if political upheaval comes with significant infrastructure damage then the cost to renew output can actually become too high and a lot of oil that would have been otherwise produced could wind up locked in.

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonoil', 'N')ow that you have accused Campbell of contradicting himself (which seems doubtful), which of his projections are we to believe; the 1720 Gb, or the nice round, easy to work with, convenient 1900 number? Taken at face value one of them has to be wrong! The most likely explanation for the discrepancy (politics excluded) is that one quote was stated in RB (reserve barrels) and the other in STB (stock barrels).

[Pops]

Thanks Kub, the question isn't 1700 or 1900 per say, the question is whether the number is OOIP or URR and as you point out it seems pretty obvious it's the later. IOW no need to calculate a recovery factor or water cut or much of anything, it is what it is.

So from your link 873Gb produced through '02 + 27gb/year (75Mb/d) since = 1143gb produced to date from a 1950 UPP = 807Gb remaining, which is twice what ShortOnSense originally mentioned

and why I said it was a surprising statement.


Evil, the problem with all these forecasts is that the further we are from the time that the transnationals were operating the big fields the less we really know, that is assuming that what the Seven Sisters revealed was even remotely accurate. National oil companies control 90% of world reserves, so really, any guess is going to be subject to a large and essentially unknowable margin of error - not just geologic or economic error but at least as importantly, political manipulation.

The best we can do is look at the tangental evidence, how much oil comes from a cheap, conventional, onshore, vertical hole and how much comes from some new miracle (expensive) technology, how much is easily refined and how much needs to be first mined and converted to something refinable... but you know all that.

[shortonoil]

Pops said:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') don't get it, you say you've been working for two years on this model based on Campbell and Laherrere's forecast and vow to prove them correct but then when I post their actual work and forecast of production you say it's absurd and you never took their forecast seriously...

[Keith_McClary]

Strange to think that we've gone through over 10% of URR since PO.com started.

1Gb since this thread started.

We should have a fuel gauge instead of the logo.

[dolanbaker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Keith_McClary', 'S')trange to think that we've gone through over 10% of URR since PO.com started.

1Gb since this thread started.

We should have a fuel gauge instead of the logo.

[Quinny]

As a realtive ignoramous I don't really understanf the argument going on here. Could someone simplify and enlighten me please?

[Pops]

As I understand, Shortonoil started with a campbells estimate of the total amount of oil in the ground and then Shortonoil calculated how much of that could ultimately be produced.

I pointed out that Campbell has published his own estimate of ultimate production (going back to '98 at least) and Campbells own estimate of the amount remaining is different.

After that I haven't really been able to keep up either. His last comment on Campbells estimate was "We don't take such projections seriously because there is no way to validate such extended futuristic estimates." then goes on to estimate ultimate future production.

Maybe I'm being obtuse? Does anyone have a different take?

Here is the page from the last newsletter (scroll down for the table:)

ASPO news.jpg