[JohnDenver]

In 2005, Stuart Staniford forecast oil production based on two assumptions:

1) The decline rate of fields in place (FIP) is 8%. (I.e. if all new oil projects were halted, oil production would decline at a rate of 8% per year.)

2) Chris Skrebowski's list of mega projects coming on line.

His forecast failed by a huge margin of about 10mbd. This implies that either: the decline rate is much less than 8%, or Chris Skrebowski's list grossly understates the amount of new oil coming on line. Either way, this result puts a nice dent into the case for near-term pessimism.

Details here: INTERESTING FLUB BY STUART STANIFORD

[Carlhole]

Welcome back, JD.

Everybody seems to miss having a few PO skeptics/deniers/cornucopians around. Hopefully, you won't encounter undue hostility.

Christ! Ya gotta have people to argue with otherwise it's no fun.

Check in at the 2004 alumni thread! And put your thought-bubble avatar back in place.
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic33334-75.html

[SchroedingersCat]

I thought you were dead. Or banned. Whatever.

I have no idea why you're attacking Stuart over this. He was taking figures from Exxon's decline and extrapolating that to the planet. He was also working with the data available at the time, which showed a greater decline rate.

Exxon, and the Implications of 8%

In 2005 oil was about 1/2 the price it is now. We still have not exceeded the 2005 C&C production peak or the July 2006 all liquids.

Got a point here?

Edit: Added link to Stuart's original article for a "fair and balanced" viewpoint.

[PraiseDoom]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'I')n 2005, Stuart Staniford forecast oil production based on two assumptions:

1) The decline rate of fields in place (FIP) is 8%. (I.e. if all new oil projects were halted, oil production would decline at a rate of 8% per year.)

His forecast failed by a huge margin of about 10mbd. This implies that either: the decline rate is much less than 8%,

[diemos]

Yup, instead of serious declines they managed to keep production limited to a small decline.

WE'RE SAVED!!!

Welcome back JD, it wasn't as much fun without you. Keep us on our toes.

[Zardoz]

It was obvious from the first few posts that PD was you, JD. Why the lame second identity?

And how about that $98 crude and those dwindling inventories? How could such a thing be happening here at the outlet of the cornucopia? What's going on? What's the explanation?

[Armageddon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'P')raisedoom/JD/Lorenzo welcome back.

Cantarell, the world's 2nd largest oil field on the planet responsible for 5% of total US petroleum imports is declining at 16%/year. The North Sea region overall is declining at > 8% with mature major Norwegian fields typically closer to 15-25%/year.

The US is an exception because it was produced first, with early technology, under a very unique geologic, geographic, and economic regime. Do not expect other major modern fields to decline so gradually.

[Zardoz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'Z')ardoz you have me beat by 6 posts.