<Taking a look at the First Quarter graphs The Oil Drum Thursday open thread>

148 comments on Critiquing the 2006 Megaprojects report

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Nate Hagens on April 6, 2006 - 9:49am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
Seriously, at ASPO, people were glum and somber after Skrebowksis presentation, particularly on the emphasis on high decline rates and a peak in 2007 or thereabouts - he really threw cold water on some that thought a peak was nowhere near imminent. This piece really is of a different tenor. Have the facts changed that much? It strikes me as very odd....
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mcgowanjm on April 6, 2006 - 12:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Also not mentioned is water cut and how the "cut"
is disguising already depleted fields.

Once the "Cut" is no longer "working", the fields'
decline will be in the double digits.

Also, the failure rates of these fields have never been anticipated.

# Such an Accord-the Rimini Protocol- shall have the following outline provisions:

   1. No country shall produce oil at above its current Depletion Rate, such being defined as annual production as a percentage of the estimated amount left to produce;
   2. Each importing country shall reduce its imports to match the current World Depletion Rate, deducting any indigenous production.

Of course, the Oil Importers would never allow this to happen.

http://www.peakoil.ie/protocol

James

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
shez on April 6, 2006 - 6:55pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
My impression of Chris S is that his articles in Petroleum Review take a somewhat 'blander' line that when he speaks in person wearing his ASPO/ODAC hat. I suspect this comes down to negotiating his nominall 'neutral' position as editor of PR vs his concerns about PO. In the article he does allude to various factors which would make matters worse - eg increased decline rates, project slippage etc...

Re the decline rate - how CS arrrived at this is desribed in previous article in PR - it makes more sense to read this megaprojects update in the light of those. here is a link to the depletion rate article:


http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/References/PetReviewAug2004Skrebowski.pdf

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
peakearl on April 6, 2006 - 8:13pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Thanks for the link. I don't think it's clear he repeated the country-by-country depletion procedure for this update, however. He seems to have taken a more generic approach for 2005, taking total new production, subtracting actual supply increase, and considering the difference as worldwide decline absent new field production (except for the hurricane correction). Then, it is quite unclear on what basis he takes this forward.  
 
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Agric on April 6, 2006 - 9:18pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Thanks, too. I found the link worrying in its possibly misplaced complacency. Think...

When supply gets tight the fastest and cheapest ways of increasing production are:

  • increasing production from existing fields / wells by EOR
  • infill drilling of existing fields

These are basically one off tactics. They have probably been used (though probably somewhat rig availability limited) to a near maximum extent in several major producers over the last 2 or 3 years. This is probably a one off gain and it would be unwise to assume further such gains, without a balancing downside, continuing for long. I wonder if CS's reduction in depletion rates have been somewhat skewed by this?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.

148 comments on Critiquing the 2006 Megaprojects report

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version