<Is Nuclear Power a Viable Option for Our Energy Needs? The Oil Drum Khosla Responds: "Imagining the Future of Gasoline: Reality or Blue-sky Dreaming?">
<DrumBeat: August 8, 2006 DrumBeat DrumBeat: August 10, 2006>

310 comments on DrumBeat: August 9, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

Sam Foucher on August 9, 2006 - 9:42am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I noticed a change in the estimated production table:

Newsletter 67:

           2005 2010 2015 2020 2050 Total Peak Date
Gas Liquid 6.9  12   13   14   11    276   2035

URR= 2450 Gb, Peak date= 2010

Newsletter 68:

           2005 2010 2015 2020 2050 Total Peak Date
Gas Liquid 6.9  12   13   14   11    354   2035

URR= 2500 Gb, Peak date= 2010

The rounding value goes from 2 in newsletter 67 to -25 in newsletter 68! no explanatations are given.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
yashko on August 9, 2006 - 11:01am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
My sense is that Colin Campbell does not have as good a handle on gas liquids as he does on crude oil. BTW, I don't have any better idea about gas liquids. The gas liquids numbers in the newsletter have flopped around a fair amount over the past few years, without much in the way of explanation.

Given the amount of stranded gas out there, and the various economics regarding recovering it and, possibly, converting it into diesel via FT process, the gas liquids number is always going to be subject to WAG's, until the technology settles down a bit.

Note that the NGL numbers however make no meaningful difference in the timing of the peak or the shape of hte slope.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Sam Foucher on August 9, 2006 - 12:47pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I don't understand the rounding value, by definition it should be around +/-1, why -25? it should not be called "rounding value" but "number added to get the URR we want"!
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
yashko on August 9, 2006 - 1:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Maybe the rounding number is "one-third of the increase in NGL's," or "approximately one standard deviation for our WAG on NGL's." I know Colin Campbell is trying to be helpful by including gas in his chart and calculations, but I think it is misleading-- we simply can't chart gas the same way we chart oil.

Who knows what amount of gas was flared in the past? A Hubbert linearization doesn't work for gas, and won't, imho, until we are about one-third of the way down the slope for gas.  There is not the same time lag between discovery and production, or the same depletion rates. Just take the gas out of the chart, already, and go back to crude.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Comp Lex on August 9, 2006 - 3:57pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
What does work for gas?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
alan on August 9, 2006 - 2:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Adding all the numbers is that column gives me 2525 Gb. I assume by rounding this number off he is acknowledging that his estimates should not be considered accurate to more than two significant figures.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Luis de Sousa on August 10, 2006 - 4:25am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Hi Khebab, just noted the same thing. Colin Campbell uses rounding in all tables I have, he just does it to get a round number for URR (2500 instead of 2525 in this case).

Although this doesn't favor much his work, one must acknowledge that the increase in NGL will not change the peak date, which is now set by the peak in the Southern Atlantic Offshore.

Also it is interesting to note that this new date of 2010 is much more close to those of his peers like Skebrowski or Laherrère.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

310 comments on DrumBeat: August 9, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version