<DrumBeat: August 11, 2006The Oil DrumDrumBeat: August 12, 2006>

82 comments on Homework Assignment: Rates of Decline of the Largest Fields

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

polytropos on August 11, 2006 - 1:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
With all respect...
Don't we already have this data from EIA or IEA or CERA or all the Peak Oil books being published, and confident pundit and industry expert comments.
The decline rate vs the "new project" rate is the nub of the entire issue.
If this has not been done, or done accurately, what are we talking about?

... then I'll answer part of my own question: lack of verifiable and auditable OPEC data. Regardless of how much we know about "rest of world" the OPEC fog and misinformation renders the analysis less than useful

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Prof. Goose on August 11, 2006 - 1:58pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
poly, the point is that no one has done this, and no one has done it accurately, as far as we know.  that's why we're doing it.  there's enough expert brainpower around here that, if this data exists, we'll find it.

this also reinforces the problem of the transparency of URR data and makes us think about the ramifications of a lot of other data problems.

we need to know the answers to these questions as Matt and others have pointed out.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
memmel on August 11, 2006 - 2:21pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Its reasonable to assume that SA is capable of extracting using the same methods as are used in known fields.
There is still the question about how they manipulate production but in the big picture I suspect the overall production of the field does not change much of your pumping most of the time close to the reasonable flow rate and for SA as often as they have rested the fields they have also pumped them hard.  Texas even under control did not change its peak date btw.

So sure there are still questions. But what I want to see is what happening with depletion in fields using modern extraction methods. All evidence points towards massive depletion rates or the cliff effect.

If we can confirm the cliff bubbles up from the field level which it should then I really believe our undulating plateau
is going to hit a sharp painful drop off.

If we can get enough numbers together we may be able to reasonable predict if the cliff exists and if so the decline rates.

There is enough evidence that we are peaked or close to the peak but we really don't know much about the post peak decline rates and in the context of peak oil this is the single most important even. If its slow and even then societies response can be late with less ill effect.

If there is good evidence for a cliff then its critical to find it and present it. We cannot handle a cliff.

Right now I'm convinced that we will see cliff after cliff in fields extracted with advanced methods this will lead to and overall massive decline.  Consider if even a few of the larger fields start into massive decline we simply don't have the manpower to do the work needed to slow the declines.

For example do you really think Mexico is going to be able to get the rigs tubing etc etc for Cantrell over the next few years. Esp if even on major field in the ME is also collapsing ?

Try 4-5 going down hard at the same time.

I just don't see the NOC's handling this scenario well.

So I think were looking and a lot of crashing fields in the near future with basically nothing we can do since there just aren't enough rigs to do the massive amount of infill drilling to slow the declines.

Basically as we move over peak the constraint on production is going to be drilling rigs. And if you havent noticed this is already happenning and were not even off peak yet.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wkwillis on August 11, 2006 - 4:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I'm not sure that Texas was every under control for more than a few years in the depression, just after East Texas was drilled and prices fell to ten cents a barrel in the thirties. The fields were throttled down from their peak flow, but you can manipulate peak flow with fracturing, acidizing, etc. So the peak year did not change as much as might be expected.
Some people on this board have remarked that flow did not increase when controls came off oil and gas in the seventies and eighties. Is there any paper or article in an industry publicantion on this?
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
westexas on August 11, 2006 - 11:31pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Texas oil production increased from 2.5 mbpd in 1962 to 3.5  mbpd in 1972.  There was considerable shock when the Texas RRC went to a 100% allowable in 1972, with very little increase in production.  Mathematically, Saudi Arabia, in 2005, was in the same point at Texas, in 1972.

There was considerable excess capacity in 1967, when the Texas RRC responded to an Arab oil embargo by flooding the world markets with oil.  

Really kind of odd to think that three elected officials of the Texas Railroad Commission effectively controlled world oil prices for about 35 years.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
copelch on August 11, 2006 - 2:30pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Much-travelled Polytropos hits the nail on the head when he writes "The decline rate vs the "new project" rate is the nub of the entire issue."

But the rate of depletion/decline is a function both of technological progress  and effective demand - and since demand is unforeseeable, so is the rate of depletion and the peak itself. The effective demand for oil may be influenced by anything from the cost of production itself to a butterfly flapping its wings in China to an asteroid collision (which might postpone the peak until eternity).

It's ASPO Gospel Truth. Here is Jean Laherrere speaking on 30 May 2006 at Lyon ("Quelle mobilité après la pétrole?") on the modelisation of future production:
"But obviously if there is demand constraint [...] the peak will transform itself into an undulating plateau" (FR: "Mais evidemment s'il y a contrainte par la demande [...] le pic va se transformer en plateau en tole ondulee.")

Source: http://www.oilcrisis.com/laherrere/CERTU2006mai30.pdf.

Here it is in logical form:

The peak year/decade is predictable only if demand is predictable.
Demand is not predictable.
Therefore, the peak year/decade is not predictable.

BTW it's interesting to note that Laherrere refers to an "undulating plateau" - exactly the same term used by CERA in its June 2005 report.  In its press release on this report, CERA wrote: "The CERA analysis rejects the current fear that a near-term "peak" in world oil production and a coming exhaustion of supply are near.  The report indicates that the "inflexion" point will come in the third or fourth decade of this century.  Moreover, rather than a "peak," it will be an "undulating plateau" that will continue for several decades."

Source: http://www.cera.com/news/details/1,2318,7453,00.html

So what's the difference between Laherrere 2006 and CERA 2006 (give or take a decade)?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jkissing on August 11, 2006 - 4:04pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Everybody is producing flat out.  At 75/b, the world wants 85mmb/d.  Simply not possible to produce another barrel.  If demand did slack off, price would fall, say to 60; then, the world would still want every b possible, and no producer would restrain production.
Demand is essentially unlimited, so peak should be predictable.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.