<Smart Metering and Smarter MeteringThe Oil DrumDrumBeat: November 3, 2006>

97 comments on Because Matt Deserves His Own Open Thread....eh?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Euan Mearns on November 2, 2006 - 5:21pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
Matt - your book - Twilight, whilst a bit long, is a great reference source.  I got it for my birthday last October and read it in a couple of days on October holiday spent in a cottage up Glen Tannar - which I hope you have vistited on your many trips to Aberdeen.

I'd followed peakoil form a distance for many years and the commodities Bull Run, your book, and the May correction this year, followed by chance email correpsondence with Westexas led me here.

In Boston I only asked one question, and that was to Richard Heinberg - who said, amongst other things, that he read TOD every day - so I was wondering what your view is of The OIl Drum?

I'll be back later on with some data.

Cry Wolf TOD UK Contributor

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Prof. Goose on November 2, 2006 - 7:31pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Matt's not actually here, Euan.  :)   He's just in the quote and the video on the front page, that's all.  I thought it was worth his being the theme of the open thread...sorry if I caused any confusion.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Euan Mearns on November 2, 2006 - 7:47pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Well that's just darned dissapointing - suggest you send him an email inviting him along for an evenings entertainment. I agree with >90% of what he has to say - if he got that up to 95% - we would win the argument and bury Mr Raymond!

I'm off to Drumbeat to Beat the CEO.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
SolarDude on November 2, 2006 - 9:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
What 10% don't you agree with?
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Euan Mearns on November 2, 2006 - 9:27pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The bit bewteen 90 and 100 :)

CW

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Euan Mearns on November 3, 2006 - 6:29am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
SolarDude - I hope you're up bright and early today. The sun is shining in Aberdeen.

I think Simmons may underestimate the Saudi Arabian reserves located in a few hundred fields which I often refer to as "all the rest".  He makes the point well that most of Saudi production has come from 6 giant and super giant fields and from a petroleum geology perspective we just know that there will be hundreds of smaller fields around that have yet to be devloped and discovered.  I don't think this will make any differnce to KSA peak but may have a profound effect on the down curve - if the Saudis are able to discover and develop these remaining resources.

I also think he is a bit harsh on the Saudi history of reservoir management.  For sure, they didn't know much of what was going  in Ghawar for much of its early life - but at that time I don't think anyone else would have done much better.  The Saudis, after all have withheld and restrained their production for decades - which is in fact good husbandry of reserves - much better than for example UK, Norway and USA who just pumped as fast as they could - as it turns out at very low price, which has contributed to the near destruction of planet Earth.

I also think he should pay a bit more attention to the growing producers - Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Angola and Brazil - these countries have large and new reservoirs with full reservoir potential.  However, it may turn out to be the case that unexpectedly high depletion rates in the North Sea and Brazil wipe out any gains from these new areas.

Simmons has done a great job publicising the peak oil threat - it is just a question of getting the balance right - and not just focussing on all the negatives, all the time.

I said I'd be back with some data - so here is the HL for the UK, all oil fields incluidng the Atlantic margin.  So what if KSA production has a similar dog leg pattern?

"Data always beats theories. 'Look at data three times and then come to a conclusion,' versus 'coming to a conclusion and searching for some data.'"

So Matt - I know you're out there - what do you make of the UK HL?  The fact that the UK has had a punctuated production and discovery history  may infact have strong parallels with the unfolding KSA production and exploration history.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Euan Mearns on November 3, 2006 - 6:32am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Correction - that should be North Sea and Mexico
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on November 3, 2006 - 7:14am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Westexas has addressed this in the past.  He says if you take the whole North Sea (not just the UK), it follows HL linearization very well.  
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Euan Mearns on November 3, 2006 - 7:30am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Why would you want to take the whole of the North Sea when production history has been controlled by geo-political-economic  issues - just like KSA.

Saudi Arabia is not all of the Arabian Gulf basin.  It sounds like some may want to pick and choose data to prove a technique to prove a point?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on November 3, 2006 - 7:43am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I don't want to speak for him, but I gather he thinks Norway and the UK are geologically two straws stuck in the opposite ends of the same glass.  
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
westexas on November 3, 2006 - 7:51am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
My personal rule of thumb is that HL works best on major producing regions that have produced serious amounts of oil, say 2 mbpd or so, for about two decades.  I think that the early portion of the UK data set was just too immature for a reliable projection, and there was also the question of how the Piper Alpha accident affected the UK data.

The fact remains that the North Sea and the Lower 48 peaked at the same point.   Today, the world was where the North Sea and the Lower 48 were at when they started declining, and the world is showing declining crude + condensate (C+C) production (EIA).  

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Euan Mearns on November 3, 2006 - 9:29am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
To Leanan and Westexas, HL is all about production, reservoir potential, and decline - which in the case of the UK north sea was significantly influenced by the oil price crash of 1986 - leading to political-economic controls of exploration, investment etc - that is what controls the UK Hubbert - those are facts. And a long history of political - economic control has also been evident in KSA.  I am going to work on this over the next couple of weeks for the definitive post - doing each country on its own and combined.

Matt - still hopeful you may call by with comments.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
westexas on November 3, 2006 - 10:34am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
To Leanan and Westexas, HL is all about production, reservoir potential, and decline - which in the case of the UK north sea was significantly influenced by the oil price crash of 1986 - leading to political-economic controls of exploration, investment etc - that is what controls the UK Hubbert - those are facts. And a long history of political - economic control has also been evident in KSA.

These were all factors in Texas production, which is why I think that Texas peaked later (as a percentage of Qt) than did the overall Lower 48.  And as I have noted, KSA is now at the same point that Texas started declining, as a percentage of Qt, and KSA--like Texas--is showing lower production even as drilling activity picked up.

Also, Texas, as one would expect, had a sharper post-peak decline rate than did the overall Lower 48.  I expect to see a similar pattern regarding KSA and the world, probably compounded by the fact that KSA is so dependent on their largest oil field.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Hothgor on November 3, 2006 - 10:41am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It's a vicious cycle we are in.  In order to increase production we have to drill, the doomers say.  Then increasing drilling is a sign of peaking.  Its a perfect circle of logic the ILL doomer develops :P
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
peakearl on November 3, 2006 - 11:43am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Don't be dumb. It is increased drilling without corresponding production increases we are talking about (which appears to be happening in Saudi Arabia right now but we need more time to tell). Prior to the peak, increased drilling increases production. Afterwards, it only slows the decline. This has been gone over a multitude of times. Look at some data.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
westexas on November 3, 2006 - 12:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It's a vicious cycle we are in.  In order to increase production we have to drill, the doomers say.  Then increasing drilling is a sign of peaking.  Its a perfect circle of logic the ILL doomer develops :P

Hothgor,

I have frequently cited the example of Texas, where, after oil prices went up by 1,000% from trough to peak in the Seventies, the industry responded with the biggest drilling boom in history, which increased the number of producing wells by 14%, which resulted in a 30% drop in production.

Historically, past the 50% of Qt mark in a given region, increased drilling, while it may be profitable, has not led to increasing production.

Again, the basic premise is that we find the big fields first, whether it is Texas, the Lower 48, Total US,  Russia, North Sea, or KSA.   The smaller fields that we find past the 50% of Qt mark have historically not been able to make up for the declines of the old, larger fields.  That is why the current world C+C decline, at the same mathematical point at which the Lower 48 and the North Sea started declining, combined with the near certain decline/crash of the four current super giant oil fields is such a compelling argument for the "Yes, we have peaked" position.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ThatsItImout on November 4, 2006 - 4:35am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Westexas, how ya' been?

Even more down to the "pocketbook" issues, for those who use the low price now as an indicator that "peak cannot be close at hand, take a look at the histroy of U.S. oil prices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oil_Prices_1861_2006.jpg

Note that in real dollars, on the EVE OF U.S. PEAK, our oil prices dropped to an inflation adjusted level not seen since the dark heart of the Great Depression, and not seen before that since the birth of industry!  It's astounding to think about, the ABSOLUTE LOWEST PRICES were within monthes of what we now know to have been the ABSOLUTE PEAK of American production.  The roads were full of big block power rockets, the lakes were full of sexy fast boats, the air was full of the jet set, oil was as CHEAP as it had been in a lifetime, and peak was within monthes.

We were then, as we are now, RUNNING BLIND.  For the public at large, there was, and will be NO WARNING, at least none we will listen to.

Roger Conner  known to you as ThatsItImout

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.