26 comments on CIBC in more detail, and the first Chevron debate
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
26 comments on CIBC in more detail, and the first Chevron debate
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
“If kindness and comfort are, as I suspect, the results of an energy surplus, then, as the supply contracts, we could be expected to start fighting once again like cats in a sack.”
—George Monbiot
Search The Oil Drum with Google
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Technician: Super G
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
- Enjoying Life Close to Home: Fun Streets
TOD:Europe
- UK Energy Flow Chart 2007
- Brown pretends to be tough on Russia
- Russian gas and European energy security - a reprise
TOD:Canada
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
- Weekend Energy Listening: Wind Power with Paul Gipe
TOD:ANZ
Peak Oil Primers
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- Ecological Economics
- David Strahan
- Econbrowser
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- Environmental Economics
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Organizations
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.






GAIA Host Collective
If I recollect correctly from reading the CIBC report yesterday, their analysis resulted in an overall average decline rate of 3.4%. If planned new production comes online as projected and demand increases as predicted (in the CIBC report) that would give about 2mbpd spare by the end of 2007. A decline rate of 5% would evaporate that, higher implies very imminent peak oil. Even given the 3.4% decline rate they envisage supply and demand coinciding by end 2008.
Since a large proportion of current production is using enhanced recovery techniques and what data we have on decline rates for more mature such fields is generally coming in at the upper end of the 5% to 10% range (in some cases even higher), my guess is we may be facing supply shortfall sooner than most people expect. However, I also suspect that geopolitical events could bring that yet closer.
Thanks.
Is it possible to break out some of the big fields into subsets to get some sort of average based on the various subsets?
Reading between the lines on this subject I suspect that as the newer fields have formations that make oil harder to extract, more expensive to develop and drill due to depth etc. These use water flood etc from the start, so declines will be higher. Is this correct?
So consequently the decline rate may increase longer term, as the average will include more fields with bigger declines. Average may go up, as Cantarell is a big field with big declines. Is this valid?
I suspect this is why Schlumberger is saying 8%. They see more, younger fields with higher decline rates as compared to the older slower decliners. It also backs up what Simmons says as well as technology is pushing up the decline rates.
Are the formations more complicated to extract from then say 50 years ago?
I suspect this may be part of the answer as well.