The Oil Drum

This is a guest post by Jean Laherrère. I was asked recently by e-mail, referring to a 2002 paper on hydrates: I read your excellent questions. Do you have any answers posted? I decided to update my past papers on hydrates.

This is a guest post by TOD reader Jon Friese. Jon is a software engineer living in Minneapolis and a volunteer with the Twin Cities Energy Transition working group, seeking a path to a low carbon future. Under his own initiative Jon tracked down literature on EROI methodology, contacted the Canadian Government and an energy consulting company for data, and came up with the following analysis on declining energy return on Canadian Gas. This draft analysis is provocative (backing into an EROI estimate using $/GJ suggesting possible energy break even for natural gas within a decade). However, in addition to the new info, I was inspired that a smart, engaged citizen chose to volunteer his time on the pressing issue of fossil fuel decline, and then shared it with others in the TOD forum for feedback. Thanks for your initiative here Jon.) (Editors Note: Jon is working on an update to this analysis incorporating feedback from the TOD community -please treat the information in this post as a work in progress.)

Figure 1 Canadian Natural Gas Energy Return on Investment, actual + trend line (Click to enlarge)

Jean Laherrère kindly agreed to give an interview to TOD:E by e-mail. For several years he was virtually the sole researcher modelling Coal depletion in the same vein it is done for Oil and Gas. Despite being considerably different from the common sense of limitless Coal, his forecasts were this year confirmed by several studies and reports. TOD:E got some comments on this matter as so on the general Fossil Fuels depletion picture and our future beyond them.

Will 730 billion barrels be added to the reserve pool from reserve growth between 1996 and 2025 as estimated by the United States Geological Survey?

This post is the third part in a three piece series about the phenomenon of reserve growth in found oil fields. Insight in future reserve growth, often attributed to technological advancement, is crucial in determining the peak of conventional oil production. For those not familiar with reserve growth, it would be best to read part 1 first:

1. General introduction to reserve growth, what can we learn from the worldwide recovery factor in conventional oil fields?

This post is the second part in a three piece series about the phenomenon of reserve growth in already found oil fields. Insight in future reserve growth, which is often attributed to advancement in technology, is crucial in determining the peak of conventional oil production. For those not familiar with reserve growth it would be best to read part 1 first:

1. General introduction to reserve growth, what can we learn from the worldwide recovery factor of conventional oil fields?

In this second part various scientific studies about reserve growth in the United States, the North Sea and Russia are analysed. The third part will look at the reliability of the estimate from the United States Geological Survey in their World Petroleum Assessment 2000 with respect to future reserve growth.

The difference in vision between so called "optimists" and pessimists" with respect to the peak in world oil production is often caused by a view of future technological development in the oil industry. This development influences both conventional and unconventional oil production. Only a part of the oil in an oil field can be produced. It is claimed by oil companies and various institutes that technological advancement will increase the recoverable amount, thereby postponing the peak in conventional oil for several decades. In essence this means that the amount of recoverable reserve increases over time due to changes in technology, economy, insights. But also expected recoverable reserves increase over time due to past underestimates. This is why the term is called "reserve growth".

If you would read a random energy scenario study there is a very high chance that it is based on the United States Geological Survey's World Petroleum Estimate from the year 2000. This is because the estimate for the ultimate oil recovery of conventional oil + Natural Gas Liquids (NGL) of that study is being used as the basis for oil production projections in the:

International Energy Agency - World Energy Outlook

Energy Information Administration - International Energy Outlook

Since allmost all energy policies in the world are based on scenario's from these two institutes, it is of the utmost importance that the USGS figure of 3345 billion barrels for ultimate recovery of conventional oil + NGL is correct. If not so, then the studies from the IEA and EIA give far too rosy projections on continuously rising oil producion. Instead, the world will encounter a shortfall in the supply of oil far earlier then now anticipated. Besides the studies cited above the figures of the USGS are also used by oil companies such as ExxonMobil and even the Saudi's to give the impression that there is plenty of conventional oil remaining.