Articles tagged with "Jean Laherrère"
With the recent announcement of closure, this will be the last guest post by Jean Lahérrere at TheOilDrum. By fortune it is an update on Jean's famous long term petroleum and natural gas forecasts; may it serve also as a long term reference to all the readership.
Together with the likes of Colin Campbell or Walter Younquist, Jean is a part of a very strict group of researchers that managed to re-emerge Peak Oil in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Some of his graphs are worth a thousand reports, and have shown remarkable accuracy and longevity.
I started working with Jean, formating and translating content for TheOilDrum, exactly 6 years ago. All I can say is that I feel very fortunate for having such insight into his work and only regret not having had the time to commit more to it.
This a guest post by Jean Laherrère, retired geologist from TOTAL and key founding member of ASPO; in recent years he has been a prolific contributor to this website. In this post Jean updates his model of future world Coal extraction and puts it in perspective within his fossil fuel model.
In 2007 the world coal production was modeled with an ultimate of 600 Gtoe and the peak was forecast at 4.2 Gtoe around 2050.
Posted by Luis de Sousa on October 17, 2012 - 2:14pm
Tags: burgan, jean laherrère, kern river, kuwait, leonardo maugeri, maugeri, neutral zone, oil recovery factor, reserves growth [list all tags]
This is part II of a guest post by Jean Laherrère, long-term contributor to The Oil Drum. Jean worked 37 years for TOTAL on exploration and production of oil and gas, and since his retirement, has worked tirelessly to analyse the world's oil & gas data and developments.
In part I of this article, Jean looked into Maugeri's concepts of production capacity and reserve growth. It showed how Maugeri's bottom-up analysis is based on optimistic assumptions regarding Iraq and by taking at face value the data published by OPEC. Furthermore, Jean pointed out that man of Maugeri's oil production forecasts are above any projections by any agency, most notably in the case of the US.
In this second part, Jean dissects Maugeri's assumption on reserves growth, on which his optimistic production forecasts relay. It his shown how Maugeri wrongly extrapolates the effects of flawed reserve accounting in the US to the rest of the world. Maugeri's also fails to acknowledge the conflicting reports and reporting practices of the several agencies producing oil data at world level. There are also some important remarks on the Maugeri's concept of conventional oil and other details that bring into doubt the knowledge of this author on the field.
This is part I of a guest post by Jean Laherrère, long term contributor to The Oil Drum. Jean worked 37 years for TOTAL on exploration and production of oil and gas, and since his retirement has worked tirelessly to analyse the world's oil & gas data and developments.
Leonardo Maugeri is an economist who worked for ENI since 1994, where he is currently on a sabbatical leave. He is also a senior fellow at Harvard University. In October 2009 he wrote an article in Scientific American entitled "Squeezing More Oil From the Ground: Amid warnings of a possible "peak oil," advanced technologies offer ways to extract every last possible drop”, which is now found with another title: “Another Century of Oil? Getting More from Current Reserves”. At the time, I wrote some comments on The Oil Drum in response: “Comments on Squeezing more oil from the ground by L. Maugeri Scientific American October 2009”
Recently, Maugeri published a new working paper, "Oil the Next Revolution: The uprecedented usurge of oil production capacity and what it means for the world". I again disagree with L. Maugeri’s stance that oil production capacity is surging, because production capacity data is completely unreliable, based on guesses and not on real measurements. Only oil production data should be used for forecasting purposes; his forecast on non conventional oil is also flawed. L. Maugeri has a poor understanding of the accuracy of oil data and his statements are in my view political and not scientific. His paper does not deserve to be on the website of Harvard University, a centre for science.
Below the fold are my comments on Maugeri's Oil Revolution discussion paper.
This is a guest post by Jean Laherrère a long time contributor to TheOilDrum.
- The BP Statistical Review has the merit to release every year free and convenient updated historical data on energy.
- This data is recopied from what is reported by national agencies, avoiding diplomatic conflicts.
- Despite the heterogeneity of the data, the report displays a ridiculously high number of digits, in contradiction with the real accuracy of the sources.
- The report wrongly adds unconventional to conventional reserves.
- BP ignores backdating, using obsolete reporting rules that lead to artificial reserve growth.
- Most economists believe this reserve growth to be the real, when in fact known Oil and Gas reserves peaked in 1980.
This a guest post by Jean Laherrère, a long-time guest contributor to TheOilDrum.
Defining deepwater oil as the offshore resource found in water depths over 500 m, the data available as of October of 2010 was pointing to an ultimate around 150 Gb. This is the result of an extrapolation made last year:
This is the third and final post on this series on the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) by Jean Laherrère, a long-time guest contributor to TheOilDrum. The goal of this series is to compare the evolution of reserves estimates in the GOM with the actual production figures that show the oil decline, thereby investigating the reliability of reserve estimates. In this third installment, Jean looks into older and shallower fields as a term of comparison to synthesize his finds and assesses the impact on his world all liquids forecast. The first installment analysed data on Thunder Horse & Mars-Ursa and the second Atlantis, Mad Dog & Eugene Island.
Update: Prompted by the comments, Jean sent an additional graph with cumulative Deepwater discovery and production, to be found at the of this post.
This a guest post by Jean Laherrère, a long-time guest contributor to TheOilDrum. Jean thoroughly analyses field production data for the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) in several posts. The goal of this series is to compare the evolution of reserves estimates in the GOM with the actual production figures that show the oil decline, thereby investigating the reliability of reserve estimates. This second installment shall look into the Atlantis, Mad Dog, and Eugene Island fields. The first installment on Thunder Horse & Mars-Ursa can be accessed here.
This a guest post by Jean Laherrère, a long time guest contributor to TheOilDrum. Jean thoroughly analyses field production data for the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) in several posts. The goal of this series is to compare the evolution of reserves estimates in the GOM with the actual production figures that show the oil decline. Thereby the reliability of reserve estimates can be investigated. This first installment shall look into Thunder Horse and Mars-Ursa fields.
The world oil and gas 2P cumulative discoveries can be modelled with 3 cycles [NE: 2P discoveries represent those resources proven as reserves plus those that probably shall become reserves; more details here]. For crude excluding extra-heavy oil, the first cycle corresponds to surface exploration (1900-1950); the second cycle to seismic exploration starting in 1930 and a third cycle corresponding to deepwater starting in 1990. Deepwater refers to oil resources that are found under water columns of 500 meters depth or more. This late coming discovery cycle has had a very important impact in several economies around the world, especially those of the OECD, that depleted their conventional resources much earlier. This 3 cycle oil discovery model trends towards an ultimate of 2200 Gb (crude less extra-heavy oil) against a cumulative production already past 1100 Gb.
Figure 1: world Oil (excluding extra-heavy oils - XH) and Gas cumulative discovery and production with respective models.
Posted by Heading Out on July 3, 2011 - 11:23am
Tags: california oil production, colin campbell, hubbert linearization, jean laherrère, kern river, miday-sunset, robert rapier [list all tags]
Last week, when I was writing about the heavy oil fields of California, I used a plot from Jean Laherrère to illustrate the potential ultimate production from the Kern River oilfield as a way to illustrate its potential future. Jean has written, via Luis de Sousa, to point out that the curves that I used are out of date, and was kind enough to send along the more up-to-date curves, not only for the Kern River, but also for the Midway-Sunset field, which, as I noted, is the largest remaining field. It seems to be too good an opportunity to miss to also briefly discuss the basis on which these projections are made, since they allow an estimate of the ultimate oil recovery from a field and a projection, as the following figures show, of when the field will effectively run out of oil. Let me start by putting up his figures for Kern River to facilitate the discussion, and then I will explain, and add the Midway-Sunset plots at the end. Jean has (since the initial post went up) written to point out that it is important to note that despite oil price increases and more wells, the field has steadily declined in production, at a rate of about 5% pa, since 1998.