Articles tagged with "maugeri"
In this post I will, amongst other things, present the results from my review of the Bakken portion of Leonardo Maugeri’s discussion paper “The Shale Oil Boom: A U.S. Phenomenon”
Leonardo Maugeri is an ex-ENI executive now with the Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center which receives funds from BP. His discussion paper presents his findings from “tracking” 4,000 tight oil wells in USA.
Maugeri forecasts total U.S. tight oil production to reach 5 Mb/d by end 2017 of which 1.8 Mb/d from Bakken.
In this review I have examined Maugeri’s well productivity claims, cash flow developments and transport/infrastructure issues (which has been ignored by Maugeri).
This post is based upon my previous posts about Bakken;
Is Shale Oil Production from Bakken Headed for a Run with “The Red Queen”?
Is the Typical NDIC Bakken Tight Oil Well a Sales Pitch?
Will the Bakken “Red Queen” have to run faster?
During my studies of tight oil wells in Bakken I have looked at the history of about 5,000 wells in Montana and North Dakota.
Considering the number of wells studied that formed the basis for Maugeri’s paper and over time the huge individual variations in well productivities, decline rates etc., it would have been good if the paper had also presented more of the statistical analysis performed that would support its findings.
Statistics is an excellent and powerful tool for analyzing such extensive research.
MODELED PRODUCTION WITH MAUGERI’s WELL VERSUS ACTUAL
My modeling found that Maugeri's figures (Fig 3, p. 10) overstate the average productivity of typical 2011-2012 vintage Bakken wells by about 20%. If Bakken/Three Forks (ND) production had followed Maugeri's model, it would have been at 907 kb/d in May 2013.
Instead, NDIC reports the actual production was 745 kb/d."
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 Stephen Sorrell, senior lecturer Science and Technology Policy Research, Sussex Energy Group, and lead author of the UKERC Global Oil Depletion report, and Christophe McGlade, doctoral researcher at the UCL Energy Institute. This post was slightly revised by the authors and updated here on 25/07/2012. Please see paragrapghs 8 and 9 below the fold for the updated text.
Commentary on: Oil: 'The Next Revolution: The Unprecedented Upsurge of Oil Production Capacity and What it Means for the World' - Leonardo Maugeri, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Summary Maugeri's analysis and conclusions are critically dependent upon the decline rates applied to existing and future fields, and yet he does not explicitly say what these decline rates will be. However, Maugeri’s assumptions can be derived from his Table 2, which projects gross and net capacity additions over the period to 2020. Doing so suggests he uses an average annual decline rate for all fields of 1.6% over this period, which is less than half of the IEA and CERA estimates for 2008 (4.1%/year and 4.5%/year respectively). The discrepancy is even greater since the IEA and other analysts project an increase in average decline rates over the 2011-20 period. If we replace Maugeri’s 1.6% decline rate assumption with the IEA estimate of 4.1%, the projected loss of production capacity over the period to 2020 increases from 11 mb/d to 26.5 mb/d. In turn, the projected global production capacity in 2020 reduces from 110.6 mb/d to 95.1mb/d (a reduction of 14%). Since average decline rates would be expected to increase over this period, this projection must be considered optimistic.
The vast numbers of folk trying to move through London's airports this weekend were providing a good reason to show up at least two hours before departure, and though we were ready for the shuttle two-and-a-half hours before departure at the local hotel, the problems the shuttle had with traffic made it just barely possible for us to catch our plane. As we headed across the waiting lounge, however, the thought of a ten-hour flight caused me to stop and snatch a copy of the recent Special Edition of Newsweek, dealing with the Energy Issue. Since I just got back, I am not quite sure how much of this has already been covered, but perhaps I can provide comment to some of the articles in the issue.