Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 10:24 am Post subject: Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??
ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:
Editing staff? What do you work for, a high school paper?
Yeah...I wish. Life would be much easier if that were the case.
Where I have worked, the engineers and scientists are totally responsible for whatever they write. If any editors get involved, if at all, they may check for grammar or to make sure the company is sufficiently name-checked. The big research companies like IBM or the universities leave you alone and let you sink or swim depending on your content. I have never heard of an edit cycle, perhaps a review cycle in a team setting -- but editing in basic scientific research is considered a serious faux pas, and would drive the best scientists away rather quickly to search for greener pastures.
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 3:12 pm Post subject: Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:
ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:
Editing staff? What do you work for, a high school paper?
Yeah...I wish. Life would be much easier if that were the case.
Where I have worked, the engineers and scientists are totally responsible for whatever they write. If any editors get involved, if at all, they may check for grammar or to make sure the company is sufficiently name-checked. The big research companies like IBM or the universities leave you alone and let you sink or swim depending on your content. I have never heard of an edit cycle, perhaps a review cycle in a team setting -- but editing in basic scientific research is considered a serious faux pas, and would drive the best scientists away rather quickly to search for greener pastures.
From that point of view, perhaps I should have said "review" rather than edit. There is peer and technical review, names and standards, approvals on various levels for content and contribution value, blah blah blah.
I enjoy doing the work rather than writing about it, myself. The "editing" or "review" process strikes me as the biggest pain in the butt, even if I do understand the need for it.
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:07 am Post subject: Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??
The procedure used by the USGS in its World Petroleum Assessment 2000 has an excellent record of predicting reserve growth:
Quote:
This study compares the additions to conventional crude oil and natural gas reserves as reported from January 1996 to December 2003 with the estimated undiscovered and reserve-growth volumes assessed in the U.S. Geological Survey World Petroleum Assessment 2000, which used data current through 1995. Approximately 28% of the estimated additions to oil reserves by reserve growth and approximately 11% of the estimated undiscovered oil volumes were realized in the 8 yr since the assessment (27% of the time frame for the assessment). Slightly more than half of the estimated additions to gas reserves by reserve growth and approximately 10% of the estimated undiscovered gas volumes were realized.
Joined: May 22, 2004 Posts: 1416 Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:34 am Post subject: Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??
JohnDenver wrote:
The procedure used by the USGS in its World Petroleum Assessment 2000 has an excellent record of predicting reserve growth:
This result is quite striking especially given the uncertainty that the USGS had initially claimed was inherent in the estimate. What is not clear to me that perhaps someone may clear up for me is what reserve growth function the USGS2000 report used. Was it the 10X factor one or did they use another? They do say they used the IHS data base but they also say they extrapolated from US experience of reserve growth.
In any event it is highly dependent on the IHS database. I remember reading somewhere that the IHS database has had some large upward revisions for the middle east in the past few years. If that is the case then the reported additions for the past 8 years would have been primarily due to this. It would have been interesting if the authors had discussed the accuracy for the reserve addition predictions at a regional level. Where did the prediction method fail where did it succeed?
I hesitiate to make this speculation but the USGS predictions could also be something of a self-fulfilling profesy. The world reserve additions will be dominated by the reserve additions in the middle east where we suspect reserves are a highly politicized number. If people are aware of what the expected reserve addition is, then they may feel political pressure to ensure the numbers meet the expectations. This feed forward mechanism has been observed in financial reports. For oil reserves we are placing IHS in the position of the auditor who certifies the reserves statement of the NOCs, let's hope IHS has not gone the way of Andersen Consulting.
I don't give much credence to the foregoing conspiracy theory but it would be nice to know which countries provided the majority of the reserves growth in the 1996-2003 period. _________________ Biofuels: The "What else we got to burn?" answer to peak oil.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
