Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 1:17 am Post subject: Re: I'm confused. How do you calculate and model this data?
Quote:
I REALLY wish people would stop this beginner mistake kind of misdirection already. Reserves are not the RESOURCE base
But for a beginning modeler, changes in the "resource base" add a slightly higher degree of complexity, so I am only suggesting that 128shot, start with a simple case and move on from there.
Hopefully he or she will pretty soon improve the model to include an adjustment for discoveries and/or "reserve increases" as well as depletion, as some have.
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 7:14 am Post subject: Re: I'm confused. How do you calculate and model this data?
Quote:
Like I said before, this is basically a bean-counting exercise and I know that they know how much is under the ground. If they were to spill the beans, we would all be better off.
Some consider the lack of credible data from the oil majors one of the strongest arguments that many/all of them are unable to grow production & are actively concealing this fact.
I personally think all modeling should come in 2 flavors.
1) Based on stated figures from the majors.
2) Adjusted to remove the fictitious OPEC reserves doubling in the 80's.
I suspect that reality will fall between these 2 estimates. _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 7:29 am Post subject: Re: I'm confused. How do you calculate and model this data?
pup55 wrote:
Hopefully he or she will pretty soon improve the model to include an adjustment for discoveries and/or "reserve increases" as well as depletion, as some have.
We should start calling a spade a spade. "Reserve increases" is a euphemism for "bad estimation correction" covering up for the fact that some engineer or bureaucrat screwed up on the original estimate. And to blame it on us, as the other guy claims to, is simply projection on his part.
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 9:11 am Post subject: Re: I'm confused. How do you calculate and model this data?
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:
No wonder you are so confused. I only use estimates of discovery volume in the ground. You can only pump out what you can discover. Thinking about reserves as some big tank you keep in the backyard is obviously misguided. I don't think anybody believes that.
The word "reserves" means something very specific, particularly in the US, and I'm hardly "confused" about the SPE definition considering I do them and have to defend them to auditors. The poster I was quoting said "reserves", not you, so its hardly ME being confused. As to what you THINK other people believe, you give everyone too much credit.
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:
If people in the oil industry can't get their act together, that is their problem. As engineers we have one way to measure capacitance, one way to measure mass, one way to count time. If the oilers make up their own measures for obfuscation purposes, then you basically need us unwashed masses keeping an eye out for the deceptions being promulgated.
And if you didn't read my last provided example about the prototype engineer sitting on a California heavy oilfield 75 years ago, then you should either A) go do so and at least TRY to understand the point I was making or B) accept your cluelessness and stop saying things which contradict specific and known industry examples which provide insight into why petroleum engineering and reserves has NOTHING to do with using electrical circuits or whatever other formula's amateurs want to dream up to model hydrocarbon production.
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:
Like I said before, this is basically a bean-counting exercise and I know that they know how much is under the ground. If they were to spill the beans, we would all be better off.
You assume the same thing Campbell does, and he's already been wrong how many times? And is there any reason why you assuming the same wrong facts should lead to a CORRECT conclusion this time around?
I provided a perfect example as to why your theory on bean counting is wrong, myself, I would think that the fact that bean counters can't DO reserves is itself a giveaway...under your faulty scenario the accountants should just add up all their barrels and mcf's and go home happy....it doesn't happen that way and claiming it over and over while pretending to be clueless about examples which show why it doesn't does nothing except prove my point, amateurs should just stay home and play with their weeji boards.
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 9:20 am Post subject: Re: I'm confused. How do you calculate and model this data?
Aaron wrote:
Some consider the lack of credible data from the oil majors one of the strongest arguments that many/all of them are unable to grow production & are actively concealing this fact.
Last I looked the SEC reserves from oil company majors was
A) reasonably solid
B) has been for the last couple of deacdes
C) is defined in a specific and reasonable way
D) exhibits reserve growth in measureable and real fashion.
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:32 am Post subject: Re: I'm confused. How do you calculate and model this data?
ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:
You assume the same thing Campbell does, and he's already been wrong how many times? And is there any reason why you assuming the same wrong facts should lead to a CORRECT conclusion this time around?
I provided a perfect example as to why your theory on bean counting is wrong, myself, I would think that the fact that bean counters can't DO reserves is itself a giveaway...under your faulty scenario the accountants should just add up all their barrels and mcf's and go home happy....it doesn't happen that way and claiming it over and over while pretending to be clueless about examples which show why it doesn't does nothing except prove my point, amateurs should just stay home and play with their weeji boards.
Campbell uses numbers that get supplied from the oil companies as conservative estimates and then accuse him of being wrong?
There is a psychological term for this. It is called projection. Simply put, the patient that suffers from this malady "projects" his/her inadequacies onto someone else, thus displacing the blame for their own undoing. If the projectionist does this early enough, it serves to innoculuate or vaccinate theselves against somebody else coming along and accusing them of the same failures they accuse others of. So Campbell gets accused of being wrong, this fact gets echoed over and over, while no one bothers to look at the man behind the curtain running the projection machine.
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:59 pm Post subject: Re: I'm confused. How do you calculate and model this data?
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:
Campbell uses numbers that get supplied from the oil companies as conservative estimates and then accuse him of being wrong?
I don't suppose you've even actually READ anything Campbell has published over the years?
And pointing out that he is wrong in his published predictions is hardly an accusation, it just IS. Pick up a book and pay attention already, some of this is so obvious I'm amazed I can use it as a bludgeon on people who should know better.
Oh...PetroConsultants isn't an oil company...maybe you should include some credit for them when referencing where Campbells estimates of WHATEVER come from.
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 5:49 pm Post subject: Re: I'm confused. How do you calculate and model this data?
Here is something to think about when we, the dirty masses, try to make objective sense out of the reams of crap laid down on us. This post from Glenn Greenwald speaks volumes if you replace "journalists" with "professional oilers" and "politics" with "oil depletion" ...
Quote:
Invasion of the dirty masses
The principal benefit from the emergence of the blogosphere is that it has opened up our political discourse to a much wider and more diverse group of participants. Previously, establishment journalists and their hand-picked commentators were the sole vehicle for the dissemination of political opinions. The only commentators and opinions which received any real attention were the ones which establishment journalists deemed worthy of attention. Those who were outside of the club of established journalists were ignored and unable to have their opinions heard.
All of that has changed with the blogosphere. The blogosphere is a hard-core and pure meritocracy. It doesn’t matter who you are or what your pedigree is. You either produce persuasive arguments and do so with credibility, or you don’t. Whether someone has influence in the blogosphere has nothing to do with their institutionalized credentials and everything to do with the substance of what they produce. That is why even those who maintain their anonymity can be among the most popular, entertaining and influential voices. The blogosphere has exploded open the gates of influence which were previously guarded so jealously by the establishment journalists.
For precisely that reason, many establishment journalists have raging contempt for the blogosphere. It is a contempt grounded in the fallacy of credentialism and a pseudo-elitist belief that only the approved and admitted members of their little elite journalist club can be trusted to enlighten the masses. Many of them see blogs as a distasteful and anarchic sewer, where uncredentialed and irresponsible people who are totally unqualified to articulate opinions are running around spewing all sorts of uninformed trash. And these journalistic gate-keepers become especially angry when blogospheric criticism is directed towards other establishment journalists, who previously were immune from any real public accountability.
The irony, though, is that many of these establishment journalists have been forced to accommodate the growing influence of the blogosphere by starting blogs of their own. And the unedited and immediate format of blogging means that they sometimes unintentionally reveal their real mindset, and one can see it in the light of day.
So unless you can address the merits or shortcomings of a model objectively, you don't have a chance to halt the flow of ideas, whatever your credentials may be.
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 6:17 pm Post subject: Re: I'm confused. How do you calculate and model this data?
Thanks everyone for your help.
The real bump in the road, as you could say, for me at least, is I have to have a form of calculation, since I have to present that as well. I can't just give a speech without some kind of data, calculated by myself or otherwise.
Otherwise this task would be a hell of alot easier..
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 6:50 pm Post subject: Re: I'm confused. How do you calculate and model this data?
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:
So unless you can address the merits or shortcomings of a model objectively, you don't have a chance to halt the flow of ideas, whatever your credentials may be.
Oh...thats all you want? Sure....Campbell called the first peak when? Late 80's? Early 90's?
And it didn't happen. Objective fact #1.
Campbell says reserve growth CAN'T happen when you backdate reserves to discovery point of a field. He then backdates reserves and quantifies those numbers. Years later, he then alters them upward. Presto....reserve growth from the guy who says there isn't any. Objective fact #2.
I ask again, have you ever READ anything this guy has published, or do you just enjoy PRETENDING to know what he has published?
where Q (sub-t) is the remaining quantity for a given year
Q-inf is the ultimate recoverable quantity
t is the year
t (sub 1/2) is the guesstimate of the peak year
and tau=1/k where k is the "fudge factor" for the curve fatness.
For the "updated" model we did last year, we used the following:
n 0.149454128
qinf 2,461.82
t(1/2) 106.8467633
k 0.039628337
So the way this works is that you want to compute Q-sub t, which is the quantity of oil remaining in the ground for any given year t. So, for the first year, T=1.
You put in the above constants into the equation and it computes a Q-sub-t amount. You then do the same thing for t=2. That gives you the second year's quantity of oil remaining in the ground. You subtract the first Q sub t from the second Q-sub-t and that gives you the first year's pumping.
You repeat for t=2, etc. etc. and compute all of the individual years by subtraction from the following year's amount left. If you know how to run a spreadsheet program, no problem getting this to happen all at once.
Q-inf is the "ultmate remaining reserves" estimate. reservegrowthrulz will tell you that this number is not really a constant--it shifts over time, depending on new discoveries, etc. but for now, we will pretend it is a constant so you can get your assignment done.
t-1/2 is a "guesstimate" of the peak year. In this case, it's 106 years after year 1, which is 1900 therefore it's 2006 for the purpose of the model.
The other numbers, k and n, are just fudge factors. when I did the original calculation I used MS-Excel to compute it. Once you have your spreadsheet set up, you can experiment with different n and k values, and see how it changes the shape of the curve.
When I do these, I do one step at a time per cell when setting up the spreadsheet. It is uglier, but less chance to screw up.
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 7:29 pm Post subject: Re: I'm confused. How do you calculate and model this data?
This narrative describes the virtual flow of oil through the system from discovery to production, providing a problem domain description to how an oil peak occurs.
Precondition: Oil sits in the ground, undiscovered.
Invariant: The amount of oil in each of its states cumulatively sums to a constant.
The states of the oil in the ground are fallow, construction, maturation, and extraction.
1. A discovery is made and an estimate of the quantity extractable is made.
2. The oil sits in the fallow state until a decision is made or negotiated as to what to do with it. Claims must be made, etc. This time constant we call t1, and we assume this is an average time with standard deviation equal to the average. This becomes a maximum entropy estimate, made with the minimal knowledge available.
3. A stochastic fraction of the discovery flows out of this fallow state with rate 1/t1. Once out of this state, it is ready for the next stage (and state).
4. The oil next sits in the build state as the necessary rigs and platforms are constructed. This time constant we call t2, and has the once again an average time with standard deviation equal to the average.
5. A stochastic fraction of the fallow oil flows out of the build state with rate 1/t2. Once out of this state, it is ready for the next stage.
6. The oil sits in the maturation state once the rigs are completed. The maximum flow can not be achieved initially as the necessary transport, pipelines, and other logistics are not 100% ready. This time constant we call t3.
7. A stochastic fraction of the built rig's virtual oil flows out of the maturation state with rate 1/t3. Once out of this virtual state, it is ready for the next stage of sustained extraction.
8. The oil sits in the ready-to-extract state once the oil well is mature.
9. The oil starts getting pumped with stochastic extraction rate 1/t4. The amount extracted per unit time is proportional to the amount in the previous maturation state.
Post-condition: All oil eventually gets extracted at time=infinity. But because of the proportionality extraction rate assumed, this decline only asymptotically approaches zero at long time periods. Also, the cumulative amount extracted at time=infinity equals the total discovered. However, since we never achieve infinite time, cumulative extraction never matches cumulative discoveries.
Each one of these states can be considered as a reservoir with a capacitive time lag associated with the time constant set for each stage. In stochastic terminology the flow approximates a Markovian Process.
The extraction from the final stage gives the average production level. Since Markov processes have well-behaved linear properties and are conditionally independent of past states, an entire set of discoveries can be applied as forcing functions to this process flow and the result will be a convolution of the individually forced solutions.
The final production profile over time approximates the classic Hubbert curve. This narrative explains in very basic terms how and why the peak gets shifted well away from the discovery peak. However it is not symmetric, as the nature of time causality rules long negative tails out.
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 7:53 pm Post subject: Re: I'm confused. How do you calculate and model this data?
ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:
Presto....reserve growth from the guy who says there isn't any. Objective fact #2.
Yes, and the oil companies refer to it with the euphemism "reserve growth" instead of the more correct "badly made estimates revised upwards". In politics, that is called framing the issue. So who made the bad estimates in the first place? Ever heard of the expression GIGO?
Give us non-garbage input and we will make hay. Remember, this is just an exercise in bean-counting. I suppose you can denigrate Campbell as being a misguided bean-counter, but eventually someone will take his place that understands how the "yanking of the chain" occurs, and can argue his way out of a paper bag when faces with the continuously revised bad data courtesy of the oil companies.
The current framing is this : "Campbell is wrong because he ignores the magical property of reserve growth"
As if reserve growth is some intrinsic property of an oil field, instead of errors compounded by the humans behind the wheel.
The correct counter-framing should be: "The oil companies continuously provide bad estimates of discovery yield, making it hard for anyone to predict oil depletion"
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 9:11 pm Post subject: Re: I'm confused. How do you calculate and model this data?
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:
The current framing is this : "Campbell is wrong because he ignores the magical property of reserve growth"
As if reserve growth is some intrinsic property of an oil field, instead of errors compounded by the humans behind the wheel.
The correct counter-framing should be: "The oil companies continuously provide bad estimates of discovery yield, making it hard for anyone to predict oil depletion"
I have no problem equating reserve growth with "continuous bad estimates of discovery yield" because really, thats what it is.
Myself, I don't care what you call it, what I care about is it exists all over the place, its net positive, its a big amount of addition to reserves relative to new discoveries, and Colin hasn't even been able to guess at the correct numbers 10 years in the PAST yet.....so what kind of incompetence is that? 10 years after the fact and he STILL doesn't know what the size of the discovery is. Yup...I'm sure them accountants could do alot better....
Now that you won't even admit to having read anything Colin has written, I don't suppose you are familiar with Arringtons work? Attansai and Root at the USGS, particularly the Enigma paper in 1995?
And pup, those were some really nice graphs you provided. I like'em. Seems like it makes the point better than I ever could that trying to fit Hubberts curve to production data is a pretty useless exercise.
As for temporal properties of this curve over time, as SS noted it has the property that
Code:
dP/dt = K * (t0-t) * P(t)
where t0=PeakTime. This relationship reads that the production increase slows down over time linearly, but also scaled by the amount of production at that time. At t=t0, the production increase turns into a production decrease.
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
