Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 3:54 pm Post subject: Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:
So simple scaling from this point would suggest that the Russians can get another factor of 2x at best. This may even be high since Verma says the ultimate Russian reserve growth is 3-5x since the initial discovery, which includes the evaluation period, thus subsuming a significant fraction of the 3-5x growth. I'm sorry that this is such a puzzle, but blame it on the cryptic Verma for being so damn obtuse.
Figure 3, Curve A, 4.5X from "effective discovery".
Figure 4, Curve A, 6.5X from "effective discovery".
Figure 6, Curves A and B, 4.5X and 3X respectively, "effective discovery".
Figure 8, Curves A and B, 3.5X to 2.5X 6 YEARS after "effective discovery".
Let me guess, I need to go get a electronics engineer who invented the microchip to convert all those 3's and 4's and 5's into 2's for me because you don't like the figures in the paper? The one I like is the 6 years after discovery...and its STILL going to double at LEAST once again.....
Nah...I'm with you, just because Russia doesn't have the SEC, its not fair they STILL have reserve growth.
I might mention that all of Verma's graphs stop within 30 years or so...Hubberts low level time frame was about 60 years...so according to Hubbert, Verma still has some 30 years before he can get the entire Russian picture.
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:
The Russians simply have more information.....which is what reserves growth is all about.
Yup....maybe they are twice as smart as American enguneers because they only have 1/2 the reserve growth? Maybe we need to send THEM all the microchip inventors....they might not know reserve growth from a diode but they could JAW them into reporting numbers you are happier with.
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:
And about half of the USA growth occurs during the first 7 years, which is outside of an evaluation period. I know that you have no use for an evaluation period, preferring some magic, albeit non-speculative, pixie dust to sprinkle over the numbers to create a Peter Pan effect.
I thought RocDoc already told you that the US and Russia are different? And so you require pixie dust to explain differences in reserve growth? I don't...for the record, I used SPE Paper # 62616 as a reference.
Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 11:55 pm Post subject: Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??
ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:
The Russians simply have more information.....which is what reserves growth is all about.
Yup....maybe they are twice as smart as American enguneers because they only have 1/2 the reserve growth? Maybe we need to send THEM all the microchip inventors....they might not know reserve growth from a diode but they could JAW them into reporting numbers you are happier with.
Ya wanker, I did not write that. I quoted something that rockdoc wrote. Jaysus.
Interestingly earlier in the presentation he took a sample of north sea fields and looked at their reserve growth and came up with a number on average of about 33%. Different data sets give you different results is the key observation.
Page 22 shows a TRIPLING of reserves...not an increase of 33%, more like a 200% addition to the original number.
No, the UK and Norway graphs show about 33% growth. Look for the fuzzy pink dots below, if it's not obvious enough.
Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:08 am Post subject: Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??
The average of 3x growth comes from a mix of low reserve growth areas (1.3x in UK and Norway), average growth areas (Russia), and high growth areas (10x in USA). And since the USA contributes less than 5% of global total, you can see how it can't have that much of an effect.
mean growth = sum(fractioni x growthi)
where fractioni is the fraction of total oil supplied from region i, in other words
Joined: May 22, 2004 Posts: 1424 Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:55 am Post subject: Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??
WHT wrote:
The average of 3x growth comes from a mix of low reserve growth areas (1.3x in UK and Norway), average growth areas (Russia), and high growth areas (10x in USA). And since the USA contributes less than 5% of global total, you can see how it can't have that much of an effect.
I don't believe it works that way exactly. Different data sets have different standards. For instance if you are using SEC definition or are using proven+probable you would expect different results. Different eras also show differences in reserve growth. ( EG. less reserve growth in more modern data).
It is also very plausible that reserve growth is dependent on the size of the field and whether or not it is offshore.
Due to all that uncertainty I would hesitate to put a figure on what the reserve growth will be going forward. There has been a trend towards decreasing revision reserve growth. I am not sure why that is, but Cambpell's story that companies used to book the reserves from large fields conservatively so that they could smooth out their reserve additions sounds plausible. _________________ Biofuels: The "What else we got to burn?" answer to peak oil.
Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 9:26 am Post subject: Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??
nero wrote:
WHT wrote:
The average of 3x growth comes from a mix of low reserve growth areas (1.3x in UK and Norway), average growth areas (Russia), and high growth areas (10x in USA). And since the USA contributes less than 5% of global total, you can see how it can't have that much of an effect.
I don't believe it works that way exactly.
OK, it works that way approximately. That's why we can call it an average. We have these people screaming that reserve growth is 10x at least, with no admission that the discovery curves are a living set of data that can get backdated. Unless we provide a bit of a smackdown, it is just another way to give a cornucopian outlook where there is likely none.
Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 9:40 am Post subject: Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??
nero wrote:
WHT wrote:
The average of 3x growth comes from a mix of low reserve growth areas (1.3x in UK and Norway), average growth areas (Russia), and high growth areas (10x in USA). And since the USA contributes less than 5% of global total, you can see how it can't have that much of an effect.
It is also very plausible that reserve growth is dependent on the size of the field and whether or not it is offshore.
Did you not notice in the quoted bit that UK and Norway are offshore? And that they show up with much lower reserve growth? At some point you would expect reserve growth in these areas to stop, as the rigs get abandoned due to high cost and steeply diminishing returns.
The reference was Page 22...neither of the graphs you are showing come from page 22. What is it with people just winging off references which have nothing to do with the points they are trying to make? If I ever did that the editing staff would hand me my head.....
The reference was Page 22...neither of the graphs you are showing come from page 22. What is it with people just winging off references which have nothing to do with the points they are trying to make? If I ever did that the editing staff would hand me my head.....
Jaysus KayRiceTea, I was the one that posted that graph on page 22 in this here very thread if you care to page back several posts. Well I will post it again below
This graph shows sources including and other than Norway and UK. Clearly reserve growth has an average value with a large spread (or standard deviation) in values.
Editing staff? What do you work for, a high school paper?
Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:46 pm Post subject: Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??
Hey as far as I'm concerned this is all great discussion. I admire any attempt to quantify reserves growth. That being said a drive by shooting from a plane flying at 5000 feet elevation is usually not very effective. There are a number of reasons for reserves growth and I think the effect on how that would look on any given field production profile is completely different. There is reserves growth through continued drilling of a known reservoir in a given field, sometimes they find compartments they did not know about, sometimes they find a difference in reservoir characteristics in part of the field, sometimes they find the intial field boundaries such as faults are not effective and the field is laterally more extensive than originally assumed. There is also reserves growth through improved recovery efficiency. As an example intial look at a given field might tell us from the PVT properties of the oil that primary recovery with no intervention will be about 30% so away we go to development....a bit more drilling and we start to think...hey just a tick....if we inject water we can get this puppy up to 40% and away we go with the injection scheme....a bit of production history and hold on...how about injecting some gas as well....maybe get that recovery factor up to 45% and so on. Another means of reserve growth is by encountering additional reservoirs in the same field that previously were unknown. This happens all the time. As an example Egyptian fields such as Ramadan and Belayim started off producing from one zone and as continued drilling occurred, often on the flanks of the structure additional reservoirs were found. Another means of reserve growth is simply through what I call the frontier of the unknown. Good examples of this are found in unconvential reservoirs such as fractured basement where the rock intersected by the borehole has seemingly limited storage capacity certainly less so than production history would tell us. What is happening is that there is better storage capacity away from the borehole ....fractures simply connecting to pods of good porosity. This sort of thing is completely unpredictable and the only way you will find out about it is through close spaced infill drilling or continued production history supported with lots of pressure measurements.
So I guess I am saying that the issue is fairly complex...the timing at which the reserves growth occurs in each of these cases is somewhat different . The question remains is that given this happens on a field by field basis how does this affect the overall growth curve for a given country?
Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 8:05 pm Post subject: Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??
I know all sorts of weird crap can happen deterministically, but what does this all imply statistically?
We have years of data and knowledge accumulated. We can make future estimates based on past results. This is not the stock market we are talking about. It's more like predicting the seasonal weather. I could care less that an occasional winter storm can deliver 10 feet of snow, but provide a mean and variance you can fairly judge the climate.
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:48 am Post subject: Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??
Quote:
what does this all imply statistically
From the looks of those charts, the average may be 1.33 but the standard deviation is very broad. In other words, I would not be very comfortable to try to do a model based on this 33% reserves growth factor because there is a lot of variability in this number.
Also, there is no apparent "volume weighting", which would answer the question, is "reserves growth" dependent on field size: do "big fields" tend to be over-or under-estimated to a greater extent than small fields. 100% reserves growth in a big field will cancel out a lot of 2% growth in small fields, even though the average would be 49%.
In any case, this is a central argument in the PO debate, because as we all know, discoveries are about 7 gb per year and consumption is 30 gb per year, so if the reserves do not "grow" by at least 4.25X then only a matter of time before we go into net reserves decline, and ultimately net production decline sometime after that. Also, the 4.25 gets bigger every year as consumption increases.
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 9:35 am Post subject: Re: Is Reserve Growth a Non-issue??
pup55 wrote:
Also, there is no apparent "volume weighting", which would answer the question, is "reserves growth" dependent on field size: do "big fields" tend to be over-or under-estimated to a greater extent than small fields. 100% reserves growth in a big field will cancel out a lot of 2% growth in small fields, even though the average would be 49%.
The Arrington and R&A and Verma type calculations are inherently volume weighted. If you simply use the fractional yearly reserve change, and then average something along those lines, its exactly the problem you are describing.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4Next
Page 3 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
