[Arthur75]

From a new report to appear soon, preliminary version :
http://tribune-pic-petrolier.org/wp-con ... s-JL-1.pdf

[Beery1]

Well, it's the latest. Hopefully not the last.

I had to go check on Wikipedia - I thought he must have died.

[Arthur75]

Yes sorry, should have wrote latest

[Arthur75]

world oil outlook, they need their nice report too !
As to U XH 500 Gb, that's ultimate recovery for extra heavy (tar sands and orinoco)

[John_A]

world oil outlook, they need their nice report too !
As to U XH 500 Gb, that's ultimate recovery for extra heavy (tar sands and orinoco)

Seems a bit low. The orinoco alone has been pegged at that big, and I think Canada is currently touting the tar sands at another couple hundred billion by themselves as well.

[sparky]

.
I'm a big fan of Jean Laherrere ,
his deep understanding of the geology and extraction is second to none
his forecast production numbers have always been top notch

IF he state that to the best of his information the peak should occur around 2020
that's it for me ,

Since producers own consumption increase at a fast rate
there is a strong probability than crude oil exports will peak well before
IE the crude oil market should get interesting , so will economic growth prospect

[Arthur75]

Yes Jean is more or less the only one still producing global forecasts to my knowledge and probably has some of the best data.
And if in his conclusion he mentions 2020, his graphs are showing an earlier date (in fact right now for all liquids).

Below also a preliminary version of another paper on IOCs (western majors) production and forecasts :
http://tribune-pic-petrolier.org/wp-con ... ecasts.pdf

[Pops]

Me too. My WAG for peak about now ('12-'15) was basically his guess.

Interesting thing in this paper is how much time he spends on the different measurements and definitions/redefinitions of "oil" from various sources over the last few years and how those produce different estimates of production. But even more interesting is the observation that over the last 5-6 years of the plateau there is more difference between the different sources' estimates than there is production fluctuations within each version. By Campbell's definition "regular oil" peaked in 2005 just like he said it would in '98:

Oops, got the whole page - top chart is the one I'm referring


Incomplete and intentionally skewed data has always been the complaint though so that is nothing new and I don't see that ever changing, even with the JODI database.

He shows a decline of global per capita consumption in 2005, I wouldn't argue with that.

I don't know how his forecast of OPEC exports declining to 0 by 2045 compares with Brown?

[Arthur75]

Interesting thing in this paper is how much time he spends on the different measurements and definitions/redefinitions of "oil" from various sources over the last few years and how those produce different estimates of production. But even more interesting is the observation that over the last 5-6 years of the plateau there is more difference between the different sources' estimates than there is production fluctuations within each version.

Indeed, following the various transitions in the definitions is a job in itself.
And the kind of divergence in the data could be considered as one of the effect of the peak, I wouldn't be surprised if the data discrepencies keep increasing in the coming years.

[Arthur75]

And a new report from the "Energy Watch Group" (German study group) :
http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadm ... 3_2013.pdf
« Fossil and Nuclear Fuels – the Supply
Outlook »
Very broad summary :
peak oil is passed
peak gas : around 2020
peak coal within next 10 years (page 12)

[Pops]

Yeow that's pessimistic.

Especially the "disappointments" on page 8; x-deep & sub-salt, x-heavy, tar sands and the Caspian (I remember railing about the trans-afgan pipe that was to carry all the caspian oil as the cause of our ongoing interest in that country) have all fallen well short of expectations and press release fluffing.

Although everyone still shouts hosannas about those fabulous reserves, they are turning out to be the cold fusion of oil production: forever just a few years away..

[Arthur75]

A shorter updated version of Laherrère oil and gas forecasts synthesis :
http://tribune-pic-petrolier.org/wp-con ... ai2013.pdf

[Arthur75]

Key graphs :

Reserves :



All liquids :


All liquids Opec NOpec breakdown


Natural gas :

[Plantagenet]

Dr. Laherrere is an engineer---not a geologist. I'm not sure he has a real grasp on geology. For instance, Dr Laherrere doesn't think the Bakken is an "unconventional" oil field---he says the "trapping" there is "conventional" when it clearly isn't. In reality the production in the Bakken isn't at all dependent on any kind of conventional structural trap. There are good spots and bad spots, but these seem to be related to the original sedimentology of the shale rather than the presence or absence of "conventional" structural traps.

Dr. Laherrere also says the production zone for the Bakken isn't the shale at all----Dr. Laharrere thinks the Bakken shales are actually producing from a "dolomitic reservoir" between shale beds. This is the exact opposite of what the USGS said when they recently doubled their estimate of oil in the Bakken to 7.4 billion bbls by including both the upper and lower SHALES.

Dr. Laherre claims the Bakken production is from a "dolomitic reservoir" on p. 13 "-North Dakota North Dakota oil production is booming thanks to the Bakken shale oil, which in fact is produced from a dolomitic reservoir within the Bakken shales, the trapping is conventional and not a continuous-type accumulation...

While his grasp of geology is shaky, Dr. Laherre is nonetheless very skeptical of future prospects for oil in the Bakken. He predicts the oil boom there will end "soon" because the "sweet spots" are all used up and the unemployment rate is too low in North Dakota.

also from p. 13 "But thanks to a heavy drilling (over 200 rigs) North Dakota has exceeding Alaska oil production with a production of 750 000 b/d in October 2012 with 7796 wells, but production has declined in November down to 733 000 b/d with 7864 wells. These shale plays are called continuous-type accumulation with oil being present everywhere on the basin. But there are many articles on the use of seismic to find the best place to drill: it means that there are good wells and bad wells. The only difference with conventional field is that a well is not finding oil or finding water, but finding a fair amount of oil making the drilling economical or finding a small amount of oil, which will not reimburse the drilling cost but will pay only for the completion and production, and will save for a while the plugging cost. Also to keep the estimated reserves it is necessary to produce even a small amount. Selling reserves can be more profitable than selling oil. The “sweet spots” seems to be almost fully drilled! The boom could end (North Dakota unemployment rate is very low and housing costs very high) soon."


Jean Laherrere predicts the oil boom in the Bakken will end soon because the sweet spots are all used up and the unemployment rate in North Dakota is too low.

[Arthur75]

No, Laherrère is indeed a geologist and an engineer Plant, and one who has discovered several major fields.

As to if the Bakken tight oil should be called conventional or unvonventional, a matter of words primarily, but he certainly knows what he is talking about.

[John_A]

No, Laherrère is indeed a geologist and an engineer Plant, and one who has discovered several major fields.

Says here engineer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Laherr%C3%A8re

This one says petroleum geophysicist.

http://www.thenation.com/video/159001/j ... bad-thing#

Geophysicists being more mathematicians than geologists, but still, it could be either. Usually isn't both though.




As to if the Bakken tight oil should be called conventional or unvonventional, a matter of words primarily, but he certainly knows what he is talking about.[/quote]

[John_A]

No, Laherrère is indeed a geologist and an engineer Plant, and one who has discovered several major fields.

Says here engineer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Laherr%C3%A8re

This one says petroleum geophysicist.

http://www.thenation.com/video/159001/j ... bad-thing#

Geophysicists being more mathematicians than geologists, but still, it could be either. Usually isn't both though.

As to if the Bakken tight oil should be called conventional or unvonventional, a matter of words primarily, but he certainly knows what he is talking about.

Many people do. Doesn't mean their projections are any better, or worse, than flipping a coin and trumpeting the path they believe it leads down as valid. From his and Campbell's 1998 paper. Check out the volume listed for the world circa 2013. Looks like about 22 billion barrels to me, otherwise known as 63 million a day. Current world crude oil production? 72 million a day.

Somewhere along the line his methods lost 9 million a day they shouldn't have. Overestimating declines? Underestimating discoveries? Certainly I am being reasonable here by pretending that Laherrere's graph is only crude oil, it isn't. He said it was both conventional and unconventional, in which case the proper number to compare it to would be the global liquid fuels number. That is close to 90 million a day, and is arguably the one which matters most because it is what the world uses to do actual work with, therefore it is much more important than esoteric discussions on why one density of oil deserves counting, another does not, even though both are used in the same way. In that light, Colin and Jean have missed by 27 million barrels a day.

http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?p ... production

[Pops]

Dr. Laherrere is an engineer---not a geologist. I'm not sure he has a real grasp on geology. For instance, Dr Laherrere doesn't think the Bakken is an "unconventional" oil field---he says the "trapping" there is "conventional" when it clearly isn't. In reality the production in the Bakken isn't at all dependent on any kind of conventional structural trap. There are good spots and bad spots, but these seem to be related to the original sedimentology of the shale rather than the presence or absence of "conventional" structural traps.

I'm no one to get in a geology argument but I can google up numerous quotes and pics showing the upper and lower shales are the source and the seal but production comes from the sand and silt stone "reservoir" (such as it is) between the two:

The Bakken Formation comprises three distinct members. The upper and lower members are black, organic-rich shales and are widely recognized as world-class source rocks. These members also serve as very effective seals owing to their very low permeability. Permeability ranges from 0.01 mD to 20 mD. The middle member is the primary oil-producing member and predominantly composed of siltstones and sandstones but also has low porosity (1% - 15%) and permeability (0 - 20 millidarcies),2 particularly for a reservoir rock.

Which proves nothing I guess except that its easier to attack the messenger than confront the message.
.

[Pops]

I think he is fairly noncommittal re shale. It would be nice if more were as neutral.

Providing that no new cycle of discoveries [first surface exploration, then seismic, then deepwater] happens, the extrapolated values are the ultimate reserves. Geological expertise is needed to foresee if a new cycle is possible. For oil, the only new possible cycle could be shale oil (called now tight oil). It is only significant in the US, not yet in the rest of the world. There is not enough historical production to reliably estimate world shale oil reserves, but it seems that the amount is much less than the accuracy of the world crude less XH oil reserves. So, the shale oil boom can be hype and it would be wrong to put it as a fourth global cycle. Only time will tell. It is the same for natural gas and shale gas