What does RGR actually want.

[RGR]

After

[2 As and a B]

I missed the thread that prompted this so maybe my understanding of depletion rate is limited but why should a depletion rate remain fixed over a time period, particularly a time period as long as 25 years? Surely a depletion rate is merely a function of oil production during the year over oil reserves at start of the year? Thus depletion rate can vary year to year depending on marginal changes in production over the year (even during wildly fluctuating "economic" activity) and potentially wildly* changing oil reserves at the start of the year.

* According to wikipedia (I know ), "Oil reserves are the estimated quantities of crude oil that are claimed to be recoverable under existing economic and operating conditions" and so can go up and down like well-oiled tart's drawers.

Re the maths (I have a degree in a mathematics-orientated subject, thank you), does that demonstrate anything more than the self-evident "as the oil price increases, so do the reserves (and stuff the economic consequences)"?

[ziggy12345]

RGR you know very well that reserve growth applies to proven reserves. The proven reserves will grow as more holes are drilled and you can prove you can get more out of the reservoir. Before the well was drilled this wasn't proven so the more wells you drill the more the reservoir grows through its life. (You know you can elaborate on this but try to keep it simple for the masses)

What is really important is the probable reserves. The probable reserves are the most likely figures for recovery. At first the proven is lower than the probable and over time with more data the proved reserves grow and the probable shrinks until they seem to come together just about when the reservoir dies.

Even if you do the extrapolations with probable reserves the figures are not much different so reserve growth really has no effect on the timing of peak oil.

The slow down you show is a shallow tail off. Horizontal drilling and water flood methods are to maintain production in a depleted reservoir so if the production maintained the reserves are falling at an increasing % rate

I have seen this in action in Nigeria, Denmark and the north sea and when the field finally gives up its very dramatic

Cheers

[RGR]

[quote="foodinistar"]

[RGR]

RGR you know very well that reserve growth applies to proven reserves.

yup

[ziggy12345]

RGR

I was not implying it ONLY applies to proven reserves but if you apply the same logic to probable reserves you get the opposite effect. A decline and not a growth.

What part of my statement is wrong? Probable recovery is the more likely figure or that the probable reserves shrink over time to match proven reserves.

Yes I agree that the estimate of probable reserves are sometimes on the low side but this is the exception. Mainly the reservoir engineers get it right and are on the high side to ensure that the funding is there for development. Anyway that wasn't my point. The point was if you take the total known probable reserves, and these will DECREASE over time, and then calculate a possible peak and decline it makes a small difference to the timing even if the probable reserves are constant.

Cheers

[DominicJ]

RGR
Forgive me if I'm wrong but, even in your second table with reserve growth, production falls each year, does it not?
Which is sort of the problem?
Or certainly what I view as the problem, not so much that oil will cease to be available, simply it will do so in lower quantities, forcing the poorest off the oil tap each year production falls, which is(or will be) every year.
Eventualy, and worryingly soon, the UK is going to be pushed off the oil tap as we can no longer afford it, or we have to make huge sacrifices to meet the bill.
Using your numbers, after 25 years, oil production has fallen to 64%, which means 36% is no longer available.
Sure it'll hit third world farmers first, but it will hit us eventualy.

[Andy_K]

RGR
Forgive me if I'm wrong but, even in your second table with reserve growth, production falls each year, does it not?
Which is sort of the problem?

I don't think anyone could doubt that society as a whole would be able to adapt and switch to alternative fuels if were were suffering a global 0.5% annual decline in total production.

And I don't think anyone could doubt that society as a whole would be very likely to fall apart if we were to suffer a global 10% annual decline.

That's the point. A slow decline is a problem that can be overcome. A large and rapid decline would be a nightmare. RGR's main beef seems to be with people assuming PO = end of days, therefore explaining why decline is likely to be more gentle than predicted by doomers gives credence to the idea that actually, we might not all be living in caves and cannibalising corpses in 50 years time.

For what it's worth, I still think an 'all-time' peak is likely to be in the next few years if it hasn't happened already, but I'm open to opinions on how steep the decline might be.

[Welsh Wizard]

The IEA reckon 6+% declines. That's closer to the scenario where we are screwed than the scenario where we are safe.

[DominicJ]

And even "mild" declines are reliant on there being other fuel sources we can use, without peak oil becoming peak energy.

[RGR]

RGR

I was not implying it ONLY applies to proven reserves but if you apply the same logic to probable reserves you get the opposite effect. A decline and not a growth.

Your logic is irrefutable.

[RGR]

RGR
Forgive me if I'm wrong but, even in your second table with reserve growth, production falls each year, does it not?
Which is sort of the problem?

Sort of.

[RGR]

The IEA reckon 6+% declines. That's closer to the scenario where we are screwed than the scenario where we are safe.

[DominicJ]

Thanks for the explanation

[Welsh Wizard]

RGR, the IEA changed their mind very quickly between 2007 and 2008. "Radical change" is the phrase used in the video. They painted an optimistic picture in the past and it is clear that the rosy view was wrong:

The shortfall in oil supply in the IEA view by 2030 is 7m bpd, supplied by the Albertan Tar Sands. I personally doubt that production at that giant level is feasible in the timeframe of 22 years. Even if we do that then the environmental damage will be huge and CO2 levels will be very high.

So I say again: We are closer to being screwed than saved. There is no way out of the oil depletion problem that doesn't involve decreased oil consumption per capita or alternative oil with huge environmental problems. We really are in a pickle. If we cant cut back consumption by a serious fraction, improve efficiency of use etc then our economy is going to suffer severe volatility in its energy input costs and its costs due to global warming, which will likely destroy the economic growth that we depend on. With negative consequences for living standards.