<DrumBeat: December 12, 2006The Oil DrumSome Predictions from the Time when Today Was the Future of Oil>
<Fuel duty and the effect of oil prices on the UK economyThe Oil Drum: EuropePeak Oil at the Movies: Oil Crash & Crude Impact>

75 comments on The forecasting record of CERA and other commentators

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Euan Mearns on December 8, 2006 - 3:58pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Khabab, Thanks for your input.

One thing I've been looking at visually is how the underlying rate of decline fans towards steeper values with time.  So I had already reckoned that using 13% which is the underlying rate now, is probably an underestimate for the future.  However, with actual decline running at around 7.6%, that growing to 22% seems a lot.


0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Khebab on December 8, 2006 - 6:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I made a mistake in my post above, the ultimate decline rate is in fact K/2 (and not K) which gives 11% (and not 22%).
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nate Hagens on December 12, 2006 - 6:21pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The next generation of Brits thanks you and forgives you.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DelusionaL on December 13, 2006 - 10:15am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
This makes me think that we have a "mirror" to WT's "export land" model.  Perhaps he has mentioned it already.

Jeffery Brown (aka WT) we need an import land model as well.  If the UK is going to increase the ammount of imported oil it needs to even maitain the status quo....

Is anyone else frighten by this stuff?  This looks like it could get very ugly very quickly to me.  

I look at all the homes, apartments and town houses around Portland, OR all heated by nat. gas or electric(48% coal fired)-
No trees for fuel, no land to grow food, and ton's of people hooked on electronic toys.
The perfect storm...

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LoveOregon on December 15, 2006 - 9:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
DelusionaL:  Think regionally, man.  I'm not saying things are in good shape at all here in Portland, but there is vibrant regional agriculture, reasonable mass transit, urban growth boundaries having contained sprawl better than most places in the US, a fairly aware citizenry (well, less bad than many other places, shall we say), fairly high social capital (recall TOD discussions of this about four months ago).  There's also fairly high regional identity in Cascadia, something Bob Shaw has pointed to in the past.  This is a resource, and it's manifested in many forms, some obviously green but others flying under different colors ("don't Californicate Oregon", etc.).  
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
andrew on December 12, 2006 - 9:56pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
given the average decline rate of the above figure (over the last 6 years) of 13%, does anyone know how a prediction of 9% decline can be made? - thats a 30% decrease in decline rate, and from smaller fields which, as has been pointed out on several occasions, have a faster decline rate.

also (i don't think i have the numbers to plot the above graph myself) could someone plot what the general decline rate vs time has been, and extrapolate that to the future?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Euan Mearns on December 13, 2006 - 5:36am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Andrew - sorry for getting you confused here.  The chart above does not show the 48 new fields that have been brought on since 2000.  If you include the new fields, the underlying decline rate is reduced from 13% to and actual rate of 7.6% as shown below.


What Khebab is saying is that his modelling suggests the actual decline may accelerate to 11% from 7.6%.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.