Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- On Independence, Energy Subsidy, and Freedom
- Dopamine Returned on Energy Invested (DREI)?
- Fibber McGee, Molly, and Your Energy Future
TOD:Europe
- Alcatraz: the TOD-ASPO gathering
- The financial return on energy invested
- Update on US GOM from MMS, EIA and Scout Data
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 3rd July 2009
- The Trouble With Energy - Part 4
- The Bullroarer - Friday 26th June 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“So one may almost say that the theory of universal suffrage assumes that the Average Citizen is an active, instructed, intelligent ruler of his country. The facts contradict this assumption.”
—James Bryce (1909, 35)
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.








GAIA Host Collective
Thanks Rembrandt, I always find your posts very informative and top quality.
hmm... maybe but it seems that growth is occuring mainly in the other liquid category:
growth in C+C seems to have stalled despite planned new supply from megaprojects:
From: Chris Skrebowski, "Prices holding steady, despite massive planned capacity additions", Petroleum Review, April 2006.
It seems to me that these forecasts have been somewhat optimistics and were forecasting something very close to business as usual (i.e. ~2%/year growth in supply). The actual production plateau was not predicted (see chart above). Have you conducted a post-mortem analysis?
The presence of a plateau is not obvious on your Figure, it seems that production growth from 2005 to 2010 is pretty much inline with the growth we had between 1982 and 2005.
Is the decline rate stationary? if you look at production decline in mature regions, the decline rate seems to linearly accelerate (~0.13% per year):
For instance, the logistic model predicts a linear dependency between the decline rate and the cumulative production as a fraction of the URR:
Decline rate(t)= K*(1-2*Q(t)/URR)
Khebab,
Your final graph is interesting. Are you estimating annual decline as the percentage increase of [this year] over [previous year]? Would you care to speculate about the reasons for the change in character of the curve after 1960? Before then it seems almost uncorrelated year on year, whereas after 1960 it gets much smoother and remains so for the next four decades, apart from the last hurrah (Prudhoe Bay?) in 1978-ish. What changed in 1960?
RE: Are you estimating annual decline as the percentage increase of [this year] over [previous year]?
Yes.
RE: Would you care to speculate about the reasons for the change in character of the curve after 1960?
Noise is a lot stronger before 1960 but I really don't know why. Maybe it has to do with the way the data was collected.
I will suggest and answer as to the "why" the US curve smooths out after 1960.
First, if you run a time series analysis on the variance(on the monthly data) you will see there is a periodicity in production of ~2.5 years. Even though they are much smaller in amplitude now, they persist to this day. What it looks like (and models out) is a damped sinusoid.
As the base magnitude of production increases (and "spare capacity" becomes challenged and decreases in both real and relative magnitude), the variance decreases.
Part of this change in amplitude may have been a policy change (and remember OPEC formed in 1960, though they didn't really flex their muscles until 1973). US imports grew significantly during the late 1940's and 1950's from 9% to over 20%, while oil exports fell essentially to "zero."
But in the period of the 1960's, oil imports also stabilized, as a percentage of the total, at around 20%. So, in a growing consumption modality, US production (or imports) could still act as the swing supplier though the degree of "spare capacity." was quickly being "consumed." And remember, the Texas Railroad Commission was also the 800 pound gorilla in the room with regard to US production.
A similar situation can be seen in the global data. If there is a great deal of "spare capacity" in oil production (and you have the storage capacity for what is produced), then you can see a great deal of variability both on the growth side and the downturn side of the production curves that are underpinned by economic conditions. This high degree of variability is seen in data all the way up to 1991.
But in the upturn in production that began in June 1993, the monthly variation became noticeably smaller (almost non-existent) as global oil production increased from about 60 million barrels per day in 1993 to about 67 million barrels per day just 5 years later in 1998. A short sputter between 1998 and 1999 and much monthly variation before resuming a runup into early 2001. Another short sputter into 2002 and then the last runup from 2002 into 2005 with somewhat larger monthly variation than seen in the late 90's run.
But since 1993, the variability (other than economic downturns) has become much smaller than in all previous data.
This diminishing variability looks like what happens when you have strong growth colliding with capacity issues and, in the case of the US in the 1960's, the coming peak. I suggest the same is likely to be true on the global scale, though we have many more "types of oil sources" than we had when the US peak occurred in 1970.
This is not to say we cannot have large spikes in production, but it seems less and less likely. Anyone know of any new Ghawar's planning to come on-line?
As an aside; in a class I teach, I start the class out on corn and wheat production with a progressive reveal of the curves and actually tell them what they are looking at. Then, I show this US oil production data and tell them "Here's 110 years worth of production data, and obviously we've gotten good at this. So, based on what we've done and been able to do so far, where do you think we will be in 40 years?" I also show them the growth variance curve that shows that while percentage growth is getting smaller, growth is still occurring. Then I give them the finer detail (monthly) from 1920 through 1970 so they can see the seasonal effect and the diminishing variability "for the past 50 years" prior to the 1970 peak.
Well, nearly all of the 40 students in the classroom just mentally extend the production out into the future and come up with an answer of "about 6" (representing the billions of barrels produced for a year, though they don't know that).
And then I put the graphs up with all the data since 1970 included and reveal what they are looking at. "Past performance does not guarantee future performance." Knowing what underpins the data, however, is useful.
Great story about your class!
Can you show us the examples you show in your class, or share the data if you have it in a xls format?
I could use that in the class I teach :)
plucky underdog:
In the late 1950's the world began to really use a lot more oil and gas. The oil finding rate was just about at its maximum, and nationalisation was a storm cloud over the horizon. OPEC hadn't been started It was the good old days of the "free market capitalism" approach to the oil business.
As the world changed from coal to oil for its fossil fuel BTUs, the amount in export trade went up a huge amount. At the beginning of the Second World War, Texas produced 60% of the oil and petrochemicals in world trade, although Texas was producing about 5 million barrels a day.
The rest of the oil in world trade came from Iran and the beginnings of the mid east fields from Shell and Anglo-Iranian Oil, now BP.
When the market was smaller and thinly traded, the decline rate was more closely tied to the performance of individual fields or groups of fields. But as the markets grew, the decline rate had a much larger group of producing field to average it over, so the curve got flattened. At any rate, thats my hypothesis and Im stticking to it. Bob Ebersole
Bob, Rembrandt: your explanations sound coherent... anyone know when the US became a net importer? (the readily-available data series on the Web don't go back as far as 1960, let alone before). I'm going to look at the data for the UK, which recently became an importer as well.
Khebab, westexas: if it (production rate volatility) really is affected by the switchover to export, does this analysis have any interesting implications for the predictive power of ELM? Not trying to muscle in on your zetetic bailiwick, just interested.
It appears that the US became a net importer right around 1949, 21 years before we peaked. Because of a rapid increase in consumption, the US actually showed a pretty rapid collapse in net exports.
Thanks Khebab for your useful comments
Correct
Correct but is this a temporary trend or a sustained one? That is the big question, which is very dependent on what is happening in Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iraq.
Yes, I have the projects in my database, and did some post-mortem work. One could even argue that the decline is somewhat smaller, if the decline in Saudi is voluntary. I still don't feel that we have a definite answer on this.
That depends on how one defines plateau. I called it an upsloping plateau, which in the light of demand growth is correct (demand outstripping supply).In the absolute term it is incorrect. Next to that it also depends on what numbers one takes, Liquids Production has increased with 1 million barrels per day from 2005 to 2006 according to the IEA. However the EIA figures do not show such an increase but a "real" plateau.
The point of this exercise was not to look at a plateau vs peak from a micro scale but from a macro scale. Ill try to be more clear next time in my definitions!
First we need to define what we mean with decline rate, in this post I looked at the total stock of existing fields (including those in a built up phase of production, on plateau and already past-peak). Your chart seems to include total production over time, not total production from a point in time. And then the development of the decline rate over time of that amount of production.
As to whether the decline rate is stationary, it is not. According to some it goes in cycles because of the addition of new production (in the case of existing stock through technology), and the outfasing of quickly declining oil fields over time. The technological vision is that the decline rate can be slowed down in a period of high oil prices.
To my opinion it is not correct to compare the development of decline rates in one oil producing region to another. This will lead to bad estimates because each region has many different characteristics. The problem here is then again a lack of data. While logistic models in general if sufficient correct data input is supplied can give an excellent outcome, we don't have such data. Fortunately over time we are getting somewhere, data quality is improving!
I was looking at your last figure with a 8% decline and I was thinking: why not exploring a range of possible decline rates and take the one that is giving the best match between the bottom-up analysis and recent production levels for C+C? a kind of maximum likelihood parameter estimation, I wonder what value it would give?
I too think comparing Chris past predictions with his great mega projects studies, plus a comparison of predicted new projects vs. delays, would be very useful in calculating a current world decline rate. Roughly, if Chris has been expecting 1Mb/d more each year, and if we are actually flat/down a bit, then his number for world decline (4.5%?) should be adjusted upward, say to 5.5% or so. Unfortunately, it looks like the rate is accelerating...
Why don't you take a stab at it?
That's a good idea, looking at Figure 8 it looks like the decline rate should be more around 7-10%.
Important that this dependence reduces to the Gaussian profile that Stuart discovered a couple of years ago that fits the USA production.
i.e. solve the equation
dP(t)/dt = (k-at)*P(t)
leading to
exp(kt-at^2/2)