Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mistermj who wrote (207125)	10/27/2006 4:08:55 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 281500

Who cares if the water cut is 99% in Texas and about 38% in Saudi Arabia? Who cares if the rig count in Texas and Saudi Arabia is up and the output down? Who cares if Hubbert predicted B4 Prudhoe Bay and missed the lower 48 by 1%? I know 9 out of 10 constipated babies don't give a shit. Average Saudi Arabian daily oil + condensate production, by month, from EIA and JODI, together with Baker-Hughes oil rig count. January 2000-April 2006. Inset graph shows annual oil consumption and exports according to BP (including NGL). Click to enlarge. Source: EIA International Petroleum Monthly Table 1.1a, Baker-Hughes, and BP. Last green point is from press reports. In all these graphs, the EIA (green) and JODI (plum) production curves refer to the left hand scale, while the blue curve is the oil rig count on the right hand scale. As has been much discussed lately (both here, and over at Econbrowser), Saudi production has begun declining, after a long period of being flat. Both JODI and the EIA agree on this point. The Saudis claim they've cut back deliberately due to lack of demand. However, that oil rig count just keeps skyrocketing, so I think we'll keep wondering. theoildrum.com ========== The Lower 48 and the North Sea could not be more different. The Lower 48 peaked in 1970. It's primarily onshore, some big fields and a lot of small fields. Jump forward to 1999, when the North Sea peaked. The North Sea is offshore, primarily big fields (because of the economics). The North Sea operators also had much better technology. The common connection? Both regions peaked at about 50% of Qt. The "Y" P/Q intercept for the North Sea suggested a more rapid decline rate, and that is precisely what the EIA crude + condensate production has shown, now down 30% (in June) versus the 1999 peak. Khebab and I comapred the Lower 48 to the world and Texas to Saudi Arabia. Based on the HL method, the world and Saudi Arabia, in 2005, were where the Lower 48 and Texas were at when the peaked. We basically confirmed Dr. Deffeyes' data, and we predicted that Saudi Arabia was on the verge of a production decline. Message 22775467 ======= In an article that “Khebab” and I coauthored, “M. King Hubbert’s Lower 48 Prediction Revisited,” we evaluated the accuracy of the HL technique as a predictive tool, once a region has hit the 50% of Qt mark. As most people know, Dr. Hubbert, in 1956, accurately predicted that US Lower 48 oil production would peak around its actual peak in 1970. Using only production data through 1970, we found that actual post-1970 cumulative Lower 48 oil production was 99% of what the HL method predicted. We concluded that Dr. Deffeyes’ prediction that the world peaked in 2005 should be given a lot of credibility. Message 22373227 ======================= Don't worry, be happy

To: mistermj who wrote (207125)	10/27/2006 4:36:32 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Respond to of 281500

Oil Production of Norway: historical figures (brown squares) compared with a Hubbert curve calculated with a total production of 32 billion barrels, peak in the year 2000 and 1/b parameter = 6.5 (his parameter describe initial growth / final decline rate). Norway knew a fast, intensive oil exploration, fields were produced as fast as possible after their discovery and nothing came to disrupt production. These three factors explain the good superposition between historical data and model. According to the model, 11 billion barrels are still to be produced. The reserves announced by Norway, which has a single quality of information in the world, are 10 billion barrels. The future collapse of the production appears inescapable, except if a new province (thus not included in this curve) is found. Observe the near perfect matching of the model to reality as well as the reasons for it. If any of those 3 reasons are not there, then of course there will be "discrepancies".