Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Oil Shock Model for the World - 4100 Gb


I recently used the Oil Shock Model to create a future oil output scenario using Jean Laherrere’s estimate for World C+C URR of 2700 Gb.  About 500 Gb of extra heavy oil from Canadian Oil Sands and Orinoco Belt oil is included in the C+C URR estimate.

 The United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that the World C+C URR is 4100 Gb, including 1000 Gb of extra heavy oil.  The chart below is a new scenario created using Paul Pukite’s (Webhubbletelescope’s) Oil Shock Model with Dispersive Discovery.
 


I intended this to be an April Fool's joke.  I do not expect that extra heavy oil output will actually reach 28 Mb/d by 2100.  Note however that Jean Laherrere's 2013 estimate for extra heavy oil(XH) has a peak of about 16 Mb/d in 2070, with a URR of 500 Gb for XH oil. 

I believe that the USGS estimate is too optimistic and think 3100 Gb for C+C-XH and 700 Gb for XH oil for a total C+C URR of 3800 Gb is as high as C+C output will go (my optimistic scenario).

My pessimistic scenario is 2500 Gb of C+C-XH and 500 Gb of XH oil for a total C+C URR of 3000 Gb.  My best guess is 2800 Gb of C+C-XH and 600 Gb of XH oil for a total C+C URR of 3400 Gb.

6 comments:

  1. Subscribe to Well Servicing Magazine..Get the energy servicing industry’s leading publication delivered to your office.

    Well Service Rigs, AESC

    Well Service Rigs, AESC

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ron made a very firm comment that TF oil was not sourced from the Bakken shale. However everyone else says it is. E.g. USGS.

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://info.drillinginfo.com/drillinginfos-us-oil-production-forecast/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Nony. Interesting analysis. Seems to confirm relatively flat output for 2015, Eagle Ford output may be declining, but increases in the Permian basin may make up the difference (not sure about other basins, but my impression is that output is not huge from other LTO plays besides the big 3). I expect bakken output to be flat.

      Delete
  4. What is your point (??) in the most recent article? It's just confusing. Not sure where you are going. Would read with interest and respond positive to new insights or negative to flaws. But I can't really tell what you are doing, trying to do.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Anonymous,

    Based on USGS mean estimates of roughly 4100 Gb of technically recoverable resources (TRR), the scenario presented is what output might look like. Even this scenario has oil sands output ramping up faster than what I actually believe possible. The post was intended as an April Fools Joke, it was published on April 1st 2015.

    ReplyDelete