creaming curve - wordpress.com updated in 2008 iea used creaming curves for world oil and gas in weo...
TRANSCRIPT
Jean Laherrere 6 March 2016
Creaming curve The 2012 paper byAndrew Lodge http://c299791.r91.cf1.rackcdn.com/andrewlodge.pdf for Premier Oil on the big fields hiding in South Asia (Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand & Vietnam) is quite good, but needs some explanation on the use of creaming curve. Creaming curve was invented by Shell and the best example was their cumulative discoveries versus the number of new field wildcats = NFW
I plotted many creaming curve using NFW, like Africa in 2004
updated in 2008
For the world outside US & Canada
Africa creaming curve data 1886-2007
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
cumulative number of New Field Wildcats
cum
ula
tive
dis
cover
y G
boe
0
300
600
900
1200
1500
1800
2100
2400
2700
3000
3300
3600
cum
ula
tive
nu
mb
er o
f fi
eld
s
O+C Gb
G Gboe
field
My 2001 graph by continents shown by Premier
was updated in 2008
IEA used creaming curves for world oil and gas in WEO 2004
IHS database oil+condensate creaming curve data 1595-2007
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 2500 5000 7500 10000 12500 15000 17500 20000 22500 25000
cumulative number of New Field Wildcats
cum
ula
tive
dis
cover
y G
b
Middle East
CIS
Latin America
Africa
North America frontier
Far East
Australasia
Europe
It is important to use backdated 2P data and not current proved reserves as shown in Canada with CAPP data (ASPO Brussels)
But I found that NFW data could be wrong, in particular in China, the number of NFW in China were changed drastically from 2006 to 2010 for data before 2000.
0!
6!
13!
19!
25!
31!
38!
0!
1!
2!
3!
4!
5!
6!
0! 5 000! 10 000! 15 000! 20 000! 25 000! 30 000! 35 000! 40 000!
cum
ulat
ive
disc
over
y G
b!
cum
ulat
ive
disc
over
y G
.m3!
cumulative number of NFW!
Canada crude oil creaming curve from CAPP data!
1946-1977 = Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin!1978-2009 = Canada Frontier!backdated discovery end 2009!cum prod +current established!
Jean Laherrere March 2011!
http://www.capp.ca/library/statistics/handbook/Pages/statisticalTables.aspx !
The success ratio (number of discoveries = fields versus number of NFW) shows that 2010 data is completely different from 2006 data and for 2010 data displays a burst in 2000
The plot of number of fields versus number of NFW changes drastically in 2000
0!
50!
100!
150!
200!
250!
300!
350!
400!
1950! 1960! 1970! 1980! 1990! 2000! 2010!
num
ber
of N
FW!
year!
China annual number of NFW from IHS database !
NFW 2006!
NFW 2007!
NFW 2008!
NFW 2010!
Jean Laherrere May 2011!
0!
20!
40!
60!
80!
100!
120!
140!
1950! 1960! 1970! 1980! 1990! 2000! 2010! 2020!
succ
ess r
atio
%!
year!
China: annual success ratio = % number discovery /NFW !
SR 2006!SR2010!
Jean Laherrere May 2011!
The number of fields behaves well, in contrary with number of NFW in 2000
Correction was on the way in 2010 data but only up to 2000 and I was hoping to get fully corrected NFW data up to now but I learned that IHS Chinese born American IHS geologist
0!
1250!
2500!
3750!
5000!
6250!
7500!
8750!
10000!
0!
10!
20!
30!
40!
50!
60!
70!
80!
1950! 1960! 1970! 1980! 1990! 2000! 2010! 2020!
cum
ulat
ive
num
ber
of fi
elds
& N
FW!
cum
ulat
ive
disc
over
y G
boe!
year!
China oil & gas cumulative discovery!
O+C Gb!G Tcf/6!NFW 2010!fields!
Jean Laherrere May 2011!
wrong NFW! since or before 2000!= 1063 fields!
Jean Laherrere May 2011!
Xue Feng was jailed in 2008 for 8 years for spying (IHS is said to have paid 225 500 $ for the wells data up to 1999 and Feng left IHS in 2007). It means that it is impossible to get the right NFW data for China (being state secrets), it means for the world. So I moved from NFW to field number to plot creaming curves, showing that they can be extrapolated easily with several hyperbolic cycles
0!20!40!60!80!
100!120!140!160!180!200!220!240!
0! 500! 1000! 1500! 2000! 2500! 3000! 3500! 4000! 4500! 5000!
cum
ulat
ive
disc
over
y G
boe!
cumulative number of fields!
Africa creaming curve!
O+G Gb!gas Tcf/6!
Jean Laherrere Ap 2012!
0!
20!
40!
60!
80!
100!
120!
140!
160!
180!
0! 1000! 2000! 3000! 4000! 5000! 6000! 7000!
cum
ulat
ive
disc
over
y G
boe!
cumulative number of fields!
Asia creaming curve!
O+C Gb!gas Tcf/6!
Jean Laherrere Ap 2012!
0!
20!
40!
60!
80!
100!
120!
140!
0! 1000! 2000! 3000! 4000! 5000! 6000! 7000! 8000!
Tcum
ulat
ive
disc
over
y G
boe!
cumulative number of fields!
Europe creaming curve!
O+C Gb!gas Tcf/6!
Jean Laherrere Ap 2012!
0!
100!
200!
300!
400!
500!
600!
700!
800!
0! 200! 400! 600! 800! 1000! 1200! 1400! 1600! 1800! 2000!
cum
ulat
ive
disc
over
y G
boe!
cumulative number of fields!
Middle East creaming curve!
O+C Gb!gas Tcf/6!
Jean Laherrere Ap 2012!
0!
200!
400!
600!
800!
1000!
1200!
1400!
1600!
1800!
2000!
0! 10 000! 20 000! 30 000! 40 000! 50 000!
cum
ulat
ive
disc
over
ies o
il +c
onde
nsat
e G
boe!
cumulative number of fields!
world outside non frontier US+Canada creaming curve!
oil+C excl. XH !1900-1997!1998-2011!gas Tcf/6!1900-1961!1961-1969!1969-1998!1998-2010!
Jean Laherrere Oct 2011!
The data for the GOM is now 2P from BOEM and the creaming curves allow to estimate the ultimate for oil at 24 Gb . The only problem for BOEM data is missing fields (104
But Premier Oil is wrong to call creaming curve a plot of cumulative discoveries versus time: creaming curve has the advantage to plot cumulative discoveries versus exploration activities, avoiding the up and down of annual exploration activity. Cumlative discoveries versus time is harder to extrapolate with S curves
0!
2!
4!
6!
8!
10!
12!
14!
16!
18!
20!
22!
24!
0! 200! 400! 600! 800! 1000! 1200! 1400! 1600! 1800! 2000!
cum
ulat
ive
oil d
iscov
erie
s Gb!
cumulative number of fields!
US GOM oil creaming curve BOEM end 1998, 2009, 2010 & 2013 !
2001-2013!1997-2001!1987-1997!1947-1987!oil 2P end 2013!oil 2P end 2010!oil 1P end 2009!oil 1P end 1998!
Jean Laherrere Oct 2015!
end 1998 104 fields missing!out of 1088!
end 2013 1300 fields !
My plot of the same graph is almost identical, except that the 2010 value is higher = 138 Gboe instead of 122 Gboe
0!
500!
1000!
1500!
2000!
2500!
0!
20!
40!
60!
80!
100!
120!
140!
1900!1910!1920!1930!1940!1950!1960!1970!1980!1990!2000!2010!2020!
cum
ulat
ive
num
ber
of fi
elds!
cum
ulat
ive
disc
over
ies G
boe!
year!
SE Asia cumulative discoveries!
Gboe!gas Tcf/6!oil + condensate !oil Gb!cond Gb!field!
Jean Laherrere March 2016!
Premier oil creaming curve is plotted versus exploration wells but exploration wells includes new field wildcat and exploratory wells, in particular appraisal wells. Exploration well term is often used for fiscal reasons and could be misleading.
My plot with NFW confirms that Premier oil used only NFW for exploration wells
But to be right on the world level I prefer to use creaming curve versus fields the above graph show that the relationship between number of NFW and number of fields is almost linear
0!
400!
800!
1200!
1600!
2000!
2400!
0!
20!
40!
60!
80!
100!
120!
140!
0! 1000! 2000! 3000! 4000! 5000! 6000! 7000!
cum
ulat
ive
num
ber
of fi
elds!
cum
ulat
ive
disc
over
ies G
boe!
cumulative number of NFW!
SE Asia creaming curve vs NFW 1864-2010!
Gboe!
gas Tcf/6!
oil + condensate !
field!
Jean Laherrere March 2016!
0!
1000!
2000!
3000!
4000!
5000!
6000!
7000!
0!
20!
40!
60!
80!
100!
120!
140!
0! 200! 400! 600! 800! 1000! 1200! 1400! 1600! 1800! 2000! 2200! 2400!
cum
ulat
ive
num
ber
of N
FW!
cum
ulat
ive
disc
over
ies G
boe!
cumulative number of fields!
SE Asia creaming curve vs fields 1864-2010!
Gboe!gas Tcf/6!oil + condensate !cond Gb!cum NFW!
Jean Laherrere March 2016!
The goal of creaming curve is to forecast the ultimate by extrapolating several hyperbolic cycles: my ultimate (assuming no more cycles) is 70 Gb for oil and 100 Gboe = 600 Tcf for natural gas
I have added the creaming curves for Australia
The creaming curves vs NFW shows a sharp gas increase lately hard to extrapolate
0!
10!
20!
30!
40!
50!
60!
70!
80!
90!
100!
0! 500! 1000! 1500! 2000! 2500! 3000! 3500! 4000! 4500! 5000!
cum
ulat
ive
disc
over
ies G
boe!
year!
SE Asia creaming curve vs fields 1864-2010!
H4+H5!H4!gas Tcf/6!H1+H2+H3!H1+H2!H1!oil + condensate !
Jean Laherrere March 2016!
0!
6 000!
12 000!
18 000!
24 000!
30 000!
36 000!
42 000!
48 000!
54 000!
60 000!
66 000!
0!
500!
1000!
1500!
2000!
2500!
3000!
3500!
4000!
4500!
5000!
5500!
1950! 1960! 1970! 1980! 1990! 2000! 2010! 2020!
cum
ulat
ive
disc
over
ies M
boe!
cum
ulat
ive
num
ber
of N
FW &
fiel
ds!
year!
Australia cumulative NFW, discoveries & Mboe 1900-2010!
cum NFW!cum field!cum Mboe!cum crude +cond !cum gas !
Jean Laherrere Mar 2016!
It is easier to extrapolate the creaming curve vs field, being smoother The ultimate for oil leaves little for new discoveries, more for natural gas
0!
10 000!
20 000!
30 000!
40 000!
50 000!
60 000!
70 000!
80 000!
0! 1000! 2000! 3000! 4000! 5000! 6000! 7000!
cum
ulat
ive
disc
over
ies M
boe!
cumulative new field wildcats!
Australia creaming curve vs NFW 1900-2010!
cum Mboe!cum crude +cond !cum gas !
Jean Laherrere Mar 2016!
0!
10 000!
20 000!
30 000!
40 000!
50 000!
60 000!
70 000!
80 000!
0! 200! 400! 600! 800! 1000! 1200! 1400! 1600! 1800! 2000!
cum
ulat
ive
disc
over
ies M
boe!
cumulative number of fields!
Australia creaming curve vs field 1900-2010!
cum Mboe!cum gas !U= 14 000 Mb!cum crude +cond !
Jean Laherrere Mar 2016!