Decline and depletion rates

of oil production: a
comprehensive investigation
Mikael Höök1 , Simon Davidsson1 , Sheshti Johansson1
rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org and Xu Tang2
1 Global Energy Systems, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala

University, Villavägen 16, Uppsala 752 36, Sweden

Research 2 School of Business Administration, China University of Petroleum,

18 Fuxue Road, Changping, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

Cite this article: Höök M, Davidsson S,
Johansson S, Tang X. 2014 Decline and
Two of the most fundamental concepts in the current
depletion rates of oil production: a
debate about future oil supply are oilfield decline rates
comprehensive investigation. Phil. Trans. R. and depletion rates. These concepts are related, but
Soc. A 372: 20120448. not identical. This paper clarifies the definitions of
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0448 these concepts, summarizes the underlying theory
and empirically estimates decline and depletion rates
for different categories of oilfield. A database of
One contribution of 13 to a Theme Issue 880 post-peak fields is analysed to determine typical
‘The future of oil supply’. depletion levels, depletion rates and decline rates.
This demonstrates that the size of oilfields has a
significant influence on decline and depletion rates,
with generally high values for small fields and
Subject Areas: comparatively low values for larger fields. These
energy, power and energy systems, empirical findings have important implications for oil
mathematical modelling supply forecasting.

Keywords:
depletion rate, decline rate, peak oil,
field-by-field analysis, depletion level
1. Introduction
Non-renewable fossil fuels provide around 81% of the
global primary energy supply and oil remains the single
Author for correspondence:
largest primary fuel, satisfying 33% of the world’s
Mikael Höök energy needs in 2009 [1]. Given the high reliance on oil,
e-mail: [email protected] particularly within the transportation sector, it is evident
that policymakers and the public need reliable forecasts
of future oil supply.
Two of the most fundamental concepts in the current
debate about future oil supply are oilfield decline rates
Electronic supplementary material is available and depletion rates. These concepts are related, but not
at http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0448 or identical. However, analysts and laymen alike tend to get
these concepts mixed up, leading to misunderstandings
via http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org.
and flawed conclusions. In addition, the definition of
depletion rates can vary. The term decline rate refers

2013 The Author(s) Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved.
to the annual reduction in the rate of production from an individual field or a group of fields, after
2
a peak in production. Detailed empirical analyses of decline rates have been produced for well
over 50 years and most studies tend to agree on the typical decline rates for different categories

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 372: 20120448

.........................................................
of fields, despite some differences in details [2,3]. However, the possible causes of observed
decline rates are debated. Some propose that the observed decline rates are mainly caused by
underinvestment while others argue that the reason is simply physical limits to production rates.
On the other hand, depletion rates refer to the rate at which oil is produced in a field or region
expressed as a fraction of either the ultimately recoverable resources (URRs) or the remaining
reserves. Depletion rates have been studied since the late 1970s [4] and the concept has become
prominent in the peak oil debate largely because of the work of Campbell [5–8]—although he
is far from alone in using depletion rates. However, the definition of depletion rates and the
methodology for estimating them has varied over time and has never been as standardized as is
the case for decline rates. Perplexing terminology, inconsistent theory, lack of clear methodology
and different definitions have contributed to a confusion surrounding depletion rates. This paper
summarizes these topics and brings more clarity from both theoretical and empirical perspectives.

2. Fundamentals of oil production

Conventional oil accumulates through long geological processes in underground formations
known as reservoirs. Typical reservoirs consist of porous rocks, such as sandstone or carbonates,
where petroleum resides in the tiny void spaces between the rock grains. An oilfield may consist
of one or several reservoirs reachable from the surface by drilling.
Current global oil production is predominantly derived from conventional oilfields with
minor contributions coming from natural gas liquids (ethane, propane, butane and pentane),
unconventional oil and other liquids. For historical reasons, oil is commonly measured in barrels
corresponding to a volume of 42 US gallons or approximately 159 l. An oilfield may contain
anything from less than a million barrels (Mb) to many billion barrels (Gb). Robelius [9] estimated
the number of identified oilfields in the world to be around 47 500. By contrast, the International
Energy Agency (IEA) [10] estimates that there are around 70 000 fields, but also notes that the
exact number depends on how specific fields are delineated and highlights data discrepancies.
However, the importance of individual fields to global oil supply varies widely, with around 25
fields accounting for one-quarter of global oil production and a few hundred ‘giant’ fields (more
than 500 million barrels) accounting for approximately one-half of global production [3]. All fields
share similar overall behaviour, although the magnitude of production can differ significantly.
An oilfield typically exhibits the production profile seen in figure 1. However, significant
deviations can be caused by development history, changes in technology or oil price, accidents,
political decisions, sabotage and similar factors. Some fields have short plateau periods, more
resembling a single peak, while others (especially large fields) may keep production relatively
constant for many decades. But, at some point, all fields will reach the onset of decline and begin
to experience decreasing production.
The extraction of oil from a reservoir is commonly divided into three production methods,
namely: primary, secondary and tertiary recovery. Several factors control the production flows in
most oilfields. A basic knowledge of these is necessary for better understanding of decline and
depletion behaviour. Physically, oil recovery is about fluid flows through the porous material that
make up the oilfield. Fluid movements in a reservoir depend on the following factors that are
explained more comprehensively by Satter et al. [11]:

— depletion (leading to a decrease in reservoir pressure),

— compressibility of the rock/fluid system,
— dissolution of the gas phase into the liquid,
— formation dip,
— capillary rise through microscopic pores,
— additional energy provided from the underlying aquifer or the overlying gas cap,
 3

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 372: 20120448

.........................................................
first oil
oil production rate

plateau
discovery
well build-
decline
up
appraisal abandonment
well

economic limit
time

Figure 1. Idealized production behaviour of an oilfield. Source: Höök et al. [2].

— external fluid injection, and

— thermal, or other, manipulation of fluid properties.

(a) Fluid flow fundamentals

The extraction of oil is to a large extent decided by physical properties related to the geological
formation of the reservoir in question and the fluid characteristics of the petroleum it contains.
Variations in these characteristics cause production rates to vary from field to field. An oil
reservoir carries its fluid in small microscopic pores within the rock, and the term porosity refers to
the fraction of the pore volume compared with the total bulk volume. The larger the porosity, the
better the rock is at storing fluids. The pores serve both as storage and as a transmission network
for fluid flows. The French physicist Darcy [12] studied fluid flow through a bed of packed sand
and derived an elegant expression to describe the behaviour of the fluid, known as Darcy’s law
(equation (2.1)). The expression involves important physical properties such as the ability of the
porous medium (rock in the case of oil reservoirs) to permit fluid flow, its permeability, and the
degree of internal resistance to flow of the fluid, its viscosity. Viscous forces tend to influence
reservoir flows of both produced and injected fluids in reservoirs under normal oilfield conditions
to a greater extent than gravity/capillary forces. This implies that fluids flow through porous
media in parallel layers with few disruptions (i.e. laminar flow conditions) and the flow rate
is proportional to the existing pressure gradient in the reservoir [11]. For a homogeneous rock
formation, the equation is
kA ∂P
q=− , (2.1)
μ ∂L
where q is the volumetric flow rate (cm3 s−1 ), k is the permeability (darcy), A is the cross-
sectional area (cm2 ), μ is the viscosity of the fluid (centipoise) and ∂P/∂L is the pressure gradient
over the length of the flow path (atm cm−1 ). Sand typically has a permeability of 1 darcy, but
permeabilities are generally less for most rocks and are often expressed in millidarcys. One darcy
equals 0.986923 µm2 and this non-SI unit is still traditionally used in petroleum engineering and
geology.
This equation is derived from a special case, where it is assumed that flow occurs in a
horizontal direction without turbulence and that only one fluid is present in the pore space, which
is not reacting chemically with the rock. Generally horizontal flow is greater than vertical flow
because of directional differences in permeability [13], but this must be seen as a simplification of
the real conditions in an oilfield. Nevertheless, it is relevant because it expresses the physical
limits to the possible production rate, or defines a ‘best case scenario’ of production from a
homogeneous reservoir where the pressure gradient is the sole drive mechanism.
 Jay field, Florida
250 100 4
90 oil production

daily production (1000 barrels)

water/oil ratio (water cut) (%)

water production

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 372: 20120448

.........................................................
200 80 water cut
70

150 60

50

100 40

30

50 20

10

0 0
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Figure 2. Production of oil and water for the giant Jay field in Florida, USA. The water cut reached over 90% of total produced
fluids in the mid-1980s and is now at 97%. In 2010, the field produced 2500 barrels of oil and 94 000 barrels of water per day.
Data source: Florida Department of Environmental Protection [19]. (Online version in colour.)

Darcy’s law states that a fluid with high viscosity will have a low flow rate; that if the rock
permeability is high there will be a high flow rate; and that there must be a pressure gradient in
order to have any fluid flow. The negative sign in the expression also indicates that the flow goes
in the opposite direction of the pressure gradient.1

(i) Primary recovery

Primary recovery uses naturally occurring energy, such as buoyancy (Archimedes principle) and
reservoir pressure, to drive oil flows to the surface. Oil is simply allowed to flow under its own
pressure, unless fluids are injected into the reservoir. However, the pressure gradient drops as oil
is extracted, and this will limit the rate of production according to Darcy’s law [15]. This results in
a depletion-driven decline in the rate of production as depletion of the reservoir reduces pressure
and hence fluid flows.
Reservoir and fluid properties can greatly influence the outcome and lead to significant
differences in the percentage of ‘oil in place’ that is recovered (i.e. recovery factor). Typically, about
10–30% of the oil in place can be extracted during primary recovery [16].

(ii) Secondary recovery

Secondary recovery focuses on artificial pressure maintenance (APM), where injection of fluids
maintains reservoir pressure. In most oilfields, especially those of significant size, secondary
recovery accounts for the largest proportion of total recovery [17,18]. The most common method
for maintaining pressure during secondary recovery is water flooding, where water is injected
to maintain reservoir pressure. When this works well, the water forms a water bank that moves
through the pores and presses the oil towards the producing wells.
The injection of water is generally intended to give a fairly constant pressure at the entry to a
well pipe (i.e. downhole pressure), but eventually injected fluids will break through and mix with
the oil. Conservation of mass (i.e. material balance) in oil reservoirs requires that the extracted
volume of fluid is relatively constant throughout the lifetime [11], but the water share (or water
cut) will increase with time. This can be described by simple models, such as used by Abrams &
Wiener [15]. As oil is extracted from the reservoir, an increased water cut will cause a decline of
the oil production flow despite high reservoir pressure. An example of this can be seen in the Jay
field (figure 2).
Water flooding presents numerous engineering challenges that vary with the rock and fluid
properties, reservoir heterogeneities and the physical differences between the oil in place and the
1
Darcy’s law can also be directly derived from the Navier–Stokes equations [14].
injected water [11]. One example is when the oil is much more viscous than the injected water
5
causing so-called fingering, where water moves in thin irregular fingers instead of as a unified
front. This bypasses significant volumes of recoverable oil and can cause premature breakthrough

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 372: 20120448

.........................................................
of water into production wells.
The properties of the oil compared with water are so important for oil extraction that the
American Petroleum Institute has constructed a measure of the density of the oil compared with
water, defined as API gravity = (141.5/specific gravity at 60◦ Fahrenheit) − 131.5.
If API > 10◦ , the oil is lighter and floats on fresh water, while if API < 10◦ it is denser and
sinks. Water flooding is possible when the oil API > 25◦ and the viscosity is rather low (less than
30 centipoise) and works best in homogeneous reservoirs. Consequently, secondary recovery is
not always effective, even though a majority of the world’s oil-producing fields attempt secondary
recovery. Primary and secondary recovery combined can usually extract 30–50% of the oil in place
and nearly all reservoirs that can benefit from APM are using it [16].

(iii) Tertiary (enhanced) oil recovery

Tertiary recovery or enhanced oil recovery (EOR) involves more complex ways of influencing rock
and fluid properties [20]. The feasibility of EOR, together with the appropriate approach to EOR,
will vary with the fluid properties and geological characteristics of the reservoir. According to
Darcy’s law, the ability of oil to move in a reservoir can be increased by decreasing its viscosity.
This leads to four main approaches to EOR, namely thermal, chemical, miscible and microbial
methods.
Thermal methods are the most commonly used approach and make up nearly half of all
worldwide EOR projects [21]. Thermal EOR involves changing oil viscosity by thermal means,
such as steam flooding, hot-water flooding or in situ combustion, where the bottom of the
reservoir is ignited and heat is generated by burning a part of the oil in place [22].
Miscible methods account for about 41% of worldwide EOR projects and focus on injection
of a gas or solvent that is miscible with the oil, resulting in improved recovery [21]. Miscibility
increases the mobility of the oil, but also greatly adds to the complexity of the process [23]. Carbon
dioxide injection is widely applicable to many reservoirs at lower miscibility pressures than other
methods [11]. Part of the CO2 is soluble in oils and swells the net volume and reduces viscosity.
As miscibility develops, both CO2 and oil can flow together because of the low interfacial tension.
If available, light hydrocarbons (primarily natural gas) can also be injected to generate miscibility,
decrease the viscosity of the oil and increase oil volume via swelling. Nitrogen, or even flue gas,
is an alternative in high-permeability reservoirs containing light oil [23]. These gases are usually
rather inexpensive, but inferior to CO2 or hydrocarbons from an oil recovery perspective [11].
Nitrogen has poor solubility in oil and requires much higher pressures to develop miscibility.
Chemical flooding uses the injection of polymers, surfactants, and caustic alkaline or other
chemicals. At present, it makes up about 11% of global EOR projects [21]. This technique requires
conditions favourable for water flooding as it is a modification of water flooding. Polymers can
be used to augment water flooding by changing water viscosity and mobility. More oil will
be produced in the early life of the water flood, and this is the primary economic advantage,
as ultimate recovery is generally the same as for conventional water flooding [11]. Surfactants
recover additional oil by enhancing mobility and solubility of oil and emulsification of oil and
water. Caustic alkaline injection involves the injection of sodium compounds that can react with
organic petroleum acids in certain oils to create surfactants in situ [11]. Injected chemicals can
also react with reservoir rocks to change wettability and thereby improve recovery. Sheng [24]
reviewed these methods.
The final form of EOR uses microbes to improve oil recovery. It is a sparsely used approach
and only makes up 0.6% of worldwide EOR projects [21]. Injected microbes can generate gas
within the reservoir, thus increasing reservoir pressure and reducing oil viscosity. Alternatively
microbes can generate bio-surfactants that can reduce interfacial tension and improve recovery
by favourably changing wettability [21].
 Under favourable conditions, the combination of primary and secondary recovery can extract
6
between one-third and one-half of the original oil in place. The average recovery from petroleum
reservoirs around the world is estimated to be approximately 35% [11]. If a large part of the oil

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 372: 20120448

.........................................................
remains after both primary and secondary recovery, operators may implement a suitable EOR
technique. However, only a small percentage of all oilfields are using EOR owing to high costs
and technology requirements [16]. Since 1959, only 652 EOR projects have been pursued and
enhanced production corresponded to approximately 1.8 Mb per day in 2010, or 1.5% of total
global production [21].

3. Defining decline and depletion rates

The concept of depletion is intuitive as it is something of which we all have everyday experience.
For example, if we have a fixed amount of beer in a bottle, and drink some of it, the beer in
the bottle is unavoidably depleted. Any resource that is extracted faster than it is produced is
subject to depletion—which means that depletion is not restricted to non-renewable resources.
For example, wood can be considered renewable, but if deforestation is faster than reproduction,
the resource is depleted within the the time span considered. A resource can only be considered as
renewable if the rate of extraction is less than or equal to the rate of increment of the resource [25].
Fossil fuels are only reproduced on geological time scales, making depletion of these resources
irreversible for all practical purposes.
While the concept of depletion is the same for all resources, there may also be limits on the rate
of depletion of a resource. This is an important consideration for oil resources, where the rate of
depletion is constrained by geological conditions and the physical laws of fluid flow in porous
media, together with economic and technological factors.

(a) Fundamental definitions for oil depletion

A fundamental parameter concerning oil production is the size of recoverable resources
remaining for exploitation. Multiple classification schemes for resources and reserves make it
difficult to compare and combine data from different sources [26,27]. The remaining recoverable
resource at time t may be expressed as

Rr = URRt − Qt , (3.1)

where Rr is the remaining recoverable resource (RRR) at time t, URRt is the ultimately recoverable
resources estimated at time t and Qt is the cumulative production at time t. The term reserve
growth refers to the increase in the estimated URR of known fields over time and has been
discussed in more detail by the UK Energy Research Centre [28]. Revisions to URR estimates
may occur at any time as a consequence of changing market conditions, increased geological
knowledge and improved technology and so on. This makes URR a time-varying quantity,
although it is not as fluctuating as other reserve estimates.
URR may also be expressed as the RRR plus cumulative production at an arbitrary point in
time. The depletion level, here denoted Dt , can then be defined as the fraction of the URR that has
been extracted at time t
Qt Qt
Dt = = . (3.2)
Qt + Rr URRt
Depletion levels can vary from 0 to 1 (i.e. 0–100%) and indicate what proportion of the estimated
URR remains. Returning to the beer bottle analogy, we note that a half-full bottle would have a
depletion level of 50%.

(b) Depletion rates

Conceptually, the depletion rate is the ratio of annual production to some estimate of recoverable
resources, where the latter can be defined as 1P or 2P reserves, RRRs or the URR (see [26] or [27]).
A lack of standardized use has resulted in several studies using depletion rates based on very
7
different definitions of recoverable resources and this has added to the confusion surrounding
the concept.

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 372: 20120448

.........................................................
In practice, a depletion rate can refer to two possible things. First, it can relate to the rate of
change of the depletion level at time t. Second, it could also refer to the rate at which RRRs are
being produced. Unclear definitions have led to confusion surrounding this parameter. This study
will differentiate these two definitions by denoting them as depletion rate of URR (URR depletion
rate) and depletion rate of RRRs (RRR depletion rate), respectively.
The depletion rate of URR, here denoted dURR,t , is the time derivative of the depletion level.
This parameter is easily calculated if one has access to URR estimates and reflects how much of
the URR is extracted annually. For example, Saudi-Aramco [29] used a very similar definition
when it gave annual depletion rates (expressed as the percentage of initial proved reserves) for
some selected fields. If qt denotes annual production, one obtains the following expression:
qt
dURR,t = . (3.3)
URRt
In addition, a measure of how fast RRRs are depleted is of interest. The depletion rate of the RRR,
dRRR,t , is given by
qt qt
dRRR,t = = . (3.4)
Rr URRt − Qt
Furthermore, this parameter can also be expressed as a production-to-reserve ratio (P/R), because it
is the reciprocal of the widely used reserves-to-production ratio (R/P). However, one must keep in
mind the underlying definitions as R/P ratios are often based upon 1P reserve estimates, while
most applications of depletion rates use 2P data,
production qt 1
dRRR,t = = = . (3.5)
RRRs Rr Rr /qt
This parameter is useful as it can directly be estimated from commonly available data, such as
reported remaining reserves and historical production [30]. The dRRR,t parameter has also been
called the depletion rate of remaining reserves and various similar expressions in published studies,
but caution should be exercised depending on the definition of recoverable resources.

(c) Decline rates

The rate of decline, λ, is equal to the difference in the rate of production from one period to the
next (see equation (3.6)) and is commonly expressed on an annual or monthly basis. Changes
can be both positive and negative, but are generally negative after a field has passed its peak of
production,
change in production rate
λt = . (3.6)
production rate
A disadvantage of decline rate studies is that they do not necessarily relate to the physical factors
driving oil depletion (decreasing reservoir pressure, increasing water cut, etc.). Observed decline
may also arise from non-physical factors such as underinvestment, politics, production quotas,
damage or sabotage. In essence, decline rates easily provide ambiguous signals for unwary
analysts. Usually, decline of production is the result of complex interactions between reservoir
physics, technology, economics and decision-making. Many factors influence production rates
and one must be careful in extrapolating decline into the future.
Decline and disruption caused by socioeconomic events are often termed ‘above-ground’
constraints, and may be resolved if proper measures are taken. On the other hand, depletion-
driven decline is the result of intrinsic, below-ground physical constraints and is difficult to
alleviate. Since the early days of the petroleum industry, increasing exploitation and depleting
reserves have been related to declining production [11]. Decline curve analysis has long been a tool
for predicting field behaviour.
Table 1. Key properties of hyperbolic and exponential decline curves of Arps type.
8
hyperbolic exponential

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 372: 20120448

.........................................................
β 0<β <1 β =0
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

q(t) q0 [1 + λ0 β(t − t0 )]−1/β q0 exp(−λ0 (t − t0 ))

q0
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
q0
Q(t) Q0 + [1 − (1 + λ0 β(t − t0 ) 1−1/β
)] Q0 + (1 − exp(−λ0 (t − t0 ))
λ (1 − β) λ
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

URR Q0 + (q0 /λ0 (1 − β)) Q0 + (q0 /λ0 )

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

(i) Decline curve analysis

The decline rate can also be expressed using derivatives with q = production rate and t = time in
arbitrary units. The solution to the arising differential equation allows decline characteristics to
de expressed using the decline rate (λt ), its exponent (β) and a constant denoted C [11]

q̇ dq/dt
λt = − = − = Cqβ . (3.7)
q q

Originally introduced by Arps [31,32], decline curve analysis is a simple tool to model and
predict future production under the assumption that depletion is the driving decline mechanism.
Decline can be constant (β = 0), directly proportional to production rate (β = 1) or proportional to
a fractional power of the production rate (0 < β < 1).
In decline curve models, it is assumed that production begins to decline at time t0 , with
an initial production rate of q0 and an initial cumulative production of Q0 . The production
rate at time t ≥ t0 is denoted by q(t) and the cumulative production between t and t0 is
t
given by the integral Q(t) = t0 q(t)dt. The simplest decline curves are characterized by three
parameters: the initial production rate q0 > 0, the initial decline rate λ0 > 0 and the exponent
t
β ∈ [0, 1]. If the production is allowed to continue perpetually and the integral Q(t) = t0 q(t)dt
converges to a single value as t → ∞, it is possible to calculate the cumulative production over
the decline phase. This can then be added to q0 to give an estimate of the field’s URR.
A more general presentation of decline curves can be found in Chang & Lin [33], Höök et al. [34]
and Khanamiri [35]. The general case is a hyperbolic decline curve (0 < β < 1), while exponential
decline (β = 0) is an important special case owing to its simplicity and ease of use. Their key
properties can be seen in table 1. Harmonic decline (β = 1) is another important special case of the
hyperbolic decline curve, not described in detail here.
Decline curves should be seen as more than mathematical curve-fitting exercises as they have
a sound physical basis. For example, exponential decline curves represent the solution to the
physical flow equation of a homogeneous field with a given initial drive pressure that reduces
as the oil is extracted [36,37]. This connects decline curve models with the depletion-driven
production declines caused by the exhaustion of recoverable resources. Although decline curve
analysis was originally developed for single wells, it can also be applied to entire fields [11].
However, the time distribution of active wells as well as temporary shutdowns and similar events
will also influence the production profile and hence complicate the connection between observed
decline and underlying driving forces.
Initial production decline is often exponential, although behaviour tends to flatten out towards
hyperbolic or harmonic decline further out in the tail region. Hyperbolic decline gives longer well
life and leads to larger URR values. An example of fitted decline curves can be found in figure 3.
Incorrect choice of decline curve can lead to flawed estimates if the curve is used to estimate URR.
Decline curve extrapolations require no detailed reservoir data, such as oil saturation or
local permeability, and can easily be done from only production data, which is comparatively
easy to acquire. They can also be used to estimate ultimate recovery of fields via curve-
fitting. Consequently, decline curve projections are often used when analysing single fields or
in bottom-up studies of oil depletion that sum up the production from individual fields.
 Skjöld
50 000 daily production 9
45 000 decline phase
exponential fit

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 372: 20120448

.........................................................
40 000

daily production (barrels)

hyperbolic fit
35 000
30 000
25 000
20 000
15 000
10 000
5000
0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Figure 3. The Danish oilfield Skjöld with both exponential and hyperbolic decline curve fits. (Adapted from Höök et al. [34].)
(Online version in colour.)

(d) Depletion rates after the onset of decline

Depletion-driven production decline via reservoir mechanisms and decline curve analysis have
some interesting properties that arise when they are combined. Depletion rates generally increase
with increasing extraction before the decline phase is reached. In the exponential case, it can be
shown that the depletion rate of remaining resources during the decline phase is equal to the
decline rate. Inserting the expressions for production, cumulative production and URR for the
exponential curve (table 1) into the equation for the depletion rate of RRRs (dRRR,t ) leads to

q0 exp(−λ(t − t0 ))
dRRR,t =    . (3.8)
q0 q
Q0 + λ − Q0 + λ0 (1 − exp(−λ(t − t0 ))

This can be simplified to

λ × exp(−λ(t − t0 ))
dRRR,t = = λ. (3.9)
exp(−λ(t − t0 ))

Consequently, having an estimate of dRRR,t prior to the onset of decline makes it possible to
estimate the subsequent decline rate, provided the field can be assumed to follow exponential
decline. In practice, fields tend to divert from exponential decline and move towards a more
hyperbolic or harmonic decline curve as production heads further out into the tail region.
The second definition of the depletion rate of URR (equation (3.3)) yields a more complicated
expression that cannot be additionally simplified

q0 exp(−λ(t − t0 ))
dURR,t =   . (3.10)
q
Q0 + λ0

As q0 , Q0 and λ all are constants and the exponential expression is strictly decreasing, it follows
that the depletion rate of URR will be decreasing as the oilfield enters the decline phase. It also
holds that the maximum value of dURR,t must occur before the field reaches the onset of decline.
It should also be mentioned that exponential behaviour is a simplified form of decline and that
the general situation tends to be hyperbolic in nature. This makes it interesting to study how the
two depletion rates behave in a hyperbolic decline situation. Once again, combining the definition
of dRRR,t (equation (3.4)) and the functions for production, URR and cumulative production in the
hyperbolic case (table 1) yields

q0 [1 + λβ(t − t0 )]−1/β
dRRR,t =    . (3.11)
q0 q0 [1−(1+λβ(t−t0 ))1−1/β ]
Q0 + λ(1−β) − Q0 + λ(1−β)
 21 210 000 RRR dep. rate – official URR
RRR dep. rate – estimated URR 10
18 180 000 URR dep. rate – official URR

daily production (barrels)

URR dep. rate – estimated URR

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 372: 20120448

.........................................................
15 150 000 actual production

depletion rate (%)

exponential decline fit
12 120 000

9 90 000

6 60 000

3 30 000

0 0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Figure 4. Production and depletion rate behaviour in the Norne giant oilfield in Norway. The official URR estimate (0.60 Gb)
was taken from the NPD fact pages (http://factpages.npd.no/factpages/), but includes economic considerations lowering the
recoverable volume compared with an estimated URR (0.67 Gb) obtained using an exponential decline curve. Nevertheless, the
RRR depletion rate remains stable or decreases. (Online version in colour.)

Simplifying this gives an expression that is decreasing with time

λ(1 − β)
dRRR,t = . (3.12)
1 + λβ(t − t0 )
By contrast, the definition of dURR,t (equation (3.3)) and the functions for production, URR and
cumulative production in the hyperbolic case (table 1) give
q0 [1 + λβ(t − t0 )]−1/β 1
dURR,t =   =  . (3.13)
q0 q0
Q0 + λ(1−β) Q0 + λ(1−β) (q0 [1 + λβ(t − t0 )]1/β )

One should note that β ∈ [0, 1], making the power generally negative. All together, the
expression for dURR,t will also be strictly decreasing with time as t → ∞.
The expressions for depletion rates of both remaining recoverable resources (dRRR,t ) and
ultimate resources (dURR,t ) in the hyperbolic case imply that a maximum depletion rate must be
reached before the onset of decline. This holds for single wells, described by a single decline
curve, as well as for entire fields consisting of many declining wells distributed in time. But some
caution should be exercised regarding fields, as obfuscating factors of a non-physical nature such
as temporary shutdowns or redevelopments may influence production.
The maximum depletion rate occurs just before the onset of decline, which can be shown
analytically for wells or fields perfectly described by decline curves. In practice, the maximum
depletion rate typically occurs around the peak production with some dependence on the
definition of recoverable resources.
A real-world illustration can be made from the Norwegian giant field Norne (figure 4). The
exponential decline curve provides a good fit to observed production and can also be used
to estimate the URR, giving reasonable agreement with the official figure provided by the
Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD). The value of dURR,t reaches a maximum at the peak
production, while dRRR,t based on the estimated URR does the same. When using the official URR,
dRRR,t remains stable after the peak production with some oscillations around its maximum in
reasonable agreement with theory. Investigating these parameters empirically in a larger dataset
is the next step.

(e) Depletion rates for regions

Any oil region, such as a province, nation or a group of nations, consists of an arbitrary group
of oilfields. A region contains n fields, where some may be in production while others are yet to
be found. First, some definitions are needed. Let URRreg,t denote the aggregate estimated URR in
a region with n fields while Qreg refers to the aggregate cumulative production, and qreg equals
11
the aggregate annual production in the same region at time t. The regional URR at a given time is
almost certainly larger than the URR of known producing fields, because of a contribution from

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 372: 20120448

.........................................................
unknown fields yet to be found. Regional production at a given time consists of the aggregated
output from known fields plus a zero contribution from the undiscovered fields.
If Qn,t is the cumulative production of field n at time t, then the depletion level of the region
(DURR,t ) may be defined as

Qreg,t 
n
Qn,t
DURR,t = = . (3.14)
URRreg,t URRreg,t
1

The depletion rate of URR in a region is the next thing to delineate. If qn,t denotes annual
production of field n one can now define it as

qreg,t 
n
qn,t
dURR,t = = . (3.15)
URRreg,t URRreg,t
1

Finally, the depletion rate of RRRs is defined as follows:

qreg,t 
n
qn,t
dRRR,t = = . (3.16)
URRreg,t − Qreg,t URRreg,t − Qreg,t
1

A maximum depletion rate for individual fields also indicates the existence of a maximum
depletion rate on both regional and global scales, as the regional depletion rate is just a weighted
average of the individual subparts. From this it follows that the regional depletion rates must lie
somewhere between the smallest (0% if undiscovered fields are considered) and largest depletion
rates for its individual fields, regardless of whether one uses depletion rates of URR or RRRs.
Thus, depletion rates of individual fields and the temporal distribution of field production profiles
become the principal factors that determine the regional depletion rate.
The extreme situation would be if all fields reached their maximum depletion rates
simultaneously, in which case the regional value would also be at a maximum, although not
the same numerical value. However, this is not likely to happen in reality as fields are usually
at different stages of development at any given point in time. Larger regions, for example the
world, will never develop uniformly and some subparts will be developed in the beginning,
whereas others will remain undeveloped for a long time. Such patterns will give more temporally
dispersed fields, yielding lower regional depletion rates.
The timing of production from a particular field is determined by the year of discovery,
available extraction technology, administrative barriers and macroeconomic circumstances, to
name a few factors. Therefore no analytical expression for the temporal distribution of fields can
be found. Consequently, the estimation of regional depletion rates must chiefly rely on empirical
experience of how regions generally develop.

4. Empirical study
This study relies on the Uppsala giant oilfield database. The database was initiated by Robelius [9]
and later updated by Höök et al. [2]. It contains approximately 350 giant oilfields worldwide,
accounting for a URR of over 1100 Gb. For the purpose of this study, complementary data on
hundreds of smaller oilfields all over the world have been combined with the giant oilfield
data. From this combined database, some 880 individual oilfields were selected (see electronic
supplementary material). They were chosen to reflect the wide array of field sizes, production
strategies and socioeconomic conditions seen over the globe. The size distribution is given in
table 2, and in general an equal number of fields in each size category have been chosen.
However, owing to the limited number of post-peak fields larger than 1 billion barrels (Gb), this
size category contains fewer fields (N = 130) than the other categories (N = 150). However, this
difference is assumed to be negligible when identifying the general patterns of behaviour.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the sample of fields studied. The distribution is highly skewed with most resources concentrated
12
in relatively few giant fields.

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 372: 20120448

.........................................................
no. median size mean size
field size URR (Mb) fields (Mb) (Mb)
x < 0.1 150 0.02 0.03
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

0.1 < x < 1 150 0.4 0.4

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

1 < x < 10 150 2.9 3.9

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

10 < x < 100 150 37.9 44.4

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

100 < x < 1000 150 567.5 537.1

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

x > 1000 130 2087.5 4575.6

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

all fields 880 9.1 775.9

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

(a) Data considerations

To assess depletion and decline rate behaviour, data for individual fields are essential. Some data
on production and recoverable resources are available in the public domain or can be obtained
from companies (IHS, Rystad Energy, etc.), agencies or governments. Some regions, such as the
North Sea, provide excellent openly accessible data while others, for instance the Organization
for Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), are characterized by generally poor data access.
Annual or monthly production data are comparatively easy to acquire and can commonly
be obtained from operators, agencies or third-party sources such as business magazines, trade
journals, etc. Recoverable resources, reserve estimates and related data are more problematic
to acquire and are generally less reliable. The multiple classification schemes for resources and
reserves make it difficult to compare and combine data from different sources [26].
Naturally, there are shortcomings in the available data. For example, different definitions
among reporting agencies, changing classifications over time, terrorist strikes, major accidents
(Piper Alpha, Deepwater Horizon, etc.) and political decisions can all influence both production
trends and data quality. Fields with severely disturbed behaviour or otherwise dubious properties
were, as far as possible, omitted from this analysis. Some fields exhibit a clear peak, commonly
quite early in the field’s life, followed by a decline phase. Other fields can have long plateau
phases, possibly ranging for decades, which are followed by the onset of decline.
This study focuses on fields that have peaked and left the plateau stage. Consequently, fields
that are in the build-up phase or have not reached the onset of decline are excluded from the
study. For fields with a plateau, peaking was defined as the point where production is judged to
clearly leave a 4% fluctuation band around the plateau level, as earlier used by Höök et al. [3].
The data show a strong correlation (R2 = 0.98) between estimated URR and peak/plateau
production levels (a power fit indicates a strong correlation valid over several magnitudes as seen
in figure 5). This is hardly surprising, as high daily production levels are generally only possible
in fields with significant URR.

(i) Specific notes on field sizes

For some fields, official estimates of URR or equivalent were available. For others, the URR was
estimated by adding cumulative production to recent (no older than 2005) industry estimates of
2P (proven plus probable) reserves. Bentley et al. [38] discuss industry 2P data in more detail
and suggest that they provide a median estimate of RRRs (i.e. there is a 50% probability that
recoverable resources are higher or lower). Thus, it is equally likely that cumulative production
over the remaining lifetime of the field will be greater or lower than the 2P figure. However,
reserve estimates tend to increase over time, a phenomenon known as reserve growth [39]. Factors
such as increased investment, technology and knowledge are also acknowledged and known
 production level vs field size

maximum daily production (barrels)

107 13
size
106

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 372: 20120448

power law fit

.........................................................
105
104
103
102
10 y = 139 220x0.8993
R2 = 0.9765
1
10–6 10–5 10–4 10–3 10–2 10–1 1 10 102
ultimately recoverable resources (Gb)

Figure 5. The relation between field size and maximum production level. (Online version in colour.)

decline rates vs field size

0
average annual decline rate (%)

–10
–20
–30
–40
–50
–60
–70
10–6 10–5 10–4 10–3 10–2 10–1 1 10 102
ultimately recoverable resources (Gb)

Figure 6. Scatter plot of observed decline rates seen in the dataset. Significant differences occur, but generally decrease with
increasing field size. (Online version in colour.)

to increase reserves over time, making it probable that URR estimates based upon current 2P
reserves will underestimate the actual field size, and the fact of reserves growth must also be
acknowledged even in 2P data. For the remainder where no 2P data or official URR estimates
were available, more traditional curve-fitting methods were used to estimate the URR.
In our aggregated dataset, the URRs of some fields are surely overestimated, while others may
be underestimated. We assume here that these effects cancel each other out when combined. For
the sake of simplicity, we assume here that a field’s URR remains fixed over time. Changed URR
values will not affect decline rates of any of the fields used in this study, and neither will they
affect the peak production points. However, increases in the estimated URR reduce the estimated
depletion level and depletion rate.

(b) Decline rate behaviour

Decline rates seen in real fields can vary significantly. In this dataset, annual decline rates
ranged from less than 1% to more than 70%, although the range decreases with increasing field
size (figure 6). The average decline rates for the entire dataset can be derived, although such
a figure can be misleading owing to the underlying size dependence. Closer analysis shows
major differences among decline rates and implies that decline rates of small fields may differ
significantly from those of large fields (table 3).
Table 3. Observed annual decline rates in per cent sorted by field size.
14
field size (Mb) median mean PW mean s.d.

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 372: 20120448

.........................................................
x < 0.1 −20.5 −24.0 −27.4 13.4
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

0.1 < x < 1 −17.7 −19.2 −23.0 10.6

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

1 < x < 10 −11.6 −16.7 −25.2 13.4

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

10 < x < 100 −13.5 −15.4 −18.9 9.9

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

100 < x < 1000 −7.5 −9.2 −9.2 6.1

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

x > 1000 −4.3 −5.2 −4.9 3.4

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

all fields −12.3 −15.2 −6.2 11.9

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Giant fields of over 1 Gb have by far the lowest decline rates and there is a clear trend towards
more rapid decline with decreasing field size (table 3). Production-weighted (PW) average values
also show that fields with high production levels tend to decline somewhat faster than the
arithmetic average for small fields (less than 0.1 Gb), while the opposite was true for semi-giant
and giant oilfields. Partly this can be explained by a large share of OPEC control among the larger
fields and the fact that OPEC producers tend to aim for long and stable production profiles rather
than rapid return on investment. Second, these patterns can arise from the economically rational
behaviour of a price-taking producer who maximizes profit subject to technical and physical
constraints [40].
Earlier studies have also shown that technological development, for instance EOR, can
result in more rapid declines. Gowdy & Juliá [41] initially highlighted this problem for two
North Sea giant fields. Later, Höök et al. [2] elaborated on this and found a general tendency
towards higher decline rates for giant fields as new technology and modern production
strategies allowed the extension of plateau production at the expense of higher subsequent
decline rates.
Table 4 compares the results of three studies that provide estimates of average decline rates
from a globally representative sample of post-peak giant fields. Despite differences in datasets,
definitions and weighting methods, the results are in broad agreement that the decline in the
existing production is between 4% and 8% annually [3]. Expressed in production capacity, this
means that roughly a new North Sea (approx. 5 Mb d−1 ) has to come on stream every year just to
keep the present output constant [42]. This implies that nearly five new Saudi Arabias would be
needed by 2030 just to offset the decline in existing production [43].
Höök et al. [3] provide additional data on the time evolution of giant oilfield decline rates
and find the average decline rate has increased by around 0.15% per year since the mid-1960s—a
trend that is expected to continue. From table 3, it can be also seen that decline rates are higher for
smaller fields and as future production becomes more reliant on non-giant fields it is reasonable
that average decline in existing production will increase. The increasing decline rate is seldom
discussed—even though it can lead to additional capacity requirements of as much as 7 Mb d−1
by 2030 [43].

(c) Depletion level behaviour

Earlier studies have shown that it is common for giant oilfields to reach the onset of decline when
less than half of the URR has been produced [2]. In this study, this analysis is expanded to include
smaller fields. Figure 7 provides a scatter plot of the estimated depletion level at the onset of
decline, while figure 8 provides a corresponding frequency histogram.
A significant spread can be seen among the fields studied with some reaching an estimated
depletion level of over 80% before the onset of decline, while others peak at depletion levels as low
as 10%. However, there is a clear trend towards higher depletion levels at peak with increasing
 depletion level at peak production/decline
15
onset vs field size
100

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 372: 20120448

90

depletion level of ultimately

.........................................................
recoverable resources (%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10–3 10–2 10–1 1 10 102 103 104 105
ultimately recoverable resources (Mb)

Figure 7. Scatter plot of estimated depletion levels at peak production (onset of decline). (Online version in colour.)

Table 4. Average decline rates for post-peak giant fields found by recent studies. CERA, Cambridge Energy Research Associates.

parameter Höök et al. [3] IEA CERA

average decline (%)
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

total 6.5 n.a. 6.3

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

land 4.9 n.a. 5.3

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

offshore 9.4 n.a. 7.5

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

non-OPEC 7.5 n.a. 6.4

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

OPEC 4.8 n.a. 5.4

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

PW decline (%)
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

total 5.5 6.5 5.8

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

land 3.9 5.6 n.a.

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

offshore 9.7 8.6 n.a.

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

non-OPEC 7.1 7.4 n.a.

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

OPEC 3.4 4.8 n.a.

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

frequency distribution of depletion level

120 at peak production/decline onset

100

80
frequency

60

40

20

0
0–5 10–15 20–25 30–35 40–45 50–55 60–65 70–75 80–85 90–95 >100
depletion level of URR (%)

Figure 8. Frequency distribution of estimated depletion levels at peak (onset of decline). (Online version in colour.)
Table 5. Estimated depletion levels at peak production sorted by field size.
16
depletion level at peak production

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 372: 20120448

.........................................................
field size (Mb) median % mean (%) PW mean (%) s.d. (%)
x < 0.1 23.4 24.5 27.2 11.9
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

0.1 < x < 1 22.5 24.6 26.0 13.9

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

1 < x < 10 23.1 26.6 28.6 15.0

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

10 < x < 100 27.0 30.7 31.6 16.4

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

100 < x < 1000 35.9 38.1 37.2 16.4

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

x > 1000 36.6 36.1 36.0 16.0

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

all fields 27.0 29.9 36.1 15.9

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

field size (table 5). Some of the fields with the highest depletion levels at peak, especially in
the more than 100 Mb size category, are old American fields that were extensively redeveloped
around the 1980s when new technology/investments allowed larger fractions of the oil in place
to be recovered. PW figures indicate that fields with high annual production rates are usually
developed in such a way that the depletion level is relatively high at the onset of decline.
Interestingly, there is virtually no correlation (linear correlation coefficient = −0.07) between
the estimated depletion levels at peak and the subsequent decline rates in oilfields. This indicates
that depletion levels have restricted relevance for analysing production flows.
It should also be noted that any future reserve growth in the studied fields will reduce the
estimated depletion levels. If a significant portion of the URR figures used in this study are
underestimates, the depletion levels derived here will be overestimates. If so, this would reinforce
the conclusion that most fields begin to decline well before half of their URR is produced.

(d) Depletion rate behaviour

The theory described above predicts that maximum depletion rates should occur when the onset
of decline is reached. This may also be referred to as the depletion rate at peak and effectively marks
the point where depletion-driven decline begins to dominate over other variables and leads to the
onset of production decline.
Estimated annual depletion rates of URR at the onset of decline are plotted in figure 9. A few
small fields reach depletion rates of 30% or more before peaking, but most have significantly
lower depletion rates at peak production. The histogram (figure 10) shows a skewed distribution
with the largest number of fields having values of 10% or less, leading to an overall mean of 10.3%
and a PW mean of 4.9%. The figure also demonstrates a clear trend towards lower depletion rates
at peak with increasing field size (table 6).
The general behaviour is similar for depletion rates of RRRs as seen in figure 11. The
distribution histogram (figure 12) shows a skewed structure with only a small number of
fields capable of depleting more than 20% of the RRRs per year at peak production. Depletion
rate differences diminish with increasing field size, indicating a narrowing interval of possible
depletion rates. Höök et al. [2] expanded on this correlation by comparing onshore, offshore,
OPEC and non-OPEC giant oil fields.
High depletion rates are only common in small oilfields and are increasingly exceptional with
increasing field size. As noted earlier, an oil-producing region consists of a sum of individual
oilfields, with their individual peak points distributed in time. From the theory described in
§3d, it follows that the regional depletion rate must be somewhere between the minimum and
maximum depletion rates of its components. Maximum depletion rates can only be reached
if all fields peak simultaneously, which is extremely unlikely. According to our analysis of
 URR depletion rate at peak vs field size
35 17

depletion rate of ultimately

recoverable resources (%)
30

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 372: 20120448

.........................................................
25
20
15
10
5
0
10–3 10–2 10–1 1 10 102 103 104 105
ultimately recoverable resources (Mb)

Figure 9. Scatter plot of estimated depletion rates of URRs at the onset of decline. (Online version in colour.)

160
140
120
100
frequency

80
60
40
20

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
depletion rate of URR (%)

Figure 10. Frequency distribution of URR depletion rates at peak production/decline onset. (Online version in colour.)

Table 6. Estimated depletion rates of URRs at onset of decline, sorted by field size.

depletion rate at peak

field size (Mb) median % mean (%) PW mean (%) s.d. (%)
x < 0.1 15.0 16.1 18.4 6.9
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

0.1 < x < 1 12.1 12.9 15.3 6.1

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

1 < x < 10 8.2 10.5 16.5 7.4

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

10 < x < 100 10.8 10.4 13.5 5.2

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

100 < x < 1000 6.0 6.8 7.3 3.6

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

x > 1000 3.8 4.2 4.0 1.9

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

all fields 8.9 10.3 4.9 6.7

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

field data, regional depletion rates are likely to be constrained to less than 20% if they are
assumed to follow patterns seen in history. Given the dominance of larger fields in total regional
production, the regional depletion rates are even lower in reality. Aleklett et al. [43] estimate that
the typical regional depletion rates of RRRs are of the order of 2–5%, and argue that projections
of future global oil production by the IEA [10] are based upon unrealistic assumptions about
 RRR depletion rate at peak vs field size
40 18

depletion rate of remaining

35

recoverable resources (%)

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 372: 20120448

.........................................................
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
10–3 10–2 10–1 1 10 102 103 104 105
ultimately recoverable resources (Mb)

Figure 11. Scatter plot of estimated depletion rates of RRRs at onset of decline. (Online version in colour.)

120

100

80
frequency

60

40

20

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
depletion rate of remaining recoverable resources (%)

Figure 12. Frequency distribution of RRR depletion rates at peak production/decline onset. (Online version in colour.)

Table 7. Estimated depletion rates of RRRs sorted by field size.

depletion rate at peak production (onset of decline)

field size (Mb) median % mean (%) PW mean (%) s.d. (%)
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

x < 0.1 16.4 17.6 20.1 7.1

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

0.1 < x < 1 14.3 14.8 17.3 7.0

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

1 < x < 10 9.9 12.5 18.4 7.9

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

10 < x < 100 13.4 13.0 16.3 5.6

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

100 < x < 1000 8.7 10.0 10.4 4.6

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

x > 1000 5.9 6.4 6.2 2.9

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

all fields 11.3 12.5 7.3 7.0

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

depletion rates that are not explicitly discussed. Miller [44] agrees with the findings of Aleklett
et al. [43] and notes the persistent optimism of the IEA projections.
Depletion rates at peak, calculated using both URRs and RRRs, correlate strongly with the
subsequent decline rate. The linear correlation coefficient with mean decline rate was determined
to be 0.83 for depletion rates of RRRs and 0.81 for depletion rates of URR at peak. This observation
provides empirical support for the theoretical arguments in §3c (table 7).
 Depletion rates can be directly calculated from production data and URR estimates during
19
both the build-up and plateau stages in an oilfield’s life, even before the field has peaked. By
contrast, decline rates can only be estimated after the onset of decline. However, the strong

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 372: 20120448

.........................................................
correlation between the concepts makes it possible to use depletion rates to estimate future
average decline rates reasonably well. This has already been used to forecast future production
profiles for fields that have yet to reach the onset of decline [45]. When combined with reliable
URR estimates, depletion rate analysis offers a simple tool for making educated estimates of
future production decline rates.

5. Concluding discussion
Decline and depletion rates are important to understand and give significant depth to the peak
oil debate. However, it is essential to understand that these two concepts are fundamentally
different. Decline rates can be measured directly from production data, while depletion rates
depend upon estimates of recoverable resources. Changes in recoverability will affect depletion
levels and depletion rates, while decline rates are unaffected. Different data sources and resource
estimates done at different times are likely to give diverging results.
Comprehensive analysis can be used to identify typical trends and patterns for depletion
levels, depletion rates and production decline rates for different categories of fields. Oilfield size is
a key variable, with generally high values for most parameters in small fields and comparatively
low values for larger fields. The data show clearly that most fields tend to peak with much less
than half of their URRs produced, typically around 30% (table 5). Peak production generally
appears well before the glass is half empty.
Depletion levels of giant oilfields are a noteworthy detail, because giant fields tend to reach
the onset of decline with higher depletion levels than small fields. This could be explained by
the way most giant fields are developed, as they usually start production at far lower depletion
rates than smaller fields owing to requirements related to production equipment, pipelines, etc.
As a result, giant fields can maintain a production plateau by continually drilling into new parts
of the reservoir to supplement declining production from older sections and this can probably
lead to comparatively higher depletion levels at peak. However, this could also be an effect of
underestimated URR and might possibly change if significant future reserve growth occurs.
The theoretical framework summarized here is well supported by the empirical evidence. The
existence of maximum depletion rates prior to the onset of production decline is of particular
importance. Furthermore, the strong correlation between depletion rates at peak and subsequent
decline rates can be used in supply forecasting and for estimating future decline rates before the
plateau phase ends.
Depletion rate analysis has been around for some time, but the underlying methodology has
never been clearly presented. Much confusion surrounds the concept of depletion rates, even
though it is a relatively simple idea once properly understood. Maugeri [46] is a recent example
of how terminology is mixed up and how exceptionally low decline rates are used without any
solid justification. Another example is how the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) used
a depletion rate model in a flawed way to reach misleading conclusions [30]. Similarly, the IEA’s
influential projections of global oil supply are based upon highly unrealistic assumptions about
the depletion rates of various categories of resources [26,43,44]. Once more realistic assumptions
are made, the future supply outlook looks much bleaker.
Owing to the large number of geological, technological and economic factors influencing
depletion rates, there is no universal maximum depletion rate that is applicable to all fields or
all regions. However, the data presented here display the range of decline and depletion rates
that are found in practice and provide a good guide to the depletion rates that may be expected
in the future.
Acknowledgements. The authors thank Dr Herbert West for providing valuable inspiration.
Funding statement. This study has been supported by the STandUP for Energy collaboration initiative.
References 20
1. International Energy Agency. 2011 Key energy statistics 2011. See http://www.iea.org.

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 372: 20120448

.........................................................
2. Höök M, Söderbergh B, Jakobsson K, Aleklett K. 2009 The evolution of giant oil field
production behaviour. Nat. Resour. Res. 18, 39–56. (doi:10.1007/s11053-009-9087-z)
3. Höök M, Hirsch R, Aleklett K. 2009 Giant oil field decline rates and their influence on world
oil production. Energy Policy 37, 2262–2272. (doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.02.020)
4. Flower AR. 1978 World oil production. Sci. Am. 238, 42–49. (doi:10.1038/scientifi
camerican0378-42)
5. Campbell C. 1992 The depletion of oil. Mar. Pet. Geol. 9, 666–671. (doi:10.1016/0264-
8172(92)90038-G)
6. Campbell C. 1996 The status of world oil depletion at the end of 1995. Energy Explor. Exploit.
14, 63–81.
7. Campbell C. 2006 The Rimini protocol an oil depletion protocol: heading off economic chaos
and political conflict during the second half of the age of oil. Energy Policy 34, 1319–1325.
(doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.02.005)
8. Campbell C, Heapes S. 2008 An atlas of oil and gas depletion. Huddersfield, UK: Jeremy Mills
Publishing.
9. Robelius F. 2007 Giant oil fields: the highway to oil: giant oil fields and their importance
for future oil production. Doctoral thesis, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. See http://
publications.uu.se/abstract.xsql?dbid=7625.
10. International Energy Agency. 2008 World energy outlook 2008. See http://www.
worldenergyoutlook.org/publications/2008-1994/.
11. Satter A, Iqbal GM, Buchwalter JL. 2008 Practical enhanced reservoir engineering. Tulsa, OK:
Pennwell Books.
12. Darcy H. 1856 Les Fontaines publiques de la Ville de Dijon. Paris, France: Vitor Dalmont.
13. Selley R. 1998 Elements of petroleum geology. New York, NY: Academic Press.
14. Neuman SP. 1977 Theoretical derivation of Darcy’s law. Acta Mech. 25, 153–170. (doi:10.1007/
BF01376989)
15. Abrams DM, Wiener RJ. 2010 A model of peak production in oil fields. Am. J. Phys. 78, 24–27.
(doi:10.1119/1.3247984)
16. Kjärstad J, Johnsson F. 2009 Resources and future supply of oil. Energy Policy 37, 441–464.
(doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.056)
17. Amit R. 1986 Petroleum reservoir exploitation: switching from primary to secondary recovery.
Oper. Res. 34, 534–549. (doi:10.1287/opre.34.4.534)
18. Hyne NJ. 2001 Nontechnical guide to petroleum geology, exploration and production, 2nd edn. Tulsa,
OK: Pennwell Corporation.
19. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2012 Oil, gas and water production
data compiled by field and region. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Environmental
Protection.
20. Muggeridge A, Cockin A, Webb K, Frampton H, Collins I, Moulds T, Salino P. 2014 Recovery
rates, enhanced oil recovery and technological limits. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 372, 20120320.
(doi:10.1098/rsta.2012.0320)
21. Adasani A, Bai B. 2011 Analysis of EOR projects and updated screening criteria. J. Pet. Sci.
Eng. 79, 10–24. (doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2011.07.005)
22. Kovscek AR. 2012 Emerging challenges and potential futures for thermally enhanced oil
recovery. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 98–99, 130–143. (doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2012.08.004)
23. Bath PGH. 1989 Status report on miscible/immiscible gas flooding. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2, 103–117.
(doi:10.1016/0920-4105(89)90057-0)
24. Sheng JJ. 2011 Modern chemical enhanced oil recovery: theory and practice. Houston, TX: Gulf
Professional Publishing.
25. Höök M, Bardi U, Feng L, Pang X. 2010 Development of oil formation theories and their
importance for peak oil. Mar. Pet. Geol. 27, 1995–2004. (doi:10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2010.06.005)
26. UK Energy Research Centre. 2009 Global oil depletion: an assessment of the evidence for a near-term
peak in global oil production. Report by the UK Energy Research Centre. See http://www.ukerc.
ac.uk/support/Global%20Oil%20Depletion.
27. Jackson PM, Smith LK. 2014 Exploring the undulating plateau: the future of global oil supply.
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 372, 20120491. (doi:10.1098/rsta.2012.0491)
28. UK Energy Research Centre. 2009 Nature and importance of reserve growth. Technical Report 3.
21
See http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/Global%20Oil%20Depletion.
29. Saudi-Aramco. 2004 Fifty-year crude oil supply scenarios: Saudi-Aramco‘s perspective. Presentation

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 372: 20120448

.........................................................
given by MM Abdul Baqi and NG Saleri at the Center for Strategic and International Studies,
Washington, DC. See http://csis.org/files/attachments/040224_baqiandsaleri.pdf.
30. Jakobsson K, Söderbergh B, Höök M, Aleklett K. 2009 How reasonable are oil production
scenarios from public agencies? Energy Policy 37, 4809–4818. (doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.06.042)
31. Arps JJ. 1945 Analysis of decline curves. Trans. Am. Inst. Min. Metall. Pet. Eng. 160, 228–247.
32. Arps JJ. 1956 Estimation of primary oil reserves. Trans. Am. Inst. Min. Metall. Pet. Eng. 207,
182–191.
33. Chang CP, Lin ZS. 1999 Stochastic analysis of production decline data for production
prediction and reserves estimation. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 23, 149–160. (doi:10.1016/S0920-4105
(99)00013-3)
34. Höök M, Söderbergh B, Aleklett K. 2009 Future Danish oil and gas export. Energy 34,
1826–1834. (doi:10.1016/j.energy.2009.07.028)
35. Khanamiri HH. 2010 A non-iterative method of decline curve analysis. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 73,
59–66. (doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2010.05.007)
36. Hurst R. 1934 Unsteady flow of fluids in oil reservoirs. J. Appl. Phys. 5, 20–30.
37. van Everdingen AF, Hurst W. 1949 The application of the Laplace transformation to flow
problems in reservoirs. J. Pet. Technol. 1, 305–324. (doi:10.2118/949305-G)
38. Bentley RW, Mannan SA, Wheeler SJ. 2007 Assessing the date of the global oil peak: the need
to use 2P reserves. Energy Policy 35, 6364–6382. (doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.08.001)
39. Sorrell S, Speirs J, Bentley R, Miller R, Thompson E. 2012 Shaping the global oil peak: a review
of the evidence on field sizes, reserve growth, decline rates and depletion rates. Energy 37,
709–724. (doi:10.1016/j.energy.2011.10.010)
40. Jakobsson K, Bentley R, Söderbergh B, Aleklett K. 2012 The end of cheap oil: bottom-up
economic and geologic modeling of aggregate oil production curves. Energy Policy 41, 860–870.
(doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.073)
41. Gowdy J, Juliá R. 2007 Technology and petroleum exhaustion: evidence from two mega-oil
fields. Energy 32, 1448–1454. (doi:10.1016/j.energy.2006.10.019)
42. Fantazzini D, Höök M, Angelantoni A. 2011 Global oil risks in the early 21st century. Energy
Policy 39, 7865–7873. (doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.035)
43. Aleklett K, Höök M, Jakobsson K, Lardelli M, Snowden S, Söderbergh B. 2010 The peak of the
oil age: analyzing the world oil production reference scenario in world energy outlook 2008.
Energy Policy 38, 1398–1414. (doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.11.021)
44. Miller R. 2011 Future oil supply: the changing stance of the International Energy Agency.
Energy Policy 39, 1569–1574. (doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.12.032)
45. Höök M, Tang X, Pang X, Aleklett K. 2010 Development journey and outlook of Chinese giant
oil fields. Petr. Explor. Dev. 37, 237–249. (doi:10.1016/S1876-3804(10)60030-4)
46. Maugeri L. 2012 Oil: the next revolution. The unprecedented upsurge of oil production capacity and
what it means for the world. Report from the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs,
Cambridge, MA. See http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/22144/oil.html.