Posted on 12/01/2007 5:44:49 PM PST by Graybeard58
bump
One more caveat. Off shore discoveries tend to decline at a much faster rate than on shore well heads. The extraction rate is much high as the cost per drum is much greater than land based rigs. The drillers milk it fast and big time plus the cheapest rig cost now is about $200,000/day for a jack up,
a floater is much higher.
8 billion barrels of light oil and natural gas... worth as much as $60 billion... About 70 percent of Petrobras' oil production comes from deep-water wells, making it the world's biggest oil producer at such depths. But the Tupi deposit is deeper than Petrobras has ever drilled -- under 7,000 feet of ocean water and more than 16,000 feet of rock, sand and salt, including a 1.2-mile-thick layer of rock-hard salt.
the Tupi field 180 miles off the southeastern Brazilian coast... under 7,000 feet of ocean water and more than 16,000 feet of rock, sand and salt, including a 1.2-mile-thick layer of rock-hard salt.Gee, how'd that get there? ;')
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
less oil has been found than has been used each year for more than a decade
Reserves have grown in the last decade after supplying the increasing demand. Reserves have grown because more oil has been added to the reserves than has been used.
Your link did not work.
Sorry about that, go here:
International Petroleum (Oil) Reserves and Resources
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/oilreserves.html
And select "January 1, 1980 - January 1, 2007 Estimates"
when analyzing EIA numbers, try to sort out unconventional reserves like tar sands from crude oil. They are only equivalent in the sense that they can be refined into similar products. Extraction rates and the costs of inputs differ enormously.
Extraction rates and cost differ greatly from West Texas to the Arctic and deep water gulf. That is no reason not to count the reserves. If you only want to talk about cheap, easy oil, sure that rate is going down. But that is selecting artificial criteria when the product still goes to refineries and runs in my truck.
But even if you ignore the 175 billion barrels that was finally added to Canada's reserves in 2003, there still is greater reserves in the world over the past decade in spite of meeting the growing demand.
How do you propose that ANWR be able to produce 20 million barrels per day?
The UN claims everything outside of territorial waters. At 180 miles off the coast, this would be in Brazil's exclusive economic zone. By the convention, states have exclusive sovereign rights to all natural resources out to 200 miles from the coast.
But I wouldn't be surprised to hear about the UN and/or the International Seabed Authority getting involved.
One more time:
Less oil has been found every year than has been produced since the 1980s. That is fact.
Reserve growth is not discovery. As per my previous posts, it appears to me that some of the reported reserve growth is pure nonsense. If reserves in Saudi Arabia remain the same and no new discoveries are occurring it is either magic or hogwash. Take your pick or suggest an alternate explanation, preferably one that does not rely on blindly believing the Saudis. I have set forth my case for Saudi reserve claims being “hogwash.”
Tar sands are not oil. Net energy production per barrel is much lower as a very significant fraction of the energy produced is used in production. Using natural gas to produce synthetic crude has been compared to turning gold into lead by Matt Simmons.
Finally, it is the extraction rate that is the problem. There is very little shut in production anywhere except in war zones. Almost no oil is being voluntarily withheld outside of OPEC and OPEC unused capacity is not that great. Saudi Arabia claims to have a couple of million barrels per day. Maybe half that amount in the rest of OPEC. If it can’t be produced are increasing rates, the existence of the reserves reported by the EIA doesn’t matter.
I don't and it couldn't be.
Read my post which reads in part: "[if it could be produced that fast which of course it can’t]". I posed a hypothetical for purposes of illustrating the impact in the long run on US and World oil consumption.
scuba-diving dinosaurs with tunneling technology and a death wish?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3777413.stm
[snip] ...Much of ASPO’s [Association for the Study of Peak Oil] predictions stem from the calculations of Dr Campbell. His work on oil reserves has long suggested that many official oil data are either flawed estimates or at worst downright lies... False reserves threaten the security of energy supply, just as do bombs under pipelines. Dr Campbell’s conclusion: oil production and consumption should be regulated by governments. “Many reserve figures are highly questionable,” says Dr Campbell. “Many great oil fields are increasingly old and inefficient. But I don’t think oil is easy to produce with a sniper behind every palm tree. The way to increase energy security is to reduce demand,” he says. [end]
You heard the man — oil production and consumption should be regulated by gov’ts.
;’)
“under 7,000 feet of ocean water and more than 16,000 feet of rock, sand and salt, including a 1.2-mile-thick layer of rock-hard salt.”
Makes you think. Makes my head wanna explode.
How deep would the ocean have to be to deposit 1.2miles of SALT?
P.S. (sorry, just got engine in gear)
I’ll answer my own question.
ABOUT AS DEEP AS IT IS NOW. (7000feet = about 1.2 miles).
Is that a good guess?
:’) The salts referred to may be a variety of different kinds (other than sodium chloride).
Oil Reserves have grown since the 1980. That is a fact. More oil has been added to the reserves than has been consumed. That is a fact.
Reserve growth is not discovery.
Whether oil is added to the reserves from exploring in new places, using new technology to find petroleum in places previous explored or using new technology to produce oil previously discovered and was not economically produceable all have the same results. More recoverable Petroleum added to the reserves. None of these are more valuable than the other.
Tar sands are not oil.
That is your opinion. The experts at the "Oil and Gas Journal" choose to include them in the reserves. I agree with them.
Net energy production per barrel is much lower as a very significant fraction of the energy produced is used in production. Using natural gas to produce synthetic crude has been compared to turning gold into lead by Matt Simmons.
Oil sands have produced their 1 billionth barrel back in 1998.
Oil sands now account for 39 per cent of Canada’s total oil production at approximately one million barrels per day. By 2020, production will grow to four million barrels per day.
Total Canadian production is projected to increase from the current 2.5 million barrels per day to reach 4.9 million barrels per day (b/d) by 2020.
Oil Sands Resources, Production and Projects
http://www.capp.ca/default.asp?V_DOC_ID=1162
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
Almost no oil is being voluntarily withheld outside of OPEC
As it has been since 1940 or earlier, long before OPEC existed. Nothing new or different about that.
If it can’t be produced are increasing rates, the existence of the reserves reported by the EIA doesn’t matter.
The amount of investment by oil companies is incredible these days. There is great expansion going on in exploration and facility expansion. This will bring continued expansion in the petroleum production.
I've provided a link that documents several sources showing this is a false claim even after disregarding oil sands. Would you please support your claim?
If that link doesn’t work for you try googling Matt Simmons go to the Simmons & Company site and click on speeches. The one I attempted to link to was “Twilights in the Desert” from September of 2005, but there are several others that make the point about the uncertainty of Saudi reserves.
Part of the problem is that the Saudis are using multi lateral horizontal wells. This is a good thing, except that when this type of well starts to water out, there aren’t a lot of options left in terms of secondary or tertiary recoveries. Either in this presentation or another of the dozens in the archive, he describes what happened to Yibal, a giant in the UAE. Basically using multi laterals, production history was flat or rising and then suddenly collapsed as the oil water contact rose to the level of the laterals.
In answer to your question about old oil fields, there are some great opportunities for independents to make some money and supply some much needed oil, but these sorts of projects will only very rarely return a field to its glory days.
I currently have a small interest in a field that was drilled in the 1930s abandoned. Drilled again in the 1980s and fell in disrepair. We are now trying to it bring back to a somewhat higher level of production. It isn’t easy. A very good well in this field might make 30 barrels of oil per day and 3,000 barrels of water. To do that picture operating a 250 horsepower submersible pump running 24/365 that is only 5 inches in diameter. To some extent we are trading electricity for oil with power bills of about $10,000 per month. And oh by the way, the wells for disposing of the water are more expensive to drill an equip than the producers.
If you had that sort of oil cut [1%] when Ghawar watered out, you would be talking about moving 500,000,000 barrels of water per day to try to maintain production. Almost impossible to imagine and it couldn't last for long. Beyond which most of the production in the field I described above comes from the very top of the formation between the existing wells. In a well engineered multi lateral, that area has already been swept.
The point is that the easy oil comes first, and the tail end of production requires a lot of effort. BTW, the well I described above would not work in a remote location and I doubt any company much larger than my operator would have shown any interest in operating it with 2004's prices. At today's price and a reasonable price for electricity it may produce for a very long time, so "yes" price matters. However, 30 barrels just doesn't compare to the 1,000 barrels per day that some of these wells produced back in the 1930s. I think it is safe to say that this field and the state of Oklahoma have peaked. The world?
I have not disputed that reported reserves have grown. See my comments in other posts about the validity of OPEC reserves and why more reserves won't necessarily result in higher production, and why new discoveries do. Tell me that I am wrong about new discoveries.
"Whether oil is added to the reserves from exploring in new places, using new technology to find petroleum in places previous explored or using new technology to produce oil previously discovered and was not economically produceable all have the same results. More recoverable Petroleum added to the reserves. None of these are more valuable than the other."
Refer to my response above. Same concepts. What happens with reserve growth is that the field produces for a longer period, but usually at ever declining rates.
In regard to tar sands you wrote "That is your opinion. The experts at the "Oil and Gas Journal" choose to include them in the reserves. I agree with them."
Counting them is fine, but recognize that producing them and upgrading them to syncrude consumes something like 30 percent of the energy obtained. Compare that with a flowing oil well or a beam pump well. Now compare the tar sand with a hypothetical 170 billion barrel oil conventional light sweet field located in central Canada. The hypothetical could be brought on stream at some level [first production] within a couple of months and would ultimately be capable of more than 10 million barrels a day. All reserves are not the same and IMO tar sands belong in their own category.
"Oil sands have produced their 1 billionth barrel back in 1998.
Oil sands now account for 39 per cent of Canada’s total oil production at approximately one million barrels per day. By 2020, production will grow to four million barrels per day.
Total Canadian production is projected to increase from the current 2.5 million barrels per day to reach 4.9 million barrels per day (b/d) by 2020.
Oil Sands Resources, Production and Projects http://www.capp.ca/default.asp?V_DOC_ID=1162 Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
And your point is? It still takes a bunch of valuable energy in the form of natural gas to produce syncrude. BTW, good luck on the 4 million barrel number. And BTW did you see the fall in Canadian conventional crude oil in the numbers you recited?
I wrote that Non OPEC producers had no spare capacity. You wrote: "As it has been since 1940 or earlier, long before OPEC existed. Nothing new or different about that."Wrong. Ever heard of the Texas Railroad Commission. They regulated spare capacity to keep the oil market from collapsing prior to 1972. Beyond that, my comment was also that OPEC had very little spare capacity. When a few hundred thousand barrels a day goes down, the market responds. There is no margin of safety.
"The amount of investment by oil companies is incredible these days. There is great expansion going on in exploration and facility expansion. This will bring continued expansion in the petroleum production."
Your conclusion, not mine. That is the debate. Whether we can run faster than the spinning thread mill. Check out the mega projects list for what to expect in the near future.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.