Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Peak Oil (was "petroleum geologist explains US war policy")

New fields have to come online in Saudi, because they are one of the few remaining countries (and the largest current producer) that have not already passed their peak production rates and are either in continuous decline or in upwards trends still well below previous peaks.

The IEA is currently doing a big overhaul of its data and will give its medium-term report later this month. Rumours are that the picture will be a gloomy one. We shall see.
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/207...oil-boom-due-to-huge-unexplored-reserves.html

Professor Alex Kemp, a petroleum economics expert at Aberdeen University, said: "The remaining reserves could be 20 to 22 billion barrels equivalent and on optimistic estimates could be over 30. So there still is a substantial amount left."
D. Tel. has only quoted part of Professor Kemp's statement whereas today's Aberdeen Press and Journal has more. P&J online does not appear to have the article yet but here's the same referenced text in today's Guardian:

But the size of fields is smaller with a production average of less than 20 million barrels - compared with 500 million in the early 1970s.

Challenging conditions such as heavy oil, deep formations and high pressures also mean the price per barrel is "very, very high" to extract, Prof Kemp added.

"So although we could have 300 fields undeveloped there are good reasons why everybody's not rushing to develop them all," he added.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/7562743
The point Prof Kemp makes about the average size of these undeveloped fields is crucial. Looking at the development plan for Buzzard, the most recent giant oilfield discovered in UK N Sea - URR 550m bbls, peak flowrate 190k bbls/day which gives a reserve / production ratio of 7.9. Using the same reserve / production ratio for a 20m bbl URR oilfield points to peak flowrate of just 6.9k bbls/day. There would need to be lots of such small fields clustered close together to justify the requisite large investment in pipelines and other infrastructure.

The above conclusion is relatively insensitive to the oil price due to the embodied energy contained in the infrastructure combined with the ongoing energy used in production operations (think boats, helicopters etc) approaching or exceeding the energy recovered from such small fields. The economics of low flowrates looks poor even where existing infrastructure is in place - look no further than NW Hutton field which was abandoned at a time of rising oil prices which indicates that both the operator and DTI could see no prospects of further economic oil recovery.

Not least the R/P ratio of 7.9 quoted above represents extracting all the recoverable oil in just 7.9 years. Of course flowrates are very different in practice thus we must expect Buzzard to go into steep decline within about 4 years of 'first oil'.

On this basis it's hardly surprising that most of the above fields are currently undeveloped. Many economists still 'don't get it' but this situation might not change much even at $500/bbl. It's all about ERoEI and, as Crispy says - flowrates!
 
Oceanic crust is continental; great, timely news for the oil industry!

One of the greatest achievements of the NCGT group in the last 11 years is the establishment of a strong case for the ubiquitous presence of ancient, continental rocks under the present-day oceanic areas and its implications for the real composition of the so-called oceanic crust and for global tectonics.

Many articles in past issues of the NCGT Newsletter have documented indisputable hard evidence against the oversimplified plate tectonic model of the oceanic crust (which is said to be basaltic and gabbroic, to have formed at the mid-oceanic ridges and to have moved to its present position through seafloor spreading), and have argued for the presence of continental rocks in the deep oceans, the most outstanding paper being by Vasiliev and Yano (no. 43, 2007). They showed an impressive crustal section of the Mid-Pacific Ridge at the junction of the Heezen Fracture Zone, and the widespread presence of ancient, continental rocks in the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic Oceans. In addition, we have repeatedly shown that Proterozoic structures on continents continue into the ocean floor (South America and Pacific/Atlantic Oceans; around Australian continent; NW Pacific; Indian Ocean), and we have presented seismic data indicating that the oceanic crust consists of folded and block-faulted basin-filling sedimentary rocks at its top section (some of them possibly Proterozoic to Lower Paleozoic in age – offshore Sumatra, NW Pacific, etc.). Furthermore, the global shear strain pattern discussed by De Kalb (no. 44, 2007) indicates that a uniform crust must have covered the Earth’s surface in Precambrian time. We can now say that the so-called oceanic crust is primarily continental crust which has been locally altered ormetamorphosed in interaction with the upper mantle.

Another important fact brought forward by our contributors is that the present deep oceans were formed in Jurassic to Paleogene time – before that, most of the present oceans had been subaerially exposed and formed paleolands. Mesozoic-Cenozoic basins of great economic interest are well developed in some areas of the deep oceans, mainly near the present continental margins.

The new picture – that continental “oceanic” crust (or sunken continents) underlies the Mesozoic-Cenozoic basins and basalts – is a great gift for the oil industry. They now have positive scientific grounds for exploring deep-sea sedimentary basins. Currently, hydrocarbons are produced in 1,800 m of water off Brazil and exploration is progressing in much deeper waters worldwide (John and MacFarlan, Offshore, October, 2007, for example). In the coming 10 to 15 years, basins with 3,000 to 4,000 m of water will become the most active area for exploration and exploitation (personal communications with many oil company staff at the AAPG European Conference, November 2007). We are very proud of what our members have achieved.


http://www.ncgt.org/newsletter.php#

Recycling of organic material via a non-existing tectonic process of subduction can be instantly dismissed as pseudoscience.
 
Is that text saying what I think I'm saying - that the current ocean floor was actually continental land exposed to the air prior to the Jurassic?
 
That oceanic crust that has been dated and magnetic-polarisation mapped to show continuous spreading over the last 150 million years? Yeah, that one.

Even if there is oil in the oceanic crust, by christ it'd be hard work getting it out.
 
yeah i wouldnt rule out lots of oil being found in all sorts of hard to reach places, but as Crispy said, production rates are all that really matter to us as humans exploiting the resource. It doesnt matter if theres loads of oil left in the earth, if its not worth extracting.

As the price of oil rises, more areas become economically feasible to exploit, but some will never make sense in terms of how much energy is required to exploit them, vs how much energy they get back.

Im really rather fascinated by the varying explanations when production falls in certain regions. Right now when I hear Russian output decrease being blamed on lack of investment, I have no way of knowing if that is the real reason.

Likewise if we do enter a time where global oil output rates fall, I wonder how many people will believe its down to the physical realities, and how many will believe its a conspiracy by oil business or politicians or certain countries or OPEC or green luddites. In this sense bigfish is a useful precursor to how some public opinion will be if these oil issues start to totally mess up their lives?
 
Im really rather fascinated by the varying explanations when production falls in certain regions. Right now when I hear Russian output decrease being blamed on lack of investment, I have no way of knowing if that is the real reason.

Likewise if we do enter a time where global oil output rates fall, I wonder how many people will believe its down to the physical realities, and how many will believe its a conspiracy by oil business or politicians or certain countries or OPEC or green luddites. In this sense bigfish is a useful precursor to how some public opinion will be if these oil issues start to totally mess up their lives?
BBC Newsnight Scotland had a 20 minute slot devoted to oil last night (only transmitted in Scotland). Chris Skrebowski (editor of Petroleum Review) and Euan Mearns (TOD Europe) were interviewed. CS made a very good point when asked if production was limited by geological factors or by lack of investment, especially in OPEC regions. He replied that 'it doesn't really matter as the fact that a number of key oil producers are off limits for western investment was unlikely to change'.

Based on his comments we should expect 'more of the same' re investment in areas such as Iran, Venezuela, Russia etc. The decision whether to invest in future oil projects there is thus out of our hands...which makes it extremely questionable why oil importers (which btw will also mean the UK very shortly) are basing their whole economic and industrial future on cheap and abundant imports being available for decades into the future.

Press, politicians, businesses and individuals alike will continue to offer various explanations such as 'speculation, hoarding, depreciating dollar, security risk etc' as to why oil prices are at their current levels. They will also 'clutch at straws' i.e. biofuels, tar sands, Brazilian deepwater oil, shale, abiotic oil, hydrogen...etc (it's a long list) which Richard Heinberg describes in his book 'Powerdown' as 'waiting for the magic elexir'. None of the above, or even all of them combined, is likely to consitute a viable substitute for conventional oil in terms of price, versatility and, above all, flowrates.

Of course the implications are so far 'off the path of business as usual' that many are understandably in denial on this whole issue. The kind of statements seen in the press today quoting Prof Odell that 'about the same amount as has ever been extracted remains to be extracted in UK NS over next 40 years' are doing a great disservice in this regard and are encouraging everyone to go on consuming as if there's no tomorrow. Well there will be a tomorrow....and it's not going to be pretty for those unprepared to adapt on a large scale to the coming era of scarce and expensive energy.
 
North Sea may be set for second oil boom

Angela Jameson
June 5

The North Sea could be set for a second boom as companies search for new sources of oil and gas to take advantage of record prices.

The popular view is that the UK's share of the North Sea is in decline, with energy reserves diminishing rapidly about 35 years after the oilfields were first exploited.

However, there is a growing body of opinion that suggests that proven oil reserves have been underestimated consistently.

Since the discovery of oil in the North Sea, the equivalent of 37billion barrels of oil have been extracted from the UK Continental Shelf, leaving up to 25.5billion barrels still to be recovered. However, industry experts believe that the remaining reserves exceed current estimates by as much as a fifth.

New technology and the rising price of oil mean that it is now economically viable to drill fields once considered too difficult or too remote.

Richard Pike, chief executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry, argued in Petroleum Review this month that true proven reserves for the world may be nearly twice the conventional figure. Mr Pike said that the current industry practice of reporting proven reserves alone was purely an historic convention that bore little relevance to what was actually produced.

There are many reasons why companies like to be conservative in reporting oil reserves, not least because it helps to maintain a high oil price. When Shell had to cut estimates by one fifth in 2004, it had a devastating impact on the company's share price and cost the members of the senior management team their jobs.

There are also concerns that if reserves are played up, politicians immediately set about calculating how much money they can get out of the oil companies.

But there is growing evidence to show that the proven reserves in the North Sea's oldest fields are, in fact, rising. Professor Peter Odell, of Erasmus University in the Netherlands, believes that supplies of oil will flow for decades to come and that there will be new finds in parts of the UK Continental Shelf that have never been examined in any depth.

This view would appear to be supported by the announcement last month that Dana Petroleum, a British independent company, found a new oilfield in the North Sea at West Rinnes. The suggestion that the North Sea could harbour more oil than was previously forecast will cheer the Government, which made a surprise change last week to North Sea taxes, designed to boost falling investment levels in the UK Continental Shelf.

Investment in the shelf dropped by about £1billion in real terms to £4.9billion last year but much of the investment is coming from new entrants that are smaller and more dynamic than the behemoths of Shell and BP. Smaller companies with lower overheads are prepared to go after smaller pockets of oil, knowing that they can still make a decent profit.

Five years ago BP sold the Forties field to Apache Corporation, a Texas-based oil exploration and production company. Since then Apache has spent $2billion (£1.02billion) on the field and has fundamentally re-evaluated how much oil still exists.

At the time it was sold, the Forties Field was showing its age and had pre-developed reserves of about 150million barrels. Last year Apache reported pre-developed reserves of 200million barrels.

New technology, including better drilling techniques, means that fields that were considered exhausted previously are now worth a second look.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4068875.ece
 
Prod - uc - tion Rates
Prod - uc - tion Rates
Prod - uc - tion Rates
Prod - uc - tion Rates
 
yeah i wouldnt rule out lots of oil being found in all sorts of hard to reach places...

I wouldn't rule out lots oil being found in all sorts of easy to reach places, too, if I were you, given most of the world remains relatively unexplored for oil. For example, there is huge petroleum potential in many parts of Africa both on-shore and off-shore. Sudan is thought to have vast reserves, which probably explains why it is being destabilized by the West. It's a similar story in the Congo, too.
 
Prod - uc - tion Rates
Prod - uc - tion Rates
Prod - uc - tion Rates
Prod - uc - tion Rates

If you have anything quantitative to say on production rates that is supported by credible industry data then I'll be all ears. Until then, simply parroting the latest peak oil mantra wont have any effect.
 
It's not some sort of mantra, it's the crux of the issue. You have posted many reports about 'new reserves' being found. Which is all well and good, but unless those reserves can be pumped fast enough, they won't help offset decline in other fields. That last story makes no mention of production rates, and rightly so, because the forties field has been in decline for the last 27 years. These new efforts will not bring production back up to previous highs.

As for something quantative on production rates supported by credible industry data, I refer you to post 1679
 
Well I am concious of the fact that if I were a lot older, I could have had the same expectance of imminent peak oil back in the 70's, andhave ended up waiting a very long time for doom to arrive.

Im reasonably certain there is no easy obvious oil to be discovered in Western territories, because there are numerous occasionas where it would have made political & economic sense to exploit such reserves, and it didnt happen. I went back and watched some US State of The Union addresses from the 70's, and for several years the 'reducing Americas dependance on foreign oil' stuff was talked about in strong terms, with some silly promises to restore energy independence. They didnt manage it back then when they had only just started to decline, and they sure as hell arent managing it now in the era where Bush repeated the same mantra.

I do hope there are some big finds that are practical to exploit, but I only expect it to reduce the decline rate at best. Considering how long these issues have not been addressed, we are more than a little overdue for some proven good news, because a global decline rate thats anything like the decline rate of the North Sea is going to be especially hard to get through.

The Times will not make me an optimist out of me with articles like that. If they wanted to present the full picture they would talk production rates as well as reserves. Rather than talking about diminishing UK reserves as a 'popular view', they could point out that actual production numbers over the last 10 years, and then talk about production rate estimates going forwards and how they'd be affected by these new reserve revelations.

I wouldnt be unhappy if I was wrong about how soon peak oil hits us. I just believe it is essential that human civilisation plan for the future based on non-optimistic positions. Optimistic articles such as that Times one may be good for attracting investors, and making the government seem more in control, and affecting todays oil price, but obviously have no impact on future physical realities.
 
It's not some sort of mantra, it's the crux of the issue. You have posted many reports about 'new reserves' being found. Which is all well and good, but unless those reserves can be pumped fast enough, they won't help offset decline in other fields. That last story makes no mention of production rates, and rightly so, because the forties field has been in decline for the last 27 years. These new efforts will not bring production back up to previous highs.

As for something quantative on production rates supported by credible industry data, I refer you to post 1679
Since acquiring Forties in 2003 Apache have made big efforts to achieve additional oil recovery. Here's what the Forties production curve looks like:
g0000094.gif


While Apache have invested around $100m and applied their best efforts to increase recovery thus extending the tail of production the field's flowrates only recovered to what they were in 2001 and the decline has subsequently re-commenced. At best i.e. in 2005 the field was still producing less than 20% of it's 1980 output.

Don't forget also that the 'c300 undeveloped discoveries' recently described by Prof Kemp average less than 1/140th of this size of Forties.
 
Sometimes I wonder if Scotland would have got its own parliament if the North Sea hadnt peaked ;)

More detailed story about todays largest oil price jump in a day ever:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/06/news/economy/gas_prices/index.htm?cnn=yes

So that brings the War part of this threads title back into play - the Iran risk premium is back, apparently. I remember talk of airstrikes on Iran last year and they didnt happen, but maybe they will this year? Either way I guess that again it is the perception of the situation that is driving the price rather than the reality.

Any ideas why the 4th July is earmarked for a oil price of $150? Is this the peak of seasonal demand? Short-term supply issues seem rather underdiscussed in all the msm news stories about oil price rises.
 
Sometimes I wonder if Scotland would have got its own parliament if the North Sea hadnt peaked ;)

More detailed story about todays largest oil price jump in a day ever:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/06/news/economy/gas_prices/index.htm?cnn=yes

So that brings the War part of this threads title back into play - the Iran risk premium is back, apparently. I remember talk of airstrikes on Iran last year and they didnt happen, but maybe they will this year? Either way I guess that again it is the perception of the situation that is driving the price rather than the reality.

Any ideas why the 4th July is earmarked for a oil price of $150? Is this the peak of seasonal demand? Short-term supply issues seem rather underdiscussed in all the msm news stories about oil price rises.
I would supect 4th July is around the peak of summer driving season in US when demand for gasoline is at its highest. Interestingly however the current squeeze is especially affecting diesel and fuel oil supplies and there are few diesel private vehicle in US. Heating oil demand peaks in winter in northern hemisphere but I understand the summer months are used to re-build stocks. Unfortunately for OECD consumers many in China appear to have the same idea!
 
Oh yeah and given that the bad US economic data would suggest if anything a reduction in future demand, I guess the weakness of the dollar is quite a dominant factor in the current oil price, compared to future demand expectations? IEA seems to be ready to reduce demand forecast which should help them balance the numbers in the rumored gloomy future report on oil reserves somewhat.

Some years ago I thought terrorist attacks (& hysterical coverage of them) might be a driving factor in demand destruction. Happily that seems not to have happened much, but we now finally find ourselves at the point where price is being used to trigger demand destruction. It finally got high enough to trigger behavioural changes (so we are told now), and the real pain now kicks in for many countries where oil price is subsidized, and governments are now passing large price rises on to their people. I mentioned Indonesia before I think, I see India & Malaysia have followed:

http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersComService_3_MOLT/idUSDEL24308220080604
 
I would supect 4th July is around the peak of summer driving season in US when demand for gasoline is at its highest.

Cheers. Im sure I used to hear more about the seasonal demand in mainstream articles on oil a few years back, in the first few years that the price started to climb, but once it got past $60 or $70 they've tended to talk about a lot of other reasons more.
 
Meanwhile gasoline continues to retail for 2p/litre in Venezuela and 6p/litre in KSA, hardly an incentive for consumers in those key oil exporting nations to use energy more frugally. The impact of the 'Export Land Model' will hit much earlier and harder than originally predicted.
 
I have a dumb question, what is KSA?

Do you reckon the numbers on this site showing energy use per capita are any good?

http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator.cfm?IndicatorID=146&country=VE#rowVE

Clicking on Venezuela and the UK on that chart seems to show their per capita figures have declined a little whilst ours have gone up in recent years?
The numbers look reasonable and show that small Middle Eastern states (such as Qatar) have some of the highest energy consumption per capita. China is quite well down the list but what will happen as they ascend it given their vast population?

The data is significantly out of date, 2000 being lastest available.

Not a dumb question at all, KSA = Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
 
Ta for the clarification.

Regarding China, yes thats a very big question, I should pay more attention to China's creation of a large middle class, and the move from countryside to city. I wonder quite how far they, and otehrs such as India, will get before the crunch hits. And then this sort of thing makes me ponder just how much the West will allow a fairer redistribution of Energy wealth & standard of living to the East. Maybe this is an area that global climate change agreements (or lack of) will play a vital role.
 
OK - If it could pull it back a bit.

Why the fuck has the price of oil been rising relentlessly for more than three years to the point that it is now pushing the world into a recession?

Is there any other reason apart from prodiction falling behind demand (i.e peak oil)?

Bigfish's position on this is looking ever more farcical.
 
OK - If it could pull it back a bit.

Why the fuck has the price of oil been rising relentlessly for more than three years to the point that it is now pushing the world into a recession?

Is there any other reason apart from prodiction falling behind demand (i.e peal oil)?

Bigfish's position on this is looking ever more farcical.

Tim: Check out Truth, Lies, Oil and Scotland from BBC Scotland. In it you can hear Peter Odell explain how at $100 a barrel between $60 and $65 can be attributed directly to speculation. So my position only looks farcical if you are ignorant of the facts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00byhfh
 
Yeah but some of that speculation is probably speculating about the oil running out, something that should probably have been part of the price for a very very long time if the world was saner.

Meanwhile the G8 have the oil price at the top of their agenda, and some interesting things have been said this weekend:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/06/08/oil.prices.ap/index.html

This is the first I have heard that the US wants developing countries to cut their subsidies. Also it strikes me as an admission of supply problems, and the idea that those problems are partly responsible for the high price. They want poor countries to cut the subsidies so that demand for oil is reduced, and the price comes down.

And thankyou CNN for actually spelling out some reality in an unobscured way:

"World oil production has stalled at about 85 million barrels a day since 2005, while global economic growth -- boosted by spectacular surges in China and India -- has pushed demand to unprecedented levels."

Well they can keep focussing on China and India's growth as uch as they like, its quite clear we are all going to have to play a part in reversing that trends towards more demand, not just those nations who are only just joining the party.
 
I am sure the US would like China's rulers to ration gas, I mean they can do it more easily, it's a dictatorship, even if it's a capitalist one
 
Back
Top Bottom