[shortonoil]

ROCKMAN wrote:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') still don't think you get the big picture roc. Some of these folks own some of the tankers bringing gasoline into Mexico. Things will have to get pretty bad before the golden rule stops working IMO.

[Roccland]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'r')oc,
Perhaps we got off track to each others point...sorry about that.

[ROCKMAN]

Yep short, I found their egos were as difficult to stomach as their utter disdain for the average Mexican citizen. I truly did develop a love-hate relationship with them: great to party with if they would just keep their damn mouths shut. But as I aged the partying becaome less important and the conversation more so.

[UncoveringTruths]

Rockman,

Please check my question on the bottom of page 39.

Thanks,

[ROCKMAN]

Just a little bit from expats that have worked on the facilities down there. The pressure is maintained (and thus keeps pushing the oil out) by injecting nitrogen. The separate the N from the air with the largest such plant of earth. This builds a N gas cap on top of the oil. If you produced the oil too fast you can actually pull some of this N down into the production stream. Besides making it more difficult to process the oil you’re also reducing the pressure support. Ideally you mange this by lowering the production rate. Otherwise, you risk reducing the ultimate recovery. And there you go: between the rock and the hard place. Reduce today’s cash flow but extend field life. Or pull it as hard as possible and leave billions of $’s of unrecoverable oil in the ground. The word from the expats has been that they are pulling the wells too hard and drawing down the N. This could lead to a very significant increases in decline rate (maybe like what we’re seeing now). But if they max out their ability to process the N out of the oil they could also choke off a good bit of the production on the surface. Whatever the exact problem is it’s very unlikely anything can prevent significant rate reductions in the future. That’s why I think if there were a vote in OPEC to reduce production worldwide thru the quota system Mexico would vote in favor. Especially if they net the same $’s with the lower rate as they are making now.

[UncoveringTruths]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'J')ust a little bit from expats that have worked on the facilities down there. The pressure is maintained (and thus keeps pushing the oil out) by injecting nitrogen. The separate the N from the air with the largest such plant of earth. This builds a N gas cap on top of the oil. If you produced the oil too fast you can actually pull some of this N down into the production stream. Besides making it more difficult to process the oil you’re also reducing the pressure support. Ideally you mange this by lowering the production rate. Otherwise, you risk reducing the ultimate recovery. And there you go: between the rock and the hard place. Reduce today’s cash flow but extend field life. Or pull it as hard as possible and leave billions of $’s of unrecoverable oil in the ground. The word from the expats has been that they are pulling the wells too hard and drawing down the N. This could lead to a very significant increases in decline rate (maybe like what we’re seeing now). But if they max out their ability to process the N out of the oil they could also choke off a good bit of the production on the surface. Whatever the exact problem is it’s very unlikely anything can prevent significant rate reductions in the future. That’s why I think if there were a vote in OPEC to reduce production worldwide thru the quota system Mexico would vote in favor. Especially if they net the same $’s with the lower rate as they are making now.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'J')ust a little bit from expats that have worked on the facilities down there. The pressure is maintained (and thus keeps pushing the oil out) by injecting nitrogen. The separate the N from the air with the largest such plant of earth. This builds a N gas cap on top of the oil. If you produced the oil too fast you can actually pull some of this N down into the production stream. Besides making it more difficult to process the oil you’re also reducing the pressure support. Ideally you mange this by lowering the production rate. Otherwise, you risk reducing the ultimate recovery. And there you go: between the rock and the hard place. Reduce today’s cash flow but extend field life. Or pull it as hard as possible and leave billions of $’s of unrecoverable oil in the ground. The word from the expats has been that they are pulling the wells too hard and drawing down the N. This could lead to a very significant increases in decline rate (maybe like what we’re seeing now). But if they max out their ability to process the N out of the oil they could also choke off a good bit of the production on the surface. Whatever the exact problem is it’s very unlikely anything can prevent significant rate reductions in the future. That’s why I think if there were a vote in OPEC to reduce production worldwide thru the quota system Mexico would vote in favor. Especially if they net the same $’s with the lower rate as they are making now.

[TheDude]

As I understand these things water would be secondary recovery, N[sub]2[/sub] etc. tertiary. Cantarell's remarkable gas cap meant Pemex didn't have to do much with the field for years. Geology turned out to be the deciding factor.

Here's a good overview from Offshore Technology.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s gas is at a premium in Mexico, Pemex knew it could put the gas to better use by selling it. So Bechtel and Pemex studied other options, such as steam and water injection. Because of the oil field’s geological formation, neither of these turned out to be a viable solution. But nitrogen was. After six months of study, the team recommended that nitrogen be used to pressurise the reservoir and enhance production at Cantarell.

[Tanada]

That article makes it sound as if a lower production rate, say a steady 1.2 Mbbl/d, would have kewpt the field going for another decade. How much truth is there in that assertion?

[natts]

Here is a really good explanation of what's happening in Mexico
http://www.pemex.com/index.cfm?action=c ... atID=12222
They expect that in a few years Cantarell will be over, and they are accepting that the cheap easy oil era is gone in Mexico and the world.
They think that when Calderons gov. is ending they will produce between 600 and 700 000 barrels per day. It also says that they know that even if they drill in other places they will never be able to produce what we did. So we are accepting that we are in trouble.

Someone said that didn't think that mexican people would make such a big deal about this. Well I live in Mexico and I'm really worried that the ignorant will feel that its all the gov. fault and try to do sth REALLY stupid.

About the one that says it will stop mexicans from going to the US I really doubt that PO will do that, the only way would be if you are in worse problems that we. Even if there are no cars to move, here we still have horses, donkeys and lots and lots of bycicles!
So when things start getting worse here, expect many more mexicans going over there.

[Roccland]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('natts', 'H')ere is a really good explanation of what's happening in Mexico
http://www.pemex.com/index.cfm?action=c ... atID=12222
They expect that in a few years Cantarell will be over, and they are accepting that the cheap easy oil era is gone in Mexico and the world.
They think that when Calderons gov. is ending they will produce between 600 and 700 000 barrels per day. It also says that they know that even if they drill in other places they will never be able to produce what we did. So we are accepting that we are in trouble.

Someone said that didn't think that mexican people would make such a big deal about this. Well I live in Mexico and I'm really worried that the ignorant will feel that its all the gov. fault and try to do sth REALLY stupid.

About the one that says it will stop mexicans from going to the US I really doubt that PO will do that, the only way would be if you are in worse problems that we. Even if there are no cars to move, here we still have horses, donkeys and lots and lots of bycicles!
So when things start getting worse here, expect many more mexicans going over there.

[ROCKMAN]

P,

The choice between water injection and N (or any other gas) is determined by the type of reservoir drive is involved. It's a rather long explanation but the short answer is that the type of drive fond in cantarell is suitable for water injection. But you're certainly right about water injetion being cheaper. But you can't just pump any water into a reservoir. It has to be chemically compatible. Sometimes salt water will work...some times you need to use fresh water. And there are some reservoir where neither water or gas injection works.

I'm sorry I can't take the time to go into more detail but I have a rule about escaping PO on the weekends. Besides PO I work in the oil patch the other 5 days. Just a way to avoid burn out.

[Plantagenet]

Thanks Rockman. Thanks Dude.

Very interesting info about use of N at Cantarell.

I really appreciate the stories and the excellent information in your posts.

[newman1979]

Mexico and Norway have a declining oil production in common. How the countries deal with declining production and at some point declining revenue is very different. Norway has a SWF ( sovereign wealth fund) that exceeds $350 billion. It is second after the UAE SWF in size.
Mexico conversely uses up its oil revenue. Now Pemex is "broke", according to some, and is required to fund government spending. At some point, declining production and decreasing exports of crude will result in declining revenue even if oil prices go up.
Norway has some of the highest gasoline taxes in the world, while Mexico subsidizes domestic gasoline consumption ($20 billion a year) and imports 400,000 barrels of gasoline a day from the U.S.
I think all oil producing countries look at these examples and will make conservative choices in production goals and saving their wealth for future generations. A more aggressive choice may create a a less than desirable outcome IMO.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('newman1979', 'M')exico and Norway have a declining oil production in common. How the countries deal with declining production and at some point declining revenue is very different. Norway has a SWF ( sovereign wealth fund) that exceeds $350 billion. It is second after the UAE SWF in size.
Mexico conversely uses up its oil revenue. ... Pemex.... is required to fund government spending.

[eastbay]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('newman1979', 'M')exico and Norway have a declining oil production in common. How the countries deal with declining production and at some point declining revenue is very different. Norway has a SWF ( sovereign wealth fund) that exceeds $350 billion. It is second after the UAE SWF in size.
Mexico conversely uses up its oil revenue. ... Pemex.... is required to fund government spending.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('newman1979', 'M')exico and Norway have a declining oil production in common. How the countries deal with declining production and at some point declining revenue is very different. Norway has a SWF ( sovereign wealth fund) that exceeds $350 billion. It is second after the UAE SWF in size.
Mexico conversely uses up its oil revenue. ... Pemex.... is required to fund government spending.

[cualcrees]

For me, Cantarell is the "Canary in the coal mine"; mostly, because I'm from Mexico, so it seems more "Real", more tangible than reading about depletion from an oil field in a far away land.
Also, it's really scary to think that the decline we are seeing in Cantarell could be happening in other major oil fields and what that could mean to the world.
I've got a question, too. If I understand it correctly, Mexico is one of the major exporters of oil to the U.S., right? So what's the U.S. gonna do now, where are you going to get the oil that you once obtained from Mexico? Who's got spare production capacity in the world? Are we about to see the real consequences of demand exceeding supply?

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cualcrees', 'F')or me, Cantarell is the "Canary in the coal mine"; mostly, because I'm from Mexico, so it seems more "Real", more tangible than reading about depletion from an oil field in a far away land.
Also, it's really scary to think that the decline we are seeing in Cantarell could be happening in other major oil fields and what that could mean to the world.
I've got a question, too. If I understand it correctly, Mexico is one of the major exporters of oil to the U.S., right? So what's the U.S. gonna do now, where are you going to get the oil that you once obtained from Mexico? Who's got spare production capacity in the world? Are we about to see the real consequences of demand exceeding supply?

[cualcrees]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cualcrees', 'F')or me, Cantarell is the "Canary in the coal mine"; mostly, because I'm from Mexico, so it seems more "Real", more tangible than reading about depletion from an oil field in a far away land.
Also, it's really scary to think that the decline we are seeing in Cantarell could be happening in other major oil fields and what that could mean to the world.
I've got a question, too. If I understand it correctly, Mexico is one of the major exporters of oil to the U.S., right? So what's the U.S. gonna do now, where are you going to get the oil that you once obtained from Mexico? Who's got spare production capacity in the world? Are we about to see the real consequences of demand exceeding supply?