Has Light Sweet Crude peaked?

by **fiedag** » Wed 20 Sep 2006, 00:10:53

I came across a post recently claiming that world refinery capacity would be adequate to meet demand, if only the composition of crude was what it used to be. Namely consisting predominantly of light sweet crude. It was claimed that many of the refineries in use today are ill-equipped to process the high sulphur sludge which is being extracted more and more these days. The refineries are apparently being modified but that this is a slow and expensive process.

This brought me to thinking that perhaps the peak for light sweet crude had already occurred without anyone remarking on it.

Does the data exist to test such a hypothesis? A light sweet peak would occur almost certainly occur before the peak oil proper. It would underpin the trend and give the modelling guys something to go on.

by **turmoil** » Wed 20 Sep 2006, 02:25:57

Light sweet peaked long ago.

http://www.vitaltrivia.co.uk/2005/08/26

Youd think this simple fact would have gotten more people to do something about the problem :roll:

Who knows...maybe someone will bring it up in the 2006 debates!

Chances are good! /sarcasm

by **DantesPeak** » Wed 20 Sep 2006, 07:31:48

Yes, it peaked sometime in 2005 - forever.

That's bad enough, but it also seems like total exportable oil, that is what's left over by oil producers after domestic needs, has peaked maybe right about December 2005.

by **Kingcoal** » Wed 20 Sep 2006, 09:43:30

I think it's definitely peaked, perhaps a few years ago, but I think it's a plateau peak and we're still on the top side. The down slope, I think has not started yet, although I believe that we will feel it when it does.

by **ClubOfRomeII** » Wed 20 Sep 2006, 10:30:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('fiedag', 'I')
This brought me to thinking that perhaps the peak for light sweet crude had already occurred without anyone remarking on it.

by **MonteQuest** » Thu 21 Sep 2006, 01:16:20

Sorry guys, regular oil peaked in 2004, according to ASPO

http://peakoil.com/fortopic10613.html+2004

by **ClubOfRomeII** » Thu 21 Sep 2006, 16:42:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'S')orry guys, regular oil peaked in 2004, according to ASPO

http://peakoil.com/fortopic10613.html+2004

by **mekrob** » Thu 21 Sep 2006, 17:41:41

New fields coming online, their production (in kbpd), and peak year:

Brazil
Pinauma- 30 - 08
Golfinho Module 1 - 100 - 06
Piranema-30-06

India
Raageshwari and Sanaswati-10-08+

Iran
Darkhovin, Masjid, Suleiman-110-06
Rag e Safid-Bangestan-150-06

Kuwait
Sabriy-50-07

Saudi Arabia
Haradh III-300-06
Abu Hadriya-500-07
Nuayyim exp-100-08
Shaybah exp-375-08
Khurais-1,200-09

UAE
Huwila-30-06
Al bu Hasa and Sahil exp-125-06
Asab exp-100-06
Upper Zakum red-200-08

Total- 3.310 mpd of new capacity through 2008

Italics means extra light. Exp means expansion of current field. Red means redevelopment.

Not all projects have their quality of oil listed, but most that do are not light.

Source: OGJ (June 12th, 2006)
-----------------------------------------
Now, why are there only projects commissioned through 2008? The list of megaprojects includes many that will peak in 2013. So is it a lack of investment, or a lack of resources?

According to the preceding article, in 2004 light sweet production was 23.74 mpd.

With 3% depletion rate of light fields, then by the end of 2008 production will be 21.94 mpd (base) and 25.244 (total).

4% depletion rate and production will be 24.684 mpd (total)

5% and it will be 24.2 mpd (total).

Even with 5% depletion rate, it doesn't seem like we have peaked, at least not on the down slope. But it definately seems like we've higher hit the plateau (just recently) or have passed halfway through the plateau.

by **MonteQuest** » Thu 21 Sep 2006, 22:44:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ClubOfRomeII', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'S')orry guys, regular oil peaked in 2004, according to ASPO

http://peakoil.com/fortopic10613.html+2004

by **DantesPeak** » Mon 25 Sep 2006, 22:53:24

Here is an example of an exportable oil peak. Russia's oil production has creeped up to a new peak (or close to the prior one), yet exports are dropping:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')rime-Tass
September 25, 2006

Russia's oil, gas condensate output up 2.4% on year in Jan-Aug

MOSCOW, Sep 25 (Prime-Tass) -- Russia's oil and gas condensate output rose 2.4% on the year to 318 million tonnes in January-August, Russia's Economic Development and Trade Ministry said in a monitoring report on the Russian economy for January-August obtained by Prime-Tass Monday.

by **NEOPO** » Mon 25 Sep 2006, 23:56:36

Ok looks like a yes SLC has peaked.

Fiedag - Allow me to push this further and take a second stab at the definition of peak please.

A peak in production is "traditionally" the sign of an area/region reaching the mid point of URR or "peak oil".
Traditionally is the key word here.

It is my belief that through the widespread implementation of secondary and tertiary technological production upgrades and technological advances in general - good examples are The north sea and Cantarell - that we have and will continue to extract more oil sooner at the cost of URR and this will result in severe decline rates.

Try to imagine a year with a double digit decline rate.
Try to imagine several years of high decline rates.
We cannot know for certain but we can make an educated guess.

This issue became personal as I knew a friend who hid behind the fact that the news would say "peak in production" or "production peak" instead of "peak oil".
I read all of the various definitions and I have heard all of the ways people like to define peak oil yet I still felt empty ;-)

So I contend that we could be and probably are well beyond the real peak of all conventional oil and that we may be 60% or more beyond midway - thats 10% beyond peak.
Yes production may rise to 90 or 100 mbpd but we will be cutting our collective URR throats in the process.

The icing on this cake is made by taking a historic look at Opec reserve numbers.
Potentially hundreds of Billions of paper (fake) barrels.
I bet if we all knew exactly how much oil was really there - most of us would not be here.....

Earlier this year some clues presented themselves by the news that somehow got out stating that Kuwait only has 50 bb as opposed to 100 bb official number.
Imagine if the region only has 50 or 60% of offical reserves!
It all makes sense to me but what do you guys think about it now after many months of data and news updates?

Please prove this all wrong so I can sleep better at night thanks ;-)

by **MonteQuest** » Tue 26 Sep 2006, 00:18:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', ' ')It is my belief that through the widespread implementation of secondary and tertiary technological production upgrades and technological advances in general - good examples are The north sea and Cantarell - that we have and will continue to extract more oil sooner at the cost of URR and this will result in severe decline rates.

by **Zardoz** » Tue 26 Sep 2006, 01:07:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '.')..We just don't know.

Which is ominous in, and of, itself.

by **mekrob** » Tue 26 Sep 2006, 10:18:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')k looks like a yes SLC has peaked.

by **NEOPO** » Tue 26 Sep 2006, 13:58:06

Monte - yes you are probably the or at least one of the folks that I got the idea "way past peak" from.

I was surprised when Rockdoc agreed with this as well - it was perhaps the only thing he and I ever agreed on minus the obvious.

Mekrob - not sure what you are suggesting....is this a test? ;-)

Are you trying to counter Campbell through me?
I said it "looks like" as if to say:

"if colin campbell, the people at ASPO and some of the senior mods here etc etc think SLC has already peaked and since I am far less knowledgeble especially where SLC is concerned, I agree but do not wish to do a report on the subject"

Call me crazy!!!

Suggesting that I or anyone who aligns with the thought that SLC has already peaked is a doomer are we?
In a bit of denial about something are we?
I do not feel the need to read everything ever printed to come to a basic conclusion commonly known as "LOOKS LIKE" ;-)

Yes I respect and rely on the judgements of certain people - yes most definately.

It does not bother me that ASPO moves its peak date around as I understand that hindsite is 20/20.
Noting that Hubbert predicted 66' to 72' for US peak Seahorse correctly demonstrated the uncertainty in these calculations.

People want Nostrodomus but all we have are experienced career geologists.

Now - Are you taking these projects for granted?

Like the recent find in the GOM - 3 TO 15 BB is what the public hears yet they want to believe the most optomistic 15bb option and usually they ignore the fine print such as "comprised of both petroleum and gases" or the fact that URR might be what? 70% if yer lucky? so better said 3/.7 or 15/.7 and what? 20% gases so 3/.7/.8 to 15/.7/.8 if you wish to look at petroleum only.

Beyond this.... have producers ever been wrong and do ya think they have ever lied?

Furthermore - after reading so many articles, learning from history, being educated by the wonderful people here,elsewhere and all that happened from may 15 2005 to now.....you really expect me to believe shit that comes out of SA?
You expect me to believe shit that comes out of kuwait? etcetc

I will believe it when I see it but for now I am pretty certain that we have alot less oil sitting in the ME then is on the books and it seems that most of what is coming online it medium and sour.

So what is the bigger picture here?

Why did you exclude demand from your equation?

Exhibit A:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ew fields coming online, their production (in kbpd), and peak year:

Brazil
Pinauma- 30 - 08
Golfinho Module 1 - 100 - 06
Piranema-30-06

India
Raageshwari and Sanaswati-10-08+

Iran
Darkhovin, Masjid, Suleiman-110-06
Rag e Safid-Bangestan-150-06

Kuwait
Sabriy-50-07

Saudi Arabia
Haradh III-300-06
Abu Hadriya-500-07
Nuayyim exp-100-08
Shaybah exp-375-08
Khurais-1,200-09

UAE
Huwila-30-06
Al bu Hasa and Sahil exp-125-06
Asab exp-100-06
Upper Zakum red-200-08

Total- 3.310 mpd of new capacity through 2008

Italics means extra light. Exp means expansion of current field. Red means redevelopment.

Not all projects have their quality of oil listed, but most that do are not light.

Source: OGJ (June 12th, 2006)
-----------------------------------------
Now, why are there only projects commissioned through 2008? The list of megaprojects includes many that will peak in 2013. So is it a lack of investment, or a lack of resources?

According to the preceding article, in 2004 light sweet production was 23.74 mpd.

With 3% depletion rate of light fields, then by the end of 2008 production will be 21.94 mpd (base) and 25.244 (total).

4% depletion rate and production will be 24.684 mpd (total)

5% and it will be 24.2 mpd (total).

Even with 5% depletion rate, it doesn't seem like we have peaked, at least not on the down slope. But it definately seems like we've higher hit the plateau (just recently) or have passed halfway through the plateau.

by **mekrob** » Tue 26 Sep 2006, 14:39:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') said it "looks like" as if to say:

by **NEOPO** » Tue 26 Sep 2006, 17:07:56

1. so the original poster knew that I was keeping the title of this thread in mind.....a respect even though I went on to divert the subject a bit......all apologies.....and now this post which makes me further apologetic;-)

2. lies or over optomistic predictions or simply wrong.
I am looking for past predictions and then reported production rates - if anyone has already did alot of this then please someone send me a link.
I bet we will find way more over estimates then under estimates and more delays then "on time" or "ahead of schedule" events yet as you may wish to suggest - that may be just the doomer talking.

3.CNN FOX nor OGJ informed me about PO.
Maybe it was because I was not a subscriber.
1 Year Premium Service ( U.S.:$89.00 , Canada/Latin America:$94.00 , Other International:$139.00 )
2 Year Premium Service ( U.S.:$150.00 , Canada/Latin America:$160.00 , Other International:$238.00 )
3 Year Premium Service ( U.S.:$215.00 , Canada/Latin America:$220.00 , Other International:$332.00 )

Now be a good lad and look up this article on OGJ for us ;-)

OGJ search results for WALKER RIDGE

Maybe post it so we can see how different the OGJ version is from the "rest".
Everyone wants to believe or maintain the perception that they are "plainly stating the facts" yet we know that everyone cannot come up with such varying conclusions and be right simultaneously.

4. you dont?
Good point as this is something that with alittle work can be proven or at least looked at closely.
I am not sure I am capable yet I am sure some people here are.
Heck someone will probably lay it on us shortly.
Does anyone have anything on past predictions vs. actual production?

5. NP and sorry as well as that was me getting off the subject yet it appeared you reverted to world peak so I obliged and took it further.
When you say "greater recovery methods" you must mean "implementation of secondary and tertiary recovery technology on the fields that were never upgraded".
IMO - These greater recovery methods will delay production peak yes but they will NOT extend peak oil by much and if you take into consideration that many of these methods may actually decrease URR then the timeline for PO could more backwards just like ASPO/Campbell have shown.

Cantarell is a fine example of using advanced recovery methods to extend out production peak at the expense of URR/peak.
This squeezes Hubberts peak and makes for a fun roller coaster ride as well ;-)

It makes so much sense its frightening - at least to me.

Hey - while typing this I just got a job next month paying way more then I can mention here without feeling very embarrassed....
This will help with my doomer preps.
Maybe now I can justify a subscription to OGJ! ;-)

Someone show us a pretty chart or graph comparing prediction with actual production - can be done in crayon np - I dont care - but what Mekrob may have suggested by accident is exactly what I am worried about right now and if the original poster has followed this discussion out I have no doubt that he/she would like to know also ;-)

roger over and out....

by **mekrob** » Tue 26 Sep 2006, 18:00:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')
PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:07 pm Post subject: Re: Has Light Sweet Crude peaked?
1. so the original poster knew that I was keeping the title of this thread in mind

by **mekrob** » Wed 27 Sep 2006, 14:53:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ow be a good lad and look up this article on OGJ for us Wink
OGJ search results for WALKER RIDGE
Maybe post it so we can see how different the OGJ version is from the "rest".
Everyone wants to believe or maintain the perception that they are "plainly stating the facts" yet we know that everyone cannot come up with such varying conclusions and be right simultaneously.

by **JustinFrankl** » Wed 27 Sep 2006, 19:36:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mekrob', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')stimates of recoverable volumes for the deepwater Lower Tertiary play reach as high as 15 billion bbl of crude and other liquids.

Who is online