[linlithgowoil]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8124325/

A good article i think. talks about the inevitable decline of prudhoe despite all the efforts. it also says oil fields follow an 'arc' of increased production then decline.

doesnt talk about hubbert or the worldwide situation and if it did, i would imagine it would say that there is enough oil to increase production for 40 years, its just going to cost a bit more.

[Fergus]

link Another 90,000 bpd offline for a few days. Compressor problems.

[PWALPOCO]

Ordinarily I guess such problems would have passed unnoticed or unreported and we'd be none the wiser , alas with the world production being in the shape it is now , every little little glitch is going to show.

Paul

[zed]

I just found the below article about a guy who kind of acts as a watchdog for the Alaskan oil industry. The main thrust of it is that he had heard rumors of the pipeline corrosion for years and the shutdowns are no surprise to him. It's kind of interesting to read about the particular niche he has carved for himself in the industry..

http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0634/prudhoe.php

[Tanada]

I have been wondering something about Prudhoe Bay for a long time and hope someone who is an actual Oil Geologist and doesn't just play one on the internet can answer this question.

If the TAP had only had the capacity to carry 1 Mbbl/d instead of its actual capacity twice that high how long would it have taken for it to reach capacity when opened and how would the slower production rate have impacted the URR of Prudhoe Bay fields?

I have read many times in my life that a slower production rate greatly extends the ultimate recover rate for a couple reasons, technology advances is one, and oil moving through porous rock at a slower rate empties a reserve more completely.

As a side benefit Prudhoe Bay oil would have never exceeded demand from the West Coast if it had only been produced at 1 Mbbl/d but you can't change the past.

Part of the reason I ask is because most modern fields seem to concentrate on the quickest recovery time possible despite what this does to ultimate recovery, which pays off for those alive now but harms those alive in the future, like so many get rich quick methods.

[Plantagenet]

Congrats to the biased reporter who wrote an article about the sad decline of oil production at Prudhoe Bay without ever mentioning the potential for another giant oil field at nearby ANWR.

[TheDude]

The story does mention ANWR - has a quote from your convicted felon of a Senator, too.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'T')he story does mention ANWR - .

[ReverseEngineer]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'T')he story does mention ANWR - .

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', '.')...your convicted felon of a Senator....

[ROCKMAN]

Tanada,

I are an actual petroleum geologist…been one for 33 years. Though reservoir drove mechanisms and reservoir themselves vary greatly, in general a slower production rate would increase URR. A better way to put it though is that excessive production rates hurt URR. I’ve heard stories for years from expats that this has been the case at Ghawar and Cantarell Fields for example. On the practical side, recovery needs to be at such a rate to generate sufficient cash flow and rate of return. So some sort of compromise position is determined. But it’s not so much a “get rich quick” calculation as it is cold hard economic analysis. Any production rate schedule generates a “net present value” to any project. Think of it as a negative interest rate. Companies commonly use 15% as the “discount rate”. An example: a project costs $1 million. It generates $1.15 million in net income the first year. The NPV of the project would be zero ($1.5 million income -$1million costs - $150,000 ($1 million X 15%) = zero profit and thus zero rate of return. If it produced $300,000 the second year the NPV would again be zero ($300,000 – ($1 million X 15% X 2) = zero. If you follow the math after years 7 or 8 the future NPV is so small that it doesn’t really add much value to the rate of return. So even if project produced more value in absolute value terms in years 10 to 30 that production would add almost nothing to the rate of return. Another way to think of it: you borrow money at 15% interest and then invest it and make 15% interest. How much profit would you have after 10 years? Zero. This is how rates of return are calculated for most investments (not just oil and NG) which generate cash flows over many years.

On the other hand, the NG reinjection and water injection efforts have greatly improved URR. I can only make a wild guess but somewhere in the range of 10% to 30%. And if I get your point about CA consumption, PHB wasn’t developed and produced solely for CA’s benefit. It was pumped into our entire consumption net work. At one time, it was actually sold to Japan on something like a swap basis to save transportation costs. Also, you don’t have to worry about BP pushing more than 1 mm bopd down the TAP. They’ve finally admitted their years of neglect has thinned the pipeline and reduced throughput.