Seahorse,
No good guess since the KSA doesn't release the data but a couple of valid points:
It won't start its increased decline rate as dramatically as Cantarell. As I understand Ghawar is made up of several separate but somewhat connected pools in the same reservoir. Thus several different or actually inclined water levels. Makes predictions very complicated.
Also, the N2 coning in Cantarell is a much more dynamic and rapid process then the water coning at Ghawar. But the KSA will certainly see it coming on. They probably catch samples weekly and measure the water cut on each well in the field. This is the only way to accurately map the water encroachment in such a big and complex reservoir.
Just for some magnitude of scale I'll make up some numbers: during month X the decline rate is 1% and has been there for some years. As the water level starts hitting some wells the decline jumps to 2 to 3% at month X+6. At X+12 it could be 4%. But as the water hits more wells at X+18 it might jump to 7 or 8%. At X+ 2 or 3 years it might jump to 10 to 15%. The big problem with trying to make a credible prediction is just the shear size of the field. The production decline probably won't increase as quickly as a smaller and simpler reservoir. On the other hand, a 2 or 3% decline at Ghawar is a huge absolute number compared to just about every other field in the world.
PeakOil is You
THE International Energy Agency (IEA) Thread pt 2 (merged) A
Re: IEA: "the era of cheap oil is over"
by ROCKMAN » Sun 09 Nov 2008, 10:34:40
-
ROCKMAN - Expert
- Posts: 11397
- Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
- Location: TEXAS
Re: IEA: "the era of cheap oil is over"
by ROCKMAN » Sun 09 Nov 2008, 10:59:44
Starvid,
Both water and gas injection will increase ult recovery in any reservoir but at a wide range mostly dependent upon the nature of the rocks and the physical properties of the oil.
Uniform reservoirs with easily movable oil show the best increase. High permeable reservoirs with oil of low mobility often suffer from ""channeling": instead of the water pushing the oil it slips around the oil and moves quickly towards the producing wells. There are billions of barrels of oil stranded like this around the world. There are some complex methods to try to produce this oil but it’s early and I haven’t had my first coffee yet so I’ll skip those details.
I’m not familiar enough with Cantarell and Ghawar to offer a concise answer but there are some generalities that fit: pressure depletion reservoirs like Cantarell at times only recover 10 to 15% of the oil. The N2 injection may have increased ult recovery several times. That’s why PEMEX built the largest N2 production and injection system in the history of mankind on top of the field. Likewise the KSA may have increased recovery at Ghawar (and its other fields) by 50 to 100% with the water injection effort.
As far as poor application of good techniques I’ve heard stories of such about both fields. You can hurt ult recovery by producing wells to fast. This causes pressure sinks that pull the water/N2 quicker towards the producers and reduces ult recovery though it allows higher flow rates in the short term. For many years I’ve heard expats tell stories of such excessive rates especially in Ghawar. And when this happens much oil is left behind that could have been recovered had rates been produced. A tough call for all producers: make better cash flow in the short run or more over the life of the field.
I do know both PEMEX and the KSA have had some of the best reservoir modeling engineers in the world consult for them. They may not make it public but both have had a pretty good handle on the process. But I suspect both have sacrificed ult recovery by maximizing cash flow. With PEMEX I suspect there has been (and continues today) a huge political battle over that choice.
Both water and gas injection will increase ult recovery in any reservoir but at a wide range mostly dependent upon the nature of the rocks and the physical properties of the oil.
Uniform reservoirs with easily movable oil show the best increase. High permeable reservoirs with oil of low mobility often suffer from ""channeling": instead of the water pushing the oil it slips around the oil and moves quickly towards the producing wells. There are billions of barrels of oil stranded like this around the world. There are some complex methods to try to produce this oil but it’s early and I haven’t had my first coffee yet so I’ll skip those details.
I’m not familiar enough with Cantarell and Ghawar to offer a concise answer but there are some generalities that fit: pressure depletion reservoirs like Cantarell at times only recover 10 to 15% of the oil. The N2 injection may have increased ult recovery several times. That’s why PEMEX built the largest N2 production and injection system in the history of mankind on top of the field. Likewise the KSA may have increased recovery at Ghawar (and its other fields) by 50 to 100% with the water injection effort.
As far as poor application of good techniques I’ve heard stories of such about both fields. You can hurt ult recovery by producing wells to fast. This causes pressure sinks that pull the water/N2 quicker towards the producers and reduces ult recovery though it allows higher flow rates in the short term. For many years I’ve heard expats tell stories of such excessive rates especially in Ghawar. And when this happens much oil is left behind that could have been recovered had rates been produced. A tough call for all producers: make better cash flow in the short run or more over the life of the field.
I do know both PEMEX and the KSA have had some of the best reservoir modeling engineers in the world consult for them. They may not make it public but both have had a pretty good handle on the process. But I suspect both have sacrificed ult recovery by maximizing cash flow. With PEMEX I suspect there has been (and continues today) a huge political battle over that choice.
-
ROCKMAN - Expert
- Posts: 11397
- Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
- Location: TEXAS
Re: IEA's World Energy Report 2008
by AirlinePilot » Sun 09 Nov 2008, 12:51:34
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'O')h please, spare me. Need I show you the poll I made late last year where the majority of the people on this forum expressed a desire for peak oil to occur soon? Or how about this one where the thread starter wanted it to happen and soon, as did others in the thread.
And you can't possibly say with any seriousness that none of you guys "embrace doom!"
Embracing doom is practically the modus operandi of at least half this forum!!
And you can't possibly say with any seriousness that none of you guys "embrace doom!"
Embracing doom is practically the modus operandi of at least half this forum!! You make assumptions based on your opinions and many times you will find that this is a flawed mthodology. Maybe I am in the minority but I truly do not want to see happen what I think is coming. It messes up my life WAY too much.
Your cherry picking data Oil and its evident to many of us. You have to weigh in from both sides and you are not. I'm choosing after many years of watching this, and working in the military and corporate world, to see the failures coming. Failures of planning, outright denial, and the results of greed. You are CHOOSING not to see.
As I commented earlier, your premise rests almost completely on maybe, might, could, hopefully. Mine rests on those who are willing to see the real trends, and while it still is possible that the folks I choose to believe are wrong, and I freely admit they may be, it sure doesn't appear that way if your honest with what your seeing. I do agree there are true doomers and they cherry pick data also, but its kind of easy to see that too. We have them here and they can be quite shrill, but I'm not one of them.
Your poll is just a humurous diversion on a forum and the folks who are arguing with you here about your corny fantasy most specifically do not embrace doom and do not hate oil. For crying out loud, Im an airline pilot!!!
If your placing any credibility on a poll in an online forum that's your first clue to how wrong you may be.
-
AirlinePilot - Moderator
- Posts: 4378
- Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: South of Atlanta
Re: IEA's World Energy Report 2008
by copious.abundance » Sun 09 Nov 2008, 21:23:24
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'G')ive it up:
--> Petrobras CFO: 1M b/d from Tupi 'Not Out of Reach' <--
--> Petrobras CFO: 1M b/d from Tupi 'Not Out of Reach' <--
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ood Mackenzie analyst Matthew Shaw recently also said production at Tupi could peak at around 1 million barrels, but expects the field's output to peak only by 2022.
He calls Tupi "one of the most significant oil discoveries in the last 20 years," only surpassed by the 12.9-billion-barrel Kashagan field found in Kazakhstan in 2000.
If the delays are anything like Kashagan you'll see first oil in 2022. Forgot about the multiple phases at Tupi but don't really expect much from them anyway - 30 kb/d Pilot next year, 70 kb/d EPT the year after - then 200 kb/d in 2015. This is all baked into the Megaprojects cake.
"If the delays . . ." You are hoping for delays which you don't even know exist yet! Say, can I borrow that crystal ball which you seem to make extensive use of?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')ncidentally, another problem with these graphs is the assumed continuation of trends (even if, for the sake of argument, we accept the past discoveries bars as accurate). They simply extrapolate recent trends and continue them on forever.
You call a 40 year trend "recent"? Take a look at my thread on EIA forecasts to see some really sagging forecasts. Why aren't we producing 91 mb/d now? The ROI for E&P is at all time highs.
Another change of topic . . .
The comment of mine you quoted was about discovery sizes over time, but then you have to change the topic to projected oil production rates? Do you have nothing to say in response to the comment, or do you have to incessantly change the subject?
As for the 40-year thing, I've already explained why the recent finds seem smaller. Do I need to explain it again?
But if it makes you happy, yes of course the giant oil fields which were discovered in the Middle East mostly around mid-century are going to bias the chart. So what? If those fields didn't happen to be discovered until, say, the 1980's, the chart would look a lot different.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')It never occurs to them tthat there might be good, non-geological reasons why discoveries lagged for a few decades (such as, sufficient reserves gained from the 40's-70's era, low prices, etc.). And it also never occurs to them those reasons might not continue forever, and that the recent trends could be broken. But of course, the ASPO and other peakers like those charts because they hate oil (or like doom), so they continue to advertise them.
Like I said the price is right at the moment, and rigs are busy:
The IEA doc addresses recent work:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he volume of oil discovered each year on average has been higher since 2000 than in the 1990s, thanks to increased exploration
activity and improvements in technology, though production continues to outstrip discoveries (despite some big recent finds, such as in deepwater offshore Brazil).
