Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Question: Decline Vs. New Drilling

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.
Post a reply

Question: Decline Vs. New Drilling

Unread postby RonMN » Sun 17 Sep 2006, 09:26:00

Let's just assume for a moment (as crazy as it sounds) that yesterday we found an oil field 10 times the size of ghawar in the arctic.

It would take time/energy/money to even begin producing that field because we would need to build all new infrastructure inorder to develop that field (not to mention the harsh arctic conditions).

In that same time, other fields are in decline (some in steep decline).

If we had a field of this magnitude, would we be able to drill/produce fast enough to offset world decline?

Does anybody have the numbers on both sides of this equation to calculate if a find of this size would (or would not) drive world production OVER 85 MBD? (considering the time it would take to develop the new arctic oil field vs. rate of decline of existing fields).

If there is a way to answer this question with a definate "NO", then I think we can all agree that we are at or past the peak.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.
User avatar
RonMN
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2628
Joined: Fri 18 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Minnesota
Top

Re: Question: Decline Vs. New Drilling

Unread postby bonjaski » Sun 17 Sep 2006, 13:35:17

i don't think we will ever see a global decline , we will see local declines
which will be replaced rather fast by other sources or with alternatives

there already such fields:but not with oil, with methanhydrates


it will take 5-10 years until the first ones are only
User avatar
bonjaski
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue 07 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Question: Decline Vs. New Drilling

Unread postby coyote » Sun 17 Sep 2006, 13:40:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bonjaski', 'i') don't think we will ever see a global decline

I have one word for you: Finite.
Lord, here comes the flood
We'll say goodbye to flesh and blood
If again the seas are silent in any still alive
It'll be those who gave their island to survive...
User avatar
coyote
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 1979
Joined: Sun 23 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: East of Eden
Top

Re: Question: Decline Vs. New Drilling

Unread postby RonMN » Sun 17 Sep 2006, 17:14:09

Rockdoc...Would you care to interject on this thread? (I would appreciate it).
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.
User avatar
RonMN
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2628
Joined: Fri 18 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Minnesota
Top

Re: Question: Decline Vs. New Drilling

Unread postby Frank » Mon 18 Sep 2006, 07:50:59

I have another word for you: global warming. (OK, it's two words but who's counting...)
User avatar
Frank
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 556
Joined: Wed 15 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Maine/Nova Scotia
Top

Re: Question: Decline Vs. New Drilling

Unread postby nero » Mon 18 Sep 2006, 16:04:55

We already have to bring on line a Ghawar a year to compensate for declines and for increased consumption. That's nothing new.
Biofuels: The "What else we got to burn?" answer to peak oil.
User avatar
nero
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat 22 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Top

Re: Question: Decline Vs. New Drilling

Unread postby fluffy » Tue 19 Sep 2006, 08:38:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RonMN', 'L')et's just assume for a moment (as crazy as it sounds) that yesterday we found an oil field 10 times the size of ghawar in the arctic.


That would be a 1 Trillion barrel or so field. (!) Effectively doubling the world's remaining conventional oil.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RonMN', 'I')t would take time/energy/money to even begin producing that field because we would need to build all new infrastructure inorder to develop that field (not to mention the harsh arctic conditions).


As a very rough guideline, a heavily developed province will peak at a production rate of up to 5% of ultimate per year, which would work out at 50 Billion barrels per year. (150mb/day)

Lest that sound silly, if Gwahar had been developed at maximum push with the latest technology, it probably could have peaked at 15mb/day.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RonMN', 'I')n that same time, other fields are in decline (some in steep decline). If we had a field of this magnitude, would we be able to drill/produce fast enough to offset world decline?


Yes, in short - such a field would probably have peak production similar to the rest of the world! Of course, once that field peaked..

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RonMN', '
')Does anybody have the numbers on both sides of this equation to calculate if a find of this size would (or would not) drive world production OVER 85 MBD? (considering the time it would take to develop the new arctic oil field vs. rate of decline of existing fields). If there is a way to answer this question with a definate "NO", then I think we can all agree that we are at or past the peak.


If such a field existed (and I suspect that it would be a geological impossibility), it would put peak oil into the 2030-2040 time region.
User avatar
fluffy
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon 26 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: UK
Top

Re: Question: Decline Vs. New Drilling

Unread postby RonMN » Tue 19 Sep 2006, 10:15:46

WOW...thanks for the input fluffy. If all true, i would have to say, I had no idea we had the ability to develop a field that rapidly!
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.
User avatar
RonMN
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2628
Joined: Fri 18 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Minnesota
Top

Re: Question: Decline Vs. New Drilling

Unread postby mekrob » Tue 19 Sep 2006, 12:42:14

Fluffy, that is such BS. Reread the question.

While a trillion barrel field could sustain a peak between 100-150 mpd at peak production for a few years, the field is, hypothetically, in the arctic. Even just a regular offshore field of that size would be extremely difficult to bring up to full production. Hell, even onshore right next to other fields (and thus pipelines, infrastructure, workers, etc) would be difficult.

Being offshore in the Arctic, I couldn't imagine, even with a trillion dollars a year budget, this field producing more than 10 mpd (what a loser :) ). This would only put peak back a couple of years.

The good news, is that would only be about 3.7 bln barrels a year, so it'd last about 275 years at that production rate.

Anyway, assuming that it was onshore, and it could reach 150 mpd, that would still only put peak off for about 15 years. Mathematics show that each new billion barrels added to reserves puts the peak back by 5.5 days. Thus a trillion barrel field only puts it back 5,500 days (15 years!). Even then we wouldn't have enough time (according to Hirsch). Who wants to weep with me?
I want to put out the fires of Hell, and burn down the rewards of Paradise. They block the way to God. I do not want to worship from fear of punishment or for the promise of reward, but simply for the love of God. - Rabia
mekrob
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2408
Joined: Fri 09 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Question: Decline Vs. New Drilling

Unread postby RonMN » Tue 19 Sep 2006, 14:22:05

Now Mekrobs post is more what i was expecting. My point is take 1 disadvantage (like being in the arctic on-shore or even deep water GOM)...and all the rest are good points (the field is massive, it's all light sweet, blah blah blah)...could we develop the field fast enough to make any meaningfull dent in the peak?

I would guess that the answer is no...but that's why i'm asking the question...I'm not sure.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.
User avatar
RonMN
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2628
Joined: Fri 18 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Minnesota
Top

Re: Question: Decline Vs. New Drilling

Unread postby Dezakin » Tue 19 Sep 2006, 15:29:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RonMN', 'N')ow Mekrobs post is more what i was expecting. My point is take 1 disadvantage (like being in the arctic on-shore or even deep water GOM)...and all the rest are good points (the field is massive, it's all light sweet, blah blah blah)...could we develop the field fast enough to make any meaningfull dent in the peak?

I would guess that the answer is no...but that's why i'm asking the question...I'm not sure.


The development of the tar sands seem to indicate that the answer is yes.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Question: Decline Vs. New Drilling

Unread postby FatherOfTwo » Tue 19 Sep 2006, 16:31:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bonjaski', 'i') don't think we will ever see a global decline , we will see local declines
which will be replaced rather fast by other sources or with alternatives

there already such fields:but not with oil, with methanhydrates


it will take 5-10 years until the first ones are only


We will FRY this planet if we try to tap methane hydrates.
Do some research on how bad it will be for the climate before you start trumpeting such a dangerous option.

I'll even give you a hint on how to search for this, click the search button and enter "methane hydrate fry" from author "devil"
User avatar
FatherOfTwo
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
Top

Re: Question: Decline Vs. New Drilling

Unread postby FatherOfTwo » Tue 19 Sep 2006, 16:34:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RonMN', 'N')ow Mekrobs post is more what i was expecting. My point is take 1 disadvantage (like being in the arctic on-shore or even deep water GOM)...and all the rest are good points (the field is massive, it's all light sweet, blah blah blah)...could we develop the field fast enough to make any meaningfull dent in the peak?

I would guess that the answer is no...but that's why i'm asking the question...I'm not sure.


The development of the tar sands seem to indicate that the answer is yes.


Oil sands development clearly shows that the answer is NO.
3.9mbpd (total crude production) hoped for by 2015. (CAPP projections) whoopie.

The fact that oil sands development is being pursued only shows that it is profitable.
User avatar
FatherOfTwo
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
Top

Re: Question: Decline Vs. New Drilling

Unread postby FatherOfTwo » Tue 19 Sep 2006, 16:50:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RonMN', 'L')et's just assume for a moment (as crazy as it sounds) that yesterday we found an oil field 10 times the size of ghawar in the arctic.

It would take time/energy/money to even begin producing that field because we would need to build all new infrastructure inorder to develop that field (not to mention the harsh arctic conditions).

In that same time, other fields are in decline (some in steep decline).

If we had a field of this magnitude, would we be able to drill/produce fast enough to offset world decline?



Alberta is a somewhat of a good case study... I say somewhat because it's unconventional that they are now going after, and unconventional requires tons more infrastructure and work, plus it is harder to tie it into existing conventional infrastructure.

But as Alberta shows, if you have a large resource located all in one area, rapid build up of the infrastructure has CLEAR limits. Simple things matter too. The town of Ft Mac's waste sewage treatment plant is designed for 40,000 people. They are pushing the waste from 60,000 through it... it's near the point of breaking, bad enough that the Ft. Mac mayor has threatened to halt development in the area if the province doesn't pony up more cash to expand it. Housing is non-existent for workers. Many are in campgrounds and oil companies resort to actually flying workers in and out.
Throughout Alberta just about every company that relies on skilled trades and service labour is CRYING for more people. They can't get it and it means two things:
1. costs are going through the roof (making it tougher for companies to justify building the infrastructure)
2. new projects can't be staffed, meaning companies can't build the infrastructure. (not fast enough anyways)

Now, I think if such a huge conventional field were brought online in SA or any other area with a very extensive, easily expanded infrastructure, then yes, it could easily push us past 85. Otherwise, it's doubtful.
User avatar
FatherOfTwo
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
Top

Re: Question: Decline Vs. New Drilling

Unread postby Dezakin » Tue 19 Sep 2006, 17:05:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FatherOfTwo', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RonMN', 'N')ow Mekrobs post is more what i was expecting. My point is take 1 disadvantage (like being in the arctic on-shore or even deep water GOM)...and all the rest are good points (the field is massive, it's all light sweet, blah blah blah)...could we develop the field fast enough to make any meaningfull dent in the peak?

I would guess that the answer is no...but that's why i'm asking the question...I'm not sure.


The development of the tar sands seem to indicate that the answer is yes.


Oil sands development clearly shows that the answer is NO.
3.9mbpd (total crude production) hoped for by 2015. (CAPP projections) whoopie.

The fact that oil sands development is being pursued only shows that it is profitable.


When the price is right, production can climb. Not many with capital are that confidant in 50 dollars per barrel oil or higher for extended lengths of time, or we'd be seeing development of coal liquefaction on a much larger scale.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Question: Decline Vs. New Drilling

Unread postby Dezakin » Tue 19 Sep 2006, 17:05:49

The tab says edit delete but I can only edit.
Last edited by Dezakin on Tue 19 Sep 2006, 17:09:30, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Question: Decline Vs. New Drilling

Unread postby mekrob » Tue 19 Sep 2006, 17:07:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')The development of the tar sands seem to indicate that the answer is yes.


On top of the previous posts, look at how much it produces. Only about 1 mpd. At peak, it will probably be only a few million barrels per day (3.5 by 2015 is projected). It will probably level off at about 5 mpd. Even at 5 mpd, that will only make up for the decline in conventional fields by about 15 months. Add in new demand, and it's about 8 months. Every little bit counts, but that still isn't much.

Again, 1 trillion new barrels of oil, 150 mpd (not 5 mpd from tar sands) and peak is put off by 15 years. Not 500, not 100, not 50. 15! And I don't see us finding a 1,000 gigabarrel field anytime soon.
I want to put out the fires of Hell, and burn down the rewards of Paradise. They block the way to God. I do not want to worship from fear of punishment or for the promise of reward, but simply for the love of God. - Rabia
mekrob
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2408
Joined: Fri 09 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Question: Decline Vs. New Drilling

Unread postby Dezakin » Tue 19 Sep 2006, 17:14:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mekrob', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')The development of the tar sands seem to indicate that the answer is yes.


On top of the previous posts, look at how much it produces. Only about 1 mpd. At peak, it will probably be only a few million barrels per day (3.5 by 2015 is projected). It will probably level off at about 5 mpd. Even at 5 mpd, that will only make up for the decline in conventional fields by about 15 months. Add in new demand, and it's about 8 months. Every little bit counts, but that still isn't much.

Again, 1 trillion new barrels of oil, 150 mpd (not 5 mpd from tar sands) and peak is put off by 15 years. Not 500, not 100, not 50. 15! And I don't see us finding a 1,000 gigabarrel field anytime soon.

Unconventional oil easily represents trillions of barrels. Its everything from ultra-heavy tars to coal and gas being spun into liquid fuels.

The sweet light crude peak wont be noticed because it will just be a climb in price reflecting production costs from these unconventional sources as total liquid hydrocarbon production continues to climb. The liquid hydrocarbon peak is some ways further off.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Question: Decline Vs. New Drilling

Unread postby mekrob » Tue 19 Sep 2006, 21:32:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')nconventional oil easily represents trillions of barrels. Its everything from ultra-heavy tars to coal and gas being spun into liquid fuels.


I'd really like to know where you get that information (of trillions of barrels of oil). From what I know, the US has the equivalent of 200 bln barrels in coal. There's supposedly another trillion in shale and about 3 trillion in tar sands and ultra-heavy (Orinco Belt in Ven.). But those 4 trillion barrels are total reserves converted into liquid oil (I'm not sure if API 5 degree or less oil counts as a liquid).

We're still not so sure of the net return of energy on shale oil. It will likely be 1:1, but with improvements can get up to 1.5:1. But you have to consider this: they are using only the best oil in the best area. Once you factor in the fact that you can't extrapolate this to the entire Green River Formation to conclude that all of the "oil" shale will have that same EROEI. I'd imagine less than 10% having an EROEI higher than 1, simply because the EROEI of the current crop is so damn low. Thus, only a couple hundred billion barrels is recoverable, maybe.

You have to do this again to tar sands and ultra-heavy oil. Trillions of barrels of "oil" there, but how much is really there? The EROEI is pretty low, I believe around 1.5:1 (thus shale is probably even lower). Again, only a small part is actually going to be recoverable. Once that NG is gone, they're going to have a hard time getting to that tar, especially since 80% of it is too deep to get with surface mining.

I'd hardly say trillions, but I'll concede a trillion. Even then, 15 years, buddy. If we average 6 bln barrels a year in new discoveries (which we won't), then over the next 15 years, we'll have another 90 bln barrels: A whopping year and 4 months! Another year and four months and we find 8 bln more which will put peak off for 44 days during which time we'll find 730 mln barrels which will put peak off by 4 days...and you see where I go with this. It won't help. It eventually ends. By my calculations, it will happen with a 99% certainty if everything continues (and it doesn't seem like it can even slow down), within 2 decades. That's if we have enough nukes and NG to keep the tar sands/ultra-heavy oil scam going.
I want to put out the fires of Hell, and burn down the rewards of Paradise. They block the way to God. I do not want to worship from fear of punishment or for the promise of reward, but simply for the love of God. - Rabia
mekrob
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2408
Joined: Fri 09 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Question: Decline Vs. New Drilling

Unread postby AirlinePilot » Tue 19 Sep 2006, 23:01:40

All great points Mekrob.

I'd like to add a very key issue here. Those estimates are for everything going PERFECTLY. No Hurricanes, No Middle East conflict.
Moderate groth in demand, no Wars, no Venezuela, no China, plenty of workers and infrastructure, and a VIABLE WORLD ECONOMY.

Get the picture?

I think its coming MUCH sooner than 15 years.
User avatar
AirlinePilot
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4378
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South of Atlanta
Top
Next
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron