Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Ghawar Thread (merged)

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

Re: Industry Report Says Ghawar Past Peak

Unread postby Zardoz » Fri 28 Sep 2007, 17:46:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')aimi, a prominent geologist, was quoted as saying: "There is a possibility that the kingdom will raise its reserves by around 200 bn barrels, either through new finds or by increasing what it produces from existing fields. ...These reserves enable the kingdom to remain a major oil producer for between 70 and 100 years, even if it raises its production capacity to 15m b/d, which may well happen during the next 15 years".

*fights urge to post the Baghdad Bob pic yet again* My God, what a crock.
"Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
User avatar
Zardoz
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6323
Joined: Fri 02 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Oil-addicted Southern Californucopia

Re: Industry Report Says Ghawar Past Peak

Unread postby americandream » Fri 28 Sep 2007, 18:01:04

If their major sources of stock are in decline and these new fields are minor reserves and not of the magnitude of Ghawar, I can't see an increase, perhaps a plateau, but certainly not an increase.
americandream
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Ghawar field reserves decline overstated, survey says

Unread postby Oil-Finder » Fri 14 Dec 2007, 01:32:56

link
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Ghawar field reserves decline overstated, survey says
Eric Watkins Senior Correspondent
LOS ANGELES, Dec. 10 -- Concerns about global oil peaking due to declining reserves at Saudi Aramco's Ghawar oil field may be overstated, according to Bernstein Research commenting on the results of a recent satellite survey.

In a note to investors, Bernstein Research said satellite images show that a recent rise in Aramco drilling activity has focused on two major expansion developments and not, as earlier assumed, on keeping older parts of the field producing with enhanced recovery techniques. "The majority of the increased activity in the Ghawar field can be explained by the Haradh-III, and the Hawiyah natural gas liquids recovery megaprojects, which were not designed as a quick fix to Ghawar's supposed rapid decline," the Bernstein Research note said.

The firm said theories of Ghawar's decline may be based on little or incomplete data from Saudi Arabia on the state of its oil sector. "Without accurate and detailed data on what Saudi Aramco is undertaking, or with a poor understanding of current Ghawar decline rates, many conspiracy theories have arisen, which argue that we are on the cusp of global peak oil production," the research note said.

Bernstein Research conceded that increased drilling in older sections of Ghawar could suggest efforts to halt some declines, but that such drilling does not by itself point to a sudden drop in the field's output. The firm concluded that "there is life in this old field yet, as its demise has been overly anticipated." Bernstein said its report was an initial analysis of satellite data from 2004-07, with a final conclusion expected in the coming months. It did not detail the source of the imagery.

The Bernstein Research note counters arguments by experts backing peak oil theories who have warned that sharp global declines could happen at any time, and that Saudi Arabia will only be able to keep production flat for several years but not increase output to meet demand growth. Bernstein Research is a division of Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC which provides investment research to institutional investors.
User avatar
Oil-Finder
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Seattle

Re: Ghawar field reserves decline overstated, survey says

Unread postby alokin » Fri 14 Dec 2007, 02:05:25

who is Bernstein research? Who pays them? Are they independent?
There was yet a thread about this topic, but there was very little reaction, despite it is a really serious issue weather and in which speed the world biggest oil field declines.
User avatar
alokin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Fri 24 Aug 2007, 03:00:00

Re: Ghawar field reserves decline overstated, survey says

Unread postby TheDude » Fri 14 Dec 2007, 02:26:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('alokin', 'w')ho is Bernstein research? Who pays them? Are they independent?
Bernstein Homepage
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e at Sanford C. Bernstein have been providing top-quality investment research to institutional investors such as pension managers, mutual funds, banks and insurance companies for more than 25 years. This research is available to clients around the world through Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC, which has its principal offices in New York, and Sanford C. Bernstein Limited, which has its principal offices in London. Both firms are subsidiaries of AllianceBernstein L.P.

The Bernstein research brand is defined by our renowned "blackbook" reports. These are known for their unbiased in-depth company and industry forecasts. In addition, Bernstein reports have established a reputation for disciplined research into valuation and the factors affecting stock-price movements.

Wonder who their client(s) is/are. Kinda doubt it was T Boone.
Innumberable articles on Ghawar by the Peak Oil conspiracy theorists at TOD: The Oil Drum | Depletion Levels in Ghawar
The Oil Drum | The Status of North Ghawar
The Oil Drum: GHAWAR : an estimate of remaining oil ...
The Hubbert Linearization Applied on Ghawar

What special access to satellite imagery these Bernstein researchers might have I can't say - their site is only open to clients. I'm sure the Oil Drummers will have plenty to say about this. I also seriously doubt they can afford something Matt Simmons can't. Funny that they're suggesting a member of the CFR is little more than a conspiracy theorist!
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia

Re: Ghawar field reserves decline overstated, survey says

Unread postby Oil-Finder » Fri 14 Dec 2007, 02:47:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'i')f you intend this as a refutation of peak oil then you have seriously misconstrued the implications of what is being said. As a newbie to this site you don't understand what a revelation such an article reveals. It all but admits that the greatest oil field ever discovered, the source of the petroleum miracle is in near decline. got substitutes?

Yes, in fact I do - and then some: link
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')pward adjustments of resource estimates for the Bakken are nothing new; analysts have been ratcheting them upward ever since the first study of the field in 1974. But since 2000, the predictions have been staggering; some experts have suggested that the Bakken may harbor the greatest discovery of oil in the US since Prudhoe Bay.

Much political pressure has been brought to bear for Congress to authorize a study by the US Geological Survey to re-examine a controversial theory that says there may, in fact, be more than 500 billion -- "that's billion, not million" -- barrels of oil in the Bakken. To give that some perspective -- all recoverable oil in the US is estimated at 21.4 billion. In Saudi Arabia it’s estimated at 264 billion barrels.

Or this, if you choose: link
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s much as 300 billion barrels of oil have been generated from Upper Devonian-Lower Mississippian Bakken shales in the U.S. Williston Basin.

If you aren't happy with that, feel free to add 50 to 70 - and maybe even 100 - billion barrels off the coast of Brazil.
Which brings us to at least 350 billion barrels - more than 3 times the size of Ghawar!
User avatar
Oil-Finder
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Seattle
Top

Re: Ghawar field reserves decline overstated, survey says

Unread postby like_the_dinosaurs » Fri 14 Dec 2007, 02:50:06

Since when does how many posts someone has made or when someone joined have anything to do with how much they know of a certain topic.
I know what to do, I will sit at my laptop all day and night except now i'l throw my two cents at everything i see. It's just an article, I'm pretty sure it was for everyones viewing and not to make some grand statement the PO is BS. And yes the article is shit.
User avatar
like_the_dinosaurs
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Sat 23 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Australia

Re: Ghawar field reserves decline overstated, survey says

Unread postby lawnchair » Fri 14 Dec 2007, 11:00:15

Again, we'll see. Not that things are ever comparable, but it certainly reminds me of my childhood. In the oilfields of central Kansas, the big, big drilling boom was from about 1979-1985. Thousands and thousands of new wells. The tertiary recovery types didn't come along until several years later. Prices were high... massive investments... expansion... megaprojects... overtime galore.

Peak Kansas oil was in 1971. It never approached that number again. Same story in Tulsa, same story in Midland/Odessa.
User avatar
lawnchair
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Wed 20 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Ghawar field reserves decline overstated, survey says

Unread postby Valdemar » Fri 14 Dec 2007, 15:45:01

A nearly one year old article on oil exploration and potentially maybe 100 billion barrels off a nation that loves the bio-fuel party more anyway.

Colour me unimpressed.
"Nothing survives. Not your parents. Not your children. Not even stars."
-Pinbacker, Sunshine
User avatar
Valdemar
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed 28 Mar 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Cambs., UK

Re: Ghawar field reserves decline overstated, survey says

Unread postby TheDude » Fri 14 Dec 2007, 15:52:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 'W')hich brings us to at least 350 billion barrels - more than 3 times the size of Ghawar!

Your article on the Bakken fields barely mentions flow rates. Your second article is merely a primer on the geography of the area.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')iscovered in 2000, Elm Coulee has grown to 529 square miles and produced 15 million barrels of oil in 2005

That's about 18 hours of US consumption for a single day. If the Bakken fields can be greatly expanded they may make a real dent in demand, but as it stands they're not cranking out much, and are inherently limited by their geography - we'd need hundreds of thousands of wells to get any substantial production out of it.

As for Brazil's finds, by the time they go online there will have been substantial declines elsewhere, and all they'll do is keep us on a shaky plateau. Downside of the slope, you know. It's time to find something other than oil for transport.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Top

Re: Ghawar field reserves decline overstated, survey says

Unread postby Oil-Finder » Fri 14 Dec 2007, 20:01:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'Y')our article on the Bakken fields barely mentions flow rates. Your second article is merely a primer on the geography of the area.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')iscovered in 2000, Elm Coulee has grown to 529 square miles and produced 15 million barrels of oil in 2005

That's about 18 hours of US consumption for a single day. If the Bakken fields can be greatly expanded they may make a real dent in demand, but as it stands they're not cranking out much, and are inherently limited by their geography - we'd need hundreds of thousands of wells to get any substantial production out of it. As for Brazil's finds, by the time they go online there will have been substantial declines elsewhere, and all they'll do is keep us on a shaky plateau. Downside of the slope, you know. It's time to find something other than oil for transport.

The realization that there are large amounts of oil in the Bakken has only been very recent. It was not until 1999 that one geologist breached the topic that there could be hundreds of billions of barrels of oil there. Since then several other geologists have confirmed his findings, to various degrees. The most recent assessment, made last year, is at 300 billion barrels.

The Elm Coulee field in Montana is just one part of the Bakken. And indications are, the best spots are in North Dakota anyway. Since this is all very recent, it will take time to ramp up production, but already there is a lot of activity.
User avatar
Oil-Finder
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Seattle
Top

Re: Ghawar field reserves decline overstated, survey says

Unread postby Oil-Finder » Fri 14 Dec 2007, 20:06:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Valdemar', 'A') nearly one year old article on oil exploration and potentially maybe 100 billion barrels off a nation that loves the bio-fuel party more anyway. Colour me unimpressed.

The usual peak oiler minimization. :roll:
This is not "potentially maybe 100 billion barrels," it is "potentially maybe" 300 billion barrels. Or possibly even 500 billion barrels. Yes, that is impressive. Even if it were "only" 100 billion barrels, that is a whole new Ghawar.
User avatar
Oil-Finder
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Seattle
Top

Re: Ghawar field reserves decline overstated, survey says

Unread postby eastbay » Fri 14 Dec 2007, 21:10:09

Let's all try to remember that when the lights are all turned off, there will still be 100's of billions of barrels... maybe a trillion barrels or more... of oil remaining hidden or inaccessible for various reasons somewhere in the ground never to be extracted by modern humans.
Got Dharma?

Everything is Impermanent. Shakyamuni Buddha
User avatar
eastbay
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7186
Joined: Sat 18 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: One Mile From the Columbia River

Re: Ghawar field reserves decline overstated, survey says

Unread postby Oil-Finder » Fri 14 Dec 2007, 21:46:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wiki', 'A') conservative estimate of Bakken's technically recoverable oil would be 1% to 3% percent, or between 4.1 and 12.4 billion barrels of oil, due to the fact that Bakken's shale is so tight.
So Oily, that is anywhere from 1-3 months of current demand.

And still another peak oiler minimization! :roll: "Denial! Denial! Oh no they're never going to recover most of it!"
Maybe if I repeat this 5 more times in 5 more threads, it might finally sink in: link
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ow much of the generated oil is recoverable remains to be determined. Estimates of 50%, 18%, and 3 to 10% have been published.

Nobody knows how much might be recoverable. The only thing to do is start drilling. You can be sure that most - if not all - of this oil will be used by the USA. If we take the most recent estimate at 300 billion barrels, and assume 50% of it can be recovered, that can supply all of US demand for almost 20 years, at current rates of consumption. That's a lot of oil. It is another Ghawar - at least.
User avatar
Oil-Finder
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Seattle
Top

Re: Ghawar field reserves decline overstated, survey says

Unread postby Oil-Finder » Fri 14 Dec 2007, 21:52:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', 'L')et's all try to remember that when the lights are all turned off, there will still be 100's of billions of barrels... maybe a trillion barrels or more... of oil remaining hidden or inaccessible for various reasons somewhere in the ground never to be extracted by modern humans.

How do you know all this oil will "never" be extractable? The irony is, if you guys are right, and production of oil starts to decline, the price will skyrocket . . . which will only encourage oil companies to spend lots of $$ to find ways to exploit all this supposedly "inaccessible" oil. It is just more denial.
User avatar
Oil-Finder
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Seattle
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron