The Oil Drum | DrumBeat: September 5, 2006

266 comments on DrumBeat: September 5, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

westexas on September 5, 2006 - 9:48am

Re: GOM Discoveries (Plural)

One important point that seems to be escaping the MSM's attention this morning is that the oil companies are talking about the discoveries (plural) along this trend having 3 Gb to 15 Gb in total recoverable reserves.

According to the WSJ article, Devon says that its four discoveries, including "Jack" have recoverable reserves of at least 300 million barrels each.

This is not a Prudhoe Bay discovery, this is a group of discoveries they estimate will produce between 3 Gb and 15 Gb.

To put the higher figure in perspective, the world uses--from nuclear + fossil fuel sources--the energy equivalent of 15 Gb of oil in less than three months.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Sam Foucher on September 5, 2006 - 9:52am

Even if they find the oil they want, there is still a long way to go:

If the Jack test pans out and the owners
are prepared to invest the billions of dollars
required to bring Jack and the other Lower
Tertiary discoveries into commercial production,
just how do the owners plan to get
the oil to market? For one, the Walker
Ridge area is remote and has no pipeline to
transport the oil ashore. Extending the
existing deepwater pipeline system to
accommodate Lower Tertiary production,
while possible, no doubt would be expensive
and possibly could render the entire
project uneconomic.

src: offshoresource.com

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

toilforoil on September 5, 2006 - 11:25am

Does anyone have links to research dealing with the EROEI of existing deep water operations?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Nate Hagens on September 5, 2006 - 1:00pm

I have a paper written by one of my students pending publication that suggests deep water EROI is between 8-17:1 - depending on what boundaries one uses. In any case, the EROI for deep water has been increasing since 2000. I will post a link once it is published.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

phineas gage on September 5, 2006 - 1:12pm

Extending the
existing deepwater pipeline system to
accommodate Lower Tertiary production,
while possible, no doubt would be expensive
and possibly could render the entire
project uneconomic.

As an ignorant, non-oil person, I wonder why would you have to extend the vulnerable pipe-line system into such deep waters. Couldn't you just have your wells link up to a platform and fill a tanker directly?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

enviro attny on September 5, 2006 - 3:05pm

you would need a small fleet of tankers dedicated to the field, you would need significant amounts of crude storage, and if the field contains mostly NG, you would need a liquification plant out in the middle of the gulf.

While probably not impossible, I doubt too many companies or insurance companies want to build that much infrastructure in the middle of the gulf. A big investment to be sunk in the first hurricane.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

crafty on September 5, 2006 - 3:49pm

Generally shuttling oil is not such an unusual way of exporting outside the GOM. Its used extensively in the Norht Sea in both UK and Norway. It does require a different approach to plaform design - FPSO's (ships hulls with storage and processing on board). These haven't been used in the GOM before to my knowledge (not approved?). In anycase, they are pretty much standard technology and certainly capable for this deepwater environment.

Gas production - well if its a small amount you can reinject to dispose, or agregate together with other fields to export. The Walker ridge is remote, but its the next frontier area and if a number of discoveries get off the ground at once new shared gas export infrastructure will probably be worthwhile.

One thing to note is that wells in this environment cost upwards of $100mill each - this will make developments v. expensive and therefore risky to get going.....we could see quite a few delays out there before anything happens.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Dave Cohen on September 5, 2006 - 9:55am

That's what my research is telling me. Best source I've got (pdf) is

Emergence of the Lower Tertiary Wilcox Trend in the Deepwater Gulf of Mexico

More than 12 Bbbl of oil in place have been discovered to date. Potential recoverable reserves per discovery range from 30 to 400 MMboe, with a 69% success rate, i.e., 9/13. Trend-potential ranges from 3 to 15 Bbbl of recoverable oil. All discoveries have a common basinal setting, distal Louann salt basin rim, and are salt-cored anticlinal closures with tectonic styles ranging from thrusted symmetrical box-folds of the PFB in Alaminos Canyon (Figure 2A), to salt pillow structures of Walker Ridge (Figure 2B), and possibly continuing to asymmetrical thrusts of the Mississippi Fan Fold Belt in Green Canyon and Atwater Valley protraction areas

Look for Walker ridge + oil.

This is really deep drilling. Technical challenges are huge.

Several inherent technical challenges need to be addressed to ensure economic feasibility of the Lower Tertiary Wilcox trend. These range from the cost-effective drilling of complex salt canopies and evaluating deep structural targets to the completion and production of reservoirs in water depths that have not occurred to date. Understanding the oil chemistry, reservoir quality and associated flow capability will determine the drilling/ completion technology, and ultimately the creation of infrastructure needed to transform the Lower Tertiary Wilcox into a world-class petroleum system in the deepwater GoM. Figure 11. Schematic Wilcox depositional model with key trend wells.

The "news" is that they got a test well to flow at 6/kbd.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Sam Foucher on September 5, 2006 - 10:10am

The official press release from Devon:

OKLAHOMA CITY, Sept. 5 PRNewswire-FirstCall -- Devon Energy Corporation (NYSE: DVN) today announced the successful completion of an extended production test on the Jack #2 well on Walker Ridge block 758 in the Gulf of Mexico. Although complete details of this deepwater lower Tertiary well test remain confidential, the results fully met Devon's expectations.
The Jack test was designed to evaluate only a portion of the total pay interval. The well sustained flow rates of more than 6,000 barrels of oil per day. The tested interval was approximately 40 percent of the total net pay measured in the Jack #2 well. Devon and its co-owners plan to drill an additional appraisal well in 2007.
"The results of the Jack test are very encouraging. They further support our positive view of the lower Tertiary trend and demonstrate the growth potential of our high-impact exploration strategy on long-term production, reserves and value," said Stephen J. Hadden, senior vice president, exploration and production. "With 273 blocks under lease and 19 exploratory prospects already identified, Devon's lower Tertiary position could more than double our current reserve base of about two billion equivalent barrels in the coming years."
The Jack discovery on Walker Ridge block 759 was drilled in 2004. The discovery well encountered more than 350 net feet of pay. The Jack #2 well was drilled to delineate the discovery. Devon has a 25 percent working interest in Jack. Chevron Corporation (NYSE: CVX) is the operator with a 50 percent working interest and Statoil (OSE: STL) has the remaining 25 percent working interest.
Four Lower Tertiary Discoveries
Jack is one of four discoveries by Devon in the lower Tertiary trend of the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. The others are St. Malo drilled in 2003, Cascade drilled in 2002 and the 2006 Kaskida discovery.
On August 15, 2006, Devon announced that it had doubled its working interest in Cascade to 50 percent. Devon also announced plans for first production from Cascade in late 2009.
Kaskida, which was announced as a discovery on August 31, 2006, encountered approximately 800 net feet of hydrocarbon-bearing sands. Devon believes Kaskida is its largest lower Tertiary discovery to date. Kaskida, about 80 miles northwest of Jack, is the company's first discovery in the Keathley Canyon lease area where Devon has identified 12 additional exploratory prospects.

src: Devon

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Nate Hagens on September 5, 2006 - 1:03pm

stock market likes it - Devon is up more than $7.

And by the way - oil is NOT down today - it was down yesterday when our market was closed - today its up 70cents as of 1:03 EST

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Dave Cohen on September 5, 2006 - 2:23pm

Down $0.66 at 1:52 pm EDT.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Nate Hagens on September 5, 2006 - 2:26pm

Dave - look at the chart on the right of this post - YESTERDAY it was down - today it is actually up. (I trade it so I know). The TV systems are showing it down but that is because they are comparing it to Fridays close since yesterday was a US holiday (the world oil market was open yesterday and it was down over $1- today it is up 50 cents or so)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Dave Cohen on September 5, 2006 - 4:05pm

You win. DOWN from Friday, UP from yesterday. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain... Just kidding!

Generally speaking, you guys trading it must know something I don't because if the Ups & Downs are due to the reasons given in the financial press, it just looks like short-term group-think behavour to me... mostly gambling -- unless you're doing futures based on peak oil "insider knowledge" as you posted about.

As I type this, NPR is breathlessly announcing the deepwater Gulf of Mexico find... I can't wait for the details, maybe I'll learn something!

best -

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

nth on September 9, 2006 - 1:24pm

Is it ever mention by you guys that the first well drilled was last year and not this year?

I am a bit confused. This is Jack#2, so I assume this is second well completed and next year they will drill a third well. Am I wrong? I am just following press releases, so not real evidence.

Last year, they had a press release that they discover oil with 350 feet of pay dirt. How is that related to this?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

rwmcalister on September 5, 2006 - 10:02am

Why bring nuclear into this? It is fairly irrelevant to an oil discovery and tends to make the valid point you make more suspicious. Why not just say that even the higher number is less than 6 months' supply at current usage?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

westexas on September 5, 2006 - 10:13am

"Why bring nuclear into this?"

Because it puts our vast energy consumption in perspective. If we found an entire new Saudi Arabia, it would increase our nuclear + fossil fuel production rate by less than 5%.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

JoulesBurn on September 5, 2006 - 1:02pm

Indeed, a better way to present the comparisons is using likely production rate (and that figured compared to the current US or world production rate) instead of additions to reserves and how many months/years this buys us. Also, it would be useful to discount this production by the barrels equivalent needed to extract it and get it to shore.

Other unconventional sources, such as the Alberta oil sands, should be treated similarly.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

rwmcalister on September 5, 2006 - 1:13pm

But oil accounts for so little of our electrical production (like 3%) and while nuclear is 20% of it, coal is 48% and natural gas around 20%, so mixing electrical energy usage and oil usage seems somewhat incongruous. Or at least be consistent and bring in coal and natural gas based electrical production to be consistent.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

The Interloafer on September 5, 2006 - 1:24pm

He did. Coal and natural gas are fossil fuels.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

rwmcalister on September 5, 2006 - 4:05pm

Good point. I need to read more carefully.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Substrate on September 5, 2006 - 3:00pm

" "Why bring nuclear into this?"

Because it puts our vast energy consumption in perspective. If we found an entire new Saudi Arabia, it would increase our nuclear + fossil fuel production rate by less than 5%. "

My 2 cents, but I agree with rwmcalister on this one. It's bad enough on an oil to oil comparison that bringing nuclear in makes you look like you're going out of your way to be alarmist and need to go out of your way to do it...which you unfortunately don't.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

wacki on September 5, 2006 - 5:55pm

It's bad enough on an oil to oil comparison that bringing nuclear in makes you look like you're going out of your way to be alarmist and need to go out of your way to do it...which you unfortunately don't.

I agree with substrate. You sound like an alarmist that is fearmongering. If you are going to add nuclear stats you also do oil by itself. You are losing credibility even among the peak oil believers like myself.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

wacki on September 5, 2006 - 5:56pm

above post was to westexas

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

westexas on September 5, 2006 - 6:19pm

How in the world is it fearmongering to accurately state that we use the energy equivalent of about a billion barrels of oil every five days from nuclear + fossil fuel sources, especially since we are already using GTL and CTL to produce liquid transportation fuels?

In addition, electricity is now being used for transportation, and it will be used even more via the expansion of rail transportation and increased used of electric cars and plug-in hybrids.

Is natural gas used for transportation, heating and electrical generation?

Is oil used for transportation, heating and electrical generation?

Is coal used for transportation, heating and electrical generation?

Is nuclear used for transportation (via light rail), heating and electrical generation?

I'm been looking for a reason to cut back on TOD. Having to respond to crap like this is a damn good reason.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

xironman on September 5, 2006 - 7:01pm

I'm been looking for a reason to cut back on TOD. Having to respond to crap like this is a damn good reason.

Hope you don't. There are a lot of us out here that ignore that crap in order to get the payoff of read posts from experts like yourself.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Dave Cohen on September 5, 2006 - 7:21pm

Don't let some pissant like what's his name piss you off, Jeffrey.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

mikeB on September 5, 2006 - 7:30pm

Jeffrey, just ignore him. "Let those with two ears listen."

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

DelusionaL on September 5, 2006 - 11:57pm

Yes ignore him. You are one of the best posters - seriously. BTW you comments about a pause between bidding for oil. When do you you expect "round 2" 2008-9?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

wacki on September 5, 2006 - 7:57pm

I'm been looking for a reason to cut back on TOD. Having to respond to crap like this is a damn good reason.

WTF. This thread is simply discussing if this "new" field is a decent sized find. If we ignore CO2 then Coal, nuclear, gas, and oil are pretty much fungible when it comes to producing electricity. Heck you can even mix in a little solar and wind in there too. What isn't fungible is the gasoline that powers our cars. We simply can't power a car off of nuclear power right now. Sure plug-in-hybrids will play a part but our battery technology is woefully inadequate. Because of this, oil will be our primary source of transportation for some time.

Since we aren't running out of coal anytime soon I simply don't see the need to play down a discovery of an non-fungible transportation resource by comparing it to fungible (i.e electricity producing) resources. If that electricity is being used for transportation it doesn't matter. We aren't running out of coal soon. So that argument is pointless unless you are talking about global warming.

And for some reason people are calling me the crazy one. WTF.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Dan Ur on September 5, 2006 - 9:22pm

Wacki said>>

"We simply can't power a car off of nuclear power right now."

<<<

Nucleat power is powering my house right now at least in part. I go and plug in my electric lawn mower, ( I don't have one, but hey) then I can plug in my electric car ( I don't have one, but some folks do). So Nuclear is powering my car. Ergo Your statement above is false.

You must be new to the world of Peak Oil. WesTexas is not the first nor will he be the last to use ""ALL"" forms of energy compared to such finds. It is rather common in the heavily technical side of these comments. GET used to it.

WesTexas,

I know its been a rough day, but don't let the Language of others get to you. We all try to stay Calm and collected in the face of nay-sayers and even Out right Corn-y-copians, and even the Trolls. Please stay with us, don't take the above people to heart, set aside more time with family, do things you wanted to do with a bit more time, but don't give up on explaining the hard to explain. Even if at times some of us can be a bit hard headed and dim witted enough to argue with you over something. But don't listen to me or anyone else, Listen to your heart and go where you need to go and when you need to go.

Charles E. Owens Jr. , Dan Ur is a Charactor of a short story of mine, I used part of his title as an internet handle.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

wacki on September 5, 2006 - 10:26pm

"So Nuclear is powering my car. Ergo Your statement above is false."

What? Ok, maybe that single sentence in isolation is technically false but when taken in context it isn't. The fact is the vast majority of the people in the US aren't going to drive electric cars anytime soon. Battery lifespan simply isn't there. Therefore oil isn't fungible with nuclear. My general statement still stands. My main point is still correct.

"WesTexas is not the first nor will he be the last to use ""ALL"" forms of energy compared to such finds. It is rather common in the heavily technical side of these comments. GET used to it."

Fine. He can do it. But when using that in the context of describing how this won't effect peak oil it seems pretty silly to me. The entire nuclear and coal industry simply isn't used to power cars. They also aren't running out anytime soon.

Look westexas, I'm hear to learn. I read Robert Rapiers blog, Realclimate, Oildrum and a few other science based blogs on a daily basis. I strongly believe these are the most important blogs on the planet right now. I honestly meant no harm to you. If you want to try to explain how my thinking is wrong I would greatly appreciate it.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

wacki on September 5, 2006 - 10:29pm

ugh. I hit post instead of preview: "I'm hear to learn"

can't edit to fix it to "here". :-p

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Dan Ur on September 6, 2006 - 12:44am

It was mentioned by Dave Cohen, or one of the other more knowledgable oil patch folks, that at 27,000 feet the Oil is likely mostly going to be NG. When I told my dad the depth his first words were "Natural gas, not oil".

Taking NG as the outflow of this "Potential" Find, we could easily without much ado, compare it to nuclear.

I still find it helpful to understand at least in some small way How much Total energy we do use in a give time period.

As for this being a great find.

Its good for selling Adverts, and pop-up ads and might even get the 401(k) folks a bit more of a nest egg, but it is just another drop in the total oil bucket.

Here we are going into over 3,000 psi water column and then getting to dirt. As Dave Cohen below here somewhere points out, This is a very new Oil and Gas mining depth in the ocean, The feat might not be able to be pulled off.

If this was a field in Arkansas or Alabama Yes then its a nice find. But not out in deep deep water where we have to jump so many hurdles just to begin to find oil.

We find the easy and big fields first, then we find the smaller and smaller and harder to find fields when we are running out of the stuff that makes things work.

We have eaten the Sandwich, Now still hungry we are picking crumbs up and licking the plate for drippings.

Scary indeed.
ps. use preview, read and correct.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Kevembuangga on September 6, 2006 - 3:09am

If we ignore CO2 then Coal, nuclear, gas, and oil are pretty much fungible when it comes to producing electricity.

This seems to contradict YOUR argument for "not talking nuclear".
Ignoring the whole energy big picture is a recipe for talking nonsense, this the preferred way of the trolls.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

eric blair on September 6, 2006 - 7:41am

talking nonsense, this the preferred way of the trolls.

After you mastered that, then you moved onto stalking?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

wacki on September 6, 2006 - 10:33am

This seems to contradict YOUR argument for "not talking nuclear".
Ignoring the whole energy big picture is a recipe for talking nonsense, this the preferred way of the trolls.

What? I've talked about this subject with 3 people so far and they all agree with me. So I'm pretty sure I'm not delusional. So I take it westexas is some internet god? Fine. That still doesn't change the facts.

All I'm saying is if you are going to insist on compare this well to the entire fossil fuel and nuclear industry you should be a little consistent and include the entire fossil fuel and nuclear industry in the peak "oil" graphs. It seriously looks to me like you guys want to have it both ways by convoluting metrics.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

wacki on September 6, 2006 - 10:34am

ugh.. "insist on comparing this oil field"

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

eric blair on September 6, 2006 - 6:43am

This thread is simply discussing if this "new" field is a decent sized find. If we ignore CO2 then Coal, nuclear, gas, and oil are pretty much fungible when it comes to producing electricity.

And how much electricity comes from oil?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

wacki on September 6, 2006 - 11:12am

And how much electricity comes from oil?

Find pretend X% of electricity has to be made from oil. Include that in the scale. But artificially pumping up the scale by including all forms of coal, nuclear, etc is just silly when talking about peak "oil".

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

eric blair on September 7, 2006 - 9:22am

Find pretend X% of electricity has to be made from oil.

If I have to 'pretend', then your argument is not correct.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

gTrout on September 5, 2006 - 8:04pm

Please do stay!

It was your simple rule: "Cut spending 50% and plan on energy costs doubling" that gave me a way to bring up this topic with family and friends. Thank you for that. I know at least a dozen families that will weather this storm better because of your posting here.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

DelusionaL on September 5, 2006 - 11:59pm

Ditto here...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Samsara on September 5, 2006 - 8:12pm

In other words;
DLTBGYD

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

rwmcalister on September 5, 2006 - 8:14pm

I will throw my apology in here for having started something that spun slightly out of control. I was merely trying to make the point we could limit the discussion purely to oil data and still show that even the upper limits of the find are not going the change the onset of peak. But Jeffrey, I will say I have learned a tremendous amount from your posts here and would hate to see you cut back for any reason.

Rick

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Substrate on September 5, 2006 - 11:50pm

Dude, I appreciate all of the technical analysis that you've done and this site would be much diminished if you weren't here. But it's super weird that after a supposedly large find of oil, you start comparing it to installed nuclear and coal capacity. Why not compare it to potential installed windpower of the US or all the potential solar insolation. The media are all in awe that it's "the biggest find since Alaska." Well hell, look at what good Alaska did for oil production in the US! It's hardly a little blip. Now that's damning evidence. Talk about how long it can run the country - or even the world at current rates of consumption and that's a good way for perspective. The impression that I get when comparing it to all of those other sources is how easy it would be to replace that. Three months? No need to worry then, we can just plop in a nuke and replace it. But it's a bigger deal than that because our infrastructure is set up to take oil, and this "huge" find isn't huge at all compared with all other oil sources and like Alaska will hardly amount to a blip. You could even talk about Cantarell...how by the time this find comes online at 400,000 bbls/day (can't remember where I saw that) that the decline in Cantarell will have far exceeded it's max production capability. That's oil to oil and is totally damning by itself. To try to diminish the find even further by essentially comparing an apple to an orange of total US production...it's just not warranted.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

hummingbird on September 6, 2006 - 6:50am

Westtexas. I appreciate and look forward to your intelligent posts which always seem to cut to the heart of what we are about at TOD. Please continue to inform us.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

ExtraO on September 6, 2006 - 11:24am

Already a number of months ago I had largely stopped reading TOD as it had to a great degree deteriorated to a bunch of (or so it seems to me) endless bickering over picayune details far removed from the enormity the PO phenomenon.

Then I came across something cross posted at energybulletin by Jeffrey (westexas to you more recent arrivals) and was drawn back by the clarity in his postings (and by that I mean his talent for cutting through the superfluous focusing on "make-or-break" issues) and his obvious command of the material. If he decides that he's not up to as much of TOD as he has been, it will be TOD's loss.

He does have Graphoilogy blog however, where I hope he will continue to share his perpective with us.

Whatever you end up doing, Mr. Brown, thank you for everything you've contributed here.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Woilf on September 6, 2006 - 2:06pm

"...drawn back by the clarity in his postings (and by that I mean his talent for cutting through the superfluous focusing on "make-or-break" issues) and his obvious command of the material."

My observations, exactly. His quotes have clarified many things for me. I hope he continues.

-best

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

TechGuy on September 6, 2006 - 1:25pm

FWIW: I believe a great number of TOD readers appreciate your insight. There is no need to respond to every silly remark. Ignore the bad and just reponsed to the follows that you deem worthwhile.

Thanks for all your time.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Samsara on September 5, 2006 - 7:46pm

I don't there is any fear of Jeffrey loosing credibility here. I think some Wacky substrate of poster's here would have to work on raising theirs first.

Jeffrey, Don't you go anywhere. TOD is JUST coming into it's own and you deserve a good heap of the credit.

Keep puting out the good ANALYTICAL Info Westexas.

We're in Your corner.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Davidyson on September 5, 2006 - 10:49am

They say it's big because it is big. It must be the biggest (collection of) field(s) that has been found in a long time.

Saying it won't supply the world with oil for a very long time is possibly right but not the point - the world is supplied from a huge number of fields of which this might be one of the bigger ones.

Davidyson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Dave Cohen on September 5, 2006 - 11:04am

These lower Tertiary reservoirs were first identified in the 1930's. Technology prevented drilling any test wells until now. Another well will be drilled in 2007. If things go right and the price stays high -- it will, unless there's a world wide recession -- full-scale production would begin in 2013. Assuming a 5% global decline rate (this is a standard number) and an optimistic daily flow from these GOM reservoirs of 200/kbd in 2013 -- well, you do the math, OK? It's time to make different arrangements for how we live, not engage in cable news-style cheerleading.

As Jeffrey says below, in a Hubbert linearization or production curve (same thing, just an easy transform), this is merely an indiscernible bump (depending on the graph scale) in the long tail end of US production.

I see we need another "Guide for the Perplexed" here.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

step back on September 5, 2006 - 11:21am

THANK YOU DC, WESTEXAS, KEHAB for shedding some realistic lights on the latest MSM fireworks show.

Certainly for any newbie coming to this site looking for guidance, the initial flurry of Expert-talking-to-Expert is confusing.

(I'm no expert myself and am only getting a rough idea of what is going on here. So count me among the perplexed.)

There are many expert's code words that need to be decoded for the PO newbie:

Deep Water
Tertiary Fields
"Reserves" versus actual production flows in 2013
Minor bump in over all scheme of things

As Dave Cohen points out above:

... identified in the 1930's. Technology [limitations] prevented drilling any [deep water] test wells until now. ... full-scale production would begin in 2013. Assuming a 5% global decline rate ... these GOM reservoirs of 200/kbd in 2013 [are an indiscernable bump in the graph]
It's time to make different arrangements for how we live, not engage in cable news-style cheerleading.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

plucky underdog on September 5, 2006 - 9:47pm

These lower Tertiary reservoirs were first identified in the 1930s

Can you give us chapter and verse on that, Dave?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Dave Cohen on September 5, 2006 - 10:11pm

Well, looking it over, plucky, I see in here that I mislead our readers.

The Wilcox stratigraphic section has long been recognized as an important petroleum resource in Southeast Texas to Southwestern Louisiana, producing primarily gas from fluvial, deltaic and shallow marine sandstone reservoirs since the 1930s. The total estimated ultimate recovery for the onshore Wilcox is 24 Tcf gas or 4 BBoe. Not until the drilling of the BAHA 2 well in March 2001, was the linked depositional system of the Wilcox from shelf fluvial deltaics to basin deepwater turbidites, a distance greater than 250 mi (403 km), tested by the drill bit.
Although this wildcat, drilled in 7,790 ft (2,375 m) of water in the Alaminos Canyon area of the Northwest GoM was noncommercial, it established a working petroleum system in the Perdido Fold Belt (PFB) (Figure 1). The soon-to-follow nearby discoveries, Trident in July 2001 and Great White in June 2002, proved the significant hydrocarbon potential of the PFB by documenting oil accumulations in a variety of turbidite deposits from sheet sands to amalgamated and leveed channel systems.
Shortly after the PFB Great White discovery in 2002, the Cascade discovery was announced, located approximately 275 mi (444 km) east in the Walker Ridge protraction area of the Central GoM (Figure 1). This wildcat was drilled to a depth of 27,929 ft (8515 m) in 8140-ft (2482-m) water. Not only did this significant well extend the Wilcox play to the east, it established the existence of turbidite sands greater than 350 mi (107 km) down dip from the source deltaics and confirmed the Wilcox as a world class depositional and potential petroleum system.

So, it's an extension of the Wilcox play out into the deepwater. My apologies. All other remarks I've made on this thread about this discovery still pertain and are not falsified by the text (or document) I've just cited. As far as I know, this is chapter and verse. Again, I apologize.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

mencial on September 6, 2006 - 11:32am

In the World News (PBS and BBC, I think) in the radio, this morning, they had basically the same opinion: it will be expensive, it will be risky, it will take time, and it will barely offset natural declines in other fields.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

steverino on September 5, 2006 - 6:42pm

one interesting geographical point is the position of the jack discovery in the GOM. by eyeballing it's position on the NOAA tropical cyclone heat potential map, i get jack's position abutting the big brown blob (BBB), a daughter of the gulf stream loop current. the other discoveries such as St. Malo , Stones,Chinook and Cascade are in the BBB:

i don't know jack about meteorology, but won't GOM hurricanes intensify right over these guys heads?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Woilf on September 5, 2006 - 9:29pm

Oh, yeah, the location of Jack is "ideal" for being nailed by a strong hurricane (or more), say given a decade to decades time interval. That region is most vulnerable in the later season, from Aug to Oct. While still out over the GOM, there's a tendency for strong hurricanes to weaken a category or two as they move toward the Gulf States, perhaps partly due to entraining drier air off of the continent as they approach land (one exception was Camille). The location of Jack is far enough out that it wouldn't have this kind of protection--so far offshore, a Cat IV or V storm is a more likely.

-best,

Comments can no longer be added to this story.