DrumBeat: January 26, 2007
Posted by Leanan on January 26, 2007 - 8:56am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Long Beach LNG plans halted: "The project is dead"
After four years of scrutiny, Long Beach officials Monday pulled the plug on a controversial energy project that promised an abundant new source of clean-burning liquefied natural gas for California but posed insurmountable safety concerns.
Author to discuss sustainability issues affecting Hawai'i
"Developments distinctive to our time are telling us that Empire has reached the limits of the exploitation that people and Earth will sustain. A mounting perfect economic storm born of a convergence of peak oil, climate change, and an imbalance U.S. economy dependent on debts it can never repay is poised to bring a dramatic restructuring of every aspect of modern life. We have the power to choose, however, whether the consequences play out as a terminal crisis or an epic opportunity. The Great Turning is not a prophecy. It is a possibility."
Cambodia's coming energy bonanza
If the United Nations, World Bank and Harvard University are to be believed, Cambodia is poised to become a major new global energy exporter, with a fossil-fuel windfall that promises to double the country's current gross domestic product (GDP) and potentially lift millions of Cambodians out of poverty.
IEA Says Oil Costs Too Much; EU Official 'Happy' With Prices
The International Energy Agency's chief economist, Fatih Birol, said current oil prices of more than $50 a barrel are too high, at about five times the average cost of production. The European Union's senior energy official, Andris Piebalgs, said he approved of the current prices.
The crunchy mystique: Crunchy Cons: The New Conservative Counterculture and its Return to Roots
You wouldn't expect a cultural conservative to quote Henry Miller in referring to certain aspects of modern existence as "the air conditioned nightmare." But then, challenging your expectations is one thing this book will likely do.As a sustainability activist there were many times when I turned the pages and nodded my head in strong agreement. In fact, there are many points of convergence between this newly identified brand of crunchy (slang for counter-cultural) conservative creature and the eco-hippie crunchy liberal and author Rod Dreher, former columnist for the National Review, readily acknowledges this. He discusses the social and environmental breakdown caused by a corporate consumerism run amok and the antidotes of simple, small, local, and organic that is in many ways indistinguishable from Greens. And he's even peak oil aware, citing the inevitable decline of cheap and easily accessible crude as one of several events that will require an eventual reorientation of American society toward a more local and conservationist way of life.
Australian of the Year lashes government on climate change
The Australian government came under attack for its environmental policies from Tim Flannery, the scientist it named as citizen of the year just a day earlier.The leading environmentalist and author slammed Australia as the "worst of the worst" on global warming, highlighting its failure to sign the Kyoto Protocol.
Revolution arising from the Earth: Part I and Part II
The center of the empire, the U.S., is maintained by debt as the petrodollars and other dollars come into the U.S. at the rate of at least two-and- a-half billion per day (purchasing U.S. government bonds) in order to continue the cycle, which keeps the empire and its military power expanding As the elite carry out their strategies of domination they are racing against time. The monster trends of Peak Oil and energy exhaustion, climate change-- which will severely disrupt the seasons of growth in the food supply system, the weakness of the dollar and ecological collapse are pursuing them. An exponentially growing world population with growing material consumption based on dwindling resources and a dying planet won't work, but they have no other option to maintain their power and profit.
China Says Major Shift on Dollar Policy Coming
Some very worrisome news came out of China this Saturday — but it got little more than a blip in the U.S. press.
Hydrogen cars sound ideal, but there are practical problems. First, the hydrogen tank takes eight minutes to fill and it takes up most of the boot space. Even then, the hydrogen tank provides a range of only 125 miles. To get enough hydrogen into the fuel tank it has to be chilled and liquefied. Gradually it warms up and boils away, so if you don’t use the car over the weekend you’ll find less in the tank. Park up at the airport while you take your three-week holiday and when you get back it’ll be nearly empty.
Indian-Based NGO Harnesses Biofuel From Sweet Sorghum
Manila, Philippines - Indian-based non-governmental organization, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, on Wednesday presented to Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo sweet sorghum as an alternative source of biofuel.
Greece: Farmers seek biofuel funding
Farmers said yesterday they will need more European Union subsidies if they are to begin the cultivation of plants that generate biofuels and decrease Greece’s dependence on polluting fossil fuels.
Ethanol fires hope for China's poor Guangxi
Now, hope runs high in China for Guangxi's about 30 million farmers to jump on the biofuel fever. Beijing has begun encouraging ethanol made from non-grain crops, such as cassava -- known also as tapioca -- the region's other main crop."We are talking about sugar televisions, sugar washing machines and even sugar brides," said Pan Xunxin, an official in Chongzuo, Guangxi's top sugar cane city west of Nanning.
Energy roadmap backs renewables
Half of the world's energy needs in 2050 could be met by renewables and improved efficiency, a study claims.
The age of technological revolution is 100 years dead
No, research and development do not equate with economic progress. No, the computer is not a stunning technological advance, just an extension of electronic communication as known for over a century. No, the internet has not transformed most people's lives, just helped them do faster what they did before. No, weapons technology has not transformed warfare, merely wasted stupefying sums of money while soldiers win or lose by firing rifles.
Lab plans to make its ideas a reality - “There is no energy shortage. There is no energy crisis. There is only a crisis of ignorance.”
Energy Research on a Shoestring
The hopes for this neglected lab brightened a bit just over a year ago when President Bush made the first presidential call on the lab since Mr. Carter and spelled out a vision for the not-too-distant future in which solar and wind power would help run every American home and cars would operate on biofuels made from residues of plants.But one year after the president’s visit, the money flowing into the nation’s primary laboratory for developing renewable fuels is actually less than it was at the beginning of the Bush administration. The lab’s fitful history reflects a basic truth: Americans may have a growing love affair with renewables and the idea of cutting oil imports and conserving energy, but it is a fickle one.
Noble CFO: Congress 'Will' Pass Anti-Tax Haven Bill in 2007
The U.S. Congress is all but certain to pass legislation this year addressing the tax status of U.S. corporations that have based themselves in countries with low or non-existent income taxes, Noble Corp. (NE) Chief Financial Officer Thomas Mitchell said Thursday.
State Of The Union: The Danger of a Few Little Words
For anyone concerned about Peak Oil and global warming, Bush’s State of the Union speech Tuesday evening fell far short of establishing a sound program for dealing with the nation’s energy woes or gargantuan carbon emissions. With the exception of a small increase in fuel efficiency standards, the president’s set of recommendations were about producing more energy: more oil, more coal, more solar and wind, and especially more “renewable and alternative fuels.”
Twenty Billion - a Drop in the Barrel for Renewable Energy
Last week, by nearly a 100-vote margin, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to do what OPEC has been unable to: defend a higher price for oil.Although oil was just at a 19-month low, I’m sure that wasn’t precisely the intent of H.R. 6. The “Clean Energy Act of 2007” could have been more accurately titled the “Cleaning Up Our Energy Act of 2007,” because it was mainly about repealing tax credits and royalty exemptions for the oil and gas industries so that the money could be squirreled away in a fund for later spending on home-grown renewable energy and efficiency.
My friend Pat Meadows, a very, very smart woman, has a wonderful idea she calls "The Theory of Anyway." What it entails is this - she argues that 95% of what is needed to resolve the coming crises in energy depletion, or climate change, or most other global crises are the same sort of efforts. When in doubt about how to change, we should change our lives to reflect what we should be doing "Anyway." Living more simply, more frugally, using less, leaving reserves for others, reconnecting with our food and our community, these are things we should be doing because they are the right thing to do on many levels. That they also have the potential to save our lives is merely a side benefit (a big one, though).
Is globalisation retreating? - "Reality's revolt against theory"
Another factor unraveling the globalist project is its obsession with economic growth. Indeed, unending growth is the centerpiece of globalization, the mainspring of its legitimacy. While a recent World Bank report continues to extol rapid growth as the key to expanding the global middle class, global warming, peak oil, and other environmental events are making it clear to people that the rates and patterns of growth that come with globalization are a surefire prescription for ecological disaster.
Peak oil production in the Middle East's Arabian/Persian Gulf region could be delayed if oil companies would invest more heavily in drilling and extraction technologies and push to explore new sites.
Does nuclear power now make financial sense?
On Sept. 16, 1954, in a speech to a group of science writers, Adm. Lewis L. Strauss, then head of the agency now known as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, made a bold prediction. The potential for peaceful uses of nuclear energy was so great, he said, that electricity produced by nuclear power plants would one day be “too cheap to meter.”Over the coming decades, the economics of nuclear power turned out to be more problematic.
Rethinking Alternative Energy: Some potentially powerful sources not getting attention
While no research has yet pointed to cold fusion as being a definite possibility or a permanent to solution to the energy crisis, a sufficient number of people are convinced that it is a possibility, enough in fact for there to be an annual cold fusion conference.
Saudi Aramco to Award First Contract on $10B Manifa Field
Saudi Arabian Oil Co., the world's largest oil company by production, is expected to award by the end of January an estimated $1 billion contract to Belgium dredging contractor Jan De Nul to help it develop the 900,000 barrel-a-day Manifa offshore oil field.



I call your attention to page 16 of this document:
Saudi Arabia’s Strategic Energy Imitative: Safeguarding Against Supply Disruptions
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/events/061109_omsg_presentation1.pdf
Though this document was produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC on November 9th of 2006, it is based on a recently issued directive by the Saudi leadership.
The first statement on page 16 reads: The Kingdom’s average state of reserve depletion for all its fields is approximately 29%. Now file that away in the back of your mind for a moment.
The third statement reads: Without “maintain potential” drilling to make up for production, Saudi oil fields would have a natural decline rate of a hypothetical 8%. As Saudi Aramco has an extensive drilling program with a budget running in the billions of dollars, this decline is mitigated to a number close to 2%. Now keep in mind that Saudi is not talking about drilling in new fields to lower their decliner rate from 8% to 2%, they are talking about holding their existing fields to a 2% decline rate from the otherwise 8% they would experience without new drilling. The new fields are supposed to increase their production by a couple of million barrels per day by 2009.
I have serious problems with the above statement. Before a field reaches its peak, there is no decline due to production. Due to constraints of each well and the associated pipelines, a field will usually produce at its peak, or plateau, for several years before it goes into production decline. And when it reaches the decline state, that is the point where the capacity of each well or the total pipeline capacity is no longer the factor limiting production, but production is falling, this means that depletion is now the culprit. And when this happens it means that production from that field is usually well past its peak. Prudhoe Pay is the perfect example of this fact. The combined production from several fields usually produces the classic bell curve, production from a single field usually produces a bell curve with a flat top or plateau instead of the classic rounded dome.
Of course there are special cases, like Cantarell, that fits neither template. Cantarell had a rise, then a plateau at around 1 million barrels per day, then a sudden burst up to 2 million barrels per day due to a massive nitrogen injection program, then a sharp peak at around 2 mb/d followed by a catastrophic decline. But I digress.
What Saudi Arabia is saying here is that all their existing production fields have a decline rate of 8%. However with their extensive drilling program they hope to reduce this decline rate of these old giant fields to 2%. And by opening up new fields or more correctly, reopening old formerly closed fields they hope to increase production potential to an astounding 12,550,000 bp/d by 2009.
Does this make sense? If it does, why would not Pemex initiate an “extensive drilling program” and cut Cantarell’s decline rate to 2%. And should not BP do the same with Prudhoe Bay? An extensive drilling program should cut the decline rate of Prudhoe to at least 2%. Then there is the Forties Field in the North Sea, and Yibal in Oman that could dramatically benefit from such an extensive drilling program.
But first, let us let the truth sink in. Saudi Arabia is admitting that Ghawar, Safaniya, Abqaiq, Berri, Zuluf, Marjan and Abu Sa’fah, Saudi’s seven largest fields, whose combined production, until recently, totaled more than 8 mb/d, are declining at an average rate of 8% per year. But an extensive drilling program, (actually replacing their old vertical wells with new horizontal wells), they have so far been able to keep the decline rate to around 2%. And by opening the last remain area of Ghawar, the Haradh section in the very southern tip, and opening the Shaybah field, deep in the Empty Quarter, they even managed to increase production until mid 2005. But those horizontal super straws were really not able to create any more oil, just suck what was left out a little faster. This is what they did until even these horizontal wells began their inevitable decline.
So there you have it. IF Saudi can suck hard enough on their super straws and continue to hold the decline rate down in their old giant fields to 2% per year, and IF their planned projects come in on time and IF they produce at the rates planned then Saudi will increase her production capacity by almost 1.5 mb/d by 2009.
I don’t believe there is any chance of that happening. In fact, I think that their “extensive drilling program” has already petered out and the decline rate in their old giant fields is once again approaching 8%. In fact, due to their super straws pumping so much more oil out for the last decade or so, it is quite possible, nay, quite probable, that Saudi has already started a Cantarell type collapse.
And just a couple of other points. Obviously all of Saudi’s giant fields are not declining at exactly the same rate. Actually they are declining at a rate of between 5 and 12 percent according to Aramco Senior Vice President Abdullah Saif. The 8 percent figure is only an average of all the fields.
And last but not least, how, in face of all this decline, can they possibly say that they are only at 29 percent depletion? Well, it is simple math. If Saudi actually has, as they claim, 262 billion barrels of proven reserves, a figure that has remained virtually unchanged for almost two decades, and they have already produced around 107 billion barrels, then the math says they have produced only 29 percent of their reserves. Of course Middle East oil expert Dr. Samsam Bakhtiari says Saudi Reserves are actually in the 120 to 140 billion barrel range. My guess is that Dr. Bakhtiari is wildly optimistic.
Ron Patterson
Wow...excellent commentary here Darwinian. A VERY sobering assessment if all true.
"if all true"
It is not a matter of being true, moreso of being correct. When we discussed this document last month (and in Nov) i mentioned that readers should take care when reading Nawaf Obaid's text 'cuz his is the realm of KSA Security ... not geology.
Ron's pg16 includes glaring errors with "decline rate" and "depletion rate" used interchangeably. Therefore, one cannot use logic to interpret Ron's points.
"decline rate" refers to the drop in extraction rate as expressed in "mbd"
"depletion rate" refers to the drop in URR as expressed by "Gb"
In almost all cases, Obaid means depletion rate of reserves ... not monthly or annual production.
Going back to the presentation, it is typical KSA or Aramco rhetoric in their press releases and presentations to include how much field decline is happening each year. This one is no different.
On pg6, they openly admit that the "present" operating fields face the reality of an apparent 0.8-mbd/day decline rate. But not on a net basis. On their published production rate of 8.6-mbd, this equates to 9.3% YOY (apparent). It is clear that some older fields suck big time.
But if one turns to pg9, one sees that the planned closure of the older fields, unshuttering of dormant fields and opening of new fields brings to their operations a new decline of 0.5-mbd on proposed production of 10-mbd in 2009 (assuming maintenance of the 2.55-mbd surplus capacity). This equates to an apparent decline rate of 5% YOY in 2009 and drops to 4.6% by 2011.
Ron is neither right nor wrong. He is neither brilliant nor an idiot. Mistakes happen. This was one that confused many (but not all). I studied Geology and Economics in university. All of us at TOD have our specialties with which to contribute via formal Education or Schools of Hard Knocks.
Link does not seem to be working...Simmons is starting to look more and more like the "True Prophet"
Both the links he posted work for me.
Do you have Adobe installed? The first one is a PDF.
Reffering to an individual as a 'prophet' only reinforces the opinion in others that Peak Oil is more of a doomers cult then a scientific debate.
Hoth,
You obviously have me confused with somebody else. The Prophecy I was refering to was Simmons statements on the prospects for Saudi oil. As for "Peak Oil Theory", I find infathomable that someone cannot grasp the concept of a finite resource not having maximum in its extraction rate. Maybe if more than 20% of this country took a calculus course we would be in better shape. The only debate is a socio-econonic one on what the downside of the peak will entail. There is no scientific debate except for when the peak will occur.
Prophets are religious icons. Prophets announce prophecies. Prophets are idolized by overzealous religions fanatics. The doomers who refer to them as 'prophets' and their statements as 'prophecies' or religious fanatics.
And there we go again, someone is implying that I do not believe in Peak Oil. For the 10000000000th time, I'm a firm believer in PO. Any finite resource must reach a maximum exploitation rate and decline until nothing is less. A kindergarten student could probably figure that out. My question is only about the timing of the peak, and debunking ridiculous statements that are only backed up by religious fanaticism.
I have been reading this site since the summer of 2005 and I can tell you that I have not come across a "poster" more obnoxious than you. You seem to take joy in taking the comments of others out of context and misconstruing their meaning. I initially thought that it was your inexperience, but I have come to believe that you have a "true believers" mission of poisoning the pool every chance you get. This is one perfect example (among many). Any sensible person would understand that the term "True Prophet" used above was not used in the religious sense. Nor was the context in which it was used such that it could be construed that way. If you check any standard dictionary, you will see that the term "prophet" is also commonly used to mean "the chief spokesman of a movement or cause." There is nothing fanatical or overzealous in its use in this context. And there is nothing wrong with being a bit hyperbolic in calling Simmons a potential true prophet.
Hothgor.
Since you subscribe to Peak Oil, I would be interested in knowing what sort of time scale you think peak will arrive.
When do you think it will be?
Mudlogger,
I will loosely quote Hothgor:
Peak Oil will happen around 2015
Roger From the Netherlands
Fine
I can go with that.
"Prophet" also means "a person who foretells or predicts what is to come". Since Simmons predicted terminal decline for the Saudi fields some time ago, I'd say that he qualifies as a prophet, "by definition" you might say.
-pop
I can see it from Hothgor's point of view.
If you come to this website as a skeptic, you're going to read pro-peak comments with a hostile attitude.
If I went to the Scientology forums and saw something about Tom Cruise being a "prophet", I'd probably throw up a little in my mouth (at the poster). :)
That being said, I do believe it was more likely you were playing with words than any kind of religious adulation.
End of threadjack
I think that the problem is that many TOD posters have probably irreversably committed themselves via "prophesies of doom" to their friends and family to "kook-head" status if Peak Oil doom doesn't arrive very soon (or if mitigation works reasonably smoothly).
So their posts in TOD are increasingly anxious and anticipatory -- looking for *any* bad news that would confirm their vision. Skeptics arriving at TOD will pick up on this fervor. This defensiveness leaks over into quick attacks of any positive/mitigating news or evidence. The recent correction in the price of oil has probably also increased their apprehension about being thought of as "chicken little".
So if Freddy, Hothgor, or whoever present a semi-rational case that PO won't arrive for 3, 4, or 5 years or whatever -- that only makes them apoplectic at the thought that they will have to continue defending "doom" for that long. Peak MUST arrive soon for them! It's personal!
I think to be fair to most of us, there are people very highly respected and listened to by almost all here who do not believe we are at peak yet - Khebab and Robert Rapier are two outstanding examples. Many others such as myself are a bit on the fence and try to listen to everyone thoughtfully.
No, it isn't what they believe that is offensive, it is their offensive, demeaning (esp Hothgor), antagonistic, disdainful manner. Hothgor in particular doesn't tend to respond thoughtfully to counter argument. Instead he will take words and phrases, twist them and throw the back in a belittling manner, just baiting the other. Sometimes he's kind of ok, but then comes back with the old garbage and detracts not only from the blog but from whatever point he might have been trying to make.
I would further add the names of Chris Skrebowski, Euan Mearns, and Rembrandt Koppelar to those very highly respected and listened to contributors who do not believe we are at peak and contribute directly and indirectly to the discussion when it is conducted thoughfully and with respect.
Its funny now no one that you just listed considers me to be antagonistic, offensive or whatever the new flavor of the month name calling people seem to come up with. I'm vocal? Yes. Opinionated? Undoubtedly. Rude? Hardly! :laughs:
I don't know how you can speak for any of them.
If you don't understand my comments you should review your history on this site and think about it a little. You have been extremely rude on a number of occasions and it certainly hasn't gained you any credibility.
Funny how you CAN speak for them. If they have a problem with me, they can come out and say so.
I have a feeling that we will be waiting here for a LONG while :P
:laughs:
This is an example of misrepresenting the point and twisting the discussion - you just made my point for me. My point was that many here respect the named individuals who do not believe we are at peak yet and that therefore the issue is not whether we respect people with divergent views. Obviously we can respect them when they engage in reasonable debate.
Chris?
peakearl,
I think that if oil was back up to $75+, etc, etc, that folks would be less sensitive to "baiting". The antagonizing works only because folks are being defensive -- especially if that person is particularly smug.
My wider point is that it seems folks in TOD are allowing their anxiety to creep over into hyping things like "Bush Attacking Iran", "Hedge Funds Must Be Manipulating Oil Price", "Oil Inventory Number Are Fake", or whatever -- virtually confirming "kook-head" status. Skeptics arriving at TOD will see this.
Again, I believe this is driven by people here being personally committed by their prophesies of doom -- soon! Yet, the oil business is a slow moving one, and easy to implement mitigation just raises their anxiety by delaying and delaying doom. Egads! if they see another A123 battery improvement or the promise of the new CT drilling technology. "It'll never *ever* work..." they shrilly cry in kneejerk response.
Personally, I believe Peak is "now-ish" but that mitigation will work quite well for at least 5 years. The decline curves show only about 2% per year for the first 5 years after peak, and I think that U.S. drivers could easily cut back 10% without any doom. By that time perhaps GM will be shipping plug-in cars, etc. And a further wave of mitigation will start -- perhaps with a little pain or "micro-doom" mixed in. The prospect of defending "prophesies of doom" for THAT long has got to be daunting.
I think what you are saying is true for some. I am not a heavy doomer myself but am definately concerned. People may be sensitive, but you still get a much better discussion by trying to discuss facts and avoiding the personal.
It's more than some people to me. It's the general "atmosphere" of looking like fools. TOD is like a party that has gone on too long without the featured guest arriving -- "Mr. Doom".
EXACTLY wstephens. I think you hit the nail on the head.
One (of the many) things that puzzle me about posters here who claim we are peaking now is how can you ignore price? Price signals are just as important as all the cobbled-together data on oil fields, production, decline rates, etc. I would actually argue that it's a BETTER predictor because it's so transparent--the production-related data seems to be pretty suspect in many cases.
I don't think anyone's ignoring price.
Deffeyes, in his first book, predicted that price volatility would obscure the peak (if you look at price alone).
Dear Hothgor,
Lets continue our discussion:
I asked you the following:
1) When do you think peak oil will happen?
2) And what do you think decline rates in production and export will be?
You answered:
1) Around 2015
2) Around 2-3%, I look at total liquids, individual declines will be greater obviously.
I asked:
-Decline rates in conventional oil are in modernized oil fields between 8 and 15 %.
-Where will all the compensating extra oil comming from? Oilsands? Bio?
You answered:
Again, you need to look at the bigger picture. An individual field may decline at 8 to 15%. Hell, all the fields may decline at 8 to 15%.
But not all of the fields are exploited at the exact same time.
Because they are not exploited at the same time, the decline of one field is offset by the exploitation of another field(s). In regards to simple oil production in the US, this has resulted in approximately a 4% decline on average. However, we were not producing as much alternative fuels in the past as we are now attempting to do so in the present. In the end, I think the global production decline will come in at roughly 60% the rate that the US experienced, barring of course a catastrophic world war/nuclear exchange.
I asked:
Theoratically you're right ofcourse. But then; you need to have enough new fields to begin with to ofset the decline in existing fieds.
Where do you think the new fields are now, as country after country is declining?
Just tell me; where do you think this new oil will come from? Tell me the fields or the countries that will provide this extra oil??
You answered:
There are too many fields to list, and I doubt even WT could muster up enough tenacity to look them all up if should choose to do so. That being said, the general categories for these new fields are:
Undiscovered fields
Previously discovered economical fields that have not been exploited
Previously discovered uneconomical fields that have not been exploited
Simple reserve growth via improved technology or evaluations of existing fields :increases of the IOIP:
BTW, the Artic is estimated to have approximately 25% of the worlds total undiscovered petroleum resources in its oceans.
Now I ask you the following:
How much new oil will be comming from your stated sources?
a) Undiscovered fields
b) Previously discovered economical fields that have not been exploited
c) Previously discovered uneconomical fields that have not been exploited
d) Simple reserve growth via improved technology or evaluations of existing fields :increases of the IOIP:
Thank you for your answers!
Roger From The Netherlands
Ron,
Great post.
Excellent fact finding, logicaL assessments and connecting of dots!
I agree that the Saudis have likely maintained a high rate of barrels per day at the expense of future barrels. We have talked about this numerous times on TOD. There is a fixed amount of oil in a field (irregardless of reserve estimates) and pulling oil out faster up front leaves less oil to remove later.
High rates of extraction tell us nothing about reserves. They tell us instead a lot about the sophistication and maturity of the extraction technology used on the field.
NC, thanks for the kind words. Yes, Simmons makes the point very clear that faster extraction does not mean more oil. But Catton in "Overshoot" drives the point home. He coined the term "super-straws" and compared oil reserves to your bank account. He stated that thinking faster withdrawal of oil means more oil would be like thinking that becoming more efficient at writing withdrawal slips would actually put more money in your account.
Oh, by the way, there is no such word as "irregardless". Don't you just hate nitpickers! ;-)
Ron Patterson
Ron,
I like to be on the cutting edge of linguistics! I was using ain't long before it was accepted.
With regard to irregardless see a ,definition http://www.bartleby.com/61/84/I0238400.html. indicating people are trying to convey the use of two words in one.
I know it's wrong, but it sounds so good when you say it!
I believe that the Saudi asesertions do make sense. Ask yourself what controls the rising slope on the left side of the bell curve. It is not caused by the geology of an oil well. A well produces its maximum output on the first day it is drilled. It is all downhill after that. What creates the rising left side of the curve is the installation of additional infrastructure that enables more oil to be extracted, primarily it means drilling more wells. Each well in a field is either plateaued or in decline (even on the left side), but the field's output continues to grow because more wells are being added to the field.
Eventually, there are many more existing wells than fresh ones,and the field's output is dominated by the decline of all those existing wells, even while new ones are added. And finally there are no more opportunities for new wells and the field's decline accelerates down in a fully depleteing scenario.
The Saudis are simply saying that existing wells are declining at 8%, but enough new wells are being added to hold the entire field production to a 2% decline. There is no contradiction in that assertion. Cantarell, on the other hand, appears to be fully developed. It is in the final stage, where there are no opportunites for new wells or where their output is dominated by the decline of existing wells.
This is not accurate. Production from a given well can rise and fall for a number or reasons in the years after it is put on line.
My point is that infrastructure controls the left slope of the bell curve and geology eventually controls the right slope.
I can think of one reason that a wells output would increase, water or gas injection. But that is still from infrastructure improvement, the equivalent of drilling more wells in the field. What are some other reasons why a wells output would increase over time?
The point is that the peak for a field is determined by how extensively that field is exploited, not by the fact that existing wells are in decline.
Re: Production Increases
The operator, and/or regulatory authority, could decide that the field could be safely produced at a higher rate. Also--stimulation, short radius horizontal holes off the main wellbore, etc.