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 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

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.

Testudo, every well has a maximum production rate, provided the pressure is kept constant and high enough. This maximum production is based on the diameter of the well bore pipe. See illustration "H1" here:
http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/mainpages/hubbert.html

The wells in any individual field do not decrease in production simply because the well is pumping oil. The production of an individual well will start to drop when the field pressure starts to drop or until the water to oil mix or the gas to oil mix increases.

The primary reason an individual well starts to drop is the area of the reservoir drained by that individual well starts to decline in oil to extract. IF, the field is not entirely drained properly, then drilling new wells in between can increase the area drained and therefore increase production of the well. However that point, in the very old fields of Saudi Arabia, was likely reached many years ago. At any rate the horizontal christmas tree wells Saudi has been using for several years now covers the very old fields like a blanket.

Someone posted a link a few days ago showing how the Haradh area of Gahwar, the newest and last area of Ghawar to be brought on line, was covered with these christmas tree horizontal wells.

In the US, in our very old lower 48 fields, we use wellhead pumps that pump an average of about 20 barrels per day. In Saudi Arabia their wells produce an average of 4.15 thousand barrels per day and will continue to produce that amount until the pressure either drops or they water out. In Saudi, they use a different system. The wells are horizontal and water injection is used to keep up the pressure. The water is injected on the phriphery of the field and the oil is swept toward the wells. Well, that's the way it works in theory anyway.

Bottom line, wells in Saudi do not produce max immediately as you suggest. And they do not start to drop immediately after that as you suggest. They taper up, have a long plateau of constant production, then taper down due to depletion of the area they drain.

Ron Patterson

They're sustaining a 5% to 12% decline.

They're trying to maintain a 5% to 12% decline. Ouch.

Anyway you cut it, percentages are percentages, and that sounds pretty bad.

I think Hothgor has right interpretation of that sentence. It's too ambigious to nail down.

For example, field A could be increasng total production at 12%, while field B (Ghawar) could be dropping at 20%. That's still an 8% sustained decline.

They did not say that 'every single field we have independently has a 5 to 12% decline, they said their FIELDS as in the total sum of their oil producing fields, has a combined decline rate without doing anything of around 8%.

Hothgor, you are in serious need of a reading comprehension course. What they said, copied and pasted:

One challenge for the Saudis in achieving this objective is that their existing fields sustain 5 percent-12 percent annual "decline rates," (according to Aramco Senior Vice President Abdullah Saif, as reported in Petroleum Intelligence Weekly and the International Oil Daily) meaning that the country needs around 500,000-1 million bbl/d in new capacity each year just to compensate.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/saudi.html

Their existing fields have a 5 to 12 percent decline rate. All these fields have been in production for over half a century. At least one of these fields is declining by only 5 percent, and at least one of these fields is declining by 12 percent per year. The rest are somewhere in between with the average at 8 percent.

The Petroleum Intelligence Weekly and the EIA and the International Oil Daily concluded that they need 500,000 to 1 million barrels per day of new capacity each year just to stay even. Hothgor says that is not so. Well, this is one time I agree with the EIA, the International Oil Daily and Petroleum Intelligence Weekly, wee all believe the word of the Senior Aramco Vice President. I also belive that Hothgor is full of crap and cannot understand plain English. And I believe that the above orginizations would concur.

Ron Patterson

Hothgar, no need to insult Ron who has a very good understanding of engineering principles. But, I'd like to note that he's an engineer, and the Saudi release was run through a poblic relations agent and a set of guys very aware of the political and economic implications of any discussion of decline in production. So you are very probably correct in your semantic analysis. Those guys are liars and intend to confuse the truth, and I've read Ron long enough to think he's honest and an expert in production, and a guy who makes a real effort.

You need to re-re-read the quote. It says :'One challenge for the Saudis in achieving this objective is that their existing fields sustain 5 percent-12 percent annual "decline rates," '

They are talking about 'decline rates' being between 5% and 12%, not a 'decline rate' between 5% and 12%. This means that each of the fields being referred to, ie. the 'existing fields', has a decline rate between 5% and 12%. I am afraid there is no other way to interpret this quote.

If the quote is right, then clearly all of the major existing fields are in decline, as Ron said.

Agreed, Hothgar. Patterson calls your analysis "bullshit". His arsenal of defences is bankrupt. He's down to the ad hominems. This is the third go around for this same CSIS story. I explained it all to Ron after its release. I've repeated the link three times. He seems to be off his meds for his jr-alz again. Commonplace for him.

And especially since he's been outed for his failed 2003 forecast for a "likely" Peak in 2004, but for sure in 2005. His desperation to come thru with "the big one" keeps eluding him. His friends, family, co-workers, neighbours, co-berthers at the sailing club ... all think he's a wacko. And he needs redemption. A hail mary pass.

But a newbie resurrecting CSIS and its rehash does nothing. KSA and Aramco statements have been crystal clear on their annual shortfall in almost every press release or presentation for 36 months. The more transparent they are, the more idiots like ron get frustrated. Ron's biggest problem is that after many attempts he still does not understand the difference betw capacity and production, betw decline and depletion.

KSA and Aramco have been clear about this shortfall by quoting it in percentage terms or absolute mbd figures since early 2004. They are careful to almost always deduct such losses from future production capacity forecasts.

There was nothing new when we discussed this in November. Nor December. And not today...