146 comments on Does the latest IEA number matter?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
146 comments on Does the latest IEA number matter?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
—Albert Einstein
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
There are three principal drive mechanisms in oil reservoirs: solution gas drive, water drive and gas cap expansion drive. To some extent, gravity drainage is a factor, especially in gas cap expansion drive reservoirs.
Not all oil fields have a water leg and not all oil fields have a gas cap, but let's assume a large field with a water leg, an oil column and a gas cap--gas on top of oil on top of water, e.g., Prudhoe Bay.
The best way to produce an oil field with a gas cap is to minimize the gas production from the cap and to produce the oil from the lowest practical point in the oil column. As the oil is withdrawn, the gas cap expands, pushing the oil down, aided by gravity drainage. Frequently associated gas is processed, to remove the NGL's, and the dry gas is reinjected back into the gas cap. Also, in many cases supplemental water is injected into the water leg in order to keep the reservoir pressure up. Prudhoe Bay is unusual in that water is also being injected into the gas cap in order to keep the pressure up.
In time, the oil column thins to the point that so much water, from the underlying water leg, and gas, from the overlying gas cap, is being produced that it is no longer economic to continue producing the thinning oil column. At that point, the operator will deliberately produce the gas in the cap, which is basically the final stage of depletion in the field. This would result in a short term boost in NGL production.
So, Matt's point is that a lot of the recent increase in NGL production comes from oil fields in their death throes.
The Brent Field being a good example! An oil field that became a gas field and will likely be decommissioned as a gas field within a couple of years.
Another factor is that it seems that KSA is now selling more Arab Heavy they increased the markdown to make viable for simpler refineries to handle it.
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic34425.html
I think most people agree that its known that KSA has excess capacity that consists of heavy sour crude that its been unable to sell at the price it wants.
The combination of this entering the market blowdown of gas caps and some increased production from Iraq would explain all of the current increases if they are real. I'm not saying that these are not new increments but its not clear yet if they are enough to have overcome drops in other places. I'm guessing that the increase in how heavy oil is which drops the amount of gasoline per barrel is being offset by increased production of the lighter NGL's. So overall even though it seems that light sweet crude is decreasing the combination of NGL and heavy oil is in a sense offseting the loss of light sweet at least for now.
I guess this shows up as processing gains ?
I'll admit I don't know enough to understand NGLs vs heavy etc etc maybe one day Robert Rapier could post on the finer points of oil.
Interesting regards gas caps and depleting fields. Big bid up now for big Nat'l Gas pipeline from...Alaska. Canadians, yanks and Chinese bidding on it. Have a friend up there working that area. North Slope has been in pretty steady decline (no news there) and...they've been cross drilling over into ANWAR. Not getting as much as they would have liked.
Old Wash Post piece on Prudhoe decline; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/06/AR200506...
That's dead serious that this valuable oil is now used for consumption. We actually need it as an energy input for all those future projects required to de-carbonise our economy. NASA climatologist James Hansen has calculated that if we burn all oil and gas WE MUST PHASE OUT COAL OR USE COAL ONLY IN COMBINATION WITH CO2 SEQUESTRATION.
Implications of "peak oil" for atmospheric CO2 and climate
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2782
These sequestration projects are huge projects requiring free-flowing diesel for construction equipment. A 1 GW coal fired power plant generates 150 Kb/d of liquid CO2 to be sequestered away. Geological surveys, drilling rigs, pipelines etc. If that has to be done on the backside of peaking oil and gas curves how will that work?
I repeat again we have to set aside oil and gas fields for the sole purpose of serving as an energy input into those de-carbonisation projects.
Oh, really?
How far do you have to drill to get there? 1 Mile? 50 Miles?
He's not really serious about that, now, is he?
Cheers, Dom
That's what my guy told me. Also told me that Prudhoe is pretty much tapped out and has been in death throes decline for 5yrs. He's lived and worked up there going on 40yrs.
Figure this; they can drill deepwater, horizontal drill tech isn't in its infancy. Why not X-drill long distances on land? Alot easier than dealing with 1,000s of meters of water and liquid salt caps (like the new Brazil field) even more 1,000s of meters down. Kuwait X-drilled far enough into the Basra area to cause a noticeible decline in Iraqi field pressures and thus set themselves on a crash course with Iraq in '89. Why not slide horizontal into ANWAR? Actually less impact that way.
Did anyone really think they'd just go "Oh well..." and let that crude just sit there?
Now, that doesn't mean that they're going all the way in, but if they can get at what's on the perifery, why wouldn't they?
Like I said, this was just my source. I don't have reason to doubt him, but I'm not up there. So there it is for what it's worth.
Could be. Evidence would be that production stops falling, for instance.
Just ask him how far they have to drill. I have an email address..-), just in case it takes a while..-)
Cheers, Dom
Well, you've got pipeline to Badami. 20-30 miles to ANWAR from there. I'll see what moroe i can find out. Who knows up there.
Back several years ago, I downloaded a document from Alyeska Oil website that indicated that without drilling into both NPR-A and/or ANWR (Area 1002), the pipeline would reach it's transport minimum by 2017 (200,000 BPD) and ready for "abandonment in place" status.
The combined effects (and building the required infrastructure, particularly for ANWR since it's a long way from the TAP) of NPR-A and ANWR could extend the life to roughly 2034 if the USGS Mean estimates we actually found and recovered. A temporary boost in throughput up to a level between 1.4 and 1.5 million BPD would be likely if the oil from ANWR really exists.
The oil resources in NPR-A are bit more certain because of the greater amount of drilling and seismic work in NPR-A and some of the reserves are currently being drilled and being readied to be brought online to slow the decline caused by the Prudhoe Bay fields reaching the end of their lives (average water cut is now greater than 75%).
The argument (in Alaska at least) really is less about a Wildlife Refuge turned into a Wilderness Area (although there are some fairly strong opinions about THAT process), than it is about the availability of infrastructure to move any oil that might actually exist. It seems pretty clear to me that once the TAP is shutdown, oil in ANWR (1002) becomes a moot point.
Well, since you've depreciated the pipeline, why not just turn the gas in place into GTL and send it south on the pipeline? When the oil is gone, just convert the pipeline to methanol. A lot better than just scrapping it for the molybdenum alloy steels.
it might be of some benifit to point out that for an oil reservoir, pressure depletion(solution gas drive) is not very efficient. and this is because low viscosity gas is not very efficient in displacing higher viscosity oil (typically 15 - 25%). water is more efficient than gas and a typical water displacing oil efficiency is 40%.
gravity drainage trumps all.
for a gas reservoir, depletion (or blow down) is the most efficient mechanism. a gas reservoir generally behaves according to the real gas law, pv=zNRT. so the lower the pressure, the fewer moles, N, of gas remaining and the higher the recovery. recoveries from depletion of a gas reservoir are typically in the range of 85% or better. typical water drive recoveries from a gas reservoir is about 65%, about the same as an oil reservoir produced by gravity drainage.
ghawar is produced by gravity stable pressure maintence by water injection and a reasonable recovery estimate is about 65%.