<DrumBeat: December 3, 2007 The Oil Drum DrumBeat: December 4, 2007>

146 comments on Does the latest IEA number matter?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

JS Mosby on December 4, 2007 - 2:56am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

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...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Matt on December 4, 2007 - 7:00am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

they've been cross drilling over into ANWAR.

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.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
PeakPlus on December 4, 2007 - 10:06am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

they've been cross drilling over into ANWAR.

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

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
JS Mosby on December 4, 2007 - 11:56am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

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.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
PeakPlus on December 4, 2007 - 1:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

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

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
JS Mosby on December 4, 2007 - 9:19pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

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.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Starship Trooper on December 4, 2007 - 3:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

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.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wkwillis on December 5, 2007 - 2:45am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

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.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

146 comments on Does the latest IEA number matter?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version