 | How Will Local Governments Respond to Large Increases in Energy Bills? | The Oil Drum | One big sigh... (Sarkozy on lowering gas taxes) |  |
| Future Scenarios: Mapping the Cultural Implications of Peak Oil and Climate Change | The Oil Drum: Australia/New Zealand | The Bullroarer - Wednesday 28th May 2008 | |
80 comments on Oil Reserves: Where Ghawar goes, the rest of OPEC follows
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
80 comments on Oil Reserves: Where Ghawar goes, the rest of OPEC follows
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
GAIA Host Collective
You are correct, 12.5 mbpd implies the following reserve numbers:
Fringe (large non-OPEC extractors): (12.5 -0.093)/0.0466= 266 Gb
Small Fringe (small non-OPEC extractors):(12.5-0.0418)/0.0435= 286 Gb
OPEC: (12.5 - 0.2323)/0.0096= 1.3 Tb (sic)
The last number is outrageous because the OPEC relationship is based on the official inflated reserve numbers.
I am trying to get a sense of what all this implies. I am assuming that Pickering's empirical numbers give a sense of prudent flow rates from a reserve of a given size. So then 12.5 mbd would be a prudent flow rate if SA indeed had 264 Gb reserve. So if SA only has 152 Gb as the article above says, then is the flow rate that SA is trying to achieve imprudent? What is the effect of pumping a reserve at imprudent rates?
Steeper decline rates, basically Cantarell all over again with 15% or greater production losses..
i dont see how an emperical relationship between reserves and rate in any way implies a prudent flow rate.
I'm no expert but I believe the prudent flow rate is the one that gets you the most amount of oil is the long run.. If you pump too fast you will end up leaving more oil in the ground by depleting the reservoir pressure to fast..
"I believe the prudent flow rate is the one that gets you the most amount of oil is the long run.."
i dont disagree. but my point is that there is no way, short of a (impossible given the lack of data) thourough analysis of each and every case in the data base, to conclude what a prudent rate for a group of producers is from an imperical analysis.
a mer(maximum efficient rate) determination also has an economic component and thanks to a (usually) constant oil price assumption and discounted present worth analysis leads to higher, rather than lower production rate. sometimes to the detrement of ultimate recovery*.
in the us of a, rule of capture .......well......rules, that has lead to excessive wells being drilled, rapid depletion and ,imo, loss of reserves.
* the only case where a higher rate may result in greater recovery is in a water driven ng reservoir.