106 comments on Wikipedia Megaproject Update (August 2008)
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
106 comments on Wikipedia Megaproject Update (August 2008)
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
- Thanksgiving Open Campfire Thread
- How Relocalization Worked
- How to Set Up and Run a Bicycle Repair Company
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.
“Men argue; nature acts.”
—Voltaire
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
Memmel
One of the other distortions we need to consider with respect to the cost of production is the differential between capital cost and production cost.
A substantial portion of the cost of production is the capital cost of the oil production facilities. In many cases (and increasingly so into the future) this capital cost represent a greater portion of the production cost than does ongoing operations. Once the project is committed and built then this is a sunk cost. To continue viable production the operator only needs to overcome the hurdle of the ongoing operational cost, a much smaller number.
If you examine the receeding horizon issue raised by Nate then you need to treat new field development in a different way than production from existing developed fields.
Right receding horizons is a bigger problem for new fields agree 100%.
But with most of our fields getting pretty old infield drilling is at best slowing decline. The problem is without a fairly continuous supply of new fields esp in the small field case with lifetimes of 5-10 years you quickly hit the point where more and more fields are in the heavily depleted steep decline case. Its only the new fields we have developed over the last 20 years that has kept production up.
This is on top of the broad hopefully slower decline of the giant fields that dominate the production. Deep Water for example precludes development of smaller fields same with artic etc. Simply because of costs and receding horizon problems make it uncertain how much of the arctic or deepwater will ever be developed.
We are losing our shallow water smaller fields that really kept production going over the last 20-30 years and the new replacement choices are prohibitive in cost capital wise and energy wise.