WT:
there it is again - I gotta wonder, what does this graph look like with the times scaled in proportion to the amount of respective recoverables - right now they're both 26 years, but Global is a much bigger curve, meaning that what is a 'feature' of the global curve might look just like the entire NS curve.

Example: one day of activity on the DJ might look exactly like one year - but it would be foolish to call it predictive.

I don't doubt the two graphs resemble each other, but this one could well be misleading.

I'd say that TC has a point, but I'd put it differently:

The scales need to be comparable to have a valid comparison. The North Sea vertical scale covers 67% of the range (from 2 to 6M bpd), while the Global curve covers less than 25% of the range. That's misleading. If the scales were similar, we'd see that the global curve is much flatter, and not really that comparable.

o/t - Thanks. That confirms my WAG that some had written the area off as low potential. We all have seen that numerus times: "Don't drill below 14,000' in this area...there's no potential". And then 5 years later someone discovers a $500 million field at 14,500'. Many years ago a friend was drilling a wildcat where no one had drilled that deep. Kept drilling deeper and seeing nothing. Investors finally ran out of money and they stopped. Before he could lease the land again and drill some more ExxonMobil took the leases and twinned his well. Less than 300' below where he stopped drilling his 15,000' well XOM discovered a field (Chalkly....Cameron Ph, La.) worth over $7 BILLION at today's prices. My freind Mike was 29 yo and had a 2% over riding royalty on the well. Yep: his share would have been $140 million. You can imagine he probably thought about that well at least once a day for the rest of his time. He still had a good life at least until he was lost at sea when his aircraft went down in bad weather.

OFT - Or anyone who knows: What geological age is this reservoir and what is the stratigraphy ?

Observations:

28 deg API is not much different than the much maligned Manifa project. Although, I assume this is sweet vanadium free crude.

There was a time when a core dripping oil was not considered a good thing. The belief was that high permeability rock would be flushed with drilling mud and any moveable oil would already be drained from the core before it reached the surface.

In answer to some of the questions here. The main reservoir is Upper Jurassic Huggin Formation. I think one reason the Utsira High has been in part overlooked is that the highs quite often have had reservoir stripped off or not deposited. In this case, a transgressive shallow marine sand was draped across the structure as the whole basin sagged and this followed by deposition of Cretaceous mud on top.

Rockman is right in that this is shallow reservoir for N Sea, at this depth you'd often expect biodegradation and heavy oil. But as already noted here we have good quality oil in fabulous reservoir. There are also migration issues, but this seems to be the apex of big hill draped in mudstone and oil seeping out of neighbouring kitchens has had nowhere to go once it reached the top of the hill.

I agree that those who drilled and missed by a fraction many years ago must now feel sick as dogs - but it wouldn't surprise me if some of the geologists involved then now work for Lundin (this is conjecture, I have no specific knowledge, but this is the way things work, frustrated geologists walk away with ideas in their heads).

I have no experience in this sector of the North Sea but it is interesting to note a well drilled in 1976 sits almost bang on the oil water contact. I could reasonably expect that there was seismic support for that drilling location (i.e. a structural trap) and that the team back then just missed the big one. I suspect though that there may be evidence for hydrocarbons in the 1976 well files and that is it may well be part of the field albeit in on the edge. In that case, and purely from a statistical point of view, the field was discovered in the 70's but not recognised as being commercial or worthy of appraisal.

It's also helpful to remember Hubbert's 1956 "If, then" statements: If Lower 48 URR are about 150 Gb, the Lower 48 peaks in 1966. If Lower 48 URR are about 200 Gb, the Lower 48 peaks in 1971. Fifty billion barrels of recoverable reserves postponed the projected peak by five years.

Meanwhile, our data analysis showed that the supply of global net oil exports* available to importers other than China & India (ANE) fell at 2.8%/year from 2005 to 2010. I estimate that the 2010 to 2020 rate of decline in ANE will be between 5%/year and 8%/year. Even with the rebound in US production, the dominant post-2005 trend has been that the US is being outbid for access to a declining supply of global net exports (using BP's production and consumption numbers, 84% of the decline in US net oil imports from 2004 to 2010 was due to reduced consumption).

*Top 33 net oil exporters, BP + Minor EIA data

Corrosion is a big issue for the flowlines carrying untreated well fluids, and also for water injection lines, but less so for the main export lines. Note that North Sea oil is - on average - not nearly as sweet as in the early days.

If you look at https://www.icmmed0ty.com/fps/content/brochure/brochure.asp?sectionid=12 , it seems fairly clear that BP expects to close down the Forties Pipeline System for economic reasons rather than corrosion reasons. The Forties line used to be pigged regularly and I expect it still is. I'm not sure about our other main export lines, but I shouldn't think any of them are as bad as the TAPS. After all, they were built more recently, with better steel and better engineering.

But our maintenance costs include accidental damage, riser fatigue, anode exhaustion, FPSO cracking - all sorts. The maintenance bills don't get any less, even though production is getting less.

I should add that the minimum flow rate at which the Norwegian oil industry shuts down will be higher than for the UK, partly because Norway is a higher-cost country. But also, by the time things are getting critical in Norway, the UK/Dutch/Danish sectors will already have shut down, so the infrastructure costs cannot be shared. Minimum operating level for Norway might be as much as 300 thousand bpd. Mind you, that still means that a young Norwegian oilworker can look forward to a much lengthier career than his British counterpart.

ROCKMAN, I understand that your excitement isn’t in mitigating PO but rather in the geology of the deposits (which I appreciate and try to learn from). I just disagree that “govts are developing their resources for the benefit of the citizens.” If they were then a large chunk of those FF’s being developed would be going to building out a renewable energy infrastructure, which isn’t happening.

“around $60 billion to [the Norwegian] sovereign fund” will be worthless in a few years when fiat currencies hyperinflate and the only measure of true wealth is real tangible assets, which Norway and Canada are quickly vaporizing into entropy lost to outer space forever…

My family comes from a middle class forest industry background, so I’ve never known true hunger. Of course we had our issues in the early 80’s like everyone but we got by, moving on to another part of Canada to R&P instead. In my own career I’ve moved away from forestry activities (not many trees left to cut down in BC, and the US housing bubble burst), continuing the natural resource R&P theme of my career with coal mining. But I’m under no illusion that what I am doing is for the good of society – yes, what I am doing is in a small way contributing to the unpleasant deaths of billions of people in the next few decades, and I don’t deny that (which is why I don’t plan to stay in this field for long). I’ve bought a Leaf, and for 5 years before that I went car-less, so I definitely consume less than the average person. And I’m not going to go live in a cave because that won’t do anyone any good. I’d be much more effective by staying put and publicly slamming the FF industry for what it is, and frankly I’m a little surprised I still have a job as a result; it’s made for some awkward times at work.

I don’t have a fantasy about how life should work – I understand how it does work – it works within the bounds of the cold hard facts of ecological energetics (of which FF’s are the prime example), ultimately limited by the laws of thermodynamics. Those cold hard facts are clearly sending us down the path to planetary collapse from overpopulation, absent some miraculous breakthrough in nuclear fusion technology by January 2012.

There is no evidence suggesting we are any different from the St. Matthew Island deer. We have likely overshot our ecological carrying capacity beyond what the deer did, all of course enabled by cheap abundant energy from FF’s, for which we have no replacement ready and waiting.

We could have had a replacement if we had used our abundant fossil fuels in the 70’s to build out a renewable energy infrastructure but as you point out, “No one … in the oil patch cares about mitigating PO. None of the companies or the Alb. govt have such a grand goal. It’s all about making a living/profit. I know “profit” is a dirty word in some circles.”

And for the purpose of furthering that “profit” motive, those companies and governments have thwarted the development of an alternative sustainable energy infrastructure, so that now in the face of PO, we no longer have the energy left to build one! Because those companies and governments do not represent the people!

If economic growth was really a way to improve the average person’s standard of living then Americans would be rich right now. But they aren’t and when the dollar collapses they will find out just how poor they really are despite centuries of previous economic growth. They don’t own their farmland, nor what remains of their factories. They basically own debt, and underwater mortgages on overvalued houses, and that’s about it. All of America’s wealth has been stolen by the bankers and the ultra wealthy elites in control of them and which largely own the corporations that own America’s farmland. The economy is a hamster wheel of debt slavery, a wealth stealing machine, and it uses people’s fears of unemployment and hunger to justify R&P'ing even more wealth from the planet for transfer into the clutches of the elites.

If some folks feel the oil industry is feeding an oil addiction I would think they would feel the same about the ag industry feeding society’s addiction to food.

To some extent yes, but that isn’t a valid analogy because there is no substitute for food but there is a substitute for FF based oil, and if humanity is going to continue we are going to have to develop that substitute. We use oil for two things – energy and materials. And we could (and do) use other sources besides FF's to liberate energy, and the materials provided by oil could be produced with synthesis chemistry using basic molecules and energy as ingredients.

Rocky – I suspect you’re wasting your breath. I suppose some folks think I’m just trying to be glib when I point out “the oil patch ain’t your momma. We don’t exist to satisfy your needs”. I think when we geogeeks get into high gear and start blabbering about field discoveries a few folks assume we’re representing that we're on some noble quest to show how were struggling to save the day…and BAU. As you know the new Norwigian discovery is any geologist’s super wet dream. At the moment I’m getting all ginned up over the possibility I just discovered a low resistivity/low contrast oil reservoir. Too long to explain folks but it’s an oil reservoir that looks like there’s no oil in it. Not many geologists around who know how to pick up on it.

Very exciting and I could go into detail and teach interested folks on TOD about it. But some folks would think the excitement had to do with some minor effort to mitigate PO. As you know so well it isn’t about PO. No one I know in the oil patch cares about mitigating PO. None of the companies or the Alb. govt have such a grand goal. It’s all about making a living/profit. I know “profit” is a dirty word in some circles. The Canadian and Norwigian govts are developing their resources for the benefit of the citizens. Any benefit for the rest of the world is just coincidental. Folks can call it “feeding an addiction” if they like but those same folks are posting their thoughts using the grid that is generally powered by fossil fuels. Thus they are part of our collective crack house here on TOD. If some folks feel the oil industry is feeding an oil addiction I would think they would feel the same about the ag industry feeding society’s addiction to food. Guess it just boils down to one’s perception of how life works vs. some fantasy of how thy think it should work.

No: IMHO no drilling effort or flurry of big new discoveries is going to substantially change the PO path we’re on. But that’s not the goal of the mineral owners or the oil patch. It’s just about generating revenue. And yes…it’s being done with little regard to the effects on the planet. Being a good caretaker of the plane is society’s responsibility. But whether everyone can be honest and admit they support the effort is another matter. I’ve run across very few folks who, despite their stated indignation, aren’t accepting their “addiction” to ff’s and keeping that needle stuck in their arm. They might argue they aren’t getting as high as others. But isn’t that what most junkies and alcoholics say?

If production rates were cranked up to 3 million barrels per day, that is about 1 billion barrels per year. Taking an economic resource base of about 350 billion barrels at current prices, that would be about a 350 year supply of oil.

My figures say 180 billion barrels (from the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board section 3-1) but maybe you have better data, but regardless that's splitting hairs. So then, Alberta's oil sands, arguably the largest reserve in the world (Venezuela is too difficult and the Saudi's may be lying about their remaining reserves), is going to save the world from Peak Conventional Oil by providing a billion barrels a year for the next 350 years (or 180, depending on whose figure you use)...

.... to supply a current world demand of 30 billion barrels a year, which is only going to go UP with the wonderful economic growth that some of us believe is going to raise people's standards of living? That is THREE PERCENT of global demand ... from the largest deposit in the world! Where are the other deposits to make up for this shortfall? All the big easy ones have been found -- that's why the tar sands have been known about for like 100 years -- they are big and easy. Maybe we'll get lucky and find another deposit in Siberia, which seems to be the last great wilderness that might hide some gold nuggets, and let's say it turns out to be TWICE the size of Alberta's oil sands. Then whooppee! We'll be able to supply NINE PERCENT of (current) global demand for 180 (or 350) years! And let's add in Venezuela at a billion per year so then we're at TWELVE PERCENT!

And with global conventional oil production about to head down the steep part of the Hubbert Curve, because the discoveries just aren't there (this Norwegian field is generating so much excitement yet it represents 1 month of global oil consumption), let's just crank up the oil sands production to offset the deficit! Putting aside the engineering miracles of ramping up this "slow oil" quickly (I know first hand; we're trying to find contractors and they are all too busy in Alberta -- there are none available) to pick up the slack from conventional oil depletion, let's say we crank up the oil sands to 10 billion a year, to supply 1/3 of (current) global oil demand. Then, all of a sudden, Alberta's reserves would only last 180/10 = EIGHTEEN YEARS if you use my figures, or THIRTY FIVE YEARS using yours.

And with an EROEI of around 3:1 for oil sands, where will all the natural gas come from to run the whole show? Can we count on 60 billion barrels equivalent of NG being available, using my numbers, or 120 billion using yours, especially when conventional oil declines will be increasingly offset with NG, for example to power internal combustion engines? I don't have the figures for North American natural gas but I have a feeling it will reach Peak too in the near future, especially under such pressures from conventional oil depletion.

Well, Canada did ride to the rescue with more oil exports, but Mexico, Venezuela, et al rode in the opposite direction, which ruined the whole effect on production.

As you know, an incremental increase in production, in a given area, does not necessarily make a material difference in global oil supplies. Many people seem to mistake the former for the latter.

For example, as noted up the thread, new field discoveries in the North Sea, whose first full year of production was in 1999 or later, had a production peak of about one mbpd in 2005, and the new fields served to slow the overall post-1999 North Sea decline rate to about 5%/year.

And despite increasing production in the US Lower 48 and in Canada, the billions of dollars spent by the global oil industry from 2005 to 2011 has so far resulted in a zero rate of change in global crude oil production*, with a measurable decline in global net oil exports.

*Through September, 2011