 | Are we worried yet? Or more on Gazprom etc. | The Oil Drum | Dick Morris: Bush=Jimmy "The Sweater" Carter? |  |
The Top Twenty Fields: Are They in Decline? What Do We Know? (Updated)
Posted by Prof. Goose on April 18, 2006 - 2:14am
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: ahwaz, bolivar, burgan, cantarell, ghawar, kirkuk, peak oil, rumaila, safaniya, tengiz [list all tags]
Taking the lead from this thread over at peakoil.com, I thought a discussion of whether or not the top 20 fields were in decline, and then consolidating that into a reference resource would be a good idea. Under the fold is the latest list with the sources beside the field. Is this all we know?
1. Ghawar Unknown
2a. Burgan CONFIRMED DECLINE ~14% (Source)
2b. Cantarell CONFIRMED DECLINE ~14% (Source)
3. Bolivar Coastal Unknown
4. Safaniya-Khafji Unknown
5. Rumaila Unknown
6. Tengiz Unknown
7. Ahwaz CONFIRMED DECLINE ~64% (HOLY CRAP!) (Source)
8. Kirkuk CONFIRMED DECLINE Need Source
9. Marun CONFIRMED DECLINE (Source)
10. Gachsaran Unknown
11. Aghajari CONFIRMED DECLINE (Source)
12. Samotlor CONFIRMED DECLINE ~ 9% (Simmons' book IIRC)
13a. Prudhoe Bay CONFIRMED DECLINE ~11% (Multiple sources)
13b. Kashagan Unknown
14. Abqaiq I don't know, but have you seen the cross section? It's all water!
15. Romashkino Unknown
16. Chicontepec Unknown
17. Berri Unknown
18. Zakum Unknown
19. Manifa Unknown
20. Faroozan-Marjan Unknown
21. Marlim, Campos CONFIRMED DECLINE ~8% (Source)
2a. Burgan CONFIRMED DECLINE ~14% (Source)
2b. Cantarell CONFIRMED DECLINE ~14% (Source)
3. Bolivar Coastal Unknown
4. Safaniya-Khafji Unknown
5. Rumaila Unknown
6. Tengiz Unknown
7. Ahwaz CONFIRMED DECLINE ~64% (HOLY CRAP!) (Source)
8. Kirkuk CONFIRMED DECLINE Need Source
9. Marun CONFIRMED DECLINE (Source)
10. Gachsaran Unknown
11. Aghajari CONFIRMED DECLINE (Source)
12. Samotlor CONFIRMED DECLINE ~ 9% (Simmons' book IIRC)
13a. Prudhoe Bay CONFIRMED DECLINE ~11% (Multiple sources)
13b. Kashagan Unknown
14. Abqaiq I don't know, but have you seen the cross section? It's all water!
15. Romashkino Unknown
16. Chicontepec Unknown
17. Berri Unknown
18. Zakum Unknown
19. Manifa Unknown
20. Faroozan-Marjan Unknown
21. Marlim, Campos CONFIRMED DECLINE ~8% (Source)
thanks for your hard work
I haven't seen anything about this yet on TOD, has this topic made the rounds in USA MSM? The Guardian reported yesterday about a ship:
There seems to be a scramble by all the members of Big Oil to try and tap whatever resources there maybe in the arctic now that the ice is receeding due to GW making previously impassable areas easier to get to to survey and potentially drill.
Some UK scientists, notably Professor Chris Rapley, Director of the Antarctic society, are "very uncomfortable with a project that simply was out to log the hydrocarbon reserves of the Arctic as a geological activity. I don't think that fits very comfortably within either the scientific guidelines or the ethical underpinning of the IPY" [International Polar Year]
The Guardian points to some geologists reasoning for this but doesn't mention who they are
I'd like to know where this fits into the above table of proven reserves etc. I haven't found any more info that backs up this estimate, and I'm a bit cautious to believe it. If there are huge fields to be found in the arctic, should they be drilled? Theoretically if a huge new supply of resources came online, should we be encouraging it in light of climate change? Well, the clear puritan answer is no, but what do people think about postponing the peak versus preventing climate change. If we are facing a serious energy gap before we can implement any better solutions or reduce our consumption, should we risk more climate change problems and global warming as a last resort to prevent die-off?
P.S.
I've brought this to the table but I don't know very much about the science, please enlighten me.
P.P.S.
There's another related article here
And oil hit $72 Guardian attributes it to Iran, and mentions in the likelihood that it will stay there: "There could be spikes higher but the long-term trend should be down" hmm.
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=31765
Another one to add to the list of Decliners?
More here:
http://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=188674
But the article says this guy is an electrical engineer (not IT engineer), so maybe he's soldering, making cables, testing components, or whatever an electrical engineer does at a company like Cisco.
Seems to me that either this guy really loves to drive a lot, or he has no choice due to the nature of his job.
When we get serious, this kind of thing will either be prohibited or subject to severe disincentives. And there will have been tons of programs and propaganda explaining WHY.
I don't mean that those of us who are aware shouldn't hold ourselves to a different standard. But until the whole society is restructured, making it feasible, it's difficult --- as you all know.
absurd nature is no good? I think pointing out what's wrong is
the first step to change, not waiting till all hell has broken loose.
It's the fire under the arse that gets attention, not complacence.
I would hardly describe what this guy is doing as 'feasible'. This is far in excess of what most people would consider doing.
They didn't say what kind of car the guy drives - not that it makes any difference in terms of how long it takes to get to work, but the guy must be spending a fortune on gas too.
Methinks perhaps marital bliss is a little short in their family.
Perhaps he does the commute to GET AWAY from the wife/kids?? Just theorizing here, wildly OT. (Sorry!)
I am assuming all 21 of these oilfields used water pressurization to help sweep the oils to the boreholes. Have most of these fields used superstraw technology like horizontal drilling, bottlebrush drilling, multi-directional branchdrilling, etc, to help them deplete faster than normal when they rollover peak production? If that is the case, then all these large fields will probably decline greater than 10% a year-- Yikes!
So what should we expect for the total World decline rate? How quickly will the geological decline drive the logistical decline down even faster? It seems like energy depletion will be too fast for societies to economically mitigate--things will just spiral down out of control.
Of course, that means Westexas & Khebab's theory of accelerated importing depletion will be real ugly when it becomes evident.
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
I think that is why Matthew Simmons and others have placed such importance on water injection and so called "advanced" extraction techniques, because they throw out old depletion models, and change the downside curve...the peak comes virtually with no warning, and there is not as great a likelihood of a "flat topping" type plateau....
The concern may be great enough now to consider some emergency moves for critical transport over to CNG and Propane. Of course, they are fossil fuels, for the renewable purists out there, but we may have to live with that to diversify out of "gasoline only. We need a five way spread of 5 segments or so....gasoline of course, Diesel, of course, Propane, easily done and extracted from both natural gas and oil refining, some CNG in places where natural gas is relatively plentiful, (it won't be cheap, but it is still there in many places, and battery electric for in town taxi type and very short delivery work (think of the British electric milk floats and Postal delivery)
Notice I skipped bio fuels until we can show that they are not going to cost us more in natural gas than just burning the gas as CNG.
Local police and infrastructure maintainence fleets MUST seriously look at splitting their fleets, so that they can be able to use what ever fuel is available just in case...it would be better to have a few police cars or phone or electric line maintanence vehicles sitting still that have the whole fleet shut down.
We cannot guess what the time situation is on needing to this, it may be next month or it may be 10 years, but the contigency planning must be there.
A New Crime Fighter, for $10 in Hay and Oats
(New York Times article today--you need to be registered. I wanted to post the picture but I don't know how)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/18/nyregion/18horses.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
- Electrify our freight railroads (like EU & Japan, and Russia is going great guns). Move intercity freight to rail.
- Build Urban Rail plans already in development (Miami's "Subway in the Sky" is in active development for a 103 mile system that will put ~90% of the population within 3 miles of a station). Denver, Salt Lake City, Portland, San Jose, St. Louis, etc. all have active plans in development and more can quickly be developed (faster than propane cars can be built).
- Electric trolley buses on busy routes.
- Many more bikeways, even taking lanes from cars & trucks,
All three can be done faster than fleet conversions, infrastruture developments, etc.Again, my paper is at:
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2005-02.htm
Proposed Summary:
The recent run up in oil prices since mid-February is widely attributed to geopolitical tensions in the Middle East. However, an analysis of recent weekly total petroleum import numbers, supplied by the US Energy Information Agency (EIA), suggests a different reason--total petroleum imports into the US started falling dramatically in the week ending February 10, 2006. Therefore, an alternative explanation for the recent run up in oil prices is that US oil companies are having to bid up the price of light, sweet crude oil and of refined products, because of declining supplies worldwide.
James
Does anybody have real data on that IEA borrowing and returning issue?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/oils-climb-continues-as-iran-angst-intensifies/2006/04/18/114534 4084158.html
Excerpt:
The Chinese president, Hu Jintao, who meets US president George Bush in Washington this week, said on April 16 that the Chinese economy grew at a pace of 10.2 per cent in the first quarter, faster than forecast. That might boost consumption in the world's second-largest energy user, where first-quarter oil imports rose 25 per cent.
http://peakoil.com/post284887.html#284887
Field, Country Size estimate
1. Ghawar, Saudi Arabia 75-83 billion barrels
2a. Burgan, Kuwait 66-72 billion barrels
2b. Cantarell, Mexico (often listed as a large complex of multiple smaller fields) 35 billion barrels
- Bolivar Coastal, Venezuela 30-32 billion barrels
- Safaniya-Khafji, Saudi Arabia/Neutral Zone 30 billion barrels
- Rumaila, Iraq 20 billion barrels
- Tengiz, Kazakstan 15-26 billion barrels
- Ahwaz, Iran 17 billion barrels
- Kirkuk, Iraq 16 billion barrels
- Marun, Iran 16 billion barrels
- Gachsaran, Iran 15 billion barrels
- Aghajari, Iran 14 billion barrels
- Samotlor, West Siberia, Russia 14-16 billion barrels
13a.Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, USA 13 billion barrels13b. Kashagan, Kazakhstan 13 billion barrels
- Abqaiq, Saudi Arabia 12 billion barrels
- Romashkino, Volga-Ural, Russia 12-14 billion barrels
- Chicontepec, Mexico 12 billion barrels
- Berri, Saudi Arabia 12 billion barrels
- Zakum, Abu Dhabi, UAE 12 billion barrels
- Manifa, Saudi Arabia 11 billion barrels
- Faroozan-Marjan, Saudi Arabia/Iran 10 billion barrels
- Marlim, Campos, Brazil 10-14 billion barrels
http://peakoil.com/fortopic19065.htmltwo questions, i don't know, where to post it...i already
asked the questions at yahoo(energyresources), i'm trying do do some reserch on it..
1a)what countrys are planning to price oil in euros, instead of usd..(is there anything going on..iranian petroleum exchange..etc)
1b) how credible are those plans ?
i need reliable background information, if possible.
thanks in advance...
thomas (germany)
I think that the exporters are going to be thinking long and hard about: how much oil that they want to sell; how fast they want to sell it and what they want in return for the oil.
We have arrived at Peak Oil with massive debt in a country where the majority of Americans live off the discretionary income of other Americans (e.g., Starbucks; Disney; Las Vegas; the list goes on and on) and a highly energy inefficient lifestyle where millions of people drive large Urban Assault Vehicles large distances to and from large mortgages.
We are probably even now a net food importer. So the question arises. What do we have to offer in exchange for oil. In effect, the question I am asking is: what is a dollar worth? If an exporter does not want to hold US debt or stock or buy US assets directly, why would they want to accept payment in dollars? Look at the recent trends: rising oil prices; rising gold prices; rising interest rates and falling petroleum imports.
Perhaps we have been literally reduced to threatening violence against exporters, via our military forces, if they don't accept our dollars.
In any case, as Jim Kunstler said, whether we like SUV's or not, we are going to be forced to change our lifestyles. I predict that for sale signs in remote suburban areas are going to be spouting like weeds.
Following are my suggestions for a post-peak US:
Economize--try to reduce your spending to 50% of current income. Assume that you just got a 50% pay cut. What actions would you then take?
Localize--try to reduce the distance between home and work to as close to zero as possible. Assume that gasoline costs about the same as Norway, $7 per gallon or more. What actions would you then take?
Produce--look into becoming or affiliating yourself with a net food producer or net energy producer. Or at least try to work with a company that provides basic needs, instead of "wants." Today, the majority of Americans live off the discretionary income of other Americans. Assume that US discretionary income drops by 50%. What industries would you want to be in?
We need to radically rethink the kinds of careers that young people should go into, and parents need to think very hard about going into debt to unleash yet another law school graduate on the country.
In a nutshell, you want to go long on companies that provide needs, and you want to go short on companies that provide wants. This applies to countries too. On that basis, the US is a giant "short."
In Thom Hartmann's book, "The last hours of ancient sunlight," he has a metaphor for the US economy. He described a company that he consulted for years ago that was developing a new word processing program. They went through several rounds of financing, each time expanding the company and moving to ever larger offices, until one day he stopped by and they were gone--offices empty. They had run out of money and couldn't raise any more. The bottom line was that they had the appearance of great economic activity, but they never delivered a product.
The US economy has the appearance of great economic activity, but how much of the US economy is dedicated to providing what we need to survive on a daily basis?
As I have said before, it may not be too long before US born college graduates are competing with illegal aliens for agricultural jobs.
The tragedy is that so many American families are going ever deeper into debt to support the big car, big commute and big house lifestyle--because people like Yergin are telling them that high energy prices are a temporary phenomenon.
(I Googled Community Supported Agriculture--over 32 million hits. Shouldn't be too hard to find one in your area.)
right on the money with your post. I keep hammering on the U.S. manufacturing sector. How many physical things do we actually make in the U.S.? Things like stoves, gloves, solar panels, wind turbines, food, lumber, metals, starch polymers, resistors, printed circuits, cement, etc. etc. All these things require a process to convert something simple into something complex. We only make a fraction of these now where we used to make all of them within our borders.
These needed products are required in our economy before we can build the wants of fashion, restaurants, entertainment, software applications, houses, vehicles, etc. on top of. We take for granted that the needs will always be there to build on. Bad assumption, IMHO.
I couldn't agree more. For a number of reasons, I believe the lack of manufacturing will prove to be the Achilles heel for the US.
First, when the US$ tanks, imports will dry up beacuse no one will be able to afford them. This, in turn, will cause economic devastation since our economy is based upon washing each other's laundry.
Second, the US will not have the capital resources to bring the off-shored manufacturing back, especially when coupled with trying to adapt to less available energy.
Third, the vaunted energy efficiency (GDP per joule or whatever) of the US economy will seen to the the shame that it is.
US and the G7 combined own almost all the know-how on advanced manufacturing. If you look at China and India, you will see that their manufacturing and engineering work are 100% dependent on the G7's technology and equipment. Yes, manufacturing in US has been declining by a lot and it is outsourced to China and other countries. The key here is that advance equipments and knowledge are coming from US in these factories. Whenever China wants to built a new advance food factory, they have to come to US or other developed countries for equipment and services. Until US loses the edge in advance technology, then US is doomed. Many experts claim it is just a matter of time, but they have been wrong for the past 50 years. Not even Europe who were supposed to surpass US in the 60' and 70's failed to so. Japan in the 80's and 90's failed. Will China and India succeed? Most experts said it will be 20 years before they join Japan and Europe, so it will be at least 30 years or more before they can challenge US.
A note in point- Turbine technology, US had the lead in this, but in the 80's and early 90's, Japan thought they had caught up with US. DOD with GE came up with a new turbine that is over 30% more powerful. It can withstand more heat, etc. This is not only for aircraft engines, which was what DoD was interested in, but also, powerplants, etc.
This is just one example. There many from chemicals to motors, etc.
Second major point is that despite the rising price of oil, oil exporting countries like in Middle East are very undeveloped and if they had copied their spending habits in the 70's and 80's, these countries will be running big deficits. The cost of providing a higher standard of living is way too expensive and most of the technology of this increase of living standard comes from US.
If the US is no longer perceived as the land of opportunity, however, and if fewer bright minds escape to the US, will we continue to lead in all these areas?
How good are we going to look to immigrants when we're in the throes of a slow squeeze, or worse? How good will we look after a few more questionable elections? What happens when we start to look like a banana republic?