DrumBeat: September 5, 2006
Posted by threadbot on September 5, 2006 - 9:12am
Oil companies see big Gulf of Mexico discovery
Tests suggest huge oil field found in deep watersOSLO, Norway - Tests of a deep-water well in the Gulf of Mexico could indicate a significant oil discovery, three companies announced Tuesday, in the first project to tap into a region that reportedly could boost U.S. oil and gas reserves by as much as 50 percent.
...The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that the region where the well is located could become the nation’s biggest new domestic source of oil since the discovery of Alaska’s North Slope more than a generation ago.
The Journal said Chevron and Devon officials estimate that recent discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico’s lower-tertiary formations hold up to 15 billion barrels’ worth of oil and gas reserves, a total that would boost the nation’s current reserves by 50 percent.
[Update by Leanan on 09/05/06 at 9:32 AM EDT]
Coaxing oil from huge U.S. shale deposits
Underneath the high, scrub-covered rangeland of northwest Colorado is the world's biggest oil field. Getting the oil out of the ground, however, is one of the world's biggest headaches.
Why the Survivalists Have Got It Wrong
Independent stations priced out
The number of gas stations in New Hampshire is at its lowest in at least 10 years, according to an annual count by National Petroleum News. In the first quarter of 2006, the state had 800 gas stations, down 181 from last year. Experts say the decline is largely due to the challenges independent owners...face in staying profitable.
Formula change worries keep diesel prices up
Wind Power a Vexing Question for Vermont
When farmer Greg Bryant first heard about plans for windmills along a swath of mountain ridges in this northeastern Vermont hamlet, he was all for it. The idea of tapping a plentiful natural resource for power was appealing.Now he's dead set against it, one of many people here who fear the prospect of 400-foot tall windmills sprouting from the tops of picturesque mountains.
...If built, the UPC project could power 15,000 to 20,000 homes. Bryant said that's not enough of a benefit to warrant the unsightly presence of 26 towers dotting the surrounding mountaintops.
"It's not a good tradeoff," he said. "It's not worth what you're trading off to trade four montaintops (for) this little amount of power."
Oil buyers try to kick Mideast dependence
World War III more likely from oil grabs than radical Islam
Turn all Britain's homes into mini-power stations, says expert
Moscow mayor says winter energy deficit could reach 20%
MOSCOW - Moscow's mayor warned Tuesday that the capital could face an energy deficit of 20% this winter, sparking concerns that temporary business closures seen in January could be repeated."Energy consumption is abnormal at present and the deficit registered in the past is very large," Yury Luzhkov said.
New Zealand: Anti-bus campaign remarkably shortsighted
Remember, remember the 5th of September, 2000
A year before 9/11/2001 happened in the USA, a ‘terrifying incident’ of a different sort happened in Europe that changed how political leaders across the world would forever understand the essential role oil resources played in the ‘developed nations.’
Vietnam fuel price hike cranks up inflationary pressure
Ghana: Power Crisis Worries Gold Miners
Ghana's major industrial users of power are the Volta Aluminium Company (Valco), which is owned jointly by the Ghanaian government and Alcoa, and the gold miners, including AngloGold Ashanti, Gold Fields, Newmont and Golden Star. Aluminium smelters are huge electricity users, dwarfing the mines, but only some of the Valco smelters are in operation.AngloGold is a bigger user of electricity in Ghana than Gold Fields, partly because AngloGold operates Ghana's only underground mine at Obuasi, which depends on electricity to power ventilation and pumps. But Ghana is a bigger contributor to Gold Fields' overall operations than it is for AngloGold.
Russia agency sues to stop Shell project
Balkan oil project gets backing
Russia has won backing from Greece and Bulgaria for an oil pipeline project to link all three countries.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
There is a lot of talk here about why more people are not aware of Peak Oil and doing something about the problem, here is a chance to do something to help get the word out.
#1, You can send an email with the link to the ASPO-USA conference in Boston to everyone on your email list that might be interested in the Conference and asking them to forward it on. I know Westexas is doing this.
http://www.aspousa.org/fall2006/index.cfm
#2, You can help by letting me know of ways to contact groups that are tangentially related to Peak Oil but probably not aware of the Conference or getting the information to them your selves. You may be in a professional group or some other type of group that might be interested. It is very hard to know about these unless someone tells us. Groups that are involved with sustainable farming would be an example that comes to mind. Groups within the Colleges and University would also be likely candidates. What we need are ways to contact small groups off the main stream Peak Oil beat. A lot of people that read the Blogs listed here are aware of the issues and it is "Preaching to the Choir". We need to reach some new blood. Email me and I can either send you the releases or send me the address and I will send them.
: "rickooil@hotmail.com" or post a reply here.
I'm going to be sending the information to everyone on the Blogroll here on TOD so don't send me those links. Byron King at Whiskey and Gunpowder and the Daily Reckoning is more then willing to help, so that is in the works. I am contacting Jim Puplava at the Financial Sense Newshour and hope he will help get the word out. He has had audio interviews with all the biggies and constantly talks about Peak Oil.
I have several Press Releases available and will send them to anyone that request it.
Obviously people in the New England and North East are more likely to be able to come so if you live in these areas this message is especially for you.
I know some here think it is too late for the type of effort that ASPO-USA is making
( and you may be right) but when you have children and grand children you are motivated to try and do something. (Even though most of the kids think dads nuts)
BTW, If you know you are definitely going to go to the Conference, register now, the fees go up Sept. 9th.
Thanks in advance for your help,
Rick Block
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14678206/
I'm checking this out.
One important point that seems to be escaping the MSM's attention this morning is that the oil companies are talking about the discoveries (plural) along this trend having 3 Gb to 15 Gb in total recoverable reserves.
According to the WSJ article, Devon says that its four discoveries, including "Jack" have recoverable reserves of at least 300 million barrels each.
This is not a Prudhoe Bay discovery, this is a group of discoveries they estimate will produce between 3 Gb and 15 Gb.
To put the higher figure in perspective, the world uses--from nuclear + fossil fuel sources--the energy equivalent of 15 Gb of oil in less than three months.
src: offshoresource.com
existing deepwater pipeline system to
accommodate Lower Tertiary production,
while possible, no doubt would be expensive
and possibly could render the entire
project uneconomic.
As an ignorant, non-oil person, I wonder why would you have to extend the vulnerable pipe-line system into such deep waters. Couldn't you just have your wells link up to a platform and fill a tanker directly?
While probably not impossible, I doubt too many companies or insurance companies want to build that much infrastructure in the middle of the gulf. A big investment to be sunk in the first hurricane.
Gas production - well if its a small amount you can reinject to dispose, or agregate together with other fields to export. The Walker ridge is remote, but its the next frontier area and if a number of discoveries get off the ground at once new shared gas export infrastructure will probably be worthwhile.
One thing to note is that wells in this environment cost upwards of $100mill each - this will make developments v. expensive and therefore risky to get going.....we could see quite a few delays out there before anything happens.
Emergence of the Lower Tertiary Wilcox Trend in the Deepwater Gulf of Mexico
Look for Walker ridge + oil.This is really deep drilling. Technical challenges are huge.
The "news" is that they got a test well to flow at 6/kbd.
src: DevonAnd by the way - oil is NOT down today - it was down yesterday when our market was closed - today its up 70cents as of 1:03 EST
Generally speaking, you guys trading it must know something I don't because if the Ups & Downs are due to the reasons given in the financial press, it just looks like short-term group-think behavour to me... mostly gambling -- unless you're doing futures based on peak oil "insider knowledge" as you posted about.
As I type this, NPR is breathlessly announcing the deepwater Gulf of Mexico find... I can't wait for the details, maybe I'll learn something!
best -
I am a bit confused. This is Jack#2, so I assume this is second well completed and next year they will drill a third well. Am I wrong? I am just following press releases, so not real evidence.
Last year, they had a press release that they discover oil with 350 feet of pay dirt. How is that related to this?
Because it puts our vast energy consumption in perspective. If we found an entire new Saudi Arabia, it would increase our nuclear + fossil fuel production rate by less than 5%.
Other unconventional sources, such as the Alberta oil sands, should be treated similarly.
Because it puts our vast energy consumption in perspective. If we found an entire new Saudi Arabia, it would increase our nuclear + fossil fuel production rate by less than 5%. "
My 2 cents, but I agree with rwmcalister on this one. It's bad enough on an oil to oil comparison that bringing nuclear in makes you look like you're going out of your way to be alarmist and need to go out of your way to do it...which you unfortunately don't.
I agree with substrate. You sound like an alarmist that is fearmongering. If you are going to add nuclear stats you also do oil by itself. You are losing credibility even among the peak oil believers like myself.
In addition, electricity is now being used for transportation, and it will be used even more via the expansion of rail transportation and increased used of electric cars and plug-in hybrids.
Is natural gas used for transportation, heating and electrical generation?
Is oil used for transportation, heating and electrical generation?
Is coal used for transportation, heating and electrical generation?
Is nuclear used for transportation (via light rail), heating and electrical generation?
I'm been looking for a reason to cut back on TOD. Having to respond to crap like this is a damn good reason.
Hope you don't. There are a lot of us out here that ignore that crap in order to get the payoff of read posts from experts like yourself.
WTF. This thread is simply discussing if this "new" field is a decent sized find. If we ignore CO2 then Coal, nuclear, gas, and oil are pretty much fungible when it comes to producing electricity. Heck you can even mix in a little solar and wind in there too. What isn't fungible is the gasoline that powers our cars. We simply can't power a car off of nuclear power right now. Sure plug-in-hybrids will play a part but our battery technology is woefully inadequate. Because of this, oil will be our primary source of transportation for some time.
Since we aren't running out of coal anytime soon I simply don't see the need to play down a discovery of an non-fungible transportation resource by comparing it to fungible (i.e electricity producing) resources. If that electricity is being used for transportation it doesn't matter. We aren't running out of coal soon. So that argument is pointless unless you are talking about global warming.
And for some reason people are calling me the crazy one. WTF.
"We simply can't power a car off of nuclear power right now."
<<<
Nucleat power is powering my house right now at least in part. I go and plug in my electric lawn mower, ( I don't have one, but hey) then I can plug in my electric car ( I don't have one, but some folks do). So Nuclear is powering my car. Ergo Your statement above is false.
You must be new to the world of Peak Oil. WesTexas is not the first nor will he be the last to use ""ALL"" forms of energy compared to such finds. It is rather common in the heavily technical side of these comments. GET used to it.
WesTexas,
I know its been a rough day, but don't let the Language of others get to you. We all try to stay Calm and collected in the face of nay-sayers and even Out right Corn-y-copians, and even the Trolls. Please stay with us, don't take the above people to heart, set aside more time with family, do things you wanted to do with a bit more time, but don't give up on explaining the hard to explain. Even if at times some of us can be a bit hard headed and dim witted enough to argue with you over something. But don't listen to me or anyone else, Listen to your heart and go where you need to go and when you need to go.
Charles E. Owens Jr. , Dan Ur is a Charactor of a short story of mine, I used part of his title as an internet handle.
What? Ok, maybe that single sentence in isolation is technically false but when taken in context it isn't. The fact is the vast majority of the people in the US aren't going to drive electric cars anytime soon. Battery lifespan simply isn't there. Therefore oil isn't fungible with nuclear. My general statement still stands. My main point is still correct.
"WesTexas is not the first nor will he be the last to use ""ALL"" forms of energy compared to such finds. It is rather common in the heavily technical side of these comments. GET used to it."
Fine. He can do it. But when using that in the context of describing how this won't effect peak oil it seems pretty silly to me. The entire nuclear and coal industry simply isn't used to power cars. They also aren't running out anytime soon.
Look westexas, I'm hear to learn. I read Robert Rapiers blog, Realclimate, Oildrum and a few other science based blogs on a daily basis. I strongly believe these are the most important blogs on the planet right now. I honestly meant no harm to you. If you want to try to explain how my thinking is wrong I would greatly appreciate it.
can't edit to fix it to "here". :-p
Taking NG as the outflow of this "Potential" Find, we could easily without much ado, compare it to nuclear.
I still find it helpful to understand at least in some small way How much Total energy we do use in a give time period.
As for this being a great find.
Its good for selling Adverts, and pop-up ads and might even get the 401(k) folks a bit more of a nest egg, but it is just another drop in the total oil bucket.
Here we are going into over 3,000 psi water column and then getting to dirt. As Dave Cohen below here somewhere points out, This is a very new Oil and Gas mining depth in the ocean, The feat might not be able to be pulled off.
If this was a field in Arkansas or Alabama Yes then its a nice find. But not out in deep deep water where we have to jump so many hurdles just to begin to find oil.
We find the easy and big fields first, then we find the smaller and smaller and harder to find fields when we are running out of the stuff that makes things work.
We have eaten the Sandwich, Now still hungry we are picking crumbs up and licking the plate for drippings.
Scary indeed.
ps. use preview, read and correct.
This seems to contradict YOUR argument for "not talking nuclear".
Ignoring the whole energy big picture is a recipe for talking nonsense, this the preferred way of the trolls.
After you mastered that, then you moved onto stalking?
This seems to contradict YOUR argument for "not talking nuclear".
Ignoring the whole energy big picture is a recipe for talking nonsense, this the preferred way of the trolls.
What? I've talked about this subject with 3 people so far and they all agree with me. So I'm pretty sure I'm not delusional. So I take it westexas is some internet god? Fine. That still doesn't change the facts.
All I'm saying is if you are going to insist on compare this well to the entire fossil fuel and nuclear industry you should be a little consistent and include the entire fossil fuel and nuclear industry in the peak "oil" graphs. It seriously looks to me like you guys want to have it both ways by convoluting metrics.
And how much electricity comes from oil?
Find pretend X% of electricity has to be made from oil. Include that in the scale. But artificially pumping up the scale by including all forms of coal, nuclear, etc is just silly when talking about peak "oil".
If I have to 'pretend', then your argument is not correct.
It was your simple rule: "Cut spending 50% and plan on energy costs doubling" that gave me a way to bring up this topic with family and friends. Thank you for that. I know at least a dozen families that will weather this storm better because of your posting here.
DLTBGYD
Rick
Then I came across something cross posted at energybulletin by Jeffrey (westexas to you more recent arrivals) and was drawn back by the clarity in his postings (and by that I mean his talent for cutting through the superfluous focusing on "make-or-break" issues) and his obvious command of the material. If he decides that he's not up to as much of TOD as he has been, it will be TOD's loss.
He does have Graphoilogy blog however, where I hope he will continue to share his perpective with us.
Whatever you end up doing, Mr. Brown, thank you for everything you've contributed here.
My observations, exactly. His quotes have clarified many things for me. I hope he continues.
-best
Thanks for all your time.
Jeffrey, Don't you go anywhere. TOD is JUST coming into it's own and you deserve a good heap of the credit.
Keep puting out the good ANALYTICAL Info Westexas.
We're in Your corner.
JC
Saying it won't supply the world with oil for a very long time is possibly right but not the point - the world is supplied from a huge number of fields of which this might be one of the bigger ones.
Davidyson
As Jeffrey says below, in a Hubbert linearization or production curve (same thing, just an easy transform), this is merely an indiscernible bump (depending on the graph scale) in the long tail end of US production.
I see we need another "Guide for the Perplexed" here.
Certainly for any newbie coming to this site looking for guidance, the initial flurry of Expert-talking-to-Expert is confusing.
(I'm no expert myself and am only getting a rough idea of what is going on here. So count me among the perplexed.)
There are many expert's code words that need to be decoded for the PO newbie:
- Deep Water
- Tertiary Fields
- "Reserves" versus actual production flows in 2013
- Minor bump in over all scheme of things
As Dave Cohen points out above:Can you give us chapter and verse on that, Dave?
i don't know jack about meteorology, but won't GOM hurricanes intensify right over these guys heads?
-best,
Gulf oil discovery may be bigger than Alaska's Prudhoe Bay
Same field(s) as before, but growing by the minute.
Devon holds a 25 percent stake in the field.
On CNBC this morning, they were saying the field could produce as much as 400,000 barrels per day for 20 years. That comes out to 3 billion barrels, not 15. At any rate it should start to come on line, as they say, in 2013. That is causing oil prices to drop today.
(I know, that last word is spelled wrong. And my damn spell checker wont give me a hint.
oil from places that "don't like us very much".
Today the oil companies through MSM are touting a HUGE oil/nat gas discovery!!!!
Yeah right.
Anyone remember PEMEX/Mexican President Fox's anouncement of a HUGE oil discovery off the coast of Mexico (possibly as big as Canterell!) prior to the Mexican elections this past year?
more of the same
I remember the Fox announcement, and as soon as I saw the mainstream media screaming about this new "find," I knew it was baloney as well.
For me, all of the furor over nothing is actually raising alarm bells. It means that the PO situation is possibly much worse than any of us could imagine. Why else would TPTB hype the daylights out of a "discovery" that hasn't been completely proven yet, and even if so would take at least a decade to come on-line?
Something else is brewing here. Either the constant PO warnings have actually started to cause some alarm among the sheeple, and TPTB want to quiet things down -- or something major is in the works. What the latter would be I have no idea, but it won't be anything good, that's for sure.
I wonder when it will be time to break out the survival gear.
www.answers.com/topic/genius
Socio-emotional problems are more prevalent in geniuses with an IQ above 145. Asynchronous development is the primary cause of this. As most children do not share gifted children's interests, vocabulary, or desire to organize activities, the genius child may withdraw from society.
Some research shows that reasons other than maladjustment make companionship difficult to find for geniuses. As intelligence of a person increases, what they consider as their peers constitutes a shrinking number of people. For example, at an IQ of 135 only every hundredth person would be of equal or greater IQ. This number shrinks significantly as IQ goes up.
Doing easily what others find difficult is talent; doing what is impossible for talent is genius. - Henri Frederic Amiel
Being a Mensa member I take offense at this. I don't know what your problem is or what Mensa has ever done to you.
Mensa meeting are simply a social function, where people can meet and talk about stuff they may find it difficult to discuss with family or work colleagues.
like Samuri Sudoko level 5, Peak Oil, and whether the Ultra Deep Purple computer can beat the Intenational Chess champion this year. Also of course, alternate proofs of Fermant's last theorem. ---LOL.
But I am reminded of something I once saw in the Boston Globe: "There are several grammatical and typographical mistakes in this paper. They were intentional. Some people are always looking for other people's mistakes and we do try to please everyone.
I am glad that I was able to please Creole Genius by giving him some spelling errors to point out in order that his genius may shine for everyone by allowing him to criticize us dumb-asses who cannot spell very well.
Thanks Will for your suggestion below.
Ron Patterson
The following Darwinian malaprops betray his satanic agenda. They are from responses over the last three days. There are continual uses of the words 'damn' and 'hell' in his writing.
"The following It is just that I keep a large database and plot using Excel. Now if I could just figure out how to post those damn plots".
"Yes, it was a joke and that damn joke is wearing thin. So let's stop joking and stop labeling Gore as the inventor of the internet. We cannot possibly move on until this stupid shit stops"!
"Would that be the case if everyone turned to organic gardening and got fat and kept having kids? Then these kids cleared more land for more organic gardening, then their kids.....
Tell me Odograph, what the hell is a non-crash anyway"?
Don't personally care much for any label, like doomers, cornucopians (though the word "corn", because of ethanol, remains intriguing in there)
Generalizations are in general not things of beauty, or much positive use.
And I fail to see the doom in hearing the waterfall approaching when you're out on the river in your canoe.
Leanan: This is a troll. If you ignore him he will go back to Usenet.
I am a geologist from New Orleans. I never proposed a religious objective, only that Darwinian and Leanan find it necessary to strut their atheism in a peak oil message board. I do analyze statements by their content and language, which betray various underlying assumptions and predilections.
Best be mindful of your P's and Q's.
No thanks.
Kind of like two men who hold hands in public are "flaunting their homosexuality," while a man and a woman can practically make out in public and no one gives a rip.
Having said that, I can't for the life of me understand what he is upset about today.
Anyone else a militantly agnostic follower of oxymorons? You know, something like infinite growth?
But what say we deal with peak oil issues instead of labeling one's statements as "satanic". If my doomer arguments are flawed, point out the flaws. Simply labeling them as "satanic" or pointing out that I am an atheist is not an argument, it is merely name calling. And let's not turn this forum into a religious forum, let's deal with peak oil and the consequences of peak oil.
If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.
Elbert Hubbard, American journalist.
Ron Patterson
Damn, just when I was getting good at it. ;-)
I repeat: who you calling a doomer?
I think that an idiotic agenda of "expecting miracles" is far more damaging than an satanic agenda which at least remind us to exercise caution and foresight.
This is not for the feeble minded of course.
I do hope though it was slightly sarcastic.
Equivalent Though I also did not check with a spell check software.
I hate to make mistakes, but oh well they happen. I find them published books read by the mass market and wonder are there proof readers still reading books?
But this is hunks and chunks of personal opinion laced with factoids and Hard data and URL linkages and also a blog of sorts, Prefection ain't goin' happen and you'll just have to look over it, laugh little and cry a little.
Try to get over it though.
Ron, I know you can defend yourself, but it just got my ire up. Let's get back to Pounding the MSM instead of each other.
Sure!
L'orthographe est la science des ânes.
Alphonse Allais
Translation : Orthography is the science of the asses.
Also from Ambrose Bierce :
Orthography, n. The science of spelling by the eye instead of by the ear. Advocated with more heat than light by the outmates of every asylum for the insane.
Enjoy...
Reporter, n. A writer who guesses his way to the truth and dispels it with a tempest of words.
Darwinian... install Google's spellchecker to your browser. It works great on web forms and corrects just about all misses including: equalevant.
Select the appropriate version for your browser. The default will likely be the browser you are currently running, since the web page interrogates your browser specs. The toolbar is very useful, particularly the spell-checker. You may wish to disable the segment that tracks your browsing (under the excuse to warn you about spam-sites, etc).
Works on my Mac.
Add to all my Walker Ridge posts here:
Can I unofficially designate this as Ridicule Oil Traders Day?
Not all of them, of course...
Early this morning, CNBC had an analyst on from Platts who said that the discovery (ies) would not have a material impact on oil production and prices worldwide. The CNBC anchor almost had a primal scream response, "But it would increase US reserves by 50%!"
What this play, assuming that they can commercially develop it, illustrates is the widening gulf (interesting play on words) between the fortunes of the energy producers and the energy consumers. Energy sources that can be commercially developed are going to generate lots of cash flow for the owners of the energy sources.
Things are not going to be quite so rosy for the energy consumers. I think that is why the financial types on CNBS are constantly cheering for lower oil prices, because they instinctively realize--perhaps on an almost subconscious level--that Peak Oil spells doom for much of our economy as we know it.
CNBS - Cable Network BS? Looks like a Freudian slip to me. Probably right on the money, too!
correct me if I'm wrong (its early) but at a use rate of 20 million barrels a day, 15 billion barrels is only a 2 year supply for the country, assuming we could extract all of it. Is that correct? And if so, what's the big deal? That isn't that much oil...
The US consumes approx 7.5 billion barrels per year but it produces approx. 2.5 billion per year.
Ergo, this bubbling fresh new 15 billion will add a breathing space of seven years to US production (presuming that the rest of the world continues to oblige via its exports).
http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=391
Some of you guys read itulip.com and have wondered if Janszen knows about Peak Oil. Here is an article on his site that does have some PO awareness factored in.
Holy Crap...I hadn't realized the dead sea is evaporating!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2340495,00.html
http://www.azcentral.com/news/0903mccainchopper-CR.html
McCain is being shot at in Europe and it's not even mentioned here?
Lastly over at urbansurvival.com they've posted a link to a PDF file with the next 25 years in a FLOW CHART! It's sickly detailed.
http://www.urbansurvival.com/AbruptClimateChange2050.pdf
Peak Oil would fall under the natural resource shortages and energy independence.
Of course, I doubt seriously that 2/3rds of the people on this globe can die through famine, disease, war, etc. If things get that bad (and they would have to get really really bad for that to happen), it would probably be more like 95% of the people that disappear.
I have a question to ask Westexas, Khebab, and Stuart Staniford (or anybody else who is knowledgeable in this domain).
How do you factor in possible future discoveries (such as this recent GOM one, which is no longer future, but present) into your Hubbert linearization calculations? Do you already have `leeway' for surprise discoveries of this kind (in which case there would really be no `surprise' at all, since you sort of expected it to happen) or do you just acknowledge that the HL-based predictions for the US (228 billion cumulative according to Deffeyes in Beyond Oil, pages 36-37) are less accurate than you thought they were?
In other words, are these extra 5 to 30 billion barrels already part of that cumulative 228 billion barrels, or do you add them to the 228 billion?
The question partly turns on how you define "conventional." A lot of people don't define ultra deep water production as conventional. My personal definition of conventional is that it is oil that will move to a wellbore without having to add heat energy to the system and/or that you don't have to stripmine.
The best way to answer the question is that we are not going to see any region show a perfectly straight line down to where the plot intersects the horizontal axis (where P = zero), because a lot of these regions will virtually never stop producing.
Inevitably, what we will see is a long production "tail" which on a HL plot, will show up as the data plot asymptotically approaching the horizontal axis, without ever quite getting there.
As I pointed out above, what this fundamentally points out is the difference between the fortunes of the energy producers and the energy consumers.
If Matt Simmons is right about oil prices ($200 per barrel in 2010, in constant 2005 dollars), every one million barrel oil field that one finds (or redevelops with more advanced recovery techniques) onshore in the Lower 48 will generate cash flows of up to $150 million or so (depending on the royalty and operating costs). In many areas, a one million barrel field can be found in an area as small as 100 acres. If you string together seven small fields like this, you have a billion dollars in net cash flow.
The point is that neither these "leftover" Lower 48 fields nor these ultra deep offshore discoveries will do anything to change the fundamental reality of Peak Oil. Both may be profitable, but we are just working the "tail" at the end of the production rate versus time plot.
I thought the whole point of linearization was to plot a straight line that intercepts with the x-axis on a normal DIN A 4 page, not an asymptotic curve that goes on forever.
You are in fact inadvertently taking the whole stuffing out of the HL hypothesis. Why should a certain region in the US or elsewhere "virtually never stop producing" anyhow? Slovenia, at last reckoning (2003), was producing 11 barrels per day and will presumably throw in the towel when their production drops to 1 barrel per day or thereabouts. Whole regions and countries have discontinued oil extraction already.
Note that the whole point of HL is to predict cumulative production and 50% production rather than peak - you don't need to linearize for that!
As to the distinction between `conventional' and `non-conventional': there is such a grey area between the two that it becomes a distinction without a difference. As far as most analysts are concerned, if oil is technically and economically feasible to extract, then it is to all intents and purposes conventional.
Perhaps the best solution would be to offer a whole range of Hubbert curves and Hubbert Linearizations - one for conventional, one for conventional plus unconventional, one for the former plus CTL, etc. etc.
Now there is something to mull over!
I disagree.
The contribution from production at the "tail" for any mature province, while it can be profitable, is not going to materially affect total recoverable reserves (absent some kind of massive discovery, which is always possible, but not likely).
However, probably the best way to classify all of the ultra deep production worldwide is to lump it in with "other" in regard to world production.
As a percentage of estimated remaining recoverable conventional crude + condensate reserves (1,000 Gb), this play represents between 0.3% and 1.5% of that amount.
copelch, You are stepping into a sticky issue here, you don't even know the tenth of it! And the deeper you dig, the weirder it gets....it makes me think of a child digging in a yard with a spoon, who finally looked up dejected but smiling with discovery, he said, "you know what's under this dirt? Dirt!."
Light sweet, heavy oil, heavy sour, condensates, LPG, GTL, are now essentially interchangable....which means natural gas is essentially interchangable with crude oil. Recently, ExxonMobil claimed an increase in their reserve growth....what most people didn't pay attention to was that they were using a catagory called Reserves all petroleum, and the WHOLE increase was a natural gas field they had long had option on in Qatar....do we count tar sands in....if not, why not, and how about heavy oils...(by the way, the designation Light oil is a legal one for investment and communication purposes....if you mix in a small amount of heavy and move the viscosity a couple of points, light sweet becomes "heavy" but, guess what? It does exactly the same job it did before...and note that we are leaving out for this discussion bio fuels like ethanol and bio-Diesel....gee, this starts to get confusing don't it?
As the first talkie said, "you ain't seen nuthin' yet!"
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
We need HL experts to wade in here. A tail on the production graph I can see. That's part of the theorgy. But not a tail on an HL graph. That would be a very big deal, indeed
As I understand it, production could continue forever without any tail or asymptotic behaviour showing on an HL graph. Don't forget, the y axis isn't time in an HL plot!
Calling HL experts!!
Ah, Geez. I misread my own blockquote of Westexas!!! Good heavens. Time for bed. Disregard the post. Time for bed. :-)
The way the curve of cumulated discoveries is done, you have to add a very large field (more than twice the Ghawar field) to produce a difference to the Qtt. It's simply a matter of percentage of new discoveries vs Qtt already calculated.
I also think that in the Qtt there is a part named yet to be discovered, but I'm not sure.
If we take the 2 000 billion barrel Qtt, which we have around half already produced, if we add 100 billion barrel, it only amount to 5% increase in Qtt, which is not a very large increase.
On the other hand, say we are very lucky and we could find another 1 000 billion barrel, we are still encountering the same problems. Those field would be located on places where actual oil infrastructure is not present because it would be discovered farther from actual production provinces in the world. This is because exploration companies tend to search near older field first, in order to leverage the existing infrastructure.
Also this increase in Qtt would be swallowed pretty quickly by the exponential growth in overall energy consumption in the world. Every new decade since we first started use oil, we have consumed more oil than all what was previously used.
For example :
In the 80's (1980-1989) we used more oil than all preceding years (1850-1979).
Because of exponential growth, the effect of a new 1 000 billion barrel would only get us 6 more years after the 2010 peak year.
Albert Bartlett did a very good (and kind of funny) presentation on the effect of exponential growth, you can find it in the Global Public Media web page.
Thanks for the Bartlett link - brilliant.
You write:
I also think that in the Qtt there is a part named yet to be discovered, but I'm not sure.
The reason you are unsure is that it depends very much on which peak oil expert you read. As far as I can tell, for example, Deffeyes virtually excludes everything apart from 'proven reserves' -- which leads to an overly conservative estimate of 2000 Gb cumulative.
OTOH, Campbell/ASPO puts total cumulative (i.e. URR) at 2450 Gb, of which 1043 Gb used and 1407 Gb left over (i.e. reserves), and with a breakdown by conventional and non-conventional of 1900 Gb and 550 Gb respectively [ASPO Newsletter July 2006].
This seems far more realistic -- at any rate you can at least factor in the new GOM discovery without gulping and fretting and sweating as to how to how to fit it in with the Hubbert method, or having resort to word play.
You forgot one very important piece of context:
"When consumption grows 7%/yr the consumption in any decade is approximately equal to the sum of all previous consumption"
Since consumption is not growing at 7% per year -- and hasn't come close in decades -- that graphic and the conclusions drawn from it do not apply to real world oil consumption. The numbers were just made up to illustrate a point - that's all.
As a point of fact, the EIA data reveals that the amount of oil consumed in the 90's was less than the amount consumed in the preceeding 12 years, and similarly the amount consumed in the 80's was less than the amount consumed from 1968-1979. It's still exponential growth, of course, but it's simply false to say oil consumption doubled every decade.
Obviously not. Wait, you're not trying to tell me that global oil consumption is going down because ... it's still exponential growth, of course.... No shit. According to the EIA supply numbers, 30.8 billion barrels produced and consumed last year, about 84.5 million barrels used up today... Everybody's got a plan to increase that obscene number... Grow, Grow, Grow!
What's your point? Outside Al Bartlett's academic example, you gotta' point?
What, me worry?
How do you get "going down" from "not 7% annual growth"? That's suspiciously close to the False Dilemma Fallacy.
I'm making a very simple point, that the original claim:
is factually incorrect, and that the reason for the error is that the graphic used to derive that conclusion is based on an assumption:
that is totally unrelated to historical oil consumption data.
Is that clear now, or would you like to make foolish non sequiturs for a while longer?
Say we have an increase in consumption of 7% a year, each year to evaluate the number of years it need for the consumption to double, you divide 70 by the %.
So we have 70/7 = 10 period (here they are years). I dont know much of the math at the back of this, but it's a matter of natural logarithm or something like that. Just remember the working part 70/x% = number of period.
Then using this very simple and straitforward formulae, we get a doubling of consumption every 10 years. In those cumulated 10 years, we consume more than previous years.
Other parable used to describe this natural phenomenon are :
The algae in a lake, starting with one sample, doubling each day. The lake is filled after 30 days. When did the lake was only half empty?
Or this one (from the Bartlett speach):
There is one yeast cell in a bottle, doubling each minute. The bottle is filled after 1h. At which minute the bottle was only half empty? How long would the yeast grow if 3 new bottles are found and the yeast could go on growing in these brand new bottles? Notice that those 3 new bottles are 3 times bigger than the first one.
Transpose those little story to oil (regardless of where, when, how much, how we are gonna get it) and say we start with a full bottle (2 000 billion barrels). How much longer can we go on with current increase in consumption if we find 3 new bottles (6 000 billion barrels)?
I will reply in a moment (I have some planning work to do for a biodiesel from algae pilot project)
1- US oil consumption will be around 22.5 mbpd (2.5 mbpd higher than today)
2- US production should be around 4 mbpd
So, this new discovery will just make the Hubbert curve tail a little bit thicker and will lower the depletion rate. Note that consumption is supposed to increase by 17.5% by 2015.
src: GraphOilogy
Pretty generous there, Sam.... Good, we should always use the most optimistic analysis to show that it doesn't change a thing. Does everyone see that teeny weeny little bump at about 2013 in the graph?
Pretty generous there, Sam.... Good, we should always use the most optimistic analysis to show that it doesn't change a thing. Does everyone see that teeny weeny little bump at about 2013 in the graph?
This blog post is from Monday, February 27, 2006. What exactly are you trying to say with that teeny weeny little bump comment?
http://graphoilogy.blogspot.com/2006_02_01_graphoilogy_archive.html#Fig3
So that "teeny weeny little bump" doesn't appear to be included in this graph.
As you can see, you better be careful with your teeny snide remarks about weeny little petit bumps that you think you can just arbitrarily send us way up here in la belle province, Quebec.
'Cause you know, buddy, we got protection.
Double.
You watch it now, you hear?
Man, I'm still laughing.
Seriously though, I saw a chart a few weeks back showing how US imports took off following US peak production - was that one of yours - I can't find it? Do you happen to have a version of this going from say 1950 to 2010, that shows the pre-peak pattern more clearly? Thanks anyway for posting this. I need to make one of these for the UK.
Remember, Hubbert linearization works for individual regions and areas. Hubberts curve took a jog upwards in the late 1970s when Alaskan production came online. In reality the United States 'owns' many disparate geological regions - the further out the continental shelf we go, this increasingly becomes a new region. In a perfect world, we would linearize all the different areas that comprise the legal boundaries of the United States. Perhaps just linearizing the GOM separate from onshore Texas and Louisiana would produce different results?
Re: a jog upwards in the late 1970s when Alaskan production came online
US production with linearization below it, includes Alaska.
Can you spot Alaska?
How about here? -- Starts in 1958
Ships that pass in the night .... though I think the Alaska penny has dropped (thanks, honest) and I get what you are driving at (I think).
Yet here's what Comrade Deffeyes has to say about that chart on page 36 of 'Beyond Oil':
[my italics]
My question is a very simple one: how do you fit the alleged discovery of 15-30 Gb in the GOM into that prediction?
There are only three possible discrete answers:
- most of the significant oilfields (the king, the queens, etc.) have been discovered and their productions have started
- production profiles from individual fields are overlapping significantly (i.e. the distribution of the production starting dates is relatively tight and its spread is small compared to an oilfield lifetime).
- production is unconstrained (i.e. you produce as much as you can, no quotas).
These conditions are maybe necessary (but not sufficient) to get an unimodal total production profile for the region which can ensure that the HL result is reliable enough. I think your option number 2 is probably correct. The HL success may also depend also on whether or not the biggest oil fields are produced first.First, I don't have to. That was said by Comrade Duffeyes, not me. This is not a cult.
Second, you're inflating the numbers; the range given is 3 to 15 Gb. Who knows what is really recoverable given the logistical difficulties. Sure, it's an example of technology perhaps allowing the exploitation of previously untouchable reserves. It's still just a blip on the tail end of production. P50 = 9 Gb URR = an additional 4% of 228 Gb = 235 Gb. Hubbert analyses are models, not laws. And who cares? The new supply would only make up for declining GOM production in the best case. It's still not clear these reserves will ever be produced. A pipeline needs to be built. I've decided you are worth saving.
-- Dave
Thank you for your replies. TOD is certainly not a cult -- anything but. That is one of the reasons why it is probably the most successful of the 1000 peak oil websites around.
My real concern is that, once again, peak oil analysts may be basing their predictions on overly conservative URR estimates. 15 Gb may be a blip, but what if that blip occurs a few times over? Four or five blips and you've got a blurp...
... and the cornucopians will be given yet another opportunity to distract public attention from the insanity of exponential growth as they holler the old platitude that it's deja vu all over again, again and again.
And now the lights are going out all over Central Europe, so goodnight and buona noche to you guys!
How did you get a P50 of 9 Gb Dave - was that 3+15 div by 2? What we have on the ground (or at least 27000 ft below it) is a single well test producing 6000 bpd.
A quick back of the envelope calculation shows that you need about 410 wells (each 27000ft long) running at 6000 bpd for 10 years to produce 9Gbs. 10 monster rigs.
Assuming everything goes right, how long would it take to drill each well?
Garth
It was a test well flowing at 6/kbd. If E&P tests out, if a pipeline is built, if ... if ... if ... there would only be a limited number of wells out at that depth. Sam (Khebab) gave a generous 400/kbd estimate -- which wouldn't start at 2013, by the way. That's just when the first production would come onstream. It would take years after that to get to anywhere close to Sam's estimate -- which seems quite optimistic in any case. What about delays? Nobody has ever done full scale production at these depths. Somebody mentioned deepwater drill risers that were 7000 feet long. It's all about production flows versus reserves accounting.
And to top it all off, all of this may never happen. The economics may not be there aside from the technology questions or pipeline. Shaw ("are humans smarter than yeast") mentioned Huge Bladders. That seems about right to me.
- Exploration wells in a new province, and early appraisal wells, are drilled ultra-cautiously because you don't know what pressure regime you're drilling into. This means frequent casing runs and hole size reductions on the way down. So you end up producing through a drinking straw. One of the major engineering efforts towards a major field development program (tens of man-years) is an optimized development well design (and corresponding rig design) that assures drilling safety (no blowouts!) but gives a useable hole size (at least 9") in the reservoir, and correspondingly high flowrates.
- Ditto high mudweight => formation damage => well skin => low flowrates in appraisal wells.
- The development wells will probably have a complex engineered "completion", i.e. interface between the well and reservoir - things like artificial fractures, gravel packs or even lateral branches. You don't mess around constructing these things in an appraisal well, especially in small hole sizes. SO, higher flowrates again in development wells.
Bottom line - you might get 20Mb/d plus out of development wells in this reservoir. You wouldn't get out of bed for less than that in this province. I believe some operators don't even bother testing discovery or even appraisal wells - the well designs are just so different that the information isn't very useful. Sure gives you a nice warm fuzzy feeling though (and impresses the amateurs on Fox and CNBC)."My guess is that the remaining discoveries will look more like change for a hundred-dollar bill: one twenty, two tens, two fives..."
expect to see stories in the MSM between now
and election day in November designed to soothe
the populace into continuing the status quo
at the ballot box.
Davidyson
The fact is, this announcement had absolutely nothing to do with the government, it was made by Chevron, Devon Energy and Statoil of Norway, the three oil companies who are partners in this adventure.
Ron Patterson
I'm on you side of the fence so to speak on this one.
Deparately looking for someone to bash?
I read your post defending this field as real big. I suppose it's relative as are many things, but in the bigger picture I really don't see this doing anything in the near term and the more I've read, this is going to be NG mostly anyway. That's good since we've been at the edge a NG crash anyway.
I just meant "big" in the relative sense. I do understand that not the size is important for peak oil, but the flow rate.
Cheers,
Davidyson
today announced a major find of oil and gas in
the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. They expect
to prove up from 3 to 15 billion barrels of oil
equivalent in the prolific Pre-Election formation.
It is hoped this discovery will not prove to be
similar to the previously announced major Pemex
deepwater discovery which was believed to be bottomed in the
Pre-Election formation but proved to be in the
Post-Election formation which yielded little hydrocarbons
but tremendous quantities of hot air.
Due to massive reserves of hot air already located in Washington and Mexico City, the
discovery was of little significance.
LOL! That is terrific--Best Political Humor Post in a long time, IMO.
I am shocked, shocked Messiuer that there is "manipulation" going on in this bannana-democracy establishment.
we'll always have Paris :-0
Great picture.
- sgage
Rick: My health. I came to Casablanca for the waters.
Renault: The waters? What waters? We're in the desert.
Rick: I was misinformed.
Go ahead Sam, play it..."
- sgage (with 'Time Goes By' playing in his head)
Don't screw us up by pointing out reality here, Rick was misinformed, OK?
Sam is at the electronic piano board playing a crowd favorite: As Hubbert's Curve Unfolds Again (aka We'll Always Have Spindletop). Play it till they get it Sam.
It ain't true! It's one of 'em whatshammacallits in the desert, them fatal inguanas.
You just it back for a bit and have a cold one. Proven recipe.
Domestically or Internationally?
Domestic:
Warning: 100% (Gotta keep the masses on their toes)
Attack: 50%
Internationally:
Warning: 75%
Attack: 100% (if you count all acts of terror toward any US friendly nations
this would include Israel)
Personally, I am most interested in what happens in Saudi Arabia and Russia.
In the case of SA, if they truly are in steep decline and are unable to meet their commitments, one could easily imagine a "terror event" to one of their (non-pruducing) pipelines, pumping stations, rigs or perhaps a port terminal. This would allow them to save face by saying, "We could produce more except for (insert event)".
As for Russia, I don't trust their numbers (BPD) reported. If they can't meet their commitments (especially to Europe this winter) some similar "event" may manifest itself providing them with an excuse for reduced capacity.
But then again, winter is after the midterm elections in the U.S.
99.9%, plus or minus 0.1%
Forget that. I'll go out on a limb and say 100% :-)
- sgage
I said this the other day in another thread, but nobody picked up on it there. Here is a good place to repeat it.
What if the Pakistanis were not meant to find out about the planned airplane attacks that were 'thwarted' by British security.
The Brits (and the US) have already said that they knew something was 'going down', but just did not know when. But it was the Pakistani whistle-blowing (and arrest of a key player) that stopped evrything dead in it's tracks.
If the Pakistani authorities had not stumbled across the imminent plot, then today we would be in the aftermath of a horrific attack on the US.
That kind of attack can go a long way to spurring the kind of response that would include an attack on Iran. As well as raising the President's (and the Republicans) popularity to boot.
shakes head I don't know...one wonders if this could turn out like that supposedly gigantic find Pemex announced earlier this year (before THEIR election) that kind of turned out to be a bust.
The retractions will be whispered, after dark.
(No wonder I'm a survivalist.)
`Mortgage moms' may star in midterm vote
OFHEO's house price index shows the largest quarter-to-quarter fall off in home price increases in three decades of record keeping
CNN had a couple of stories about this last night, too. One was about how 40% of mortgages now are ARM or other "exotic" mortgages, and how rising rates are causing record mortgage defaults. The other was about people who are living in shipping containers. You know, the ones that bring Wal-Mart gewgaws over from China.
I couldn't help looking it up when the worst MSA in the nation is mine.
This chart caught my eye:
That downslope at the end is no fun. Particularly when you realize that it's likely to get much worse. I suppose that means we can add peak housing prices to the list. Of course, where I'm at, apparently we're over the curve already.
If there is going to be something unpleasant in the housing market, it will be something much worse than what we've seen to date, which on the whole has been a shift to much slower rising prices--not declines.
I know this is another frustrating example of "contrarian" triple-think, BUT when everyone thinks there is a bubble, there probably isn't one.
Check out this one.
Eight Market Spins About Housing by Perma-Bull Spin-Doctors...And the Reality of the Coming Ugliest Housing Bust Ever....
http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/roubini/143257/
If nothing else read #7.
We're Toast.
JC
I just hope to get out of college next year and into something where I can use my econ/finance background at a company producing things we need Made in America or at least no JIT. <sarcasm>Palatine IL has Weber and we'll still need to grill our spam right?</sarcasm>
I followed the link to Energy Bulletin and Hopkins' piece on the survivalist ethic. Seems a sensible approach. I read with interest the Nowak piece (EB, 8/31) and thought it to be heavily veiled satire, but I could be wrong. I think the way to go is relocalization, with heavy investment in electric/rail/bus public transit, beginning as urban and interurban, and ultimately regional and national. "ELP" has been suggested on this blog a number of times -- go for it.
Cheers,
-- Mort.
The question is made rather more complex as many people are predicting a big fall in the dollar due to America's twin deficits (trade deficit and federal budget deficit). The Pound may remain on par with the Dollar if they both fall, but that doesn't mean much if the price of oil skyrockets in Dollar terms, or if the UK imports tons of stuff from places that don't used either the Dollar or the Pound as currency.
I haven't been reading the comments religiously lately, nor have I really been to TOD in a couple of months, but has anyone heard about the Steorn people?
I think there is no doubt that the Jack discovery is great news. Especially for Devon Energy (+12% today), Statoil (+1% today) and Chevron (+3% today). Note the muted response on the Oslo Bourse - which will I imagine (hope) be rectified tomorrow. There has been a dearth of good exploration news and this may just remind folks of one reason for investing in oil stocks.
6000 bpd - nice to have on shore - but in 7000 ft of water at TVD of 27,000 ft - this is extreme - not to mention Hurricanes.
BG Group (UK) announced last week a 100 - 275 million bbl (reserves) discovery in the North Sea - this was the biggest N Sea discovery for some years and made news headlines over here. So as I said, this Jack discovery is great news and the industry needs this sort of thing to keep going. Just imagine risers 7000 ft long!
I am no engineer or financial expert, but it might be more cost-effective and safer, in all aspects, to robotically harvest at this great depth going forward. Imagine huge bladders being filled on the seafloor which would then float up to the surface to either be transferred to a VLCC, or towed by tugboat to a refinery. This method would eliminate hurricane worries and the huge cost of extending a pipeline out to these wells. Another answer might be VLCC submarines, but my bladder idea seems cheaper and safer.
On the Global Warming side & exponential climate change: has everyone read this link I posted late yesterday? This is especially worrisome to me when one considers our growing food shortages.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
That's not a accidental freak thing, it's just that all exponential curves look innocent at the beginning.
Thxs for responding with good points. Obviously, these rising bad exponentials interact with each other to become even worse or create new exponentials with additional follow-on deleterious effects. The good thing is, thxs to Bartlett's exponential growth presentation and Dieoff.com, is that most TODers are aware of expo-growth and even faster expo-decline.
We need some kind of MSM breakthrough or massive education program to alert the ignorant masses, especially of the destructive exponentials. If I could only convince Google to put that I feel unlucky button on their search homepage, and get everyone to shout out Peakoil when their glass reaches half-empty--then I would be much more optimistic for optimizing the coming Dieoff Bottleneck!
For example: consider the years required to grow a XMAS tree [low exponential] versus how quickly it burns after the homeowner has post-holiday discarded the dried-out tree. Roughly, ten years of growth gone in thirty seconds or less. Now consider the 400 million years to make gasoline which burns in less than a millisecond in a internal combustion engine. That is incredibly rapid exponential feedback provided courtesy of Detritus Entropy!
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
What exactly would that accomplish? We are well into overshoot. Whether the world knows about it, won't change the outcome and at worse it will hasten it.
>shout out Peakoil when their glass reaches half-empty--then I would be much more optimistic for optimizing the coming Dieoff Bottleneck!
Look at all of the current boondangle of alterative energy projects today. Mass knowledge of PO will only accelerate the world towards the cliff as every dick, tom, and jane goes out and tries build some techno-solution with a negative EROI. For instance Congress will mandate 10s to 100s of billions in shale, biofuels, or whatever the MSM has touted as "the solution". They'll enact spending get fed dollars back into their states that help them get re-elected. They don't even care if it works, just as long as they get re-elected.
In addition, the worlds leading exporter will cut off the imports to the west in order preseve their precious reserves for there own domestic consumption. This will almost certainly lead to miltary conflict. You cannot just look at PO from just an energy propective. One must also consider the geopolitical ramifications too.
Did you get a chance to check out that PDF over at urbansurvival.com I posted above? I was curious what your reaction and comments might be. It's a flow chart diagramming the constraints we face heading into the next 40 years. Quite detailed, albeit a bit disorganized in some ways.
Sorry for my late reply. Yes, the flowchart is a good effort at visualizing future potentialities, but instead of starting off with abrupt climate change[ACC] --I think they should have started off with Peakoil AND incorporated ACC progressively into the flowchart-- my hunch is that the Hubbert Downslope will be more serious sooner than ACC. But ACC is obviously the bigger long-term threat.
By initially focusing on energy and the Liebig's Constraints that will necessarily arise from detritus depletion: the collapse of global shared carrying-capacity can be roughly flowcharted and broken down into geographic energetic-distance-limits [logistics]. The resultant outbreaks of political upheaval, infrastructure shrinkage, systemic vulnerabilities, radical simplification of organizational complexity, etc, can then be intermixed and extrapolated further with ACC's growing desertification, species extinction and migration, weather effects, etc.
To my way of thinking, this would be a much more predictive flowchart, but if I had unlimited funds and access to a supercomputing supercluster--I could really make a comprehensive model with hundreds of logical branches and loops, thousands of constants, tens of thousands of variables: then run a zillion iterations to refine it.
Ideally, it could include Westexas's Export Depletion Theory, Duncan's Olduvai Gorge Theory, monetary theories, and a bunch of other concepts that I can imagine to gauging human reaction to stress along the lines of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. In short: Foundation.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
The problem of food to fuel combined with global warming I think is a very serious threat.
Thxs for pointing out these engineering difficulties--helps show the myriad ways the offshore ERoEI will be much lower than onshore recovery methods. Makes one wonder at what point does deepwater ERoEI = Canadian oilsands ERoEI? I certainly hope they are required to case the wellbore so that they won't have an oceanic environmental disaster like the recent toxic mega-mud surface ejection in Java. BTW, does anyone know if this Java event has been shutoff yet?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
As far as off shore developments are concerned there was a major shift from gigantic gravity structures that sit on the sea floor to floating systems and this I imagine will have reduced the energy expenditure embedded in infrastructure. However, I believe floating systems rely on GPS to keep the structures on station - so the enrgy cost of mainting a satellite system would need to be included.
In terms of energy expenditure you just need to think about the amount of steel and cement needed to case a well 27000+ ft long - an onshore well may be an open hole completion (no casing) about 2 to 5000 ft long.
Your idea of unmanned ocean floor production facilities is in fact not as daft as it might sound. It wouldn't surprise me if companies develop un-manned sea floor process facilities that perform first stage separation of oil - gas - water. I'm not sure, but this may be done already in some places. If you do this then you just need 3 risers - one for oil, one for gas and one for water (which would then be re-injected). If you don't do this you need a riser for each production well - and there may be 20 to 30 of these on giant platform.
Another cost / energy saving solution deployed by Shell in the North Sea has been to do virtually no liquids processing off shore in their Goldeneye Field. Produced liquids are piped straight to shore using what is called multi-phase flow. What you end up with is gas and great big slugs of liquid in the pipeline - and this provides an engineering challenge.
These are the Ormen Lange and Snow White (Norwegian: "Snøhvit") gas fields.
The development concept is called subsea to shore.
The challenge of the multiphase flow pipelines, is the formation of natural gas hydrates. This will be solved by injecting antifreeze into the pipeline.
The other major technical challenge is subsea multiphase compressors. These will be required at both the Snow White and Ormen Lange fields. The problem lies in dealing with heat dissipation in such high pressures. Also, the components must be robust enough to last for 30 years, which is especially difficult for a power supply which is HVDC.
Subsea separation is being done today in conjunction with the Troll field in the North Sea: http://www.hydro.com/en/our_business/oil_energy/production/oil_gas_norway/troll_pilot_expectations.h tml
This is at 340m depth.
Unfortunately, I don't think oil production can be done by subsea to shore because oil can't be safely transported in the multiphase pipelines. Not sure about this though.
That would have to be one hell of a submarine to go down to 7000 feet below sea level and load up on 2 million barrels of oil.
Submerging the oil platform would be no small task either.
Thinking about these things really gives you some idea of the complexity in getting oil from deep water.
Checking online, pressure at 5,000 feet below sea level, in salt water, would exert 2,182 lb of pressure on every square inch of the hull. That is a hell of a lot of pressure.
US Navy subs can dive "deeper" then 800 feet. The real depth is classified. I'm guessing a few 1000 feet max. How you could build a sub the size of a VLCC that wouldn't buckle at even modest depths is beyond me. Never mind one that could go to 7000.
A pipeline seems more realistic.
You will see that with everything you have a cost. If the price of Oil stays high enough you should be able to get some of the oil out, but if the price goes down enough to please people, getting this oil out won't happen.
As the roller coaster ride begins, getting off or on is totally impossible in most cases.
Dan,
I wasn't trying to imply we couldn't take a small manned sub to that depth. As you noted for 10-25 million we can do that today, and certainly they can be used to do a lot of work on the sea floor.
Creating a submersible VLCC however is an entirely different matter.
The saying goes that you can never truly buy beer, but only temporarily rent it-- greatest all-time tragedy I can comprehend.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Unless you believe in global warming.
BEGIN
Alberta's Princely Sway Over Gas Imports
UBS Investment Research
A RAMP UP IN CANADA'S gas-intensive oil-sands industry, specifically in the province of Alberta, has significant implications for U.S. gas imports.
A study by the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) titled, "Spreading the Wealth Around: The Economic Impact of Alberta's Oil Sands Industry," estimates that the amount of natural gas required by the province to tap into its oil reserves over the next 15 years would be 17.3 trillion cubic feet, close to half of the 39.4 trillion cubic feet of established reserves in Alberta.
Consequently, as Canada's oil-sands industry shifts into higher gears, imports to the U.S. should continue to experience a marked decline.
The Energy Information Agency (EIA), which is projecting a 1.9% annual growth rate in Canadian domestic gas consumption, predicts that by 2010 Canada's falling exports will be overtaken by LNG (liquefied natural gas) as the main source of U.S. gas imports. Put into perspective, as recently as 2003 Canada supplied almost 90% of U.S. net natural-gas imports.
END
I know some readers follow natural gas pretty closely, so I thought this would be worth posting.
I just finished an article for a magazine about Canada's plans to build LNG terminals, one of which will be eerily close to a town on the St. Lawrence river. The people there are wondering why a country that exports natural gas has to build these floating bomb installations.
The answer, of course, is NAFTA. That and the fierce resistance in the US against similar installations. Dave Cohen has written on natural gas and oil sands here, and asked the question: where will they get it? Somehow another question, with two meanings, seems appropriate: when will they get it?
One more twist: much of the LNG for the new Canadian teminals will come from Russia (Gazprom). A percentage equal to NAFTA obligations will have to be delivered to the US. At present that is over 60%. However, if Russia would close the tap suddenly, Canada's obligation quota to the US stands, not as a percentage, but as an absolute.
That means that there is a theoretical (?!) chance that Canada has to sell more than it has, let alone have any gas left for itself.
Of the oil produced with the increasing volumes of natural gas, in the oil sands, 65% has, under NAFTA, to be sold to the US.
Sometimes I think it's maybe a good thing Canadians are so completely unaware of what goes on. There's crazy, and then there's utterly ridiculous.
My guess is that we will abrogate in about ten years, once the shrtages really start to bite and the domestic political liabilities of staying in finally outweigh the international liabilities of pulling out.
Sarcastic post ahead!
Does NAFTA have a reverse energy-sharing provision? Since the combined exhaustive effort of the US MSM and politicians worked very hard to find this mind boggling, super-huge undersea reservoir-- does the US have to export a required % to Canada? My guess is that American Cornucopians will not want to share this bounty postPeak.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
With the current government, I think they would prefer generate NG from thin air than say no to their best buddies.
I get the picture of our Premier talking to Bush over the phone :
"Well you know George, we are trying our best here. But as you can see, half of Albertians are freezing even if they have money to pay for the gas. I know we are using a lot for processing the Tar sanz and what's left is sent to you, but could you spare some cubic feet a year so we could keep at least the Parliament of Alberta heated? "
Bush :
"I'll have to ask someone to form a comitee that will decide who's gonna be part of a solution finding comitee that will work together on a joint US-Canada negociation team to see where Canadian could save yet more nat gas so they could pay less for energy and go see the Holliwood movies more. This would increase the available nat gas for making the ethanol we all need badly here to run our carz."
Harper :
"Speaking of carz, would it be too far fetched if you could find a way to keep our carz industry running in Ontario with just a trickle of nat gas? Do you think you could spare some coal from your big reserves? Pretty please?"
Bush :
"Well, that was the reason I called today in the first place. I have talked with Ford, Chrysler and GM and they told me that the only solution they had to solve the slump in car sales, the payment of US worker health benefits and retirement plan is to close all plants in Canada. They told me that the fellow Canadians are all turning into MPV or BPE (Moose Powered Vehicle and Beaver oil Powered Engine)so it would only be of small consequence to your people. And think of all the gasoline your citizens will save for not having to drive to work! It will be amazing and help you reach that damn Kyoto agreement and win those frogging Quebecers vote. I have it all stetled for you already."
Harper :
"I understand, but do you think..." cutted by Bush saying :
"I'm glad you understand the issue so well. Just do you usual media appearance and wait for my new instructions for the next month, it will be sent to you by fax or telegraph wichever new tecnology you have up there. Have a good day"
Harper to the rest of Ministry caucus :
"Well, I just had great news from our neighbourghs : they will not invade us and we have found a way to reach the goals of the Kyoto agreement"
North America - The Energy Picture
The NEB monitors supply (provided by the provinces) and demand of oil and NatGas to ensure quantities exported does not exceed surplus remaining after Canadian requirements have been met.
http://eet.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=192501585
I know of a number of stations in Burnsville, NC that this has happened to.
------------------
If those 15 - 20,000 homes were twice as energy efficient it'd be 30 - 40,000 homes that those wind turbines would power. I wonder if that'd be a better tradeoff for him. Of course, if they found coal in those picturesque mountains...they'd just pop the top off them, dump them into the valley, and pluck the coal out. Complete destruction known as mountain top removal...PRETTY!
Not in Vermont, they wouldn't. I hadn't realized how protective they were of their ridgelines.
Oh, yes we do. The "good" neighborhoods these days have underground cables. No ugly poles and overhead wires. At considerably higher expense, of course.
Though my impression, with this Vermont thing, is that a big part of their objection is that the power will be sent to the big cities...leaving them with the cost but not the benefits. I have a feeling this is going to be more and more of an issue. Like that region in Bangladesh that is demanding that they get to use the power generated in the area first, rather than have it rationed over the whole nation.
Yes. We have that problem here in Maine, where FPL owns the dams on a number of rivers and refuses to accomodate the wildlife. Exporting power and profit from the state, chopping up our resources. This is same issue as Canada getting out of NAFTA. Local communities run up against GATS and WTO if they try to stop it. The states, however, still have the authority to kick corpos like FPL out. Revoke their charters, force them to sell to locals. That of course requires citizens not consumers, etc.... People say it's against the law to stop it, can't do anything about it. Baloney.
cfm in Gray, ME
Personally, I love the looks of modern turbines. When my wife and I visit her family, we get to see the 12-turbine wind farm near Wilkes-Barre, PA (which will supposedly be expanded). Areas like W-B are perfect for wind power--lots of sizable mountain ridges surrounding small to mid-size cities.
They do get pretty ugly as they age, though. They stop looking like modern sculpture, and start looking like rusting hulks.
Though perhaps some people like them better that way. I know in "scenic" or "historic" areas, they sometimes use rusted light poles, guardrail, bridgerail, etc. This is supposed to look more "rustic," and blend in better than steel or aluminum. Personally, I think it looks hideous. Like a junk yard. But that's just me.
heh... not so much "dissapear" as in Romulan cloaking technology :) but to not be so damned obvious.
In order to get around some of the laws here, there are a number of cell phone towers that look like giant religious crosses and I recall that a couple of years back there was a cell phone company that wanted to get service into some of the national parks and they proposed to make their towers look like trees. I'd bet though, that with a little terrain matching matte finish paint, the "You want to put giant shiny twirly things on my pretty hill?!" could possibly be replaced in a number of instances with "eeehhhhhh...ok"
25 Percent of Russians Have Sex While Driving
There's a picture, too.Just a humorous change of pace? Or maybe, as someone said once, it's just a Senior Contributor Moment.
That photo is Hilarious in a tragic way! The Thermo-Gene Collision distilled down to the very basic two ways of removing people from the Gene-Pool. LOL!
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Nothing on Peak Oil in there yet though. Only then will we know we have hit the mainstream.
Please mentally visualize the following:
The nearest gas-station to my house has been closed for some time with weeds sprouting up through the pavement, peeling paint, broken windows, wind-blown trash piling up, gas-pumps long gone, broken liquor bottles, etc-- a depressing, melancholy scene to us Peakoilers-- all surrounded by a high chain-link fence.
What is now most ironic about this sad tableau is that the chain-link fence is now covered with politicians' election posters basically proclaiming, "Vote for me to get your Cornucopian Horn of Plenty".
Perhaps some other TODer with a digital camera can upload a neighborhood photo similar to the scene I just described.
Sad. =(
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Thxs for responding. The above abandoned gas-station is on a busy intersection in Phx--thousands of vehicles pass it everyday--I constantly wrack my brains trying to conceive of some method to get all these vehicular occupants to truly realize what is 'going down'. If I could, then this would rapidly become the main "must-see" Peakoil display in the Valley of the Sun.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
A gas station destroyed by Katrina.
One year later, what have we learned?
Something like:
The glass is half full.
Pleasant Peak Oil to y'all.
Good nite, indeed.
It was not a good time. I decided I was smart, and capable, and went to the woods. No parents to support it, or trust funds, I moved my 2 kids into a hole in the ground, a capped foundation. Hand pumped water into a washing machine to do diapers. The day we moved in we had $22 left. Best thing I ever did, I owe no one, my kids grew up with miles of forest.
I grew 3 different ideas, business.. sold 2 kept one to run from home. You can do that when you are free of the system.
I see a huge amount of how to change things here that will never get off the ground. Someone posted yesterday I think, about self reliance. Todd, or Mort.. not sure but I'll take that kind of thread over the religious idiots that seem the be attracted here.
I go out at night to look at the stars, to feel the wind in the trees. My home, I built, my family is secure, the earth is kind to me and I am kind to it.
Thanks for your link to the World Oil article. In regard to the Wilcox.. it is a common drilling target onshore Louisiana and Mississippi and Texas. There are other known reservoir rock below it also. It was only a matter of time and money before it became a deepwater target.
I would be interested to know the amount of time it took to drill this wildcat well from spud to TD. At a rig day rate of $500k per day, plus another $200k per day for services I would imagine the economics would be interesting. 6k barrels oil per day sounds good but it would seem to me that they really need some 20k barrels per day wells to make this work. Of course the economics would look better with $200 barrel oil.
I am going to pull a number out of the air at $100 million per well completed with a 60 day drill schedule. Longer than that and the price goes up. Gets to be a long payback time at 6k barrels per day. This will be a challenging field to develop. Geologically these same formations are drilled with regularity onshore to the north. Cost of drilling goes up exponentially the deeper you drill, disregarding regarding the water depth (which is a seperate issue). Since these depths are at approximately 28,000 ft it could be that a new class of rigs will have to be developed. That is a lot of pipe hanging in a derrick. Although the drilling contractor has not been mentioned in the info that I have read, this is what I think they drilled it with:
http://www.deepwater.com/pdf/Harts_EP_Aug_2004.pdf#search=%22transocean%20rig%20depth%20rating%22
Since most of the information on this discovery is "tight hole", it will be conjecture as to its importance. Significant to me is that the flow rates are not higher. Im glad they found it though and I wish them luck with this project.
A well balanced article about the large find, which lowers the highend numbers a bit (It still remains a very large find, though):
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?dist=newsfinder&siteid=google&guid=%7B69DC7 C90-7B23-468D-A612-33A409EC4BDA%7D&keyword=
The 15 billion barrels comes from extrapolating this find and is explained as follows:
$100 million per well.
6000 barrels per day.
$68 per barrel.
6000 * 68 = $408,000 revenue per day.
$100,000,000 / $408,000 = 245 days to pay off.
That doesn't seem that bad to me. A lot of risk though out there in the middle of the GOM - that's for sure.