syberberg wrote:I have a feeling we may well see some demand destruction in the States this year from a combination of higher fuel prices, higher food prices and the credit crunch. I doubt it'll be a significant level of reduced demand, probably <5%, but it'll be interesting to watch the figures.
Even if the US's % destruction is small, it could be significant in global terms, due to their large percentage of the global consumption pie.
True. The other thing, is will the small % demand destruction be masked by the shortfall in demand of product being used to boost the strategic reserve? So even though demand drops, imports stay the same.
Also, what's the betting the politicians spin the drop in demand to say: "Look, we're weaning ourselves off foreign oil! Look, we're cutting our carbon emissions!" Yadda, yadda, ad infinitum.
syberberg wrote:The other thing, is will the small % demand destruction be masked by the shortfall in demand of product being used to boost the strategic reserve? So even though demand drops, imports stay the same.
oilnerd wrote:RGR,
What are your thoughts on the large increases of quoted reserves by certain OPEC countries in the early eighties?
Will some of these countries be shown to be 'swimming naked when the tide begins to drop'?
Last edited by RGR on 30 Jul 2011, 15:37, edited 1 time in total.
Thanks again RGR for having the patience to answer my silly questions. I now understand the dynamics of a field much better.
So for the Saudi fields, the oil is under enough natural pressure to rise by itself, but encountered nonporous rocks that stopped it, so the wells act as a release mechanism. That means the use of water/gas injection is to: a) facilitate it's "escape" and b) to flush out the remaining reserve that wouldn't otherwise be available, therefore the reserve grows. Have I understood that right?
Also, I infer from your comments about unconventionals, that by their very nature they require greater injection from the start up to get them flowing? And that you might not initially site the production wells in the best place to "sweep" (for want of a better word) the oil out of the field, so you end up with more bypassed pockets.
syberberg wrote:Thanks again RGR for having the patience to answer my silly questions. I now understand the dynamics of a field much better.
So for the Saudi fields, the oil is under enough natural pressure to rise by itself, but encountered nonporous rocks that stopped it, so the wells act as a release mechanism. That means the use of water/gas injection is to: a) facilitate it's "escape" and b) to flush out the remaining reserve that wouldn't otherwise be available, therefore the reserve grows. Have I understood that right?
Last edited by RGR on 30 Jul 2011, 15:38, edited 1 time in total.
RGR wrote:Plus...some unconventionals can't be flooded. Most of the time, because you can't flood, you just drill more wells. Unconventionals like the Bakken oil shale in North Dakota, they slap a pumpjack on it within a month of completing it, they just don't flow naturally.
America is sitting on top of a super massive 200 billion barrel Oil Field that could potentially make America Energy Independent and until now has largely gone unnoticed. Thanks to new technology the Bakken Formation in North Dakota could boost America?s Oil reserves by an incredible 10 times, giving western economies the trump card against OPEC?s short squeeze on oil supply and making Iranian and Venezuelan threats of disrupted supply irrelevant.
In the next 30 days the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) will release a new report giving an accurate resource assessment of the Bakken Oil Formation that covers North Dakota and portions of South Dakota and Montana. With new horizontal drilling technology it is believed that from 175 to 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil are held in this 200,000 square mile reserve that was initially discovered in 1951. The USGS did an initial study back in 1999 that estimated 400 billion recoverable barrels were present but with prices bottoming out at $10 a barrel back then the report was dismissed because of the higher cost of horizontal drilling techniques that would be needed, estimated at $20-$40 a barrel.
It was not until 2007, when EOG Resources of Texas started a frenzy when they drilled a single well in Parshal N.D. that is expected to yield 700,000 barrels of oil that real excitement and money started to flow in North Dakota. Marathon Oil is investing $1.5 billion and drilling 300 new wells in what is expected to be one of the greatest booms in Oil discovery since Oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia in 1938.
Our U.S. Bakken oil program continues to deliver attractive economics and reserves, however, lower initial production rates have decreased both our annual production and exit rate estimates by approximately 900 BOE/day.
RGR wrote:Plus...some unconventionals can't be flooded. Most of the time, because you can't flood, you just drill more wells. Unconventionals like the Bakken oil shale in North Dakota, they slap a pumpjack on it within a month of completing it, they just don't flow naturally.
.....if 200 billion barrels of oil at $90 a barrel are recovered in the high plains the added wealth to the US economy would be $18 Trillion Dollars which would go a long way in stabilizing the US trade deficit and could cut the cost of oil in half in the long run.
Which would mean that the oil will be only worth $9 trillion, which is a fraction of what the US owes the world.
If the Saudis are having to drill loads of wells to recover now trapped oil, surely that implies that they are recovering oil from the top of the reservoir and that they, therefore, haven't got much oil left.
kenneal wrote:
If the Saudis are having to drill loads of wells to recover now trapped oil, surely that implies that they are recovering oil from the top of the reservoir and that they, therefore, haven't got much oil left.
Last edited by RGR on 30 Jul 2011, 15:38, edited 1 time in total.
I cannot compete with his knowledge. Can we at Powerswitch keep on debating with him. He will never change his views but by god does he have some great knowledge.
I am quite positive about the future of humanity. I know it has too get a whole lot worse before it gets better.
I cannot compete with his knowledge. Can we at Powerswitch keep on debating with him. He will never change his views but by god does he have some great knowledge.
Seconded. I don't know about anyone else here, but RGR certainly helps me to keep a level head about PO.
I cannot compete with his knowledge. Can we at Powerswitch keep on debating with him. He will never change his views but by god does he have some great knowledge.
could give him a run for his money. He has done some serious detective work, linking multiple sources of data to give a detailed analysis of the main Saudi fields.
Seems to me that the graph in the first post shows that we are still some years away from 'peak', and in terms of looking in 'the rear view mirror' it'll be at least 2016 before we'll have any clear idea that the peak is past.
Engineers on the ground will be the best judge of how individual fields are doing and their potential. You need to get an honest assessment from all of these RGR's and then aggregate them to have any chance of predicting peak if that's what shakes your boat.
If you want to use historical production numbers to call peak, then you should look for production more than 5% below your historical peak. The record on the upslope shows clearly that a 5% dip in production can still be on the pre-peak side.
RogerCO
___________________________________
The time for politics is past - now is the time for action.
RogerCO wrote:Seems to me that the graph in the first post shows that we are still some years away from 'peak',
How do you work that out?
Anyone know, has that graph been updated at all?
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
