Page 1 of 1

The future of oil? America is fine!

Posted: 16 Aug 2011, 21:48
by Lord Beria3
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... _of_energy
For half a century, the global energy supply's center of gravity has been the Middle East. This fact has had self-evidently enormous implications for the world we live in -- and it's about to change.

By the 2020s, the capital of energy will likely have shifted back to the Western Hemisphere, where it was prior to the ascendancy of Middle Eastern megasuppliers such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in the 1960s. The reasons for this shift are partly technological and partly political. Geologists have long known that the Americas are home to plentiful hydrocarbons trapped in hard-to-reach offshore deposits, on-land shale rock, oil sands, and heavy oil formations. The U.S. endowment of unconventional oil is more than 2 trillion barrels, with another 2.4 trillion in Canada and 2 trillion-plus in South America -- compared with conventional Middle Eastern and North African oil resources of 1.2 trillion. The problem was always how to unlock them economically.

But since the early 2000s, the energy industry has largely solved that problem. With the help of horizontal drilling and other innovations, shale gas production in the United States has skyrocketed from virtually nothing to 15 to 20 percent of the U.S. natural gas supply in less than a decade. By 2040, it could account for more than half of it. This tremendous change in volume has turned the conversation in the U.S. natural gas industry on its head; where Americans once fretted about meeting the country's natural gas needs, they now worry about finding potential buyers for the country's surplus.

Meanwhile, onshore oil production in the United States, condemned to predictions of inexorable decline by analysts for two decades, is about to stage an unexpected comeback. Oil production from shale rock, a technically complex process of squeezing hydrocarbons from sedimentary deposits, is just beginning. But analysts are predicting production of as much as 1.5 million barrels a day in the next few years from resources beneath the Great Plains and Texas alone -- the equivalent of 8 percent of current U.S. oil consumption. The development raises the question of what else the U.S. energy industry might accomplish if prices remain high and technology continues to advance. Rising recovery rates from old wells, for example, could also stem previous declines. On top of all this, analysts expect an additional 1 to 2 million barrels a day from the Gulf of Mexico now that drilling is resuming. Peak oil? Not anytime soon.

I would like to here from some of the more technically knowledgable folks here on why this is wrong.

Posted: 16 Aug 2011, 22:02
by UndercoverElephant
Beria,

There's several issues here.

The first is ""Rising recovery rates from old wells" and "With the help of horizontal drilling and other innovations". This is a red herring. It just keeps old oilfields going at a high production rate for a bit longer before they eventually fall off a cliff. Google for the Cantarell field in Mexico for more on this.

The second is the stuff to do with recovery of oil from tar sands. Yes, this can be done, but it requires a lot of energy (currently supplied either by nuclear or by burning a good chunk of the recovered oil) to extract. There are a lot of tar sands, but the amount of energy required to extract that oil means that it is always going to be expensive and will get more so as the price of energy increases. It is also a disaster from a climate change perspective if the extraction process is itself powered by oil.

The third is to do with natural gas supplies from shale, and I'll let somebody else tackle that one. I don't know enough about it. Gas can certainly replace oil as an energy source, although the implications in terms of infrastructure alterations are enormous and it isn't a replacement for many other uses of oil which require longer carbon chains.

Posted: 17 Aug 2011, 10:09
by PS_RalphW
Shale oil has lead to a minor up-tick in US on-shore production. It is not cheap oil, and it is a much smaller up-tick than came from bringing Alaska on line, which is now in rapid decline, and deep sea Gulf of Mexico, which is about to peak as all the easy targets have been developed, and some have failed to meet expectations, particularly Thunderhorse.

The US has almost as many oil wells still pumping as the rest of the world put together. Most of them are stripper wells producing less than 10 barrels a day. The US is almost tapped out, it is well into the long tail of final production decline.

Horizontal drilling is well over 20 years old. It is not new technology and it is fully factored into forecasts. Tar sands have room for growth, and new technology is improving return on investment. It used stranded natural gas as its main energy input at moment, although there have been plans to use nuclear, they are very unlikely to be built... The most optimistic forecast I have seen is 5Mbpd from Canada, 15 years from now. Maybe similar from the Orinoco heavy oil fields, politics permitting.

Natural gas is increasing in availability, but world production is only about 60% of the world production of oil, in energy terms.

To replace oil (with the less than 100% efficient conversion involved), and meet the still growing demand for NG, and continue to replace coal for electricity production, the supply of NG worldwide would need to at least triple, and that simply isn't going to happen.

Shale gas has offset the cliff of production that the US was facing 10 years ago in conventional NG, but it is expensive, and the reserve figures are hyped to extreme levels. Nobody really knows how much is out there.

Posted: 17 Aug 2011, 10:20
by mindscience
RalphW wrote:To replace oil (with the less than 100% efficient conversion involved), and meet the still growing demand for NG, and continue to replace coal for electricity production, the supply of NG worldwide would need to at least triple, and that simply isn't going to happen.

Agreed. I also think that it is not a total substitute and it means infrastructural changes, as UE said previously.

In general, I don't think anyone is exactly clear which has how much and thus no definitive theories can be proven.

Posted: 17 Aug 2011, 11:49
by PS_RalphW
ps don't confuse shale oil with oil shale, which the US has in huge abundance, but makes tar sands look like light, sweet crude.

It has never been economic to use US oil shale as an energy source, and it probably never will be. It is used as a low grade coal substitute in some countries, and was even the first source of fossil oil in the UK in the 18th century, but it is a fuel of last resort for so many reasons.

Posted: 17 Aug 2011, 12:56
by An Inspector Calls
Copied to Hydrocarbons so RGR can participate if he wishes.