PowerSwitch

Letter in Sunday Times, Sept 25, 2005.

NEW ENERGY: Never mind global warming (serious though that is). We need many new nuclear power stations to produce at least half the power we require. In 10-15 years? time we will be dependent on very expensive oil and gas largely from the former Soviet Union and the Middle East ? hardly reliable suppliers. Oil production will peak in the next few years, gas after another decade.

I write as a retired hydrocarbon explorer with nearly 40 years experience and considerable success (including Brent, which I named) with Shell and Enterprise Oil. There is not that much more oil out there to be found, despite what the big fuel companies (and governments) say. How many are able to replace their annual production by their own successful exploration efforts? As far as I know - none. The future is bleak, even catastrophic.


Dr Myles Bowen OBE
Lustleigh, Devon

Note that in the Scottish Edition of the Sunday Times the above text is an edited version of what is actually printed; the words printed but not included in the online version are shown in italics and the words included in the online edition but not in the printed version are shown in bold.
Link to letter in online version of Sunday Times (Irish Edition): http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... _2,00.html

Interesting (and alarming!). Yet I see the former head of Halliburton has been quoted as saying Simmonds is wrong about Saudi Arabia and claims they still have a ton of oil. Its difficult knowing who has an axe to grind and who is covering who..........

zceb90 wrote: Note that in the Scottish Edition of the Sunday Times the above text is an edited version of what is actually printed

Why the edits, I wonder ??

andyh wrote:Interesting (and alarming!). Yet I see the former head of Halliburton has been quoted as saying Simmonds is wrong about Saudi Arabia and claims they still have a ton of oil. Its difficult knowing who has an axe to grind and who is covering who..........

It's interesting to see an ex-Shell explorationist taking what appears to be ASPO's view, just shows how thinking can change once former employees of 'big oil' are able to express their views freely.

I suspect Halliburton still very much hopes to obtain lots of lucritive ME contracts especially in Iraq. I don't see how their ex-head can really refute Simmons' claims unless they have access to much more of Saudi Aramco's (secretive) well and reservoir data. Simmons has based his report on SPE papers written by Saudi Aramco hands combined with his knowledge as to how giant oilfields behave the world over.

andyh wrote:Interesting (and alarming!). Yet I see the former head of Halliburton has been quoted as saying Simmonds is wrong about Saudi Arabia and claims they still have a ton of oil. Its difficult knowing who has an axe to grind and who is covering who..........

check out this thread of comments at The Oil Drum re. article by former head of Halliburton

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/9/ ... 8/907#more
...about half way down the thread, starting with post by wadosy on Sat Sep 24 at 2:39 PM EDT

so...do or do not production figures for a well include the water cut?
Or as Wadosy at The Oil Drum commented:

"huh! i didnt realize that they are including water in the production figures. where's that guy with the car that runs on water when we need him?"

I dont think you can say that the ex-Shell person is now free to speak his mind, and yet say that the ex-Halliburton person is still playing the company tune. They are both'ex's' but are certainly not in agreement. I have to say the Hallibrton man does at least attempt to get technical in why he disputes Simmons' views: http://www.worldenergysource.com/wemr/letterB_0905.cfm

This is at least a minor improvement in the usual 'trust us we are the Saudis and we have a ton of oil' line.

I would not trust the Saudi's about anything but then thats because I think they run an evil little fascist theocracy, but then thats just me

Thanks for the post above which from the excellent oildrum which in turn goes someways to rebutting the ex-Halliburton man.

andyh wrote:I dont think you can say that the ex-Shell person is now free to speak his mind, and yet say that the ex-Halliburton person is still playing the company tune. They are both'ex's' but are certainly not in agreement. I have to say the Hallibrton man does at least attempt to get technical in why he disputes Simmons' views: http://www.worldenergysource.com/wemr/letterB_0905.cfm

This is at least a minor improvement in the usual 'trust us we are the Saudis and we have a ton of oil' line.

I would not trust the Saudi's about anything but then thats because I think they run an evil little fascist theocracy, but then thats just me

Thanks for the post above which from the excellent oildrum which in turn goes someways to rebutting the ex-Halliburton man.

The ex-Halliburton VP's report does not really alleviate concerns re long term sustainability of high flow rates. By quoting the North Sea as an example where new oilfield technology has increased recovery he's omitting a key point - what happens on the right hand side of the curve. We can see exactly what happens - output has fallen no less than 40% in the 6 years post peak. Prudhoe Bay, again where new technology has been extensively applied from inception, is following the same pattern - rapid recovery on the left hand side of the curve, earlier and sharper peak followed by much steeper declines than seen in likes of Texas etc.

Matt Simmons' concerns have focussed on whether new technology really does significantly raise EUR or whether its extensive use really just allows all the easily produced oil to be recovered earlier / faster. Based on historical flow rates in N Sea and Alaska it really looks like Matt does indeed have a point.

We need many new nuclear power stations to produce at least half the power we require

If only he had taken a broader inerest in geology whilst working for Shell he would know that there just isn't enough uranium to fuel those power stations.