BP strikes 'giant' oil well in Gulf of Mexico

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 02 Sep 2009, 11:35

Times Online - 02/09/09

BP, the British energy company, has made a "giant" oil discovery in Mexico which could provide a major boost for the group during a turbulent trading period.

Shares in the company, Europe's second-biggest oil group, jumped 2.85 per cent to 534.5p after it revealed the major discovery at its Tiber Prospect in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico.

Article continues ...

In a statement, BP said the well was "one of the deepest...ever drilled by the oil and gas industry." It added that "appraisal will be required to determined the size and commerciality of the discovery."

Another damp squib?

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 02 Sep 2009, 12:00

It is very deep off-shore in Hurricane alley. It will not be cheap or come on line any time soon.

The company said it drilled the well, dubbed Tiber, to a total depth of about 35,055ft (10,685m), making it one of the deepest wells ever drilled

No numbers of oil in place or possible flow rates.

Wait and see.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 02 Sep 2009, 12:03

BBC news just reported that BP's shares have risen on the news

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 02 Sep 2009, 12:15

The Independent - 02/09/09

The group first made an oil discovery in this area of the Gulf of Mexico in Kaskida in 2006.

Although this is also still under appraisal, BP said it believes Kaskida has a three billion barrel capacity and confirmed the new find was potentially in "the same league".

Original Article

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 02 Sep 2009, 12:47

What is 'capacity' - is it proven, probable or possible reserves, or resource, or original oil in place? I wish the press was more precise.

3 billion barrels. Enough to supply the world for 37 days, or keep the US self-sufficient for a year or two.

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 02 Sep 2009, 15:39

Three billion barrels. Would anyone object to me refilling my lighter?

fifthcolumn · Post by **fifthcolumn** » 02 Sep 2009, 17:23

You lot are sniffing at this as if it's not important.

You're looking at it the wrong way.

Allow me to explain:

We all agree that the problem with peak oil is that ultimately depletion outpaces replacement, yes?

So let's take the middle level scenario of 4% decline and let's assume for the sake of argument that the decline increases as we go (to keep the numbers easy to handle for this argument).

So: We're at say 80 million barrels per day today right?
If we are now at peak at we see the 4% decline starting next wednesday, that means we will be losing 3.2 million barrels per day and it's the loss of that 3.2 million barrels per day that's the problem, right? With me so far?

Well looking at it like that, we don't need to replace the ENTIRE 80 million barrels, just the "lost" 3.2 million barrels.

So from that angle, what effect does 3 billion barrels have?
Well let's say we want to replace a year's worth of depletion, how long can we shore it up?
3 million barrels per day is a billion barrels a year.

So we can push off peak oil by an entire year with this one field alone or else we can offset the decline rate by 0.5 percent for six years.

So if we find only another 12 billion barrels then peak oil is pushed off for another six years and we remain on plateau for that length of time.

Call me whatever you like, but suits me sir. I'll take it.

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 02 Sep 2009, 17:54

Call me whatever you like, but suits me sir. I'll take it.

Could be pricey 'tho.

Diving to the bottom of a storm swept ocean is not quite the same as digging a hole in Saudi.

Is it still 'Peak Oil' if we plateau ... but energy - especially liquid fuels - cost a FORTUNE?

Is there a difference between a famine caused by lack of food, and a famine caused by EXPENSIVE food?

Cran · Post by **Cran** » 02 Sep 2009, 18:03

the government can just print some more money if it's expensive...

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 02 Sep 2009, 19:21

The Guardian - 02/09/09

Giant oil find by BP reopens debate about oil supplies

BP has reopened the debate on when the "peak oil" supply will be reached by announcing a big new discovery in the Gulf of Mexico which some believe could be as large as the Forties, the biggest field ever found in the North Sea.

The strike comes days after Iran unveiled an even larger find of 8.8bn barrels of crude oil, and the moves have encouraged sceptics of theories which say that peak production has been reached, or soon will be, to hail a new golden age of exploration and supply.

Article continues ...

madibe · Post by **madibe** » 02 Sep 2009, 19:44

In reply to 5thcolumn...

Ah, you are stating that we just need to replace the 'missing' element...but there are two issues here:

1 / you are assuming demand remains as is at circa 80mbbl

2/ decline is cumlative - is the discovery and aquisition?

or am I missing something?

fifthcolumn · Post by **fifthcolumn** » 02 Sep 2009, 20:29

Vortex wrote:
Call me whatever you like, but suits me sir. I'll take it.
Could be pricey 'tho.

Certainly will be for the oil component of our future energy needs.

Diving to the bottom of a storm swept ocean is not quite the same as digging a hole in Saudi.

Too right, but the salient point is: all the sources of oil at the bottom of said hurricane infested waters costs more or less the same price.

Is it still 'Peak Oil' if we plateau ... but energy - especially liquid fuels - cost a FORTUNE?

I think we can all agree that peak oil is the rise, plateau and decline of oil production. The price of energy is another argument.

Is there a difference between a famine caused by lack of food, and a famine caused by EXPENSIVE food?

Well, the fact is, we have famine right now caused by too many people in certain parts of the world compared to the available food supplies.

If energy supplies hold constant or grow slightly but the growth in population in the overpopulated countries that are hanging by a thread continues at a breathtaking rate is THAT anything to do with peak oil?

fifthcolumn · Post by **fifthcolumn** » 02 Sep 2009, 20:36

maudibe wrote:In reply to 5thcolumn...

Ah, you are stating that we just need to replace the 'missing' element...but there are two issues here:

1 / you are assuming demand remains as is at circa 80mbbl

No I'm saying demand will not rise massively above oil supply for two reasons:
1. Demand destruction: a lot of oil use is discretionary.
For example: I can forego flying to hawaii to save money or I can decide to get groceries once a week or I can decide to grow some vegetables myself.
2. Substitution. Many variants of models for "what will happen after peak oil" say substitution either doesn't exist or will make no appreciable difference. I beg to differ. e.g. I am taking the bus even though it can be -35C in the winter. I'm doing it out of choice right now. I can certainly do it if it costs $300 a barrel and I can't afford to run a car off of diesel or petrol.

These are the softcore options for reducing demand. There are hardcore ones too that the government could implement if it chose to. We're not there yet.

2/ decline is cumlative - is the discovery and aquisition?
[/quote]
This gets into the whole EROEI thing. The doomers argue that since the EROEI of available oil is declining once you hit a barrel of oil energy equivalent to get a barrel of oil out then you'll stop doing it.
I say wrong: if there is DEMAND for the oil AND you have a higher EROEI feed energy source then you WILL suck out the oil. Examples of requirements for oil will be oil based transport in the period between moving from oil to electrical transport.
You may think that this isn't answering your question but it is:
There is MUCH MORE lower EROEI stuff than there is lower EROEI stuff (just ask RGR) so if we need it, we e.g. build some windmills and pump it out or process it (like the oilsands) or whatever.

or am I missing something?

Not anymore.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 02 Sep 2009, 20:58

fifthcolumn wrote:Well, the fact is, we have famine right now caused by too many people in certain parts of the world compared to the available food supplies.

No, we have famine now because some people are too poor to buy food or own or rent the land to grow their own.

fifthcolumn · Post by **fifthcolumn** » 02 Sep 2009, 21:12

biffvernon wrote:
fifthcolumn wrote:Well, the fact is, we have famine right now caused by too many people in certain parts of the world compared to the available food supplies.
No, we have famine now because some people are too poor to buy food or own or rent the land to grow their own.

Colour it how you like Biff, it's not because of peak oil.