Ghawar fading faster than anyone expected

[vtsnowedin]

Ken you might want to read this.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/406018 ... t-analysis.
The numbers are a couple of years old which is a lot these days but if you read it with open eyes you will see that the energy used to get a barrel of oil out of the ground and delivered to market is still a very small portion of the price we pay to get it to the refinery.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

Ghawar fading faster than anyone expected according to this article.

I don't believe that anyone can characterize Ghawar as fading faster "than anyone expected" when it was the peak oilers themselves that declared it dying more than 15 years ago.

Preserved at resilience.org here: Ghawar dying in 2003

Chip Haynes was himself quite a peak oiler back in the day, and even wrote a book on it.

From a purely historical standpoint, it would seem better to characterize Ghawar's current production rate as "less than maximum" or at least recognize the peak oil history on this topic and say "it is amazing how long it has lasted considering that peak oilers thought it should have stopped producing nearly 2 decades ago".

[eatyourveg]

Yahoo the return of RGR!!!!!!

All is now well with the world - I think?

[Little John]

Ghawar fading faster than anyone expected according to this article.

I don't believe that anyone can characterize Ghawar as fading faster "than anyone expected" when it was the peak oilers themselves that declared it dying more than 15 years ago.

Preserved at resilience.org here: Ghawar dying in 2003

Chip Haynes was himself quite a peak oiler back in the day, and even wrote [url=https://www.DODGY TAX AVOIDERS.com/Peak-Devil-Questions-answers-about/dp/0981872034] a book on it.[/url]

From a purely historical standpoint, it would seem better to characterize Ghawar's current production rate as "less than maximum" or at least recognize the peak oil history on this topic and say "it is amazing how long it has lasted considering that peak oilers thought it should have stopped producing nearly 2 decades ago".

If production is "less than maximum", then production has, by definition, peaked.

[eatyourveg]

Ghawar fading faster than anyone expected according to this article.

I don't believe that anyone can characterize Ghawar as fading faster "than anyone expected" when it was the peak oilers themselves that declared it dying more than 15 years ago.

Preserved at resilience.org here: Ghawar dying in 2003

Chip Haynes was himself quite a peak oiler back in the day, and even wrote [url=https://www.DODGY TAX AVOIDERS.com/Peak-Devil-Questions-answers-about/dp/0981872034] a book on it.[/url]

From a purely historical standpoint, it would seem better to characterize Ghawar's current production rate as "less than maximum" or at least recognize the peak oil history on this topic and say "it is amazing how long it has lasted considering that peak oilers thought it should have stopped producing nearly 2 decades ago".

If production is "less than maximum", then production has, by definition, peaked.

Don't do it LittleJohn, this fellow will suck up more of your time going in circles than you can believe. It's the legend - RGR. White is black, black is white.

[kenneal - lagger]

Ghawar fading faster than anyone expected according to this article.

I don't believe that anyone can characterize Ghawar as fading faster "than anyone expected" when it was the peak oilers themselves that declared it dying more than 15 years ago.

Preserved at resilience.org here: Ghawar dying in 2003

Chip Haynes was himself quite a peak oiler back in the day, and even wrote [url=https://www.DODGY TAX AVOIDERS.com/Peak-Devil-Questions-answers-about/dp/0981872034] a book on it.[/url]

From a purely historical standpoint, it would seem better to characterize Ghawar's current production rate as "less than maximum" or at least recognize the peak oil history on this topic and say "it is amazing how long it has lasted considering that peak oilers thought it should have stopped producing nearly 2 decades ago".

It's wonderful what you can do with a lot of energy and a lot of sea water. The nett energy of the oil from Ghawar is dropping as fast as production. Another problem for the world at large.

[emordnilap]

The 'ignore' function on more modern versions of board software is useful in extreme situations, especially if you're short of time or patience.

[kenneal - lagger]

The 'ignore' function on more modern versions of board software is useful in extreme situations, especially if you're short of time or patience.

Bottom left hand corner, under the page number for those who wish to use it.

[emordnilap]

The 'ignore' function on more modern versions of board software is useful in extreme situations, especially if you're short of time or patience.

Bottom left hand corner, under the page number for those who wish to use it.

Sorry: 'ignore user' function, I should have said.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

If production is "less than maximum", then production has, by definition, peaked.

You mean, exactly like peak global oil production in 1979? Or US oil production in 1970 or so?

Ghawar had peaked previously (by your definition), back during the 1970's. This is possible because Ghawar is a managed oil field, and managed by the best talent money can buy. There is the same possibility it can peak again, and as peak oil is defined as a maximum production rate followed by a TERMINAL decline, what information do you have that it is in terminal decline?

I can assure you it isn't out of oil. I can assure you that the King could order the taps opened and it can make more than it does now. Possibly even as much as it made before, closer to 5 million barrels a day.

This of course is the crux of why past peak oil claims have come off the rails. I am being very careful to make sure I don't fall into the same trap with this particular oil field.

If we define any peak oil the way you appear to be doing, then it becomes additionally necessary to follow it up with, "..and how many more times do you think it will peak?" which just launches everyone into reductio ad absurdum arguments.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

It's wonderful what you can do with a lot of energy and a lot of sea water. The nett energy of the oil from Ghawar is dropping as fast as production. Another problem for the world at large.

And do you have a reference for someone who has calculated the net energy from Ghawar and quantifies this claim?

[Little John]

If production is "less than maximum", then production has, by definition, peaked.

You mean, exactly like peak global oil production in 1979? Or US oil production in 1970 or so?

Ghawar had peaked previously (by your definition), back during the 1970's. This is possible because Ghawar is a managed oil field, and managed by the best talent money can buy. There is the same possibility it can peak again, and as peak oil is defined as a maximum production rate followed by a TERMINAL decline, what information do you have that it is in terminal decline?

I can assure you it isn't out of oil. I can assure you that the King could order the taps opened and it can make more than it does now. Possibly even as much as it made before, closer to 5 million barrels a day.

This of course is the crux of why past peak oil claims have come off the rails. I am being very careful to make sure I don't fall into the same trap with this particular oil field.

If we define any peak oil the way you appear to be doing, then it becomes additionally necessary to follow it up with, "..and how many more times do you think it will peak?" which just launches everyone into reductio ad absurdum arguments.

1. I didn't say it was "out of oil". Stop making shit up via the mis-characterisations of the posts of others.

2. What evidence do you have to present that "the King could order the taps opened and it can make more than it does now" to the extent that (a), this would match the previous peak of supply and (b) this could be sustained over any significant period of time?

3. I shall wait and see how your next response goes. but, I have already got my bullshitter radar making noises. Any more bullshit and I will stop playing nice.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

1. I didn't say it was "out of oil". Stop making shit up via the mis-characterisations of the posts of others.

Correct. I did not mean to imply you had said this. What I did mean is that I am aware of the technical estimates of oil in Ghawar initially and remaining recoverable. I was just mentioning that lack of remaining oil is not yet a limiting factor on rate.

2. What evidence do you have to present that "the King could order the taps opened and it can make more than it does now" to the extent that (a), this would match the previous peak of supply and (b) this could be sustained over any significant period of time?

Access to the best domestic and global technical oilfield information that money can buy for starters. But that information wasn't necessary to make the statement you mention. Ghawar is a managed oil field, and part of that management is NOT to produce at maximum rate in order to maximize long term recoverability. The Saudi's do this quite well, as the example I furnished earlier of folks thinking Ghawar was dying around the turn of century demonstrate. Understanding this typical managed oilfield procedure, I can say with near absolute certainty that Ghawars production can be increased if the King decided to override the best technical advice money can buy. It will reduce optimal recoverability, but the King may have an overriding geopolitical interest at some point (something akin to Gulf War I perhaps?).

3. I shall wait and see how your next response goes. but, I have already got my bullshitter radar making noises. Any more bullshit and I will stop playing nice.

As you wish. I do note however that you have zero response to your claim of peak oil and how just a peak is enough. Is this logical fallacy of what a peak oil is still common among the few peak oilers that still have an interest in this topic?

[Little John]

....Ghawar is a managed oil field, and part of that management is NOT to produce at maximum rate in order to maximize long term recoverability. The Saudi's do this quite well, as the example I furnished earlier of folks thinking Ghawar was dying around the turn of century demonstrate. Understanding this typical managed oilfield procedure, I can say with near absolute certainty that Ghawars production can be increased if the King decided to override the best technical advice money can buy. It will reduce optimal recoverability, but the King may have an overriding geopolitical interest at some point (something akin to Gulf War I perhaps?).

If the Saudis "do this quite well", what is your explanation for why production is not currently matching the peak of production? In other words, if the Saudi's do this quite well, then their production level at the peak of production was also being presumably managed quite well. Given that, what is your explanation for their production level now not being managed quite as well as it was previously?

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

If the Saudis "do this quite well", ....

Not "if". I've tutored the Saudi engineers in college, and worked with ARAMCO folks professionally. I made a statement, and it was based on experience working with their personnel.

...what is your explanation for why production is not currently matching the peak of production?

I already told you. There is an optimal rate, based on maximizing ultimate recoverability. It is no longer 5 million barrels per day.

In other words, if the Saudi's do this quite well, then their production level at the peak of production was also being presumably managed quite well. Given that, what is your explanation for their production level now not being managed quite as well as it was previously?

Your first sentence is correct.

Your second sentence is incorrect. Optimal reservoir management is rate independent, when maximizing for optimal recovery. Optimal recovery is not rate, it is the percentage of oil recovered from the original oil in place. Everyone wants more of that ratio (recovered/inplace), not less.

With the lack of enthusiasm you have demonstrated in even discussing your logical disconnect with what a peak is, getting into how one goes about configuring a given field's optimal recovery with a given rate with you probably be a waste of my time.

Not yours of course, because right now you appear to have a set of talking points you wish to stick to, rather than have a discussion where both sides are participating. I'm game with that approach as well, as it tends to suit peak oilers far better than discussing the scientific and technical concepts involved.