Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Joined: Apr 05, 2005 Posts: 2603 Location: South of Atlanta
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:23 pm Post subject: Re: Saudi Production: Collecting the Data
I think what Rockdoc is doing is commendable. He obviuosly has a bit more knowledge of these things than most of us do. I have read Simmons book and several others on this topic. One thing I took away from these books was that it APPEARS something may be up. It SEEMS that there COULD be a problem looming in the not too distant future with regards to Saudi production.
While I'm not a blind follower of Simmons et al, I do tend to think that Saudi Oil production could be reaching a critical point with respect to geology. Rockdoc is trying to show us that there are two sides to every issue and with regards to Saudi production it's the same story.
He believes that its not as big a deal as some others do. It all comes down to credibility, and here Rockdoc has some with me. I'm searching for answers too and this helps guys like me who want to see both sides of the issues. We need to be very clear and smart about what is going on, blindly following hunches and bad science won't help anyone.
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:26 am Post subject: Re: Saudi Production: Collecting the Data
Quote:
I think what Rockdoc is doing is commendable.
I have to disagree.
I've read his posts carefully. He is using language, highly technical language, in a way to intimidate and to obfuscate.
If I can read Simmons, Deffeyes, Campbell, et al., as a complete outsider and understand everything crystal-clearly, and then read "rockdoc" and come away saying, "WTF?", guess whose material I'm going to give more credibility? _________________ "By the time individuals discover that remaining resources will not be adequate for the next generation, the next generation has already been born. " David Price
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 6:42 am Post subject: Re: Saudi Production: Collecting the Data
This is the most interesting thread on the board!!
I'm not equipped to contribute directly to the argument about Saudi Arabia, or the question of how much of the world's oiil has been used, but there is one thing I do want to ask.
Surely it is obvious that the curve of oil extraction will be anything but symmetrical??? Oil remains the best source of energy even at $60/barrel. With a booming world economy, demand will increase. It doesn't matter what the cost is - $100, $200 - so long as it's still cheaper than the available alternatives. So extraction will continue to increase and Peak wll be delayed until the cost gets so high that real demand destruction bites, and that will only happen at very high prices indeed.
Rather than be a nice up-and-down shape, the curve will be like a breaking wave - steadily increasing, despite rapidly rising extraction costs, and falling, when it does fall, very quickly indeed.
Maybe we need to modify, at least mentally, that Peak Oil curve that has such a grip on our imaginations??
And given that, it seems less intrinsically unlikely that SA could be more than half way through its oil and be starting to strain at the practical limis of its capacity and facing a rapid fall.
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 10:57 am Post subject: Re: Saudi Production - trying to piece together the various
rockdoc123 wrote:
We have no idea what sort of reserves they were reporting prior to the revision....if indeed it was just proven producing reserves it is completely possible that the number could be doubled by simply also reporting proven non-producing and probable reserves. This may not even have taken any additional drilling....just a change in how categories are reported. They might be playing a game but that is just supposition.
I'm supposed to believe that when Aramco reported reserves before it was nationalized, it left out all reserves that weren't being tapped? I don't think so.
rockdoc123 wrote:
I think you need to get up to date on what is happening with the MRC well applications in Shaybah.
I've read some of the SPE papers, but I just don't get the same impression as you.
The introduction of "World First MRC Window Exits Out of Solid Expandable Open-hole Liner in the Shaybah Field, Saudi Arabia" by Al-Jeffre, Al-Dossary, et. al. describes a Shaybah well which was producing at a 15% water cut before being worked over. You still haven't answered that concern of mine. Also, I'm not a petroleum engineer, but when I read about the well's productivity increase from 1,500 b/d to 6,000 b/d after being worked over, I can't help but think that MRC wells are super-straws. Of course there is the ability to produce more oil with more reservoir contact, but the field is simply being depleted faster. Even if you recover a greater percentage of the oil in place, that doesn't come close to compensating for some of these flow rates.
rockdoc123 wrote:
The information Aramco is putting out in presentations suggests flat production from Ain Dur and Shedgun with a controlled water influx
Let's just look at Ghawar's depletion rate and its age. From "When 4D seismic is not applicable: Alternative monitoring scenarios for the Arab-D reservoir in the Ghawar Field", by Shiv Dasgupta.
Shiv Dasgupta wrote:
The Arab-D reservoir in Ghawar has historically been operated at relatively low depletion rates (1-2% of original oil in place)
No doubt this is a lower depletion rate than the industry standard, but it does say "original oil in place", not "reserves". I'll assume that range applies to production 1974 and later. This includes the 1980's when production was cut back, even at Ain Dar/Shedgum. However, it does not include any production before 1974.
Obviously, 1% to 2% is a big range. I'm sure Dasgupta would have said "around 1%" if that's what he really meant, so we'll assume that depletion in some cases approached 2%. However, I'll make the optimistic assumption that depletion rates below 1% more than offset depletion rates anywhere close to 2%. An average 1.1% depletion rate from the beginning of 1974 to the beginning of 2004 (when Aramco did a data disclosure) means that 33% of the oil in place was depleted during this time. I still haven't included pre-1974 production, so under this optimistic scenario about 40% of the oil in place is gone. Baqi and Saleri reported 48% depletion of Ghawar's reserves at the beginning of 2004. Ghawar's ultimate recovery rate may prove to be high, but 40% of OOIP cannot equal 48% of proven reserves.
What if Dasgupta is only talking about parts of Ghawar that are being produced at a given time? What if the depletion rate is lower than 1.1% when we take into account Hawiyah's reserves and especially Haradh's reserves? That would still mean that what I said above applies to Ain Dar, Shedgum, and Uthmaniyah, which probably account for 3.5 million barrels per day of Ghawar's production.
Of course, if the average depletion rate is closer to the middle of the range, like 1.5%, then we're in big trouble. It could indeed be the case for North Ghawar. Baqi and Saleri reported the maximum annual depletion rate for Ain Dar/Shedgum as 2.2%. This is when Ain Dar/Shedgum produced 2.5 million barrels per day. When I go back and look at production history post-1974, and convert the depletion rate from depletion of proven reserves to depletion of OOIP, I get an average depletion rate of at least 1.3%, which is higher than the rate that I used above. The numbers just don't add up to Aramco's claims that they have depleted only 48% of Ghawar's total reserves, 60% of Ain Dar/Shedgum's reserves, and 40% of Ain Dar/Shedgum's OOIP.
Ghawar is a stellar performer, and MRC wells might be allowing Aramco to recover bypassed oil that they could never otherwise recover, but there's no denying that Ghawar is old and mature. Here's Saleri about Ain Dar/Shedgum: "The reality is you're producing two million barrels and probably going to be producing two million barrels for a few more decades at very modest water cuts." Given a reasonable estimation of reserves depletion, it's hard to see how this can happen.
Another important point is that reservoir engineers who have worked on Ghawar say that production will start to fall before the end of the decade. I've heard it via someone else, Simmons has heard it, and Glenn Morton has heard it. True, some of those engineers worked on Ghawar before Aramco was nationalized. You may not trust anything that was said at that time due to the advances that have been made since then. However, some of these insiders apparently have access to the latest reservoir models. They must be current Aramco employees.
I think this picture from North Uthmaniyah says it all. According to Morton, the original maximum oil column thickness was 1,300 feet. Now, it's 150 feet.
Joined: Nov 11, 2004 Posts: 978 Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 11:31 am Post subject: Re: Saudi Production: Collecting the Data
killJOY wrote:
Quote:
I think what Rockdoc is doing is commendable.
I have to disagree.
I've read his posts carefully. He is using language, highly technical language, in a way to intimidate and to obfuscate.
If I can read Simmons, Deffeyes, Campbell, et al., as a complete outsider and understand everything crystal-clearly, and then read "rockdoc" and come away saying, "WTF?", guess whose material I'm going to give more credibility?
Oh please!
rockdoc is presenting unbiased information and makes an effort to present *both sides* of the debate. Do you ever hear any qualification from Simmons, Deffeyes, Campbell or for that matter, Lynch or Yergin? No, because they are entrenched in their opinion, fighting for their particular viewpoint. rockdoc is more like an arbitrator or judge.. saying "yes, this is true, but you must take this into consideration too."
Just because rockdoc has the technical background to back up his statements, statements which happen to confuse you, doesn't mean he is trying to mislead anybody. Attacking him for showing the intricacies of the issue is ludicrous! _________________ Do not underestimate the difficulties of surviving the transition of peak oil, nor the dangers of global warming. We must embrace nuclear energy and renewables.
Joined: Oct 14, 2004 Posts: 1203 Location: Left the cult
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 11:48 am Post subject: Re: Saudi Production: Collecting the Data
FatherOfTwo wrote:
Oh please!
rockdoc is presenting unbiased information and makes an effort to present *both sides* of the debate. Do you ever hear any qualification from Simmons, Deffeyes, Campbell or for that matter, Lynch or Yergin? No, because they are entrenched in their opinion, fighting for their particular viewpoint. rockdoc is more like an arbitrator or judge.. saying "yes, this is true, but you must take this into consideration too."
Yeah, but rockdoc loses a lot of credibility for me because of his denial of Global Warming. He may know all about rocks, but I don't trust his judgement. _________________ It's all downhill from here
Joined: Nov 11, 2004 Posts: 978 Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 12:22 pm Post subject: Re: Saudi Production: Collecting the Data
bobcousins wrote:
FatherOfTwo wrote:
Oh please!
rockdoc is presenting unbiased information and makes an effort to present *both sides* of the debate. Do you ever hear any qualification from Simmons, Deffeyes, Campbell or for that matter, Lynch or Yergin? No, because they are entrenched in their opinion, fighting for their particular viewpoint. rockdoc is more like an arbitrator or judge.. saying "yes, this is true, but you must take this into consideration too."
Yeah, but rockdoc loses a lot of credibility for me because of his denial of Global Warming. He may know all about rocks, but I don't trust his judgement.
rockdoc is that true?
Even if true, it isn't necessarily relevant. I acknowledge it does go towards credibility, but that isn't a sufficient reason to dismiss everything else. He's a geologist, not a climatologist (or whatever the term is for someone who would be most knowledgeable about GW). In a similar vein, the best heart surgeon in the world may believe in creationism, but if you believed in evolution would that stop you from choosing him if you needed heart surgery? I wouldn't – give me the subject matter expert.
I'm not saying rockdoc is the best geologist, but on this site he certainly appears to be, and I appreciate his attempt to show both sides of a matter. IMO, subject matter experts should be given more deference on their area of expertise and strongly questioned on areas that are not. _________________ Do not underestimate the difficulties of surviving the transition of peak oil, nor the dangers of global warming. We must embrace nuclear energy and renewables.
Is anyone surprised? And remember, Saudi Arabia has already leased the vast majority of available rigs so they have more rigs than ever before yet they are making excuses. They've leased so many rigs that it is a drag on restoring production in the Gulf of Mexico as companies lease their rigs to Saudi Arabia rather than US companies for Gulf work.
Joined: Jan 04, 2005 Posts: 623 Location: Australia
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 9:04 pm Post subject: Re: Saudi Production: Collecting the Data
bobcousins wrote:
FatherOfTwo wrote:
Oh please!
rockdoc is presenting unbiased information and makes an effort to present *both sides* of the debate. Do you ever hear any qualification from Simmons, Deffeyes, Campbell or for that matter, Lynch or Yergin? No, because they are entrenched in their opinion, fighting for their particular viewpoint. rockdoc is more like an arbitrator or judge.. saying "yes, this is true, but you must take this into consideration too."
Yeah, but rockdoc loses a lot of credibility for me because of his denial of Global Warming. He may know all about rocks, but I don't trust his judgement.
It's not uncommon for petroleum geologists to be GW skeptics, for obvious reasons. Jean Laherrere also likes to critisize the IPCC, though mostly because their business as usual emissions scenarios are unrealistic.
Quote:
Saudi Arabia now begins to make excuses about why they cannot raise production even 1.5 mbpd.
Is anyone surprised? And remember, Saudi Arabia has already leased the vast majority of available rigs so they have more rigs than ever before yet they are making excuses. They've leased so many rigs that it is a drag on restoring production in the Gulf of Mexico as companies lease their rigs to Saudi Arabia rather than US companies for Gulf work.
hmm well thats the retired Al-Husseini not Aramco speaking...and he is saying it will be delayed, not that it won't happen. IIRC they were going to double their rig fleet to 110, which isn't much compared to the 2000 odd rigs drilling in North America for much lower returns. This was interesting:
Husseini wrote:
It intends to boost output by 3 million bpd by 2009, with half that volume going to increasing output capacity and the other half to make up for depletion rates at older fields.
That would be around 400kb/d a year of decline. In 2006 to my knowledge they only have one project coming online, Haradh-3, at 300kb/d. So Saudi production may actually fall next year depending on the decline rates. Some have said they are facing 1mb/d of decline per year, which doesn't pass the smell test. _________________ "Production of useful work is limited by the laws of thermodynamics, but the production of useless work seems to be unlimited."
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 12:27 am Post subject: Re: Saudi Production: Collecting the Data
The number I've seen most frequently used with regards to Saudi decline is roughly 600kbpd or 6% naturally, which is also the figure quoted by the IEA in the Global Energy Outlook 2005 report. Saudi Arabia also claims that via advanced techniques they can hold that decline to 5% or 500kbpd roughly.
Quote:
The difference between this and the 6% natural decline rate is being overcome, by maintenance and drilling additional wells (p 511). The use of water flood to maintain reservoir pressure has been changed so that instead of using a "five spot pattern" where production and water injection wells alternate, Aramco uses a perimeter flood where water is only added at the edge of the field, forcing the oil up and in towards the center...
They list four projects to come on stream between now and 2010 - Haradh-III at 300 kbd (2006); Khursaniyah at 500 kbd (2007); Shaybah 300 kbd (2008) and Khurais/Manifa at 1.2 mbd in 2010. It is the last of these that is also a clarification. At present the Manifa oil is not refinable and thus part of the wait on this will be for a refinery to be built in Saudi Arabia to handle the oil, which has a high metal (vanadium) and H2S content. Khurais will also need a heavy water flood program.
There are some 70 fields that are currently not developed, holding about 10% of the country's proved and probably reserves. Of these Nuayyim, may be the next to be developed with a production of around 100,000 bd.
That's the IEA speaking, an international agency that believes optimistic forecasts, yet even they recognize that Saudi Arabia's proven and probable reserves are small compared to the main fields.
Joined: Oct 02, 2005 Posts: 290 Location: North Wales , UK
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:29 pm Post subject: Re: Saudi Production: Collecting the Data
I recognise that there has been a lot of debate here about the SA situation.
Alot revolves around how much oil everyone thinks SA had in the ground to begin with , how much of the oil in the ground is "made up" in the great Quota Grab , how much can actually be gotten out of the ground , how long that will last . etc etc etc
Meanwhile , over the border , something important has happened. It appears Kuwait has basically given up on its main field and resigned itself to seeing lower production values into the future. Either this was so predictable that everyone predicted it before I even knew of PO , or its come as a surprise to everyone.
If this really is a big event then can anything be learnt from the Kuwaiti situation or be applied to information known on SA ? Are there any similarities between SA and Kuwait that give better pointers about whats happening ?
Id be interested to know for example if the Kuwaiti reality matches up with the "on paper" Kuwait in terms "years till possible decline" etc.
Also , while I guess that Kuwait might have had advanced knowledge that this was imminent and already planned ahead, does anyone know how this might affect exploration equipment availability if/when Kuwait begin to try and make up their losses ?
Joined: Sep 02, 2005 Posts: 113 Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 2:57 pm Post subject: Re: Saudi Production: Collecting the Data
I am a bit confused, if we are borrowing oil from ours, Europes, and Japans SPR, and world demand continues to rise, why is Saudi Arabia producing less?
Quote:
LONDON -(Dow Jones)- Output from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries fell in October as Saudi Arabia eased back supplies and Iraq had problems with its southern export route, a Dow Jones Newswires survey found Tuesday.
OPEC produced 30.06 million barrels a day in October, down 220,000 b/d from a revised September figure, according to a survey of producer sources, traders, analysts and consultants. The 10 members of OPEC with a quota produced 28.23 million b/d in October, a modest 20,000 b/d increase compared with September.
Saudi output fell 100,000 b/d to 9.45 million b/d as the kingdom eased back on supplies following a drop in U.S. demand after key U.S. Gulf refineries were damaged by two hurricanes.
Oh right, refineries were down, than why aren't we importing additional Saudi oil? Has anyone addressed this yet? It doesn't make sense.
Joined: Nov 13, 2005 Posts: 11 Location: The Ozarks
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 9:15 pm Post subject: Re: Saudi Production: Collecting the Data
I have some questions for bobbyboy. But first, I'd like to toss my two cent's worth in. Hubbert's theory ain't no thinkin' thang as the country tune goes. Rather, it's one of those things you either get immediately or reject immediately. Deffeyes made a remarkable statement in his book that just stunned me. He said that in all his many years of seeing peoples' take of the theory, he knows of not one person to ever change their mind through debate and dissection of the facts. Maybe it's one of those things where the more you look at the small stuff the less you can see the forest for the rocks.
We have hard evidence of how much oil there is as given by the production/cumulative vs cumulative charts where the straight line developes and projects total oil, and this algebra translates into bell curves that are closely obeyed by the real life production data points. Moreover, these total oil numbers are closely verified by the nearly completed discovery bell curves, where it's a pretty reliable thing to just get the area under the curve (total discovered=total produced). You have to hope for severe, outlandish warping of the technology and physics of such things as RF and tertiary grossly distorting Hubbert's curves to justify anything but a severe shortage. I suppose this is barely possible, but hardly the way to establish good energy policy. We've had the Asleep-at-the-Wheel doctrine for 30 years now. Why on earth would we thumb our nose at math that doesn't lie and listen to serial liars tell us they can provide 100 mbd for the next 500 years?
I don't think it's a coincidence that Deffeyes and Simmons, being perhaps the leading exponents of the top down Hubbertarian high-math and bottom up reservoir historian approaches, both arrive at '05 as their peak through very different, independent means of analysis. Simmons is no Hubbertarian, just mentioning him in passing in Twilight (p46) saying that the U.S. peak ocurred "ironically" at the same time predicted by the screwball Hubbert. Although, he doesn't venture a peak year explicitly like Deffeyes, Simmons states that when the 3 or 4 Saudi elephant fields peak, global will have peaked. Then in discussing his most trusted reserve numbers, he says, "Assuming these reserve estimates were accurate, simple mathematics indicates that by the end of 2005, Abqaiq, Ghawar, and Berri should be nearing the end of their high-rate, free flowing oil production." p72.
I have the following questions for bobbyboy:
1. I'm getting the idea that the 3/6/03 Dow Jones Newswire from the Saudis (saying that they had reached their limit at 9.2 mbd and production would not rise further even with a war looming in Iraq) may have been the last honest production figure they have issued lately. Despite the official data points that form a higher high in '04 than this 3/03 high, you said they are producing less than 9 mbd in '04 and currently. Simmons agrees with you saying Aramco "claimed that Saudi oil output reached 9.5 mbd in July 2004 and stayed at that level for the next five months. While these claims are comforting to many oil observers, the IEA's reported crude oil imports by country of origin indicated that there had been only a modest growth in imports from Saudi Arabia from the very steady 4.5 to 4.6 mbd level that had been maintained for the preceeding several years. Little of the reported surge to 9.5 mbd showed up..."(p285). This was just the OECD nations' usage I guess, which is about 60% of total world usage. My question is about what Deffeyes said concerning oil figures; it gets counted twice, once at the well and once at the refineries and other end users. So we know what's being produced - eventually. The counting at the well is unreliable, especially if the well is in Arabia. So how do we know when figures are honest and when they are bogus? What do you base your less than 9 mbd figure on for Saudi oil and the 81.5 for global oil? The OECD import figures are just for a portion of usage, so how do we tabulate actual total usage?
2. What kind of time frame is there between bogus numbers released and when they get corrected in the oil market by the usage numbers? In the ficticious '97-'99 oil glut described by Simmons (p82), the oil market was going by quotas from OPEC meetings and things other than real usage/inventory. About 2 years later, the depressed price of oil had corrected from the "missing barrels". Does the oil market work the same way now even though nobody trusts Saudi statements as much as in the 90s? If the Saudis began a spat of lying in early '04, will the two year correction lag be putting upward pressure on oil in early '06?
3. This lag between official production and corrected official production is very dangerous in this overproduction/plateau era of technology. If Saudi production follows the pattern of other recent high-tech plateau peaks such as Indonesia, a 2 year lag could be traumatic if it is over the end-of-plateau period. Can you know if this is happening by the oil inventory builds or drawdowns?
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:55 am Post subject: Re: Saudi Production: Collecting the Data
I've been out of the country for awhile so just no getting around to responding ....
Neopo wrote:
Quote:
Rockdoc - sorry to inform you but someone has already dug through the data and his name is Matt simmons!!
and
How much does SA pay people like yourself anyways??
Well as I pointed out previously Simmons has ignored some key papers published exactly where he claims to have done all his research...the SPE. These publications argue that in fact Aramco has the water production issue under control. Whether Simmons ignored these papers because they did not fit his arguments or simply because he did not understand them is unknown. Whereas I am as perfectly capable of reading a corporation annual report as Simmons is....I think I would trust his recommendation as to whether a particular stock is worth buying or not moreso than I would my own. Conversely I would tend to believe a reservoir engineer/geologist when it comes to interpreting papers dealing with subsurface issues. I wish the Saudis would pay me....but alas not to be.
Quote:
Its just baffling that otherwise smart and educated people choose to believe and attempt to justify this BS.
And one could say the same thing about those who read Twilight in the Desert non-critically.
Airline pilot wrote:
Quote:
I think what Rockdoc is doing is commendable.
Rockdoc is trying to show us that there are two sides to every issue and with regards to Saudi production it's the same story.
Thanks and yes that is precisely the point.....there is information out there that dissagrees with Simmons, Campbell etc. While it is tempting to dismiss everything else as Saudi propaganda that is hardly a scientific approach. I tend to treat everything I read with a critical eye.
Killjoy wrote:
Quote:
I've read his posts carefully. He is using language, highly technical language, in a way to intimidate and to obfuscate.
using this logic I assume you get your global news from Sesame Street given that newspapers tend to write with intimidating language? Sorry but this is the language people who work with subsurface issues in the oilpatch use.....various words have precise meaning and are used specifically to avoid confusion. Simmons does not write this way simply because he is not that familiar with the language.
Typhoon wrote:
Quote:
I'm supposed to believe that when Aramco reported reserves before it was nationalized, it left out all reserves that weren't being tapped? I don't think so.
And why should they be any different than pretty much every oil company in the world? For example when you go to Chevron's annual report you see a reserve number in boe. This is generally P1 plus P2 or half P2. What doesn't show up is the P3 number which through time will be upgraded to P2 and P2 upgraded to P1. I don't see this as special pleading necessarily.
Quote:
The introduction of "World First MRC Window Exits Out of Solid Expandable Open-hole Liner in the Shaybah Field, Saudi Arabia" by Al-Jeffre, Al-Dossary, et. al. describes a Shaybah well which was producing at a 15% water cut before being worked over
I'm not sure why this would be a concern. As the papers on Shaybah point out the Shuaiba is fractured so a horizontal leg intersects a fracture connected to the water leg it will tend to produce higher amounts of water. Aramco argues that shutting off those fractured zones or avoiding them with MRC placed using high resolution 3D seismic solves the problem.
With regards to your calculations on depletion....this is another interesting way of looking at things and worth pursuing more I think. This is a bit like detective work....put all the pieces together to make some sense.
Quote:
I think this picture from North Uthmaniyah says it all. According to Morton, the original maximum oil column thickness was 1,300 feet. Now, it's 150 feet.
There is a more up to date picture of the water flood location in central Ghawar :
What is important to remember is the front of the flood does not represent 100% water saturation. According to Aramco 65% of the total production in Ain Dur comes from behind the flood front. So it isn't as simple as looking at the map and saying the oil column has gone from 1300 feet to 150 feet. The cross sections from the full field model I posted previously also demonstrates where the oil column was originally and where it is now for part of Ghawar. I agree that Ghawar has already produced a goodly chunk of it's OOIP. But if Aramco is correct and they can get similar recoveries from Ghawar as they are getting from Abaiqiq then there is nearly 20% of OOIP still remaining to be produced.....won't save the world but it likely isn't going to run out tomorrow either.
BobCousins wrote:
Quote:
Yeah, but rockdoc loses a lot of credibility for me because of his denial of Global Warming. He may know all about rocks, but I don't trust his judgement.
That is a pretty stupid statement. First off I am not a so-called "Global Warming denier" in fact I have stated on numerous occassions that indeed the earth is warming..we are coming out of a glaciation. My only argument has been that there is no hard proof that humans influence has anything to do with the warming....zero, none. Geologist, paleoclimatologists etc. deal with evidence and not models. On the various threads discussing this issue I have simply pointed to various publications that have noted evidence which contradicts the models. As is the case with Saudi production there is two sides to every story. You can blindly follow a particular viewpoint, accepting everything at face value or instead you can be critical of everything you read....I choose the latter.
GreyZone wrote:
Quote:
Is anyone surprised? And remember, Saudi Arabia has already leased the vast majority of available rigs so they have more rigs than ever before yet they are making excuses
.
I can attest to the truth behind Saudi's comments here....rig availability in the world is at an all time low. Trying to find a jack-up rig in the Arabian Gulf that is not tied up with a long term contract is currently impossible. There have been few new jack-ups built in the last 10 years simply because there was no demand. As well there are huge waiting lists now for delivery of casing, well-heads and other oil field equipment. The demand has simply out-paced supply. Increasing capacity is not as simple as having more rigs.....you need casing, tubing, wellheads to complete those wells. You also need to have sufficient water and gas separation facilities and the appropriate pipelines in place.
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
