onlooker wrote:Good point by Dissident as these EOR techniques just are accelerating production while empyting the reservoirs that much faster. Even I, a novice can apprehend that.
onlooker wrote: Which as Dissident said will make the demise of many reserves all the more extreme and abrupt. So our bounty now will be our barreness in a short time. But all to satisy a world that needs and wants ever more energy.
spike wrote: I agree about the danger of climate change from abundant oil. Regarding predictions, I have long ranted about the way too many judge good or bad predictions without asking "why?" 25 years ago at MIT I argued that economists were relying on a bad theory to predict that prices would gradually rise over the long term. https://books.google.com/books/about/Th ... SuOwAACAAJ
Dissident, what evidence do you have to support your views of a sharp, asymmetric decline? M Lynch
You need to brush up on your history as to how long shale wells have been producing. Devonian shale to be exact. Doesn't anyone here go to AAPG conferences to get real information anymore, people just say stuff without knowing anything?
As seen, the decline rate is high the first year, 74%, and gradually decreases to 47 and 19% during the second and third years. As a result, remaining production as share of the well’s IP is only 26% at the end of the first year. After 3 years only 11% of the IP(Initial production) level remains. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11053-016-9323-2
One of the main concerns is at Saudi's Ghawar field, where EOR has been going on for decades. Of course Simmons pointed this out some time ago, and it hasn't happened yet, but at some point Ghawar almost certainly will indeed go into an asymmetric and precipitous production decline, removing 5 million bbls/day from the global oil market.
The evidence of sharp, asymmetric declines in oil production after a peak is most clearly shown by the way oil production at the Mexican Cantarell field collapsed after years of EOR. Its a fact that some individual fields do see precipitous production declines.
Darian S wrote:You need to brush up on your history as to how long shale wells have been producing. Devonian shale to be exact. Doesn't anyone here go to AAPG conferences to get real information anymore, people just say stuff without knowing anything?
That says natural gas, haven't read it all so not sure if they talk oil. But multiple articles have said extremely sharp drop in production within a few years.
Darian S wrote:Shale might last decades but when talking about oil it may be at say 1% of original output,that is it would still be far lower than the original output.
Darian S wrote: If you bring 3000 wells online within a few years and they output say 30% of say USA output, and they drop to say 1~% of original output, that's 0.3% of USA output or basically nothing. That basically wipes 30% production off the map.
Darian S wrote:EDIT:
Will have to look at figures, have heard numbers near 10%. So will need to verify. Still a drop to 10% would mean if we were at 30% going down to 3%, basically just as bad a scenario
Darian S wrote:e.g.As seen, the decline rate is high the first year, 74%, and gradually decreases to 47 and 19% during the second and third years. As a result, remaining production as share of the well’s IP is only 26% at the end of the first year. After 3 years only 11% of the IP(Initial production) level remains. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11053-016-9323-2
rockdoc123 wrote:water flood which is not EOR.
Plantagenet wrote:rockdoc123 wrote:water flood which is not EOR.
I can't tell if you are a liar or just very stupid. You claim to have a background in the oil biz, but then you post silliness like this.
Only peakers would ignore the most basic sciences involved in their rush to do the curve fitting thing.
Fortunately, if you examine the information provided by the USGS, the drop doesn't look to be 1% of original output across the time span, call it 4.5% after 10 years.
Darian S wrote:Only peakers would ignore the most basic sciences involved in their rush to do the curve fitting thing.
Here's the thing the U.S had peaked, only thing that rescued production was adequate prices allowing for thousands upon thousands of new shale wells to be brought quickly online.
Darian S wrote:Here you're commenting a drop from 100% of Initial production to 4.5% in short order.Fortunately, if you examine the information provided by the USGS, the drop doesn't look to be 1% of original output across the time span, call it 4.5% after 10 years.
Darian S wrote:With seemingly no way to bring thousands upon thousands of additional new wells online decade after decade, how can you expect anything other than a U.S drop in production?
Darian S wrote:Did the shale play merely result in a second short lasting peak?
Darian S wrote:
Or do you have reason to believe the U.S has some means of continuing to increase production further, and compensate for the loss in production of both the old and newer wells?
So the lifespan associated with current reserves is reduced by the future reservoir deficit, T_2 will become negative in the near future and the amplitude into the negative direction will rapidly increase. It seems like a lot people think that T_1 is the only thing that matters and make the wrong conclusion about the lifetime of BAU. It is shorter than you think.
I can't tell if you are a liar or just very stupid. You claim to have a background in the oil biz, but then you post silliness like this.
Have you ever heard of the oil service company called Schlumberger? They are the largest and perhaps the most respected oil service company in the world. If you don't know who they are then I suggest you google them up before posting any more silliness.
Schlumberger specifically defines water flooding as enhanced oil recovery. The term "enhanced oil recovery" is right there in the Schlumberger definition of water flooding. Check it out. The definition begins.... Terms: waterflooding [enhanced oil recovery....]
If you can't understand the definition of water flooding, especially the part at the beginning where it says "enhanced oil recovery", then look at Schlumberger's in depth definition of enhanced oil recovery, where Schlumberger includes a technical paper on the enhanced oil recovery project at Burghan, a large clastic reservoir in KSA.
1. n. [Enhanced Oil Recovery]
An oil recovery enhancement method using sophisticated techniques that alter the original properties of oil. Once ranked as a third stage of oil recovery that was carried out after secondary recovery, the techniques employed during enhanced oil recovery can actually be initiated at any time during the productive life of an oil reservoir. Its purpose is not only to restore formation pressure, but also to improve oil displacement or fluid flow in the reservoir. The three major types of enhanced oil recovery operations are chemical flooding (alkaline flooding or micellar-polymer flooding), miscible displacement (carbon dioxide [CO2] injection or hydrocarbon injection), and thermal recovery (steamflood or in-situ combustion). The optimal application of each type depends on reservoir temperature, pressure, depth, net pay, permeability, residual oil and water saturations, porosity and fluid properties such as oil API gravity and viscosity. Enhanced oil recovery is also known as improved oil recovery or tertiary recovery and it is abbreviated as EOR.
no one disputes peaks within cycles of development. Around here, we have even discussed the sine wave of oil production being far more representative than this nonsense single peak stuff. And yes, go study the areas that the EIA applies the Oil and Gas Supply Module to, and you will see that there is area to drill, they have quantified it, and if the price is right, any model worth its salt will go drill wells. Exactly what happened, and has continued to happen. There will come a time when there are fewer areas. And then we can begin to talk about the next cycles of development.
The EIA does, and they are among the few who did NOT fall for the global peak oil being pimped a decade ago by other big organizations. So that puts them a leg up on those folks who got suckered, so for now, sure, we'll watch their work and see which way they jump. Certainly no one takes peak oilers seriously on this topic now, and with the IEA having fallen for global peak in 2006, they are on the "suspicious" list until further notice.
So until someone can identify exactly how much technically producible hydrocarbons (irrespective of price) exist around the world then any discussion regarding replacement by new discoveries is interesting but incomplete and hence wrong.
It's not just technically producible, but at what rate too and EROEI. If we ignore prices and EROEI the vast majority can likely be recovered if you go through enough lengths. But there comes a point were it may be easier to manufacture than to get the last drops out. Also it is not guaranteed that technological improvement will allow for adequate rate of extraction of the latter remaining resources.
Regards existing reserves. Are we sure the powers that be don't have incentives to overstate their existing reserve
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests