Oil thread 9-7-06:Former BP head of Pipeline invokes 5th

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
:cool:

Bank Of Montreal says Saudi Arabia Reserve is in irreversible decline

They are injecting water, the fields will be dead very soon :thumbsup:

4-12-2005 Bank says Saudi's top field in decline

"The combination of the news that there's no new Saudi Light coming on stream for the next seven years plus the 27% projected decline from existing fields means Hubbert's Peak has arrived in Saudi Arabia"

Coxe uses the phrase 'Hubbert's Peak' to describe the situation. This refers to the seminal geologist M King Hubbert, who predicted the unavoidable decline of oilfields back in the 1950s.

The Bank of Montreal's analyst Don Coxe, working from their Chicago office, is the first mainstream number-cruncher to say that Gharwar's days are fated.

One factor contributing to the scrutiny the Gharwar field faces is the huge amount of water injection used.

Water is pumped into an ageing oilfield in order to maintain high pressure inside.

Coxe goes on to ask why new Saudi fields, not just ageing ones, are also water injected.

Pumping salt water into a field is standard secondary recovery measure. What matters here is the water cut of Ghawar, the single largest field in the world; it produces more oil than the entire US does in the lower 48. Back in 2002, Ghawar was averaging about 35% water cut, meaning that 1 out of 3 barrels of fluids was the water they pumped in to up the pressure in the field. By upping the pressure, it's easier to get more oil, and plus the oil is lighter than water so it "floats" to the top. I've seen reports by engineers that say Ghawar was up to 55% water, which is very bad for a mature field. It basically means that the field is depleted and will never reach production levels before However, Ghawar isn't just any old field. The latest Aramco presentations say that the water cut is down to the mid 30s range.

Ghawar is damn near its peak. The Saudis themselves say that Ghawar is 48% depleted. If we go by the original Shell geologists, then Ghawar is about 95% depleted (58 billion barrels extracted compared to 60 billion barrels recoverably). Personally, I think hte number will be closer to 80 billion barrels, as Ghawar hasn't really started to decline.

This doesn't touch on the type of oil Ghawar is producing, which is split between Arabian Light (the good stuff), Arabian Medium and Heavy (the not so good). We have a glut of medium and heavy, and they are also harder to distill and to refine. Heavy oil sells for about 12 or so dollars. But the real gauge is light oil, which is responsible for the majority of gasoline. That is what West Texas Intermediate is and what Brent is as well. Light oil are the first fractions that are extracted, because it is light and floats to the top, making it the easiest to extract. Unfortunately, light oil is definately in decline world wide. Medium and heavy are also oils, but we've mainly used them for asphalat and tires. Medium and Heavy oils also usually have a higher sulfur content. This makes it very difficult to refine, because you release sulfur particulates into the air. This is a major component of smog and generally atmospherical malaise.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
:cool:

Bank Of Montreal says Saudi Arabia Reserve is in irreversible decline

They are injecting water, the fields will be dead very soon :thumbsup:

4-12-2005 Bank says Saudi's top field in decline

"The combination of the news that there's no new Saudi Light coming on stream for the next seven years plus the 27% projected decline from existing fields means Hubbert's Peak has arrived in Saudi Arabia"

Coxe uses the phrase 'Hubbert's Peak' to describe the situation. This refers to the seminal geologist M King Hubbert, who predicted the unavoidable decline of oilfields back in the 1950s.

The Bank of Montreal's analyst Don Coxe, working from their Chicago office, is the first mainstream number-cruncher to say that Gharwar's days are fated.

One factor contributing to the scrutiny the Gharwar field faces is the huge amount of water injection used.

Water is pumped into an ageing oilfield in order to maintain high pressure inside.

Coxe goes on to ask why new Saudi fields, not just ageing ones, are also water injected.

Pumping salt water into a field is standard secondary recovery measure. What matters here is the water cut of Ghawar, the single largest field in the world; it produces more oil than the entire US does in the lower 48. Back in 2002, Ghawar was averaging about 35% water cut, meaning that 1 out of 3 barrels of fluids was the water they pumped in to up the pressure in the field. By upping the pressure, it's easier to get more oil, and plus the oil is lighter than water so it "floats" to the top. I've seen reports by engineers that say Ghawar was up to 55% water, which is very bad for a mature field. It basically means that the field is depleted and will never reach production levels before However, Ghawar isn't just any old field. The latest Aramco presentations say that the water cut is down to the mid 30s range.

Ghawar is damn near its peak. The Saudis themselves say that Ghawar is 48% depleted. If we go by the original Shell geologists, then Ghawar is about 95% depleted (58 billion barrels extracted compared to 60 billion barrels recoverably). Personally, I think hte number will be closer to 80 billion barrels, as Ghawar hasn't really started to decline.

This doesn't touch on the type of oil Ghawar is producing, which is split between Arabian Light (the good stuff), Arabian Medium and Heavy (the not so good). We have a glut of medium and heavy, and they are also harder to distill and to refine. Heavy oil sells for about 12 or so dollars. But the real gauge is light oil, which is responsible for the majority of gasoline. That is what West Texas Intermediate is and what Brent is as well. Light oil are the first fractions that are extracted, because it is light and floats to the top, making it the easiest to extract. Unfortunately, light oil is definately in decline world wide. Medium and heavy are also oils, but we've mainly used them for asphalat and tires. Medium and Heavy oils also usually have a higher sulfur content. This makes it very difficult to refine, because you release sulfur particulates into the air. This is a major component of smog and generally atmospherical malaise.

Excellent post

0Mar, are you in the Oil Industry???

Who needs light Oil and Gas anyway?

We have all those alternative energies that the P&N experts swear we have and using now.
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
:cool:

Bank Of Montreal says Saudi Arabia Reserve is in irreversible decline

They are injecting water, the fields will be dead very soon :thumbsup:

4-12-2005 Bank says Saudi's top field in decline

"The combination of the news that there's no new Saudi Light coming on stream for the next seven years plus the 27% projected decline from existing fields means Hubbert's Peak has arrived in Saudi Arabia"

Coxe uses the phrase 'Hubbert's Peak' to describe the situation. This refers to the seminal geologist M King Hubbert, who predicted the unavoidable decline of oilfields back in the 1950s.

The Bank of Montreal's analyst Don Coxe, working from their Chicago office, is the first mainstream number-cruncher to say that Gharwar's days are fated.

One factor contributing to the scrutiny the Gharwar field faces is the huge amount of water injection used.

Water is pumped into an ageing oilfield in order to maintain high pressure inside.

Coxe goes on to ask why new Saudi fields, not just ageing ones, are also water injected.

Pumping salt water into a field is standard secondary recovery measure. What matters here is the water cut of Ghawar, the single largest field in the world; it produces more oil than the entire US does in the lower 48. Back in 2002, Ghawar was averaging about 35% water cut, meaning that 1 out of 3 barrels of fluids was the water they pumped in to up the pressure in the field. By upping the pressure, it's easier to get more oil, and plus the oil is lighter than water so it "floats" to the top. I've seen reports by engineers that say Ghawar was up to 55% water, which is very bad for a mature field. It basically means that the field is depleted and will never reach production levels before However, Ghawar isn't just any old field. The latest Aramco presentations say that the water cut is down to the mid 30s range.

Ghawar is damn near its peak. The Saudis themselves say that Ghawar is 48% depleted. If we go by the original Shell geologists, then Ghawar is about 95% depleted (58 billion barrels extracted compared to 60 billion barrels recoverably). Personally, I think hte number will be closer to 80 billion barrels, as Ghawar hasn't really started to decline.

This doesn't touch on the type of oil Ghawar is producing, which is split between Arabian Light (the good stuff), Arabian Medium and Heavy (the not so good). We have a glut of medium and heavy, and they are also harder to distill and to refine. Heavy oil sells for about 12 or so dollars. But the real gauge is light oil, which is responsible for the majority of gasoline. That is what West Texas Intermediate is and what Brent is as well. Light oil are the first fractions that are extracted, because it is light and floats to the top, making it the easiest to extract. Unfortunately, light oil is definately in decline world wide. Medium and heavy are also oils, but we've mainly used them for asphalat and tires. Medium and Heavy oils also usually have a higher sulfur content. This makes it very difficult to refine, because you release sulfur particulates into the air. This is a major component of smog and generally atmospherical malaise.

Excellent post

0Mar, are you in the Oil Industry???

Who needs light Oil and Gas anyway?

We have all those alternative energies that the P&N experts swear we have and using now.

I'm actually working towards my PhD in biological alternative fuels. I also have been reading a lot about oil (since about 2000 or so) and industry practices.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Excellent post

0Mar, are you in the Oil Industry???

Who needs light Oil and Gas anyway?

We have all those alternative energies that the P&N experts swear we have and using now.

I'm actually working towards my PhD in biological alternative fuels. I also have been reading a lot about oil (since about 2000 or so) and industry practices.[/quote]

So the bottom line.

What do we have in massive quantities that could replace Oil as a fuel source???
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Excellent post

0Mar, are you in the Oil Industry???

Who needs light Oil and Gas anyway?

We have all those alternative energies that the P&N experts swear we have and using now.

I'm actually working towards my PhD in biological alternative fuels. I also have been reading a lot about oil (since about 2000 or so) and industry practices.

So the bottom line.

What do we have in massive quantities that could replace Oil as a fuel source???[/quote]

Coal. That's about the only thing on the continent that can replace oil in the Americas. Natural gas is declining in America and Canada is on the precipice of decline.

Of course, coal is a filthy fuel. It will contribute greatly to global warming and local pollution.

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Excellent post

0Mar, are you in the Oil Industry???

Who needs light Oil and Gas anyway?

We have all those alternative energies that the P&N experts swear we have and using now.

I'm actually working towards my PhD in biological alternative fuels. I also have been reading a lot about oil (since about 2000 or so) and industry practices.

So the bottom line.

What do we have in massive quantities that could replace Oil as a fuel source???

Coal. That's about the only thing on the continent that can replace oil in the Americas. Natural gas is declining in America and Canada is on the precipice of decline.

Of course, coal is a filthy fuel. It will contribute greatly to global warming and local pollution. [/quote]

What the hell, why not, we're stupid enough to kill ourselves anyway.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Excellent post

0Mar, are you in the Oil Industry???

Who needs light Oil and Gas anyway?

We have all those alternative energies that the P&N experts swear we have and using now.

I'm actually working towards my PhD in biological alternative fuels. I also have been reading a lot about oil (since about 2000 or so) and industry practices.

So the bottom line.

What do we have in massive quantities that could replace Oil as a fuel source???

Coal. That's about the only thing on the continent that can replace oil in the Americas. Natural gas is declining in America and Canada is on the precipice of decline.

Of course, coal is a filthy fuel. It will contribute greatly to global warming and local pollution.

What the hell, why not, we're stupid enough to kill ourselves anyway.[/quote]




linkage


KFx has a patented technology that uses intense heat and pressure to strip up to 85 percent of mercury and up to 30 percent of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from low-cost, low-grade western coal. The company is readying for a wider entry into the market.

After stripping pollutants from the coal, the operator is left with a fuel that burns nearly as clean as unleaded gasoline and requires no further treatment, said Ted Venners, the company's top executive.

KFx hired engineering firm Black and Veatch to model the cost of running every electric utility in the U.S. on this fuel. The results identified 700 coal utility boilers as potential clients.

This study indicated that of the 1 billion tons of coal burned each year in the U.S., roughly 250 million tons could be supplied by KFx. The EPA's mercury rule is likely to increase that market to 400 million tons, creating a "guaranteed market" among utilities need to meet the stricter rules, Venners said.

The company is building two facilities in Wyoming that will eventually treat more than 750,000 tons of coal a year. Arch Coal (ACI: news, chart, profile) is an investor in the company.

Lots of interesting technologies popping up in the energy field. According to their website this process also raising the BTU level of the processes coal, so not only does it burn cleaner, you have to transport and burn less of it.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Bahahaha

Bush and the Republicans are starting to realize their Empire will crumple
when the poor can't even drive anymore and the Rich boys have to stop playing Monopoly:

4-16-2005 G7 Meeting May Focus on Oil, Market Losses

The Bush administration, already concerned about the impact soaring oil prices will have on the economy, now has to be worried as well about a plunging stock market.

On Friday, Wall Street suffered its worst single day loss in nearly two years with the Dow Jones industrial average plunging 191.24 points, its third straight triple-digit decline ? something that hasn't happened since January 2003.

The sell-off was blamed on increasing worries that the U.S. economy ? the locomotive for the global economy ? could be entering a "soft patch" that could be worse than last year's spring and summer slowdown. Those also occurred after gasoline and other energy prices skyrocketed.
 

Wag

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
8,288
8
81
If the Pres was seriously worried why doesn't he push to raise the milage standards on US cars?
 

catnap1972

Platinum Member
Aug 10, 2000
2,607
0
76
Originally posted by: Wag
If the Pres was seriously worried why doesn't he push to raise the milage standards on US cars?

And risk the oil empire (and his kickbacks) going kaput?

Surely you jest! :D

 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: Wag
If the Pres was seriously worried why doesn't he push to raise the milage standards on US cars?

Republicans attacked CAFE standards. Why would they admit their error now? Their short sightedness has led us to this point. They certainly aren't capable of successfully leading us out of the mess they've created.

Jimmy Carter was working on a bold energy initiative during his term. Reagan came into Washington and trashed the whole plan. Big oil and auto manufacturers trumped the Carter energy plan, which included healthy increases in PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, and decided it was better to take the shortsighted view and keep making their billions off of our ridiculous one person per car transportation system rather than look to the future and do what was best for America.

I hope they enjoyed their ride because it's almost over. And it looks like we'll be the ones paying for it -- again.

:(

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Wag
If the Pres was seriously worried why doesn't he push to raise the milage standards on US cars?

Republicans attacked CAFE standards. Why would they admit their error now? Their short sightedness has led us to this point. They certainly aren't capable of successfully leading us out of the mess they've created.

Jimmy Carter was working on a bold energy initiative during his term. Reagan came into Washington and trashed the whole plan. Big oil and auto manufacturers trumped the Carter energy plan, which included healthy increases in PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, and decided it was better to take the shortsighted view and keep making their billions off of our ridiculous one person per car transportation system rather than look to the future and do what was best for America.

I hope they enjoyed their ride because it's almost over. And it looks like we'll be the ones paying for it -- again. :(

Good post except one correction. If you are Rich, this does not affect you.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Wag
If the Pres was seriously worried why doesn't he push to raise the milage standards on US cars?

Republicans attacked CAFE standards. Why would they admit their error now? Their short sightedness has led us to this point. They certainly aren't capable of successfully leading us out of the mess they've created.

Jimmy Carter was working on a bold energy initiative during his term. Reagan came into Washington and trashed the whole plan. Big oil and auto manufacturers trumped the Carter energy plan, which included healthy increases in PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, and decided it was better to take the shortsighted view and keep making their billions off of our ridiculous one person per car transportation system rather than look to the future and do what was best for America.

I hope they enjoyed their ride because it's almost over. And it looks like we'll be the ones paying for it -- again. :(

Good post except one correction. If you are Rich, this does not affect you.

Good point. I hope the rest of the non-rich get it. ;)

 

catnap1972

Platinum Member
Aug 10, 2000
2,607
0
76
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Wag
If the Pres was seriously worried why doesn't he push to raise the milage standards on US cars?

Republicans attacked CAFE standards. Why would they admit their error now? Their short sightedness has led us to this point. They certainly aren't capable of successfully leading us out of the mess they've created.

Jimmy Carter was working on a bold energy initiative during his term. Reagan came into Washington and trashed the whole plan. Big oil and auto manufacturers trumped the Carter energy plan, which included healthy increases in PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, and decided it was better to take the shortsighted view and keep making their billions off of our ridiculous one person per car transportation system rather than look to the future and do what was best for America.

I hope they enjoyed their ride because it's almost over. And it looks like we'll be the ones paying for it -- again. :(

Good post except one correction. If you are Rich, this does not affect you.

Good point. I hope the rest of the non-rich get it. ;)

No way! Then they'd have to agree with gays getting married to their pets, and people giving god free healthcare before killing him with higher taxes, abortions and guns (before they're banned by the left).

Ain't no way the sheeple are going to let THAT happen! ;)
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Oil continues inexplicable rise even though there is plenty of Supply.

4-22-2005 Dow Closes Down 61 on Oil

Adding to the concern over consumer spending, oil prices continued their rise, with a barrel of light crude settling at $55.39, up $1.319, on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

A hefty surplus in U.S. crude oil inventories and signs that the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries is boosting output again have done little to calm markets worried about insufficient transport and heating fuels to meet demand later this year.
============================================
OMFG WTF !!!

They've run out of bullsh1t excuses so now they are driving the price up on next Winter's fuel and it is not even summer yet.

This takes the fvking cake.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Dave there's money to be made here. Buy intrests in oil and gas well's. You can get in for as low as $500. I can send you the trade publications if you wish. But of course youd need to study up on to find those with value. Passive income too. ie. no FICA tax.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Zebo
Dave there's money to be made here. Buy intrests in oil and gas well's. You can get in for as low as $500. I can send you the trade publications if you wish. But of course youd need to study up on to find those with value. Passive income too. ie. no FICA tax.

I'd glady invest in a producing well.

Thanks, I'll PM you with my address.


 

Sysbuilder05

Senior member
Nov 10, 2004
409
0
0
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Ethanol is an energy loser and therefore will always need to be subsidized by an energy winner (re oil).


Sure thing,just like back in the mid seventies the Oil companies put out press release after press release saying how using anything but pure 100% gasoline would destroy your engine. BS then BS now. They see their house of cards coming to a close,unless they buy up farmland or invest heavily in hydrogen research. Funny isn't it how there are only about 20-25 NEW cars that will run on E85 fuel when EVERY new car rolling off the line should be able to run on 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. Right there you could cut out the Oil imports from the mideast and say goodbye to that mess forever. But BS walks and the Oil companies run this country.

The facts are that ethanol isn't quite as explosive as gasoline and will yeild slightly less mpg. But...its 100% renewable,you can get alcohol from nearly every living plant including the weeds in your yard. Lets see....help out farmers and end farm subsidies with overwhelming demand for farm crops or keep paying some beloved patriot Saudi Shiek??

Hmmmm......
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
Originally posted by: Sysbuilder05
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Ethanol is an energy loser and therefore will always need to be subsidized by an energy winner (re oil).


Sure thing,just like back in the mid seventies the Oil companies put out press release after press release saying how using anything but pure 100% gasoline would destroy your engine. BS then BS now. They see their house of cards coming to a close,unless they buy up farmland or invest heavily in hydrogen research. Funny isn't it how there are only about 20-25 NEW cars that will run on E85 fuel when EVERY new car rolling off the line should be able to run on 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. Right there you could cut out the Oil imports from the mideast and say goodbye to that mess forever. But BS walks and the Oil companies run this country.

The facts are that ethanol isn't quite as explosive as gasoline and will yeild slightly less mpg. But...its 100% renewable,you can get alcohol from nearly every living plant including the weeds in your yard. Lets see....help out farmers and end farm subsidies with overwhelming demand for farm crops or keep paying some beloved patriot Saudi Shiek??

Hmmmm......

The way ethanol is made in the US is not renewable. BTW, I have since rescinded that remark after reading several articles as pointed out by CSG. But as it is, ethanol requires vast inputs of non-renewable energy to get off the ground. It may be an energy winner, but it is still non-renewable in its current state.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
More conflicting mis-information.

Bush ask Oil Prince if U.S. could help look for more Oil in Saudi Arabia.

That would suggest Saudi Arabia is in fact tapped out.

4-25-2005 Bush Seeks Relief From Record Oil Prices

CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush is seeking relief from record-high gas prices and support for Middle East peace as he opens his Texas ranch to Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer.

The president also said he's looking for "a straight answer" on how close the Saudis are to reaching production capacity. "I don't think they're pumping flat out," Bush said.

The best-case scenario for Bush, Jordan said, would to secure a commitment from Abdullah to explore additional oil fields and invest in additional production capacity. The United States could offer to help by providing technical expertise or helping to build storage facilities for reserves, he said.
 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
More conflicting mis-information.

Bush ask Oil Prince if U.S. could help look for more Oil in Saudi Arabia.

That would suggest Saudi Arabia is in fact tapped out.

4-25-2005 Bush Seeks Relief From Record Oil Prices

CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush is seeking relief from record-high gas prices and support for Middle East peace as he opens his Texas ranch to Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer.

The president also said he's looking for "a straight answer" on how close the Saudis are to reaching production capacity. "I don't think they're pumping flat out," Bush said.

The best-case scenario for Bush, Jordan said, would to secure a commitment from Abdullah to explore additional oil fields and invest in additional production capacity. The United States could offer to help by providing technical expertise or helping to build storage facilities for reserves, he said.

And you wonder why the conflict in the Middle Easty. Their golden goose is dying and they know that they will starve when the oil runs out. We can make ethanol out of our crops, they can't eat their sand!

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Condor

And you wonder why the conflict in the Middle East. Their golden goose is dying and they know that they will starve when the oil runs out. We can make ethanol out of our crops, they can't eat their sand!

However I'm sure the same with Qatar that there is a huge amount of Natural Gas in the Saudi Arabian fields that have been depleted of Oil.