|Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 17):|
Not really...current technology can, at best, get about 25% of the oil out of any particular reservoir. Obviously, that will go up with technology, but it's an asymptotic problem so we'll never be able to extract all of the oil that's in the ground.
There seems to be a problem on this thread with what is being quoted as reserves. Unfortunately, this is not entirely simple. In general 1P is what you really think you can produce. 2P
reserves include some lower confidence oil. 3P
we will not go into. BUT, reserves are what you can produce. If you cannot produce it, you cannot sell it. Equally if you cannot buy it from a seller it is not going to do you much good.
Many (but not all) of the higher figures quoted on this thread are not reserves, they are RESOURCES. Mixing reserves and resources leads to pointless arguing about different things.
Uncertainties for resources exist about any of:
1. Actual existence (oil under the N Polar seas for example)
2. Feasibility of extraction (also a problem for Polar seas oils IF
they exist) but also relating to other matters such as availability of water for the Green River (GRF) oil shales and half a dozen other problems associated with recovering oil from those shales)
3. Costs (if production costs are not less than the price you can get it simply will not happen, well not for long!!!)
|Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 20):|
Quoting Hmmmm... (Reply 13):
Oil that is pumped from the sea, and not from the arab nations, will be a stable supply, eliminating the speculator's security premium.
Exactly what "oil from the sea" are you thinking of? There are offshore reserves, certainly, but where on Earth are there reserves that rival the Middle East?
|Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 20):|
Bottom line is that there is no reasonable expectation that any reserve as large as Cantarell could be located, and lacking that Mexican oil production will continue to decline. This is pretty much the case in every developed oil region. We still find new fields in the US, but overall production has steadily declined.
You cannot pump more oil out the ground just by throwing money at it. At some point, there is a maximum sustainable rate of production from any oil field, and that production inevitably reaches a point of decline. Advancing technology has mostly helped to increase the ultimate total oil extracted, but not so much to increase the rate of production.
All true TA
. Excellent stuff. I just hope some is believed by the Kool Aid no problems brigade.
|Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 30):|
We hope? The area hasn't been explored in any detail, so that assertion has no basis in fact. Best guess is the region may contain about 1/4 of the yet-to-be-discovered reserves. Then there's the cost of production to consider.
Too right it has not been explored. So far it has to be added to a number of other HUGE, RICH oil provinces such as the Falklands and the Spratly Islands. Hype>>>>>>>>proved reserves!!!!
As for deciding that if drilling technology can operate in 5 km of water (close to true), then another 70% - or whatever - of the earths surface is prospective, well that is a nonsence. We already know that over most of the oceans basins, the sedimentary section is very thin - the deep sea drilling program has shown that for the most part the section is exactly what was predicted.
The deep water oil is being found on the continental rises. The Gulf of Mexico is one area but offshore Angola and Mauretania and Brazil are also important. These last two also illustrate the problems. The source of the oil is downfaulted lake deposits formed when S American and S Africa came to a parting of the ways. Most of the reservoirs are in young sands deposited on the new continental slopes, and these sands are not like the "normal" sands found say in a Pennsylvanian oil field. Some of these promising discoveries are now producing at about a third of the expected rates due to sand conditions and ultimate recoveries look like being reduced.
|Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 30):|
That "huge find" is estimated between 3 and 15 billion barrels, including natural gas as oil equivalent. Sounds big...but it's really not, especially compared to Saudi Arabia's proven reserves of 250 billion barrels.
|Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 42):|
I've been personally involved in at least four 1+billion bbl finds in the last decade in the Gulf.
I wonder which fields are being referred to here. The sources I can find (including the AAPG Explorer) suggest 1P reserves for recent Gulf fields get up to about 750 mmbo which is real nice, but not billions. And recently a few have had the initial recoverable reserves reduced on further appraisal.
In general, there appears to be a trend that downward revision of deep offshore reserves is more common that for continental or shallower continental reserves. There are some reasons why this might be happening but it goes a bit beyond this thread.
|Quoting Ncelhr (Reply 55):|
I hope this has raised a few valid points. Thanks for reading.
Nice post Ncelhr, although like TA
I dont agree with it all. I don't plan to be around to check directly if your 100 years for peak oil could be true, but I think I might only have to last another 5 or so to prove it wrong.
On a technical point, refinery shortfall is a factor. However, it is were the cause of high prices what you should see is LOW crude prices and very very high refinery margins. Margins are a bit high but not nearly enough and if there was not enough capacity, why is there still a demand for crude???? So I don't think that the facts bear out that suggestion.
It is true that the really big oil companies have more ability than most organizations to shift profits, but as they complain about producer governments tax rates like a bunch of stuck pigs, you would not think they would be shifting profits there! Maybe I am missing something.
|Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 56):|
There are plenty villians to go around, but singleing out vertically integrated oil companies leads to incorrect assumptions and answers.
Good observation that big oil is not quite as bad as folk like to paint it.
Just as an observation (actually a repeat as I have made it before) one of big oil's problems is that they have had to rescale their operations. Time was when Exxon was not really interested in finding anything less than 500 mmbo recoverable reserves, then it went to 100, now who knows but much smaller. Meanwhile, its own overheads might well have gone up rather than down making life quite difficult - behind the monster profits, so not a really difficult life still!!
|Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 73):|
The list is endless... Kerosene is still cheap is all. Airplanes ain't going anywhere.
Oddly enough, the cost is not that critical for longer range aircraft. It is energy density that is the key - a combination of relative density and specific heat of combustion. Hydrogen is great for heat, but bad on density. A lump of petroleum coke gets you really good energy per unit volume, but is really difficult to burn in a turbine!
Equally oddly enough, fixing coal so that its products will burn in gas turbines is one path to greater energy efficiency - provided that processing the coal to a suitable fuel is not even more energy consuming.
Just for fun, here is a micrograph of Green River formation. The yellow is the oil precursor. It is solid. Not so easy to extract. Field width is 0.22mm.