Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Declining Production in Alaska

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Declining Production in Alaska

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 07 Sep 2016, 12:09:10

Updated graph with data through June:


any view as to whether production will be controlled by an economic limit (opex exceeds net free cashflow) or a production below line pressure?
Ultimate recovery obviously is related.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Declining Production in Alaska

Unread postby PeakOiler » Sat 01 Oct 2016, 06:07:49

Updated graph with data through July 2016:

Image

July was 422 kbpd.
There’s a strange irony related to this subject [oil and gas extraction] that the better you do the job at exploiting this oil and gas, the sooner it is gone.

--Colin Campbell
User avatar
PeakOiler
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3664
Joined: Thu 18 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Central Texas

Re: Declining Production in Alaska

Unread postby PeakOiler » Tue 03 Jan 2017, 14:09:30

I came across this article today:
Alaska Dispatch Article

An apparent sharp drop in projected Alaska oil output in the state's most recent production forecast is due more to a change in forecast methodology than underperformance of wells and fields, officials at the state Division of Oil and Gas said.

Under the new forecast released Dec. 14, Alaska will produce an average of 490,300 barrels per day in the current fiscal year instead of the 507,100 barrels per day estimated in the most recent previous estimate made last spring.

The estimates also reduced expected output for next year, in fiscal year 2018, the 12-month period beginning July 1, from an average of 488,800 barrels per day to 455,600 in the new estimate.
...
State Revenue Commissioner Randall Hoffbeck said the state expects the production decline will level out in future years because of new projects even if they are not included in the forecast.

"We are optimistic about several large developments that are not included in the forecast, including the Nanushuk discovery by Armstrong Oil and Gas and a discovery at Smith Bay by Caelus Energy," Hoffbeck said. If these projects proceed they could add 350,000 barrels per day, but their development will take several years.

However, for now the Department of Revenue's long-term forecast is for North Slope production to decline to 331,000 barrels per day by 2026, a volume that is near levels that could put the trans-Alaska pipeline at risk.


I'll update and post the latest chart soon.

With data through October, looks like the North Slope's minimum output for 2011 was 422 kbpd in July and the max was 500 kbpd in Jan 2016.
There’s a strange irony related to this subject [oil and gas extraction] that the better you do the job at exploiting this oil and gas, the sooner it is gone.

--Colin Campbell
User avatar
PeakOiler
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3664
Joined: Thu 18 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Central Texas

Re: Declining Production in Alaska

Unread postby Alaska_geo » Fri 13 Jan 2017, 19:01:49

North Slope production (and hence TAPS throughput) is up slightly for 2016. Prudhoe Bay production stayed virtually flat. That together with modest increased production from other smaller N Slope fields led to the increase in total N Slope production.

See http://www.petroleumnews.com/pnads/527220083.shtml (Behind paywall, but you can likely find it with google in a week or so.)
BP held Prudhoe Bay field production virtually flat in 2016, a sharp improvement over annual declines averaging 4 percent to 6 percent in years past, company officials said in an interview.

Prudhoe is the largest field on Alaska’s North Slope and the leveling of its production was a major factor helping Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. actually boost throughput in the Trans Alaska Pipeline System by 1.85 percent last year, the first increase in decades for TAPS.

Alyeska confirmed Jan. 9 that total Slope production ticked up to an average of 517,868 barrels per day, up from an average of 508,446 barrels per day in 2015.

Prudhoe Bay’s production for 2016 was slightly down but by less than 1 percent. The field averaged 280,700 barrels per day last year compared with 281,800 barrels per day the prior year. Prudhoe produces about half of the oil moving through TAPS.
------------------snip------------------------
State Oil and Gas Division Director Chantal Walsh credited the Slope production performance to a number of factors including better-than-expected output of ConocoPhillips-operated CD-5, a new production site near the Alpine field, production from Drill Site 2S in Kuparuk, also by ConocoPhillips, and a coiled-tubing drilling program in Milne Point by Hilcorp Alaska.

The flat production at Prudhoe is due mostly to various projects done in the last couple of years to de-bottleneck surface facilities. In addition, BP was able to target several areas of bypassed oil in the field, resulting in a couple of 3000-4000 bbl/day wells (an average Prudhoe well these days makes about 400-500 bbl/day).
"Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas any more."
-Dorothy, in The Wizard of Oz
Alaska_geo
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue 16 Dec 2014, 21:56:22
Location: Alaska

Re: Declining Production in Alaska

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 09:19:33

It will be interesting to see what the Trump administration has for an effect on Alaskan production rates. Anybody have any insight as to what is possible if the oil companies are given free reign?
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Declining Production in Alaska

Unread postby Cog » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 09:24:44

Opening up Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling is something Trump is likely to pursue.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13416
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Declining Production in Alaska

Unread postby marmico » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 10:27:14

COP may tap into TAPS 150,000 b/d by 2023.

http://alaska.conocophillips.com/newsro ... .FINAL.pdf
marmico
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1112
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 14:46:35

Re: Declining Production in Alaska

Unread postby PeakOiler » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 11:01:41

Here's the updated chart with data through October, 2016. EIA reported 480 kbpd in October.

Image
There’s a strange irony related to this subject [oil and gas extraction] that the better you do the job at exploiting this oil and gas, the sooner it is gone.

--Colin Campbell
User avatar
PeakOiler
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3664
Joined: Thu 18 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Central Texas

Re: Declining Production in Alaska

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 11:19:30

vtsnowedin wrote:It will be interesting to see what the Trump administration has for an effect on Alaskan production rates. Anybody have any insight as to what is possible if the oil companies are given free reign?


Senator Murkowski from Alaska chairs the energy resources committee and stated emphatically around the 10th of November that opening ANWR is top of her agenda for after the inauguration.

See post about it here,

the-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge-anwr-thread-merged-t1098-480.html
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Declining Production in Alaska

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 13:08:38

An update on what has been done and what could be done in the future:

What Obama's Drilling Bans Mean for Alaska and the Arctic

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... -drilling/
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Declining Production in Alaska

Unread postby PeakOiler » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 14:45:40

I wrote on April 14, 2015:

PeakOiler wrote:<<snip>>
Then in the next 8-9 years, I suspect the ANWR will finally get opened to drilling, especially if the Republicans get the Presidency next election and also have the majority in Congress.


Looks like I called this one. It may not be long now before the ban on drilling the ANWR is overturned.
There’s a strange irony related to this subject [oil and gas extraction] that the better you do the job at exploiting this oil and gas, the sooner it is gone.

--Colin Campbell
User avatar
PeakOiler
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3664
Joined: Thu 18 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Central Texas

Re: Declining Production in Alaska

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 15:24:59

And we do recall that back when oil was $100+/bbl it was a D POTUS that approved future lease sales on the east coast and Arctic waters, don't we? And it was D POTUS that approved the permit that allowed Shell Oil to drill a well in the Arctic, right? And that it was D POTUS that offered more offshore acreage then any other POTUS in history, right? And that it was a D POTUS that approved new drill permits in the GOM in the same area asdasd the worse oil pollution nightmare in US history right? That more of the "dirtest oil on the planet" was imported from Canada when we had a D POTUS then during the term of any other POTUS, right?

And now that oil prices have fallen a number of govt pollicies have changed. I just get the sense that the price of oil has a greater impact on US govt actions then whether the POTUS is an R or a D.

Go figure. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Declining Production in Alaska

Unread postby yportne » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 15:49:48

Many years ago a single well was drilled in ANWR. Was it a dry hole? http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0 ... text6.html
User avatar
yportne
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon 03 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Declining Production in Alaska

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 16:06:45

ROCKMAN how much drilling has taken place in the zone between the Wrangle mountains and Prudhoe Bay? There seem to be a lot of miles after you get out of the mountains and before you reach the sea, is that land all off limits or just has no sign of being viable for oil production?
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Declining Production in Alaska

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 19:50:54

T - I'm not familiar but found this:

"The Copper River basin sits in a lowland area due north of the Gulf of Alaska and bounded by the Alaska Range, the Wrangell Mountains and the Chugach Mountains. The geology of the basin bears many similarities to that of the Cook Inlet basin, especially in the Mesozoic section — during Mesozoic times the Copper River and Cook Inlet areas formed part of a huge marine region.

One Copper River Mesozoic limestone formation exhibits oil stains and petroliferous odors. Coal in one part of the section may have generated natural gas. The Tertiary section that occupies the basin is typical of rock of that age in Alaska, having terrestrial sediments interspersed with coal seams in a geologic setting conducive to the formation of biogenic gas — gas that has formed from the bacterial decomposition of organic material.

Some limited oil and gas exploration of the area was done prior to the mid-1980s, with geophysical surveys and 11 wildcat wells. Several of the wells encountered oil and gas shows. The wells also encountered overpressured zones, especially in a distinctive Mesozoic limestone horizon. Mud volcanoes in the Tolsona area emit gas containing a high percentage of methane. A more recent resurgence of interest in the area resulted in the issue of a State of Alaska exploration license in October 2000 to Anschutz Exploration, on 398,445 acres of state land west of the town of Glennallen.

After the shooting of some 2-D seismic in the exploration area, and following some shuffling of business deals around the funding of exploration activities, Texas-based Rutter and Wilbanks, with Anschutz and Forest Oil as minority partners, spudded a wildcat gas well on Native land in early 2005, in a structure near an Amoco well drilled about 25 years earlier. The Rutter and Wilbanks well, the Ahtna 1-19, was drilled to its target depth of 7,500 feet, apparently without finding any gas. But because of a high pressure zone at a depth of 1,200 feet, the company had to use heavy drilling mud that damaged a potential gas reservoir partway down the well.

In October 2005, with the original Glennallen exploration license set to expire, Forest Oil, the company that by then owned the license along with Anschutz, filed a successful application to convert part of the license area to standard state oil and gas leases in the neighborhood of the Native land where Rutter and Wilbanks had drilled the Ahtna 1-19 well. Anschutz and Pacific Energy Resources, the company that bought Forest Oil’s Alaska properties in 2007, still own these leases, but Pacific Energy has been trying to dispose of its Alaska assets in bankruptcy court in Delaware.

In the fall of 2006, Rutter and Wilbanks made an unsuccessful attempt to penetrate the damaged section of reservoir rock in the Ahtna 1-19 well, using a Cad Pressure Central snubbing unit. The company returned in 2007 to drill the Ahtna 1-19A sidetrack well into the reservoir using a Schlumberger coiled tubing unit. And in June 2007 the company announced a gas find at a depth of 4,300 feet. But the well was producing excessive amounts of water along with the gas, even though resistivity logs suggested that relatively little of this water originated in the reservoir. And Rutter and Wilbanks Vice President Bill Rutter Jr. was convinced of a significant gas resource in the Ahtna prospect, perhaps with a gas volume in the range 50 billion to 150 billion cubic feet.

So, after a two-year hiatus while the company tried to secure the use of a suitable drilling rig, Rutter and Wilbanks returned to Glennallen in the summer of 2009 with the Schlumberger coiled tubing unit to try to plug with cement the source of water flowing into the well bore and then drill a second sidetrack well. The idea was to determine whether gas could be produced without excessive water production and to evaluate the size of the resource. But, defeated by excessive downhole pressure and a continuing flow of water into the well, Rutter and Wilbanks finally gave up in late September, plugging and abandoning the well after something in excess of $20 million had been sunk into the Glennallen venture over the years. With no further Alaska exploration plans, Rutter and Wilbanks’ lease position in the state has now dropped from 1,580 acres to just 320 acres."
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Declining Production in Alaska

Unread postby Alaska_geo » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 20:03:32

yportne wrote:Many years ago a single well was drilled in ANWR. Was it a dry hole? http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0 ... text6.html
That well was the KIC-1, drilled in the winter of '85-'86 by Chevron with BP as a partner. It remains a tight hole, and remarkably little info has leaked out. That being said, it is almost certain that it was a dry hole. There are several reason I say that.

For starters, there is absolutely no reason why Chevron and BP would not announce it as a discovery. Oil companies don't make money by sitting on secret discoveries. They make money by producing oil. Also, a legitimate discovery, even as small one, would provide powerful political ammunition to press for the opening of the rest of the 1002 area in ANWR.

Secondly, there is no indication that Chevron conducted any kind of flow test of the KIC-1. The fact that the well info has stayed as tight as it has indicates that. It is possible to log a well, and even cut a core with only a handful of people seeing the data. To actually test the well, every person on the rig would be aware that they were rigging up for a test. Also, any produced liquids from a test would have to be disposed of, and any gas would have to be flared. Keep in mind this was one of the most closely watched wells ever drilled in Alaska. Every other oil company active in the state was trying to get a clue what was going on. It would be virtually impossible conduct a DST without word leaking out that a test had been run.

Thirdly, an industry strat test, the Aurora 1, was drilled on trend and a few miles away from the KIC-1. That information is in the public domain at: https://www.boem.gov/ICAM92-95/ The author of that report (who happens to be a friend of mine) tries to put the best spin on the results from the Aurora 1, but it isn't particularly encouraging with respect to the KIC-1. Basically it found a thin Kuparuk equivalent ("'Breakup Sequence") on Kingak. The big pay zone from Prudhoe is not present. ANWR geology is very complex, so it doesn't preclude Ivishak or thicker Kuparuk equivalent elsewhere in ANWR, but it does suggest that KIC-1 was a duster.

Finally note that some years back, BP dropped their membership in "Arctic Power", an industry group lobbying to open ANWR. Given that the cost of membership would not even be pocket change to a company the size of BP, it suggests that whatever they found in KIC-1 wasn't too outrageously encouraging.

All that being said, as I noted above, ANWR is a very geologically complex place. It is entirely possible that significant oil might be found elsewhere in the 1002 area. And, it should be no surprise that Chevron and BP have held the KIC-1 well tight. Even negative information is valuable, if you are the only one who has it.

EDITED for clarity
Last edited by Alaska_geo on Sat 14 Jan 2017, 20:42:04, edited 1 time in total.
"Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas any more."
-Dorothy, in The Wizard of Oz
Alaska_geo
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue 16 Dec 2014, 21:56:22
Location: Alaska

Re: Declining Production in Alaska

Unread postby Alaska_geo » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 20:30:19

ROCKMAN wrote:T - I'm not familiar but found this:

"The Copper River basin sits in a lowland area due north of the Gulf of Alaska and bounded by the Alaska Range, the Wrangell Mountains and the Chugach Mountains. The geology of the basin bears many similarities to that of the Cook Inlet basin.......
There has been a good deal more activity than Rockman describes, not only in the Copper River Basin, but also the Nenana Basin and the Yukon Flats basin. While major oil companies were active years ago in these basins, most of the recent activity has been by Alaska native corporations. We don't for the most part have tribes and reservations in Alaska. Instead, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act established regional native corporations. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Native_Claims_Settlement_Act

Regarding the Copper River Basin, the native corporation Ahtna has drilled another well in the area. Last I heard they are still testing it. See https://www.adn.com/business-economy/energy/2016/12/07/ahtna-completes-drilling-a-natural-gas-well-near-glennallen-set-to-begin-testing/

Another native corporation, Doyon, has been actively exploring in the Nenana Basin and the Yukon Flats Basin. For an overview see http://doyonoil.com/ In the Nenana Basin, several wells were drilled in the past by various operators. More recently Doyon has drilled a couple of wells as operator. For details see: http://doyonoil.com/Content/pdfs/NenanaOilandGas.pdf For more on the Yukon Flats Basin see http://doyonoil.com/Content/pdfs/YukonFlats.pdf
"Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas any more."
-Dorothy, in The Wizard of Oz
Alaska_geo
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue 16 Dec 2014, 21:56:22
Location: Alaska

Re: Declining Production in Alaska

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 23:15:15

Any idea how saline that high pressure water layer is? Also any idea if Alaska allows produced saline water to be used for road spray like Ohio does? Regular saline solution is only good down to the upper teens so probably not as useful there as it is in Ohio. On the other hand there are a lot of gravel roads and spraying those with saline for dust control in summer is not exactly a new idea either.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Declining Production in Alaska

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 23:51:48

Geo - Yep, the link I pulled that info from touches on those other areas:

http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/88562045.shtml
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 77 guests