[rockdoc123]

If you are invested in oil &I gas and expect to see similar quarterly earnings and profits as you expect to see in retail or other businesses you need to rethink what your investment goals are. Oil &I gas companies do not plan on quarterly schedules and their yearly planning cycle is really to address cash flow balances. They look at 5 year plans as where they need to deliver. If you aren't in it for the long haul then get out. You will have your ass handed to you if you don't understand the business. And if you can't read a balance sheet you don't belong in the market at all let alone writing articles

[Plantagenet]

Wall Street’s Fracking Frenzy Runs Dry as Profits Fail to Materialize:
The shale-oil revolution produces lots of oil but not enough upside for investors (Wall Street Journal, Dec 6, 2017)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/wall-streets-fracking-frenzy-runs-dry-as-profits-fail-to-materialize-1512577420

Twelve major shareholders in U.S. shale-oil-and-gas producers met this September in a Midtown Manhattan high-rise with a view of Times Square to discuss a common goal, getting those frackers to make money for a change.

Good luck with that.

You are 100% right that there has been a lot of financial pain the fracking industry, with both service companies and exploration companies going bust after oil prices dropped a few years ago. But its not just the frackers----companies going after conventional oil have also been going bankrupt. One group particularly hard hit is the offshore oil sector---- deep sea drilling is a risky business and there isn't much call for expensive oil drilling offshore in an oil glut.

IMHO this is just part of the normal boom-bust cycle of the oil biz. We had an oil boom a decade ago when oil prices went to $100+/bbl and that gave birth to the fracking biz. Now we're in an oil biz bust because of the global oil glut driving crude prices down to about half of what they were in the oil boom.

At some point there will be another oil boom ---- but the question then will be where to drill? There are almost no large conventional oil targets left, and TOS areas in the US have either peaked or will peak soon.

Cheers!

[Plantagenet]

saudi..... to increase carbon sequestration and hence aid in their commitments regarding reducing greenhouse gas impacts..

Again you are posting utter nonsense---once again you've posted something that is the exact opposite of the facts.

Saudi Arabia's "commitments" under the Paris Accords do not involve them "reducing greenhouse gas impacts" as you fantasize. In reality Saudi Arabia pledged to greatly INCREASE their CO2 emissions under the Paris Accords.

The exact amount of CO2 increase pledged by Saudi is difficult to determine, since their promise to increase their CO2 emissions involves a pledge to increase their CO2 emissions above a "dynamic" baseline, but independent analysis suggests that Saudi committed under the Paris Accords to INCREASE Saudi CO2 emissions by as much as 110% by 2030.

climateactiontracker.org/countries/saudiarabia


Here's a helpful suggestion: There must something you actually know a little bit about----try posting about something you know about instead of just making things up and posting nonsense about things you don't know about.

Cheers!

[rockdoc123]

Again you are posting utter nonsense---once again you've posted something that is the exact opposite of the facts.

well perhaps you should have read some of the publications on the project before you go blabbering about Paris Accords (which I never mentioned). Saudi Arabia has their own internal goals for greenhouse gas emissions and controls. Back in 2012 they struck a Carbon Management Steering Committee that was tasked with reducing Saudis carbon footprint. They have a roadmap that includes various Demonstration Projects which Uthmaniyah is the first of. The Roadmap includes technology to enhance CO2 capture from fixed sources, CO2 reduction from mobile sources, industrial application, CO2 storage and CO2 EOR.

This from the Saudi Aramco site:

Being the largest of its kind in the Middle East, Saudi Aramco’s first carbon capture and enhanced oil recovery pilot project demonstrates commitment to environmental stewardship.

"This breakthrough initiative demonstrates that we, as an industry leader, are part of the solution to proactively address global environmental challenges," said Amin H. Nasser, acting president and CEO. "Saudi Aramco is carrying out extensive research to enable us to lower our carbon footprint while continuing to supply the energy the world needs."

Led by the Saudi Aramco’s EXPEC-Advanced Research Center, the company’s Carbon Management Technology Road Map includes many focus areas with a main goal of developing the required technologies to reduce CO2 emissions.
Reducing gas flaring, introducing zero-discharge technologies at well sites, and implementing a comprehensive water conservation policy at all plants and communities are among the company’s environmental protection efforts.
Environmental stewardship has long been a hallmark of Saudi Aramco’s business, with the company’s environmental protection policy formally established in 1963 and its Master Gas System, which significantly reduced CO2 emissions, in the 1970s.
The pilot project is the latest in the company’s list of efforts, injecting 800,000 tons of CO2 every year into flooded oil reservoirs. A monitoring system is in place to measure how much of that CO2 remains sequestered underground.

This from the Kokal et al paper SPE 181729 MS I already mentioned

As part of Saudi Aramco's environmental stewardship program (Al-Meshari et al. 2014), the company has recently embarked on its first carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) through a CO2-EOR demonstration project in one of its carbonate reservoirs. It is part of a multi-pronged effort involving the company's strategic carbon management program aimed at finding technological solution to reduce CO2 emissions. It must be emphasized that Saudi Aramco does not require EOR oil at a production level for decades to come, this project is being pursued primarily to demonstrate the feasibility of sequestering CO2 via EOR in the Kingdom.

Here's a helpful suggestion: There must something you actually know a little bit about----try posting about something you know about instead of just making things up and posting nonsense about things you don't know about.

You truly are a bonehead. Obviously what I posted was based on what the Saudis have published in SPE and have given presentations on at several conferences. As usual I actually read it...you try to imply you have read it but as usual you hadn't. For some reason you got "Paris Accords" into your head. Saudi greenhouse gas emission goals have nothing to do with that ridiculous club...they have their own goals and the CO2 injection scheme is a part of it. You can disagree and argue about their goals but that is the main reason they have embarked on the CO2 injection scheme at Uthamaniyah...it solves two of parts of their Roadmap equation.

If anyone is ill-informed here it is you I'm afraid.

[tita]

which says absolutely nothing about where they are now. They have just passed the 50% of OOIP and Aramco has been adamant they will see at least 70% with existing technologies. Aramco has always been on the fore front of oil and gas field innovation. They basically invented the MRC wells, one of the first to fully utilize SMART completions and downhole shutoffs along with expandable liners and the first to build a fully functioning Intelligent Field where drilling, production etc are all linked digitally to their full field models. They test things to improve recovery efficiency all the time, CO2 injection is just one that you have heard about, there are a host of others that may or may not be deployed at some point. There is no rule that EOR projects are undertaken at the end of a fields normal depletion, in many cases it is instituted quite early in the history to help improve overall recovery.

Indeed. When the "peak oil" subject was mainstream in 2005, one of the main argument was about Ghawar field entering fast depletion, due to EOR techniques used to increase the rate, but advance the date of the peak. 12 years have passed, no sign of depletion... more a plateau.

So, calling for a depletion because they are testing other kind of EOR techniques is probably doomed to be wrong again. Thinking that Ghawar can sustain its rate for decades is probably wrong also. Who knows? We don't have enough data to make anything else than wild guess.

But 5% of current global supply (not Ghawar, US LTO) is a bit easier to understand as we have more data. But it's still difficult to forecast future production.

[ROCKMAN]

tita - That's the tricky thing about our terminology. Ghawar has been depleting for decades. It is depleting today. And will continue depleting for many decades into the future. The rate of depletion varies over time as technology advances. More important the degree of depletion can actually DECILINE over time as new EOR techniques are applied and URR are increased. Same true for production rates. On a far smaller scale my field increased from 12 bopd to over 1,200 bopd by utilizing hz well bores. Obviously it also went from 99.99% depleted to significantly less depleted today. But it is still depleting.

And I've seen many more then one reservoir classified as fully "depleted" returned to production.

[Plantagenet]

When the "peak oil" subject was mainstream in 2005, one of the main argument was about Ghawar field entering fast depletion, due to EOR techniques used to increase the rate, but advance the date of the peak. 12 years have passed, no sign of depletion... more a plateau.

You are conflating "oil depletion" and "oil production rate." Over the last 12 years Ghawar has produced about 12 BILLION barrels of oil. That means the oil reserves at Ghawar have been depleted by 12 BILLION bbls. Nonetheless the production rate continues to be on "... more of a plateau."

So, calling for a depletion because they are testing other kind of EOR techniques is probably doomed to be wrong again.

Again, you've got it wrong. Every drop of oil produced depletes the reserves. Oil produced using EOR also depletes the reserves.

Thinking that Ghawar can sustain its rate for decades is probably wrong also. Who knows? We don't have enough data to make anything else than wild guess.

I agree 100% that Ghawar can't sustain its current rate of production forever.

AND, actually, we do have some data to consider. We have a very good idea of how much oil has been produced at Ghawar since production began there 60 years ago. And 60 years of oil production have greatly depleted the reserves. We also know that water injection began in 1964 and the water cut had reached about 35-37% by 2003---some 15 years ago, and it is almost certainly significantly higher now since more and more water flooding has been going on for the last 15 years. We know from the 2015 technical paper I link to above that the water cut has reached 98% in at least one area of Ghawar. And we know that Saudi Aramco has started a pilot CO2 EOR project to see if they can improve oil recovery----something that is usually done in very mature oil fields where the oil production rate is at risk of dropping.


The water cut in Ghawar was already over 35% 15 years ago----after 15 additional years of water flooding its got to be higher now.

Cheers!

[rockdoc123]

We also know that water injection began in 1964 and the water cut had reached about 35-37% by 2003---some 15 years ago, and it is almost certainly significantly higher now since more and more water flooding has been going on for the last 15 years. We know from the 2015 technical paper I link to above that the water cut has reached 98% in at least one area of Ghawar. And we know that Saudi Aramco has started a pilot CO2 EOR project to see if they can improve oil recovery----something that is usually done in very mature oil fields where the oil production rate is at risk of dropping.

Well first off, as I said before the EOR flood was conducted in a part of the field that has been completely swept, it has been close to injectors for 50 years. One of the SPE papers mentions that in fact the wells that were re-entered for testing had a zone of high oil saturation at the top of the well, the CO2 injection study is being conducted at the bottom of these wells where water saturation is high but there is still some minor oil saturation that they want to see if they can make mobile.
AlOtaibi, F et al, 2019. Remaining oil saturation measurements for CO2-EOR pilot in Saudi Arabia. SPE 188146 MS
And if you had read what the Saudis who are in charge of the CO2 injection project said you would not be suggesting that they are doing it because they need the extra oil production. As I pointed out above.
from the Kokal et al paper SPE 181729 MS I already mentioned twice

As part of Saudi Aramco's environmental stewardship program (Al-Meshari et al. 2014), the company has recently embarked on its first carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) through a CO2-EOR demonstration project in one of its carbonate reservoirs. It is part of a multi-pronged effort involving the company's strategic carbon management program aimed at finding technological solution to reduce CO2 emissions. It must be emphasized that Saudi Aramco does not require EOR oil at a production level for decades to come, this project is being pursued primarily to demonstrate the feasibility of sequestering CO2 via EOR in the Kingdom.

The amount of water cut is not a number that is useful in determining remaining reserves. As both Rockman and I have pointed out on many occasions fields produce at very high water cuts (above 90% ) for many years, in fact many fields with decades of production history started out at high water cuts due to very high vertical permeability in the reservoir and an adverse mobility ratio.
What we do know is that OOIP by all estimates is somewhere between 190 and 210 Gbbls. And Aramco is pretty adamant that they will see at least 70% recovery from Ghawar. In another thread here somewhere I outlined what the total production from Ghawar had been in 2009 and then projecting the 5 MMB/d forward you end up with a total production number that leaves you with somewhere around 30 years or more at the current production rate. And the other key point is that the two largest reserve auditing firms in the world Gaffney Cline and DeGolyer and MacNaughton have audited all of SA reserves. The comment after the audit was that their assessment is not appreciably different from Aramco's and definitely not smaller. When the IPO enters the market those reserve audits will become public record either through the SEC if they list in New York or the London Stock Exchange if they decide to list there (or possibly both).

[Plantagenet]

The amount of water cut is not a number that is useful in determining remaining reserves.

No one ever said it was.

many fields with decades of production history started out at high water cuts due to very high vertical permeability in the reservoir and an adverse mobility ratio.

Of course. But thats totally irrelevant to Ghawar because the water there is coming from a program of water flooding designed to enhance oil recovery. Sheesh---don't you even understand that the water cut at Ghawar is a direct result of the water flood program going on at Ghawar?


Sheeeesh! The water cut at Ghawar results from the water flood program. Get it now?

The water flood program at Ghawar began in about 1965---Saudi Aramco is pumping about 7 million gallons of seawater each day into the periphery and lower parts of the Ghawar reservoir to try and flush the remaining oil out and towards the surface. In a water flood of this type, increasing water cuts are to be expected as the oil-water line rises and more and more water enters the producing wells through time.

And from the limited public data available, water cuts are increasing in Ghawar just as you would expect from water flooding. While the Saudis don't release much data, from the few reports available we do know that the water cut was about 32% in 2003 according to one report, and ranged up to 38% from 1993 to 2003 in another report as shown in the figure I posted above. By 2006, a report staes, North Uthmaniyah's water cut was about 46%---almost 50% higher then the number found in he earlier report . And more recently, according to the 2015 technical paper published in JPT that I linked to above, the water cut in the area where the pilot CO2 EOR project is being done was as high as 90-98%.

Cheers!

[rockdoc123]

Of course. But thats totally irrelevant to Ghawar because the water there is coming from a program of water flooding designed to enhance oil recovery. Sheesh---don't you even understand that the water cut at Ghawar is a direct result of the water flood program going on at Ghawar?    

It doesn’t matter the source of the water It could come from water fairies for that matter. Higher water cuts at a producing well are dealt with exactly the same way whether it is natural water production or injected water. Part of the mega projects undertaken by Aramco was to increase water and gas handling capacity for just this reason. In point of fact the injected water has to have basically the same chemistry as the reservoir water or you create all sorts of problems which can reduce mobility. Perhaps rather than trying to be smug you should educate yourself a bit on oil and gas developments. From what I can tell you know diddly squat about petroleum geology/engineering. That doesn’t seem to stop you from making stupid comments however.

In a water flood of this type, increasing water cuts are to be expected as the oil-water line rises and more and more water enters the producing wells through time. 

This is a simplistic view and basically incorrect. Many of the producing wells in Ghawar have had water cuts reduced significantly through various interventions since 2003. The placement of MRC wells is specifically designed to keep water cut to a minimum and that all happened post 2003. As an example water cut in some wells in Haradh and Abqaiq were reduced to zero from 40% according to one SPE publication (do I really need to go and find that again?. But once again, water cut is not a serious problem if you are set up to handle adequate disposal. In fact, a ton of oil production is coming from behind the water flood front where oil saturations still remain high.

While the Saudis don't release much data, from the few reports available we do know that the water cut was about 32% in 2003, and ranged up to 38% from 1993 to 2003 as shown in the figure I posted above. By 2006, North Uthmaniyah's water cut was about 46%---almost 50% higher then the number found in he earlier report . And more recently, according to the 2015 technical paper published in JPT that I linked to above, the water cut in the area where the pilot CO2 EOR project is being done was as high as 90-98%. 

Jesus wept. Do you realize how big the field is? The area where the high water cut was encountered was purposefully measured in the bottom of the reservoir in a zone that was very close to injectors, had been shutin a long time ago and which the full field model demonstrated was subject to streaming (i.e it had the best chance of complete sweep) you would know that if you actually read the papers on the CO2 Demonstration Project. They are not producing from that zone so it would not appear in an overall water cut determination for the field. This is a small area and does not speak to Ghawar as a whole. You can’t take a small area that is completely swept and suddenly say that water cut applies to the whole field…that is basically stupid. Water floods do not work that way, never have, never will.

[Plantagenet]

Of course. But thats totally irrelevant to Ghawar because the water there is coming from a program of water flooding designed to enhance oil recovery. Sheesh---don't you even understand that the water cut at Ghawar is a direct result of the water flood program going on at Ghawar?    

.... the water It could come from water fairies ....

????

Why the nonsense about water fairies? Obviously the water in the water flood program at Ghawar couldn't come from water fairies --- except in your fevered imagination.


Unless you've got some pretty good evidence that water fairies are responsible for injecting 7 million bills of seawater per day into Ghawar, your hypothesis that the water could come from water fairies is just plain silly.

Cheers!

[rockdoc123]

As I said it wouldn't matter if it did......produced water is handled exactly the same. So please stop with the stupidity, I realize it's a big step for you.

[Plantagenet]

please stop with the stupidity, I realize it's a big step for you.

You're the one who made up the nonsense about the CO2 EOR project at Ghawar being part of KSA's commitment to cut CO2 emissions in accordance with the Paris Accords---when the Saudis never committed to cut CO2 emission in the paris accords.

Its very stupid for you to make things up when other people here know more about these topics then you do.

And then you started talking about the water cut numbers at Ghawar being a product of the permeability of the field, when its actually a result of the water flooding project.

Again you are making something up instead of dealing with reality. Why not just admit there is a huge waterflooding project going on at Ghawar, and water floods in oil fields gradually displace the oil with water so the water cut increases through time?

And now you're blathering about water fairies and the water at Ghawar? Why? Why waste everyone's time with such nonsense?

I really don't get why you post all this nonsense. You clearly know something about the oil biz---but instead of posting about the thread topic your posts are full of water fairies and made-up lies about Saudi CO2 cuts. Thats why they read like something from cloud cuckoo land.

Its almost like your goal at this site is not to intelligently discuss these topics, but instead to derail conversation and divert the thread with nonsensical posts so you can start attacking other posters with ad homs----I've seen you do this several times in other threads, and here you are doing it again in this thread.


SHEESH!

Cheers!

[rockdoc123]

You're the one who made up the nonsense about the CO2 EOR project at Ghawar being part of KSA's commitment to cut CO2 emissions in accordance with the Paris Accords---when the Saudis never committed to cut CO2 emission in the paris accord

Don't be an ass. I quoted from the papers written about them specifically doing this to deal with CO2 and I never, ever mentioned the stupid Paris Accords, you did and then tried to turn this into a different argument. I don't give a crap about the Paris Accords and apparently the Saudis don't either but they still have their own internal goals to this extent for what ever reasons they do. They are out front on this, it is published in numerous articles for you to claim it is something different puts you in the Bizarro world with Short and others.. What I pointed out was they have their own commitments to greenhouse gases. If you bothered to read the papers you purport to have you would understand this. The project is their means of dealing with CO2 mainly and secondly seeing if they can get some extra oil as a by-product. The Saudis have been adamant about this is a number of papers. Are you and idiot?

Its very stupid for you to make things up when other people here know more about these topics then you do.

what exactly are you talking about? You had no idea that the Saudis were doing this mainly for CO2 storage, you read one online JPT paper and then suddenly thought you knew what was going on. There is a number of papers on this in SPE and elsewhere that specifically speak to the fact the main reason this Demonstration Project is going on is to look at CO2 sequestration. I gave you two of those SPE papers do I need to do more. This is well understood in the industry what is happening here but you developed a special interpretation based on what you read. You are completely off base according to what the Saudis have said as to their reasons here.

I really don't get why you post all this nonsense. You clearly know something about the oil biz---but instead of posting about the thread topic your posts are full of water fairies and made-up lies about Saudi CO2 cuts. Thats why they read like something from cloud cuckoo land.

Made up lies about Saudi water cut. Please prove that. You had no idea what it was you were reading. They were talking about water cut in an already abandoned part of the field. That doesn't speak to water cut in the producing part of the field where it is actually measured. And unlike you, I have spent 30+ years in this industry and, indeed a good chunk of it working in the Middle East and, as well, looking at Saudi Arabia for the gas rounds a number of years ago. I understand what is going on there, I had too. You, however, don't have the background or the sense to actually read the publications that are out there.

Its almost like your goal at this site is not to intelligently discuss these topics, but instead to derail conversation and divert the thread with nonsensical posts so you can start attacking other posters with ad homs----I've seen you do this several times in other threads, and here you are doing it again in this thread.

I'm sorry, but you have made an entire fool of yourself here. You purport to understand why Saudi Arabia is doing the Demonstration Project in Uthamaniyah but it seems you have actually never read anything other than something you found on the internet you did not understand. As I have posted above (3 times now) the Saudis are saying they do not need to do EOR for several decades (which fits with my calculations of remaining reserves) but are undertaking this to reduce their carbon footprint.

As to diverting with nonsensical posts....then why do you keep posting pretty much everywhere photos/pictures of incredibly stupid shite?

You want to question my background? Well let me put this out for you after having to debate your "I read this on the internet but I never actually read the paper" approach. I have been in this industry as I said for a number of decades. I managed, hired and fired many geophysicists over that time. I have to say I never dealt with one who didn't actually do the research before he opinioned or actually made projections based on no data or bad data. In fact after this discussion and the ongoing one we had in the Antarctica thread where you claimed all sorts of thing but had obviously never read the paper the only conclusion I can come to is you are not a geophysicist by degree as you claimed nor one of note. I suspect you are a geophysical technician who seems to think he knows more than he does. Or perhaps you are a mining type geophysicist who has dealt with EM and all those other things but doesn't have a frigging clue about oil and gas. No matter,

[Plantagenet]

ass

Your potty mouth is overflowing. Please close your mouth and flush again.

Cheers!

[AdamB]

You're the one who made up the nonsense about the CO2 EOR project at Ghawar being part of KSA's commitment to cut CO2 emissions in accordance with the Paris Accords---when the Saudis never committed to cut CO2 emission in the paris accord

Don't be an ass. I quoted from the papers written about them specifically doing this to deal with CO2 and I never, ever mentioned the stupid Paris Accords, you did and then tried to turn this into a different argument.

Plant really does seem to specialize in that. Did the same thing to me for posts and posts after they got caught out pretending something was "discovered"...a half century after it was. Change the subject quick, pretend the question was something else, howl at the moon to distract.

I asked Plant why all the apparent trolling, as best I could tell that's all it was.

[Plantagenet]

I never, ever mentioned the stupid Paris Accords

You said the Saudis were undertaking the pilot CO2 EOR program to---and I now quote you---- "aid in their commitments regarding reducing greenhouse gas impacts.."

If these aren't the commitments they made when Saudi signed and ratified the Paris Accords, then what "commitments regarding reducing greenhouse gas impacts" are you referring to?

Cheers!

[rockdoc123]

then what "commitments regarding reducing greenhouse gas impacts" are you referring to?

Saudi Arabia has it's own goals to shrink it's carbon footprint which is the first part of the carbon management strategy they have spelled out in the Carbon Management Technology Roadmap. They have been on top of carbon storage and sequestration as a means of offsetting GHG emissions since 2001.

[pstarr]

They have been on top of carbon storage and sequestration as a means of offsetting GHG emissions since 2001

On top of, under, next to or mounted like a horny dog . . . carbon sequestration is still a con. PR stunt to distract the GW hysterics.

[Plantagenet]

I wish you guys would stop quarreling and just post about the thread topic. Come on---lets talk peak oil!