Catalog of recent oil discoveries pt 2

[Quinny]

Asolutely correct TP, but I'm just trying to tease out what the discovered not in production figure might be. Even if we take the total amount and even making the incorrect assumption that we can draw from it immediately, I think it may prove the graph in the WEO report is totally wrong.

Think, OF2. Graphs like that are important simply to show that, no matter what the flow rate, discovering less oil that is produced . . .

As opposed to less oil that *isn't* produced??

Whatever that was supposed to mean. *shrugs*

Perhaps it never occurred to you that it might be a typo? "that" should have been "than".

. . . has implications that I'm sure don't need spelling out. Flow rate, of course, ultimately determines the rate of production and so is vitally important in determining when peak might be. Surely you realise that?

I thought it would have been obvious I was asking dorlomin why he thought such an important part of the peak oil litany should be, as he said, so unimportant.

Using the corrected typo, I've already given an answer.

Of course different categories of oil have different flow rates. But a lot of the oil shown discovered on the chart back in days of yore was heavy oil, too. So you don't really have any point here.

The point is that oil discoveries are lagging production, possibly by a very large margin (if analyses other than yours are looked at, or by a significant margin if only your reports are looked at), and have been for over 20 years; a clear pointer to peak being in sight. In addition, the aspect of flow rate is an important point since if discovered oil is to replace declines in producing fields (as well as provide growth), then a similar flow rate to those fields in decline had better be possible. Even if 30 billion barrels per year was being discovered and if it could be brought online within a few years, a flow rate below what was trying to be replaced would not actually make up for declines.

So both the amount of oil and the flow rate are important. Two additional aspects are also important, and neither are captured here at all: time to development and net energy return (or EROEI). Indeed, the only aspect that is usually covered here is amount and even that is debatable.

[OilFinder2]

The weo report shows 20M b/d from discovered but not in production for many years.

EDIT: ??? If it is flowing at 20M b/d how can it not be in production?

Or did you mean *future* production? If this is future production how can it be flowing at 20M b/d right now?

Or did you mean *future* 20M b/d from discovered oil? If that's what you meant, *of course* it won't be coming for "many years" since it's only recently been discovered. As noted before, one does not discover an oil field and put it into commercial production the next day.

The question and your response highlights the optimism in the weo of being able to suddenly pluck 20m b/d from discoveries. I agree it's not practical, but even if you could, how long would it last?

Not all of any additional needed future production will have to come from *new* discoveries. There is gobs of oil in Iraq which was discovered decades ago but never was put into production, or was under-developed. There is also gobs of oil in the oil sands. Etc etc.

[OilFinder2]

Perhaps it never occurred to you that it might be a typo? "that" should have been "than".

Sorry, didn't seem like one to me.

The point is that oil discoveries are lagging production, possibly by a very large margin (if analyses other than yours are looked at, or by a significant margin if only your reports are looked at), and have been for over 20 years; a clear pointer to peak being in sight. In addition, the aspect of flow rate is an important point since if discovered oil is to replace declines in producing fields (as well as provide growth), then a similar flow rate to those fields in decline had better be possible. Even if 30 billion barrels per year was being discovered and if it could be brought online within a few years, a flow rate below what was trying to be replaced would not actually make up for declines.

So both the amount of oil and the flow rate are important. Two additional aspects are also important, and neither are captured here at all: time to development and net energy return (or EROEI). Indeed, the only aspect that is usually covered here is amount and even that is debatable.

It should be noted that "flow rates" do not necessarily mean low overall production rates of any given field. I'd be happy to refer you to those wells producing a few hundred bpd from East Texas oil fields in days of yore. Or that the vicious goo from Alberta's oil sands are now churning out well over a million bpd. With sufficient capital input, you can achieve a lot.

That said, if you're worried about flow rates, you should be cheering these deepwater discoveries. When a field is under a few thousand feet of water, plus several thousand feet of rock, and maybe throw in a couple thousand feet of salt, you are going to get tremendous pressure and very high flow rates. This is precisely why, as is often pointed out here, deepwater fields tend to deplete rapidly - it's because they flow at high rates.

Contrarily, if you *don't* want a field to deplete rapidly you should be cheering on the tar sands and other low-flowing fields, since they flow at low rates.

In other words, either you get a field that flows at a low rate but depletes slowly, or you get a field that flows at a high rate but depletes rapidly. There might be some "Goldilocks" fields but even in the Good Old Days those were probably in the minority.

[Quinny]

To clarify, the IEA graph shows the 'need' for approx 20m b/d starting next year for approx 20 years, all to come from fields not yet in production!!

This works out at a need for approx 146 billion barrels of oil to be provided from discoveries that are not in production.

Seems quite a lot to me!

The weo report shows 20M b/d from discovered but not in production for many years.

Which only means it wasn't needed.

The question and your response highlights the optimism in the weo of being able to suddenly pluck 20m b/d from discoveries. I agree it's not practical, but even if you could, how long would it last?

Not all of any additional needed future production will have to come from *new* discoveries. There is gobs of oil in Iraq which was discovered decades ago but never was put into production, or was under-developed. There is also gobs of oil in the oil sands. Etc etc.

[TonyPrep]

It should be noted that "flow rates" do not necessarily mean low overall production rates of any given field.

Low flow rates do, because low flow rates mean many more wells are needed to up production and that takes investment and higher operating costs.

Or that the vicious goo from Alberta's oil sands are now churning out well over a million bpd. With sufficient capital input, you can achieve a lot.

You sound like the IEA. With sufficient investment, oil producers might be able to extend the plateau or even increase production until 2020. But the amount of investment that is thought to be needed is huge. Back to flow rate, since the Athabasca tar sands don't flow, the flow rate is zero and so the production rate is miniscule compared to the resource size. It will always be miniscule compared the size of the resource and so will not have much impact on peak, especially as it is hugely costly to produce.

That said, if you're worried about flow rates

I'm not worried about that but you should be. You are the one who thinks oil production hasn't yet peaked so you need new production to be able to replace declines, and low flow rate discoveries aren't going to do that.

[OilFinder2]

To clarify, the IEA graph shows the 'need' for approx 20m b/d starting next year for approx 20 years, all to come from fields not yet in production!!

This works out at a need for approx 146 billion barrels of oil to be provided from discoveries that are not in production.

Seems quite a lot to me!

OK, here ya go.

1. Iraq - Proudction will increase from the current 2+ million barrels/day to around 10 million barrels/day by 2020. That's at least +7 million barrels/day in new supply.

2. Brazil - Production will increase from the current 2+ million barrels/day to around 5.7 million barrels/day in 2020. This does not include discoveries made and gone into production in the interim, of which there will be many:

So far we're at +10.5 million bpd, more than half your 20M bpd.

3. Angola - Figures from already-announced plans show an increase in production by 1.2 million barrels/day by 2015. This does not include discoveries announced in the interim or recent discoveries whose production plans have yet to be made.

So we're at +11.7 million barrels/day in new supply from just 3 nations, and I'm certain I could find more.

[OilFinder2]

It should be noted that "flow rates" do not necessarily mean low overall production rates of any given field.

Low flow rates do, because low flow rates mean many more wells are needed to up production and that takes investment and higher operating costs.

That is true, but that's still no different from oil fields in the past. We could go over the 35,000 wells in the East Texas oil field again if you want.

It will always be miniscule compared the size of the resource and so will not have much impact on peak

This makes no sense. If you've got a trillion barrel oil field, and you can churn out the oil at 3 million, maybe even eventually 6 million, barrels/day, and given the size of the resource you can continue this for decades or even centuries, how can you say this will not have much impact on peak?

It would make no difference if it was a 50 billion barrel oil field that produced at 3-6 million bpd, or if it was a 1 trillion barrel oil field that produced at 3-6 million bpd. In either case it will still produce at 3-6 million bpd, which would make it one of the top 3 producing oil fields in the world, and would certainly have an effect on the peak. This would be even moreso if it was a 1 trillion barrel field, because the 3-6 million bpd production rate can last much, much longer, thereby providing the world oil for much, much longer.

[TonyPrep]

OK, we're back into dreamland. Wishful thinking is your forte, OF2. You are the best at it. Hopefully, all of those "what if"s, "could"s and "maybe"s, will work out for you.

Or, perhaps you could try some critical thinking and be more realistic. Surely, it must be worth a try?

Iraq at 10mbpd. Is is possible? Maybe, if optimistic estimates of the resource base are right and if the country becomes stable enough and if the country doesn't want to extend the life of its resource.

6 mbpd out of the tar sands? Sure, if the price of oil stays high enough to wreck any economic growth and companies don't mind ploughing in enough capital to do it and there are enough of the right workers and no-one cares about environmental damage. Estimates of the top rate of extraction vary from about 3 mbpd to about 5 mbpd sometime in the 2020s. I understand that production has decreased since the recession. I wonder why.

You're absolutely right, of course. IF investment and other resources can be ploughed in to establish enough production capacity, then production from all of those facilities might equal production declines from much fewer existing facilities. But dreams and wishes don't make it so. Back in the real world, not all dreams come true, so you should start thinking about another "what if", what if all of your rosy scenarios don't actually happen?

[dorlomin]

The "minimum" and "maximum" figures result from the fact that many companies report their discoveries as a range of figures - e.g. Oil Field X contains 500 million - 700 million barrels of oil. So, the lower number gets added to the cumulative total for the minimum while the higher number gets added to the cumulative total for the maximum.

There is a loud woshing sound in this post. Its the sound of the point streaking over your head.

So 6 billion of these barrels are Venezuelan heavy oil.

Its not even C&C.

This is a Catalog of Recent Oil discoveries. You yourself just said it is oil. Heavy oil is still crude oil. Thus, it belongs in this catalog.

Err no, its bitumen not crude oil. It is converted to synthetic crude and can be used to create petrolium products. Are you going to start booking in Kerogen as well as the Bitumen? What about coal, that can be used to make petrochemicals, are you going to start posting about the powder river basin being an oil discovery?

Olive oil has oil in the name, are you going to start booking the worlds olive oil production?

Size of discovery: 250 million - 1.4 billion barrels recoverable

From the link you provided as the source

The light hydrocarbon accumulation, with P50 oil and gas potential of 250 MMboe and upside potential of 1.4 Bboe,

The light hydrocarbon accumulation, with P50 oil and gas potential of 250 MMboe and upside potential of 1.4 Bboe,

The light hydrocarbon accumulation, with P50 oil and gas potential of 250 MMboe and upside potential of 1.4 Bboe,

26 API oil is not natural gas.

You lose again. Sorry.

Only if you dont read what was posted. Well let me rephrase that, only if you are capable of pretending to yourself that you never read the original article and the posted quote that was extracted from the original article.


>>>>>>>>Cognative dissonance<<<<<<<



That uncomforable feeling inside when you have to bend and change concepts in your head to make them fit with your initial position......

Dont worry you are not alone in experiancing it.

[dorlomin]

1. Iraq - Proudction will increase from the current 2+ million barrels/day to around 10 million barrels/day by 2020. That's at least +7 million barrels/day in new supply.

This is for those not living in la la land. Iraq remains a very unstable government where the current peace has been brought about by the near ethnic cleansing of Bagdad of Sunnis, they are currently exiled (well over a million in total) in Syria and Jordan and god knows what plans they are hatching. The Mehdi army was stood down by Sadr, but strong rumours currently circulate that he is trying to create a much better trained core cadre modeled on Hezb'allah. The former SCIRI still seems to want the southern three provinces to break away into a state modeled on Khomenist Shia Islam.
"Will"?

Not to mention that those fields were very very badly managed and may be irraparably damaged. But loonspud thinks he can predict the future.

[Maddog78]

I understand that production has decreased since the recession. I wonder why.

Almost every peaker on this board seems to make a big deal out of production going down when demand has dropped. Why is this so hard to understand? Why is it so significant to you?
If there is no demand, why produce more?
Hello, there is a GLUT right now of oil and natural gas. A big glut. Worldwide.
When demand goes up again and supply can then not keep up, I'll pay more attention.

[pstarr]

I understand that production has decreased since the recession. I wonder why.

Almost every peaker on this board seems to make a big deal out of production going down when demand has dropped. Why is this so hard to understand? Why is it so significant to you?
If there is no demand, why produce more? Hello, there is a GLUT right now of oil and natural gas. A big glut. Worldwide.
When demand goes up again and supply can then not keep up, I'll pay more attention.

Production went down during the greatest run up of petroleum prices in history. But I know, I know. Tightly-held quick-declining low-eroei shale-gas is gonna save the day So there is no need to deal with the truth, when you can always change the subject?

[shortonsense]

Production went down during the greatest run up of petroleum prices in history.

But industry can't build and staff drill rigs, complete wells, build a pipeline or refinery, and deliver oil or natural gas that fast. Why do you think multiple peaks in production take as much as a decade or two to reoccur?

[OilFinder2]

We have another announcement today, and I will humor dorlomin, who sees an "e" at the end of an announcement and gets his hopes up that the thing is all or mostly natural gas. Please note the figures and link with the ** next to them.

Size of discovery: 765 million barrels recoverable boe **
Date: November 15, 2009
Company(s): Repsol and Petrobras
Name: Carioca
Location: Santos Basin, Brazil
API: 27
Flow rate of test well(s): 2,900 bopd and 2 mmcfd **
Estimated production startup date: No information
LINK
LINK **

** According to this, to convert from a cubic foot of gas to a barrel of oil, one must multiply the cubic foot by 0.0001767. Doing so, we find out the Caricoca well flowed at 2,900 bopd and 353.4 boepd of gas. Assuming this is a reasonably close proxy to the percentages of oil-to-gas in this field, this would mean the 765 million boe is roughly 11% natural gas, and 89% oil.

Wow, we must surely be doomed. 11% of this figure is natural gas. Corporate lies, and the whole shebang.

So, for my catalog I will only add 681 million barrels recoverable.

Recoverable running total year to date: 11.227 billion barrels minimum to 16.665 billion barrels maximum
OIP running total year to date: 13.484 billion barrels minimum to 14.984 billion barrels maximum

------------------------------------

Brazil Oil Discoveries: Name - Size - Month/Year
Papa-Terra - 700 million - 1 billion barrels - 12/05
Xerelete - 1.4 billion barrels - 7/07
Tupi - 5-8 billion barrels - 11/07
Golfinho - 150 million barrels - 7/08
Iara - 3-4 billion barrels - 10/08
Additions to Jubarte - 1.9 billion barrels - 10/08
Tiro - 150 million barrels - 10/08
Sub-salt layers of Baleia Franca, Baleia Azul, and Jubarte - 1.5-2 billion barrels - 11/08
Aruana - 280 million barrels - 8/09
Guara - 1.1-2 billion barrels - 09/09
Vesuvio - 500 million - 1.5 billion barrels - 10/09
Caricoa - 681 million barrels - 11/09

[OilFinder2]

Err no, its bitumen not crude oil. It is converted to synthetic crude and can be used to create petrolium products. Are you going to start booking in Kerogen as well as the Bitumen? What about coal, that can be used to make petrochemicals, are you going to start posting about the powder river basin being an oil discovery?

Olive oil has oil in the name, are you going to start booking the worlds olive oil production?

See this little graph here? This includes production from Canada's tar sands. And it will similarly include production from Venezuela's Orinoco heavy oil belt. If you look up the definition of unconventional oil you will find that it includes tar sands. So, I am sorry to inform you, but that which you believe is not petroleum, is considered petroleum by almost everyone else.

[Quinny]

OK as you've been here a long time I assumed you'd have seen that great wedge of 20m b/d starting next year and continuing up until 2030 (the end of the graph) published in the recent WEO.

This is not unconventional, not undiscovered and not reserves from exisiting fields,which are already accounted for, so you've got to avoid ramp ups of existing fields. Iraq's already been up at 3m b/d.

This represents approx 146 billion barrels, that have already been discovered but are not in production yet!

You being the Oilfinder, Where are they?

To clarify, the IEA graph shows the 'need' for approx 20m b/d starting next year for approx 20 years, all to come from fields not yet in production!!

This works out at a need for approx 146 billion barrels of oil to be provided from discoveries that are not in production.
Seems quite a lot to me!

OK, here ya go.

1. Iraq - Proudction will increase from the current 2+ million barrels/day to around 10 million barrels/day by 2020. That's at least +7 million barrels/day in new supply.

2. Brazil - Production will increase from the current 2+ million barrels/day to around 5.7 million barrels/day in 2020. This does not include discoveries made and gone into production in the interim, of which there will be many:

So far we're at +10.5 million bpd, more than half your 20M bpd.

3. Angola - Figures from already-announced plans show an increase in production by 1.2 million barrels/day by 2015. This does not include discoveries announced in the interim or recent discoveries whose production plans have yet to be made.

So we're at +11.7 million barrels/day in new supply from just 3 nations, and I'm certain I could find more.

[shortonsense]

Hey Oily, how does your accounting system handle something like the Orinoco? It was discovered some time ago, but its numbers aren't usually carried in anyone's "reserve" category.

So do you count each little piece as it is "discovered", or do you just let it all go, because it was discovered in its entirety some 75 years ago so any slow motion conversion from resources to reserves doesn't really fit the "discovery" category?

[OilFinder2]

OK as you've been here a long time I assumed you'd have seen that great wedge of 20m b/d starting next year and continuing up until 2030 (the end of the graph) published in the recent WEO.

This is not unconventional, not undiscovered and not reserves from exisiting fields,which are already accounted for, so you've got to avoid ramp ups of existing fields. Iraq's already been up at 3m b/d.

This represents approx 146 billion barrels, that have already been discovered but are not in production yet!

You being the Oilfinder, Where are they?

Quinny, the WEO chart you are referring to does not even specify that the additional oil will come *entirely* from "already known" discoveries currently not in development. Unless you had some other chart in mind, here is the chart you are referring to:


Source, page 6

Notice it says, "fields yet to be developed or found." It does not say, "Currently discovered fields not in production." Since their additional production can include either fields not yet discovered or already-known fields which are presently undeveloped, this could include not only undiscovered and recently-discovered oil off the coast of Brazil and Angola, it could also include the many fields in Iraq which were identified decades ago but were never developed (or were under-developed).

Furthermore, there is nothing in the chart which says that suddenly oil production/consumption is going to dramatically jump by 20 million b/d next year. It will be a gradual ramp-up, so less than 146 billion barrels will be needed.

But if you were thinking of some other chart, I'd be more than happy to see it.

Regardless, as for where an additional 146 billion barrels will come from, the answer to that question is quite easy. If you had been paying attention to The Iraq Thread the answer would be obvious:

Chalabi, a former senior Iraqi oil ministry official, believes the country has huge undiscovered reserves on the grounds but no major development projects have been undertaken for more than two decades.

The proven reserves were officially put at 112 billion barrels in 2007 but Chalabi believes the final figure could exceed 300 billion barrels. “Iraq could have this figure, there is no exaggeration in this,” he said.

His view is supported by a Western oil analyst who goes even further by saying Iraq’s real oil potential could surpass that of Saudi Arabia, which controls nearly a quarter of the world’s proven oil deposits.

Colin Lothian, a senior analyst at United Kingdom-based energy consultants Wood Mackenzie, says Iraq has many giant oilfields that have remained undeveloped.

So, there's your additional 146 billion barrels - and then some.

[OilFinder2]

Hey Oily, how does your accounting system handle something like the Orinoco? It was discovered some time ago, but its numbers aren't usually carried in anyone's "reserve" category.

So do you count each little piece as it is "discovered", or do you just let it all go, because it was discovered in its entirety some 75 years ago so any slow motion conversion from resources to reserves doesn't really fit the "discovery" category?

For unconventional resource estimates I usually just add it if some company says they've "discovered" some oil in some patch of land they're developing (or about to develop). I do not include resource-wide estimates by some government agency. For example, when the USGS last year came out with it's ~4 billion barrel recoverable estimate for the Bakken, I did not add it to this thread. I have, however, added 1 or 2 smaller numbers from some company saying they've discovered some oil in their land holdings in ND and have estimated how much they can produce from these landholdings. If the company calls it a "discovery," then so do I.

Things like that tell you there is no clear line between a "discovery" and a "semi-discovery" and a "we've known about it for decades but are just developing it now." Which is one more reason to take those declining discovery charts by Colin Campbell and others with a huge grain of salt.

[shortonsense]

Things like that tell you there is no clear line between a "discovery" and a "semi-discovery" and a "we've known about it for decades but are just developing it now." Which is one more reason to take those declining discovery charts by Colin Campbell and others with a huge grain of salt.

Oh, those discovery charts by Colin are mostly designed to hide the changes in field sizes through time, as best I can tell. I've seen a couple of them now, and its amazing how right where Ghawar was discovered, those bars keep getting bigger...and bigger...and bigger.

And then you exclude all the oil you don't like, anything the wrong color, density, location, near a body of water, etc etc, and presto! Nice, neat, decapitated discovery graph.

Anyway, I was just wondering how you handled things like those resource plays, is all.