Hmmm I think we need to make sure that everyone is using decline in the same sense of the word.....are we talking about a 5% decline in reserves or production?? the two are not exactly matched one to one. And of course we are only talking about decline on producing reserves. By the way these are not my reserve numbers...they are IHS Energy's....don't shoot the messenger.

According to Aramco the 2003 year end total proved reserves were 260 billion barrels with an added incremental probable and possible of 103 billion barrels. The proved reserves are divided up into 131 billion barrels proved developed and 129 billion barrels proved undeveloped. So if you take this at face value it suggests that there is as much proven reserve yet to be developed as there is currently producing. If you then assume some of the P2 will move to P1 and some of the P3 to P2 and eventually P1 you can see where their projections are coming from...I think their story is consistent at least. So the lowest number increase in production they are talking about would not require additional discoveries (if of course their reserve numbers are valid). The much higher estimates tossed around would require additional discoveries and Naimi has used the USGS numbers (without mentioning that those estimates are in-place, unrisked values). I am currently trying to put together the IHS reserves on a field by field basis ...based on the various categories. Takes a bit of time but I will endeavour to post it here when I get done.

My understanding, not working in the petroleum field, comes from my niece, a geologist with Shell, and from reading on the topic. Again, as I understand it depletion refers to how much an oil field has had removed and depletion begins from the first day. On the other hand, decline specifically refers to the decline from peak production that an oil field experiences once geological conditions no longer allow extraction at maximum rates.

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but since the JODI database is alledgedly launched this weekend according to The Oildrum...

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/11 ... 5/363#more

What do you think? Does this seriously help data transparency or is it just Prozac for the market?

http://www.jodidata.org/FileZ/ODTmain.htm

Check out the smiley page...

http://www.jodidata.org/FileZ/jodiworld ... sment2.htm

"Saudi Arabia asks for "road map" of oil demand "

Ah ah , we asked first !! It should really read as ;

"World asks Saudi Arabia for "road map" of oil supply"


The situation has now got to a head !

SA: We wont go out of our way to gear up to make more oil until you tell us how much you think youll need.

Earth.com : Ummmm , well , we can only use what you can supply , and all forcasts says we will be consuming more and more, honest

SA: Well , you better be sure ! We cant invest all this money only for you not to buy the oil.

Earth.com : Trust us , we need it. Now you do actually have the oil , dont you ?

SA: Doh !!

etc etc

Paul

What does this imply for the rate of decline of Ghawar's production? Won't that last 20% be more difficult to recover? Could it be that Ghawar is going to have a rapid drop-off in production soon even though 20% of OOIP is remaining? Also, can we expect a decline in oil quality as Ghawar declines?

I think the subtext here is "We can't supply any more. Will you please decide how you intend to share out what is left..."

Looking at the plots of Ghawar production that Aramco has shown in presentations production has been pretty flat....gas is not increasing and water influx seems to be constant. That alone tells me there isn't going to be a sudden rapid drop-off in production. As to how the production profile will look going forward as bottom water rises and the gas cap continues to expand one can expect to see more water and gas production. This means that Aramco will have to have greater amounts of water and gas separation capacity than they have had in the past in order to keep net oil production high. They will likely also have to drill more infill wells in order to capture pockets of unswept oil behind the water flood front. So I guess the main thing is that going forward each barrel of oil is going to cost more to get out....I don't think they are limited by technology. If this were a deep water offshore field they would be in serious trouble (huge costs) but onshore and at shallow depth with no surface access issues their F&D and lifting costs are about as low as you can possibly get.....at high oil prices they will be able to throw a fair bit of money at Ghawar in order to squeeze out the remaining barrels.

We keep coming back to that 20% OOIP figure. If it's 20 billion barrels, that's around 12 years at 4.5 mbpd production. It would have to total more than 40 billion barrels to even get us to 2030 at that level of production and I don't think anyone believes there are 40 billion barrels left in Ghawar at this point.

And nevermind the IEA pipedream of increasing total Saudi production to 18.3 mbpd by 2020. Where will it come from, the remaining fields that make up 10% of total estimated reserves?

So how long can they pump Ghawar like they do now, rockdoc? 10 years? 8? 12?

Not sure that you read my previous post. I don't see the disconnect between what the Saudis are reporting as proven producing, proven non-producing and probable reserves with what they are saying they will produce in the future. As I said if you believe their numbers there is as much proven non-producing reserves as there is proven currently producing/produced.

As to Ghawar itself I looked at the reserves/resources reporting in IHS Energy. In 1997 they reported 193 GB OOIP, in 2004 that was upgraded to 200 GB OOIP and in 2005 it was upgraded once more to 215 GB. In terms of recoverable reserves in 1997 they reported 115 GB P+P, in 2004 they upgraded that to 140 GB P + P and in 2005 they reported 115 GB proven reserve (which probably meant there was an additional 25 GB of probable). In the 2004 Baqi and Saleri Aramco presentation they said Ghawar had produced 48% of it's reserves (not resources so not to be confused with recovery factor) which works out to 55 GB when you assume they are referring to the latest calculation of proven reserve. The 55 GB produced number seems to be repeated a few times by Aramco....so again the numbers are internally consistent. So what this is saying is there is still about 60 GB to be produced according to their numbers.

In summary I don't see the inconsistency in the numbers they report. It comes down to how much faith one has in the OOIP number of 200 or so GB and the recoverable number in excess of 115 GB as well as the overall reserve estimates.

Page 25 of this presentation from OPEC shows the cumulative production and proven reserves of Ain Dar/Shedgum over time. You can see the 1970 estimate of 22Gb proven reserves + cumulative production, today the fields have produced 27Gb and according to the Saudis production is stable at around 2mb/d with modest water cut of 38%. Something to keep in mind if you think the 1970's estimates of reserves are correct. In 1970 only less than 5Gb had been produced so the upward revision is not suprising. Today they put proved + cumulative at 41Gb, i.e. 14Gb remaining proved reserves. They estimate an ultimate recovery of 51Gb, 75% of OIIP, if correct 24Gb are remaining and the 2mb/d plateau can be maintained at least another decade (7.3Gb/decade).

http://www.opec.org/opecna/Speeches/2005/oiloutlook.htm

Haradh has only been tapped fairly recently in 300,000b/d incriments, the last of which is due to come online in 2006 bringing production to 900,000b/d at 1.7%/year depletion which they expect to plateau for 30 years, implying another 20Gb here. I'd like to see more info on central Ghawar, there doesn't seem to be much out there, rockdoc may be able to dig some out of the SPE papers.

What I find fascinating about these discussion is that you are fussing over details that are essentially irrelevant.
You're all confiming that there is oil in the ground and we are still sucking it out at a given rate. While you argue about how much is still left in the ground in the end no matter how much historical evidence you have the answer is still going to be a blind guess. You'll find out how much is actually recoverable when the tap runs dry and you can say, "Oh, so that's how much we had."

The figures you've all posted simply say we can still supply the world. They also go a good ways towards confirming that this is the best we're going to get, thus peak oil is here. Quite frankly, the hour and minute of that event is completely meaningless.

How long is it going to take to shift the entire global economic and social structures to cope with the inevitable. Decades!
Which means that taking even the most optimistic estimates, by the oil industry itself, we just barely have time to make the major changes that are required to keep a good portion of us alive.

Let's be honest here, how many of you who are convinced that peak oil is going to occur have done much of anything to shift the way you conduct your life in order to cope with oil depletion?
Do you go out of your way to buy local, no matter the price?
Stopped supporting McDonalds, Walmart, etc. ?
Have you gotten rid of your vehicles? Downsizing doesn't count.
Reduced the plastic you buy? Are you even thinking about it?

In fact the data is extremely important....taking the Saudis at their word versus believing they are outright liars makes a huge difference. As to Peak Oil being here....horseshit......what is your evidence? This is a typical doomer comment that has no basis in fact. Parts of the world have peaked, others haven't.....there is no evidence that Saudi has peaked.

As to the rest of your diatribe.....what has it got to do with the topic at hand? You seem to be someone who is completely convinced of some particular scenario and hence believe everyone should be actively trying to protect their interests against the coming apocalypse. There are some of us who actually want to understand the data....what it means...in the case of Saudi data (unquestionabally the most important) it might be possible to understand what is possible by getting all of the information together in one place....looking at it in an unbiased view. being a good citizen (using only the minimal resources you need, smaller cars, smaller energy efficient homes, consuming less junk etc) is independant of whether we have peaked or not or whether we will ever peak. But that is different than the actual hunkering down with a cached of automatic weapons and 10 years worth of canned goods.....a scenario that many doomers have likely contemplated.

If the Saudis peaked tomorrow indeed it would be important that people be right now looking at sorting out their finances etc.....However if they don't peak until 2025 (just an example) it would seem a bit stupid to be building an air raid shelter in your backyard and mining your front yard. Of course in the Excited States of America I believe your right to be a crazed loonie is protected by the bill of rights.....so have at it.

As for the Saudis, the recently stated that world oil production would peak in 2015 and their daily production has, for the most part, never exceeded what it did in the late 70s. Their 2015 date is fairly pessimistic and the fact their max daily production has remained fairly constant is interesting. Time will tell.

It seems that lack of infrastructure is also indicative of a near term peak. For example, lack of drilling rigs, lack of refinery capacity both mean that oil prices should stay constant or go higher. A good argument can be made that the lack of investment in refineries and rigs means oil companies don't see a lot of oil out there to justify the expenditure. At any rate, I have a thread that peak refinery capacity = peak oil. I think that remains true.

See, I kind of have trouble with this argument because it seems to me that the economics of cheap oil in the 90s would account for the lack of infrastructure, refineries, qualified engineers, etc. If someone could give more detailed analysis of why this is solely due to oil companies figuring out that there's no more easily recoverable oil rather than the price of oil, I'd like to hear it.

Seadragon,

The 90s was almost six years ago. Oil prices have gone up since that time due to rising demand. Most people would agree that these projects can be up and running in at least six years, sometimes faster. So, the fact that oil prices were depressed in the 90s begins losing its reasonableness as a reason for continued high gas prices.

So, let's look at today. We all know that we have a lack of refining capacity and a shortage of drilling rigs. I don't know about drilling rigs, but as for refinery capacity, no one is building any significant capacity. There are a couple of threads on this refinery capacity problem, so I want rehash it here. Suffice it to say that the Saudis and ICF and any number of other professionals see this refinery capacity shortage continuing until at least 2015, maybe longer. Even with the US opening up military bases to build refineries and even after the hurricanes, there is no rush to build refineries. Asking why this is so is a legitimate question. Boone Pickens says no one is building refineries bc there isn't the oil out there to justify building them. The Saudis are building some additional capacity, but the refineries are to process the heavier oil grades, thus also supporting the theory that light sweet crude has peaked, even in Saudi Arabia.

As for drilling rig issues, the "Oil Drum" has several good analysis on that issue.