[MonteQuest]

I guess I'm just wondering how if oil has "peaked" in old fields etc and is production is supposedly declining, then where is all the oil coming from? If 50 m bpd is coming from "peaked" oil fields then it should be declining at 2-3 m bpd per year. But there's more and more oil being pumped per day, so obviously that's not the case. What am I missing, how is this possible?

While conventional oil production peaked at roughly 72 mbpd in 2005, new conventional fields have come on line, along with the unconventional shale oil from fracking. Almost all of the new growth in production is coming from shale oil in the US. Without the drop in demand due to the recession, the story would be quite different.

Not to mention, the change in definition of oil to include, biofuels, NGL, and refinery gains.

[JohnnyOnTheFarm]

Rock, how about "EOR methods applied to old fields typically don't increase a field's production rate but just slow down the decline rate"??

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/849

Although the provided information seems to muddy the point, the production decline not only slowing, but reversing with additional development. I suppose then the question is how much of this can happen elsewhere.



Sure sounds like once the greens force the powerplants to get more clean, part of the supply of CO2 angle will go away...

Productively using CO2 to enhance oil recovery is neither a new nor an exotic technology. Today, 105
CO2-EOR projects provide over 250,000 barrels per day of incremental oil production in the U.S. Since
1986, about 1.5 billion barrels of domestic oil have been using CO2-EOR, with another 1 billion barrels
currently booked as proven reserves. However, the single largest deterrent to expanding production
from CO2-EOR today is the lack of large volumes of reliable and affordable CO2. Most of the CO2 used
for EOR today comes from natural CO2 reservoirs, which are limited in capacity. Thus, an attractive
market exists for CO2 emissions captured from industrial sources and power plants for expanding
domestic oil production through the application of CO2-EOR.

http://www.adv-res.com/pdf/v4ARI%20CCS- ... 4-2-10.pdf

[ROCKMAN]

Johnny - "...how about "EOR methods applied to old fields typically don't increase a field's production rate but just slow down the decline rate"?? Although the provided information seems to muddy the point, the production decline not only slowing, but reversing with additional development."

The info on Weyburn Fid doesn't muddy the point at all. That project is as far from "typical" as one can get. It's a fantastic effort...and extremely unique. And exactly how important are those fantastic results in the grand scheme of things? An increase of 20,000 bopd in a world that's consuming more then 80 million bopd. And would we have had even that without the US tax payer covering a portion of the cost? From your link: "The Weyburn Project, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy...".

And how many more opportunities exist out there going forward? Again, from your link: "As TOD contributor westexas can no doubt tell you, use of tertiary recovery generally has not fundamentally altered the shape of the Hubbert Linearization for lower 48 US oil production but has marginally increased that production by extending the tail of the linearization curve into the future. As the DOE reports, "Today, less than 700,000 barrels per day of oil is produced in the United States by EOR processes (compared to about 6 million barrels per day of total domestic production)."

And remember what we're talking about: increases in FUTURE production from exiting fields. As your link points out CO2 EOR began being conducted in US oil fields more than 40 years ago: "As reported by the DOE, CO2 Injection into oil fields is a tertiary recovery technique first tried in Scurry County, Texas in 1972." And other EOR methods have been conducted longer. IOW such techniques have already been utilized if oil prices t the time justified the effort. But that also means the recent increase in in oil price has made a number of formally uneconomic projects viable. But as Keith points out: "Almost all of the new growth in production is coming from shale oil in the US."

So again I'll make the same statement: EOR methods TYPICALLY don't produce the results some folks think they will.

[JohnnyOnTheFarm]

The info on Weyburn Fid doesn't muddy the point at all. That project is as far from "typical" as one can get. It's a fantastic effort...and extremely unique.

So, when folks discuss the 100+ CO2 projects already going on around the country, they don't count?

Found this in the executive summary...

Today, a total of 113 CO2-EOR projects inject 3.1 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd) (60 million
metric tons (MMmt) per year) of natural and industrial CO2 for enhanced oil recovery, in
numerous areas of the United States (U.S.) (Exhibit ES-1). The associated crude oil production
in 2012 was 282,000 barrels per day. Growth of oil production from CO2-EOR has been
constrained in the past few years due to limitations in accessible, affordable supplies of CO2.

http://netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/Rese ... 0_2014.pdf

And exactly how important are those fantastic results in the grand scheme of things? An increase of 20,000 bopd in a world that's consuming more then 80 million bopd. And would we have had even that without the US tax payer covering a portion of the cost? From your link: "The Weyburn Project, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy...".

Depends on how many more of these projects there are to do I suppose. Let us not forget, a few short years ago everyone was standing around with their thumbs up their backsides lamenting the high prices and how awful it was. And drill baby drill and that price did something quite unexpected.

So again I'll make the same statement: EOR methods TYPICALLY don't produce the results some folks think they will.

So it is no panacea, but Weyburn apparently isn't unique. If the supply and price constraints are fixed (suddenly more supply and possibly cheap from EPA 111D) on CO2, how many more than 110+ projects do you think folks could put into operation? If the government subsidizes CO2 generated from electrical power generation, and hands it to you for free, do you have any place in your company you would put it to use?

[ROCKMAN]

Johnny - "Depends on how many more of these projects there are to do I suppose." I probably didn't explain it clearly: I'm not saying CO2 EOR isn't a useful tool. Just the opposite: it's been very useful for DECADES in fields where it was available and cost effective. I'm trying to make the point that until the recent rise in oil prices all fields where CO2 injection could be used it was being utilized.

I offer this to counter the impression some are trying to make that we have this new ERO method to deploy to all our old fields and thus have huge new reserves just down the road. True story: about 6 months ago I looked at a potential CO2 EOR project in west Texas. The reservoir was only at a depth of 2,400'. It had originally contained over 800 MILLION BBLS OF OIL. Very poor recovery factor: about 11% yielding around 75 million bbls of oil. So over 700 million bbls of proven oil. And there are two nearby similar fields that have had EOR CO2 injection for many years. They more than doubled the recovery factor and have pulled out more than 25% on the original in place oil. Even at $80/bbl the additional CO2 recovery from the field I studied would yield a minimum of $6 TRILLION.

So here's a field one might add to the rosy forecast of future EOR projects. Except one little problem: there is no CO2 available: all the available supply is going into those two offset fields. It will be decades before any is available for the field I reviewed. Trust me with $trillions at stake the Rockman and every other company out there have looked for any other viable approach and have found nothing that works economically. BTW the field is currently being held by production: 60 bopd. Yes…60 bopd…not 6,000 bopd or even 600 bopd. The field was bought by a Swiss company for a huge sum of money thinking they could increase recover with horizontal wells. They were very wrong and have lost big time. And yes: if they govt would supply me with the CO2 I would hit that field hard. But they won’t. The govt didn’t fund the Weyburn project for EOR…it was justified on the basis of CO2 sequestration.

I don’t have time but you seem to know how to search the web: Weyburn is extremely unique. Dig deeper and you’ll see that. And don’t forget the obvious: Weyburn is not one of those fields with big future potential: enhanced recovery efforts started there about 28 years ago. Its additional reserves have already been added to our total. Also did you note that the big production increase was coincidental with the beginning of the oil price boom? If you want to find the close current comparison check out http://www.denbury.com/operations/gulf- ... fault.aspx. One company, Denbury, controls virtually all of the natural CO2 reserves east of the Mississippi River. Pipelines have been laid all the way to the Houston area. So again, this project will significantly increase the recovery from the fields it will be injected into. But in the big picture it’s still not significant.

It’s very easy to project big future recovery from CO2 EOR in the US…if you ignore the lack of CO2 available to do it. Every time you see someone offer those big numbers dig deep and find out where the CO2 will come from. That will be difficult since most of those predictions don’t address that aspect. The word “if” is common in such presentations.

[Tanada]

Rockman, has anyone done a combination water/CO2 flood to test its effectiveness? All the information I can find is on using either salt water or CO2 flood, but what about carbonated water?

[kenberthiaume]

I see, so it's more complicated than the simple "the post peak field x is declining production at 10% per year". I guess if prices are high enough they can keep investing in technology or more wells or something to keep production up for quite a while.

I guess it doesn't work forever as Alaska would attest.

There's probalby no simple way to get some kind of production/price curve to see what prices should be to meet a given demand. Production increases from previous investments are probably still coming through.

[wake]

Rockman, silly question for you?

How come you can't just squirt regular air or nitrogen down there instead of CO2?

Please feel free to send me a check if this idea makes you trillions

Johnny - "Depends on how many more of these projects there are to do I suppose." I probably didn't explain it clearly: I'm not saying CO2 EOR isn't a useful tool. Just the opposite: it's been very useful for DECADES in fields where it was available and cost effective. I'm trying to make the point that until the recent rise in oil prices all fields where CO2 injection could be used it was being utilized.

I offer this to counter the impression some are trying to make that we have this new ERO method to deploy to all our old fields and thus have huge new reserves just down the road. True story: about 6 months ago I looked at a potential CO2 EOR project in west Texas. The reservoir was only at a depth of 2,400'. It had originally contained over 800 MILLION BBLS OF OIL. Very poor recovery factor: about 11% yielding around 75 million bbls of oil. So over 700 million bbls of proven oil. And there are two nearby similar fields that have had EOR CO2 injection for many years. They more than doubled the recovery factor and have pulled out more than 25% on the original in place oil. Even at $80/bbl the additional CO2 recovery from the field I studied would yield a minimum of $6 TRILLION.
.

[Keith_McClary]

Today, a total of 113 CO2-EOR projects inject 3.1 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd) (60 million
metric tons (MMmt) per year) of natural and industrial CO2 for enhanced oil recovery, in
numerous areas of the United States (U.S.) (Exhibit ES-1). The associated crude oil production
in 2012 was 282,000 barrels per day. Growth of oil production from CO2-EOR has been
constrained in the past few years due to limitations in accessible, affordable supplies of CO2.

http://netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/Rese ... 0_2014.pdf

282,000 barrels per day = 15 MMmt per year.
60 MMmt per year of CO2.

So, 4 tons of CO2 per ton of oil.

Burning a ton of oil makes about 3.15 tons of CO2.

[Subjectivist]

Today, a total of 113 CO2-EOR projects inject 3.1 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd) (60 million
metric tons (MMmt) per year) of natural and industrial CO2 for enhanced oil recovery, in
numerous areas of the United States (U.S.) (Exhibit ES-1). The associated crude oil production
in 2012 was 282,000 barrels per day. Growth of oil production from CO2-EOR has been
constrained in the past few years due to limitations in accessible, affordable supplies of CO2.

http://netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/Rese ... 0_2014.pdf

282,000 barrels per day = 15 MMmt per year.
60 MMmt per year of CO2.

So, 4 tons of CO2 per ton of oil.
I
Burning a ton of oil makes about 3.15 tons of CO2.

Any idea how much energy it takes to cool/compress/inject those 4 tons of carbon dioxide? When you start off with a small gain of 1.26:1 it doesn't take a lot of carbon dioxide production to offset the small gain. What I mean is, if the collection injection process is electrical and comes from a coal fired electric generator how much more carbon dioxide is generated than is injected?

[kenberthiaume]

How much does it cost to make CO2? It sounds like it would make sense to make it just to inject it, if it's cheap enough.

[kenberthiaume]

OK, here's a question more to the point.

Which fields/countries are in "decline", ie output is actually declining and by how much? I guess you'd have to do it on a case by case basis.

Sounds like if shale drilling levels off the supply in the US will still grow by a few hundred thousand bpd from what I've read.

[ROCKMAN]

Sometimes I miss pointing out the obvious because I forget it's not obvious to everyone. Do you folks understand what happens to the CO2 when it's injected into an oil reservoir? It dissolves into the oil making it more movable as well as increasing the reservoir pressure which also helps push the oil out of the ground. So some of the CO2 comes up with the oil. The production then goes through a separator which removes the gas phase which is typically all CO2. In some cases the CO2 forms a gas cap above the oil reservoir and less will be dissolved in the oil but that isn’t typical. And unless they recycle the CO2 what comes out with the oil is vented to the atmosphere. I've yet to find what percentage is recycled but I suspect it's very small. The primary obstacle isn't capturing the CO2. Increasing the pressure to the point where it can be injected is usually too expensive.

The vast majority of CO2 injected is from naturally occurring CO2 reservoirs deep in the earth. Essentially CO2 EOR should not be viewed the same as CO2 sequestration. And then there are those rare worse case scenarios:

In 2011, an oil well operated by Denbury Resources blew out in Mississippi. Denbury had been using CO2 injection to increase the recovery rate on site and pressure had built to a point where the well caps ruptured, venting “carbon dioxide, oil and drilling mud for 37 days.” In fact, so much CO2 was emitted that it settled in surrounding lowlands, suffocating local wildlife. As CCS technology ramps up, the likelihood of accidents is bound to increase.

[ROCKMAN]

Wake – “How come you can't just squirt regular air or nitrogen down there instead of CO2?” Not a silly question at all. But I’ll skip a very lengthy description of the various types of reservoir conditions each of which has certain valid EOR applications as well as others that would be of no benefit. IOW there is no one size fits all EOR method.

Air and N2 injection have been used successfully in many EOR projects. In fact the N2 production plant at Mexico’s Cantarell Field produces more than all the other N2 units on the planet COMBINED. In this case the N2 forms a gas cap that pushes the oil down structure to the producing wells. Air injection, known properly as in situ combustion, was being used over 50 years ago in CA, La. and Texas. Again I won’t go into the details of the specific reservoir conditions that would call for ISC…a very complex discussion.

[kenberthiaume]

So as production declines, they'll just rejuvenate old fields with N2 or air...easy peasy. It seems they'll always have another trick up their sleeves to get more oil.

The fact that no new large fields have been discovered in x years or whatever is kind of irrelevent if they can just keep getting more and more oil out of the same old fields.

[kenberthiaume]

So as production declines, they'll just rejuvenate old fields with N2 or air...easy peasy. It seems they'll always have another trick up their sleeves to get more oil.

The fact that no new large fields have been discovered in x years or whatever is kind of irrelevent if they can just keep getting more and more oil out of the same old fields.

That's right Ken. We've all been lying to you and they truly do just keep getting more and more oil out of the same old fields. It'll always keep flowing, so forget about all the heart ache.

Let's go shopping.

There's a difference between "lying" and just being "wrong".

Obviously fields can't give oil forever, but one of the points of peak oil, that "oil discoveries peaked in the 1960s" or whatever is rendered almost irrelevent if they can keep upping the total oil harvested from a field.

[Subjectivist]

So as production declines, they'll just rejuvenate old fields with N2 or air...easy peasy. It seems they'll always have another trick up their sleeves to get more oil.

The fact that no new large fields have been discovered in x years or whatever is kind of irrelevent if they can just keep getting more and more oil out of the same old fields.

That's right Ken. We've all been lying to you and they truly do just keep getting more and more oil out of the same old fields. It'll always keep flowing, so forget about all the heart ache.

Let's go shopping.

There's a difference between "lying" and just being "wrong".

Obviously fields can't give oil forever, but one of the points of peak oil, that "oil discoveries peaked in the 1960s" or whatever is rendered almost irrelevent if they can keep upping the total oil harvested from a field.

But it's a matter of degrees. Say Primary recovery gets 30 percent of the oil out of the field. Then they go through and use Secondary recovery to get another 10 percent out. After that stops working they go through with Tertiary techniques and get out another 10 percent. Great you say, they still have half the oil left in the field so no problems! However each of those stages of recovery is much more expensive than the prior stage, so if you go with Quarternary recovery it will be even more expensive to get the next 10 percent of the oil.

We are at the point now where every drop we extract in North America is more expensive than the drop we got yesterday.

[kenberthiaume]

So as production declines, they'll just rejuvenate old fields with N2 or air...easy peasy. It seems they'll always have another trick up their sleeves to get more oil.

The fact that no new large fields have been discovered in x years or whatever is kind of irrelevent if they can just keep getting more and more oil out of the same old fields.

That's right Ken. We've all been lying to you and they truly do just keep getting more and more oil out of the same old fields. It'll always keep flowing, so forget about all the heart ache.

Let's go shopping.

There's a difference between "lying" and just being "wrong".

Obviously fields can't give oil forever, but one of the points of peak oil, that "oil discoveries peaked in the 1960s" or whatever is rendered almost irrelevent if they can keep upping the total oil harvested from a field.

But it's a matter of degrees. Say Primary recovery gets 30 percent of the oil out of the field. Then they go through and use Secondary recovery to get another 10 percent out. After that stops working they go through with Tertiary techniques and get out another 10 percent. Great you say, they still have half the oil left in the field so no problems! However each of those stages of recovery is much more expensive than the prior stage, so if you go with Quarternary recovery it will be even more expensive to get the next 10 percent of the oil.

We are at the point now where every drop we extract in North America is more expensive than the drop we got yesterday.

That's a good point. Not much "cheap" oil left.

Some fields should be declining as they were maybe put on tertiary recovery or whatever years ago. But maybe since prices have only been high for the last 6-7 years or so, that isn't the case.

I wonder if there's a list somewhere of x field is declining 5% next year, even with investment etc.