[rockdoc123]

Injecting cold water into an oil reservoir will cool the oil in the reservoir. In time the magma will heat the water and oil in the reservoir again.

Exactly who injects cold water into a reservoir? Extreme care is taken in injecting fluids into reservoirs to avoid “shocking” the reservoir and risking the creation of emulsions. Do you think oil operators who have been in the business for decades are somehow dumb?

The problem is that even with a constant temperature in the reservoir only on average 35 percent of the oil in the reservoirs globally can be extracted economically. The lighter oil is extracted and heavier oil remains in the reservoir.

A lot of misunderstanding here. First off reservoir and fluid temperature have zero to do with recovery. Secondly there are reservoirs that have greater than 50% primary recovery and many such as the Arab in Ghawar that will achieve greater than 70% under secondary recovery. As well the reason why oil is left behind isn’t because it has a different gravity, it has to do with the bonds between residual oil and grains in the reservoir. The oil in the pore space is produced and would be replaced with water or in some cases natural gas. Oil that is bound to sand or carbonate grains in the reservoir is termed residual oil. It is very difficult to breakdown those bounds under primary recovery given permeability from the open pore space is generally high enough that the adverse mobility ratio between oil/water or oil/gas takes over (you produce water or gas versus oil due to oil’s lower apparent permeability). So sorry, complete BS

To extract the heavier oil more energy must be transferred into the reservoir. More energy must be used to refine heavier oil. The energy cost to continue oil production increases as the quality of the oil declines.

This is not the case generally. API gravity does not always speak to cold oil flow. In Colombia, as an example, there are numerous fields that produce oil with API <15 with no additional energy needed as the oil has a viscosity of around 65 cp. Heavy oil in Alberta and Venezuela oil sands is different given it has undergone extensive biodegradation. As a consequence, you have very high viscosities (up to several thousand cp). But that is not the case universally. Not all low API oil requires additional energy to be produced. If you look at cost/bbl in some cases even heavy oils that need some processing and mixing in order to pipeline them are cheaper to produce than ultra-deep water sub-salt offshore oils. That cost is a direct measure of whatever energy might be used.

The oil prices are too high for the global economy.

That’s ridiculous. Current high supply is governed by US being at record output and OPEC having not cut back as much as promised. That being said World consumption and World production are currently quite close. If prices were too high you would see a serious drop off in demand/consumption which is not the case. Why would the world be buying more and more oil (consumption/demand is increasing) if they can't afford it?

[shortonoil]

Not all low API oil requires additional energy to be produced.

It takes more energy to pump molasses through a pipe than it does water. WTF!! My dog probably knows that!

The world has $2,830 trillion in assets. By 2025 it will have burned through 23% of them. By the time oil reaches its "dead state" we will be back to pounding the rocks together.

[Baduila]

@rockdoc, reply for your post of thursday:

When analysing your post, i see that all you discuss is heat conduction. No word about the first or the second law. But i told you, the problem for oil production is caused by the second law. Heat conduction is a part of thermodynamics, but less than one percent. Thermodynamics is the science of the transformation of one energy form in another. Thermodynamics science uses the terms, adiabatic, isotherm, dissipation, entropy, exergy and a lot more. And it requires a lot of mathematics.
Evidently, all of this is strange to you. I have the feeling, explaining thermodynamics to you is equivalent to explain colours to a blind man. It makes no sense.


Reply to your post on Friday:
I have connected the maxima with the LODD, no other points of the price curve. What is not displayed in this diagram, are the price maxima of 2008 and 2013, which are on the same LODD line. Each time the oil price reaches the line of demand destruction, it turns downward. In only one case (2014) the turn coincided with an oil supply increase, caused by shale oil production. One of five cases ! I don‘t believe that is a firm support for your opinion.

„the breakeven price is falling, not rising“. This statement has many facets.
First, you are right in some cases. Oil production consumes much energy. If the oil price falls, the most expensive input energy gets cheaper, so the breakeven price falls. Unfortunately, the profit does not increase. This is especially valid for LTO.

Second, your statement is not valid for SA and many other states.

[Baduila]

@Yoshua

When to solve a complicated problem, it is best to break it in small, less complicated simple tasks. (Adding additional problems and to ask for a solution of all problems at once, is a strategy perfect to confuse people. Read rockdocs posts.)

In the case of evaluating the thermodynamics of oil production, such a simplification is to assume that the oil reservoir is cooled by pressing in water from the surface. (Valid for shale production and all giants).

The water cools the reservoir, and the oil pumped up heats the earth surface. Tube and surrounding earth are neclected in the simple case.

To make it more simple, take only one well with a well known production rate. Take a shale well and the production diagram from „drill, baby, drill“. And assume some arbitrary large values for the mass of the heated earth surface and the cooled reservoir.

You will get a small temperature change for the earth surface and the reservoir. And the entropy of the final state is lower than of the begin state. Evidently, the second law would be violated if the entropy difference is not supplied from outer energy sources.

And now we come to the „AHA“ effect. If the heat from the oil is dissipated all over the earth surface, the temperature increase goes to zero. But the entropy change remains constant, and the energy requirement remains constant.

So: If some of the heat goes in the tubes, it does not matter. If the water flowing in the oil reservoir is coming from the oil neighborhood, it does not matter.

It could matter, if the heat from the reservoir transported to the surface could get back in the reservoir. But the thermal relaxiation times for thousand meter of earth is in the order of ten thousand years, so this is will not happen during our (and our childrens children) lifetime.

[Yoshua]

@ Baduila

Are you saying that the magma is cooling down...as the heat from the interior is rising to the surface and radiates into the cold space...and as we extract hot oil from the interior and burn it...it increase the radiation into space and the interior is cooling even faster?

This thread is a little bit above my level...but I don't care.

[Yoshua]

@ Rockdoc

Thx...the entropy (decay) in reservoir is of course much more complicated than I will ever know.

[rockdoc123]

It takes more energy to pump molasses through a pipe than it does water. WTF!! My dog probably knows that!

Apparently your dog might also know that the heavy oil that is piped is done so as a mix of light and heavy oils. Or perhaps you forgot that whole period where you didn’t understand what diluent was? I think it went on for a year where you were continually having to be educated on that point.

I have connected the maxima with the LODD, no other points of the price curve. What is not displayed in this diagram, are the price maxima of 2008 and 2013, which are on the same LODD line. Each time the oil price reaches the line of demand destruction, it turns downward. In only one case (2014) the turn coincided with an oil supply increase, caused by shale oil production. One of five cases ! I don‘t believe that is a firm support for your opinion.

You clearly do not understand what you are plotting. When you say each maxima shows the maximum price the world economy can afford that is complete BS. And when you say the minima shows the minimum price the oil producers can allow that is also complete and utter crap. In the first case the world's economy did not suddenly go into the crapper in 2014 and the three years before that the world had zero problem with $100 oil. The price is a product of how much supply is out there versus demand. Demand has continued to rise throughout that period but supply was able to outpace it due to success in the unconventionals. And the breakeven price is much lower than the blue curve you indicate as the minimum price producers can afford. In 2016 that minima was close but currently your curve is about $20 over the breakeven price. And costs did not increase much during the last 3 years so there is no reason for the minimum price producers could afford to have increased. None of this makes any sense in the real world. What you are plotting is not telling you what you think it is.

In the case of evaluating the thermodynamics of oil production, such a simplification is to assume that the oil reservoir is cooled by pressing in water from the surface. (Valid for shale production and all giants).
The water cools the reservoir, and the oil pumped up heats the earth surface. Tube and surrounding earth are neclected in the simple case.
It could matter, if the heat from the reservoir transported to the surface could get back in the reservoir. But the thermal relaxiation times for thousand meter of earth is in the order of ten thousand years, so this is will not happen during our (and our childrens children) lifetime.

This makes zero sense. Oil at lets say 150 C is produced through the borehole. At the surface that oil is at a much lower temperature which is a relationship of oil/water ratio, flow rate, and pressure drop. That heat loss is into surrounding cement, pipe annulus and rock. That reservoir heat is not removed from the actual reservoir rock which maintains its heat due to depth of burial (i.e. proximity to the earth’s mantle). The produced oil when under natural water drive is replaced with formation water which is at essentially the same temperature or possibly hotter if it is moving upwards from slightly greater depth in an inclined reservoir. If as is the case of a secondary recovery scheme water is injected into a reservoir there is only a short period where that water remains cooler than the surrounding rock, it heats back up to reservoir temperature as shown in this chart (in this discussion there were three rates of injection considered an infinite rate (theoretic) and fairly fast finite rate and a very slow rate where the water warms down the borehole equilibrating with surrounding rock). In all cases, the reservoir temperature approaches its original value in the reservoir. The timing is dependant on permeability and injection temperature to some extent but in no case does the reservoir remain cold due to heat being lost through oil production.


from:
Smith, R.C. and Steffensen, R.J. 1975. Interpretation of Temperature profiles in water-injection wells. Journal of Petroleum Technology, pp 777-784

[Outcast_Searcher]

@ Baduila

Are you saying that the magma is cooling down...as the heat from the interior is rising to the surface and radiates into the cold space...and as we extract hot oil from the interior and burn it...it increase the radiation into space and the interior is cooling even faster?

This thread is a little bit above my level...but I don't care.

If you buy that theory, are you saying you're going to ignore all the heat inputs like the sun, the earth's magnetic field (see mantle, re rockdoc's reference above, which is the main point I'm making re heat inputs), etc? If you are, then why bother to talk about science at all? If you're not, then what he's saying is nonsense, as that's a LOT of energy input to the earth's crust over time.

Accounting for the largest inputs (just acknowledging they're there, for example) isn't complex and the concept doesn't require a lot of math or applied math (i.e. physics), to see the basic point. (There is a basic reason the earth's mantle stays hot. If you claim you want to understand this, why not start by looking that up?)

Now, if he wants to claim taking the oil removed overwhelms the inputs (more heat lossed than gained), then he should:

1). Show the math on that. (Of course, he can't since it isn't true).

2). Account for the fact that timing matters if heat input is counted, since you get LOTS of heat input over time, and only "lose heat" once when the oil is removed (re his contention that "lost heat" is "a problem" due to hand waving and thermodynamics.

etc.

Instead, it's only nonsense in response. Not surprising, but not exactly helping his "case".

[Outcast_Searcher]

Let's not fool ourselves; the time to pay the piper is at hand.

And yet, you claim this persistently, year after year after year, moving your timelines, changing your story, etc. And you're always proven wrong.

So why should we believe you on iteration, say, 5000? Because if you roll 1000 6 sided dice billions of times, they might come up all 6's at some point?

Why not stop deluding yourself and get a life?

[Yoshua]

The entropy equation uses the heat extracted from the reservoir to measure the increase in entropy over time.

Exactly what that entropy increase consist of in the petroleum production (extraction, refining and distribution) is impossible for me to know. Even Rockdoc's knowledge is limited to his field of expertise.

But the point is that entropy do increase over time as the process moves forward...and to overcome the increase in entropy, more energy must be used to move the process forward.

[Sweeney]

At the risk of seeming a complete bozo, please can someone explain what ETP stands for? I've looked through old posts but couldn't find it.

[shortonoil]

Exactly what that entropy increase consist of in the petroleum production (extraction, refining and distribution) is impossible for me to know. Even Rockdoc's knowledge is limited to his field of expertise.

Entropy is a property of matter like mass, temperature, or volume. All matter posses an explicit entropy state. Since entropy equals Q/T (heat/temperature; for the English engineering system that is BTU/°R), (°R is degree Rankine) and it is expressed definitively in equations like the Clausius Inequality. Entropy unlike mass, or volume has "no accompanying physical picture assiocated with it.". Since it can only be perceived as a mathematical entity its use for analytical purposes has been mostly limited to scientists and engineers; where it is used extensively. The only way to gain an intuitive "feel" for entropy is by using it.

The Etp function (Total Production Energy) is derivid by numerical analysis from the fundemental Second Law Statement: s2 - s1 = c*ln (T2/T1) where s2 - s1 equals the change in entropy from state 1 to state 2; c equals the specific heat of petroleum at constant pressure and temperature. T2 and T1 are temperature in degree Rankine, and ln is the natural logarithm to the base e. It is an application of the Second Law Statement "the entropy rate balance equation for control volumes". The output of the function has a very high correlation (Rsq > 0.95) to the price of oil (until massive money printing began), to petroleum production, and the formation of world debt; among several other metrics. It is a description of the total energy used by the industry, and society to produce petroleum and its products from the well head to the end user. The total energy content of a gallon of oil is taken as 140,000 BTU per gallon, or 5.88 million BTU per barrel.

The Etp Model is a valuable tool for analysis, and the projection of petroleum's impact on the general economy which results from its depletion. The curve that results from its calculation is a logistic function, which is the same form of curve that Hubbert determined that oil production followed.

[Outcast_Searcher]

At the risk of seeming a complete bozo, please can someone explain what ETP stands for? I've looked through old posts but couldn't find it.

In my mind, it's never dumb to ask an honest question that isn't readily answered with a quick search. In fact, it's somewhat refreshing in the age of "The Death of Expertise" (re book by that title).

From shorty's paper on the theory, dated March 1, 2015, V2, page 4, under definitions, ETP is "Total Production Energy".

It's written as E, with the TP as a subscript, in the paper. (Written just ETP with ordinary text editors for convenient posting, etc).

He defines this as: "The total work required to extract, process and distribute one gallon of crude oil: BTU/gal."

Disclosure: This definition was copied by eye as copy and paste are disabled in my copy of the PDF. It looks like accurate to me, but fair is fair, re the disclosure.

...

I hope this helps. If you want the paper on PDF (I grabbed it off the internet somewhere (I forget where) years ago), I'll be happy to email it to you if you provide me your email address in a private message. (It might take me awhile to notice your PM, as I don't check those often, so feel free to remind me via post here if you're in a hurry).


Re the theory, three things to note (all my opinions, based on observation and reading):

1). Its claims, re economic collapse, the maximum price affordable price of oil (MAP), etc. have been disproven re poor price and timing accuracy, despite ongoing claims and excuses you'll see on this thread (and others on this site) to the contrary.

2). One primary criticism of his ideas is that he doesn't account for roughly 6 decades of inflation (nearly 800% per internet inflation calculators) in his calculations and claims. Therefore, roughly speaking, the demise of the affordability of extracting oil is a function of 6-ish decades of inflation which when ignored, make it wrongly appear that a BTU of oil is becoming "unaffordable" to produce. (Clearly economic forces like supply and demand and the profits of the oil industry overall show that oil is affordable and in high demand over time).

3). Another major criticism of his work is that he ignores the idea that correlation does NOT imply causation, re his predictive graphs and figures.

He meets criticism to his work primarily with childish name calling instead of pointing out why the criticisms are wrong with math or logic, or admitting he made an error and correcting his work like an adult.

That, in a nutshell, is how I, and a number of his detractors on this site, see it.

Also, if you look at threads like the "Stock Market Crash!" thread, you'll see that his overall agenda via his posts is to be a full-on fast crash economic doomer. Being wrong frequently and very repeatedly doesn't deter him.

[Yoshua]

At the risk of seeming a complete bozo, please can someone explain what ETP stands for? I've looked through old posts but couldn't find it.

Etp=Energy total production

[Baduila]

Let me add some remarks to shortys comment:

The second law of thermodynamics is the commonly known as „The entropie in a closed system can only increase“ or „the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time.“ "The entropy rate balance equation for control volumes" gives a mathematical expression how to calculate the changes of entropy in open systems for known mass flows and heat flows. An other statement is:

„Heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system“

The last statement i have used to explain why oil production requires so much energy. „Heat cannot spontaneously flow between materials in temperature equilibrium without external work being performed on the system“.

On the first view, it seems to be strange, that the earth crust is (exception: volcanic areas) in temperature equilibrium, because the earth interior is hotter than the outside. The medium heat flow from the earth core to the surface is about 90 mW/m2, which causes the temperature difference. This heat flows through the whole crust, through the oil reservoirs, up to the surface, and then radiates into space. It forms a gradient field. But there is no additional heat flow from the oil reservoir to the surface, or vice versa. All additional heat flows have happened millions of years ago. The parts within the gradient field now are within temperature equilibrium, at least locally.

Oil production transports heat, thus disturbing the equilibrium. So, external work must be performed on the system. And because each transported barrel increases the distortion, more and more external work is necessary.

[rockdoc123]

please explain what "external work" is required to get a volcano such as Mt St Helens, Kiluae, Pinatubo etc to transfer magma at temperatures of thousands of degrees C to the surface where it cools to form basalt or rhyolite? How about the "external work" required to get a geyser to produce water at 2-3 times STP? Or the external work required to have get 300 - 400 C fluids and gases to continually pump below a deep oceanic black smoker.

[radon1]

„Heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system“

The last statement i have used to explain why oil production requires so much energy. „Heat cannot spontaneously flow between materials in temperature equilibrium without external work being performed on the system“.

You don't see how self-contradictory you are in these two sentences, do you. Your entire etp blather is built on a local heat death, that is, entropy reaching the maximum in your isolated system in which you live. At the same time you are talking about external work that you have to produce on that isolated system in which you live. Split personality disorder?

And a system subjected to external work is not isolated.

[SRSroccoReport]

TROUBLE AT MIGHTY EXXONMOBIL: Record Number Of Shale Wells While Permian Oil Production Remains Flat

How the Investor Relations Dept BAMBOOZLES the investing public.



ExxonMobil stated that Q3 2019 production in the Permian was up 72% versus Q3 2018. Two things they failed to mention. First, most of the increase was during Q4 2018. And second, the major part of the increase was from Natural Gas.





And lastly, to put the icing on the cake, here are ExxonMobil's wonderful U.S. Upstream Earnings:



SRSroccoReport

[rockdoc123]

Two things they failed to mention. First, most of the increase was during Q4 2018. And second, the major part of the increase was from Natural Gas.

I don't think there is any intent to mislead anyone here.

The presentation clearly states they are comparing 3Q 2018 with 3Q2019. Of course that would include production in Q4 2018 increases, along with Q1, Q2 and Q3 increases. How else would you calculate it?
And the presentation clearly states Koebd which means thousand of oil equivalent barrels per day which all companies who produce a mix of oil and gas report in with 6 Mcf of gas per boe. The Permian produces gas with liquids, pretty much everyone who pays attention knows that. In order to get the maximum liquid recovery from nanodarcy permeability you need to have gas with high oil content, not low gas content oil which has lower apparent permeability, hence lower rates and lower recovery. The lack of gas egress in the Permian late in 2018 and early 2019 resulted in lower prices that are now recovering as additional export capacity gets up and running.

And we have already had the discussion numerous times as to how you don't seem to understand what all is included in the earnings calculation and how as a measure it is misleading for a company that has significant non-cash adjustments.

but more importantly people who invest in XOM do so with the knowledge it is fully integrated (not just upstream as you have pointed to) and they do so for the dividend more so than any major increase in share price. Years where prices are lower in the upstream it usually helps margins in the downstream and vice versa. To that end the dividend is at 0.87/share up 0.05/share since Q1 2019 and up 0.10 since Q1 2018.

[Yoshua]

Chesapeake warns of default is prices stay depressed.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EInawhjW4AA ... ame=medium