The Coming Oil Apocalypse

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by BlackCat





He doesn't bite on apocalypse scenarios such as "no more oil in five years" (there hs been several such that claimed that we would run out in the mid 80'ies).

He thinks that currently known ressources are sufficient for several decades and that their efficiency can be improved.

He thinks that when prices goes up, then alternatives will be attractive.

It's a little difficult to say about DanS, but I'll say it's a sound and practical attitude .

He's saying that even if there was a risk that the oil would run out tomorrow, we should not be worried, since it might not. That's a very odd attitude in my book.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

He's saying that even if there was a risk that the oil would run out tomorrow, we should not be worried, since it might not. That's a very odd attitude in my book.

Please give a reference to the post where he do that.

[Last Conformist]

The post that reads "He's wrong on both accounts".

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

What I did say is that dams eat into the rotational energy of the planet.

Is this true? If so, how much does it affect the rotation?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
The post that reads "He's wrong on both accounts".

Can't see that - not even as a thougth experiment.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

I did not say that. I said that the water causes more tidal friction in the dam than it would in the oceans.

Why?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
It tap's the planet's rotational energy. That's about as global as it gets!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Problems with reading comprehension, er? I did not say that rotational motion is the motive force between hydro generation.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

He's saying that even if there was a risk that the oil would run out tomorrow, we should not be worried, since it might not. That's a very odd attitude in my book.

Nobody can quantify the risk within a useful degree of precision, least of all the editorial writer. So why would there be a cause for action based on risk? It's similar retardedness to what the global warming folks indulge in.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by DanS


Yes, what you talk about "injection", I know of as "hydro-frac'ing" -- i.e., cracking (fracturing) the stone or sand with water or chemicals in order that the oil will flow to the pump at the bottom of the well. You can re-hydrofrac an old well with the new technologies/chemicals. My dad has had some success doing this, but I'm not sure how widespread the practice has become in the last year or two with high oil prices.

I was actually talking about much more than just frac'ing but wanted to keep things simple for people not in and around the oil industry. if you want some detail, higher prices can justify:

1. Drilling brand new producing wells at targets that were previously uneconomic

2. Drilling injectors to boost production (both daily and ultimate recovery

3. drilling recompletions
4. Frac'ing wells (Companies like Encana have built their natural gas recovery around frac'ing reservoirs with very poor porosity that where once considered uneconomic)
5. newer injection schemes with carbon dioxide or other waste products or chemicals

6. and probably 10 other methods that I would need one of the drilling guys to describe

7. Reinstituting trucking or rail service to some remote wells

The point is that at every given higher price point, the amount of economic recoverable oil grows. If the price stays up long enough, this will be reflected in a growth in reserves.

A good example of this is the Alberta oilsands where many companies could not book the oil as reserves due to the fact it was considered unecononmic.

[Flubber]

Just to be clear, all those methods of enhancing extraction were done when prices were lower . . . Its just that they are done much much more now.

The biggest constraint here in Canada on getting more oil flowing is the availability of rigs and crews. Competition for them is fierce (which of course raises the price and means that some more marginal activities again become uneconomic)

[Sandman]

Originally posted by DanS
Well now. Surely, if you can figure out that the Saudis are giving out bad information, market participants who are "on the ground" can figure it out too.

Or maybe the market participants are prone to fads, fancies and fashions, like everybody else?

[DanS]

Flubber: Oh, OK. Some of those are injection techniques that are pretty elaborate and deal with production on a whole-field basis, so I'm not too familiar with them.

In the wildcatting business in the Lower 48, mostly you cannot really deliberately push the oil with water, because you don't have control over the complete field. You can take advantage of water that is already pushing the oil, though. It's hit or miss. Sometimes, bad pipes introduce water into a field, so you have to replace pipe and pump some water before the oil starts flowing your way. Not a very scientific approach, as you might imagine.

[BlackCat]

There has been a lot of improvements in extracting oil in the last 20 or so years. In 1985 it was expected that danish north sea wells would "run dry" just about now, but better techniques has pushed that date to somewhere in 2015. Funny thing is that the old estimate was that it would be possible to get approx 5 % out where it now is expected that up to 20 % could be extracted. Fact is that there actually is four times more left that may be accesible if price/technology makes it sensible.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by DanS
Flubber: Oh, OK. Some of those are injection techniques that are pretty elaborate and deal with production on a whole-field basis, so I'm not too familiar with them.

In the wildcatting business in the Lower 48, mostly you cannot really deliberately push the oil with water, because you don't have control over the complete field. You can take advantage of water that is already pushing the oil, though. It's hit or miss. Sometimes, bad pipes introduce water into a field, so you have to replace pipe and pump some water before the oil starts flowing your way. Not a very scientific approach, as you might imagine.

The production guys would disagree with the idea that you can't push oil with water. I do agree that you can't push it too hard or you will achieve "breakthrough" or "fingering " ( yes ha ha) within the reservoir. These are very bad results where you start sucking mainly water since the oil got pushed aside. On the wells these guys are dealing with ( cost 30-60 million apiece and pump thousands of barrells a day) they spend a lot of time and modelling on extraction schemes

You are correct though in that we are playing with full fields. When the production platform costs billions there is no other way.

The smaller wildcatter is chasing smaller targets in competition with numerous other nearby operations and often doesn't have great information