<DrumBeat: November 30, 2006The Oil DrumUSGS WPA 2000 part 1 - A look at expected oil discoveries>
<How to Address Contrarian Arguments - part IThe Oil Drum: EuropeUSGS WPA 2000 part 1 - A look at expected oil discoveries>

51 comments on The architecture of UK offshore oil production in relation to future production models

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Oil CEO on November 26, 2006 - 3:09pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
Nice work. But I'm a bit confused about the final "models" graph and your forecast numbers. I don't understand the 2.25 mbpd number.

The UK produced an average of 1.65 mbpd in 2005. 1.5 mbpd so far in 2005. Based on the last few months and rcent decline rates, I'd guess 1.2-1.4 mbpd for 2007. Yet I see no lines in that range crossing 2007.

Also, your offshore stack graph shows about 1.2 mbpd for 2005.  Does this mean .45 mbpd are onshore?

Tell me what you think. How much for 2007? I don't care about 2008.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Euan Mearns on November 26, 2006 - 4:41pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
CEO - a good starting point is to read the article - but I realise that like me, you won't have time to read everything.

The 2.25 mmbpd number on the final models chart is an optimists inflated view of reality that I will discuss in some detail later this week.

The giant Buzzard Field, due to start production any week now, with 8 pre-drilled development wells, will IMO arrest UK decline in 2007 - this new production will be sufficient to offset the underlying decline, therefore, 2007 production will be the same as 2006 - whatever that number turns out to be.

2006 production figures are still up for grabs - latest published monthly figure is for July, that is baised down by summer maintenance.

As for offshore stack - you need to look at Figure 3 and not Figure 1 (which excludes 48 new fields that came on since 2000). The onshore fields contributed 34,664 bpd in 2005.

My forecast for 2007 UK production (nominally crude+cond+NGL) is 1.67 mmbpd - as detailed in the table in the article.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Oil CEO on November 26, 2006 - 7:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
No, I did read it. I was just too lazy to read it twice :) Plus I knew you'd answer all my questions. I'm still confused by the last chart, but we're not supposed to comment on that until next week when you get things straightened-out, right?

Again, nice work. Talk to you soon. And lay off the red wine. I downloaded Cohen's Greatest Hits, BTW. I like it. Very Bob Dylanesque, if that's a word. I'm sure Cohen fans hate to hear that. Any particular albums you can recommend?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Agric on November 26, 2006 - 9:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Wrong, in some aspects, you can work it out.

Cohen's 'Live Songs' is my favourite of his. I've lots of Dylan's live stuff, his 1966 is most interesting. Ever listened to Roy Harper? Or, more freaky, Van de Graaf Generator? Sandy Denny is my favourite female voice.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Agric on November 26, 2006 - 9:36pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Typo error, it's: Van der Graaf Generator
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Euan Mearns on November 27, 2006 - 9:02am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I prefer Cohen to Dylan but most of my Cohen stuff is on vinyl.   Cohen Live (1994) is good - but you probably got most of the good tracks on The Greatist Hits. I also like "I'm Your Man". But I got really diverse taste with favourite contemporary band Green Day and album American Idiot - should be the TOD anthem.

Explanation of Figure 9 later this week - another 3000 words I'm afraid.

And you had a typo!

And lay off the red wine.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.