42 comments on A Primer on Reserve Growth - part 2 of 3
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Blogroll
- ASPO The official site of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas.
- Energy Bulletin Clearing house for news regarding the peak in global energy supply.
- PowerSwitch Dedicated to raising awareness & discussion of the impending & permanent decline of cheap oil & gas supply.
- ODAC Oil Depletion Analysis Centre working to raise awareness and promote better understanding of the world's oil-depletion problem.
- Global Public Media Public service broadcasting for a post carbon world.
- Post Carbon Institute Learning to live in a low energy world.
- PeakOil.com US site and forum to educate and promote awareness of global hydrocarbon depletion.
- FEASTA The Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability
- Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) This website describes an effective and fair response both to climate change and oil/gas depletion
Other Blogs
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Rembrandt, thank you for a colossal and magnificent piece of work, it really adds a lot to my understanding of the phenomenon of reserve growth and why it differs in various areas.
There's one other factor that may add very substantially to future reserve growth in the United States-the historical age of discovery of the fields. Many of the great old fields in the US were discovered before any modern geophysics, even before electric well logs. They have been in the hands of small, stripper operators since at least the 1950's, and much of their productive area has reverted to the heirs and assigns of the original mineral owners. Ownership of minerals is mainly in private hands in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana. These fields have never had modern siesmic studies and may contain large stratigraphicially isolated reservoirs. This is true for many old Gulf Coast fields in Texas. There's also a heck of a lot of "forgotten" oil in these fields-heavy oil in salt dome cap rock and sands that are very shallow and were not economicly viable until the price run-up of this century. The same may very well be true for old oil fields in places like Baku and the old onshore Mexican and Iranian salt domes.
Hello Rembrandt,
Yes, a terrific analysis! Do you think enough oilfield & tech history has occured where the USGS could take this info and then go back to reassess the oilfields' remaining potential worldwide?
Could the USGS do some kind of massive sorting and compilation by geologic structure and composition, API [heavy vs light], EOR % already applied, % of modern seismic and other tech tools used, additional build-out infrastructure cost-estimates, and other pertinent factors, then derate URR and future possible production by past production history and HL analysis to sum-up a global Minimum Recoverable Reserve [MRR]?
I think the current USGS 'optimistic scenario' needs to be counter-balanced by an additional USGS 'pessimistic scenario'. In short: I would like to see a raging USGS in-house debate not much different than what occurs here on TOD [for example, WT vs R-squared]. IMO, the internal competition would be good for the bureaucrats, and would make their jobs more rewarding.
If there was a USGS faction that wanted to break away from the standard in-house group-think, the overall USGS leader should encourage this team action. They could then openly post to TOD with an 'official blessing', and we would be glad to help them do further research and discussion to build their new scenario.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
totoneilia, thats an interesting idea about the USGS stating a pessimistic reserve figure, but not practical because the low stance is obviously a complete crash in oil production-every well stops producing right now. What I'd like to see is a range of probabilities of production in the future, possibly veted against the strategic information gathering from other countries. I'd love to see what the Saudi's and the Russians think is the world future production model and discovery model.
Its really too bad and frustrating that essential information is being judged too political to be released.
oilmanbob,
Good points....let me ask you, what do you think of prospects in the recently opened areas of the Rockies? I am interested in areas that have been "off limits due to environmental "moratoria", and thus not profitable to spend money on exploratory work until recently...
This is very fascinating when it comes to natural gas, and the issues of "stranded gas". This is of interest also in Eastern Kentucky, where the terrein is very rugged, but there is believed to be a lot of natural gas associated with the coal seams that while not profitable to work at $2.00 per million/BTU, it is much more interesting at $7.00 plus.
Any thoughts?
Roger, I just don't know about the Rockies. The whole area was completely open to leasing until the moratorium until, as I recall, about 1980, except for the national parks.How many giant oil or gas field have been discovered since then in the areas not placed in the reserved areas? None.
Same way with the eastern Gulf of Mexico shallow water areas, the California, Oregon, Washington Coasts, the Eastern Seaboard-the major oil companies pretty well picked over the inexpensive and moderately priced potential areas. I wouldn't expect many giant fields in any of those areas.
Areas where technology has improved to the point of new exploration-Deep water Gulf of Mexico-look a lot better. Areas where prices and technology have improved to make reserves formerly uneconomic to develop worthwhile-Bingo!
I think the real economic message of Hubberts peak is the cheap, inexpensive oil and gas has been discovered, and mostly produced. Ehat's left is going to cost more and money until no one can afford it.Quibbling about the exact timing is important to people trying to validate economic mathematical models, but not the rest of us.
Probably 98% of the oil and natural gas thats ever going to be discovered has already been discovered in the producing areas in the US. "New fields" like the Barnett shale were known to exist for many years-thats why George Mitchell tried to produce the shale gas for twenty years before he came up with an economic method. Same with Appalachian coal seam gas and a dozen other plays. People have known about coal seam methane for 150 years in the US. Thats when miners started accidentally blowing up mines.
Whats different is the price, so good engineers have devoted their time to figuring out how to make a profit.
My father had an economic concept he called trading dollars. He said there were a lot of areas-the Giddings Austin Chalk play was the one he referred to-where except for tax sheltering advaantages an investor was just trading dolars. In other words by the time he reached pay-out the cash flow was about the same as buying stock, and stock was a heck of a lot more safe. And he was right, except for the oil price run up from the oil embargo and new technology such as horizontal multi-lateral completions changed that game.
I think horizontal wells and fresh water fracs have changed the economics on coal seam gas and Devonian/Ordivician shale plays. And peak gas has raised prices permanently in the USA.
So how do we make money with this? Aye, thats the rub. The majors aren't a good idea-they're overhead is too high. Same way with companies run by promoters who are always chasing the next hot deal, like EnCana or Chesapeake. My bets are on players like XTO, where Boone Pickens is putting his money, or Anadarko which has stayed focused on buying or drilling long-lived production. These companies are smart and very well managed. Service company stocks are going to do great, this stuff is expensive to drill and complete
Working interests with low overhead or royalties under areas where there is production look best to me. Gas Royalty Trusts look wonderful, they're priced by being discounted to today's prices for future reserves, ad gas prices will very likely double in th next year as we have an average 32% depletion rate in new wells coming online and the stored gas won't cover the decline rate very long.
At any rate, thats my best thinking. I'm personally planning to do 4 or 5 oil well reentries about 60 miles southwest of Houston in an oil field that was discovered in 1902. The wellheads are leaking oil, so I know there's some pressure and a couple of months of production at 5 barrels a day per well should get my money back.