Monday, May 30, 2011

Oil Updates: Cuba Discovery and Tax Cuts in Alaska

1. Could the 50-year United States embargo against Cuba finally be lifted after the discovery of an enormous oilfield in Cuban waters (20 billion barrels, with drilling to start within the next few months)? 

2. Alaska Governor Sean Parnell said he plans to continue to "vigorously pursue" tax-cuts for oil companies as a way to boost production in the state.  Hope Sen. Max Baucus is paying attention. 

63 Comments:

At 5/30/2011 9:52 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

won't Cuban oil just be sold on the world market anyhow?

Is there really much difference between Alaska,Canadian, Venezuelan, Mexican, Brazil, North Sea oil?

 
At 5/30/2011 10:18 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

What Cuban embargo? We are a major trading partner for Cuba. The U.S. is "Cuba's biggest food supplier and fifth biggest import partner, and has been for the past five years. The U.S. has done over $2 billion dollars worth of business with Cuba the last few years-all for cash." For Cash. And that is what the "lift the embargo" crowd would like to change. They would like Castro to have access to U.S. government guaranteed trade financing. How has that worked out for other countries?:

“Cuba stopped payment on all its foreign commercial and bilateral debt with non-socialist countries in 1986.” disclosed U.S. International Trade Commission Report in 2001.

A Bailout for Castro Too?, Humberto Fontova

So, no thanks. Communists pay cash.

As for the oil, notice how the lefty "environmentalists" are completely silent when it comes to the Chinese drilling in Cuban waters. Try suggesting that a U.S. company be allowed to drill anywhere near the Florida Keys and watch their heads explode.

 
At 5/30/2011 10:53 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

As for the oil, notice how the lefty "environmentalists" are completely silent when it comes to the Chinese drilling in Cuban waters. Try suggesting that a U.S. company be allowed to drill anywhere near the Florida Keys and watch their heads explode.

The left has never been rational or principled. So no surprise about their silence so far. That said, the left is not monolithic so expect to hear a lot from many on both sides of its fringes.

 
At 5/30/2011 12:06 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Does this mean that the Obama administration will now want to seek more more trade with Texas?...:-)

 
At 5/30/2011 12:11 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

"Is there really much difference between Alaska,Canadian, Venezuelan, Mexican, Brazil, North Sea oil?"

yes.

some is light, some is heavy, some sweet, some sour.

this requires different refining.

the current price for west texas intermediate is $100. brent is $115.

where oil comes from also determines the price curve.

saudi oil is easy to extract and has a cost/bbl of $2. north sea oil is much pricier to extract, maybe even $60/bbl.

the price is set by the marginal producer.

thus, if the cuban resource can be extracted more cheaply then the current marginal producer, it will drive the world price down.

 
At 5/30/2011 12:17 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" thus, if the cuban resource can be extracted more cheaply then the current marginal producer, it will drive the world price down."

doesn't that depend on how they price it?

Why would they price it any lower than to gain a competitive advantage no matter what their extraction costs are?

Isn't this a fallacy for any new supplies whether they are offshore in the US or offshore of Cuba or other locations?

( taking into account the different grades but for each grade - it has a world commodity price).

if you discovered new supplies, would you not value it per what existing supplies sell for?

 
At 5/30/2011 12:36 PM, Blogger rjs said...

repsol is a spanish company...
they're just using chinese equipment...

Repsol, in a consortium with Norway's Statoil (STL.OL: Quote) and a unit of India's Oil and Natural Gas Corp. (ONGC.BO: Quote), plans to drill one well with the high-tech Scarabeo 9 rig and another if the first is successful, said senior structural geologist Gonzalo Zamora at Cuba's Earth Sciences Summit in Havana.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idCAN0515006720110405?rpc=401&feedType=RSS&feedName=companyNews&rpc=401

 
At 5/30/2011 2:06 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"doesn't that depend on how they price it?

Why would they price it any lower than to gain a competitive advantage no matter what their extraction costs are?
"

Oil is sold on exchanges where supply and demand determine price. More supply offered = lower price bid. An additional Cuban supply would cause prices to drop.

 
At 5/30/2011 3:32 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

saudi oil is easy to extract and has a cost/bbl of $2. north sea oil is much pricier to extract, maybe even $60/bbl.

Morganovich,

Is that still true of Saudi oil? It's certainly still very much cheaper to produce because of its geology (high porosity and permiability), but Saudi production costs were around $2/bbl 15 years ago. I've not kept up with the industry much. My understanding is their production costs have risen and continue to rise. Maybe I have bad information?

 
At 5/30/2011 4:22 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

larry-

"doesn't that depend on how they price it?

Why would they price it any lower than to gain a competitive advantage no matter what their extraction costs are?"

wow. i'm not even sure where to start here. have you ever studied any economics at all?

if supply goes up, price goes down for any given level of demand.

if the price is $100 and the cubans can produce at $40, then they will.

that extra supply will make the price drop. oil is bulky and expensive to store. nobody can sit on a whole lot of it.

that price drop will push the marginal producers out of the market.

(if the price drops from $100 to $97 and your production cost is $99, you stop producing.

price is now set by the marginal producer at $97.

 
At 5/30/2011 4:27 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

methinks-

i am not sure that that number is accurate, but it's fairly close. (i'd guess the range is $2-4)

i do know that the average lifting costs for africa as a whole were $4/bbl in 2006.

the saudi fully loaded cost B/E is about $30 right now (includes exploration, taxes etc) but i don't have a solid number on lifting costs.

 
At 5/30/2011 9:57 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Lord Have Mercy; let's say that well is a gusher, and produces, oh, 60,000 bbl/day. The world consumes approx. 88,000,000 bbl/day. No one, and I mean No One will even know they've drilled it (except for the interested parties, of course.)

Oil is up $0.93 to To $122.35 tonite in Singapore.

 
At 5/30/2011 10:04 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Don't pay any attention to WTI. They have a lot of oil bottle-necked in there, and it's not indicative of World Price (or even the prices being paid on the East, and West Coast.)

For an example, look at the Link, above. Louisiana Sweet (basically the same grade as WTI, and Brent) is selling for $16.00 bbl more than WTI.

 
At 5/31/2011 5:07 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

" No one, and I mean No One will even know they've drilled it (except for the interested parties, of course.)"

agree

as discussed, there is "theory" and there is reality.

If the "theory" worked as described, you could have a chart that showed how each new "find" reduced the price of oil and by how much - to the point where a "new" gusher or a new potential oil field could be calculated as to how much effect it would have on the price of oil.

Has anyone got any data that shows this?

 
At 5/31/2011 8:19 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

"No one, and I mean No One will even know they've drilled it"

which is why you tend to drill more than one well in an oil field.

no one well matters in the world, but entire oil fields do.

 
At 5/31/2011 9:09 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

Oil is sold on exchanges where supply and demand determine price. More supply offered = lower price bid. An additional Cuban supply would cause prices to drop.

Only if it can offset the decline from other sources. Natural decline rates are running north of 6%. It will take a lot of new supply to offset that decline.

 
At 5/31/2011 9:13 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

Morganovich,

Is that still true of Saudi oil? It's certainly still very much cheaper to produce because of its geology (high porosity and permiability), but Saudi production costs were around $2/bbl 15 years ago. I've not kept up with the industry much. My understanding is their production costs have risen and continue to rise. Maybe I have bad information?


You are much closer to the truth than Morganovich. The the Arab-D reservoir was the big star of Saudi production but its best days are well into the past. The Saudis have to use a water flood to produce oil that has a higher and higher water cut each year. Both the injections and the separation are very expensive. I would argue that the average barrel in SA is running north of $35 with each new barrel at more than $60.

 
At 5/31/2011 9:29 AM, Blogger Rufus II said...

A large Field, anywhere, might have a small effect "at the margins." BUT, the "margins" are damned high, and getting Higher.

1) Crude Production is, basiclly, flat since 2005 (this, despite much higher prices. That, alone should be a big warning shot.)

2) Consumption in the OECD countries is down, (due to efficiencies, and recession.)

3) Consumption in Non-OECD countries is Up by about the same amount (and, rising.)

 
At 5/31/2011 9:49 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 5/31/2011 9:50 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"The the Arab-D reservoir was the big star of Saudi production but its best days are well into the past."



I debunked this claim when you made it in previous posts. In 2008 the Saudis invited the IEA to do a thorough evaluation of all of their oil assets. The IEA determined that Saudi Arabia's oil fields, including Ghawar, are NOT in decline. The Saudi's are simply making use of modern extraction techniques in order to realize the full potential of their fields.

 
At 5/31/2011 10:00 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

"I would argue that the average barrel in SA is running north of $35 with each new barrel at more than $60."

lifting cost?

no way.

 
At 5/31/2011 10:07 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

"That, alone should be a big warning shot.)"

yes, but not the one you think it is.

it's a warning against government ownership of oil assets and socialism, not resource depletion.

most oil is owned by governments.

many, like mexico, venezeula etc are not reinvesting in their fields. they chose short term cash flow over long term.

that's driving the flattening.

at these prices, there is a TON of oil.

 
At 5/31/2011 10:10 AM, Blogger Rufus II said...

In March of 2005 Saudi Arabia was producing 9.2 million bbl/day.

In March of 2011 Saudi Arabia produced 8.66 million bpd.

Production is down about 540,000 bpd, and net exports are down even more.

 
At 5/31/2011 10:14 AM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Yep, a Ton of oil, and Two Tons of Demand. (as evidenced by "Rising" Prices.)

 
At 5/31/2011 10:32 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

I debunked this claim when you made it in previous posts. In 2008 the Saudis invited the IEA to do a thorough evaluation of all of their oil assets. The IEA determined that Saudi Arabia's oil fields. including Ghawar, are NOT in decline. The Saudi's are simply making use of modern extraction techniques in order to realize the full potential of their fields.

The IEA said many things in 2008 that it has taken back since. (look hereand here. Or better yet, here.

The bottom line is that even the EIA has finally admitted that depletion is a much bigger problem than it was saying and that conventional supply peaked in 2005-2006. The Saudis still can't produce as much oil as they could in the early 190s and are now scrambling to drill marginal targets in the Gulf even as they crank up the pressure and pump more water into their older fields.

 
At 5/31/2011 10:37 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

lifting cost?

no way.


All in cost. Pumping stations, separation facilities, depletion of equipment, etc., all have to be counted as a cost. When you do you find that the Saudi cost is much higher than has been claimed. Yes, the northern Ghawar fields are producing oil at a very low price. But the rest of the formations are a lot more expensive. The reason why the Saudis are spending so much on some of these formations is because they know that the prolific region of Ghawar has seen its best days and is now in decline.

 
At 5/31/2011 12:24 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"Crude Production is, basiclly, flat since 2005"...

Oh I don't things are quite that bad...

WASHINGTON, November 18, 2009: U.S. crude oil production continues at four-year highs: API

WASHINGTON, November 18, 2009 - U.S. crude oil production for October averaged 5.36 million barrels per day, continuing at levels not seen since 2005, according to API’s Monthly Statistical Report.

 
At 5/31/2011 12:27 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

I was referring to Global Production, Juandos.

 
At 5/31/2011 12:38 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

vang-

which is why i said "the saudi fully loaded cost B/E is about $30 right now"

which is awfully close to your $35 number.

so what was your point?

 
At 5/31/2011 1:13 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Oh I don't things are quite that bad...

WASHINGTON, November 18, 2009: U.S. crude oil production continues at four-year highs: API

WASHINGTON, November 18, 2009 - U.S. crude oil production for October averaged 5.36 million barrels per day, continuing at levels not seen since 2005, according to API’s Monthly Statistical Report.


Hundreds of billions in new investment in the Gulf of Mexico will do that. But this does not change the argument because all that capital in the US, Russia, FSU countries, Africa, and OPEC nations failed to make a dent in global supply and we still do not have conventional crude production at 2005 levels. That matters.

 
At 5/31/2011 1:17 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

so what was your point?

My point is that the cheap Saudi oil is disappearing and the replacement is significantly more expensive with some of the very marginal fields running costs that are close to the current global price. Saudi Arabia is no longer capable of growing its production and is now on the back end of Hubbert's Peak. The problem with that is the extraction methodology. The Saudis used state of the art techniques to suck out their oil faster and faster. By doing so they guaranteed that the depletion rate will be much steeper than what has been observed in the US, Russia, Canada, or Venezuela. And that means much more trouble than the optimists want to admit.

 
At 5/31/2011 1:31 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

then why say "You are much closer to the truth than Morganovich" when i said "around $30" and you said "$35".

seems like you are just picking nits.

 
At 5/31/2011 1:32 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

As far as the U.S. is concerned, in Mar of 2005 the U.S. Produced 5,601,000 bopd.

In Mar of 2011 the U.S. produced (same link) 5,592,000 barrels of crude/day.

 
At 5/31/2011 1:34 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

seems like you are just picking nits.

I looked at the $2 quote and noted that it is very misleading. I also look at the rate of cost increases and note that there is a huge problem for the kingdom that is not being acknowledged. Within a few years most marginal barrels are likely to cost more than $100.

 
At 5/31/2011 1:41 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

As far as the U.S. is concerned, in Mar of 2005 the U.S. Produced 5,601,000 bopd.

In Mar of 2011 the U.S. produced (same link) 5,592,000 barrels of crude/day.


We have to be careful about the reclassifying of production streams. It seems that we have some countries folding in their biodiesel and unconventional oil with the conventional. But they are not identical because each type is very different when it comes to the product that it produces. Sadly the data is not as good as it should be.

 
At 5/31/2011 1:50 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

That JODI Data is C + C (Crude + Condensate,) only.

It doesn't include nat gas liquids, refinery gain, or biofuels.

 
At 5/31/2011 1:54 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Only if it can offset the decline from other sources. Natural decline rates are running north of 6%. It will take a lot of new supply to offset that decline."

I agree, but consider who I was responding to. I was afraid that too much information would cause overload, and obscure my point that supply and demand determine price.

 
At 5/31/2011 2:07 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"If the "theory" worked as described, you could have a chart that showed how each new "find" reduced the price of oil and by how much - to the point where a "new" gusher or a new potential oil field could be calculated as to how much effect it would have on the price of oil."

No, Larry, that's not possible. Unless you can hold every other possible influence on the price of oil constant, you can't determine what effect a new find can have.

In the REAL reality, there are thousands of things affecting peoples expectations for the future, thus the price of oil, and those many things change from day to day, in fact from minute to minute, so the effect of a new find can't be determined. In fact, it may be so far down in the noise, as to be undetectable.

 
At 5/31/2011 2:32 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"I was referring to Global Production, Juandos"...

Yeah Rufus, I know but I'm thinking that conditions are changing...

I mean would Shell make this sort of investment if there wasn't some sort optimistic thought that there was more, a lot more oil out there for the getting?

Shell to build world's largest, heaviest oil rig

A nearly half-kilometre long floating rig will be the world's heaviest and largest, weighing 600,000 tonnes or as much as much as six aircraft carriers.
Shell announced plans to build a giant floating gas refinery, named the Prelude, to cost $10 billion...

BTW thanks for the link for the Joint Oil Data Initiative...

 
At 5/31/2011 3:13 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Juandos, of course there's still a lot of oil to be drilled. That's indisputable. And, Shell, and Exxon, and BP, and the boys will make mucho moolah. And, that is as it should be. It's just absolutely, incredible, amazin', unbelievable what they can do, and where they can do it.

And, lest anyone misunderstand, I am all for drilling what we have (Especially, ANWR, for reasons stated, before.)

I'm just telling you "it won't be enough." The farther out in the water you go, the longer it takes to get into production, and the more expensive the oil is to produce.

And, in the meantime, Decline of existing fields marches on.

And, Chindia's appetite grows.

While we're drilling we need to be doing other things. No 1, of which, is biofuels. Maybe some nat gas for local, commercial vehicles. That sort of thing.

 
At 5/31/2011 4:22 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" No, Larry, that's not possible. Unless you can hold every other possible influence on the price of oil constant, you can't determine what effect a new find can have.

In the REAL reality, there are thousands of things affecting peoples expectations for the future, thus the price of oil, and those many things change from day to day, in fact from minute to minute, so the effect of a new find can't be determined. In fact, it may be so far down in the noise, as to be undetectable"

so.. you can't prove your assertion?

it's just what you believe?

 
At 5/31/2011 5:10 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Larry,

Ron H is exactly right on. Hayek called it the "Knowledge Problem." It's one of the reasons why central planning always fails.

 
At 5/31/2011 5:32 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"so.. you can't prove your assertion?

it's just what you believe?
"

It's basic economics, Larry. I thought you said you had studied some? You said you even own some books. You should seriously consider asking for your money back, as you haven't received an education. No one here is going to teach you basic economics, you have to know some things already.

There's nothing to prove, Larry, ask your economics professor, or ask your mom. It's widely understood basic economics.

 
At 5/31/2011 5:47 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" It's basic economics, Larry. I thought you said you had studied some? You said you even own some books. You should seriously consider asking for your money back, as you haven't received an education. No one here is going to teach you basic economics, you have to know some things already.

There's nothing to prove, Larry, ask your economics professor, or ask your mom. It's widely understood basic economics. "

have you heard of "book learning" .... theories verses the way the world really works...

guns & butter and all that blather?

You're looking for a system that works like the textbooks describe and you're gliding over the part where the professor and the book say " it doesn't work exactly this way".

the answer sometimes is in paying attention to what is really happening - even if you do't like it or agree with it.

In "theory" new oil should affect the price.

In reality, we know there are as you said "all kinds of things... that affect.."

that was my only point is that ..if it worked the way it was taught..

we COULD have a chart but we all know it does not..

so I asked if you just "believed" that the price of oil would go down as a result of new discoveries.

I don't think so - just based on history..

the big, massive failing in economics.. the big nasty warts hanging off the professors nose was in asking about the clear contradictions to the theory he was espousing.. to his disdain in having to answer such preposterous questions.

How dare anyone question his theories!

To this day -there are TWO KINDS of economists.

They who deal with the realities as they happen and try to understand them...

and those who reject the realities because they don't conform to the theories.

as you can tell I'm not from the latter school.

 
At 5/31/2011 6:05 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"as you can tell I'm not from the latter school."

You don't appear to be from ANY school. You are ignorant of both theory and reality. Supply and demand seem like foreign concepts to you.

I don't know what classes you took, but it's not likely any of them were economics. As I said, you should ask for your money back.

 
At 5/31/2011 6:11 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

"as you can tell I'm not from the latter school."

"You don't appear to be from ANY school. You are ignorant of both theory and reality. Supply and demand seem like foreign concepts to you."

well I'm ignorant of the cockamamie ruminations of whacked-out libertarians..

guilty as charged.

"I don't know what classes you took, but it's not likely any of them were economics. As I said, you should ask for your money back."

I not only took them. I gave the professors spouting theoretical nonsense fits.

the world works like no economics book ever taught.

there are those who understand that and those who need theories.

those who hew to the theories occupy a very small portion of the electorate...

If you believe in something - then you want it to become part of what we do right?

well.. it won't happen with your approach..

you have to convince enough others of your brilliance or settle for spouting off about it...

choose your poison.

work for change.. and suffer the inevitable compromises have cave meetings with those of like minds.

 
At 5/31/2011 6:15 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"The IEA said many things in 2008 that it has taken back since. (look hereand here. Or better yet, here."


Yeah, who are you going to believe, the IEA or some blogger who describes himself as "Scientist, Technologist, and Musician residing in Seattle, WA"? Scientist? Please.

Your second link to "Science and Technology Explained" contains this revealing paragraph:

Even so, the future of energy can look bright! We, society as a whole, need a major change of attitude. We need a shift of perspective from the selfish, individualistic, and social-status-acquiring way of life towards a more altruistic one. Yes, we don’t have any energy left to meet our exaggerated selfishness but we have plenty of it in order to save the “global tribe“.

Need I say more?

Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn - call your doctor.

 
At 5/31/2011 6:17 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"You're looking for a system that works like the textbooks describe and you're gliding over the part where the professor and the book say " it doesn't work exactly this way"."

You obviously used the wrong textbooks. The most reliable theories describe almost exactly how the world works, and no apologies by the authors or professors are necessary.

"the answer sometimes is in paying attention to what is really happening - even if you do't like it or agree with it."

Does this mean that something has finally penetrated that shell of ignorance you insist on wearing? That's exactly what many of us have been trying to tell you. I hope you're looking in a mirror as you say that.

 
At 5/31/2011 6:21 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"I not only took them. I gave the professors spouting theoretical nonsense fits."

I can only imagine. If nothing else, they would have to admit that No Child Left Behind has failed.

 
At 5/31/2011 6:33 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

"
"You're looking for a system that works like the textbooks describe and you're gliding over the part where the professor and the book say " it doesn't work exactly this way"."

You obviously used the wrong textbooks. The most reliable theories describe almost exactly how the world works, and no apologies by the authors or professors are necessary."

not your basic economics classes.

Now if you have a Masters or PHD in Economics... say so..but even your stated academic heroes are a bit whacked out in my view.

" In a modern democracy, not only can a libertarian be elitist; a libertarian has to be elitist. To be a libertarian in a modern democracy is to say that nearly 300 million Americans are wrong, and a handful of nay-sayers are right"

" High School

It began with Ayn Rand, as it proverbially does..."

check...

" He wrote an essay entitled "Columbus: The Far Left is Dead Right" to explain why his agreement with the far-left on Christopher Columbus was unusual. "

check

" Intellectual Autobiography of Bryan Caplan"

check...



"the answer sometimes is in paying attention to what is really happening - even if you do't like it or agree with it."

"Does this mean that something has finally penetrated that shell of ignorance you insist on wearing? That's exactly what many of us have been trying to tell you. I hope you're looking in a mirror as you say that."

really? I would have sworn it was nose and ear cleaning...

Lord you reek.

 
At 5/31/2011 6:35 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" "I not only took them. I gave the professors spouting theoretical nonsense fits."

I can only imagine. If nothing else, they would have to admit that No Child Left Behind has failed."

doesn't apply to college nitwit.

but you ignorance on NCLB is not surprising either.

 
At 5/31/2011 6:35 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

Meanwhile, while your "altruists" are out farming government subsidies and preparing for the environmental rapture our "selfish, individualistic, and social-status-acquiring" entrepreneur class is working tirelessly in hopes of making a profit off the "global tribe":

In a control room at Hasselgren Engineering, a technician flips a switch and the device roars to life as a large computer screen displays the performance of this new type of engine, which its developer, Pinnacle Engines, says will be up to 50 percent more efficient than today’s power plants.

As the first mass-produced electric cars hit the streets, Pinnacle is just one of several start-ups backed by prominent Silicon Valley venture capitalists aiming to reinvent the century-old internal combustion engine. The big promise: vast improvements in fuel economy and reduced greenhouse gas emissions at a lower cost.

“While the buzz is all about electrics, the people who will actually adopt electrics are not a majority of the market,” said Monty Cleeves, who has kept Pinnacle under wraps since he founded the company in 2007. “The impact we will have over the next 15 to 20 years will be much larger than the impact of the electrics.”

"Start-Ups Work to Reinvent the Combustion Engine", Global Automakers

 
At 5/31/2011 6:47 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

The Outer Continental Shelf is a significant source of oil and gas for the Nation’s energy supply ... The approximately 43 million leased acres generally accounts for about 15 percent of America’s domestic natural gas production and about 27 percent of America’s domestic oil production ... Estimates of oil and gas resources in undiscovered offshore fields on the OCS total 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of gas. These volumes represent about 60 percent of the oil and 40 percent of the natural gas resources estimated to be contained in remaining undiscovered fields in the United States.

BOEMRE


Khurais, about 90 miles east of Riyadh, the Saudi capital, is one of the planet's last giant oil fields. The Saudis say that it holds 27 billion barrels of oil — more oil than all the proven reserves of the United States — and that it will significantly bolster the kingdom's production capacity ... A variety of new technologies, including multiple lateral wells and microscopic robots swimming through rock pores deep underground, will allow the company to start recovering much more of the oil in its fields, said Mohammed Saggaf, who runs Aramco's advanced exploration research wing. The company expects to increase the amount of oil it can recover from its fields to 70 percent from 50 percent over the next 20 years, Saggaf said, adding another 80 billion barrels to reserves.

The New York Times

No doubt that "Vange" will be writing from his retirement home about how the Saudis are having to resort to "multiple lateral wells and microscopic robots swimming through rock pores deep underground" just to keep production up. It never ends.

 
At 5/31/2011 7:48 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

The NYT article on Khurais was written in Jan, 2008. I knew it had to be old, because Khurais hasn't worked out ezzackly like they were hoping.

The field wasn't any good 30, or 40 years ago (whenever it was,) and it's not any good now. They're spending a bunch of money and getting a little oil out of it, but nothing like the million + they were yakking about.

Plus, the oil is so crappy that it's almost unrefinable.

 
At 5/31/2011 10:03 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"doesn't apply to college nitwit.

but you ignorance on NCLB is not surprising either.
"

Did you go directly to college from preschool?

As usual, your reading comprehension is poor.

 
At 5/31/2011 10:54 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" Ron H. has left a new comment on the post "Oil Updates: Cuba Discovery and Tax Cuts in Alaska...":

"doesn't apply to college nitwit.

but you ignorance on NCLB is not surprising either."

Did you go directly to college from preschool?

As usual, your reading comprehension is poor. "

oh geeze.. you mean they were teaching economics in pre-school and I missed it..

DANG!

 
At 6/01/2011 12:20 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"The field wasn't any good 30, or 40 years ago (whenever it was,) and it's not any good now. They're spending a bunch of money and getting a little oil out of it, but nothing like the million + they were yakking about."

Dufus - Clueless as usual

"Plus, the oil is so crappy that it's almost unrefinable."

Again, you are completely clueless:

...the oil field covers three fields, Khurais, Abu Jifan and Mazalij. They produce highly prized high-quality Arabian light crude.

 
At 6/01/2011 5:40 AM, Blogger Ian Random said...

I find the peak oil (peak oil drilling interest really) irreverent. Is there enough drilling to discourage large scale production of alternatives is the real question. There is always stuff in the wings waiting. If diesel reaches $25/gallon, bingo algae is viable unless Venter/Exxon pans out.

 
At 6/01/2011 6:33 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

I find the peak oil (peak oil drilling interest really) irreverent. Is there enough drilling to discourage large scale production of alternatives is the real question. There is always stuff in the wings waiting....

There will always be oil around. That is not the point. The point is annual production. The level is so high and so much of the easy to produce oil has been produced that we can't get the production to grow any higher. The 'stuff in the wings' will only be enough to keep the decline from being more severe.

That means that we have to figure out a way to transition to new sources and substitutes very quickly. My bet is on something like methane hydrates.

 
At 6/01/2011 6:47 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

Gasoline in Europe is $7-8 a gallon with $3-4 of that a tax.

how does that play into the price of oil?

does it have:

1. no effect what-so-ever
2. it has an effect

 
At 6/01/2011 1:46 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"That means that we have to figure out a way to transition to new sources and substitutes very quickly. My bet is on something like methane hydrates"...

LMAO!

Ahhh vangeIV, I remember trying to convince you of sunken hydrates a few months back when you were riding the peak oil thingie hard...

If memory serves you pooh poohed that idea...

 
At 6/01/2011 2:28 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Well, they need to put some o dat "light Arabian Crude" on the market. It's selling for close to $120.00/barrel. I guess they're waiting for a "better price," eh?

 
At 6/05/2011 11:38 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

Ahhh vangeIV, I remember trying to convince you of sunken hydrates a few months back when you were riding the peak oil thingie hard...

If memory serves you pooh poohed that idea...


It is still not a workable idea. I have been arguing about the promise for several decades but have yet to see any way to solve the specific problems that will need to be overcome if the process is to succeed in becoming a viable source.

I finally found an outfit that has some of the materials that would be needed to get the hydrates but not a way to handle them safely. One crazy engineer had an interesting idea about using an underwater reactor that would convert the hydrates to liquid fuel before surface transport that might work but I have not seen the simulations and believe that we are still many years and hundreds of millions of dollars from providing a realistic solution and a proven small scale project. But as someone who is looking to invest in a solution I am more than willing to be proven wrong. If you have any information on any process that can develop methane hydrates economically I would be happy to look at it.

A reference to your claim would be very helpful. I really would like to see if things are as you claim them to be or if you are suffering from selective amnesia again.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home