Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Deepwater not performing?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Deepwater not performing?

    Someday, however, it will become apparent that the real disaster is taking place 150 miles to the south at BP's multi-billion dollar Thunder Horse oil platform that was supposed to extract a billion barrels of oil at a rate of 250,000 barrels a day (b/d). Production at Thunder Horse began in May of 2008 and by the end of the year had reached 170,000 b/d. Then something unexpected happened; instead of production increasing to the rated 250,000 b/d, production began to drop at 2-3 percent each month so by the end of 2009 production was down to 60 or 70,000 b/d. As BP is under no obligation to tell us what is going on, little news other than mandatory federal production reports have been released.
    While new oil discoveries are trumpeted widely, failing projects, especially multi-billion dollar ones, just seem to fade away. Another Gulf project know as Neptune is not doing too well either. Neptune was expected to produce 50,000 b/d. The platform peaked at 40,000 b/d in August 2008. Sixteen months later production was down to 16,000 b/d. It now looks as if the platform that was supposed to produce 150 million barrels of crude will produce on the order of 33 million. The pattern emerging here is that deepwater oil production is not only dangerous, it may not be all it is cracked up to be.
    The international oil companies that are drilling in deep water certainly are not about to connect the dots for us, but independent observers say it is looking like our new deepwater oil wells are only going to be producing some 10 or 20 percent of initial estimates. Deep water oil is a whole different game with which no one has much experience. None of the deepwater fields have been producing long enough to have established any track record as to just how much oil can ultimately be recovered from deep beneath the sea where temperatures and pressures are extreme.
    Now all this might be of academic interest until we recall that, outside of Iraq, there are few places left to drill on dry land with much potential. The few good dry land and shallow water sites left are firmly in the hands of national oil companies, whose first job is to ensure that their domestic oil market is fully supplied with cheap oil for their citizens. If there is any left over, they will be happy to sell it to foreigners.
    http://www.fcnp.com/commentary/natio...lf-crisis.html

  • #2
    Re: Deepwater not performing?

    wouldn't it just be the shyts if the one that blew up really WAS "the big one"?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Deepwater not performing?

      This reminds me of when I read about the huge finds off the coast of Mexico around 1980... I thought it was great news and would really help the country develop. Of course Pemex went to the banks with the most optimistic estimates, because the banks would lend them more money and at a lower interest rate... and the reality turned out to be good for a while, but much less than the most optimistic estimates.

      There may also be something about deposits that deep under that much pressure and at such high temperatures that makes the actual yield much less than even an honest estimate?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Deepwater not performing?

        Now watch Shale Gas and Coal Bed Gas FTP (with the same rapid depletion rates as well), that would be as they say "a pickle".

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Deepwater not performing?

          Originally posted by mooncliff View Post
          This reminds me of when I read about the huge finds off the coast of Mexico around 1980... I thought it was great news and would really help the country develop. Of course Pemex went to the banks with the most optimistic estimates, because the banks would lend them more money and at a lower interest rate... and the reality turned out to be good for a while, but much less than the most optimistic estimates.

          There may also be something about deposits that deep under that much pressure and at such high temperatures that makes the actual yield much less than even an honest estimate?
          It has nothing to do with the depth...and everything to do with the fact that oil remains "the most political of commodities"...

          Links to a couple of posts on this subject from 2007:

          http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...ion-up?p=19470

          http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...ight=Petrobras


          And then amid all these announcements of plentiful oil all over the world, we have this announcement from Brazil last year...

          http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...05395#poststop
          Last edited by GRG55; 07-03-10, 10:19 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Deepwater not performing?

            OK, so you all think this was just presenting the rosiest picture and ignoring what the engineers and geologists said so they could get the most funding? Deepwater was supposed to supply 10 to 20% of US oil by the next decade, so does that suggest it will be more like 5%?

            If so, we had better get on vicious conservation now.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Deepwater not performing?

              Conservation is always a wise policy for consuming any natural resource. But we are lucky with oil because heavy oil locked in the oil sands of Alberta is almost limitless in supply. Investment in the oil sands of Alberta is one of my few profitable investments in recent years, and gold was the other profitable investment for me.

              I see the future as oil sand up-grading, natural gas from shale-fracking, hydro-electricity from new dams, and atomic power from new atomic reactors, both large-scale and small-scale. There is at least 200 years of heavy oil in Alberta's oil sands, so it's a no-brainer as an investment play. (But I do disclose that I own several oil and gas trusts in the tar sands, so I am advancing or arguing in favour of my own investment portfolio here.) As the light oil plays in deep water become out-of-favour, the heavy oil plays in Alberta become even more attractive.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Deepwater not performing?

                Originally posted by mooncliff View Post
                Someday, however, it will become apparent that the real disaster is taking place 150 miles to the south at BP's multi-billion dollar Thunder Horse oil platform that was supposed to extract a billion barrels of oil at a rate of 250,000 barrels a day (b/d). Production at Thunder Horse began in May of 2008 and by the end of the year had reached 170,000 b/d. Then something unexpected happened; instead of production increasing to the rated 250,000 b/d, production began to drop at 2-3 percent each month so by the end of 2009 production was down to 60 or 70,000 b/d. As BP is under no obligation to tell us what is going on, little news other than mandatory federal production reports have been released.
                While new oil discoveries are trumpeted widely, failing projects, especially multi-billion dollar ones, just seem to fade away. Another Gulf project know as Neptune is not doing too well either. Neptune was expected to produce 50,000 b/d. The platform peaked at 40,000 b/d in August 2008. Sixteen months later production was down to 16,000 b/d. It now looks as if the platform that was supposed to produce 150 million barrels of crude will produce on the order of 33 million. The pattern emerging here is that deepwater oil production is not only dangerous, it may not be all it is cracked up to be.
                The international oil companies that are drilling in deep water certainly are not about to connect the dots for us, but independent observers say it is looking like our new deepwater oil wells are only going to be producing some 10 or 20 percent of initial estimates. Deep water oil is a whole different game with which no one has much experience. None of the deepwater fields have been producing long enough to have established any track record as to just how much oil can ultimately be recovered from deep beneath the sea where temperatures and pressures are extreme.
                Now all this might be of academic interest until we recall that, outside of Iraq, there are few places left to drill on dry land with much potential. The few good dry land and shallow water sites left are firmly in the hands of national oil companies, whose first job is to ensure that their domestic oil market is fully supplied with cheap oil for their citizens. If there is any left over, they will be happy to sell it to foreigners.
                http://www.fcnp.com/commentary/natio...lf-crisis.html
                Why people who has no idea (I mean "independent observers ") are making these conclusions. There might be very many of reasons of "apparent" underperforming and in some cases it has nothing to do with reservoirs but with engineering/construction/economic. Calling Thunder Horse as failing project is a joke : how many oil shale wells you need to have to replace one well of Thunder Horse where some of them were producing up to 50000 bopd. You can calculate the economic for youself what is a payout for these wells. I would call TH as a best field in entire US GOM as today.

                Some fields are lower the expected some are better and since it is deep water high cost enviroment the uncertainty is very high.

                Comment

                Working...
                X