Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Oil Left in the Ground

High prices still haven't prompted companies to use advanced extraction methods.

By Kevin Bullis

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Even with record-high oil prices, about two-thirds of the oil in known oil fields is being left in the ground. That's because existing technologies that could extract far more oil--as much as about 75 percent of the oil in some oil fields--aren't being widely used, according to experts in the petroleum industry.

Credit: (foreground photo) Andrea Church and Technology Review

Several well-established technologies, including "smart oil fields," exist that could significantly boost the supply of petroleum from oil reservoirs. But a lack of investment in such technologies, particularly by the national oil companies that control the vast majority of the world's oil reserves, is holding back implementation. When oil is drawn from a field too quickly, or from a bad location, or with the wrong kind of well, large amounts of oil can be left behind, says Richard Sears, a visiting scientist at MIT who has served as a vice president for exploration at Royal Dutch Shell, based in the Netherlands. But the best technologies for managing an oil field require up-front investment--when an oil field is mapped and characterized and the first wells are drilled--and the payoff can take decades.

Story continues below


In most oil reservoirs, the oil resides in porous rock in geologic layers that are tens of meters thick but stretch for miles. A conventional oil well is a vertical shaft, so it is in contact with only a narrow cross section of the reservoir. Such a well depends on oil percolating through microscopic pores over long distances. That can slow production, and often oil can be stranded inside the irregular geometry of the oil field.

For 15 to 20 years, however, it's been possible to drill horizontal wells. These follow along the length of an oil field, so that the well is in contact with oil for miles, rather than for just several meters. What's more, advanced imaging technologies and new drilling rigs have made it possible in recent years to drill to an accuracy of one or two meters, Sears says. The increased precision in drilling allows oil companies to stay close to the top of the reservoir, where the oil is, and away from the water that can exist in the reservoir.

Comments

  • "smart"
    Don’t you love how they throw the word “smart” in front of everything and it is all at once a breakthrough.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    zig158
    05/20/2008
    Posts:64
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: "smart"
      Would you rather have them all labelled as "stupid?"
      Rate this comment: 12345

      phoenix
      05/20/2008
      Posts:172
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • Pressure Depletion Is the Controlling Factor
    A couple of points. The ability to contact more reservoir really permits faster production moreso than improving ultimate recovery. It does allow marginally more oil to be produced, but not as much as you'd think. Pressure is the determining factor. When reservoir pressure has drawn down to a point where oil flows slowly or not at all, then secondary means to improve pressure are used, such as waterflooding. After that, the most expensive options can be considered: those that loosen the oil to allow better flow for the amount of remaining pressure. They can only scrub a fraction of the remaining oil under the circumstances, unless the oil is thick and heavy. The only cases I'm aware of where enhanced techniques can realistically turn 35% recovery into 75% recovery are steamfloods of heavy, sticky oil deposits, such as Bakerfield, CA.

    But when you get down to very little oil flow, it becomes profitless to pump it or to remove the water.

    Water infiltration will always be problematic. Once it happens, you can practically give up or start drilling new holes. At some point, it is not worth the cost of new drilling. The accuracy of these new methods comes with a price, and wells in the U.S. don't provide much marginal oil anymore, so they have to be fitted to projects on a case by case basis.

    It's risky to start enhancement projects knowing that the price of oil may drop. This is also true for renewable energy, coal-to-liquids, gas-to-liquids and any other alternatives to oil. The best way to ensure that more domestic energy is produced would be to put a tariff on imported oil at a price of $50-60 per barrel. This way many more projects could be started with the certainty that they will be profitable over several decades.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    MakeSense
    05/20/2008
    Posts:99
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Pressure Depletion Is the Controlling Factor
      Good point in the last paragraph about the tariff on foreign oil. The U.S. already imposes a 100% tariff on sugar cane ethanol from Brazil. Why? Do Brazilian terrorists threaten the U.S.? Is Brazil a totalitarian regime? Why not tariff Arab oil? Why does the U.S. president tariff Brazilian sugar cane ethanol, while he kisses the Saudi king for more oil?
      Rate this comment: 12345

      energymv
      06/08/2008
      Posts:19
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • Yes, they do...
    "theft", is a word so used in combination with "oil", "energy"... but, who use the "oil"? not us? We have 2 cars, we accept cars with big and inefficient engines and so on, we want food from the other "corner" of the world...
    Yes, some people use our stupidity against us. And we - as a society - don't bother to react or demand changes, because ... ???
    If WE as individuals wont change our habits, we will deserve every single bad thing that will happen...
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Handshake
    05/26/2008
    Posts:16
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • Get Gov't Out of the Way
    The Senate Appropriations Committee continues to block the US from even knowing what we have.  In a recent 14-15 vote, all the Dems (15) against all the Reps (14) blocked an amendment that would have allowed the US to open up many oil fields.  If we want energy independence, then why are the Dems preventing it?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    RD
    05/28/2008
    Posts:125
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Get Gov't Out of the Way
      The government doesn't prevent exploration, most of which is accomplished through advanced seismic techniques. Exploratory wells are routinely approved for the Arctic and other areas that Dems and Repubs alike have been loathe to develop. We know pretty well how much oil exists in those areas. The problem is that the U.S. uses 7.5 billion barrels of oil per year but our reserves - including ANWR and those other areas - amount to just 22 billion barrels. So, if all our reserves could be produced and quickly enough, they would last just three years. At that point it makes sense to ask, "Would we rather preserve the wilderness and the oil for future use?"
      Rate this comment: 12345

      MakeSense
      06/03/2008
      Posts:99
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • EOR Technologies and Oil Price Regimes
    In the article 'Oil Left in the Ground', I find the statement that Schlumberger derives its revenues chiefly from EOR projects in periods of high oil prices intriguing. EOR was the last resort of oil firms when prices dipped to extents that they found it more economical to increase recovery from existing fields than invest hundreds of millions of dollars and years in locating and developing new oil wells. But, as the article suggests, some of the new EOR technologies require up-front investment that are not supported in periods of low oil prices (or more correctly, when prices are expected to fall or stay low for a considerable time).

    I presume many factors weigh on the minds of oil executives concerning EOR investment decisions. Chief among these are the 'cost - life-time yield enhancement' equation, the 'gestation period' for such projects, and the anticipated oil price profile over the short- to medium term horizon. EOR investments may not be justifiable at fields oil from which is sent to the spot market on account the added risk from price volatility and uncertainty. (Could it be that national oil companies prefer the spot market? I guess not). Conversely, long-term contracts and stable or rising revenue expectations favor these projects. At some price level though, investments in fresh E&P activities turn favorable on account the relatively modest yield improvements that can be expected from EOR at existing fields relative to production from a new field.

    One could also hazard that high oil price regimes support EOR technologies with high initial fixed cost component that increase well yield significantly, while low oil price regimes favor technologies with a lower fixed cost component in which the variable cost varies with desired well yield.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    gprao
    06/22/2008
    Posts:10
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • When Saudi Arabia can drive the price to $10 a barrel...
    When Saudi Arabia can drive the price to $10 a barrel because their costs are half that, and they do so to break the legs of governments and corporations that invest hundreds of billions producing more daily to drive the price down to $60 a barrel and end up at $50 as the shifting demand curve cuts the quantity at equilibrium, only central planners see increased oil production as desirable.

    Exxon has had a lease at Thomson Point for three decades, got authorization to produce oil in 1982 from six exploratory wells, which Exxon promptly shut in, and has yet to produce a single barrel of oil.  In 1982, I'm sure they saw the fall in demand and the increased global production as making the oil more valuable in the ground.  And now they are more interested in the natgas at Point Thomson, but that requires the government build a pipeline.

    And by the way, Point Thomson would be in ANWR if it were 20 miles east, so I figure that is a good indicator of how quickly oil would be produced in ANWR if Congress authorized it today: about 2040 the State of Alaska would be seeking to cancel Exxon's ANWR leases because Exxon hadn't started producing oil from its ANWR leases.  Not because of a shortage of energy, but because Alaska was seeking oil and gas royalty income.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    mulp
    07/23/2008
    Posts:5
    Avg Rating:
    2/5

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Malleable Maps, Artistic Robots and Bubble Interfaces
Technology Review January/February 2010

Current Issue

Security in the Ether
Information technology's next grand challenge will be to secure the cloud--and prove we can trust it.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2010 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.