(Page 2 of 2)
It has also become possible to make "smart wells" that include sensors that can survive the extreme temperatures and pressures found deep underground. These allow oil companies to detect, for example, when water, instead of oil, is being pulled into the well, and to quickly shut off production from that area, while continuing to produce from other sections of the well.
Such smart oil fields have started to become more common for international oil companies such as Shell, Exxon-Mobil, and BP. But they still aren't used in most oil fields. And their use is particularly low in fields run by national oil companies, says Larry Schwartz, a longtime researcher and scientific advisor for Schlumberger, a Houston-based company that provides various services to oil companies.
Schlumberger historically focused on providing services at the "front end," he says, which includes taking measurements, such as of the amount of oil and how easy the oil will be to produce, and "drilling sophisticated wells." But since oil prices have been high, the company's biggest revenue stream has come from projects related to improving existing wells, such as by fracturing rock underground to try to improve oil production at conventional wells that have stopped producing as much as they used to.
Steven Koonin, BP's chief scientist, says that cutting-edge research could lead to automated oil rigs on the sea floor, ultra-deep-water ocean drilling, and arctic exploration and production, as well as to technology for extracting oil from unconventional sources, such as shale. But although oil prices have been higher than $60 a barrel for almost three years, Koonin says that for the most advanced technologies, "oil prices will have to stay high for a couple of years longer before companies think they can make big investments."
A method for getting oil out of tarry sands could reduce the costs and lower the greenhouse-gas emissions associated with its extraction.
A new heater cable lowers the cost of separating oil-like fluid from rock.
BP's chief scientist, Steven Koonin, says cutting greenhouse emissions will take major changes.
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.
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?
"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...
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?
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?"
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.
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.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
zig158
64 Comments
"smart"
Don’t you love how they throw the word “smart” in front of everything and it is all at once a breakthrough.
Reply
phoenix
172 Comments
Re: "smart"
Would you rather have them all labelled as "stupid?"
Reply
Gaetano Marano
246 Comments
>>> My solution for the oil spill issue >>>
.
.
.
As direct derivative of the latest BP idea (but much better) in my oil spill article's update, I propose a NEW, SAFER, CHEAPER, FASTER IDEA that could close the hole and stop the oil spill IN A MATTER OF HOURS!
.
It uses a balloon with a strong metal core to be inserted in the riser, then inflated with compressed air or a mix of water and concrete:
.
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/070oilspillsolution.html
.
.
Reply