Going Deeper for More OilTechnology has taken oil exploration to new depths--and found a huge reserve.
On September 5, a consortium of three oil-industry giants, Chevron, Devon, and Statoil, announced the results of a well test in the Jack Field located about 270 miles south of New Orleans and 175 miles offshore. It may be the largest discovery since Alaska's Prudhoe Bay in 1968, and it is almost entirely due to recent advances in exploration technology.
The test was conducted in water more than 7,000 feet deep, with the bit going to a total of 28,175 feet, breaking the record set in Chevron's deepwater Tahiti Field (see "The Oil Frontier"). The test also set records for operating conditions: tools and fittings worked under 15,000-20,000 pounds of pressure, according to Stephen J. Hadden, senior vice president for exploration and production at Devon Energy Corporation. Perforating guns, which are used to poke additional holes in well pipe within pay sands in order to increase the flow of oil, were also successfully used at record depths. The well sustained a flow rate of about 6,000 barrels a day, strong enough to encourage analysts to predict that the field may contain anywhere from three billion to fifteen billion barrels of oil, although the results of a second well test scheduled for 2007 will sharpen the accuracy of those figures considerably. If the higher-end estimate is correct, though, the discovery would approach Prudhoe Bay in size, and possibly increase total U.S. reserves by some 50 percent. The most fundamental change in the technology of oil exploration today is in the collection of seismic data from sea level and in the computers that build models from that information. To gather seismic data, ships fire charges from sea level and record how long it takes the ensuing vibrations to return. Whereas ships used to trail sensors on one cable perhaps 3,000 meters long, says Hadden, they're now trailing sensors on more than 10,000 meters of line, and often dragging as many as nine cables, vastly expanding the scope of information returned. Meanwhile, back in Houston, where major oil companies and a subcontractors crunch numbers, "the computers are evolving," says Hadden. "It's not one breakthrough, it's a steady march. And we're getting a clearer and clearer picture of the structures below." Like many deepwater Gulf fields, the Jack Field is "sub-salt," meaning it lies beneath a protective layer of signal-scrambling salt. The advances in computing have made it easier for companies to guess what lies below, and center around improved algorithms and faster processors, which together are better able to convert the results into a useful picture of the relative depths of different geologic structures. That knowledge makes it worthwhile to drill test wells, which often cost as much as $100 million a piece.
|










Comments
Just like if you were to have a balloon inside a balloon filled with water, you drain the water from one and the air pressure from another eventually will crush it. I'm not thinking in the next 100 yrs, but should our species continue are we not destroying the infrastructure of our planet for the future?
Because of our consumer-driven world and the introduction of China into the Industrial age burning soon more fossilfuels than any other Nation because of the need to supply her billion-plus population, should we not develop and use more non-oil fuels biting the cost now so the planet doesn't become a hollowed out shell?
Just some thoughts to think about...........
Thank you,
orbbrogreenacres
orbbrogreena...
09/12/2006
Posts:1
bhaywa1
09/14/2006
Posts:1
Much oil & gas is found in sandstone. The space between the sand grains (pore space) contains the oil & gas when found. Each sand grain, however, is surrounded by a thin layer of water. The oil & gas fill the remaining pore space. When the oil & gas is removed that volume is replaced by water. From where - depends on the nature of the geologic trap.
goingout
09/22/2006
Posts:1
Take a class in Course 12
Underemployed student from Course 12
segwayer
09/27/2006
Posts:1
janakiblum
09/12/2006
Posts:3
Oil is the premier substance doing this. You may complain about the environment and support Kyoto Accords but if you wish to see calamity on a grand scale, turn off the oil. We MUST have an alternative source of energy if we are to wean ourselves off oil.
Until that day, we can only survive by producing and burning oil.
Phineas
09/13/2006
Posts:93
zorba
09/14/2006
Posts:1
Energy definetly is a crucial input needed for economic activity and consequently human wellbeing. Still, nations vary widely with regards to their energy efficiency, i.e. the value added per unit of energy consumed. US is a laggard in this measure compared to nations like Japan, Germany and the Scandinavian countries. Single projects (see books by Weizsäcker, Lovins, Meadows) show that drastical improvements are indeed possible.
Apart from that, climate change is a reality, and imposes real costs on business and economy (ask me for sources if you want them), albeit in an unequal way across nations. Still, I believe Kyoto is not a matter of equity, but of survival, including for nations like US. No need for European 'Schadenfreude' in face of drowned New Orleans, but it should be a lesson to all of us.
Best regards,
Martin
Herrndorf
09/15/2006
Posts:1
phoenix
09/13/2006
Posts:172