High-tech extraction methods are delaying the peak of world oil production

But Wait, There's More

Remember the predictions that the world was at or near the peak of oil production? Sigh with us now, for industry is using high-tech methods to suck oil from wells once considered tapped out. Thanks to steam and carbon dioxide injections, as well as 3D modeling, Big Oil is breathing new life into old oil fields: Chevron, for instance, is now extracting 200,000 barrels a day from an Indonesian field that oozed a mere 65,000 barrels a day in the 1980s. Energy pros have revamped the estimate of recoverable oil in the world -- including the trillion or so barrels already used -- to 4.8 trillion barrels, from 3.3 trillion. "It's not over until you abandon the last well, and even then it's not over," says a Chevron geophysicist. That's good news for energy suckers, since plans to rely heavily on coal are stalled in lawsuits. "Until new technology makes coal-burning cleaner in three to five years," says industry analyst Richard Price, "it's gonna be real tough to get new [coal] plants built."

straight to the source: The New York Times, Jad Mouawad, 05 Mar 2007

straight to the source: Reuters, Steve James, 05 Mar 2007

see also, in Grist: An interview with Jeff Goodell, author of Big Coal

see also, in Grist: Ask Umbra on peak oil

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (3 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Not so fast (on more oil availability)

Mr. Mouawad quotes the famously optimistic Daniel Yergin who keeps re-issuing press releases announcing the availability of his firm's $1,000 report (on how much oil we have available). The reporters read the release, but don't buy the report. The report itself has a number of details not expressed in the release. The firm (CERA) has not submitted it's research for peer review and hasn't been willing to participate in conferences on the subject. The other (very respected) industry experts have published and discussed their findings for many years, and many of the them have found CERA's research lacking and their conclusions doubtful. For example, Yergin lumps together all the different varieties of hydrocardons (light crude, heavy crude, tar sands, oil shale, etc.)as if they were equal in energy costs to extract and the volume which can be extracted in a given period. Simply stating that we have a certain amount of (equivalent) barrels on hand ignores the fact that some of these potential sources will cost too much (in energy) and will not be available in sufficient volumes to make much of a difference.
Also quoted is a Chevron employee, who says "It's not over until you abandon the last well...". This may be true from a technical point of view, but it isn't relevant. When it costs more in energy than a barrel of oil to extract an (equivalent) barrel of oil out of the ground then it is "over", since the exercise has a negative return on investment.
While these new extraction technologies may extend the curve of declining supply, it is too early to tell by how much. As an article by "Umbra" points out on this site, it doesn't hurt to reduce your fossil fuel exposure as it saves money and helps reduce our global climate change impact.

Michael O'Hara Hudson, NY

by michaelohara at 8:13 AM on 06 Mar 2007

injection of oil wells..............

is an established treatment for failing fields. The book by K Defayes---Beyond Peak Oil, is full of up to date info by a geologist who was raised in the oil fields. In the book, he points out the Saudis have already used injection to revitalized one of their largest fields. He also covers the Canadian sands whose demands for energy to recover the oil mean that an on-site power plant exists just to furnish the electricity necessary. He also points out that the foothills of the Rockies are the next step.

When we first developed nuclear power the thinking was that we would segue into fusion from fission. Instead, here we are with aged plants, jam packed with expended but still wildly dangerous fuel rods, ever so closer to an expanding rural population. And the new designs, well, we have the example of the pebble bed whose ball got stuck and came just that close to melt down. The newest step forward is the plant just awarded to France and it still uses more power than it produces. That's the current state of affairs.

Actually coal is carrying the ball, and always has. G. Bush has accommodated them by allowing the old coal burners to get licensed for another 50 year go -round. We have gasification and such but one method just produces diesel fuel, which, incidentally, is why we now have legislation requiring cleaner diesel fuel and engines, and the other needs to dispose of the increased carbon dioxide which, although we have not mastered the technology to rid ourselves of this problem, the proposal is to inject it into old wells, salt domes, etc. All unproven technology. So, we are back to square one. And coal.

by katesisco at 11:21 AM on 06 Mar 2007

more oil availability

I can't believe that anyone, let alone the NY Times and Grist, is hyping steam and CO2 injection for enhancing oil production. These techniques have been around a long time. Guess how the steam is made for the Bakersfield CA aging (discovered 1899) fields. By burning natural gas piped in from Wyoming. This is like changing gold to lead--the oil is low quality heavy dregs, and the natural gas is a very precious commodity, which, like good oil, we are squandering.

Howard Wilshire

by howardgw at 3:37 PM on 07 Mar 2007

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?