Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

PEMEX And Cantarell Say Hello To The Giant Sucking Sound

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-14-07 01:33 PM
Original message
PEMEX And Cantarell Say Hello To The Giant Sucking Sound
Remember the metaphorical “giant sucking sound” that Ross Perot invoked in the 1992 presidential debates? Perot employed that image to characterize the rapid exodus of jobs to Mexico that would surely result from ratifying the North American Free Trade Agreement. Fifteen years later, that vivid phrase could appropriately describe the increasingly desperate circumstances befalling Cantarell, Mexico’s largest oilfield, situated about 50 miles off the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula. The giant sucking sound you might hear at Cantarell is what happens when hundreds of oil wells begin drawing gas and water from the very reservoirs that used to yield copious quantities of petroleum. It’s the sound of an oilfield rolling over its peak.

To unknowing American ears, the name Cantarell evokes a casual, Southwestern feeling, more suggestive of a dude ranch than the world’s No. 2 oil field. By far the most productive oil reservoir in the Western Hemisphere, Cantarell was yielding more than two million barrels per day (bpd) as recently as 2005, outperforming all other fields save mighty Ghawar in Saudi Arabia. At $50 per barrel that level of production translated to $100 million a day. When a wealth generator of that magnitude starts to sputter and lose productivity, other oilfields must pick up the slack or else the Mexican economy is bound to take a hit.

Unfortunately, the most recent numbers from PEMEX, the state-owned oil company, don’t justify confidence. Output from Cantarell fell by nearly 500,000 bpd to about 1.5 million bpd in December 2006, a 25% decline from 2005’s totals. Cantarell’s swoon took PEMEX’s total output below the three million bpd level for the first time in six years. PEMEX exports more than half of its crude to the United States alone; only Canada exports a larger volume. Since Cantarell’s output is roughly equivalent to Mexico’s total exports, production declines will be felt in the United States, which will have no choice but to offset the loss by purchasing more expensive crude on the international market.

Make no mistake, a production crash at the world’s second-largest oilfield will have an effect on import volumes and the price of crude. In fact, oil markets have already taken notice. In mid-January the per barrel price of crude briefly sagged below the $50 mark. Since PEMEX’s admission two weeks ago, the markets have rebounded somewhat. PEMEX is working to expand output from other fields to offset continued losses at Cantarell, which are expected to average 15% a year. To meet that objective, PEMEX will inject nitrogen into the largest of the remaining oilfields, increasing reservoir pressure and flow rates. No doubt that will help, as Mexican crude is on the heavy side of the spectrum. But as demonstrated at Cantarell, where nitrogen injections since 2000 produced substaintial gains in flow rates, once the practice is discontinued, output drops sharply. If the projected annual decline rate is accurate, Cantarell will drop out of the million bpd club by 2010. As noted in the Wikipedia entry for Cantarell: “This rapid decline is postulated to be a result of production enhancement techniques causing faster oil extraction at the expense of field longevity.” Indeed, the consequences of nitrogen injection on an oilfield are not at all dissimilar to the effects of anabolic steroids on power hitters, both during and after usage.

EDIT

http://news-views.renewwisconsin.org/news/item.tcl?news_item_id=103604
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-14-07 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
1. It sounds like what they did at Ghawar - start with tertiary recovery initially
Matt Simmons made a good case that Ghawar was pushed from the start. He noted that Ghawar was employing tertiary recovery methods pretty early in the process.

And if you try to increase pressure and flow rates you'll just go into a sharper decline earlier than if you ramped up gradually.

All signs point to a production collapse instead of a nice ramp-down. Damn.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-14-07 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Yes, it's Yibal all over again
PEMEX is installing more nitrogen capability for Cantarell, KSA is putting in more water injection for Ghawar.

I see dark days ahead. The last one out won't need to turn out the lights - they're already flickering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-14-07 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. This is such pure worst-case behavior, it's awe-inspiring.
Satisfying the world's jones for high production rates with water and nitrogen pumping, so that when the fields crash, the production falls off like a fucking lead brick.

No, really. It's perfect. They have achieved the worst possible peak-oil scenario. It's art, man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-14-07 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. We have become connoisseurs of catastrophe...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-14-07 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Well, we've been fucking things up for 3 million years
Practise makes perfect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibertyorDeath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-14-07 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Brilliant!
n\t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brokensymmetry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-14-07 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
5. K/R n/t
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rydz777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-14-07 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
6. North America
Interesting post. Thanks. As I understand the situation, as a region, North America peaked in 1985. After a short secondary peak, taking place about now, North American oil production is expected to plummet. The only untapped reserves left in the region are in ANWAR, and the ANWAR effect would be negligible. The tar sands and shale deposits are not likely to become economical until conventional deposits are in steep decline. We need a serious move to alternative energy (and conservation) not just lip service and fits and starts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-14-07 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Here's a look at North American production since 1965
Edited on Wed Feb-14-07 03:09 PM by GliderGuider


The data is from the 2006 BP Statistical Review Workbook.

The red line is the sum of the individual country data. The situation really turns on how fast Canada can ramp up its tar sands production. Our conventional oil production declined last year, so tar sands and a bit of offshore are the only realistic hopes North America has left.

By the way - that plateau in US production from 1976 to about 1988 was the effect of Prudhoe Bay, the biggest find in the USA since Texas. All it did was mask the underlying decline in the lower 48.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. Another graph - North American oil production, consumption and imports since 1965
Edited on Thu Feb-15-07 09:29 AM by GliderGuider


Any loss of imports is going to have significant effects.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hogwyld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 04:57 AM
Response to Original message
10. What's really scary is what's going to happen to Mexico
Once the oil runs out, and they have no money to run their country? I heard that 60% or so of the federal budget in Mexico comes from oil revenues. That giant sucking sound might actually be us as we suck in millions of economic refugees from our neighbor down south.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 05:58 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Here's my analysis of that
Mexico is the canary in the Peak Oil mine
It's not going to be pretty for either Mexico or the US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC