In the Oil game, Russia has the longest suit to play

Guest post by David Archibald

Logistic decline plots may be misleading when the production profile has been affected by political events. Nevertheless, Figure 1 shows a logistic decline plot for Russia’s conventional production. The result is in line with Russian estimates of their ultimate recoverable reserves of conventional oil and the proportion produced to date. The logistic decline plot assumes no change in technology. It accounts for future conventional discoveries but does not account for a new play type that has not been hunted before such as shale oil.

clip_image002

Figure 1: Russia Logistic Decline Plot

Production usually starts declining once a country has produced more than 50% of its ultimate recoverable reserves. Russia’s production decline was delayed by the turmoil of the 1990s. Assuming that Russia’s conventional oil production is on the cusp of decline and that decline rate is 6% per annum, Figure 2 shows what that decline will look like to 2040. At 6% per annum decline, Russia’s conventional reserves will be exhausted by the end of the century.

clip_image004

Figure 2: Russia Production Profile of Conventional Oil 1930 – 2040

Russia’s shale oil resources are potentially enormous. The best source of information on this is a U.S. Geological Survey Report:

G.F.Ulmishek, 2003, Petroleum Geology and Resources of the West Siberian Basin, Russia, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2201-G, 49 pp.

As at 2003 and as estimated by the USGS, the West Siberian Basin had discovered reserves of 144 billion barrels of oil and more than 1,300 TCF of gas. The assessed mean undiscovered resources are 55.2 billion barrels of oil, 642.9 trillion cubic feet of gas, and 20.5 billion barrels of natural gas liquids. Most of the undiscovered conventional reserves are assumed to be in stratigraphic traps. 90% of the reserves are thought to be sourced from the Bazhenov Formation.

The Bazhenov Formation is an Upper Jurassic unit deposited in a deep marine environment. It is 25 to 50 metres thick over the centre of the basin, where it is also in the upper part of the oil window of source rock maturation.

clip_image006

Figure 7 is from page 12 of the Ulimshek report. It is an isopach map of the Bazhenov Formation. The green blobs are oilfields within the Bazhenov.

clip_image008

Figure 8 is from page 8 of the Ulmishek report. From the centre of the basin in a transect through Surgat, it shows the Bazhenov Formation and the prograding deltas that built over it in about 400 metres of water. The relevance of this cross-section is that it illustrates the deep marine environment that the Bazhenov Formation was deposited in. The Bazhenov Formation is 2,500 metres deep in the area of this cross-section, so there is another 2,000 metres of sediment on top of what is shown in this figure.

clip_image010

Figure 16 is from page 23 of the Ulmishek report. It shows the total organic carbon content (TOC) of the Bazhenov Formation. Most of the central part of the basin has TOCs over 7% with some large areas over 11%. By comparison, the oil generative part of the Bakken has a TOC of 18% in outcrop where it is immature and 11% within the oil window, with the difference due to expulsion of oil in the latter. There are 45 feet (14 metres) of generative shales in the Bakken. So the Bakken and the Bazhenov Formations are very similar in generative potential per cubic metre of rock, with the Bazhenov being twice as thick.

clip_image012

Figure 17 is page 24 of the Ulmishek report. It is a map of the vitrinite reflectance of the Bazhenov Formation. The green is marginally mature and the oil window is shown by grey and brown. Combining the data from Figures 7, 16 and 17, there is a sweet spot for the shale oil potential of the Bazhenov Formation the centre of the West Siberian Basin that covers about 800,000 square kilometres.

The Bazhenov Formation is particularly favourable for shale oil development.

Consider these passages from the Ulmishek report.

“The Bazhenov Formation commonly is 20–40 m thick; locally the thickness increases to 50–60 m. The formation covers an area of almost one million square kilometers and contains about 18 trillion tons of organic matter (Kontorovich and others, 1997).” – page 22

“The organic matter in the Bazhenov Formation is derived from plankton and bacteria. The TOC content averages 5.1 percent over the entire formation (Kontorovich and others, 1997). In a large central part of the basin, TOC is higher than 9 percent, and in many analyzed samples it is higher than 15 percent.” – page 22

Unconventional reservoirs in fractured Bazhenov shales are poorly understood. The shales are commercially productive in the Salym and adjacent fields (Greater Salym area), where nearly 200 wells were drilled into the Bazhenov Formation and the reservoir rocks are best studied (fig. 15). No significant commercial production has been established in other areas of the Bazhenov-Neocomian TPS, although oil flows were tested in many wells. The conventional analytical measurements of porosity and permeability in cores do not reflect properties of the shale rocks at reservoir depths because of fracturing induced during drilling and lifting of the cores (Dorofeeva and others, 1992). Well logs also are unable to identify reservoir intervals in the formation (Klubova, 1988). Indirect estimates of porosity of productive reservoir rocks in the Greater Salym area vary between 5 and 10 percent. Porosity is related to leaching of silica from radiolarians (Dorofeeva and others, 1992), transformation of montmorillonite to illite (Klubova, 1988), or to both processes. Permeability of the shales results totally from fracturing, although the volume of fractures is small compared with the pore volume. Horizontal fracturing strongly dominates over fracturing in other directions. In some instances, the fracturing is so intense that the rocks cannot be cored. The fracturing was originated by hydrocarbon generation and related increase of pore pressure (Nesterov and others, 1987).

Oil produced in the Greater Salym area from fractured self-sourced reservoirs of the Bazhenov Formation contains little or no water, as bottom water in conventionally producible pools is absent. Productive wells commonly alternate with dry wells. Only about 20 percent of drilled wells are commercially productive, another 20 percent are dry, and the rest of the wells produced noncommercial or marginally commercial oil flows (Dorofeeva and others, 1992). During the last 25 years, only about 20 million barrels of oil were produced from the Bazhenov reservoirs of the area (Shakhnovsky, 1996). Oil pools are strongly overpressured; the reservoir pressure in the Salym field is 1.7 times higher than the hydrostatic pressure. At a depth of 2,700 m, the reservoir pressure is as high as 50 MPa (7,250 psi) (Matusevich and others, 1997). Laterally, the magnitude of overpressure commonly changes from well to well. The hydrodynamic connection commonly is absent even between neighboring producing wells. Nevertheless, a limited number of wells have been producing hundreds of barrels of oil per day for more than 5 years. Maximum original yields of wells were as high as 40,000 b/d; however, in most cases yields decreased abruptly in a short period of time, probably because of collapse of the reservoir rocks with decreasing pressure (Nesterov and others, 1987).” – pag26

In comparison to that 40,000 BOPD figure from a vertical well, in 2010 Brigham Exploration had announced that it had completed 39 consecutive high-frac-stage long-lateral Bakken and Three Forks wells in North Dakota with an average early 24-hour peak flow back rate of approximately 2,777 barrels of oil equivalent.

Can we quantify the potential? Let’s assume that in that 800,000 square kilometre sweet spot each square kilometre of Bazhenov Formation averages 25 metres thick with a TOC of 10%. That amounts to 2.5 million cubic metres of organic carbon per square kilometre. If the yield to liquids is 30%, that amounts to 0.75 million cubic metres or 4.7 million barrels. At 10% recovery, that in turn yields 0.47 million barrels per square kilometre. The total for the sweet spot is thus 378 billion barrels, and there is possibly a third as much again outside the sweet spot. The central Bazhenov could maintain Russia’s current production rate of about 10 million BOPD for over 100 years. By comparison, the Canadian tar sands have reserves of the order of 177 billion barrels – about half as much.

What does this mean geopolitically? The very high tax rate on the Russian oil industry funds the Russian State and its adventurist policies. In 1904, J.H.Mackinder developed the heartland theory in geopolitical analysis. In 1919, he summarised his theory as “ Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island controls the world.”

clip_image014

The sweetspot of the Bazhenov Formation is in the centre of Mackinder’s pivot area, where the “V” of PIVOT is in the map above. The Bazhenov Formation will be literally fueling forays from the Heartland for decades to come. To the east of Russia, China has about one trillion tonnes of recoverable coal which could make 2 trillion barrels of liquid fuels using the Fischer Tropsch process. To maintain comparative advantage against that combined flood of fluid, a good nuclear technology will be required.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

74 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 11, 2012 8:01 am

There be oil and gas beneath them weather trees.
I wonder if they’re ever affected by any leaks?

Andrew30
June 11, 2012 8:26 am

You’ve shown us Qatar, Saudi Arabia and now Russia. How about doing Canada, starting in 1930 (as you have with Russia)?
Is seems that Canada may have reached ‘peak-pipeline’ rather than ‘peak-oil’.
🙂

RockyRoad
June 11, 2012 8:37 am

They should save their crude for petrochemicals–the quicker the better. The paradigm shift in energy production will begin this year–the solution? LENR.

Eric Dailey
June 11, 2012 8:42 am

There is so much oil in the world that if the free market would operate then it would cost more to deliver it to customers than to mine and refine it. Without monopoly control oil would be cheap as dirt. We are all suckers.

Charlie A
June 11, 2012 8:45 am

What are the units for the vertical axis in Figure 1? It appears to be the instantaneous slope of Figure 2, but normalized by the total production up to that point.

WTF
June 11, 2012 8:59 am

Canadian OIL Sands please. TAR sands is used by the antis and technically there is no tar there.

Richard M
June 11, 2012 8:59 am

What was that about “peak oil” again?

John A. Mann
June 11, 2012 9:21 am

Some questions:
1. “Ultimate recoverable reserves” is a meaningless expression. Reserves are recoverable, but the quantity changes according to a complex interaction of cost, price, technology, and recording requirements. So how does anyone know what is “ultimate.”
2. How does one know when 50% of the ultimate recoverable reserves are reached when reserves are added every year?
3. Recovery factors for depletion drive fields are at about 10% under primary recovery conditions. How are we going to get 10 percent from the Bazhenov? What about 2-3%? (Exploitation is very expensive: Go back to question 1.)

pedex
June 11, 2012 9:28 am

if its like bakken then it isn’t going to flow very well
look at the bakken data from north dakota for example, the wells produce very little oil compared to conventional sources, averging around 85 barrels per day each give or take
macondo before it was capped was doing 50,000 bpd
massive reserves or resources doesn’t translate into actual high volume of production, the nature of the resource itself is a huge factor

June 11, 2012 9:47 am

I wonder how much conflict will arise from Russia competing with the Arab nations for oil dollars. Could Russian support of Muslim troublemakers decline? I suppose one has to keep the friends one has, or find new friends.

Chilli
June 11, 2012 9:52 am

What’s the y-axis in the first graph? There’s no label. Also, why do we keep getting alarmist Peak Oil posts from this guy? What next? Guest posts from Joe Romm, Al Gore and Chris Mooney?

ancientmariner
June 11, 2012 9:57 am

russian state adventurist? I have more confidence in the stability and good sense of the Kremlin than any incumbent of the Whitehouse and the competing powers of the military industrial complex or religious sensibiliites (jewish or fundamental christian) behind them.

pedex
June 11, 2012 9:57 am

@DocWat
Russia has been trading 1st place with Saudi Arabia for oil production for several years now.

murrayv
June 11, 2012 10:08 am

“As at 2003 and as estimated by the USGS, the West Siberian Basin had discovered reserves of 144 billion barrels of oil and more than 1,300 TCF of gas. The assessed mean undiscovered resources are 55.2 billion barrels of oil” You have used “reserves” and “resources” in the same para. Which are you talking about? To quote Ivanhoe “resources are what you develop with other people’s money. Reserves are what you might try to develop with your money” The USGS quoted Bakken resources at about 100x what are now considered reserves.

scott
June 11, 2012 10:29 am

at a daily consumption of 80MMBBL/Day, the world consumes 29 billion barrels per year. 144 billion barrels is 5 years worth. Then it’s gone. The number sounds large, but as pointed out above, not all can be economically recovered (if it costs more energy to recover than you produce, why bother?), and the rate of production will likely be quite low particularly for the bakken-type regions and shale-oil.

MarkW
June 11, 2012 10:51 am

“Logistic decline plots may be misleading when the production profile has been affected by political events.”
“The logistic decline plot assumes no change in technology.”
“It accounts for future conventional discoveries but does not account for a new play type that has not been hunted before such as shale oil.”
Even though you know they are useless, you continue to use them?

Doug
June 11, 2012 11:00 am

From this week’s Oil and Gas Journal:
ExxonMobil struck an accord with the Russian government-owned oil company Rosneft earlier this year to begin joint oil exploration efforts around the country in areas where Rosneft lacks the technical expertise to access oil reserves.
Forbes reports that the shale play in Siberia, known as the Bazhenov play, has been a major target for international energy companies for decades, as the source of the massive conventional oil reserves in the region. In all, it covers an area roughly 80 times that of the massive Bakken shale play that has played such a crucial part in rejuvenating the northern Plains states.
At this point, explained ExxonMobil’s chief executive officer Rex Tillerson, the company still will need to conduct several years of exploratory drilling to determine the nature of the deposits.
“There is huge shale potential in shale rocks in West Siberia … we just don’t know what the quality is,” Tillerson told Dow

Matt
June 11, 2012 11:08 am

Why do all peak oil decline graphs start at the current year and immediately start declining? I first read about peak oil in 2006-2007 and the graphs I saw then showed the same thing — an immediate substantial fall off in production. However, here we are in 2012 and that elusive peak is still just off in the future.
It’s coming! I promise…just a little while longer — it’ll be here..just wait. How many years do we have to listen to this? If I predicted the peak production of our most important natural resource every year for 30+ years, I would be right eventually too. As always, market forces of supply and demand will determine the price and consumption rate of oil. If oil ever does become in short supply, prices will rise and viable alternatives will begin to be priced into the market. The price rises we’ve seen in recent years might or might not be a sign of this, however, I tend to believe they have been caused more by regional instability, devaluation of the dollar and speculation.

Tilo Reber
June 11, 2012 11:49 am

I doubt that Russia is in a production decline. I’ve seen too many stories for too many places about imminent production decline – and they never pan out. Of course it has to happen eventually, but I’m not expecting anything serious anywhere for the next 20 or 30 years.

HCPlenty
June 11, 2012 11:55 am

guys, why are we allowing Mr Archibald to harp on this old, discredited, finite resource, logistic curve rubbish. Hotelling was wrong; Hubbert was wrong.
Not only did they misunderstand the economics and the power of entrepreneurialism, they were far too pessimistic on the march of technology under those twin banners.
Five years ago, the US was supposed to be out of natgas – then came 4d-surveying, steerable horizontal drilling and fracking. That same technology is helping change the productive arithmetic in liquid hydrocarbons too – check out the US numbers on productoin, imports, and exports.
Far from the old plea about no new big oil discoveries in years, what actually happened was that there were few incentives to look when oil was at its cheapest ever in real tersm (as recently as 1998) which was itself a testminoy to the failure of the Malthusians and the triumph of the innovators.
We are not short of hydrocarbons: we keep finding more of the stuff everywhere we look – as well as finding out new ways to extarct it from where we’ve already been looking and drilling – and we keep improving the economics of usinhg those discoveries, too.
Come on, DA, stick to your solar forecasts, at least you might display some skill there.

June 11, 2012 12:49 pm
June 11, 2012 1:46 pm

The Ulmishek report is available here
http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/2201/G/
A discussion of this that is more accessible for those , like me, not completely up on oil geology jargon
http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/bazhenov-neocomian-oil-formation-covers.html

June 11, 2012 1:54 pm

Mods
WordPress defaulted to my other handle and I didn’t catch it in the comment above. I don’t know if you can fix it but at least know i wasn’t intentionally trying to post under a different ID
[REPLY: Thank you. Fixed it for ya. -REP]

more soylent green!
June 11, 2012 1:56 pm

HCPlenty says:
June 11, 2012 at 11:55 am
guys, why are we allowing Mr Archibald to harp on this old, discredited, finite resource, logistic curve rubbish. Hotelling was wrong; Hubbert was wrong.

Why not? I don’t agree with his conclusions or his premises either, but I’d rather discuss them then try to shut them out.

Silver Ralph
June 11, 2012 2:59 pm

HCPlenty. …… Five years ago, the US was supposed to be out of natgas – then came 4d-surveying, steerable horizontal drilling and fracking.
————————————————–
Peak oil is real, HCPlenty, but it is difficult to gauge when the peak of the graph will be reached. Any finite resource will have its era of peak flow – that is a given truth.
Norway, for instance, is well past ‘peak oil’ already. And no amount of horizontal drilling will ever give them that peak back. New technology may delay the decline, but they will never reach a new peak. Likewise the UK is well past ‘peak oil’ – all the big, easy oil fields have already dwindled to nothing, and the new fields are thin and expensive slices in comparison.
http://www.theoildrum.com/uploads/3246/deathofgiants.png
http://www.theoildrum.com/uploads/3246/UKoffshore00to05grp.png
Oh, yes, fracking will gives us all another boost, but that is not oil. Gas will help our total energy supply, but not with transport energy requirements.
.
The nub of the ‘peak oil’ debate is that world energy demand is increasing relentlessly, while energy discoveries are getting harder and smaller by the year. That is not an energy-future we should be planning. That is why we need nuclear energy and nuclear research to grow in line with our energy demands (preferably Thorium nuclear). Fossil fuels are a finite and rather messy energy supply, and we need to move ever closer to a fusion-based energy supply. We are not quite there yet, but we will never get there unless we turn away from 20th century fuels and invest in nuclear research.
The Industrial Revolution was not built on coppicing and charcoal. Have you ever been to Ironbridge, where the Industrial Revolution started? They understood that we had already reached ‘peak tree’ back in the 18th century, and took the bold decision to look for new energy supplies. Had they not, we would still be stuck in the Medieval Age.
Likewise, we need to look forward to the Nuclear Age. We nearly got there back in the 1970s, but then the Greens and Environmentalists came along and destroyed everything, like they always do. We listen to hair-shirt Luddites at our peril. For mankind as a whole, it is Nuclear Age or bust.
.

1 2 3