David Archibald
To recap, peak oil was supposed to happen in 2005. Then the tight oil boom started and the civilisational party went on for another 20 years. That boom began in North Dakota but reached its full flower in the Permian Basin of Texas. One county in Texas though suggests the party is over. Howard County’s production decline is faster than its rise:
Figure 1: Howard County Oil and Gas Production
Gas production is converted to its energy equivalent in barrels of oil at the rate of 6,000 cubic feet of gas per barrel of oil. Production peaked 18 months ago in July 2023.
Meanwhile Texas’ total oil production continued to rise:
Figure 2: The 11 largest oil-producing counties in Texas and total production in Texas
The explanation for Howard County’s departure from the pack is found in the following graph of the evolution in the ratio of gas production to oil production. To have such an abrupt change of trend, from a meandering rise changing to a straight-line decline in oil production accompanied by a blowout in the gas to oil ratio means that there is an underlying process that is happening county-wide:
Figure 3: Howard County Gas/Oil Ratio 2010 – 2024
In these tight oil fields, the pressure that drives oil out of the ground comes from thermal cracking of longer chain hydrocarbons. Because of the lack of permeability, the oil generated is trapped in the rock at higher than hydrostatic pressure. Some methane is also produced and is in solution in the oil. After being drilled and fracked and brought into production, the pressure in the reservoir starts falling and at some stage falls below the bubble point at which gas comes out of solution and forms bubbles. The tiny bubbles of methane are slipperier than oil and so travel through the rock faster. In turn this means that gas is produced preferentially to oil and the pressure decline in the reservoir accelerates in a positive feedback loop.
It seems that the bubble point in Howard County was reached in July 2023. Since that break of trend, Howard County’s oil production rate has been declining 150,000 barrels per day or 40% per annum:
Figure 4: Howard County Daily Oil and Gas Production
Howard County’s oil production tipped over into decline 18 months ago while gas production went sideways. Gas production is now also declining rapidly.
The relationship seen between the gas/oil ratio and production trend in Howard County also holds for some of Texas’ other major producing counties. The methodology can also used as a predictive tool, starting with Midland County.
Figure 5: Midland County Gas/Oil Ratio 2010 – 2024
While not as definitive as Howard County, the gas/oil ratio in Midland County has broken its lower bound.
Figure 6: Midland County Oil and Gas production 2010 – 2024
Midland County’s oil and gas production profiles have diverged whereas in Howard County oil production fell as gas production went sideways.
Figure 7: Midland County Daily Oil Production 2010 – 2024
Howard County’s production decline for the last 12 months has been 40% or 151,000 barrels per day. Applying a decline of 30% per annum to Midland County’s production profile results in a production decline of 185,000 barrels per day over the next 12 months.
Figure 8: Martin County Gas/Oil Ratio 2010 – 2024
Martin County is the second largest oil-producing county in Texas after Midland. This chart of Martin County’s gas/oil ratio shows a clear break of uptrend.
Figure 9: Martin County Oil and Gas Production 2010 – 2024
As is seen in Midland County profile, gas production has diverged from oil production with gas production increasing due to a high gas/oil ratio despite falling oil production.
Figure 10: Martin County Oil Production 2010 – 2024
Now that Martin County’s oil production has tipped over into decline and applying a annual decline rate of 30%, production is projected to decline 190,000 barrels per day over the next 12 months.
Summary
President Trump has undertaken to increase US oil production by three million barrels per day. That is a heroic undertaking given that he is facing a headwind of a half million barrel per day decline from three counties in Texas alone.
My advice to the President is to start talking about a plutonium breeder reactor rollout combined with synthetic fuel production by applying the Bergius process to the country’s coal reserves. Energy for the electrolysis to produce the necessary hydrogen for the Bergius plants would come from the nuclear reactors. Everyone would be happy in that there would be nuclear, hydrogen and coal all in the one solution.
The President’s pick for Energy Secretary, Chris Wright, is particularly promising in that he is invested in a plutonium breeder reactor startup called Oklo. This suggests that he has a complete understanding of what is needed.
David Archibald is the author of The Anticancer Garden in Australia.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is as much investment in drilling, and fracking. Prospective oil prices, and dealing with government policies, all with a required time lag.
Of course, that says nothing about the desirability of various nuclear technologies, which is more of dealing with political interference than the actual technical issues.
Knowing nothing about the ff industries- just thinking, maybe some technology even better than fracking will come along. At least Trump is encouraging the industry- unlike Biden and Obama who were discouraging it.
Aren’t there still large areas of the globe not yet explored for ff?
A narrow range of analysis coupled with an unsupported leap to a favored alternative. Expand your analysis to all known and potential untapped reserves and get back to us.
Before touting BREEDERS with a long learning curve, first learn how to build standard 4000 MW nuclear plants, in 5 to 6 years, for a turnkey cost of about $5500/kW installed, that are good for 80 years
That would be a similar price as China, Russia and South Korea.
U235-burning light water reactors only use 0.4% of the uranium that comes out of the ground. Very wasteful.
The cost of nuclear fuel is 10% of the cost of an AP1000 size nuclear reactor. We have no lack of conventional nuclear fuel at this point in time. Nor is there a shortage on the horizon. And if a shortage threatens to develop, we can quickly begin reprocessing our current stock of spent fuel.
In 100 years time or thereabouts, or possibly in 150 years time, the bulk of the world’s energy will be coming from uranium and plutonium fission. (Fusion is a scam.) Reburning and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel will be the norm, along with breeding as much plutonium as we need to keep our stock of nuclear fuel at acceptable levels.
At some point in the long term future after conventional oil is largely exhausted, the carbon needed for nuclear-supported production of synthetic liquid fuels will be coming from the CO2 dissolved in seawater, not from coal.
But that is then, today is the here and now. At this point in our history, we buy nuclear only for purposes of energy reliability and security.
IMHO, in the absence of a huge near-term broad-base general increase in demand for electricity — not what we are seeing with an alleged increase in demand from AI, because it isn’t real — only the state and federal governments can now afford to take on the risk of building the latest Gen III+ and Gen IV reactor designs.
That’s what reprocessing is for.
Story tip:
The EPA is gutted. Mann to follow?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/trump-s-plan-to-root-out-top-scientists-who-believe-in-climate-change/ar-AA1ypNYQ
From your link:
“More than 1,000 EPA employees, including scientists involved in climate change research and policy, have been put on immediate notice by the Trump administration.”
_____________________________________________________________________________
NOAA and NASA should also be included on the President’s list. It would be nice if GISTEMP were to cease operation.
Yes, but that’s only 1,000 out of the 15,000 employed by the EPA. That’s only around 7% of the total employment. Bureaucracies grow and according to C. Northcote Parkinson independent of the work to be done. When a business is in trouble a 10% cut isn’t out of the question.
From the EPA’s website: “Nearly half of our budget goes into grants to state environmental programs, non-profits, educational institutions, and others. They use the money for a wide variety of projects, from scientific studies that help us make decisions to community cleanups. Overall, grants help us achieve our overall mission: protect human health and the environment.” I’d bet when DOGE gets through those grants won’t look any better than USAID’s.
I would like to see more emphasis on SMRs. Big tech has been eyeing these to produce the power (electricity) needed to power these forthcoming AI centers. If big tech gets behind these reactors, we might see a break-out and perhaps the demise of the renewable energy scam.
Meanwhile, here in Wyoming, we are going full bore with CCS. It’s a response to the endangerment finding by people who just hope to continue produce coal. What will actually happen is this…
There is no explaining any of this to the zealots.
People sometimes ask me what should we do about the climate crisis. I tell them we should continue to burn coal and gas until there is a viable alternative in sufficient nuclear capability. They act like I’m one of the old Geico cavemen suddenly reappeared.
CCS seems to be the wrong way to reduce carbon emissions, but I wonder if CO2 injection into frac’ing areas may help with oil production.
It does and is already being used. I saw one such site in Wyoming.
CO2 EOR is great in conventional reservoirs. It may help with shale plays as well in a cyclic manner perhaps.
You might hit ’em up with Willis’ numbers, i.e. 0.0008°C per gigaton (Gt) of avoided CO2. Of course you’ll probably have to explain what a gigaton is first :<)
CCS is just another climate grift looking to suckle the tax payer teet for a bounty of tax credits, subsidies, and low-interest forgivable loans.
I think it was a survival technique for coal users that morphed into something that was desirable on its own merits. It was never actually needed. It’s a hideous addition to any power plant and is not technically feasible for all plants. The EPA regulations pooped out at Biden’s 11th hour requiring it for fossils plants to keep operating are immensely flawed, legally and technically.
What climate crisis? They have convinced you of the existence of something that cannot be seen.
This is one of the most interesting and informative articles on fracking I’ve ever rad. I did not see how the article led to the recommendations at the end, but I hope that is the subject of your next article
Drill baby drill was just a meaningless campaign slogan unless Trump plans to take over the US oil industry and do just that.
But that will have to wait a few weeks. Last week Trump lost a trade war with Mexico and Canada.
This week Trump wants to take over Gaza as a favor for Israel.
Next week Trump wants to start converting Gaza to the new Riviera after throwing out those pesky two million Muslims.
The week after that Trump can seize the US oil industry and try to get MORE production that is not needed to lower oil prices more than the already low current price ($71.60)
2000
The average price of crude oil in the United States in 2000 was $30.38 per barrel, which is equivalent to about $90 per barrel in 2024 dollars.
2010
In 2010, the average price of crude oil in the US was $79.48 per barrel. Adjusted for inflation, that’s $112.15 per barrel in 2024 dollars.
2019
$70 in 2019, in 2024 dollars
After that, perhaps Trump will take over Greenland, and seize the Panama Canal the next week.
Our president is a deranged lunatic. In contrast, the author of this article is a font of oil industry knowledge.
Trump’s reason for imposing tariffs on Mexico and Canada was a first step in trying to reduce deaths from fentanyl. To put things in perspective, in the last year more people have died from OD’ing on illegal drugs that US soldiers killed during the entire war in Vietnam. Whether Trump makes any progress in reducing OD deaths remains to be seen.
By the way, it’s frac’ing not fracking.
Very few drugs enter through Canada. The drug traffic from Mexico does not come in by using aliens and their backpacks. It comes hidden inside cars, trucks, etc. It can be handed through the border “wall”.It will continue to come in if there is vehicle traffic and US addicts ad drug abusers ca’t afford more expensive drugs.
The border crossings are already down 93% by simply enforcing existing laws. The Mexican army won’t lower that. They will pretend to fight the drug gangs. Maybe Trump can start a war with Mexico next.
The drug wars started in the 1960s and NEVER solved the illegal drug problem.
This will be at least the third time Mexico has moved 10,000 or more troops to the border Once in Trump 1.0 and once in Biden years. That made no difference to the number of border crossings. Border crossings depend how well the US enforces border laws. No correlation to the location of Mexican soldiers/
The New Republic noted Mexico sent 15,000 troops to the border in 2019, and sent 10,000 again in 2021
Trump is a master BS artist.
He folded in his tariff war against Mexico and Canada. Got nothing of value for stopping drug trafficking. Trump will take credit for things he never did. He is a unstable man but conservative websites will never criticize him for doing things they would HATE if Biden was doing them. Conservatives are hypocrites.
“Very few drugs enter through Canada.” In 2024 there was 43 pounds of fentanyl came across the border. Fact checkers are right. That doesn’t sound like much. A quick calculation will show that if 2 mg of fentanyl will kill you, that’s enough to kill more than 19 million people.
No big deal, right, Richard? We can absorb that loss easily – and if you’re a Malthusian, it’s all good.
Thats silly
Quantity seized on Canada border is 0.2% of that seized on mexico border
Ever heard of a drop in the bucket ? thats what 2/1000th is
“Last week Trump lost a trade war with Mexico and Canada.”
There was no trade war. There was the threat of a trade war.
As a result, Mexico and Canada have both agreed to put 10,000 of their troops on their respective borders in an effort to stop drugs entering the United States.
The trade war has been put off for 30 days, presumably to see if Mexico and Canada follow through with their agreement. If they do, then there won’t be a trade war.
Trump did impose an extra 10 percent tariff on the Chicoms. Trump will talk to the Chicom leader soon.
I don’t see where Trump has lost any trade war. Getting what you want is not losing.
Only an idiot big bully president would turn on two friendly neighbors to get something that was free twice before (sending Mexican troops to border) and worthless (troops to Canadia border which accounts for only 0.2% of fentanyl seizures).
US drug deaths down 21.7% from 2023 to 2024. Watch Trump take credit for that.
Sometimes one has to do things to get the attention of others.
How friendly is Mexico, allowing millions of people to cross their territory to come into the United States? That doesn’t sound like a friendly act to me.
And then there’s the drugs. Not friendly.
You don’t want to acknowledge that Trump won this little skirmish. Does that make you a Denier?
Dear Mr Richard Greene [RG]
This is ‘Not even wrong’ re all that matters most. A short list:
“President Trump has undertaken to increase US oil production by three million barrels per day.” FALSE.
Bessent clearly stated “three million barrels [oil] equivalent per day [mbpd-oe]”, i.e. this includes —
natural-gas liquids ( ~ 7 mbpd-oe) to
crude oil production (` 13.5 mbpd-oe) and to
natural gas itself (> 20 mbpd-oe),
for a grand total exceeding 40+ million bpd-oe.
So that adding Bessent’s ‘three’ (+3) to forty-plus (40+) is an ~ +7% increase, over a loosely specified period ( is it 18 months, or 3+ years?).
That’s NOT quite “an heroic undertaking” except in light of the recent regulatory climate / implied threats.[tbc]
Peak-[X] good grief!
“My advice to the President is to start talking about a plutonium breeder reactor rollout combined with synthetic fuel production …”
Sure, but DJT et al. weren’t (re)elected “to start talking about …” any of these grand ideas, but rather to roll back the hyper-regulatory activities that constrained exploration-development-production- distribution (pipelines, LNG-seaports &c.) in the here-&-now!
Here’s a little speculation based on historical precedents-in-abundance (e.g. Yergin “The Prize”):
If & when the production increases result in an abundance, such that prices* drop below $63 per bbl-oe, the fever will have broken; and when they reach $42,* the immediate crises can begin to pass. *[for crude petroleum and all its equivalents in NGLs, LNG etc.]
Of course, the DAs & RGs will respond with “But production is unprofitable at those prices!”, ignoring not only the worldwide production costs are much lower than in the USA, CDN et al., …
… but also that an apprentice welder in the port of Corpus Cristi doesn’t need to start at a salary of $120K annually, nor does a teenage delivery boy in the oilfields need to earn $80K per annum.
Q.E.D. <=> quite enough done (for the moment)
Thanks Richard. The recommendation is for two reasons. Firstly, the decline, and the steepness of the decline, will be a surprise for many. Better to have the solution in place rather than people running around in panic. Secondly the solution is plutonium breeder reactors which all of the uranium that comes out of the ground instead of the 0.4% used by U-235 burning reactors. Do I have to tell anybody that that is very wasteful?
And thank you for a good laymans explanation of the gas humping effect. Your mention of low perm is also telling. When reservoir pressure drops below bubble point in shales they are too tight to be pressure supported later.
Only 2 remaining tech stretches up our sleeves now. Stacked completions and refracs. The first might put things off for a year or 2. Refracs are, by definition, limited in value. Even the most modern techniques are mostly going to fall flat in zones in wells that are already frac’d. Depletion and leak off will result in early screen outs, with subeconomic proppant placement. This is one of the half dozen or so, boring, geological, and petroleum engineering/economic, non 46, reasons that we are on the down side of Hubbert’s curve, in the US.
Your solutions are well meaning, but off. Let’s go for the permanent nuc waste storage – along with economic reprocessing – that can also be used for future waste. Then, we can concentrate on SMR’s.
David, I don’t know your creds. By “layman” I meant lay accessible. It’s a compliment.
Did you happen to leave out water flooding and CO2 stimulation from your “stretches”?
Astute, and yes.
Waterflooding is not applicable in the only rocks promising to deliver economic volumes in the future, shales. And virtually every US waterflood in rocks with significant porosity and permeability is beyond watered out. New engineers learn about flood fronts in school, but will never encounter one later.
Shale CO2 flooding TMK, has never been economic. I have yet to read about a profitable project. Probably part of the challenge is that shales will get frac’d before any CO2 flood is contemplated, and the kinds of fracs performed would ruin the flood value. Here are 2 articles about it’s promise. Spoiler alert, 26% incremental recovery don’t get it..
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1875510020300949#:~:text=CO2%20injection%20is%20a,geological%20storage%20of%20CO2.
https://onepetro.org/SPEWRM/proceedings-abstract/20WRM/20WRM/461345
This is ‘Not even wrong’ re all that matters most. A short list:
“President Trump has undertaken to increase US oil production by three million barrels per day.” FALSE. Bessent clearly stated “three million barrels [oil] equivalent per day [mbpd-oe]”, i.e. this includes natural-gas liquids ( ~ 7 mbpd-oe) to crude oil production (13.5 mbpd-oe) and to natural gas itself (> 20 mbpd-oe), for a grand total exceeding 40 million bpd-oe. So that adding three (+3) to forty-plus (40+) is an ~ +7% increase, over a loosely specified period (18 months, or 3+ years?). NOT quite “an heroic undertaking” except in light of the recent regulatory climate / implied threats.[tbc] Peak-X good grief!“My advice to the President is to start talking about a plutonium breeder reactor rollout combined with synthetic fuel production …” Sure, but DJT et al. weren’t (re)elected “to start talking about …” any of these grand ideas, but rather to roll back the hyper-regulatory activities that constrained production, distribution (pipelines, LNG-seaports &c.) in the here-&-now!
Here’s a little speculation based on historical precedents-abundant (e.g. Yergin “The Prize”):
If & when the production increases result in an abundance, such that prices* drop below $63 per bbl-oe, the fever will have broken; and when they reach $42,* the immediate crises can begin to pass. *[for crude petroleum and all its equivalents in NGLs, LNG etc.]
Of course, the DAs will respond “But production is unprofitable at those prices!”, ignoring not only the worldwide production costs are much lower than in the USA, CDN et al., but also that an apprentice welder in the port of Corpus Cristi doesn’t need to start at a salary of $120K annually, nor does a teenage delivery boy in the oilfields need to earn $80K per annum.
Q.E.D. <=> quite enough done (for the moment)
Sooner or later, we will have to make our fuel from CO2. That is the only honest conclusion to reach. The carbon consumed in the miracle of hydrocarbon combustion is still with us. In fact, we need the CO2 IN the atmosphere to maintain and continue growth of food production.
That is only possible if we have an energy resource of sufficient eROI – which is available : breeder nuclear reactors without all the regulation. That is a case easy to make.
Produce electricity and co-produce the remaining thermal energy to drive the chemical production of fuel. The chemistry is well known. The Sabatier reaction does not involve any fossil fuel.
The conversion of coal to liquid hydrocarbons might be a stop-gap, but does NOT solve the basic issue – fossil fuels are finite. The 3-4% per annum exponential growth in energy consumption demands a much LARGER energy resource. We need to use carbon for other purposes than burning. We do not have a lot of time to achieve the recycling of carbon fuels.
China has now 56 nuclear plants in operation, the same number as France which is slowly backing off, to their shame. All those wasted $trillions on intermittent renewable energy are coming back to bite us. The problem would have been solved if our ‘leaders’ had brains (see ‘Scarecrow’, in OZ). Now, we must scramble.
Re “Sooner or later, we will have to make our fuel from CO2.”
Exactly.
Look out Net-Zero 3025 A.D., here we come!
Psychologists must have a name for talking nonsense to oneself.
Try bold with all caps. It may help.
Dear Dr. Don’t-Know_,
Psycho-logists may call it ‘Cut-&-Paste Syndrome‘.
But thanks for the PRO TIP.
Now regarding ‘talking nonsense’, may I presume you’re a Peakista?**
[Must check on your posted forecasts.]
Here’s what was posted separately, on this same thread:
—————
“Peak-[X] good grief! …
Here’s a bit of speculation based on historical precedents-in-abundance (consult e.g. Yergin’s “The Prize”):
If & when the increased production results in an abundance, such that prices* drop below $63 per bbl-oe, the fever will have broken; and when they reach $42,* the immediate crises can begin to pass.
*[prices for crude petroleum and all its equivalents in NGLs, LNG etc.]
————
So then, ? What’s your bet — Peak-Hydrocarbons 2025 A.D. ?
**Postscript: My apologies — It appears not:
“Exxon sees 50% growth in the Permian through 2030 …” — dk_
Maybe it’s a problem with vision / dyslexia?
Try re-reading ‘Net Zero 3025 A.D.’; that’s not 2035 but rather a ~millennium-scale (multi-century) project, as a reply to above from W. H. Smith of Wash-U. St.-Louis aka Dr. All-Bold-fonts.
You’re right, I’d missed that none of your original post was on topic. I’d gotten hung up on the merely nutso part.
Your fear is understandable. Gonna miss that ESG funding, aren’t we?
At least you finally dropped the bold text. Progress. Good luck with the new meds.
“France which is slowly backing off, to their shame”
You are writing rubbish.
France has brought new NPP online in the last 9 months and is currently financing to building a much expanded NPP in Bugey near Lyon.
Here is more:-
“In February 2022, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that the time was right for a nuclear renaissance in France, saying the operation of all existing reactors should be extended without compromising safety and unveiling a proposed programme for six new EPR2 reactors, with an option for a further eight EPR2 reactors to follow.”
Don’t forget the big picture like this
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS2&f=M
Production curves do not begin to equate to the economic recovery of oil and gas. Whenever there is a significant flattening or even reduction in demand, oil and gas production follow immediately behind and decrease. See the 2020-2021 portions of the curves posted in this article – corresponding to the effects of the Covid pandemic. There was even a short period when demand was so low the market price for oil turned negative – producers were paying to get rid of their surplus!
Whenever demand drops, prices drop due to standard operation of any commodity market. When prices drop, costs of production typically remain constant. At some point, it no longer makes sense to producers to keep wells operating. The operator would rather shut down and wait for the price to come back up. And therefore production follows.
What happened to oil and gas production in 2021?
My guess would be the pandemic.
Except that most of the travel restrictions and shutdowns occurred in the first 6 months of 2020, with the largest reduction in the burning of fossil fuels occurring in April 2020.
It may also have been a response to when the price of crude fell to under $12/bbl sometime in 2020.
The price even went negative for a couple of days due to cratered demand in 2020 (covid depression and international shutdowns).
Oil and gas production always follows demand, and the balance between supply and demand (ie prices). What intelligent business person would continue to produce product at more or less fixed cost per unit production when market pricing has tanked? Turn it off, shut it down, lay off workers, and stop ordering equipment and supplies until prices rebound.
Re “production in 2021″
post-pandemic / pre-war period, or some other question implied by this?
My guess would be Biden.
What is the rationale for giving a down-vote to someone who asks a question? Are they bothered by ‘inconvenient questions,’ or do they prefer to just blithely accept anything that is presented as being gospel and don’t care about understanding the reasons and causes for changes? Perhaps it is just an old ‘friend’ stopping by to vent his displeasure at my existing. I’ve learned that you can’t please everyone and those that hide behind anonymity aren’t worth the effort to try to reason with.
Exxon sees 50% growth in the Permian through 2030, and Chevron expects 10% growth just in 2025.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-31/chevron-sees-permian-basin-oil-growth-reaching-10-this-year
https://oilgasleads.com/exxonmobils-vision-for-the-permian-basin-a-growth-engine-through-2030/
Funny that. How fox crazy for them to be spending money to get more out, now that they know they will be allowed. I wonder if there will be a steam or gas injection plant going into Howard county?
The reservoir pressure is a big issue in tight formations heat and water may work but it’s getting harder.
It is merely one of the ways that I know of. Real petroleum geologists, physicists, and engineers have many tools at their disposal (and have forgotten more than I’ll ever know). Exxon and Chevron are spending millions to bring in more technology for extraction.
This article fails to take account of the fact that up to now, they’ve been prevented, even punished from trying.
If Exxon and Chevron income from wind and solar drop off or they decide to divest, they’re saying that they’ll go back to their base: gas and oil.
They’ve got incentive, cash, and techniques. No ebb tide, no peaks here, yet, and no real reason to predict one.
Well, maybe TDS…
Very good paper. (If we except the rather flaky recommendation at the end).
Very interesting to understand the mechanism for the the production decline – reservoir pressure less than bubble pressure. Also the rate of decline is quite surprising.
When all you have left is coal, you go Bergius. Just as the Germans did in WW2:
“Ebb Tide in Texan Oilfields” An interesting title for an article that ends with: “ a plutonium breeder reactor rollout ”
Ebb tides are followed by High Tides. Of course I won’t be here but here’s a toast to those of you that will be. 🥂
It’s actually Treasury Secretary Bessent’s “goal” and it’s not 3 million bbl/d of oil production, It’s an increase in total energy production by 3 million BOE/d.
Rigzone
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/01/24/trump-47-drill-baby-drill-2-0/
The goal from your quote doesn’t even rule out renewable energy source increases from adding to the total.
All of the above… Oil, gas, coal, nuclear and renewables (where they make sense).
Like the solar panels at Goblin Valley State Park in Utah. No electrical service in the middle of the desert. So, solar panels & batteries keeping the lights and A/c on in the yurts. Worked just fine.
Or…Jump straight to electric energy usage where it makes most sense with most cars being electric and some remaining as fossil fuel based. Expect ships, trucks and jets to largely use fossil fuels. The idea would be to maximise the time left with fossil fuels while R&D continues.
Prolific nuclear energy might be a good energy strategy but it scares the hell out of me in terms of greatly increased access to fissile materials for bad actors.
One day we may have fusion. One day.
No plateau for Howard County.
No but globally we haven’t run out yet. Another factor that will increase the life of oil is the transition itself. Fewer ICE cars on the roads means lower oil production rates are needed. Transition while the sun shines.
Fascinating how every dip in oil/gas production is always touted as proof that the peak oilers favorite theory is finally right.
It doesn’t matter how many other explanations for this dip in production exist, the only one they want to talk about is peak oil.
In this case, the many roadblocks being put in by various governments is completely ignored.
Methane is less viscous than oil, not more slippery.
What happens when the methane outgasses to the point that the bubbles disappear? Does the pump head ratio of oil to gas invert again?
The ratio might invert but why would you expect the rate to improve?
I don’t know what to expect.
“Methane is less viscous than oil, not more slippery.”
Cliffie Claviney. A better lay term.
“What happens when the methane outgasses to the point that the bubbles disappear? Does the pump head ratio of oil to gas invert again?”
The “bubbles” continue to form as the mix rises to the surface, whether it is pumped, or flows. They aren’t all methane bubbles, but they are all gaseous.
Gas/oil ratios are, by definition, calculated at standard conditions. Those vary, very slightly around the world, but usually 60F, 14.65 psi.
“The “bubbles” continue to form as the mix rises to the surface, whether it is pumped, or flows. They aren’t all methane bubbles, but they are all gaseous.”
Not always true, let me generalize. If we are still above the bubble point of the liquid in the liquid flow path to the surface, whether at the “pump head’, wellhead choke, whatever, at those temps, pressures, then no bubbles will form. In Yemen Blocks 14, 51, and S2, we were able to lift with electrical submergible* pumps below packers, with no downhole liquid/gas separation. the formation face bubble point was 20-30 psia, and no gas evolved up the tubing strings. Still 34+ API – beautiful stuff.
OTOH, changes in temperature and pressure can result in liquid formation in field gas lines. We all remember Kit and Holly running cross country from the laws in his 1951 Mercury after Kit murdered Father. They could do so because Kit fueled his runner from drip pots. Just retard your timing, and put up with the lost power, economy, bad smell…
Austrailia has, quietly, started fracking for oil and gas in the NT.
Queensland has used fracking for coal seam gas for some time. Also allowed in WA in some areas that are gas producing regions
True for coal seam gas. But not for oil.
There are plenty of nuclear options that are ready to provide energy cheaper than oil – when and where regulations are based on science.
Look up Thorcon.
If you aren’t familiar with horrifyingly bad regulations, look up LNT and ALARA. They could destroy any industry.
My only comment is applying bubble point to unconventional reservoirs as a whole misses part of the bigger picture since those plays behave so differently from conventional reservoirs.
We all knew individual wells and even fields had lifetimes.
This fascinating read adds information and clarity to it.
However, this is not meant to mean all of them will decline at the same moment. Nor does it mean there can’t be new wells or that new fields might not be discovered or that technology evolution might cause these decline wells to ramp up again.