OGPSS - Tensions over oil in the South China Sea

In the introductory remarks to these posts on Chinese energy supplies and usage, I mentioned that one of the concerns beginning to be evident lies in disputes over the ownership of some of the oilfields offshore. Disputes over ownership have been continuing for some time, and this week was no exception, with Chinese moves to create a new city, Sansha, on Woody Island and thereby strengthen their claim to the region. Woody Island, or Yongsing lies in the Paracel chain of islands in the South China Sea.
(The post has been slightly modified to recognize the speculative nature of the overall resource available.)

Figure 1. Location of the current region of dispute in the South China Sea (Agency France Press)

Ownership of the territory, and underlying potential hydrocarbon reserves, is a matter of dispute between several countries, although China has administered the region since a 1974 conflict with Vietnam.

The Chinese government declared the establishment of Sansha last month, saying its role is to administer the disputed Paracel and Spratly archipelagos and surrounding South China Sea waters, which are believed to hold oil and natural gas deposits. The islands are claimed in whole or in part by Brunei, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam.

The China National Offshore Oil Corp (CNOOC) has recently sought foreign interest in exploring nine blocks in the region, coming as close as a mile to the Paracel Islands – a region that Vietnam claims lies within its territorial waters, and which it used to occupy.

Further south, near the Spratly Islands, the dispute switches to include the Philippines with the latter already getting bids for some of the blocks, which the Philippines also claims lie within their 200-mile territorial waters. The benefit that China achieves by claiming the Spratly Islands can be seen by looking at the change that this brings to their territorial waters, in contrast with those of the other adjacent countries.

Figure 2. Disputed territories around the Spratly Islands, and the territorial waters in dispute. (EIA ) The extent by which the Spratly’s extend Chinese territorial waters can be understood from the location of the red line showing their claims.

In more detail, the areas of dispute can be broken into more specific locations, names that will likely become more familiar as these disputes continue to fester. The actual amount of oil and gas that might be available is still relatively speculative, since there has been little actual drilling in the region, as yet. However, by some estimates, much of which is Chinese, the region is thought to hold up to 213 billion barrels of oil, more than that left in the Saudi reserve. On the other hand, as Joules and Art have reminded me, the USGS estimates put the total at only on the order of 20 -30 billion barrels. Only drilling into the putative fields will realize an answer to that question, but then this turns to the debate into who gets to sell the permits for such drilling.

Figure 3. Regional identifying names in the South China Sea. (Next Big Future )

The disputes are now moving to possibly bring in additional players, with China already accusing the United States of meddling, and this just after Secretary Clinton had appeared to make some progress in defusing the tensions.

These tensions in the region are not new, and in his book “Resource Wars” Michael Klare listed some of the conflicts that had taken place between some of the involved parties in the years to 2001, when the book was written. In several cases shots had been fired and people died, as the different nations tried to establish claims, most particularly to various, otherwise uninhabited islands in the Spratly Islands.

In 1974 China seized the Paracel Islands from Vietnam, and in the resulting conflict a Vietnamese naval vessel was sunk, and several soldiers were killed.

In 1988 the Chinese and Vietnamese navies exchanged shots at Johnson reef (video here ) with Vietnam losing three ships.

In 1992 Vietnam accused China of landing troops at Da Luc Reef, and China seized 20 cargo ships in the ongoing dispute. Both parties have landed on different islands as a way of seeking to claim the territory and the Vietnamese Parliament has just (2012) passed a law establishing sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands. This has raised more tension with China.

The conflicts are not just between China and Vietnam, in 1995 the Phillipine government discovered that China had built a military base at Mischief Reef, which lies some 150 miles from Palawan Island, and as Michael Klare notes, well within the 200 mile territorial waters of the Philippines (which extend 200 miles – to simplify the explanation of the nuances of maritime law). Given that there are mutual defense treaties between the USA and the Philippines (dating from 1951) and that China militarily rebuffed the Philippine ships sent to investigate, created new tensions in the region. An Army War College review paper has noted the military buildup that is now occurring:

Aside from China's long-term modernization plan for both her Army and Navy, Brunei, Malaysia, and lndonesia have purchased aircraft from the United Kingdom. Malaysia bought guided missile frigates from the United Kingdom and lndonesia purchased sixteen corvettes from the former East Germany. Even the financially strapped Philippines is acquiring Italian aircraft and is also considering an additional $14 billion for defense modernization. The possibility of a regional arms race is clearly very real, if not already underway.

The situation at Mischief Reef has continued to evolve. As Strategy World notes:

For over three decades China has been using a gradual strategy that involves first leaving buoys (for navigation purposes, to assist Chinese fishermen), followed by temporary shelters (again, for the Chinese fishermen) on islets or reefs that are above water but otherwise uninhabited. If none of the other claimants to this piece of ocean remove the buoys or shelters, China builds a more permanent structure to aid passing Chinese fishermen. This shelter will be staffed by military personnel who will, of course, have radio, radar, and a few weapons. If no one attacks this mini-base China will expand it and warn anyone in the area that the base is Chinese territory and any attempts to remove it will be seen as an act of war. The Vietnamese tried to get physical against these Chinese bases in 1974 and 1988 and were defeated both times.

Since the initial incident the small base at Mischief reef has been expanded into a more substantial military base, whose presence is now being used to justify a Chinese objection to the Philippine authorized drilling for oil off Palawan Island. The Chinese have also prepared to start drilling around Palawan Island, bringing the Philippine Navy back into the dispute.

And further north the Chinese Drilling Ship the CNOOC 981 has begun (in early May) to drill around the Paracel Islands. This is the first deep water well that the company has drilled itself, the fifteen earlier such wells being drilled by CNOOC partners. The exploration vessel Ocean Oil 708 is now also working in the disputed region.

Although the tensions have not accelerated as swiftly as Michael Klare anticipated when he wrote “Resource Wars” over a decade ago, they are nevertheless indicative of the aggressive position that China is taking to secure as much oil and gas as it can for future needs. With the modernization of their navy there some quite serious concerns developing over their future plans, since territorial issues can lead on to much greater conflict that we have seen so far in the region.

The disputes has now spread to Scarborough Shoal where an initial arrival of Chinese fishing vessels has been followed by support vessels from Chinese government agencies. Scarborough shoal lies 124 miles from the main Philippine island of Luzon. However

China insists it has sovereign rights to all of the South China Sea, even waters close to the coast of other countries and hundreds of kilometres from its own landmass.

This makes claims for even the smallest piece of land projecting from the sea more critical.

Figure 4. Raising the Philippine flag over part of Scarborough Shoal. (News Com)

Figure 5. Chinese flag flying over Scarborough Shoal (or Reef) (Huang Yang Dao Google Earth)

OGPSS - NPRA and ANWR, will they help TAPS?

When I wrote about the Alaskan Pipeline last week I noted that the pipeline was currently flowing at a volume of 495 kbd, after the Alyeska folk who run the system had just issued a report indicating that there would be problems once the flow fell below 600 kbd. Checking the flow rate for August (posted on Sept 1), the flow rate has risen back to 539 kbd, with average flow for the year to date running at 568 kbd. (The EIA reported final average for 2010 was 589 kbd)

The problems that come with low flow (including reduced revenues) are recognized within the state, and Alaskan Governor Parnell has urged that enough new wells be brought on line to allow flow to be raised back up to 1 millions barrels a day (mbd) within ten years. With the ongoing decline of current reservoirs, one has, therefore to look at the reservoirs that lie North of the Brooks Range in what is known as the North Slope (though it is rather flat) and see what can be brought on line.

It should be remembered, as a part of this, that despite talk of global warming, Northern Alaska is not a place where you can just drive a rig to a promising site and drop a new well in place within a couple of weeks. Nor has it the same level of Government scrutiny. For while the President has encouraged renewed drilling in the region, Shell, who were planning on a new program this year, have had to postpone it until next year because of an EPA concern over air quality permits. The nearest community to the planned wells in the Chukchi Sea, is some 70 miles away, and has 245 inhabitants.

Relative location of the proposed new drilling activity off Alaska

The need to find and develop a replacement for the Prudhoe Bay field and its adjacent fields is clear from the way in which the fields have been depleting.

Contribution of the different fields to Alaskan Production (Governor’s Office )

The impracticality of an immediate turn-around in the current decline is perhaps indicated by the fact that only one exploratory well will have been drilled in the state in 2011.

Exploratory wells drilled in the North Slope (Governor’s Office )

There must therefore be some incentives if companies are to drill in the future and the Governor believes that this will come about with a change in the tax incentives from the State. This need for some incentives is particularly true given the cost of operations that far North. Shell, for example, has spent close to $4 billion so far and has yet to start development. It is also expensively seeking to ameliorate some of the concerns raised after the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Shell is proposing to use two drill ships, each capable of drilling a relief well for the other in case of the kind of blowout that destroyed the Deepwater Horizon rig. The company is also promising to add more testing and an extra set of shears to its blowout preventers and to keep emergency capping systems near drilling sites to capture any potential leaks.

But disregarding the politics, there is the question of how much oil is there?

The USGS has often given estimates of the technically recoverable resources that can be found in a region, but in the case of the North Slope they have taken this analysis one step further. A recent report took a review of the resources likely to be found in the National Petroleum Reserve- Alaska (NPRA) and applied some costs for the likely development of those resources, from which they came up with an estimate of the likely economically recoverable amount of oil that the NPRA holds. The analysis, both of what is there, and its likely extraction cost, included some 30 exploration wells, not previously considered. The analysis is also statistical in that, without actually drilling the rock, they can only estimate the likelihood of how much oil and gas are there. However one thing that the exploration wells showed is that a lot of what was thought to be oil in the reserve is actually gas. Further that the reservoir quality is worse than originally estimated. When the two are combined the estimate of the likely oil to be found and recoverable fell from 10.6 billion barrels of oil (bbo) to 895 million barrels of oil (mbo), of which some 500 mbo are likely to be economically recoverable. (This is the mean estimate).

The USGS also considered the gas volumes present, and with no present way of getting the large quantities of natural gas that exist up there down to a consumer (and with costs likely at the moment to exceed those at which natural gas is available from other sources) they assumed that it will take at least 10 years for the gas to find a path to market. If it takes twice as long, then the amount of recoverable oil is likely to be only about 358 mbo. For a 10-year delay the mean estimate for the amount of recoverable natural gas is 17.5 Tcf (trillion cubic feet) but this drops to 7.3 Tcf if it takes 20-years to get a pipeline in place. (Note that the amount of natural gas held in the NPRA is, at the mean, considered to be 52.8 Tcf). I am not going to go into the details of either the geological estimate, or the economic analysis but these are provided in the USGS reports. It is interesting, however, that they used a 12% decline rate (which they defend). The news about the condition of the reserves has apparently led some companies to relinquish their assets in the NPRA.

On the other side of Prudhoe Bay lies the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, and particularly that part running along the coast which has been designated as ANWR – 1002, or, more comprehensively, the ANWR Coastal Plain. Just North of the Coast lies Camden Bay in the Beaufort Sea, and it is here that Shell has just had permits approved for four exploratory wells that should be drilled next year.

Location of the ANWR Coastal Plain, relative to Prudhoe Bay ( ANWR )

For the Coastal Plain itself, the USGS last updated their assessment in 1999, and using the mean values (the others are given in the report) considered that the technically recoverable oil in place would be 7.7 bbo out of a total 20.7 bbo in Area 1002. If one assumes that the same sort of economic criteria apply to ANWR as applies to the NPRA, then one might assume that roughly 55% of that technically recoverable might be also economically recoverable, for a total potentially available therefore from ANWR as being around 4.3 bbo. However it may also be that the same changes in both the reservoir rock and the type of hydrocarbon present may occur in ANWR as in NPRA, and if that comes to be the case, then the economically recoverable oil may fall to 10% of the current estimate, or around 430 million barrels. Not to be sneezed at, but not nearly as promising a number as has been discussed in the past.

More detailed view of the 1002 Area (USGS via planetforlife)

While these numbers are still somewhat speculative, until a bit actually drills down to the rock, and validates what is really there, the conclusion that is likely more critical at this time is that it is unlikely that there will be enough new oil coming into the pipeline in the next few years to stave off continued decline, and potential pipeline closure.

I had planned on writing about drilling in the Arctic and development and the off-shore fields, however I will put that off until next time.

OGPSS - The oil and gas of Southern Alaska

Before it was American, Russian visitors had already noted the presence of oil seeps in Alaska, although they had not done anything about it by the time the tsar sold the land to America on March 30th 1867. Russian history would have it that some $165,000 of the $7.2 million of the sale was used to persuade doubting American legislators and members of the media of the value of the purchase. The oil can still be seen, coming from current seeps, such as this one:

Natural oil seep, Oil Creek, Alaska (David Page )

These seeps occur both on and offshore, and as happened in the rest of the country, it was these seeps that brought prospectors to the region, and where the first wells were drilled.

Location of natural seeps along the Alaskan coast. (after David Page and the Copper River and Northwestern Railway )

It is pertinent to note that the creeks shown above are productive salmon spawning grounds, though it was the oil that led to early development.

The first producing field was at Katalia on the Gulf of Alaska. Discovered in 1902, it produced 154,000 bbl of oil before the refinery burned in 1933.

Early Drilling rig at Katalia in Alaska (Cook Inlet Oil and Gas )

The larger fields in and around the Cook Inlet began production with the development of the Swanson River field in 1957. The first Alaskan pipeline was built in 1960 to carry oil from there to the Nikiski refinery (which later supplied the fuel to the International Airport in Anchorage. The Cook Inlet fields peaked in oil production, at 227,400 bd, in 1970. The largest oil field in the region was the McArthur River field, discovered in 1965, but while discoveries continue to be made, the majority of the wells are now past their prime, and will need significant work to be brought back into production. The more recent developments were offshore, with a considerable change in structure from that of the early days.

Unocal Monopod platform in Cook Inlet (Cook Inlet Oil and Gas )

Fields (oil is green, natural gas is red) in Cook Inlet, Alaska (Alaska Department of Natural Resources via Cook Inlet Oil and Gas )

In 1958 natural gas was discovered in the Kenai Peninsula, and by 1962 was supplying gas to Anchorage, 85 miles away. There was sufficient natural gas available that, in 1969, a liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant was built and began shipping LNG to Japan, the first such export from the US to Asia. By 2009 some 1300 tanker loads, with an original deadweight capacity of 36,896 tons, had been shipped through that train.

There were two original tankers on the run, the POLAR ALASKA and the ARCTIC TOKYO, partially made of balsa wood and invar steel and they made the twenty-one day round trip until 1993, when they were replaced by the POLAR EAGLE and the ARCTIC SUN, each with a deadweight of 87,000 metric tons. The ships were renamed POLAR SPIRIT and ARCTIC SPIRIT at the end of 2007, when the registration was moved from Liberia to the Bahamas. They were sold to Teekay Corporation at that time, but leased back for the duration of the project. With the declining production from the plant, the ARCTIC SPIRIT was returned to its owners in April, 2009.

The recent drop in the price for LNG on the world market, meant that the POLAR SPIRIT was returned to its owners at the end of this past April, with the end of the original charter. It now appears to be shuttling between Yokahama and the China Sea, with the last call in the US being in June. The LNG facility was mothballed at the beginning of this summer since Alaskan LNG was no longer competitive on the market.

the plant received needed license extensions last year, but was not able to get a satisfactory price for their LNG. . . . . . business case does not support continuing exports at this time.

The original two LNG carriers were renamed SCF POLAR (which left Las Palmas a couple of days ago) and SCF ARCTIC which left Point Fortin this morning.

The region has never been one of intense activity, with only a relatively few wells being drilled in any one year.

Exploration wells drilled in the Cook Inlet region of Alaska since 1950 (Oil and Gas )

At present there are two jack-leg drills heading for Cook Inlet, with the state providing some of the funding ($30 million) for this new drilling activity.

The wells that have been drilled and brought into production in the past have produced, to date, around 1.3 billion barrels of oil, 7.8 trillion cubic ft (TCF) of natural gas and 12,000 bbl of natural gas liquids in total. At the end of June the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) announced the results of a new assessment of the resources of the region. There is a considerable amount of coal in the region, which is likely to contain methane, and this is now included.

Potential resources of Cook Inlet, Alaska (USGS )

The excluded region in the above graphic shows the coal that lies below 6,000 ft, and is considered unlikely to hold any gas. In addition to this coalbed methane, the USGS re-evaluated the likely volumes that are held in the sandstone and conglomerates that have, to date, been the host rocks for the oil and gas that has been extracted. Finally the USGS assessed the potential of tight sands in the region to hold technically recoverable volumes of gas.

As the recent experience with natural gas has shown, just because a resource exists, and can be recovered, does not mean that it will make sufficient money to justify the investment in the extraction. Thus the USGS can only say that there is a significant likelihood of oil and gas being present and recoverable, without bringing the costs and price of the fuels on the market into the discussion, and thus defining whether the resource is, or will be a reserve, or not.

Because the volumes are estimates, they vary from there being a 95% chance that there is some 5 Tcf of natural gas available, to a 5% chance that there is 39 Tcf of natural gas present. In the same way they estimate that there is a 95% chance of 108 million barrels of oil (mbo) being present, while there is a 5% chance that there might be as much as 1.3 billion barrels. Unfortunately current prices are not necessarily that favorable to much exploratory drilling to validate some of those numbers, though obviously they are favorable enough to convince the Governor to put up some money.

But another part of the reason for this lack of interest has been because of the much larger volumes of Alaskan oil that lie considerably further North, in the region known as the North Slope, which I will discuss next time. But that is beginning to run out, and there are other problems that are apparent, so the resources further South may have thus become more attractive.

Incidentally the mothballing of the LNG plant is leaving Anchorage with a wee bit of a problem. Until this year the facility has acted as a transient storage facility from which, in periods of high demand (such as the depth of winter) gas could be temporarily withdrawn to make up temporary shortages between demand and supply from the wells in the field. That has now gone.

Resources, Reserves - the EIA - coal gas and oil for the future.

One of the significant issues that can get folk argumentative, is the role that price plays in determining whether a fuel source still buried in the ground is called a resource or a reserve. For example I have exchanged opinions several times with David Rutledge on his view of the declining reserve base for coal. Most recently he has written in The Oil Drum pointing to the latest paper he has written on the topic, which is available at his website. Part of my rebuttal comment inferred that as the price of the product increased (likely through the lack of other reserves to be able to sustain the energy supply need of countries around the world) so coal will be recognized more and more as a reserve, which will be used, rather than a resource that will not.

The argument is also made that as price goes up the viability of resources that would cost too much to produce would change a significant volume of those resources back into reserves. That holds true for crude oil, in just the same way as for coal, except that with so much of the world’s cheap crude having already been produced, the availability of the resource volume that will convert over as price rises is not necessarily that great. I bring this up because in this week’s TWIP, from the EIA, they address this problem in regard to how much increasing the price of crude in 2009 increased the amount of crude (including condensate). Their answer was 9% for crude and 11% for natural gas.
(And as 1 of 2 UPDATES to the story, Russia has stated - whether because of exploration or increased value is not clear - but that it fully replaced its oil and gas reserves this year (h/t Leanan).)

Gain in Oil reserves (EIA)

Gain in Natural gas reserves (EIA)

The gas gain, as the EIA note, occurred at a time where gas prices were suffering from the additional volumes made available from the shale deposits of the country.

Domestic production of crude has stabilized at around 5.6 mbd, while imports are running at around 8.5 mbd, and refinery input within the US continues to rise. Gasoline production continues to mirror, roughly, last year at this time, while demand is running around 300,000 bd more than last year. This time last year distillate production was reducing, this year it continues to increase, although demand, which dropped precipitately for the last month, is now stabilizing at about last year’s level. And ethanol production continues to creep upward.

Biodiesel production is a little harder number to come by, there is a plot through 2008:

Biodiesel production (National Biodiesel Board)

There are reported to be `173 companies engaged in producing biodiesel (from a number of sources and in a number of ways). If all of them ran at full production it would generate an average of around 175,000 bd, which is not yet much of a significant figure. Additional companies planning to get into production might raise production by 15% but this remains still only a small fraction of what is going to be needed.

UPDATE: I have been pointed to the note earlier this year that the EPA had slashed the cellulosic ethanol mandate for next year:

Cellulosic biofuel was 250 million gallons, now 6.5-25.5 million gallons
Biomass-based diesel was 800 million gallons, and stays there
Advanced biofuel was 1.35 billion gallons, and stays there. . . . . .

“We first considered whether it appears likely that the required biomass-based diesel volume of 0.8 billion gallons can be met with existing biodiesel production capacity in 2011…we believe that the 0.8 billion gallon standard can indeed be met…Of the remaining 0.15 bill gallons, up to 0.026 bill gallons would be met with the proposed volume of cellulosic biofuel. Based on our analysis as described in Section II.C, there may be sufficient volumes of other advanced biofuels, such as imported sugarcane ethanol, additional biodiesel, or renewable diesel, such that the standard for advanced biofuel could remain at the statutory level of 1.35 billion gallons.”

(end of update)

Which brings me back to my original point which is that a change in the perceived selling price of the product (I say that because of the gas situation) has led to significant investment that has raised the reserves of a commodity that is recognized to be getting into short supply.

However, to put this in perspective, the gain in oil reserves was 3.69 billion barrels. The United States uses around (rough number) 20 mbd of oil, or 7.3 billion barrels a year. The gain in reserves will thus provide the equivalent of a 6 months supply, and while production will be spread over a number of years, it really doesn’t change the arithmetic that much. What is forgotten in the discussion, however, is that the equivalent change in reserve size is also occurring in other parts of the world. And while many of these places are, like the United States, in an era where their fields are now depleting, the increased value of the product is likely to slow that decline somewhat.

Coal, which is also where the discussion started, is in an even more robust situation. Coal price is still driven by the cheapest producer to the world market. It is not practical to consider opening a new mine in, for example, Montana, if the power companies around the country are already being adequately served by local deposits and by trains from the Powder River Basin. No-one will put up the investment capital to open new mines without a market, and with the current transient switch to natural gas, that incentive does not exist in the United States.

However the rest of the world is somewhat different. Bear in mind that the prices that oil and gas will reach, in the non-too-distant future, will be significantly above what many nations can pay. If they have indigenous sources of energy – vide coal – and enough of it then they will start building coal-fired power stations. They don’t have to play games with taxing one form of energy to encourage another, they need the cheapest possible source of power. And at the moment we know what that is!

And just to emphasise that, here is the most recent projection for future demand from the EIA.


I will forgo a comment on the assumption at the top of the plot.