Showing posts with label Alaska pipeline. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alaska pipeline. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Tech Talk - The IEA World Energy Outlook
It is the time of year again that different folk stare into their own versions of a crystal ball and project how much energy the world will need in the future, and where they think that it will come from. It is interesting to look at these various predictions as the global supply picture morphs under a changing reality.
One of the changes in reality that is likely to have significant impact in the near-term is the flow in the Alyeska pipeline. Long-time concerns over the decline in flow and the effect that heat loss has on the contents is leading to new work to change the pipe dynamics and possibly to remove the water before it is pumped, lowering the temperatures at which the line currently has to be maintained.
Figure 1. Historic and Projected flows through the Alaskan pipeline (Alyseka)
The precipitation of ice and water from the oil, within the pipeline will otherwise reach a point that flow will stop – potentially at around 300 kbd, at a date not too far into the future.
In their annual World Energy Outlook, the IEA continue to see, overall, a gain in US oil production through 2025, largely coming through the light tight oil of the sort being produced from North Dakota and West Texas.
Figure 2. IEA projections for global oil production growth in the years to 2035. (IEA)
However in the following years , out to 2035, that supply also declines so that by 2035 the US will likely be in the same sort of supply situation, relying heavily on imports, that it is today.
The IEA make the point that the only longer term places that can be relied on are Brazil, with the off-shore fields, and the Middle East. Looking first at Brazil, which continues to have some problems in bringing their fields on-line on-schedule, the IEA anticipates that the major production growth is likely to be in the next ten years, but will continue beyond that point.
Figure 3. Brazilian oil production through 2035. (IEA)
Because the IEA foresee that Brazil will continue to supply the largest portion of its energy from hydropower this means that the largest volume of the fuel can be exported, where it meets the continually growing demand from the rest of the world.
Figure 4. Anticipates sources of power for electricity generation in 2035 (IEA)
At the same time the IEA anticipate that primary energy demand will still focus heavily on fossil fuel sources through 2035, with renewable energy only slowly nibbling away at the totals so that, by 2035 fossil fuel will have dropped from contributing the current 82% down to 75% of the larger total.
Figure 5. Anticipated changes in the sources of primary global energy through 2035. (IEA)
Although, by that time the IEA foresee a change not only in the places where demand is highest, but also in the relative rankings. The major finding in this regard that they draw attention to is the anticipated greater growth rates in India than in China, as time passes.
Figure 6. Changed picture of global energy demand in the year 2035 (IEA)
Other than projecting the growth in demand there is the need to anticipate where the supply will come from, and in this regard the IEA projects that the largest growth will come from natural gas (Figure 5), although crude oil is still anticipated to grow, with refinery capacity increasing to about 104 mbd.
It is interesting that the IEA projections for oil production growth hang most heavily on increased production from the Middle East. It requires very little glance into their crystal ball to assume that this is likely based on the increased production from Iraq, an assumption that was, last year, a largely common assumption to all future projections. Unfortunately for those earlier projections in the interim the initial Iraqi targets have been cut back, with current targets being reduced below the “best case” scenario that the IEA had projected in their review of the country.
Taken with the possibility of a significant and sudden decline in production from Alaska, and the likelihood that the rate of drilling in the Bakken will decline, as prospects become more uneconomic suggests that it will be difficult to sustain the levels of crude output that the IEA are anticipating can be made available to meet their projected needs.
By the same token the growth in the global demand for natural gas is predicated on the reserves uncovered in the United States being exported, as needed, to the rest of the world. It is, however, also predicated on the price of natural gas remaining relatively stable in terms of current costs.
Figure 7. Anticipated components of the costs of US LNG when shipped to either Asia or Europe (IEA)
The underlying flaw in that assumption is that the costs of purchasing the natural gas in the United States are now starting to rise to a more realistic level relative to the costs of production from tight shales. This week's OGJ, for example has noted the EIA Short Term Energy and Winter Fuels outlook that notes that prices are expected to rise 13% this winter over last (on constant demand) to $3.62 per kcf. Given that the EIA is expecting the price to inch upwards towards $5.00 per kcf over the next year this makes the IEA report appear a little over-optimistic on costs and hence market share.
Figure 8. Natural Gas Prices in the United States (EIA)
This is likely to be particularly true as some of the older gas fields, such as the Haynesville, appear to be in decline even at prices in the $4 - $5 per kcf range.
Figure 9. Natural Gas Production from the Haynesville Shale (OGJ )
Increasing the price of natural gas will reduce its competitive advantage over coal and in consequence I would anticipate that power generating companies will continue to build boilers that can handle both coal and natural gas, and that the longer-term continued switch to natural gas will become more of an economic choice dependent on how much LNG finally comes onto the market from the United States and at what price. I am not convinced that this will be quite the bargain and cornucopia that it is anticipated to become. In other words I still find the IEA view of the future to be a somewhat optimistic one, given the realities that are now unfolding before us.
One of the changes in reality that is likely to have significant impact in the near-term is the flow in the Alyeska pipeline. Long-time concerns over the decline in flow and the effect that heat loss has on the contents is leading to new work to change the pipe dynamics and possibly to remove the water before it is pumped, lowering the temperatures at which the line currently has to be maintained.
Figure 1. Historic and Projected flows through the Alaskan pipeline (Alyseka)
The precipitation of ice and water from the oil, within the pipeline will otherwise reach a point that flow will stop – potentially at around 300 kbd, at a date not too far into the future.
In their annual World Energy Outlook, the IEA continue to see, overall, a gain in US oil production through 2025, largely coming through the light tight oil of the sort being produced from North Dakota and West Texas.
Figure 2. IEA projections for global oil production growth in the years to 2035. (IEA)
However in the following years , out to 2035, that supply also declines so that by 2035 the US will likely be in the same sort of supply situation, relying heavily on imports, that it is today.
The IEA make the point that the only longer term places that can be relied on are Brazil, with the off-shore fields, and the Middle East. Looking first at Brazil, which continues to have some problems in bringing their fields on-line on-schedule, the IEA anticipates that the major production growth is likely to be in the next ten years, but will continue beyond that point.
Figure 3. Brazilian oil production through 2035. (IEA)
Because the IEA foresee that Brazil will continue to supply the largest portion of its energy from hydropower this means that the largest volume of the fuel can be exported, where it meets the continually growing demand from the rest of the world.
Figure 4. Anticipates sources of power for electricity generation in 2035 (IEA)
At the same time the IEA anticipate that primary energy demand will still focus heavily on fossil fuel sources through 2035, with renewable energy only slowly nibbling away at the totals so that, by 2035 fossil fuel will have dropped from contributing the current 82% down to 75% of the larger total.
Figure 5. Anticipated changes in the sources of primary global energy through 2035. (IEA)
Although, by that time the IEA foresee a change not only in the places where demand is highest, but also in the relative rankings. The major finding in this regard that they draw attention to is the anticipated greater growth rates in India than in China, as time passes.
Figure 6. Changed picture of global energy demand in the year 2035 (IEA)
Other than projecting the growth in demand there is the need to anticipate where the supply will come from, and in this regard the IEA projects that the largest growth will come from natural gas (Figure 5), although crude oil is still anticipated to grow, with refinery capacity increasing to about 104 mbd.
It is interesting that the IEA projections for oil production growth hang most heavily on increased production from the Middle East. It requires very little glance into their crystal ball to assume that this is likely based on the increased production from Iraq, an assumption that was, last year, a largely common assumption to all future projections. Unfortunately for those earlier projections in the interim the initial Iraqi targets have been cut back, with current targets being reduced below the “best case” scenario that the IEA had projected in their review of the country.
Taken with the possibility of a significant and sudden decline in production from Alaska, and the likelihood that the rate of drilling in the Bakken will decline, as prospects become more uneconomic suggests that it will be difficult to sustain the levels of crude output that the IEA are anticipating can be made available to meet their projected needs.
By the same token the growth in the global demand for natural gas is predicated on the reserves uncovered in the United States being exported, as needed, to the rest of the world. It is, however, also predicated on the price of natural gas remaining relatively stable in terms of current costs.
Figure 7. Anticipated components of the costs of US LNG when shipped to either Asia or Europe (IEA)
The underlying flaw in that assumption is that the costs of purchasing the natural gas in the United States are now starting to rise to a more realistic level relative to the costs of production from tight shales. This week's OGJ, for example has noted the EIA Short Term Energy and Winter Fuels outlook that notes that prices are expected to rise 13% this winter over last (on constant demand) to $3.62 per kcf. Given that the EIA is expecting the price to inch upwards towards $5.00 per kcf over the next year this makes the IEA report appear a little over-optimistic on costs and hence market share.
Figure 8. Natural Gas Prices in the United States (EIA)
This is likely to be particularly true as some of the older gas fields, such as the Haynesville, appear to be in decline even at prices in the $4 - $5 per kcf range.
Figure 9. Natural Gas Production from the Haynesville Shale (OGJ )
Increasing the price of natural gas will reduce its competitive advantage over coal and in consequence I would anticipate that power generating companies will continue to build boilers that can handle both coal and natural gas, and that the longer-term continued switch to natural gas will become more of an economic choice dependent on how much LNG finally comes onto the market from the United States and at what price. I am not convinced that this will be quite the bargain and cornucopia that it is anticipated to become. In other words I still find the IEA view of the future to be a somewhat optimistic one, given the realities that are now unfolding before us.
Read more!
Labels:
Alaska pipeline,
Brazil,
China,
global demand,
Haynesville shale,
IEA,
India,
Iraq,
Natural gas,
World Energy Outlook
Sunday, November 3, 2013
Tech Talk - of Alaska, Libya and the belated bleat of awareness of a problem
I have written in earlier posts about the problems that the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System (TAPS) will face, as production declines below 500,000 bd. The conclusions from that post are pictorially summarized in a graph in the recent edition of the Oil and Gas Journal.
Figure 1. Declining throughput through TAPS showing the points of concern (OGJ)
Looking at current figures, in September the pipeline had an average throughput of 524,181 bpd against the year-to-date average of 528,092 bpd. It has just passed below the upper limit at which operational difficulties can be anticipated, due in part to the flow being too slow to keep the temperature high enough to prevent wax from separating from the fluid, and starting to block valves and critical infrastructure. Because of the long lead times, and high capital requirements for the development of new fields in the Arctic, and the likely probability that these will not yield significant production until at least 2025, the article is pessimistic about both the fate of the pipeline, and future Alaskan production.
Despite those declines OPEC remains optimistic, in their October Monthly Oil Market Report that the world producers can continue to meet global demand as they foresee it rising to an average of 89.7 mbd this year, and then going up to 90.8 mbd on average next year. They foresee, for example, that non-OPEC supply will increase this year by 1.1 mbd (to 54.1 mbd) led by production gains from the USA, Brazil, Kazakhstan, South Sudan and Sudan. Next year they see an additional non-OPEC growth of 1.2 mbd with Canada replacing Kazakhstan among the five countries that will make up this additional production. In contrast OPEC itself is reducing production, with overall production reported to be down 390 kbd in September.
The gain in crude oil production seen in the US, which has risen from 5 mbd to an average of 7.3 mbd in the first seven months of this year has had a significant impact on these projections, though the change in the mix of product now available to the Gulf refineries will continue to have some impact on the overall import picture. This is because, as the EIA note, some of the heavier crude refineries along the Gulf are tied to foreign producers including Pemex of Mexico, PDVSA of Venezuela, and Saudi Refining (for a combined total of just under 2 mbd).
Yet it remains difficult to sustain the optimism that OPEC project. Libyan exports, at one time running up around 1.25 mbd remain down at some 90 kbd, due to tribal disruptions and internal political disputes that show little sign of resolution.
Figure 2. Recent Libyan oil production (Energy Policy Info)
Certainly the physical ability to return to around pre-disruption levels has been demonstrated, but the weakness of the central government does not indicate that the political problems will be resolved in the near future. And until they are there is the best part of 1 mbd being with-held from the market. This drain from global supply is not yet disruptive since it has, to date, been largely picked up by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).
The picture from the combination of Sudan and South Sudan following the division of the one country into two has not been promising, however it appears that the overall total decline has now been halted, and recent reports have raised production to somewhere between 190 kbd and 240 kbd.
Figure 3. Change in oil production from Sudan and South Sudan following the division of one country into two. (Council on Foreign Relations )
The IEA is not optimistic that the return to production will be as smooth as others think:
The increased production from the Kashagan field in Kazakhstan – anticipated to rise to 75 kbd - has again been hit following system leaks so that this increased production that OPEC had anticipated has, again, been postponed.
And while production has now started from the Espirito Santo in the pre-salt fields off Brazil, it is not clear whether the production gains will offset the declines that have occurred in Brazilian production in recent months.
Figure 4. The Espirito Santo floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) vessel (Shell )
Just as there is a perception that the United States is heading toward independence in energy needs (a fallacy I have written about several times in the past), so there is a perception that OPEC is becoming a less critical supplier. This is far from the case. KSA has been producing over 10 mbd for the last months, in order to offset the loss in Libyan oil to the market, and the combined production of KSA, UAE, Kuwait and Qatar now supplies 18% of global demand. This is only the second time that this number has been that high in the past 30 years. It comes at a time when the Middle East is supplying 25% of Chinese oil demand, as that country passes the United States to become the largest importer of oil.
Figure 5. OPEC oil production (numbers compiled from secondary sources (OPEC MOMR October )
This comes at a time when the world still wonders about the actual oil balance as it flows in and out of China.
Unfortunately the picture that is emerging continues to show that OPEC is tending to be overly optimistic in its forecasts for production, which does not bode well for future supplies of fossil fuel.
Given that a group of environmental scientists have just released a letter calling for increased investment in nuclear power since, to quote James Hansen:
Figure 1. Declining throughput through TAPS showing the points of concern (OGJ)
Looking at current figures, in September the pipeline had an average throughput of 524,181 bpd against the year-to-date average of 528,092 bpd. It has just passed below the upper limit at which operational difficulties can be anticipated, due in part to the flow being too slow to keep the temperature high enough to prevent wax from separating from the fluid, and starting to block valves and critical infrastructure. Because of the long lead times, and high capital requirements for the development of new fields in the Arctic, and the likely probability that these will not yield significant production until at least 2025, the article is pessimistic about both the fate of the pipeline, and future Alaskan production.
Despite those declines OPEC remains optimistic, in their October Monthly Oil Market Report that the world producers can continue to meet global demand as they foresee it rising to an average of 89.7 mbd this year, and then going up to 90.8 mbd on average next year. They foresee, for example, that non-OPEC supply will increase this year by 1.1 mbd (to 54.1 mbd) led by production gains from the USA, Brazil, Kazakhstan, South Sudan and Sudan. Next year they see an additional non-OPEC growth of 1.2 mbd with Canada replacing Kazakhstan among the five countries that will make up this additional production. In contrast OPEC itself is reducing production, with overall production reported to be down 390 kbd in September.
The gain in crude oil production seen in the US, which has risen from 5 mbd to an average of 7.3 mbd in the first seven months of this year has had a significant impact on these projections, though the change in the mix of product now available to the Gulf refineries will continue to have some impact on the overall import picture. This is because, as the EIA note, some of the heavier crude refineries along the Gulf are tied to foreign producers including Pemex of Mexico, PDVSA of Venezuela, and Saudi Refining (for a combined total of just under 2 mbd).
Yet it remains difficult to sustain the optimism that OPEC project. Libyan exports, at one time running up around 1.25 mbd remain down at some 90 kbd, due to tribal disruptions and internal political disputes that show little sign of resolution.
Figure 2. Recent Libyan oil production (Energy Policy Info)
Certainly the physical ability to return to around pre-disruption levels has been demonstrated, but the weakness of the central government does not indicate that the political problems will be resolved in the near future. And until they are there is the best part of 1 mbd being with-held from the market. This drain from global supply is not yet disruptive since it has, to date, been largely picked up by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).
The picture from the combination of Sudan and South Sudan following the division of the one country into two has not been promising, however it appears that the overall total decline has now been halted, and recent reports have raised production to somewhere between 190 kbd and 240 kbd.
Figure 3. Change in oil production from Sudan and South Sudan following the division of one country into two. (Council on Foreign Relations )
The IEA is not optimistic that the return to production will be as smooth as others think:
“Industry sources have been quoted as saying that restarting oil production could take six months or even longer, since the lines have been filled with water and because some wells were not closed properly.”The OPEC projection that overall Sudanese production has returned to the 240 kbd level may, therefore, be still an optimistic estimate. The increase to 175 kbd following the repair to the pipelines from the Majnoon field in Iraq is encouraging (although the high level of violence that continues in that country does not give high confidence that the pipeline might not be struck again.)
The increased production from the Kashagan field in Kazakhstan – anticipated to rise to 75 kbd - has again been hit following system leaks so that this increased production that OPEC had anticipated has, again, been postponed.
And while production has now started from the Espirito Santo in the pre-salt fields off Brazil, it is not clear whether the production gains will offset the declines that have occurred in Brazilian production in recent months.
Figure 4. The Espirito Santo floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) vessel (Shell )
Just as there is a perception that the United States is heading toward independence in energy needs (a fallacy I have written about several times in the past), so there is a perception that OPEC is becoming a less critical supplier. This is far from the case. KSA has been producing over 10 mbd for the last months, in order to offset the loss in Libyan oil to the market, and the combined production of KSA, UAE, Kuwait and Qatar now supplies 18% of global demand. This is only the second time that this number has been that high in the past 30 years. It comes at a time when the Middle East is supplying 25% of Chinese oil demand, as that country passes the United States to become the largest importer of oil.
Figure 5. OPEC oil production (numbers compiled from secondary sources (OPEC MOMR October )
This comes at a time when the world still wonders about the actual oil balance as it flows in and out of China.
Unfortunately the picture that is emerging continues to show that OPEC is tending to be overly optimistic in its forecasts for production, which does not bode well for future supplies of fossil fuel.
Given that a group of environmental scientists have just released a letter calling for increased investment in nuclear power since, to quote James Hansen:
Hansen, who’s now at Columbia University, said it’s not enough for environmentalists to simply oppose fossil fuels and promote renewable energy.This comes a bit late, since as I noted recently, it takes over a decade to build a new nuclear power plant, and with the current schedule for existing plant closures moving inexorably along their timetable, this may presage a decade of power shortages. We shall see!! But in the meanwhile we had better hope that those folk concerned over the possible shut down of the Trans Alaskan Pipeline because of inadequate flow are being just a tad pessimistic.
“They’re cheating themselves if they keep believing this fiction that all we need” is renewable energy such as wind and solar, Hansen told the AP.
Read more!
Labels:
Alaska pipeline,
China,
James Hansen,
KSA,
Libya,
nuclear power,
OPEC oil production,
South Sudan,
Sudan,
TAPS
Monday, October 7, 2013
Tech Talk - complacency does not see the slow erosion of supply
There has been some talk this week over the volumes of oil and natural gas that is being produced in America, with the WSJ, for example, noting that the US is on track to surpass the volumes produced by Russia. Given that Russia is the leading producer of crude oil at the moment, in August OPEC noted that their production was running at 10.51 mbd, in which month they noted that Saudi Arabia was producing 9.96 mbd. OPEC carefully give two numbers for US oil production, total production is given, for August, as 10.88 mbd, but of this only around 7.2 mbd is crude oil. (While the 9.96 mbd of Saudi production is their crude output, and they also produce some NGL’s from their gas production, as well as seeing some refineries gains as their processing capacity increases). However the WSJ notes that the grand total for the US also contains oil, natural gas and other related fuels to reach the 22 mbdoe, relative to the 21.8 mbdoe that Russia is estimated to be producing.
While the overall impression that is being bandied about, that the US will become energy independent, has been shot down more than enough times (see for example Chris Nelder, last year) there remains, however, a broad complacency that, with increasing production from tight rock, in both oil and natural gas, there is no reason to have concern over future supplies.
If one looks at the make-up of the US supply of energy, natural gas has been steadily increasing its share, as has crude oil, to the cost of the coal market.
Composition of the US energy supply sources, supply shown in quadrillion Btu’s (EIA )
The break-out for June gives more explicit figures:
Figure 2. US Energy supply by Source for June, 2013.
The gap between supply and demand for petroleum products (particularly for transportation) can then be assessed by looking at the consumption side of the equation.
Figure 3. US energy consumption by sector (in quads, EIA )
The bull stirring in our China shop (pottery variety) continues to be the levels of petroleum that we need, and that is unlikely to decline all that much in the intermediate term.
The problem that the world faces is that the balance between available supply of crude oil and the demands for it now lie within very narrow range of production. It is still not that much more of a concern that additional oil this month comes from the US, rather than the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) since, give or take a few weeks, supplies can still be purchased from different sources and rapidly shipped by tanker to where it is needed. But if the US were to be asked to meet an additional production need of 1 mbd over existing supply, because of even a short-term failure of supply from another country, it would not be able to meet that demand. (Short, that is, of draining the strategic supply).
Most of the other countries in the world are in a similar predicament. And that includes Russia. Russia gets more than half of its budget from oil and gas revenues, and with their economy flattening out it needs more revenue. It would help considerably if that help came in increasing volumes of oil and gas for export. But the remaining oil and gas deposits are being found in more remote parts of the country, where the expense of not only drilling the wells, but also of getting the product to market, requires a very large capital and time investment. Thus, while it would be nice if they could, they can’t be expected to meet an upsurge in external demand by turning the odd tap on an oilfield to produce additional supply.
And if one goes around the world, as I have been noting recently, outside of the KSA, there is virtually no-one else who can relatively rapidly respond to bring the global market into balance. But even the KSA capabilities to meet that demand are limited. I would suspect that they would get uncomfortable if they had to produce over 10 mbd for any length of time.
And this is where the kicker in the story lies, because, if that is the case, and conflicts around the globe continue to nibble away at the production capabilities in places such as Sudan, Iraq, Libya and their neighbors, then the additional global reserve between available supply and demand is going to increasingly tighten. It is a relatively imperceptible change every month. A little less oil flows down the Alaskan pipeline (439,686 bd in August against the average ytd of 528,572 bd); South Sudan is running about 100 kbd behind the figures for January 2012; Libya continues to suffer from the actions of the militia that control two of their oilfields to the point that production is now around 1 mbd below normal production for the country. There are some indications that the situation is now improving, with flows returning to around 700 kbd but this is still only half of the original volumes. And while the problem is political, rather than technical, the optimism of the Libyan oil minister who projects a return to production levels of 1.6 mbd is perhaps difficult to justify realistically.
Figure 4. Recent changes in Libyan oil production (WSJ )
Libya is, perhaps, with Iran, an exemplar of the nations with the potential to produce more, but who are constrained by immediate political problems. Iraq, who might otherwise also be in the group, is challenged also to develop the fields that are required for it to bring in the additional volumes of oil to the world market.
If these countries remain at their current levels of production, and there is little to indicate any positive change in the near term, then the narrow band over which KSA production fluctuates to keep the balance may not be enough for much longer.
Complacency that there is currently enough oil and natural gas to go around, at current levels of price, lets the market focus on other, more immediately pressing issues. But the slow erosion of the remaining global production surplus continues, and accumulates, and the time when this becomes evident may only be when that reserve no longer exists. And that may not be nearly as far into the future as most seem to expect.
While the overall impression that is being bandied about, that the US will become energy independent, has been shot down more than enough times (see for example Chris Nelder, last year) there remains, however, a broad complacency that, with increasing production from tight rock, in both oil and natural gas, there is no reason to have concern over future supplies.
If one looks at the make-up of the US supply of energy, natural gas has been steadily increasing its share, as has crude oil, to the cost of the coal market.
Composition of the US energy supply sources, supply shown in quadrillion Btu’s (EIA )
The break-out for June gives more explicit figures:
Figure 2. US Energy supply by Source for June, 2013.
The gap between supply and demand for petroleum products (particularly for transportation) can then be assessed by looking at the consumption side of the equation.
Figure 3. US energy consumption by sector (in quads, EIA )
The bull stirring in our China shop (pottery variety) continues to be the levels of petroleum that we need, and that is unlikely to decline all that much in the intermediate term.
The problem that the world faces is that the balance between available supply of crude oil and the demands for it now lie within very narrow range of production. It is still not that much more of a concern that additional oil this month comes from the US, rather than the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) since, give or take a few weeks, supplies can still be purchased from different sources and rapidly shipped by tanker to where it is needed. But if the US were to be asked to meet an additional production need of 1 mbd over existing supply, because of even a short-term failure of supply from another country, it would not be able to meet that demand. (Short, that is, of draining the strategic supply).
Most of the other countries in the world are in a similar predicament. And that includes Russia. Russia gets more than half of its budget from oil and gas revenues, and with their economy flattening out it needs more revenue. It would help considerably if that help came in increasing volumes of oil and gas for export. But the remaining oil and gas deposits are being found in more remote parts of the country, where the expense of not only drilling the wells, but also of getting the product to market, requires a very large capital and time investment. Thus, while it would be nice if they could, they can’t be expected to meet an upsurge in external demand by turning the odd tap on an oilfield to produce additional supply.
And if one goes around the world, as I have been noting recently, outside of the KSA, there is virtually no-one else who can relatively rapidly respond to bring the global market into balance. But even the KSA capabilities to meet that demand are limited. I would suspect that they would get uncomfortable if they had to produce over 10 mbd for any length of time.
And this is where the kicker in the story lies, because, if that is the case, and conflicts around the globe continue to nibble away at the production capabilities in places such as Sudan, Iraq, Libya and their neighbors, then the additional global reserve between available supply and demand is going to increasingly tighten. It is a relatively imperceptible change every month. A little less oil flows down the Alaskan pipeline (439,686 bd in August against the average ytd of 528,572 bd); South Sudan is running about 100 kbd behind the figures for January 2012; Libya continues to suffer from the actions of the militia that control two of their oilfields to the point that production is now around 1 mbd below normal production for the country. There are some indications that the situation is now improving, with flows returning to around 700 kbd but this is still only half of the original volumes. And while the problem is political, rather than technical, the optimism of the Libyan oil minister who projects a return to production levels of 1.6 mbd is perhaps difficult to justify realistically.
Figure 4. Recent changes in Libyan oil production (WSJ )
Libya is, perhaps, with Iran, an exemplar of the nations with the potential to produce more, but who are constrained by immediate political problems. Iraq, who might otherwise also be in the group, is challenged also to develop the fields that are required for it to bring in the additional volumes of oil to the world market.
If these countries remain at their current levels of production, and there is little to indicate any positive change in the near term, then the narrow band over which KSA production fluctuates to keep the balance may not be enough for much longer.
Complacency that there is currently enough oil and natural gas to go around, at current levels of price, lets the market focus on other, more immediately pressing issues. But the slow erosion of the remaining global production surplus continues, and accumulates, and the time when this becomes evident may only be when that reserve no longer exists. And that may not be nearly as far into the future as most seem to expect.
Read more!
Labels:
Alaska pipeline,
crude oil,
Iran,
Iraq,
KSA,
Libya,
Russia,
South Sudan,
US energy
Thursday, January 10, 2013
OGPSS - Happy New Year, or perhaps not!
It is the beginning of a New Year, and, belatedly, I hope that all readers find this new period to be one of prosperity, health and happiness. It would be encouraging if the portents for our Energy future would point in that direction, but unfortunately I can’t see nearly as much optimism in that regard as do others who are similarly reviewing where the global energy supply numbers are going. This week the EIA's ”The Week in Petroleum” is illustrative of the optimistic vision.
Figure 1. Recent projection from the EIA on American Oil Production (EIA TWIP Jan 9, 2013)
This plot is from the new Short-Term Energy Outlook from the EIA, which projects the numbers through to 2014, at which time: the Agency anticipates that US domestic production will rise to 7.9 mbd, the highest since 1988. Growth is expected to extend beyond just the Bakken:
In context it should be remembered that, when The Oil Drum was first produced in 2005, national attention was briefly caught by the TV movie “Oil Storm” in which a plausible series of events – a hurricane in the Gulf, a ship collision in the Houston Ship Canal, and a terrorist attack on the Saudi oil terminal at Ras Tanura combined to raise the price of oil to a peak of $130 a barrel, and gas reached a final price of over $7 a gallon, with all sorts of terrible consequences. The day was finally saved when Russia shipped the US a few tanker loads of oil, after the US outbid the Chinese for that oil.
Since then there have been pundits who tell us that these things would never happen. During the real price rise to $147 a barrel (without the disastrous causes) we were reassured that prices would fall again to the $20-$30 a barrel range, though they have not – and those same pundits are now again parading before the media as they reassure us that the US can soon cast off the shackles of oil price control by foreign oil interests. Of the roughly 10 million bd that the US imported in October, some 4.2 mbd came from OPEC, Saudi Arabia sending 1.25 mbd, and Venezuela 0.95 mbd. Outside OPEC Canada supplied 2.68 mbd, Mexico 1.06 mbd and Russia 0.55 mbd. KSA has shown itself adept and willing to adjust flows to ensure that OPEC oil prices remain adequate, and there is no indication that they need or intend to change their approach. Any global increase in supply is likely to be more than offset by increases in demand from China and India, though the reality will be that as US demand declines (if it does) that displaced supply will transfer to meet Asian growth – and it will not then be available were the US projections to fall short, and the country have to increase imports again.
There are some troubling signs on the horizon that suggest the future US supply is not as robust as has been proposed. Chesapeake Energy, who have been a flagship for the development of natural gas, is in sufficient trouble that Aubrey McClendon, the CEO, will not get a bonus this year, amid a number of changes. Shares have dropped nearly 30% and as Art and others have noted, the economics are not as encouraging as the pundits would suggest.
The news from the Arctic is somewhat worse. Shell have been able to recover their drillship, which ran aground after losing its tow in a 70-knot storm with 40-ft waves, and it has now been moved to a safe harbor. The vessel must now be assessed and the program will be delayed. (This is particularly true as the investigations begin to line up, first was the Coast Guard, and now Interior.) The Alaskan Pipeline flows were averaging just under 583 kbd in November (December numbers are late), and that is up from the overall yearly average of 544 kbd, but is running at a 6% decline rate bringing problems in as little as 8-years. Although with monthly flow changing to improve conditions in the winter months, there may be more of a problem than is currently discernable, particularly if future supplies to keep the pipeline flowing are now threatened by the future losses of potential production from the Chukchi and Beaufort seas.
And speaking of pipelines the cancelling of plans for the Bakken Crude Express Pipeline for lack of customers tells more about the anticipated future demand than all the predictions from Dr. Yergin at Cambridge. Energy Research Associates. This also foretells that the Adelman prediction that technology will always return us to cheap oil, as touted by Phil Verleger is likely to continue to be proven false – not that these real events stop those who survive by predicting the future. Fortune tellers have been a facet of society throughout history, only the shape of their crystal balls has changed with time, and the size of their credulous audience.
Whether real or overly optimistic, the US potential increases in fossil fuel production is likely to impact to the potential for US renewable and bio-generated fuels, where the future production levels seem also to be losing their lustre. There is some talk of Dr. Chu leaving the Department of Energy in part perhaps because of this change in focus. However, among the names being floated are those of John Podesta, the founder of the Center for American Progress, who have just ranked their top ten Energy and Environmental Priorities for the first four years of President Obama’s time in office, as follows:
Figure 2. Priorities as quoted by the Center for American Progress.
And most recently the Secretary has been encouraging women and minorities to look at the wind energy industry as an opportunity for employment.
One other candidate is apparently Bill Ritter, the past Governor of Colorado, although the list, at this point, seems to be growing rather than shrinking.
Whether under either individual, or some alternate choice, the next four years of President Obama’s Administration will likely see many more changes than anticipated as occurred during the first term. It is, however, discouraging that there are so few possibilities for realistic optimism for that future.
Figure 1. Recent projection from the EIA on American Oil Production (EIA TWIP Jan 9, 2013)
This plot is from the new Short-Term Energy Outlook from the EIA, which projects the numbers through to 2014, at which time: the Agency anticipates that US domestic production will rise to 7.9 mbd, the highest since 1988. Growth is expected to extend beyond just the Bakken:
In particular, drilling in tight oil plays in the Williston (which includes the Bakken formation), Western Gulf (which includes the Eagle Ford formation), and Permian basins are expected to account for the bulk of growth through 2014. Williston Basin production is expected to rise from an estimated December 2012 level of 0.8 million bbl/d to 1.2 million bbl/d in December 2014. Western Gulf Basin production rises from an estimated December 2012 level of 1.1 million bbl/d to 1.8 million bbl/d in December 2014. Within the Western Gulf Basin, roughly 0.4 million bbl/d of the oil production is outside of the Eagle Ford formation. The Western Gulf Basin accounts for more than half of the onshore domestic liquids production growth due to a comparatively large amount of liquids coming from both oil and gas wells compared with the other key production basins. The Permian Basin in West Texas, which includes plays such as Spraberry, Bonespring, and Wolfcamp, is a third key growth area. EIA estimates that crude oil production from the Permian Basin reached 1.2 million bbl/d in December 2012. Permian Basin production is projected to increase to 1.4 million bbl/d in December 2014.The overall global concerns for production include a relatively small potential for production growth from the larger oil producers in the world (with the possible exception of Iraq), while there remains an increasing turmoil that began with the “Arab Spring” and continues to spread with ongoing and growing impacts that are likely on Middle Eastern oil production. But it is the story of American production that continues to gnaw at my worry bead string.
In context it should be remembered that, when The Oil Drum was first produced in 2005, national attention was briefly caught by the TV movie “Oil Storm” in which a plausible series of events – a hurricane in the Gulf, a ship collision in the Houston Ship Canal, and a terrorist attack on the Saudi oil terminal at Ras Tanura combined to raise the price of oil to a peak of $130 a barrel, and gas reached a final price of over $7 a gallon, with all sorts of terrible consequences. The day was finally saved when Russia shipped the US a few tanker loads of oil, after the US outbid the Chinese for that oil.
Since then there have been pundits who tell us that these things would never happen. During the real price rise to $147 a barrel (without the disastrous causes) we were reassured that prices would fall again to the $20-$30 a barrel range, though they have not – and those same pundits are now again parading before the media as they reassure us that the US can soon cast off the shackles of oil price control by foreign oil interests. Of the roughly 10 million bd that the US imported in October, some 4.2 mbd came from OPEC, Saudi Arabia sending 1.25 mbd, and Venezuela 0.95 mbd. Outside OPEC Canada supplied 2.68 mbd, Mexico 1.06 mbd and Russia 0.55 mbd. KSA has shown itself adept and willing to adjust flows to ensure that OPEC oil prices remain adequate, and there is no indication that they need or intend to change their approach. Any global increase in supply is likely to be more than offset by increases in demand from China and India, though the reality will be that as US demand declines (if it does) that displaced supply will transfer to meet Asian growth – and it will not then be available were the US projections to fall short, and the country have to increase imports again.
There are some troubling signs on the horizon that suggest the future US supply is not as robust as has been proposed. Chesapeake Energy, who have been a flagship for the development of natural gas, is in sufficient trouble that Aubrey McClendon, the CEO, will not get a bonus this year, amid a number of changes. Shares have dropped nearly 30% and as Art and others have noted, the economics are not as encouraging as the pundits would suggest.
The news from the Arctic is somewhat worse. Shell have been able to recover their drillship, which ran aground after losing its tow in a 70-knot storm with 40-ft waves, and it has now been moved to a safe harbor. The vessel must now be assessed and the program will be delayed. (This is particularly true as the investigations begin to line up, first was the Coast Guard, and now Interior.) The Alaskan Pipeline flows were averaging just under 583 kbd in November (December numbers are late), and that is up from the overall yearly average of 544 kbd, but is running at a 6% decline rate bringing problems in as little as 8-years. Although with monthly flow changing to improve conditions in the winter months, there may be more of a problem than is currently discernable, particularly if future supplies to keep the pipeline flowing are now threatened by the future losses of potential production from the Chukchi and Beaufort seas.
And speaking of pipelines the cancelling of plans for the Bakken Crude Express Pipeline for lack of customers tells more about the anticipated future demand than all the predictions from Dr. Yergin at Cambridge. Energy Research Associates. This also foretells that the Adelman prediction that technology will always return us to cheap oil, as touted by Phil Verleger is likely to continue to be proven false – not that these real events stop those who survive by predicting the future. Fortune tellers have been a facet of society throughout history, only the shape of their crystal balls has changed with time, and the size of their credulous audience.
Whether real or overly optimistic, the US potential increases in fossil fuel production is likely to impact to the potential for US renewable and bio-generated fuels, where the future production levels seem also to be losing their lustre. There is some talk of Dr. Chu leaving the Department of Energy in part perhaps because of this change in focus. However, among the names being floated are those of John Podesta, the founder of the Center for American Progress, who have just ranked their top ten Energy and Environmental Priorities for the first four years of President Obama’s time in office, as follows:
Figure 2. Priorities as quoted by the Center for American Progress.
And most recently the Secretary has been encouraging women and minorities to look at the wind energy industry as an opportunity for employment.
One other candidate is apparently Bill Ritter, the past Governor of Colorado, although the list, at this point, seems to be growing rather than shrinking.
Whether under either individual, or some alternate choice, the next four years of President Obama’s Administration will likely see many more changes than anticipated as occurred during the first term. It is, however, discouraging that there are so few possibilities for realistic optimism for that future.
Read more!
Labels:
Alaska pipeline,
Bakken,
Chesapeake,
Dr. Chu,
Kulluck,
Shell,
TWIP
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
OGPSS - Iran and the possibility of natural gas exports
There has been much talk in the current Presidential debates about possible changes in US Energy Policy, with Governor Romney suggesting that more Federal land be opened for prospecting for oil. Historically one of the regions included in such lists has been up in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. And, perhaps anticipating the debate, the current Administration has already and recently moved toward opening those territories up for development.** However those fields have now been determined to be more natural gas than oil, and so hopes for finding more oil reserves has shifted into moves offshore, where Shell continues to be optimistic as it begins to sink new wells in the Chukchi sea – although well completions have now moved into next year. However it should be noted that there have been suggestions in the past that more of the hydrocarbons under the Arctic are gas deposits than oil, and this argument has been strengthened by the recent discovery in the Barents Sea of more gas, when oil had been anticipated.
The current large volumes of natural gas that are being developed and marketed, whether in the United States or from Turkmenistan, are making considerable changes in the economies of many countries. Russia, who lost the sales battle to supply natural gas to China now can no longer justify the expense of opening the Shtockman field, as alternate supplies are coming to the market at lower costs, and this will, in turn, cascade on to prices in Europe, where the advent of more gas in the UK is making it more difficult to justify a switch into a greater reliance on renewable sources such as wind and solar.
This entire scenario means that it is not necessarily a good time to have a huge reserve of natural gas, and to go to the market with this as a resource to generate income. This is particularly true, if the country in question is Iran.
Figure 1, The South Pars field which lies between Qatar and Iran in the Persian Gulf (PetroPars Annual Report )
Qatar has been exporting Liquefied Natural Gas for a number of years, and has been well able to manage a steady growth in market penetration, as noted in a previous post, and this quote from two years ago:
But Iran has other problems. At present, as noted last time, natural gas supplies are barely keeping pace with an acceleration in the volumes required to meet internal demand. Any move to increase production will face competition not only from Russia (with available natural gas supplies once anticipated to be sold to the USA, and, when that fell through, then to China) and Qatar but also potentially from the United States itself, since as The OGJ recently noted
So can Iran also move its natural gas by pipeline, it is, after all connected by land to potential customers. Well, apart from the relatively obvious problems of trying to do this at a time when the nations concerned with Iranian nuclear policy are tightening their sanctions on Iran, as they are being seen to have more effect, the question comes back to who might be a potential customer. At present Turkey buys the bulk of Iranian natural gas exports but the European Union is expected to include natural gas in the list of banned exports at the meeting on October 15th. (Armenia and Azerbaijan buy the remainder of the current export volumes). There was a recent explosion in a gas pipeline carrying natural gas from Iran into Turkey, stopping the flow. But while that initially imposed a supply problem for Turkey, this has been met through increased purchases from Russia which currently has plenty. Thus it would appear that while Iran has more than sufficient supplies to move into an increased export position, the current political situation will likely preclude this happening in the short term, and the global over supply may well restrict Iranian penetration into that market in the longer term.
** September Alaskan pipeline flows were at 517 kbdm against the average for this year of 537 kbd, however as winter gets established the latest volume reported for 10/09/12 was 580 kbd, moving the pipeline away for the critical numbers.
The current large volumes of natural gas that are being developed and marketed, whether in the United States or from Turkmenistan, are making considerable changes in the economies of many countries. Russia, who lost the sales battle to supply natural gas to China now can no longer justify the expense of opening the Shtockman field, as alternate supplies are coming to the market at lower costs, and this will, in turn, cascade on to prices in Europe, where the advent of more gas in the UK is making it more difficult to justify a switch into a greater reliance on renewable sources such as wind and solar.
This entire scenario means that it is not necessarily a good time to have a huge reserve of natural gas, and to go to the market with this as a resource to generate income. This is particularly true, if the country in question is Iran.
Iranian Oil Minister Rostam Qasemi has announced that Iran’s exploitation of the South Pars gas field will equal Qatar’s exploitation of the gas field by the end of Iranian calendar year 1392 (ends March 20, 2014) if $54 billion is invested in gas projects.Iran and Qatar share the largest natural gas field in the world, a reserve that is known as the North Field in Qatar, and as South Pars in Iran.
Figure 1, The South Pars field which lies between Qatar and Iran in the Persian Gulf (PetroPars Annual Report )
Qatar has been exporting Liquefied Natural Gas for a number of years, and has been well able to manage a steady growth in market penetration, as noted in a previous post, and this quote from two years ago:
Ras Laffan 3 Train 7 is the fourth 7.8 million tons per year LNG plant brought online by Qatar Petroleum and ExxonMobil joint ventures within the past 12 months. It matches the capacity of Ras Laffan 3 Train 6, one of the largest operating LNG production facilities in the world, inaugurated in October 2009. These mega facilities have sufficient scale to competitively reach markets around the globe. Qatar's giant North Field, which is estimated to contain in excess of 900 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, will supply both trains.For Iran to anticipate that they can generate the infrastructure to compete with Qatar in the short term, given the time taken to invest, not only in the surface plant, but also in the tankers that become dedicated to the customers and the routes that must be followed, is more than naïve. That they can expect to do this at a time when, more than in any time in the recent past, there is an adequacy of supply unseen in a generation, suggests a message that can be meant for local consumption only.
But Iran has other problems. At present, as noted last time, natural gas supplies are barely keeping pace with an acceleration in the volumes required to meet internal demand. Any move to increase production will face competition not only from Russia (with available natural gas supplies once anticipated to be sold to the USA, and, when that fell through, then to China) and Qatar but also potentially from the United States itself, since as The OGJ recently noted
“U.S. LNG export potential is a major issue in Asia, particularly in Seoul and Tokyo,” said Mikkal E. Herberg, research director at the National Bureau of Asian Research (NBR)’s Energy Security Program and the report’s editor, “That’s especially true for the next 5 years until major Australian and other export projects come on line.”With China getting more of its supply through pipelines this may also weaken the LNG market, even as Iran moves to step into these waters.
So can Iran also move its natural gas by pipeline, it is, after all connected by land to potential customers. Well, apart from the relatively obvious problems of trying to do this at a time when the nations concerned with Iranian nuclear policy are tightening their sanctions on Iran, as they are being seen to have more effect, the question comes back to who might be a potential customer. At present Turkey buys the bulk of Iranian natural gas exports but the European Union is expected to include natural gas in the list of banned exports at the meeting on October 15th. (Armenia and Azerbaijan buy the remainder of the current export volumes). There was a recent explosion in a gas pipeline carrying natural gas from Iran into Turkey, stopping the flow. But while that initially imposed a supply problem for Turkey, this has been met through increased purchases from Russia which currently has plenty. Thus it would appear that while Iran has more than sufficient supplies to move into an increased export position, the current political situation will likely preclude this happening in the short term, and the global over supply may well restrict Iranian penetration into that market in the longer term.
** September Alaskan pipeline flows were at 517 kbdm against the average for this year of 537 kbd, however as winter gets established the latest volume reported for 10/09/12 was 580 kbd, moving the pipeline away for the critical numbers.
Read more!
Labels:
Alaska pipeline,
Armenia,
Azerbaijan,
China,
Iran,
LNG,
Natural gas,
NPRA,
Russia,
South Pars,
Turkey,
Turkmenistan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)