Kuwait's biggest field starts to run out of oil

[Christa]

By Peter J. Cooper
KUWAIT: It was an incredible revelation last week that the second largest oil field in the world is exhausted and past its peak output. Yet that is what the Kuwait Oil Company revealed about its Burgan field. The peak output of the Burgan oil field will now be around 1.7 million barrels per day, and not the two million barrels per day forecast for the rest of the field's 30 to 40 years of life, Chairman Farouk Al-Zanki told Bloomberg. He said that engineers had tried to maintain 1.9 million barrels per day but that 1.7 million is the optimum rate. Kuwait will now spend some $3 million a year for the next year to boost output and exports from other fields.

However, it is surely a landmark moment when the world's second largest oil field begins to run dry. For Burgan has been pumping oil for almost 60 years and accounts for more than half of Kuwait's proven oil reserves. This is also not what forecasters are currently assuming.
Last week the International Energy Agency's report said output from the Greater Burgan area will be 1.64 million barrels a day in 2020 and 1.53 million barrels per day in 2030. Is this now a realistic scenario?
The news about the Burgan oil field also lends credence to the controversial opinions of investment banker and geologist Matthew Simmons. His book 'Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy' claims that ageing Saudi oil fields also face serious production falls.
The implications for the global economy are indeed serious. If the world oil supply begins to run dry then the upward pressure on oil prices will be inexorable. For the oil producers this will come as a compensation for declining output, and cushion them against an economic collapse.
However, the oil consumers then face a major energy crisis. Industrialized economies are still far too dependent on oil. And the pricing mechanism of declining oil reserves will press them into further diversification of energy supplies, particularly nuclear, wind and solar power.

More: http://www.kuwaittimes.net/localnews.asp?dismode=article&artid=37595069

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. Well.... if they slant drill into Iraq now.... there really won't be

anybody to stop them, will there....

[ComerPerro]

2. I still know people who contend that oil is a renewable resource

What they forget to say is "over millions of years"

[Poppyseedman]

6. Actually, oil may be a renewable resource

google "oil + renewable resource" and you get some interesting links. Not nut wack sites either. MSM, WSJ, Wash Times

[Poppyseedman]

3. Who cares

in twenty years we won't need their oil for our cars. We will be driving Fuel Cell Vehicle (FCV)

http://www.h2cars.biz/artman/publish/article_779.shtml

The oil sheiks can go back to kissing their camels for entertainment instead of making the western world squirm under their thumbs

[apple_ridge]

7. Wrong!

It takes more energy to produce a unit of hydrogen than you get from it, so it's an energy loser. The hydrogen economy is just another fairy tale.

There is no replacement for oil.

[Poppyseedman]

8. Duh, that may be true for today.

But I did say in twenty years from now.

If "The hydrogen economy is just another fairy tale" why is Ford investing millions of dollars into it and just gave Florida five cars to test?

"Peak Oil" orthodoxy does makes it difficult to see outside the box, doesn't it?

[Strelnikov_]

9. Is That The Same 20 Years When We Will Have Fusion Power?

Because ever since I was in engineering school in the mid-70's, fusion power has been 20 years off. The perpetual energy source of the future, just like hydrogen is the perpetual energy carrier of the future.

And regarding fuel cells, I have seen nothing to indicate any breakthroughs are being made in their scalability/affordability.

Therefore, I will stick with the conclusions of the Hirsch Report, and my view of a future that uses a lot less energy, using lower tech, distributed, and sustainable energy sources such as biomass, wind, solar, etc.


Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management.
Hirsch, Bezdek, Wendling, February 2005

www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/The_Hirsch_Report_Proj_Cens.pdf

. . .

Because conventional oil production decline will start at the time of peaking, crash program mitigation inherently cannot avert massive shortages unless it is initiated well in advance of peaking.

Specifically,
* Waiting until world conventional oil production peaks before initiating crash program mitigation leaves the world with a significant liquid fuel deficit for two decades or longer.
* Initiating a crash program 10 years before world oil peaking would help considerably but would still result in a worldwide liquid fuels shortfall, starting roughly a decade after the time that oil would have otherwise peaked.
* Initiating crash program mitigation 20 years before peaking offers the possibility of avoiding a world liquid fuels shortfall for the forecast period.

Without timely mitigation, world supply/demand balance will be achieved through massive demand destruction (shortages), accompanied by huge oil price increases, both of which would create a long period of significant economic hardship worldwide.

. . .

A lynchpin of the current DOE hydrogen program is fuel cells. In order for fuel cells to compete with existing petroleum-based internal combustion engines, particularly for light duty vehicles, the NRC concluded that fuel cells must improve by 1) a factor of 10-20 in cost, 2) a factor of five in lifetime, and 3) roughly a factor of two in efficiency. The NRC did not believe that such improvements could be achieved by technology development alone; instead, new concepts (breakthroughs) will be required. In other words, today’s technologies do not appear practically viable. Because of the need for unpredictable inventions in fuel cells, as well as viable means for on-board hydrogen storage, the introduction of commercial hydrogen vehicles cannot be predicted.

[Poppyseedman]

13. factitious argument

The hydrogen car is already in production, Fusion power is at least half a century off, if not several centuries.

"I have seen nothing to indicate any breakthroughs are being made in their scalability/affordability."

I see your crystal ball is powered up and in full focus for the next twenty years.

How can you possibility not think fuel cell technology not be moved froward in twenty years. Even if it is only small advances, the cost of petroleum at some point will make FCV cost efficient to mass produce and use.

[Strelnikov_]

15. As The Cited Report States, NEW BREAKTHROUGHS Are Required

We have also been waiting for 'new breakthroughs' in fusion power for decades.

This indicates to me that neither may happen.

Sorry, but I do not intend to jump on the technofix cargo cult. I think we should place our efforts, immediately, into proven and scalable alternate energy sources, and into massive conservation efforts.

[MadHound]

14. Ford is investing those millions of dollars

Because the Bush administration is giving it to them for this purpose. Don't get me wrong, I'm actually in favor of R&D grants like this, gotta prime the pump somehow. But I find it rather odd, and a bit disingenous that the administration is going towards a hydrogen solution, twenty years down the road, when we already have a hybrid/biodiesel solution ready to go off the shelf right now.

Where our priorities need to be placed is with cracking the battery nut. We've been essentially using the same sort of large, deep cycle, lead acid batteries for a hundred years now. You know that we could do better than this if we put our mind to it. And when we make this breakthrough, complete electric cars are quite viable, charged by either solar or wind energy.

Hydrogen though is a pipe dream. While we should explore it, I think it is a mistake to put such emphasis on it as the Bush people are. We would have to completely remake our fueling infrastructure to accomodate it. Not real bright, especially since we have better solutions now that we can implement within five years, and wouldn't require a complete reworking of the infrastructure.

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. Well if the energy to convert it comes from a clean source like the sun

it might still be worth pursuing to some degree.

[Strelnikov_]

16. Use The Electrical Energy Derived From Renewables Directly

The following two articles/reports conclude that, barring a major new breakthrough in the way hydrogen can be produced on the massive scale required, we are better off just using the electrical energy generated, either in it's ‘native’ form, or for the processing of biomass based fuels.

(.pdf warnings)

http://www.ilea.org/downloads/MazzaHammerschlag.pdf

http://www.efcf.com/reports/E11.pdf

The rush into a hydrogen economy is neither supported by energy efficiency arguments nor justified with respect to economy or ecology. In fact, it appears that hydrogen will not play an important role in a sustainable energy economy because the synthetic energy carrier cannot be more efficient than the energy from which it is made. Renewable electricity is better distributed by electrons than by hydrogen.

Consequently, the hasty introduction of hydrogen as an energy carrier cannot be a stepping stone into a sustainable energy future. The opposite may be true. Because of the wastefulness of a hydrogen economy, the promotion of hydrogen may counteract all reasonable measures of energy conservation. Even worse, the forced transition to a hydrogen economy may prevent the establishment of a sustainable energy economy based on an intelligent use of precious renewable resources.

[PlasticinePorter]

4. RE

Wow, great read! Thanx.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

5. Welcome to DU!

[BushOut06]

10. Hmmm - if only this had happened say 20 years ago

Then would we have made such a big stink over Iraq's annexation of them?

[Strelnikov_]

11. Political Reserves

Non-existent oil that is reported by government agencies for political purposes. OPEC oil production quotas are based upon the oil reserve figures provided by each member country. After this quota system was implemented in 1985, a sudden leap in world oil reserves occurred - Kuwait's reserves jumped 41%, Saudi Arabia's shot up 50%, a 100% jump in Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela, and a 200% jump in Abu Dhabi and Dubai . . .

In Bar Graph form . .




And in the ever popular Line Graph form . . .




Additional background . .

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/debate/polrsrvs.htm

As the above source notes, declared reserves for the majors in OPEC are 701 Gb (1990) of which 318 Gb is spurious. In other words, 45% of the oil we are trying to control is not even there.

[Strelnikov_]

17. OPEC Has Consensus To Cut Output In March

On a closing note.

As someone noted on another board, is Opec cutting production, or is production cutting Opec?

This action is completely contrary to Opec’s stated polices, and actions, over the last decade. Their goal is to restrict supply just enough to keep the price high, yet not so high as to spawn development of alternatives (including conservation). In other words, as high a price as possible without forcing the addict to the methadone clinic of conservation and alternatives.

Just recently, the Saudi’s were indicating a target price of $40/bbl, if memory serves me correctly. NYMEX currently has the reference crude at $65/bbl. And all this in the face of record demand (desire) from China, India, and just as we are entering the ‘driving season’.

So, are they simply profiteering? Possible. Or are they masking the fact that they not only cannot produce more, but that they cannot even maintain the current rate of production.

Consider the OP’s article in the context of this pending action by Opec.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8FF5P00D.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down&chan=db

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries has ruled out any change in production at its meeting this week but has a consensus to cut output in March, oil ministers from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia said Monday.