Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
i don't see long-haul trucks moving to NG anytime soon, c.f.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704740604576301550341227910.html
in inflation/devalued dollar terms, the price of oil now is close to what it was in 1980 (which is another reason why obama is compared to carter)
http://www.eia.gov/steo/fsheets/index.cfm
oil prices declined after 1981 and prices might decline again, although i would be very surprised if the same magnitude was achieved (i'd also be part of the U3 index)
As long as the US produces ~30% of the oil we consume, then we will be dependent on other countries. NG can not replace ~70% of our oil consumption. However, i suspect NG will eventually move up in price rather than oil moving down and part of the reason will be more utilization in vehicles.
as for the 'discovery after discovery'. The oil discoveries in the gulf have a bit of a problem at the moment (see above). As for NG: yeah, we have lots at the moment which is why the price is so low.
As for 'green energy'. Most 'green' concerns are well-intentioned but self-defeating. Case in point being the nice new natural gas fueled taxis scooting about Cambridge & Boston (supplemented to the tune of $8k/car thanks to the marvelous Recovery & Reinvestment Act). These cars and their non-subsidized gasoline brethren can only transport passengers 1-way if they travel outside of their respective cities. If a cab takes a passenger from a cambridge hotel to Logan airport it must return empty. Cab takes passenger from airport to city outside Boston, it must return to Boston empty. Van services like the "Super Shuttle" are not allowed to operate here. Unions and sanctioned monopolies continue to trump 'green' (but hey, it's not all bad. i just received a nice notice from the city informing me of the availability of my 'free' "CitySmart" package which will be delivered by "Metro Pedal Power". Hey, the package will "save money" and "reduce [my] carbon foot-print". And some folks don't think there are things that can be cut from govmint spending.)
North,
i know next to nothing about the Utica shale other than it's under the Marcellus. Following from the CHK website:
http://www.chk.com/News/Articles/Pages/1590490.aspx
Chesapeake Announces a Major New Liquids-Rich Discovery
in the Utica Shale in Eastern Ohio
Having achieved successful results from recent drilling activities in eastern Ohio, Chesapeake is announcing the discovery of a major new liquids-rich play in the Utica Shale. Based on its proprietary geoscientific, petrophysical and engineering research during the past two years and the results of six horizontal and nine vertical wells it has drilled, Chesapeake believes that its industry-leading 1.25 million net leasehold acres in the Utica Shale play could be worth $15 - $20 billion in increased value to the company. Chesapeake’s dataset on the Utica Shale includes approximately 2,000 well logs, full-suite petrophysical data on approximately 200 wells, 3,200 feet of proprietary core samples from nine wells and production results from three wells. As a result of its analysis, the company believes the Utica Shale will be characterized by a western oil phase, a central wet gas phase and an eastern dry gas phase and is likely most analogous, but economically superior to, the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas.
Chesapeake is currently drilling in the Utica Shale with five operated rigs to further evaluate and develop its leasehold and anticipates increasing its rig count to eight by the end of 2011 and reaching at least a range of 16-20 rigs by year-end 2012. Also, the company believes that its leasehold position in the Utica Shale will support a drilling effort of at least 40 rigs by year-end 2014. Chesapeake is currently conducting a competitive process to monetize a portion of its Utica Shale leasehold position, which will be through an industry joint venture process or through a number of other monetization alternatives. The company anticipates completing a Utica Shale transaction in the 2011 fourth quarter.
Because of persistent and significant oilfield service inflation and a more accelerated drilling program in the Utica Shale play, Chesapeake has increased its planned drilling and completion capital expenditure budget for each of full-year 2011 and 2012 by $500 million to a range of $6.0-$6.5 billion in each year.
companion article to previous post makes some of the leftist arguments in that article even more pathetic
Left for Extinct, a Steel Plant Rises in Ohio
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904233404576462562705511704.html?mod=ITP_marketplace_0
....France's Vallourec & Mannesmann Holdings Inc., one of the world's largest makers of steel tubes for the energy market, has decided to build the plant here next to an existing facility for two main reasons. Youngstown has an experienced steelmaking work force and the city is at the door of the Marcellus Shale, a natural-gas basin beneath New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio....
somewhat humorous WSJ article on shale gas jobs
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904233404576462543376226516.html?mod=ITP_marketplace_0
Gas Drilling Bringing Jobs to Pennsylvania, but How Many?
By KRIS MAHER
At a time when creating jobs is one of the nation's top priorities, most tallies agree that the recent boom in gas drilling has put more people to work in Pennsylvania. But just how many new jobs the surge has generated in the state is open to debate......
David Passmore, a professor of education at Penn State University who has studied labor-market trends in the state, but wasn't involved in the report, said there are potential problems with linking industry expenditures to job creation. One is that it isn't clear if Marcellus-related companies are buying all their supplies in Pennsylvania. Another is that it isn't possible to determine the economic impact of royalty payments because people will put varying amounts into the bank where the money won't stimulate economic activity.
i think this may be a case of the NYTimes spinning its own stories; they are trying to give the impression that they prompted the SEC to investigate some O&G producers. There's no reason to believe that some O&G producers put forth questionable numbers (e.g. look at the companies DFRAI likes to pump) - just like any other industry and the SEC is investigating. Self-aggrandizement is a marvelous thing. Eventually a sufficient number of people will recognize the NYT for the propagandist rag that it is and it will wither away.
I can’t tell whether the Bloomberg writer who used the phrase, “water and chemicals” is simply dumb… or whether this is a deliberate attempt to discredit fracking
how wonderfully ludicrous
The proposal, incorporating four air regulations, would cut emissions of smog-forming volatile organic compounds by about one-fourth, with an almost 95 percent reduction in such discharges from new and updated gas wells using fracturing, or fracking,
Fracking, a technique that injects chemicals and water into rock formations
...has been tied to a rise in smog pollution in rural areas such as western Wyoming
The proposed EPA rules will cut emissions linked to increased cancer risks, asthma attacks and premature death
Pollution would by reduced by capturing gas that escapes during extraction, and making that gas available for sale, the agency said. The technology for the process is used by some companies and required in some states, according to the EPA.
The proposed rules would be “extremely cost-effective,” according to the EPA. The combined annual costs to comply would be $754 million in 2015, and the estimated value of the gas made available for sale is $783 million, the agency said.
Oil and gas production and processing account for almost 40 percent of all U.S. methane emissions, according to the agency
sued the EPA in a bid to force an update of standards that haven’t been revised since 1985.
“Drilling for oil and gas shouldn’t come at the expense of clean air.”
GE
i wouldn't under-estimate their abilities and dedication to growth in the energy services business. Much to the chagrin of some folks in at least SLB and probably HAL, i think GE will continue to grow their business in the oil-field services business as well as other parts of the energy sector. They are now producing downhole tools and surface services that are in direct competition with SLB and HAL. I think the consensus at the moment is that those services are not superior but i wouldn't bet on that situation persisting. Given the relative valuations, i like GE.
cheers,
Charlie
laughable. if corrosion is the objection, then it should take about an afternoon to come up with the pertinent data (this was undoubtedly done already). If the Ogailala aquifer is the problem, then unless the senators have an overly broad definition of the geographic extent of the aquifer, then the pipeline already bypasses all but a tiny bit in eastern Nebraska. They might also want to address their concerns to the existing oil pipelines that traverse the Ogailala. i'd venture that pesticide contamination is a greater threat than oil.
There have been oil spills from sections of the existing Keystone pipeline; however, i have seen no evidence that those leaks are due to corrosion. The documented cases i've seen have been due to things like over-torqueing fittings and other yuckhead human errors.
this contains maps showing existing oil and refined product pipeline maps
http://www.pipeline101.com/reports/Notes.pdf
well ok, but i hope they're also the leading 'producer' of O2 as well 'cause the H2S formed by the hydrosulfurization reaction subsequently gets reacted with O2 to form elemental sulfur (which is why the sulfur market is glutted)
typically shallow NYT piece. take a look at this more concise but informative article:
http://www.epmag.com/2011/June/item83723.php
the last paragraph is particularly enlightening as to why exploration in Argentina is likely to be muted.
nah. the world is glutted in sulfur. i suspect that Dew is getting at a service company that does more business in countries with high sulfur crudes than other service companies. I think all of the major service companies will see revenues increase as the world's crude oil reserves become progressively more sour. However, one will see a greater revenue increase (in absolute dollar terms) than others.
i haven't looked at the Nature article but somebody looks to be greatly over-stating the significance of this 'discovery'. Firstly, i have doubts of the grade of the supposed ore based on geologic environment. Secondly, the story is written in a way that appears to be deceptive. There is no mention of the geologic context. It is stated that an area of 1 km^2 could provide 20% of current world consumption of REEs without any description of sampling and extrapolations/modeling. Then the authors estimate the size of the discovery at 80 to 100 billion metric tonnes without giving any indication of deposit geometry. That stretches credibility. Even if the WSJ writer doesn't have any technical education, you'd think a claimed 1000x increase over existing reserves would prompt some doubt.
FL,
i am a geologist/geochemist & work for a large O&G service company. my previous comment was somewhat facetious. I'm well aware of why a production company should characterize shale gas reservoirs. The fact is that in the shale gas business, many production companies minimize their expenditures on such things.
also, induced fractures in shale gas do tend to be vertical - not horizontal as you indicated to moneyman. Not sure whether you misspoke but the least principle stress direction in these reservoirs is generally in the horizontal plane so fractures form most easily in the vertical. That is convenient because the rocks and wells tend to be mostly horizontal. It's also why folks worry about injected chemicals having opportunity to migrate upwared and out of the shales. Nobody really knows what happens to most of the injected water and that is something that i'm peripherally involved in.
http://www.3legsresources.com/media/A%20guide%20to%20shale%20gas.pdf
charlie
FL,
while your 1st sentence might be true, the reason for dicy-ness in estimates is because of the lack of logging and characterization. Many gas producers are happy just drilling holes and producing gas. Why detract from profits by spending money on logging, coring, and core analysis?
Charlie
yeah, the initial comment about companies relying on 'independent' reviewers or peers for reserve estimates is wrong. Shell would've loved to be able to blame their large reserve revision a few yrs ago on somebody else.
the point about using less water also refers to the fact that in some shale gas development areas water isn't an easy thing to come by, e.g.
http://theseventhfold.com/2010/09/13/add-saudi-arabia-to-the-growing-list-of-shale-gas-players/
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f62babbc-bf5c-11df-965a-00144feab49a.html#axzz1QWJyZCew
there are some interesting politics behind the above
ny times shale gas article
yep, pretty much just enough truth to sound credible but obviously written to buttress the NY & PA anti-shale gas crowd. Regarding the economic angle in the story: everyone in the business knows that many shale gas wells are uneconomic. At this time it is cheaper to drill and complete a large number of wells over a wide area with a high failure ratio than to use other exploration techniques to identify higher probability subsets of economically viable production targets. I suspect that companies like XOM and the larger service companies do not expect this to always be the case and thus their reasons for buying up smaller companies and continuing to build capability in the shale gas business in spite of low NG prices.
just for grins i've compared historical retail gasoline prices (left axis), WTI crude, and the S&P 500 (divided by 100)
unsurprisingly gas prices are correlative with crude prices with occasional deviations due to things like Katrina and Rita. Conversely, the S&P and the other major indices are poorly correlated with the price of crude although major changes in crude prices seem to lag changes in the index. Also note that oil and gas prices have been declining since the end of April. The Chinese economy seems to be slowing, not heating up. Releasing US strategic reserves does nothing for European refineries (where Libyan oil goes). So Obama and friends' reasons for releasing oil into an already over-supplied market seem spurious.
On the sort of positive side, the US gov't might actually makes some money out of this deal (wondering whether this was really done to weasel around the debt ceiling problem).
even if razed, most of those places are not conducive to growing crops without irrigation (i.e. they are borderline desert).
i thought the premise of the article was ludicrous as evident by the stock market's response the DOE announcement and a $5/bbl drop in oil prices.
Hugh Grant (MON) and corn stalks
i can only offer anecdotal commentary since my family owns a farm: prior to about 5 yrs ago i never saw stalks harvested; they were always plowed into the soil. Now stalks are routinely bailed and shipped off for processing into ethanol (and by-products?). The processing plants are hours away. I have no hard facts but i would be amazed if the process of bailing, trucking, and processing into alcohol produces a positive net energy equivalence over simply using the diesel fuel and natural gas for other purposes. In addition, i think the soil is being robbed of replenishment. I suspect that the only reason this part of the ethanol 'market' exists is because of federal subsidies.
However, there was a reason for ethanol subsidies to come into existence and that is because MTBE was out-lawed by congress and ethanol is the next best and cheapest thing to use to boost octane ratings although it is much more expensive than MTBE. People were either going to pay higher prices for gasoline or pay higher taxes to 'encourage' and enable ethanol production to use as a gasoline additive. This is similar to the approach that T-Bone is arguing for with regard to using natural gas for automobile and trucking fuel.
So I think Grant's comment about using something that would otherwise be waste is myopic. Of course, as stated above my conclusion is based on own unsubstantiated conjecture.
regards,
Charlie
rig. i haven't looked at the report yet. just the video which seemed entirely objective and presented photographic evidence to support their interpretation of events. The videos only address events in the BOP and make no mention of events below the BOP (other than saying that pipe was being extruded).
as for Hugh Grant: did he get caught with another ugly hooker and he's using booze as an excuse?
Transocean Deepwater Horizon report
http://deepwater.com/fw/main/Public-Report-1076.html
couple of very interesting videos and pictures
i thought the shork video was mostly sensible and there is no conspiracy or fear involved. it's a supply and demand market and the supply is outstripping demand. building pipeline infrastructure is expensive and the tax-payers are not going to pay to make pickens wealthier.
your comment about CNG having 30% less CO2 and 97% less CO ... than gasoline is meaningless nonsense.
from what i've seen lately, there are several posters on this board who really shouldn't be investing in oil and gas companies whether those companies are legitimate or not. What you, DFRAI and others seem to be interested in is speculation and quasi-social banter which is better suited for a Yahoo board.
...the belief that natural gas prices will not stay at this level for very long..
the documents are all public but they've set up their websites so you can't back up thru the urls which might eventually get you to places where they don't want you. i suspect it's just a simple security protocol.
after i submitted the first post it occurred to me that HAL might have some other interesting things under the "...contents/Shale/..."
path so i googled the truncated path for all pdf documents and there ya go. Of course, you might find other wonderful things if you truncate before the 'Shale'. I frequently take this approach when i know there's likely to be something useful in a place but i don't know specific words or titles that may exist in a location.
sorry for spamming on this but this is a nice trick. google entire line below as is (don't click on the link, it won't do anything for you)
filetype:pdf site:http://www.halliburton.com/public/solutions/contents/Shale/
just some interesting and potentially useful stuff regarding shale gas and the NG business in general
http://www.imemo.ru/ru/conf/2010/021210/Shale_IMEMO_Dec_2_2010.pdf
a BP presentation: "Shale Gas Global Challenge" ~6 months old
http://www.halliburton.com/public/solutions/contents/Shale/related_docs/Canadian_Montney.pdf
http://www.all-llc.com/publicdownloads/ALL-CURIPC_10202010.pdf
won't comment on your questions but this presentation carries information which may explain, at least in part, why petrochina backed out. (Montney shale is one of the relevant plays).
http://www.encana.com/investors/presentations/investorday/pdfs/canadian-division-overview.pdf
the good news is that it's only 10%. the other good news is that it will almost certainly never be 100% unless the quality of education and living standard in Kazakhstan increases dramatically. while there is a lot of valuable stuff there, it is a complex reservoir that requires some technology and infrastructure to monetize.
snippets from 2003 AAPG Memoir 78, p. 237– 250
"Karachaganak was discovered in 1979, with the drilling of stratigraphic well P-10, and was placed on pilot production in October 1984. The hydrocarbons initially in place, consisting of 1.236 billion tons (9.7 billion bbl) of liquids and 1.371 trillion m3 (48.4 tcf) of gas, were formally reviewed and approved by the Republic of Kazakhstan in May 1999. Together, these give total in-place hydrocarbons of 17.78 billion BOE for Karachaganak."
"Fluid Composition and Model
The complex fluid system at Karachaganak field consists of a rich gas-condensate lying above volatile oil and is categorized as a retrograde gas-condensate. For the given depth interval of 3500–5150 m subsea (mss), reservoir temperatures are relatively cool, ranging from 70 to 90 C (158–194 F), and initial reservoir pressures range from 51.5 to 59.5 MPa (7469–8630 psi).
Karachaganak liquids belong to the methane-naphthene hydrocarbon group. The condensates contain high paraffin (1–5%), asphaltene (0.1–0.3%), resins (1.0–1.7%), and sulfur (0.6–2.2%), including mercaptans (0.1–0.25%). On average, the oils also contain high paraffin (3.6–5.1%), asphaltene-resins (2.0–4.4%), and sulfur (0.5–2.0%), including mercaptans (0.2%). The gas is sour, with H2S content averaging 3.5%, mercaptan content averaging 0.07%, and CO2 content averaging 5.5%."
"Karachaganak has a large number of development options and challenges because of remoteness of the location, size of the reservoir, and fluid composition (Hsu et al., 2000). The location of the field far from Western markets presents perhaps the largest challenge."
"Karachaganak is a giant retrograde gas-condensateoil reservoir with a 1650-m hydrocarbon column and in-place hydrocarbons of 17.78 billion BOE (9.7 billion bbl of liquids and 48.4 tcf gas)....
An ongoing workover program has restored previously declining production to historic maximum levels. Recent daily production averaged 230,571 BOE. The sanctioned optimization plan calls for a partial depletion and enhanced gravity-drainage strategy that involves partial pressure maintenance through gas recycling and development of the oil rim using horizontal wells. The current full-expansion development plan includes the workover of 81 wells and the drilling of 161 new wells from surface. These wells could allow maximum daily production to exceed 735,000 BOE."
i don't think there would be many complaints about the sulfur although i wouldn't be terribly surprised if the temperature in Qatar didn't cause some problems for an Alberta like pile.
My comment was an oblique reference to the mention of exports of H2SO4, gypsum or alkali sulfate. If sulfur starts accumulating in Qatar like it is in Alberta, then it will be an indication that their export expectations were a little optimistic. I'm guessing that the economics of the gas production and processing in Qatar are a bit dicey because of the high H2S content. If gas prices stay low, then any offset from sulfate/sulfur exports could be important. There is also a cost for processing and storing elemental sulfur (beyond oxidation of H2S to S). The cost for storage in Alberta is about $3/ton so it can become a significant sink.
I've seen some very stupid accounting in companies supposedly staffed by 'grown-ups' and some of that stupid accounting has involved ridiculous estimates for things like sulfur/sulfates and other 'by-products' of gas contaminants. Letting that kind of stupidity get as far as a full blown plant like Pearl would set a new standard so i doubt if the 'by-products' are critical to Pearl's viability.
note that sulfur was glossed over in those articles. It'll be interesting to see if huge yellow mountains start accumulating in Qatar and how critical sulfate exports are to the profitability of the operation. I think the latter question will only be answered by whether or not the plants are still operating in 10 yrs or so if gas prices stay roughly the same.
Briefing on the Final Report of the MIT Study on the Future of Natural Gas
On Thursday, June 9, the MIT Energy Initiative will present a briefing on the final report of the MIT study on the Future of Natural Gas. The briefing will be led by the study co-chairs – Professor Henry Jacoby (Sloan Management School), Mr. Tony Meggs (MIT Visiting Engineer), and Professor Ernest J. Moniz (Director of the MIT Energy Initiative) – as well as other members of the study group. The report will be released on June 9 and participants will be able to request hard copies at the briefing and at the following website: http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/index.shtml . The audience for the report is principally US government, industry, and academic leaders, although the study is carried out in an international context.
Please join the MIT gas study group principals for the briefing on this important and timely topic. A luncheon will be held at the Cambridge Marriott from 12:00 noon – 1:00 pm with the presentations and discussion following from 1:00 – 3:00 pm. Space is limited at this event, so please click the link here and follow the instructions to register: http://www.regonline.com/future_of_natural_gas
For those unable to join us in Cambridge, the presentation will be webcast from 1:00 – 3:00 p.m. If you are interested in viewing the webcast, please select the "Viewing Webcast Only" option when registering. We will send you a link before the day of the event.
nah, the drilling isn't a problem. Firstly, the concerns of folks overlying the Marcellus are that additives in the frack fluids are entering their drinking water aquifers. Methane is just for sensationalist demonstrations (as in Gasland). There are many additives and they vary in identity and usage; however, they may include biocides, surfactants, pH buffers, viscosity modifiers, etc.
http://geology.com/energy/hydraulic-fracturing-fluids/
I suspect the biggest concern involves biocides. You could drink a lot of water saturated with methane and you'd probably die of water intoxication before suffering any ill effects from the methane.
There are 2 scenarios where human activities could conceivably cause or allow methane or fracturing fluids to enter an aquifer above a gas reservoir: 1. a bad or compromised cement job which allows stimulation fluids or produced fluids to migrate up the well between the outside of the cement and the wellbore; and 2. the fracking operation penetrates a cap rock or opens pre-existing fractures through a cap rock and thus provides a conduit for stimulation or produced fluids (natural gas, oil, or brine) from the reservoir to migrate upward to an aquifer.
The 1st scenario is acknowledged by the PNAS paper's authors as being a possible culprit for the methane in their samples. Of course, that methane might also be from other reservoirs above the Marcellus and might have nothing to with drilling. In any case, bad cement jobs do happen so it should not be automatically discounted as a possible contributor to groundwater contamination.
The 2nd scenario is also possible - nobody has definitively shown that it is not be possible. However, The fracturing fluids do not flow upward unless they are either more buoyant (less dense) than the overlying fluids or there is a pressure gradient which forces the fluids upwards even if they are more dense. Even if either of those occurred, there is usually flow in the overlying aquifers and several thousand feet of rock over the reservoirs. That means any leakage will be diluted and swept 'downstream'. So anybody who claims that their well water is contaminated by a nearby gas well is probably almost certainly wrong unless the gas well has a bad cement job or there are some really long and open fractures that will almost certainly be very obvious. Since the latter are not observed, then the choices are either folks should look 'upstream', or look at the cement jobs, or look for a different source for the methane.
I believe that Halliburton and Schlumberger have both released the identities of the chemicals used in their fracturing fluids. If you google: fracturing fluid chemicals site:halliburton.com or slb.com you'll come up with much more specific information.
some companies are starting to take preemptive actions, presumably to protect themselves, against claims of groundwater contamination in reservoirs being hydro-fracked. For example, these companies are doing baseline groundwater measurements prior to doing stimulations. I know of one case where the company didn't log the well or take core or fluid samples in the reservoir rock, however, they took water samples from an aquifer several thousand feet above the reservoir and several thousand feet below the surface (that doesn't mean they won't do logs or reservoir sampling later). Of course, these measurements are only really meaningful in relatively virgin areas of a reservoir (e.g. a couple of miles away from existing wells; however, that distance will depend on things like when neighboring wells were drilled and flow rates).
One of the most severe criticisms of the PNAS paper that insinuated fracking operations had contaminated groundwater in PA was that it had not used or carried out any baseline groundwater measurements.
nor to impress you with my oil knowledge
DFRAI,
perhaps you can show where i said any of the things you claim.
2 of the 3 links you posted contain 3rd party 'interpretations' of other people's comments. Some of those interpretations are actually misrepresentations - a tactic of which you are quite familiar and fond.
you would do yourself a favor by posting less and reading more without trying to 'read in' your ill-informed biases.
cso
Dew,
because i'm prohibited from investing in any oil/gas company securities i haven't looked at SEC filings for any O&G companies for quite a while. I only looked at the Petrobras 20F to see where the hell westeffer might be getting his numbers.
Since the document is 368 pgs long i obviously didn't read the entire thing. I scanned for "reserves", "field", and "salt" - partially to confirm to myself that they didn't report field reserves that way westeffer implied.
the bit about the "assignment agreement" was interesting. i'd just search that term and read the sections fore and aft where it crops up. Seems a bit dicey, i.e. an agreement with very few fixed parts (e.g. the word 'revision' occurs in abundance) and i'm not clear what happens in 2050 or when PBR produces 5 billion barrels from the pre-salt reservoirss (whichever comes first).
The bit about the "new state run non-operating company" that "will participate in operational committees... and will manage and control costs..." was good for humor value.
regards,
Charlie
my comments as they were before. you are clueless. if your reservoir friends are not fictional characters and your representations of their comments are even remotely accurate and in context, then they are clueless.
you apparently missed the part where i pointed out that i work in this business.
And Ghawar...it still pumps 5 million per day...forget about the 25-50% water cutout.