« Rentech’s Integrated Biomass-Coal-to-Liquids Demonstration Unit Tracking to Start Fuels Production in Spring 2008 | Main | Whale-Watching Ship with Hydrogen Fuel Cell APU to Launch in April »
Mexico’s Cantarell Continues Steep Decline in Oil Production in 2007
27 January 2008
 |
| Average daily production by year from the combined fields of the Cantarell complex. Click to enlarge. |
Oil production from Mexico’s giant Cantarell offshore complex continued its steep decline in 2007, dropping to a combined average 1.458 million barrels per day (mbpd) of production from all the fields, down 18% from an average 1,776.2 mbpd in 2006, according to statistics from the Energy Ministry available on the Sistema de Información Energética (SIE).
Cantarell accounted for 47.3% of all of PEMEX’s crude oil output in 2007, down from 54.6% in 2006. Mexico’s total crude output dropped 5.3% in 2007 compared to the year before, down to 3.082 million barrels per day from 3.256 mpbd in 2006 according to the SIE statistics.
 |
| Average daily production by month from Akal-Nohoch, 2002-2007. Click to enlarge. |
Production from the Akal-Nohoch field in Cantarell, which accounted for 98% of the output from Cantarell in 2007 and for 46% of Mexico’s total crude oil output in the year, dropped to an average 1.261 mbpd in December 2007, down 16% from December 2006.
The rate of decline remans more rapid than PEMEX had anticipated. In testimony before the Energy Committee of the Mexican Senate in November 2006, PEMEX CEO Luis Ramirez Corzo said that production at Cantarell would decline by an average of 14% per year between 2007 and 2015. (Earlier post.)
Cantarell’s production peaked in 2004 at 2.113 million barrels per day, according to SEI data. In 1997, PEMEX began nitrogen injection to maintain reservoir pressure. The injection regimen supported increasing crude oil production from 1.083 million barrels per day in 1996 to the peak in 2004.
 |
| Total Mexico average daily crude oil production by year, with contribution from Cantarell complex shown by red line. Click to enlarge. |
The US imported an average of 1.705 million barrels per day of crude from Mexico in 2006—12.4% of the total imported—making Mexico the number two source of imported crude behind Canada, with 2.353 mpbd in 2006 (17.7%), according to data from the Energy Information Administration.
Daily US imports from Mexico for the first 10 months of 2007 averaged 1,550 mbpd (11.5% of the total, according to the EIA), while imports from Canada for the same period averaged 2.432 mbpd (18% of the total).
According to the SIE, Mexico’s total crude oil exports dropped 6% from an average 1,793 mbpd in 2006 to 1,686 mbpd in 2007.
January 27, 2008 in Oil | Permalink | Comments (38) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/25517716
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Mexico’s Cantarell Continues Steep Decline in Oil Production in 2007:
Comments
It's nice to see honest disclosure...
"In testimony before the Energy Committee of the Mexican Senate in November 2006, PEMEX CEO Luis Ramirez Corzo said that production at Cantarell would decline by an average of 14% per year between 2007 and 2015."
As opposed to what Saudi Arabia says about its Ghawar complex (no problems here >_< )
The fact that the nitrogen injection program has led to a steeper decline rate is very disconcerting. Anyone care to chime in about the differences between N injection, CO2 injection, and H20 injection?
I've read that water injection helps to "sweep" perimeter oil toward the center and that CO2 injection helps overcome porosity problems (it acts as a solvent). I have not seen any benefits associated with nitrogen injection other than reservoir pressure maintenance.
Posted by: GreenPlease | Jan 27, 2008 7:16:59 AM
No surprise here, all this was well documented in "The oil drum" ans "Aspo" websites. The story is always the same, in 1974 US realized that its oil production had passed the peak of production 3 years ago, and everybody was shoked, but it has been clearly prediced 15 years before, and nobody beleived it ...
I am still firmly convinced that Mathew Simmons is right and that Saoudia will report the same problem on their big Ghawar fields within 5 years from now, Ghawar field account for 6% of the world production.
Welcome america and its SUVs lifestyle...
Posted by: Treehugger | Jan 27, 2008 9:54:53 AM
CO2 is best by far because its a strong solvent and disolves oil... its also liquid at fairly low pressure and as long as you have an easy source of it its cheap.
Posted by: wintermane | Jan 27, 2008 9:55:25 AM
Mexico declining, Venezuela selling to others and no requirement for Alaskan oil to come to the U.S. since the 1995 Gingrich Congress does not bode well for California.
More than 1 in 10 cars in the U.S. is registered in California and Californians tend to drive more than the average miles per year compared with others in the U.S.
California produces 40% of the oil consumed here, but that leaves a lot to be imported. It seems like the time for PHEV, HEV, EV, ANG, SNG and any other alternatives to come on line soon to keep any shortages of gasoline from disrupting one of the top 10 economies in the world.
Posted by: sjc | Jan 27, 2008 10:00:06 AM
If they invest money in upgrading their extraction tool, you should probably see a secondary peak (lower than the main peak) and then a sharp decline.
Mexico will be back to great poverty very soon...
Posted by: Treehugger | Jan 27, 2008 10:01:14 AM
They discovered another massive field in late 2005. 10 billion barrels, supposedly. But the way PEMEX operates it'll be years before they can bring any production online. It's also in deeper water, and more expensive.
The Mexican federal government depends on oil revenues for about 40% of their budget, last I read. If they can't do what needs to be done and increase capital investment in new fields and new production tech, they're in for some catastrophic budget problems. And only then it delays the inevitable. The oil won't last forever.
The easy oil is gone.
Posted by: Cervus | Jan 27, 2008 11:16:01 AM
Somebody please refresh my memory. Why is Mexico even being considered for membership in the North American Union? Their oil production is dropping like a rock, the subprime meltdown has cooled off the construction industry in the U.S., and outsourcing is siphoning off jobs from legal Americans.... Why would we want to assume the burden for supporting ALL of Mexico's poor (compared to the 15 million illegals we support now) ?
Canada is a different story. It has a relatively small population and plenty of valuable resources: oil, water, timber, Uranium, grain, etc. The Canadians might not be thrilled about the idea, but complaining is a national hobby for Canadians anyway. A merger of the U.S. and Canada would give them a great topic to gripe about for decades to come. Sounds like a win-win situation. We wouldn't even have to change the name of our currency: the Ameri-Can dollar.
Posted by: Briney | Jan 27, 2008 12:29:11 PM
Just what are the environmental implications with C0 or N extraction for that matter.
My simple mind is horrified at the thought of sequestered GHG releasing to the atmosphere.
As with nuclear wastes that are "safely dumped at sea or stored in leaky 44gallon drums. Oh well it works well enough for all the other toxic chemicals.
No need in worrying unnecessarily
Briney how big was that wall that needs to be built again? fair weather friend.
Posted by: arnold | Jan 27, 2008 1:24:43 PM
Speaking of weather... the next mini ice-age is due to start sometime in the next 10 years. Perhaps Canadians will change their minds when the frozen north really does become the FROZEN north. Oh well, tried to warn you. Hope y'all enjoy the next Maunder minimum.
Posted by: Briney | Jan 27, 2008 1:56:48 PM
Speaking of weather... the next mini ice-age is due to start sometime in the next 10 years.
Sounds like crankish nonsense. Perhaps you could justify this assertion?
Posted by: Paul F. Dietz | Jan 27, 2008 2:59:11 PM
Don't have to. Mother Nature will take care of that for me. If you want proof, just wait ten years. Of course, the koolaid drinking AGW'ers will probably want to blame global cooling on C02 as well. Notice that they've changed their mantra from 'global warming' to 'climate change'. Egg...Face, get ready.
Posted by: Briney | Jan 27, 2008 3:27:55 PM
Briney:
Were you around in 1812-15? That was the last time our south of the border expansionist friends tried to annex Canada.
Russia was more successful doing that for 50+ years, then we all know what happened some 20 years ago. Most southern areas countries annexed will break away sooner or latter.
I doubt that too many Canadians would call your idea a win-win project. We have more than enough with the (rather one way) NAFTA for now.
OTOH, climate does oscillate and warm periods are normally followed by colder ones. The latter will not be around in ten years but may be in about 10 centuries.
Posted by: Harvey D | Jan 27, 2008 4:05:20 PM
Sigh... none so blind...
Posted by: Briney | Jan 27, 2008 4:14:10 PM
So, Briney thinks there's no such thing as peak oil or climate change, or if there is climate change we're entering a (mini) ice age. Did the holocaust happen Briney, or is that also just a bunch of Al Gore propaganda? :-o
Posted by: Mick | Jan 27, 2008 4:51:11 PM
"Sigh... none so blind..."
Perhaps you should look in a mirror.
Posted by: drivin98 | Jan 27, 2008 5:24:45 PM
I wouldn't bother trying to argue with this guy. I suspect they say these things only in the hopes that they can provoke us. There is a name for this type of behavior - a troll.
Posted by: eric | Jan 27, 2008 6:52:46 PM
Just for the record there's never been a "North American Union". The idea is a made-up bogeyman used in anti-immigrant propaganda on American television (e.g. Lou Dobbs).
Posted by: Jim G. | Jan 27, 2008 7:29:34 PM
The "CC" in IPCC stands for "Climate Change." The IPCC was founded in 1988.
It was Republican pollster Frank Luntz who suggested people use the term "climate change" instead of "global warming," because focus groups thought "climate change" sounded less scary.
Posted by: cce | Jan 27, 2008 9:37:10 PM
@Briney
Notice that they've changed their mantra from 'global warming' to 'climate change'.
Reminds me of the denialists shifting their position conintuously. First denying that anything is happening. Now there is proof that average temperatures are rising, and voila, that suddenly isn't important anymore. It's just that we (humans) have nothing to do with it!
When it's proven that climate change/global warming is caused by us, what will you deny then?
Posted by: Anne | Jan 28, 2008 3:38:27 AM
I'd like to throw an idea out there:
-Since CO2 is such an excellent pressure maintenance medium and...
-They (PEMEX) are alrady burning NG to source, pressurize, and inject N why not...
-Pyrolyze the oil on site (break it up into CO and H), reform it into a novel synthetic fuel (such as what shell is doing with GTL), and pump the resulting CO2 back into the ground for enhanced oil recovery.
Advantages would be better oil recovery due to the injected CO2 and a product that doesn't have to be refined and burns much cleaner.
Thoughts?
Posted by: GreenPlease | Jan 28, 2008 6:01:50 AM
Briney,
Please try not to sound so foolish. The general public created its own simplified name for what is going on with AGW: Global Warming. Of course, that is, by default, a CHANGE in the CLIMATE.
Your little mini ice age may indeed happen, just not for the reason you suspect, but as a direct result of AGW. Just a few weeks ago it came out that the Greenland Ice Sheet is melting even faster than we thought. Worse, its been proven to also be accelerating. The consequence of that much fresh water being dumped into the north Atlantic may be the slow down or full shut down of the oceanic conveyor belt. If/when that happens, Northern Europe will be locked in a mini ice age, as will parts of eastern Canada and the US.
So, if London gets buried under a glacier, does that prove AGW is a fallacy? Actually, it proves the EXACT OPPOSITE.
But what the hey, you go right ahead and sit on your hands for 10 years. Luckily, it seems the majority of the rest of us will step up and at least attempt to save your sorry arse.
Posted by: Stephen | Jan 28, 2008 6:15:11 AM
GP,
That sounds good, if you could generate enough heat to pyrolyze, but since the ground may not be the best thermal vessel, this could be a problem. I have heard of coal being done something like this however.
Posted by: sjc | Jan 28, 2008 7:57:38 AM
Between the U.S. (hopefully) slamming the door on illegal immigration from Mexico in the future, and the decline of oil as a guaranteed source of revenue for the Mexican government, maybe this will help force real government and economic reform in Mexico.
And yes, it's going to be great fun over the next few years watching the AGW "the sun has NOTHING to do with climate change!" crowd try to explain why it's getting colder even as greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise.
Posted by: Matthew | Jan 28, 2008 8:31:52 AM
Matthew, you are a horse's arse.
You are correct, the sun has nothing to do with it:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/28/090/30666
And this is a cooling?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/ann07.html
Horse's arse.
Posted by: Stephen | Jan 28, 2008 2:47:38 PM
Bingo! Stephen wins a year's supply of purple Koolaid for his timely flip flopping on the issue of 'Climate Change'. Using Stephen's circular logic, the modern cargo cult of AGW can now be expanded to cover warming or cooling. It would appear that AGW is the 'hot' new religion for the 21st century. It has everything: sin, penance, redemption, and the mystery of the new holy ghost (C02). Amazing. Truly, carbon dioxide must work in mysterious ways. Now say three Hail Marys and pay your carbon tax. Go and sin no more, my son...
Posted by: Briney | Jan 28, 2008 3:13:40 PM
Any slow down in the gulf stream will be more than offset by warming over Europe due to the enhanced greenhouse effect.
The "ice age over Europe scenario" is considered very unlikely (<10% probability). It may have happened in the past (younger dryas) but that was the result of a lot of fresh water draining into the North Atlantic very quickly -- far quicker than Greenland can melt under even the worst prediction.
Posted by: cce | Jan 28, 2008 3:22:57 PM
Don't have to. Mother Nature will take care of that for me. If you want proof, just wait ten years.
So, 'Briney', if there is no evidence to support your assertion, just how did you come to believe it? Voices in your head? I mean, you didn't just make it up, right? Right?
Posted by: Paul F. Dietz | Jan 28, 2008 5:06:23 PM
@ Briney,
There are none so blind that will not see.
People who are too dumb to study Science and get their physics and religion from politicians can't be expected to understand much. You upset their sure and certain opinions and world view, as provided by the hopeless asses that are our many of our cynical political leaders. It takes a genuine divinity school dropout to preach fire and brimstone, the end of the world. Algore has made over a $100 million dollars doing so. So the corruption pays well. Just as many others cynics who have taken over the environmental organizations, know full well.
Solar satellites and solar astro-physics is effectively a new Science since 2001. It is now easy to predict solar output fluctuations on the short and intermediate scale, of a few decades, and it is definitely in the cards that the solar output is going down for the next thirty years at least, with slight bump in 2012 or so. So the Earth will cool.
It is getting downright embarrassing to the religious AGW true believers, since there hasn't been any appreciable warming in the past decade, despite the transitional and temporary rise in CO2 levels. The petroleum era is only starting to close. When it does, CO2 will be rapidly cleansed form the atmosphere within but a decade. If indeed it is principally Mankind that has raised the CO2 level, and not simply increased out-gassing from the Ocean in response to the increased solar flux.
The UN's IPCC scientists, as opposed to the bureaucrats, are gradually coming to agreement that
variable solar output is the cause of the minor warming we have experienced, and not mostly GHGs, as the world recovers from the Little Ice Age.
Solar output fluctuations are periodic and not something that is Mankind's fault, no matter how much the politicians would like to place blame on humanity and layer on lots of guilt to make you feel its only just to have to pay more taxes as a Penance.
Of course its a non sequitor. Taxes have no effect on the climate.
But the power seeking con artists would make you think they do.
GHGs as motive force for global warming is being constantly downgraded; with lots of downgrades already committed to follow in the IPCC's next five year report.
Hopefully, this will discredit the asses that saw this as a means to continue their attempted socialist takeover of the economy. Of course such an event will impoverish all. Marxist nonsense is like the fabled vampire. Every time it fails and is discredited, other politicians revive it as a means to power for themselves.
It is amazing how many Western people actually believe that the world outlook is bleak. They have been thoroughly brainwashed to believe the worst of everyone and all things. It is inconceivable to them, that the world is on the edge of a bountiful, non poverty, plentiful, healthy, lifestyle for all of humanity.
What's more they are astonished to discover that there is more than enough resources for all with out detriment to the living spaces around us. They go looking for the direst forecasts and Peakist nonsense is fashionable. As if it mattered when we will not need anywhere as much petroleum, soon.
All the metals and chemicals are increasingly available and at better prices, Only cartelized petroleum has not succumbed to declining prices.
The lack of a substitute in the transportation sector was the reason for the continuing extortion. But the petroleum extortionists have overplayed their hand as all politicians concerned only with the extreme short term, are prone to do. Petroleum may be limited and inefficient but our singular dependence almost wholly in the transportation sector, is on the verge of ending. Most other petroleum uses have already found substitutes and substitution is far advanced.
look at the bright side. We have almost wholly cleansed our environment of genuine pollutants. We are on the verge of solving our energy needs forever. Inexhaustible Fusion is measurably closer than the 1973 oil shock; the last generation of Nukes is advancing toward construction within the decade and worldwide. The idiocy of "renewable" energy sources has been shown to be an uneconomic farce, and can be applied only in the smallest cases.
We are on the verge of finding a substitute for a cartelized petroleum industry. The replacement, electricity is intrinsically cleaner and is not limited in any meaningful way as to source for the electricity, once political obstacles are removed and they largely have been.
It has been tough for the US to adapt to the migration of lots of industry moving to cheaper foreign countries. So that those societies can aspire to wealth too. But we have accepted it unlike the socialist EU. Still the expanding US population, legal or otherwise, has found enough good employment to provide for virtually all its population that wants to work.
Despite the fears of the extremist Luddites, the US domestically makes as many cars and trucks as it ever did; albeit the brands include lots of foreign names. We make almost as much steel domestically as ever, but the old line steel companies are not well represented in the new lists of steel makers. These new US steel-makers are the most energy efficient in the world. They possess an uncopyable method by the rapidly industrializing countries, mining the mountains of scrap steel from a long industrialized country. Don't succumb to the despair the dupes feel.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | Jan 28, 2008 5:55:51 PM
No, unlike you AGW'ers... I looked at the empirical evidence rather than relying on dogma and questionable computer projections. Given that nothing I say will convince you, I will let time and the natural course of events do that. Since I'm such a nice guy, however, I'll give you some food for thought to get you started: the Wolf number and Gleissberg minima. Bon Appetit...
Posted by: Briney | Jan 28, 2008 6:09:58 PM
Good to see Stan's back and found a soul mate.
Pity about the Subject
One can see here that the spoilers really don't want any discussion on his serious matter.
SJC, we must stop meeting like this!
1 I would have thought that, once the water conduction was driven off. IE. the ground became dry around the kiln, that the thermal insulation properties would become very good. Maybe several meters.
2 no one care to comment on the matter CO2 or N enhanced oil recovery gases that may escape from abandoned well sites or accidental or allowed leakage.
No one offering a good case for dismissing this.
Posted by: arnold | Jan 28, 2008 6:25:12 PM
Stephen, you illiterate boob...'over the next few years' refers to a *future* event. If you can't comprehend second-grade English, how can you presume to understand anything going on in the world?
Posted by: Matthew | Jan 28, 2008 6:51:50 PM
This discussion is truly afflicted by an irritation of trolls.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 28, 2008 7:43:57 PM
And lest any newbies be confused by Stan's blustering attempts to move the Overton window:
The UN's IPCC scientists, as opposed to the bureaucrats, are gradually coming to agreement that variable solar output is the cause of the minor warming we have experiencedFor those who missed it, THAT IS A LIE. This Stan Peterson character (if that's his real name) is one of the most shameless liars among the climate-denial lobby's psyops operatives.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 28, 2008 8:05:42 PM
Psyops? I thought he was just a very lonely guy with a lot of time on his hands.
Posted by: drivin98 | Jan 29, 2008 4:40:47 AM
Not long ago someone posted a link to a speech by an anti-AGW fellow by the name of Prof. Pat Michaels. Interestingly enough, the first thing he said in his speech was "First of all I want to tell you about this issue and how to lose any argument, please don't go around, and you can hear this on talk radio all the time, saying that there is no such thing as global warming"
So, for all those trying to take a step back and deny that warming is even happening, you lost the argument at that moment.
Posted by: Neil | Jan 29, 2008 6:01:59 AM
Neil:
Question whether GW is real or not is much more nuanced than simple yes or no. For detailed analysis take a look here, it is quite entertaining and informative:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
Posted by: Andrey | Jan 29, 2008 10:08:56 PM
No, unlike you AGW'ers... I looked at the empirical evidence rather than relying on dogma and questionable computer projections. Given that nothing I say will convince you, I will let time and the natural course of events do that.
No, you just have some random misinformation your malfunctioning brain has misintepreted as supporting your sad prejudices. If you had actual good evidence you could give it. Continue your delusion if it comforts you, but don't expect us to allow you to propagate your gibberish unchallenged.
Posted by: Paul F. Dietz | Jan 30, 2008 5:42:56 AM
Discussing global warming with a True Believer is a lot like debating religion with someone who insists on the literal veracity of the Bible; it's not possible to present evidence contrary to their worldview, because their minds are no longer flexible enough to acknowledge that such evidence can even exist.
In the same way that we do with the occasional cults who think they know the exact date of Jesus' return, or that there's a spaceship hiding behind the comet that only they know about, all we can do is wait for events to overtake their faith...and in the case of global warming, try to keep them from doing too much damage before then.
Posted by: Matthew | Jan 30, 2008 8:16:52 AM
