Bubble Point Death

[ecosophia]

I need some help from those of my readers who know their way around the science of oil production. Recently -- tip of the druidical hat to the r/peakoil subreddit -- encountered a discussion of Scott LaPierre's theory of bubble point death, which explains the sharp and unexpected declines in oil shale wells.  The short form, if I understand it correctly, is that once a certain amount of oil is extracted, the pressure drops to the point that natural gas dissolved in the oil fizzes out of solution, and the remaining oil doesn't have enough pressure to get to the well. 

What I need to know is whether his theory makes sense. (It looks plausible to me but I'm not a petroleum engineer.) If he's right, the bottom is going to fall out of US oil production a lot sooner than most people in the industry are anticipating -- and that's something worth knowing about in advance. 

Here are his articles: 

Bubble-Point Death and the PXD Oil Mix Challenge, Part One

Bubble-Point Death and the PXD Oil Mix Challenge, Part Two

Wall Street Journal Validates Predictions Made by Controversial Bubble-Point-Death Articles

Controversial Theory Proven Valid as ‘Bubble-Point Death’ Rages across Midland Basin Despite Three Years of Industry Denial

Do these make sense? Inquiring peak oil writers want to know. 

Comments

Do we need this theory given the previous records of fracking

[(Anonymous)]

With or without this theory being right there is a recorded problem with frack wells going down fast. The red queen is tired of running .

Re: Do we need this theory given the previous records of fracking

[ecosophia]

The theory is worth having as a way of understanding why the fracked wells are going down even faster than the standard industry models predict.

[tunesmyth]

Although I know this is your "everything", lighter blog, and not just magic, and despite the fact that you now cover magic in plenty of posts at the main blog, I think that the perception among most is that this is where people go for the pure occult side of your writings, and those interested mostly in politics/peak oil stay there.

Why not put this question in comments on the current post over at the main blog? I bet Oilman2, at the very least, would respond in short order.

[ecosophia]

I'll post something there and see if it gets a response.

[claire_58]

Sorry to disagree. Even those of us only marginally interested in magic are keen enough on JMG's writing to pour over both blogs for interesting stuff. My main interest is the unfolding of the long descent and I check this blog everyday. I read a good chunk of Magic Monday too.

[tunesmyth]

I might be wrong to have asserted “most”— but the fact remains that some of the peak oil type regular readers never stop by here; a friend of mine on the non-internet plane is one such religious reader.

[michaeliangray]

I would argue that JMG's books, 'After Progress' and 'Not the Future we ordered' do a decent job of introducing some light occult themes into the Peak Oil narrative. Similar to how 'The King in Orange' tied politics and magic together.

If you don't think oil is magical.......

[degringolade]

Just sayin'. Trying to separate the sacred from the mundane is a road to ruin.

Put things where you want John

Good luck!

[(Anonymous)]

No help here JMG, except to say good luck :-) It is venturing into super deep technical analysis.

I note that a few geotech's/petroleum engineer types replied on the linked in articles, none seemed to be massively alarmed, with a mix of "we already knew it was happening" to "maybe XYZ will shift that depletion curve up". /shrug

Worse case, what does 50% less proven reserves mean? Could be a good place to start.

Personally, once bitten from waiting for shale to blow out 10 years ago, twice shy now /shrug. Not helpful I know. Could be worth buying a few lunches for hungry geotech phd candidates at your local uni and run it past them?

[(Anonymous)]

This makes sanse.

Another issue with shales is that they tend close theirs pores when internal pressure drops to low. If a oil/gas bearing shale is a mudstone type of rock it consists hefty amount of loam material which is plastic. When internal pressure of hydracarbons drops to a certain point, pores can not remain open pressure of a caprock close them.


I

[taylorrose]

As far as I can tell, this is a well understood phenomena. The model used for estimating the lifetime and productivity of a well is based on exponential decay of the flow rate. The end of the model is determined by something called "Minimum Acceptable Pressure Standard". MAPS is calculated off a very large and complicated formula that I won't claim to understand, but some of the variables are related to formation deposit rock type. I believe that closing of porous rocks under pressure loss is already included in industry models.

[mollari]

I hope it doesn't, because I'm still making the preparations for 200 dollar a barrel! Something stopping basically all fracking production like this theory seems to suggest is coming could push it a lot higher than that...

[ecosophia]

No, the theory doesn't predict a stoppage of all production. What it predicts is that fracked wells, later in their working lives, will see oil production drop off much more sharply than current models predict, as gas frees itself from the oil-gas mix -- that's the "bubble point" that gives the name to the theory -- and goes to the well, leaving the oil behind. $200 a barrel is still a good target.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not an expert, but I had some lessons on oil production at uni.
Yes, unless there's enough pressure differential between the well and the surface, the oil won't come out, no matter how much it's still there. You can go around it by injecting pressurized water and other chemicals into the well to force the oil back up, but of course, now you're diluting your oil evermore, with the added cost of cleaning it and injecting the water.
And that's without mentioning all the extra tons of water you're going to pollute.

Alex R

[ecosophia]

There's that! Thanks for this.

No surprise there to me

[jamster777]

Unless I'm misunderstanding, this sounds like a well-understood dynamic. Chris Martenson at Peak Prosperity has been warning about this for years. Check out the video linked below from about 3:20 - 7 min. The distribution of oil production from a single well decays exponentially (since it is really hard to suck oil out of slate-like rock) and therefore the production of an entire oil field also decays exponentially unless you can increase the number of Wells exponentially to offset it.

https://www.peakprosperity.com/shale-oil-crash-course-chapter-21/

Re: No surprise there to me

[ecosophia]

The papers I posted argue that the exponential decline function is too optimistic and predicts much more oil will be recovered than is actually the case.

[(Anonymous)]

Hi JMG,

I've sent an email to Erik Townsend at MacroVoices with a link to this post. MacroVoices covers financial markets especially oil. Will let you know if I get any feedback.

Bob

[ecosophia]

Thank you. I'll be interested to hear what kind of response you get.

[taylorrose]

I was hesitant to comment since I don't have a background in petroleum engineering and was hoping Oilman2 would comment. I have done some work with fluid dynamics, so here it goes:

As far as I can tell, what is being discussed in dynamic fractionation: a mixed substance, in motion, will experience changes in its composition; the particular composition, state, and motion all being relevant factors in exactly what changes happen. The idea here, being that as oil is pumped, more natural gas than oil will come up, leading to a loss of pressure with the results you described.

This theory makes no sense to me. The dynamic described would make sense if the natural gas in oil was heterogeneous, but it isn't. The oil is a colloid and separating the natural gas from it isn't an immediate or trivial thing to do. What would be expected in this case, is for a disproportionate amount of natural gas to escape in the earliest phases of production (high fractionation rate), then the rate of fractionation would begin to decline as the ratio of oil to gas begins to rise. It is possible that the equilibrium would be reached beneath bubble-point, but that isn't what he is predicting. His prediction is that natural gas will end up using up all the pressure to get out of the ground and leave the oil stuck.

Two other observations:
1) He seems to rely on older data in his published works on the subject. If we are discussing colloidal rather than heterogeneous fractionation, this difference in timeline would be adequate to hide it. There are other industry publications that show more recent pumping data that supports the former model.

2) The bakken formation has a much higher concentration of natural gas than most other oilfields and was tapped earlier. That should make it even more susceptible to this problem, and it hasn't occurred there.

I defer to anyone with actual expertise on the matter, but that was my two cents.

[ecosophia]

Many thanks for this.

[(Anonymous)]

Non-expert opinion --I'm a mathematician, not a petrol engineer-- but wouldn't the gas trapped as particles in the colloid still exert pressure over the fluid and its container, adding up all the tiny pressures of them, even if not in a heterogeneous way? Or does the pressure only happen if the gas is on one side and the oil on another? I am thinking for example of the CO2 trapped in a sugar-fizzy-water can. Maybe that happens to oil fields too? You open the can and it burst but after a while it fizzles away and tastes like warm cow dung tea.

-- Augusto

[taylorrose]

I believe that a mathematician is an expert in everything, the only variable is if they can apply that expertise :)

The gas and the surrounding body of oil are both subject to the same pressure. The difference between the two as they are subject to pressure is why the two substances begin to fractionate as they are extracted.

The soda example, as I understand it, is both a bad example but it aligns perfectly with what Lapierre is describing. Soda is a solution, not a colloid. The CO2 bubbles in soda are actually quite large, so there isn't much chance of the mixture reaching some kind of stability. Instead, the CO2 undergoes creaming (yes, that silly term is the technical one), rising to the top and out of the mixture. If it were a colloid, the CO2 particles would have to be much smaller, and something called brownian motion (random motion of particles in a fluid) would keep them suitably mixed that creaming wouldn't happen. When the mixture is under pressure, there is significantly more brownian motion, and thus creaming/sedimentation are much less likely to happen.

The natural gas suspended in oil is usually composed of loose hydrocarbon molecules, not little bubbles. Part of the reason it undergoes fractionation during extraction is that the well is long vertical structure. Obviously, lighter molecules that would be a gas under natural conditions have an easier time making it up such a structure. Finally, It's worth noting that it isn't until refining that the natural gas is expected to be separated from the crude oil.

[open_space]

Fascinating! Thanks for this information I had no idea about the properties of colloids. Interesting about Brownian motion inside if it.

We mathematicians like to think so too, but clearly we are too up in the abstract clouds to bring down some of the concepts to match the details. I also do that a lot, I give examples that partially fit the situation but digress in important points. I also note that it's not the gas doing the pressure in a can but it's the pressure that allows for the CO2 to be dissolved.

-- Augusto

[(Anonymous)]

The analogy is not perfect, since CO2 is dissolved in the liquid of the can, I don't know if this is the case or not for Black Flammable Crud, but perhaps there is still an effect of the added up pressures.

--Augusto

[degringolade]

I am questioning the premise that oil acts as a colloid. I will need to spend some time thinking on that. I am not saying you are wrong...but....I think that presupposition needs some pondering

More thoughts

[degringolade]

A couple of articles might be some grist for the old thought mills:

https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2016/07/28/el-furrial/

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ef000251t

I am thinking that it might be a mistake to think that when you pump, the nature of the oil itself remains constant. I think that the discussion here is good, especially when you take the different points and mash them together.

Probably more pertinent

[(Anonymous)]

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Poor-Hedging-Could-Cost-US-Shale-20-Billion.html

Interview

[(Anonymous)]

Suggest you listen to #hottakeoftheday Episode 66 w/Scott Lapierre

This will give some insight into his thinking. He does not seem to think his theory means the end of shale - it needs to be taken into account in the geometry of exploitation, calculation of reserves and economics. Remember oil is only part of the equation - natural gas will be the long term hydrocarbon of the future.

One of the problems with shale is that the text book is not written yet, as the players are too busy learning.

The bubblepoint death guy

[(Anonymous)]

I am Scott Lapierre, the author of the BubblePoint Death articles. Check out my latest article revealing just how pervasive the problem has become and how a single, large operator has lied to the investing public multiple times when directly asked whether their oil production had fallen short of nearly a decade of promises.

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6861050109803675648/

Cheers.