RE: Take the pro Z@c--more on energy

From: Stephen J. Krogh, P.G. <>
Date: Mon Aug 15 2005 - 13:10:34 EDT

changing subject line.
  -----Original Message-----
  From: []On
Behalf Of Terry M. Gray
  Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 12:00 PM
  Subject: Re: Take the prozac--more on energy


  I wouldn't worry too much about this. We can "always" make
"petrochemicals" from biomass. That should take care of our pharmaceutical
needs. Additionally, as some commented at the ASA meeting, if we get smart,
we we'll use alternative/renewable fuels for our energy needs and use oil
only for the needs for which it makes sense, polymers/synthetic
precursors/jet fuel.


  On Aug 15, 2005, at 10:31 AM, Bill Hamilton wrote:

    I wonder if one really will be able to take the prozac in the future
Glenn envisions. After all there are probably petrochemicals that in some
way figure in its manufacture :-).

    George Murphy <> wrote:
      An interesting post but also a warning: If you use "prozac" - or, I'm
sure, "viagra" &c - in your subject line it's likely to get caught by
people's spam filters, as this did by mine. Fortunately I give mine a quick
look before emptying & fished this out.

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Glenn Morton
        Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 6:33 PM
        Subject: Take the prozac--more on energy

        I just read Twilight in the Desert, by Matt Simmons, an investment
banker for the energy industry. I had the pleasure of meeting him several
times last year at industry conferences. The 450 page tome discusses the
state of the Saudi oil fields and I learned a lot from this book--where is
that prozac?

        The Sauds are apparently playing a PR shell game. They keep
mentioning fields they can bring online to replace Ghawar (the world's
largest oil field). The thing I didn't know was that many of these fields
have already been produced and found wanting. Consider what Simmons says
about Qatif(which has high H2S content and lies beneath a populated area)

        “In 1951, following production startup, oil production at Qatif
fluctuated between 15,000 and 40,000 barrels per day through 1966.
        In 1979, the field reached its highest output of 150,000 barrels a
        By 1982, the last time it was reported, Qatif's production had
fallen to 40,000 barrels per day, despite the fact that Saudi Arabia was
straining to keep its total oil production at all-time high levels.” Matthew
R. Simmons, Twilight in the Desert, (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2005), p.
        “Just the fact that Saudi Aramco selected Qatif for its next
investment project, following its complicated and expensive Shaybah field
development, is further evidence of the limited potential of the almost 90
oil and gas fields ‘found but never produced’ that clutter the company’s
asset portfolio.” Matthew R. Simmons, Twilight in the Desert, (New York:
John Wiley & Sons, 2005), p.217-218

        To claim that one will bring on line a field which has already
produced for years is shear fantasy. An UK company went broke this year
trying to bring Ardmore field back online in the NOrth Sea.

        Simmons also pointed out why the southern part of Ghawar doesn't
have many wells in it. The average permeability of the rock is around 13
millidarcies (for the uninitiated, really good fields have perms of over
1000 millidarcies. The lower the millidarcies the less fluid can move out
of the rock into the borehole). What this means is that the reservoir model
on the bottom of my web page actually
covers the sweet spot (Uthmaniya area) in this most important of fields.
And it shows that there isn't much oil left which puts a sharp point on the
comment of my reservoir engineer friend who, upon seeing that model, said,
"Kiss your lifestyle goodbye, its over!" (more prozace needed).

        Simmons notes that Uthmaniya accounts for 4.4 of the 5 million
barrels per day of production out of Ghawar (p. 379). There isn't much left
to it.

        Right now I am listening to CNBC and Puru Saxena (an analyst) is
saying that over the past 200 years every commodity boom has been associated
with a war cycle Commodities of all varieities have been rising quite nicely
over the past couple of years.

        What a fun century we will have. But not all is doom and gloom.
John Bloom's talk at the ASA caused me to re-evaluate solar. The August
National Geographic had an interesting article on energy (but said that oil
would peak in the next several decades--a hopelessly optimistic view). Like
John's experiment with solar this article says:
        “At present levels of efficiency it would take about 10,000 square
miles of solarpanels—an area bigger than Vermont-to satisfy all of the
United State’s electrial needs. But the land requirement sounds more
daunting than it is: Open country wouldn’t have to be covered. All those
panels could fit on less than a quarter of the roof and pavement area in
cities and suburbs.” Michael Parfit, “Future Power,” National Geographic,
August 2005, p. 18

        But back to the doom and gloom, the article also notes of nuclear:

        “The readily available uranium fuel won’t last much more than 50
years.” Michael Parfit, “Future Power,” National Geographic, August 2005,

        Have a nice sleep tonight in the US, I must now go to work.

        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

    Bill Hamilton
    William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
    586.986.1474 (work) 248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
    "...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31

    Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page

  Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
  Computer Support Scientist
  Chemistry Department
  Colorado State University
  Fort Collins, CO 80523
  (o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
Received on Mon Aug 15 13:10:10 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 15 2005 - 13:10:11 EDT