DAX+0,08 % EUR/USD+0,08 % Gold-0,10 % Öl (Brent)0,00 %

Ölpreise überverkauft: Gründe für den Absturz der Öl-Notierungen (Seite 23)



Begriffe und/oder Benutzer

 

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 52.917.559 von R-BgO am 26.07.16 13:45:46Core Labs Q4:

"Core believes that the worldwide crude oil markets are currently undersupplied as indicated by several consecutive months of declining worldwide crude oil inventories. And we believe the projected December draw will be the fifth consecutive month in a row. Projected OPEC cuts of 1.344 million barrels of oil per day and other cooperating countries pledging to cut another 600,000 barrels of oil per day will lead to extended worldwide inventory declines and a continuing rally in oil prices and energy prices in 2017.

As Core has continually stated, the Middle East was producing oil at unstable levels, and we are sure that some of these cuts will more than welcome by several Middle Eastern producing countries. All that Core did was listened to the reservoirs and not rhetoric. Also importantly, U.S. crude production peaked at 9.7 million barrels a day in March of 2015 and then declined approximately 1.3 million barrels a day into December of 2016. At that time, Core calculated a U.S. net decline curve rate of 11% per annum.

U.S. crude supplies have increased on a net basis for October and November in response to increased activity levels, largely in the Permian Basin. However, conflicting data sets and completion statistics, especially in the large crude supply increase reported by EIA in October, especially from the Bakken, make calculations and projections for U.S. land production too difficult and uncertain to offer at this time.

In 2016, production gains in the Gulf of Mexico were disappointing. Originally projected by Core Lab to add 200,000 barrels of production per day during 2016, the production added was essentially flat to up slightly year-over-year, owing to larger than expected activity declines and less production addition from legacy deepwater projects.

2017 is off to a better start as BP’s Thunder Horse South complex completed ahead of schedule and under budget is set to add 40,000 barrels of new 2017 production. Globally, Core estimates that the net decline curve rate is currently approximately 3.3%. Applying the 3.3% net decline curve rate to the worldwide crude oil production of approximately 85 million barrels a day means that the planet will need to produce an additional 2.8 million barrels of new oil by this date next year to maintain current worldwide productive capacity totals.

With limited long-term sustainable spare production capacity coupled with the aforementioned production cuts, Core believes worldwide producers will not be able to offset the estimated 3.3% net production decline curve rate in 2017, leading to a further decline in global crude oil production. Also, weighing on future production capacity is the fact that operators discovered less than 4 billion barrels of new oil in 2016, while the globe consumed over 55 billion barrels. Therefore Core believes crude markets more than rationalized in late 2016 and price stability followed by price increases, some occurring as we speak, are returning to the energy complex. Remember, the immutable laws of physics and thermodynamics mean that the crude oil production decline curve always wins and it never sleeps."


Zitat von R-BgO"Core believes that worldwide crude oil supply and demand markets are close to balancing and will balance the second half of 2016.

On the crude oil supply side, U.S. unconventional production peaked at 5.5 million barrels of oil per day in March of 2015, and has since fallen by over a million barrels a day owing to high decline curve rates associated with these tight oil reservoirs.

Offsetting these sharp production declines have been additions of approximately 160,000 barrels a day from several deep water Gulf of Mexico legacy projects that were commissioned several years ago and started to bear fruit in late 2015-2016. These additions no way will offset what's coming from the deductions that will occur on land throughout this year and into 2017.

The sharp declines from U.S. land production are continuing in 2016, and Core believes these decreases could reach 1.1 million barrels of oil per day or more by yearend. Lower levels of new wells and delayed production maintenance will exacerbate the fall in U.S. land production going into 2016 – 2017.

Remember, production decline curves are linear in time but logarithmic in production declines. A year ago, month-over-month U.S. production declines were in the tens of thousands of barrels per day, per month. Now these month-over-month per day losses quite often reach 100,000 barrels of oil per day or more. So look for that to expand and continue to expand into late 2016 and into 2017.

From these analyses, we would take the over on the drop of 1.1 million barrels per day by yearend. We will recalculate these numbers for Q3 earnings release. Moreover, further net declines from legacy deep water projects – moreover, further net gains from legacy projects in the deep water Gulf of Mexico will be needed to offset significant increases in the existing Gulf of Mexico production base.

These legacy Gulf of Mexico projects could add a net 160,000 barrels a day in 2016, slightly offsetting the material onshore and shallow water declines that are taking place. Core estimates that the current net decline curve rate for U.S. land production is approximately 10.1%, which will continue to expand into 2017. We are in the process of recalculating these parameters and we'll re-update in Q3.

Globally, Core estimates that the net crude oil production decline curve rate has expanded to 3.3% net, up some 20 basis points from earlier year estimates. Applying the 3.3% net decline curve rate to a worldwide crude oil production base of approximately 85 million barrels per day means the planet will need to produce an approximately 2.8 million new barrels by this date next year to maintain current worldwide productive capacity totals. With the long-term worldwide spare capacity nearing zero, Core believes worldwide producers will not be able to offset these declines, and the estimated 3.3% net production decline curve rate in 2016 will lead to falling global production in 2016. This is supported by some of the recent IEA data indicating declining production on a global basis through Q2 2016.

Therefore, Core believes crude markets more than rationalize in the second half of 2016 and price stability, followed by price increases, some occurring as we speak, return to the energy complex. Remember, the immutable laws of physics and thermodynamics mean that crude oil production curve always wins and it never sleeps."


Zitat von R-BgOaus dem CoreLabs Q1-Bericht
The Company continues to anticipate a “V-shaped” worldwide commodity recovery in 2016, with upticks expected to start in the third quarter. Global demand for hydrocarbon-based energy continues to improve, while worldwide crude oil supply peaked in the second half of 2015 beginning a decline that Core believes will continue through all of 2016 and 2017.

The Company has observed that U.S. onshore oil production peaked in March 2015 and has fallen since then by over 600,000 barrels of oil per day (“BOPD”), some of which was offset by new additions to production in the Gulf of Mexico (“GOM”) as a result of eight deepwater legacy-field developments coming on-line in 2015. This new production, from deepwater fields that includes Anadarko’s Lucius and Heidelberg and Shell’s Stones, offset significant declines in existing GOM fields.

At current U.S. activity levels, Core predicts 2016 U.S. onshore oil production will fall approximately 1,100,000 BOPD, somewhat offset by GOM gains of approximately 200,000 BOPD, yielding a U.S. net decline of 900,000 BOPD and net decline curve rate of 10.1%.

Based on currently available worldwide crude oil production data, coupled with internal Core Lab data, Core has increased its estimate of the net worldwide annual crude oil production decline rate to 3.3%, as supported by recent International Energy Agency ("IEA") reports that worldwide crude oil production fell 300,000 BOPD in March from February 2016 levels. March was the third consecutive month of global oil production decreases.

The increase in the net worldwide decline rate is predicated on sharper decline curve rates for tight-oil reservoirs and the significant decline in maintenance capital expenditures for the existing crude oil production base. This, coupled with the continuing decline in global production and the continuing increase in global energy consumption, should create a tight crude oil supply market for the second half of 2016, and that should lead to increased crude prices and industry activity levels worldwide.
Ich habe den Author zwar als bearish im Kopf,
aber trotzdem sollte das hier zu denken geben: http://oilpro.com/post/30230/beginning-end-bakken-shale-play

"The decline in Bakken oil production that started in January 2015 is probably not reversible. 
New well performance has deteriorated, gas-oil ratios have increased and water cuts are rising. Much of the reservoir energy from gas expansion is depleted and decline rates should accelerate.
More drilling may increase daily output for awhile but won’t resolve the underlying problem of poorer well performance and declining per-well reserves."



=> Vor lauter "Absaufen in Öl" vergißt man leicht, dass einer der Kritik-/offenen Punkte von Shale die steilen Decline-Kurven sind.

WENN das Beschriebene für Bakken gilt, dann -früher oder später- auch für die anderen Basins...


Und dann kommen die anderen Quellen, insbesondere Offshore zurück in den Focus.
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 54.447.351 von R-BgO am 02.03.17 11:06:46
wie immer: Gegenposition
http://oilpro.com/post/30382/opec-deal-cannot-overcome-marke…


OPEC deal cannot overcome market forces… unconventional production vs cartel pressure

Laws made by man cannot be made to violate the laws of nature; likewise, announcements of intentions to maintain or even reduce supply marginally cannot support oil and gas prices indefinitely, if the underlying reality is one of expanding supply.

For now, the repeated assurances that Saudi Arabia is determined to ensure thOPECEC production cuts have greatly benefitted its revenues, since the increase in oil prices since they orchestrated the OPEC deal has more than made up for any loss of market share.

However, no amount of assurances that the cuts will continue can change the reality that the overall oil and gas supply is set to increase in the years ahead. The supply crunch that some fear, based on reduced investment in exploration activities due to low oil prices, is really an oil glut in the making, barring any political instability that could close oilfields in major production regions of the world.

While some players, such as Hess, believe that the market will rebalance and turn in favor of higher oil prices, because of a perceived supply crunch, others, such as BP and others, realize that there are many potential upside factors that can affect supply (Argus Media, 2017).

Major offshore projects are in the works, especially in Latin America (Offshore Technology, 2017), while the Gulf of Mexico continues to promise great strides, both in the US, with aggressive leasing plans (Worlkd Oil, 2017a)) and in Mexico, which is making great strides in attracting important oil players to its key offshore plays (World Oil, 2017b).

On another front, outside fossil fuels, technology advances gave rise to optimistic forecasts for renewables as a share of world energy and fuels supply. But technological advances have also changed the playing field for unconventional oil and gas supply, based on new extraction technologies. Thus, even those who have been forecasting a bright future for renewables must aknowledge that they will have a relatively much smaller impact in the world energy supply, than the large and fast surge in unconventional oil and gas production (Nakhle, C. 2017).

Then there are the major international deals that involve countries with enormous resources, just waiting to open the floodgates. That is the case, for example, of Iran, which is trying to make up for lost time, and make the most of recent sanction relief, by signing deals that could add significant gas volumens to an already growing production. The giant South Pars field will raise its production by 50 million m3/day when yet another project phase is completed, in a deal witTotal (Offshore Magazine, 2017). There seems to be no lack of interested players to operate in the country, and Iran´s resource base certainly justifies their interest, since it could support a much higher level of activity and production, if foreign companies continue to seek to participate in its major oil and gas plays. Such significant additions to world oil and gas supply dwarf the OPEC cuts.

Finally, we must recognize that the shale plays in the US have become a new force with which to reckon. Based on their fast response time to any price volatility, and the magnitude of their response, they have become the new regulation mechanism in the international oil and gas supply game. In fact, many analysts now believe that the US shale plays can completely neutralize any OPEC production cuts, and the speed and volume of their production response to oil price increases has been much underestimated.

While major oil and gas projects in the world routinely take years to startup, and even the largest individual projects are on the order of hundreds of thousands of bopd, individual US shale players are set to contribute new production on the order of one million bopd in a matter of months.

Furthermore, numbers that were unthinkable even a short while ago, are now discussed as a real
possibility, such as estimates of 8 to 10 million bopd from the Permian Basin in Texas, in ten years (The Telegraph, 2017).

Likewise, the Wolfcamp shale will have to be recognized as one of the most significant oil and gas plays in the world, based on its estimated resource base. It has recently been reassessed by the USGS at much higher technically recoverable resource volumes than previously, reaching an incredible 30 billion boe (Blomquist, P. 2017). => reicht für 319 Tage Weltbedarf

The world has great difficulty in assimilating such numbers, and the geopolitical implications of the changes involved. What is being discussed is the possibility that the production from one US shale play alone, may reach the equivalent of all Saudi Arabia production today, and that the recoverable resources in one US shale play begin to rival the larges fields in the Middle East.

Definitely, the market dynamics of the world oil and gas supply will be dominated by forces other than temporary and fragile OPEC cuts.
http://www.artberman.com/shale-cost-reductions-are-10-techno…


The EUR used for break-even prices in charts like Goldman Sachs’ are largely unknown but bigger EUR means lower break-even prices.

Companies routinely report EUR in barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) that use a natural gas-to-BOE conversion of 6:1 based on energy content but a value-based conversion including natural gas liquids is 15:1.

For gassy plays like the Eagle Ford and Permian basin, this conversion sleight-of-hand produces ~35% inflation in EUR. It is perfectly legal for reserve reporting but it is a dishonest way to represent break-even price since companies are getting ~$2.50/mmBtu for gas and not the $6.25/mmBtu implied by the 6:1 conversion.

Advances in technology have resulted in higher early production rates increasing net present value. In many cases, however, these are accompanied by increased decline rates and lower EUR. Figure 2 shows an example from the Bakken Shale play.


Figure 2. Comparison of 20-mMonth cumulative production and normalized decline rates for the Bakken Shale play. Source: North Dakota Pipeline Authority, Drilling Info and Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc.

The chart on the left shows 20-month cumulative production data suggesting that well performance has improved every year. The chart on the right shows decline rates for the same years of production. It shows that, in fact, well performance is decreasing from 2014 through 2016 because of higher decline rates.

Technology does not create energy. The effect of better technology is a bigger spigot that produces the energy faster. The downside of the technology is that it increases the rate of resource depletion.

Costs have come down for all oil and gas producers since the oil-price collapse in 2014. Most of the savings are because of lower oil field service costs and not so much because of improved technology.
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 55.024.893 von R-BgO am 26.05.17 19:41:50Vielen Dank für's Einstellen des Berichtes.
Zu einem Bruchteil liegt er bestimmt richtig. :cool:

1. Die Ablösung / Reduzierung des Verbrennungsmotors scheint ja nicht ganz unwahrscheinlich.
Wenn der Preis für die Batterie noch ein bischen nachgibt, dann ist dem ja bald so; zumindest für den Nahbereich.

2. Das vollautomatisierte Fahren scheint mir dann noch deutlich mehr Fortschritt zu erfordern. Und ob das dann bis 2029 zu 95% durch ist, die These scheint mit aktuell etwas gewagt zu sein. Aber im Bereich Automatisierung wird sich schon was tun.

Wegen dem 1. müsste man die Ölindustrie und sowie Verbrennungsmotoren bauende Industrie bzw. davon abhäbgige Länder reduzieren.
Wegen dem 2. : wenn es da einen klaren Vorreiter gäbe, der könnte dann sehr viel vom Markt abräumen bzw. die anderen (Autobauer) als Hardwarelieferanten einsetzen. Da man nicht weiss wer es sein wird -> auch hier die Autoindustrie meiden.

Oder wie ist Deine Schlussfolgerung?
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 55.029.054 von Papabile am 27.05.17 20:26:55weitestgehend d'accord
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 55.087.546 von R-BgO am 06.06.17 13:31:36.... kann jemand sagen, was das auf deutsch heißt in dem Bericht?

Danke!
 Filter


Beitrag zu dieser Diskussion schreiben