Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Rat's Nest - Chronicles of Collapse -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (3181)	11/18/2005 11:54:42 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24225

From a discussion on the oikl drum... PEMEX just came out with Oct 2005 numbers. Total liquids production for the first 10 months down 2.3% from first 10 mos 2004. The coming Mexican decline has profound implications for U.S., since they are our 2nd highest source of imported oil. Leanan on Thu Nov 17 at 2:58 PM EST \| Comments top Is that decline due to depletion, or hurricanes? [ Parent ] Typhoon on Thu Nov 17 at 3:15 PM EST \| Comments top Their production was affected by Hurricane Emily, but it couldn't have fallen by that much due to the hurricane alone. Mexico is definitely on the verge of decline. Expansion of supply in areas like Ku-Maloob-Zaap won't make up for a decline in Cantarell. Pemex will do deepwater exploration, but production from deepwater fields is years away, and it would only slow the rate of decline or create a lower production plateau. Please don't confuse "depletion" with "decline". I've had to correct many people about this. A 5% depletion rate means that you extract 5% of the ultimately recoverable oil out of a field in one year. A 5% decline rate means that production falls by 5%. Depletion leads to decline, but depletion happens from day one. In a way, they aren't really related terms since as decline rates rise, the depletion rate falls. Don't mix up the terms! [ Parent ] peakearl on Thu Nov 17 at 9:00 PM EST \| Comments top Agreed. I think a case could be made that about 1% of the decline is from hurricanes, but don't have all the numbers. [ Parent ] WebHubbleTelescope on Thu Nov 17 at 10:04 PM EST \| Comments top I agree completely with this and it points to why we should avoid using the logistic curve to track the production data. Doing this right, you can add the discovery curves continuously and thus get a handle of the depletion rates without getting all worked up over the decline rates. [ Parent ] Typhoon on Thu Nov 17 at 3:28 PM EST \| Comments top Here are the month-by-month numbers. You can see that Pemex's production has declined by a significant amount for two months in a row, but their production bounces around a lot. Production declined from February to March only to bounce sharply in April. (Was a new field brought onstream?) July had a sharp fall, but production and exports were affected by Hurricane Emily. January - 3,790 February - 3,784 March - 3,668 April - 3,855 May - 3,882 June - 3,873 July (the month when Emily hit) - 3,481 August - 3,842 September - 3,783 October - 3,628 [ Parent ] Bubba on Thu Nov 17 at 9:49 PM EST \| Comments top I'm pretty sure that Pemex was affected by both Katrina and Rita. Just like with US companies they had to shut in production in advance in case the Hurricanes came their way. Also export tankers would have been affected. And I presume their main export terminals to the US were in the New Orleans and Houston areas. [ Parent ] theoildrum.com