![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I think we need to think about the pages general organization:
In startup and peak year, I've started doing mm/yyyy. In most cases for the past, if we know more than the year, we know the actual month. And it will allow analysts to do more meaningful analysis of the distribution of ramp-up times for projects. Stuartstaniford ( talk) 03:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The graphic presentation of the number of oil fields discovered grouped by average flow rates (left) appears a bit misleading, as smaller fields have the same height as large ones; the graph grouped by corresponding oil volumes (right) gives a bit better idea, but it would be better to have a graph, which displays flow rate (more less) proportional to the flow rate (like the graphs in the chapter "Oil megaproject summary". Is this possible or aren't there sufficient data available? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drylexx ( talk • contribs) 15:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
If I can advance a suggestio theese graph aren't easily understable for lay men like me maybe you should made better legends and shor explanations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.3.201.66 ( talk) 11:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
We currently have 300kbd for Kuwait in 2005. This comes straight from Skrebowski's 2005 Megaproject report and it isn't clear what it is. It could be either a) a premature realization of "Project Kuwait", which we already have in 2008, or b) the recommissioning of Gathering Center 15, which was damaged by fire in 2002 (and thus isn't new capacity). I'm not able to substantiate any other possibilities in KOC annual reports, and so I propose to delete this tomorrow, unless there is dissent Stuartstaniford ( talk) 07:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
I propose that we delete Genghis Khan from 2007. It's a tieback to the 2004 Marco Polo platform, and doesn't come with an increase in platform capacity. See here for details:
http://www.oilonline.com/news/features/oe/20070621.Marco_Po.23883.asp
I'll make this change tomorrow unless there is dissent. Stuartstaniford ( talk) 06:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Somebody moved all the Angola projects in the early years into the OPEC section. I shall be moving them back since Angola didn't join OPEC until Jan 2007. It doesn't make sense to put it in there before then since it will make comparison with production numbers harder. Stuartstaniford ( talk) 06:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the Jasmin field (formerly in 2003). The EIA CAB for Angola ( http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Angola/pdf) says that:
In December 2001, Total brought online the Girassol oil field, which uses a FPSO with capacity of 250,000 bbl/d. In 2003, Total brought the Jasmin field online, which is considered a satellite field of Girassol and helps maintain plateau production of 250,000 bbl/d.
Thus Jasmin does not represent new capacity. Stuartstaniford ( talk) 06:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone has added a link to the actual historical persona ; same thing with the field "Atlantis".-- Environnement2100 ( talk) 17:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sam, maybe someone thought that Genghis Khan was the operator of the field :) I've removed the square brackets.
Do you or anyone else have information or links about Egypt projects North Bardawill and Tuart, year 2008? If not, can these two rows be deleted?
regards, Tony Eriksen - I will set up a Wikipedia account
In the oil megaproject summary there should be a short description telling what the numbers mean. Is it the volume of oil entering into the market from new megaprojects in the specified year - or does each year mark the start of (the first production drilling of) a new megaproject? In the latter case there should be a remark on the expected (or at least typical) time from project start to production (5...10 years?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drylexx ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
http://www.upstreamonline.com/hardcopy/news/article139673.ece (subscription required) "the first experimental stage output target would fall by 200,000 bpd to 300,000 bpd." "Completion of the first stage, which had already been postponed in stages to 2009 to 2010, would now be delayed to late 2010. Some said 2011 or 2012 might be more realistic targets." http://centralasia.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2007/08/28/kazakhstan-v-eni-showdown-kashagan/
Tony Eriksen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.33.44 ( talk) 23:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
the data from filled-in news report screens to the master table. I see this project decaying into chaos if the realities of how the base facts are reported in the public literature are not addressed. First reduce each fact report individually to some standard format, then transform the whole body of data (facts) into a table of your liking. In particular, it seems to me quite unrealistic to have a data input field for the date of peak production. This is something that can be known with certainty only after the fact, and even then is always open to question among investigators of good will. Other TODers must be aware of other data for which there will be a permanent need for some indication of conflicting values. [geek7 on TOD] < Pecondon ( talk) 03:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)>
Niall - I think that makes sense, but probably not until we have confidence that the tables are in a fairly complete and correct state - right now they are still a work in progress (this page is only a week old). Stuartstaniford ( talk) 06:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it would have been better to create an Oilfield Template namespace in order to ensure a minimum number of inputs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfoucher ( talk • contribs) 18:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to question the indication that the 2P reserves are in gigabarrels - that would say that some of these are 1000, 2000, even 6000 gigabarrels = 6000 billion, or 6 trillion in American number usage. Is this correct? I suspect that the terminology list should say these reserves are in million barrels. Cheers Geologyguy ( talk) 15:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I confirm there is a x1000 discrepancy between the Giga barrel unit, which is IMHO the best suited unit, and the figures in the table, some of them obviously in mega barrel. This obvious discrepancy should be addressed at once.-- Environnement2100 ( talk) 16:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The page uses the term "Oil & Gas Ratio" : I never heard this term in the business. I suggest to replace it by the term generally heard, "Gas/Oil Ratio", or GOR. http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/Display.cfm?Term=gas%2Foil%20ratio -- Environnement2100 ( talk) 18:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Gas-oil ratio usually refers to the physical mixture in a particular reservoir, doesn't it? I think what was intended here was the fraction of produced energy that is NG versus liquids. However, I note that so far we don't actually have this data for any project. Is some on the way? Stuartstaniford ( talk) 21:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Sam - I'll work on the back years if you work on the forward years Stuartstaniford ( talk) 06:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Made a few small fixes to the English in the intro as a practice. Stuartstaniford ( talk) 23:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi
the field of Moho Bilondo (Congo) miss... the exploitation is for 2008 see here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.147.175.187 ( talk) 21:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Moho Bilondo added - Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyeriksen ( talk • contribs) 01:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Stuart,
Could you please delete your Shell BC 10 project in year 2010. It has already been entered in year 2011 which is the estimated start date according to Petrobras.
The project is now called Parque das Conchas, according to Petrobras Strategic Plan and GE Oil & Gas http://www.abemi.org.br/PALESTRA_GABRIELLI-PN2007-2011_FIRJAN.pdf http://www.gepower.com/businesses/ge_oilandgas/en/about/press/en/2007_press/061907.htm
Shell is still the operator, capacity still 100 kbd and the block is still called BC-10. I have added more references to the Parque das Conchas year 2011 project to help clarify the renaming.
regards, -- Tonyeriksen ( talk) 03:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I think Chinguetti should be listed as the main field here that started in 2006, not Tiof. Tiof and Tevet are satellite fields that may be tied back to the Chinguetti export facilities (Berge Helene FPSO). Tiof has not started production yet and would be a separate project.
Philiphart ( talk) 05:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Aramco confirmed Khursaniyah did not start in December 2007 as originally announced , http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aR7UEgivEbls, and did not give a new date for this project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Environnement2100 ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
How are the production numbers in the summary derived? They often don't match with those I get by adding up the numbers in the detailed tables. e.g.: Brazil 2011, Two projects: 180 kbd + 100 kbd = 280 kbd. Summary says 780 kbd. Iraq 2010, Three projects: 90+100+250=440; Summary says 340.( Lord Gøn ( talk) 19:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC))
Searching through industry data is a little like oil discovery itself in that you're likely to find the big projects first. Still, what is the likelihood that big projects have been overlooked? Can an estimate be made as to how many 20,000 bpd projects may have slipped through the search thus far? Also, how many projects are currently in the megaprojects database? Can a sum of projects be added to the perl output for easy reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.124.95 ( talk) 19:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
from the general megaprojects page "Significant is defined here as capable of producing at least 40,000 barrels of oil per day." from the year specific pages: "This page summaries projects that brought more than 20,000 barrels/day" -- should the first amount read 20k?
the table on the main page :
"This script is not run everyday so some discrepancies may appear (last update: 15-AUG-2008)."
There have been quite a few edits to the tables in the last 3 months, eg 2014 now totals 1770, compared to the 1390 currently listed. 2009 totals 3290 rather than the current 5056. Neither of those numbers are adjusted for the "peak year" column, however the page does not describe if/how a "production ramp up" is included into the production numbers in order to calculate the new supply coming online each year.
the side bar picture on the 2008 page was updated 29/12/2007 - at the moment it shows around 7k new additions this year, while the table only lists around 5k. Similarly the side picture on all the other year pages are also out of date.
Andy t roo ( talk) 04:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Oil megaprojects/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
"repartition" is not defined anywhwere. It strikes me as a term of art, and much of the article is meaningless without an understanding of the term. Can someone define it somewhere in the article? Thanks! |
Last edited at 11:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I think we need to think about the pages general organization:
In startup and peak year, I've started doing mm/yyyy. In most cases for the past, if we know more than the year, we know the actual month. And it will allow analysts to do more meaningful analysis of the distribution of ramp-up times for projects. Stuartstaniford ( talk) 03:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The graphic presentation of the number of oil fields discovered grouped by average flow rates (left) appears a bit misleading, as smaller fields have the same height as large ones; the graph grouped by corresponding oil volumes (right) gives a bit better idea, but it would be better to have a graph, which displays flow rate (more less) proportional to the flow rate (like the graphs in the chapter "Oil megaproject summary". Is this possible or aren't there sufficient data available? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drylexx ( talk • contribs) 15:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
If I can advance a suggestio theese graph aren't easily understable for lay men like me maybe you should made better legends and shor explanations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.3.201.66 ( talk) 11:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
We currently have 300kbd for Kuwait in 2005. This comes straight from Skrebowski's 2005 Megaproject report and it isn't clear what it is. It could be either a) a premature realization of "Project Kuwait", which we already have in 2008, or b) the recommissioning of Gathering Center 15, which was damaged by fire in 2002 (and thus isn't new capacity). I'm not able to substantiate any other possibilities in KOC annual reports, and so I propose to delete this tomorrow, unless there is dissent Stuartstaniford ( talk) 07:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
I propose that we delete Genghis Khan from 2007. It's a tieback to the 2004 Marco Polo platform, and doesn't come with an increase in platform capacity. See here for details:
http://www.oilonline.com/news/features/oe/20070621.Marco_Po.23883.asp
I'll make this change tomorrow unless there is dissent. Stuartstaniford ( talk) 06:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Somebody moved all the Angola projects in the early years into the OPEC section. I shall be moving them back since Angola didn't join OPEC until Jan 2007. It doesn't make sense to put it in there before then since it will make comparison with production numbers harder. Stuartstaniford ( talk) 06:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the Jasmin field (formerly in 2003). The EIA CAB for Angola ( http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Angola/pdf) says that:
In December 2001, Total brought online the Girassol oil field, which uses a FPSO with capacity of 250,000 bbl/d. In 2003, Total brought the Jasmin field online, which is considered a satellite field of Girassol and helps maintain plateau production of 250,000 bbl/d.
Thus Jasmin does not represent new capacity. Stuartstaniford ( talk) 06:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone has added a link to the actual historical persona ; same thing with the field "Atlantis".-- Environnement2100 ( talk) 17:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sam, maybe someone thought that Genghis Khan was the operator of the field :) I've removed the square brackets.
Do you or anyone else have information or links about Egypt projects North Bardawill and Tuart, year 2008? If not, can these two rows be deleted?
regards, Tony Eriksen - I will set up a Wikipedia account
In the oil megaproject summary there should be a short description telling what the numbers mean. Is it the volume of oil entering into the market from new megaprojects in the specified year - or does each year mark the start of (the first production drilling of) a new megaproject? In the latter case there should be a remark on the expected (or at least typical) time from project start to production (5...10 years?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drylexx ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
http://www.upstreamonline.com/hardcopy/news/article139673.ece (subscription required) "the first experimental stage output target would fall by 200,000 bpd to 300,000 bpd." "Completion of the first stage, which had already been postponed in stages to 2009 to 2010, would now be delayed to late 2010. Some said 2011 or 2012 might be more realistic targets." http://centralasia.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2007/08/28/kazakhstan-v-eni-showdown-kashagan/
Tony Eriksen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.33.44 ( talk) 23:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
the data from filled-in news report screens to the master table. I see this project decaying into chaos if the realities of how the base facts are reported in the public literature are not addressed. First reduce each fact report individually to some standard format, then transform the whole body of data (facts) into a table of your liking. In particular, it seems to me quite unrealistic to have a data input field for the date of peak production. This is something that can be known with certainty only after the fact, and even then is always open to question among investigators of good will. Other TODers must be aware of other data for which there will be a permanent need for some indication of conflicting values. [geek7 on TOD] < Pecondon ( talk) 03:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)>
Niall - I think that makes sense, but probably not until we have confidence that the tables are in a fairly complete and correct state - right now they are still a work in progress (this page is only a week old). Stuartstaniford ( talk) 06:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it would have been better to create an Oilfield Template namespace in order to ensure a minimum number of inputs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfoucher ( talk • contribs) 18:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to question the indication that the 2P reserves are in gigabarrels - that would say that some of these are 1000, 2000, even 6000 gigabarrels = 6000 billion, or 6 trillion in American number usage. Is this correct? I suspect that the terminology list should say these reserves are in million barrels. Cheers Geologyguy ( talk) 15:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I confirm there is a x1000 discrepancy between the Giga barrel unit, which is IMHO the best suited unit, and the figures in the table, some of them obviously in mega barrel. This obvious discrepancy should be addressed at once.-- Environnement2100 ( talk) 16:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The page uses the term "Oil & Gas Ratio" : I never heard this term in the business. I suggest to replace it by the term generally heard, "Gas/Oil Ratio", or GOR. http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/Display.cfm?Term=gas%2Foil%20ratio -- Environnement2100 ( talk) 18:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Gas-oil ratio usually refers to the physical mixture in a particular reservoir, doesn't it? I think what was intended here was the fraction of produced energy that is NG versus liquids. However, I note that so far we don't actually have this data for any project. Is some on the way? Stuartstaniford ( talk) 21:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Sam - I'll work on the back years if you work on the forward years Stuartstaniford ( talk) 06:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Made a few small fixes to the English in the intro as a practice. Stuartstaniford ( talk) 23:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi
the field of Moho Bilondo (Congo) miss... the exploitation is for 2008 see here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.147.175.187 ( talk) 21:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Moho Bilondo added - Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyeriksen ( talk • contribs) 01:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Stuart,
Could you please delete your Shell BC 10 project in year 2010. It has already been entered in year 2011 which is the estimated start date according to Petrobras.
The project is now called Parque das Conchas, according to Petrobras Strategic Plan and GE Oil & Gas http://www.abemi.org.br/PALESTRA_GABRIELLI-PN2007-2011_FIRJAN.pdf http://www.gepower.com/businesses/ge_oilandgas/en/about/press/en/2007_press/061907.htm
Shell is still the operator, capacity still 100 kbd and the block is still called BC-10. I have added more references to the Parque das Conchas year 2011 project to help clarify the renaming.
regards, -- Tonyeriksen ( talk) 03:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I think Chinguetti should be listed as the main field here that started in 2006, not Tiof. Tiof and Tevet are satellite fields that may be tied back to the Chinguetti export facilities (Berge Helene FPSO). Tiof has not started production yet and would be a separate project.
Philiphart ( talk) 05:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Aramco confirmed Khursaniyah did not start in December 2007 as originally announced , http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aR7UEgivEbls, and did not give a new date for this project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Environnement2100 ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
How are the production numbers in the summary derived? They often don't match with those I get by adding up the numbers in the detailed tables. e.g.: Brazil 2011, Two projects: 180 kbd + 100 kbd = 280 kbd. Summary says 780 kbd. Iraq 2010, Three projects: 90+100+250=440; Summary says 340.( Lord Gøn ( talk) 19:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC))
Searching through industry data is a little like oil discovery itself in that you're likely to find the big projects first. Still, what is the likelihood that big projects have been overlooked? Can an estimate be made as to how many 20,000 bpd projects may have slipped through the search thus far? Also, how many projects are currently in the megaprojects database? Can a sum of projects be added to the perl output for easy reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.124.95 ( talk) 19:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
from the general megaprojects page "Significant is defined here as capable of producing at least 40,000 barrels of oil per day." from the year specific pages: "This page summaries projects that brought more than 20,000 barrels/day" -- should the first amount read 20k?
the table on the main page :
"This script is not run everyday so some discrepancies may appear (last update: 15-AUG-2008)."
There have been quite a few edits to the tables in the last 3 months, eg 2014 now totals 1770, compared to the 1390 currently listed. 2009 totals 3290 rather than the current 5056. Neither of those numbers are adjusted for the "peak year" column, however the page does not describe if/how a "production ramp up" is included into the production numbers in order to calculate the new supply coming online each year.
the side bar picture on the 2008 page was updated 29/12/2007 - at the moment it shows around 7k new additions this year, while the table only lists around 5k. Similarly the side picture on all the other year pages are also out of date.
Andy t roo ( talk) 04:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Oil megaprojects/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
"repartition" is not defined anywhwere. It strikes me as a term of art, and much of the article is meaningless without an understanding of the term. Can someone define it somewhere in the article? Thanks! |
Last edited at 11:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)