Talk:Oil megaprojects/Archive 1

General Organization
I think we need to think about the pages general organization:
 * 1) a master page giving some background on bottom methodologies and containing summary tables (total production per category, OPEC, NON-OPEC, etc.), a few charts and links to individual pages.
 * 2) each year should have its own page because of the performance issues surrounding references.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfoucher (talk • contribs) 14:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

West Qurna

 * Sam's great new graphs reveal that the biggest project for 2007 is West Qurna, yet the only reference we have for it says Lukoil's contract has been cancelled by the Iraqi government. Shouldn't this project be removed?Stuartstaniford (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC).
 * good catch, talking about postponed project. I have a backlog of a significant amount of projects for which some info is missing (i.e. onstream date and/or the peak output is uncertain or unknown). Should we start a new table containing oilfields that require further investigation?Sfoucher (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Either West Kurna can be deleted or moved to say 2012 or 2013 for first oil and the words "No FID" placed in the capital investment column. I have been putting "No FID" for projects which have not had a final investment decision.  Rather than create a separate table for oil fields requiring further investigation, what do you think about using only the words "No FID" in the capital cost column, Sam and Stuart?  Projects which have had FID are more likely to stay on schedule than those projects which have No FID.--Tonyeriksen (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I deleted it out of 2007 after seeing Sam's comment, but you can find it in the history. I agree with your sense that the FID is important - projects where no-one has actually decided to spend the money seem pretty speculative to me.  I would tend to argue for not putting them in the main tables.  Or maybe we can create a third section for no FID projects in those tables that have such projects.  I don't think they should contribute to the gross totals in each year if there's no commitment.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartstaniford (talk • contribs) 01:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Date format
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)
 * I think we should adopt some posting guidelines. I'm concerned by non numeric characters going into numeric fields. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfoucher (talk • contribs) 03:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Excel picks up the mm/yyyy date perfectly. If you want, your Perl script could convert it to a decimal in the CSV.  But the 2008.5 type convention is a) a little strange looking, b) doesn't distinguish well betweeen 2008 H1 and 2008 (nothing else known).Stuartstaniford (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * you're right, I'm fine with mm/yyyy as long as everybody else is adopting the same rule. We have to avoid variants such as "6.0+" OR "100-200", if there are uncertainties about some info it should be added in the Notes section. I'm gonna start posting guideline section.Sfoucher (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Number of oil fields graph
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)
 * The idea was to illustrate that large fields are rare, older and that more that 95% of oil discoveries are small fields. Sfoucher (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Kuwait Northern Incr.
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).
 * On further research, I found some links to a large Petrofac contract to upgrade the Northern fields that seems to be about the right size, so I've left this alone except for adding references to it.Stuartstaniford (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * After email with Tony, I've now switched to using the capacity plans documented by OPEC at http://www.opec.org/home/PowerPoint/Supply%20and%20Capacity/upstream%20projects/upkuwait.htm. Kuwait still isn't 100% clear.Stuartstaniford (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ghengis Khan
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)
 * Ok - I'm taking this out now. Stuartstaniford (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am new here. I don't understand the difference between new oil production and increasing capacity?  In this situation, we have a new field come online, but the oil is pipe into existing pipelines.  This is new oil that is used to offset other fields decline.  Why ignore fields like these?(Elung) --69.80.194.162 (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Angola
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)

What about a Wikiproject?

 * I think the oil megaprojects would benefit from a WikiProject organization or at least a task force structure. For instance, we could be a task force within the Wikiproject Energy . Also, the tables are growing rapidly and we should maybe consider creating a new page for each year. Sfoucher 14:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sam - I like the task list idea. Also, separate pages for each year with a summary table of totals on the main page sounds good.  The reference list for this one page is becoming a behemoth, and separating it will help a lot.  BTW - I'm out of town this weekend, but should have more time next week. Stuartstaniford 16:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Some kind of task force structure is a good idea. However, from a data entry and data checking perspective, having all the years on one page helps a lot.  It's quick to view all the projects for each country.  If the projects are on separate pages I would have to have all of the web pages open to check all projects for each country. Tony.
 * My main concern is that the number of references will probably double in the next few weeks making the navigation very difficult. Another advantage is that we can have a discussion page for each year. Sfoucher 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony's point is a good one though - it's true the ability to quickly search for other instances of the field is easiest in one page. Maybe we can keep it in one page for a little longer, but plan to split it up as we approach completion.70.231.249.168 17:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The list will never be complete as timing, capacities and reserves for each project change periodically. Perhaps one page for each oil producing sector could be possible.  EG One page for Middle East OPEC countries, one for non Middle East OPEC (eg. Angola, Nigeria, Libya, Algeria, Venezuela, Indonesia, Ecuador).  For non OPEC - one page for North America, one page for Europe/Pacific, one page for former USSR (CIS), one page for Asia, one page for Latin America, one page for Middle East/Africa.  Does Wikipedia do pivot tables as Excel does? Sam, I'll look at the task force page that you set up  --Tonyeriksen (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree the list will never be complete, but the big push on it will come to an end in a few weeks, and it will be at least complete at that time.  I don't like the regional page idea, as it makes analysis and totalling harder.Stuartstaniford (talk) 07:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've started the task force page: Oil Megaprojects task force. Sfoucher 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem with the references

 * it seems that there is a problem in the reference list which is showing "Template Cite News" for the references 308 and higher! have we hit some kind of maximum? Sfoucher (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If maximum limits have been reached then maybe it's time to split the years, say over three web pages. What about one web page for years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006; the next web page for 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010; the last web page for years 2011 and up?  I've noticed that it's also taking longer to save new project data now that the web page is longer and uses more memory. --Tonyeriksen (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Jasmin Field
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)

Genghis Khan field link, year 2007 and Egypt projects North Bardawill and Tuart, year 2008
Someone has added a link to the actual historical persona ; same thing with the field "Atlantis".--Environnement2100 (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously just adding everywhere is not enough :). Sfoucher (talk) 18:06, 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

Table description
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)

Table format

 * Posted a first table from an Excel spreadsheet using csv2wp. Possibility to import the wiki table into Excel is also an issue.Sfoucher (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I like Tony's idea of splitting each year into OPEC and Non-OPEC, alphabetical by country. Have done this with 2003 where I was adding more projects tonight.  Suggest we drop the extra blank table row he has introduced, however.  Stuartstaniford (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned about the consolidation of the non-year startup information into the year. It will now be more work to do any analysis with the tables, since we have a bunch of non-numerical information in the field for a minority of cases.  I'm keen to preserve the property of being able to cut and paste into a spreadsheet and do analysis without undue hand-editing of the information afterwards. Stuartstaniford (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've changed non numerical values to numerical values: 2nd half 2007 -> 2007.5. Sfoucher (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Many things in the table should be links. Eg all the countries should link to the country article, a lot of the bigger oil companies have their own article, and some of the bigger fields do too.  Stuartstaniford (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2007 (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/
 * There appears to be a whole lot of duplicate projects entered for 2009 and 2010. None of these projects have any links to verify their current status.  I think that there should be at least one link to verify the status for 2007 and future projects.  For example, Kashagan Phase 1 has been entered as a project in 2009 and 2010 with 450 kbd.  I have entered Kashagan Phase 1 as project in 2011 with a reduced output of 300 kbd based on these sources

Tony Eriksen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.33.44 (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that ultimately, all projects need at least one link, and as many more as maybe required to verify all the information in the table. However, it's obviously going to take a little while to get there.  Also, there's going to be many fields where we have to debate exactly what the situation is.  Suggest we create separate sections in the talk page for each field where there are inconsistencies or uncertainties that need to get resolved. Stuartstaniford (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that a separate section for debating fields is cumbersome, instead independent third party links can be added to verify the status. Once the links are read then a debate could start.  A debate is not necessary when links are added - It's not that hard to find links.  For example, the Nov 26, 2007 link for Iran Azadegan field production that I have included in Azadegan, 2008 section, http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=157280 states clearly that "National Iranian South Oil Company (NISOC) Managing Director Seifollah Jashnsaz said the early production of huge Azadegan oilfield would start in January 2008."  So I hope you don't mind but I deleted the later Azadegan entries.
 * If you don't want me adding links or data to the table, please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.33.44 (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I propose that we keep the column "Notes" for eventual questions or comments and that we add a column "References" to put the sources. Now the column Notes is containing the references.70.52.72.176 (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that links can be added without need to debate first, but where something is unclear or inconsistent, we may need to discuss, and discussions of individual fields in "Table Format" isn't ideal. Also - Tony could you create an account so we don't have to guess which IP address is you :-)  I'm glad of your assistance.Stuartstaniford (talk) 05:04, 26 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] 
 * It appears that the working assumption of this project is that there will be one table that contains one row for each megaproject. Although this seems a quite reasonable goal for input to various analytical studies, I do not think this is a good idea for data collection from disparate sources. You should develop a collection of formats/templates for recording typical news reports, and data processing scripts that transfer


 * It is great to see this information so accessible and in the public domain. Might I make one suggestion: yearly peak production totals. I know there maybe reasons you might choose not to do this (peak production not achieved in year of first production, etc.) but I think it would be a very useful addition. Readers may be thinking about how much oil is coming on line in a given year compared to the expected decline in existing fields. If I can make an educated guess at the decline rate, and know the current production volume, I can easily calculate the amount of new production needed per year to stay level. So my first, very basic analysis would be to sum the Peak values for each year. What do you think? Niallbrown (talk) 15:56, 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)

Oilfield template?
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)

values - gigabarrels?
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)
 * This is a mistake, some entries have stayed in thousand barrels, I'm working on it. Sfoucher (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the corrections. Seems the 2006 Sudan - Dar Blend is still wrong.--Environnement2100 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Gas/Oil Ratio, Oil & Gas Ratio
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)
 * Ok, has been changed. Sfoucher (talk) 19:05, 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)

Back Years
Sam - I'll work on the back years if you work on the forward yearsStuartstaniford (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)


 * Ok, great! Sfoucher (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Moho Bilondo
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)

Brazil, Parque das Conchas (BC 10 Ostra, Abalone, Nautilus, Argonauta) years 2010 and 2011
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)
 * Ok - thanks. I deleted it (I had searched before entering it, but of course the name change meant it didn't show up).Stuartstaniford (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Chinguetti 2006
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)

AFK delayed sine die
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)

Production numbers
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))
 * The summary table is created by manually running a Perl script that is parsing each individual page for each year. It has not been runned since May 14 so the summary table may differ if changes have occurred in yearly tables. We are in the process to put the script on a server and host a permanent table that will be updated on a daily basis.Sfoucher (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy of Project Conclusions
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)
 * It's hard to tell how many we have missed and it is very likely that there are less information available on small projects. Stuart Staniford has tried to extraploate how much we may have missed (see this chart). Currently there are about 440 entries in the database.Sfoucher (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

out of date pictures and tables, inconstancy in "significant"
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)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)