Sable Island Gas - the Ten Year Wonder

Sable Island lies about 150 km off the coast of Nova Scotia. In its vicinity lie the natural gas fields of the Sable Offshore Energy Project. Production from these fields began in 1999, and there was initially considerable optimism about the potential of the area. Since then, a number of dry holes have been drilled and exploration licences abandoned. There are some optimistic voices still to be heard, but the future of the area merits a closer look.

Canada's National Energy Board issues an annual report on the short-term outlook for natural gas in Canada. The most recent was issued this October: Short-term Canadian Natural Gas Deliverability 2006-2008. Canada has two areas from which gas is currently produced; the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) and the Nova Scotia off-shore area. The latter produces only a small fraction of Canada's total natural gas, but rates its own section in the report.

Gas production in the region consists of output from the Sable Offshore Energy Project (SOEP) since 1999 and a minor contribution from the onshore McCully field in New Brunswick since 2003. These sources currently account for roughly 9.9 million m3/d (350 MMcf/d) or about two percent of Canadian natural gas deliverability.

The Sable Island project has four reservoirs (Thebaud,Venture, South Venture and Alma) that are now producing and one that has been shut in (North Triumph).

The SOEP has benefited from the addition of three new wells since mid-2005 that are enhancing access to the Venture, South Venture and Alma reservoirs. Pressure declines in some other fields have required that wells be operated in a cycling mode (shut in briefly to rebuild pressure and then restarted) resulting in monthly deliverability from the project varying by almost 25 percent since late 2005. As a result of pressure decline, the North Triumph field has not been producing since November 2005.

Production from the project has never been very steady, is now well down from its 2001 peak of about 15 million cubic metres per day and is still declining. To counteract this decline, offshore compression of the gas will shortly be started.

To enhance deliverability, the SOEP is in the process of adding compression at the inlet of the pipeline that delivers the gas to shore. The offshore platform and compression unit was installed in mid-2006 and is expected to be hooked up and operational by December. The added compression will allow the existing wells to operate at lower pressures thereby significantly increasing overall project deliverability and potentially enabling the North Triumph field to resume production. Uncertainty exists regarding individual well performance at the new lower pressures, and cycling of some wells may continue.

The predicted effect of the compression on output is also shown in the report:

Atlantic Canada gas output

Click for full-size image

The curious thing about this diagram is the use of a new colour to show the effect of compression. No new field is involved, so all that compression should do is increase deliverablity, at the expense of more rapid depletion of the reservoirs. It cannot delay output decline indefinitely, and the diagram shows beginnings of decline in late 2008. One would expect that the total output (over all time) would scarcely be affected by compression, so a very rapid decline would be expected after 2008. It is difficult to see how a decline of the output to a very low level can be avoided by the end of the decade or shortly after. In spite of this, one report on Rolls Royce's involvement in the project implies that 25 years' further output is expected.

The Sable Tier ll project will develop six gas fields: Venture, South Venture, Thebaud, North Triumph, Glenelg and Alma. Combined, the fields contain nearly 85 billion cubic meters of recoverable gas reserves, one of the largest natural gas deposits remaining to be developed in North America. Sable is projected to produce a 25-year supply.

This view may have been encouraged by a 2005 report from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, which contains the following:

CAPP Sable

Click for full-size image

In this diagram, the "85 billion cubic metres" is mentioned in point 3 as "recoverable gas reserves", but apparently is now only a 20 year supply. If one then considers point 4, some new things become apparent. The first is the use of different units, bcf (billion cubic feet) instead of billion cubic metres. This makes comparison with point 3 more difficult. Translated, it means that the Sable Offshore Energy Project had only 20 billion cubic metres of reserve base in 2003 - more like a six year supply, assuming a production rate of ten million cubic metres per day. This is consistent with the implications of the National Energy Board's production diagram above.

There is some possibility that a pipeline built to transport Sable Island gas to the mainland will be used for the nearby Deep Panuke project as the Sable fields wind down. This is in contrast to the original plans, in which dedicated pipelines were to have been used because it was thought that the Sable pipeline would have no spare capacity.

Barring unexpected developments, it seems that the Sable Island gas project will indeed prove to be a ten year wonder. Gas users in Maritime Canada, who have watched the bulk of the Sable gas pass them by on its way to the U.S., will then become dependent on imported LNG - that is, if it is available.

Down in Texas, we have a soon-to-be Re-elected governor who has fast-tracked the construction of 17 coal fired power plants to service North Texas.  I could not for the life of me figure out why coal fired plants were being constructed when so many people are lighting their cigars with $100 bills paid from their gas royalties.  I finally had an Ah-hah when I looked into North American reserves/production.  It is shocking to see that NG reserves are forecasted to supply betwen 7 and 10 years at cuurent consumption rates for NA.  Yet, the US derives approx. 30% of its energy from NG.

Why is this not getting any publicity?  What can possibly reduce this problem to a manageable level?  How can't this send teh region into total chaos?

i'm going to rock myself asleep in the fetal position until this all passes.

Why? It'll still be there when you wake up. I'd be thinking about Budweiser, Jim Beam, and Crack - that way the problem will never come back.
I hate to intrude on TOD Canada's space here, and I know nothing of Markegg, but this is it's first post. How many people even considered "troll?"

Sorry Markegg, you'll have to last at least two weeks.

John 8:7 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

It can't be all that bad; Shell just announced that they were going ahead with their tar sands project enlargement, and as we all know, that requires a lot of NG, so they must expect to get it.
They need to switch to nuclear to get the job done :/
Here's the problem with TOD Canada. It adheres too much to TOD USA. TOD USA is a wasteland. It has hardly anything to do with  Energy. It has almost nothing to do with oil. It has transformed itself into a Doomfest where most would prefer to dice about Iran and Matt Savinar's website.

Canadians are inherently smarter than Americans. You've observed us for far too long for this not to be true.

Bring Freddy Hutter into your ranks. The US has NO energy policy. Canada doesn't either, but at least you have a strain of independent European thought that helps in this regard.

TOD Canada is free and new. You can take chances. Please do.

Roel, take some chances, for chrissakes. Blame everything on me if it doesn't workout. But stop being a satellite.

Whose website? Oh yeah the Profiteer of Doom....

Went to Canada twice beautiful country, and Grade "A" strip clubs.

As for having no energy policy if you choose to not decide you still have made a choice right?

Matt

Well, see, that shows the problems with not figuring females appropriately in the calculations. Then again, It's not really the rest of the world's problem that Canadian women on average are more attractive then say Ukraine's. Thanks, Medic. You ass, I was trying to think about peak oil today. Now all I can think about is pussy. Are you in Sao Paolo? Thanks for fucking up Tuesday. Voting Day. Jesus Christ. I was going to invite you up here for Thanksgiving. But now I don't know...
TOD Canada is free and new. You can take chances. Please do.

We are. Not mentioned is the fact that this Canadian compression technology is being licensed to KSA where it will be used to maximize production from the inflated Ghawar reserves.

Appropriate use of Canadian compression will provide a viable future development path and forgo an expensive world outlay on Jim Beam and crack. Not yet certain of its application to females.

My first experience with TOD Canada.

I feel the sudden need to take shower.

Lesson learned. I'll stick to my side of the border from now on.

Use Soap. I dunno. They've just been tellin' me that for everyone I scare off, there's another 40 I bring in. I'm not even getting paid. I love Canada and I love Canadians. How could you not? They're like Americans, except better.
This is hardly typical of Canadians.

Blokey we are.  Crude not normally.

If you cannot keep your mind on topic and out of the gutter, please do not post comments here.

Stoneleigh

Well, there you have it. Sorry.
Amen.  It's unfortunate that certain infantile idiots don't recognize that they would get the attention they seek, if they just went and played in heavy truck traffic.  
Congratulations, you just made the top of the list. I hope you're not offended that Kevembuanngga only got the number 2 spot. You had better spelling overall. But things can change.
CEO, thanks for your confidence, appreciated and not lost.

As for the comments on Canada's natural beauty, I don't mind, but I also understand why Stoneleigh would like you to tone it down a tad.

Why not support us with some awesome graphs instead?

Only with Stoneleigh's approval. But I promise you my best.
Re: The curious thing about this diagram is the use of a new colour to show the effect of compression. No new field is involved, so all that compression should do is increase deliverablity, at the expense of more rapid depletion of the reservoirs. It cannot delay output decline indefinitely, and the diagram shows beginnings of decline in late 2008. One would expect that the total output (over all time) would scarcely be affected by compression, so a very rapid decline would be expected after 2008

The curious thing about that graph is that it makes no sense whatsoever in that the more rapid extraction due to compression at the wellhead should be expressed as estimated increases in the various fields where it is being applied. What am I missing here? Is there a new field called Compression? No, there are no new fields. The existing fields are shown as still declining. This must mean that the declines shown would be the case if compression were not applied. I see, then, that they are making a point about the miracle of compressing natural gas by showing a cumulative estimate in a new category. This has the happy effect of bypassing field-by-field estimates. Declines will be wiped out in all the fields because the compression miracle makes total production in all the fields jump from about 9 million cubic metres/day to almost 14 in what looks to be a matter of a few weeks.

Alternatively, are they taking drugs at the CNEB? If so, what kind? Where can I get some?

compression can and does increase both rate and reserves in a depletion reservoir(not water driven)  the rate at which a gas well produces is ultimately a function of the drawdown at the wellbore  and by lowering the wellhead pressure the drawdown at the producing formation is increased       installing compression will increase reserves by lowering the abandonment pressure    pv=znRT   it sounds to me like the sable island wells are loading up with liquids (condensate and/or water)   and by increasing the rate production may be more stable (the higher velocity of the gas stream keeps the liquids swept out of the tubing)   i am speculating on a lot of this because i dont know that much about sable island per se
Thanks for this, Libelle.  Have you got any numbers on NG consumption in the Maritimes?
http://www.neb.gc.ca/energy/EnergyReports/EMAGasOverviewAssessmentMaritimes2003_e.pdf

has the data (I don't have the Adobe programme to extract it here).

It gives 2001 energy consumption by type for PEI, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick (but not Newfoundland).

The reality is this should be pretty small compared even to Quebec consumption.

Here are the numbers (from Statistics Canada) for 2000 to 2004 for the gross production of natural gas in (and off) Nova Scotia, and the direct sales of gas in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.  The gas numbers are thousands of cubic metres.


Year     Production   Sales
2000     3597200      0
2001     5375500      45004
2002     5474900      1007959
2003     4665800      630879
2004     4327900      668551

There appear to have been no utility sales of gas in those provinces, so the direct sales should be the total. This means that about 15% of the Nova Scotia gas is used in Canada, and the rest goes to the U.S..

I've been away - I'm looking.
The use of different units on one slide of a presentation, smoothly concealing a huge contradiction in reserve numbers really piques my interest.  

Did the presenter make an error?
Did he do this deliberately?
Did he assume the audience would be sleepy after a big lunch?
Did anyone call him on it at the presentation?

Is anyone up for calling the presenter?

Actually, Nova Scotia could be surprisingly self-sufficient from a number of energy perspectives - there is still coal in fairly decent amounts (though apparently no longer worth  mining profitably), tidal/wave energy, offshore wind, but the thing is, the scale is European, so to speak, and not wide open North American.

Which is why it surprises me a bit to see Sable Island as a gas location - the very last time I was in Nova Scotia, the hope was still for massive oil/coal deposits to be found/developed. In the mid-80s, the last coal mine in Glace Bay was shut down. (I spent some time with a few miners and their families camping in the early 1980s.)

It also surprises me a bit in another way - listing such small gas production numbers means at this point, the future is looking pretty grim for new supplies, the same way that Nova Scotia's coal production in 1985 would have only been a footnote at best.

Good observations. They'd better get real serious on wind, and fast.
As expat points out, Atlantic Canada is rich in potential energy: wind, tidal and wave (if the latter is ever proven feasible).

There was also a CANDU nuclear unit at Pt. Lepreau New Brunswick

http://nuclear.nbpower.com/en/pointlepreaurefurb/PLGS_History_factsheet_sept2005.pdf

680MW (about 1/3rd of New Brunswick demand), operating for 21 years.

The Nova Scotia offshore is a bit inhospitable in winter, unlike the onshore residents. Wave considerations aside (probably manageable) the icing season extends from November to April. Do you think wind turbines could be designed to cope with several tons of ice load?

Expat, I share your surprise about Sable Island gas. I worked in Nova Scotia during the years you were visiting there, and remember making a bet with my boss at the time that Sable Island gas would not come ashore before I retired. It was an outstandingly bad prediction - I'm still working.  

Do you think wind turbines could be designed to cope with several tons of ice load?

This is a very important question. I don't know the answer, but I know a few wind experts who may be able to offer an opinion. If I can find out I'll post the information here.

In addition to wind and tidal resources,
there is significant undeveloped hydro in
Labrador that could be tapped.

The Danish example shows the importance of
the opportunity to combine variable sources
such as wind and tidal with more control-
lable resources like hydro and nuclear.


I think so. There is a bridge somewhere in northern canada that I saw a tv special on. It has to deal with mass deep ice flows seasonally. Basically the base is built like a inverted ice breaker nose causing the ice to crack and slide pass.

I so I think the towers could be built to withstand anything but a large berg. Now with global warming you get less ice but more bergs so ...

It's not the towers I was thinking about, but the blades. If the blades are weighted with ice when a nor-easter blows through, I imagine there could be significant damage to the structure. Ice brought down a huge number of pylons during the 1998 ice storm in Ontario and Quebec and they didn't even have moving parts. I'm no expert in this field, but it seems to me that the combination of ice and strong winds could conceivably be a show-stopper for large-scale wind power development in that region. It's definitely something I'd like to find out more about. I'll ask around and report back if I find out anything interesting.
Quebec Hydro is doing some serious research on windpower.  You might find something there.
I think this presentation is right what you are looking for...
Stoneleigh,
           In one word no, see my reply to Peakearl below
That is a good point about icing, especially since I had been thinking along the lines of offshore somewhere like Yarmouth as compared to Cape Breton - though a temperate part of Canada, ice is just too big a part of Canada's natural heritage to ignore unless you are very careful.

But even onshore, the amount of icing could be very significant considering the amount of fog/drizzle/rain which is available, which is certainly higher than what is normal in my sketchy experience in Europe.

On the other hand, and not to place blind faith in technology, it is difficult for me to imagine that North Sea or British wind turbines don't face similar problems which haven't been solved - it seems like only the Finns sell a non-freezing rotor design, though - not just Canadians live with ice. This could also include the idea that insurance premiums are based on the idea of it happening anyways. Sort of like the Gulf of Mexico - since you can't realistically design for everything that could happen, you just gamble - even though the odds are carefully calculated, in the end, it comes down to probabilities. Thunderhorse or Mars looked like good bets, for example, but now, the odds have changed for any successors.

I will say seeing the twisted and mangled containers at the end of the South End Container Terminal in Halifax was eye opening - the Atlantic is a truly vicious environment, and likely worse than the North Sea in its extremes.

There are several types of deicing systems for use on aircraft wings, tails etc. I am sure these could be applied to wind blades (essentially rotating wings) at some energy or material cost.
Peakearl,
           Sorry for my late reply, I don't think any aircraft anti icing systems would solve icing on wind turbine blades and any build up will cause out of balance problems and failure of the blade. When frontal weather systems move through or temperature changes suddenly with precipitation, clear ice can form rapidly.
            It will never form uniformly and with such big blades on turbines these days, the out of balance load will destroy the blade as the weight of quickly forming ice causes enormous imbalances.
             There are three types of anti icing systems on aircraft, one being pneumatic rubber boots on forward surfaces that act to break up the ice by flexing back and forth. Not possible for turbine blades. On jets hot air is taken off the later stages of the high compressor of the engine, again not applicable and finally the use of embedded electrical heaters in metal surfaces or glass.
              This is unlikely to be available because of the power requirements and amount needed.These days I understand that many blades are now being made of  fibre glass and composites because of fatigue and failure with metal, therefore this is a lot harder to put an element in especially to cover the whole blade.
               Another risk which is destroying a lot of blades but not widely publicised is lightening which causes enormous damage. You couldn't pick a worse target than a high 350' structure on ridges, mostly made of metal for a lightening strike. At any given time around the earth there are approximately 50,000 active thunderstorms and icing, lightening and turbulence are always available to cause severe damage to anything in their path.
Thanks for this comment on Sable Island. I personally had a more optimistic view on the potential offshore Nova Scotia but the reports you refer are quite radical.

Do you have a more recent report, about the companies that drilled there after 2004, had dry holes and abandonned their concessions? Were they many? How many drills were made in the region? Has the hope faded among most companies?

Canadian Superior is the largest holder but I believe they haven't drilled anything there yet. Instead of drilling offshore Nova Scotia, they started to explore a new concession in Trinidad & Tobago.