Images in this archived article have been removed.
At this point in time, anyone who knows anything about Mexican oil production knows it is declining rapidly, particularly production from the supergiant Cantarell complex.
In the early years of the decade 2000-2009 it seemed obvious, at least to me, that Cantarell, and Mexican, oil production would start declining around 2006. Apparently it was not so obvious to the U.S. Dept. of Energy/Energy Info. Admin. (US DOE/EIA). In their International Energy Outlook 2003 (IEO2003), the US DOE/EIA stated:
“Mexico is expected to adopt energy policies that will encourage the efficient development of its resource base. Expected production volumes in Mexico exceed 4.2 million barrels per day by the end of the decade and remain near that level through 2025.”
Over the years, I’ve been critical of the US DOE/EIA’s wildly inaccurate estimates of future oil production for countries. It has appeared to me that their projections have been based upon desire and demand projections rather than data analysis.
In my 2005 book, The Future of Global Oil Production, I stated:
Declining production from the Cantarell complex will strongly influence Mexico’s future oil production since Cantarell produces such a large percentage (~66% in 2004) of Mexico’s oil. If production from the Cantarell complex starts declining in 2006, it’s realistic to expect Mexico’s oil production to decline as well. The situation would be comparable to Alaska when the Prudhoe Bay field started declining. The Ku-Zaap-Maloob development, and possibly others, will slow the decline of Mexican oil production but it’s unrealistic to assume, as the US DOE/EIA does, that production can increase until 2010 and remain near that level through 2025.
In my book, I had a graph of historical and projected Cantarell oil production (Figure 1). The Cantarell complex actually started declining a year earlier (2005) than I was projecting in Figure 1 and didn’t quite reach the peak level I projected.
Figure 1: Historical (1980-2002) and projected oil production for the Cantarell complex
Jean Laherrere places the estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) for Cantarell at ~19 Gb, which correlates with data from Simmons & Co. Int’l. At the end of 2009, Cantarell’s cumulative production will be ~13.3 Gb. An average decline rate of 4.0%/year after 2009 would give an ultimate recovery of ~19 Gb. It could be that the 19 Gb estimate is inflated, meaning that the average future decline rate could be greater than 4.0%/year.
Table I shows production/decline rates for Cantarell since 2004 (tables I-IV from Pemex).
Table I: Cantarell Production and Decline Rates
Year |
Production Rate (mb/d) |
Absolute Decline (b/d) |
% Decline |
2004 |
2.14 |
|
|
2005 |
2.04 |
100,000 |
4.67 |
2006 |
1.80 |
240,000 |
11.76 |
2007 |
1.49 |
310,000 |
17.22 |
2008 |
1.04 |
450,000 |
30.20 |
2009 |
.70a |
340,000 |
32.69 |
|
2004-09 Production Decline |
1,440,000 |
67.29 |
aData through October 2009 from various sources
As Cantarell’s production has declined, Mexico’s liquid hydrocarbons production has declined as well, in spite of a rapid production increase from the Ku-Zaap-Maloob complex. Table II contains Mexico’s total liquid hydrocarbons production from 2004 to the present.
Table II: Mexican Total Liquid Hydrocarbons Production and Decline Rates
Year |
Production Rate (mb/d) |
Absolute Decline (b/d) |
% Decline |
2004 |
3.825 |
|
|
2005 |
3.760 |
65,000 |
1.70 |
2006 |
3.683 |
77,000 |
2.05 |
2007 |
3.471 |
212,000 |
5.76 |
2008 |
3.157 |
314,000 |
9.05 |
2009 |
2.976a |
181,000 |
5.73 |
|
2004-09 Prod. Decline |
849,000 |
22.20 |
aData through October 2009
Mexico’s liquid hydrocarbons production decline rate has been lower than that of the Cantarell complex largely due to rapidly increasing production from the Ku-Zaap-Maloob complex (Table III).
Table III: Ku-Zaap-Maloob Oil Production and Incline Rates
Year |
Production Rate (b/d) |
Absolute Increase (b/d) |
% Increase |
2004 |
304,400 |
|
|
2005 |
321,700 |
17,300 |
5.68 |
2006 |
403,800 |
82,100 |
25.52 |
2007 |
527,200 |
123,400 |
30.56 |
2008 |
706,100 |
178,900 |
33.93 |
2009 |
800,000a |
93,900 |
13.30 |
|
2004-09 Prod. Decline |
495,600 |
162.81 |
aData is an estimate for year based upon several reported monthly values
The Ku-Zaap-Maloob complex is now at its projected peak. Based upon my data, the Ku-Zaap-Maloob complex will have produced 2.9 Gb of oil at the end of 2009 (Ku produced for many years prior to expansion). I have come across an EUR value for Ku-Zaap-Maloob of 4.9 Gb although I don’t know how accurate it is.
A representative of Pemex has claimed that Ku-Zaap-Maloob can produce at its 2009 rate for the next 7 years but that would put the cumulative recovery in 2016 at 4.96 Gb. Pemex representatives have had a strong tendency to exaggerate production rates so I’m skeptical of the claim. If the 4.9 Gb EUR is accurate, then Ku-Zaap-Maloob would have to decline at an average rate of about 13%/year after this year. It will be interesting to see what happens.
In 2006, Vincente Fox announced that Pemex would invest $37.5 billion over 20 years in the Chicontepec Basin with the expectation that production would ultimately increase to over 1 mb/d. The problem is that Chicontepec has a complex geology which does not lend itself to easy oil extraction. During the summer of 2009, the production rate for Chicontepec was ~30,000 b/d, not much higher than in 2008. Production was projected to reach 60,000 b/d by the end of 2009 but that doesn’t appear likely.
Spending money on oil exploration does not ensure finding large quantities of oil, as the U.S. experience during the late 1970s/early 1980s proved. Some analysts make the case that ~90% of Mexico’s Gulf of Mexico (GOM) has not been explored and that with exploration, large quantities of oil will be discovered.
Geologically, Mexico’s GOM consists of two distinct regions: the southern GOM and the northern GOM. The southern GOM is where Cantarell, Ku-Zaap-Maloob and other prolific offshore fields are located and where almost all of the Mexican GOM oil has been discovered. The region has been sufficiently explored so that all, or almost all, of the major fields have been discovered so I don’t expect much in terms of new discoveries in this region. The reservoirs in the southern GOM consist of carbonate reef structures.
In Mexico’s northern GOM, the rock that could conceivably contain reservoirs is sandstone. The sandstone is not as thick and uniform as farther north, in the U.S. GOM, and the rock quality is not considered good. Some experts feel that good reservoirs are unlikely in this region and that prospects for significant oil discoveries are poor. To date there have not been any significant exploration successes in the region.
While Mexican oil production has declined, so have Mexico’s net total liquid hydrocarbons exports, as shown in Table IV.
Table IV: Mexican Net Total Liquid Hydrocarbons Exportsa
Year |
Net Exports (mb/d) |
Absolute Decline (b/d) |
% Decline |
2004 |
1.789 |
|
|
2005 |
1.670 |
119,000 |
6.65 |
2006 |
1.612 |
58,000 |
3.47 |
2007 |
1.371 |
241,000 |
14.95 |
2008 |
1.043 |
328,000 |
23.92 |
2009b |
0.974 |
69,000 |
6.62 |
|
2004-2009 Export Decline |
815,000 |
45.56 |
aNet total liquid hydrocarbons exports are the difference between (crude oil + refined product exports) – refined product imports
bData through October 2009
It appears likely that Mexico’s oil exports will decline to zero within the next 10 years, with implications for the U.S. which imports most of the oil that Mexico exports.
Colin Campbell has estimated Mexico’s EUR at 55 Gb. Based upon that value and a cumulative production at the end of 2009 of 38.3 Gb, it would suggest an average decline rate for future Mexican oil production of about 5%/year.
Roger Blanchard teaches chemistry at Lake Superior State University and authored book The Future of Global Oil Production: Facts, Figures, Trends and Projections by Region, McFarland & Company (2005). He also grows fruit trees and hay on acreage outside Sault Ste. Marie (MI).
(Note: Commentaries do not necessarily represent ASPO-USA’s positions; they are personal statements and observations by informed commentators.)