Old, but discuss;



http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

Basically sitting on a metric shitton of oil reserves in CO and SD/ND, people are bitchin saying we need to tap it to bring down gas prices.

Its enough oil to last 30-40 years at the current consumption with no foreign oil, i say we keep things how they are, bleed the middle east dry, continue working on renewable resources, and in 15-20 years we will be sitting on oil worth more then diamonds.

9/3/2008 5:45:04 PM

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3868

Quote :

"The majority of currently producing reservoirs in the onshore US are by contrast much "tighter." A pretty good reservoir might have porosities of 10% to 15% and permeabilities of 1 to 100 millidarcies (0.001 to 0.1 darcy). Reservoirs with those properties by and large would be considered very desirable reservoir in most of the onshore US and Canada. Moving downward on the scale of reservoir quality, many thousands of wells in the US are now being drilled in so-called "resource plays." These are thick, laterally extensive reservoirs usually covering thousands of square miles, and filled with hydrocarbons, but they are difficult to exploit. The Bakken Shale, along with formations like the Barnett, Fayetteville, and Woodford shales fall into this category. Permeabilities can be in the range of .00001 to .01 millidarcies, with porosities in the range of near zero to maybe 10% or a bit higher."

I got to there, and I'm getting the impression the cost will be great to recover this oil. Still reading...

9/3/2008 5:53:18 PM

Quote :

"Its enough oil to last 30-40 years at the current consumption"

maybe i'm missing something, but what the fuck are you talking about?

Quote :

"3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation"

Quote :

"The U.S. uses about 6.6 billion barrels per year. "

9/3/2008 5:56:24 PM

These conclusions do a pretty good job of reducing 30-45 minutes of reading to all you really need to know

Quote :

"Conclusions 1. The Bakken shale has produced about 111 million barrels of oil during the last 50+ years in Montana and North Dakota. 2. Total Bakken production is still rising, and producing at the rate of 75,000 BOPD in October 2007. 3. Because of the highly variable nature of shale reservoirs, the characteristics of the historical Bakken production, and the fact that per-well rates seem to have peaked, it seems unlikely that total Bakken production will exceed 2x to 3x current rate of 75,000 BOPD. 4. The latest boom in Bakken production is driven by the application of horizontal wells and hydraulic fracturing technology, which has added about 70 million barrels of production in 7 years. Ultimate recovery of the already-drilled wells should be at least double this volume. 5. The USGS estimates the mean volume of technically recoverable hydrocarbons to be 3,649 million barrels of oil. This is roughly 7 to 12 times the size of already known resources. 6. Based on current production and areas likely to be drilled, the USGS estimate of technically recovery resources seems optimistic. 7. The Bakken potential resource, while large by US onshore field standards, will have only a minor effect on US production or imports. Using 2006 US imports and consumption for comparison, the Bakken undiscovered resource of 3,649 million barrels of oil, if subsequently discovered and fully developed, would provide us with the equivalent of six months of oil consumption or 10 months of imports, spread over 20 or more years. In reality, the reserves developed are likely to be many times smaller than this value. 8. The October 2007 production rate of 75,000 BOPD amounts only 0.4% of US oil consumption, or 0.6% of imports. 9. Per-well Bakken production peaked in August 2005 at 116 barrels a day, and was down to 79 barrels a day in October 2007. If the Bakken production history in the 1990s can be used as a guide, the peaking of per-well production may portend a peak in total Bakken production."

^ We don't import all of our oil. He is saying we can produce all we need at home if we could instantly tap all that oil.

[Edited on September 3, 2008 at 6:04 PM. Reason : a]

9/3/2008 6:02:31 PM

all that oil?

its only 4.3 billion barrels.....

9/3/2008 6:11:14 PM

There's enough shale oil in the world (mostly in N. America) to last hundreds of years.

kkthx

9/3/2008 6:14:14 PM

^^ currently recoverable, between that and the colorado reserve, theres over 800 billion barrels

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5424033

[Edited on September 3, 2008 at 6:16 PM. Reason : ]

9/3/2008 6:15:49 PM

ok great. where's that article?

4.3 billion barrels is nothing

[Edited on September 3, 2008 at 6:18 PM. Reason : thanks]

9/3/2008 6:17:59 PM

Quote :

"I got to there, and I'm getting the impression the cost will be great to recover this oil. Still reading..."

Quote :

"Bhattacharya figures the company can produce oil for about $33 a barrel in the early days, and that, over time, production costs will fall to less than $20 a barrel. That seems like a bargain at today's prices, but for most of the last two decades, when conventional oil was cheap, no one wanted to talk about oil shale."

Quote :

"4.3 billion barrels is nothing"

only about $460 billion

the shale reserves hold well over $1k trillion


[Edited on September 3, 2008 at 6:21 PM. Reason : hard to fathom that much cash]

9/3/2008 6:18:52 PM

^^^^ Too bad it's even dirtier than conventional fossil fuels.

kkthx. (but no thanks)

[Edited on September 3, 2008 at 6:20 PM. Reason : .]

9/3/2008 6:20:19 PM

I'm wonder how much it would cost today to produce that same barrel of oil he was referring to in May 2006?

9/3/2008 6:22:07 PM

Quote :

""Bhattacharya figures the company can produce oil for about $33 a barrel in the early days, and that, over time, production costs will fall to less than $20 a barrel."

9/3/2008 6:23:37 PM

^^^I'm sure we have the technology (or can develop it) to extract that shale oil in a cleaner way. But its besides the point, coal gasification is where our energy future lies.

Oil/gasoline isn't going anywhere! bwah

9/3/2008 6:28:53 PM

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/6/15/20621/7880

Quote :

"Call me a skeptic. Current U.S. oil usage is over 20 million barrels a day, and it would require 10 new power plants and five new coal mines to replace less than 5% of our consumption. Add to that a multi-billion dollar capital expenditure, increased greenhouse gas emissions, and a process with a marginal EROEI. Consider that we could “create” the same amount of oil by simply cutting consumption by 5%. It seems to me that enacting conservation policies would be far more cost effective than developing oil shale."

Keep em comin!

9/3/2008 6:29:53 PM

Quote :

"www.theoildrum.com"

not a biased site or anything

9/3/2008 6:45:54 PM

great thread

i say run the middle east dry and slowly start tapping our own

9/3/2008 7:03:57 PM

Yeah, I've posted this several times. We're like the Saudi Arabia of coal and shale oil reserves. People have no idea that there are trillions of barrels of oil and billions of tons of coal out in the Green River basin. Of course, getting that shit out of the ground is a dirty, water-and-energy-intensive business. Alberta, with their oil sands, has shown that it can be done at a profit, but also at a pretty big environmental cost.

9/3/2008 7:04:42 PM

[Edited on September 3, 2008 at 8:02 PM. Reason : nm]

9/3/2008 8:01:49 PM

Quote :

"not a biased site or anything"

WTF? If anything, an unbiased observer would think a site called "theoildrum" just might be pro-oil. It's apparent you didn't read anything I posted. Here is the mission statement for the site

Quote :

"1. Raise awareness of energy issues Most people are not aware of the problems we face or they underestimate their potential impact. Politicians and the traditional media have overlooked the problem, out of ignorance or due to a conflict of interest. We seek to fill the information gap, disseminating underreported facts and analysis. 2. Host a civil discussion This website is a space where energy issues can be debated in a civil manner. Through the encouragement of evidence-based reasoning and logical arguments, we aim to host discussions with a depth and breadth absent from the traditional media or current political discourse. 3. Conduct original research in a transparent manner We believe that the issues such as the timing and impacts of our supply and demand problems and the feasibility of alternatives to oil can be explored empirically, in an open and honest manner. Our site draws on the fast pace of the internet and the time-tested traditions of peer review in search of the truth, whatever it may be. 4. Create a global community working toward a common goal Our society can only address a problem of this magnitude through cooperation. We seek to leverage the open nature of the internet to create a global forum for the discussion of energy problems and solutions. Your participation is welcome—if not necessary—for the improvement of our energy future."

Use your damn head for a minute, and not your preconceived notions you thought were correct.

9/3/2008 9:36:15 PM

theoildumb is focused on energy


the usgs and npr dont have an agenda, they just report


theoildumb tries to promote other energy sources without national and world considering socio/polital/economical/environmental impact

[Edited on September 3, 2008 at 9:40 PM. Reason : ]

9/3/2008 9:39:18 PM

Quote :

"theoildumb tries to promote other energy sources without national and world considering socio/polital/economical/environmental impact"

Again, you didn't read anything on the site. They don't "promote" other energy sources....with a site name like "theoildrum"? Are you kidding? They discuss energy topics across the spectrum. They went into rather elaborate detail on the Bakken economics, and once you read it, you can understand why "big oil" isn't in there with thousands of wells pumping the shit as fast as possible.

9/3/2008 9:45:34 PM

drill your ass off

But band-aids are not "energy independence"

9/3/2008 9:53:26 PM

long as it lasts till i kick the bucket

9/3/2008 10:05:47 PM

9/3/2008 10:14:23 PM

Quote :

"It seems to me that enacting conservation policies would be far more cost effective than developing oil shale."

Yes, conservation policies such as doing nothing, which we have been doing. There be oil there and citizens are lined up waiting to go get it for the rest of us, they will even pay the government hansomly for the priviledge.

Quote :

"i say run the middle east dry and slowly start tapping our own"

I would rather have the cash now. Afterall, for all we know the oil could turn out to be worthless in a few decades. But, we know damn well that it is worth quite a bit today, so its like winning the lottery and using the proceeds to buy lottery tickets. Even if you get lucky and win a second time, you're just back where you started.

9/3/2008 10:22:05 PM

Quote :

"Bhattacharya figures the company can produce oil for about $33 a barrel in the early days, and that, over time, production costs will fall to less than $20 a barrel."

ahahahahahahahahaha!!!

lol...

ahahahaha!


Yes, we will have oil supplied forever from the unconventional reserves, logically, at prices much cheaper than now.

I hope that none of you are stupid enough to believe the [fail] futurist claims in this thread.

9/3/2008 10:44:52 PM

I know rite,

supply has absolutely no effect on the price. where do they think up this shit????

9/4/2008 10:23:48 AM

Supply != production costs

9/4/2008 10:48:27 AM

^^ swing and a miss for csharp.

9/4/2008 11:14:25 AM

^^^^A couple things:

1: The trading price of a barrel of oil has very little to do with how much it costs to produce.

2: If they produced it at $20/barrel, they would still sell it at market value. Same as if it were produced at $100/barrel.

3: Canadian companies are producing oil in the Tar Sands of Alberta at a cost of approximately $40/barrel now. Oil shale is frequently compared to the Alberta oil sands in terms of production methods and difficulties. $20/barrel is probably not realistic, but $40/barrel might be.

4: The obstacle to this project is the same one that stalls many large projects: Investors hold off on committing large sums of money to a risky investment like this until they are sure that prices are gonna stay high. Investors thought that the high oil prices of the 70's would stay high. Then in the 80's the floor fell out of that market and investors in unconventional projects like this one got burned.

[Edited on September 4, 2008 at 11:29 AM. Reason : 1]

9/4/2008 11:25:13 AM

I have a real problem with those that dont think producing more domestically will help, just as I have a real problem with those that want to drill and not push conservation and efficiency. The supply demand margin is razor thin at the moment. That means that small disruptions can have dramatic effects on crude pricing. We can mitigate some of those pricing disruptions by increasing domestically produced oil and at the same time cutting back our consumption. Doing only one of each will not provide the best impact.

We need to really start diversifying our energy sources, and this includes alternative forms of transportation energy (plug in hybrids being my favorite). What I fear is that oil could retreat to a point that makes people want to take up SUVs once more, then all the alternatives that are just beginning to come online will wither away. If/When we get tight on the supply/demand front, there will be less investment available for a repeat adventure. I consider switching to alternatives for our transportation needs a short term pain to produce long term results. Drilling and increasing supply will allow our economy to have oil 'cheap enough' to prosper, so people can actually afford to buy the alternatives when they do come out (and have a premium price tag). I do not think oil being priced at $200+, and a worldwide economic collapse with mass poverty, is the only way to get people to switch over to alternatives.

One comment from above about cost to produce heavier/non traditional crude.... Pricing WILL come down for these methods. I do not think they will ever be as cheap a light sweet crude, since this crude requires much less effort to produce, but pricing will come down. An example is Petrobras and their salt flat oil wells. These offshore wells are over 17,000 feet deep. There were costing over $200 million for each well. These wells now cost about $60 million due to technology improvements. You will see this industry wide across many production methods as above ground improvements increase production at a lower cost per unit energy.

[Edited on September 4, 2008 at 11:35 AM. Reason : .]

9/4/2008 11:29:51 AM

^solid post. Our government's interference in the market to try to keep oil prices low only adds to the volatility in prices. And the fact that we pay billions in "energy security" costs to keep oil flowing throughout the world only further increases the gap between the social and marginal costs of gasoline. Oil (or gasoline) should be taxed to reflect the true externalities of the fuel, and some of those tax revenues should go towards diversifying our energy sources and infrastructure.

[Edited on September 4, 2008 at 11:40 AM. Reason : 2]

9/4/2008 11:39:06 AM

Quote :

"I do not think oil being priced at $200+, and a worldwide economic collapse with mass poverty, is the only way to get people to switch over to alternatives."

I do think we need that first part. The second part is optional, but some politicians seem to be huge fans.

9/4/2008 12:59:05 PM

Quote :

"I do think we need that first part."

Before I comment on that, would you qualify that remark?

9/4/2008 1:09:03 PM

Releasing oil from our reserve will do nothing to lower gas prices until the very long run.

Store owners raise prices based on how much they have to pay for the fuel. Hence when oil prices rise, so do gas prices.

When the fuel they buy lowers in price, the only driving force for the stores to lower prices is competition.

Thats why on the downside of this oil price spike, oil is at just over 100 bucks a barrel and gas prices are fairly high. If you remember, on the upside of this rise in oil price, we were paying a much lower price for a gallon of gas. Basically competition has not had a chance to return the gas prices to where they were before.

9/4/2008 3:14:23 PM

Quote :

"Thats why on the downside of this oil price spike, oil is at just over 100 bucks a barrel and gas prices are fairly high. If you remember, on the upside of this rise in oil price, we were paying a much lower price for a gallon of gas. Basically competition has not had a chance to return the gas prices to where they were before."

Gas inventory levels are probably the single biggest reason we were about 25-30 cents cheaper a gallon last time we hit $107 for crude. The refineries had built up a huge inventory of gas before everyone knew of the big demand decreases. As a result, this put downward pressure on the price of gas (there was more gas than the market wanted to buy). As a result, competition was in full force. As a result, refiners operated at lower capacities, and national inventory levels waned. Therefore there is less gas on the market, which means less competition to sell the product. This has kept prices higher. However much of the recent inventory level drops of finished products of gas has to do with the offloading of summer grade gas. Refiners dont want to produce expensive summer grade gas if no one wants to buy it. They would rather sell from inventory, and ramp up when needed to produce winter grade gas (cheaper).

However, contracts are getting pretty cheap, and I expect 20-30 cents to be shaved off of gas within the next month if prices hold.

[Edited on September 4, 2008 at 4:43 PM. Reason : .]

9/4/2008 4:41:56 PM