by Econ101 » Wed 01 May 2013, 15:37:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Econ101', 'I') wonder what these estimates are doing to the eroei of oil? The equation is: energy out/energy in. Doubling energy out without a corresponding increase in energy in will make that eroei soar to the sky.
?
No wonder I have you on ignore, shorty, the change is that they didn't
survey three forks previously:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut that assessment did not include the Three Forks formation, which explains the substantial increase in the estimates. USGS estimates that these two formations together hold 7.4 billion barrels of
undiscovered—but technically recoverable—oil and 6.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
So they expanded the payzone vertically. Its now a 1/4 mile of oil soaked shale extending over at least 22,000 square miles. The formations are stacked one upon the other you know. You need permits to drill to a depth. You may be fully aware there is more oil deeper than your will is producing now so reworking to get the other half is not expensive. Its not 3 forks here and mid bakken there. There will be no new drill patterns created, the recoverable potential of the same geographical area has been doubled, effectively doubling the eroei of all previous estimates based on the old EURs.
The oil field is twice the size as it once was. The treasure to society is twice what it once was. Our future collectively is better.
by Buddy_J » Wed 01 May 2013, 18:15:45
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Econ101', 'T')he article states the reserves are recoverable with todays technology.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('www.in-forum.com', 'T')he U.S. Geological Survey said Tuesday that the Williston Basin has between 4.4 billion and 11.4 billion barrels of oil that is recoverable with today’s technology.
Im not sure the date on the reports research but drill and recovery technology is always changing. Does this report include verticle stacking, frack zone variations, bore size and down hole operating pressures, "water" mix and dont forget multi-bore platforms?
No, this is just the gang that has been doing this for nearly half a century now. They probably sat around one afternoon, made up a number, called it a day. Either that, or they came up with the best objective number they could, took 2 years to study the problem, with the cooperation of everyone from their data sources, the NDIC, and conversations with the companies themselves, and did what they do.
Feel free to find a more credible source, but these guys do it for a living, and don't work for companies with something to sell, be it leases, oil and gas, or stock.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2013/3013/
by Buddy_J » Wed 01 May 2013, 18:18:48
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Econ101', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buddy_J', 'E')con101 is going to have a tough time claiming that North Dakota can produce the 10's or even 100's of billions he has been proclaiming as of late.
Here are current industry estimates and this is not particularly high. Remember the USGS estimates were admittedly conservative and assumed no technological advances. The industry knows better:
The industry has something to sell you Econ. Now can you please provide the reference to the USGS saying their numbers are conservative? Never seen that one happen, and they provide the odds of any particular estimate happening, so there is no "conservative", there is a fractile of probability. Reference please.
by Beery1 » Wed 01 May 2013, 18:59:49
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', '.').. we need to see where the rig count and production ends up at the end of the summer. From what I read the spring thaw can be a very bad time for ops up there. Sometimes worse than the badest winter days. I figure by August we should have a good profile of the near term future.
I suspect the Bakken is going to top out, or at least significantly slow its rate of increase, this year. I've been looking at
https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/stats/his ... lstats.pdf and the recent figures seem to show a peaking trend. Daily oil per well looks as if it can't get beyond the 140s, while BBLs per well are stuck under 4500 and daily oil and monthly BBLS both seem to be flattening out, all while wells producing are increasing exponentially. According to these figures at least, the future of the Bakken is not looking as bright as some of the shale oil advocates seem to think it is.
"I'm gonna have to ask you boys to stop raping our doctor."
-
Beery1
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 690
- Joined: Tue 17 Jan 2012, 21:31:15
-
by Buddy_J » Thu 02 May 2013, 19:05:54
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Econ101', '
')
Oil production in North Dakota is going to surge well beyond 1 millon barrels/day this summer. The estimates of EUR in the Bakken remain greatly understated:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ome experts, such as petroleum geologist John Harju, associate director for research with the Energy and Environmental Research Center at the University of North Dakota, say the USGS’ estimates, which increased thanks to technology improvements, may be conservative. This is the first USGS survey to include both the Bakken and Three Forks Formations.
“Like any of these USGS estimates, think of them as a milemarker that’s well behind you in the rearview mirror,” Harju told the Grand Forks Herald.
So a local cheerleader who apparently doesn't know that the Bakken has made maybe 20% of the 2008 USGS estimate (since doubled) and thinks the other 80% is somehow a milestone in the past? When it isn't?
May I recommend you use a calculator to check the math of those who make pronouncements which A) are wrong and B) are locals with an interest in pumping up interest for various reasons, including but not limited to tax revenues, hoped for population increase and the accompanying economic activity which comes with it, etc etc?
Harold Hamm helped pay for their newest university, you want to claim next that North Dakotans are so dumb they don't know which side, and who, is buttering their bread?
Come on econ, you've been spouting this stuff for months now, when did the USGS say their numbers were conservative? Local patsy's certainly don't count, how many millions of dollars and man years comparable to the Survey's effort do you think local patsy's put into their claims which are wrong on their face? Ten minutes and a $3 cup of coffee?
by copious.abundance » Sun 05 May 2013, 21:35:03
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buddy_J', 'T')he industry has something to sell you Econ. Now can you please provide the reference to the USGS saying their numbers are conservative? Never seen that one happen, and they provide the odds of any particular estimate happening, so there is no "conservative", there is a fractile of probability. Reference please.
The numbers are probably conservative because the study only calculates "undiscovered" recoverable oil. With all the drilling that's already gone on here, there is a ton of "already discovered" (but not yet produced) oil. Personally it's why I don't like these USGS studies - the numbers they create are a bit misleading and not very useful. Not many people really care how much "undiscovered" oil is in some oil field; however, a lot of people are going to be interested in how much
total recoverable oil is in that oil field (minus what's already been produced).
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
-
copious.abundance
- Fission
-
- Posts: 9589
- Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
- Location: Cornucopia
-
by copious.abundance » Sun 05 May 2013, 21:38:16
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Beery1', 'I') suspect the Bakken is going to top out, or at least significantly slow its rate of increase, this year. I've been looking at
https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/stats/his ... lstats.pdf and the recent figures seem to show a peaking trend. Daily oil per well looks as if it can't get beyond the 140s, while BBLs per well are stuck under 4500 and daily oil and monthly BBLS both seem to be flattening out, all while wells producing are increasing exponentially. According to these figures at least, the future of the Bakken is not looking as bright as some of the shale oil advocates seem to think it is.
The recent production slowdown has been because of snowy weather in ND over the winter, moreso than in other recent years. It's happened before.
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
-
copious.abundance
- Fission
-
- Posts: 9589
- Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
- Location: Cornucopia
-
by Pops » Sun 29 Sep 2013, 11:30:59
LOL, roc, if you'd read the article linked in the original thread you might have noticed the title:
Chesapeake Granite Wash Trust: Updated Reserves Show Major Downward Revision, Buyers Beware
But you didn't, in that thread you insisted the writedown was due to falling ng prices and that SEC reports do not lie even after I C&Ped from the original story a couple of times. Exactly what does it take to convince you your knee jerked the wrong way? I mentioned this in several threads and still you didn't look at the original article or the SEC reports and continued to insist it was falling price that caused the drop in reserves. Now you are blaming me because on the 5th or 6th mention I didn't lay out the entire argument one more time! LOL
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s to your reference to Shell…..perhaps you have some inside information that tells you Shell took write downs for technical reasons rather than price…
The several stories I've seen all say the writedowns are on oil, I don't think there has been any problem with oil price. In addition to the story mentioned above here are a couple more...
As a card carrying conservative, lol, here is a source you'll like, WSJ:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '.')...Shell cited disappointing drilling results at its North American shale assets, which it said turned out to contain less oil than it had hoped. Even excluding the charge on those assets, Shell's earnings fell well short of analysts' expectations as the company struggled with production declines and rising costs.
It's a subscriber story quoted from
hereOr this:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')hell said the $2.1bn post-tax write-down related to shale oil assets that it had acquired over the past five years and reflected “the latest insights from exploration and appraisal drilling results and production information”.
I provided links, probably a wasted effort...
And finally, about your diatribe on my liberal views and the virtues of capitalism and oil company profits; I mentioned that I don't really care whether this speculator or that gets taken, that's the risk of gambling. Rather I'm concerned that the general public is taken in by the hype and continues to be lulled into complacency by promises of a glut around the corner.
I guess that's my excuse for derailing this thread. LOL
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
by rockdoc123 » Sun 29 Sep 2013, 12:04:31
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut you didn't, in that thread you insisted the writedown was due to falling ng prices and that SEC reports do not lie even after I C&Ped from the original story a couple of times. Exactly what does it take to convince you your knee jerked the wrong way? I mentioned this in several threads and still you didn't look at the original article or the SEC reports and continued to insist it was falling price that caused the drop in reserves. Now you are blaming me because on the 5th or 6th mention I didn't lay out the entire argument one more tim
what I said, with the help of quotes from their filings and numerous newspaper reports was CHK as a corporation took massive write downs of several billion dollars all due to price. The CHK Trust piece you keep going on about is 1% or less of their total writedown, it is hardly more than noise. Yet you make a big deal out of it.
Why not just admit that there is nothing wrong at CHK with regards to their reserves? As I said this is not a smoking gun by a long shot.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he several stories I've seen all say the writedowns are on oil, I don't think there has been any problem with oil price. In addition to the story mentioned above here are a couple more...
There are almost no shale plays that produce low GOR oil. The gas is what helps overpressure and it helps mobility. As the price of gas drops then the economics associated with all liquid shale plays decrease. The very liquids rich ones are better but in most cases are still just above breakeven. As both Rockman and I have pointed out many times there are good spots in plays like the Eagle Ford where EOG and CHK are going full bore and there are more marginal areas. As well I've also said that large companies like Shell and Exxon do not have the mindset of cost control and management that is essential to shale plays and that has made the good players like CHK successful. Hence a company like EOG or CHK can make a play work at a given price and companies like Exxon and Shell can't, their overhead and other costs are just too high. Price drops will affect the larger companies moreso than the smaller ones because of this.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ') Shell said the $2.1bn post-tax write-down related to shale oil assets that it had acquired over the past five years and reflected
“the latest insights from exploration and appraisal drilling results and production information”. And precisely how does that stipulate that the results are saying that there aren't enough reserves rather than the reserves that were found by drilling, appraisal etc were not economic at the give price? It doesn't, I've read all of the Shell press releases and there is nothing in there to stipulate it is poor rock versus low price that created the write down, they were never specific.
One of the financial analysts at Moneybeat expressed similar concerns:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o why has Shell just wiped $2 billion off the value of some shale assets supposedly rich in the hydrocarbon liquids that everyone craves?
Shell didn’t identify which shale formation has taken the write-down. It has been unwilling so far to explain the charge, beyond saying it reflected, “the latest insights from exploration and appraisal drilling results and production information.”
In this information vacuum, shale skeptics might leap on this write-down as the first evidence that the U.S. oil boom is overhyped and will fail to live up to its grand expectations.
Such a declaration would be premature to say the least.
Another, perhaps more likely, possibility is that Shell has discovered that its shale assets are in the wrong place. Vast shale rock formations have “sweet spots,” which yield higher production, or greater volumes of the prized liquids compared with gas.
So if he is a local cheeleader who are you? 