[ennui2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', '
')But let's not forget the blocking of the Keystone pipeline.

[Synapsid]

ennui2,

"Keystone wasn't going to supply the US in particular, though." Can you expand on this?

Keystone XL North, which is what's awaiting (and awaiting and awaiting) Federal approval, is a shortcut in the existing Keystone system. The oil would go to the same place as is oil being carried by Keystone, and by Keystone XL South, now. That oil goes to the buyers whoever they are and wherever they are.

[Subjectivist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'I')t's going to terminals on the Gulf Coast, where it will be sold to the highest bidder. Saudi Princes perhaps? Russian oligarchs? Perhaps to Trinidad and Lumbego. There're headed for the reservoir toilet.]

[shallow sand]

Possibly a good way to view the future of the ND Bakken would be to look at the first developed Bakken in Montana, Elm Coulee field.

Other than the wells being too deep, it is a stripper well producer's dream. Wells drilled 2004-2009 average about 15-25 bopd, almost no water, low decline.

So in 2025, likely the 10,000 current ND Bakken wells will be producing 200,000 BO per day, ballpark.

There are 30-60 thousand locations left to drill, depending on who you believe. However, look at the NDIC GIS map. There are many two section units that are completely drilled up on 660 spacing. Many more on 1280 spacing. Many other two section units have fewer wells.

Nothing scientific, but many of the best locations have been tapped. Maybe they will figure out an EOR method?

[ROCKMAN]

Shallow - As you probably know the lack of water cur is a big advantage the Bakken has over the Eagle Ford. Easily to imagine Bakken strippers economically lasting 2 to 3 times longer than EFS wells.

[Tanada]

Here is a fracked well production history graph. 2007 and 2008 fracking produced almost nothing in terms we chat about around here.
2009 had a very minor bump that has faded back to 2007-08 production levels.
2010 showed a substantial uptick in fracked shale production but that to has now fallen back down to near 07-08 production levels.
2011 Was nearly twice as high as 2010 and as a result is still producing a measurable quantity of oil, though it is down about 80 percent from its peak.
2012 Was really impressive, but three years later those wells are down about 65 percent from peak production.
2013 Very high rates of production as everyone and their brother in law was drilling as fast as they could, now down about 50 percent from their peak production.
2014 Junk bonds and people throwing good money after bad pushed shale production to bring the USA within reach of the all time 1970-71 record production rates peaking in December. Less than a year later we are down about 30 percent from 2014 well production.
2015 The carry over in 2014 production allowed the early drilling and completions to push production up slightly, but the large reduction in drilling rates due to low prices are already starting to show a substantial decline in total production by May 2015 when the graph ends.
http://1dhqyu3drpye39jm482ecnjl.wpengin ... -fig-4.png

[ROCKMAN]

Well done, T. This type of graph is so handy to counter the cornies who only want to focus on initial production rates since the latest drills tend to hide the declines of the older wells. For them the reality truly does bite. LOL.

[Subjectivist]

The more I look at this chart the more worrisome it is. Look at how small the new 2015 production coming online is, and remember a lot of those wells were drilled late last year and are slowly going into production. That means the backlog should be just running out now and wells from here on are those drilled at the much slower 2015 rate. Anyone happen to know how current rates match up with 2010 or 2011 drilling and completions?

image.jpg

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'E')xcellent chart. Peak oil is now.

[ROCKMAN]

T - If one accepts this analysis the world has been at PO for a few years.

http://euanmearns.com/a-new-peak-in-con ... roduction/

But that still assumes no future significant discoveries.

[Tanada]

The Bakken has been in production for a very long time back to the days of simple vertical wells fracked with dynamite charges at the bottom of the bore hole. Drilling there has fallen between 50 and 60 percent from the mad pace of last September, but there are still plenty of spots to be drilled at $50.00/bbl.

[Pops]

Just saw this by David Hughes about bacon predictions
http://www.scribd.com/doc/281383932/Tig ... gy-Outlook

And this on all the other pipelines that aren't XL, specifically a pipe to take LTO North to mke dilbit
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ranscanada

And this one specifically about the new bakken pipe to move LTO to the SE (not XL) http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/ ... /72630434/

[hvacman]

First, I think Keystone XL's un-built Canadian/US crossing is more about flowing Alberta tar sands diluted bitumen (dilbit) into the US than about ND Bakken LTO. The XL pipeline permit issue is all about the environmental impact of burning that "dirty" bitumen.

Second, as the Rockman has frequently pointed out, the "key" pipeline connections for opening up dilbit flow from Alberta to the US have already been made - down in OK and TX where there were bottlenecks to the Cushing OK hub and to the refineries on the Gulf coast. There are so many options for flowing the dilbit through the US down to Cushing now - alternative pipelines + rail - that the only people really affected by the federal XL permit are the owners of that particular portion of the un-built pipeline. No pipe line, flow through THEIR pipes and no revenue for THEM. Instead, other pipeline owners + the railroads get the transportation revenue.

[ROCKMAN]

To follow up on Pop's excellent post here's the web site of the folks planning to build a Bakken pipeline that has nothing to do with KXL. And to follow up on the h-man's comment: every bbl of the record volume of Canadian oil being produced is currently being exported to the US. Given the slide in oil prices and the delay/shut down of various oil sands projects it's not difficult to imagine there is already excess capacity in the transport system and that it will increase as long as prices stay lower. Remember how big expensive pipelines are built. It isn't on speculation: the builders first get commitments from potential transporters. And that subscription process has a time window. It's been quite a while since I've seen an update but long before the oil price drop the pipeline builders kept pushing out the date further and further because they lacked enough subscribers to build the northern portion of KXL even if they had been granted the permit.

Most folks don't really understand how this process works. Yes: the pipeline folks kept bitching about the lack of the permit. But they've never had a sufficient subscription to justify building the line. Now with lower oil prices and a decrease in activity how many oil transporters are going to make financial commitments to building a pipeline for which there is no demand? Perhaps there hasn't been public announcement but the northern portion of KXL died when oil prices fell many months ago. It stopped being a part of the dynamics in early 2015. Which make all the comments now from Hillary or anyone else seem rather silly IMHO.

[zoidberg]

Easy political points without risking any action on her part maybe