by copious.abundance » Mon 16 Feb 2009, 21:12:18
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dorlomin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'H')ere ya go, here's 167 billion barrels of it, in a study done by real geologists. The rest is in Montana, Manitoba and Saskatchewan:
>>>
N.D. study estimates 167 billion barrels of oil in Bakken <<<
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'h')olds up to 167 billion barrels of oil but only about
1 percent of it can be recovered using current technology, a new state study says.
Oh "Light in the darkness"...
Precisely - and that's where your accusation has been erroneous. I
never said that 400 billion barrels (or whatever 100's of billions) in the Bakken was a recoverable figure, and I challenge you to prove that I *did* say it was. So, every time you've mocked me for claiming the Bakken had hundreds of billions of barrels, you were mocking a strawman. If you have to invent strawmen to attack me, you've obviously got nothing else to attack me with.
by copious.abundance » Mon 16 Feb 2009, 21:44:50
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'O')h stop it you
You've been outed
In your dreams.
I was actually setting him up to give him a chance to report a recoverable figure compared to the OIP figure he constantly mocks me about, and he fell for it exactly as planned.
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 » Mon 16 Feb 2009, 23:16:11
You aren't very observant, pisser.
dorlomin wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dorlomin', 'H')ows the 300 billion barrels you were squeeling about being in the Bakken working out?
I knew this was a strawman because I never claimed there were 300 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Bakken, and I knew he was mocking me in reference to the much smaller ~4 billion barrel recoverable figure cited by the USGS. But I decided to play his game, and I decided to bait him. So I wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'T')hat 300 billion barrels is still there.
I wrote that fully expecting him to give me an opportunity to post the ND study citing 167 billion barrels, which would make the entire Bakken in the ballpark of the 300 billion barrel figure he mocked me about. And he fell for it, pretty much as planned:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dorlomin', '&')quot;Light in the darkness", can you work out why that is
This, of course, gave me the opportunity to post the ND study which I planned to post from the beginning:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'H')ere ya go, here's 167 billion barrels of it, in a study done by real geologists. The rest is in Montana, Manitoba and Saskatchewan:
>>>
N.D. study estimates 167 billion barrels of oil in Bakken <<<
by copious.abundance » Mon 16 Feb 2009, 23:40:36
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'I')f you were clever enough you would have figured out I was baiting him, but I guess you're not.
And that is your problem here Oily. Nobody likes you
Some people do.
As for the rest, I don't care.
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
by dorlomin » Tue 17 Feb 2009, 15:34:13
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dorlomin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'H')ere ya go, here's 167 billion barrels of it, in a study done by real geologists. The rest is in Montana, Manitoba and Saskatchewan:
>>>
N.D. study estimates 167 billion barrels of oil in Bakken <<<
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'h')olds up to 167 billion barrels of oil but only about
1 percent of it can be recovered using current technology, a new state study says.
Oh "Light in the darkness"...
Precisely - and that's where your accusation has been erroneous. I
never said that 400 billion barrels (or whatever 100's of billions) in the Bakken was a recoverable figure, and I challenge you to prove that I *did* say it was. So, every time you've mocked me for claiming the Bakken had hundreds of billions of barrels, you were mocking a strawman. If you have to invent strawmen to attack me, you've obviously got nothing else to attack me with.
by copious.abundance » Tue 17 Feb 2009, 16:28:23
Nice job of cherry-picking quotes dorlomin. You conveniently forgot
this:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 'T')hat 1-3% is only a conservative estimate.
http://www.nd.gov/ndic/ic-press/bakken-form-06.pdf ^
"How much of the generated oil is recoverable remains to be determined. Estimates of 50%, 18%, and 3 to 10% have been published."Nobody really knows. The only thing to do is start drilling.
And on the same page, this:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 'I')ncidentally, that 2nd page also tells you that they're increasing their recovery rate:
"While current technology will be able to extract about 15 per cent of the oil in place, Smith believes new techniques will be able to increase recovery rates well beyond that."The most recent estimate in the state of ND PDF document I linked puts the amount of oil in the Bakken formation at 300 billion barrels.
The 15% recovery rate the oilman above claimed would yield 45 billion recoverable barrels. And if, as that same oilman says, the recovery rate is almost certain to go up, the recoverable amount, of course, will be even higher.
And I reiterate the one you posted:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 'A')nother year?
Given that nearly all of the oil from the Bakken will almost certainly go toward US consumption (and maybe some Canada, too), the
6-150 billion recoverable barrels HydroLover outlined above would be anywhere from almost a year's US consumption to almost 20 years US consumption at current rates.
And if recovery rates go above HydroLover's maximum of 30%, then it would be even more.
In a single sentance, I've cited everything from 6 billion to 150 billion. Does that sound like I'm pinning down any one figure, or even a general range? Hardly!
After some informative discussion with KillTheHumans I made a new stab at it
here:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'I')ncidentally . . .
Looking at the map on page 4 of this document (Figure 6) . . .
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/features/ngshock.pdf . . . it looks to me like more than just 10% of the Bakken is thermally mature, at least on the US side. I'd say that looks more like 1/3, maybe even a bit more. And interestingly, that thermally-mature zone isn't quite the hotspot of recent drilling activity. That thermally-mature zone is centered around McKenzie County, whereas the drilling hotspot is just to the northeast in Mountrail County. But I guess that's because that's where the Nesson anticline is???
Anyway, if it's more like 30-40% of the Bakken being thermally mature, then:
200,000 sq mi. x 30% =
60,000 sq. mi. x 9 MMbl/sq. mi. = 540 billion barrels OIP. 10% recoverable for that would be
54 billion barrels.
- or -
200,000 sq. mi. x 40% =
80,000 sq. mi. x 9 MMbl/sq. mi. = 720 billion barrels OIP. And 10% recoverable for that would be
72 billion barrels.
by copious.abundance » Tue 17 Feb 2009, 17:27:20
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'O')bviously my reocovery rate was far greater than what the USGS (defacto) ended up with, but 39 to 58 billion barrels is a far cry from the 300 billion barrels recoverable you keep (erroneously) citing me claiming.
While I find it fascinating that you would accuse USGS of lying, that is not the issue on this thread.
Peaker on this forum accuse the USGS, the EIA, the IEA and just about everyone else of lying.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '[')What makes you a troll is your assertion that we do not require fossil fuel to grow food. Have you ever personally witnessed an electric tractor cultivate a 1,000 acre corn field?
At one point in time there was no such thing as a farm tractor powered by an internal combustion engine. No one had ever seen one. I guess that means they're impossible!
Now many times are you going to repeat that lame argument?
by copious.abundance » Tue 17 Feb 2009, 17:41:43
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '
')At one point in time there was no such thing as a farm tractor powered by an internal combustion engine. No one had ever seen one. I guess that means they're impossible!
I think he might be asking if such a thing exists. Does an electric tractor capable of plowing large acreage exist? Is one in production?
http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/200 ... inery.html
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
