Bakken Formation Still Has 6 Billion Barrels of Oil

Much of the analysis of the future of the Bakken Formation swings on what OPEC will do with supply and prices, and a means to cripple the fracking industry, and thus eventually undermine supply from the United States. Arab News recently reported:

Petroleum and Mineral Resources Minister Ali Al-Naimi told fellow OPEC members in Vienna that they must combat the US shale oil boom, arguing against cutting crude output in order to depress prices and undermine the profitability of North American producers.

The price of crude was $72 the day of that statement, on its way down to $45 for West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude. However, since then the price has recovered to $60 and may rise much further. For each step it takes back toward $95, which was its 52-week high, presumably drilling and production come back online in North Dakota and other states and provinces that cover the Bakken Formation.

For a time, analysts believed that fracking would be an impossible way to make money. The Bakken Formation drilling would lie dormant. That period may be very short-lived, and efforts to extract the 6 billion barrels we are certain about will start again.

39 Comments on "Bakken Formation Still Has 6 Billion Barrels of Oil"

Apneaman on Mon, 11th May 2015 8:59 pm 



“according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration”

Not that shit again
………………………………

EIA cuts recoverable Monterey shale oil estimate by 96 pct

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/21/eia-monterey-shale-idUSL1N0O713N20140521

I think the average attention span is down to about 5 mins.

Aire on Mon, 11th May 2015 10:09 pm 



Looky looky! Shiny, shiny! There’s still spectacular black gold here investors. Dump all your investments here again and we (wallstreet) swear it’ll be profitable this time. 6 billion ~ imagine the possibilities ahh

coffeeguyzz on Mon, 11th May 2015 10:27 pm 



Apneaman

Could you please direct me to this EIA report on the downgrading of the Monterey potential? I have been waiting over a year now to read it and the only mentions are the flurry of reports (such as the one in your link) that REFER to a soon-to-be-released report. Thanks in advance.

BTW, the OOIP in the Bakken/Three Forks is just under a trillion barrels.
The current extraction is recovering less than 10%.
This summer, several EOR pilot tests are taking place in the EF, the Bak, and the Permian. Laboratory tests have demonstrated extremely high recovery rates in Bakken shale samples. They will continue to improve as they implement this technology.

BC on Mon, 11th May 2015 11:05 pm 



What is rarely reported is that our microbial predecessor extraterrestrials from the Rings of Uranus are on their way to save us all from our per-capita consumptive, debt, and reproductive profligacy on the finite Spaceship Earth.

No worries, mates. Drink up and f$&k ourselves to the thermodynamic/exergetic brink, as our supra-galactic space brothers will be here in no time to save us.

http://www.cnet.com/news/the-x-files-officially-coming-back-to-your-tv-screen-in-january/

Besides, the truth is going to be “out there” again by early 2016.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeFfiN-htZg

“Attention all planets of the Solar Federation, we have assumed control. We have assumed control. We have assumed control.”

coffeeguyzz on Mon, 11th May 2015 11:22 pm 



BC

Are the bugs showin’ up before or after the Anunnaki?

BobInget on Mon, 11th May 2015 11:33 pm 



Condensates. That’s why oil trains blow up
like farts on fire.
Condensates make up at least half of what remains in the Bakken.

Propelled by the boom in oil sands and tight oil production, condensates, an ultra-light oil, are emerging as an ever more important element of the energy industry. The increasing prevalence of condensates may be a point of concern, however, as they are at least partially responsible for the increasing volatility of North American crude, particularly as it travels by rail. Additionally, they represent a significant cost to oil sands producers that require condensates to dilute bitumen for pipeline transport.

Hydrocarbons are measured on a carbon number scale to reflect the number of carbon atoms contained in each molecule, with lower numbers signifying lighter, gassier, and more volatile carbon molecules. Condensates typically fall between C4 and C12—raw bitumen, on the other hand, has a carbon number of C35 or higher.

Oil sourced from recent shale plays in the United States (often referred to as “light, tight crude”) is naturally composed of more of these lighter carbon molecules. This has created problems for oil transport, as crude from plays like North Dakota’s Bakken shale has turned out to be more explosive than originally anticipated. While accidents involving traditional crude resulted in environmentally damaging oil spills and fire, this ultra-light crude can detonate like a bomb. This was experienced first hand last summer when a train carrying Bakken crude derailed in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, decimating the town’s core and leaving 47 dead.

Apneaman on Mon, 11th May 2015 11:42 pm 



coffeeguyzz, I have seen no such report. In fact I have not heard a thing since that time. It’s almost as if the Monterrey never existed. It could be that the EIA, like most big bureaucracies, tend not to rush out reports that make them look incompetent or have other motives besides the one their were created to do. But I’m just speculating. Of course my speculating is based on observing almost every form of authority become more and more corrupt over the last 30 years or so. Most institutions are a joke now and no longer function for the purposes we created them to do.

Northwest Resident on Tue, 12th May 2015 1:30 am 



Apneaman — We can safely bet that any institution worth noting has already been thoroughly coopted by the elite (TPTB) and transformed into nothing more than simply another cog in the machine. The EIA, for sure.

shortonoil on Tue, 12th May 2015 7:22 am 



BTW, the OOIP in the Bakken/Three Forks is just under a trillion barrels.
The current extraction is recovering less than 10%.

I’ve seen that quote about an OOIP for the Bakken/Three Forks regions of 900 Gb several times. Some simple calculations show that for it to be true the formation would have to have a porosity of 47%. The last time there was something with a porosity of 47% it was being sold at WalMart. It’s called a sponge. The shale mythology goes on, and on. The Bakken/Three Forks has the porosity of a brick!

Lawfish1964 on Tue, 12th May 2015 7:31 am 



6 billion barrels??? Sweeeeet!! An extra two months of partying! Woo-hoo!

Nony on Tue, 12th May 2015 7:31 am 



The estimate was done by a real geologist (Leigh Price) and a pretty revered one. He might still be wrong, but he’s no dummy.

I’d like to see your calculations and have you publish them, also. I bet you are leaving out some layers.

Nony on Tue, 12th May 2015 7:34 am 



Bakken shale has a similar API to WTI. It is just light, sweet crude. It’s not even a very gassy play. The whole condensate whining is silly, peaker site, conspiracy stuff. Refineries consider Bakken cargos to be crude oil.

Bakken is about 42 API. Condensate is 50-80 (typically about 60).

shortonoil on Tue, 12th May 2015 8:13 am 



For each step it takes back toward $95, which was its 52-week high, presumably drilling and production come back online in North Dakota and other states and provinces that cover the Bakken Formation.

There are people who think that petroleum is a magical substance, that there is no price that the consumer will not/ can not pay to acquire it. Of course that is irrational thinking. It is like believing in Fairies, Elves, and Spider Man. It is a past time for children.

Petroleum is a real substance that can have no greater value than the amount of economic activity it can power. The economy can not possibly spend $2 on oil to get a $1 of GDP in return. Using this rather obvious conclusion we have calculated the maximum price that the economy can, and will be able to pay for petroleum:

http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_022.htm

$95/ barrel oil goes into the Fairies, Elves and Spider Man category. If you see one of them it would be a good idea not to tell anyone!

http://www.thehillsgroup.org

shortonoil on Tue, 12th May 2015 9:15 am 



I’d like to see your calculations and have you publish them, also. I bet you are leaving out some layers.

Better than that, here are the equations you will need to calculate the porosity (φ). Solve for φ, You can find all the relative data online.

PV = Pore Volume

PV = φAL/5.615
φ = porosity
A = areal area (ft*ft)
L = formation thickness (ft)

OOIP = PV(1-Swt)/Bo
Swt = water saturation
Bo = oil formation volume factor

Let us know what you come up with? If you do it yourself you’ll know it was done right.

Mark on Tue, 12th May 2015 11:45 am 



6 billion barrels only equals around one year of US. consumption I think….even if it could be gotten at some price/input energy. Once again it’s the every molecule of a resource is recoverable fantasy.

Bob Owens on Tue, 12th May 2015 2:56 pm 



This article reminds me of the fact that there is still 6 billion tons of gold in the Oceans of the world. As soon as the price of gold hits 50 million dollars an ounce it will be profitable to mine the Oceans. I am sure it won’t be long now.

Nony on Tue, 12th May 2015 3:42 pm 



Short, you were the one who made the assertion. You back it up. And I bet you are leaving out some layers…

Nony on Tue, 12th May 2015 4:28 pm 



BTW, it’s really more of a summation than a simple equation. You have upper/middle/lower Bakken (and in some sections the Sanish) plus the four benches of the Three Forks. The amount of oil varies per layer and especially in the lower benches of the Three Forks has not been definitively mapped.

Anyhow, the 900 is pretty high. CLR touted that at one time, but it was based on some pretty simple top down estimates for the TF. Last SEP, they did a much more extensive analysis (built up from cores and logs, lot more bottoms up) of the entire Bakken Petroluem System and had the number as 413 to 677.

shortonoil on Tue, 12th May 2015 5:19 pm 



BTW, it’s really more of a summation than a simple equation. You have upper/middle/lower Bakken (and in some sections the Sanish) plus the four benches of the Three Forks. The amount of oil varies per layer and especially in the lower benches of the Three Forks has not been definitively mapped.

All that matters is the average over the entire play. If you get some ridiculous porosity number, it’s ridiculous! 413 Gb is ridiculous; that would be an average porosity of 21% over the entire play. If all of the Bakken was saturated with 21% petroleum, it would almost float! As soon as I see North Dakota floating down the Mississippi, I take that number seriously? Most of the US conventional fields had a porosity of up to 25%, and those were fields with a high permeability. The permeability of the Bakken is close to zero! Which means that if oil formed in a location it stayed there. It was not continually fed for eons by source rock, it was the source rock.

The Bakken is a brick yard that they try to squeeze some oil out of. No matter how much Continental tries to hype it, it is still a brick.

Nony on Tue, 12th May 2015 5:31 pm 



you still haven’t shown your numbers that prove the 43%. What thickness are you using? I bet you are leaving out layers.

Should be easy to back yourself up. But you can’t. If you really did the calculation, show it.

Davy on Tue, 12th May 2015 5:37 pm 



Wonder boy, if short don’t want to show the number you show them. You are the wonder number boy. Man up to your calling in life and bash us peakers otherwise climb back into you corn field and chuck corn with the other hucksters.

agramante on Wed, 13th May 2015 5:20 pm 



coffeeguyzz–for the second time, here’s the EIA link where they specifically use the term “downgrade”. Guess you avoided it the first time–scroll to page 16. It was published a year ago.

http://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/sieminski_06162014.pdf

Nony on Wed, 13th May 2015 5:37 pm 



This is hilarious, Davy. Short claims to have done a calculation and then can’t even say what thickness he assumed. He has an inadequate equation (it is a summation of layers to calc…they have different porosities), he can’t supply the number, and now wants me to produce his calculation. You people…

Davy on Wed, 13th May 2015 5:53 pm 



NOo, glad all is well and fun but remember you are the wonder number boy. We expect higher standards out of you. Don’t let your corn huskers down. Bash us with some number then mention how dumb Hamilton is and all will be well again.

GregT on Wed, 13th May 2015 5:58 pm 



You’re making yourself look foolish again Nony.

If you have something to show that disproves what Short has said, then show it. The onus is now on you.

Nony on Wed, 13th May 2015 6:08 pm 



BS! Short claimed to be disproving someone else! You people…

GregT on Wed, 13th May 2015 6:18 pm 



Prove him wrong Nony, or give it up already.

coffeeguyzz on Wed, 13th May 2015 6:22 pm 



Agramante

Thanks for the link (again), but I did in fact see it prior when you posted and I will repeat now what I said then …

What you linked to REFERS to a Monterey downgrade. It is NOT the much touted report and, in fact cannot be as the EIA NEVER made such a report despite the widespread hoopla last May.
Anyone, right this moment, can e-mail the EIA asking for this report and they will be told, as I was, that no report has been made.
Furthermore, agramante, the date on your linked EIA presentation from Sieminski is June 16, 2014. Why in the world would any outfit “mark in” an adjustment like they did on page 16 as opposed to simply using their adjusted number in the appropriate cel?
There has NEVER, as of this day, been a published report from the EIA downgrading the Monterey’s estimated potential.

Nony on Wed, 13th May 2015 7:24 pm 



Short: “I have a super secret proof that 900 GB imputes 43% porosity.”

Nony: “Show me.”

Short: “Prove me wrong.”

—————

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Davy on Wed, 13th May 2015 7:33 pm 



NOo, you can’t stand it can you. Give it a rest or man up with a number.

Alpha Sierra Sierra Wiskey India Papa Echo

Nony on Wed, 13th May 2015 7:42 pm 



LOLOL. This is hilarious.

GregT on Wed, 13th May 2015 7:51 pm 



Short: “Better than that, here are the equations you will need to calculate the porosity (φ). Solve for φ, You can find all the relative data online.
PV = Pore Volume
PV = φAL/5.615
φ = porosity
A = areal area (ft*ft)
L = formation thickness (ft)
OOIP = PV(1-Swt)/Bo
Swt = water saturation
Bo = oil formation volume factor
Let us know what you come up with? If you do it yourself you’ll know it was done right.

Nony: you are wrong.
Short: no response
Nony: you are wrong LOLOL. This is hilarious.

Nony on Wed, 13th May 2015 7:55 pm 



This is funny. This dude claims to have done a calculaton to come up with 43%. He can’t even cite the layer thickness that he used. Nor does he recognize that there are multiple layers with very different properties. And when challenged to back up his claim, he puts the onus on me.

You people really are some serious jokes. no wonder peakers have all gotten their asses kicked so hard.

GregT on Wed, 13th May 2015 8:18 pm 



Short did not put the onus on you Nony. Others here have.

If you have some evidence to back up your claim that Short is incorrect in his calculations, then show that evidence, or STFU.

Nony on Wed, 13th May 2015 8:26 pm 



Short: I calculated 43% porosity implied by 900 oil in place number

Nony: Show me?

Short: You prove me wrong.

Rest of posters: See Nony.

Nony: have I entered crazy land?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilcRS5eUpwk

GregT on Wed, 13th May 2015 8:32 pm 



“Nony: have I entered crazy land?”

No Nony, you have never left it.

Have you ever thought for one second why it is that you are constantly putting others down who have far more experience than you do? Everybody else is wrong, except for Nony the wonder boy. Give your little head a shake sonny.

Nony on Wed, 13th May 2015 8:45 pm 



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeX9BXnD6D4

Davy on Thu, 14th May 2015 6:17 am 



NOo, I went to bed with the NOo in a tissy and wake up to NOo in a tissy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOami82xKec

Nony on Thu, 14th May 2015 4:27 pm 



I think I am the opposite of the OCD in this video (want to watch it with sound on though, in bar now). I am actually very sloppy in my personal life, personal admin, etc. More the absent minded professor. Really not that different from the rest of you Internet losers. Here is a picture of me.

http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/lonelyguy.htm