The top 100 oil fields accounted for 20.6 billion barrels of crude oil and lease condensate proved reserves, which was 56% of the U.S. total (36.5 billion barrels).
A map of all the major reserve locations around the continental US.
Next, a summary of the changes with America’s top 100 fields since the last major ranking was conducted in 2009.
In 2009, the United States had 22.3 billion barrels of crude oil and lease condensate proved reserves, and its top 100 oil fields had 62.3% of that total, or 13.9 billion barrels of proved reserves. In 2013, the United States had 36.5 billion barrels of crude oil and lease condensate proved reserves, and its top 100 U.S. oil fields had 56.4% of that total, or 20.6 billion barrels of proved reserves (Table 1).
Prominent new additions to the top 10 are two fields from the Eagle Ford Shale Play in Texas, Eagleville and Briscoe Ranch. Eagleville, discovered in 2009, spans 14 counties in South Texas and is the country’s largest oil field as ranked by estimated proved reserves. Prudhoe Bay Field in Alaska (the largest U.S. oil field in 2009) declined in rank to third place, also behind the Spraberry Trend Area of Texas.
* * *
Finally, here is the list of the top 100 fields, ranked by their proved reserves, and as estimated by the EIA.
Source: EIA
Nony on Thu, 9th Apr 2015 7:58 pm
NDIC uses the descriptor “field” for parts of the Bakken shale, but USGS calls it a continuous resource.
I still never got a clear answer from “the Rockman” (refers to himself in third person) on field versus trend. Was supposed to be some basic point for dummies. But when I ask for definitions, got a bunch of “it depends”.
Plantagenet on Thu, 9th Apr 2015 8:41 pm
Interesting that many of the fields (trends?) on the list of the top 100 US oil fields wouldn’t have been on the list 10 years ago—look at all the new Tight oil shale deposits that are now appear on the top 100 list!
Apneaman on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 12:22 am
The Chevron Tapes: Video Shows Oil Giant Allegedly Covering Up Amazon Contamination
https://news.vice.com/article/the-chevron-tapes-video-shows-oil-giant-allegedly-covering-up-amazon-contamination
rockman on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 7:10 am
The concept of a field vs a trend is rather rudimentary. From the Schlumberger oil patch dictionary:
Field: An accumulation, pool, or group of pools of hydrocarbons or other mineral resources in the subsurface. A hydrocarbon field consists of a reservoir in a shape that will trap hydrocarbons and that is covered by an impermeable, sealing rock. Typically, the term implies an economic size.
Trend: Used synonymously with the term play to describe an area in which hydrocarbons occur, such as the Wilcox trend of the Gulf Coast.
The foolishness of classifying the eagle Ford Shale as a “field” should be apparent when you look at that list of fields. First, look at the top ten “fields”: it includes Miss canyon 778 and Green Canyon 699. Those are two distinct fields in the Deep Water Eocene TREND. To be consistent if they want to compare the Eagle Ford Shale TREND to the DW Eocene TREND they should add all those DW FIELDS together. Conversely, the Eagleville “field” is not a field as per the definition above. It is a specific area of EFS production. The Texas Rail Road Commission requires that every productive well be assigned a field name whether it’s a unique field or not. And that designation is purely arbitrary and based upon the wells locations and not the geology or productivity. There are wells designated as Eagleville “Field” with wells designated as Quitman “field” sitting between them.
The distinction between a field and a trend is very clear. Except, of course, to those trying to spin a story. But if one does want to take that angle then fine: the Eagle Field is not a “new discovery”. Almost 200 wells were drilled in the Quitman “Field” between 1945 and 2000. In fact, over 100 wells were drilled in this “field” before 1960. IOW: “Interesting that many of the fields (trends?) on the list of the top 100 US oil fields wouldn’t have been on the list 10 years ago—look at all the new Tight oil shale deposits that are now appear on the top 100 list!” Obviously an incorrect statement given the “Tight oil shale deposits” were first drilled and produced 7 DECADES ago and have been under continuous development since then.
So if one accepts the unsupportable position that the Eagle Ford Shale TREND is actually a “FIELD” then this “FIELD” is not something new but was “discovered” 70 years ago.
And what I hope should be even more obvious then what THE ROCKMAN just explained: look at that silly list again: it doesn’t contain any listing for the “Eagle Ford Field’ does it? It shows two separate “fields” that produce from the Eagle Ford Shale formation. So if the Eagleville and Briscoe Ranch Fields are “FIELDS” then obviously the Eagle ford Shale can’t be a “FIELD” otherwise there would be just one entry for the “Eagle Ford Field” that included all the Eagle Ford producing wells, right? But, again, to be consistent they would have to add all the DW Eocene producing wells into one “field” category, wouldn’t they?
rockman on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 7:31 am
And for those still too stubborn to acknowledge their ignorance on the subject here it is directly from the TRRC regulations. Notice how a “new field” designation is required strictly on the distance from existing wells and has nothing to do with geology:
“The operator should investigate the field classification of the nearest Eagle Ford completions to determine if special field rules have been adopted for such wells that could potentially apply to operator’s lease. If other Eagle Ford wells exist within a 2½ mile radius, and such wells are assigned to a field or fields with special field rules, the operator should plan to comply with those rules. If no Eagle Ford wells exist for at least a 2½ mile radius, the distance the Commission requires be investigated for a new field designation, the operator should permit his wells “wildcat,” projecting a new field discovery for its wells. New fields operate under statewide spacing and density rules until special field rules are adopted. Operator may also wish to permit in the nearest existing Eagle Ford Shale producing area even though it is more than 2½ miles away from the lease.”
nony on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 7:56 am
The Bakken middle shale is continuous. None of the “fields” meet the definition of local traps above. I suspect the eagle ford is similar. It’s not a trivial distinction. Usgs does not use the term field in looking at the Bakken
rockman on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 8:20 am
“Usgs does not use the term field in looking at the Bakken”. And nor does it classify the Eagle Ford Shale as a field but as a trend. And that’s because they are professionals who know what the f*ck they are talking about. Not a “trivial distinction”. LOL.
“The Bakken middle shale is continuous.” And so is the Frio TREND, the DW Eocene TREND, the Greta sand TREND, etc, etc. Kinda one of the basic characteristics of a TREND vs the limited extent of an individual FIELD.
nony on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 8:27 am
There are no distinct fields. It is not a trend composed of distinct fields. Get out of the peaker and self adulation and read some technical reports. Like the uses trr estimate.
nony on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 8:32 am
Ps you ready to admit you screwed up monthly change for annual in the marcellus?
How about manning up and admitting to me not just m that you screwed up not knowing the rrc production lag? Seems pretty gutless to call me full of shot and then not come back afterwards when you learned you were full of shit.
ghung on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 10:21 am
nony: “How about manning up and admitting to me not just m that you screwed up…”
Nony’s implication that any of us need to account to him or “own up” is self-testimony to his utter hubris, arrogance, and self-importance. I wouldn’t wipe the dog sh!t off of my shoes on the fool. Just sayin’…
GregT on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 10:51 am
How about “manning up” yourself Nony. PM Rockman with your personal address and telephone number so that you can discuss this matter in person.
Davy on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 11:18 am
The NOo has not had his ass kicked good yet. Maybe in a high school fight cause he is such a dork. I am talking life. Just wait until SHTF and the NOo is totally naked and bare trying to figure out why his pseudoscience is not explaining ugly and messy. He may never grow up. Some people are just that way.
ghung on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 11:36 am
Nony wasn’t spanked as a child. If I’d had had that attitude, I would have had the crap beat out of me. Nony must have had liberal parents who sent him to Montessori school, and can count his friends on zero hands.
Nony on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 12:03 pm
You people just don’t like being stood up to.
Rock has a history of bloviating about stuff he does not know about. I have seen Rockdoc call him out on the boards. Now, that is a sharp guy with some good academic and industry knowledge.
marmico on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 12:04 pm
The concept of a field vs a trend is rather rudimentary
That distinction, if any, must be oil patch lingo (“term of art” ?) not nomenclature of petroleum resource accumulations (PRA). There are fields but not trends in conventional PRAs. There are neither fields nor trends in continuous PRAs.
I would conclude that the EIA chart is oil patch lingo.
Nony on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 12:21 pm
Is the Marcellus “more continuous” than the middle Bakken? I posit that EIA is calling distinct fields based off of NDIC which does label fields in the Bakken, but PA does not in the Marcellus.
I love the whole don’t dare question anything attitude, too. Sorry, Rock. That doesn’t cut it with me. Still remember ‘doc spanking you on matrix flow from shales with 5 academic studies. and you never even responded.
GregT on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 12:48 pm
“You people just don’t like being stood up to.”
People in general do not like condescending, arrogant, assholes. It has nothing to do with the message Nony, but rather in how it is being delivered. Play nice, or go away.
ghung on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 12:53 pm
nony: “You people just don’t like being stood up to.”
Nony doesn’t understand the difference between “standing up to people” and a fundamental lack of respect for others. Disagreeing with someone doesn’t give one license to be abusive, arrogant and downright ugly to folks.
Nony wouldn’t last long in these parts, and is proof-positive that peoples’ true character comes out when they think they’re anonymous, but at the end of the day, they’re stuck with themselves. Sort of satisfying for the rest of us, eh?
Apneaman on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 1:54 pm
Nony, where did you disappear to when the price started tanking badly last fall? Were you at troll reeducation camp learning the new propaganda tactics?? And now your back with a vengeance hoping everyone will forget how you, and others, ran away like scared little boys. Funny how you always claim that “you guys” never admit when your wrong. Bullshit – if you had the courage to stick around you would know that many of the regulars here admitted they were caught off guard by the speed of the price drop. They all stayed – only you and marm ran away. Now your back,but only more arrogant and self assured than ever even as the shale boomers and oily Albertans can’t pay their bills and no one can keep up with the layoffs and bankruptcies. More and more people in N America are losing their ability to pay their bills everyday and you just keep on with your lies and delusions. I don’t believe you Nony. I’m pretty certain you know and your terrified at what’s coming and that’s why your here – with guns a blazing shooting the messengers. I wish it was not true either.
Nony on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 1:56 pm
You guys can threaten and bluster all you want. And I don’t give a shit. Bottom line is peakers have been massively wrong on their predictions. There is a reason why the whole movement died.
And Rockman is full of bluster and messes up basic points about RRC and Marcellus reporting and lacks the honesty to admit it. He’s gotten his butt kicked by Rockdoc repeatedly and just avoided admitting it.
Nony on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 1:57 pm
Last time I checked having a lower price is not a factor in favor of peak oil depletion theory. You people are a hoot. You cite high prices as showing we are running out of oil before and now you cite low prices as the same. What a joke.
marmico on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 2:04 pm
Rock has a history of bloviating about stuff he does not know about>/I>
I second that. I’m a cornucopian. But it doesn’t mean that he has nothing to offer in the cornucopian-catastrophic debates.
Nony on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 2:09 pm
I like Rockdoc better.
GregT on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 2:27 pm
“You cite high prices as showing we are running out of oil before and now you cite low prices as the same.”
Oil prices are not low Nony. They are still twice of what they were only 12 short years ago.
Nony on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 2:35 pm
How come they went down from $100? Could the answer be…SATAN? Oops, I mean shale.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrGT4SIGcSM
Davy on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 2:44 pm
NOo, what about all your cornucopian predictions of huge production increases. Never happened except with gas. Every one of your cornucopian oil predictions proved far higher and away from actual then the peaker predictions. Yet you have the bold face to criticize peakers.
That my friends is double standards. It’s ok for your bought and sold BAUtopian analyst to make corrupt and manipulative goal seek predictions for sheeple investor consumption. Political wonks love it.
Apneaman on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 2:49 pm
Nony, spare us the “running out of oil” straw man Still have not answered why you come here and argue against something you do not believe is happening. You can’t answer, because then you would have to tell the truth about your fear. You are here to fight reality. Nony the Shrill Shill.
GregT on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 2:54 pm
How come prices dropped from $147? Could the answer be… economic contraction? Oops, I mean recession.
Apneaman on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 3:15 pm
Where Big Oil is cutting back
“Simply put, much of the oil they were hoping to pull out of the ground is too expensive to generate a profit.”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102574357
Sounds like a prediction coming true. Not running out like Nony and the strawman crew like to claim – just no money in it – thus leading to the end of the oil age.
Apneaman on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 3:18 pm
“I’m The First To Say: I Can’t Do It” – The Energy Junk-Bond Implosion Just Claimed Its First Victim
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-09/i%E2%80%99m-first-say-i-can%E2%80%99t-do-it-energy-junk-bond-implosion-just-claimed-its-first-victim
Get ready to run away again Nony.
Nony on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 3:19 pm
50 is better than 100. And it happened because of shale. Go shale!
Apneaman on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 3:19 pm
Exhausted world stuck in permanent stagnation warns IMF
The global economy is acutely vulnerable to a fresh recession with debt ratios at record highs. The authorities have already used up most of their ammunition
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11520098/Exhausted-world-stuck-in-permanent-stagnation-warns-IMF.html
Apneaman on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 3:47 pm
“it happened because of shale.” And shale happened because of debt that will be paid for by pensioners. Get ready for the pension fund bail-in’s in the next year or two. Anyone think the Jamie Dimon’s of the financial world are going to take the hit? Tell yourself.
Their political puppets have already imposed the legislation to cover their asses. The only question is how much they will try to grab.
New G20 Rules: Cyprus-style Bail-ins to Hit Depositors AND Pensioners
http://ellenbrown.com/2014/12/01/new-rules-cyprus-style-bail-ins-to-hit-deposits-and-pensions/
Nony on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 3:58 pm
world famous academic, calling out the peakers for their failure to admit wrong.
http://www.aei.org/publication/memories-of-peak-oil/
Apneaman on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 4:44 pm
Hubbert was a world famous academic too. And that article is over two years old. A lot has happened since then little cherry picker.
Apneaman on Fri, 10th Apr 2015 4:46 pm
Nony likes to appeal to authority when it’s convenient.
Argument from authority
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority