http://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/bakken-oil-field/1244
Quote:
The Next Oil Boom Is Upon Us... in the Bakken Oil Field
Quote:
The Next Oil Boom Is Upon Us... in the Bakken Oil Field
Bakken Oil Field
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
Well, the article is a year old. Anyone doing anything about it. Are there any special owls in North Dakota that need to be saved?
I have a feeling that the price of oil will rise in the future.
Extracting from shales and sands is expensive and messy. At current prices, not profitable.
The Bakken is not news, it's been worked for years. Lots of potential oil, but maybe not so much recoverable. The Bakken is diffcult, not very permeable, and not very porous.
Owls and Obama have little to do with this.
The Bakken is not news, it's been worked for years. Lots of potential oil, but maybe not so much recoverable. The Bakken is diffcult, not very permeable, and not very porous.
Owls and Obama have little to do with this.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Originally Posted By: Johnny
Well, the article is a year old. Anyone doing anything about it. Are there any special owls in North Dakota that need to be saved?
There live nine species of owls in North Dakota. Wiping them out is okay, though. The North Dakotians can just become avid rodent hunters themselves. Not much to do there, but look at the scenery, destroying it, or going hunting.
Well, the article is a year old. Anyone doing anything about it. Are there any special owls in North Dakota that need to be saved?
There live nine species of owls in North Dakota. Wiping them out is okay, though. The North Dakotians can just become avid rodent hunters themselves. Not much to do there, but look at the scenery, destroying it, or going hunting.
Originally Posted By: MarkC
Extracting from shales and sands is expensive and messy. At current prices, not profitable.
The Bakken is not news, it's been worked for years. Lots of potential oil, but maybe not so much recoverable. The Bakken is diffcult, not very permeable, and not very porous.
Owls and Obama have little to do with this.
Thanks, I had a feeling it was shale/sand issue.
Extracting from shales and sands is expensive and messy. At current prices, not profitable.
The Bakken is not news, it's been worked for years. Lots of potential oil, but maybe not so much recoverable. The Bakken is diffcult, not very permeable, and not very porous.
Owls and Obama have little to do with this.
Thanks, I had a feeling it was shale/sand issue.
snopes it.
Originally Posted By: tig1
Obama will stop that before it gets started.
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: MarkC
Owls and Obama have little to do with this.
You're right. It's just Obama.
You guys just can't help yourself.
Why weren't they tapped last year when the price was high, and oil barron was in charge ?
Because it cost too much.
Obama will stop that before it gets started.
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: MarkC
Owls and Obama have little to do with this.
You're right. It's just Obama.
You guys just can't help yourself.
Why weren't they tapped last year when the price was high, and oil barron was in charge ?
Because it cost too much.
Quote:
Because it cost too much.
Cheapest energy is the energy you don't have to produce.
http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/Conservation/chest_fridge.pdf
Refrigerator for .1kWh/day
Because it cost too much.
Cheapest energy is the energy you don't have to produce.
http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/Conservation/chest_fridge.pdf
Refrigerator for .1kWh/day
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: tig1
Obama will stop that before it gets started.
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: MarkC
Owls and Obama have little to do with this.
You're right. It's just Obama.
You guys just can't help yourself.
Why weren't they tapped last year when the price was high, and oil barron was in charge ?
Because it cost too much.
Please! They are producing oil in Ontario from oil sand and piping it to the US. I think Canada imports more oil to the US than even Saudi. I think. Congress stoped oil sand production in the US.
Originally Posted By: tig1
Obama will stop that before it gets started.
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: MarkC
Owls and Obama have little to do with this.
You're right. It's just Obama.
You guys just can't help yourself.
Why weren't they tapped last year when the price was high, and oil barron was in charge ?
Because it cost too much.
Please! They are producing oil in Ontario from oil sand and piping it to the US. I think Canada imports more oil to the US than even Saudi. I think. Congress stoped oil sand production in the US.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Originally Posted By: tig1
I think Canada imports more oil to the US than even Saudi. I think.
*bites tongue hard!*
I think Canada imports more oil to the US than even Saudi. I think.
*bites tongue hard!*
I expected more from you lot.
Yes Bakken deposits are in shale, but to automatically equate that with tar sands mining in Alberta is idiotic. Bakken formations lie aprox. 2 miles deep, Alberta tar sands lie basically on the surface. Bakken oil recovery is accomplished with standard modern drilling techniques. Bakken formation exhibits low permeability and low porosity, but not greatly worse than sometimes encountered in natural gas drilling wells.
This info is readily available just on Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation
"The number of rigs drilling the North Dakota Bakken jumped from 300 in 2006[14] to 457 in 2007.[15] Those same sources show oil production in the North Dakota Bakken increasing 229%, from 2.2 million barrels (350,000 m3) in 2006 to 7.4 million barrels (1,180,000 m3) in 2007."
The oil is there, it is relatively inexpensive to extract *, the question is, just how fast can you extract it though. I believe MarkC is the only one that pointed this out before in previous incarnations of this very same topic.
* Not as cheap as Saudi oil. but not as expensive as Alberta tar sands. This is my guesstimate.
Yes Bakken deposits are in shale, but to automatically equate that with tar sands mining in Alberta is idiotic. Bakken formations lie aprox. 2 miles deep, Alberta tar sands lie basically on the surface. Bakken oil recovery is accomplished with standard modern drilling techniques. Bakken formation exhibits low permeability and low porosity, but not greatly worse than sometimes encountered in natural gas drilling wells.
This info is readily available just on Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation
"The number of rigs drilling the North Dakota Bakken jumped from 300 in 2006[14] to 457 in 2007.[15] Those same sources show oil production in the North Dakota Bakken increasing 229%, from 2.2 million barrels (350,000 m3) in 2006 to 7.4 million barrels (1,180,000 m3) in 2007."
The oil is there, it is relatively inexpensive to extract *, the question is, just how fast can you extract it though. I believe MarkC is the only one that pointed this out before in previous incarnations of this very same topic.
* Not as cheap as Saudi oil. but not as expensive as Alberta tar sands. This is my guesstimate.
Originally Posted By: jmac
I expected more from you lot.
Yes Bakken deposits are in shale, but to automatically equate that with tar sands mining in Alberta is idiotic. Bakken formations lie aprox. 2 miles deep, Alberta tar sands lie basically on the surface. Bakken oil recovery is accomplished with standard modern drilling techniques. Bakken formation exhibits low permeability and low porosity, but not greatly worse than sometimes encountered in natural gas drilling wells.
This info is readily available just on Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation
"The number of rigs drilling the North Dakota Bakken jumped from 300 in 2006[14] to 457 in 2007.[15] Those same sources show oil production in the North Dakota Bakken increasing 229%, from 2.2 million barrels (350,000 m3) in 2006 to 7.4 million barrels (1,180,000 m3) in 2007."
The oil is there, it is relatively inexpensive to extract *, the question is, just how fast can you extract it though. I believe MarkC is the only one that pointed this out before in previous incarnations of this very same topic.
* Not as cheap as Saudi oil. but not as expensive as Alberta tar sands. This is my guesstimate.
jmac,
Just because you have a lot of knowledge about the two oil sites, probably more than most of us, doesn't mean you need to talk down to me with the idiotic word. I learned a lot about this subject from your information, but please be more respectful in the future.
Thanks
Gerald
I expected more from you lot.
Yes Bakken deposits are in shale, but to automatically equate that with tar sands mining in Alberta is idiotic. Bakken formations lie aprox. 2 miles deep, Alberta tar sands lie basically on the surface. Bakken oil recovery is accomplished with standard modern drilling techniques. Bakken formation exhibits low permeability and low porosity, but not greatly worse than sometimes encountered in natural gas drilling wells.
This info is readily available just on Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation
"The number of rigs drilling the North Dakota Bakken jumped from 300 in 2006[14] to 457 in 2007.[15] Those same sources show oil production in the North Dakota Bakken increasing 229%, from 2.2 million barrels (350,000 m3) in 2006 to 7.4 million barrels (1,180,000 m3) in 2007."
The oil is there, it is relatively inexpensive to extract *, the question is, just how fast can you extract it though. I believe MarkC is the only one that pointed this out before in previous incarnations of this very same topic.
* Not as cheap as Saudi oil. but not as expensive as Alberta tar sands. This is my guesstimate.
jmac,
Just because you have a lot of knowledge about the two oil sites, probably more than most of us, doesn't mean you need to talk down to me with the idiotic word. I learned a lot about this subject from your information, but please be more respectful in the future.
Thanks
Gerald
Sorry tig/Gerald, did not mean to target you in my comments, but I know some of these other guys have been down this road before.
The info is so readily available I expected Buster and Shannow to be able to link up to it, and Mark just usually has an agenda going. You just got caught in friendly fire.
The info is so readily available I expected Buster and Shannow to be able to link up to it, and Mark just usually has an agenda going. You just got caught in friendly fire.
My agenda is that I have a degree in Geology and keep up with things as much as I can.
There's always some big new thing that shows how much oil we have domestically and how much better off we'll be if we exploit it.
Never mind how much waste is produced, how much water is needed for the process, or even realistic estimates of what's where and how much can be gotten out.
To get oil from the Bakken Formation these days, the shale is fractured and drilled horizontally in most cases.
Here's a decent article:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3868
"Will Bakken ever produce as much as 4.1 billion barrels (= 3,649+500 million barrels), the amount suggested by the USGS estimate? It seems very unlikely. Production so far has been 111 million barrels. If the industry is able to discover several more prolific areas such as the Elm Coulee field in Montana (43 million barrels, or 38% of the Bakken oil recovered to date), it might be possible to increase this recovery to 500 million barrels, or 4.5 times the current production. Is total production of 500 million barrels likely? It's difficult to say. The USGS estimate is vastly higher than this, so much less likely.
If 500 million barrels turns out to be the ultimate recovery, the recovery factor would range from 0.13% to 0.25% of estimated oil in place. This very low percentage recovery of the estimated oil in place is not unreasonable if one considers that many of the more marginal areas of the field are likely to be deemed sub-economic and will never be drilled and produced. Technology improvements that will inevitably be made during an era of high energy prices will undoubtedly render some of this more marginal oil recoverable, but the total recovery is still likely to be low."
"1. The Bakken shale has produced about 111 million barrels of oil during the last 50+ years in Montana and North Dakota.
2. Total Bakken production is still rising, and producing at the rate of 75,000 BOPD in October 2007.
3. Because of the highly variable nature of shale reservoirs, the characteristics of the historical Bakken production, and the fact that per-well rates seem to have peaked, it seems unlikely that total Bakken production will exceed 2x to 3x current rate of 75,000 BOPD.
4. The latest boom in Bakken production is driven by the application of horizontal wells and hydraulic fracturing technology, which has added about 70 million barrels of production in 7 years. Ultimate recovery of the already-drilled wells should be at least double this volume.
5. The USGS estimates the mean volume of technically recoverable hydrocarbons to be 3,649 million barrels of oil. This is roughly 7 to 12 times the size of already known resources.
6. Based on current production and areas likely to be drilled, the USGS estimate of technically recovery resources seems optimistic.
7. The Bakken potential resource, while large by US onshore field standards, will have only a minor effect on US production or imports. Using 2006 US imports and consumption for comparison, the Bakken undiscovered resource of 3,649 million barrels of oil, if subsequently discovered and fully developed, would provide us with the equivalent of six months of oil consumption or 10 months of imports, spread over 20 or more years. In reality, the reserves developed are likely to be many times smaller than this value.
8. The October 2007 production rate of 75,000 BOPD amounts only 0.4% of US oil consumption, or 0.6% of imports.
9. Per-well Bakken production peaked in August 2005 at 116 barrels a day, and was down to 79 barrels a day in October 2007. If the Bakken production history in the 1990s can be used as a guide, the peaking of per-well production may portend a peak in total Bakken production."
There's always some big new thing that shows how much oil we have domestically and how much better off we'll be if we exploit it.
Never mind how much waste is produced, how much water is needed for the process, or even realistic estimates of what's where and how much can be gotten out.
To get oil from the Bakken Formation these days, the shale is fractured and drilled horizontally in most cases.
Here's a decent article:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3868
"Will Bakken ever produce as much as 4.1 billion barrels (= 3,649+500 million barrels), the amount suggested by the USGS estimate? It seems very unlikely. Production so far has been 111 million barrels. If the industry is able to discover several more prolific areas such as the Elm Coulee field in Montana (43 million barrels, or 38% of the Bakken oil recovered to date), it might be possible to increase this recovery to 500 million barrels, or 4.5 times the current production. Is total production of 500 million barrels likely? It's difficult to say. The USGS estimate is vastly higher than this, so much less likely.
If 500 million barrels turns out to be the ultimate recovery, the recovery factor would range from 0.13% to 0.25% of estimated oil in place. This very low percentage recovery of the estimated oil in place is not unreasonable if one considers that many of the more marginal areas of the field are likely to be deemed sub-economic and will never be drilled and produced. Technology improvements that will inevitably be made during an era of high energy prices will undoubtedly render some of this more marginal oil recoverable, but the total recovery is still likely to be low."
"1. The Bakken shale has produced about 111 million barrels of oil during the last 50+ years in Montana and North Dakota.
2. Total Bakken production is still rising, and producing at the rate of 75,000 BOPD in October 2007.
3. Because of the highly variable nature of shale reservoirs, the characteristics of the historical Bakken production, and the fact that per-well rates seem to have peaked, it seems unlikely that total Bakken production will exceed 2x to 3x current rate of 75,000 BOPD.
4. The latest boom in Bakken production is driven by the application of horizontal wells and hydraulic fracturing technology, which has added about 70 million barrels of production in 7 years. Ultimate recovery of the already-drilled wells should be at least double this volume.
5. The USGS estimates the mean volume of technically recoverable hydrocarbons to be 3,649 million barrels of oil. This is roughly 7 to 12 times the size of already known resources.
6. Based on current production and areas likely to be drilled, the USGS estimate of technically recovery resources seems optimistic.
7. The Bakken potential resource, while large by US onshore field standards, will have only a minor effect on US production or imports. Using 2006 US imports and consumption for comparison, the Bakken undiscovered resource of 3,649 million barrels of oil, if subsequently discovered and fully developed, would provide us with the equivalent of six months of oil consumption or 10 months of imports, spread over 20 or more years. In reality, the reserves developed are likely to be many times smaller than this value.
8. The October 2007 production rate of 75,000 BOPD amounts only 0.4% of US oil consumption, or 0.6% of imports.
9. Per-well Bakken production peaked in August 2005 at 116 barrels a day, and was down to 79 barrels a day in October 2007. If the Bakken production history in the 1990s can be used as a guide, the peaking of per-well production may portend a peak in total Bakken production."
- Status
Similar threads
