Drilling for Oil in the Bakken formation

[danjarch]

P.S. If you want to be scared of something, worry about our getting back to finacial indepence. Worse then buying oil from foriegners is hawking our finacial soul.

[sailaway21]

The graph CD didn't want you to see. Between Canada, the US, and Mexico we've got over 200 billion in proven reserves. I doubt we'll have much trouble trading with either of those two countries.
Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2006 — Infoplease.com
see , reah

[artbyjody]

This is one of the areas where out tax system works against us. Companies and employees get nearly tax free incentives of doing the bringing oil / expertise to foreign lands. Every looked at the the want ads for working an oil field outside of the US?

We may argue that we prevent oil from being pumped in the US regions, but it is not as true as you think. There are government incentives to bring it from overseas. Its political, its economical and most importantly part of spreading our form of democracy to the world. Dubai is a great example - as it is almost a sovereign state outside of Saudi Arabia..why is this area becoming the world mecca for technology, tourism, and economy?

Do your research.

The quandary now is where or how everything is justified. With increasing costs - the recession ( we know we are in it)... and now compared to 1970 - more ability to locate information...

[Cruisingdad]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

The graph CD didn't want you to see. Between Canada, the US, and Mexico we've got over 200 billion in proven reserves. I doubt we'll have much trouble trading with either of those two countries.
Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2006 — Infoplease.com
see , reah

You crazy Republican!! (smile)

And here, for all three of those people still following this thread, is the article that SWay does not want you to see...

The Oil Drum | The Bakken Formation: How Much Will It Help?

For those with a short attention span, that was the original article he posted. Sway, God love you, did you even read it!!??? Quit screwing around looking for tape measures and read your own articles!!!! You nutty Republican.

Ohhh, I got a laugh out of that.

I have no agenda here, contrary to what anyone might perceive. I do not own a solar company (just a solar farm boat... smile). If I find information that helps in the discussion and appears reliable (from either point of view), I have no issue presenting it. I would have no issue presenting this. Again, no hidden agendas for me. However, I think we dissagree on the direction.

Now, using your article, the United States has:

21.4 billion barrells of reserves. This, of course, is not exactly precise. I will also suggest that the number is higher than that. This was a 2006 article. THe Bakken formation numbers were revised in April to about an additional 3.5 Billion barrels of reserves.

I am not sure why you threw Canada and Mexico in there. I don't remember the part of our constitution, signed by Canada, that allows us to go take their oil. That they have it seems irrelevant to our conversation. What is also unknown about their reserves is how much of that is recoverable and how much they will let you recover. They may not appreciate a pumper in everybodys backyard up there. The amount of reserves is irrelevant. How much you can get is.

Now, the key question in all of this is not HOW MUCH oil reserves you have. The question is HOW MUCH you will actually get out of it. Am I wrong? Again, I quote your own article:

The Pittman/Price/LeFever study cited above reports a wide range of measured permeabilities and porosities in the Bakken, but the average is low. One part of the report gives the average porosity and permeability for the middle Bakken as being 5% and 0.04 millidarcies.

So, that billions of barrels isn't quite as high now. Of course, we will never know until we drill, drill, drill... but if you read the article that I presented earlier you will realize that the time to drill to gas pump is a very long, very expensive time. It takes millions simply to drop a hole at some question of return. Also, I would like to quote another piece of your article:

If we could actually produce 3.6 billion barrels of undiscovered oil forecast at the P50 level by USGS, how much would this equate to? The US uses about 7.6 billion barrels of oil products a year, according to EIA data. This is equivalent to just under six month's US oil use, spread over a very long period, probably 20 years or more. If total production amounts to only 500 million barrels, as I have suggested, this would equate to about 23 days worth of United States oil usage, spread over many, many years.

First of all (after you read your own article you will understand... smile) the author does not believe that is even reality or possible due to the permeability factor presented by previous studies. He feels, even in the best of estimates, that the true recoverable percentage of that reserve is considrably less (at best). But what I find intersting is that even if we hit what is felt as a highly unrealistic number of recovery, it could take twenty years to get 6 months of oil use. 20 years drilling and expending that energy for 6 months of United States use (at todays useage... surely we won't increase our useage over time). And that is the unrealistic numbers. So what is the reality? Probably 20 years for much less than that.

This same logic can be applied to the other reserves you have mentioned - and I will say this again: How much you have is in some ways irrelevant. How much you can (AND WHEN) actually get is what is relevant.

Drilling there is like I said, spending energy to tighten a shaft seal on the Titanic after she hit the Ice Berg. It makes such a very small difference it is rediculous. What would 20 years of investment to get us off of that oil get us?

Also of note, if you will read the article I presented:

http://www.pppl.gov/polImage.cfm?doc...&size_code=Doc

PEAKING OF WORLD OIL PRODUCTION:
IMPACTS, MITIGATION, & RISK MANAGEMENT

If you don't want to read 80 something pages of information, I will summarize it for you. Peak Production is most likely coming fairly soon. The impact on our economy will be considerable. It takes 10-20 years (with the emphasis on 20) for any meaningful changes to take effect.

Incidently, which you will be happy to read, the author (though he does not discount the use of non-hydrocarbon based technologies) feels that they are not the best solution to answering our problem at todays technology. He implies though that their use could improve the outlook and reduce the impact. However, he is clearly an oil man... so don't be scared to read it (smile).

- CD

[Cruisingdad]

Originally Posted by danjarch

CD, Your using dooms day math. It assumes that all hell breaks loose and we can no longer get any foreign oil. Reality check, if Chavez decides to cut of the USA, he has to sell the oil some where. Whoever buy his oil won't be buying someone else's oil. Do to the economics involved. We ship millions of barrels of oil to Japan, and import this same millions from Mexico.

Dooms day math? Dooms day:

Dictionary.com: given to or marked by forebodings or predictions of impending calamity; esp. concerned with or predicting future universal destruction (I took out the part about Nuclear, God forbid, but possible. Yet, that is for another discussion).

Dooms day implies the end and something that, though possible, is likely not to happen. Let me give you some dates:

1967 Oil Embargo

1967 Oil Embargo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1973 Oil Crisis

1973 oil crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 1973 oil crisis began on October 17, 1973, when the members of Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC, consisting of the Arab members of OPEC plus Egypt and Syria) announced, as a result of the ongoing Yom Kippur War, that they would no longer ship oil to nations that had supported Israel in its conflict with Syria and Egypt (the United States, its allies in Western Europe, and Japan).

1979 Iranian Revolution

Iranian Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1990 Persian Gulf War

Gulf War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2005 Hugo Chavez (Venezuela): "Oil is a Geopolitical Weapon."

Countless other comments too numerous to mention from Chavez, Iran, etc about using oil as a weapon and specifically cutting off the United States and/or getting OPEC to cut off the United States.


Dan,

THis is not doomsday (I sincerely hope). This is reality and history. History WILL repeat itself here. The Middle East is no more stable (argueable less stable) today than it was in the 70's. Could you argue that S America is less stable now than it was in the 70's (with regard to the potential for us to lose our oil imports)?? I think you could make that argument pretty easy. In fact, I feel the potential for this to happen is more real today than 10 years ago... or thirty. If nothing else, because we use more oil and have fewer options.

After the Oil Embargo of 1973, the US pushed back from its oil consumption. However, we have now surpassed that consumption of foreign oil again. We have put it to the point that we cannot supply enough of our own oil with our current needs to be self sufficient. Using your Dooms Day term, it does not generally happen with a lot of warning. If you get weeks/months warning, it will be a miracle. Now, compare that to this reality: In order for us, as a nation, to make any real difference on oil, will take 10-20 years. YEARS!!! (I can quote some US Government articles if you wish, but I think you know this already). Once that "dooms day" comes, you won't have time to find alternatives. You will either be forced to concede to points that are not in your best interests as a nation and likely hurt your national security, or (and more likely) you go to war. That is the only chip we keep on the table - a massive military.

You also mentioned Chavez or other countries cutting us off and selling to other countries. They already sell to other countries and meet their needs. He sells to us out of necessity. Surely you do not dissagree with that?? He sells to us because with the present economy, he needs our money as bad as we need his oil. In biology, we call that a symbiotic relationship. However, don't think for a second that if he could sell that oil to another nation, for equal or greater price, that he would not do so. If he could keep his social/communist) policies in place while cutting us off, he would do it in a heartbeat and dance all the way to the bank.

Then what would you do? Saudia Arabia is already nearly at maximum production. Go buy it from Iran? Strip Iraq? What options are on the table but giving up your national interests or going to war? Becuase there is no way you can "flip a switch" and make your country run until you find alternatives.

That is why they put in place the Strategic Oil Reserve:

DOE - Fossil Energy: U.S. Petroleum Reserves

That is, about 702 million barrels. Assuming we do not get totally cut off, it still does not give you much time to find an alternative, short of war or unfathonable national concessions. My bet, personally, is that the 700 whatever barrels are just enough to keep our navy and military running to reach any part of the world and do what we would be forced to do... unfortunately. I don't think it is meant for the civilian consumer, per se.

So, how can you have security or economic independence with foreign oil dependence? Seems impossible to me.

I have tried to show or prove my points with facts. Those facts are:

1) We cannot currently produce enough oil to be self sufficient.

2) We cannot, anytime in the foreseable future, produce enough to be self sufficient.

3) Even if we do produce enough, it (even with unrealistic estimates) will only be able to supply the US for some months.

4) Oil is reaching a plateau.

5) Oil has, can, and will (with all likelihood) be used as a weapon against us.

6) It will take years or several decades for anything we do today to be useful for tomorrow. This includes non-hydrocarbon and hydrocarbon solutions.

7) Oil is not a renewable resource.

I have intentionally avoided sources that are not US Gov sponsored links. I do not feel Exxon (or Shell, as was one article) or Green People (or whatever they were called) give an unbiased opinion. That is why I have tried to use the links or US Gov sponsored links (with the exception of Sailaway's link that he presented) to present my facts. It is not to say they are right or would not skew some data, but it seems the most credible of the information.

With the 7 points above, how can you feel that it is in our best interests to drill without a sincere and direct effort ot get OFF foreign oil and, in essenece, get off oil alltogether?

Please explain to me what facts you base your information off of so I can review them and re-evaluate my view. I (honestly, sincerely, I swear) am not trying to simply grab points of view and give one side only to make sure that I am right. I promise. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. I have done it, publically on this board alone. But this article has spurred an interst in me to reserach the matter further. As such, without other facts upon which to consider your conclusions, I cannot see how anyone would agree with your proposed course of action. It honestly makes no sense to me.

- CD

PS THis is not a debate to be won or lost. It is simply a review of opinions for future actions. I simply ask you to stand back and review the facts and keep an open mind upon the direction you suggest.

[chucklesR]

I congratulate all the contributors to this thread for keeping the entire conversation both civil and enlightening.
What is clear to me is there is a lack of agreement at our level of understanding; that lack of agreement is based on 'facts' being variable dependent on the bias of the writer (not poster, writer of the linked article, graph et. al).
In a perfect world we'd have an answer. I for one would like to believe we could put a man on the moon again, i.e., our scientist and R&D could come up with a viable replacement for oil. Quickly, oh, so quickly.
It's not going to happen. This is not the 1960's and the solution is, frankly more difficult than rocket science.
What we need is compromise, pump the oil we can, as best we can - and find an alternative source of energy that works. Batteries isn't it - something must make the power to charge the battery. Solar isn't it, we can't rely on sunny days or cover miles of land. Ditto the wind. Ethanol, science and economics say it's not ready, or at least I for one do not want to make the trade off of me driving a mile while a family in Asia goes hungry because I bought his biomass. It might be the answer, but it's not ready.
CD asked a lot of valid questions, I'd like to add one to the mix -
Who is best to research and develop the next energy source, market driven capitalist or government? Biases aside, really? who?
As a contractor to government projects, if government is in charge of it we are in deep deep juju.

I'm hoping on Fusion and hydrogen fuel cells, at best guess it's 30 years out and I won't live to see it. I hope I'm wrong on that one.

[Cruisingdad]

Originally Posted by chucklesR

I congratulate all the contributors to this thread for keeping the entire conversation both civil and enlightening.
What is clear to me is there is a lack of agreement at our level of understanding; that lack of agreement is based on 'facts' being variable dependent on the bias of the writer (not poster, writer of the linked article, graph et. al).
In a perfect world we'd have an answer. I for one would like to believe we could put a man on the moon again, i.e., our scientist and R&D could come up with a viable replacement for oil. Quickly, oh, so quickly.
It's not going to happen. This is not the 1960's and the solution is, frankly more difficult than rocket science.
What we need is compromise, pump the oil we can, as best we can - and find an alternative source of energy that works. Batteries isn't it - something must make the power to charge the battery. Solar isn't it, we can't rely on sunny days or cover miles of land. Ditto the wind. Ethanol, science and economics say it's not ready, or at least I for one do not want to make the trade off of me driving a mile while a family in Asia goes hungry because I bought his biomass. It might be the answer, but it's not ready.
CD asked a lot of valid questions, I'd like to add one to the mix -
Who is best to research and develop the next energy source, market driven capitalist or government? Biases aside, really? who?
As a contractor to government projects, if government is in charge of it we are in deep deep juju.

I'm hoping on Fusion and hydrogen fuel cells, at best guess it's 30 years out and I won't live to see it. I hope I'm wrong on that one.

For all of the fun I enjoy making at the expense of the government that I love, they can be the answer. Do you understand what fusion, for example, is? TO think we could do that in the private sector is scary. It requires some serious money and oversight. Dangerous stuff.

Hydrogen, maybe not as much. Private sector, possibly and probably.

Our government is capable of some pretty amazing things when our future depends on it. One great example of that is the atomic bomb.

I personally believe this is the next, serious problem facing our country. I am not completley doom and gloom on it, but my research and review of facts tends to make me extremely concerned.

For the record, I don't think stopping all domestic drilling or foreign imports in search of the next great solar panel is the answer. Nor do I think drilling and foreign import is the answer. The reality is a combination of the two. But the easiest way for this problem to get worse is for more cheap oil. No matter the cost of the oil, the realities and dynamics that surround its supply and demand have not changed. In fact, it could be argued that by decreasing the cost (or increasing the supply), you exhagerate an already serious issue and make it harder to fix in the future. As such, I am an advocate for making the effort to get off now before it gets worse. Any effort you make now will not pay off for many, many years.

- CD

[copacabana]

How about cutting down on the use of oil? Americans do a lot of driving ...

[Cruisingdad]

Originally Posted by copacabana

How about cutting down on the use of oil? Americans do a lot of driving ...

I do not have the data to back this up yet, so it is a theory. But my theory is that there is not enough conservatio nthat we could do to fix the problem. Our socio-econoimc state has been based in much off of cheap oil (which translates to an ability to spread out). Our cities are locked with traffic and public transportation is not as effective here (in my opinion) as it might be in other parts of the world.

Conservation will help, but will not solve the issues immediately.

My theory, only.

- CD

[erps]

I"m afraid that the commuters on the freeway account for a small percentage of the oil we consume. Every thing we consume at the grocery store and walmart all get to the consumer via a distribution system run off oil.

We ship some raw materials over to China, where they convert it to a small plastic thingy, coat it with a little bit of lead and then ship it back to us all at an affordable price at yesterday's oil prices. In the winter time, we get fresh fruit from South Amercia. Can you imagine the energy it takes just to bring stuff to consumers who can live way out in the woods because of the old price of oil?

NPR was talking about $200/barrel oil in the near future. There could be some major changes in the way we do everyday business.