Drilling for Oil in the Bakken formation

[sailaway21]

The below article, a very lengthy article, is about as good as any in discussing the various methods we drill for oil, specifically for that oil in the Dakota's and Montana. Given the costs involved it'a amazing that anyone even does it! The actual good news is that, at today's crude oil prices, there is going to be a lot more drilling going on in those areas where drilling is allowed. As you'll see from the article it's not just a simple matter of punching a hole in the ground.

BTW, the genesis of the article was the belief by the author that the estimates by the USGS were too high for the Bakken field. But from the follow up comments it's seen that only technology will decide that matter.

FWIW, many of the same techniques are used in water well drilling in similar geological areas.

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

[Stillraining]

As a former Oil driller I can tell you the costs of drilling has not risen as fast as the price per barrel their getting by a long shot...Labor will always be availibal here at a reasonable rate...less then 20.00 per hour in most places..

The five years I spent on the North Slope wages fell not rose...They are not getting much more today then we did 20 years ago..

[camaraderie]

Good article!

One thing to keep in mind is the tendency of environmentalists to dismiss the importance of oil finds in US territory as a way of gaining support for the notion that such "unimportant" drilling will add little to our supply and can do vast damage to the environment.
10 years ago...Anwar was dismissed as small and that it would take ten years to develop...meanwhile the caribou might be disturbed. Seems like if we had acted 10 years ago...some much needed American crude would be coming onto the market and maybe lowering prices a bit.
There doesn't seem to be the same concerns about the Bakken field, but let's see what happens as this expands further.

[Boasun]

There are oil deposits off the coast of California and Florida but both states will not allow drilling along either coasts. They don't want to interupt the tourists trade.

[sailaway21]

You have to read a long way down in the comments section before you get to the fundamental point that Camaraderie is making. And what may be missing from the otherwise interesting discussion of technology is that, when crude prices rise to a certain point, it is well worth the effort to revisit old "unproductive" fields where it is often found that, with newer technology, substantial oil can yet be withdrawn. The obsession with disparaging "small" deposits reflects two things; an irrational desire to have a huge, one-source supply of oil and a lack of knowledge of the drilling industry. Non-drillers want all the answers before the drilling starts, not knowing that we really don't know what's down there, or down there 100 yards away even, until we actually drill. This is as much a black art as it is science. Highly educated geologists make mistakes all the time in determining where to drill. And you can spend millions on just a test hole!

We see the same thing in the water well industry. Individual customers, and even municipalities, want one big well that will provide all their needs, forever. The idea that they would be better served by multiple, smaller wells seems just a ploy by the driller to drill more footage in their view. Of course, when production drops they're upset with the driller for some odd reason. Municipalities finesse the point that they were unwilling to pay for enough water wells by, logically, storing pumped water in large water towers. (that's why you still have water even though the power went out everywhere) An over-reliance on stored water versus adequate well numbers and production is what causes your city to institute water rationing in the summer. Those unenlightened souls who failed to see the advantage of a public water supply do not usually have to suffer from such rationing, or the cost of a water bill for less water. (!)

[Cruisingdad]

That was an interesting article Sway.

What I find intersting is not the potential reserve, or whether it was over/under stated. What I find interesting is that even if we hit one of the largest reserves in the US, and it pays off vastly more than possible, we still will only hit a small percentage of the actual, current use of oil that we go through in this country. It is mind boggling, actually.

I equate it to the Titanic tightening up a shaft seal after she hit the Ice Berg. It seems to me, unless I have totally missed something, that it is at best a short term fix and more likely a fools hope. Forget the environmental impacts and global warming, we simply cannot produce what we use (currently, assuming no population growth or industrial growth). That makes us reliant upon foreign countries for an absolutely vital resource... the realities of which are the conscequences we live with today.

I don't know where the answer is. There are people (and it would seem blogs/forums) that specialize in that. But it seems, at least to this dad, that drilling for more oil is waste of time unless it is easily and very economically done. Those same resources should be spent on new technology to get us OFF of the oil and producing something that is economically feasable, replenishable, and reduces (or eliminates) our foreign dependance.

Can you imagine, actually imagine for a short second, what would happen if they just came out with:

1) A batter capable of long term use with close to equal energy in-energy out?

2) A car that could use it and would do so at close to the same performance as current gas autos.

You put those two together, and you would not find the bottom of oil. Detroit would be rolling again, the economy would be shored up, our future would not be dependent on others, and wars would be avoided (not all, but some).

OPEC would dissapear and people like Chavez, Hussein, (all the Iran dictators), etc would no longer have the financial resources to keep their people and brutal policies in check. They might actually have to be good leaders or find a rock to hide under. It would literally change the world.

Just my uneducated opinions, of course, and probably worth what they cost.

- CD

[sailaway21]

Actually CD, there are an awful lot of holes in the ground world-wide and the entire history of "proven reserves" has been nothing but upwards since we first started worrying about such things back in the seventies. Boasun's point about the inherent political decisions that are made in the production of those reserves is not hardly without merit.

As to your electric car idea, let's assume for argument's sake that the battery technology is here today and viable. Where does that put us? California already suffers from brown-outs just running their household air conditioners and we import substantial electricity already from Canada. We are perhaps less self-sufficent in terms of electricity production than we are in terms of oil production. Let's not even get into the kum-ba-ya feelings that permeate the alternative energy crowd. It's not only woefully inefficient, it's woefully inadequate for anything even approaching our current needs and is likely to remain so for much of the near future (25 years?). Advances will be made and they will be more rapid as the profit potential rises, ie...energy costs continue to escalate. But, you will have noticed, in the article and comments, that an oil surplus is a few years around the corner in all likelihood as it historically has been when prices rise dramatically.

Here's an interesting article on the cost benefit analysis of buying a hybrid electric car and I'm including a link to a reader's response as well as it shows better some just cocktail napkin calculations as to effectiveness.

The American Spectator
The American Spectator -look for the Don't get me started letter by John Music

[Cruisingdad]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

Actually CD, there are an awful lot of holes in the ground world-wide and the entire history of "proven reserves" has been nothing but upwards since we first started worrying about such things back in the seventies. Boasun's point about the inherent political decisions that are made in the production of those reserves is not hardly without merit.

As to your electric car idea, let's assume for argument's sake that the battery technology is here today and viable. Where does that put us? California already suffers from brown-outs just running their household air conditioners and we import substantial electricity already from Canada. We are perhaps less self-sufficent in terms of electricity production than we are in terms of oil production. Let's not even get into the kum-ba-ya feelings that permeate the alternative energy crowd. It's not only woefully inefficient, it's woefully inadequate for anything even approaching our current needs and is likely to remain so for much of the near future (25 years?). Advances will be made and they will be more rapid as the profit potential rises, ie...energy costs continue to escalate. But, you will have noticed, in the article and comments, that an oil surplus is a few years around the corner in all likelihood as it historically has been when prices rise dramatically.

Here's an interesting article on the cost benefit analysis of buying a hybrid electric car and I'm including a link to a reader's response as well as it shows better some just cocktail napkin calculations as to effectiveness.

The American Spectator
The American Spectator -look for the Don't get me started letter by John Music

Sway,

I am honestly not educated in the matter. However, it does have interest to me.

But just because it cost 40 grand now, does not mean it will cost 40k later. It is supply and demand. And I would imagine if they made those things like F150's or suburbans, the cost would be vastly less.

In my uneducated opinion, it seems that those in the Electric Only camp are unrealistic (but very optimistic) about the immediate benefits of the cars. It is also my opinion that those in the Drill, Drill, Drill camp are blind to the realities of drilling and oil consumption and anything but more supply is not a viable answer.

Perhaps the truth lies between the two. But if there was sufficient supply, readily available (including refinement), would we be having this conversation? If you were paying a buck a gallon for gas, would we be discussing this?? If we could drill in our backyard and supply all of our own fuel, would this be a problem? The answer, of course, is no.

However, that is not the case - now is it? We cannot produce enough to meet our needs, we are dependent on a foreign product for our survival (reason enough to get off - no matter the cost), and it IS an exhaustable resource. Drilling is only a stop-gap and not a long term solution.

I do not stand squarely in the "don't drill" camp... but I do stand squarely in the "this is not a fix" camp. It is not a fix. No matter how expensive or cheap gas is, the dynamics and reality of it do not change. We need to get off. The trick, of course, is getting there without major heartache. The better the cars and more efficient the batteries, the less the heartache. THe more investment in the technology, the better the cars.

Of course, I am preaching to a country that happily waits 20 minutes to pay $5 for a cup of Starbucks coffee (which always taste burnt to me), while complaining to the Arab at 7-11 about having to wait in line to buy their overpriced $4.50/gallon milk.

Solar technology and wind technology ARE the future (esp solar). Battery technology... or better yet, Energy Storage, is the future. Electric cars ARE the future. We just aren't there yet. But at least we are trying. I say, keep trying and try a little harder.

So, just as a note to start a good debate: How much has the Iraq war cost? I forget the current ESTIMATE. If that had been poured into new energy (elec plants, Energy Storage, electric cars), what would the outcome have been?

I still stand with my statemenet that If we had:

1) A batter capable of long term use with close to equal energy in-energy out?

2) A car that could use it and would do so at close to the same performance as current gas autos.

The world would be a different place.

- CD

[danjarch]

Cd, Our oil dependence is proportional to it's ready access. And always has been. The original deisel engine was designed to run on vegtable fuel. It was redigned to use oil because there was an abundence of oil laying around. Prior to the twentieth century, no body had come up with a really good use for natrally occuring oil. Tar pits and areas that had high level of oil were considered waste land. You couldn't farm it well or do much with it.

You see simalarities in every area of commerce. In the American southeast we've always used southern yellow pine for framing lumber. Cedar was saved for nicer work. Out in the northwest by comparison they framed with cedar and used SYP sparingly. The difference for oil has been that only in America has the adverage per capita income been high enough for millions of people to afford the complicated machines that use oil. Now the world is starting to catch up.

Big deal, there are more then a few ways to replace our oil consumsion with other more avalible products. Everything from plug in lawn mowers to air powered cars. Plenty will change when oil stays expensive in comparison to other fuels. Using a gas powered lawn mower is a little easier then have to move the cord all the time. Electric mowers are easier to maintain on the other hand. If gas prices stay high more lawn mowers, weed eaters, and other easy to switch devices will switch to electric.

Cars and trucks on the other hand will switch over to air power or ethenols and vegtable fuels. Hybrids, fuel cells, electric, Compress gasses can push people and product. It's mostly additude that is keeping us dependant on foriegn fuels. When people decide that air conditioning on short trips around town is no longer important, or that driving fourty five minutes each way for an extra fifty cents an hour isn't worth it, we'll change in a heart beat.

There was once a time when the adverage American thought living in town was a real improvement over being out in the sticks. It starting to make a come back. Another turn around is house shrink. For decades the belief, reinforced by comsumer demand was that bigger was better in the housing world. It seems to have topped out at around 4500 to 5500 square feet. The adverage upper income doesn't seem to be interested in anything bigger and has started creaping backwards. To much house to keep clean and the kids more away alot quicker then any one imagines.

We will give up our gas guzzlers with out a second thought. That does of coarse depend on gas prices not dropping back to really low levels again.

[Cruisingdad]

Originally Posted by danjarch

Cd, Our oil dependence is proportional to it's ready access. And always has been. The original deisel engine was designed to run on vegtable fuel. It was redigned to use oil because there was an abundence of oil laying around. Prior to the twentieth century, no body had come up with a really good use for natrally occuring oil. Tar pits and areas that had high level of oil were considered waste land. You couldn't farm it well or do much with it.

You see simalarities in every area of commerce. In the American southeast we've always used southern yellow pine for framing lumber. Cedar was saved for nicer work. Out in the northwest by comparison they framed with cedar and used SYP sparingly. The difference for oil has been that only in America has the adverage per capita income been high enough for millions of people to afford the complicated machines that use oil. Now the world is starting to catch up.

Big deal, there are more then a few ways to replace our oil consumsion with other more avalible products. Everything from plug in lawn mowers to air powered cars. Plenty will change when oil stays expensive in comparison to other fuels. Using a gas powered lawn mower is a little easier then have to move the cord all the time. Electric mowers are easier to maintain on the other hand. If gas prices stay high more lawn mowers, weed eaters, and other easy to switch devices will switch to electric.

Cars and trucks on the other hand will switch over to air power or ethenols and vegtable fuels. Hybrids, fuel cells, electric, Compress gasses can push people and product. It's mostly additude that is keeping us dependant on foriegn fuels. When people decide that air conditioning on short trips around town is no longer important, or that driving fourty five minutes each way for an extra fifty cents an hour isn't worth it, we'll change in a heart beat.

There was once a time when the adverage American thought living in town was a real improvement over being out in the sticks. It starting to make a come back. Another turn around is house shrink. For decades the belief, reinforced by comsumer demand was that bigger was better in the housing world. It seems to have topped out at around 4500 to 5500 square feet. The adverage upper income doesn't seem to be interested in anything bigger and has started creaping backwards. To much house to keep clean and the kids more away alot quicker then any one imagines.

We will give up our gas guzzlers with out a second thought. That does of coarse depend on gas prices not dropping back to really low levels again.

Isn't Brazil self-sufficent and runs off of rice or something like that?