Is there a fault close to the drill site? If there is, there may be a risk, depending on the type of drilling being done. If we can drill into the largest fault in the state, then there appears to be a large degree of variability even with what kind of drilling can be safely done. If there isn't even a fault nearby, then I doubt it'll be an issue.
Whether or not it'll be an issue really depends on the specifics. W/o those you're just shooting in the dark.

Just a joke, hence the bit about celebrities.

Admit it, though - you are a monster.

**My late comment to the debate over Energy Return On Energy Input (EROEI) vs. $$ in vs. $$ out on page one of these comments.**
I don't think a discussion of EROEI and economics are drastically different - BTUs have a price (sometimes based more directly on the 'cost of extraction' other times simply on supply and demand...like current nat gas prices). You're not likely to build a wind turbine using power from a wind turbine because it is more economical to use an energy source that is easier (less expensive) to harness.
Cable tools - powered by steam from a wood or coal burning stove - were an improvement over shovels (by both measures, or you wouldn't do it). Diesel-powered rotary drilling rigs can easily tap into oil reserves for $8 to $20/bbl - it is economic and you'll get a lot more BTUs out than went in (even when you allocate the BTUs needed to mine ore to make the steel to pay the person to construct the rig, etc.)
St. Olaf College did a good study on the EROEI of bio-diesel and ethanol where they burdened the resulting BTUs in the end-product with the BTU 'costs' of building the tractor to plow the field and plant the corn plus construct the facility to brew the fuel and to 'power' the labor to drive the tractor, etc. Net was a positive EROEI - 1.6 BTU's out for biodiesel for every 1 BTU in (too bad that using the whole U.S. corn crop just for bio-diesel would only offset 12% of diesel fuel demand - so no Corn Flakes, tortillas or Jim Beam.) Now with the time-value of money, the economics might not be there, nor would you choose that option if you can deploy those same dollars to a better return on the $$ (like coal or oil).
As for the earthquake discussion, anyone remember the deep water disposal at Rocky Flats near Denver in the 1960s that resulted in some quakes?

People tend to like to mishmash moderately related concepts into one big "it". The reality is much more complicated.

If one asks the question, "will and should the field be developed?" It is strictly an economic decision, with as you noted, enough unknowns to give all but the toughest souls, weak knees. If, in the end, they believe they have good odds of returning a profit, the field will be brought into production.

A separate question, "does bringing this field to market increase or decrease the total energy available to the economy?", is more structural, related to if and when a grid collapse might occur. As long as the EROEI is approximately neutral or better, the field can be considered a net asset to the overall energy situation of the country. Once fields that are strongly negative become economically profitable to bring to market you end up in a situation where the fields are energy liabilities, but required because the FORM of the produced energy is simply too valuable to pass on. So EROEI can be considered a macro economic benchmark; but it is not particularly useful when reviewing whether a field will be profitable, and whether that field will produce an economic benefit that enables continued ubiquitous transportation capabilities.

BigTex, Dude what are your collective problems? Are you luddites or something? Do you want us back to the cave dressed in furry non-animal-product naturally-woven fiber loincloths?

Don't bother answering. I have a Tea Party to go to.

I think you are responding to a post in another thread, but I'll give this a shot...

I have this idea that there is some way of creating a sustainable society (by sustainable, I really just mean one that could last maybe 50-100 generations). One of the challenges to overcome, however, will be our tendency to celebrate our cognitive abilities without taking a hard look at whether our current ecological predicament isn't the result of basically cleverness run amok where the complextiy of our solutions creates exponentially more complex problems in their wake.

I suppose that earthquakes triggered by new drilling techniques is one example of this tendency to come up with solutions that create heretofore unknown problems (i.e., human-induced earthquakes), which in turn will require ever-more complex solutions (e.g., new earthquake resistant building designs for areas in which drilling activity will be conducted).

***

RE cave living, while a natural fiber loin cloth would be fine, I think I would also look good in a full grain leather style (perhaps a puma pelt).

In a back-to-the-cave movement, I would probably be inclined to play the whole field on loin cloth designs.

I was being facetious. I believe you are talking about 'solutions in isolation' and our predilection for looking with a short-term perspective. While this works in the modern business world (where fashion trends and consumer electronic products do change often) it definately is not a good approach on a planetary level in an overpopulated world.

Whoever thought that hair spray and refrigerant would burn a hole in the ozone layer and make old ladies and young birdwatchers where floppy hats? It's all a function of too many damn people.

Zero population growth and depersonalizing corporations once again (taking away their right to speech, especially campaign contributions and lobbying) has got to be our goal.

So just get rid of the sex drive and greed, and humanity ought to be okay.

Cyclops says: "I've seen the future, and I don't like it."

on the resistance to drilling: this is Bakersfield, not santa barbara. There are huge areas with pumpers on a very fine spacing and steam-drive production. I think there won'be too much resistance. Hydrofracing is very common already.

I just checked out the Venoco website and it looks like their focus is on the near-shore areas off the coasts of Santa Barbara and Los Angeles counties. Judging from their maps it would seem their focus will be on redevelopment from existing offshore platforms? However . . .

>>> Click on the 09/04/09 Presentation <<<

Page 16 is where they tell us their leases in the Monterey Shale contain 10 billion bbl OOIP - the footnote says that is in onshore leases - but onshore where? Can't tell from the write-up. They say the entire shale in "Southern California" contains 290 billion bbl OOIP. Would be nice if they included a map showing where this thing is located.

Here's where I got the Bakersfield location:

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/docum ... /index.htm


Not sure how areally extensive the play is. Bakersfield is at the southern tip if the SJ valley

Looks like there's another company interested in poking some holes into this shale - though this is a small, Utah-centric gas-focused company and they're looking for a partner for their California prospects. At any rate, this gives us a bit more idea of the areal extent of this shale -- this company's CA properties are in the Antelope Valley, which is the area around Palmdale and Lancaster. A bit farther south than the aforementioned Bakersfield area.

>>> Gasco Energy Introduces New California Oil Projects

Time for an update!

Was just reading Venoco's 3rd quarter conference call transcript where the CEO outlined their plans and ideas for this play.

>>> Seeking Alpha <<<

On that page he talks about their leasing plans. They're also talking to some potential partners, but will go ahead even without them. But if they do get a partner they can double or triple their drilling plans. Anyway, he then discussed the geology and engineering:


So, that answers an earlier question I had about the gravity of the oil here. This is better-quality stuff than in most of California's conventional fields.

Later in the conference call he says they'll start some drilling in this shale in January but they won't start doing some more intensive work until later in the year after they've examined the results of the first few wells.