Study: US shale oil production to 1.9 million bpd in 2016

[pstarr]

We explained the drive mechanism to you yesterday...

It is not BS it is basically fact based on what they know right now. I think the cost per barrel is probably off, but the oil is there and is producible.

right-wingnut? politics.... really?
For the record No...

You must not listen to yourself. Once again, bakken shale' has no natural drive because permeability is in the micro- to nano-Darcy region and there can be no upward pressure on the fracted regions (other than from the immediate surrounding structure around the fracture)

We also know there is no natural drive from historical evidence. The oil would have seeped upward and evaporated/oxidized at the surface, as there is no cap rock above the shale, no anticline.

[pstarr]

Look who's cherry picking? Conveniently your graph is the yearly one which ends at 2010. Here is the most recent one, which is now being followed by a biiiiiiiiiiigggg increase in production.

Wow dude. It reached what it was in 1970. Problem is 1970 NG cost a few cents. Your Chesapeake isn't even profitable at $7

by the way. you still haven't fessed up to your lie to VanglV

[pstarr]

Only pstarr would consider it bad if farmers produced a bumper crop of something, sending the price down. Which is basically what's happened in the NG industry.

wrong NG tanked because demand went down. NG prices are much more elastic than petroleum. In fact they are dependent on oil prices, economic health and political issues.

That is why this is called Peakoil.com. Not peaktightlyheldshalegas.com

[rockdoc123]

Y

ou must not listen to yourself. Once again, bakken shale' has no natural drive because permeability is in the micro- to nano-Darcy region and there can be no upward pressure on the fracted regions (other than from the immediate surrounding structure around the fracture)

We also know there is no natural drive from historical evidence. The oil would have seeped upward and evaporated/oxidized at the surface, as there is no cap rock above the shale, no anticline.

non, non est non. The drive has zip all to do with the permeability. Most of the shale gas reservoirs are overpressured, meaning that the gas pressure is much higher than the surrounding water pore volume pressure. By merely opening up a pathway to the borehole you create a large pressure sink and that is your drive mechanism. Add into that some downhole pumps which would increase the sandface differential pressure and you have production that is relatively predictable based on type curve analysis.

The shale itself is the "caprock". With nano-darcy permeability your can't naturally flow gas through the pore space interstices unless the internal pressure of the gas exceeds the frac gradient of the shale and surrounding rock. That can happen but you end up with a crack seal phenomena where pressure is increased to failure strength, a natural fracture occurs, some gas migrates away and pressure drops immediately such that the fracture seals itself.

OH and you are completely wrong on demand tanking the gas price. It was indeed too much gas coming on stream. You can see this because the gas prices were coming down well before the economy went pear shaped. The economic mallaise of course helped to accentuate the price decrease but there was definitely too much supply on the market. IF you go back to industry observer posts from before the collapse you can find all sorts of discussion on the topic.

[pstarr]

Most of the shale gas reservoirs are overpressured, meaning that the gas

Now it's you who doesn't even know the difference gaseous and liquid petroleum.

[rockdoc123]

Now it's you who doesn't even know the difference gaseous and liquid petroleum.

OH contraire... All of what you refer to as "liquid petroleum" is either in a gaseous phase at reservoir temperatures and pressures (converting to liquid as it drops across the phase barrier through its rise from the reservoir to the wellhead) or has an very high gas content within it. We refer to this as gas expansion drive. As the liquid rises in the well bore it reaches bubble point and the gas escapes leaving low gas content liquids. This is essentially how free gas caps form in conventional reservoirs.

[OilFinder2]

Only pstarr would consider it bad if farmers produced a bumper crop of something, sending the price down. Which is basically what's happened in the NG industry.

wrong NG tanked because demand went down.

Wrong, liar. Here is EIA's chart of NG yearly consumption. Note that last year set a new record, even as prices stayed low and cratered late in the year.



It's really funny watching you make up "fact" after "fact" - only to be burnt by myself, rockdoc123, Maddog or Moto - time and time again, in a desperate effort to support your failing case. Every word you utter seems to dig yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.

[Bruce_S]

. Note that last year set a new record, even as prices stayed low and cratered late in the year.

What an amazing bell shaped curve. I'm sure Hubbert must have predicted this one in advance as well.

[pstarr]

You guys still confusing gas and oil. Jeez. Hubbert knew the difference

[Maddog78]

pstarr, you really crack me up.
You play the fool so well.


This month marks my 4 year anniversary of working for a mid level shale gas company.
So while you continue to troll this message board and pooh pooh the rebound in US gas production and insist it can't be done, isn't true or sustainable or whatever else you are claiming, I'm not even sure anymore, I'll merrily carry on into my 5th year of earning a 6 figure salary and helping produce n. gas for america.

[pstarr]

So somehow your Big Rig and McMansion are gonna what? Fix peak oil?

Why am I bothering? MD20/20 it appears you're just another oil pro who has trouble distinguishing liquid and gaseous shale. Look up top ^ It says "shale oil production"

[Bruce_S]

So while you continue to troll this message board and pooh pooh the rebound in US gas production and insist it can't be done, isn't true or sustainable or whatever else you are claiming, I'm not even sure anymore, I'll merrily carry on into my 5th year of earning a 6 figure salary and helping produce n. gas for america.

Maddog, as an industry specialist, do you concur with RocDoc that EROEI is a useless metric for the work you do every day? Or is there an EROEI bean counter sitting in the corner somewhere, counting up all the E's, and making sure they don't equal the other E's coming out the other end, and berating you for poor performance when one E isn't quite a bit larger than the other?

We have heard quite a bit about this EROEI thing, I have even used Pstarrs information about EROEI to try and jumpstart a business buying this poor EROEI oil (no takers yet), but RocDoc says that industry doesn't care about it at all! Considering the weight this metric is given in the peak oil blogosphere (and even within the academic establishment), shouldn't you all be using it to do..something? Decide when to pay dividends to your stockholders? Base your personal performance plans on it? Have meetings to decide how to improve it? Just one, little itsy bitsy piece of paper you have to fill out with your timesheet perhaps showing your contribution towards improving this metric?

And if you concur with RocDoc that no one uses this information, as a multi-year regular around here, do you have an opinion on why all the fascination with it?

[Maddog78]

Maddog, as an industry specialist, do you concur with RocDoc that EROEI is a useless metric for the work you do every day?

Yes.





Sorry for the short answer but we have gone around and around on this topic at this site for a good while and I have made multiple posts related to it so I really don't want to go through all that again.

[Bruce_S]

Maddog, as an industry specialist, do you concur with RocDoc that EROEI is a useless metric for the work you do every day?

Yes.





Sorry for the short answer but we have gone around and around on this topic at this site for a good while and I have made multiple posts related to it so I really don't want to go through all that again.

\

I shall search diligently for it then. As often as it is discussed, you would think every industry guy has his own EROEI assistant, to make sure they hew the company line on rate of energy return, report them for bad performance when their EROEI is low, reward them when it is high, etc etc.

Your definitive, and succinct, answer is quite telling.

[rockdoc123]

I shall search diligently for it then. As often as it is discussed, you would think every industry guy has his own EROEI assistant, to make sure they hew the company line on rate of energy return, report them for bad performance when their EROEI is low, reward them when it is high, etc etc.

Not to be impolite but as I've said we calculate economics not eroei. The two are distinctly different. Shareholders only care about whether you are making money..nothing more. I've worked in the oil industry for 30+ years and have direct knowledge on this very subject.

[Bruce_S]

I shall search diligently for it then. As often as it is discussed, you would think every industry guy has his own EROEI assistant, to make sure they hew the company line on rate of energy return, report them for bad performance when their EROEI is low, reward them when it is high, etc etc.

Not to be impolite but as I've said we calculate economics not eroei. The two are distinctly different. Shareholders only care about whether you are making money..nothing more. I've worked in the oil industry for 30+ years and have direct knowledge on this very subject.

Yes, but you were ridiculed and disrespected by Pstarr. There was the chance you, as a single industry person, are simply out of the loop, off your rocker, or a rogue. But when a second industry insider validates your position, well, that changes everything.

[ralfy]

Maddog, as an industry specialist, do you concur with RocDoc that EROEI is a useless metric for the work you do every day? Or is there an EROEI bean counter sitting in the corner somewhere, counting up all the E's, and making sure they don't equal the other E's coming out the other end, and berating you for poor performance when one E isn't quite a bit larger than the other?

We have heard quite a bit about this EROEI thing, I have even used Pstarrs information about EROEI to try and jumpstart a business buying this poor EROEI oil (no takers yet), but RocDoc says that industry doesn't care about it at all! Considering the weight this metric is given in the peak oil blogosphere (and even within the academic establishment), shouldn't you all be using it to do..something? Decide when to pay dividends to your stockholders? Base your personal performance plans on it? Have meetings to decide how to improve it? Just one, little itsy bitsy piece of paper you have to fill out with your timesheet perhaps showing your contribution towards improving this metric?

And if you concur with RocDoc that no one uses this information, as a multi-year regular around here, do you have an opinion on why all the fascination with it?

But the "EROEI thing" is used even by the OP, as seen in his signature. Apparently, if the numbers are good, then EROEI is a fine metric. However....

[ralfy]

Maddog, as an industry specialist, do you concur with RocDoc that EROEI is a useless metric for the work you do every day?

Yes.


Sorry for the short answer but we have gone around and around on this topic at this site for a good while and I have made multiple posts related to it so I really don't want to go through all that again.

Indeed. As one still manages to get his six-figure salary, then he shouldn't be concerned. Of course, as showed in another forum, some of those who earn such salaries do so through overtime, don't need college degrees, etc.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/28/pf/Amer ... /index.htm

In which case, I'd rather look at data presented by those who study the matter carefully. For example,

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3839

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3868

[ralfy]

I shall search diligently for it then. As often as it is discussed, you would think every industry guy has his own EROEI assistant, to make sure they hew the company line on rate of energy return, report them for bad performance when their EROEI is low, reward them when it is high, etc etc.

Not to be impolite but as I've said we calculate economics not eroei. The two are distinctly different. Shareholders only care about whether you are making money..nothing more. I've worked in the oil industry for 30+ years and have direct knowledge on this very subject.

How many "industry guys" and "specialists" do we have in this thread? Would you happen to have any proof to demonstrate such, including any studies you made of the issue?

Also, the point about economics and EROEI being different isn't right, as energy use can be measured in terms of dollars. Of course, if you're referring to the manner by which credit can be created easily, then you are right, but that only shows the ineffectiveness of using economics for calculations.

[ralfy]

Yes, but you were ridiculed and disrespected by Pstarr. There was the chance you, as a single industry person, are simply out of the loop, off your rocker, or a rogue. But when a second industry insider validates your position, well, that changes everything.

I don't know who is an "industry person" or "insider" in this thread, but I'd like to see any reports or studies they made about the matter, especially those that prefer "economics" to "EROEI." I'd like to add, too, that referring to the bpd, which is mentioned by the OP, is one of those "bean counter" methods connected to EROEI.

GIven that, I don't see any "validation" of the matter. In which case, phrases like "that changes everything" is more like irrelevant drama queen statements to me.

Perhaps this might help:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/175771- ... -shale-oil

It doesn't necessarily raise claims that continued production is unsustainable, but it puts into question references to "total recoverable resources." This, plus the two other sources I gave, and the academic studies mentioned in another forum, should give us a clearer picture of the situation.

At least that's a lot better than just insisting that as long as one gets his money then there's nothing to question.