Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

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

Discuss research and forecasts regarding hydrocarbon depletion.

Re: Study: US shale oil production to 1.9 million bpd in 201

Unread postby copious.abundance » Sun 09 Oct 2011, 21:34:43

pstarr wrote:Most of the Bakken oil shale must be mined and heated at high temperatures retorted, separated, and collected. Or processed under ground by SAGH or THAI methdods

I don't know if pstarr keeps saying that about Bakken oil because he doesn't read anything and thus dwells in ignorance, or he actually knows better but keeps repeating it just to be annoying. Or maybe he just doesn't want to acknowledge the truth:

Bakken oil is high quality light sweet crude. The typical API of Bakken oil is around 40 degrees. Once a well is fracture stimulated, it is pumped out of the ground just like any other oil.

Here's a photo of your average Bakken well. Notice it looks like ... pretty much any typical oil well.

Image
LINKY
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia

Re: Study: US shale oil production to 1.9 million bpd in 201

Unread postby copious.abundance » Sun 09 Oct 2011, 21:49:58

pstarr wrote:No. Bakken has little or no natural water or gas drive. Fracturing releases oil is the fracture. No where else. It is common sense. Simple really. A scam.

A classic pstarr post. :lol:

Image
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia

Re: Study: US shale oil production to 1.9 million bpd in 201

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sun 09 Oct 2011, 23:19:20

Most of the Bakken oil shale must be mined and heated at high temperatures retorted, separated, and collected. Or processed under ground by SAGH or THAI methdods. As far as I know there is no natural drive, or normal light sweet (or heavy) oil in any more than 1% of the play. That means the vast bulk must be produced $100 or more, not enough for a sustainable long-term investments. Sounds like a hit and run. Makes no sense.


Again talking with authority about something you have absolutely no idea about. The Bakken is not mined, you are confusing oil shale with oil in shale. The traditional view of oil shale up until the last few years has been solid kerogen in outcrops or near surface which would be mined. The terminology might be confusing but the Bakken is not like this, which you would know if you did a bit of reading. It is also not subject to SAGD or THAI which are used exclusively in heavy oil where you need to battle viscosity issues. The oil from shales like the Bakken is generally light and very low viscosity. The breakeven price for Eagleford liquids is the equivalent of $2.50 Mcf and Bakken slightly greater depending on where it is coming from. Anything north of $70/bbl on an oil basis is wildly economic for most of this stuff. The issue becomes where some of the liquids have higher fractions of butane and ethane than propanes or pentanes which aren't as profitable.
The Bakken, Eagleford, Duvernay, Nordegg and other oils/liquids from shales are recovered in exactly the same way shale gas is...numerous horizontal wells drilled from a single pad or groups of pads which are subjected to mult-stage fracs.
And there is a natural drive....gas expansion and over pressure. If there wasn't you would have a hard time producing any of these wells even with PCP or ESP pumping
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Study: US shale oil production to 1.9 million bpd in 201

Unread postby copious.abundance » Mon 10 Oct 2011, 00:24:43

rockdoc, you should know by now trying to explain this stuff to pstarr is a waste of time. He doesn't want to believe it, therefore he prefers to live in his fantasy world where it's just another "investor scam." Throw in a glass of Jack Daniels and you get a typical pstarr incomprehensible rambling, complete with disjointed sentences and the whole bit.
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia

Re: Study: US shale oil production to 1.9 million bpd in 201

Unread postby Bruce_S » Mon 10 Oct 2011, 00:25:21

pstarr wrote:Most of the Bakken oil shale must be mined and heated at high temperatures retorted, separated, and collected. Or processed under ground by SAGH or THAI methdods. As far as I know there is no natural drive, or normal light sweet (or heavy) oil in any more than 1% of the play. That means the vast bulk must be produced $100 or more, not enough for a sustainable long-term investments. Sounds like a hit and run. Makes no sense.


I must apologize for interrupting here, but this is at least claimed to be a peak oil website, and everyone here including us newbies knows that this is an absolute crock. RockDoc is right, there is shale oil, and oil shale, and anyone mistaking the light sweet crude of the Bakken with the oil shales of the Uinta Basin

http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-069/dds-069-bb/

should really just give up, and stop making is wanna-be respectable peak oilers look like oil-fools.
Bruce_S
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu 22 Sep 2011, 21:45:40

Re: Study: US shale oil production to 1.9 million bpd in 201

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Mon 10 Oct 2011, 11:05:08

The promoters don't want you to know these plays are highly irregular and that the promoters cherry pick the best sites for their promotions. Truth is average porosity and permeability for the middle Bakken as being 5% and 0.04 millidarcies. That is miserable and reduces promoted reserves by several orders of magnitude. Damn promoters.


Again speaking from authority without understanding the issues. If we were only talking about what is almost semi-conventional production from the middle Bakken, which is not a shale but rather a tighter mix of carbonate, sand and siltstone your comment might be valid. It behaves completely differently than the actual shales and indeed the middle Bakken is not present in this lithology everywhere in the productive area. The fact of the matter is oil and liquids production is coming from the shales which have only nanodarcies of permeability (this has been well established in the EagleFord). Porosity in shales is usually very high, it is a product of well sorted grainsizes and even packing. It is the permeability that causes the issues with produceability and hence the need to frac.

The formula for reserves/resources takes into account the height of the reservoir, the net pay, porosity, oil expansion factor, areal extent and recovery factor. Given that porosity is high, thickness and net pay are high and areal extent it large the in-place resource is very large. The recovery factor is generally determined by type curves for which there are a lot in the Bakken. Using type curves you can assess the EUR (amount of ultimate recovery) per well and given that fracs tend not to create interference between wells when they are spaced by about 200 m it is as simple as multiplying the number of wells times the EUR to get a good estimate of the recoverable reserve.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Study: US shale oil production to 1.9 million bpd in 201

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 10 Oct 2011, 15:42:11

Bruce_S wrote:I must apologize for interrupting here, but this is at least claimed to be a peak oil website, and everyone here including us newbies knows that this is an absolute crock. RockDoc is right, there is shale oil, and oil shale, and anyone mistaking the light sweet crude of the Bakken with the oil shales of the Uinta Basin should really just give up, and stop making is wanna-be respectable peak oilers look like oil-fools.
Come on, you have to admit the terminology can be confusing. You can expect some confusion by using terms like "oil shale" and "shale oil" that refer to 2 completely different things. I don't think someone who got the 2 terms mixed up should be labeled a fool.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5002
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Study: US shale oil production to 1.9 million bpd in 201

Unread postby copious.abundance » Mon 10 Oct 2011, 17:27:45

^
In the case of pstarr, since he's been here for years and this topic has been discussed for years, yes, he should know better. He just pretends he doesn't because he doesn't want to. It would inconvenient for him to acknowledge that the oil drilled from the Bakken and similar shales is high-quality light sweet crude. So every time I or someone else points that out to him, it deliberately falls on deaf ears and he repeats the same (false) claim time and time again.
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia

Re: Study: US shale oil production to 1.9 million bpd in 201

Unread postby Bruce_S » Mon 10 Oct 2011, 18:57:09

pstarr wrote:Three promoters don't the truth make. Oily doesn't believe in recession, Rocky doesn't believe in AGW, and the new guy?


The new guy knows that google is your friend.
Bruce_S
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu 22 Sep 2011, 21:45:40

Re: Study: US shale oil production to 1.9 million bpd in 201

Unread postby Bruce_S » Mon 10 Oct 2011, 19:07:02

kublikhan wrote: I don't think someone who got the 2 terms mixed up should be labeled a fool.


Depends on how insistent the fool is on the validity of their wrong answer. Unless Oilfinders implication of cause was more appropriate?

Image
Bruce_S
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu 22 Sep 2011, 21:45:40

Re: Study: US shale oil production to 1.9 million bpd in 201

Unread postby Maddog78 » Wed 26 Oct 2011, 11:59:41

Again speaking from authority without understanding the issues......




Been gone for half a year but some things never change around here. :lol:

Hey pstarr, how's the crop this year?
Met a guy in the airport from around your area.
Had a strange odour clinging to him. Hope he didn't run into any drug sniffing dogs.
User avatar
Maddog78
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon 14 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Study: US shale oil production to 1.9 million bpd in 201

Unread postby Bruce_S » Wed 26 Oct 2011, 12:44:52

pstarr wrote:Yes, I understand the difference. I read Wiki also.


Reading, and understanding? Two different things. Just saying, considering your demonstrable proof contrary to your claim.
Bruce_S
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu 22 Sep 2011, 21:45:40

Re: Study: US shale oil production to 1.9 million bpd in 201

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 26 Oct 2011, 15:57:44

Yes, SAGH and THAI have been applied to both types of unconventional plays. Not without reason, as both structures are, from a traditional oil industry perspective, a tad unusual. You would have laughed twenty years ago if someone told you we'd be blowing up rock to get at crummy oil. Hey, but that's peak for ya!


Another couple of shovels full and you should have covered yourself completely.
It is SAGD not SAGH (steam assisted gravity drainage) and it is not nor has ever been used to develop shale oil or oil shale. Nor has the toe to heal technology THAI which Petrobank has patented. Both are applied solely in heavy oil where viscosity is too high to allow oil to flow without some stimulus.

Oil shales or to be more specific oil kerogens are developed through mining and thermal treatement processes which releases the hydrocarbons. Basically it is like rock eval only on a large scale. Shale oils or shale liquids are developed exactly in the same manner as shale gas....horizontal wells, large fracs and propent.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests