[ROCKMAN]

That's Santa Clause, you potatoe head. Dan Qual told me so. LOL.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I'm all for higher oil prices, putting some further constraint on how much we burn, and incenting more development of green energy faster.

OTOH, the US is not the whole world, and not close to the only source for fracked oil, whether the doomers want us to believe that or not.

Source:

https://www.amazon.com/Domino-Effect-Ru ... 0692503013

[Outcast_Searcher]

Considering how bad the reporting has been on most concepts contained within the US shale revolution (geology, engineering, economics) I find it unlikely that the same reporters that screw that up consistently were suddenly struck by a desire to write old fashioned. More likely they started out as twittering and tweeting experts and just screwed it up, and there editors didn't catch it, but now a day or so later you would think they would fix it. Or do people not even care about the obvious hiccups in these kinds of things in the world nowadays?

Seriously, I've interviewed candidates for positions who misspelled the title of their dissertation in their resume, how does ANYONE do that? But he was younger, it was his 2nd PhD, and it didn't seem to bother him in the least when I asked him about it.

+1

The world isn't filled with people of the intellectual equivalent of the unabomber (whether "professional" writers, or not.) (I recently watched a movie about how he was tracked and prosecuted. Old fashioned writing style and word usage was one of the main ways they found him).

[ROCKMAN]

Outcast - Actually at the moment the US is the focus of oil PRODUCTION from shale. But according to the EIA there are over 400 billion bbls of "UNPROVED technically recoverable" reserves scattered around the globe. We just have to wait for companies to drill a lot of wells to turn those into PROVEN COMMERCIALLY recoverable reserves.

https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/

[asg70]

Outcast - Actually at the moment the US is the focus of oil PRODUCTION from shale. But according to the EIA there are over 400 billion bbls of "UNPROVED technically recoverable" reserves scattered around the globe. We just have to wait for companies to drill a lot of wells to turn those into PROVEN COMMERCIALLY recoverable reserves.

https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/

And, invariably, the usual suspects here will claim none of it is recoverable...until it actually shoots out a car's tailpipe.

[Cliffhanger1983]

The world's largest oil trader Vitol says US oil production will peak in 2018
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-comm ... SKBN1CF1MZ


The Mighty U.S. Shale Oil Industry to Lose Another $20 Billion In 2017
https://srsroccoreport.com/the-mighty-u ... n-in-2017/


MIT Technology Review: Shale Oil Will Boost U.S. Production, But It Won’t Bring Energy Independence
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/5074 ... ependence/

[ROCKMAN]

70 - "...the usual suspects here will claim none of it is recoverable...until it actually shoots out a car's tailpipe.". Not really. None of it will become "recoverable" reserves until someone starts drilling up those untested POTENTIAL shale plays scattered around the globe. Which, at the moment outside of the US, don't add up to sh*t. LOL. Which is why you don't see any credible source posting an estimate of PROVEN ECONOMICALLY RECOVERABLE shale reserves for the entire world.

Nothing wrong with berating folks for not accepting FACTS. But doing it before those FACTS are established seems rather childish IMO.

[ROCKMAN]

Cliffy - Vitol says US oil production will peak in 2018? You must mean peak again I assume. According to the EIA our production recently peaked in March 2015:

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafH ... rfpus1&f=m

Vitol is predicting 10 million bopd for the next peak...about 1.3% higher then the March 2015 peak. Not exactly a great record breaking achievement. But remarkable given the much lower oil price. And still a tad less then the all time peak in Dec 1970. But, as they say, beats a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. LOL.

And it still so funny to see so many claiming that overall the petroleum industry is loosing money developing the shale plays. It represents an almost childlike level of understanding how businesses are run. And there will certainly be negative responses to that statement. And from folks who, despite all the references they post, actually don't access to the data needed to support such claims.

[rockdoc123]

Which, at the moment outside of the US, don't add up to sh*t. LOL. Which is why you don't see any credible source posting an estimate of PROVEN ECONOMICALLY RECOVERABLE shale reserves for the entire world.

The Vaca Muerta fits the bill for using the term Reserves versus Resources. It is economically recoverable as evidenced by YPF's ever-increasing production. The international companies who have joint ventures with YPF are starting to book reserves there (Exxon, Chevron and BP/Pan America). The main issue here is pace of development which will determine how much of the reserves are proven versus probable or possible. What made the US shale business so successful was the large number of standing rigs that were available back when the boom started to take off and the competitive service industry. Argentina suffers from a lack of rigs and service companies currently and still needs to change some of its regulations to facilitate unconventional activities. That will happen and I suspect when Macri wins more support through the upcoming election those changes will come relatively soon.

The Chinese have been producing oil and gas (mostly gas) from tight shalely reservoirs for a number of years. That meets the requirements of being classified as reserve vs resource (ie. meets the economic hurdle). We never hear much about it simply because the Chinese don't talk about their oil and gas activities very much.

I suspect over the next two years you will see increasing amounts of shale gas booked as reserves in the UK. The government has put on a big push to increase activity with several recent lease offerings and new rules governing activities. My understanding is Cuadrilla is seeking approvals for their first commercial production following a series of successful wells this past year. Nothing much has happened in the UK for a few years as the government watched with some disinterest all the fracking protests but this past year they changed their tune based on the ever decreasing potential for new activity in the North Sea and the increasing power demands.

[ROCKMAN]

Yes, the Vaca Muerta stands out. And that's the probable: all of Argentina (not just the VM) holds 27 billion bbls of unproven technologically recoverable reserves according to the EIA:

https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/

That represents about 6% of the global estimate of UTR the EIA estimates for the planet. Add the 19% it attributes to the US and it adds to 25%. So the question remains: where is the other 75%.

And while one can't dispute the shale development that has happened in the US and what's happening in Argentina it doesn't change the fact that the EIA number is UNPROVEN tectonically recoverable reserves.

IOW we still have a ways to go before the shale plays can have a major impact on the global production rate. And then, just like in the US, only if continuous drilling programs are sustained to offset the initial high decline rates. Which means the global drilling budget will have to be many times greater then what was experienced in the US. US capex expenditures that were funded by a significant amount of investments and debt. IOW for global shales to experience the level of growth experienced in the US and now developing in Argentina will require a truly massive increase in global investments and debt.

And back to the original point: it isn't a question of there being another large potential shale play somewhere in the world. But how much of those global shales have the potential to be significantly productive? The US has dozens of distinct shale formations in basins with a proven history of oil generation. And collectively those formations add up to tens of thousands of feet in thickness. And despite hundreds of wells testing those formation only two of them with a combined thickness of less then 1,000' account for 80%+ of the total shale production.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Outcast - Actually at the moment the US is the focus of oil PRODUCTION from shale. But according to the EIA there are over 400 billion bbls of "UNPROVED technically recoverable" reserves scattered around the globe. We just have to wait for companies to drill a lot of wells to turn those into PROVEN COMMERCIALLY recoverable reserves.

https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/

Yes. I should have been more clear.

Of course, whether profitable to recoever commercially depends a lot on the price. Unlike the ETPers around here, I believe the price will depend a lot on overall supply and demand -- i.e. if we have the technology to recover it for less than what people are likely to pay for it -- then it will be recovered.

My source (book above) points out that the primary reason that the development has gone on far more in the US than the rest of the world isn't that the US somehow has magically unique rock formations for frackable oil shale -- but that laws, capital, and a system that encourages entrepreneurial risk favored the US. Oh, and environmental issues were constraining production in Europe.

Obviously many doomers will claim none of it can possibly be recovered. And many cornies will tend to do the opposite. I'm not playing any specific prediction/numbers games there, as I don't have the expertise. However, logic makes it HIGHLY suspect to assume that only the US could have recoverable frackable shale deposits for producing crude oil at, say, more than $100 a barrel or so, IMO -- looking at the global distribution of profitable hydrocarbons and their history, generally. (If it never goes above $100 a barrel, then we likely don't need it).

[rockdoc123]

My source (book above) points out that the primary reason that the development has gone on far more in the US than the rest of the world isn't that the US somehow has magically unique rock formations for frackable oil shale -- but that laws, capital, and a system that encourages entrepreneurial risk favored the US. Oh, and environmental issues were constraining production in Europ

having been involved in the shale business in North America as well as the exploration for same around the world my view is it access to abundant services (which means competitive rates) and abundant equipment. In Argentina, as an example, you are still having to use Big Red or Big Blue for services with no other alternatives which means they jack up the rates. Also when the shale craze took off it was at an opportune time in the US there had been a significant downturn in conventional and hence a lot of rigs and other equipment were readily available, not so elsewhere.

[Outcast_Searcher]

My source (book above) points out that the primary reason that the development has gone on far more in the US than the rest of the world isn't that the US somehow has magically unique rock formations for frackable oil shale -- but that laws, capital, and a system that encourages entrepreneurial risk favored the US. Oh, and environmental issues were constraining production in Europ

having been involved in the shale business in North America as well as the exploration for same around the world my view is it access to abundant services (which means competitive rates) and abundant equipment. In Argentina, as an example, you are still having to use Big Red or Big Blue for services with no other alternatives which means they jack up the rates. Also when the shale craze took off it was at an opportune time in the US there had been a significant downturn in conventional and hence a lot of rigs and other equipment were readily available, not so elsewhere.

I should have added technology to my list. (I figured capital and technology implicitly cover services -- i.e. access to the resources required for recovery).

But I think that overall, we're on the same page with this. And I have NO direct experience -- I just try to read and learn from those who do.

[Cliffhanger1983]

US Shale Oil has never made any profits and loses billions every year –Bloomberg
https://imgur.com/a/m8AY0



Worlds Largest Mining Company BHP is Exiting U.S. Shale
https://www.upi.com/Energy-News/2017/10 ... 508318297/

[Cliffhanger1983]

The Anglo-Australian miner bought the US oil and gas assets at the height of the boom, when oil prices were above $100 a barrel. The division has become a lightning rod for dissatisfaction with the company’s strategy, with BHP under pressure from investors, including billionaire Paul Singer’s Elliott Advisors, to spin off the unit as oil prices struggle to recover above the $50-a-barrel level.

Like most everybody else, BHP neglected to check in with the doomers here at po.com. Dumb fools they are lol

Yes and their CEO is the fired former CEO from Ford motors. And I read that they lost around 50 billion dollars investing in shale. Shale oil is all hat and no cattle....

[onlooker]

https://srsroccoreport.com/the-mighty-u ... n-in-2017/
The Mighty U.S. Shale Oil Industry To Lose Another $20 Billion In 2017

[onlooker]

Yea and what alternative do they have? It truly is the sector too important to fail. As Short said the Energy sector will cannibalize the rest of the Economy and like cancer will kill its host and itself simultaneously lol