[Starvid]

Folks,

Before you write off the east coast you might search Hibernia Field...discovered in 1979. It's on the Canadian side of the eastern OCS just north of Maine. It has an est. UR of 1.2 to 1.9 billion BO. Recently a 240 million BO was made near to it. They also found a 700 billion cubic ft gas field out there. It's a tough environment to drill and produce but it was done. Drilling down south would be a lot easier.

But geology does change over distances. Might not be as much potential going south...might be twice that much. As a petroleum geologist for 33 years I can tell you no one can predict with any degree of accuracy without drilling...and maybe drilling a lot. A reminder: the great North Sea Basin, with it's 25 billion bo produced to date, took 92 wells drilled before the first big field was discovered. I'll explain again what the oil patch definition of "probable reserves" is": there not enough data for you to prove my number is wrong (be it a big or little number).

I think we can never ever enough mention how unpredictable all petroleum issues are.

[ROCKMAN]

So true Stavid. That's why I generally reject every number folks throw out, whether big or small, as to the amount of "probable reserves" there are out there. As I may have told you before I've only drilled two "can't miss" wells in my career and they both missed. On the other side of the coin, consider Mexico's big 25 billion bbl Cantarell Field. It exists because of circumstances no geologist would ever speculate on. Most don't know it but the field produces from rubble caused by the impact of a giant meterorite. Any geologist who would propose that his comapnyrun around th world looking for oil in meterorite craters would be fired on the spot.

[TheDude]

So the concerns about drilling off VA and the eastern seaboard are pointless. It's hard to cause environmental damage with a dry hole!! The Oil companies need something to spend all that profit on, so let them drill.

Oh, exploratory drilling can go wrong, too:

Ixtoc I

Ixtoc I was an exploratory oil well in the Gulf of Mexico, about 600 miles (970 km) south of the U.S. state of Texas. On June 3, 1979, the well suffered a blowout and is recognised as the second largest oil spill in history.

Mexico's government-owned oil company Pemex (Petroleos Mexicanos) was drilling a 2-mile (3.2 km) deep oil well, when the drilling rig lost drilling mud circulation. In modern rotary drilling, mud is circulated down the drill pipe and back up the casing to the surface. The goal is to equalize the pressure through the shaft and to monitor the returning mud for gas. Without the circulating mud, the drill ran into high pressure gas which blew out the oil (known as a blowout). The oil caught fire and the platform collapsed.

[ROCKMAN]

Dude,

Read a short bit about how the original Ixtoc location was picked. a local fisherman spotted an oil seep. Maybe another urban legend..maybe not. Oil seeps are not uncommon in the Gulf....lots still oozing oil today.

FYI: that managing mud weight against the down hole pressures is what I do for a living. Nothing can motivate you to do a good job like the prospect of dying a flaming death if you screw up.

[Starvid]

It exists because of circumstances no geologist would ever speculate on. Most don't know it but the field produces from rubble caused by the impact of a giant meterorite.

I knew it and I'm not even a geologist! *Nerd alert*

Dude,

Read a short bit about how the original Ixtoc location was picked. a local fisherman spotted an oil seep. Maybe another urban legend..maybe not. Oil seeps are not uncommon in the Gulf....lots still oozing oil today.

I think that's how they found Cantarell too. It's supposedly named after the poor fisherman who led the geologists to it. He didn't get even a dime for discovering the second greatest field on the planet.

FYI: that managing mud weight against the down hole pressures is what I do for a living. Nothing can motivate you to do a good job like the prospect of dying a flaming death if you screw up.

You gotta love the oil biz!

[doodlebug2]

Say that all Senators and congress and the states agree that oil drilling/exploration should start right away. After all the permits and infastructure set-ups, Where would the first place the Oil Companies would go ?? Would it be California and the GOM that has infastructure set ups? Or would it be Florida Panhandle area?
I live on the coast in VA, would it be here right away? Or is the whole drilling argument so much talk? thanks

[ProudFossil]

Obama just announced today he would support limited drilling off Florida. I guess too many of his voters were switching to McCain to cause this massive flip flop.

[3aidlillahi]

It's really hard to say. So many variables to consider. Who gets the leases, do they have rigs available, workers and engineers available, blah blah. Really, I think it'd be GOM/Florida. 95% of offshore drilling currently occurs there so they have plenty of knowledge of the area and the formations involved and the geologic history of the area. Not to mention infrastructure.

[TheDude]

None of the factors you mention are valid or come without extreme caveats, MattS. Won't waste time listing them, search for one of our threads on ANWR. 8 years minimum for first oil and likely longer than that.

A reasonable first step would be to conduct more exploration, specifically including multiple test wells, to get solid assessment of what we really have. Don't know why POTUS candidates aren't pushing this line as it seems much more middle ground.

[ProudFossil]

None of the factors you mention are valid or come without extreme caveats, MattS. Won't waste time listing them, search for one of our threads on ANWR. 8 years minimum for first oil and likely longer than that.

A reasonable first step would be to conduct more exploration, specifically including multiple test wells, to get solid assessment of what we really have. Don't know why POTUS candidates aren't pushing this line as it seems much more middle ground.

Because the POTUS candidates on both sides are kowtowing to the syncophants who scream the loudest. Instead of the candidates making intelligent, informed decisions they blast the other side for whatever the latest blog or advisor or whatever gives them to say.

And until we as the people start demanding the POTUS act as candidates instead of a popularity contest the same will continue.

[bromius]

Regardless of where drilling occurs, I think the Democrats (I'm excluding the Republicans here because I get the impression that they want to drill first and ask questions later) need to use this issue to force a compromise so that in giving up the right to explore and drill in more areas, more money is also spent to increase energy efficiency in homes and businesses, expand mass transportation, and invest in the electrical infrastructure in terms of both renewable generating capacity, and the grid itself. I think most Americans want to see the other improvements I mentioned, so at this point the Dems could hold up legislation to hold out for them without losing support. Drilling will eventually be inevitable due to public pressure, but if our politicians are smart (for politicians, anyway) they can use that pressure to do useful work.

[kokoda]

I think it is irrelevant where they drill ... at least in the short term ... perhaps even the long term.

I have a feeling that the majority of people who think this is a good idea think that there will be an immediate drop in fuel prices. They actually believe all the "drill here, drill now, pay less" crap.

It will take 10 years for that oil to come to market and that is provided that there will be enough oil out there to even justify setting up in the first place.

That oil will also be very expensive ... so there won't be any relief from high oil prices even in the future.

America, and the world, would be better putting its resources into finding new ways to move beyond oil rather than attempting to buy a couple of more years.

[BigTex]

Following up on TheDude's point about Matt Simmons' comments, where would the rigs come from to do this drilling? Isn't the infrastructure already spread very thin?

This seems like an important part of this discussion that I haven't heard anyone talk about (other than here).

[eastbay]

Following up on TheDude's point about Matt Simmons' comments, where would the rigs come from to do this drilling? Isn't the infrastructure already spread very thin?

This seems like an important part of this discussion that I haven't heard anyone talk about (other than here).

The rigs would have to be taken from others through the process of paying more money for them. Outbidding everyone else will obviously drive up the prices of all oil service related infrastructure.


The scarcer high hanging fruit requires costly and increasingly elaborate and hard to find ladders.

[doodlebug2]

So basically, as othes have said before, this is a shell and political game.

What is going to occur when this drilling passes the house, senate, and state houses and if the drilling starts. Will the anticonservationist and anti enviromentalists scream at when prices still go up.
I am still wondering if the US east coast is ready for this onslought, and if it is coming.

[skeptik]

Say that all Senators and congress and the states agree that oil drilling/exploration should start right away. After all the permits and infastructure set-ups, Where would the first place the Oil Companies would go ?? Would it be California and the GOM that has infastructure set ups? Or would it be Florida Panhandle area?
I live on the coast in VA, would it be here right away? Or is the whole drilling argument so much talk? thanks

There would be a deal of geophysical surveying to do first. Sensors placed on the seafloor. Lines of explosives. Bang. Then highly paid chaps and chappeses will spend a long time poring over the 3d geological models generated on their computers sorting out the prospects (if any) and preparing reports. That all takes time, and will determine where to send the first exploratory rigs..

[doodlebug2]

There would be a deal of geophysical surveying to do first. Sensors placed on the seafloor. Lines of explosives. Bang. Then highly paid chaps and chappeses will spend a long time poring over the 3d geological models generated on their computers sorting out the prospects (if any) and preparing reports. That all takes time, and will determine where to send the first exploratory rigs..[/quote]

Ok now I am confused, if they did not do this work already (sensors , explosives, chaps) how did they come up with the figures we hear in the news of so many bbls of oil and cms of natural gas. Did they guess?

[TheDude]

ANWR has only the one real test well, Exxon's CIS well, whose findings are still locked up. The Atlantic coast isn't very oil prone south of Newfoundland, I wouldn't worry about rigs ruining the view. Or anything off Cape Cod, for that matter.

Seaborne exploration is usually done with seismic equipment, not explosives, far as I know. It's cheaper than onshore, the converse is true of production however. joeltrout or ROCKMAN may fill in the details here.



Finding Oil

[doodlebug2]

In the mid 90's, I saw an Edison Chouest survey vessel docked in Norfolk, VA,, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm???? I don't think he was visiting or going to a shipyard

[copious.abundance]

Ok now I am confused, if they did not do this work already (sensors , explosives, chaps) how did they come up with the figures we hear in the news of so many bbls of oil and cms of natural gas. Did they guess?

Somewhere recently I read that in making their most recent estimate for the Atlantic continental shelf, the DOE (or the USGS, or whoever it was) had to rely on info from about a dozen wells that were drilled off the coast of NJ in the 70's (about half of which did strike natural gas), plus they made inferences from exploratory activity off the Scotia Shelf, and even looked at discoveries off the NW coast of Africa (the US Atlantic coast used to be attached to NW Africa). I think maybe there have also been a handful of wells drilled off the coast of Georgia, if I recall correctly. But other than that there isn't much information. So basically, yes, it amounts to an educated guess, at least for the Atlantic coast.

There has already been a substantial amount of drilling off the coast of California and of course in the Gulf of Mexico, so the information there is much more reliable.