[AdamB]

How long before hydraulic fracking is the vast majority of reservoir completion method even for many "conventional" reservoir formations and it is seen as "conventional" by people in the industry? 2025? 2030? 2050?

Taking up space on my office bookshelf is "Hydraulic Fracturing" by GC Howard and CR Fast, Monograph #2 from the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Published in 1970. Did you know that according to the EPA and USGS 2/3's of all hydraulic fracturing took place in the 20th century, not the 21st. Circa 2015 or so? My copy of Monograph #2 goes into reservoir selection (discrete reservoirs, not shales) because...surprise...that is what it was being used in already. It was generally avoided in shales "back in my day", believe it or not, because water was believed to cause swelling of the matrix, and a decrease in permeability. So back in the 1980's and 90's the practice was to go for stringers within the shales, although that seems a bit silly now, as frack water would end up on the shales one way or another. Folks got over that though, and by the late 1980's began going wholesale into shales with vertical wells, such as in the Antrim, and then later the Barnett, verticals first, then horizontals, and then it just exploded across the country.

The entire "unconventional" angle seems to be commonplace because folks who know nothing about drilling and completion techniques decided that horizontal drilling (which began in the late 1920's) and hydraulic fracturing (patented 1948 or so) were NEW and EXCITING and UNCONVENTIONAL. I was trained to drill horiontal wells by guys who had been doing it since the 60's using single shots and BHA builds, and was trained to do multi stage slick water fracturing in shales by guys who had been pumping water since the mid-70's. "Unconventional" is common now, and immutable. And wrong. But no one cares. Sort of like claiming 2+2=5 and if everyone nods in agreement because they can't add....hey...all is good!

[ROCKMAN]

And in the words of THE authority of US geologists, the AAPG (The American Association of Petroleum Geologists is an international organization with over 38000 members in 100-plus countries):

Production from unconventional petroleum reservoirs includes petroleum from shale, coal, tight-sand and oil-sand. These reservoirs contain enormous quantities of oil and natural gas but pose a technology challenge to both geoscientists and engineers to produce economically on a commercial scale. These reservoirs store large volumes and are widely distributed at different stratigraphic levels and basin types, offering long-term potential for energy supply. Most of these reservoirs are low permeability and porosity that need enhancement with hydraulic fracture stimulation to maximize fluid drainage.

As pointed out fracking is not a new technique to deal with unconventional reservoirs. In the late 70's I was involved with a recording breaking frack of a tight sand in Texas: 1 million pounds of frack sand in a vertical well bore into an 80' thick reservoir. Result: uneconomic flow rate. The big change in recent years: the heavy use of horizontally drilled well bores. A huge advantage over vertical wells. Also, technology to drill horizontally since the 90's has become much more efficient (IOW cheaper).

As far as geologists go fracking (hor or vert) is not "unconventional"...it's just fracking. Always has been.

How much unconventional reservoirs are left? I have no idea...nor does anyone else. Fracking of unconventional reservoirs has been dominated by the US. And for good reason: depends on high tech and big $. Which the US also dominates. Along with big US public oils desperate to add assets to their balance sheets. Seach oil and natural gas development in Africa. Not much, eh. Why? No reservoir to exploit there? Are just no economic reason to look for them...yet. Also often lack of political stability.

But what will that story be in 20...30....40 years be? Same can be said for a number of other regions.

[Plantagenet]

Production from unconventional petroleum reservoirs includes petroleum from shale, coal, tight-sand and oil-sand. These reservoirs contain enormous quantities of oil and natural gas but pose a technology challenge to both geoscientists and engineers to produce economically on a commercial scale. These reservoirs store large volumes and are widely distributed at different stratigraphic levels and basin types, offering long-term potential for energy supply. Most of these reservoirs are low permeability and porosity that need enhancement with hydraulic fracture stimulation to maximize fluid drainage.

Exactly right.

How much unconventional reservoirs are left? I have no idea...nor does anyone else.

Thats not exactly true.

Companies like BP do annual assessments of global petroleum resources, including assessing how much unconventional oil is left to be recovered. The US government including the USGS and the DOE also make their own assessments of global energy resources as do other countries around the world.

The published estimate by scientists working for the US government, for instance, is that there are ca. 636 billion barrels of recoverable unconventional oil left on the planet earth.

unconventional-oil-resource-636-bbl-oil


scientists working for the US government estimate that there are ca. 636 billion barrels of recoverable unconventional oil left on the planet earth

The methodology of estimating how much unconventional oil is left is pretty simple-- the location and thickness and extent of sedimentary rocks in all the sedimentary basins around the world are very well known, and almost all of these sedimentary sequences have been studied and analyzed and most have even been drilled. With this information it is possible to make an estimate of the amount of unconventional oil in every basin, and when you add them up you have an estimate of the amount of oil left in unconventional reservoirs for the entire world.

Of course, the actual amount that will be recovered may be significantly different than the estimate of potentially recoverable unconventional oil, because economic, political, and technical factors play a big role in the actual development of oil resources.

Cheers!

[AdamB]

And in the words of THE authority of US geologists, the AAPG (The American Association of Petroleum Geologists is an international organization with over 38000 members in 100-plus countries):

Production from unconventional petroleum reservoirs includes petroleum from shale, coal, tight-sand and oil-sand. These reservoirs contain enormous quantities of oil and natural gas but pose a technology challenge to both geoscientists and engineers to produce economically on a commercial scale. These reservoirs store large volumes and are widely distributed at different stratigraphic levels and basin types, offering long-term potential for energy supply. Most of these reservoirs are low permeability and porosity that need enhancement with hydraulic fracture stimulation to maximize fluid drainage.

Bunch of wankers, that bunch. So Rock you are saying that when geologists defined continuous resources one way, when the AAPG decided to label things "unconventional" they paid no attention to the most definitive geologic research on the topic, which certainly didn't define "unconventional" as things related to technology requirements? Any reason why these maybe geologists (certainly membership in AAPG doesn't require a geology degree) would do that when they know about as much about technology as peak oilers do economics?

[AdamB]

Given this apparent fact, how likely is it, in the real world (where there are hurricanes, geopolitical situations, lack of personnel, and so on), that unconventional production can replace the decline of conventional oil production (because peak is always followed by decline, and accelerating decline) and supply additional demand?

It doesn't seem likely, to me and, if it's not likely, then effective peak is now, not in 2010 or later.

Tony

The first post in this thread. Tony always seemed like a nice guy, in the many forums I've gone round and round with him in. As his idea became more and more discredited, he seems to have faded away like so many others.

The good news is, we've still got suckers like Plant around for entertainment, who fell for Deffeyes' 2005 peak oil claim, and is now extrapolating off into the future as though he/she/it isn't just another Happy McPeakster....15+ years ago now...so kudos to Plant for keeping up the good work of playing kick the can, with no more clue now than he/she/it had then, but still supporting the team!

[ROCKMAN]

Plant: "Companies like BP do annual assessments of global petroleum resources...". Yes, but only for identified reservoirs. For instance, consider African country X: if none of its shale formations (remember the vast majority of sedimentary formations in the world are shale) have been evaluated for their hydrocarbon potential then no estimate can be made of its (possible) hydrocarbon yield. Never forget why the USA is THE predominant shale formation developer in the world: we have the companies with the tech, big $'s and most important: public oil's with the "add reserves or die" pressure on them. I've seen more than one pubco drill marginal (if not outright money loosers) so they could "book" big UNDEVLOPED assets on huge acreage positions. Just consider all the countries where oil/NG rights are owned strictly by their govmnt. Would US production be where it is today if the US govmnt been doing all the work? Consider the Post Office: there's a reason FedEx et al exist.

[AdamB]

Never forget why the USA is THE predominant shale formation developer in the world: we have the companies with the tech, big $'s and most important: public oil's with the "add reserves or die" pressure on them.

Harold Hamm says "Rigs, Rednecks and Royalties". Quite a bit pithier don't you think?

I've seen more than one pubco drill marginal (if not outright money loosers) so they could "book" big UNDEVLOPED assets on huge acreage positions. Just consider all the countries where oil/NG rights are owned strictly by their govmnt. Would US production be where it is today if the US govmnt been doing all the work? Consider the Post Office: there's a reason FedEx et al exist.

So I've got to ask you Rock, a real oilman compared to the usual round of pontificating pretenders that exist within the peak oil blogosphere, when the first gas well in the US (circa 1821 or 1825 depending on your source) was drilled and began running street lights and whatnot, was produced from Devonian shale, and the AAPG certainly knows this, why do you think they would have imagined that technology (perhaps amazing to geologists who don't know as much about a drill rig as you do) has anything to do with the underlying geological presence of oil and gas? Even more interestingly, shale gas that was being drilled with cable tool rigs before Texas was even a state? Do you think they are just ignorant of oil and gas technology in general unless its got to do with logs or basin modeling software or something?

[ROCKMAN]

Adam: "...which certainly didn't define "unconventional" as things related to technology requirements? ". I think I'm missing your point...please elaborate.

As far as reservoir types and completion methods: just pulling a number out of my ass but I have probably fracked conventional reservoirs in over 100 wells in my 40 years. Typically, low porosity/low perm formations in order to increase flow rates. And a good number of those were "cleanup fracks" in reservoirs damaged while drilling. Regardless all were still considered conventional reservoirs regardless of the completion method.

[AdamB]

Adam: "...which certainly didn't define "unconventional" as things related to technology requirements? ". I think I'm missing your point...please elaborate.

As far as reservoir types and completion methods: just pulling a number out of my ass but I have probably fracked conventional reservoirs in over 100 wells in my 40 years. Typically, low porosity/low perm formations in order to increase flow rates. And a good number of those were "cleanup fracks" in reservoirs damaged while drilling. Regardless all were still considered conventional reservoirs regardless of the completion method.

To elaborate, your AAPG definition seemed to include a technological component in terms of what a professional geologically organization (as opposed to SPE) thought helped define "unconventional". While I understand confusion on the topic of technology among geologists, I got most of my history of early shale development from work done for an AAPG presentation... by a geologist. So if he knew that the Hart well (and subsequent development) was Devonian Shale, required next to bubbcuss in the way of technology, so....why would geologists write a definition contradicted by known information, even among them? Normally for an engineer it would be easy to just say it was geologists not knowing the difference between a mud motor and a BHA (present company excluded of course) being ignorant of the cycle of technology since springboards and cable tool rigs, but when they demonstrate they darn well knew shale development was easy peasey and predated the invention of even the specialty of petroleum geology let alone any REAL "technology", why that caveat? Absentminded? Confused because they knew that continuous resources had already been defined by the USGS and not liking their king of the hill status in terms of hard money research dollars and whatnot, so screw them?

[Tanada]

Plant: "Companies like BP do annual assessments of global petroleum resources...". Yes, but only for identified reservoirs. For instance, consider African country X: if none of its shale formations (remember the vast majority of sedimentary formations in the world are shale) have been evaluated for their hydrocarbon potential then no estimate can be made of its (possible) hydrocarbon yield. Never forget why the USA is THE predominant shale formation developer in the world: we have the companies with the tech, big $'s and most important: public oil's with the "add reserves or die" pressure on them. I've seen more than one pubco drill marginal (if not outright money loosers) so they could "book" big UNDEVLOPED assets on huge acreage positions. Just consider all the countries where oil/NG rights are owned strictly by their govmnt. Would US production be where it is today if the US govmnt been doing all the work? Consider the Post Office: there's a reason FedEx et al exist.

I know little Geology but one fact I am familiar with is heating and compression of Limestone under ideal conditions leads to Marble as the resulting material.

If you heat and compress Shale just right do you get a more valuable rock type from it as well? If so what type of rock do you get?

[AdamB]

If you heat and compress Shale just right do you get a more valuable rock type from it as well? If so what type of rock do you get?

Low grade metamorphosed shale becomes slate.

[Plantagenet]

Companies like BP do annual assessments of global petroleum resources...". Yes, but only for identified reservoirs. For instance, consider African country X: if none of its shale formations (remember the vast majority of sedimentary formations in the world are shale) have been evaluated for their hydrocarbon potential then no estimate can be made of its (possible) hydrocarbon yield.

Actually, the big oil companies aren't like librarians who only care about collecting information on existing oilfields. Quite the opposite. Part of the reason why major oil companies like BP do annual assessments of global petroleum resources is to identify potential exploration targets with significant petroleum resources that haven't been developed yet. This information is usually not released publicly, i.e. it is held as proprietary to the oil company and used to target future exploration targets.

I repeat----the oil majors are definitely NOT doing these global annual assessments just to tabulate existing oilfields. The annual assessments of global oil resources done by the oil majors are part of the process used to identify new targets for their global oil exploration programs.


.....the exploration geologists and geophysicists seem pretty sure we'll get unconventional oil from shale about a kilometer down.....I sure hope they're right.....

I got to see this process in action when I worked for Chevron. It struck me then how Big oil companies are like top predators in the animal world......first they spot their prey (potential oil fields) by doing annual global assessments to locate new exploration targets.....then they stalk their prey (i.e. oil) by getting preliminary permits and sending out preliminary reconnaissance and exploration teams.....and then they kill their prey and eat it, i.e. they sign longterm leases and then they test drill and do step out wells and then they go into production.

One of the most important reasons for doing global reviews is to identify countries and regions with shale formations etc. that might be large sources of unconventional petrloleum, but that haven't been fully evaluated for their hydrogen potential. Only after large potential targets are identified will oil majors then do what is called "EXPLORATION"...i.e. they send teams of geologists and geophysicists to evaluate the petroleum potential. The Big oil companies won't waste their time on little fields. Only after a large prospective target is identified and the preliminary exploration work is done will the oil companies move onto leasing and full development, i.e. even before any drilling is done they have made an estimate of how much unconventional oil the field might hold, so in actuality estimates of potential oil resources for undeveloped shale basins are made all the time.

AND, don't forget there are independent global resource evaluation programs being run by government agencies like the USGS who are also busily looking into prospective unconventional oil fields in to estimate the GLOBAL potential for future unconventional oil production. I linked to the USGS estimate of the amount of unconventional left in the world in my post above. The whole point of the USGS estimate of global potential unconventional oil resources is to include fields that haven't yet been drilled and aren't yet producing oil....i.e. they are attempting to estimate how much unconventional oil remains to be produced on our planet, including oil from areas that haven't been developed yet. Clearly their estimates for undeveloped fields aren't going to be as good as for developed field, but its not rocket science for an USGS science team to document the stratigraphy of sedimentary basins and then sample the shale rocks for oil content in order to estimate the potential oil resource even before any drilling and development is done. Let me give you an example of the one of these programs: for years the USGS has had a program mapping Saudi Arabia for petroleum potential, and part of this program involves making estimates of petroleum resource potential to help guide future development. These estimates were all made BEFORE drilling and development occurred. Now---of course there are many examples of conventional oil fields being drilled without finding any oil, because the oil has leaked out. But with unconventional oil and shale oil this usually isn't a problem.....the oil in tight shale is almost certainly going to be there when you drill it. The actual amount of oil may vary slightly due to local lithological and thickness variations in the shale, but your chances of finding oil EVERYWHERE in an oil-rich oil shale are really very very good.

Cheers!

[AdamB]

The actual amount of oil may vary slightly due to local lithological and thickness variations in the shale, but your chances of finding oil EVERYWHERE in an oil-rich oil shale are really very very good.
Cheers!

Too bad you didn't apply this internet knowledge to the topic of peak oil when you fell for Deffeyes' estimate back in 2005. Almost as though, you know, you were clueless then and wouldn't know shale from sandstone? And now you can find oil EVERYWHERE in an oil rich shale? Really? Quite amazing....did you happen to look at a single one of those USGS continuous forms (check out the title of the form they use while you are there, point out where it says "unconventional" if you can) where they do this quantifying of EVERYWHERE....and notice that...not to be rude...but they say right there it ISN'T everywhere, and even put a distribution on how much it ISN'T everywhere? Or was that not included in your pretending to know something on the topic from wherever you happened to collect it?

A nice writeup on a topic you obviously had to apply "internet knowledge" to flesh out. If you put half as much time into trying to reduce your CO2 super emitter status it would result in a real accomplishment.

[Plantagenet]

A nice writeup on a topic .....

Thank you.

I pride myself on writing clear and scientifically accurate posts, and on avoiding the childish use of ad homs that afflict some of the other posters at this site.



Cheers!

[AdamB]

A nice writeup on a topic .....

Thank you.

Your welcome. What are your thoughts about an actual accomplishment, and leaving behind the title of "Best CO2 Super Emitter On The peakoil.com Board"?

I pride myself on writing clear and scientifically accurate posts, and on avoiding the childish use of ad homs that afflict some of the other posters at this site.

Well, "scientifically accurate" must be different in whatever backwater you learned that not reading the most basic material you base a claim on is a-okay. I am not familiar with such scientific backwaters where this is the norm, so I'll take your word for it. I would recommend getting out of such a backwater of course, if only that during your CO2 super-emitter travels you don't bump into a real scientist from a non-backwater who bursts into laughter upon hearing that this passes for either "science" or "accuracy". Hell Plant, it is called "reading" in my world. If you can't manage to do that, and communicate the information, you've got bigger problems than having had crappy professional training as a scientist, researcher, or even high school student.

[AdamB]

Below are a number of Crude plus Condensate (C + C) production charts, usually shortened to “oil”, for Non-OPEC countries. The charts are created from data provided by the EIA’s International Energy Statistics and are updated to October 2022. This is the latest and most detailed world oil production information available.

October Non-OPEC oil production increased by 562 kb/d to 50,565 kb/d. The majority of the increase came from Kazakhstan, Norway and the US.

[AdamB]

U.S. oil production hit levels not seen since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, a development driven by a continuing rebound in demand for gasoline and other fuels.

Oil production bounces back to highest level since pandemic began

[AdamB]

The end of the war in Ukraine would reduce pressure on Western governments to continue expanding sanctions on Russia’s oil and gas sector.

That’s according to Matthew Bey, a Senior Global Analyst at risk intelligence company RANE, who outlined that a war-end could also result in some sanctions, including the price cap on Russian crude oil and price cap on Russian oil products, “being relaxed, allowing Russia to sell its oil at near market levels”.

What Would War-End Mean for Global Oil and Gas?

[AdamB]

I find it interesting that this news item garnered no attention on a allegedly peak oil site. The geopolitical stuff folks went after like a hot potato..but the US and oil production, maybe doing yet ANOTHER record, becoming AGAIN the largest oil producer the world has ever seen, that us peakers avoid like the plague!

So I will add my own commentary to what I consider bad writing by the author.

What IDIOT economist/market watching dullard presumes that increased oil production is simply a function of demand? That is as cockamammy silly as peak oilers thinking that oil production functions irrespective of price.

[AdamB]

It doesn't seem likely, to me and, if it's not likely, then effective peak is now, not in 2010 or later.
Tony

Tony, noticed you posting on another site with substantially modified opinions when compared to your original idea. Any chance you can stop by and let us know what altered your thinking? Beyond just being wrong of course, nearly all peak oilers arrived in that position except the truly perceptive.