Plantagenet wrote:Yes theres been some hyberbole in our discussion but its been on both sides.
For instance you argued that some wells drilled 50 years ago in the Permian Basin are still productive, so today's production isn't anything new.
Historical facts aren't argument. They just are. You can have all the speculative conclusions you wish, you don't get to make up facts.
Plantagenet wrote:But those wells from 50 years ago were drilled in a few limited areas where it was possible to produce oil using the methods available 50 years ago.
Agreed. Horizontal wells and hydraulic fracturing both having been available prior to 1967. 15,000+ horizontals, as best the information services know. FrackFocus doesn't have records that far back, but there were already 100,000 hydraulic completion documented by Hubbert in 1955. Yes...that Hubbert.
Plantagenet wrote: AND after 50 years the few wells that remain active today are most likely stripper wells, with extremely minimal production.
A stripper well isn't defined as = "extremely minimal production", whatever the hell that might mean to someone who thought that horizontals were introduced into the Permian only in the last decade.
Plantagenet wrote:Its exactly the same history in the Bakken. There were a few wells drilled decades ago that produced oil from the Bakken. But it wasn't until modern horizontal drilling and fracking methods were introduced that it was possible to produce oil from the tight shales throughout the Bakken formation.
Your second and third sentences contradict each other. You don't get to pretend that the beginning of an S-curve of development is somehow different than what naturally follows, and yet that is what you are continually attempting to do. You need to throw in the concept of economics, rather than pretending that something just didn't exist at one point, and suddenly does at another. lt is no different than claiming shale production is something new, rather than just another rock formation development dating back to at least 1825.
Plantagenet wrote:I think we should just agree on what we agree on, and if the only thing we can agree on is the 2013 article in the Oil and Gas Journal that I linked to in my post above because it mentions Pioneer's early efforts to produce oil from tight oil shale during 2009-11 in the Permian basin, then thats OK.
---------------------------------------------
Cheers!
I agree that the OGJ article says whatever it says. I agree that the references I provided understand that Pioneer didn't discover tight oil production in the WOlfcamp in the Permian, obviously the USGS did.
You can take reporters at their word, have you ever actually been the source for a resource/reserve based story? I have. All too often I have provided exactly the facts available and seen them screw the entire mess into the ground in a manner similar to what you have attempted, using that OGJ article. I just don't sit still for it anymore.
We can agree that Pioneer is playing a big part in the Permian basin resurgence. But it has nothing to do with new discoveries, new technology, being the first at something. It has everything to do with the acreage held by the two companies that merged to form Pioneer, and their more recent change in focus from international and GOM development to that established acreage.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."
Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"