dissident wrote:Whatever. When are we going to see a kerogen to syncrude conversion plant, even an experimental one?
dissident wrote:Whatever. When are we going to see a kerogen to syncrude conversion plant, even an experimental one?
ROCKMAN wrote:John – “…but anywhere in that report does it talk about how a country like, say, Poland, is going to drill the tens of thousands of wells necessary to get it?” I do appreciate your question but you might perhaps want to re-evaluate the “technically recoverable” reserve category.
Rockman wrote:TR are specifically defined as reserves that have no proven component. Thus projecting any future production isn’t logical IMHO.
Rockman wrote: That data is available to the DOE as well as every citizen that pulls up any company’s annual report. For instance, It would interesting to see the SEC qualified proved (producing and undeveloped) reserves in the Eagle Ford and Bakken compared side by side with the DOE’s technically recoverable reserves for the same areas. That ratio might offer some hint to the potential of those DOE TR’s to every be realized.
Graeme wrote:World has 10 years of shale oil, reports USGlobal shale resources are vast enough to cover more than a decade of oil consumption, according to the first-ever US assessment of reserves from Russia to Argentina.
ROCKMAN wrote:And just this morning I got a report in from a partner that is operating a well we’re recompleting in a reservoir to develop the X bbls of oil and Y mcf of RESERVES we are carrying on our books. And guess what: we produced 68 bbls of salt water. So we’ve begun the process to plug and abandon the well. And those RESERVES we were trying to develop? They ain’t anymore. So even RESESERVES aren’t always produced.
Beery1 wrote:Graeme wrote:World has 10 years of shale oil, reports USGlobal shale resources are vast enough to cover more than a decade of oil consumption, according to the first-ever US assessment of reserves from Russia to Argentina.
So over 10 years worth, if we're lucky. But it's going to take around 30 years to get it all out. Does anyone see a tiny flaw in the plan there?
Here is the stupid layman question of the day- If ND has been drilled a lot already in the past, does that make it cheaper to go after shale since the wells have already been created and all that is needed is to insert new types of equipment into them to cook underground or frack? or does shale require new drilling?
rockdoc123 wrote:The terminology is often confusing as it is used differently by the USGS versus SPE. We can always talk about the resource as referring to oil inplace (how the USGS looks at things) but contingent resource in terms of the SPE terminology is actually a recoverable number, not in place.
ROCKMAN wrote:John – very good. Sometimes I lose track of in place numbers and recoverable numbers: “The (USGS) assessments found that the formations contain an estimated mean of 7.4 billion barrels (BBO) of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil.” But even with that we’re back to the same problem: the USGS has not predicted that 1 bbl of those 7.4 billion bbls will ever be produced.
Rockman wrote: In fact they go to great lengths to avoid offering any idea how much oil will be produced.
I can point to a field I’m about to drill a hz well in on the Texas coast. There are approximately 4.5 billion bbls of technically recoverable oil RESERVES (not resources) in this field and others along trend. That's a much more reliable number than the USGS has for those RESOURCES they are presenting. These are proven discovered bbls of oil…not “undiscovered resources”. Yet the current economic recoverable reserves from these fields via new horizontal drilling are exactly 0.0000 bbls of oil. If my hz idea works we can start moving some of those proven technically recoverable reserves (not resources, mind you) into the proved recoverable category. And if the idea doesn’t work my company just pissed away $2.5 million. And it is unlikely anyone will try another hz well again in this trend anytime soon. But those 4.5 billion of oil will still be proved reserves…just not economically recoverable proved reserves.
The USGS doesn't do in place either, it does technically recoverable. From the newest Bakken press release:
Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests