TheDude wrote:I'd like to see a detailed analysis of the Bakken formation's potential.
"The per well cost is approximate $2.2 million with the potential for the well to produce 500 to 700 BOPD initially, leveling off at 250 BOPD with virtually no water.
thuja wrote:JD- your thesis is that because we have been plateauing for two years, and we haven't experienced a grave recession yet- that therefore there will be no "serious" ramifications for a world that starts to decline in oil production?
Seriously? Do you disagree with the Hirsch report completely then?
JohnDenver wrote:My thesis is that the world will smoothly transition to alternatives based on market forces. While there may be a minor recession or two due to snags in the transition, there will be no major economic dislocations or great depression etc. Growth will continue without growth in oil, just like it has the last 3 years.
thuja wrote:It seems strange and illogical that someone with the depth of understanding that you have would not see that this is a "serious problem"....baffling.
Twilight wrote:You don't think economic impacts might be lagging?
shortonoil wrote:The end of oil production growth, translates to the end of economic growth, and thus the end to monetary growth.
JohnDenver wrote:
You know... oil is absolutely essential to producing and moving every part of the modern world, and economic growth is impossible without growth in oil. And yet, in the last few years, the world has been growing at a rapid clip, without any growth in oil. That seems to be a contradiction, and I'm not sure that "lag" is an adequate explanation. What was the mechanism of the lag? How was growth fueled during the lag, if there was no growth in oil? How can factories/businesses which need oil to function continue to grow for 2.5 years after growth in oil stops? It's like saying a person continued to grow for 2.5 years after they stopped breathing because there was a "lag".
It's a commonly held hypothesis because that is what most of the world wants to happen. Unfortunately, we live on a finite planet, with mining of other worlds still a very long way away. Economic growth is unsustainable.JohnDenver wrote:[My thesis is that the world will smoothly transition to alternatives based on market forces. While there may be a minor recession or two due to snags in the transition, there will be no major economic dislocations or great depression etc. Growth will continue without growth in oil, just like it has the last 3 years.
joewp wrote:Let him be surprised when his thesis turns to shit. Let him wonder why "market forces" are forcing him to cut back on everything except very meager food supplies, if he can even afford that.
Peak liquids may not yet have arrived. Production was up in October and November, to all time highs, according to IEA figures.JohnDenver wrote:A three year lag? Isn't that a little long for economic variables?
Oil-Finder wrote:I'd like to see a detailed analysis of the Bakken formation's potential.
Hundreds of pages to read here:
http://www.undeerc.org/price/
Step 5. After 2-3 months, expand your program to 3 rigs per month. What you are playing here is nested time series of numbers... and your limits are your acreage position and access to rigs. I happen to know that using this scenario, it will take 63 wells to achieve the cash flow needed to have the operation sustain itself from cash flow. You are asking yourself, What the hell? 63 wells x 4 million dollars is 252 million dollars! Well, that IS all in. If you use your cash flow to offset, you will see you will need to borrow only about $130 million.
The reason why estimates of URR are all over the place is because no one really knows. The only thing to do is to start drilling.
Nice change of topic.
Lighthouse wrote:why would anyone want peakoil to happen? Just think at all the hardship which will come when we reach the peak.
Unfortunately its not important what we want.
I't will happen regardless if we want it or not ...
Oil-Finder wrote:skyemoor wrote:
2. The author/authors state "The methods used by Price to determine the amount of hydrocarbons generated by the Bakken are different from the traditional petroleum geochemical practices and are under dispute."
Here are the complete technical papers by Leigh Price:
http://www.undeerc.org/price/
You can find more here - this is some of the work by 2 of the other geologists mentioned in the state of ND piece:
http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/docum ... /index.htm
Oil-Finder wrote:skyemoor wrote:3. The 'research' performed by Oil-Finder (OF) resulted in these findings;The first well drilled was the Burau 4 well in Burau County. Although oil and gas indications were not detected during drilling, the well was completed and is producing at a stabilized rate of approximately 25 barrels per day of oil with 65% water cut.
Hardly suggesting that "flow rates stabilize at around 150-300 bpd and stay that way for an extremely long time", whatever 'extremely' means. While 2007 production from Elm Coulee averaged ~53,000 barrels per day, there is no confidence in extrapolating any figure over 1000s of wells without well-documented drilling data from all of the sites in question.
I gave you 3 links here,
Oil-Finder wrote:here
Oil-Finder wrote:and here
Oil-Finder wrote:I can find you other sources too, if you like.
Oil-Finder wrote:skyemoor wrote:4. Well numbers and spacings: OF's provided reference ( http://www.secinfo.com/d11MXs.v1Eu2.c.htm ) states that well spacings are 640 acres and the gross acreage of the Williston Basin - Bakken Oil Play is 90,000 acres. This translates to 140 wells, not 35,000. 140 wells at the above referenced 25 barrels per day equates to 3500 barrels of oil per day, which is chump change at best. Even at 'higher' production figures of 200 barrels per day, Williston-Bakken is still a very minor player at best.
Those 90,000 acres are one company's leases, not the entire size of the Bakken formation! Specifically they're the leases of Teton Energy - which isn't even a particularly big company.
Oil-Finder wrote:The reason why estimates of URR are all over the place is because no one really knows.
But how much of the Bakken oil in place is recoverable using today's technology? Based on conventional production methods, perhaps only 10 per cent. But horizontal drilling, combined with a new production technique, known as hydraulic fracturing, has increased recovery rates by another five per cent.
... science places the oil potential of the Bakken between 10 and 400 billion barrels of oil
OilmanChoke wrote: I am an independent oilman from the technical side.
First: This topic "DO You Want It To Occur" is exactly the right question. Why would you WANT this to occur unless you are bigoted against hydrocarbons?
OilmanChoke wrote:Second: Clearly, the world needs as much energy as it can lay its hands on. Hydrocarbons, today the dominant player, will continue to play an important role in the future at some level. We should encourage whatever alternatives there are that have the opportunity to be economically attractive.
OilmanChoke wrote:Third: We should not hobble any one economic energy supply in favor for another. Politicians and their hacks will NOT define the new technologies... Scientists and investors will. Humans cannot afford to be bigots in this game.
OilmanChoke wrote:Fourth: Energy technology advancement will also take place in the hydrocarbon arena, where the resource base is huge in non-conventional plays, including clathrates. It is not just a solar.wind.tide paradigms.
OilmanChoke wrote:Let the most fundamentally economic win.
OilmanChoke wrote:Also, at what point is a supply base considered "sustainable"? 100 years? 300 years? 500 years?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests