[copious.abundance]

OF,you have posted here many times about total liquids as if that is OIL. Total liquids is NOT oil, yet you continue to barrage these forums with some delusional idea that total liquids increases means something.

Deny that.

Breaking news: Every peak oil website reports total liquids production! Even peaker website run by the peakers themselves do it. The reason I'm citing all-liquids production, is because they are citing all-liquids production. But that doesn't mean I believe all-liquids is oil, anymore than people on TOD believe all-liquids is oil even as they post charts on its production.

And in case you haven't noticed, I've also been working on a thread with news of crude and condensate only production. But I dunno, maybe you aren't paying attention.

[copious.abundance]

This is really funny ... here on this very website on the What is Peak Oil? page, we find a chart showing ... all-liquids production and projections!!



You gotta lot of nerve accusing me of posting information on all-liquids production when this very website does the exact same thing on its "What is peak oil page! In fact, that chart goes even farther than I have and includes natural gas. *shakes head*

[AirlinePilot]

The problem OF is you keep using it (total liquids) as some sort of gauge that we aren't at peak or even near one. By all measures since late 04 we are struggling to increase C&C by very small amounts. You have posted the total liquids chart MANY times and the implication is that all is going to be well. Oil production continues to climb! If you dont THINK you have been doing that then I suggest you rethink your posting style and truly read what others are saying back to you.

Your perceived here as a childish, shrill, troll who seems incapable of grasping what the difference between total liquids are and C&C.

IT MATTERS..no matter how many times you say it doesn't

[copious.abundance]

The problem OF is you keep using it (total liquids) as some sort of gauge that we aren't at peak or even near one.

Not, it is not me. I'm just repeating what the peak oil websites - including this one - have been doing for years.

You have posted the total liquids chart MANY times and the implication is that all is going to be well.

No, it is not me. I'm just repeating what the peak oil websites - including this one - have been doing for years.

Your [sic] perceived here as a childish, shrill, troll who seems incapable of grasping what the difference between total liquids are and C&C.

Breaking news AP: I'm just repeating what the peak oil websites - including this one - have been doing for years.

Oh, and speaking of childish ... click here. Or, maybe "childish" isn't the right word, but "cowardly" would sure hit the spot.

IT MATTERS..no matter how many times you say it doesn't

Don't tell that it matters to me - tell that to all the peak oil websites -including this one - who have been posting all-liquids production figures for years. I'm just repeating what they've been doing the whole time.

[copious.abundance]

Your perceived here as a childish, shrill, troll who seems incapable of grasping what the difference between total liquids are and C&C.

ATTENTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls. May I have your attention please.

The EIA has now reported that the world has a new crude and condensate production record. As of December, 75.4 million barrels/day were produced, compared to the previous records of 74.8 million barrels/day in November, 75.2 million barrels/day in December 2010, and 74.6 million barrels/day in July 2008. Numbers are rounded off.

We also have a new yearly crude & condensate record of 73.964 million barrels/day, eclipsing the previous record of 73.889 million barrels/day set in 2010. Yes, that's correct: Last year the world produced nearly 74 million barrels per day.

Thank you, and have a nice day.

[ralfy]

Related:

"A Review of the Citigroup Prediction on US Energy"

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9079

[Plantagenet]

A new study just completed by the Obama Administration indicates that the amount of recoverable oil and gas in the Williston Basin, which underlies North Dakota and bits of several nearby states --- is twice as large as the previous estimate.

US study doubles amount of oil and gas in shale in North Dakota and nearby areas---reserve raised to 7.4 BILLION barrels of recoverable oil

""The United States has double the amount of oil and three times the amount of natural gas than previously thought, stored deep under the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana, according to new data the Obama administration released Tuesday.
In announcing the new data in a conference call, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell also said the administration will release within weeks draft rules to regulate hydraulic fracturing, technology that has come under scrutiny for its environmental impact but that is essential to developing all of this energy.
“These world-class formations contain even more energy-resource potential than previously understood, which is important information as we continue to reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign sources of oil,” Jewell said in a statement.
The formations, called Bakken and Three Forks, span much of western North Dakota, the northern tip of South Dakota and the northeastern tip of Montana. The last time the United States Geological Survey assessed this area for its oil and gas reserves was in 2008. But that assessment did not include the Three Forks formation, which explains the substantial increase in the estimates. USGS estimates that these two formations together hold 7.4 billion barrels of undiscovered—but technically recoverable—oil and 6.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.""

[Buddy_J]

Econ101 is going to have a tough time claiming that North Dakota can produce the 10's or even 100's of billions he has been proclaiming as of late.

[Beery1]

Yeah, all of a sudden, the Bakken has grown its technically recoverable oil reserves. Yeah, right. This is the equivalent of what everyone else in the oil business does to hype their product. I'll believe it when I see it.

[GregT]

Enough oil to last the US for just under 13 months, and enough nat gas for 3 and a half months. I wonder if there is even enough to repair all of the environmental destruction this will cause.

[Plantagenet]

This is the equivalent of what everyone else in the oil business does to hype their product.

This report has nothing to do with the oil business.

This new study was done by the US government.


The Obama administration announced that their new study shows there is twice as much recoverable oil under North Dakota as previously thought

[Buddy_J]

Yeah, all of a sudden, the Bakken has grown its technically recoverable oil reserves. Yeah, right. This is the equivalent of what everyone else in the oil business does to hype their product. I'll believe it when I see it.

This estimate didn't come from an operator, a promoter, someone who owns a drilling rig, someone looking to invest, or any other of the "please write us a check" gang. As far as these estimates go, this gang does it best. So no, this isn't the equivalent of what everyone else does in the oil patch, because these guys aren't in the oil patch.

But it still isn't enough to shift the balance of universe, as some have claimed.

[Keith_McClary]

technically recoverable oil reserves.

That's "undiscovered—but technically recoverable".

[ROCKMAN]

As pointed out it’s 7.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable. Just my WAG but I would guess that’s an underestimate. But the important number is the amount of proven producible oil. A much more difficult number to come up with. First, that number has to be pegged to an assumed price of oil. A conventional field might have 20 million bbls of proven producible oil at $110/bbl but only 5 million bbl at $75/bbl. Such proven reserve increases/decreases on done every year for the reserve base of all US public companies by adjusting govt mandated changes in the assumed price platform. The other difficulty is that in one area of a trend you might need a higher price of oil to create the same volume of proven recoverable oil. In every trend there are sweet spots and sour spots. And until you drill off into those areas you won’t know how to characterize them. I far as this being a “newly discovered” play the locals have known about a large reserve base in the Bakken for half a century. Just took higher prices and some more technology to make it worth chasing. Just like the Eagle Ford in Texas: I could have horizontally drilled and frac’d hundreds of those wells in the 90’s if we had the oil prices we have today. But we didn’t so I didn’t. I drilled and frac’d my first EFS well over 25 years ago…a stinker. As I mentioned before geologists have thousands of prospects sitting in their file cabinets just waiting for oil/NG prices to get high enough to make them viable.

BTW: It is estimated there are $10 trillion of technically recoverable gold in the world’s ocean. All you have to do is figure how to get it out at a profit. Pretty much like

[Pops]

Yeah, "technically recoverable" at $500 or maybe $1,000 a barrel. It's better than a sharp stick in the eye I guess, especially because the prophesied expansion of fraccing to every corner of the world - or even to the Monterey, hasn't quite worked out.

Try running some "technically recoverable" oil through the old Ford and you'll probably be disappointed at the milage you get. LOL


Not to ruin a good buzz but I think I mentioned this last year some time... growth already seems be having a hard time in the Bakken even at this price, not quite the trend we'd like to see to get us to be the worlds largest exporter of oil:




This interview with Steve Kopits is good:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http ... 130429.pdf

.

[ROCKMAN]

Pops - Actually worse the that: "technically recoverable reserves" require no profitability to be so classified. Doesn't matter if half those reserves require $10,000/bbl to be developed. That's why it's a much easier number to estimate. And we need to see where the rig count and production ends up at the end of the summer. From what I read the spring thaw can be a very bad time for ops up there. Sometimes worse than the badest winter days. I figure by August we should have a good profile of the near term future.

[Plantagenet]

This plot may give people the impression that oil production in the Bakken is declining as it shows a decline in the "percentage" increases in oil production rather then the absolute number. But actually it shows continued strong growth.

Lets imagine you've got a new oil province in a place we'll call "Nodako". For each of ten years Nodako adds 100,000 bbls/day of oil production. Sounds pretty good---steady growth, right?

But if you plot it as a "percentage" then in year two Nodako goes from 100,000 to 200,000 bbls (a 100% increase...wow!) and in year 10 Nodako goes from 900,000 to 1,000,000 bbls---just a mere 10% increase. By comparison to year 2 it looks bad, but actually Nodako would still be growing steadily----and thats good.

The plot above ----if its right----shows the Bakken oil production is still growing rapidly. It shows oil production in the Bakken is still growing by double digit percentages in 2013. That is spectacular considering that production is now up around 800,000 bbls/day.

[Econ101]

double post doubled just like the Bakken!

[Econ101]

The article states the reserves are recoverable with todays technology.

The U.S. Geological Survey said Tuesday that the Williston Basin has between 4.4 billion and 11.4 billion barrels of oil that is recoverable with today’s technology.

Im not sure the date on the reports research but drill and recovery technology is always changing. Does this report include verticle stacking, frack zone variations, bore size and down hole operating pressures, "water" mix and dont forget multi-bore platforms?

geologists and industry leaders said Tuesday that the estimate is conservative and will only get bigger as technology advances.

I wonder what these estimates are doing to the eroei of oil? The equation is: energy out/energy in. Doubling energy out without a corresponding increase in energy in will make that eroei soar to the sky. You see, when they double the energy out estimate that means twice the energy for each and every well drilled or yet to be drilled with todays technology. So, we have the energy out doubling and the energy in staying the same or dropping because a lot of wells are already drilled. What's the effect on eroei, up or down?

An interesting article on Seeking Alpha today reveals the rapidly expanding shale oil/gas development now underway in the US lower 48. The Bakken is only scratching the surface , and probably not even half accounted for itself in the "official" USGS estimates. The scorn at the first round of USGS estimates telling us it was the largest oil reserve they had ever analysed was similar to the scorn we see with the doubling announcement!

The Bakken is now twice as big as the largest oil reserve the USGS has ever studied!

The next big announcement about the Bakken is going to be the expanding geographical extent. It is probably twice the size often defined on maps. The leasing activity and all the seismic exploration done between the eastern slope of the northen rockies east and south to the Dakotas is a big hint. By the time this thing is over the Bakken will be twice the size it is now and they are going to get over half the oil.