[ennui2]

If those bakken wells were shut of because of price, they could be turned back on.

Exactly. Time will tell what the new price threshold is. You're pulling the $140/bbl figure out of your peak-oil-biased ass.

[vtsnowedin]

production DID NOT drop in Bakken due to SHUT IN wells. The production drop is 100% DEPLETION of existing wells.

How can he prove that?

The article itself says this:

Oil price weakness is the primary reason for the slow-down

To prove him wrong you have to find some producing wells they shut off. Do any of those exist?

[PeakOiler]

I'm going to post another chart after the EIA releases their monthly report around June 30th.

Data through March (downloaded from EIA) showed production at 1109 kbpd for ND. (There's about a 3-month delay in the data from the EIA due to revisions after audits, etc.)

My graph shows ND peaked in Dec-2014.

[rockdoc123]

The chart is definitely worth right-clicking on. Not only does the Hubbert method model the current decline. But the first-derivative of the daily oil change also tells us that by 2027 there will be no oil pumped from Bakken.

Hubberts curve will likely not work for the late tail of production simply because shale production does not behave like conventional reservoir production. There are two parts to decline in a shale reservoir and early hyperbolic where about 75% decline occurs in no more than 36 months followed by a very flat exponential decline where yearly decline can be 2% or lower.

[AdamB]

To prove him wrong you have to find some producing wells they shut off. Do any of those exist?

Of course. On a normalized type curve basis (as opposed to calendar month basis) approximately 0.5-1% previously completed and producing Bakken wells are taken off line, pumps replaced, electric repairs made to the lines, the BPR freezes up or sticks for some reason and needs replaced, etc etc. This estimate was based on data back in March, so it is fairly current.

And those things are usually fixed in short order, and the wells are turned back on.

[AdamB]

The same article also includes this gem:


The chart is definitely worth right-clicking on. Not only does the Hubbert method model the current decline. But the first-derivative of the daily oil change also tells us that by 2027 there will be no oil pumped from Bakken.

The graph is not time centered with the beginning of Bakken oil production, so certainly this isn't a Hubbert type construct, but more of a "fit any bell shaped thingy I can find only to a fields ramp up production period" routine, and those folks who do this for a living certainly have Bakken production extending beyond 2027. And based on the production declines of particular wells, USGS work quantifying such things contained in Figs. 5-6-7-8 here:

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1109/OF13-1109.pdf

looks like those things might produce at those low, flat declines that rocdoc mentioned for a long, LONG time.

Unfortunate that people aren't familiar with the basics of how these production cycles work, be they hubbert or sine wave form, and then get everyone all excited about some doom scenario they can hang on it.

The chart projection seems a tad optimistic to me.

I'll take the energy experts word for such things, and they say this chart is way pessimistic. And lest we forget, these are the same people with a history of UNDERESTIMATING the production potential of these shales. Sort of like what peak oilers have been doing for the entire planet, this past decade.

It's dismal assumption depends on the world's economy holding together until 2027. I just don't see Bakken producing oil much later than next few years. Christmas 2017 probably at the latest?

Peak oilers never thought the Bakken would exceed 350k/bbl a day. Considering how much higher than number went, it would appear that peak oilers are the last folks to ask for an informed opinion on oil production. reference to peak oil famous site proclaiming the 350k/day claim.

Point 3 in the conclusions:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3868

[rockdoc123]

So rockdoc, the long tail is not holding up the production, bakken is not in decline and the decline has everything to do with price? A lot to sink one's teeth in. I'll have to ponder that. hmmmm?

the picture is actually quite simple. In shale fields production only increases or remains at a low decline rate as long as new wells are added to the field. Each well may start out at say 500 bbls/d but in 36 months that well is likely down to 25 bbls/d and will remain at the level for some time. With new wells continually added to the field total production can increase but only so long as drilling continues. When drilling stops, as it has in the Bakken the hyperbolic decline of the individual wells dominates the picture and rapid decline in production ensues. The decline will not, however, go to zero but should level out at the aggregate exponential production level (i.e. if the average of all well in the exponential decline phase is 25 bbls/d and you have 200 wells in a field then the field production should level out around 5,000 bopd. That having declined from around 100,000 bopd in fairly short order). When drilling resumes in the field production will increase and will continue to increase or remain stable until such time as all of the possible new locations have been drilled. At that point the rapid decline ensues as drilling ceases again.

[ROCKMAN]

Well put, Doc. Folks should by now grasping the significance of the difference in dynamics between a conventional and fractured reservoir. They should also understand that the Bakken, Eagle Ford et al are TRENDS and not FIELDS. One can compare fields to each other or trends to each other. But not trends to fields. IOW fields are a subset of trends. It would be the same comparing the score of a baseball team's one game to their record for the entire season.

[PeakOiler]

Here's the graph of N. Dakota Field Oil Production with data through April:



I wonder when the next peak will be, or is this the peak? I guess time will tell...

Reference: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_m.htm

Feb-16 1116
Mar-16 1109
Apr-16 1040

[AdamB]

I wonder when the next peak will be, or is this the peak? I guess time will tell...

As we have seen with bell shaped curves, time isn't the variable that matters. PRICE will tell. Give industry $150/bbl and they will DROWN you in oil. We currently call it a glut, but it is cooler, the mental image of drowning in the stuff.

[PeakOiler]

Updated graph with data through May:

[AdamB]

Updated graph with data through May:

Whatever happened to all that 80-90% decline from shale wells! nonsense that Heinberg and the gang were always blathering on about? Shale wells were supposed to COLLAPSE!!!

That drop off looks completely reasonable, in light of lack of drilling. Could take another year before that production declines enough to start balancing out the current supply glut!

And considering the number of drill sites left in the Bakken, the sheer size of the damn thing, what happens when price eases back up in 3 or 5 years and they start drilling..again!!

[StarvingLion]

Of course there are no profits from these shale "oil" scams. If only the price of oil was $10/barrel higher, they would break even. Yeah sure.

The rapidly shrinking capital base is asserting itself in the inability to reliably generate electricity. The utilities are so bankrupt that building a single nuclear plant to free up coal for more appropriate use is economically hopeless. Amusing, given the mass electrification craze.

"Climate change" is ff Insolvency. We have to fight "climate change" (ff insolvency) through grabbing whatever bits of wealth still remain outside of the existing concentration of wealth.

There is no 'Energy Transition' as the Coyne fool believes...
There is no plan at all.

[StarvingLion]

Adam and ennui2 cannot even present a coherent energy picture. They are both wildly enthusiastic about the juvenile battery and solar cell/windmill subsidy "economy" while also supporting the vast funds required in exploiting bad rocks.

It can't be both.

[AdamB]

Adamb, how is it again that production is increasing in N. Dakota?
I must have missed something. hum? (as he scratches his head lol)

You did.

[AdamB]

Of course there are no profits from these shale "oil" scams. If only the price of oil was $10/barrel higher, they would break even. Yeah sure.

Breakeven, production costs, etc etc, contained here. This was before the estimated drops of 20-40% in service industry costs of course. I recommend reading informed sources and whatnot, prior to making statements contradicted by reality. Call me weird that way.

https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/drilling/

There is no 'Energy Transition' as the Coyne fool believes...
There is no plan at all.

Sure there is. We just aren't telling you what it is.