|
April 09, 2008
North Dakota Discovery - 200 Bn Bbl Of Oil
Two hundred billion barrels of oil have been discovered in North Dakota. America is sitting on top of a super massive 200 billion barrel Oil Field that could potentially make America Energy Independent and until now has largely gone unnoticed. Thanks to new technology the Bakken Formation in North Dakota could boost America's Oil reserves by an incredible 10 times, giving western economies the trump card against OPEC's short squeeze on oil supply and making Iranian and Venezuelan threats of disrupted supply irrelevant.Business Week confirms the report. A long-awaited federal report on oil that could be recovered in parts of North Dakota, Montana and two Canadian provinces is to be released this week.The First report was a quote from New Energy which often gets things wrong. I'd say the Business Week Report is more reliable. Here is a technique for Mining Oil. I think the peak oil folks got it wrong. As usual. Capitalism beats the fear mongers. Again. H/T Paper Tiger in the comments at Classical Values. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 04.09.08 at 01:44 AM
Comments
It hasn't affected the price of oil yet because there is no chance it will yield oil within the next year. You don't bet on a horse that's not even in the race. Our oil business is so hogtied by the environmentalists that it could take years before anything comes out of the ground there. Loren Heal · April 9, 2008 08:42 AM Screams of outrage from the "environmentalism" industry in 3...2...1... Anonymous · April 9, 2008 09:49 AM I'm not prepared to say it's 200 billion barrels of recoverable oil until the release of the report tomorrow. But even if it's a tenth that, our reserves would double. However, keep in mind this is still considered an unconventional resource. And it's going to take years to bring production online in enough quantities to displace significant amounts of imported oil. Cervus · April 9, 2008 03:14 PM The only role environmentalists are allowed to play in a Republican administration are scape goats, as you pointed out. Anonymous · April 9, 2008 03:18 PM Cervus, The thing about this report is that it will drive capital in the right direction. BTW the estimate is between 175 bn and 500 bn of recoverable reserves with today's technology. M. Simon · April 9, 2008 03:19 PM M Simon: The amounts are just so huge that it wakens my skepticism. This would completely change the peak oil game. There's already a field (Elm Coulee) producing 53,000 barrels per day. Marathon is investing $1.5 billion in operations there. I fully expect Exxon, Shell, and all the other oil majors to pour billions into the region if the report confirms these numbers. Anon, this is liquid oil contained in a horizontal formation about two miles down. There won't be any surface mining like you see in coal country. Anonymous · April 9, 2008 03:45 PM The 175-500 billion barrel figures everyone keeps citing are NOT recoverable estimates, they are estimates of the total amount of oil in place, or the amount of oil the shale has generated. The recoverable amounts will be some fraction of that. Look for a number more like 30-70 billion barrels, 100 billion at the topside, from the USGS. This area is already abuzz with drilling rigs and energy companies signing leases for drilling rights. Oil production in ND has gone way up the past couple years. Here's a chart from the state of ND: OIl-Finder · April 9, 2008 03:46 PM Anon 3:18, Basically we eat oil and natural gas converted to food. So what is your new slogan? Starve the People, Save the Tundra How humanitarian. Well at least the poor will be the first to go. Great! Let me also remind you that the kind of mining done in the Appalachians without remediation is no longer allowed. Or are you ignorant of that fact? I'll bet you were a big biofuels advocate before you discovered - Fill your tank with ethanol. Kill a starving child. And now you want to repeat that? Are you an idiot? Or do you just want to kill a lot of people with out your fingerprints on the deed? We are going to need to use a lot of oil until a suitable replacement displaces it. Get over it. And what is it you don't understand about the US Geological Survey? Is it a government agency you want to kill? Speak up. M. Simon · April 9, 2008 03:54 PM From Business Week: The study does not estimate how much oil may be in the formation -- only what the agency believes can be recovered using current technology. So I guess we will have to wait a day to see what the report says. M. Simon · April 9, 2008 03:59 PM The 3:45 Anon post is mine. I don't know why it didn't grab my posting information. Cervus · April 9, 2008 04:18 PM No M. Simon, that 3:45 anon post is not your, I wrote it. Anonymous · April 9, 2008 04:23 PM Cervus, I should have been more specific about which anon. Thanks. As to glitches. No idea. BTW I have fixed my comment to give credit to the anon I was replying to. Nice to have admin privileges. M. Simon · April 9, 2008 04:56 PM M. Simon, you still didn't get them right. The post at 3:45 - with the link to the state of ND website - is mine. The post at 3:46 is not mine. "Cervus" is also mine. Oil-Finder Oil-Finder · April 9, 2008 05:26 PM Oops, I should clarify - the "Cervus" at 4:18 is mine. The "Cervus's" above that are not mine. I didn't post here until the first one at 3:45. Have no idea who the other Cervus's are. Oil-Finder · April 9, 2008 05:30 PM Just to keep things from getting totally confused I only changed my post. M. Simon · April 9, 2008 05:39 PM Oops, you're right, I read it wrong. I was thinking the name *above* the post was the name of the poster. Not used to seeing forums where the name occurs *below* the post. Wow, that's confusing. So, nevermind ... Oil-Finder · April 9, 2008 06:20 PM The History of Lake Dakota The birth of Lake Dakota can be traced back to the discovery of massive oil deposits under the state of North Dakota. Conservative estimates said 200 billion barrels, more optimistic ones said as many as 500 billion barrels. Oil companies and others started to work extracting the petroleum from the ground. It wasn't long before people began to notice land subsidence. Something that happens to some degree with virtually ever oil field, but which proved to be especially severe given the enormous volume of oil in the North Dakota fields. Within a few years hills had become depressions, and small vales had become deep valleys. This had a huge effect on drainage. Soon areas were being flooded by rain and spring thaw that had been dry land for ages. By the time the North Dakota State Legislature started to talk about the problem North Dakota's wetlands had expanded three fold, and the area covered by lakes had doubled. By the time the U. S. Congress took up the case some 20% of the state was underwater, The cause of this land subsidence and consequential flooding was controversial. Millions of words were written about it, thousands of blog posts both pro and con oil extraction caused subsidence were made. But by 1012 it was well established that the only scientifically supported explanation was the removal of 10s of billions of barrels of petroleum from deep beneath North Dakota. Today North Dakota is 95% water, with Lake Dakota extending into the states around her, and into Canada to the north. Now it is deep water rigs that extract the oil, and many of those need to lengthen the cables and chain that anchor them on an annual basis. One rig had to be abandoned when the owner went broke lengthening the mooring on a monthly basis. Yet oil extraction continues, since there remains an estimated 300 billion barrels of crude. Some experts have gone so far as to state there may be as much as a trillion barrels of oil yet to be recovered. The effect of Lake Dakota on regional climate and ecology is still under study. The impact of lake effect snow on South Dakota and further south is well known. The environmental impact of the winter thaw is still a matter for discussion. The American Midwest has seen a lot of changes, and all because oil was discovered under the state of North Dakota. Alan Kellogg · April 9, 2008 10:05 PM Alan, The oil veins are about 140 ft thick and of low porosity. Low porosity means lots of rock and little oil. What you are talking about is what happens when you drill into dome formations. This is a different kind of geology. Are you a geologist or just a scaremonger? BTW I have invited a real geologist to come and comment. If he shows up I'm sure he will correct my errors. And suppose you are correct. Which is better sinking land in North Dakota or starving children in Africa? Simon M. Simon · April 9, 2008 10:51 PM Poor Al, out looking for polar bears, when he should have been looking for prairie chickens. Papertiger · April 10, 2008 01:19 AM Well, the report is out. Results? 3 to 4.3 billion barrels. This still represents a significant increase in US oil reserves. But it's only a tiny fraction of what was hoped for. Perhaps that "technically recoverable" number will rise in the future. Cervus · April 10, 2008 03:24 PM Depends on the technology and the price. M. Simon · April 10, 2008 06:39 PM Simon, Neither, just having fun :) BTW, what we have now are guesses. How much is actually there, and what happens to the land will only become known when we have extracted a few billion barrels. Alan Kellogg · April 11, 2008 06:47 AM FurP.:. Anonymous · April 11, 2008 07:44 AM Ugg. I was really starting to have a full on case of black gold fever too. Papertiger · April 11, 2008 11:39 AM To the Dakota lake idiot: 1 barrel is only iaintbacchus · April 11, 2008 04:44 PM OK, so now we have 4.3bbls vs. 200. Maybe ten times that over the next 50 years as technology improves if we're lucky. That means that the US reserves are now about 17 years instead of 13. And that's only if demand doesn't go up. Can we all start working on alternative sources and life styles now? Because 17 years isn't a very long time. I've had my car almost that long. And this buying our gas from rag heads and South American communist wannabes? It isn't working out. iaintbacchus · April 11, 2008 04:54 PM iaintbacchus, Thank you for the Loki Point. Alan Kellogg · April 11, 2008 08:44 PM Don't buy it from those bad places. Buy it from Canada. We have plenty and we are your buddies. Smitty · April 15, 2008 05:09 PM To iainbacchus: you're the idiot, there are 55 gals in a barrel of oil , 1 gal is 7.35 cf , so a barrel is 404.25 cf. If you knew anything about geomorpholgy and statigraphy, shales tell us this deposit is anticlinal/ synclinal and if formation is susptable to this kind of subsidence then the formation of a lake is very possible and in all probability will be formed as the subsidence continues rocky · April 19, 2008 07:20 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
April 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
April 2008
March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
For All Mankind
Bush's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan The Truman Strategy I Choose My Friends Carefully A New Kind Of Politics "God-DAMN those pit bull owners" Finally on the campaign trail! (But only when it came to my back yard....) How far off base can the "base" get? Ecumenism Who Will Stand With Us?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Ahhh ... sounds like an economic boom for ND ... coming from Minnesota, I wonder what sort of hardy folk will participate? With that said, I do not believe that oil price will go below $100/b though. The speculators have not budged on this even with the confirmation ... this in NOT new news.