Posted: Feb 10, 2011 7:23 am Post subject: Drill baby drill!
I'm glad to see they are still pursuing this.
Quote:
New drilling method opens vast oil fields in US
By JONATHAN FAHEY, AP Energy Writer Jonathan Fahey, Ap Energy Writer – Wed Feb 9, 4:59 pm ET
A new drilling technique is opening up vast fields of previously out-of-reach oil in the western United States, helping reverse a two-decade decline in domestic production of crude.
Companies are investing billions of dollars to get at oil deposits scattered across North Dakota, Colorado, Texas and California. By 2015, oil executives and analysts say, the new fields could yield as much as 2 million barrels of oil a day — more than the entire Gulf of Mexico produces now.
This new drilling is expected to raise U.S. production by at least 20 percent over the next five years. And within 10 years, it could help reduce oil imports by more than half, advancing a goal that has long eluded policymakers.
"That's a significant contribution to energy security," says Ed Morse, head of commodities research at Credit Suisse.
Oil engineers are applying what critics say is an environmentally questionable method developed in recent years to tap natural gas trapped in underground shale. They drill down and horizontally into the rock, then pump water, sand and chemicals into the hole to crack the shale and allow gas to flow up.
Because oil molecules are sticky and larger than gas molecules, engineers thought the process wouldn't work to squeeze oil out fast enough to make it economical. But drillers learned how to increase the number of cracks in the rock and use different chemicals to free up oil at low cost.
"We've completely transformed the natural gas industry, and I wouldn't be surprised if we transform the oil business in the next few years too," says Aubrey McClendon, chief executive of Chesapeake Energy, which is using the technique.
Petroleum engineers first used the method in 2007 to unlock oil from a 25,000-square-mile formation under North Dakota and Montana known as the Bakken. Production there rose 50 percent in just the past year, to 458,000 barrels a day, according to Bentek Energy, an energy analysis firm.
It was first thought that the Bakken was unique. Then drillers tapped oil in a shale formation under South Texas called the Eagle Ford. Drilling permits in the region grew 11-fold last year.
Now newer fields are showing promise, including the Niobrara, which stretches under Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska and Kansas; the Leonard, in New Mexico and Texas; and the Monterey, in California.
"It's only been fleshed out over the last 12 months just how consequential this can be," says Mark Papa, chief executive of EOG Resources, the company that first used horizontal drilling to tap shale oil. "And there will be several additional plays that will come about in the next 12 to 18 months. We're not done yet."
Environmentalists fear that fluids or wastewater from the process, called hydraulic fracturing, could pollute drinking water supplies. The Environmental Protection Agency is now studying its safety in shale drilling. The agency studied use of the process in shallower drilling operations in 2004 and found that it was safe.
In the Bakken formation, production is rising so fast there is no space in pipelines to bring the oil to market. Instead, it is being transported to refineries by rail and truck. Drilling companies have had to erect camps to house workers.
Unemployment in North Dakota has fallen to the lowest level in the nation, 3.8 percent — less than half the national rate of 9 percent. The influx of mostly male workers to the region has left local men lamenting a lack of women. Convenience stores are struggling to keep shelves stocked with food.
The Bakken and the Eagle Ford are each expected to ultimately produce 4 billion barrels of oil. That would make them the fifth- and sixth-biggest oil fields ever discovered in the United States. The top four are Prudhoe Bay in Alaska, Spraberry Trend in West Texas, the East Texas Oilfield and the Kuparuk Field in Alaska.
The fields are attracting billions of dollars of investment from foreign oil giants like Royal Dutch Shell, BP and Norway's Statoil, and also from the smaller U.S. drillers who developed the new techniques like Chesapeake, EOG Resources and Occidental Petroleum.
Last month China's state-owned oil company CNOOC agreed to pay Chesapeake $570 million for a one-third stake in a drilling project in the Niobrara. This followed a $1 billion deal in October between the two companies on a project in the Eagle Ford.
With oil prices high and natural-gas prices low, profit margins from producing oil from shale are much higher than for gas. Also, drilling for shale oil is not dependent on high oil prices. Papa says this oil is cheaper to tap than the oil in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico or in Canada's oil sands.
The country's shale oil resources aren't nearly as big as the country's shale gas resources. Drillers have unlocked decades' worth of natural gas, an abundance of supply that may keep prices low for years. U.S. shale oil on the other hand will only supply one to two percent of world consumption by 2015, not nearly enough to affect prices.
Still, a surge in production last year from the Bakken helped U.S. oil production grow for the second year in a row, after 23 years of decline. This during a year when drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, the nation's biggest oil-producing region, was halted after the BP oil spill.
U.S. oil production climbed steadily through most of the last century and reached a peak of 9.6 million barrels per day in 1970. The decline since was slowed by new production in Alaska in the 1980s and in the Gulf of Mexico more recently. But by 2008, production had fallen to 5 million barrels per day.
Within five years, analysts and executives predict, the newly unlocked fields are expected to produce 1 million to 2 million barrels of oil per day, enough to boost U.S. production 20 percent to 40 percent. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates production will grow a more modest 500,000 barrels per day.
By 2020, oil imports could be slashed by as much as 60 percent, according to Credit Suisse's Morse, who is counting on Gulf oil production to rise and on U.S. gasoline demand to fall.
At today's oil prices of roughly $90 per barrel, slashing imports that much would save the U.S. $175 billion a year. Last year, when oil averaged $78 per barrel, the U.S. sent $260 billion overseas for crude, accounting for nearly half the country's $500 billion trade deficit.
"We have redefined how to look for oil and gas," says Rehan Rashid, an analyst at FBR Capital Markets. "The implications are major for the nation."
___
Associated Press writer James MacPherson contributed reporting from Stanley, N.D
Friggin awesome! Maybe we can stop meddling as much in the middle east with this. We still need to pursue renewable energy like crazy, but it would be nice to be self-sufficient until then. _________________ You have just entered the twilight zone.
Joined: 29 Mar 2004 Posts: 3347 City: Cheshire, England
Posted: Feb 10, 2011 8:52 am Post subject:
If its safe power to you.... but won't other countries do the same in their smaller oil fields?
Surely this is simply an interim measure for the next 20-50 years before we have used it all up?
Seems like we're going to great and dangerous levels just to extract something that we shouldn't be relying on any more anyway?? _________________ www.AxisBoats.co.uk | www.Malibu-Boats.co.uk
My feeling is and always will be that both alternative sources and conventional sources of energy should be pursued. Many of the alternatives aren't ready to support the demand, but they're getting there so keep working on them. Meanwhile, tap into as much conventional resources as we can get and I'm definitely in favor of getting it domestically more than getting it from abroad. _________________ If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?
It's called Fracking and it's pretty controversial.
Algae based diesel and butanol can both work almost all vehicles on the road and retail delivery through existing infrastructure to gas stations. EVs and hydrogen fuel cells are a pipe dream that might be useful for rich commuters but not the average middle class citizen or commercial vehicles. Even the sole proprietor contractor will need more range and dependability. Damn idealist who mandate poor ideas instead of looking at the pragmatic approach to transitioning to a self dependent energy economy. _________________ If I agreed with you we would both be wrong.
It's only controversial for those people that are too stupid to actually research and find out what fracking is and how far the fluid can ever travel. They think that the fluids are going to travel through rock 3000+ feet up to effect our ground water. That whole gravity thing apparently only works if your on the surface of the earth. One you get 10 feet down it's like the moon...It would be easier just to shoot these people in the head then try to educate them on the process. _________________ Don't do anything rash.....and don't do anything to get a rash...
It's a great source of energy that is procured in a terrible way. You can say all you want about environmentalists being too extreme but if you are familiar with how little regulation that fracking has you would be nervous too. If anyone has netflix, watch Gasland or check out what you can on youtube and whatnot, you'll look at the issue in a new light.
okay, now these wells that your condeming are producing oil and natural gas thats supplying 62% of the US energy consumption.
now i agree that its bad to be totally dependant on somthing but the potential for the expansion of wind is very limited, solar is a pipedream on the large scale, the USA has maxed out its hydroelectric potential already and the hesitance towards nuclear hinders the expansion of that not to memntion the toxic bi-products it generates.
Another thing, >80% of electricity is generated by coal with yeilds more CO2 emissions per unit of energy than oil and natural gas. so plugging your electric car in the wall is hardly saving the world.
anything but these convenient liquid fuels is going to take a long time to make economical, Biomass fuels are currently the largest renewable that we can actually increase production of but heres some more numbers for you.
in 1 lb of ethonal (biomass generated fuel) = 11,500 BTU's
in 1lb of gasoline = 19,000 BTU
in 1lb of natural gas(liquid) = 25,000
as you can see even if we could produce equivolent biomass it is not the same amount of energy.
Also, petroleum engineers are working on carbon sequesttration, which looks very interesting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration)
As far as energy independance goes, not only could we currently produce enough to fill the consumer needs but heres an interesting quote from (NPC report on energy)
"These energy security concerns have spurred calls for the United States to become
totally self-sufficient in energy supply, often referred to as “energy independence.” This
concept is unrealistic in the foreseeable future and incompatible with broader foreign
policy objectives and treaty obligations. Policies espousing “energy independence” may
create considerable uncertainty among international trading partners and hinder
investment in international energy supply development"
Last edited by erikneufeld on Feb 11, 2011 10:39 am; edited 1 time in total
erikneufeld, I would dispute your claim about toxicity of nuclear if examining cumulative impacts and including exposure. _________________ If I agreed with you we would both be wrong.
oh i personally think nuclear is where we should be focusing, in the numbers i mentioned above the amount of energy in 1lb of uraniam is orders of magnitude greater than anything listed.
But America is so gun shy about it i cant see* significant expansion in that feild soon.
im confused about what your disputing? obviously a nuclear reaction produces radioactive isotopes (id say thats pretty toxic) and though they can contain these bi-products, these barrels must be put somewhere for huge lengths of time while enough half lifes go by...
Last edited by erikneufeld on Feb 11, 2011 10:40 am; edited 1 time in total
I didn't explain that very well. it was a discussion we had the other day at work laughing at the tree huggers that think their gas comes from the oil well underneath the gas station and is pumped directly into their gas tank.
The fluids they're injecting into the wells (fracking) are being injected thousands of feet below the earths surface. The Rock/Shale that holds the deposits is pourus (sp) but the fluid doesn't just flow freely though the rocks. It has to be injected down into the well under tons of pressure. The fluids that are injected down into the well aren't just going to flow freely through thousands of feet of solid rock to the surface. If any of you have been in a mine for instance. Gravity still does its thing under the ground. Liquids don't just go against gravity to flow through the rock to get to the surface. It's retarded to think that someone thinks that.
Typically the ground water we use is within a couple of hundred feet of the earths surface. So the fracking fluid travelling 1000's feet against gravity through solid rock makes no sense to me what so ever. _________________ Don't do anything rash.....and don't do anything to get a rash...
But America is so gun shy about it i cant significant expansion in that feild soon
Gun shy about it yes, but how much more of a factor is the oil, gas and coal lobby?
Quote:
Typically the ground water we use is within a couple of hundred feet of the earths surface. So the fracking fluid travelling 1000's feet against gravity through solid rock makes no sense to me what so ever.
Water like electricity will follow the path of least resistance. If there is a path the water (fluid in this case) will follow the path. I'm sure in most instances oil and gas deposits are protected by walls of solid rock, but I'm also sure that there are instances where fracking could pose a risk to ground water due to proximity of underground aquifers.
It's a technique that gets demagogued very easily, if due dilligence and care is exercised in identifying potential risks of a deposit I'm sure most of the time there is little threat. _________________
Quote:
You don't meet many old vegans. It's mostly young priviliged kids trying to figure out where they stand in the world.
But America is so gun shy about it i cant significant expansion in that feild soon
Gun shy about it yes, but how much more of a factor is the oil, gas and coal lobby?
JR, I'm right here... Joking of course, I also represent the nukes through the utilities that own them. _________________ If I agreed with you we would both be wrong.
I was talking with an engineer that worked at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and one of his comments was that we don't have the ability to undertake extensive nuclear power facility construction. We no longer have the expertise if we wanted to build dozens of new facilities. I thought it was an interesting comment and don't know how much water it holds. But, when I watch the expose of the Chrysler employees getting drunk and high everyday at lunch, I think he may be on to something. _________________
Quote:
You don't meet many old vegans. It's mostly young priviliged kids trying to figure out where they stand in the world.
I was talking with an engineer that worked at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and one of his comments was that we don't have the ability to undertake extensive nuclear power facility construction. We no longer have the expertise if we wanted to build dozens of new facilities. I thought it was an interesting comment and don't know how much water it holds. But, when I watch the expose of the Chrysler employees getting drunk and high everyday at lunch, I think he may be on to something.
Tell that to Bechtel and I think they would find a way to prove him wrong, given you were awarding contracts and approving the facilities.
I think the traditional Uranium can be overlooked in favor of Thorium to eliminate the arguments about proliferation as the byproducts cannot be weaponized. Plus Thorium reactors are cheaper to run than coal. _________________ If I agreed with you we would both be wrong.
did you see everyone he was interviewing? Maybe if they moved out of the trailer park and took the hose leading to the sewer for their water they might not get sick. Another michael moore special??
not one actual documented case has been proven that's a fact. _________________ Don't do anything rash.....and don't do anything to get a rash...
Bambam- I thought it was interesting that the companies using the hydraulic fracturing method were exempt from the EPA groundwater laws. I have not read the law, but assuming that it is true, that alone is very troublesome... _________________
Rhawn wrote:
You should have a less retarded friend read over your posts before you hit "Submit"
in the end i don't think people realize how much the oil and gas industry contributes to the economy. Most people only see what they have to pay in their energy costs. Filling their cars heating their homes ect ect. The general public bitches and complains about a couple of perks they might get from government. What isn't published is the BILLIONS of dollars the oil companies pay in royalties, taxes, charities ect ect to government and their communities. Sure they make money, but without them we'd be a third world country...
During the gulf oil spill, it wasn't the communites on the gulf that were bitching and complaining and making all the noise. BP was trying to compensate those that were effected to make things as right as they could. People in the Gulf coast new exactly what would happen to their way of life if the gulf stopped producing oil and gas. It was the media and the rest of America that made all the noise because god forbid they wouldn't be able to take their vacation on the gulf coast this year because of the spill. That pos Obama hurt their economy even more then the spill could have by putting the moritorium on drilling when all this happened. They are always going to produce oil and gas in the gulf because the money the royalties brings in is FAR more then a bunch of fisherman are going to generate.
Same difference on the shale gas. I'm pretty sure everyone has forgotten about paying 10 bucks an mmbtu two years ago, but with out the shale production it would cost you 500 bucks or more a month to heat your homes. Or run your air conditioning... How much more would the general population bitch about having to pay 15000 dollars per year in energy costs to maintain their little lifestyle they've become accustomed to?
The banking meltdown, would it have been this bad if the cost of crude wasn't 130 bucks and natural gas was 10 bucks. I actually believe that was the cause of the meltdown. I'm sure it would have happened eventually but that certainly spead it up. If they stop the fracking because some trailer trash tree huggers think their water is going to start on fire i think we'll all be in trouble _________________ Don't do anything rash.....and don't do anything to get a rash...
Not up to date on the subject but I remember reading that one town where fracking has been in use for some time is now experiencing several dozen earthquakes per day. Guess it has been going for over a year now. _________________ jt09 wrote:
I used to get all happy when the girlie would make a colonic appointment. That meant she was going to be breaking out the "fine china" soon.
RampageWake, any frac'ing (a contraction of the word 'fracturing', hence no 'k') should be well below the jurisdiction of any groundwater agency. In Texas, to drill a hydrocarbon well, you have to have a letter from the Water Board granting you permission to drill as well as instructions from the Water Board on how to protect the groundwater. A protection string of casing is always set across any groundwater interval, and more often than not, the Railroad Commission witnesses the running and cementing of this protection casing.
anything but these convenient liquid fuels is going to take a long time to make economical, Biomass fuels are currently the largest renewable that we can actually increase production of but heres some more numbers for you.
in 1 lb of ethonal (biomass generated fuel) = 11,500 BTU's
in 1lb of gasoline = 19,000 BTU
in 1lb of natural gas(liquid) = 25,000
as you can see even if we could produce equivolent biomass it is not the same amount of energy.
I just caught this and disagree. Ethanol isn't the only biomass based fuel. You can make bio butanol which has slightly less BTUs than gasoline but is equivalent in the sense that not modifications have to be made to the vehicle as with ethanol use. _________________ If I agreed with you we would both be wrong.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Stats
Favorites
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
One you get 10 feet down it's like the moon...It would be easier just to shoot these people in the head then try to educate them on the process.
