Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:40 am Post subject: Re: Bakken (U.S.) formation oil discovery - 4 billion barrel
MonteQuest wrote:
Is it easier to drill in Texas or in the deep waters of the gulf?
Texas.
Again displaying the grand standing he is famous for. You don't even know what questions to ask, do you Monte?
How deep? How big of a hole do you need at TD? Vertical, deviated or horizontal? Short, medium or long radius? KOP depth? Preference in steering systems? Any LWD? Water/Mud based system or oil? Suggestions on additives to the basic mud system? Any casing suggestions or requirements? Depth of water? Exploratory, production or injection? Are you going to factor in any production requirements into the hole design? Any H2S issues expected? Abnormally pressured zones expected while drilling?
"Easier to drill".....a laugh a minute Monte.
MonteQuest wrote:
And I don't need to explain why to anyone who understands the basics.
The problem is, YOU don't understand the basics.
MonteQuest wrote:
Same thing applies to ANWR versus Bakken.
EROEI.
Notice how in the list I provided I didn't list EROEI. _________________ Freddy RULZ!
www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits) (or bankers) (or web "experts")
First we have OF's optimistic projections in the face of reasonable doubt:
OilFinder2 wrote:
Until the USGS comes out with their report, we can only speculate what they'll say about recoverable amounts. I'm guessing they'll say somewhere in the range of 50-100 gigabarrels recoverable, but that's just that - a guess.
Well, he did guess wrong.
OilFinder2 wrote:
This study here by Flannery and Kraus estimated there are 300 billion barrels in the Bakken (OIP).
-- The Leigh Price 1999/2000 study, whose documents can be found here, estimated a mean of 413 billion barrels in the Bakken, with a range of 271 - 503 billion barrels (OIP).
Now up to 271 - 503 billion barrels.
(You may have noticed that I left out the OIP notation in my bolded text. That's because I am stealing a page from your play book, distraction, data-cherrypicking, manipulation, and flat out denial.)
KTH wrote:
Perhaps your calculation is a bit off? Seems like even my 18 BBO guess was a tad high.
More than a tad high-- 450% high.
Then the rationalizations begin:
KTH wrote:
Revisions in the numbers aren't uncommon. I seem to recall some fact sheets where multiple TCF's disappeared between one assessment and another....other times, there are big gains. I'm betting the big change between 1995 and today was the discovery and economic development of Elm Coulee.
Trying to jack up your mistake?
You know what gets me about you KTH and your only buddy. You are obviously intelligent, trained in petroleum geology, and up on industry skinny. You're the guy who should be betting correctly. I guessed Bakken was a piddler. You were wrong by 450%.
First we have OF's optimistic projections in the face of reasonable doubt:
OilFinder2 wrote:
Until the USGS comes out with their report, we can only speculate what they'll say about recoverable amounts. I'm guessing they'll say somewhere in the range of 50-100 gigabarrels recoverable, but that's just that - a guess.
Well, he did guess wrong.
OilFinder2 wrote:
This study here by Flannery and Kraus estimated there are 300 billion barrels in the Bakken (OIP).
-- The Leigh Price 1999/2000 study, whose documents can be found here, estimated a mean of 413 billion barrels in the Bakken, with a range of 271 - 503 billion barrels (OIP).
Now up to 271 - 503 billion barrels.
(You may have noticed that I left out the OIP notation in my bolded text. That's because I am stealing a page from your play book, distraction, data-cherrypicking, manipulation, and flat out denial.)
Wow dude, I didn't even say anything to you and you have to pick this out of nowhere. I said I was guessing, didn't I? I guessed way off, and in case you don't remember, when the USGS number came out, I said I was fantastically disappointed. As usual, you're being as asshole just for the sake of being an asshole.
The way you insult people without restraint would have gotten you banned long ago on 90% of the other forums I've participated in. _________________ Abundance - what a concept!
Last edited by OilFinder2 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:59 pm; edited 1 time in total
First we have OF's optimistic projections in the face of reasonable doubt:
OilFinder2 wrote:
Until the USGS comes out with their report, we can only speculate what they'll say about recoverable amounts. I'm guessing they'll say somewhere in the range of 50-100 gigabarrels recoverable, but that's just that - a guess.
Well, he did guess wrong.
Pete, you aren't actually going to be ON TOPIC now are you? He did guess wrong. I pointed it out as well. Then I guessed wrong as well. DARN IT.
pstarr wrote:
OilFinder2 wrote:
This study here by Flannery and Kraus estimated there are 300 billion barrels in the Bakken (OIP).
-- The Leigh Price 1999/2000 study, whose documents can be found here, estimated a mean of 413 billion barrels in the Bakken, with a range of 271 - 503 billion barrels (OIP).
Now up to 271 - 503 billion barrels.
Do you understand the difference between what Leigh Price was estimating, and what OF2 was trying to estimate?
And you screwed up the order of the conversation. The Leigh Price number has been referenced for quite awhile, OF2's estimate was more modern. The guesses didn't go up, they came down, chronologically speaking.
pstarr wrote:
(You may have noticed that I left out the OIP notation in my bolded text. That's because I am stealing a page from your play book, distraction, data-cherrypicking, manipulation, and flat out denial.)
As long as you can't find any technical inaccuracies and have to make stuff up, I don't mind.
pstarr wrote:
Then the rationalizations begin:
KTH wrote:
Revisions in the numbers aren't uncommon. I seem to recall some fact sheets where multiple TCF's disappeared between one assessment and another....other times, there are big gains. I'm betting the big change between 1995 and today was the discovery and economic development of Elm Coulee.
Trying to jack up your mistake?
Read some more. I've already explained the error in what OF2 and I were doing versus the referenced information to the USGS and how they assemble one of these things. You did pay attention to that didn't you?
pstarr wrote:
You know what gets me about you KTH and your only buddy. You are obviously intelligent, trained in petroleum geology, and up on industry skinny. You're the guy who should be betting correctly. I guessed Bakken was a piddler. You were wrong by 450%.
To fill in the details which you either missed or ignored, lets review the ENTIRE estimate, shall we? I guessed at a MAXIMUM of 18 BBO. The USGS doesn't provide a maximum, only a P5 which is about 4.6. 100% error would be 9.2 BBO, 200% would be 13.8 BBO, 300% would be 18.4 BBO. So I missed by <300%, not the 450% you calculated. I also said that the most likely answer in the new report would be closer to the old estimate (150 MMBO ) than the maximum I was guesstimating. Which it was.
I could get in a debate with you on the difference between the USGS estimate at P5 and my MAXIMUM answer, which means depending on the distribution I wish to assign to their fractiles I could actually rig it so that the maximum answer is 18 BBO, which means I hit the answer dead on. But that wouldn't be fair.
I could explain to you WHY I guessed the way I did, but considering you can't calculate a % difference without mangling it, it seems unreasonable to expect you to understand anything more complicated. _________________ Freddy RULZ!
www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits) (or bankers) (or web "experts")
And not that pisser cares, but I'll remind him of this posto-facto calculation I made once I realized that land area the USGS was using was far less than the 200K sq. mi. I had been assuming. If I had known they were assessing a much smaller land area, I would not have come up with such a big recoverable number.
OilFinder2 wrote:
OilFinder2 wrote:
BTW, since it hasn't come out yet, a couple days ago I made a series of calculations, so here's my revised guess. The 8 calculations I made ranged from 39 to 82.5 billion barrels, with an average of 58.5 billion barrels. The only thing these 8 calculations have in common is that I assumed a recovery rate of 15% - I took into account FaceDown's comments about Price's, ermm, "personality" and decided to discount his 50% recovery estimate.
In case anyone's interested . . .
One reason why I came up with such large numbers when I was trying to guess what # the USGS would come up with was because I was using a much bigger land area than the USGS used. The 8 calculations I did used an area of either 200,000 sq. mi. (from the Wiki article) or 140,000 sq. mi. (a guess I made since I wasn't sure the Wiki article was correct).
However, I just traced onto my ArcMap document the approx. area the USGS used by eyeballing the map on the USGS Fact Sheet, and came up with 47,925.3 sq. mi. -- much less than either of the other two numbers I used.
Here's a map I made:
If I had used the correct land area but still had used my other assumptions, I would have made a guess of 23.56 billion barrels instead of the 39 to 82.5 billion barrels. So upon seeing the 3.65 billion barrel number the USGS devised, I still would have been disappointed, but not *as* disappointed.
Would you quit it with the Ad Hominem attacks? If instead of attacking other posters you used that time to research your statements, you probably wouldn't need to doubt the figures you use in the first place.
Calling you an idiot is not an ad hominem attack. Look up the definition, you idiot.
If, for example, you didn't do it in response to a post, perhaps by starting a thread in the hall of flames, then I would agree. But, otoh, since you are in a specific thread, responding to a specific post, it is an Ad Hominem attack. That being said, you could be confused, not understand that specific threads revolve around the topics they discuss, and could have put something intended for the hall of flames in here. Rather idiotic on your behalf I suppose, but that's your issue...
MonteQuest wrote:
I'm hardly trying to avoid the merits and attack you personally in an effort to win the debate.
That's what an ad hominem attack means.
If we are debating something, which we have been for the last few posts, and you respond to one of them with a personal attack, that's considered to be an Ad Hominem attack. If otoh, you merely wish to attack someone, and it isn't related to the debate as you contend, then you should delete your post here, in response to a statement I made, and start all the threads you like in the hall of flames.
The reason why we have different threads in different places is to allow people to vent, and debate, w/o overlap. Since you've been here for so long, I figured you would understand this, but apparently not. _________________
Professor Membrane wrote:
Not now son! I'm making...TOAST!
Last edited by yesplease on Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
The EIA is projecting increased consumption out to 2030:
30mbpd worth in the states? Btw, when was that graph made?
Recently I'd assume, since it's displayed prominently on the front page of their Forecasts & Analyses section!
Oh neat, thanks! However, I'm confused, what does that have to do with the supposed EIA projection of 30mbpd by 2025. According to that, the EIA is projecting liquid fuel consumption, which includes biofuels IIRC, to increase 7% by 2025, which can't result in 30mbpd by 2025. Anyway, as per the statement I made, that you replied to, and the spreadsheet under that graph, the EIA isn't expecting consumption to increase as per their statement that I quoted. If you search for it, it may provide context.
TheDude wrote:
Don't have time to respond in kind, thanks for the detailed reply though. Will fire back after another ten pages of
Hmmm... That's an odd definition of violence, posting on the interwebs, but to each their own I guess. _________________
My point is you cannot have real growth in good and services without an increase in energy inputs.
Course ya can, via appropriate efficiency increases.
Can you point to any example of an economy that has experience growth for, say, 10 years, whilst using the same or declining amounts of energy.
What does that have to do with what I was talking about? And how are you defining growth? All I stated was that I can have real growth in goods and services, while decreasing, or maintaining, my energy inputs, via efficiency improvements, contrary to MonteQuest's statement. Nothing about economics...
TonyPrep wrote:
I actually think it might be technically possible, for a while, though I don't think it's possible long term and then there is the small matter of other finite resources.
It could be, but it depends on how you frame the question IMO. Needs more info... _________________
So you're using a figure you doubt? Why not spend a few seconds or minutes searching the interwebs for more realistic figures that you don't doubt?
I doubt we will ever be able to consume 30 mbpd
Then why are you using that figure? Like I said before, why not search for something a bit more up to date, like what TheDude posted from the EIA's front page apparently. A 7% total increase from present levels in liquid fuel consumption by 2025. Right now we're at ~21mbpd of crude plus Ethanol, so to see 30mbpd by 2025 we would need to see over 40% growth compared to present day figures. _________________
I'll give you a heads up though, use any slides with typo's on them or any of the other logical confusion you appear to be inflicted with and I won't be the only one giggling hysterically in the back of the room.
This really is pathetic, KTH. Sometimes you appear quite reasonable but at other times ...
I said I was guessing, didn't I? I guessed way off, and in case you don't remember, when the USGS number came out, I said I was fantastically disappointed.
Fair enough, but the "way off" is a bit of an understatement and illustrates the way many people think, including yourself. I've noticed in many discussions that you always use the best possible interpretation on quotes and figures. You are absolutely convinced (or, perhaps, want to be convinced) that oil production can continue to increase for the next 15-50 years. This conviction then comes out in your posts, even though it is almost always pure speculation.
Of course, you could level some of that criticism at me and the peakers. However, the crucial difference is that we understand that there are limits. You do not (even though you pay lip service to that).
Can you point to any example of an economy that has experience growth for, say, 10 years, whilst using the same or declining amounts of energy.
What does that have to do with what I was talking about? And how are you defining growth? All I stated was that I can have real growth in goods and services, while decreasing, or maintaining, my energy inputs, via efficiency improvements, contrary to MonteQuest's statement. Nothing about economics...
TonyPrep wrote:
I actually think it might be technically possible, for a while, though I don't think it's possible long term and then there is the small matter of other finite resources.
It could be, but it depends on how you frame the question IMO. Needs more info...
So you're not saying that economic growth is possible without energy increases, long term? I thought it was a simple question I asked. Apparently not.
The point MQ was making was that increased goods and services, as well as increased use of those goods and services cannot occur without increases in energy use (apart from short term efficiencies). You appeared to be denying that but I'm not sure now. What is your position? Feel free to give your definition of economic growth in your answer.
A 7% total increase from present levels in liquid fuel consumption by 2025. Right now we're at ~21mbpd of crude plus Ethanol, so to see 30mbpd by 2025 we would need to see over 40% growth compared to present day figures.
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
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap 
