[copious.abundance]

Everybody's favorite topic.

>>> Bloomberg <<<

[dbruning]

1.53 Trillion...that is a lot of oil! Good news indeed.

Of course the 2nd paragraph does say: "There is no economically viable method of extracting it" - but why let things like that get in the way.

On the other hand, perhaps someone will one day figure out a way to get at it.

[copious.abundance]

As a footnote, this is just the Colorado part of the Green River Shale in the Piceance Basin. It doesn't even include the parts of the GRS in Utah and Wyoming. Which means there's even more oil in the thing than 1.53 trillion barrels!



Here a link to the USGS fact sheet:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3012/pdf/FS09-3012.pdf

[copious.abundance]

Ah yes, the law of receding horizons, which, among other things, assumes that the price of oil will always rise, and thus, more-expensive oil sources will forever be out of reach.

The problem with this theory is, the price of oil does not always rise. But I guess some people haven't learned that yet.

[bencole]

As a footnote, this is just the Colorado part of the Green River Shale in the Piceance Basin. It doesn't even include the parts of the GRS in Utah and Wyoming. Which means there's even more oil in the thing than 1.53 trillion barrels!

Yes , but as far as I can gather, its not the amount of oil in the shale formation that is important, but rather the low flow rates of oil shale versus a conventional oil resevoir. The same problem exists with the tar sands in alberta, while technically containing as much oil as Saudi Arabia, it can only produce one tenth the amount of oil per day, at a much lower EROEI. I take it that peak oil is mostly about the production rate of energy more so than the total amount of energy availlible.
.

[copious.abundance]

It is too early to tell what, if anything, that price spike meant. Maybe the spike was an anomaly, not the drop. Then maybe Matt Simmons will work the markets into another frenzy and we'll get another price spike soon, but this time people will be fed up and start buying CNG cars en masse and maybe even a lot of those Teslas and Volts! After which point demand for oil will plummet and go down to $20 again and stay there for decades.



"Predictions can be hard to make, especially about the future"
- Mark Twain -

[bencole]

EROEI becomes especially pertinent when levels drop to below 10:1 or so. Not only is production slow, but then 10% of production is lost to production.

If we take Shell Oil's in situ process at Piceance Basin as an example ( probably the most advanced in the world) we find it has a EROEI of roughly 3:1, and it is still largely experimental. This compares with an EROEI of tar sands syncrude of about 5:1 (SAGD, THAI processes),


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahogany_Research_Project

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3839

[copious.abundance]

Incidentally, for the record . . .

At this point I don't even really care all that much about this particular oil shale deposit. Why? Because there are a lot of other shales - like the Bakken, the Woodford, and the Tuscaloosa - which have tons of high-quality, thermally-mature oil which doesn't need all the processing this thermally-immature kerogen does. If you're gonna drill holes into a shale, might as well go after the good stuff.



But it would still be fun to see them churn out at least a half-million bpd of kerogen out of this thing, just to show the doomers it can be done economically.

[copious.abundance]

EROEI becomes especially pertinent when levels drop to below 10:1 or so. Not only is production slow, but then 10% of production is lost to production.

If we take Shell Oil's in situ process at Piceance Basin as an example ( probably the most advanced in the world) we find it has a EROEI of roughly 3:1, and it is still largely experimental. This compares with an EROEI of tar sands syncrude of about 5:1 (SAGD, THAI processes),


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahogany_Research_Project

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3839

According to a more recent thread on The Oil Drum, THAI could have an EROEI as high as 1:56, depending on which steps you include.

[bencole]

Incidentally, for the record . . .

At this point I don't even really care all that much about this particular oil shale deposit. Why? Because there are a lot of other shales - like the Bakken, the Woodford, and the Tuscaloosa - which have tons of high-quality, thermally-mature oil which doesn't need all the processing this thermally-immature kerogen does. If you're gonna drill holes into a shale, might as well go after the good stuff.

I've also been reading some about the Bakken formation as well , and it doesn't seem to be much better. The USGS and the state gov. of Montana and N. Dakota estimate that their is only about 2 or 3 billion barrels of recoverable oil spread across the entire massive formation. This is not a particularily large oil field, and in combination with the low flow rates, it doesn't seem likely to help much with the USA's oil demand.

But it would still be fun to see them churn out at least a half-million bpd of kerogen out of this thing, just to show the doomers it can be done economically.

I'm not sure it can achieve production rates that high anytime soon. The Elm coulee field in the in Montana, the largest in the Bakken, has a production of just over 50 000 bpd, so I think that a more likely figure would be similar to this one.

[copious.abundance]

I've also been reading some about the Bakken formation as well , and it doesn't seem to be much better. The USGS and the state gov. of Montana and N. Dakota estimate that their is only about 2 or 3 billion barrels of recoverable oil spread across the entire massive formation. This is not a particularily large oil field, and in combination with the low flow rates, it doesn't seem likely to help much with the USA's oil demand.

On the contrary, the Bakken is rockin'

[bencole]

According to a more recent thread on The Oil Drum, THAI could have an EROEI as high as 1:56, depending on which steps you include.

Yes, 56:1 is the absolute highest theoretical value for THAI, which falls over a range from 3.3:1 to 56:1. Its still only theoretical and hasn't be demonstrated as practical, which is the biggest drawback to THAI, and as far as I can gather, experimental THAI projects have yet to break 10:1.
That being said, I believe it will still probably replace SAGD and surface mining at some point eventually, because of its potential for reduced energy input costs.

[bencole]

I've also been reading some about the Bakken formation as well , and it doesn't seem to be much better. The USGS and the state gov. of Montana and N. Dakota estimate that their is only about 2 or 3 billion barrels of recoverable oil spread across the entire massive formation. This is not a particularily large oil field, and in combination with the low flow rates, it doesn't seem likely to help much with the USA's oil demand.

On the contrary, the Bakken is rockin'

Help me out, I don't see how this is terribly contrary to what I said? The graph indicates production rates, not recoverable barrels. And by the looks of the graph, current production rates fall between 150k to 200 000 bpd, that is consistent with what I stated for the large field in Montana. (compare the USA uses over 20 million bpd, or over 7 billion barrels per year)

[copious.abundance]

You said:

This is not a particularily large oil field, and in combination with the low flow rates, it doesn't seem likely to help much with the USA's oil demand.

Prior to 2006 there was very little oil production in ND from the Bakken. After EOG Resources drilled a particularly impressive well in 2006, the ND Bakken "took off." That big increase in oil production you see on the chart is almost entirely because of the Bakken (and, more recently, an associated layer called the Three Forks). That's an increase from almost 0 to about 130,000 bpd in two years (210K bpd for all of ND minus the pre-2006 base of 80K bpd). For a nation which, in 2006, was producing about 5 million bpd, a 130K bpd increase is a nice addition, roughly the same as one of these big GOM platforms.

No oil field or formation is going to produce the entire USA's 18 million bpd consumption needs, so dismissing the Bakken because it's "only" producing about 130K bpd is a strawman.

Now, take the Bakken, and apply the same thing to those other two shales I mentioned. Since we know they can produce 130K bpd from the Bakken, after a few years of development they might get similar production from the Woodford shale, then repeat with the Tuscaloosa shale. By now you're talking 390K bpd, which is an even nicer addition to a nation which had been producing 5 million bpd.

In addition to those three, there are other similar (or reasonably similar) ones - I promise!. Put them all together, and they will start adding up.

[copious.abundance]

I'm not sure it can achieve production rates that high anytime soon. The Elm coulee field in the in Montana, the largest in the Bakken, has a production of just over 50 000 bpd, so I think that a more likely figure would be similar to this one.

BTW, the Elm Coulee field is not the biggest area of the Bakken anymore (hasn't been for a while), and 130K bpd is a lot more than 50K bpd.

[copious.abundance]

Oh yeah, and one more thing: If you're spending your time googleing stuff about the Bakken to respond to my comments, don't bother. I know basically anything and everything about the Bakken that you could find on the internet. If you want to know anything about the Bakken, save yourself some googleing time and just ask me instead.

[bencole]

For a nation which, in 2006, was producing about 5 million bpd, a 130K bpd increase is a nice addition,

Not if you put it in the context that the USA's total production has fallen from a peak of 10.2 million bpd, the north slope field falling 1.5 million bpd between 1998-2008, or that exports from the cantarell field fell 600 000 bpd between 2007-2008, etc.

No oil field or formation is going to produce the entire USA's 18 million bpd consumption needs, so dismissing the Bakken because it's "only" producing about 130K bpd is a strawman.

I'm not dissmissing it, I'm just trying to put the 1.53 trillion barrel figure in context. On the surface someone may look at this kind of number and think that one of these formations can indeed solve the USA's entire energy problem, just like the tar sands in Canada, but it is imporatant to point out that this is not true.

Now, take the Bakken, and apply the same thing to those other two shales I mentioned. Since we know they can produce 130K bpd from the Bakken, after a few years of development they might get similar production from the Woodford shale, then repeat with the Tuscaloosa shale. By now you're talking 390K bpd, which is an even nicer addition to a nation which had been producing 5 million bpd.

But it still falls far short of 1 million bpd, like you said would be nicely convincing for the naysayers. And this comes from all of the biggest and best shale formations in the entire USA. The tar sands in comparison currently produces about 1 million bpd, much larger than all shale production put together from these sources.