Two Charts and Their Portent(Perceptions of American energy abundance will do an abrupt about face)

Last week brought news that the Energy Information Agency (EIA) has reduced its estimate of recoverable oil from the Monterey Shale in California from 13.7 billion barrels to 600 million barrels. To put that in perspective, the U.S. consumes 6.9 billion barrels per annum and produces 2.7 billion barrels. The shortfall of production relative to consumption is made good by spending $400 billion a year-odd on imported oil. While the initial estimate for the Monterey Shale can be put down to hubris, there is another tight oil formation in which the EIA’s reserve estimate looks quite good given the vagaries of geological science. Specifically, their estimate of 3.2 billion barrels recoverable from the Bakken Formation centred on North Dakota. Why we now know that the EIA estimate for the Bakken is in the ballpark is because of these two figures produced by a retired French oil geologist by the name of Jean Laherrere:

In the Williston basin, the geology is relatively simple so one can drill laterals 2 miles into a very thin zone that is less than 35’ thick.

Two things here:

1. It is only 35’ thick, so the Oil In Place is not all that much. The reason it produces at such good rates is the presence of A. a high quality (+40 API) oil. B. significant overpressure and C. most importantly, lots of natural fractures. These fractures are caused by the stresses placed on the brittle interval sandwiched between two world-class source-rock shales as the oil exits the shales.

2. the Permian has a much more complex lithologic extent, causing well laterals to not stay in zone nearly as much as the target zone comes and goes. One cannot frac into the shales here and expect to get much oil.

How much oil is anybody’s guess. My own is that we are reaching the limits of peak production as infill drilling occurs and we find interference between wells(which means the new wells are competing with older wells for same oil).
...............
Does this mean you don’t buy Continental’s claims that their new spacing and methods will significantly increase their yields perhaps to as much as 50% of oil in place — as you mentioned earlier on the thread?

“Does this mean you don’t buy Continental’s claims that their new spacing and methods will significantly increase their yields perhaps to as much as 50% of oil in place — as you mentioned earlier on the thread?”

It is impossible to claim a 50% recovery of OOIP in rock of this quality. Any technical person who claims this is no better than AlGore making Global Warming predictions. Physics does not lie.

Coincidentally, I am on the way to Denver to a Bakken conference in which these claims might be broadcast. http://www.bakken-completions-2014.com/3/agenda/23/agenda/

I am prepared to refute.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.