Massive Oil Field In North Dakota
A new black gold rush is under way, this time in North Dakota. The potential payoff is huge—up to 100 billion barrels of oil. That’s twice the size of Alaska’s reserves and potentially enough to meet all U.S. oil needs for two decades.
Until now, the obstacles to production seemed overwhelming. The crude oil is locked away in rocks that are buried miles underground in the Bakken Play, a field that stretches into Montana and Saskatchewan, Canada.
But times have changed. High oil prices and new technology make it worth the effort. Computer analysis and remote sensing systems, plus smart drills that can probe horizontally or snake left and right, vastly improve the odds of locating new pools and putting them into production. And though oil is unlikely to remain priced at current stratospheric levels, prices won’t drop to much lower levels, which happened several times since the 1970s, and cause new exploration to dry up. Even if prices fell by half, many barrels of oil could still be produced—profitably—from the region.
An official government survey of the Bakken region’s oil treasure trove is due out next month. The report is expected to play it very conservatively, because it will confine estimates to the amount of oil that likely can be produced profitably based on last year’s oil prices. It will also not take into account any further technological advances that might make it even easier to extract more oil.
“The Bakken is much like the enormous natural gas field that sat for many years under and around Dallas until people figured out the geology and how to drill it out economically,” says Lucian Pugliaresi, president of the Energy Policy Research Foundation.
Hat tip Asian Badger.
Well we could certainly use some good news on this front.
Here’s the part I don’t get or maybe just need more specific #‘s
And though oil is unlikely to remain priced at current stratospheric levels, prices won’t drop to much lower levels, which happened several times since the 1970s, and cause new exploration to dry up. Even if prices fell by half, many barrels of oil could still be produced—profitably—from the region.
My emphasis.So this would have been a profitable play @ $60?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 03, 2008 at 0016 hrs
Damn those NoDaks, they get all the luck. Seriously, they knew this a long time ago, but getting the oil out of the ground always was the problem. They have oil, especially in Western North Dakota and eastern Montana, it’s just getting the oil.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 03, 2008 at 0155 hrs
So this would have been a profitable play @ $60?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oil_Prices_Medium_Term.png
Chart shows that oil ppb didn’t cross $60 line until 2006, dropped below that line in 2006, rose again, and dropped below that line as recently as early 2007. After that, it has been on a pretty consistent upward trajectory.
I think what is key is that the $60 ppb has to be sustained long-term for this to be profitable - certainly that was not the case as recently as 12 months ago.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 03, 2008 at 0631 hrs
Don’t go getting to excited folks.
Just because we have it, doesn’t mean the Enviornmentals will let us get to it.
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on April 03, 2008 at 0751 hrs
Don’t worry about that stuff - it’s the eco/luddite/[insert your favorite adjective here]/nutjobs who will prevent us from drilling there becasue it will undoubtly disturb the home of 5 prairie dogs and a raccoon.
Just like we can’t drill in Anwar because even though we have shown that we can have things like the Alaskan pipeline that don’t do any damage to the environment, they will still be against it.
Their real agenda is to keep the price of oil high so we all have to give up our lifestyle and be forced to join their luddite ways.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 03, 2008 at 0754 hrs
I think NoDak is the 5th largest nuclear power in the world andnow the oil. they’ll probably want to start thier own country.
I used to serve at Minot AFB and worked in Dunseith, by the International Peace Garden. This oil find could not have happened to nicer bunch of people. I hope they stay the same and people will leave them alone.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 03, 2008 at 0813 hrs
Their real agenda is to keep the price of oil high so we all have to give up our lifestyle and be forced to join their luddite ways.
Thanks for the clarification. I was under the mistaken impression that technology was behind things like photovoltaic solar power, wind power, hydroelectricity, biomass and biofuel.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 03, 2008 at 0824 hrs
This story has been around for awhile now.
The next month part seems to be like the “free beer tomorrow” sign.
Sure would be nice even if it was partially correct and it even might be.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 03, 2008 at 0930 hrs
OK - we have found the oil, and can bring it to the surface.
Where are we going to refine it? When wa sthe last new oil refinery built? Who can remember, it has been so long.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 03, 2008 at 0933 hrs
Indeed it would be profitable at $60/bbl. It’s only now that the technology exists that it would make economic sense to tap into the reserves, and as mht notes, it’s only the last couple years that $60+/bbl oil prices have been the “norm”.
Moreover, as Michael notes, the question is whether the envirowhackos will let us get it.
Posted by steveegg on April 03, 2008 at 0949 hrs
I fail to see how this news is exciting. The shale oil in Canada (part of which extends down into N. Dakota and Montana) has been known about for a long time. The only ones that should say “awesome” are the people that own property in N. Dakota and shares of big oil companies.
All this news tells us is that we are getting closer and closer to peak oil production. By the time they figure out how to bring this oil to market world demand will have increased many times more barrels per day than can be sucked out of these hard to retrieve deposits.
There is no domestic oil supply that is going to solve our long term energy problems. We have to find ways to conserve. If we don’t find a way to decrease our usage before world oil production begins to decline this nation and economy will be in a world of hurt.
If we continue fuel our economy on petroleum and base our energy policy on scrounging for every drip we can find this country will ultimately fall behind. Focusing on exploiting our limited domestic supply is dangerous short sighted thinking.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 03, 2008 at 1247 hrs
My point is proven. Thank you 3rd Way.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 03, 2008 at 1651 hrs
Whatever Bill, I didn’t prove anything about your strawman environmentalist “point”. If they can pull this oil out of the ground bully for them. A member of my family makes more than my annual salary from the oil royalities she earns off of a Montana land investment that was purchased decades before I was born by one of my relatives. I should be thrilled that they are figuring out ways to get more oil from that land. I really don’t care about oil profits or degradation of the already developed North Dakotan countryside. This is about what is right for our country and our economy.
There is no domestic oil source that will have any appreciable effect on the price of oil in this country unless we significantly reduce our consumption.
At some point tapping difficult oil deposits is going to be more expensive than creating alternative energy sources. Forward thinking nations are going to be well equipped to deal with that eventuality. Our countries energy policy has been run by the oil industry. Their testimony in front of congress this week proved that they couldn’t care less about how we are going to meet our future energy needs and how much it is going to cost the consumer or hurt our economy. That isn’t their problem, they are only interested in making profits from selling oil. The enthusiasm some have for our economy being held hostage by such corporate interests is… awesome.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 03, 2008 at 1755 hrs
Ok - back to reality. There really are no good alternatives right now to oil. Someone listed these above - let’s examine them at the 30,000 ft level:
photovoltaic solar power - not possible in states like Wisconsin, AZ or NV maybe, still a few technical bugs to work out, as we don’t have very efficient solar cells.
wind power - great idea! except all the enviro wackos won’t let us build any wind farms because a couple of birds might be stupid enough to get hit by the blades. (this has to be the cleanest energy source there is and is viable.)
hydroelectricity - see above except they are worried about the fish. The Hoover Dam supplies enough electricity for all of Las Vegas and several cities in CA. Again great idea, but enviros block every new facility.
biomass and biofuel - not an a viable option, just look at the cost of food going up because we are burning all of our food. Plus talk to any trucker who had their engine destroyed with bio diesel.
I’ll add a few that weren’t covered… nuclear. Again great idea and the new plant designs are passively safe, but enviro wackos file every lawsuit possible to stop them. BTW - France runs almost exculsively on nuclear. (wonder how that happened?)
There is also liquified natural gas - but we can’t build any receiving/transport facilities for it - hey you guessed it enviro’s again.
Coal - well let’s not go there. We have lots of coal, and cleaner ways to use it, but just as WE Energies how that is going.
Wave power - can’t do that - it effects the turtles.
The wackos oppose any new energy facility that is proposed. As I said before their goal is make energy costs so high that we have to give up our lifestyle and follow their ideas of society.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 04, 2008 at 0917 hrs
Let’s see Bill:
Photovoltaic power: I can show you people using it Wisconsin if you wish. This will probably become very prevalent as photo cells become more efficient.
Wind power: Anyone who has driven on the plains during the last decade can attest that new wind power is being developed.
Hydroelectricity: Developed largely to its’ economic limit. You just don’t get a lot of bang for the buck in hydro and further you have some serious geographical limitations.
Biofuel: Probably not a real good long term option.
Nuclear Power: I would expect to see new submissions for nuke plants before long. Really, there are some long term consequences to nuclear fuels.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 04, 2008 at 1119 hrs
Yes as the photo cells get better this may be an option in some areas. I’m not disagreeing with what you are saying, my point is that anytime you try to build a new energy facility (or energy processing facility unless it is ethanol) The enviro wackos go nuts and block it. It doesn’t matter what it is or how much pollution (if any) it generates.
Energy would be very plentiful if we could actually build some new generation facilities. Do we need to be a good steward of the environment - of course. But this opposition to any power generation is what is driving the high costs - not the supply of oil. There is plenty of oil for the next 50 years while we figure out a viable substitute, and we will could stretch that even longer if we were able to build the things we can now.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 04, 2008 at 1145 hrs
Nice link on solar in WI
http://www.dailyreporter.com/item.cfm?recid=20048295&snippet;=f
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 04, 2008 at 2138 hrs
I can’t wait to see how the Libs and environmentalist spin this one to keep anything from developing into more oil supply just kile they have don with ANWR and the Gulf! Let’s face it, we have an element running around in this country who don’t want a drop more oil consumed if they can avoid it! They think we can “conserve” our way out of this mess, or magically find a way to use sunlight to power our cities and vehicles. Meanwhile they are the ones who force us to do business with the enemy, making us weaker in the final analysis.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 15, 2008 at 1313 hrs
good! support!
http://amypeters.my3gb.com/ford6464.html ford http://musicware.servik.com/ford8689.html fordPosted by Miltos on April 16, 2008 at 0613 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134037
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 12:32 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 86
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 02:51 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).