Posts tagged “Bakken”
A Williston Basin Primer
In my previous article Addressing the World’s Flare Gas Problem, I discussed my current project, which recently took me to the Williston Basin in North Dakota and Montana. Today, I will discuss the region’s shale oil boom in greater detail. In Part 3 of this series, I will conclude by delving into the economics of shale oil production.
The Williston Basin underlies parts of North and South Dakota, Montana, southern Saskatchewan, and southwestern Manitoba. Within the Williston Basin is the Bakken Formation, which first produced oil over 60 years ago. It was on North Dakota farmer Henry Bakken’s farm in 1953 that Amerada Petroleum — later acquired by Hess (NYSE: HES) — discovered oil at a depth of about 10,000 feet. The Bakken Formation is to date the source of most of North Dakota’s rapid oil production growth, but underneath the Bakken Formation is the Three Forks Formation, which has also begun to produce oil:
Source: US Geological Survey CONTINUE»
I don’t generally use this column to discuss the projects that I am working on. In fact, it’s been more than 2 years since I did. But I often get inquiries about where I am and what I am doing, so in today’s column I thought I would update readers who may be interested.
Since I graduated from Texas A&M in 1995 with my master’s degree in chemical engineering, I have worked for 5 companies in 10 different locations — including 3 foreign countries. Most of my work has been on energy projects. I am not going to run through my entire career here, but I will explain what brought me to my current job. If you want a full accounting, please refer to my CV.
From 2009 to 2014, I worked for a company in Hawaii called Merica International. Merica was essentially a holding company for a German entrepreneur who lived in Hawaii and invested in energy companies and technologies. Most of the published biographies for me still list Merica as my employer. In my role as Chief Technology Officer for Merica, I had the responsibility for conducting due diligence and making investment recommendations. When I joined the company, one of the major holdings was the German company Choren, which produced diesel from biomass. I first wrote about Choren back in 2008 before joining Merica. Long story short, as is often the case with new technology, startup issues dragged on and on and we finally made the decision to shut the plant down. I documented the timeline for these events in What Happened at Choren? CONTINUE»
Favorable Economics, the Permian, and Choices
In July, I wrote about the ramped up activity in the Permian Basin. The point of that story was to merely observe and document that period of time in the Basin. In the data offered over the course of several articles, the conclusion was clear: the U.S. is in the early period of another boom from U.S. production of oil, and Texas is largely the zone for the majority of the production capacity. While the Bakken Shale and the Eagle Ford receive numerous well-deserved headlines, exploration and production (E&P) firms were busy making new history in the Permian Basin.
The largest producer in the Permian Basin is Occidental Petroleum, also known as Oxy. This also makes the firm the largest producer in Texas. Pioneer Natural Resources, Apache and Kinder Morgan Production follow behind Oxy in Permian Basin production for 2012. According to the Energy Information Agency, in 2012 the U.S. imported approximately 10.6 million barrels of crude oil per day. The ratings agency Moody’s recently made an announcement about the impact of the “Permian revival” on exploration and production (E&P) firms. In their communication, they mention producers speculate that the full development of the Wolfcamp Shale could result in 2 million barrels a day — more than the 1970s peak for the entire basin. That is nearly 20% of U.S. daily imports. When might that happen? Hard to say.
Later this week I intend to start a series covering the recently released BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2013. However, first I want to follow up on last week’s post The Increasing Irrelevance of the Keystone XL Debate. With few exceptions, the post was well-received by people on both sides of the debate. There was some reasonable debate on the post on my Twitter feed, and much less rancor. I think only one person accused me of being an “enemy combatant” while most recognized that I am sincerely trying to shine a light on a problem that I see as orders of magnitude worse than Keystone XL.
The primary objection to my argument over the irrelevancy of Keystone XL is the same one that has been voiced in the past. It is that the Keystone XL project itself may be relatively insignificant, but add up many Keystone XL projects and you get a big effect. The only problem is that this really isn’t even true.
In last week’s article I referenced a 2012 paper by Neil C. Swart and Andrew J. Weaver from the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria published in Nature Climate Change. That paper contained a graphic that I shared on Twitter, and it got quite a bit of commentary. The graphic shows the relative potential warming contributions of various fossil fuel resources:
Keystone XL’s Insignificant Contribution to Climate
Last week President Obama unveiled a new plan to combat climate change in a speech at Georgetown University. While there is generally broad consensus that his comments further threaten the already battered US coal industry, his comments on TransCanada’s (TSX: TRP, NYSE: TRP) Keystone XL pipeline project had pundits guessing at his meaning. Here is what the President said in his speech about Keystone XL:
Now, I know there’s been, for example, a lot of controversy surrounding the proposal to build a pipeline, the Keystone pipeline, that would carry oil from Canadian tar sands down to refineries in the Gulf. And the State Department is going through the final stages of evaluating the proposal. That’s how it’s always been done. But I do want to be clear: Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation’s interest. And our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. The net effects of the pipeline’s impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward. It’s relevant.
The reason that there have been widely differing views on the President’s intentions boils down to his use of the phrase “only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.” The State Department’s Draft Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Keystone XL Pipeline project already concluded that approval of the project would have little impact on global carbon dioxide emissions or on the development of the oil sands because of their view that the oil will get to market one way or another. More on that below. CONTINUE»
Last week the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provided an update of oil and gas resources in the Bakken region. This was their first update since a 2008 report that estimated mean undiscovered volumes of 3.65 billion barrels of oil and 1.85 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the region. The new estimate includes the Three Forks formation which largely lies underneath the Bakken in the Williston Basin that sprawls across North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and southern Saskatchewan.
The new USGS assessment stated that the Three Forks formation had not been previously assessed, but that an assessment was warranted based on a rise in drilling and production in the formation. Inclusion of the Three Forks formation added an estimated mean resource of 3.73 billion barrels of oil to the estimated 3.65 billion barrels of oil in the Bakken formation for a total estimated resource of 7.4 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in the two formations. The two formations were also estimated to contain a mean of 6.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of undiscovered, technically recoverable natural gas and 0.53 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable natural gas liquids (NGLs). CONTINUE»
Since 2005, the “total oil supply” for the United States as reported by the Energy Information Administration increased by 2.2 million barrels per day. Of this, 1.3 mb/d, or 60%, has come from natural gas liquids and biofuels, which really shouldn’t be added to conventional crude production for purposes of calculating the available supply. Of the 800,000 b/d increase in actual field production of crude oil, almost all of the gain has come from shale and other tight formations that horizontal fracturing methods have only recently opened up. Here I offer some thoughts on how these new production methods change the overall outlook for U.S. oil production.
Let me begin by clarifying that “shale oil” and “oil shale” refer to two completely different resources. “Oil shale” is in fact not shale and does not contain oil, but is instead a rock that at great monetary and environmental cost can yield organic compounds that could eventually be made into oil. Although some people have long been optimistic about the potential amount of energy available in U.S. oil-shale deposits, I personally am pessimistic that oil shale will ever be a significant energy source.
The Difference Between Oil Shale and Oil from Shale Formations
There has been some confusion lately about the overall extent of U.S. oil reserves. Some claim that the U.S. has hundreds of billions or even trillions of barrels of oil waiting to be produced if the Obama Administration will simply stop blocking development. So, I thought it might be a good idea to elaborate somewhat on the issue.
Oil production has been increasing in the U.S., primarily driven by expanding production from the Bakken Shale Formation in North Dakota and the Eagle Ford Shale in Texas. The oil that is being produced from these shale formations is sometimes improperly referred to as shale oil. When politicians speak of hundreds of billions or trillions of barrels of U.S. oil, they are most likely talking about the oil shale in the Green River Formation in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Some have assumed that since we are accessing the shale in North Dakota and Texas, the Green River Formation and its roughly 2 trillion barrels of oil resources will be developed next. But these are very different types of resources. CONTINUE»
Here’s my suggestion for how to become rich: buy low and sell high.
It’s a strategy that works for individuals, and can work for the entire nation as well. If you can figure out a way to find resources whose value in their current use is not very great– in other words, if you buy low– and redeploy them somewhere else where their value is much greater– in other words, sell high– then you will not only add to your personal wealth, you will be creating new wealth for society as a whole. The process of allocating resources to their most efficient use is the heart of what drives economic growth. The fact that individuals have a strong personal incentive always to be looking for better ways to do that is the primary factor responsible for the standard of living that we enjoy today.
Let me give a concrete example of what I’m talking about. On Friday, you could buy a barrel of light, sweet crude oil produced in North Dakota for less than $81. On that same day, oil refiners in Port Arthur on the coast of Texas were paying around $110 to import a similar grade of oil produced in Nigeria. That’s $30 worth of incentive to you to try to figure out a way to transport oil from North Dakota to Port Arthur in order to replace a barrel of imported Nigerian oil with Williston sweet. As a nation, if we could divert some of the resources we are currently devoting to pay for oil imported from Nigeria, and use them instead to enable the Port Arthur refinery to get its oil from North Dakota, we will become richer.
Buy low, sell high.
So there’s a very concrete mission. How can you go about implementing it?