New drilling method opens vast oil fields in US

[abelenkpe]

New drilling method opens vast oil fields in US

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110210/ap_on_re_us/us_shale_oil

A new drilling technique is opening up vast fields of previously out-of-reach oil in the western United States, helping reverse a two-decade decline in domestic production of crude.

Companies are investing billions of dollars to get at oil deposits scattered across North Dakota, Colorado, Texas and California. By 2015, oil executives and analysts say, the new fields could yield as much as 2 million barrels of oil a day — more than the entire Gulf of Mexico produces now.

(snip)

Oil engineers are applying what critics say is an environmentally questionable method developed in recent years to tap natural gas trapped in underground shale. They drill down and horizontally into the rock, then pump water, sand and chemicals into the hole to crack the shale and allow gas to flow up.

(more at link)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My six year old asked me the other day: "Why don't people just stop polluting?"

Really, why don't we stop polluting? If a source of energy requires that we destroy the environment to obtain it, shouldn't that be a good enough reason to look for a different source of energy? This seems really short sighted and well....mind bogglingly stupid. What say you DU?

[liberal N proud]

1. "Pump water, sand and chemicals into the hole"

Why does this not sound like a very good idea?

:wtf:

[ixion]

3. Not a good idea, and the oil derived is poor quality and more expensive to refine

so I think the happy talk about 2 mln barrels a day is misleading, at best.

[WCGreen]

7. It's a gussied up way of describing Fracking....

[Greybnk48]

2. Watch "Gasland" it's terrifying.

No matter what your complaint is about this documentary (if you have one), it's hard to refute flaming tap water and sick and dying animals.

[Octafish]

6. The part where none of the oil company people will drink the tap water was telling.

The outstanding documentary also details how the oil and gas industry is exempt from the provisions of the Clean Water Act, thanks to one Richard Bruce Cheney.

[Newest Reality]

8. + 1000

People might be surprised just how prevalent hydraulic fracturing, (frac'ing) is and how many noxious chemicals are being pumped into the ground here in the US. It has been going on for a long time. Then, there are the harmful gasses continuously released into the air at the sites.

Watch the movie and find out if you are in a "red zone". You are not going to like what you learn from this movie, but it will give you a better idea of just how detrimental to health and environment the energy industries can be. How do they get away with it, you might ask?

[Dappleganger]

10. Good recommendation...

it's truly a tragedy what happened there.

[abelenkpe]

17. I would like to see that

Is there a way to watch online? Lemmeno. Thanks!

[HereSince1628]

4. Stupid takes a distant backseat to PROFIT

Profit is way way WAY more important than environmental protection, and the democrats and the Obama administration seem to agree with the environmental rapists.

Clean water in aquifers in the western united states, where water limits EVERYTHING certainly couldn't possibly be a problem. Just LOOK AT THE WEST the PROBLEM(!!!!)is the dry climate ON THE SURFACE! No one gives a shit about what's going on in the rocks under their feet. It's just not important!

[KamaAina]

5. California? Excellent! We'll be drowning in tax revenue!

oh, wait a minute. We're the only oil-producing jurisdiction on Earth that does not have an oil severance tax. And since it takes a two-thirds supermajority to raise taxes here, the minority repuke party can simply hold its breath until it turns blue to make sure it stays that way. :eyes:

[abelenkpe]

18. CA is very silly not to tax oil producers

I agree. Also concerned that this type of oil extraction will take a toll on the health of people living in the state, as we do. Would like my son to live a long long long healthy happy life, like all parents. :)

He is very concerned about the ocean since seeing a lot of trash and dead birds around the Santa Monica pier. I think it was just a particularly trashy day and not a normal occurrence but he didn't want to go in the water saying: "It's killed the birds." I'm not sure why he's so sensitive about this stuff, but am kind of proud of him for being so observant.

Maybe there are better spots to enjoy the ocean?

[du_da]

24. This is where we should be using the current political climate against them

It would not take much to get the tea party types on board for a usage tax on the public resources that are being pulled out of the ground, marketed, and sold by private firms. That is the type of thing we could make progress on. Especially since this would not be a tax on income, which is their big grief. The key of course would be not taxing our production out of the market, they wouldn't go for that.

[Strelnikov_]

9. Whoo-hoo, only 6 more 2 Mbbl/dy pipedreams to energy independence

Not that independence will mean much price wise, to the consumer, for a fungible commodity traded on a world wide market like petroleum.

The Grand Oil Party oligarchs will make out like bandits, though.

[abelenkpe]

19. We use that much a day??

Where did you find that info? Any help greatly appreciated.

[MadHound]

25. Actually it's more like 20 million bbl/day,

<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption>

[Strelnikov_]

26. Back of the envelope figures

http://www.eia.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec5_5.pdf

2005

US consumption ~ 20.802 Mbbl/dy
Imports ~ 12.549 Mbbl/dy ~ 60.3% consumption


2008

US consumption ~ 19.498 Mbbl/dy
Imports ~ 11.114 Mbbl/dy ~ 57.0% consumption

So, at 2008 levels, we only need 4.557 more 2 Mbbl/dy pipedreams.

[FBaggins]

28. They're far more than "pipedreams"

It looks like environmental concerns are all that remains in their way. The 2 million bpd in five years is a very real possibility and if oil prices remain high we'll almost certainly see more than double that in ten years.

The supply is there to completely eliminate foreign sources of oil... but it means a while lot of drilling here in the U.S. - and with technology that not everyone has gotten comfortable with yet.

[Strelnikov_]

30. "supply is there to completely eliminate foreign sources of oil."

Where?

What domestic sources do we have that can be exploited to yield 120% of the production of KSA?

[FBaggins]

32. Did you not read the OP?

We've always known that there were truly massive supplies of oil beneath parts of the U.S. (many times the Saudi reserves) - there just wasn't an economical way to get to them. Just a few years ago, we thought there was technology to get to some of this at something around $100-150/bbl, which didn't make sense unless oil prices continued to climb.

However, the stuff they're getting out now has been significantly below that cost and there's every reason to believe that they can improve on it as they refine (no pun intended) the technique.

The 2 million bpd by 2015 is by no means a maximum production figure, it's just the fastest that they can ramp up their drilling operations. It barely scratches the surface of what's possible... particularly if oil prices continue to climb.

That climbing price is really the key to what I meant when I said that we could eliminate oil imports. Not that we could produce 12 million bpd in 15 years (though I won't rule it out), but that my expectations are that oil internationally will continue to become more expensive, so we will continue to expand alternative technologies and efficiencies. A big part of that gap will be closed by simply using less of the stuff.


The key remains the environmental impact. There's more energy in coal in just a couple eastern states than all the oil the Saudis ever had... but who wants to burn coal for our energy needs?

[FBaggins]

11. What sources of energy *don't* damage the environment?

By which I obviously mean substantial energy... not just puttin up a sail to move your boat.

Solar panels require mining for the elements that make the panels. Wind turbines require large amounts of steel and magnets. Most hydro involved building a dam across a river. Nuclear involved lots of building materials plus mining for uranium (etc). Of course oil/gas/coal all involve significant destruction of the environment.

It's like reading about a cattle farm's process and asking why we just don't stop killing cows... we should just get it at the grocery store where they don't kill animals.

[abelenkpe]

16. I understand your point

but don't think that will get me very far with my son. He really only likes to eat black beans, rice and strawberries. So he'd be on board with not killing cows. I'd love to get him to eat something else...anything else. Six years of black beans is enough to drive anyone insane :)

Solar and wind still don't seem to be as damaging though. Told my little guy he needs to study science and math and then he can help find a new sustainable source of energy.

[earthside]

12. EROEI

EROEI:

"In physics, energy economics and ecological energetics, EROEI (energy returned on energy invested), ERoEI, or EROI (energy return on investment), is the ratio of the amount of usable energy acquired from a particular energy resource to the amount of energy expended to obtain that energy resource. When the EROEI of a resource is equal to or lower than 1, that energy source becomes an "energy sink", and can no longer be used as a primary source of energy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI">Wikipedia

Even if more petroleum is pumped-up out of the ground using this fracturing method, the problem increasingly becomes the amount of energy it takes to get a barrel of oil, then refined and distributed for use.

So, this won't be cheap oil (especially by current American standards) -- either economically or physically.

In other words, very little to get excited about.

[FBaggins]

14. EROEI is an overly-simplistic concept.

It ignores what kind of energy is input and what you get as a result. Solar is great (at least in many cases), but it can't give you plastics... and you can't drive across country on it.

But if you use that solar power to drive an oil extraction process... you could have an EROEI well below 1 and still have a process worth performing. Same thing for wind turbines or nuclear power. Oil isn't just a source of energy (or really at all if you think about it), but it IS a fuel. A low EROEI that exchages non-fuel sources for efficient fuels is still worth doing.

So, this won't be cheap oil

There isn't any "cheap" oil left (in large quantities) in this country. The days are long gone when you could be out "shooting for some food... and up from the ground came a-bubblin crude". But that doesn't mean that this method is quite as expensive as you imply if the process is at all similar to the "fracking" they're doing for NatGas.

Two million bpd that wasn't expected even a few years ago (and where the money is going to american workers and american landowners) is most certainly worthy of a little attention. It doesn't solve all the world's energy needs by any means... but it's still good news.

Assuming they can ever refine the process so that it isn't substantially more environmentally damaging than more traditional extraction techniques.

[Strelnikov_]

27. Hammer Hits Nail

Peak oil will result in demand for a price inelastic commodity chasing too little, and eventually declining, supply. Price transients will wreak economic havoc to capitalist economies similar to the 70' shocks. A persistent recession will ensue.

But it is the thermodynamic aspect of peak oil that will lead to the 2nd Great Depression. As the decline in conventional oil accelerates, EROEI (thermodynamics) will at a minimum severely depress, and probably destroy, capitalist economies.

All of the post-peak supply mitigation options have net energy returns well below those of even today’s conventional oil. This means we will have to work hard just to replace the Quads of conventional oil energy lost. Growth in energy supply will not be possible, therefore the economic growth required by capitalist economies will also not be possible.

That said, there is no reason that with sound leadership through the transition a vibrant economy with sustainability and quality of life as goals cannot emerge at the other end of the ‘Long Emergency’. This economy would probably be a fusion of socialist principles on the macro scale and free market on the micro scale.

The other individual that responded to your post exhibits the typical fallacy regarding EROEI.

Consider the following statement: "solar power to drive an oil extraction process... you could have an EROEI well below 1 and still have a process worth performing."

It appears that the control volume assumed in this individual's analysis encompasses the corporate ledger, and not the thermodynamic reality. As you quote "EROEI of a resource is equal to or lower than 1, that energy source becomes an "energy sink", and can no longer be used as a primary source of energy."

How does a modern industrial society survive without harvesting energy (EROEI>1). Answer, it does not.

The gross energy required from a replacement energy source to yield the same net energy is estimated by the following equation. Note the receding horizon as the EROEI of the replacement energy source approaches 1.5.

Q2 = ((1 – 1 / ER1) / (1 – 1 / ER2)) x Q1

ER ~ EROEI
Q ~Gross Energy
Q1, ER1 ~ Current energy source
Q2, ER2 ~ Replacement energy source

Ratio Q2 / Q1 for typical EROEI values

. . . . . . . .ER1
ER2. . . .10. . . . 20
5.0. . . 1.125. . .1.188
2.5. . . 1.500. . .1.583
1.5. . . 2.700. . .2.850

Available to society. Not "available to fatten the corporate bottom line"

[FBaggins]

29. Sorry... that's wrong.

How does a modern industrial society survive without harvesting energy (EROEI>1). Answer, it does not.

That assumes that oil is your source of energy, rather than a fuel. It's both... and it depends on how you're using it.

Your position also relies on the assumption that EROEI will fall below 1 for these less-accessible supplies of oil. This was the argument five years ago (made frequently at the Oil Drum). Oil from shale was just too hard to get to.

They were wrong.

It's the same mistake that peak-oil theorists always make. They ignore technological advances.

Yes... "peak oil" is very real, but that doesn't mean that it was reached two years ago... or will be reached six months from now... or ten years from now. All estimates necessarily rest on the assumption "given today's technology". If some genius comes up with real fusion power tomorrow morning, oil's use an an energy supply almost entirely fades away overnight. We need it only for plastics (and eventually not even that), pavement, lubricants (etc), and fuel for awhile. Oil production will crash... but not because of a Hubbert-esque "peak", but because we don't need it any longer. You could extract shale oil at an EROEI well below 1.0 and still have it make plenty of sense. What's the EROEI of copper mining? Salt mining?

Do I expect it? Of course not... but that's the extreme example. I was on TOD about five years ago when one of the world's best-known peak-oil theorists said "As we know, natural gas production has already peaked in North America." They all knew that there was plenty of gas in the U.S., but it was harder and harder to get to and we wouldn't be able to economically expand production. It would be a long plateau... but we were on our way back down.

Of course we now know that the statement was utterly wrong. Technology changes things. Sometimes rapidly.

Who knows? We might even wake up twenty years from now to find that we're an oil-exporting country.


EROEI simply isn't the concern. Environmental impact is.

[Strelnikov_]

31. Then we are in disagreement

How one can believe that net energy yield does not matter when considering energy supply is beyond me. Guess creative construction of control volumes helps.

[FBaggins]

33. Not really... you're just refusing to read what I posted.

How one can believe that net energy yield does not matter when considering energy supply is beyond me.

The key to the "EROEI isn't as important as you say" argument is that is isn't considering energy supply... because oil is not just an energy supply.

Think about the question that I asked: What's the EROEI on copper mining? It's awful... but we don't stop mining copper because we aren't mining it as an energy source. We just want copper. In a world where cleaner forms of energy rule (wind/solar/nuclear/hydro/etc), you still want oil. Not as much of it and not for all the same purposes, but you still want it. You pave your roads with it, get your plastics from it, and run your classic IC cars off of it. But you don't particularly care that it takes you more energy to get the stuff out of the ground than you get out of it... because you want the stuff and you have the energy.

If you think that all oil does is provide energy, you're right. If it costs you more energy to get it than you get out of it, it makes no sense. We're in agreement. But it does far more than that...


...and more importantly, the EROEI for shale oil is well above 1.0 and it's climbing rapidly. That was the real error in post #12 and your reply. It's what many believed several years ago when we thought that oil from shale was going to involve "cooking" the shale in-situ or mining the stuff like the Canadians do with their "sands" (only at a higher cost). Those concerns have already been proven wrong.



On edit - Once again... this line of thought ignores the environmental impact.

[hatrack]

13. Hydraulic Fracturing - It's TOTALLY NEW!!!! Horizontal Drilling - it's TOTALLY NEW!!!!

Steam Injection - it's TOTALLY NEW!!!!

CO2 Flooding - it's TOTALLY NEW!!!!

Helium Injection - it's TOTALLY NEW!!!!

Water Flooding - it's TOTALLY NEW!!!!

Drill Bits - they're TOTALLY NEW!!!!

Hammers - they're TOTALLY NEW!!!!!

The Stupid is strong with the author of this article.

[Yavin4]

15. "I Drink Your Milkshake. I Drink It All Up."

"Draaaaaaaainnnnnnage. Draaaaaaaiiiinnnage. Eli, you boy."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsQcS0zr4tM&feature=related

[w8liftinglady]

20. Um...Fracking has been a major issue in Texas for a while.Please don't let it happen in your state

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fracking

[katnapped]

22. Aw come on now

Don't you love being able to set your tap water on fire? :sarcasm:

"Mah natchrul gas companee Range Resources"

[BlueIris]

21. I thought for damn sure this was an Onion article.

Oh, my sweet Lord.

[howaboutme]

23. Ba , but, but this creates jobs

Didn't you know that corporations that create US jobs now believe they are doing God's work and performing charity and citizenship at the highest level of generosity and philanthropy?

Politicians are believing it too, and that any business that creates a job should be permitted to rape and pillage society tax free as societies compensation to business.

They want us to believe jobs are about helping us, not for creating profits. That has become the new smoke screen of politics and their business benefactors.