Oil May Be Finite, But U.S. Production Is Ramping Up

Hugh Pickens writes "The WSJ reports that the discovery of the gigantic and prolific Bakken oil fields of Montana and North Dakota have already helped move the U.S. into third place among world oil producers, and according to Harold Hamm, CEO of Continental Resources, the 14th-largest oil company in America, if fully developed the field in Bakken contains 24 billion barrels, doubling America's proven oil reserves. One reason for America's abundant supply of oil and natural gas has been the development of new drilling techniques, including 'horizontal drilling,' which allows rigs to reach two miles into the ground and then spread horizontally by thousands of feet." Not surprisingly, Hamm considers some of the current administration's loans and subsidies for alternative energy ventures to be misplaced.

Comments

Don't they get it

[pcjunky]

No matter how much oil we find here it would be unwise to burn. Hot planet!

Re:Don't they get it

[bunratty]

You're going to die no matter what, so who cares if you smoke and eat junk food all day? Sounds like a rationalization to do what you want to without regards to the consequences.

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

So they maybe found enough for three years and a half years of consumption at current rates. The problem is now truly solved.

Re:Reserves isn't the only reason...

[rapierian]

Has he never heard of CO2? Why would any sane person want to burn all that and turn it into CO2?

Oh, yeah, profit. Fuck the Earth and all future generations, there's profit to be made! I can own sixteen mansions instead of twelve and have a bigger yacht.

Because the only people who make any money are the CEOs with the twelve mansions you mention? What about the tens of thousands of jobs that we could use in our economy, right now - or the fact that energy prices are climbing precisely when Americans are suffering through the toughest economic times since the 1920s?

Idiot

[vlm]

Not surprisingly, Hamm considers some of the current administration's loans and subsidies for alternative energy ventures to be misplaced.

That guy is an idiot.

24e9 barrels / 20e6 barrels per day just for the US / 365 days per year = a bit more than a 3 year supply, assuming it can all be recovered. Realistic recovery ratios are always WAY less than 100%... Figure just several months supply, realistically.

So, some 1%er will make hundreds of billions of profit.. nice for him... and 3 years later, we'll be wishing you had a solar panel...

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

Re:Idiot

[chrb]

People have been saying that since 1920... well... they said it would run out in 1920... and then they said it would run out in 1950... and then they said it would run out in 1980... and then they said it would run out in 2000...

I get it. I was running a little short on breakfast cereal this week. I thought that my remaining breakfast reserves would run out on Thursday, but I managed to reduce consumption a little by only eating three quarters of a bowl. And then on Friday I added some fruit to eke it out a bit further. On Saturday I discovered some leftover bread and ate that. So here I am, on Sunday, and I still have some bread left. THEREFORE I CONCLUDE THAT I WILL NEVER HAVE TO GO SHOPPING AGAIN AS I WILL NEVER, EVER RUN OUT OF BREAKFAST RESERVES. WHEN MY RESERVES ARE LOW, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE NEW FOOD TO DISCOVER IN MY KITCHEN.

See any problem here?

Re:Idiot

[AbRASiON]

Christ you deniers freak me out. It's simple mathematics. The stuff is finite, we've been tapping it for years, it's beginning to reduce in discoveries and production, in the very least - less is being found. It doesn't 'magically grow back' - logically we should be preparing for the possibility that we simply have none.

Same with the 'keep breeding' crowd. Finite sized rock with finite resources, oxygen, water, food capable land, wood, oil, minerals, hell even finite real estate for solar panels.

Simple logic dictates we must be sensible about this. Infact DECENT logic actually implies we should abso-damn-loutely be self sufficient, capable of living indefinitely, assuming the sun doesn't die out (soon) - however it will (eventually)

Humanity is reducing the quantity of fish, wood and minerals from the planet, we simply can't live how we live now, it's simple mathematics and logic. It makes utterly no sense to be anything BUT self sufficient for the long haul.

Re:Idiot

[thetoadwarrior]

So we completely fuck up a lovely piece of nature for about a year's worth of oil? This of course assume they don't cock it up and spill half of it all over the countryside.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy#Opposing_views

The DOE reported that annual United States consumption of crude oil and petroleum products was 7.55 billion barrels (1.200×109 m3) in 2006 and again in 2007, totaling 15.1 billion barrels (2.40×109 m3).[38] In comparison, the USGS estimated that the ANWR reserve contains 10.4 billion barrels (1.65×109 m3). Although, only 7.7 billion barrels (1.22×109 m3) were thought to be within the proposed drilling region.[17]

It's true green sources aren't quite ready yet but it would make more sense to pour money into improving those rather than dicking about and ruining our countryside to delay the inevitable by a year.

Re:Thank .

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind of sounds like a drug addict. "I'm going to quit eventually, but right now I need that hit."

Re:Thank .

[bunratty]

Gas was as expensive as it is now when Bush was in office. In any case, your argument is post hoc ergo proper hoc.

Re:We're reached peak oil!

[Ichijo]

But for now we're just fine.

That reminds me about the man who fell off a tall building, and every time he passed another floor he said to himself, "so far, so good!"

Re:Reserves isn't the only reason...

[SlippyToad]

What about the tens of thousands of jobs that we could use in our economy, right now

Renewables are much more likely to produce jobs, and improve our economic outlook. Continuing to service the needs of the oil companies has not improved our economic outlook for a decade now. Why do you think it might suddenly start?

Re:Reserves isn't the only reason...

[Pinky's Brain]

This guy can't drill oil at low prices ... it's the increased price which is making shale oil profitable, and then only just (which is why he's crying for subsidies, to make even less easily recovered oil profitable). There are security reasons to have your own oil supply, but cheap it's never going to become again.

Wind/Solar and "synthetic natural gas" [sic] have much a better chance of getting large cost reductions going forward.

Re:Thank .

[lintux]

Assuming you're indeed an American, quit whining about gas prices and it "killing the economy". Apparently one dollar per liter is currently considered "zomg expensive" (ref: http://gasbuddy.com/gb_gastemperaturemap.aspx). In Europe, ten years ago, one liter costed anything between 99 and 109 EUROcents (that's $1.32-$1.45). You don't even want to know what they're paying there now.

Re:Reserves isn't the only reason...

[mcgrew]

Ask your grandpa what a factory was like before the EPA. Environmentalism a luxury in poor countries? Yeah, and so is food.

You have no right to dirty up MY air and water. Clean air is my right.

This is a complete myth

[Kupfernigk]

You have it exactly backwards. If you were right, why was there so much innovation in the UK in WW2, when there were food and fuel shortages? In fact, if the economy is at a lower base and the costs of labor are lower, it is cheaper to adapt. If people are simply used to very expensive living standards, they will resist change. A good example is that the US was more affected than Europe by oil price rises - because the average European house is half the size of the average US house, the average European car uses half as much fuel - so individuals were actually less affected.

The idea that only an oil-intensive economy is capable of adaptation is laughable.

Re:Reserves isn't the only reason...

[Lockejaw]

Because his "no warming since 1998" claim relies on some serious cherry-picking of temperature data, and he's afraid of people linking this dishonesty back to him.

You'd think /. ers would be better at math.

[gestalt_n_pepper]

OK, guys here's the deal.

First review the numbers around oil (i.e. how much we've got and what that means energetically). For that, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil

Then look here to see how much we have access to in the USA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_the_United_States.

I'd refer everyone to a web site for consumption rates, but the ballpark answer is that the world uses 28-30 billion barrels of oil per year, and the USA uses between 7-8 billion barrels per year. We have about 1.4 trillion barrels of technically recoverable conventional oil left. Perhaps about 50% of that is economically recoverable today. Perhaps a bit more as prices rise, if prices don't rise enough to break the world's supply chains or cause nationalistic hoarding - two very distinct possibilities.

The most optimistic assumptions regarding conventional oil that's both energetically and economically profitable is about 40 years max. Realistically, expect about half that. After that, we're um, scraping the bottom of the barrel. Oil doesn't disappear (It never will). We just won't be using it as much. Too expensive energetically and economically.

Bottom line? All the "Drill ANWR and we're saved " idiots would have us destroy the Alaska ecosystem for about 2 years extension of our oil supply. Every moronic Reuters news story that so breathlessly reports that over 1 billion barrels of oil have been found ignores the fact that 1 billion barrels is less than 2 months supply just for the USA, much less the planet.

There are plenty of alternatives and solutions, just none that involve having 7 billion people or more living on Earth in the year 2100 using as much energy as an American uses today.