Posted on 06/19/2012 5:22:58 AM PDT by thackney
The U.S. Geological Survey has released a new global estimate for potential additions to oil and gas reserves due to reserve growth in discovered fields outside the United States. The USGS estimates that the mean undiscovered, conventional reserve additions in the world total 665 billion barrels of oil (bbo), 1,429 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of natural gas, and 16 billion barrels of natural gas liquids.
These volumes constitute a significant portion of the world’s oil and gas resources and represent an estimate of the potential future growth of current global reserve estimates over time based on better assessment methodology, new technologies and greater understanding of current reservoirs, among other advances.
Reserve growth is the increase in estimated volumes of oil and natural gas that can be recovered from existing fields and reservoirs through time. Most reserve growth results from delineation of new reservoirs, field extensions, or improved recovery techniques thereby improving efficiency, and recalculation of reserves due to changing economic and operating conditions. Reserve growth estimates are a distinct component of the resource spectrum and are different from reserve estimates and undiscovered, technically recoverable resource estimates – all three important but separate measurements used in efforts by industry and government to make energy decisions based on the best available science.
The global estimates are for technically recoverable oil and gas, and do not include reserve growth estimates for the United States. Reserve growth for the United States will be released in the coming months.
"By providing geologically based, globally consistent estimates of the potential additions of oil and gas from the growth in reserves in known fields, and placing that information in the public domain, we are furnishing a valuable projection on how much and where fossil fuels may be produced in the future," said USGS Director Marcia McNutt. "When combined with our estimates of global undiscovered resources, policy makers can obtain a more complete picture of global, technically recoverable oil and gas."
No attempt was made to estimate economically recoverable oil and gas as part of these future projections. Continuous, or unconventional, oil and gas accumulations, such as shale gas, tight gas, tight oil, and tar sands were not included in this study.
Unlike past estimates of reserve growth that relied on statistical extrapolations of growth trends, the new USGS assessment is based on detailed analysis of geology and engineering practices used in producing fields. The assessment uses both published and commercial sources of geologic information and field- production data. Because of the scarcity of data for many fields outside the United States, data acquired from U.S. fields undergoing reserve growth were used as analogs, where appropriate, for this study.
Project scientists applied these analogs to 1,467 of the largest conventional oil fields outside of the United States, which, although only 9 percent of the total number of oil fields in the world, contain approximately 85 percent of the world’s known volume of oil.
In addition, scientists applied these analogs to 347 of the largest conventional gas fields, which represent just 3 percent of the world’s non-associated gas fields, but account for approximately 79 percent of the world’s volume of non-associated gas. This analysis indicates that a large proportion of the world’s resources occur in a relatively small number of fields.
USGS is the only provider of publicly available estimates of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources and reserve growth of the world. This global assessment was undertaken as part of a project assessing global petroleum basins using standardized methodology and protocol.
Good news ONLY if the EPA is completely destroyed.
It does not matter if millions of years of resources are found when you have liberal communists running the country and using the EPA as an un-elected criminal enterprise completely insulated from RICO prosecution.
Go for the Green....
The largest Oil Shale deposit though, is located right here in the United States of America. The Green River Basin Formation is estimated to hold 1.30 - 2.0 Trillion Barrels of Oil from Oil Shale deposits. Not all of this oil can be recovered.
Estimates for recoverable Oil in the Green River Basin is around 750 Billion Barrels of Oil from Oil Shale.
Did you know that this is three times more then the total oil reserves of Saudi Arabia?
http://oilshalegas.com/greenriveroilshale.html
Shale gas, tight gas, tight oil, tar sands and similar unconventional source have always been calculated separately.
Energy is life, without energy, there is no life, especially human life.
If the folks at the EPA don’t have that as a goal,
then the people pulling their strings certainly do.
That oil in the Green River formation is not recoverable with today’s technology and the recovery rate even with some new technology will only be a very small percentage of that total.
Not true. Shells Mahogany Pilot project showed it technologically and economically feasible.
But for now, only non-commercial, small, pilot projects have been permitted and not commercial production is allowed.
It is actually Kerogen, not oil that is produced. But this is easily made into a synthetic oil of high quality for use in traditional refineries.
“Energy is life, without energy, there is no life, especially human life.
If the folks at the EPA don’t have that as a goal,
then the people pulling their strings certainly do.”
You are exactly correct!
Many in this administration are bent on reducing our population and world influence by numerous means.
Some have advocated contraceptives injected into public water systems, some (actually many) are strong supporters of killing the unborn, some believe like George Bernard Shaw that older people should have to report to a government panel every few years to justify their continued existence. Can you imagine the outrage from our communist left if a Conservative had said what Shaw proposed?
And of course who except a liberal can forget (or ignore) good ole racist and lover of eugenics Margaret Sanger and her baby killing enterprise Planned Parenthood.
All the extraction methods, including Shell’s, are still in the R&D phase with no guarantees they will be feasible. For instance, the Shell project requires not only huge power resources but water in an arid region. I can’t find any info on what price point the technology becomes cost effective. Just because something is technically feasible doesn’t mean it is economically feasible.
I’m automatically suspicious of reserve estimates from the USGS, which as a group is not known for its E & P capabilities.
Thanks for this article. At the present O & G prices and rate of consumption, how much time do we have left before the Global Reserves are at 10 % remaining?
BTW, I assume that the 10 % remaining will be used only for Obama-Style Drone control of hostile populations.
...and some liberals still cling to the idea that we are “running out” of resources!
This is further proof that the left should never be trusted.
It doesn’t matter to the liberals how much of which resources we have within America. We’re supposed to go “green”.
To paraphrase Obama, we’re supposed to stop the rising of the oceans, and allow the planet to heal.
Nancy Pelosi said she has a planet to save. Although she didn’t say which planet.
They have already produced petroleum from their plant. You can question the economics as the facility scales up in size, but the technology is past being feasible.
For instance, the Shell project requires not only huge power resources but water in an arid region.
Shells process is in-situ. The water for the freeze wall is in place already in the reservoir.
I can’t find any info on what price point the technology becomes cost effective.
In 2005, the Rand study put it at crude oil prices are at least $70 to $95 per barrel (2005 dollars).
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG414.pdf
Since then the technology has improved. Shell is investing significantly and in countries where they are not held back.
They have already produced petroleum from their plant. You can question the economics as the facility scales up in size, but the technology is past being feasible.
For instance, the Shell project requires not only huge power resources but water in an arid region.
Shells process is in-situ. The water for the freeze wall is in place already in the reservoir.
I can’t find any info on what price point the technology becomes cost effective.
In 2005, the Rand study put it at crude oil prices are at least $70 to $95 per barrel (2005 dollars).
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG414.pdf
Since then the technology has improved. Shell is investing significantly and in countries where they are not held back.
http://rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=111507
http://www.josco.jo/icp-technology.html
In the US, we drag out the process for years before we can go commercial.
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2011/april/NR_04_13_2011.html
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.