Total world oil production is climbing faster that the US increase in production. As is the world consumption.
SHORT-TERM ENERGY OUTLOOK, Global Crude Oil and Liquid Fuels
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/global_oil.cfm
Posted on 07/11/2013 11:00:39 AM PDT by ckilmer
That should read footage per well, not wells per well head. It is only one well. It may have long horizontals, even multiple horizontals but it still counts as one well. It does make more productivity per well, but that is compared to the relatively low productivity of a vertical well in tight formations.
Are you seeing these two technologies in action?
I don't see data past 2010. Have you found another source?
Crude Oil and Natural Gas Exploratory and Development Wells
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_enr_wellend_s1_a.htm
I don't think most people understand that even today, 1/3 of all Exploratory wells are still dry holes. Dry doesn't mean nothing found, but not enough to be commercially viable in today's technology and economic conditions.
But in the 1980s, that was in the 70~76% range. Development wells (well drilled within the proved area of an oil or gas reservoir to the depth of a stratigraphic horizon known to be productive) are naturally more productive.
Did the Teslas ever complete the Consumer Reports testing? As I recall, the car supplied had a massive electrical [battery?] failure that required the car go back to Tesla for a $40K overhaul. After it got back, the CR test people were afraid to drive the car out of cell phone range because they feared being stranded if the car died again.
I'd say Elon Musk's Tesla has a long way to be ready for prime time.
Did the Teslas ever complete the Consumer Reports testing?
http://grist.org/news/tesla-gets-best-consumer-reports-auto-review-of-all-time/
http://www.businessinsider.com/consumer-reports-gives-tesla-s-top-score-2013-5
The real problem is going to be the Obama EPA that's committed to closing coal-fired generating plants. The Tesla (and all other EV) need to plug-in to recharge their batteries. What happens when these suicidal EPA regs bite and shutdown generating plants needed to charge those batteries. Wind and solar won't cut it.
Wind and solar won’t cut it.
.....
Well there’s the rub. I’m not sure that I disagree with you but the Obama admin and Tesla do.
Musk’s cousin heads up one of the biggest solar companies now. Solar companies have the back side of the problem that the electric car has. The short of it is that solar companies need more and better batteries available to make their technology work. ie solar needs to store energy cheaply easily with batteries and tesla needs use energy from batteries cheaply and easily.
So their working on it. Tesla won’t come out with a midrange 30k car for another 4 years. So you figure they’re figuring that they’ll have the more/better batteries four years from now.
They might be right. They might not.
The reason Tesla stock is running up so high is not because of any particular confidence in their car—so much as confidence that investors have in elon musk.
He’s thought of as being in the same league as Bill Gates or Steve Jobs.
But you are claiming 16.19 MMBPD.
No, I’m claiming that production —if it continues to climb at current rates of 1 million barrels@day—from 2013 through 2017—that’s 5 years—will increase US oil production by 5 million barrels@ day.
Today US oil production is somewhere in the neighborhood of +-7.3 million barrels@ day.
So add roughly 5 million barrels @ day to 7 million barrels @ day by the end if 2017 — and we’re talking about 12 million barrels@ day US oil production at the end of 2017.
Production rates may well be near 8 million barrels@ day by the end of 2013—so to get to just 10 million barrels@ day by 2017—would mean that daily production rate growth would have to be cut in half. That is from 2014 to 2017 or 4 years —to get from 8 million barrels @ day to 10 million barrels a day over 4 years...—would require production increases of 500,000 barrels@ day...or half of today’s 1 million barrels@ day production increases.
I believe your argument is that the high rate of growth has been achieved because the drillers have been able to re purpose natural gas drilling rigs to oil production—something they won’t be able to do in the future as the stock of natural gas rigs has been depleted and the price of natural gas is rising with demand.
On the other hand — even with steeply declining production rates for natural gas wells and fewer rigs drilling. The natural gas industry has been able to maintain output.
This has to mean that they’re doing a lot more with less.
Same might happen with the oil drillers. They might be able to get their existing rigs to produce much more so as to maintain high growth rates even as the number of new rigs coming into the oil patch declines.
I believe that’s what drillers are anticipating in the cline shale formation. The oil bearing layers are thick and stacked on top of each other. So much more oil can be pulled out per well.
What actually happens is anyone’s guess. We’ll see
That will leave us importing ~4 MMBPD crude oil and not a net exporter where this discussion began.
Perhaps I should have said Petroleum, not specific crude oil. Still not a net exporter.
I just disagree with your projects of incredible growth that would have to be combined with no rise in consumption in a few years.
...........
The gap between brent and WTI prices is steadily narrowing.
Unlike natural gas in the USA which is set by purely domestic supply and demand —oil prices reflect worldwide supply and demand
Right now supply and demand world wide for oil is pretty tightly balanced. While US supply is rising sharply, oil production rates in a half dozen major fields around the world are falling. The US and Iraq are about the only two countries in the world with rising production rates. The result is that net supply around the world is not increasing all that much-if at all.
It will be another 5-10 years before the fracking revolution hits other parts of the world and total net supply starts rising in a big way.
At the same time net demand is increasing slowly.
So yeah, you could easily get to a scenario where the USA is producing another 5 million barrels@ day in five years—without the price of oil declining substantially. Why? because the extra oil would go elsewhere to fill gaps in production from other fields around the world in the face of rising demand.
Now I don’t think it will happen that way. Why? Because I’m just projecting out current trends. Current trends historically have not lasted all that long. Because the picture that the oil industry presents today is radically different than the one presented 5 years ago. Likely 5 years from now things may look very different as well.
Total world oil production is climbing faster that the US increase in production. As is the world consumption.
SHORT-TERM ENERGY OUTLOOK, Global Crude Oil and Liquid Fuels
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/global_oil.cfm
That would only happen, if our demand fell significantly. We still would not be meeting our current demand in your scenario.
Total world oil production is climbing faster that the US increase in production. As is the world consumption.
SHORT-TERM ENERGY OUTLOOK, Global Crude Oil and Liquid Fuels
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/global_oil.cfm
............
so I clicked on the link. this is what it showed.
Years under consideration 2011 2012 2013 2014
Total World Consumption 88.38 89.17 90.05 91.29
Total World Production 87.33 89.14 89.89 91.41
Conclusion: at least for the next two years supply and demand look to be fairly tightly balanced.
It essentially always is. World stock levels vary monthly but they are not going to keep climbing or falling too long or OPEC makes a change to keep the price in line with their desires.
World stock levels vary monthly but they are not going to keep climbing or falling too long or OPEC makes a change to keep the price in line with their desires.
............
The argument that I’ve heard is that X years from now—if US production rises as much as forcast—then OPEC will lose its ability to push prices around.
We’ll essentially return the pre 1970 era.
That will happen anyway in 15-20 years given the shale oil reserves in so many parts of the world.
My understanding is that since John D Rockefeller starting pulling out oil from Western Pennsylvania to today...the entire world has only extracted about 10% of the oil available. The only oil extracted was that below salt domes or other formations that trapped oil coming up from source rock.
The source rock itself was uneconomical to drill for oil.
What fracking has done is make it economical to drill for oil in the source rock. Even then they’re only getting another 30% of the total oil available.
But that next 30% represents three times the amount of commercially available oil reserves in the USA and the world than has ever been extracted from the ground since the beginning of the oil age.
Anyhow that’s my understanding of the matter. How does that compare with your understanding?
Reserves are not production rates. Venezuela, Canada have shown that.
Reserves are not production rates. Venezuela, Canada have shown that.
.............
I think I understand your point with Venezuela. (Like yeah they got reserves—but they ain’t going to be producing much any time soon.)
What’s your point with Canada.
They have reserves rivaling Saudi but their production rate doesn’t come close to Saudi. Oil Sands have been under production for 5 decades.
Just having massive reserves doesn’t quickly grow the production rate quickly. It takes a lot to grow as large as you imagine is going to happen in 5 years.
Oh well, put that way sure. But much of saudi oil is easy oil.
The tar sands do not make for easy extraction.
The USA has the most oil in the world in the green river basin but its locked up in oil shale kerigen. It’ll take another technological revolution to get that oil out at a competitive price. Plus a change of government policy.
(that technological revolution will be a collapse in the cost of electricity to 1/4-10th current lowest coal/natural gas costs. imho that will happen when get the thorium reactors up and running in 10 years or the great by and by.)
why electricity? for insitu mining fully half the cost of extraction is the cost of electricity.
Most of US current shale oil is on private lands and its within the cost/technolgy boundaries for extraction.
So production will keep rising until falling prices choke off new drilling.
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.