Montana has oil!

[KG4JYD]

The U.S. is sitting on the world's largest, untapped oil reserves -- reservoirs which energy experts know exist, but which have not yet been tapped and may not be attainable with current technology. In fact, such untapped reserves are estimated at about 2.3 trillion barrels, nearly three times more than the reserves held by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) nations and sufficient to meet 300 years of demand -- at today's levels -- for auto, truck, aircraft, heating and industrial fuel, without importing a single barrel of oil.

With up to 100 billion barrels of oil, the reserves locked under rocks buried a mile or more beneath Montana and Saskatchewan, Canada, are more than twice the size of Alaskan's entire oil cache. New drilling and oil recovery technologies are overcoming production obstacles and petroleum companies are rushing to stake their claims. Marathon Oil recently acquired about 200,000 acres in the area and will drill about 300 oil wells within five years. Brigham Exploration and Crescent Point Energy Trust also want a piece of the action. EOG Resources alone figures it can produce 80 million barrels of oil from its Bakken field. But It will take at least five years before the oil starts flowing in large volumes.

http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/The_U.S._s_Untapped_Bounty_080630.html

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/Map.png
Also see:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3868

http://geology.com/usgs/bakken-formation/bakken-oil-production.gif
Also see:
http://geology.com/usgs/bakken-formation-oil.shtml

And see:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/05/montanas-bakken-oil.html

[KG4JYD]

Maybe this is why they considered seceding from the Union a few months back. Montana on it's own wouldn't mean much. But an oil rich Montana could potentially be economically viable:

http://www.kxmc.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=212992
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1973142/posts
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125075.html

[N2RJ]

Untapped? That's a lie.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,374243,00.html

[N2RJ]

Maybe this is why they considered seceding from the Union a few months back. Montana on it's own wouldn't mean much. But an oil rich Montana could potentially be economically viable:

http://www.kxmc.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=212992
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1973142/posts
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125075.html

That's just swell.

Suck on the federal teat if your economy is mostly agriculture, but once you strike it rich, talk of secession runs rampant.

[KU0DM]

We also sit on Geothermal deposits in the Northwest and Alaska but don't use those, as well as wind resources in many parts of the nation. Sun? It's everywhere.

The Republicans say the Democrats are the one's blocking energy growth?

[n2nh]

We also sit on Geothermal deposits in the Northwest and Alaska but don't use those, as well as wind resources in many parts of the nation. Sun? It's everywhere.

The Republicans say the Democrats are the one's blocking energy growth?

Worse yet, you have to ask why their all hot and bothered about drilling offshore of California and Florida when Colorado has bigger oil deposits? This is more about NIMBY and hitting Blue States than about an energy policy.

Good thing I don't buy gas. Or heating oil.

[KV1M]

Worse yet, you have to ask why their all hot and bothered about drilling offshore of California and Florida when Colorado has bigger oil deposits? This is more about NIMBY and hitting Blue States than about an energy policy.

Good thing I don't buy gas. Or heating oil.

Now now, the part of CA they want to drill is located in very wealthy and staunchly Republican areas. They don't like their "base" any more it seems.

And FL? Who cares. I hope it's right off Coulters little beach.

[KU0DM]

And FL? Who cares. I hope it's right off Coulters little beach.

You know...he has a point. :p

[KU0DM]

Worse yet, you have to ask why their all hot and bothered about drilling offshore of California and Florida when Colorado has bigger oil deposits? This is more about NIMBY and hitting Blue States than about an energy policy.


You said it brotha!

[AE6IP]

If the Brakken is "untapped", I'm wondering what was the source of the 30,000+ well logs my team at the Montana Burea of Mines and Geology computerized in the 1970s, from which Bob Bergantino produced beautiful maps of the geology of Northeastern Montana.

You may wish to look up the difference between "technically recoverable" and "economically feasible to recover", Matt.

[W3MIV]

You may wish to look up the difference between "technically recoverable" and "economically feasible to recover", Matt.

It is so cruel to keep pummeling him with economic realities. Eventually you will bruise his psyche.

Such as it is.

[KC4RAN]

Yeah, a lot of people are using some inaccurate terms here. People have known for a long time that shale held gas and oil. What we didn't have was a way to recover it in an economically feasible way. With the new drilling technologies that have come out over the last 10-15 years, coupled with higher oil prices, means that it is now both technically and monetarily feasible to go after the shale reserves.

What I found interesting was that the company I used to work for (EOG Resources) was mentioned in the article. I remember company meetings talking about shale plays in several places, and it looks like they're starting to pay off big time.

[N0WVA]

With such exciting news coming forth, Im sure we would all be in agreement if pRESIDENT bUSH were to propose giving more tax breaks to the oil companies or better yet, just handing them over several billion in order to figure out the best method for them to drill and sell us the oil.

I have to go to work, so I have to fill er up at the pump. I dont know about you guys, but I will stop at nothing to ensure I can keep burning dinosaur piss. Even if it means pimping myself out.

I think I will drop my pant now and invite the oil companies to have thier way with me. Its a love - love relationship.

[K0RGR]

Exhibit 1:

http://www.ewg.org/oil_and_gas/maps/index.php?maptype=active_2004

Notice where all of the active oil leases in the USA are located - right in the same area you're talking about.

Exhibit 2:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5111184

This article points out that over 83% of the oil leases in Montana are unused, and the oil companies pay $3 a year per acre for them.

“The aggressive leasing of public land pushed by the Bush administration is a land grab, pure and simple, giving industry more and more control over public land while costing taxpayers millions of dollars,” said Peter Morton, a resource economist with the Wilderness Society.

So, Exxon/Mobil and the other big guns know exactly where that oil is, and they already have drilling rights to it, indeed, they are paying for the rights to it. Why do they even want to drill in ANWR instead? As my sainted father would say, "somethin' don't figger for sour owl (expletive for manure)!".

[K5FH]

You may wish to look up the difference between "technically recoverable" and "economically feasible to recover", Matt.

He also needs to learn the difference between "possible" and "practical." Just because something is possible doesn't mean that it's practical to do it.

Come to think of it, all Libertarians need to learn the difference, too.

[N2RJ]

Like I've said many times before, the oil companies can drill and are drilling. They just aren't drilling and sucking out all of the oil from the ground, because it's more profitable to keep the oil trickling and make a killing.

Firstly, there is no shortage of oil.

Secondly, we are drilling and producing our own oil. See the foxnews article I linked a few posts ago. We just aren't producing all of it at once. That's because the oil companies are sitting on the drilling leases they secured years ago. There's no incentive to drill because it will mean lower prices and lower profits.

Thirdly, the biggest factor in oil prices is the falling US$. Not quite sure how to fix that, maybe bullying China would be a start, instead of financing their ever growing oil consuming middle class and oil burning military.

Don't believe the propaganda from big oil and the API. They are preying on stupid, ignorant and gullible people. You guys are too smart to fall into one of those categories.

[WB2WIK]

I've been to Montana several times.

In fact, the longest winter I ever spent anywhere was one weekend in Montana.:)

If they have oil, trust me, that's all they have.

WB2WIK/6

[AE6IP]

Yeah, a lot of people are using some inaccurate terms here. People have known for a long time that shale held gas and oil. What we didn't have was a way to recover it in an economically feasible way. With the new drilling technologies that have come out over the last 10-15 years, coupled with higher oil prices, means that it is now both technically and monetarily feasible to go after the shale reserves.

Some of it, but not anywhere near as much as the USGS report would imply to those who don't understand the industry.

One of the reasons why "peak oil" predictions got the dates of peak oil so wrong is they forgot that inclining prices would increasingly make what seemed to be unproductive fields workable.

[AE6IP]

I've been to Montana several times.

In fact, the longest winter I ever spent anywhere was one weekend in Montana.:)

If they have oil, trust me, that's all they have.

I grew up there. It always cracks me up when guys from Anchorage talk about bad Alaska winters, when their weather is milder than where I grew up.

Oil, wheat, cattle, sheep, coal, a few minerals that weren't already extracted, and timber, are the big producers in the state and 'big' is very relative.

[N1LAF]

Like I've said many times before, the oil companies can drill and are drilling. They just aren't drilling and sucking out all of the oil from the ground, because it's more profitable to keep the oil trickling and make a killing.Statement is lacking business and economics understanding.

Firstly, there is no shortage of oil.The higher prices 'fixed' the shortage in the short run. Equilibrium prices is the intersection of the supply and demand curves. If demand is increasing for India and China, and supply is constant, prices will rise. There are two ways to decrease prices; 1. Reduce Demand (hurts American businesses and economy), 2. Increase supply. Wouldn't you agree that increase supply is better than reducing demand? How do you increase supply? Increase present facility output, and invest in more oil wells. This takes time and money, which money by price increases will make this happen. Increasing present facility output will also take some time, money and planning. Scale of economics.

Secondly, we are drilling and producing our own oil. See the foxnews article I linked a few posts ago. We just aren't producing all of it at once. That's because the oil companies are sitting on the drilling leases they secured years ago. There's no incentive to drill because it will mean lower prices and lower profits.
Again, lack of knowledge in business and economics. They are not producing all at once due to two factors, which are related; To be the most profitable, marginal revenue should equal marginal costs. Producing more at a static facility does not mean more profits. One of the tenets of business is to make profits and build wealth. Increasing facilities will take investments, which will happen because opportunity and economic motivation is now in place. Increasing facilities and increasing infrastructure does not happen overnight. Planning has to occur first. Infusion of resources, and budget concerns also come into play. Its why it will take about five years to start increase in production.

Thirdly, the biggest factor in oil prices is the falling US$. Not quite sure how to fix that, maybe bullying China would be a start, instead of financing their ever growing oil consuming middle class and oil burning military. Yes, but everyone should have equal opportunity, and why deny another persons growth for your style of living?

Don't believe the propaganda from big oil and the API. They are preying on stupid, ignorant and gullible people. You guys are too smart to fall into one of those categories.
Ryan, let me add also don't believe propaganda from the ill-informed, so not to increase their ranks.

[N1LAF]

Yeah, a lot of people are using some inaccurate terms here. People have known for a long time that shale held gas and oil. What we didn't have was a way to recover it in an economically feasible way. With the new drilling technologies that have come out over the last 10-15 years, coupled with higher oil prices, means that it is now both technically and monetarily feasible to go after the shale reserves.

What I found interesting was that the company I used to work for (EOG Resources) was mentioned in the article. I remember company meetings talking about shale plays in several places, and it looks like they're starting to pay off big time.

Exactly! There are problems with shale oil products that need to overcome, extraction, processing, and environmental concerns, not to mention public resistance for exploration and refinery construction. Its always, yes, but not in my back yard, go somewhere else.

One of the more promising technologies is the in-site processing. In-site processing would be preferred to open pit and strip mining.

[N9XR]

Exactly! There are problems with shale oil products that need to overcome, extraction, processing, and environmental concerns, not to mention public resistance for exploration and refinery construction. Its always, yes, but not in my back yard, go somewhere else.

One of the more promising technologies is the in-site processing. In-site processing would be preferred to open pit and strip mining.

Our entire oil industry can go to shale for all I care.

[AE6IP]

There are two ways to decrease prices; 1. Reduce Demand (hurts American businesses and economy), 2. Increase supply. Wouldn't you agree that increase supply is better than reducing demand?

Your parenthetical remark is only true if demand is reduced in naive ways.

The two options are not mutually exclusive.

But no, I wouldn't agree that increasing supply is better than reducing demand.

A quick example: One way to reduce demand for oil is to improve fuel efficiency of oil consuming vehicles. Reducing waste inevitably improves the economy.

[N1LAF]

You will reach a point where reducing demand will not be practical, and with other growing nations increasing demand, the solution is to increase supply.

The introduction of Ethanol mix to gasoline has reduced mileage efficiency. I see that first hand.

What is the energy density of gasoline? What is the theoretical mileage limit? Can we get there? See if you can answer those questions.

[N9XR]

You will reach a point where reducing demand will not be practical, and with other growing nations increasing demand, the solution is to increase supply.

The introduction of Ethanol mix to gasoline has reduced mileage efficiency. I see that first hand.

What is the energy density of gasoline? What is the theoretical mileage limit? Can we get there? See if you can answer those questions.

I checked it out and there is like a 3% drop in fuel effency when blending in ethanol.

So how much increase per gallon do you want to pay for 0% ethanol? To save 3%, I think another dollar or two would be fair. I know there are no bounds in my checking account. :rolleyes:

[KB1QBZ]

There are two ways to decrease prices; 1. Reduce Demand (hurts American businesses and economy), 2. Increase supply. Wouldn't you agree that increase supply is better than reducing demand?

Interesting. Wrong, shows no real understanding of the issues, but interesting.

Simple math: the U.S. uses 21 million barrels per day. The U.S. is able to produce only 7.5 million bbd. According to the Energy Dept, if both ANWR and all available off-shore drilling were in place, that number would rise to 8.5 million bbd. So where's the other 11.5 million bbd going to come from??

Well, IF you could extract all that shale oil, it could provide about 9.5 million bbd (according to the Energy Dept), but the technology doesn't exist to produce that much anytime soon. According to the Energy Dept, lesser amounts could be produced, but only if prices stay above $120/barrel.

So there we have it -- we'll substitute oil at $120/barrel for oil at $140/barrel. Man, that's all we need. Puts the whole economy back on track, doesn't it?

Of course, that assumes that the oil would all be sold locally and would not be bought on the international markets by China and India, which can afford to bid more for it. But of course it would be sold locally -- we can count on the oil companies and their well-known patriotism for that.

Can't we??

As for reducing demand hurting business and the economy. Hmmm. let's see.

According to a national ad now being run by Exxon Mobil, switching 10% of American cars to high mileage hybrids using existing technologies would save about 150 thousand bbd. Explain to me how that would hurt the economy. Let's see, the people driving those cars would be paying less for them than they do now (on average, about $8,000 less). Yes, that would hurt them if their car payments went down. Of course, they would also be paying about $1800 a year less in gas. I know that would definitely hurt my economy.

Look back over the past 7 years and you'll find a very common theme in new plant construction and new office building construction -- saving energy. Texas Instruments, for example, recently opened a new chip fabrication plant that was expected to save them something like $14 million/year in energy costs through better design to conserve energy (i.e., reduce demand). It turns out that the payback for TI at 2005 prices was less than 6 months (in other words, in less than 6 months, they saved enough money in energy to pay back any incremental costs in building the plant to begin with).

Wow, you're right -- reducing energy utilization is terrible for American business and the American economy. I mean, how could TI possibly stay in business if it reduces its costs by $14 million/year??

[N1LAF]

Interesting. Wrong, shows no real understanding of the issues, but interesting.

Simple math: the U.S. uses 21 million barrels per day. The U.S. is able to produce only 7.5 million bbd. According to the Energy Dept, if both ANWR and all available off-shore drilling were in place, that number would rise to 8.5 million bbd. So where's the other 11.5 million bbd going to come from??

Well, IF you could extract all that shale oil, it could provide about 9.5 million bbd (according to the Energy Dept), but the technology doesn't exist to produce that much anytime soon. According to the Energy Dept, lesser amounts could be produced, but only if prices stay above $120/barrel.

So there we have it -- we'll substitute oil at $120/barrel for oil at $140/barrel. Man, that's all we need. Puts the whole economy back on track, doesn't it?

Of course, that assumes that the oil would all be sold locally and would not be bought on the international markets by China and India, which can afford to bid more for it. But of course it would be sold locally -- we can count on the oil companies and their well-known patriotism for that.

Can't we??

As for reducing demand hurting business and the economy. Hmmm. let's see.

According to a national ad now being run by Exxon Mobil, switching 10% of American cars to high mileage hybrids using existing technologies would save about 150 thousand bbd. Explain to me how that would hurt the economy. Let's see, the people driving those cars would be paying less for them than they do now (on average, about $8,000 less). Yes, that would hurt them if their car payments went down. Of course, they would also be paying about $1800 a year less in gas. I know that would definitely hurt my economy.

Look back over the past 7 years and you'll find a very common theme in new plant construction and new office building construction -- saving energy. Texas Instruments, for example, recently opened a new chip fabrication plant that was expected to save them something like $14 million/year in energy costs through better design to conserve energy (i.e., reduce demand). It turns out that the payback for TI at 2005 prices was less than 6 months (in other words, in less than 6 months, they saved enough money in energy to pay back any incremental costs in building the plant to begin with).

Wow, you're right -- reducing energy utilization is terrible for American business and the American economy. I mean, how could TI possibly stay in business if it reduces its costs by $14 million/year??

A reply I would expect from SW Connecticut...

1. Increase supply

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/79/Supply-demand-right-shift-supply.svg/200px-Supply-demand-right-shift-supply.svg.png

If we increase supply, from S1 to S2, with static demand, by this supply/demand curve, prices will decrease from P1 to P2.

If we decrease demand, price will also decrease. But a decrease in US demand may not decrease overall demand, in fact overall demand could still be increasing (China, India, Russia), and prices will continue to climb.

Same is true for increasing supply, if supply cannot keep up with demand. So, for prices to decrease, supply must icrease faster than demand. Supply has been generally static, while demand is increasing as more nations develop.

This is the reality. Weak dollar does not help us either.

Now, the question about Reduce Demand vs Increase Supply

1. If we reduce demand, prices come down, another country or countries can increase their demand, causing prices to hold constant or rise. We sacrifice, and still pay higher prices.

2. If we increase supply, and overtake the rate of demand, then prices will decrease. We do not sacrifice, and other countries will still compete with us.

If we reduce demand, we could reduce manufacturing to lesson fuel demand, and thus GDP could sink even further, unemployment could rise, and prices will increase. Even last night I thought about going out for a pizza, instead I stayed home and had chicken, rice, and vegetables. The pizza place economics just decreased.

The topic in hybrid viability is tricky, and varies among physical topology. Remember, there is no such thing as free energy. Charging hybrid batteries comes from gasoline engine. So, if thats the case, how are hybrids effective? The most effective hybrid landscape is where frequent braking and hills are located. Energy losses include using of brakes. Instead of using friction for braking, a deep charge cycle to the battery is used. This will have the tendency to slow down the engine, and thus slow down the car. Going down hills, where you would use brakes, is also a benefit for hybrids. Using gravity and mass, downhills are excellent places for hybrids. City driving with mountain driving will probably give you the best combination of mileage usage. The city driving of a Toyota hybrid is only 4 to 6 mpg more than my conventional car. Does the cost justify the means? You do the simple math.

Investment in technology for businesses always a plus economic-wise. They can provide more output at the same cost, making their product more profitable. If you took economics, you know this already.

Saving energy and reducing demand, especially through technology, is always good, and encouraged. But if we take a draconian approach, rationing, price controls, etc, the economy will get hurt.

Now, tell me where I am wrong, again? And where is my lack of understanding of the issues???? Please tell me :)

[N1LAF]

I checked it out and there is like a 3% drop in fuel effency when blending in ethanol.

So how much increase per gallon do you want to pay for 0% ethanol? To save 3%, I think another dollar or two would be fair. I know there are no bounds in my checking account. :rolleyes:

We have E85 out here, and the effect is more significant. My highway MPG dropped 10% on the mixture. Thats not in theory, its practical real life effect. My vehicle is well maintenanced.

[KC4RAN]

We have E85 out here, and the effect is more significant. My highway MPG dropped 10% on the mixture. Thats not in theory, its practical real life effect. My vehicle is well maintenanced.

I've seen this reported by coworkers who have tried E85 as well... 10% is the real-world figure, not 3%.

[KG4JYD]

You may wish to look up the difference between "technically recoverable" and "economically feasible to recover",Again I didn't write it, it came from the link posted even though your point is valid.

[KG4JYD]

One of the reasons why "peak oil" predictions got the dates of peak oil so wrong is they forgot that inclining prices would increasingly make what seemed to be unproductive fields workable.Peak oil is a lie. It doesn't exist. Oil is not a finite resource contrary to popular belief.

[KD6NIG]

We have E85 out here, and the effect is more significant. My highway MPG dropped 10% on the mixture. Thats not in theory, its practical real life effect. My vehicle is well maintenanced.

In California when they put 10% ethanol in the blend to reduce "pollution" you can notice the difference also. Crossing over into Nevada and fueling there will often result in a 2-3 MPG increase if not more. Plus a 50 cent reduction in price per gallon!

You also notice the gas smells like gas because of the lack of additives, and the fact that in Nevada there is only a rubber piece to prevent splashback-not the vapor recovery bellows system like you see in California also.

I often wonder if I did an emissions check on CA gas when the additive exists and Nevada gas what the differences would be. That is the claim for the additive by the way-to reduce pollution. The stickers on the pump state this.