Move over Saudi Arabia and Alberta; North Dakota has world's largest oil field.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oerdin
No, Asher is just being his whiny self again. Bad Asher! Stop whining just to whine.

The 413 billion number is the total hydrocarbon reserves in the formation while the 4.3 billion number is the estimated total recoverable using conventional methods. Luckily with slant drilling, formation fracturing, steam introduction, and other modern techniques much, much more then 10% of the reservoir should be able to be recovered.

Asher, stick to computers because you haven't a clue about geology just like you didn't in our CG thread about Oil.

The 4.3 billion number is the one that is comparable to Alberta and Saudi Arabia's numbers, Oerdin.

[Lancer]

What happens when something like that gets subducted? Boom?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ninot
From an article written in December:

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the Bakken formation could contain a mind-boggling 413 billion barrels of oil in place.

http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/local/story.html?id=5f07f6b9-815f-4058-9e25-17fb0c61cd61

Why are you quoting a December 2007 report using the original 2000 estimate, when the most recent estimate was April 2008 with 4.3 billion by the same people?

But then Wiki has Asher's numbers

You are looking at an old total hydrocarbon estimate. The comparable figure for Alberta is 2,500 billion barrels.

Total hydrocarbon estimate:
Alberta: 2,500 billion barrels
North Dakota: 413 billion barrels

Recoverable with today's technology:
Alberta: 175 billion barrels (this figure is about to rise to over 300 billion as technology has improved)
North Dakota: 4.3 billion

NOTE: All of these numbers are black magic. There's no reliable way to determine completely accurate numbers.

[Ninot]

I think the important thing is: Can North Dakota somehow become a Canadian province so Quebec can get profit out of this?

[Asher]

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

The Bakken Formation, initially described by geologist J.W. Nordquist in 1953,[1] is a rock unit from the Late Devonian to Early Mississippian age occupying a substantial part of the subsurface of the Williston Basin, in Montana, North Dakota, and Saskatchewan.

It is estimated that there is are significant reservoirs of oil shale beneath the Bakken's 200,000 square miles (520,000 km²). There were first discovered in 1951, but have long frustrated efforts to extract oil. An April 2008 USGS report estimated the amount of technically recoverable in the Bakken Formation at 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels, with a mean of 3.65 billion.[2] The state of North Dakota also released a report that month which estimated that there are 2.1 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil in the Bakken.[3]

This is quite clearly nowhere close to being in the same league as Alberta or Saudi Arabia.

[Lancer]

Canada exists, Asher, because the US hasn't assimilated it yet. Also, it's never had anything worth firing up the tanks for before.

[DanS]

Watch it, Ninot! What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Lancer]

Yup, Canada would reap the benefits of having the wise stewardship of the US government.

[Lancer]

That was the first time I was DanSed by DanS.

[Asher]

Now to debunk Oerdin's claim that the 413 billion is just the total hydrocarbon reserves, that number is debunked. The April 2008 North Dakota resource ministry analysis predicted 167 billion barrels of Oil, about 4.3 billion of which is recoverable with today's technology:

In April 2008, a report issued by the state of North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources estimated that the North Dakota portion of the Bakken contained 167 billion barrels of oil[9].

While these numbers would appear to indicate a massive reserve, the percentage of this oil which might be extracted using current technology is another matter. Estimates of the Bakken's technically recoverable oil have ranged from as low as 1% — because the Bakken shale has low porosity, making the oil difficult to extract — to Leigh Price's estimate of 50% recoverable.[10] Reports issued by both the USGS and the state of North Dakota in April 2008 seem to indicate the lower range of recoverable estimates are more realistic with current technology.

The flurry of drilling activity in the Bakken, coupled with the wide range of estimates of in-place and recoverable oil, led North Dakota senator Byron Dorgan to ask the USGS to conduct a study of the Bakken's potentially recoverable oil. In April 2008 the USGS released this report, which estimated the amount of technically recoverable, undiscovered oil in the Bakken Formation at 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels, with a mean of 3.65 billion.[11] Later that month, the state of North Dakota's report [12] estimated that of the 167 billion barrels of oil in-place in the North Dakota portion of the Bakken, 2.1 billion barrels were technically recoverable with current technology.

As you can clearly see, Oerdin is again full of ****.

For perspective, compare this to Alberta's scale:

Alberta Government calculates that about 28 billion cubic metres (174 billion barrels) of crude bitumen are economically recoverable from the three Alberta oil sands areas at current prices using current technology (as of 2000). This is equivalent to about 10% of the estimated 1,700 and 2,500 billion barrels of bitumen in place. Alberta estimates that the Athabasca deposits alone contain 5.6 billion cubic metres (35 billion barrels) of surface mineable bitumen and 15.6 billion cubic metres (98 billion barrels) of bitumen recoverable by in-situ methods. These estimates of Canada's oil reserves caused some astonishment when they were first published but are now largely accepted by the international community.

The Alberta estimates in some ways are extremely conservative, since they assume a recovery rate of around 20% of bitumen in place, whereas oil companies using the new steam assisted gravity drainage method of extracting bitumen report that they can recover over 60% with little effort. These much higher recovery rates probably mean that the ultimate production could be several times as high as the already very large government estimates.

Technology since the 174billion number was reached has massively improved, and the high cost of oil means much more of the deposit is economically feasible. Look for this number to officially skyrocket in the near future, displacing Saudi Arabia.

[Ninot]

Please don't invade Canada. I like our gambling laws better than I like yours

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Asher


The 4.3 billion number is the one that is comparable to Alberta and Saudi Arabia's numbers, Oerdin.

Asher the 4.3 billion number is an estimate of what can be recovered using traditional methods; naturally different scientists have different estimates and no one will know for sure without more drilling. Fortunately that number is fairly meaningless since there are already a good dozen nonconventional methods already in common use. I listed several in my previous post.

The real amount recovered after all is said and done will be higher then 4.3 billion but lower then 413 billion. How much? No one will really know until the entire formation is accurately modeled which won't happen until years after production starts.

[Asher]

Asher, stick to computers because you haven't a clue about geology just like you didn't in our CG thread about Oil.

I've owned you then just like I've owned you now. You think you're hot **** 'cause you went to geology school a long time ago. You clearly know **** all about the oil industry, something that my family and friends have been deeply involved in all my life.

You tried to argue about how massive California's off-shore reserves were to me when I lived in California for four years while my father analyzed that very subject. I know how feasible the off-shore reserves are, and they're nowhere near what you were claiming. They were overhyped, which is precisely why my family moved to Alberta instead of staying in California.

It's the same **** you're pulling now in this thread. You're claiming massive reserves in a US state that is just unsupported and factually wrong. When I call you on it you tell me to stick to computers 'cause I don't know about the oil industry.

You know the Athabasca reserve mentioned above? My father is the one who managed and developed that project for one of the largest energy companies in the world. I'm geeky and he's nerdy so I've heard a lot about this **** over the years. You're acting like I'm out of my league here, but I know this **** much better than you do -- quite obviously.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Asher the 4.3 billion number is an estimate of what can be recovered using traditional methods. Fortunately that number is fairly meaningless since there are already a good dozen nonconventional methods already in common use. I listed several in my previous post.

The real amount recovered after all is said and done will be higher then 4.3 billion but lower then 413 billion. How much? No one will really know until the entire formation is accurately modeled which won't happen until years after production starts.

And I am trying to explain to you the 175 billion number for Alberta is using old more traditional methods as well.

You are comparing Alberta's "proven reserves/economically and technically sustainable as of 2000" numbers to a debunked and discredited North Dakota number of MAXIMUM possible technology.

The most recent and official estimate for the North Dakota reserves are 167 billion. Of which 2-4 billion are recoverable with today's technology. Even if by some miracle 100% of that can be extracted, it PALES in comparison to Alberta's "100%" number of 2,500 billion and it's not even higher than Alberta's extremely conservative estimate of 175 billion currently recoverable from 2000.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Asher

Asher, stick to computers because you haven't a clue about geology just like you didn't in our CG thread about Oil.

I've owned you then just like I've owned you now.

Dude you are smoking something. I said total offshore oil reserves in California were between 12-20 billion barrels and then quoted a USGS which said near shore conventionally recoverable reserves were 10-11 billion barrels. After that you, in typical fashion, claimed 10-11 not 12! Which is true.

Of course if you knew what the hell you were talking about then you'd know that near shore just means with in the five mile economic exclusion zone where as a great deal more gas and oil are believed to be out towards the continental margin. After pwning you I gave up because you went on a typical Asher temper tantrum claiming you'd won even after you'd been proven wrong.

Basically after losing your strategy is just to keep posting nonsense until the other party gets bored and leaves. Unfortunately for you that still doesn't make you right.