Oil

[tenacious_dog]

Most Middle East stuff is not from sand formations, but it is certainly true that the shale formations that we are talking about require significant technological development.

Thanks for getting me to do a little research and correct a decades long assumption. I've been around the oil industry all my life but I'm not a geologist. The region produces from various carbonates, not sand formations.

Oil shale is NOT the same thing as shale gas, and in general the technical challenges are much more significant (and I do not mean to downplay technical challenges in shale gas -- there are major challenges that still need to be solved in shale gas). But I can guarantee you that frac and horizontal drill in oil shales will NOT get them to produce.

What I had read on the Bakken indicated it was a straight shale play. I was thinking someone had resolved a major shale oil production problem with new frac techniques. This cleared up the misunderstanding:

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/42850

Its a good article on the Bakken and answers some questions about recoverable reserves.

And Rus-La, diversification is a fantastic idea in terms of energy security. I did not say that U.S. resources should not be pursued. But it does not make sense to aggressively pursue a resource that costs $200+/barrel to produce when you can get sufficient oil from secure sources for half the price (or less).

What aggravates me about the current administration is the unwillingness to pursue an aggressive policy on our domestic petroleum reserves, particularly natural gas, while pushing for alternatives.

I believe using more natural gas now will we get us further down the road to energy security quicker. Natural gas has two significant applications we can pursue now that will yield big results within 10 years. One is to move the over-the-road trucking fleet to natural gas and away from diesel. The second is to do more power generation with natural gas. Neither is a new idea. But the administration appears to be making it clear they don't want the oil & gas industry making more money and profits.

Looks like cutting off our nose to spite our face, to me. I'd rather U.S. companies make profits and U.S. citizens make more money in the process of getting to energy security rather than sending those dollars overseas.

[randerizer]

What I had read on the Bakken indicated it was a straight shale play. I was thinking someone had resolved a major shale oil production problem with new frac techniques. This cleared up the misunderstanding:

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/42850

Its a good article on the Bakken and answers some questions about recoverable reserves.

And for what it is worth, the Bakken is NOTHING like the "shale play" in Colorado. While it is not a straight shale play (production actually from much better quality reservoir rock than shale), it is ultimately pretty low quality rock. It is one thing to produce gas out of something like that -- try producing something with higher viscosity at good rates! There is a bunch more that I hope you will forgive me for not going in to.

What aggravates me about the current administration is the unwillingness to pursue an aggressive policy on our domestic petroleum reserves, particularly natural gas, while pushing for alternatives.

I believe using more natural gas now will we get us further down the road to energy security quicker. Natural gas has two significant applications we can pursue now that will yield big results within 10 years. One is to move the over-the-road trucking fleet to natural gas and away from diesel. The second is to do more power generation with natural gas. Neither is a new idea. But the administration appears to be making it clear they don't want the oil & gas industry making more money and profits.

Looks like cutting off our nose to spite our face, to me. I'd rather U.S. companies make profits and U.S. citizens make more money in the process of getting to energy security rather than sending those dollars overseas.

This administration is aggravating for a bunch more reasons than that. I generally agree on natural gas, and I am pretty sure that the power generation switch will happen regardless of the administration's efforts to prop up coal in its climate bills. Cost factors will ultimately overwhelm the favoritism.

FWIW, US companies make a bunch of money investing in foreign opportunities that improve our overall energy security.

[CARTEK]

Hell yes!

And the gov't should be offering more tax breaks for the exploration of natural gas (the cleanest and most sensible alternative) which is in plentiful supply in the US. Instead they want to do away with the expensing of intangible drilling costs.

At $3/mcf NG is not economical to drill for. We have a current over supply of NG...it needs to burn off before you will see much NG drilling activity.

[saltydawg]

At $3/mcf NG is not economical to drill for. We have a current over supply of NG...it needs to burn off before you will see much NG drilling activity.

We need to run more of our cars on NG. The next car I buy will probably run on NG with the filling station inside my garage. Increasing demand for NG while we discourage importing oil.

[bulldog_in_baton_rouge]

At $3/mcf NG is not economical to drill for. We have a current over supply of NG...it needs to burn off before you will see much NG drilling activity.

Additionally, when prices were up to $7-9/mcf the LNG market for the US began to come online...making peak shaving possible through imports...

[tenacious_dog]

Interesting:

http://www3.marinelink.com/Story/Sho...StoryID=216359

Other reports say the product is headed to China.