In 2008, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated the Bakken formation could have up to 4.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil. But they've sent a team of geologists and geochemists back to the Bakken to study rock samples from previous drillings. They normally reassess oil formations after about 10 years, but the Bakken isn't a typical oil formation.I've always said that; it's not the production, it's the lessons learned and ground-breaking technology being tested, studied, and used in the Bakken.
"It's very rare that we reassess this quickly," said Brenda Pierce, the manger of the USGS Energy Resources Program. "The Bakken is such an unusual reservoir and what is technically recoverable really has changed in a short period of time."
Pierce also said their scientists are learning new concepts from studying the Bakken.
"I mean I think it's kind of breaking the way for other potential unconventional oil reserves (and) resources," Pierce said. "I mean it really is world class."
The USGS is using the same methods to survey the Bakken so the results can be more accurately compared to previous assessments. They plan to complete the study by late 2013.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
USGS To Reassess The Bakken
Link here: USGS to reassess the Bakken; results to be known by late 2013.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Harold Hamm is no doubt correct when he says his estimate of 24 billion barrels of recoverable oil is conservative. However I doubt the USGS will give the Bakken or the Williston Basin as a whole anything close to that estimate.
ReplyDeleteThe political climate is not receptive to the development of our natural resources no matter what it is. How influenced the USGS is by politics I do not know but find it hard to believe there isn't some.
We now live in an era where using resources is bad. At least in our own country. When it can be imported from other countries we then can falsely believe somehow we are not that large of a consumer of resources, avoiding the reality.
The twisted mindset of the green agenda. Out of site out of mind.
The USGS, by its very nature, is much more conservative. HH is a man whose hair is on fire and will push the envelope on estimates for all kinds of reasons.
DeleteMy hunch is that by 2013, Harold Hamm will have upped the estimate from 24.
It is my understanding that the USGS has very defined parameters: specific formations and "current" technology.
If I headed the USGS I would just collect my multi-million dollar budget from the government and then simply multiply Harold Hamm's estimate by 0.44 and call it a day. If Harold Hamm says 24 billion, USGS can estimate it at 11 billion bbls. That triples the USGS current estimate but keeps it well below that of the crazy oilman.