I've posted articles about Richard Findley before, but a reader sent in this link -- one I had not seen before. Too good to pass up. Enjoy.
Federal and state agencies tracking exploration also considered the region a bust. "I thought my job was going to be turning out the lights," says Jim Halvorson, geologist for Montana's Board of Oil and Gas Conservation. In 2000, his office predicted oil production would rapidly decline toward zero.That was back in 2006, just five years ago, and the Bakken just seems to get bigger and bigger.
But Richard L. Findley, a graying geologist and "wildcat" producer, thought they were all wrong. He bought up leases on the cheap and helped spark a surprising boom in one of the most heavily explored oil regions in the country.
Mr. Findley discovered a new field that is now producing 48,000 barrels a day of high-quality crude oil from more than 300 wells. While oil companies have discovered bigger fields in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, this sizeable find is now the highest-producing onshore field found in the lower 48 states in the past 56 years, according to the U.S. Energy Department.
The high price of oil, coupled with the call to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, has sparked debate among policy makers, executives and entrepreneurs about just how much untapped oil is still out there in the continental U.S., where it is, and how to get it. Hurricane damage last summer to vast U.S. oil operations in the Gulf of Mexico heightened interest in onshore fields.
By the 1980s, even in the 1970s, Big Oil left US onshore exploration, and much production. They sold out a lot of plays to Small Oil.
ReplyDeleteWe should all thank them.
Small Oil, over time, with ups and downs, grew. A lot of that growth came from the discard piles of Big Oil.
Small Oil is now leading the way. Much of it is no longer small.
If Big Oil hadn't discarded stuff, Small Oil would be much less capable. Would we have the boom? Maybe. But, not like it is.
Thank you Big Oil.
anon 1
That is so true.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure we all have our favorites, but BEXP certainly pushed the envelope, spurred others to do the same.
The link is to the Pittsburg paper. At about that time Range Resources was doing about the same thing with the Marcellus, probably within the area in which you could get home delivery of that paper. But, I bet that they did not have that story. They probably didn't look for it.
ReplyDeleteanon 1
The time-lines are a bit fuzzy in this posting. When the predictions were made in 2000, crude oil was way under $20 per barrel. I recall my father saying he talked with a guy who had some stripper wells that needed $15 per barrel to cover costs and once you stopped them, it was hard to get them producing again.
ReplyDeleteThe "Bakken" requires $40 to $50 per barrel to cover costs.
That said, here is an interesting article on the degree that government research affects commercial spin-offs. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/12/gas-and-government-what-the-frack.php
I made a few comments, basically saying that the military or space programs has very specific needs and some "spin-off" will occur. I made some comments. In the case of the space programs fuel cells were great for manned space missions, providing heat, electricity and water. They have had virtually no competitive commercial applications here on earth. Photocells are a great power source for satellites but they are a different type than the earthbound ones.
Speaking of solar/wind: as we all know solar/wind will create havoc with the grid (Allianz Insurance is now taking that into account when rating premiums for insurance).
ReplyDeleteBut, Rube Goldberg has a solution for that, too. In today's Boston Globe there's a story of A123 to provide lithium-batteries packs the size of semi truck trailers to be hooked into wind/solar grids to store electricity when produced for when it is needed.
When I was a child I used to senda lot of time during the summer at my Great-Grandmother's log cabin. It has a windmill and glass case lead acid batteries. Relatively high-maintenance but the batteries could last more than a quarter century and well a cell plate finally deteriorated you replaced only the cell plate.
ReplyDeleteI've read about battery storage systems for more than a decade. The first problem is a fifty-percent storage-discharge energy loss (they get warm when charging as does the charger.) The U of MN got some grants to study various battery systems. They had various systems but a lithium battery system the side of a semi would likely require a million dollars or more in batteries and still not have much more than a 50% efficiency.
I recall in the 1970's in college learned types were saying "The money is irrelevant".
That is very interesting about the 50% efficiency issue. And yes, to the faux-environmentalists, "money seems to be irrelevant." It also appears that to the faux-environmentalists, migratory flyways are also irrelevant.
ReplyDelete