Showing posts with label Monterey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Monterey. Show all posts

Thursday, June 4, 2026

What's Going On With California's Monterey Shale? June 4, 2026

Locator: 50910MONTEREY. 

Query: what's going on with  California's Monterey Shale? 

Reply: dead, dormant, dismissed --

***************************
Cottage Pudding Recipe

This looks suspiciously what my mother used to called cottage pudding, though she topped with a wonderful treacly syrup. 

See recipe at this post.  

Sunday, September 20, 2015

Wow, Wow, Wow -- Previously Discussed -- OXY USA And California Resources -- Monterey Shale A Scam -- Wolf Richter -- September 20, 2015

Updates

Later, 6:46 p.m. CT: see first comment below. 
 
Original Post
 
Business Insider is reporting:
Occidental Petroleum made a sweet deal on November 30, a masterpiece of Wall Street engineering. And just about every investor that touched it is now getting their hands burned off.
That day, Oxy spun off California Resources. It held Oxy’s oil-and-gas exploration-and-production assets in California. It’s the state’s largest natural gas producer and its largest oil-and-gas acreage holder with operations in the basins of Los Angeles, San Joaquin, Ventura, and Sacramento.
Oxy was the big player in the miraculous scam of the Monterey Shale formation in California, which had been hyped for years as the largest reserves of oil in the US. Any studies that showed that this oil wasn’t recoverable with [current] technologies due to the geological mess underground in earthquake land were shunted aside.
The EIA finally conceded that point in May 2014 and slashed the delusional estimates of the reserves by 96%. California isn’t exactly the easiest place for fracking in the US. When the EIA finally acknowledged reality, Oxy was the biggest loser.
Much, much more at the article.

I track the Monterey Shale here

Thursday, October 2, 2014

For The Archives: OXY USA Spin-Off Of California Assets Approved -- October 2, 2014

Occidental Petroleum Corporationannounced today that its Board of Directors has approved the spin-off of its California oil and gas business into an independent and separately traded company, California Resources Corporation.
The companies will be separated through the distribution of approximately 80.1 percent of the outstanding shares of California Resources to holders of Occidental common stock. Subject to the satisfaction of the conditions to the spin-off, the distribution is expected to occur on November 30, 2014. Occidental shareholders will receive 0.4 shares of California Resources common stock for every one share of Occidental common stock held at the close of business November 17, 2014, the record date for the distribution.
Comments are important.

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Random Note On The Monterey Shale From A Reader

This was sent in as a comment from a reader. It is not possible to google search comments, so I brought this comment up as a stand-along post. It's too important to lose. The reader references this link: http://sogistx.blogspot.com/2014/04/latimescom-vast-oil-trove-trapped-in.html
A bustling city is sprouting on five acres here, carved out of a vast almond grove. Tanker trucks and heavy equipment come and go, a row of office trailers runs the length of the site and an imposing 150-foot drilling rig illuminated by football-field-like lights rises over the trees.

It's all been hustled into service to solve a tantalizing riddle: how to tap into the largest oil shale reservoir in the United States.

Across the southern San Joaquin Valley, oil exploration sites have popped up in agricultural fields and on government land, driven by the hope that technological advances in oil extraction — primarily hydraulic fracturing and acidization — can help provide access to deep and lucrative oil reserves.
To me, the activity sounds like Texas or ND-maybe our "Shale is a Bubble" people have written off the Monterey Shale too soon.

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Two Lead Stories In LA Times Today: Both Predicted! Two-Thirds Of Nation's Shale Oil Reserves Taken Off The Table

I first read the stories a couple of hours ago, lying in bed, reading them on the iPad. It was all I could do to keep from jumping out of bed and starting to blog.

I'll just do the headlines now and come back to the stories later, linking them to the appropriate spots in the blog, etc. but for now, here's the important stuff. Again, the lead stories in The Los Angeles Times today.

First, the headline story, front page: billions pledged for possible ObamaCare losses by health insurers; federal funds earmarked to offset Affordable Care Act insurer losses.
The Obama administration has quietly adjusted key provisions of its signature healthcare law to potentially make billions of additional taxpayer dollars available to the insurance industry if companies providing coverage through the Affordable Care Act lose money.
The move was buried in hundreds of pages of new regulations issued late last week. It comes as part of an intensive administration effort to hold down premium increases for next year, a top priority for the White House as the rates will be announced ahead of this fall's congressional elections.
Administration officials for months have denied charges by opponents that they plan a "bailout" for insurance companies providing coverage under the healthcare law.
They continue to argue that most insurers shouldn't need to substantially increase premiums because safeguards in the healthcare law will protect them over the next several years.  [most .... shouldn't .... need ....  substantially ... increase: parsing that sentence will provide fodder for pundits for months]
But the change in regulations essentially provides insurers with another backup: If they keep rate increases modest over the next couple of years but lose money, the administration will tap federal funds as needed to cover shortfalls.
Although little noticed so far, the plan was already beginning to fuel a new round of attacks Tuesday from the healthcare law's critics.
"If conservatives want to stop the illegal Obamacare insurance bailout before it starts they must start planning now," wrote Conn Carroll, an editor of the right-leaning news site Townhall.com.
On Capitol Hill, Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee began circulating a memo on the issue and urging colleagues to fight what they are calling "another end-run around Congress."
Obama administration officials said the new regulations would not put taxpayers at risk.
"We are confident this three-year program will not create a shortfall," Health and Human Services spokeswoman Erin Shields Britt said in a statement. "However, we want to be clear that in the highly unlikely event of a shortfall, HHS will use appropriations as available to fill it."
What this means: in the competitive world of health care insurance, insurers will low-ball premiums to attract customers knowing that the government is now liable for losses. And the losses are open-ended. Blank check. Even some of the 47% who would never vote for Romney can figure this out.

By the way, there is a front-section story in The Wall Street Journal which reports unintended consequence but predicted in this blog: emergency room visits rise despite ObamaCare. Health act isn't cutting emergency volume so far; government says it's too early to draw conclusions.
Early evidence suggests that emergency rooms have become busier since the Affordable Care Act expanded insurance coverage this year, despite the law's goal of reducing unnecessary care in ERs.
Almost half of ER doctors say they are seeing more patients since key provisions of the health law took effect January 1, 2014, while more than a quarter say their patient volume has remained the same, according to a survey to be released Wednesday by the American College of Emergency Physicians.
Eighty-six percent of emergency doctors expect visits to rise over the next three years, though the email survey didn't ask the doctors why. Democrats who designed the 2010 health law hoped it would do the opposite. They wanted to give the uninsured better access to primary-care doctors who could treat routine ailments and prevent chronic disease, with the intent of keeping patients out of the ER and lowering the cost of care.
The median ER charge was more than $1,200 for the most frequent outpatient diagnoses in a study of over 8,000 ER visits in 2006-08, said a 2013 report funded in part by the National Institutes of Health.
********************************
Two-Thirds Of American Shale Oil Reserves Taken Off The Table By The Federal Governent

Okay, now the second story which is even better. I predicted the ObamaCare bailout story above and posted it often on the blog, but I also said the same thing about this second story regarding the Monterey Shale. We're never gonna see it. Right below the ObamaCare story in The Los Angeles Times story was this: Feds deal blow to nation's oil future with California oil estimate. US officials cut estimates of recoverable Monterey Shale oil by 96%.
Federal energy authorities have slashed by 96% the estimated amount of recoverable oil buried in California's vast Monterey Shale deposits, deflating its potential as a national "black gold mine" of petroleum.
Just 600 million barrels of oil can be extracted with existing technology, far below the 13.7 billion barrels once thought recoverable from the jumbled layers of subterranean rock spread across much of Central California, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said.
The new estimate, expected to be released publicly next month, is a blow to the nation's oil future and to projections that an oil boom would bring as many as 2.8 million new jobs to California and boost tax revenue by $24.6 billion annually.
The Monterey Shale formation contains about two-thirds of the nation's shale oil reserves. It had been seen as an enormous bonanza, reducing the nation's need for foreign oil imports through the use of the latest in extraction techniques, including acid treatments, horizontal drilling and fracking.
The energy agency said the earlier estimate of recoverable oil, issued in 2011 by an independent firm under contract with the government, broadly assumed that deposits in the Monterey Shale formation were as easily recoverable as those found in shale formations elsewhere.
If 96% is taken off the table, it's hard worth going after the other 4%. The headline should have been: California takes full loss on Monterey Shale. This has huge implications for the Bakken, the Eagle Ford, and the Permian.

But this was absolutely predictable: the geology alone was going to prevent horizontal drilling success. That was proved by lessons learned in the Bakken laboratory. But even if engineers could have finessed the geology, they never would have finessed the anti-fracking activists. The third strike -- the drought in California; everlasting water battles -- and "they're out" -- the companies who thought they were going to drill the Monterey.

Saturday, August 4, 2012

Bakken, OXY, Monterey Shale: The Dots Are Starting To Connect

Updates


April 20, 2021: see this post --

The Miocene: I had seen this story earlier but it didn't interest me enough to post it. Then a reader sent it to me this morning and I saw something in the article I had not seen before. The BP discovery in the Gulf of Mexico is in a very "recent" geologic reservoir, the Miocene. How recent: it was during the Miocene that apes and humans were diverging. 

It is generally agreed that the taproot of the human family shrub is to be found among apelike species of the middle Miocene epoch, roughly 15 mya or the late Miodene epoch, roughly 10 mya. -- Britannica.

Links to come back to when I have time:

February 20, 2017: Monterey County voters overwhelmingly voted to ban fracking in their county. If I recall correctly, there's very little drillingin Monterey County to begin with; this is not a big story. And the fact that USGS has knocked off 96% of reserves. See April 30, 2015, RBN Energy link below.  

September 20, 2015: Business Insider calls it a scam

June 17, 2015: hope springs eternal

April 30, 2015: incredibly good update, RBN Energy. 

January 25, 2015: hope springs eternal. The San Jose Mercury News is reporting:

The oil and gas potential of the vast Monterey shale formation will be the focus of an upcoming study by an independent panel of scientists operating under direction of the state Legislature.
The study will be part of a highly anticipated report on the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing, with the first volume released last week. That report, covering existing well-stimulation practices, underscored the profound uncertainties about the amount of developable oil beneath Monterey County and parts south.
"We're going to look at what it would really take to get a good estimate," said Jane Long, who is spearheading the study for the California Council on Science and Technology.
The effort is one result of SB 4, a 2013 state bill that was the Legislature's answer to a raging debate about the impacts of hydraulic fracking in California. Santa Cruz County banned fracking, and in November, San Benito County voters did the same.
The Monterey shale underlies the San Joaquin Valley and parts of Monterey County. In 2011, the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated it held 15.4 billion barrels of untapped oil -- more than any place in the U.S.
But in 2014, the agency dramatically lowered its estimate to 600,000 million barrels. The study found both estimates to be unreliable.
Say what? They found "both estimates to be unreliable."

Jerry Brown needs the money for his bullet train. 

*********************************

January 14, 2015: the slump in the price of oil spells the end for the Monterey Shale ... like forever?

October 2, 2014: OXY USA to spin off California Resources (aka Monterey Shale). 

May 23, 2014: the potential of the Monterey Shale is "taken off the table" by the Feds.

May 21, 2014: from NaturalGasIntel --
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has cut its estimate of recoverable oil in California's Monterey Shale to 600 million bbl, a 96% decrease from previous estimates, an agency spokesman told NGI's Shale Daily Wednesday.
The revised number comes nearly three years after EIA had estimated Lower 48 technically recoverable shale oil resources at 23.9 billion bbl, including 15.4 billion bbl in the Monterey/Santos play, then believed to be the nation's largest shale oil formation (see Shale DailyJuly 11, 2011). A year later, in its Annual Energy Outlook 2013 (AEO2013), the agency estimated technically recoverable oil in the Monterey at 13.7 billion bbl (see Shale DailyJuly 24, 2012).
But changes to technically recoverable resources (TRR) estimates "do not necessarily have significant implications for projected oil and natural gas production, which are heavily influenced by economic considerations that do not enter into the estimation of TRR," an EIA spokesman told NGI.
"Importantly, projected oil production from the Monterey play is not a material part of the U.S. oil production outlook in either AEO2013 or AEO2014, and was largely unaffected by the change in TRR estimates between the 2013 and 2014 editions of the AEO," Jonathan Cogan said. "EIA estimates U.S. total crude oil production averaged 8.3 million b/d in April 2014.
“In the Annual Energy Outlook 2014 (AEO2014) Reference case, production of economically recoverable oil from the Monterey averaged 57,000 b/d between 2010 and 2040, and in the AEO2013 the same production averaged 14,000 b/d. Clearly, there is not a proportional relationship between TRR and production estimates -- economics matters, and the Monterey play faced significant economic challenges regardless of the TRR estimate."
Estimates of TRR "are highly uncertain," Cogan said.
Key factors driving the lower estimate included new geology information from a U.S. Geological Survey review of the Monterey "and a lack of production growth relative to other shale plays like the Bakken and Eagle Ford."
The TRR estimates and other assumptions in AEO2014 are due to be released by EIA in June.
Except for a footnote, the EIA never mentions the Monterey Shale in the AEO2014. Very, very strange.

May 20, 2014: The Los Angeles Times carries the story that the Monterey Shale is a "bust"-- EIA.

February 14, 2014: OXY to move headquarters from Los Angeles to Houston, spin off California assets.


September 23, 2013: update on the Monterey Shale in The Wall Street Journal.


September 20, 2013: Governor Jerry Brown signs fracking regulations for the first time ever in the state of California.

June 29, 2013: The Dickinson Press has a nice little story on the Monterey

June 3, 2013: water issues / fracking issues in the Monterey

April 1, 2013: Taft, California, hopes to cash in on Monterey. Update at LA Times. Doesn't sound promising. I don't think oil companies have cracked the code on fracking in the Monterey, and the environmentalists are circling. The Monterey is California's Keystone XL.

February 21, 2013:  short video on Monterey Shale; sounds like it will be more difficult to figure out geologically (think tectonic plates, fault lines, mountains, earthquakes); CVX is on record as saying they are not impressed. Remember earlier post of CVX moving some 800 of their California employees to Houston. The transcript of the video is here.

February 3, 2013
: New York Times article on the Monterey Shale in California.

December 24, 2012
: recent BLM auction in Monterey County turns out to be a dud: $10/acre.

December 23, 2012
: BLM approves leasing for the Monterey shale; says fracking is safe; 

August 29, 2012
: with Californians so anti-oil, not much chance that the Monterey Shale will be huge competitor to the Bakken with regard to bragging rights. It's not as easy as it sounds to drill the Monterey Shale.

August 5, 2012
: after posting the story below, and after posting the first couple of comments, I read the SeekingAlpha.com transcript of EOG's 2Q12 earnings conference call. What EOG had to say about Eagle Ford, the Bakken, and the Monterey, confirms what I wrote below. Very, very interesting.



California Dreamin', The Mamas and The Papas


Original Post


Huge "tip of the hat" to Bakkenzone.com for this story: Monterey Shale may not match the Bakken.

Regular readers should find this very, very interesting.

First, some data points from the blog over the past few weeks.

Occidental, in my mind, is as California-centric, as Whiting is Bakken-centric. (I could be wrong, but in general, that's my world view.)

Occidental entered the Bakken; initials wells were not particularly noteworthy, and OXY mentioned (in an earnings conference call) they would be reducing their effort in North Dakota and moving to California where they perceived better opportunities.

About this time, there was a flurry of articles about the Monterey Shale in California, and the dots started to connect.

But, then two interesting observations. First, after that initial flurry of stories, I didn't read much more about OXY and Monterey Shale. Perhaps I wasn't looking hard enough (true), but I scan the headlines of four or five oil and gas trade journals five days a week, and I don't recall much being written about Monterey Shale.

The second observation; in the 2Q12 earnings conference call, OXY mentioned that its worldwide production had increased, but that increase was mostly attributable to the Bakken. And unlike earlier conference calls when the Bakken was hardly mentioned, it seems the Bakken was mentioned fairly often this time around. Those two observations suggested to me that maybe, just maybe, perhaps the Bakken was looking at least a little bit better to OXY.

So, that's where matters stood in the left side of my brain until a few minutes ago. I was checking up on Bakkenzone.com as a Bakken news site, and came across the linked story (above). From that site:
The field, a formation of rock known as the Monterey Shale, was thought to have 15 billion barrels of “technically recoverable” reserves, according to government estimates. That’s triple the amount of oil found in huge and newly prolific fields in North Dakota and Texas. The formation lies under the San Joaquin Valley in central California. Most of the locations probed so far have been northwest of Bakersfield.

But drillers haven’t been able to get the Monterey Shale to produce oil at high rates. Brackett suggests that there are a few characteristics of the geology that could make the field more difficult to develop. There are lots of natural faults in the rock, which means drillers can’t easily control the flow of oil through faults they create. Also, the rock is not under enormous pressure, so there is less force pushing the oil to the surface. And the oil may be relatively thick and sticky, which slows its flow.
Interesting, huh?

Now, add a few more data points.

"Everyone" agrees that the Bakken should have 3 to 4 billion barrels of recoverable oil. This is a most conservative estimate and was "developed" back in 2008 (?). Certainly technology and geopolitical events have changed since 2008. Recent estimates, by some credible folks, suggest there may be as much as 24 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Bakken/Three Forks. Note how those numbers (4 billion and 24 billion) compare to the estimate for Monterey Shale.

Also, note at the linked story, the drillers interested in the Monterey Shale: Occidental Petroleum Corp.(mkt cap: $75B), Plains Exploration & Production Co. ($5B), Venoco Inc. ($0.5B) and Berry Petroleum Co ($2B). That list speaks volumes, especially when compared to the list of drillers interested in the Bakken: Statoil (Norway State Oil), XOM, COP, Marathon, Whiting, Continental Resources, Burlington Resources.

I don't think the state of California will stand in the way of developing the Monterey Shale due to the state's budget crisis, but a) faux environmentalists will always be a challenge; b) I've never thought of California as pro-business as North Dakota; c) even under best of circumstances, lawyers per capita in California vs North Dakota is a concern; and, d) if anything goes wrong, environmentally while drilling the Monterey, the press will be ready to pounce.

The tone of OXY's 2Q12 conference call seems to reflect those data points, especially in light of the article linked above, Bloomberg, July 31, 2012.

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Monterey Shale Near Santa Barbara, California

Link here to Oil & Gas Journal

Several things attracted me to this story, not least of which I enjoyed many wonderful weekend outings with some nice southern California women -- ah, but that was a long time ago, in another galaxy, far, far away.
Underground Energy Corp., Santa Barbara, Calif., will attempt to complete the Monterey shale at the Chamberlin 3-2 well on the 7,750-acre Chamberlin lease in its Zaca field extension project in Santa Barbara County, Calif.
Some data points:
  • Depth: 7,685 feet (somewhat shallower than the Bakken, in general)
  • Cost: budgeted for $2.4 million (well below the $7 million to $10 million for Bakken wells)
  • Payzone in offset well: 1,700 feet (huge); more than 1,200 feet of continuous Monterey oil
  • Typical payzone in this area: 1,100 feet (huge -- the middle Bakken, I believe, is 50 - 100 feet)
  • Original Zaca field: 10-acre spacing; 61 wells
  • Original Zaca field: average IP -- 200 bopd; EURs > 540,000
Another rig in the area will drill to 4,350 feet (much shallower than the Bakken; and will offset two other wells have produced more than 500,000 bbls of oil.

A bit of competition for the Bakken, it appears, and suggests why some operators, like OXY say they have better prospects in California than North Dakota.

Note: I have no formal training in the oil and gas industry; no formal training in geology; I don't follow California oil industry; and I may have misread the story. Check out the link if you plan to make any investment decisions after reading this post.  I am well-known to make errors. This is presented, again, for my benefit and benefit of readers to try to sort out the Bakken.

******************
A Note for the Granddaughters

And speaking of long ago, far away:

Buffy, piaknowguy


A Long Time Ago, Waylon Jennings
And then he met Jessi:

Storms Never Last, Jessi and Waylon
I'm Looking for Blue Eyes, Jessi Colter