USGS: TFS = MB

The "title" isn't quite correct, but I thought it looked cool, and it isn't far off.

PrairieBusiness is reporting the results of the recent USGS survey of the Three Forks Sanish. The USGS findings: it is estimated that there are 1.9 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the TFS in North Dakota. This compares with the USGS estimate of 2.1 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Bakken formations in North Dakota. Most of the oil coming from the Bakken formations is coming from the Middle Bakken (MB).

This is incredible.

Again, because "we" have become so used to "the Bakken" nothing seems to surprise us much any more.

But think about this a minute. Here are some data points:

• The initial discovery of the Bakken resulted in headline stores around the world. We now have a formal survey that confirms what oil industry analysts have been saying about "the Bakken" for the past year or so. There is another formation that is as big as the Bakken. By the way, some folks opine that the TFS might actually be bigger.
• It has been estimated that the Bakken will require thirty years of drilling to exhaust locations; and, that wells will be producing until 2100. If I understand correctly, this estimate was based only on the Bakken formation. If there is another formation that is the same size as the Bakken, ... well ... you can do the math.
• All of the Bakken / TFS is in a politically stable environment.
• Most of the Bakken / TFS is under state land, not federal land. (Compare with Utah, Montana and Wyoming.)
• Companies already have tons of logs, information, data, leases, rights-of-way, rigs-in-place, and, most important, the experience to start drilling this formation immediately (and, indeed, they already have).

I assume folks can think of some other data points that should be added.

Top Stories, Week 22: June 1 - June 8, 2010

Focus on Whiting, June 6, 2010.

Hightlights of the June NDIC Hearing Dockets, June 5, 2010.

Oil Under Lake Sakakawea Now In Play

Oil under Lake Sakakawea is now in play. This has no real significance other than "political" and economical. The lake is a man-made lake and has nothing to do with the oil that happens to be under it. 

The link is to a local newspaper article. Over time, these links are often broken or require a subscription. In case the link is broken, here are the first couple of paragraphs, from the Minot Daily News, June 4, 2010:

NEW TOWN: Three Affiliated Tribes' mineral acres are being tapped for oil under Lake Sakakawea on the Fort Berthold Reservation.

The Minerals Restoration Act of 1984 restored the mineral rights under the lake to the tribe.

Fred Fox, administrator of the tribal Energy Department, said currently, nine to 12 wells are being drilled which go under the lake and about eight wells are producing from under the lake. He said two of the producing wells are on mineral acres owned by the state. Those are located in the northern part of the reservation in the Van Hook Arm.

More From Whiting

I do not own shares in Whiting, and I am not promoting Whiting. It is just a coincidence that so much news seems to be coming out of Whiting right now.

From a press release today:

Whiting's Behr 11-34H, located in the east-central portion of the Sanish field, has produced a cumulative total of more than 575,000 BOE since its completion on June 17, 2008. The well's initial production rate during a 24-hour test was 3,245 BOE per day. The Behr well, which was fracture stimulated in 11 stages, continues to flow. It is currently producing at a rate of 786 BOE per day.

Some folks say I am inappropriately exuberant about the Bakken. I confess. I am. (600K@$50=$30 million at the wellhead)

I assume the statement "continues to flow," means a pump has not yet been put on it.

CNBC Finds Good News in The Latest Jobs (Employment) Numbers

CNBC was able to find something good in the most recent jobs report -- the one that showed the economy gained 430,000 new jobs in May -- all but 40,000 of them temporary government census jobs, that will be gone at the end of June.

The good news: according to CNBC, because more people were not hired, those still holding jobs were able to work longer hours: 34.2 hours/week vs 34.1 hours/week.

I am unable to make this stuff up.

Three points:

• Point 1: 34.2 vs 34.1 cannot possibly be statistically significant nor reproducible.
• Point 2: I assume both 34.2 and 34.1 were rounded, and therefor the difference may be even less than one-tenth of an hour (6 minutes).
• Point 3: Does anyone really believe that by employers having folks work up to six minutes longer per week means they can postpone hiring more people?

CNBC does note that the likely reason employers are not hiring is because of the tremendous health care cost they will incur with the new Federal health care program.

Update: the unemployment picture just got a bit bleaker with the firing/resignation/retirement of a prominent 89-year-old reporter loved by all.