• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

(NYTIMES) Shale Boom in Texas Could Increase U.S. Oil Output

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ripclawe

Banned
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/b...v=click&_r=2&smid=fb-nytimes&pagewanted=print

CATARINA, Tex. — Until last year, the 17-mile stretch of road between this forsaken South Texas village and the county seat of Carrizo Springs was a patchwork of derelict gasoline stations and rusting warehouses.

Now the region is in the hottest new oil play in the country, with giant oil terminals and sprawling RV parks replacing fields of mesquite. More than a dozen companies plan to drill up to 3,000 wells around here in the next 12 months.

The Texas field, known as the Eagle Ford, is just one of about 20 new onshore oil fields that advocates say could collectively increase the nation’s oil output by 25 percent within a decade — without the dangers of drilling in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico or the delicate coastal areas off Alaska.

There is only one catch: the oil from the Eagle Ford and similar fields of tightly packed rock can be extracted only by using hydraulic fracturing, a method that uses a high-pressure mix of water, sand and hazardous chemicals to blast through the rocks to release the oil inside.

The technique, also called fracking, has been widely used in the last decade to unlock vast new fields of natural gas, but drillers only recently figured out how to release large quantities of oil, which flows less easily through rock than gas. As evidence mounts that fracking poses risks to water supplies, the federal government and regulators in various states are considering tighter regulations on it.

The oil industry says any environmental concerns are far outweighed by the economic benefits of pumping previously inaccessible oil from fields that could collectively hold two or three times as much oil as Prudhoe Bay, the Alaskan field that was the last great onshore discovery. The companies estimate that the boom will create more than two million new jobs, directly or indirectly, and bring tens of billions of dollars to the states where the fields are located, which include traditional oil sites like Texas and Oklahoma, industrial stalwarts like Ohio and Michigan and even farm states like Kansas.

“It’s the one thing we have seen in our adult lives that could take us away from imported oil,” said Aubrey McClendon, chief executive of Chesapeake Energy, one of the most aggressive drillers. “What if we have found three of the world’s biggest oil fields in the last three years right here in the U.S.? How transformative could that be for the U.S. economy?”

The oil rush is already transforming this impoverished area of Texas near the Mexican border, doubling real estate values in the last year and filling restaurants and hotels.

“That’s oil money,” said Bert Bell, a truck company manager, pointing to the new pickup truck he bought for his wife after making $525,000 leasing mineral rights around his family’s mobile home. “Oil money just makes life easier.”

Based on the industry’s plans, shale and other “tight rock” fields that now produce about half a million barrels of oil a day will produce up to three million barrels daily by 2020, according to IHS CERA, an energy research firm. Oil companies are investing an estimated $25 billion this year to drill 5,000 new oil wells in tight rock fields, according to Raoul LeBlanc, a senior director at PFC Energy, a consulting firm.

“This is very big and it’s coming on very fast,” said Daniel Yergin, the chairman of IHS CERA. “This is like adding another Venezuela or Kuwait by 2020, except these tight oil fields are in the United States.”

In the most developed shale field, the Bakken field in North Dakota, production has leaped to 400,000 barrels a day today from a trickle four years ago. Experts say it could produce as much as a million barrels a day by the end of the decade.

The Eagle Ford, where the first well was drilled only three years ago, is already producing more than 100,000 barrels a day and could reach 420,000 by 2015, almost as much as Ecuador, according to Bentek Energy, a consultancy.

The shale oil boom comes as production from Prudhoe Bay is declining and drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is being more closely scrutinized after last year’s Deepwater Horizon disaster.

What makes the new fields more remarkable is that they were thought to be virtually valueless only five years ago. “Everyone said the oil molecules are too large to flow in commercial quantities through these low-quality rocks,” said Mark G. Papa, chief executive of EOG Resources.

EOG began quietly buying the rights to thousands of acres in the Bakken and Eagle Ford after an EOG engineer concluded that the techniques used to extract natural gas from shale — fracking, combined with drilling horizontally through layers of rocks — could be used for oil. Chesapeake and a few other independents quickly followed. Now the biggest multinational oil companies, as well as Chinese and Norwegian firms, are investing billions of dollars in the fields.

The new drilling makes economic sense as long as oil prices remain above $60 a barrel, according to oil companies. At current oil prices of about $100 a barrel, shale wells can typically turn a profit within eight months — three times faster than many traditional wells.

But water remains a key issue. In addition to possible contamination of surface and underground water from fracking fluids, the sheer volume of water required poses challenges, especially in South Texas, which faces a severe drought and rapidly diminishing water levels in the local aquifer.

At the rate wells are being drilled, “there’s definitely going to be a problem,” said Bay Laxson, a local water official.

Dave Thompson, regional production superintendent for the oil company SM Energy said the industry knew that water issues were “an Achilles heel.” He said his company was building a system to reuse water in the field.

But unlike Pennsylvania and New York, where fracking for natural gas has produced organized opposition, the oil industry has been mostly welcomed in western and southern states.

Thanks to the drilling boom, the recession bypassed North Dakota entirely. Here in Dimmit County, Tex., the unemployment rate has fallen in half, and sales tax receipts are up 70 percent so far this year, allowing the county to hire more police officers and buy sanitation and road repair equipment.

“In my lifetime, this is the biggest thing I’ve ever seen,” said Jose Gonzalez, 78, a retired teacher and son of migrant farm workers, who leased mineral rights to Chesapeake for $27,000 and sold another plot for $100,000 to a company building an RV park for oil workers. “You can see I’m happy.”
 

Konka

Banned
Inflammable Slinky said:
Shale oil? LOL I miss smilies. Oil would have to more than triple in price for that to even begin to start being economical.

You haven't been paying attention to the news...
 

ToxicAdam

Member
It is crazy the massive amount of 'heavy oil' that is still available to us if we can figure out how to bring it up. The US alone has more than Saudi does.

One thing people tend to skim over when they talk about shale oil is the massive amounts of water that is needed to bring it to surface. Not something most areas of the world can just fritter away on these projects.
 

LQX

Member
They have been talking about the abundance of shale oil in the US and Canada for years and nothing ever comes from it.
 

Draft

Member
If the US increased its oil output by 25% today, through Texas magic, what portion of our oil needs would be satisfied? What portion will that same amount satisfy after another decade of commercial expansion?

Hmm, maybe this will work out if we stay in a recession for the next 10 years.
 

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Konka said:
You haven't been paying attention to the news...
Production levels doesn't make a difference when most of the price is just speculators.

Draft said:
If the US increased its oil output by 25% today, through Texas magic, what portion of our oil needs would be satisfied? What portion will that same amount satisfy after another decade of commercial expansion?

Hmm, maybe this will work out if we stay in a recession for the next 10 years.

Do you actually see any signs that supply is lower than demand? Demand is actually down. hint: speculators
 

Draft

Member
Angry Grimace said:
Do you actually see any signs that supply is lower than demand? Demand is actually down. hint: speculators
OK. That being said, it looks like we produce less than 1/3rd of the oil we consume, so even if production increased by 100% the US would still need to import billions of barrels each year.
 

Tapiozona

Banned
Why is this news? Shale Oil is already too expensive to become a viable option at this point in time. But more importantly, the US already has known reserves larger than any other country in the world BY FAR of Shale Oil (US has 62% of the worlds known shale oil reserves). A little discovery in Texas isn't going to make a difference when theres 1,000,000 times the amount in Colorado/Wyoming/Utah.
 
The Shale oil story comes up every time gas hits $3-$4/gallon. But yeah, it'd have to be like $9 - $10/gal for SHale to make any impact... which MAY bring it down to.. $8.91/gallon.
 

SRG01

Member
Inflammable Slinky said:
Shale oil? LOL I miss smilies. Oil would have to more than triple in price for that to even begin to start being economical.

That's what they said about the oil sands...
 

Dies Iræ

Member
“That’s oil money,” said Bert Bell, a truck company manager, pointing to the new pickup truck he bought for his wife after making $525,000 leasing mineral rights around his family’s mobile home. “Oil money just makes life easier.”

[face_palm]

"Oil money" doesn't make life easier - because oil money isn't qualitatively different from money in general ("money makes life easier"). Y'know what does make life much easier though, and which is qualitatively different from other goods?

Oil.

Keep on pumping that black gold, baby.
Keep on wasting that miracle fluid.
 

XMonkey

lacks enthusiasm.
worldrunover said:
Can't wait to see how the socialist democrats will block America from becoming foreign oil independent.
I imagine real socialists would probably make independence from foreign oil and control of domestic supply a goal.

But keep on fighting against those evil democrats.
 

highrider

Banned
meanwhile, public transit is still largely useless throughout the u.s. nobody carpools or wants to sacrifice their freedom which is so intrinsically tied to cars. and petroleum is in everything. and plastic is in everything. we are on borrowed time with fossil fuel.

but yeah, shale oil. awesome.
 

Zzoram

Member
Dreams-Visions said:
It costs too much.

It's also incredibly dirty. You have to contaminate huge quantities of water to extract shale oil. Considering that drinking water is becoming scarce in itself, oil that requires even more water to extract isn't the best way to go.
 

SRG01

Member
Zzoram said:
It's also incredibly dirty. You have to contaminate huge quantities of water to extract shale oil. Considering that drinking water is becoming scarce in itself, oil that requires even more water to extract isn't the best way to go.

Even if it didn't contaminate water sources, it would still require immense amounts of it. The only reason why oil sands developments in Alberta are as cheap as they are is because it's essentially free to pump oil out of the Athabasca river. Nevermind the subsidies; it's the water that's the main factor.
 
Shale Oil is a net energy loser in that it takes more energy that you put into it, versus what you get out. It's like you spending 200$ every two weeks in gas money to go to your job in which you only earn 150$ come payday.
 

Ripclawe

Banned
pickle said:
meanwhile, public transit is still largely useless throughout the u.s. nobody carpools or wants to sacrifice their freedom which is so intrinsically tied to cars. and petroleum is in everything. and plastic is in everything. we are on borrowed time with fossil fuel.

but yeah, shale oil. awesome.
Damn straight, I took public transit long enough a time ago that I never want to do it again.
 

Phoenix

Member
DiatribeEQ said:
Shale Oil is a net energy loser in that it takes more energy that you put into it, versus what you get out. It's like you spending 200$ every two weeks in gas money to go to your job in which you only earn 150$ come payday.

If that were the case though, why would a for-profit company invest in commercializing it?

The dominant question for shale oil production is under what conditions shale oil is economically viable. The various attempts to develop oil shale deposits have succeeded only when the shale-oil production cost in a given region is lower than the price of petroleum or its other substitutes. According to a survey conducted by the RAND Corporation, the cost of producing shale oil at a hypothetical surface retorting complex in the United States (comprising a mine, retorting plant, upgrading plant, supporting utilities, and spent oil shale reclamation), would be in a range of US$70–95 per barrel ($440–600/m3), adjusted to 2005 values. Assuming a gradual increase in output after the start of commercial production, the analysis projects a gradual reduction in processing costs to $30–40 per barrel ($190–250/m3) after achieving the milestone of 1 billion barrels (160×106 m3).[8][29] Royal Dutch Shell has announced that its Shell ICP technology would realize a profit when crude oil prices are higher than $30 per barrel ($190/m3), while some technologies at full-scale production assert profitability at oil prices even lower than $20 per barrel ($130/m3).[11][58]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom