US to become biggest oil producer before 2020

[RGR]

Assuming GOR means Gas, Oil, Reserves then you read me right.

GOR stands for Gas-Oil-Ratio. It quantifies the amount of natural gas contained within oil under in-situ conditions. When pressure is released and the temperatures changes, the gas comes out of solution and results in an amount of gas for a given amount of oil. Oils in the reservoir are named as undersaturated and saturated depending on whether or not they contain as much gas as they can, or not. Once an oil is saturated under a given set of conditions, buoyancy allows "free gas" to form a cap on top of the oil column, the oil no longer able to absorb any more.

Coal seams that are too expensive to mine for coal generally are cheap enough to drill for natural gas. In Russia as in the US too expensive to mine coal fields have been used as gas fields for a long time. But in Russia because of latitude, size and poorer logistical endowment a much higher percentage of coal fields fall into to the too expensive to mine but not too expensive to use as gas fields category. Australia for example uses the same technique, primarily to make coal mining cheaper and safer and then found that it had a lot of NG and other gases that they need a market for.

China does it as well. Quite extensively as a matter of fact. But gas in coal seams isn't the issue when discussing where most of the natural gas from Russia comes from (conventional gas fields).

 

[RGR]

US to become biggest Oil Producer is the topic, pure speculation based on what, making Obama look good. Well, during Obama's rule as a tyrannical President;

We are not the World's Largest Producer of Oil

Speculation as to what happens to U.S. Oil Production years from now and who gets political credit is a Fool's Debate

The EIA has approximately a $100M budget and 350 people who try and answer just this question. Economists and the government obviously do not consider it a fool's debate.

 

[elektra]

US to become biggest Oil Producer is the topic, pure speculation based on what, making Obama look good. Well, during Obama's rule as a tyrannical President;

We are not the World's Largest Producer of Oil

Speculation as to what happens to U.S. Oil Production years from now and who gets political credit is a Fool's Debate

The EIA has approximately a $100M budget and 350 people who try and answer just this question. Economists and the government obviously do not consider it a fool's debate.

Your right, it can not be a fool's debate if the Government spends hundreds of millions yearly on that question while passing thousands of laws completely changing how the government controls the oil industry.

A fool's debate indeed.

 

[JimH52]

Obama describes the use of oil as an addiction.

And that is what it is. I suppose it galls all the pro W people out there when during the Obama administration, US oil production is at the heights that it is. I am sorry that upsets you...

The price of gas is the highest its ever been for the longest time.

If you increase the rate at which you build Wind Turbines and Solar Power plants you must increase oil production to provide the massive increase in demand for raw materials that only heavy industry can provided.

The USA is not being allowed to prosper at our full potential, at best we are all living off the crumbs that the baby boomers drop to us. We are draining that massive amount of wealth from the baby boomers, our economy is now their Health Care and Government controlled housing.

The USA can be much more than it is today, we should lead the world in research and development off all industries, from textiles to nuclear power.

We should produce so much we export to Canada, not import, both Oil and Electricity.

As it is the states like Michigan and Ohio depend on Canada for electricity. States like California which claims to be the number 6 or 7 economy in the world must import electricity.

Cities like Detroit that were the Heavy Industry leader of the world, the sixth largest economy, a city, is now dead and gone.

Your claim of Obama's accomplishments is at best a sad disappointment in comparison to the potential of our Great Country.

Galls you don't it?

 

[Mr. H.]

Obama describes the use of oil as an addiction.

And that is what it is. I suppose it galls all the pro W people out there when during the Obama administration, US oil production is at the heights that it is. I am sorry that upsets you...

Record US oil production figures are a fantastic thing.

Correlating it to Obama's reign is the height of stupidity.

Doing so mocks the very industry and its peoples who's own ingenuity, investment, and risk brought it about in the first place.

You're a mindless rube.

 

[RGR]

US to become biggest Oil Producer is the topic, pure speculation based on what, making Obama look good. Well, during Obama's rule as a tyrannical President;

We are not the World's Largest Producer of Oil

Speculation as to what happens to U.S. Oil Production years from now and who gets political credit is a Fool's Debate

The EIA has approximately a $100M budget and 350 people who try and answer just this question. Economists and the government obviously do not consider it a fool's debate.

Your right, it can not be a fool's debate if the Government spends hundreds of millions yearly on that question while passing thousands of laws completely changing how the government controls the oil industry.

The government changes thousands of laws completely changing all sorts of things in all sorts of industries, if you object then vote for someone to change that particular aspect of government, or move somewhere with one more to your liking.

And mostly, the government doesn't control the oil industry. It would be obvious if they did, it would suddenly become half as efficient, lackadaisical as a rule, wells would take 3X longer to drill and the price for oil would be probably $30/bbl higher.

 

[elektra]

The EIA has approximately a $100M budget and 350 people who try and answer just this question. Economists and the government obviously do not consider it a fool's debate.

Your right, it can not be a fool's debate if the Government spends hundreds of millions yearly on that question while passing thousands of laws completely changing how the government controls the oil industry.

The government changes thousands of laws completely changing all sorts of things in all sorts of industries, if you object then vote for someone to change that particular aspect of government, or move somewhere with one more to your liking.

And mostly, the government doesn't control the oil industry. It would be obvious if they did, it would suddenly become half as efficient, lackadaisical as a rule, wells would take 3X longer to drill and the price for oil would be probably $30/bbl higher.

Your kind of all over the board with your response, almost like you forgot what your responding to.

Thousands of new energy regulations every year and Government does not control the Oil Industry?

it would suddenly become half as efficient, lackadaisical as a rule, wells would take 3X longer to drill and the price for oil would be probably $30/bbl higher

I have kind of a news flash for you, while you were sleeping the Oil Industry has become half as efficient and the government agencies they must go through to conduct there business are lackadaisical.

Wells do take 3X as longer, with all the Lawyers that have to answer to Government Agencies, Permits, Environmental Impact Studies, frivilous lawsuits by Environmentalists, etc., etc..

And the price of gas is 30$, actually a lot more per barrel, last time I checked the price at the pump is still extremely high, highest in my life for the longest time.

Further, Governments around the World claim ownership of 95% of all Oil reserves. Governments are getting so rich the literally build islands and paradise in the desert.

So, I do not know if you were being funny, sarcastic, or actually were serious, either way thanks for pointing out the obvious to those of us who are informed.

 

[RGR]

Thousands of new energy regulations every year and Government does not control the Oil Industry?

Depends on what you mean by "control", and what you think an energy regulation of relevance is.

it would suddenly become half as efficient, lackadaisical as a rule, wells would take 3X longer to drill and the price for oil would be probably $30/bbl higher

I have kind of a news flash for you, while you were sleeping the Oil Industry has become half as efficient and the government agencies they must go through to conduct there business are lackadaisical.

The government issues have been built into oil company business models since the day Rockefeller decided to start building them. You don't get to pretend they are a new thing, and no, the wells I am familiar with are quite a bit MORE efficient, not half as efficient. Feel free to provide your own examples of course, mine come from the Utica and Bakken.

Wells do take 3X as longer, with all the Lawyers that have to answer to Government Agencies, Permits, Environmental Impact Studies, frivilous lawsuits by Environmentalists, etc., etc..

Drill times in the Utica are down under 10 days, having started at around 25. That isn't 3X longer.

And the price of gas is 30$, actually a lot more per barrel, last time I checked the price at the pump is still extremely high, highest in my life for the longest time.

The price of gas isn't $30. And yes, current prices are much higher than they were in 1970 or so when the US was the world's swing producer. We haven't been the world's swing producer for 40+ years now, so things are different. This isn't a surprise.

Further, Governments around the World claim ownership of 95% of all Oil reserves. Governments are getting so rich the literally build islands and paradise in the desert.

Complain to them then. I have been referring to the topic, which is about US oil production, and by extension, the US companies doing most of the work to increase that production.

So, I do not know if you were being funny, sarcastic, or actually were serious, either way thanks for pointing out the obvious to those of us who are informed.

I'm not even sure what part of "obvious" you understand when you confuse decreases in drilling time with increases....perhaps you would care to explain WHICH wells are now taking 3X longer as a starting point.

 

[elektra]

Thousands of new energy regulations every year and Government does not control the Oil Industry?

Depends on what you mean by "control", and what you think an energy regulation of relevance is.

I have kind of a news flash for you, while you were sleeping the Oil Industry has become half as efficient and the government agencies they must go through to conduct there business are lackadaisical.

The government issues have been built into oil company business models since the day Rockefeller decided to start building them. You don't get to pretend they are a new thing, and no, the wells I am familiar with are quite a bit MORE efficient, not half as efficient. Feel free to provide your own examples of course, mine come from the Utica and Bakken.



Drill times in the Utica are down under 10 days, having started at around 25. That isn't 3X longer.



The price of gas isn't $30. And yes, current prices are much higher than they were in 1970 or so when the US was the world's swing producer. We haven't been the world's swing producer for 40+ years now, so things are different. This isn't a surprise.

Further, Governments around the World claim ownership of 95% of all Oil reserves. Governments are getting so rich the literally build islands and paradise in the desert.

Complain to them then. I have been referring to the topic, which is about US oil production, and by extension, the US companies doing most of the work to increase that production.

So, I do not know if you were being funny, sarcastic, or actually were serious, either way thanks for pointing out the obvious to those of us who are informed.

I'm not even sure what part of "obvious" you understand when you confuse decreases in drilling time with increases....perhaps you would care to explain WHICH wells are now taking 3X longer as a starting point.

Boy, you come up with a lot of assumptions, I said thousands of new regulations have an effect on Oil Production, you start talking about Rockefeller and telling me off the top of your head the history of regulations in a sentence as if you lost your way.

Your response literally ignores what is said and is a response to something not in my post.

The government is a hindrance to Oil Production and thousands of new Energy Regulations every year is a huge burden to consumer and the industry.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The good news is Obama is moving forward with producing this oil with co2 from our coal plants. Putting that shit deep under the ground.

 

[RGR]

Boy, you come up with a lot of assumptions, I said thousands of new regulations have an effect on Oil Production,….

You said "control", not effect. Of course plenty of regulations "effect" oil production, such as changes in requirements for, say Class II injection well pressures. It is a change, but how does it effect oil production? Maybe not at all.

How about regulations related to SERC filings in Ohio? It causes oil companies to spend more time doing paperwork, certainly this doesn't slow down drilling rigs.

The government is a hindrance to Oil Production and thousands of new Energy Regulations every year is a huge burden to consumer and the industry.

The government is a hindrance to everything, the oil industry is not special in this regard. thousands of new energy regulations may, or may not, effect operations, but some folks certainly wouldn't be happy about things going back to the "good ol' days".

Nowadays this would be considered a failure of containment, and would send idiots like Matthew into a tizzy as proof that the oil companies are incompetent and trying to pollute everything and kill everyone.

 

[gnarlylove]

:

Record US oil production figures are a fantastic thing.

Correlating it to Obama's reign is the height of stupidity.

Doing so mocks the very industry and its peoples who's own ingenuity, investment, and risk brought it about in the first place.

You're a mindless rube.

Record oil production is only a good thing if you cannot perceive long term. Obama released his Weekly Address on Nov 16 on the topic of this thread and it surprised me. As usual only one side is given. Can't post the link but its called "Taking Control of America's Energy Future." It doesn't matter if Obama had anything to do with this surge or not. The fact is we are reaping short term benefits: stable gas prices. What are some other results we tend to pay little attention to?

Faster depletion of the oil supply (assuming natural gas is not at the heart of this new US energy production). This leads fewer domestic jobs in the long run as well as the US relying on foreign oil sooner. What has that brought us? Untold causalities as if human life is treated as secondary to our energy dependence. Uh, humanity is the whole point of civilization! This is nothing new though.

Probably the most galvanizing point this surge in production will mean in the long run the price of oil will be higher since there is less of it!!!

Also wanna reiterate a point made earlier: whether oil or natural gas, they're all hydrocarbons and are not an energy solution. Too bad methane is seen as only cash rather than its ugly side: long-term damage to the environment through hydraulic fracturing and "produced water." Why are so many folks paid to sign nondisclosure agreements? hmmm

Lastly, methane ends up being a poor ratio of energy output when natural gas rigs run on sometimes hundreds of gallons of diesel a day plus the millions of gallons of water trucked in that is rendered poisonous as well as aquifers and streams.

 

[Mr. H.]

:

Record US oil production figures are a fantastic thing.

Correlating it to Obama's reign is the height of stupidity.

Doing so mocks the very industry and its peoples who's own ingenuity, investment, and risk brought it about in the first place.

You're a mindless rube.

Record oil production is only a good thing if you cannot perceive long term. Obama released his Weekly Address on Nov 16 on the topic of this thread and it surprised me. As usual only one side is given. Can't post the link but its called "Taking Control of America's Energy Future." It doesn't matter if Obama had anything to do with this surge or not. The fact is we are reaping short term benefits: stable gas prices. What are some other results we tend to pay little attention to?

Faster depletion of the oil supply (assuming natural gas is not at the heart of this new US energy production). This leads fewer domestic jobs in the long run as well as the US relying on foreign oil sooner. What has that brought us? Untold causalities as if human life is treated as secondary to our energy dependence. Uh, humanity is the whole point of civilization! This is nothing new though.

Probably the most galvanizing point this surge in production will mean in the long run the price of oil will be higher since there is less of it!!!

Also wanna reiterate a point made earlier: whether oil or natural gas, they're all hydrocarbons and are not an energy solution. Too bad methane is seen as only cash rather than its ugly side: long-term damage to the environment through hydraulic fracturing and "produced water." Why are so many folks paid to sign nondisclosure agreements? hmmm

Lastly, methane ends up being a poor ratio of energy output when natural gas rigs run on sometimes hundreds of gallons of diesel a day plus the millions of gallons of water trucked in that is rendered poisonous as well as aquifers and streams.

Seems I've heard this argument before. Oh yeah, it was back in the '70s.

Regarding hydraulic fracturing- please share some relevant sources to back up your bullshit.

 

[RGR]

Also wanna reiterate a point made earlier: whether oil or natural gas, they're all hydrocarbons and are not an energy solution.

Then the point made earlier was wrong. You, me, probably everyone posting on this board has been using oil and natural gas as an energy solution...hard to claim they aren't in the future when the past contradicts you the instant you write such a thing.

Too bad methane is seen as only cash rather than its ugly side: long-term damage to the environment through hydraulic fracturing and "produced water."

Produced water is handled in legal fashion and if your state handles it poorly, blame the politicians who wrote the rules, not the folks who follow them to give the consumer what they are demanding. As far as long term damage give me a break, you would prefer to alternative of sitting around in the dark waiting for daddy to bring home a saber tooth cat, contemplating your navel and thinking about drawing a picture using charcoal on the cave wall?

Why are so many folks paid to sign nondisclosure agreements? hmmm

For civil settlements? Its SOP.

Lastly, methane ends up being a poor ratio of energy output when natural gas rigs run on sometimes hundreds of gallons of diesel a day plus the millions of gallons of water trucked in that is rendered poisonous as well as aquifers and streams.

Nobody, least of all the oil and gas companies drilling for oil and gas to sell to YOU, cares about the poor ratio of energy input, such a consideration is irrelevant. And stupid to even mention, what matters is not the energy ratio but the $$$$$ in and the $$$$ out. And no, aquifers aren't rendered poisonous while drilling, those same regulations requiring Class II injection wells for produced waters (and other legal methods) also require this thing called "casing", otherwise known as a bunch of steel to make sure that producing reservoirs don't mingle with freshwater zones. This has been going on since before you were born, so lets try and not stir up another round of delusion on the part of the oil-ignorant, shall we?

 

[RGR]

The good news is Obama is moving forward with producing this oil with co2 from our coal plants. Putting that shit deep under the ground.

You know as little about geologic sequestration of CO2 as you do about energy in general. Go back to whatever it is you do know something about, nose picking, poor lifestyle choices, lamenting never finishing the 9th grade, whatever, but go do that rather than pretend you can say "energy" with a straight face and have a clue.

 

[gnarlylove]

I posted a length reply. Can I ask why it was taken down or did it post on my computer only and somehow neglect being posted on the server? Whatever happened it fucking sucks

 

[Desperado]

Great, than we can tell the Mid East to go eat sand.
The sooner the better!

 

[gnarlylove]

Mr. H, you think there is no such thing as peak oil? In other words is there an endless supply of oil or is there a time when oil production will necessarily slow and eventually cease because of it's finite nature.

Fracking source recommendation is Gasland 1 & 2. It's imperative to at least acknowledge fracking does carry harmful consequences to man and nature. One's which would be avoided in an ideal society.

I think the real problem here is Mr. H and RGR are not here to participate in a discussion but rather to minimize challenging ideas. What I mean is your well-being (including mental satisfaction) depends on holding certain beliefs regardless of facts. In today's world however, critical thinking is the last priority. The real priority and even virtue is to maintain your committed beliefs despite contrary evidence. If this discussion was truly intelligent I wouldn't need to explain that oil is a limited resource.

As for RGR you have mastered the use of fallacious reasoning. Too bad its just that, fallacious.

My point about hydrocarbons being spewed is that CO2, which naturally exists in the atmosphere, increases. So natural gas oil and coal all produce this as well as benzene, cadmium and other harmful chemicals known to cause cancer and brain disorders.

When CO2 is emitted in excessive levels into the atmosphere it alters the climate. As the climate changes it brings about known and unknown effects. As we continue to neglect our emissions and increase it by 3% each year then we are coming closer to serious climate change that displaces millions along the coasts. in 2005 a professor from the Caribean I knew spoke how the place she called "home" for decades was underwater and gone forever. Such instances are on the rise.

As we draw closer to 350-450 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere we will see the oceans become too acidic for coral life to exist thereby killing the life that depended on coral (1/4 the ocean's entire population).

So if you think its ok for 1% of the world's population (America) to consume a quarter of the worlds energy supply and to neglect displacing millions of people just like you and kill a large chunk of oceanic biodiversity then hydrocarbons are you solution

But if you value life then we must demand better alternatives. Solar, wind, hydro, geo-thermal, nuclear and conservation is the long term solution. Natural gas is some intermediate thing that we should just skip altogether so we don't risk ruining biodiversity. In fact, 390 of 400 major glaciers are in retreat. Many are about to cease to exist in the next 5-10 years. Just like glaciers, once biodiversity is snuffed out it isn't simple to recover it. We are dealing with very serious issues that come on slow but accelerate rapidly with runaway variables that increase exponentially with time.

Produced water is harmful, right? I mean would you drink it? It is just one of the many hazards that comes along with natural gas industry. Why take millions of gallons of clean water and turn it into poison when many regions in the world are noticing how valuable and in short supply clean drinking water is and how important an issue it will be in the coming years and decades. It's just poor use of water for energy that we could get elsewhere (like solar) and use the water for sustaining life by drinking it.

If we neglect to develop the industries that are sustainable we are adding to the potential crisis that we are feeling the effects of now with unusual and severe weather patterns.

I can't help but think business do care about ratio of input to output. The easiest way to save money and increase profits is to become more efficient and to simply use less. If companies said fuey to efficiency that's like saying come devour me in the capitalist marketplace. They won't make nearly as much as a competitor company that considers these issues.

But I can't help also thinking you don't really care that you make little sense. Indeed, in the current political environment the victor is the one who maintains their commitment regardless of weather it fits with reality. I mean you can't possibly think I mean for us to return to caves? My intention is to note how ignoring such issues or name-calling ideas doesn't make them go away.

I'd hope with America's huge desire for savings and cash that we could investigate ways to reduce our demand for oil etc. while increasing our wallets. For example, instead of 75-80 degrees, turn the thermostat to 72 or even 68 for the most efficient, according to my heating company. 40% of all trips in the US are 2 miles or less and we drive them. I'd suggest save gas money, improve your health, feel the wind. Unless of course your trip isn't so easy, then don't worry. All I'm saying is this issue won't be going away if we plan to become leading producer by 2020.

In the hope of not straying from a productive discussion I challenge RGR and Mr. H to use the following questions to guide their response:

Does more CO2 lead to a change in the global climate?
Does it matter if excessive CO2 leads to a different climate that causes a loss of biodiversity and displace millions of humans?
Is oil or natural gas or even coal contributing to CO2 levels? Are CO2 levels declining or rising?
Is peak oil real? Or is there an unending supply? Akin to what Nixon said "we have enough oil supply to meet America's demand into the next century and beyond."

 

[gnarlylove]

Sublet County had air quality worse than Los Angeles and there is only 6 thousand people in that county--one person for square mile. Google Sublet and Los Angelos and air. A local paper comes up. Natural Gas is not clean, plain and simple.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Loosing a big post sucks. Can drag and copy before hitting send just in case, or cut n paste it to a notepad file so it network gremlins eat it, you can resend.