USGS estimates 8.5 billion barrels of oil in Texas' Eagle Ford Group

[rangerrebew]

USGS estimates 8.5 billion barrels of oil in Texas' Eagle Ford Group
June 22, 2018, United States Geological Survey
 

The Eagle Ford Group of Texas contains estimated means of 8.5 billion barrels of oil, 66 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 1.9 billion barrels of natural gas liquids, according to a new assessment by the U.S. Geological Survey. This estimate consists of undiscovered, technically recoverable resources in continuous accumulations.

The Eagle Ford Group stretches from the Texas-Mexico border to the west, across portions of southern and eastern Texas to the Texas-Louisiana border to the east. It is one of the most prolific continuous accumulations in the United States, and is comprised of mudstone with varying amounts of carbonate.


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-06-usgs-billion-barrels-oil-texas.html#jCp

[MajorClay]

Good deal. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Difficult to ascertain from article whether this is in place hydrocarbons or estimated recoverables.

Big diff

[thackney]

Difficult to ascertain from article whether this is in place hydrocarbons or estimated recoverables.

Big diff

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
assessed undiscovered, technically
recoverable hydrocarbon resources in
self-sourced continuous reservoirs of
the Upper Cretaceous Eagle Ford Group
and associated Cenomanian–Turonian
strata, which are present in the subsurface
across the U.S. Gulf Coast region, Texas.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2018/3033/fs20183033.pdf

Undiscovered resources are those that are estimated to exist based on geologic knowledge and statistical analysis of known resources, while technically recoverable resources are those that can be produced using currently available technology and industry practices. Whether or not it is profitable to produce these resources has not been evaluated.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
assessed undiscovered, technically
recoverable hydrocarbon resources in
self-sourced continuous reservoirs of
the Upper Cretaceous Eagle Ford Group
and associated Cenomanian–Turonian
strata, which are present in the subsurface
across the U.S. Gulf Coast region, Texas.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2018/3033/fs20183033.pdf

Undiscovered resources are those that are estimated to exist based on geologic knowledge and statistical analysis of known resources, while technically recoverable resources are those that can be produced using currently available technology and industry practices. Whether or not it is profitable to produce these resources has not been evaluated.

Thx. 

As a reservoir engineer and reserves auditor, the assessment of resource by the USGS would be struck down by the guidelines of the former companies I worked for which adhered to SEC standards.

One has to predict the In Place volumes and assess the recovery factor of the resource.  I note the USGS is simply applying recovery EURs per well and multiplying it by resource area.

That is a no-no in reserves and resource assessment.

Rationale is that one must be able to at least estimate the IP volumes to discern whether the recovery for that well is sufficient to make that EUR.

Although it is a scientific body, the USGS has drifted away from scientific standards.

[thackney]

Thx. 

As a reservoir engineer and reserves auditor, the assessment of resource by the USGS would be struck down by the guidelines of the former companies I worked for which adhered to SEC standards.

One has to predict the In Place volumes and assess the recovery factor of the resource.  I note the USGS is simply applying recovery EURs per well and multiplying it by resource area.

That is a no-no in reserves and resource assessment.

Rationale is that one must be able to at least estimate the IP volumes to discern whether the recovery for that well is sufficient to make that EUR.

Although it is a scientific body, the USGS has drifted away from scientific standards.

I suspect the SEC would have problems with the "undiscovered" part as well.

It is a rather blind estimate.  It isn't proved reserves.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I suspect the SEC would have problems with the "undiscovered" part as well.

It is a rather blind estimate.  It isn't proved reserves.

It does not have to be proven in order to run afoul of SEC dictates.

The dictate is technically unsound, and that is the point coming from a supposedly technical organization.

[Suppressed]

Although it is a scientific body, the USGS has drifted away from scientific standards.

Sadly, that's since Republicans have tasked it to be more "practically minded" and crank out economic projections regardless.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Sadly, that's since Republicans have tasked it to be more "practically minded" and crank out economic projections regardless.

Was that legislation or Executive fiat?  I never heard about it.

What I do know is the budget priorities that have changed for the better for the USGS.

Let's compare say, 2016 with 2019 budgets.

2016: President’s 2016 Budget Proposes $1.2 Billion for the USGS
Among these are for items such as "climate change", "renewables" and "oceans rising".

None of these are scientific in nature but political agendas.
https://www.usgs.gov/news/president%E2%80%99s-2016-budget-proposes-12-billion-usgs

2019: President Proposes $860 Million USGS Budget for FY2019

You can see the budget went down and now accommodates what you say are 'practical' things like

100 year strategies on organization and infrastructure, extraction of minerals we can exploit(BTW, the USGS's original charge when created), and seeking answers in the source of pathogens, a health issue.

https://www.usgs.gov/news/president-proposes-860-million-fy19-budget-usgs

If one compares the two, I see little science in the earlier budget, but seeking scientific answers in the latest, and AT 1/3 LESS COST.

Tell me again how that is not an improvement?  If we do not wish 'practical' solutions, what good is the USGS?

@Suppressed