USGS Report Expands Permian’s Wolfcamp, Bone Spring Potential Bounty

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe
How politicized do you believe the USGS is now?

Not so much, really.

They refused to assess the wells near Riverton (Pavillion WY) which were such a trainwreck that no conclusions could be drawn from them in re fracking during the Obama administration. I believe the EPA drilled them as test holes. Of course, the next move by the Obama Administration was to give roughly a million acres of Wyoming (unconstitutionally) to the Wind River Tribe, including the areas in question. I'm not sure how that court case ended up, but it takes an act of Congress to change state boundaries, and Wyoming wasn't having any of it from Obama's pen and phone.

When all the politics are a footnote, the USGS still has to face the test of time and (real) science.

[Smokin Joe]

I know you are correct and article should fixate on newly increased volumes instead, and believe the USGS is attempting to remain relevant.

When the Bakken was rolling along nicely, development wise, the USGS increased the reserve estimates because of the new data provided by new producing wells. They did that a couple of times and finally, the 'boom' was on--but those of us who had been in at the onset of the play had already been drilling wells like crazy for six years at that point. (First Elm Coulee in MT, then the wells by Stanley, ND, and elsewhere along the Nesson Anticline for starters).  Drilling became more widespread, but the reserve estimates always seemed a little low.
There is a reason for this, simply that the USGS was avoiding hyping a play by making unrealistic reserve estimates. Even the State of ND was not excessively optimistic in their estimations, and a little caution is prudent in that regard.

Lease speculators and others will do the hyping; the government agencies which are doing serious oil and gas or geological science have to maintain their credibility in the long run.

[Smokin Joe]

I really don't know what your fuss is.  I simply wish to ensure what is called a reserve is reported accurately, and the author most decidedly did not

99.9% of journalists posing as science writers make a bad name for the few real science writers who are out there.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

When the Bakken was rolling along nicely, development wise, the USGS increased the reserve estimates because of the new data provided by new producing wells. They did that a couple of times and finally, the 'boom' was on--but those of us who had been in at the onset of the play had already been drilling wells like crazy for six years at that point. (First Elm Coulee in MT, then the wells by Stanley, ND, and elsewhere along the Nesson Anticline for starters).  Drilling became more widespread, but the reserve estimates always seemed a little low.
There is a reason for this, simply that the USGS was avoiding hyping a play by making unrealistic reserve estimates. Even the State of ND was not excessively optimistic in their estimations, and a little caution is prudent in that regard.

Lease speculators and others will do the hyping; the government agencies which are doing serious oil and gas or geological science have to maintain their credibility in the long run.

Yeah, I recall the EIA making the California Monterey the next pot of gold, then soon afterwards squashing it back down to where it should be.  The USGS kept away from the hyperbole.