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

[Elderberry]

Oil and Gas Investor by Velda Addison 12/6/2018

Anyone who follows the flow of U.S. oil and gas knows the Permian Basin’s Wolfcamp shale and Delaware Basin’s Bone Spring Formation are bountiful, but a new report from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) shows the enormity of their potential resources: an estimated 46.3 billion barrels of oil plus 281 trillion cubic feet of gas and 20 billion barrels of NGL.

That’s more than double the previous resource assessment for oil in the Wolfcamp.

More: https://www.oilandgasinvestor.com/usgs-report-expands-permians-wolfcamp-bone-spring-potential-bounty-1725006

[Elderberry]

https://www.rigzone.com/news/463b_barrels_of_oil_in_wolfcampbone_spring-06-dec-2018-157662-article/

“Christmas came a few weeks early this year,” U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke said in a written statement Thursday from his department. “American strength flows from American energy, and as it turns out, we have a lot of American energy. Before this assessment came down, I was bullish on oil and gas production in the United States. Now, I know for a fact that American energy dominance is within our grasp as a nation.”

[corbe]

https://phys.org/news/2018-12-usgs-largest-oil-gas-resource.html

[Sanguine]

Awesome.

[Elderberry]

My son just recently went back to the field and that's the area they sent him to.

[corbe]

   Notice that Loving County is so Bountiful.

Charlie Robison - Loving County (studio version)


Sorry...

[IsailedawayfromFR]

   Notice that Loving County is so Bountiful.

Charlie Robison - Loving County (studio version)


Sorry...

In crude oil and polite people, but certainly not in numbers of folks, being the least populated county of the 254

[Sanguine]

   Notice that Loving County is so Bountiful.

Charlie Robison - Loving County (studio version)


Sorry...

I remember him when he was a youngster playing with the big kids on 6th Street. 

[thackney]

Feds Discover Largest Oil, Natural-Gas Reserve in History
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/feds-discover-largest-oil-natural-gas-reserve-in-history/
December 6, 2018

The federal government has discovered a massive new reserve of oil and natural gas in Texas and New Mexico that it says has the “largest continuous oil and gas resource potential ever assessed.”

“Christmas came a few weeks early this year,” Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke said of the new reserve, which is believed to have enough energy to fuel the U.S. for nearly seven years.



In all, the new reserve is said to contain 281 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, 46.3 billion barrels of oil, and 20 billion barrels of natural-gas liquids, the Interior Department’s U.S. Geological Survey said.

COMMENTS
Almost a third of the U.S.’s total crude-oil production comes from the Permian Basin where the reserve was found, making it the biggest shale-oil-producing region in the U.S.

“American strength flows from American energy, and as it turns out, we have a lot of American energy,” said Zinke. “Before this assessment came down, I was bullish on oil and gas production in the United States. Now, I know for a fact that American energy dominance is within our grasp as a nation.”...

- - - - - - - - - -

"discover" and "new" seem to be journalistic license...

[Elderberry]

Not a "new reserve". Its a re-assessment of existing reserves.

According the Interior Department, USGS in 2016 conducted a separate assessment of the Wolfcamp shale in the Midland Basin portion of the Permian. The new Delaware Basin assessment of the Wolfcamp and Bone Spring is more than two times larger than the 2016 study, the department noted.

Duplicate posting here:

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,343052.0.html

 USGS Report Expands Permian’s Wolfcamp, Bone Spring Potential Bounty
« on: December 06, 2018, 04:23:22 PM »

[thackney]

Duplicate posting here:

Same topic but not a duplication of the article.  It is getting more media coverage in national news, not just industry publications.

[Elderberry]

So if its a different article to a topic that has a current thread, does it warrant its own thread, or should it add information to an existing thread?

[Skeptic]

Not a "new reserve". Its a re-assessment of existing reserves.

Yeah, but they didn't know it was that big before.

[Smokin Joe]

Typically, reserve estimates will be very conservative. The estimates of Oil and gas reserves in the Bakken/Three Forks have been revised upward a few times (just a couple of producing formations in the Williston Basin).

The part that gets me is how "The Feds" discovered this, and not the thousands of oil and gas company personnel who have been working the oilfields of Texas for over a century.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Not a "new reserve". Its a re-assessment of existing reserves.

Wrong on both accounts.

The article's author obviously does not know anything about how oil and gas resources are reported.

As a hint, a 'resource' is not synonymous with a 'reserve'.

To report the only figures mentioned in the article as a 'reserve' would land any oil and gas operator in violation of SEC rules on what constitutes reserves of oil and gas.

This is truly lazy or outright deception in reporting.  All one has to do is take the report it is supposedly based upon and see how the author was in serious error with even the title.

Assessment of Undiscovered Continuous Oil and Gas Resources in
the Wolfcamp Shale and Bone Spring Formation of the Delaware
Basin, Permian Basin Province, New Mexico and Texas, 2018

https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2018/3073/fs20183073.pdf

I looked up the author's bio and I found out her last article prior to this was to report on Stormy Daniels.

The National Review is failing miserably in accurate reporting, other than perhaps prostitutes.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Typically, reserve estimates will be very conservative. The estimates of Oil and gas reserves in the Bakken/Three Forks have been revised upward a few times (just a couple of producing formations in the Williston Basin).

The part that gets me is how "The Feds" discovered this, and not the thousands of oil and gas company personnel who have been working the oilfields of Texas for over a century.

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

[Elderberry]

Wrong on both accounts.

 Not a "new reserve". Its a re-assessment of existing reserves Basin Estimates.

Fixed enough?

Did you also object to my identifying that this topic was previously posted? I wasn't really sure what the "second account" was.

[Bigun]

Whatever the state of the very sorry reporting here, there has been nothing "new" discovered here.  I was doing consulting work in that area 20 years ago in places like Jal and Eunice New Mexico which had once been thriving oil and gas centered communities back in the 1930's and still had large compressor stations and various other facilities operating at the time.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Fixed enough?

Did you also object to my identifying that this topic was previously posted? I wasn't really sure what the "second account" was.

Your message:  Not a "new reserve". Its a re-assessment of existing reserves.

It was neither a new reserve nor a re-assessment of existing reserves. 

This is more a slam at author of article rather than of you @Elderberry .

Author changed the wording contained in the cited report which resulted in a very misleading article for those knowledgeable in the oil sector.  I spent over 40 years assessing reserves for oil companies.

I really hate shoddy journalism and someone incompetent to report on oil and gas topics.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Whatever the state of the very sorry reporting here, there has been nothing "new" discovered here.  I was doing consulting work in that area 20 years ago in places like Jal and Eunice New Mexico which had once been thriving oil and gas centered communities back in the 1930's and still had large compressor stations and various other facilities operating at the time.

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

[Elderberry]

Your message:  Not a "new reserve". Its a re-assessment of existing reserves.

It was neither a new reserve nor a re-assessment of existing reserves. 

@IsailedawayfromFR

And I changed the wording to: Not a "new reserve". Its a re-assessment of  existing reserves Basin Estimates.

This is more a slam at author of article rather than of you @Elderberry .

Author changed the wording contained in the cited report which resulted in a very misleading article for those knowledgeable in the oil sector.  I spent over 40 years assessing reserves for oil companies.

I really hate shoddy journalism and someone incompetent to report on oil and gas topics.

I did NOT POST the article I thought you were referring to. @thackney did. I just commented that I had previously posted a thread on this topic, using different articles.

But now his thread has been merged with my original posting.

Should I  from now on, request that you review Oil and Gas Articles before I post them?

[Sanguine]

Have a Snickers.

[Elderberry]

Have a Snickers.

Thanks! I needed that!

[Sanguine]

Thanks! I needed that!

 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@IsailedawayfromFR

And I changed the wording to: Not a "new reserve". Its a re-assessment of  existing reserves Basin Estimates.

I did NOT POST the article I thought you were referring to. @thackney did. I just commented that I had previously posted a thread on this topic, using different articles.

But now his thread has been merged with my original posting.

Should I  from now on, request that you review Oil and Gas Articles before I post them?

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

[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.