
U.S. officials cut estimate of recoverable Monterey Shale oil by 96% - T-A
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-oil-20140521-story.html
======
throwaway_yy2Di

        "Just 600 million barrels of oil can be extracted with
        existing technology, far below the 13.7 billion barrels once
        thought recoverable from the jumbled layers of subterranean
        rock spread across much of Central California, the
        U.S. Energy Information Administration said. [...] The
        Monterey Shale formation contains about two-thirds of the
        nation's shale oil reserves."
    

Here's the source from 2009, which puts US "undeveloped technically
recoverable" shale oil at 24 billion barrels, ~15 billion in Monterey (rounded
apparently),

[http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/usshalegas/](http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/usshalegas/)

This looks dated, since the most recent "technically recoverable" estimate is
58 billion:

[http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=11611](http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=11611)

~~~
Lagged2Death
It is my understanding that projections and estimates from the EIA are
generally understood (by experts in the field) to be political artifacts, and
to generally be wildly optimistic, from the point of view of the fossil fuel
business.

That probably goes equally for the revised estimate; it may have been adjusted
downward in part to make some other prospect look relatively more appealing.

------
andor436
Interesting. David Hughes at the Post Carbon Institute said roughly this same
thing in 2013. PDF here:

[http://www.postcarbon.org/reports/Drilling-
California_FINAL....](http://www.postcarbon.org/reports/Drilling-
California_FINAL.pdf)

At the time he pointed out that much of the original estimate was derived from
oil company investor presentations. Perhaps not the most unbiased source for
the EIA to use.

------
Lagged2Death
Oil is of course part of a global market; that global market consumes ~85
million barrels of oil every day.

Even the higher 13.7 billion barrel figure was only enough oil to power the
world economy for five months, assuming you could magically get it out of the
ground fast enough.

~~~
astrodust
I think people often forget this when they try to hand-wave away concerns
about peak oil and think energy independence is just a case of allowing for
more drilling.

On the whole we're burning through the easy stuff at a staggering rate, and
when these are depleted, the only thing left will be the types that are far
more expensive to extract. There might be a time when the stubborn tar sands
are actually the cheapest, and the only other types of oil are even more
colossally expensive.

~~~
vostrocity
I think there will be a lot to worry about before we have to worry about
running out of oil.

~~~
flavor8
There are 42 years of estimated recoverable oil left (in the top 17 producers)
according to 2012 EIA numbers.

1324B/85M/365 = 42.675.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves)

That assumes no consumption growth. The economic argument from peak oil people
says: "OK, when we're down to 10 years of oil left, just how much more
expensive is a barrel of oil going to be, given that increasing scarcity is
evident? Does that price rise also feed back to 20 years? What does it do to
the economy, and/or what alternate forms of energy take its place due to
economic pressures?"

So yeah, within your lifetime you'll probably feel the effects one way or the
other.

~~~
kbutler
Rather than just the single data point of "current oil reserves", you need to
take the 1st derivative, and look at the rate of change in current oil
reserves over time.

It gives a dramatically different picture.

~~~
astrodust
So far the delta in "estimated reserves" is tipping sharply negative because a
lot of the glowy estimates by big producers such as Saudi Arabia are turning
out to be nothing but wishful thinking and aren't based in reality.

------
beedogs
I'm glad the myth of the United States as "net energy exporter" is finally
being taken out back and shot.

~~~
kbutler
Allow me to disagree in both assertion and sentiment - "not recoverable with
today's technology" doesn't mean much with the rate of progress of oil
extraction technology.

And rather than 2/3 of the US Shale oil reserves, the 13b barrels is less than
a quarter of the current estimate (58b -
[http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=11611](http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=11611)),
which still leaves 50% growth in reserves over the 2012 figures.

And given the trouble throughout the world caused by US energy imports, I'd be
happy to try exporting for a while.

~~~
wazoox
Something called EROEI will stand between the best technology and this oil,
I'm afraid.

------
jchrisa
Good. Our only hope is to not burn that stuff anyway.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
Yeah, this is excellent news. The sooner we can cut down our dependence on the
shit, the better. Local supplies just give us an excuse to keep sucking on the
pipe.

------
jqm
They mention the retrieval method as fracking. Is this a good idea along a
fault line near large population centers?

~~~
ArkyBeagle
It depends. Minor quakes in Oklahoma are believed attributable to fracking but
it's hardly conclusive. Oklahoma hasn't had people who could read living on it
for much more than a hundred years now. There's no data base; the people who
lived there before didn't leave a record.

As hard as it may be to believe, there's not _that_ much material doing
downhole. It's usually as much-ish as a middling stock tank - a few million
gallons - tennish or so acre-feet.

Determining cause and effect will be a mighty task.

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2013/07/01/water-f...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2013/07/01/water-
for-fracking-in-context/) goes to the water use, with awater always being the
big item. David Blackmon is a bit of an oil industry flack, but his logic and
numbers marry up to other sources well.

Given California's politics, the geology ( fault lines ) and the way prices
are working out, it's probably better left alone for now. The rate of
innovation in fracking is staggering. The technology will be there sooner or
later. I have a friend who's roughly from the general Kern County area and its
a brittle place environmentally.

This being said, the LA Times is not exactly an oil/gas friendly publication -
the quotes were all from professional anti-frackers. Sadly, since the Enron
fiasco, we have to watch for that sort of thing. Claiofornia also has had "oil
people" and "water people" and "oil and water don't mix."

~~~
Bulkington
Not that there's much of a San Joaquin Valley aquifer left to ruin by
fracking, but politics and the sheer cost of trying to do business in
California should mean the Monterrey Shale will be held in reserve.
(Personally, I think I'd rather eat California produce than have cheap gas for
driving around on foraging expeditions/pantry raids.)

Great piece from Mercury News on SJV water here:
[http://www.mercurynews.com/drought/ci_25447586/california-
dr...](http://www.mercurynews.com/drought/ci_25447586/california-drought-san-
joaquin-valley-sinking-farmers-race)

Tip of the research iceberg on the obvious:
[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/groundwater-
contam...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/groundwater-
contamination-may-end-the-gas-fracking-boom/)

~~~
ArkyBeagle
Just IMO, but _the_ two canonical books for this subject are "Cadillac Desert"
and "The Prize".

The "gas in the water" stories are significantly contaminated by very bad
propaganda. It's _possible_ that they are true - that they are caused by
fracking - but it's not likely. The depths are pretty radically different.
Pennsylvania in particular is where Drake found oil oozing to the surface, so
... who knows what's down there, close to the surface? I know I am no
geologist and even a good geologist may not have good understanding of that
region.

------
leorocky
That's a lot of money just sitting there underneath the ground. There's more
than enough incentive to figure out how to get it out of there.

~~~
vostrocity
There's also a lot of disincentive that's not necessarily about money.

