Here's an interesting concept I came across. It appears that O&G reservoirs may be refilling, at least in the Gulf:
Maybe Bud Brigham will have to eat his words: "No drop left behind".
Well, it does seem that you might just be just a basher to some more observant people.
I do not see any first hand info, no facts like boepd?
Have you called the USGS?
Checked with anything beyond the website?
Right now there are 4 major formations in the Williston basin, Bakken, 3 Forks, Sanish, Tyler; some say add 2 more: Parshals and Niobrara. The Williston Basin isn't in just ND; it's in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, S.D. and Montana. In the 18 months from 3/07 to 9/09 production doubled in ND. Harold Hamm, CEO of CLR, estimates that the Williston basin produced 6% of the oil used in the U.S. last year (don't forget how big the Williston is). BP is currently drilling exploratory shale wells in China. Any body know about the shale plays in Europe? Poland, no less; France and Italy too.
Very little is said on this board about tar sands oil production in Canada. Google Fort McMurray, Alberta to find the center of oil production from tar sands. 20% of oil used in the U.S. came from Canada last year, mostly tar sands. guess who's the big dog in the tar sands? If you guessed XOM you're almost right; it's an XOM subsidiary, Imperial Oil. For you Nodaks that think Williston, Dickinson, etc. are boom towns; look at Ft. McMurray.
The world's dependence (not just the U.S.)on oil is here to stay. Here's a quote from "The Principals Of Oil and Gas Production by Roswell H Johnson and L.G. Huntley, first Edition, 1916 (yes, 1916):
"the question: "how long before the supply of oil and gas will be exhausted?" should be answered, "Never." The history of the development of oil and gas, like that of coal, will be thinner and thinner, deeper and deeper oil sands will in turn be developed."
And that was in 1916, long before the Mid-Continent Region, Middle East, Prudhoe Bay, etc. The world will get off oil when babies get off milk. what was said 95 years ago is still true today. So, don't be surprised id ND doubles production again in the next 18 months.
P.S. did you see the employment add for a reservoir engineer on Grizzly's website. Wonder why they need a reservoir engineer; they've yet to produce a drop. BTW, GPOR, a non-Bakken owns a chunk of Grizzley.
I guess it's up to you if you want to be in denial about what is really happening in the Bakken. And given the fact that it's the first successful unconventional shale oil play, no one really knows what the ultimate productivity of the play will be. However, I would be willing to bet the Bakken isn't the only formation like it in the world. The Eagle Ford and Niobrara are still in the early stages of development and too early to tell, but it's probably likely they will see success. And it is also pretty likely uncoventional shale oil around the world will continue to rise and have a significant impact on world oil production.
BTW, in 1995, the USGS estimated the Bakken reserves at 195 million barrels. In 2007, I guess you could have sat around and argued whether there was any more oil there and there were probably a lot of skeptics. In the meantime, oil companies that knew better were busy drilling for oil in the area and coming up with pretty impressive results. It was this success that pushed the government to update the 1995 study. Now, five years later, oil companies are busy drilling other layers in the formation, and guess what, they are having huge success. Now the USDGS is considering updating their study again.
The other nice thing about the Bakken is that there's almost no such thing as a dry hole. This puts anybody with lots of acreage in formation to have a lot of potential for growth. NOG's acreage is right there with the best of them.
Ok so if we go with the 11 billion barrel figure that the state of ND gives, that is still only about 3 years of the US energy consumption. But the trick here is that it will likely take decades to extract it all, you can't get that 11B out all at once. Yes it will be profitable for some O&G's I don't deny that, yes it is a very important reserve of domestic oil. But it is not going to realistically provide for our US energy needs as some suggest, that was my main point I was trying to get across here. It also does not address the environmental dilemma of increasing use of fossil fuels.
But my contention here is that NOG is not what it is cracked up to be, for numerous reasons which we have already discussed in length, and it does not deserve the rich valuation that it currently has, I feel it should not be on the same par as the other players in the Bakkens. I think investors have been overcome by hype, promise and deception and have bid up NOG's price. So we will see in due time how this plays out.
From the link in the OP:
" Moreover, the report also noted that even under "high growth assumptions," an oil shale production level of 1 million barrels per day (about 10% of the amount of oil the U.S. currently imports daily) is "probably more than 20 years in the future," and depends upon scientists overcoming some substantial obstacles first:
But development of the resource hinges on overcoming economic, technical and environmental obstacles, Bartis said.
"No work has been done on the impacts of development and ways to mitigate those impacts," he said.
For example, shale development requires large expenditures of water and energy, produces air pollution and carbon emissions and leaves toxic byproducts that could endanger the environment.
According to news accounts, although new drilling techniques have greatly increased oil production in Bakken formation in recent years, as of February 2011 that region was still yielding less than half a million barrels per day."
arcanereason wrote: >Paranoia and confirmation bias are not included in a reasonable investment thesis. <
Well said, a large amount of what you read on message boards falls into that category. So many pretending to be experts and trash talking others. So many that think anything negative is made up, and part of an evil conspiracy by a short cabal.
It's a two way market, wise investing/trading considers all points of view and admits that there is always uncertainty, even in the best case scenario. There's a familiar saying in the market: "let of your opinions or you may be letting go of your money."
Not a basher here. Your research has lead you to a different conclusion than I've reached. That's what makes a market.We've placed our bets and time will reveal the outcome. As I said, good luck.
The East Texas oil fields were nothing but broken bits, dry holes and bankruptcy until Dad Joiner drilled the Bradford #3 in 1930. The field spread throughout east Texas into LA, OK, KS and parts of AR. It came to be known as the Mid-Continent region and was the largest oil and gas deposit discovered until the middle east deposits came to light. To date the Mid-Continent region has produced 60B bbls of oil and untold mcf of gas. The amount of gas is unknown because in the early days gas was flared or vented. 81 years later the Mid-Continent region is still pumping. Low and behold the Woodford, Barnett and various other shale plays were discovered in the Mid-Continent. Here's a map of shale deposits other than the Bakken, 3 Forks & Sanish:
Look at that gigantic deposit south of NY! Prior to horizontal drilling, multiple frac'ing stages, ceramic propants, eco-pads, etc. these shale plays would never be economically feasible.
If you listen to Harold Hamm, he debunks the peak oil theory totally. It's not just the Bakken, USGS or ND estimates of EUR. Historically, just about every field has proven to be larger than anyone ever dreamed. Odds are pretty good the Bakken, 3 Forks and Sanish will follow suit.
You are not correct on a few points that I will try to point out, with some clarity.
On this: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9NDIxODE4fENoaWxkSUQ9NDM1NjA4fFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1
see the slide explaining the estimates differences (I think it is slide#9)
The state geologists that you provided a link for are the ones who updated their estimates to over 11 Billion Barrels in their 2010 estimate updating the old 2008 USGS estimate of upto 4.3 billion barrels.
I did not understand the slides you wanted me to notice. What is the point you were trying to make?
On this: Your comment, “no James, that is just some website. It does not mean much to anyone but you.” was one of the silliest responses I’ve seen, even on a Yahoo board.
If you are actually sincere in making this comment then it says that you do not see much of a difference in information sources as far as the quality of their credibility.
I would not waste my time reading that website when I can go directly to the information source at the USGS, State geologist website, or independent sources from the presentations of dozens of bakken operator companies other than the one in question to confirm the information.
Why should I believe someone elses google search or collection of emails from 2008 when I can get first hand information?
I called Continental directly and talked to them. Did you? Maybe you should. They are moving to Oklahoma City, but they were very helpful and very nice and you should consider them.
I found out the numbers for the estimates & I now understand why there are slight diffences.
For you to claim that they have an agenda or an interest since they are a public company is not a realistic view but just an excuse not to accept it. You just assumed that they cannot be right because they might have some agenda...Maybe one could be concerned if you were told something in conflict with other geologist experts but they do not, and in fact support the USGS & the state with their drilling data each time they poke a hole in the ground.
Where do you think the USGS gets their data from? Those who are operators in the Williston basin....like CLR, BEXP...ect.
You maybe shoud re-examine the credibility quality of what you have been reading and see if you can find some sources of information that are actually unbiased.
Maybe you will do well with your trade, but I would guess timing is also important.