May 22, 2014, 1:58 p.m. EDT
Opinion: Most of the shale oil we were counting on doesn’t exist
By Chris Martenson
Getty Images
The U.S. shale oil “miracle” took a major hit Wednesday, when the federal government announced a hefty downward revision of its estimate of the amount of recoverable oil in the No. 1 shale reserve in the U.S.: the Monterey formation in California.
A recently as this week, the much-publicized Monterey formation accounted for nearly two-thirds of all technically recoverable U.S. shale oil resources, standing at a world-class 13.7 billion barrels. But on Wednesday, that estimate was downgraded to a mere 600 million barrels, or 96% lower than the day before. You read that right: 96% lower. This takes the Monterey from one of the world’s largest potential fields to a play that, if all 600 million barrels thought to be there were brought to the surface all at once, would supply the U.S.’s oil needs for a mere 33 days.
Yep. 33 days.
And along with that oil come tremendous water demands, environmental, and infrastructure damages.
The reasons for the downgrade are easy enough to understand. The initial estimates were mere guesses that relied on company statements and not actual results. Now with enough wells in play the Energy Information Agency can calculate the potential of the Monterey play and it’s obviously a lot less than originally thought.
With that, California’s dreams of 2.8 million new jobs from the Monterey shrank to 112,000 and the hoped for $24.6 billion in tax revenues withered to $984 million.
More importantly, the U.S. shale “miracle” turned into a pumpkin overnight with overall U.S. reserves shrinking from approximately 24 billion barrels to approximately 11 billion barrels.
This is not surprising at all to anybody following the shale story with a critical eye. We always knew that the best plays were being prosecuted first for obvious reasons; it’s human nature to go after the easy stuff first. And this is especially true for the folks in the oil patch.
The best plays were tapped first, not by some accident of technology or lucky holes plunged into the ground, but because they were cheapest to prosecute. The remaining shale deposits are less rich, more costly to explore, and the profitable pockets much harder to find.
Your main take-away is this: the U.S. has a lot less shale reserves on the books today than it did yesterday. Look for future downward revisions as the other remnant shale plays are poked and prodded and found to be wanting.
Investors need to be wary here too. The hype about shale prospects are wedded to a Wall Street cheap capital machine that is showing clear signs of over-heating.
Taken as a whole, the independent petroleum producers in the U.S. will spend $1.50 drilling for every $1.00 of revenue they get back this year. That same spend-more-than-you-get dynamic has been in play since 2010. After four years of spending more than they get back, the free cash flows (FCF) of these companies have been quite negative.
How have they plugged the gap? With financing, of course, which is where Wall Street and the investors come into the story. But four years into the shale miracle is plenty of time to ask the obvious question: When will all these shale drilling efforts finally generate positive FCF?
For the U.S. as a whole, the Monterey write-down should squelch any talk of the U.S. needing to export any of its oil because we still import more than 7 million barrels per day, and it was unlikely that we’d ever entirely plug that gap. The ‘”loss” of the Monterey oil from our reserve count only makes the dream of oil independence that much less likely.
The larger context here, one that China is on top of with its magic checkbook diplomacy in high gear, is that global energy resources are getting harder and harder to procure. Our prediction is that this trend of ever-increasing oil prices has a very long way to run yet. Our observation is that very few seem to be aware of the implications, which we forecast will drive increasing geopolitical unrest as energy prices continue their march upwards from here.
Given how much hope and political posturing rested upon the shale oil miracle in the U.S., the Monterey write-down is one the biggest news developments on the wires right now.
"Fans and foes of fracking agree there has been no reduction in the government's estimate of how much oil is in the Monterey Shale. It's one heck of a lot: Some 400 billion barrels in total resources. What's changed is the estimate of how much can be recovered now, with today's technology. And frackers have found present day technology to be not well suited to extracting California's shale oil."
ReplyDeletehttp://montereyoil.org/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.crude.com/investor-center/invest-in-the-bakken-shale/?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=bingsearch
ReplyDeleteAnd for all you who are so sure that shale oil is our savior here is your chance to invest in it. Any takers?
From the Malthusian Post Carbon Institute:
ReplyDelete"We’ve reached the end of economic growth as we’ve known it in the US. Despite unprecedented interventions on the part of central banks and governments, the so-called economic recovery in the US and Europe has been anemic and has failed to benefit the majority of citizens. The debate between stimulus and austerity is a distraction, as neither can fully address the factors THAT SPELL THE END OF ECONOMIC GROWTH—the end of the age of cheap oil, the vast mountains of debt that we have incurred, the diminishing economic impacts of new technologies, and the snowballing costs of climate change impacts."
All this "NEW NORMAL" propaganda remains tiresome.
There is a shitload of oil under California.
Technology has always advanced to meet the challenge, Too early to cry doomsday. Anyway, the U.S. is now the worlds largest producer of oil, surpassing Saudi Arabia and other middle east countries.
Deleteyes William there is but today's fracking technology can't get it.
Deleteric if you can't recognize the propaganda value of the article you quoted above at your age then I can't help ya. You probably believed back in the 70's when they told you we'd run out of oil in less than ten years.
DeleteYou probably believed back then when they told you about global cooling.
You probably believe the global warming stories today.
I can't help ya mate. Yer fried.
What's sad is we continue to side line the Keystone pipeline importing oil from countries that pretty much hate us. The oil is transported by rail with accidents becoming a regular occurrence.
DeleteThe enviro's scream the aquifer may be damaged, hundreds of pipelines cross the aquifer in Nebraska and Colorado today.
https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=map+of+oil+pipelines+in+the+us&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35
William yiu are an idiot. This is always your response when you really don't have one. The oil is there and nowhere in the article does it say it isn't. Today's fracking technology can't get it because on the instability and the folding of the earth's crust in that particular area.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe keystone pipeline is planned to transport oil from Canada to the gulf where it, and it's refined products can be shipped more cheaply to foreign countries. This has nothing to do with U.S. energy independence and everything to do with oil company profits at our expense. Is that what you want?
DeleteExplain Mick why is it at your expense when corporations create value for their shareholders and jobs from the production process.
DeleteBecause I am not and Mick is probably not a shareholder in the refineries. William have you still not figured out that the oil market is a world market not a national one. The refineries can sell to the highest bidder and it may not help our energy situation at all. As I have said before guarantee that the refined products will stay in our country and I would be all in on the keystone XL. Otherwise it's a waste of time and William it will not create very many long term jobs.
DeleteSo ric, you're still hung up on that "zero sum game" nonsense. Increased product brought to market, local or world wide, will lower the cost for everyone.
DeleteAnd I do not understand your response concerning shareholders. Why if your neighbor benefits from a yield should it be at your expense?
"And I do not understand your response concerning shareholders. Why if your neighbor benefits from a yield should it be at your expense? "
DeleteWhat is this supposed to mean?
William right now oil companies fracking especially on the Monterrey shale, are spending $1.50 for every dollar they bring in. That is not a formula to lower prices at any volume. Guarantee we keep the refined product and you got my vote. we are already a net exporter of oil products. Has the price of gas fallen ?
Ric, Mick placed oil company profits at "our expense." I'd love for him to qualify that remark.
DeleteAs for the market price of oil it is a fact that all forms of energy compete with each other. The low price of natural gas, because of fracking, will eventually drive the price of oil downwards. The rigs that produced the gas fracking paradism have now moved into the fracked oil market.
With or without keystone or California supplies the cost of energy will drive inexorably lower. Pipelines are being reversed to bring the new supplies to gulf refineries. All of this comes to our benefit beginning In two to three years.
Want substantially lower gasoline prices sooner? Tell your government to allow new regional refineries. There is natural gas and oil all over the place, being brought to the surface through the technological leap of directional drilling and fracking.
Just a cover story for the patient commies in Kalifornia. They won't allow fracking anyway.
ReplyDeleteThey already frack on the Monterrey shale
DeleteWho are patient commies, are they tolerant or ill?
DeleteThey are mentally ill progressives.
DeleteHere's a short video, interesting idea with regards to U.S. energy independence:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU&feature=kp
Solar FREAKIN' Roadways! I love it, thanks Pfunky.
DeleteIt is a captivating idea. It's expensive though. Here's an excerpt from a Sunny Freeman article at HuffPo:
Delete"Extremetech.com said the concept is “verging on utopian.”
“On paper, it really does sound like one of the greatest inventions ever. In reality, though, where, you know, real-world factors come into play, it will probably never make the jump from drawing board to large-scale deployment.”
The site points out that asphalt costs between US$3 and $15 per square foot, whereas the cost per solar panel could amount to about $70 per square foot based on 2010 calculations by the company.
One estimate pegs the total cost to repave every road in the U.S. with panels at $56 trillion, or about four times the country’s national debt. That's according to Aaron Saenz, writing for the site Singularity hub."
Solar FREAKIN' Roadways would have to be adopted by the private sector at first, then phased in over the next 20 to 40 years as current roads would be reconditioned/resurfaced - if it happened at all.
It's a cool concept, though.
Oh it's gonna happen moonbeam. Keep the faith.
DeleteA related article, Doc.
Deletehttp://gigaom.com/2014/05/29/we-dont-need-solar-roadways-we-need-to-help-unleash-current-solar-panels/