Matt King

Matt King
Contributor since: 2011
Company: The Bakken Shale Oil Resource
Bob - are they a "non operator" similar to Northern Oil and Gas?
weaseltex - I believe it was the RMOJ that had field sources indicate some chesapeake wells were being plugged.
I wish CHK all the success in the world. However, since they have plugged wells (reported) on the southeastern edge, I am not as optimistic about a game changing scenario.
As stated in the article, my information on commodity pricing was from the ND DMR. The latest ND DMR roundup was published on 3/21. Commodity prices fluctuate by the minute - I decided to use the latest numbers published by the State. Sorry if they seem "fuzzy" to you.
It appears the State of Alaska is already in the process of tackling infrastructure issues related to roads and water.
No worries - Trans Alaska Pipeline. We're all here to learn.
I agree that tying into TAPS is not the answer. The supply chain will have to figure out another way such as the rail extension coupled with trucks and smaller gathering systems to transport the high end of the completion curve.
I respectfully disagree with your opinion. I am sure most of the country would have thought it was "wacko" that North Dakota would see 200+ drilling rigs in this short of time? The only reason for excess cost is mostly due to the supply chain. All it will take is efficiencies in supplies and rig time. For example, a rail expansion, similar to the one talked about, would add much efficiency. In addition, instead of vessels full of Chinese proppant landing in Houston or LA, they could go directly to Alaska. I highly disagree well costs are three to five times the cost of the lower 48. All it will take is a few smart supply chain folks, most likely in partnership with the state, to bring the costs down enough to allow for full scale development.
I agree that new plays will be defined by oil potential but almost all have associated natural gas. Hence the extreme flaring of 30% of gas produced in ND. The presence of a pipeline is not necessarily a requirement of oil development. When new fields were developed decades ago, the railroad capacity was enough to transport the production until a large scale pipeline could be built.
Could not have said it better myself.
Radamus: I would be interested in seeing the evidence you cite for vertical fracturing causing pollution to the regional aquifer and ground water. Up until now, there are no documented cases of a solid link between ground water contamination and fracturing that I am aware of.
TrufflePig - as I outlined, yes, the concern stems from Wyoming. My concern, and it is being proven in the independent news, is that people, who are uneducated about fracturing, will compare what happened in Wy to potentially happening in other shale plays. Those individuals may pressure their representatives, state or federal, to halt or put more unnecessary regulations in place. There are public calls for fracking bans all over the US. This report will only add fuel to the fire, even though the situation is not similar to what is being done in the Bakken, Eagle Ford, etc.
PapaWhisky - when it comes to offshore and onshore well completions, I believe we are comparing apples and oranges. The Bakken aquifers are protected by 2 layers of cement and 3 layers of steel during fracturing.
Based on science, help me understand how chemicals, which are less than 1% of the frac mixture, can penetrate imperibable layers of rock to reach an aquifer?
Not sure if the "stop scaring people" comment is directed towards me but the "prediction" comes from the most pro exploration regulator I am aware of. Again, who would have thought the gulf would have shut down... look what happened... it has still not recovered.
I think that is a great point. The advantage of rail is that you can choose your destination on a daily basis - providing of course there are destinations that can handle and turn around a unit train quickly. This economic ability, once built out in several origins and destinations, may help to stabilize oil prices on the different benchmarks - what do you think?
I agree both will benefit. In the long run, do you think the service companies are better diversified and less leveraged than the E&P's in shale plays?
I am not sure if there is enough information to know what infill and production drilling will do to the EUR of a section. Continental Resources, based on their public comments, thinks that the EUR per well will be the same for both Bakken and Three forks wells as the double section is drilled out to 8 total wells.
Correct - this was not the real intent of the article but ryan brings up a good point. The Bakken alone will of course not make a huge gain in oil independence. But, the Niobrara, the Alberta Bakken, the Monterey, the North Slope, and Utica Shales, together, can make a significant dent in oil imports. Even today with the Bakken, look how many pipelines are being built and/or reversed. Even though it is a small amount of oil in the grand scheme of things, it is having a major positive impact on the entire US economy.
I also disagree that oil service company costs will flatten in 2012. First, take a look at the current service company infrastructure. It is still severely antiquated. This inadequate infrastructure is driving up costs and costs will only get higher when these companies realize they need to make capital investments. These costs, especially fracturing, will continue to rise through 2012 due to the lack of trucks, receiving rail infrastructure, and the availability of frack sand.