Eve,

You said, "Laura,

When you post your next piece, start a new thread at the top, as this one's about to drop off into the abyss...

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 06, 1999."

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001vbP

You are right. It has already fallen into oblivion. Now I'm wondering a couple of things: Should I include the entire thread in the new post so that others who haven't read it can understand? Or, should I just include the posts relating to oil? Or, should I just post what my dad and uncle said?

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 06, 1999

Answers

I am interested in what your dad and uncle said. please re-post or point me to the text if possible.

Thanks (real e-mail address)

-- ridley (ridleywalker@aol.com), December 06, 1999.

Laura...

.....Back in the early '80's I worked as a "caser" in six western states. The "company hand" as they were referred to, told me personally, that the one feild we were working in had enough oil to run this country for 40 years... and every well in that feild was being capped! The price of oil was too low at the time, if I remember correctly. Whether or not the wells have been opened for production at this point is anybody's guess, but my guess would be that they have not, as oil has remained low.

.....The larger problem we would have, should we need to rely on domestic production, is the fact that a very high percentage of the drilling outfits, as well as the service companies to the rigs, (such as the companies I worked for), are now out of business. The ramp up time to reach the level of boon-towns again would certainly be more than a few months, and I would also guess that many of the tools that were used nigh on twenty years ago, were cut up for scrap.

.....I know this is a bit away from where your discussion is/was leading, but I fewel these are important points to consider.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 06, 1999.

Sorry...

.....Should read "feel" etc.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 06, 1999.

Thanks for the clip.

Is it possible that, while older technologies and even machinery have been scrapped since this man worked in this buisness, that other technologies and machinery have replaced them?

Granted, I think that there will be problems with oil, I just wondered, as probably you did, what this will mean in conjunction with other factors (such as delivery and refining).

Thanks again.

R

-- ridley (Ridleywalker@aol.com), December 06, 1999.

One field in a Western state with enough oil to supply this country for 40 years.... and it was capped.

OK lets do the math. We currently consume 20 million barrels a day and we're increasing at about 2% a year- but lets just use the 20 mil figure. Forty years of this would equate to about 300 billion barrels... so you're talking about more reserves than Saudi Arabia or about a quater of the world's proven reserves in ONE FIELD in one western state...I don't find this very credible.

Do you really think casers and rough necks are in the know on the production potential on any field? If you owned the rights on this field why wouldn't you develop it? I already know some answers that will pop up-All these big bad oil companies are capping wells and colluding to create shortages. Thats as much bunk as this one field having 300 billion barrels.

The Venz and Alberta Can. has tar sand deposits with +100 billion barrel reserves. Oil shale in Colorado had emense reserves also but they aren't economical to develop. Oil companies have pissed away $billions trying to develop these oil shale and tar sand technologies. Why would they if they could just go out and develop all these capped fields at profitable economics? Why would they spend $ billions on Arctic and deep water projects if they have cheap capped wells in Western states?

-- Downstreamer (downstream@bigfoot.com), December 06, 1999.

Downstreamer...

.....I only stated what the company hand, Exxon man if I remember correctly, had told me, verbatim. The "field" we're talking about is the entire red desert in Wyoming; check a map for the size of the thing, and I don't think the numbers remain so incredible, it's the better part of southern Wyoming. At the time this gentleman mentioned this, he was on a serious rant against Jimmy Carter's energy policies. Now let's see, who was the man in Carter's administration that single-handedly created the phoney energy "crises" of the '70's? Oh, yes, I believe it was Henry Kissinger.

.....BTW, A "company hand" is hardly a caser or roughneck, he is the whole ball of wax. To state that any interested, intelligent worker in the patch doesn't discuss these things when on the job, is to say that drag racers never discuss cars while at the track. C'mon, why on earth would I make up such a thing?

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 06, 1999.

Laura,

I'd love to hear what your dad and uncle had to say. Also, it would be best if someone could post the link to the prior thread here. I thought it was a very interesting thread. Can someone do this? The title is: "If some chips are inaccessible, then what do we do when they break?" Thanks.

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 06, 1999.

Patrick,

Its oil field talk. I hear alot of stuff that isn't credible. I don't pass it along.

Answer my question: How many $ billions has Exxon spent on exploration since your oil field days? $Tens of Billions. And much of it its in dangerous, shakey, unstable, far flung regions of the world.

Why would they if they're sitting on 100s of billions of barrels capped off in Wyoming?

-- Downstreamer (downstream@bigfoot.com), December 06, 1999.

Oh also.... Kissinger was under Nixon and Ford. Zignew Brysynsky (sp) was Carter's Sec of State.

-- Downstreamer (downstream@bigfoot.com), December 06, 1999.

Most capped wells in Oklahoma (before capping) would only produce very few barrels each per day. I understand some are plugged in a manner that would cost big bucks to unplug. I have owned an interest in some of these and those that were not capped and continued to pump have been unprofitable until just recently. I have seen a lot of drilling equipment just rusting away all over Oklahoma.

-- tc (trashcan-man@webtv.net), December 06, 1999.

Downstreamer...

.....I'v read many of your posts recently concerning oil and I respect you knowledge and opinions. The re-ramp of the service companies was really what I wanted to say, and the other was a twenty- year old memory, so you're right, I should have kept quiet on that one. I defer to your experience of the modern-day oil industry.

.....In regards to Henry Kissinger, he was still pulling the strings when Carter was in office, albeit, behind the scenes. Kissinger, Brezinsky, Rockefeller et. al. are all the same animal.

.....Thank you for civil discourse.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 06, 1999.

Downstreamer and Patrick,

The biggest factor in all of this talk of capped wells... most capped wells cannot be restarted without re-drilling. Now regarding the ramping up time for drilling new wells... Someone had a posting on a thread back in June on this...

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0010Vc

June 27, 1999 HOUSTON (AP) The number of rigs actively exploring for oil and natural gas in the United States has slipped by three 563.

Of the rigs running nationwide last week, 110 were exploring for oil and 453 for gas, Houston-based Baker Huges Inc. reported Friday. During the same week last year, 823 rigs were operating in the United States.

Baker Huges has kept track of the count since 1944. The tally peaked at 4,530 on Dec. 28, 1981, during the height of the oil boom, but has set several record lows this year, bottoming out at 498 on April 9.

Of the major oil- and gas-producing states, Texas rose by six and New Mexico and Wyoming gained one rig each.

Oklahoma lost four rigs, Alaska and Louisiana lost one each and California's tally remained unchanged.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), December 07, 1999.

Ridley,

You asked, "Is it possible that, while older technologies and even machinery have been scrapped since this man worked in this buisness, that other technologies and machinery have replaced them?"

There of course has been new techniques in finding and drilling for oil in the past 20 years, but basically the process is the same and it still takes a bucket load of equipment to bring the oil in. The bottom line is, the equipment and companies who did this in the US are gone, at least in the numbers that existed back in the early 70's.

Downstreamer,

You said, "Forty years of this would equate to about 300 billion barrels... so you're talking about more reserves than Saudi Arabia or about a quater of the world's proven reserves in ONE FIELD in one western state...I don't find this very credible."

Well, believe it. Here's the deal....the oil in Wyoming was expensive to extract, depth of well, labor costs, etc. When the oil prices plunged and the Mid East began supplying the world with cheap oil, companies could not economically vindicate to stock holders the necessity to develop these fields, hince these fields are sitting idle but remain a part of a "vast asset" for many oil companies/landowners/mineral right owners. Plans for future use of these fields are definitely being made. Of course, it will be when the time is right.

Next you said, "Do you really think casers and rough necks are in the know on the production potential on any field?"

The answer...Of course they do! This sort of info is published and discussed publicly, even the locals all know.

"If you owned the rights on this field why wouldn't you develop it?"

I answered this question in the first paragraph.

"I already know some answers that will pop up-All these big bad oil companies are capping wells and colluding to create shortages. Thats as much bunk as this one field having 300 billion barrels."

You're full of bunk alright. Its simple, stupid, "follow the money".

"The Venz and Alberta Can. has tar sand deposits with +100 billion barrel reserves. Oil shale in Colorado had emense reserves also but they aren't economical to develop. Oil companies have pissed away $billions trying to develop these oil shale and tar sand technologies. Why would they if they could just go out and develop all these capped fields at profitable economics?

The easy answer would be to your above paragraph....."You haven't a clue as to how the oil industry operaters or why". But I'll answer your last question for you anyway with a question of my own. Do you have any idea as to the depth of the oil in Wyoming, or where that oil is located and the costs it would entail to get it out?

Now on to your next question, "Why would they spend $ billions on Arctic and deep water projects if they have cheap capped wells in Western states?"

Uncapping a well is almost impossible. I'll give you another clue, go ask a person in the know, what the process is of capping a well and why pumping from a well that's been uncapped is usually not profitable.

Hope this helps.

-- Cary Mc from Tx (Caretha@compuserve.com), December 07, 1999.

Cary,

That's exactly why I brought up the example of tar sands and oil shale. There are multi-billion barrel deposits of heavy oils and hydrocarbons out there but they're too expensive to develop and extract. This Wyoming deal could be similar.

My main intention is to take issue with the frequent contention that oil companies have extensive finds out there that they've intentionally capped in order to create shortages. These types of rumors have been floating around since the oil shortages of the 70s. Your right about 'follow the money'. If they are economically viable, they are developed. If this Wyoming deal was, it would have been...

-- Downstreamer (downstream@bigfoot.com), December 07, 1999.

Downstreamer,

Just a speculation on your query: "Why would exxon and other explore in the far flung world if they had enough oil here?"

Perhaps, Economics.

As they find cheap oil overseas and run the world out of cheap oil, the oil back home in the ground appreciates better than money (or gold) in the bank.

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), December 07, 1999.

Downstreamer said "Oil companies have pissed away $billions trying to develop these oil shale and tar sand technologies"......

Pissed away....huh.......you apparently know very little about the development in tar sand technologies.

With the research that has been done and new methods that have been developed, the current cost to produce a barrel of oil from tar sands technology is running at about $8 to $9 US. This is comparable to conventional oil methods and thus being developed very rapidly.

Oil shale is more expensive to develop but just as tar sand was far more expensive 20 years ago, so oil shale will become economical in time also.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), December 07, 1999.

Cary & Co.

Could you please cut and paste your responses in "OIL"?

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 07, 1999.

Craig,

You are correct. Over 20% of Canada's production is now derived from tar sands in Alberta. But 'pissed away' is definately correct for all the companies (ie Union Oil) since the 70s that didn't succeed, especially on Oil Shale, including Exxon.

-- Downstreamer (downstream@bigfoot.com), December 07, 1999.