SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
California's Shale Fail: The Case of 13 Billion Barrels of Missing Oil
In 2011, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the US Department of Energy commissioned INTEK Inc., a Virginia-based consulting firm, to estimate how much oil might be recoverable from California's vast Monterey Shale formation. Production of tight oil was soaring in North Dakota and south Texas, and small, risk-friendly drilling companies were making salivating noises (within earshot of potential investors) about the potential for an even bigger bonanza in the Golden State.
May 22, 2014
In 2011, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the US Department of Energy commissioned INTEK Inc., a Virginia-based consulting firm, to estimate how much oil might be recoverable from California's vast Monterey Shale formation. Production of tight oil was soaring in North Dakota and south Texas, and small, risk-friendly drilling companies were making salivating noises (within earshot of potential investors) about the potential for an even bigger bonanza in the Golden State.
INTEK obliged with a somewhat opaque report (apparently based on oil company investor presentations) suggesting that the Monterey might yield 15.4 billion barrels--64 percent of the total estimated tight oil reserves of the lower 48 states. The EIA published this number as its own, and the University of Southern California then went on to use the 15.4 billion barrel figure as the basis for an economic study, claiming that California could look forward to 2.8 million additional jobs by 2020 and $24.6 billion per year in additional tax revenues if the Monterey reserves were "developed" (i.e., liquidated as quickly as possible).
We at Santa Rosa-based Post Carbon Institute took a skeptical view of both the EIA/INTEK and USC reports. In 2013, PCI Fellow David Hughes produced an in-depth study (and a report co-published by PCI and Physicians Scientists & Engineers for Healthy Energy) that examined the geology of the Monterey Shale and the status of current oil production projects there. Hughes found that the Monterey differs in several key respects from tight oil deposits in North Dakota and Texas, and that currently producing hydrofractured wells in the formation show much lower productivity than assumed in the EIA/INTEK report. Hughes concluded that "Californians would be well advised to avoid thinking of the Monterey Shale as a panacea for the State's economic and energy concerns."
On May 21 the Los Angeles Times reported that "Federal energy authorities have slashed by 96% the estimated amount of recoverable oil buried in California's vast Monterey Shale deposits, deflating its potential as a national 'black gold mine' of petroleum." The EIA had already downgraded its technically recoverable reserves estimate for the Monterey from 15.4 to 13.7 billion barrels; now it was reducing the number to a paltry 0.6 billion barrels.
What happened to all those billions of barrels of oil? Of course, the resource is still there. The Los Angeles Times article quotes Tupper Hull, spokesman for the Western States Petroleum Association, as responding, "We have a lot of confidence in the intelligence and skill of our engineers and geologists to find ways to adapt. . . . As the technologies change, the production rates could also change dramatically."
However, technology comes with costs. The current tight oil boom in North Dakota and Texas would not have happened absent the context of historically high oil prices. But even with oil at $100 per barrel, the EIA now thinks only a very small portion of the Monterey formation's oil resources can be produced profitably. Maybe with oil at $150 or $200 per barrel that percentage would change. But how high an oil price can the American economy bear before it falls into recession? Evidence suggests that $100 per barrel oil is already acting as a brake on economic expansion.
The new EIA estimate is a welcome note of realism in a California energy discussion that had veered into hyperbole and wishful thinking. Can we now begin a reasoned discussion about our energy future? It's late in the game, but better late than never.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Richard Heinberg
Richard Heinberg is a senior fellow at the Post Carbon Institute and the author of fourteen books, including his most recent: "Power: Limits and Prospects for Human Survival" (2021). Previous books include: "Our Renewable Future: Laying the Path for One Hundred Percent Clean Energy" (2016), "Afterburn: Society Beyond Fossil Fuels" (2015), and "Peak Everything: Waking Up to the Century of Declines" (2010).
In 2011, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the US Department of Energy commissioned INTEK Inc., a Virginia-based consulting firm, to estimate how much oil might be recoverable from California's vast Monterey Shale formation. Production of tight oil was soaring in North Dakota and south Texas, and small, risk-friendly drilling companies were making salivating noises (within earshot of potential investors) about the potential for an even bigger bonanza in the Golden State.
INTEK obliged with a somewhat opaque report (apparently based on oil company investor presentations) suggesting that the Monterey might yield 15.4 billion barrels--64 percent of the total estimated tight oil reserves of the lower 48 states. The EIA published this number as its own, and the University of Southern California then went on to use the 15.4 billion barrel figure as the basis for an economic study, claiming that California could look forward to 2.8 million additional jobs by 2020 and $24.6 billion per year in additional tax revenues if the Monterey reserves were "developed" (i.e., liquidated as quickly as possible).
We at Santa Rosa-based Post Carbon Institute took a skeptical view of both the EIA/INTEK and USC reports. In 2013, PCI Fellow David Hughes produced an in-depth study (and a report co-published by PCI and Physicians Scientists & Engineers for Healthy Energy) that examined the geology of the Monterey Shale and the status of current oil production projects there. Hughes found that the Monterey differs in several key respects from tight oil deposits in North Dakota and Texas, and that currently producing hydrofractured wells in the formation show much lower productivity than assumed in the EIA/INTEK report. Hughes concluded that "Californians would be well advised to avoid thinking of the Monterey Shale as a panacea for the State's economic and energy concerns."
On May 21 the Los Angeles Times reported that "Federal energy authorities have slashed by 96% the estimated amount of recoverable oil buried in California's vast Monterey Shale deposits, deflating its potential as a national 'black gold mine' of petroleum." The EIA had already downgraded its technically recoverable reserves estimate for the Monterey from 15.4 to 13.7 billion barrels; now it was reducing the number to a paltry 0.6 billion barrels.
What happened to all those billions of barrels of oil? Of course, the resource is still there. The Los Angeles Times article quotes Tupper Hull, spokesman for the Western States Petroleum Association, as responding, "We have a lot of confidence in the intelligence and skill of our engineers and geologists to find ways to adapt. . . . As the technologies change, the production rates could also change dramatically."
However, technology comes with costs. The current tight oil boom in North Dakota and Texas would not have happened absent the context of historically high oil prices. But even with oil at $100 per barrel, the EIA now thinks only a very small portion of the Monterey formation's oil resources can be produced profitably. Maybe with oil at $150 or $200 per barrel that percentage would change. But how high an oil price can the American economy bear before it falls into recession? Evidence suggests that $100 per barrel oil is already acting as a brake on economic expansion.
The new EIA estimate is a welcome note of realism in a California energy discussion that had veered into hyperbole and wishful thinking. Can we now begin a reasoned discussion about our energy future? It's late in the game, but better late than never.
Richard Heinberg
Richard Heinberg is a senior fellow at the Post Carbon Institute and the author of fourteen books, including his most recent: "Power: Limits and Prospects for Human Survival" (2021). Previous books include: "Our Renewable Future: Laying the Path for One Hundred Percent Clean Energy" (2016), "Afterburn: Society Beyond Fossil Fuels" (2015), and "Peak Everything: Waking Up to the Century of Declines" (2010).
In 2011, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the US Department of Energy commissioned INTEK Inc., a Virginia-based consulting firm, to estimate how much oil might be recoverable from California's vast Monterey Shale formation. Production of tight oil was soaring in North Dakota and south Texas, and small, risk-friendly drilling companies were making salivating noises (within earshot of potential investors) about the potential for an even bigger bonanza in the Golden State.
INTEK obliged with a somewhat opaque report (apparently based on oil company investor presentations) suggesting that the Monterey might yield 15.4 billion barrels--64 percent of the total estimated tight oil reserves of the lower 48 states. The EIA published this number as its own, and the University of Southern California then went on to use the 15.4 billion barrel figure as the basis for an economic study, claiming that California could look forward to 2.8 million additional jobs by 2020 and $24.6 billion per year in additional tax revenues if the Monterey reserves were "developed" (i.e., liquidated as quickly as possible).
We at Santa Rosa-based Post Carbon Institute took a skeptical view of both the EIA/INTEK and USC reports. In 2013, PCI Fellow David Hughes produced an in-depth study (and a report co-published by PCI and Physicians Scientists & Engineers for Healthy Energy) that examined the geology of the Monterey Shale and the status of current oil production projects there. Hughes found that the Monterey differs in several key respects from tight oil deposits in North Dakota and Texas, and that currently producing hydrofractured wells in the formation show much lower productivity than assumed in the EIA/INTEK report. Hughes concluded that "Californians would be well advised to avoid thinking of the Monterey Shale as a panacea for the State's economic and energy concerns."
On May 21 the Los Angeles Times reported that "Federal energy authorities have slashed by 96% the estimated amount of recoverable oil buried in California's vast Monterey Shale deposits, deflating its potential as a national 'black gold mine' of petroleum." The EIA had already downgraded its technically recoverable reserves estimate for the Monterey from 15.4 to 13.7 billion barrels; now it was reducing the number to a paltry 0.6 billion barrels.
What happened to all those billions of barrels of oil? Of course, the resource is still there. The Los Angeles Times article quotes Tupper Hull, spokesman for the Western States Petroleum Association, as responding, "We have a lot of confidence in the intelligence and skill of our engineers and geologists to find ways to adapt. . . . As the technologies change, the production rates could also change dramatically."
However, technology comes with costs. The current tight oil boom in North Dakota and Texas would not have happened absent the context of historically high oil prices. But even with oil at $100 per barrel, the EIA now thinks only a very small portion of the Monterey formation's oil resources can be produced profitably. Maybe with oil at $150 or $200 per barrel that percentage would change. But how high an oil price can the American economy bear before it falls into recession? Evidence suggests that $100 per barrel oil is already acting as a brake on economic expansion.
The new EIA estimate is a welcome note of realism in a California energy discussion that had veered into hyperbole and wishful thinking. Can we now begin a reasoned discussion about our energy future? It's late in the game, but better late than never.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.