Category Archives: Domestic Energy

Volt Sales UP But Little Likelihood Of Meeting Sales Forecast


GM reports that more than 2500 Volts were sold in August.  They also announced that they would stop production of the Volt for a month.  Volt production capacity is way in excess of current sales.  This is the second stoppage of Volt production this year. Total Volt sales through August appear to be about 13,170 which are well short of the 2012 forecast of 45,000 hybrids.

Nissan’s Leaf sales in August were 685 EVs versus 395 last month. Through August, sales have amounted to 4228 vehicles.  With four months left to go in the year, the auto media reporters are beginning to question Nissan’s many statements that they will sell more than 20,000 this year.  A penetrating insight by these reporters –Snark.

I guess it is late reporting of sales or losses thereof, but it is hard to make an exact accounting of the monthly sales figures.  The numbers change a lot. The auto industry accountants must have attended the same University as did the ones who issue the weekly national employment/unemployment figures.  Each week the old forecast is amended.

cbdakota

State By State Study Shows Unconventional Gas Is A Major Boon For The US Economy


A  previous posting, “Fracked Natural Gas Changing The US Economy”,  discussed the impact that fracked gas (aka, shale gas) is having and will continue to have on employment, investment, natural gas (NG) price (current and future), and Governmental Income in the US.  That discussion was based upon a study by IHS Global Insight that they released in December, 2011, This posting will review the details of a new IHS study released in June 2012 which totals all the sources of  unconventional NG— shale gas, tight sands gas and coal bed methane—and projects the total impact these unconventional NG sources have on the Nation and each of the lower 48 States plus DC.

There are 20 States in the lower 48 that are considered unconventional NG producers.  In addition to the TOP 10 employment producers shown in the chart below, the other ten are Alabama, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, New York, Virginia and West Virginia,  The other 28 plus DC are considered non-producers of unconventional NG.

Let’s begin with employment resulting from the exploitation of the unconventional NG. 

TOP 10 UNCONVENTIONAL OIL PROUDUCING STATES
 EMPLOYMENT CONTRIBUTION  
Number of Workers    
 

2010

2015

2035

State      
Texas

288,222

385,318

682,740

Louisiana

81,022

124,782

200,555

Colorado

77,466

126,525

127,843

Pennsylvania

56,884

111,024

270,058

Arkansas

36,698

53,919

79,723

Wyoming

34,787

45,763

78,792

Ohio

31,462

41,366

81,349

Utah

30,561

36,593

50,839

Oklahoma

28,315

41,763

69,261

Michigan

28,063

37,926

63,380

       
Top 10 total

693,481

1,004,979

1,704,541

Prod States

826,355

1,195,346

2,007,902

       
US Total

1,008,658

1,463,450

2,438,877

 

 

 

 

The order of ranking is based upon the 2010 employment numbers. I have a little trouble with the display as it uses numbers down to the single digits out of millions; however, it does not take away from the forecast of an impressive growth rate.  The “US Total” includes the induced jobs in the non-producing States that benefit from the low-priced plentiful NG.   

IHS uses the following system to develop their results: The analysis of unconventional gas development and its contribution to the US regional economies was conducted using a top-down/bottom-up approach. The contribution was assessed separately for direct, indirect, and induced contributions defined as follow:

• Contributions of unconventional gas are those activities required to explore, produce, transport, and deliver natural gas to consumers or to provide critical supplies or onsite services that support unconventional gas activity.

• Contributions are defined as activities in outside industries that supply equipment, material and services for the development of unconventional gas and its tier suppliers.

• Contributions are the economic effects caused by workers spending their wages and salaries on consumer goods and household items.

Their study forecasts that nearly $3.2 trillion in investments will be made to  develop  unconventional gas  between 2010 and 2035.

The following IHC charts show other effects from their study,

 

CONTRIBUTION TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE
         
        $ million  
   

2010

2015

2035

2010to2035
Producing States

28,034

41,090

71,806

1,255,034

Non-Producing States

5,758

8,246

13,317

243,701

           
US Total  

33,793

49,335

85,123

1,498,734

These monies in this chart are derived from the expected Federal, State and Local tax revenues and from royalty payments.  The last column is the cumulative no. of dollars for the period 2010 to 2035.

US VALUE ADDED      
      $Millions  
   

2010

2015

2035

         
Producing States

118,077

174,037

295,897

Non-Producing States

15,328

22,479

35,831

         
US Total  

135,405

196,516

331,831

     

 

 

 

IHC defines this chart as follows: The commonly used measure of GDP, which is simply the sum of the value added across all products and services produced in the United States, is generally considered the broadest measure of the health of the US economy. Value added to US GDP is defined as the sum of labor incomes, corporate profits, indirect business taxes paid, and depreciation. Annual value added to GDP from unconventional gas activities was more than $133 billion in 2010 and, by 2015, is projected to approach $200 billion. The majority of the value added to GDP—nearly 90%—over the 25-year forecast horizon is generated by unconventional gas production activities that take place in the 20 producing states.

IHC concludes that: Unconventional gas activity is expected to make a significant contribution to all of the economies of the lower 48 states over the next 25 years. Traditional oil and gas producing states like Texas and Louisiana will continue to lead the way in terms of their absolute contributions to the US economy. But many new and emerging energy states will drive much of the growth in the coming years, and the economic activity generated by this increase in unconventional gas activity will also reach well beyond the traditional unconventional producing states.

The full report can be seen by clicking here.

cbdakota

Fracked Natural Gas Changing The US Economy


According to a recent report issued(12/2011) by IHC  Global Insight**, shale gas (fracked natural gas) has changed the US energy outlook and the economy.   In 2010, shale gas provided 27% of the US natural gas (NG).  IHC forecasts that by 2035, shale gas will provide 60% of the US NG production.  Without the shale gas, a NG supply shortage would have necessitated the importation of liquefied natural gas(LNG). Today’s price of somewhere around $3 to $4 per million BTUs would likely be in the range of $10 to $12 per million Btus if importation had been necessary.  Longer term,  IHC forecasts 2035 NG price at $7.90 per million Btus (All values in their report are in constant 2010 dollars.) thanks to shale gas.

 The job creation due to shale gas has been outstanding and IHC forecasts continued increases in jobs.   IHC reports that shale gas, by 2010, had supported over 600,000 jobs.  They forecast jobs to grow to 1.6 million by 2035.   

There are other benefits as well.  In 2010 the industry contributed $18.6 billion in governmental tax revenues and royalty payments.  By 2035 the cumulative contribution of taxes and royalties are forecast to be $933 billion.   Additionally,  the capital expenditures made between 2010 and 2035 are forecast at $1.9 trillion.

In the future, electricity prices are forecast to drop by 10%  and parts of the chemical industry will be revived.  Our domestic industries will become more competitive because of the lower cost of natural gas as feedstock and NG’s impact on electrical cost.

Although there will be some redundancy relative to the preceding discussion,  the Key Findings page for IHCs report “The Economic and Employment Contributions of Shale Gas in the United States” is an excellent summary.  It follows:

By 2010, shale gas had grown to 27% of total US natural gas production, and by September 2011,it had reached 34%.

• By 2015, that share will grow to 43% and will more than double, reaching 60%, by 2035.

• Nearly $1.9 trillion in shale gas capital investments are expected between 2010 and 2035.

• Capital expenditures are especially strong in the near future, growing from $33 billion in 2010 to $48 billion by 2015.

• In 2010, the shale gas industry supported 600,000 jobs; this will grow to nearly 870,000 in 2015 and to over 1.6 million by 2035.

Growth in the shale gas industry will make significant contributions to the broader economy in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and tax revenues:

• The shale gas contribution to GDP was more than $76 billion in 2010. This will increase to $118 billion by 2015 and will triple to $231 billion in 2035.

• In 2010 shale gas production contributed $18.6 billion in federal, state and local government tax and federal royalty revenues. By 2035, these receipts will more than triple to just over $57 billion. On a cumulative basis, the shale industry will generate more than $933 billion in federal, state, and local tax and royalty revenues over the next 25 years.

• The extent of job and GDP contributions reflect the capital intensity of the shale gas industry, the ability to source inputs from within the United States, the nature of the supply chain, and the quality of the jobs created.

The growth of shale gas is leading to lower natural gas and electric power prices and increased productivity:

• The full-cycle cost of shale gas produced from wells drilled in 2011 is 40-50% less than the cost of gas from conventional wells drilled in 2011.

• Without shale gas production, reliance on high levels of liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports would influence US natural gas prices, causing them to increase by at least 100%.

• The lower natural gas prices achieved with shale gas production will result in an average reduction of 10% in electricity costs nationwide over the forecast period.

• By 2017, lower prices will result in an initial impact of 2.9% higher industrial production. By 2035, industrial production will be 4.7% higher.

• Chemicals production in particular stands to benefit from an extended period of low natural gas prices, as it uses natural gas as a fuel source and feedstock. Chemicals producers have already signaled their intentions to increase US capacity.

• Savings from lower gas prices will add an annual average of $926 per year in disposable household income between 2012 and 2015. In 2035, this would increase to just over $2,000 per household.

 

 It is well worth your reading the full report which can be accessed by clicking here. It is intended that the next posting reviews the IHC report on unconv entional gas’s c ontributions by State.  That posting is to be followed by a look at a similar report by the Bookings Institute on Green Jobs.

cbdakota

**IHS  Global Insight is one of the world’s leading economic analysis and forecasting firms.

 

 

 

 

 

Strike Two For Cuba And Gulf Of Mexico Oil


The latest deep-water drilling operation off the West Coast of Cuba has been called off. The exploratory well by PC Gulf, a subsidiary of Malaysia’ Petronas and Gazpomneft of Russia, has been declared not commercially viable.  In May, Repsol’s said their drilling in this field was a failure.

Cuba, as noted in the previous report about this potential oil field, badly needs the money that they hope to obtain from this drilling.  They are also worried about the fate of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, as he has been supplying Cuba with below market priced crude.  If he dies or is deposed, it could be a real problem for Cuba.

Some estimates of the crude in the field being explored are as high as 9 billion barrels. The field is in ultra deepwater.  Ultra deepwater is defined as where the seafloor at the drilling site is 5000 ft (1524 m) or more below the sea surface. The PC Gulf well was drilled to 15,300 feet below the seafloor.  The lease cost for a platform to accomplish the drilling is about $500,000 per day according to a report by the Associated Press.  There is only one such unit now available for the Cuban drilling and it will be used by the next company to try their luck—-the Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA.

cbdakota

Gasoline Price and Vehicle Fuel Economy Correlate


The WardsAuto Fuel Economy Index compares the cost of gasoline opposite the average fuel-economy (miles per gallon—mpg) of new vehicles sold each month.   The new vehicle fuel economy peaked in March at 24.1mpg.  It fell to 23.6 mpg in June, the last data point available.  This drop corresponds to the drop in gasoline prices over the past three months.  The chart shown below shows a strong correlation of fuel price and t the fuel economy the car buyers are settling for.

Wards cautions to not assume that the car buyer’s are fickle but it is hard not to draw that conclusion.  Wards cites fleet purchases of Toyota vehicles in March as Toyota was trying to catch up on the losses they encountered in 2011 when the tsunami shutdown a lot of Japanese industry.

Wards notes that the vehicles fuel economy by region looked this way in June: Overall, Asian auto makers combined for a 26 mpg (9.0 L/100 km) rating, followed by the European brands’ 22.8 mpg (10.3 L/100 km) and the Detroit Three’s 21.2 mpg (11.1 L/100 km).

The Detroit Big Three do move a lot of pickup trucks so that may explain the differences in fuel economy.

To read more click here.

cbdakota

Corn Should Not Be Used To Make Automobile Fuel


US farms that grow corn are mainly located in the Midwest.  The Midwest is experiencing a drought that the head agriculture meteorologist with MDA EarthSat say is the worst since 1988.  The MDA EarthSat group is estimating a corn yield of about 118 bushels per acre this year.  In a good year, the corn yield is about 150 to 160 bushels per acre which suggests that this year’s yield will be about 75% of normal.  Shortages always have a way of driving the price of a commodity upward.  However making the likelihood of even higher prices for corn is the fact that the ethanol mixed with gasoline is essentially produced from corn.

It is estimated that about 40% of the corn produced last year was used to make ethanol fuel.  The refiners are required to use ethanol and most filling stations have a 10%ethanol/90% gasoline blend.  Last year 14.2 billion gallons of ethanol were blended with gasoline.   By law, in 2012,  15.2 billion gallons of ethanol must be used.  Of that total, 13.2 must be from corn ethanol.  The remainder must be not corn based.  In order to get a better understanding of what is going on, a brief review of the Renewable Fuel Standard will probably be helpful.

In 2005, Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act of 2005.  It mandated minimum ethanol use.  However, two years later the Energy Independence and Security Act superseded and expanded the Energy Policy Act of 05 and set new, larger use requirements as well as added requirements for cellulosic based ethanol. Cellulosic means from corncobs, wood chips, straw, grass, etc.—by and large almost anything but from the corn kernel (corn starch).  These two acts combined are often referred to as Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2).  Further RFS2 set a maximum use level for cornstarch-based ethanol at 15.0 billion gallons.  The Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) is responsible for establishing and implementing regulations to ensure that the nation’s transportation fuel supply contains the mandated biofuels volumes.

RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD 2—BILLIONS OF GALLONS

YEAR TOTAL RENEWABLESFUELS CORN ETHANOL CELLULOSIC ETHANOL BIO AND OTHER FUELS
2011 13.95 12.6 0.0066 1.1
2012 15.20 13.2 0.0085 1.5
2015 20.50 15.0 3.00 TBD
2020 30.00 15.0 10.5 TBD
2022 36.00 15.0

16.00

TBD

If you are wondering if the EPA will enforce the law designating mandated minimum use, the following story will be instructive:  The 2011 requirement for minimum usage of cellulosic ethanol is 6.6 million gallons.—(See chart above and note 0.0066.)  No one is making cellulosic ethanol so there is none available for use.   None-the-less, the companies that supply motor fuels are being fined $6 million because they failed to mix cellulosic ethanol into their motor fuels.   Go figure.

Corn is a major source of food for humans and it is also it is a major source of animal feed.  The price of beef, pork and chicken for example are directly affected by the increase in livestock feed prices. Much has been written about the negative impact of soaring corn prices on the well being of people all over the world.

As noted earlier, ethanol is mandated to be used in gasoline. It is said that the some of the corn used for making ethanol is somewhat different from the corn that normally goes into the food chain.  But that corn will also suffer a loss due to the drought making it necessary for the ethanol manufacturers to buy more food corn to supply ethanol to the gasoline suppliers. Thus the fuel chain will be bidding against the food chain for the limited supply of corn.

The commodities markets are showing this now.  According to reliable sources, corn that was going for $2.00 a bushel in 2005 when this legislation was enacted now sells for over $8 per bushel.  Because ethanol is mandated, the cost of ethanol for blending has little meaning to a gasoline producer as all gasoline producers must use it regardless of cost.  The cost of the ethanol will be passed on to the motorists.

Actually, ethanol is not viable economically but only used because of the mandate.  It will never be in sufficient supply to be a replacement for gasoline.  According to a study reported by Wikipedia, if you are concerned about greenhouse gases, ethanol’s use is a negative:  “A team led by Searchinger from Princeton University concluded that once direct and indirect effect of land use changes are considered, both corn and cellulosic ethanol increased carbon emissions as compared to gasoline by 93 and 50 percent respectively.”

The driving force for the use of corn to make ethanol is the votes that politicians get from their farming constituents. The other reasons weigh against using an important food source to make an automobile fuel.

cbdakota

Chicago Heat Wave–Wind Farms Fail To Provide Power


Chicago, Illinois and the surrounding areas of Central and Northern Illinois experienced very high temperatures in the first and second weeks of July.   One day topped out at 104 F with air conditioners going full out. It is at times like these that electrical utilities experience their highest demand.   They were up to the task although one segment of those utilities that was not.  The segment that flunked the test was the wind farms.  High temperatures and low temperatures most often are accompanied by near zero wind.   Wind farms are most likely to be unproductive at the times when they are most needed.

(picture byYellow Dandelions © 2009)   

Lets look at what happened during the heat wave based on the research by Jonathan Lesser

“Illinois wind generated less than five percent of its capacity during the record breaking heat last week, producing only an average of 120 MW of electricity from the over 2,700 MW installed.  On July 6th, when the demand for electricity in northern Illinois and Chicago averaged 22,000 MW, the average amount of wind power available during the day was a virtually nonexistent four MW, less than the output of two large wind turbines, or about and enough power to operate 4,000 blow dryers. In fact, the most electricity wind produced on any day during last week’s heat wave was an average of 320 MW on July 3rd, or about 10 percent of the capacity of the wind turbines built in Illinois, when temperatures soared to 103 degrees. Wind power’s failure during last week’s extended heat wave is no fluke. When I performed a similar analysis last summer, the results were the same: the hotter the weather and greater customers’ demand for electricity, the less electricity produced from wind.”  To read all of Lesser’s report click here.

The Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) calls wind farm-produced energy “non-dispatchable” which means it is too unreliable to be scheduled for use as a supply to the gird that distributes electricity to the many users.  State laws often require the grid to use this alternative form of energy.  So in order assure the capability of the gird to supply electricity to their customers, they require backup power supply for every MW of installed wind farm power. This backup is typically provided by natural gas turbine power generating facilities.  These natural gas turbines are kept hot ––ready to turn on quickly.  When the wind quits blowing, the lost wind farm produced electricity must be matched by a new supply.  The natural gas turbines are quickly put into service.  This means that wind farms capacity must be matched through the expenditure of additional monies for natural gas power generation facilities.  Thus the wind farm generated power is not a primary source of power. It is supplemental form of supply.  Think about that.  Installation of wind farms (and for that matter the even more expensive solar power) are not primary sources but rather supplementary.  In plain English, electricity generated by fossil fuel and nuclear power are the primary sources and the expensive, unreliable, non-dispatchable wind farms are supplemental.  Every day you are paying for the installation of more wind farms, which are never likely to be the primary.   Time you made the politician and their cronies answer why they are foisting this on you.

cbdakota

 

Why Does The US Have The Lead On Shale Gas?


The United States (US) is now ranked as the world’s leading producer of natural gas.  The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) says that this lead is partly due to the abundant shale resources we have—though many other countries have those too.   Partly due to our technological leadership in developing hydraulic fracturing (fracking)—but these techniques are known all over the world now.  The edge is really a result of private ownership of subsurface mineral resources.   Almost no major country recognizes full subsurface private property rights, except the US.  Quoting from the WJS: “….this blessing of American jurisprudence helps explain one of the few bright patches in the Obama economy—the booming production of shale gas and increasingly, oil.”

There is a profit motive driving the property owner as well as the driller. Typically the property owners get a royalty checks from the driller representing a percentage of the worth of the value of oil produced. Often the royalty percentage is 12.5%.  (My home in Texas was built well after the East Texas oil boom.  By then all the subsurface mineral rights had been sold/leased and my deed spelled out that I had no ownership. There were number of wells back in the woods behind my house. Someone was getting royalty checks, but alas, it was not I.)

But many people in North Dakota (Bakken Shale) and Pennsylvania (Marcellus Shale), for example, have leased their mineral rights and natural gas is being produced.  And the landowners are getting royalty checks!

France and Bulgaria have banned fracking. Because these governments own the subsurface property rights, there has been no pushback from the landowners.   In other countries where fracking has not been banned, the governments are moving at a glacial pace.

Quoting the WSJ: “ ….the deeper lesson is that this is a revolution that came about not through government planning or foresight, but through a combination of individual risk-taking and private property. “

Thank heavens for these privately owned resources.  Unfortunately, favorable outcomes are not happening where the US government has control of natural gas and oil.  The Obama Administration puts up road blocks in the way of the exploitation of resources found in places like  Off-Shore, Federal lands, and the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.

cbdakota

OPEC Provides Low Priced Fuel Internally


The price of crude for the residents within OPEC states is lower than the export price.  As these states are mostly dictatorships, it is one way to placate the ruled.  But it seems that the low prices provides the residents no incentive to be frugal.  In the last decade, Saudi Arabia internal use has nearly doubled.  According to Reuters:

”Consumption has trebled in Angola, doubled in Ecuador and climbed 55 percent in Venezuela. OPEC members also seem to be becoming less efficient. Oil usage per head is up 24 percent since 2000, Deutsche (Bank) says, while it is flat for the globe as a whole.

For importers, the uneven treatment is costly. The wasteful consumption in exporting countries reduces the supply available for the global market, presumably pushing up the price. It also cuts into the potential reserve capacity, making the price more volatile.

But OPEC members don’t really gain, either. Governments lose potential export revenue and state-owned oil producers lose potential income. In 2010, the opportunity cost of discount domestic pricing was roughly 15 percent of OPEC’s total oil export revenue of $770 billion, according to International Energy Agency calculations. Such largesse adds to the fiscal strain on many of these nations – contributing to the exporters’ hunger for ever higher global oil prices.”

I am not sure that this analysis as it is presented is consistent.  First it says that the practice of diverting some fuel to internal use reduces the available supply and results in “pushing up oil prices”.  Ok, that makes some sense.  However the next paragraph seems to say that the practice causes them strain contributing to the exporters hunger for ever higher global oil prices.

What does that mean?  If they had more crude to export they would have more revenue?  But the artificial shortage that OPEC creates is done to get as high global oil prices as they can.  Maybe the author of this analysis saying that OPEC would get all the revenue it wants if it could export more by using less at home. This presumably would allow the exporters to lower the price because they would not need the revenue.  I doubt that.

Well, I probably have spent far too much time on this.   Especially, since OPEC will continue to lower the price of crude.  OPEC knows that there is a lot of untapped crude out there in the world.  Much of it becomes economic to produce as the price of OPEC crude goes up.   I have heard that North Dakota Bakken tight oil needs a price of around $75 per barrel to justify production.  OPEC has lowered world crude prices before to slow down/stop bringing in new supplies of crude.  They will do it again.  They dread the slogan  “drill baby drill” about as much as the liberal Democrats do.

To read more of the Reuter’s posting, click here.

cbdakota

Russia’s Oil Potential In Siberia


You may not have known this but Russia vies with Saudi Arabia for the title of biggest crude oil producer.  According to a June Bloomberg posting, oil and gas provided half of Russia’s income in 2011.  So Putin is pushing for more oil discoveries to keep his government afloat. Exxon has been invited to help drill oil fields in Siberia.  These Siberian oil fields are estimated to hold something like half the proven reserves of the US.  Exxon will joint venture with the Russian government run oil company, OAO Rosneft.  Exxon’s fracking technology is to be used on the Bazhenov shale formation in west Siberia.  Rosneft said these deposits might hold 13.2 billion barrels of oil. As part of the alliance with Exxon, Moscow-based Rosneft in April said it acquired a 30 percent stake in a Texas tight oil¹  project to gain experience with the technology. Exxon will be able to book reserves in a mature oil province without taking on the exploration or environment risk it faces in its offshore projects with Rosneft, which will require an initial $3.2 billion investment to explore in the Arctic Kara Sea and the Black Sea. Exxon is also working with Romania’s Petrom in the Black Sea where they have discovered a major gas find.

But Exxon is not the only player.  According to Bloomberg:

Non-state Russian oil companies, including its second-largest producer OAO Lukoil and fourth-biggest OAO Surgutneftegas, also have resources in the billions of barrels in the Bazhenov formation.

Ronald Paul Smith a Moscow-based oil and gas analyst at Citigroup Inc said: “Lukoil is already using horizontal wells and multistage fracking to support its West Siberian production, and therefore may be the earliest, clearest beneficiary” of the tax breaks.  Lukoil subsidiary Ritek produces about 2,000 barrels a day from the Bazhenov formation……”

“Another competitor, Gazprom Neft, together with Royal Dutch Shell Plc plan to drill an extended reach horizontal well with multistage hydrofractures next year to tap tight oil at their Siberian Salym Petroleum Development venture, Gazprom Neft Deputy Chief Executive Vadim Yakovlev told journalists at June 8 press conference.”

As noted in earlier postings, Exxon has other  fracking joint ventures besides these in Russia and Romania.  They are active in China and have projects in Argentina’s Vaca Muerta formation.  It is my understanding that they have backed out of ventures in Poland saying that there are too many governmental hurdles.

To read more click here,

¹ I am seeing the words “tight oil” being used frequently.  Here is a definition of those words. Tight oil is a play that consists of light crude oil contained in petroleum bearing formations of relatively low porosity and permeability (shales).  It uses the same horizontal well and hydraulic fracturing technology used in recent boom in production of shale gas.  The North Dakota’s Bakken field is a tight oil play.

cbdakota