U.S. cuts estimate of recoverable Monterey Shale oil by 96%

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.

Just 600 million barrels of oil can be extracted with existing technology, far below the 13.7 billion barrels once thought recoverable from the jumbled layers of subterranean rock spread across much of Central California, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said.

Click to expand...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-oil-20140521-story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Who would have thought?

Easy come, easy go!

That's the best news I've seen in awhile. Now maybe they won't turn some of the world's most productive farmland into a frakking wasteland. And who says seismic activity isn't helpful to California?

Nubo said:

That's the best news I've seen in awhile. Now maybe they won't turn some of the world's most productive farmland into a frakking wasteland. And who says seismic activity isn't helpful to California?

Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. If there isn't much to frack, maybe they won't frack up the state. We can save the water to grow crops or (gasp!) to drink.

Right, now agribusiness can have the area all to themselves and turn it into another chemical sewer like the San Joaquin Valley.

Stoaty said:

We can save the water to grow crops or (gasp!) to drink.

Click to expand...

I realize this is a tad facetious, but we drink a tiny fraction (of 1%) of the amount used to grow crops. First, agriculture uses 75-80% of CA's water, and all urban/residential activity combined accounts for perhaps 10%. Then, 2-3% of the average household water use is used for drinking and cooking*. So (very generously), 10/70 * 1/100 = 0.15% (drinking/agriclture; ~0.1% drinking/total).

I'm just tired of residents being "blamed" for wasting water (though I do think xeriscaping is a good idea), and being encouraged to be super-conservative with water use, when really it's the farmers who need to "make more with less".

Edit to correct who was being quoted

mbender said:

I realize this is a tad facetious, but we drink a tiny fraction (of 1%) of the amount used to grow crops. First, agriculture uses 75-80% of CA's water, and all urban/residential activity combined accounts for perhaps 10%. Then, 2-3% of the average household water use is used for drinking and cooking*. So (very generously), 10/70 * 1/100 = 0.15% (drinking/agriclture; ~0.1% drinking/total).

Click to expand...

Yes, I knew about those figures. I can't imagine why we would want to allow any of our precious water to be used for fracking.

mbender said:

Nubo hath not said:

We can save the water to grow crops or (gasp!) to drink.

Click to expand...

I realize this is a tad facetious, but we drink a tiny fraction (of 1%) of the amount used to grow crops. First, agriculture uses 75-80% of CA's water, and all urban/residential activity combined accounts for perhaps 10%. Then, 2-3% of the average household water use is used for drinking and cooking*. So (very generously), 10/70 * 1/100 = 0.15% (drinking/agriclture; ~0.1% drinking/total).

I'm just tired of residents being "blamed" for wasting water (though I do think xeriscaping is a good idea), and being encouraged to be super-conservative with water use, when really it's the farmers who need to "make more with less".

Click to expand...

You're quoting the wrong fellow.