Are We Sitting on the Mother Lode of Oil Riches?

Watch stocks you care about

The single, easiest way to keep track of all the stocks that matter...

Your own personalized stock watchlist!

It's a 100% FREE Motley Fool service...

Click Here Now

It wasn't long ago that "peak oil" -- the notion that the world's supply of our primary fuel is declining toward insufficiency -- was a major worry for some. Now, we've recently had news that the General Accounting Office in Washington has pegged the potential oil reserves in a remote area where Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado converge at trillions of barrels.

If that's correct, it would put us well ahead of even the Saudis' cache. In fact, it would propel us beyond the combined reserves of all OPEC countries.

Don't believe everything you hear
The trouble with these contentions -- that we're either on the verge of exhausting the earth's oil or we're practically swimming in black gold -- is that neither is likely to be 100% correct. We've heard for years about the peak oil concept. It's one of those subjects on which you can solicit a dozen opinions and receive as many different answers. But the second premise, that the "Green River Formation" in the West contains the globe's mother lode of oil, is even more problematic.

You may have heard the news earlier this month that Anu K. Mittal, the U.S. Government Accountability Office's director of natural resources and environment, told a house subcommittee that the formation, an assemblage of more than 1,000 feet of sedimentary rocks, contains "the world's largest deposits of oil." More specifically, according to Ms. Mittal, the U.S. Geological Survey "estimates that the Green River Formation contains about 3 trillion barrels of oil, and about half of this may be recoverable, depending on available technology and economic conditions."

There were two other critical statements tucked away in her testimony:

  • "As you can imagine, having the technology to develop this vast energy resource will lead to a number of important socioeconomic benefits including the creation of jobs, increases in wealth, and increases in tax and royalty payments for federal and state governments."
  • "The federal government is in a unique position to influence the development of oil shale because nearly three-quarters of the oil shale within the Green River Formation lies beneath federal lands managed by the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management."

I suggest, however, that you hold your screams of euphoria -- especially those based on the first bullet point. It's also premature to expect the Energy Information Administration to immediately revise the estimated U.S. oil reserves to somewhere in excess of 1.5 trillion barrels. You see, there's more to the story than simply accepting the testimony to Congress at face value.

Coal in our stockings?
The phrase, "having the technology to develop this vast energy resource" indicates the rub here. It turns out that, using today's economics and available technology, the oil shale at Green River isn't quite ready for prime time. Unlike the oil that's trapped in shale rock in formations like the Bakken and the Eagle Ford, oil in the play to the west exists as kerogen, a coal-like solid. To render it usable, heating of the oil to about 700 degrees or in-situ mining is required.

That, in case you're wondering, explains the absence of a latter-day gold rush among the oil companies -- perhaps led by ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM  ) -- to produce oil from the formation. Royal Dutch Shell (NYSE: RDS-B  ) is the only company among the majors that is active in the formation. It's working on the first of three BLM research, development, and demonstration studies. So there remains little indication whether the oil shale is likely to yield significant output anytime soon. Indeed, an effective production process will likely require far more advanced technology than is currently available, and it may only occur with crude prices well above today's levels.

Private industry is preferable
Furthermore, the idea that the federal government should lead in influencing the development of oil shale is hard to accept. Indeed, it calls to mind President Obama's fallacious contention earlier this year that "it was public research dollars, over the course of 30 years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock." Reality tells us that Halliburton (NYSE: HAL  ) , along with what is now a part of Devon Energy (NYSE: DVN  ) , was really at the forefront of developing the techniques that now yield "all this natural gas." And looking ahead, it's difficult to place stock in energy leadership from an administration headed by a president who has said, "We must end the age of oil."

For now it appears that our domestic oil production will be concentrated in the Gulf of Mexico, along with such active onshore plays as the Bakken, the Eagle Ford, the Niobrara -- something of a neighbor of the Green River -- and the revitalized Permian Basin of southwest Texas and southeastern New Mexico. And then, for added long-term stability, we always have our friends to the north.

Foolish bottom line
We currently receive more imported oil from Canada than from any other source, much of it from the tar sands of northern Alberta. On that basis, real leadership from the White House would include approval of TransCanada's (NYSE: TRP  ) proposed Keystone XL pipeline. Earlier this month the company proposed a new -- and hopefully more acceptable -- route through the U.S., leading to the Texas coast. It's hard to imagine our Canadian neighbors being anything but our friends.

Given my strong belief that its new proposal markedly increases the prospects for an approval of an extended Keystone line, I'd urge Fools to monitor TransCanada closely -- and start by adding the company to My Watchlist.

Fool contributor David Lee Smithdoesn't own shares in any of the companies mentioned in this article. The Motley Fool owns shares of Devon Energy. Motley Fool newsletter services have recommended buying shares of Halliburton and Devron. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insightsmakes us better investors. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days.

Read/Post Comments (2) | Recommend This Article (5)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On May 22, 2012, at 4:48 PM, Zinj wrote:

    There seems to be a tacit assumption that new technology has enabled access to previously unrecoverable oil IN THE US ONLY.

    Why, do you suppose, the same sorts of "finds" wont happen elsewhere in the world when the new tech is applied there as well?

    Might the Saudis find oil underneath their known oil reserves?

    I take issue with grandiose statements like "it would put us well ahead of even the Saudis' cache" when you're presuming the application of new technology in the US, but (not?) in Saudi Arabia.

    There may be a lot of oil - it seems unlikely it would only be in "safe" countries like the US

  • Report this Comment On May 22, 2012, at 11:03 PM, joblock wrote:

    Oil is a big word. It can mean anything from sun tan lotion to roofing tar.

    Only certain "oil" can be refined to gasoline. US Demand has stabalized, and proven reserves have fallen. Oil is going up, way up, unless the we expand our technology for recovering and refining. You know when the last refinery was built in the US? Guess 50 years ago, your close.

    Would you invest in a refinery if you had no idea what the regulations in Washington would be in six months?

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 1892274, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/25/2016 1:24:45 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated 4 hours ago Sponsored by:
DOW 18,223.03 77.32 0.43%
S&P 500 2,151.33 10.17 0.47%
NASD 5,309.83 52.43 1.00%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

10/24/2016 4:01 PM
DVN $41.72 Down -0.97 -2.27%
Devon Energy CAPS Rating: ****
HAL $48.24 Down -0.19 -0.39%
Halliburton CAPS Rating: ****
RDS-B $53.77 Down -0.26 -0.48%
Royal Dutch Shell… CAPS Rating: ****
TRP $46.27 Down -0.89 -1.89%
TransCanada CAPS Rating: *****
XOM $86.91 Up +0.29 +0.33%
ExxonMobil CAPS Rating: ****