Talk:Eagle Ford Formation

Energy Mid‑importance

	Energy portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology Mid‑importance

	Geology portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Texas Low‑importance

	United States portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This redirect is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Mid-importance).

Stranded refs

These refs were listed under the ==References== section of the article, with no corresponding anchors in the text itself:^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]

References

^ Geology of the Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex, Geology of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, .
^ [1], www.energyindustryphotos.com, .
^ Twiss R., and E. Moores, (2007), University of California at Davis, Structural Geology, W.H. Freeman and Company, Second Edition.
^ Barnes. V, (1972), The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, Revised 1988.
^ Nunn J., (1990), Relaxation of Continental Lithosphere: An Explanation for Late Cretaceous Reactivation of the Sabine Uplift of Louisiana-Texas, Tectonics, v. 9, No. 2, 341-359.
^ McNuluty C., (1966), Nomenclature of Uppermost Eagle Ford Formation in Northeastern Texas, Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologist, v. 50, NO. 2, 375-396.
^ Halbouty M., and J. Halbouty, (1982), Relationships Between East Texas Field Region and Sabine Uplift in Texas, The American Association of Petroleum Geologist Bulletin, v. 66, No. 8, 1042-1054.
^ Brown C., and R. Pierce, (1962), Palynologic Correlations in Cretaceous Eagle Ford Group, Northeast Texas, Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologist, v. 46, No. 12, 2133-2147.

—Biosketch (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

production rate

searching some information about the US oil production and import/export I found an german article that such new fields, like the Eagle Ford field are the reason for a 32 year high of transporting oil in trucks, trains or by "inland vassels"/"barges"? Because the new production increase is in areas where the existing pipelines are going into wrong direction or like for North Dakota the big Pipeline coming from Canada through Montana is busy since Canada increases production and exports to US too. They wrote in 2010 the Eagle Ford formation produced a bit less than 1,000 barrels per day (~159,000 litres or ~42,000 US gal) and that production increased to now 500,000bpd! (almost 80 million litres or 21 million US gallons DAILY!) This would make the Field one of the worlds leading field in output. The article was from September!

Is this possible or was it an error and it is more likely 50,000bpd?! However looking at the weekly reports from EIA I believe that there are many new fields and even one of them with 500,000 barrels per day and very much in the whole Bakken Formation too... 40 billion dollar pipelines projects are being built or are planned the article said, because transporting extreme large amounts by trucks, train and inland vessels (if possible) is of course far more expensive than a pipeline but as we knew capitalism the oil companies can't wait maybe 2 or 3 years so they use the more expensive and energy wasting method, however good news for truck producers and producers of truck tires and spare parts and also for workshops, the trucks have to drive sometimes long distances and I guess thousand of them are bringing oil to refineries and another thousands bringing products from there to the customers ... Greetings Kilon22 (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wow. that's some pretty heavy-duty tin hat wearing there partner.....here's how the real world works: trucks take the crude to collection areas; those collecting areas send it thru existing pipelines or load it onto trains. 1st half 2013 was almost 600K per day. Here's some data: http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/eagleford/EagleFordOilProduction.pdf

Ken (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now they predict 1 Million barrels per day in 2014: http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/09/19/eagle-ford-oil-expected-to-surpass-1-million-barrels-per-day/ Ken (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the first picture in this article, a picture of something in Dallas County?

The article clearly states that the Eagle Ford Formation is in South Texas. That is nowhere near Dallas County. (right?) Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This map: indicates where Dallas County is. It seems to be very far away from the area (in the Rio Grande Valley) where the Eagle Ford Formation is located -- as shown (e.g.) on this map: http://www.oilshalegas.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/eaglefordshalemap-2.JPG Am I missing something, here? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas County is where the subsurface feature/formation shows up at ground level. The shale is tilted: it is quite deep in S Texas where all the activity is located, but gets shallower as it goes north and eventually peeks out in north Texas, in particular Dallas County. I agree it is confusing but it is accurate. Hope this helps. Ken (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Maybe someone (maybe you?) could go in there, and put in some explanation, in the article, like you did on the "Talk:" page. An explanation like the one here, might have to be changed a little bit (are there rules? like, about having a footnote? or something) but maybe someone else could handle the compliance with the rules! (("if any")). Just an idea. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

done Ken (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Geology of the Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex, Geology of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, .

[2] [1], www.energyindustryphotos.com, .

[3] Twiss R., and E. Moores, (2007), University of California at Davis, Structural Geology, W.H. Freeman and Company, Second Edition.

[4] Barnes. V, (1972), The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, Revised 1988.

[5] Nunn J., (1990), Relaxation of Continental Lithosphere: An Explanation for Late Cretaceous Reactivation of the Sabine Uplift of Louisiana-Texas, Tectonics, v. 9, No. 2, 341-359.

[6] McNuluty C., (1966), Nomenclature of Uppermost Eagle Ford Formation in Northeastern Texas, Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologist, v. 50, NO. 2, 375-396.

[7] Halbouty M., and J. Halbouty, (1982), Relationships Between East Texas Field Region and Sabine Uplift in Texas, The American Association of Petroleum Geologist Bulletin, v. 66, No. 8, 1042-1054.

[8] Brown C., and R. Pierce, (1962), Palynologic Correlations in Cretaceous Eagle Ford Group, Northeast Texas, Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologist, v. 46, No. 12, 2133-2147.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]