Talk:Three Forks Shale

Montana Low‑importance

	Montana portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montana, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Montana 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.MontanaWikipedia:WikiProject MontanaTemplate:WikiProject MontanaMontana articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Three Forks Shale is part 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Map needed

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Montana may be able to help!

Picture?

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi,

I'm just updating the Bakken Formation site in the German Wikipedia, and through this (a picture there) I heard once against from the Three Forks Shale... the graphic won't be very correct I guess, but the Three Forks look quite large next to Bakken... maybe its most sand without oil or natural gas, but however a picture helps to understand the situation (and that in a depth of ~4000 to ~5000 feets (1,250 - 1,550 Meters?!) it goes even below the Bakken Formation on this picture, Bakken stops at 8,000 feet while Three Forks continue to expand below Bakken on that picture...

Wow, so easy... I remembered only the "File" order. Size can be regulated as we know and if someone who can English helps me a bit we could improve the article... US production is again record high from last Weeks EIA report (ok they are a bit very optimistic in US questions, but I mean its the EIA and not the International EA... so of course a American one is sometimes... but the total production would have created a new "hubberts peak" after 44 years! Nobody 10 or 13 years ago could imagine the US would be producing once again over 9.6 million barrels, close to the a bit above 10 million barrels in 1970 as Dr. Hubbert said in ~1955. The method is good for a field with muuuuch known data, but bad for larger countries with unknown reserves to be found in the next generation(s)

Greetings from the deep night in Central Europe :D Kilon22 (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic