Elwood, Where would the [oil] industry be today, had they looked at every new idea with a 'Pie-in-the-Sky' kind of attitude toward innovation and research and development? I'm quite sure, that even just a few years ago, the very same things like 'pie in the sky' were said about 2-mile long laterals that maybe could be frac'ed at intervals... without that innovative thinking and TESTING, there would BE no Bakken today. At least, not in the form that we see. Maybe the Huff'N'Puff will not work. Maybe it will triple the production on every well it's used on. Maybe it will add production, but not to the level that pays for the practice, and will be abandoned for a variation or completely. We need MORE industry pioneers in the field, not fewer. New ideas require testing and proving and re-engineering based on factual results in the field. It (Huff'N'Puff) has potential and should be explored. That is not to say that re-injection is a bad idea. That, too, is pushing the r & d track forward. But, to my thinking, there must be a valid reason, ie: financial, well integrity, etc. why this is not being done as a regular course of production? In my opinion, we are not in the position to stay with what we know because the rest is 'Pie-in-the-Sky' any longer. We can ill afford archaic thinking when it comes to energy of all kinds ...Again, while I do agree that we need to do 'something' with the gas being lost - there are numerous pipelines either in construction stages or expansion stages -- this 'boom' caught not only ND, but the country by surprise. All because a 'pie-in-the-sky' idea like staged fracing in 2-mile laterals changed the game forever. And not just in ND.
I have 2 plaques on my office wall that say 'Innovation - The Best Way to Predict The Future Is To Create It'. and 'Risk -A Ship In Harbor is Safe- But That's Not What Ships Were Made For'. Me, I will take pie-in-the-sky every day of the week and twice on Sunday, because the third word behind "oil & Gas' is 'Exploration' -- and it is the exploration part that will get us where we want to go...we WILL get the gas contained, flaring will become obsolete as a practice - but it cannot get there overnight or without some pain. Claraevju, we have already had an extensive debate on Flaring - see http://groups.google.com/group/bakken-shale-discussion/browse_thread/thread/11087c1b3917677a/5337164109b8931c?lnk=gst&q=what+is+flaring+#5337164109b8931c Rufus On Sep 29, 3:59 am, elwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > claraevju typed "...how much (MCF) of gas is burned off at each > well..." > > by my estimate, that is about 11,500 mcf/day in the parshall field, > including confidential wells, for july, '08. about 1,500 mcfd are > being sold. > > given the apparent rapid pressure decline in parshall, maybe it would > make sense to re-inject this gas instead of a pie in the sky co2 huff > 'n puff. > > On Sep 28, 10:13 pm, claraevju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi, you all have confirmed that there is a value to all the Nat. Gas > > that now is being flared at possibly 100's of wells. I understand that > > ND law allows flaring if no pipe line is in the area of the well. And > > after one year then royalties must be paid. This seems to be a big > > waste of energy in my mind. > > > There should be small units that use nat gas as fuel to power a 25-30 > > hp engine with a compressor unit, to pump the gas into a tanker > > trailor. And these be swapped out with an empty trailor and hauled to > > that new gas plant. In the same manner that ND Port Services is > > setting up between Stanley and Minot to haul oil. > > > Granted I dont know how much (MCF) of gas is burned off at each well. > > But by the looks of some of the photos that have been posted here and > > other sites some are darn big. > > > But I do know if there was a crud oil leak of equal value, it would be > > fixed now !! > > > Just my thoughts. > > > On Sep 27, 4:38 am, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > We see gas trading in the $8 per mcf range lately. Near term oil > > > contracts on the NYMEX have been running around $106 per bbl, and at > > > the wellhead Bakken crude is probably running in the low $90 range > > > now. If your 6:1 ratio is right, $8 gas is roughly energy equivalent > > > to $48 crude. That seems a little low--crude is either overpriced or > > > nat gas is under priced based only on energy content. > > > > Boone Pickens has been saying in his ads that if we had the > > > infrastructure to deliver nat gas to drivers, cars could run on that > > > at about 60% of the cost of gasonine made from crude. > > > > The US has a large supply of nat gas and Pickens' basic argument is > > > correct. > > > > The catch is that nat gas is really expensive to move from the > > > wellhead and deliver to motor vehicles at a service station. > > > Apparently its basically impractical and all but impossible to truck > > > raw nat gas from the wellhead to a refinery. Hence all the flaring in > > > the Bakken. > > > > The only practical way to move it is via a pipeline to a nat gas > > > processing plant, ideally a plant pretty close to the source. W/O the > > > infrastructure investment you are out of luck. > > > > On the plus side, setting up a small-scale nat gas processing plant is > > > apparently not nearly as complex nor costly as setting up a small- > > > scale oil refinery. It looks to me that the equipment needed to get > > > the plant running can basically be trucked in and set up to operate > > > within the space of a few months if a company sets its mind to it. > > > > There is a ready market for nat gas to heat homes,but the fueling of > > > mobile powerplants is tricky, because of the changes needed in the > > > service stations as well as in the vehicles themselves. So Picken's > > > plan to substitute nat gas for crude-derived gasoline is not quite as > > > easy or quick as he makes it out to be. > > > > The use of nat gas by homowners and industry is pretty much a known. > > > Nat gas prices at any point in time are largly supply determined, and > > > even a small increase in supply can cause prices to drop > > > significantly. But if you suddenly create a new demand for nat gas to > > > power motor vehicles, nat gas will soon not be as cheap as it is > > > currently relative to the price of crude and ordinary gasoline. > > > > Still the US has a large supply of nat gas that can be tapped more > > > heavily pretty easily, and more of this would quickly come out of the > > > ground if nat gas prices increased substantially above current levels. > > > > I wish there were free lunches but there are not. > > > > David > > > > On Sep 26, 10:50 pm, DepME <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Yes, a great discussion and thanks for the link Liz. > > > > > Just so I know I have this correct.... > > > > > 3600 MCF of gas would be approximately 600 barrels of oil. Correct? > > > > > On Sep 26, 12:45 pm, Bri-VA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > The conversion ratio is a generalization between the relative value > > > > > for producing electricity as some plants are able to use multiple fuel > > > > > sources to produce electricity. They think in terms of dollars per > > > > > BTU to make a decision on what they will burn. Obviously, the high > > > > > cost of oil make natural gas a more profitable source for producing > > > > > electricity. This is why Natural gas should have good growth > > > > > potential in the near future and also why many leases are being signed > > > > > for natural gas production in other states that formerly were being > > > > > ignored. 6 to 1 is the general rule as I have heard it. > > > > > > On Sep 25, 4:00 pm, DepME <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Can anyone give me a general rule to convert the MCF gas figure into > > > > > > equivalent barrels of oil.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bakken Shale Discussion" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bakken-shale-discussion?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
