dakota gas has a pipeline and is selling it to the canadians at estevan. linkhttp://www.dakotagas.com/ , also they are proposing a coal to NG plant at south heart nd. that will have CO2 to sell. The PERMIAN basin is under going CO2 injection right now.. a srtock that is involved is Denbury resources. ( ticker DNR ). don
On Sep 29, 11:19 am, elwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ty rufus, > > it looks like the plan for parshall is depletion at any cost. that is > same old same old if ever there was one. where are they going to get > the co2, rufus, and at what cost ? and what is the cost of injecting > the flared gas ? > > and another thing rufus, hand (have a nice day). > > On Sep 29, 11:58 am, "Rufus O'Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > 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 - > > seehttp://groups.google.com/group/bakken-shale-discussion/browse_thread/... > > > 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
