rufus typed : "....to maintain by using new techniques..." great rufus, what are they maintaining , depletion ?
On Sep 29, 2:21 pm, "Rufus O'Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hiya Elwood, > If the parshall plan is 'depletion at any cost' why would they even > bother with trying new ideas there? Innovation requires first and > foremost, an idea. Then the issues of who, what, when, why, where, and > how much follow... It sounds to me that they are trying NOT to > deplete, but to maintain by using new techniques... > There are pipelines to portions of the area being constructed and > hooked up as quickly as possible. > As I said, injecting the gas is a good idea, one of many. I'm sure > that they are evaluating the feasibilites and practicalities, and > ROI'S. I have to believe that if there is an iota of ROI on ANY > concept, that the companies would pounce on it. The Huff'n'Puff > cannot be an inexpensive endeavor -- and I am quite certain that they > have already worked out the details of where to find it, what the > costs are... and, knowing that in corporate structured decision trees, > they have considered the comparison to injection on comparable success > factors, cost/ROI factors, risk assessments, long-term vs short-term > ratios, and so on. > I sincerely doubt that these decisions are made with an eye to 'how > can we waste more resources'. I really do believe that most, if not > all, oil and gas exploration companies really do want to succeed, gain > the consumer's trust back and push the envelope with emerging > technologies. > Some ideas, will, in actuality, fall flat on their nose. But that is > typically not known until it is applied in practical use circumstances > on several occasions and then a post-test eval is completed. > Give'em a break, Elwood, I really think they are all doing the best > they can in such surprising 'boom' circumstances. > Go have a Snicker's Bar, you'll feel better! lol (my solution to many > unsolvable problems) > A good day to all! > Rufus > > On Sep 29, 12:19 pm, 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
