that's right rufus, that's right we should listen to what they say and pay no attention to what they do, that's right rufus, that's right.
one pie every day, two on sunday and snickers bars throughout the day ? it really is all about food with you ruf, idn it ? On Sep 30, 12:30 pm, "Rufus O'Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One can assume, Elwood, that they are attempting new technologies > (i.e. Huff'n'Puff) to 'maintain' their initial production results vs > just allowing 'depletion' to run its course -- that, in my mind, would > be the real waste of resources. There is nothing 'same old same old' > in the ND bakken fields right now -- most companies are trying new > thingsm new techniques, presumably new tools, new angles, new ideas. > When efforts are in this innovation mode, it takes a great deal of > time for activities to reach a 'level' of normalcy again. In my > opinion, we will see the innovation phase here for at least 5 years. > I do not have to solve the misc. problem you mention such as where to > buy CO2, etc., because in order for them to pursue any plan to permit > stage, the company has already solved it back in the conference room. > If it was not cost effective they would not be trying it... They are > not waiting till they get out in the field to figure our where to buy > the chief component of the action. Give the field experts the benefit > of the doubt --they really do not need us. Really. > You are arm-chair quarterbacking the the darndest things! (I'm > telling you, Snickers Bars, man, Snickers Bars! ) Glad you spelled out > what 'hand' meant (have a nice day) -- I am not versed in blog > acronyms.. I might have thought it something entirely opposite.... > NTHFY --(that's 'Nice to hear From You'...) > Rufus > > On Sep 29, 5:03 pm, elwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > 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- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
