11.5 million cubic feet per day, rufus. how much lipstick are you going to put on that pig ?
On Sep 30, 4:40 pm, "Rufus O'Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree wholeheartedly with David, here. Theory only goes so far, and > it is great on paper and in the boardroom. Where the real > breakthroughs will be made is in the field --- and the driller needs > the latitude (to a reasonable extent) to exercise judgment in matters > in real-time. What happens in ND WILL change the industry and the > industry practices whereever drilling is done. It will eventually be > the gold-standard about horizontal drilling in shale (and sands such > the TFS) environments. > This is incredibly important to the future of energy ... Now, I cannot > say with impunity that Elwood does not have the knowledge to be of > critical value to the oil companies and their strategies, he well > might -- but I do know that I do not have such a depth and breadth of > knowledge as to 'guess' at better solutions to issues without even the > benefit of having access to the same documentation the geologists/ > petro engineers use to make such decisions. While I do have children > with advanced degrees in Aerospace Engineering, Mechanics and Civil > Engineering - I am only qualified genetically to pretend intelligence > on such matters. As a royalty owner, I am assuming that same analogy > hold true.... > Say 'Cheese', Elwood! (that means 'smile' you know!) > > On Sep 30, 4:05 pm, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I see the Parshall/Sanish Mountrail and Dunn county Bakken fields as > > simply a marvelous laboratory whereby every company can get to try > > their most interesting and inventive oil drilling and recovery > > technologies, and, with luck, get the majority of them to be > > economically profitable. The entire drilling and oil recovery industry > > benefits from these experiments, and they point the way for the future > > of crude production not only in the US but around the world. What > > better place in the world right now to run these tests and > > experiments? What's happening in NW ND right now is important to the > > future of energy generation for all of mankind. > > > On Sep 30, 1:30 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,- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
