Lipstick, Elwood? Let's go there..... Let's start here for fun ..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_flare 'The largest flaring operations occur in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. The leading contributors to gas flaring are (in declining order): Nigeria, Russia, Iran, Algeria, Mexico, Venezuela, Indonesia, and the United States.'
Next: http://www.eapirf.org/MenuItems/Resources/Papers/Energy/rsrc304.pdf Read the first 3 pages --- Notice the Chart of Flaring countries on page two: Where is the US? oh-oh Not there.... 'In contrast, gas UTILIZATION is much higher in such countries as Norway, the United States, and the United Kingdom, WHICH FLARE OR VENT LESS THAT 2 CUBIC METERES FOR EVERY BARREL OF OIL. Flaring and venting is an important safety measure at oil production facilities, safely disposing of gas during emergencies, power and equipment failures, or other upsets in oil production that might otherwise pose hazards to workers or nearby residents.' Next: We stop at The World Bank.... (Roadtrip: this is such fun, don't you think?) 'More than 80 percent of global venting and flaring occurs in fewer than 15 countries (including Nigeria, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Angola, Qatar, Algeria, Venezuela, Equatorial Guinea, Indonesia, Brazil and Mexico).' "The GGFR partnership, managed and facilitated by a small team at the World Bank in Washington, DC, includes the following partners: Algeria (Sonatrach), Angola, Cameroon, Canada (CIDA), Chad, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Khanty-Mansijsysk (Russia), Nigeria, Norway, Qatar, U.K. Foreign Commonwealth Office, United States; BP, Chevron, ENI, ExxonMobil, Marathon, NorskHydro, Shell, Statoil, Total; OPEC Secretariat, and the World Bank. The EU will become a partner in 2007." The US is already on the forefront of this issue and has been for some time.... Key Obstacles (to reducing flaring): 'But a key obstacle to reduce the amount of gas flared is the lack of infrastructure and available markets for the associated gas.' “Large amounts of oil are produced in remote areas and often it’s offshore far from any potential markets for the gas and infrastructure is the key to utilize this gas. So what we do is we work with the industry, with the governments to facilitate investments in this infrastructure,” Svensson says. The GGFR partnership aims to create a framework so investments can take place, as the Partnership itself does not have the funds to invest in infrastructure such as pipelines, but instead relies on the private companies to do the investments. But Svensson says there are several other obstacles. “First of all there’s often contractual regulatory issues related to the utilization of this gas. In old petroleum contracts, it’s often not clear who owns the gas and therefore who can utilize it. “Often these can be economically marginal projects so we are working with the industry and the governments to improve the economics of these projects. And the tools that we have been looking into include carbon credit financing in order to help these projects become more viable.” In brief, the success and viability of gas flaring reduction projects depend on having the right conditions and incentives such as fiscal incentives, investments in infrastructure, markets availability, appropriate regulations that enable gas utilization, and political will.' Next: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20966504~pagePK:64257043~piPK:437376~theSitePK:4607,00.html Next : (my personal favorite) http://siteresources.worldbank.org/NEWS/Resources/world-gasflare.pdf This is the first effort by the World Bank Global Gas Flaring Reduction Partnership project to actually see and measure the flaring globally to find the worst offenders... Notice: There is no satellite measureability of gas flaring in the US -- Elwood, Any high levels of flaring coming from North Dakota fields? Next: http://www.portofentry.com/site/root/resources/industry_news/5023.html "While 22 countries have actually increased gas flaring, 16 have made progress in reducing it, and nine have maintained stable levels of flaring over a 12-year period, according to the study" My main point here is that their study is making PROGRESS over a 12- YEAR-SPAN. I admit there must be a better way to deal with the gas from the drilling -- but I bet that if you give ND 12 YEARS (instead of the 18-24 months since the boom started) that they, too, will make progress. They are already making progress, with new and expanded pipelines, new natural gas plant at South Heart, re-injection technique exploration and r & d, And that has been in the little time span, all the while dealing with the boom issues of highway and road infrastructure problems, legislative issues, population expansion, and everything else that comes with 'boom times' Next: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,504511,00.html (Germany-- alright!) Yes, Elwood, YES. There IS an issue here. ND (and the WORLD) are working to solve it. When you look at the bigger picture vs looking at the microcosm of the North Dakota -Mountrail County Bakken, the percentage of flared gas is miniscule by comparison to the overall scheme of things. And when you look at the scientific data, flaring is better for the environment than venting, which is releasing the raw methane into the environment. There are global oil fields where gas is simply discharged straight into the atmosphere, which is even worse for the climate, because methane -- the main component in the hydrocarbon mixture known as "natural gas" -- has 20 times the greenhouse-gas or "warming" potential of CO2. The responsible method, until infrastructure solutions and legal and other issues are worked out, and the method that has been the primary safe technique since the beginning of oil discovery globally, has been flaring. Yes, ND does need to address this, and they are doing so. Just as fast as they are able - The Planet is also working on it - Legislators and Scientists and Benefactors and Corporations and Federations and Environmentalists are working on it. But, Elwood, seriously, if you do hold some magic answer in your pocket, I do wish you would share it with ND and the world. Watch out for that lipstick, it'll getcha every time. Rufus. On Sep 30, 7:21 pm, elwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
