great rufus, nd should allow flaring because nigeria does ? and nd should allow flaring because it produces less ghg than raw methane ?
majic wand ? how 'bout dont allow it. seems to work in other states. 11,500 mcfd, that is the $$,$$$ equivalent of 920 bopd. surely some freezing and starving orphans and widows in north dakota could use the royalty off'n dat rufus. On Oct 1, 11:22 am, "Rufus O'Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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~... > > 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- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
