murphy creek produces about the same gor(gas oil ratio) as parshall. the gas is used benifitally on the lease or sold into a sales line. marathon is the major operator. currently there is no flaring including confidential wells.
On Oct 1, 8:44 pm, "Rufus O'Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am thrilled that you have dedicated your life to learning why I am > willing to give the state a little time figure out the best way to > approach this beast from an infrastructure dev. point. > I am also double-delighted for you that you are already on production > --- lucky Elwood. AND that they are connected to the much misaligned > and alledgedly-absent infrastructures called 'pipelines'. Wow. When > did that get put in?? Lucky You again. > Since you appear to hold the answers to all of these lofty questions, > so what exactly is Murphy Field doing that is different that the > rest? Already connected to pipelines? Re-injecting? And if it is > working so well, why isn't everyone doing it? Is it not a 'best > practice'? Are Murphy field wells not producing much gas so that they > can use it up rather that flare. And without a flare, how is well > safety being handled? > Oh do tell, oh enlightened one. > > On Oct 1, 7:41 pm, elwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > rufus typed : "Do you ACTUALLY have assets in the State of ND- Bakken" > > > yes. > > > no need to shut in any wells i have an interest in, they are already > > connected. > > > and i "sincerely" believe that the day will come when you will regret > > the days, weeks, months and years that you allowed your gas to go up > > in smoke. > > > "It cannot be done in 18-24 months". > > > why not ? the 2-36 parshall flared gas for 19 months (about 70% of > > the ultimate recoverable gas) before being put on sales. and as i > > have pointed out before, murphy creek is not flaring. but flaring is > > the only way for parshall ? you seem to think that there is no > > alternative to flaring. and as i have pointed out before, other > > states seem to manage. what part of that are you not getting ? > > > and i am here to learn too rufus, trying to learn why you want to > > waste your gas. > > > steady state of production ? steady state production refers to a > > specific set of flow parameters that doesnt exist here. the wells i > > have looked at are in a steady state of decline. > > > you seem to have a thin skin rufus, how's that going to work in those > > cold north dakota winters with no gas ? you wouldn't need to "chill" > > then would you rufus ? > > > and who elected you spokesman for nd'akers ? > > > On Oct 1, 5:17 pm, "Rufus O'Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Elwood, > > > Answer me one question, will ya? Do you ACTUALLY have assets in the > > > State of ND- Bakken - or is this just a venue for a 'cause' for you? > > > First you are all about waste, and the 'foolish people' of the State, > > > then you are all about 'flaring' then more about widows and > > > orphans ... Are you for real? I doubt sincerely that you give one > > > thin damn (or dime) about the people in the state. You do not appear > > > to extend yourself that far... > > > Have we not already had the discussion about North Dakotans --? Knock > > > off the Diggs, Elwood, try some sincerity instead... IF (and that is a > > > big IF) you do have assets in ND Bakken, perhaps you would like to be > > > the first one to 'show the unenlightened' the way -- have your well > > > shut-in until a pipeline gets there or till they start re-injecting > > > the gas on your own asset. Go on, be the first one..... > > > Knock off the diggs, Elwood, there are too many good NDak'ers and > > > former NDak'ers on the board for you to whup us all into your higher > > > stage of "enlightened being." If you want to try, bring your lunch > > > (and the lipstick). Most of us on the board are here to learn (how > > > many times have I said this now??Are you listening?? ) and many of us > > > are still hoping to earning royalties sometime in our lifetime. > > > NOW, since you obviously missed the entire point of my previous point, > > > I will try once more to outline it for you, > > > YES. Curbing gas flaring is g-o-o-d and will be accomplished when all > > > of the Bakken fields are in more steady state of production - right > > > now, it is completely open season on development and they don't even > > > know yet WHERE the biggest gas discoveries will be found. WHEN they do > > > - they will build PIPELINES for the gas. They cannot invest in the > > > expensive infrastructure projects until they know where it has to > > > go....It cannot be done in 18-24 months. What part of that can't you > > > get? This is not the first field ever to flare, for heaven's sake. The > > > earth will not spin off it axis because the bakken fields are flaring! > > > Chill, dude. > > > NEXT. > > > Rufus > > > > On Oct 1, 4:24 pm, elwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > right, "government intrusion". government intrusion seems to work in > > > > other states and they get wells drilled in spite of it. and > > > > prohibiting flaring doesnt force anyone to sell the original gas > > > > without infastructure. now suppose that the ndic did not allow > > > > flaring, what would happen ? more orderly developement ? why is that > > > > bad ? > > > > > maybe you could abolish the ndic altogether, no more government > > > > intrusion. you could bring back the wild wild west. > > > > > the primary mission of the dnic is to prevent waste. > > > > > On Oct 1, 3:52 pm, Bri-VA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Knowing how government intrusion really works if they were forced to > > > > > sell the original gas without infrastructure then the well probably > > > > > would not be drilled in the first place. How many starving infants and > > > > > children would be out of luck then? Besides this is North Dakota I > > > > > suspect there are not too many starving infants and children in the > > > > > state, the people have too much character for that. Generally the > > > > > "Judas" argument doesn't get much milage. > > > > > > On Oct 1, 2:00 pm, elwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > 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- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
