Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Shale Gas Thread Pt 2 (merged)

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 16 Sep 2013, 06:55:13

DC - All valid points. The problem comes from a timing standpoint IMHO. If it were a gradual and consistent swing in price some orderly change might occur. But the price volatility along with the subsequent boom/bust drilling cycles over the last 10+ years would argue against that possibility. Back to the same old problem: our economy doesn't respond like that: we swing from general complacency to panic mode.

I agree about exports. OTOH when we have the next supply crisis we both know how the public and politicians will respond. Your license plate an odd or even number? LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11013
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby dcoyne78 » Mon 16 Sep 2013, 11:38:36

Hi Rockman,

I agree on the lack of price stability. I would think that it will take some time to get the LNG export terminals up and running so these should not be a big shock to the system, some of the big shocks previously were due to wars (1973 and 1979-1982), the other shock in 2005-2008 was probably due to unexpected decline in Mexico and the North Sea combined with an unexpected uptick in demand from Asia. These will happen in the future as well and are tough to predict in advance. Only a pretty strong increase in real oil prices will enable supply to match demand, I think that eventually the focus on liquids in the US will result in a rise in natural gas prices, impossible to say how rapid that price rise will be, so far it has been pretty gradual.

I doubt we will see the odd/even plate routine (I am younger than you ) so I wasn't driving in 73/4, but I do remember buying a locking gas cap for my beater in 1980 (68 Pontiac Catalina that got 14 MPG if I drove conservatively). If the Mideast is engulfed in a major war then all bets are off.

DC
dcoyne78
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013, 18:45:15

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 16 Sep 2013, 12:10:15

DC - I doubt I'll see long lines at the gas pump but that's mostly due to my age. LOL. being older than you I have a more complete history of watch our society act illogically. I know it might not seem fair to paint with such a broad brush but look at the relative complacency we see today. $3.50 gasoline is now the norm. The vast majority of the population has a job. New affordable health care is just around the corner. We're going ever deeper in national debt and that isn't causing any problems, etc. etc.

Everything is OK until it's not OK in our society. And then we start making national knee jerk decisions. That's the world I recall for my last 62 years. Difficult to expect a different pattern in the future.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11013
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 17 Sep 2013, 12:24:46

New Fracking Emissions Study Brings Out The Usual Suspects

From: http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellync ... -suspects/

I would agree with the opponents that this study doesn’t really answer the question sufficiently. Not because I think the conclusion are incorrect but just because it was too narrowly focused. From the reservoir to the burner tip some amount of methane is leaked to the atmosphere unburned. And given its GHG capabilities this is not a good thing. But everyone on both sides of the argument is focusing on relatively small individual components of a very big system. I’ve looked but can’t find the details but have seen reports regarding a significant amount of methane that is leaked from local distribution systems many hundreds of miles from the well head.

But cherry picking analysis won’t ever answer the question. One counter argument against frac’ng leaks is mentioned in this article but the most important aspects of that analysis was left it: the airborne testing above a CO NG field didn’t take into account natural NG leaks in the area. Was that volume insignificant to what might be leaking from the wells in the field below? Don’t know…that analysis wasn’t done.

This analysis found that there was a volume of NG leaked from the studied wells but that was leakage not associated with frac'ng but from parts of the production equipment used in conventional non-frac’d wells. Both sides of the debate seem intent on focusing on just that segment of the entire NG production system that supports their prejudice. That’s not scientific analysis IMHO. More importantly, it’s not honest.

“The latest study on shale gas emissions has caused a bit of a stir, noting that the wells do not appear to be emitting significant amounts of methane, which is an important finding. There are however a number of other relevant points that have emerged. First, the researchers did find significant leakage, but at other points than the wells, most notably in the gas-water separation process. This highlights the fact that methane leakage is important and needs to be addressed, but independently of the question of hydraulic fracturing. The natural gas supply chain is long and some parts of it, such as urban distribution systems, are thought to be possible sources of significant leakage. In all likelihood, the Power Law applies, wherein most leakage comes from a small portion of sources.

Next , many correctly have pointed out that the study is somewhat limited, as the authors admit, covering only a small number of wells owned by companies that volunteered to be part of the research. This is a valid point, although usually overlooked by fracking critics when applied to studies whose results they prefer. But it only means that, as with any study, the results are not necessarily universally applicable. And following on from this is the bias in some analysts who, first of all, dismiss the results out of hand and attack the involvement of some producing companies as invalidating any findings, but more generally show a refusal to accept any results they dislike. Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy dismisses the study as “fatally flawed” in part because it contradicts other findings. This is not the stance of scientists, but ideologues. Indeed, Philip Radford of Greenpeace primarily rants against the industry and methane. He, too, attacks the findings for disagreeing with a recent NOAA study that found much higher levels in a field in Utah, but doesn’t note that the measurements were done on a single day, which would also seem to be limiting.

The phrase “more research is needed” seems a cliché but is very true, however, this particular study does imply both that earlier estimates of leakage may have been too high, but also that wellhead leakage can be reduced. The potential that improved maintenance of compressors and pipeline seals elsewhere in the system might have a major impact on greenhouse gas emissions should be pursued by identifying actual emissions more broadly, something both the industry and environmentalists should embrace.

At the same time, it would be helpful if commentaries were less biased on focused more on the facts. The scientists, and some media and industry observers, seem to have no trouble admitting the limitations even of a study whose results they find agreeable, while the kneejerk reactions from some fracking opponents is highly informative of their prejudices.”
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11013
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 21 Sep 2013, 10:14:35

Looks like Chevron and Shell are planning to make a serious push at developing shale gas in the Ukraine.

http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/1 ... e_Gas_Deal
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11013
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 21 Sep 2013, 10:28:55

Looks like serious evaluation of the shales in Australia's Cooper Basin is about to begin. But it will be slow: the first 4 wells won't be tested for productivity until mid 2014. And that's only if the initial evaluation indicates some potential.

http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/1 ... oper_Basin
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11013
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sat 21 Sep 2013, 13:53:31

There has already been a significant amount of work done on the shales in the Cooper. Santos claimed commerciality on a shale gas well in 2012 that they suggest has around 7 BCF of reserves. I believe they started the Moolomba initial development (6 wells pilot) this year.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5902
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby Graeme » Fri 18 Oct 2013, 18:38:51

Major Study Projects No Long-Term Climate Benefit From Shale Gas Revolution

Most claims that shale gas will significantly reduce US carbon emissions in the future are based on little more than hand-waving and wishful thinking. That’s because those claims assume natural gas is replacing coal only, rather than replacing some combination of coal, renewables, nuclear power, and energy efficiency — which is obviously what will happen in the real world.

To figure out what the impact of shale gas is actually going to be, you need an energy-economy model. And since the output of one model depends crucially on the specific assumptions it makes, the best approach would be to look at results of several models. And that is precisely what Stanford’s Energy Modeling Forum does in its new study, “Changing the Game? Emissions and Market Implications of New Natural Gas Supplies Report.”

They “formed a working group of about 50 experts and advisors from companies, government agencies and universities” to study the impact of the North American shale gas revolution:

Modeling teams from 14 different organizations participated in the study. All models integrated information on energy supply and demand to provide prices that reached market balances for each individual fuel. The models used different approaches to determine these prices.

The top figure shows result of the models that extend to 2050 (though the results are not substantially different if the modeling stops at 2035). Note that for most models, CO2 emissions grow in both shale cases. The study points out that “Emission growth rates for the reference case are not shown because they track closely those for the two-shale cases.”

The high shale gas scenario is optimistic about both the ultimately recoverable resource base and recovery rates per well, which reduces natural gas production costs. Yet, averaging over all the models, these optimistic assumptions have little net impact on CO2 growth compared to the more pessimistic low shale gas case.

Why doesn’t abundant and cheap natural gas matter much for long-term U.S. CO2 trends? Over time, and especially post-2020:

… natural gas begins to displace nuclear and renewable energy that would have been used otherwise in new power plants under reference case conditions.


The EMF model results underscore the key finding from a July study by the Center for American Progress (where I am a senior fellow), concludes: “There needs to be a swift transition from coal to a zero-carbon future by ensuring that the use of natural gas, particularly in the electric-power sector, peaks within the next 7 years to 17 years.”


thinkprogress
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby Graeme » Mon 28 Oct 2013, 15:53:12

Scientists wary of shale oil and gas as US energy salvation

After 10 years of production, shale gas in the United States cannot be considered commercially viable, according to several scientists presenting at the Geological Society of America meeting in Denver on Monday. They argue that while the use of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling for "tight oil" is an important contributor to U.S. energy supply, it is not going to result in long-term sustainable production or allow the U.S. to become a net oil exporter.

Charles A.S. Hall, professor emeritus at the College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State University of New York, Syracuse, is an expert on how much energy it takes to extract energy, and therefore which natural resources offer the best energy return on investment (EROI). He will describe two studies: one of the global patterns of fossil-fuel production in the past decade, and the other of oil production patterns from the Bakken Field (the giant expanse of oil-bearing shale rock underneath North Dakota and Montana that is being produced using hydraulic fracturing).

Both studies show that despite a tripling of prices and of expenditures for oil exploration and development, the production of nearly all countries has been stagnant at best and more commonly is declining—and that prices do not allow for any growth in most economies.

"The many trends of declining EROIs suggest that depletion and increased exploitation rates are trumping new technological developments," Hall said.


phys.org
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 02 Nov 2013, 17:27:28

OTOH a $1.2 billion bet on the future of NG in the US - first NG pipeline laid into Manhattan in 40 years:

Spectra Energy Corp (NYSE: SE) Friday announced the successful completion of its New Jersey – New York Expansion Project. The new pipeline, an extension of Spectra Energy's Texas Eastern and Algonquin Gas systems, is designed to bring customers in the region 800 million cubic feet per day (mmcf/d) of natural gas supplies, as well as economic and environmental benefits.
R"Successfully completing this pipeline is a testament to our ability to secure, permit and execute on large and complex growth projects," said Greg Ebel, president and chief executive officer, Spectra Energy. "We've built the first natural gas pipeline into Manhattan in more than 40 years, one that will supply the region with safe, affordable, clean, domestic natural gas. Completing this pipeline is a great accomplishment, and one in which our team can take great pride." "The natural gas in this pipeline will warm homes, cook food and keep businesses running in New Jersey and New York for years to come. Customers in the region could save $700 million in energy costs each year while also replacing fuel oil with domestic and cleaner-burning natural gas," said Bill Yardley, president, U.S. Transmission and Storage, Spectra Energy. "We've invested the past five years speaking with stakeholders and officials, planning and re-planning, designing and constructing this pipeline, all to ensure it was completed safely, efficiently and to the highest standards."

Facts about the New Jersey-New York Expansion:
•A $1.2 billion, privately funded expansion of the Texas Eastern Transmission and Algonquin Gas Transmission pipeline systems
•Up to 800 mmcf/d capacity, enough to heat 2 million homes per day
◦Customers in New Jersey and New York projected to save an estimated $700 million annually in wholesale energy prices
◦Eliminates 6 million tons of carbon dioxide per year, the equivalent of removing 1 million cars from the road
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11013
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 15 Nov 2013, 09:31:39

From Rig Zone: Reuters – “Royal Dutch Shell and China's Sinopec Corp are drilling exploration wells to test shale potential in central China.

China, believed to hold the world's largest shale gas resource, has drawn international firms to hunt for the unconventional gas, with Shell the first among them to land a production sharing contract. Shell and Sinopec have completed drilling Liye-1….A Sinopec official said the well was completed last August but was subsequently sealed after results from hydraulic fracturing were not "very satisfactory". Shell and Sinopec are now drilling the second well, Engye-1, and a third one is also planned, officials said.

China, still in the early stages of developing the fuel, has drilled less than 150 exploration wells, mostly in and around the Sichuan basin in southwest China. Commercial output is tiny. Shell secured China's first shale gas product sharing contract in March last year to develop the Sichuan block. Much of the $1 billion investment Shell spent this year on China's upstream business went to Sichuan, Shi Jiangtao. A former Shell executive said last year that Shell plans to spend at least that much a year exploring China's shale gas.

In August Shell revealed a $2.2 billion charge against its weak U.S shale business and abandoned its 2017 goal to deliver 4 million barrels per day of total production. CEO Peter Voser said in October it will take a longer time than expected for Shell to reap benefits from its global shale gas projects due to poor short-term results.”

“…it will take a longer time…due to poor short-term results.” Reminds me of the old joke - a manufacturer was asked how he planned to stay in business since he was losing $10 on every widget he made. Easy he said: “We’ll make it up on volume”. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11013
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby Graeme » Thu 06 Mar 2014, 19:02:43

Shale, the Last Oil and Gas Train: Interview with Arthur Berman

How much faith can we put in our ability to decipher all the numbers out there telling us the US is closing in on its cornering of the global oil market? There’s another side to the story of the relentless US shale boom, one that says that some of the numbers are misunderstood, while others are simply preposterous. The truth of the matter is that the industry has to make such a big deal out of shale because it’s all that’s left. There are some good things happening behind the fairy tale numbers, though—it’s just a matter of deciphering them from a sober perspective.

In a second exclusive interview with James Stafford of Oilprice.com, energy expert Arthur Berman discusses:

• Why US gas supply growth rests solely on Marcellus
• When Bakken and Eagle Ford will peak
• The eyebrow-raising predictions for the Permian Basin
• Why outrageous claims should have oil lawyers running for cover
• Why everyone’s making such a big deal about shale
• The only way to make the shale gas boom sustainable
• Why some analysts need their math examined
• Why it’s not just about how much gas we produce
• Why investors are starting to ask questions
• Why new industries, not technologies will make the next boom
• Why we’ll never hit the oil and gas ‘wall’
• Why companies could use a little supply-and-demand discipline
• Why ‘fire ice’ makes sense (in Japan)
• Why the US crude export debate will be ‘silly’


Arthur is a geological consultant with thirty-four years of experience in petroleum exploration and production. He is currently consulting for several E&P companies and capital groups in the energy sector. He frequently gives keynote addresses for investment conferences and is interviewed about energy topics on television, radio, and national print and web publications including CNBC, CNN, Platt’s Energy Week, BNN, Bloomberg, Platt’s, Financial Times, and New York Times. You can find out more about Arthur by visiting his website: http://petroleumtruthreport.blogspot.com

Oilprice.com: Almost on a daily basis we have figures thrown at us to demonstrate how the shale boom is only getting started. Mostly recently, there are statements to the effect that Texas shale formations will produce up to one-third of the global oil supply over the next 10 years. Is there another story behind these figures?

Arthur Berman: First, we have to distinguish between shale gas and liquids plays. On the gas side, all shale gas plays except the Marcellus are in decline or flat. The growth of US supply rests solely on the Marcellus and it is unlikely that its growth can continue at present rates. On the oil side, the Bakken has a considerable commercial area that is perhaps only one-third developed so we see Bakken production continuing for several years before peaking. The Eagle Ford also has significant commercial area but is showing signs that production may be flattening. Nevertheless, we see 5 or so more years of continuing Eagle Ford production activity before peaking. The EIA has is about right for the liquids plays--slower increases until later in the decade, and then decline.

The idea that Texas shales will produce one-third of global oil supply is preposterous. The Eagle Ford and the Bakken comprise 80% of all the US liquids growth. The Permian basin has notable oil reserves left but mostly from very small accumulations and low-rate wells. EOG CEO Bill Thomas said the same thing about 10 days ago on EOG's earnings call. There have been some truly outrageous claims made by some executives about the Permian basin in recent months that I suspect have their general counsels looking for a defibrillator.

Recently, the CEO of a major oil company told The Houston Chronicle that the shale revolution is only in the "first inning of a nine-inning game”. I guess he must have lost track of the score while waiting in line for hot dogs because production growth in U.S. shale gas plays excluding the Marcellus is approaching zero; growth in the Bakken and Eagle Ford has fallen from 33% in mid-2011 to 7% in late 2013.

Oil companies have to make a big deal about shale plays because that is all that is left in the world. Let's face it: these are truly awful reservoir rocks and that is why we waited until all more attractive opportunities were exhausted before developing them. It is completely unreasonable to expect better performance from bad reservoirs than from better reservoirs.

The majors have shown that they cannot replace reserves. They talk about return on capital employed (ROCE) these days instead of reserve replacement and production growth because there is nothing to talk about there. Shale plays are part of the ROCE story--shale wells can be drilled and brought on production fairly quickly and this masks or smoothes out the non-productive capital languishing in big projects around the world like Kashagan and Gorgon, which are going sideways whilst eating up billions of dollars.

None of this is meant to be negative. I'm all for shale plays but let's be honest about things, after all! Production from shale is not a revolution; it’s a retirement party.


oilprice
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread Pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 07 Mar 2014, 05:31:59

How many of the crazy claims we see for Shale are from industry reports that are vague and excessive compared to being poorly written articles in news and blog reports that misinterpret what the industry actually says? The unfortunate reality is the mass media reporters often have little or know training in how to interpret scientific or projected studies in a calm accurate manner, instead they will seize on a number that grabs their attention and write as if that is the emotionally sound key to understanding what is going on. Rockdoc123, Rockman, Westexas and others are very careful how they express resource potential and proven, but it does not matter how careful they are if the person reporting their numbers is careless in how they explain them.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14714
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread Pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 07 Mar 2014, 08:58:19

T – Along those lines it was interesting listening to the talk on NPR this morning about the shale gas potential in the EU especially with the focus on the Ukraine and Russian NG exports to them and the rest of the EU. Uncharacteristically the media did make the point that there are virtually no commercial shale gas operations going on in the region at this time. They did, however, report the offer of the POTUS to help “export” our shale gas extraction technology across the Big Pond. Which is ridiculous, of course. The horizontal drilling and frac’ng tech doesn’t belong to the US. It belongs to the service industry…the service industry that is already deployed around the globe. Impressed that they are drilling/frac’ng 5,000’ horizontal laterals in the Eagle Ford Shale? Then you would be really impressed with Maersk drilling/frac’ng 35,000’ laterals on the other side of the Big Pond…and have been doing so for years. The tech we’ve been using in the US to develop the shales has been available to everyone else in the world as long as it has been here. In fact, horizontal/extended reach drilling was initially developed in the North Sea and Africa. I started drilling horizontally in the GOM in 1994 and most of my directional hands were Scottish.

Now consider that the EU countries and others in the region have had a much greater incentive to develop shale gas then we’ve had here in the US given that their NG prices tend to be 3X+ that of ours. So why not a lot of shale gas drilling over there already? Same reason onshore conventional oil/NG development has lagged in many regions: resource ownership. Unlike the US where oil/NG rights tend to be owned by individuals they are owned by those govts. And typically they are slow to adjust to changing economics. Of course, with the surface owners not directly getting a cut of the production there’s a good bit of objection to the potential disruption any drilling surge might bring about. OTOH sitting there freezing for lack of NG in a few years might bring about a change in attitude.

But in the end none of this matters if there aren’t a significant number of viable shale reservoirs to develop across the Big Pond. Good to remember that despite the many dozens of hydrocarbon bearing shale formations we have in the US and with us being the center of the unconventional reservoir development universe more than 80% of that production is coming from just three formations.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11013
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread Pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Fri 07 Mar 2014, 09:14:10

Other than Europe and North America where do shales with hydrocarcon reservoirs exist?
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4288
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread Pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 07 Mar 2014, 10:27:05

Other areas for shale gas/oil:

Latin America......Argentina Nequen basin arguably has shales richer and thicker than anywhere in the US , Colombia shales in the Middle Magdelana basin are just now being assessed by Exxon and others....shales with the right ingredients are known to exist in Chile, Paraguay and Brazil

Australia.....lots of work being done in several areas by various sized companies. Unique shales exist here in the Permian as well as in the PreCambrian

Indonesia....just recently changed regulatory environment to handle shale exploration. Central Sumatra basin thought to hold considerable potential resource

Algeria....both the Devonian Meden Yaha Fm shales and the Silurian Tannezuft shales are extremely rich and fraccable. Sonatrach along with Halliburton have been investigating the potential for a number of years although it doesn't seem to make it into the news.

Tunisa.....although little investigation conducted to this point in time the southernmost part of Tunisia is in the continuation of the Ghadames basin which holds the Devonian and Silurian shales proven to be productive in Algeria

Libya......no work done to this point in time, although the various arms of NOC (Sirte Oil, Agoco Oil) do not press release their results. The Silurian Tannezuft is present throughout most basins in Libya....it is the source rock for the prolific giant and supergiant oil fields.

Saudi Arabia.....the Rub al Khali basin contains various source rocks which are at the right depth of burial and have the key rock characteristics. Aramco has been making efforts of late to understand the basin as a potential source of natural gas which would supplant fuel oil use.

India.......small companies have been looking at the limited size shale basins in NW India as a means of supplying additional natural gas for much needed electricity

China.....a number of basins are being explored by the Chinese. Not much is published on this but the Tarim basin is thought to be quite attractive as are others.

Russia......lots of basins with what is thought to be significant potential. Russian companies don't press release so not easy to tell how much advancement has been made.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5902
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread Pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby Synapsid » Fri 07 Mar 2014, 17:50:50

Hi rockdoc.

Australia...Precambrian. What would be the origin of the gas found in Precambrian rocks? We did work on stable carbon isotopes in Archaean black shales from South Africa and Isua (Greenland) long ago back in the early 1970s, but I'd never thought of them as potential source rocks for hydrocarbons. Now I'm excited.

(An aside: One of the samples the South African geological survey sent us had a garnet in it; we were looking at stable-isotope ratios of carbon to see if we could detect evidence for photosynthesis. This would count as evidence for lack of communication in the research community, I believe.)
Synapsid
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 20:21:50

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread Pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 07 Mar 2014, 18:55:27

Synapsid wrote:Hi rockdoc.

Australia...Precambrian. What would be the origin of the gas found in Precambrian rocks? We did work on stable carbon isotopes in Archaean black shales from South Africa and Isua (Greenland) long ago back in the early 1970s, but I'd never thought of them as potential source rocks for hydrocarbons. Now I'm excited.

(An aside: One of the samples the South African geological survey sent us had a garnet in it; we were looking at stable-isotope ratios of carbon to see if we could detect evidence for photosynthesis. This would count as evidence for lack of communication in the research community, I believe.)


You made me go a searching and I found http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/10/p ... geof13.pdf

Basically it says organic sedimentary rock makes up part of the Precambrian collection of basement rock in Ohio and is a potential source of Petroleum and Natural Gas.

Other than that we have argued about abiotic oil and gas on this board since the very beginning, the consensus was nearly all the natural gas and every drop of oil tested so far has been unequivocally biotic in origin but that a small percentage somewhere between 0.1% and 7.0% of the produced Natural Gas could be abiotic because you just need to heat the right minerals together to produce it..
the-abiotic-oil-thread-pt-1-merged-archived-t1664.html
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14714
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread Pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby Graeme » Sat 08 Mar 2014, 16:06:01

IEA chief: Only a decade left in US shale oil boom

A surge in US oil and natural gas production has lifted hopes about North American energy security, but that growth will plateau and will be difficult to replicate elsewhere, says Maria van der Hoeven, chief executive of the International Energy Agency, in an interview with the Monitor.

Q: The energy industry has undergone a revolution in drilling techniques that has opened up vast new sources of so-called “tight oil” and “shale gas,” particularly in North America. Is the promise of this unconventional oil and gas overhyped?

A: The light tight oil revolution in the United States is changing the geographical map of oil trade. But we also mentioned [in an IEA analysis] that this growth would not last – that it would plateau, and then flatten and go down. That means that from 2025 onward, it’s again Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states that will come back. Because of the changing trade map, this oil will almost completely go to Asia – China, India, Korea and Japan.

There are some people who really think they can replicate the United States shale gas boom. It’s not as easy as that. The land ownership and the resource ownership go together here in the United States – the only country where that is the case. It’s also about having the right gas industry, the right knowledge, the right infrastructure, the water, the human skills, the geological information, etc. And geology in this part of the world, especially where the shale gas boom is, is quite different from Ukraine or Poland. You can learn from it, but it’s not a copy-and-paste. The United Kingdom is changing its attitude to shale gas. China wants to develop its shale gas, but it’s in a very dry part of the country. South Africa is looking to its shale gas resources. The point is there’s a lot of shale gas in the world, but it’s not as easily accessible as it was in the United States.


csmonitor
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread Pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby Synapsid » Sat 08 Mar 2014, 17:57:01

Tanada,

Thanks. I read the long post on the abiotic-oil thread. We'd figured the early-Archaean black shales had a good chance of containing organic carbon (where else would all that carbon come from?); we were after evidence of photosynthesis specifically. Lots of work has been done since, using approaches far more sophisticated than ours, yet I still wouldn't go out on a limb about what the earliest evidence for photosynthesis is.

As to abiotic oil, what counts is finding it if there is any, and it's going to be where we look for oil anyway. Oil acts like oil.
I've a vague memory that serpentinization reactions in the lower crust and upper mantle can release hydrogen, and breakdown of subducted carbonates supplies CO2, so methane seems a possible product. I'd expect it to be pretty widely dispersed to begin with.

Hmm...I'm rambling.
Synapsid
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 20:21:50

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests