ROCKMAN wrote:We are experience the "second hoe dropping" dynamic
ROCKMAN wrote:Pops - With the exception of the Marcellus the NG shale plays went down the toilet years ago. One bit of financial advantage the MS had over the Haynesville Shale was that they had to pay little transport fees to get it to the next market right next store. The HS isn't transported from Texas to NY for free. Folks will go on and on about how much Bakken associated NG is flared but ignore that fact that 3X as much is sent into the market place. And the EFS? Almost all that NG goes into the market place. And with fewer non-Marcellus shale wells drilled that NG production will also drop.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
ROCKMAN wrote:T - I don't have the link handy but studies have shown that the vast majority of methane leaks is from local distribution and not at the wellhead. I do recall it was very significant in Boston. I forgrt the exact number but it was estimated into the thousands. Which should make sense: I sell NG so why would I tolerate any leaks. Every $ of leaked production loses me a $. And $10 million of leaked NG loses $10 million of revenue for me. And now consider the potential lose of production equipment. NG leaking from a well isn't just a hazard for the environment but has the nasty habit of exploding. Which is why my production foremen constantly test for gas leaks with handheld meters.
And yes: it isn't much of a surprise for airborne and satellite surveys to find methane concentrations above NG fields. The shocker would be not detecting methane. It's natural and called micro-seepage. Detecting micro-seepage of both oil and NG has been a viable exploration tool for decades.
ROCKMAN wrote:What about the flares? I thought the subject was methane leaks. The flares don't release methane into the atmosphere...they release CO2. The same CO2 that would be released if that NG was collected and put into the pipeline system. That would be less wasteful but the same amount of CO2 would be created as the flares are producing.
CA-2 What is combustion efficiency?
Combustion efficiency is the calculation/measurement,
in percentage, of how well your equipment is burning a
specific fuel. Complete combustion efficiency (100%)
would extract all the energy available in the fuel.
H o w e v e r, 100% combustion efficiency is not re a l i s t i c a l l y
achievable. Various combustion processes produce combustion
efficiencies from 0% to 95+%.
Combustion efficiency calculations assume complete
fuel combustion and are based on three factors:
1. The chemistry of the fuel.
2. The net temperature of the stack gases.
3. The percentage of oxygen or CO2 by volume
after combustion.
If your calculation shows that your equipment is losing
25% of the heating value of the fuel through stack
losses, your equipment is running at 75% efficiency.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
toolpush wrote: Once again, Combustion efficiency is what is not fully converted to CO2, and not what is, not converted at all.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 242 guests