[ROCKMAN]

Pops - It's just that everyone is so focused on the shales. Just like they were when the NG price bust hit back in late '08. Yes, the shales took a big hit and 70% of the rigs drilling NG gave it up. But that cut included conventional reservoirs also. And even after that bust hit the conventional NG plays took another hit of few years later when prices slipped below $5/mcf. As I've pointed out during the first 3 years of my new company we participated in $400 million worth on conventional NG wells. And since prices slipped again we've participated in exactly $ZERO conventional NG drilling.

That's why I pointed out it has been many years since both NG and oil prices were this low. And when they were the rig count almost half of the current diminished level. We are experience the "second hoe dropping" dynamic: an oil price bust layered on top of the continuing NG price bust. The NG bust was a significant reason the pubcos threw money so insanely at the hales: they bad nothing else to chase.

[Pops]

We are experience the "second hoe dropping" dynamic

Ah, kind of a hoe-down in other words.



-- Sorry --

So what do you make of shale gas? Is it really the thing fracking is made for or did fracking for wet gas make more oil or vice versa or ...

I know this ain't the thread but I gotta make up for my rudeness.

[ROCKMAN]

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.

[Tanada]

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.

Speaking of flares ROCKMAN, how much of that flared methane actually escapes to become part of the atmosphere anyhow? We all know those flares are nowhere near 100 percent efficient at burning, they would be bluish with no smoke if they were.

[Synapsid]

Thanks a lot, Tanada. Most disquieting thought of the day.

[ROCKMAN]

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.

[Subjectivist]

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.

Sure, but what about the flares?

[ROCKMAN]

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.

[Subjectivist]

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.

Your faith in flaring operations is touching but I decided to look it up because I am more skeptical. http://www.epa.gov/airtoxics/flare/2012 ... report.pdf

The EPA evaluated hundreds of flaring operations and while many of them approached 100 percent combustion about 20 percent were less than 90 percent complete and of those about 15 percent were under 80 percent combustion efficient.

[Pops]

Id bet that is a better result than would be found testing the average cooktop or water heater.

[ROCKMAN]

Sub - Well who am I to say the govt is wrong. But I've stood close to many a flare stack and it's difficult to imagine everyone not burning 100% of the gas. Imagine squirting flaming gasoline out the end of a hose and having some splash on the ground and not burning. The only difference is that NG is much more combustible then gasoline.

And now that I've skimmed that report I'm even more skeptical. From the report sighted: “The observations presented in this report are a result of the analysis of several experimental flare efficiency studies and flare performance test reports”.

And it should be pointed out they weren’t just studying well head flares but all flaring activities including refineries where a lot more than methane was coming out the flare stack. They also point out that direct measurements of the flare combustion was neither safe nor practical so they devised remote sensing equipment. But I’ll concede that no operation of this sort will be 100% effective. OTOH that still doesn’t mean a significant amount of methane is being released during flaring ops.

But the other fact still stands: the leakage of methane from local distribution systems and the consumers far exceed anyone’s estimate of oil field leakage.

[dinopello]

95% combustion efficiency is the maximum one could expect in a 20% Oxygen environment (like regular air) regardless of the burner/nozzle or whatever.

[toolpush]

Combustion Efficiency, is judged by what is not fully converted to CO2,ie the % that may be released as CO or black carbon due to incomplete combustion. It does not refer to how much is not burnt at all!

[toolpush]

http://www.bacharach-inc.com/PDF/Brochu ... ustion.pdf

Chart 1 has a list of combustion efficiency for some household items.

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.

Once again, Combustion efficiency is what is not fully converted to CO2, and not what is, not converted at all.

[Tanada]

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.Fi ... U9MQ==&t=1

This weeks count from Baker Hughes is out, the USA is down another 98 rigs from a week ago.

Directional down 12
Horizontal down 63
Vertical down 23

Total down 406 from one year ago and still falling.

[dinopello]

Once again, Combustion efficiency is what is not fully converted to CO2, and not what is, not converted at all.

I'll buy that the convention is to assume complete fuel combustion, but then what does a 0% combustion efficiency mean ? Also, there would be hydrocarbons left if combustion occurred in an oxygen starved environment, wouldn't there ?

[toolpush]

Dino,

0% combustion is easy to define. Your flame has gone out!

"Also, there would be hydrocarbons left if combustion occurred in an oxygen starved environment, wouldn't there ?"

I assume we are talking about Methane,ie CH4. Incomplete combustion of CH4 will give CO Carbon monoxide, and H2O. That is one of the problems with incomplete combustion in a house hold situation.
Also incomplete combustion will give black carbon/smoke.

I believe the bottom line is, poorly maintain home appliances along with poorly maintained industrial flares give off pollutants. One provides a needed service and the other should be regulated and controlled to the point it is put out of existence, except where safety is an issue of course.
I am sure I have seen more gas flared at close quarters than yourself, and I feel it is a crying shame and a waste of natural resources. So get rid of wasteful flaring and then we don't have to argue the point of if the last carbon atom was converted to CO2, CO, C of left totally untouched.

[Mick22]

The recent rally has been fueled by the belief that a falling rig count would lead to falling production. Not so, natural gas producers have shown falling rig counts for years, while increasing production significantly.

Chart and story:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... er-anymore

[dorlomin]

Gas is a by product of much of the oil drilling. Why dry gas rig numbers have fallen a large amount of gas was being taken from what were classified as oil wells.

[GoghGoner]

Marcellus is a gas only play that has contributed the most to the production numbers. It was increasing rigs and production during the low price environment for gas. Associated gas has played a much smaller role. Marcellus rig count has fallen 11% so far this year. I am wondering if low oil prices have dried up investment sources even for gas only plays. Marcellus is the last large basin of shale gas that was increasing so has it goes so does production.