Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Permian Wolfcamp shale

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

Re: Permian Wolfcamp shale

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sun 20 Nov 2016, 15:03:25

Without ANY shred of doubt, when the USGS and EIA get around to updating the Utica, the Marcellus, and the Upper Devonian formations' potential output, people are gonna be shocked.
The past 12 months' production numbers from these sources is nothing short of breathtaking.


I think the USGS has already evaluated the Marcellus and Utica taking into account the full basin margins and a range of EUR's that captures the results to date. Not sure there is much additional information that can change their current assessment.

The big question to my mind is there may be a lot of potential resource but to develop it takes reasonable economics (a strong oil/gas price) and access to capital. More production means lower price so to some extent additional drilling is a self -defeating exercise. More importantly I suspect the access to capital from traditional sources (investment banks in the way of equity or loans) will stay quite tight for some time to come. Banks like Wells Fargo got burned pretty badly by the industry downturn so I would be surprised to see them willing to loan to the extent they once did. Companies could, of course, live within their cashflow but the shale business requires lots of wells and lots of expenditure up front so if a company is publicly traded and expected to grow quickly by its investors it needs access to capital well beyond it's annual cashflow.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5679
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Permian Wolfcamp shale

Unread postby AdamB » Sun 20 Nov 2016, 15:43:59

coffeeguyzz wrote:This thread, and the running comments by you three gentlmen, may illustrate exactly what is going on in this ' shale/unconventional revolition' and the profound changes unfolding before our eyes.

One year ago, the USGS doubled the TRR of the Barnett to 53 Tcf.


Sure. Just as they changed the Bakken from first 150 million to later 3.5 billion to 3.5 billion again, plus 3.5 billion for the Three Forks. The Marcellus they increased about 40X in 2011. They will do the exact same thing when they reassess the Eagle Ford probably.

coffeeguyzz wrote:Without ANY shred of doubt, when the USGS and EIA get around to updating the Utica, the Marcellus, and the Upper Devonian formations' potential output, people are gonna be shocked.
The past 12 months' production numbers from these sources is nothing short of breathtaking.


The EIA was already calculating inhouse Marcellus numbers far larger than the USGS, more in line with the Texas BEG.

Figure 6, back in 2014.

https://www.eia.gov/workingpapers/pdf/g ... encies.pdf

They were also demonstrating a product at the AAPG National back in 2014 to folks like Terry Engelder, the Texas BEG and some USGS folks, that was far more integrated in the size of the Marcellus, but I haven't seen that one out in the open or at their website yet.

As far as the Utica, the USGS number came out early, and the more definitive published work is the geologic study conducted out of WVU led by Doug Patchen.

http://nrcce.wvu.edu/wp-content/uploads ... 012015.pdf

In 2014 or 2015 (I forget which), there were companies at the AAPG convention that year who were making the statement that the Marcellus isn't the primary gas producing trend in the Appalachian Basin. You were left to wonder for yourself what #1 might be...while they had slides of the Utica plastered all over their presentation.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3775
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Permian Wolfcamp shale

Unread postby AdamB » Sun 20 Nov 2016, 15:46:01

rockdoc123 wrote:I think the USGS has already evaluated the Marcellus and Utica taking into account the full basin margins and a range of EUR's that captures the results to date. Not sure there is much additional information that can change their current assessment.


Infill drilling.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3775
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Permian Wolfcamp shale

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sun 20 Nov 2016, 15:48:52

Infill drilling.


that is already taken into account in the USGS analyses. They take the total area of the basin, assume a drainage area per well, an EUR per well and then come up with a total EUR based on the number of wells to complete drainage. In this type of analysis drilling more wells doesn't increase ultimate reserves.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5679
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Permian Wolfcamp shale

Unread postby AdamB » Sun 20 Nov 2016, 16:03:08

rockdoc123 wrote:
Infill drilling.


that is already taken into account in the USGS analyses.


Perhaps I should be more specific.

The USGS utilizes non-interfering well spacing estimates for their well drainage areas. I am specifically referring to infill drilling of interfering wells.

rockdoc123 wrote: They take the total area of the basin, assume a drainage area per well, an EUR per well and then come up with a total EUR based on the number of wells to complete drainage. In this type of analysis drilling more wells doesn't increase ultimate reserves.


You are correct. Which is why their estimates are designed conservative in this regard. Unlike their recent work in reserve growth, where changes in existing recovery factors determine additional potential resource, in their continuous resource estimates they do not allow any second pass at the pore volumes within any given pressure cell. If they did, the assessed volumes would increase.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3775
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Permian Wolfcamp shale

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sun 20 Nov 2016, 17:18:29

You are correct. Which is why their estimates are designed conservative in this regard. Unlike their recent work in reserve growth, where changes in existing recovery factors determine additional potential resource, in their continuous resource estimates they do not allow any second pass at the pore volumes within any given pressure cell. If they did, the assessed volumes would increase


Using the Wolfcamp study as a guide it wasn't bottom up calculations. They simply took a range of EUR/well and a range of radius of investigation. That EUR/well covered the full range from the worst (Berman estimates) to the best (estimates by some of the key players) so the Monte Carlo should capture the range. Using the same analysis in the Marcellus would do the same as long as they captured the full range of EUR's that have been suggested.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5679
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Permian Wolfcamp shale

Unread postby coffeeguyzz » Sun 20 Nov 2016, 17:52:36

Rockdoc
I sure can't speak for the methodologies of all the analysts, but I do try to understand what they're up to.
Went over the UVW Utica study twice, but all those Fred Flintstone type descriptions kinda makes my eyes glaze over.

Been keeping close watch on the Marcellus and the Utica production this past year, though, since all those huge IPs came out several months back.

Couple of observations ...
Up to two years ago, 24 hr IPs of 15/20 MMcf we're considered huge.
As of Sept. 2016, currently almost 50 Marcellus/Utica wells are FLOWING 15 MMcfd from between two weeks to three YEARS online.
9 of those wells are flowing over 20 MMcfd ... one for over a year.

When Shell, operating as SWEPI, announced a couple of successful Utica wells, a few years back way east in Tioga county, people were surprised as it was thought to be cooked off up there. ( This is a couple hundred miles north east of the huge Utica wells in Greene and Washington counties).
Shell has since brought online a couple dozen Utica wells there with the newest ones showing increasing output.
About a hundred miles west, in Potter county, JKLM drilled the first/only Utica well. This Sweden Valley well has produced 3Bcf in less than 9 months.

Range just brought online a five well pad, the Eakin, Sandra, that has cumulatively produced 9 Bcf in four months.
Cabot is doing the same type of operations in northeast Susquehannah county.

The recent Bcf results from several Genesee, Burket, and Rhinestreet sourced wells is prompting the operators to incorporate UD development simultaneous to Marcellus' drilling.

Years from now, this Appalachian Basin will be recognized as possibly the largest gaseous source of hydrocarbons on the planet.
coffeeguyzz
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon 27 Oct 2014, 15:09:47

Re: Permian Wolfcamp shale

Unread postby AdamB » Sun 20 Nov 2016, 18:02:49

rockdoc123 wrote:
You are correct. Which is why their estimates are designed conservative in this regard. Unlike their recent work in reserve growth, where changes in existing recovery factors determine additional potential resource, in their continuous resource estimates they do not allow any second pass at the pore volumes within any given pressure cell. If they did, the assessed volumes would increase


Using the Wolfcamp study as a guide it wasn't bottom up calculations. They simply took a range of EUR/well and a range of radius of investigation.


I know. Even more interestingly, when they use identical EUR distributions, they are using a common population of wells from which to pull, because EUR distributions of even similar formations are never identical.

rockdoc123 wrote:
That EUR/well covered the full range from the worst (Berman estimates) to the best (estimates by some of the key players) so the Monte Carlo should capture the range.


Whether those EUR estimates came from the players involved, or the petroleum engineer on the assessment team, is not clear. Certainly which is which is not mentioned in the text.

rockdoc123 wrote:Using the same analysis in the Marcellus would do the same as long as they captured the full range of EUR's that have been suggested.


Not quite sure about what this means. The EUR distributions the Survey uses aren't full ranges. They are uncertainty around the average.

Page 5. Bottom left hand corner.

"The average EUR in the untested sweet spots is estimated
by the distribution in line 5b. Because thousands to hundreds
of thousands of wells are involved in this calculation, only the
average EUR and its uncertainty are relevant"

http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/547/downloads/DS547v2.pdf
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3775
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Mature ‘super basin’ in US breaks 44-year oil record

Unread postby AdamB » Mon 01 Jan 2018, 22:33:23

A mature ‘super basin’ located in Texas and New Mexico has set a new oil-production record, beating its previous peak set in 1973. The Permian Basin has reached a new production volume of at least 815 million barrels in 2017, far exceeding its previous peak of 790 million barrels, according to new analysis from information firm IHS Markit. In 1973, the basin produced an average of nearly 66 million barrels of oil per month – peak liquids production occurred in September with slightly more than 68 million barrels produced. By the middle of the past year, average monthly production already exceeded the best month of Permian production during the former peak period. Since July, Permian liquids production exceeded 484 million barrels, around an average of slightly more than 69 million barrels per month. Reed Olmstead, Director of Energy Research and Analysis at IHS Markit, said:


Mature ‘super basin’ in US breaks 44-year oil record
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3775
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Permian Wolfcamp shale

Unread postby Subjectivist » Tue 02 Jan 2018, 08:33:49

Wow! No wonder Texas is doing so well financially, and the Permian is not their only field, just the biggest!
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
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4251
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Previous

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: charmcitysking and 24 guests