Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Unread postby Carnot » Wed 19 Sep 2018, 06:06:24

Rockman,

I am far from perfect but I think my calculation is sound. As an aside there has been a recent study by WoodMac on Permian decline rates, especially the terminal decline rates. I cannot post the article but the JPT has a a posting on the subject here which makes for very interesting reading indeed. Your thoughts on the matter would be welcome.

https://www.spe.org/en/jpt/jpt-article-detail/?art=4532

Here is the gist of the article:

The long-term outlook for Permian Basin producers may not be so bright, based on a new study showing production from older tight oil wells sinking faster than expected.

The study by Wood Mackenzie, Everything is Accelerating in the Permian, Including Decline Rates says the “terminal decline rate” is far greater than the widely used rule of thumb of 5-10% a year.

“For Wolfcamp wells in terminal decline… the most common occurrence is a decline rate of 14% a year,” said Robert Clarke. research director for Lower 48 Upstream at Wood Mackenzie.

Unconventional wells are known for rapid decline rates. Permian wells often produce 40% of the oil and gas they are expected to produce over their lifetime in 36 months, according to the report. But the conventional wisdom has been that sometime after year 5, the decline rate flattens out for a slow, steady decline lasting for decades.

Decline rates of 14% could be a problem because the report authors say estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) calculations are generally based on the 5-10% rule of thumb, with many companies assuming a 5% rate.

“The push for 5% is very aggressive,” said Ryan Duman, a principal analyst for Wood Mackenzie who co-authored the report, adding that “from an EUR perspective that can have a dramatic impact on what you are showcasing.”

This chart (Fig. 1) is an example of that. There is a nearly a 100,000 bbl difference in the EUR of the 5% and the 15% decline rate wells. The difference in the later years is even sharper if one considers that about half the production occurs during the first 5 years.
Carnot
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed 07 Aug 2013, 10:54:16
Location: Europe

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 19 Sep 2018, 15:51:43

I see at least three major problems with the Wood Mac study.
1. If they are talking about wells that have been producing for 5 years minimum then we are talking about wells that had less lateral length, less intense induced fracturing and less optimal completion fluids/methods than wells be currently drilled. Suggesting all new wells will perform the same as these older wells is not a valid approach.
2. The Permian wells as a whole have much higher IP's than some of their counterparts in the Eagleford, Bakken etc. That means one should expect the shape of the decline curve to be somewhat different. Whereas Eagleford wells may have gone through the primary high production rate, into the intermediate rate and into the terminal rate in the first 36 months it may take much longer for wells in the Permian to make it through to the terminal rate, indeed the rates they measure after five years may not be the terminal rate but rather an intermediate rate. If that is the case the EUR will not be smaller but in some cases would be larger. The shape of the curve is a product of various reservoir characteristics but one important one is Kh or permeability height which is, of course, higher in longer laterals.
3. Decline curves are a product of reservoir parameters. Shales are not all created equal as we have seen from areas in the Eagleford and Bakken. There are clearly better areas with higher IP and higher EUR and these do not always correspond to the oldest producers and would certainly not do so in something like the Wolfcamp where some of the five-year producers were drilled prior to a good understanding of where the sweet spots are.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Unread postby Subjectivist » Tue 11 Dec 2018, 14:14:10

https://youtu.be/-IzgyM1r1y8

An interestin documentary on fracking, released 2017, lots of information about what is going on now compared to the rather dated stuff from five or ten years ago.
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.
Subjectivist
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4701
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Unread postby coffeeguyzz » Tue 11 Dec 2018, 23:52:28

I watched the entire presentation awhile back and now intend to re-watch it a second time.

Several books describe the history of frac'ing, with the best possibly being "The Frackers", IMHO.

The recent USGS assessment of the Delaware Basin Bone Spring and Wolfcamp formations, coupled with the 2016 assessments of the Midland Basin Spraberry and Wolfcamp project over 70 billion barrels of Technically Recoverable Resource from just this portion of the Permian.

When the assessments for the Utica and the Mighty Marcellus are finally released, the magnitude of the US' hydrocarbon bounty will shock the world.
It is simply that big.

For those of you who wish to get a glimpse of what is coming down the road, develop some familiarity with the natural gas world, especially LNG.
The innovations are simply stunning in both their speed and scope of development.

Examples being an LNG plant being built up in the woods of northeast Pennsylvania.
With a capacity over 2 million tonnes per year (mtpa) at a cost of $850 million, this project will revolutionize natgas processing.

Likewise the Driftwood, Delfin, and Main Pass Energy Hub projects will incorporate an entirely new generation of ultra cheap liquefaction techniques and hardware (primarily floaters) of natgas.

The MPEH operation proposes a single ship that will produce 12 mtpa by itself.
Simply astonishing.

Just as the wider population has been caught completely unawares at the breadth of this Shale Revolution, the transition towards natgas will - in similar fashion - surprise people in the coming years.
coffeeguyzz
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Mon 27 Oct 2014, 16:09:47

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Unread postby coffeeguyzz » Wed 12 Dec 2018, 00:53:12

Mr. Pisstar

Mr. Mike Shellman has been close to 100 % inaccurate regarding virtually everything he has posted on POB concerning unconventional oil since his very first comments.

As I do not share his fierce antipathy towards the shale boys, he has chosen to insult me and at least one other oil professional at every opportunity.
Since that site is frequented by a largely anti hydrocarbon cohort with minimal understanding of the oil bidness, having a 'champion' with oil experience spew non stop invective towards the LTO industry is taken as a very welcome contribution.

You describing the USGS assessment as 'crap' is a perfect display of this myopic cheerleading as I would bet a bunch that you have not even read the report.

Amirite?

Pity, only takes a few minutes to read.
Probably more comfortable - and certainly familiar - to continue accepting the extremely prejudiced, demonstrably incorrect views of someone because you want it to be true.

Yes, the USGS assessment is definitely a valid appraisal of the selected formations analyzed.
The operators who have been drilling there since forever have been claiming just this for years, but, people such as yourself who have shown the cyber world for over a decade just how wrong someone can be, I guess it is right up your alley to disparage something about which you know absolutely nothing.
coffeeguyzz
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Mon 27 Oct 2014, 16:09:47

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Unread postby asg70 » Wed 12 Dec 2018, 01:43:15

pstarr wrote:So you buy that USGS crap, huh? Go over to peakoilbarreldotcom for lesson. Ask for Mike Shellman


Well, gee, there's an objective source of analysis. You doomers never seem to leave the silo do you?

Image

BOLD PREDICTIONS
-Billions are on the verge of starvation as the lockdown continues. (yoshua, 5/20/20)

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 4290
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 14:17:28

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 12 Dec 2018, 12:00:07

Moreover given the bench EUR estimates most of that imaginary oil will require $150 to remotely be economic.

And yet Rystad has pointed out that the breakeven ranges from around $30 to $45/bbl and the E&Y study is showing F&D costs below $20. But of course lets ignore the actual data as it doesn’t fit your theory. And those numbers are backed up by countless corporate presentations from the unconvenitonal players, all of which are subject to SEC censure.

And as to JG Tulsa comments on the USGS assessment, he is correct that the USGS methodology often misses the details. But remember the USGS assessment is not a deterministic one where the details could completely invalidate the estimate, it is probabilistic which means the wide range of outcomes including erroneous EUR, IP, etc should just be part of the spread. Given the huge uncertainties and wide range of actual rock properties across the various shale basins a probabilistic approach is the most realistic approach.

And you missed what Tulsa said, basically refuting Shellman’s unsupported opinions:

One final note, on the cost and time to do all this, if you just drilled all the A wells in my more realistic AU, it would be close to 30,000 wells, about ten years straight at current drill rate and a cost of about a quarter trillion or more. Then you can move on to the B C D etc. wells. My grandchildren will likely be able to come out and drill wells on top of or underneath wells I drilled.


Which is basically the way things are moving forward.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Unread postby coffeeguyzz » Wed 12 Dec 2018, 13:04:51

Rocdoc

I always appreciate getting input from across a wide swath of the spectrum regarding these matters.

Neophytes can ask 'new guy' questions that may prompt professionals to re-evaluate their positions/beliefs.
Industry insiders can give excellent insight that may or may not apply to different regions, processes, topics beyond their area of expertise.

Ultimately, one needs to decide for themselves what to choose to believe is true.

Historical production can be as 'hard' a data point to be found. (Check out Mike Filloon's Seeking Alpha article just released on Permian production. Several wells over 500,000 bbl oil first year online. Amazing).
I put a lot of credence in what the players are spending on infrastructure. Literally hundreds of billions of dollars are being invested in petchem projects, ports, pipelines, handling facilities.
These are industry experts putting their money where their expectations lie and they know WAY more than I or any other commentator on the 'net.

Good reading your posts, as always.
coffeeguyzz
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Mon 27 Oct 2014, 16:09:47

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Unread postby StarvingLion » Thu 13 Dec 2018, 22:20:05

coffeeguyz crap stock CNX has posted negative returns for the past year. Any more mindless hype?
Outcast_Searcher is a fraud.
StarvingLion
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 2612
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 18:59:17

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Unread postby jedrider » Mon 19 Aug 2019, 00:28:56

Fracking Boom in US and Canada Largely to Blame for 'Massive' Rise of Global Methane Levels: Study
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/14/fracking-boom-us-and-canada-largely-blame-massive-rise-global-methane-levels-study

New research by a scientist at Cornell University warns that the fracking boom in the U.S. and Canada over the past decade is largely to blame for a large rise in methane in the Earth's atmosphere—and that reducing emissions of the extremely potent greenhouse gas is crucial to help stem the international climate crisis.

Professor Robert Howarth examined hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, over the past several decades, noting the fracking boom that has taken place since the first years of the 21st century. Between 2005 and 2015, fracking went from producing 31 billion cubic meters of shale gas per year to producing 435 billion cubic meters.

Nearly 90 percent of that fracking took place in the U.S., while about 10 percent was done in Canada.


Questions: 1. Is Fracking used to retrieve oil or gas or, maybe, both? 2. Which one pays the bills, oil or gas? 3. Always under the impression that natural gas was only useful for domestic consumption, which is why it's price was low for so long, but petroleum is salable on the global market and commands a more stable price. Is that so?
User avatar
jedrider
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3106
Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 10:10:44

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Mon 19 Aug 2019, 13:19:59

Questions: 1. Is Fracking used to retrieve oil or gas or, maybe, both? 2. Which one pays the bills, oil or gas? 3. Always under the impression that natural gas was only useful for domestic consumption, which is why it's price was low for so long, but petroleum is salable on the global market and commands a more stable price. Is that so?


The revamped foray into full-on fracking in horizontal wells occurred in the Marcellus initially and was targeting gas. At the time there was a bi-annual gas shortage in North America (cooling season and heating season) which could drive prices above $10/Mcf for short periods of time. Oil prices at the time were just rising and OPEC was largely in control so that was a less predictive market. As well due to the very low permeabilities in fractured shales the best flow rates are gained from the highest percentage of gas (higher relative permeability versus liquids). As time progressed and gas fracking met with unparalleled success natural gas prices dropped but fortuitously oil prices rose and there were a number of basins outside of the Marcellus where there were windows of liquid mature source shales. The move to basins like the Eagleford resulted in continued success in recovering liquids which also resulted in a fall in liquid prices (too much success). After a period of low oil prices that kept only the best areas in the shale basins economic demand again outpaced supply and prices rose resulting in a new increase in activity with regards to fracking of shales with higher liquid contents (eg Permian basin). But with all those liquids gas is still produced (a high gas content in the liquids is needed to allow for good flow rates) and the continued production of gas resulted in continuous low natural gas prices across North America (too much supply). That is gradually being alleviated somewhat by the new LNG plants that have been and are planned for the Gulf Coast. Natural gas prices overseas are much higher ($10/Mcf in the UK during winter, seasonally as high at $14/Mcf in Argentina) which makes LNG a good economic proposition. As more and more natural gas goes to the LNG market I believe we will see a more global rather than regional price for natural gas, still higher than currently in the US but lower than what the US saw a decade ago during peak usage.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Unread postby coffeeguyzz » Fri 23 Aug 2019, 13:02:54

Jedrider/rock
That study by Howarth out of Cornell is just one of a long running series of hit pieces couched in the cloak of academe that is used to infer an air of legitimacy in these affairs.
Just one - of several - of Howarth's shortfslls is referring to a 2016 paper by a team led by a guy named Turner.
Turner's research employed methane tracking data gleaned from US satellites.
Problem being, the satellite data stated no spatial correlation between methane presence and fracturing activities.

Both Howarth and Cornell Professor Tony "the Tiger" Ingraffea are staunch, anti carbon foes who have consistently used (abused?) their professional roles for ideological ends.

Roc, if you have not delved into the dizzyingly rapid evolution of the global Gas to Power movement - via FSRU-supplied LNG - you might be in for a treat.

Ranging in size from tiny Benin and New Caledonia, all the way up to the massive (1,500Mw) Sergipe project in Brazil, electricity generation is starting to explode with the confluence of hardware, processes, and abundant, cheap fuel.
The downsizing and modularization of LNG plants are enabling quick, cheap liquefaction capabilities.

BHGE just announced an agreement to provide modular hardware for 60 million tonnes per year capacity ... an amount not too far below Qatar's current output.

When US LNG is shipped to Port Kembla by the end of next year (Cheniere already signed the contract) heads are gonna explode.
coffeeguyzz
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Mon 27 Oct 2014, 16:09:47

UK: Fracking halted after government pulls support

Unread postby dolanbaker » Sat 02 Nov 2019, 07:58:18

Confidence "literality" shaken in fracking in the UK
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50267454
The government has called a halt to shale gas extraction - or fracking - in England amid fears about earthquakes.

The indefinite suspension comes after a report by the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) said it was not possible to predict the probability or size of tremors caused by the practice.

Business Secretary Andrea Leadsom said it may be temporary - imposed "until and unless" extraction is proved safe.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.:Anonymous
Our whole economy is based on planned obsolescence.
Hungrymoggy "I am now predicting that Europe will NUKE ITSELF sometime in the first week of January"
User avatar
dolanbaker
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3855
Joined: Wed 14 Apr 2010, 10:38:47
Location: Éire

Re: UK: Fracking halted after government pulls support

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 02 Nov 2019, 09:46:55

dolanbaker wrote:Confidence "literality" shaken in fracking in the UK
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50267454
The government has called a halt to shale gas extraction - or fracking - in England amid fears about earthquakes.

The indefinite suspension comes after a report by the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) said it was not possible to predict the probability or size of tremors caused by the practice.

Business Secretary Andrea Leadsom said it may be temporary - imposed "until and unless" extraction is proved safe.


That is kind of nuts, unless you are working in a spot with an active fault you literally can not release a huge surge of earthquake energy because there hasn't been a build up of energy to release.

Where did these guys get their education in basic science?
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.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: UK: Fracking halted after government pulls support

Unread postby GHung » Sat 02 Nov 2019, 10:00:11

Tanada wrote:
dolanbaker wrote:Confidence "literality" shaken in fracking in the UK
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50267454
The government has called a halt to shale gas extraction - or fracking - in England amid fears about earthquakes.

The indefinite suspension comes after a report by the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) said it was not possible to predict the probability or size of tremors caused by the practice.

Business Secretary Andrea Leadsom said it may be temporary - imposed "until and unless" extraction is proved safe.


That is kind of nuts, unless you are working in a spot with an active fault you literally can not release a huge surge of earthquake energy because there hasn't been a build up of energy to release.

Where did these guys get their education in basic science?


Historical seismicity of the UK (yellow) from 1832 to 1970 for earthquakes of magnitude above 3.0 and instrumental seismicity (red) from 1970 to present for earthquakes with ML >2.0.Image
https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeolog ... ty_map.jpg
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 16:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: UK: Fracking halted after government pulls support

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 02 Nov 2019, 20:48:20

GHung wrote:
Tanada wrote:
dolanbaker wrote:Confidence "literality" shaken in fracking in the UK
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50267454
The government has called a halt to shale gas extraction - or fracking - in England amid fears about earthquakes.

The indefinite suspension comes after a report by the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) said it was not possible to predict the probability or size of tremors caused by the practice.

Business Secretary Andrea Leadsom said it may be temporary - imposed "until and unless" extraction is proved safe.


That is kind of nuts, unless you are working in a spot with an active fault you literally can not release a huge surge of earthquake energy because there hasn't been a build up of energy to release.

Where did these guys get their education in basic science?


Historical seismicity of the UK (yellow) from 1832 to 1970 for earthquakes of magnitude above 3.0 and instrumental seismicity (red) from 1970 to present for earthquakes with ML >2.0.Image
https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeolog ... ty_map.jpg


Exactly my point, all of those quakes are under 5.0 with the majority being under 3.0. which makes them effectively meaningless on the scale of actual threat.
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.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Unread postby dolanbaker » Sun 03 Nov 2019, 15:09:50

There are no earthquake provisions in UK building regulations, a minor quake could do structural damage to many of the buildings.
Minot tremors are commonplace in areas that used to have mining as the old mines collapse and the ground subsides.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.:Anonymous
Our whole economy is based on planned obsolescence.
Hungrymoggy "I am now predicting that Europe will NUKE ITSELF sometime in the first week of January"
User avatar
dolanbaker
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3855
Joined: Wed 14 Apr 2010, 10:38:47
Location: Éire

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sun 03 Nov 2019, 15:20:27

There are no earthquake provisions in UK building regulations, a minor quake could do structural damage to many of the buildings.
Minot tremors are commonplace in areas that used to have mining as the old mines collapse and the ground subsides.


even with a rickety shack you would need something more than a 3.0 and probably close proximity to the epicentre to do any significant damage. Less than that you probably wouldn't even notice it. The earthquakes associated with the Quadrilla efforst in and around Blackpool were all fairly minor.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests