Page 9 of 9

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Unread postPosted: Wed 12 Dec 2018, 11:00:07
by rockdoc123
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.

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Unread postPosted: Wed 12 Dec 2018, 12:04:51
by coffeeguyzz
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.

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Unread postPosted: Thu 13 Dec 2018, 21:20:05
by StarvingLion
coffeeguyz crap stock CNX has posted negative returns for the past year. Any more mindless hype?

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Unread postPosted: Sun 18 Aug 2019, 23:28:56
by jedrider
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?

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Unread postPosted: Mon 19 Aug 2019, 12:19:59
by rockdoc123
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.

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Unread postPosted: Fri 23 Aug 2019, 12:02:54
by coffeeguyzz
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.

UK: Fracking halted after government pulls support

Unread postPosted: Sat 02 Nov 2019, 06:58:18
by dolanbaker
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.

Re: UK: Fracking halted after government pulls support

Unread postPosted: Sat 02 Nov 2019, 08:46:55
by Tanada
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?

Re: UK: Fracking halted after government pulls support

Unread postPosted: Sat 02 Nov 2019, 09:00:11
by GHung
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

Re: UK: Fracking halted after government pulls support

Unread postPosted: Sat 02 Nov 2019, 19:48:20
by Tanada
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.

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Unread postPosted: Sun 03 Nov 2019, 14:09:50
by dolanbaker
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.

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Unread postPosted: Sun 03 Nov 2019, 14:20:27
by rockdoc123
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.

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Unread postPosted: Sun 03 Nov 2019, 15:22:37
by coffeeguyzz
Richter readings of 2.0 have been recorded at Seattle Seahawks games when stadium filled fans were stomping their feet.
Cuadrilla had to shut down frac'ing when .5 (that's POINT 5) readings were registered.
Shame, that, as the recoverable hydrocarbons could have helped the UK immensely for decades to come.
The wind industry, amongst others, was the big, behind the scenes player knee capping these shale extraction efforts.

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Unread postPosted: Mon 04 Nov 2019, 08:41:14
by Tanada
coffeeguyzz wrote:Richter readings of 2.0 have been recorded at Seattle Seahawks games when stadium filled fans were stomping their feet.
Cuadrilla had to shut down frac'ing when .5 (that's POINT 5) readings were registered.
Shame, that, as the recoverable hydrocarbons could have helped the UK immensely for decades to come.
The wind industry, amongst others, was the big, behind the scenes player knee capping these shale extraction efforts.


I have long suspected in most of these cases that when Peak Gas and Petroleum start biting the world the authorities will suddenly see things differently than they do while the market is plush with resources.

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Unread postPosted: Mon 04 Nov 2019, 15:07:36
by coffeeguyzz
Tanada
There is a somewhat subtle "layer", if you will, beneath the scarcity paradigm ... namely the OTHER guy's resources will supplant MY current foothold in the marketplace.
Cost/pricing plays a fundamental role, but other factors - primarily political - come into play.
The fear of hydrocarbon scarcity is apt to be grossly misguided for several reasons.
Chief amongst them is the unfathomable amounts of natgas to be had throughout the world.

Case in point may illustrate ....
Recent brouhaha surrounding pipelines/terminals in the Turkey and Greece region highlighted that Russian outfit (Gazprom?) was piping fuel to the region at about $7.50/mmbtu.
LNG was then being marketed at under $5.00/mmbtu.

Crucial, if seemingly esoteric point here ... natgas was being extracted out of the Permian, Marcellus, Haynesville and piped to Looeezeeanna/Maryland, liquefied, loaded and shipped halfway around the world to be sold for under 5 bucks per mmbtu.
That is both revolutionary and completely paradigm shattering for the oil boys, coal producers, and ALL of the renewable advocates.

Another example is unfolding in northern Brazil where a second FSRU port is planned to support a new CCGT plant in Barcarena.
(Check out the massive Sergipe project as well as the proposed Santa Catarina operation).
Of particular interest with the Barcarena effort is that Golar is working to develop smaller capacity maritime vessels with which to transport LNG to regional industrial plants (think aluminum) so they can more economically produce their own power.

These innovations are rapidly spreading worlwide to Bangladesh, New Caledonia, the Phillipines and a few DOZEN other countries.

Vietnam is particulary instructive as simply massive amounts of power generation are coming online in the next 5 years ... primarily through Combined Cycle Generating Plants, fueld by LNG which is made available - in the early years, at least - with FSRUs.

Big, big changes are underway.