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 rockdoc123 » Wed 12 Dec 2018, 11:00:07

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: 7079
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 4

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

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: 285
Joined: Mon 27 Oct 2014, 15:09:47

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Unread postby StarvingLion » Thu 13 Dec 2018, 21:20:05

coffeeguyz crap stock CNX has posted negative returns for the past year. Any more mindless hype?
Physicist: "We'll all fucking die from our own fucking dumbness"
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Unread postby jedrider » Sun 18 Aug 2019, 23:28:56

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
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1458
Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 09:10:44

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Mon 19 Aug 2019, 12:19:59

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: 7079
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Unread postby coffeeguyzz » Fri 23 Aug 2019, 12:02:54

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: 285
Joined: Mon 27 Oct 2014, 15:09:47

Previous

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests