Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Continuous Resources Vs Traditional Oil Fields

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

Re: Continuous Resources Vs Traditional Oil Fields

Unread postby Pops » Thu 27 Oct 2011, 12:17:48

Thanks doc.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Continuous Resources Vs Traditional Oil Fields

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 27 Oct 2011, 13:36:01

and the hole keeps getting deeper and deeper

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')iners remove gold nuggets from stream beds and broken deposits without carting away and pulverizing any ore material.

Mining of placers for both gold and diamonds in Africa and throughout North America throughout history required extraction of considerable rock material which was run through sluce boxes or other separators (mercury in the case of gold) in order to extract the minerals of relevance. The idea of miners picking up big gold nuggets from stream beds is based on your education of the process, obviously grasped through movies or dime store novels.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')In fact, oil reservoirs might be considered placer deposits, consisting of valuable minerals contained within various somewhat-unconsolidated sedimentary materials, sandstone, shale, limestone deposits,


Definition of placer from The Dictionary of Geologic Terms
Placer. A surficial mineral deposit formed by mechanical concentration of mineral particles from weathered debris. The common types are beach placers and allubial placeers. The mineral concentrated us usually a heavy mineral such as gold, cassiterite or rutile

And as to oil reservoirs being "somewhat-unconsolidated sedimentary materials", nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of reservoirs in the world are consolidated to indurated.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou are wrong to dismiss my analogy of the underground fracturing of rock structures to surface mine blasting as irrelevant. The deconstruction of the shale structure only drains immediate surrounding oil deposits, and the process must be repeated continually, as newly-formed local micro-reservoir is depleted.


The processes aren’t in the least bit similar. Surface mine blasting entails the positioning of explosives (e.g. primacord, geogel, dynamite) along with blasting caps or other detonation devices that create an explosive event in air. Fraccing entails no use of explosives, no explosions in air at all. It entails gradually raising the fluid pressure in the well bore until such point as the yield point or fracture strength of the shale is exceeded. The orientation of the ambient stress field and/or strain energy field determines the direction at which a fracture will propagate and proppant materials such as coarse sand or silicon beads are pumped into the opening fracture to keep it open.

The two are about as similar as doughnuts and zebras.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nyway many economists, geologists, and peak-oil professional would consider your model backwards. The global recession did not bring us an earlier but longer lasting peak. Peak oil drove us into recession.

It had nothing whatsoever to do with mechanism. The model was simply based on the assumptions of existing and planned production from fields that were currently discovered based on decline curve information and ultimate reserves as well as an assessment of contribution from heavy oil in Venezuela and Canada. Whether the oil price created the recession or not is immaterial it has the same effect inasmuch as demand is stifled and larger production is not needed. Those reserves are not lost, they are just brought on later as economics warrant (either decreasing costs or increasing prices) and as a consequence the actual peak level is lower but it ends up being a longer plateau before terminal decline.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Continuous Resources Vs Traditional Oil Fields

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 27 Oct 2011, 23:49:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o it appears that your necessary definition of mining demands some sort of separation (physical or chemical) into constituent parts. I guess that excludes coal mining.


No it doesn’t. I know of no coal mine in a stripping situation that does not have to separate the clay and other rock material from the actual coal. There are tons of impurities. I have actually worked in that industry early in my career so I know of what I speak

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o are you when you refer to oil sands, tar sands, shale oil, shale gas, oil shale, and depolymerized animal proteins as crude oil. Just as wrong.


OH for crying out loud, I’m trying to be polite but this just shows you to be a complete idiot in this subject. Crude oil is crude oil, it is defined by its chemistry and physical properties when it is sitting in a jar or whatever at surface…it doesn’t matter where it comes from. It could be from Gharwar or from Pluto….if it has the same makeup it is crude oil.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ydraulic fracturing replaced explosive fracturing and has the samef function so you dismissal is merely semantic. 15,000 psi of hydraulic force is readable in seismic measuring equipment. The fact that stick of dynamite is not set off anymore does not detract from my essential point i.e. horizontal hydraulic shale fracturing is no more business-as-usual then is SAGH and THAI. There are all extraordinary measures that require too much energy and machinery for too little payoff to be more than small temporary solutions to never-ending problem of peak oil.


My Lord. You can winch and whine as much as you like, the two mechanisms aren’t even close. If you need me to instruct you on rock mechanics I am more than willing to do so but this is getting tiresome. They aren’t even close to the same methodology. If you don't have a basic understanding of physics you need to quite trying to imagine you do. It should be embarrassing for you.

As to hyrdraulic fracturing not being business as usual this just shows your entire ignorance on this subject. We were doing hydraulic fracs into tighter sandstone reseroirs back in the eighties. There is a company who made this famous ..Canadian Hunter and I happen to know one of the principles very well, the other (god bless his soul) having just passed away recently. The technology is not at all new and the rock mechanics whiz kids at Texas A&M were playing with this back in the sixties. Several of them wrote papers with Hubbert as an aside and indeed, the whole physics behind this process was first represented in a paper by Hubbert and Rubey and a follow-up by Rubey and Hubbert back in the late fifties.

As to what is too much energy etc. that is all governed by economics. If it wasn’t economic no one would be doing it. Oil and gas companies do not have some sort of magic way of making money…they have to make at least a 15% IRR in order for anything to make sense. I know for a fact that the heavy oil extraction is returning much more than that and the better shale oils are returning a heck of a lot more than that. Your continued arguments about…this doesn’t make economic sense are rendered as being pretty stupid given the number of publically traded companies who continue to produce at a profit.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Continuous Resources Vs Traditional Oil Fields

Unread postby Moto » Fri 28 Oct 2011, 10:02:09

pstarr you are kind of troll. We stay on the same general topic, but I don't think you are as dumb as you come off. This kind of discussion gets this page lots of hit so I suppose it doesn't really matter.

You say we don't have facts. --> The facts are provided--> You ignore them and come up with something else to try to get an emotional response out of people.

I'm going to turn this on you now, and ask you to kindly provide sources for your EROI argument you kept bringing up. If you provide any evidence of low EROI I will take it under consideration.

Your understanding of fracking was a best learned through news media outlets, and they almost never know what they are talking about. In order to understand it you are going to have to read scientific papers. (lots of them) Or you could go work for an oil company :-D

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rockdoc could you please provide a link to your old estimate of peak production... I am interested in looking at it.
Thanks
User avatar
Moto
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu 13 Oct 2011, 19:47:12
Location: North Dakota

Re: Continuous Resources Vs Traditional Oil Fields

Unread postby basil_hayden » Fri 28 Oct 2011, 14:12:12

28 years to extract 4,000 days of oil, educate yourselves:

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/presentations/NDOGCPC2010-09-30.pdf slide 26

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/mt/blm_programs/energy/oil_and_gas.Par.98124.File.dat/forumtranscript.pdf page 112

This boom, while necessary, won't last long and is damn close to scraping the bottom of the hydrocarbon barrel.
User avatar
basil_hayden
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1581
Joined: Mon 08 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: CT, USA

Re: Continuous Resources Vs Traditional Oil Fields

Unread postby Moto » Fri 28 Oct 2011, 16:03:45

This barrel just happens to be shaped like a pyramid. Traditional fields were at the top.

QEP Resources - Q2 2011 Bakken Operations Report
- Average completed well costs range from $6.5 million to $9 million per well. (Prices are currently inflated due to shortages in the Williston basin)
- Estimated Ultimate Recovery (EUR) per well range from 350,000 to 750,000 per well.

These QEP's EUR numbers are average to low given 2011 drilling technology.
In the best wells in the bakken have EUR of 2 million barrels. I assume you cant just multiply by a factor of 3.5 or 7.5, but I'm sure it would dramatically affect your estimates.
User avatar
Moto
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu 13 Oct 2011, 19:47:12
Location: North Dakota

Re: Continuous Resources Vs Traditional Oil Fields

Unread postby Moto » Sat 29 Oct 2011, 01:15:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('basil_hayden', '2')8 years to extract 4,000 days of oil, educate yourselves:

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/presentations/NDOGCPC2010-09-30.pdf slide 26

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/mt/blm_programs/energy/oil_and_gas.Par.98124.File.dat/forumtranscript.pdf page 112

This boom, while necessary, won't last long and is damn close to scraping the bottom of the hydrocarbon barrel.


The reason I didn't answer you is because I didn't know what you were talking about. Who cares if it takes 28 years? It isn't like the Williston basin is the only oil field in the world. Lots of other fields will benefit from the same technology with similar results. If you add up their potential, it could last a significant amount of time.
User avatar
Moto
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu 13 Oct 2011, 19:47:12
Location: North Dakota
Top

Re: Continuous Resources Vs Traditional Oil Fields

Unread postby basil_hayden » Sat 29 Oct 2011, 11:07:44

WTF is a significant amout of time?

Do you not understand the relationship between money, time, EROEI, supply and demand?

Do you not see the inevitable wall we hit after your "significant amount of time"?
User avatar
basil_hayden
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1581
Joined: Mon 08 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: CT, USA

Re: Continuous Resources Vs Traditional Oil Fields

Unread postby Moto » Sat 29 Oct 2011, 12:25:10

Well, how far out in the future do you care about the peak? Peak oil people are always going to be right if you put a long enough time frame on it. Like I said there are going to be a lot of other fields that start using the same technology as the Williston basin. If it becomes economic to obtain the other "bottom of the barrel" resource we will have many decades to more than a century worth of energy. The drilling boom will last more than 15 years in the Williston basin as long as prices hold out.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')o you not understand the relationship between money, time, EROEI, supply and demand?

I realize something I think you don't.
Money = has no value only energy has value
EROEI changes dramatically as resources are developed. It is poor at first but rapidly improves.
People will always "demand" the cheapest energy. (which just happens to be the energy stored in natural solar cells stored millions of years ago.)

The world has plenty of energy. It really just comes down to if we are smart enough to develop it. Population and economic growth around the world are going to make the problem very complex.

My goal on this site is only to make people realize that there is plenty of energy in the world. We need is a well-thought-out plan for development. Multiple energy sources need to be developed simultaneously. (even some of the ones that are not very cost effective)
Climate change is real so using high carbon fuels probably isn't a great idea, but world hunger and no power is not going to cut it in today's society.
User avatar
Moto
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu 13 Oct 2011, 19:47:12
Location: North Dakota
Top

Re: Continuous Resources Vs Traditional Oil Fields

Unread postby Moto » Sat 29 Oct 2011, 12:59:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')Assumption and conclusion are
--100,000 bbl ultimate recovery per well,
--$5 million drilling cost,
--6.1 EROI
.


QEP Resources - Q2 2011 Bakken Operations Report
- Average completed well costs range from $6.5 million to $9 million per well. (Prices are currently inflated due to shortages in the Williston basin)
- Estimated Ultimate Recovery (EUR) per well range from 350,000 to 750,000 per well.

Used your methodology.
6.10 Your numbers (math OK)
Based on second quarter 2011 numbers...
11.86 Worst Case $9 million and 350k bbl
35.19 Best Case $6.5 million and 750k bbl

Might want to keep in mind that QEP does not use the most advance technology in the basin. Other companies have better numbers, but QEP might represent the current average.
User avatar
Moto
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu 13 Oct 2011, 19:47:12
Location: North Dakota
Top

Re: Continuous Resources Vs Traditional Oil Fields

Unread postby basil_hayden » Sat 29 Oct 2011, 13:07:03

OK, let me try one last time.

If it takes 28 years to scrape 11 years of resources that means we're 17 YEARS SHORT.
I damn sure care about the future beyond 2022 (that's 2011+11).
A few corps will walk away with $20+ million per well, but the rest of us are screwed.

The relationship between money, time, eroei, supply and demand is called the ECONOMY.
Economy is that thing we won't have soon, have you seen gasoline prices drop? I haven't.
Trouble is, it's that economy that we as a society rely on for the little things like FOOD.

EROEI changes dramatically as nonrenewable resources are developed UNTIL THEY'RE GONE.
We didn't solve any problems between 2008 when oil prices skyrocketed and 2011; at this point it's a slam dunk we won't solve any problems between 2011 and 2022 either. Climate change is the least of our worries.

You've got your "pyramid" upside down, it sits on its point with its base in the air. The base in the air is empty now, the point at the bottom is what we're scraping and you don't see the problem with that, but Pstarr is a troll. I totally get it now.
User avatar
basil_hayden
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1581
Joined: Mon 08 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: CT, USA

Re: Continuous Resources Vs Traditional Oil Fields

Unread postby Moto » Sat 29 Oct 2011, 15:09:28

Time will tell. At this point, we might have to agree to disagree. I personally think you are ignoring too many things and not seeing the big picture. Oil is not our only resource.

We did solve problems between 2008 and 2011, but there is a time lag in which you don't see any benefits. (both in renewable and none renewable sources advance)

I agree that the economy is screwed, but I think that has more to do with bad policy decisions than energy at this point. Energy prices played a big role in the initial crash, and it is hurting the recovery, but the problem is much bigger than just energy. Energy prices are partly high due to bad decisions made in Washington.

The pyramid refers to the amount of technically recoverable reserves. I am not considering price, but I do think we will see the price drop to match or slightly beat renewable resources. (which will provide many decades worth of energy)

In addition to be geology degree I have a good chunk of an econ degree done too. I don't think I totally disagree with what your saying, but I might have more faith in the people trying to solve the problems.
User avatar
Moto
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu 13 Oct 2011, 19:47:12
Location: North Dakota

Re: Continuous Resources Vs Traditional Oil Fields

Unread postby basil_hayden » Sat 29 Oct 2011, 18:11:27

You may be right Moto, and I do not wish to attack, but all I've been doing for the last 5 years is watching the frog come to a boil. I too have a geology degree under my belt, and 25 years of business experience. Short term thinking got us in the predicament we're in and I don't see that changing, until it has to, and then it's too late.
User avatar
basil_hayden
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1581
Joined: Mon 08 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: CT, USA

Re: Continuous Resources Vs Traditional Oil Fields

Unread postby Moto » Sat 29 Oct 2011, 18:51:08

:) Yeah, we're not far off in our line of thinking. I just think we can get past the "too late" part.
Have a good day.
User avatar
Moto
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu 13 Oct 2011, 19:47:12
Location: North Dakota

Re: Continuous Resources Vs Traditional Oil Fields

Unread postby Bruce_S » Sun 30 Oct 2011, 00:06:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Moto', '
')- Estimated Ultimate Recovery (EUR) per well range from 350,000 to 750,000 per well.


The state of north dakota does not seem to think the average is that high. Figure 1.

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/newsletter/ ... ssment.pdf

Do you have any objective reference for your numbers, or are they something that industry is claiming?
Bruce_S
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu 22 Sep 2011, 21:45:40
Top

Re: Continuous Resources Vs Traditional Oil Fields

Unread postby Moto » Sun 30 Oct 2011, 01:12:19

The state always posts numbers that lag by about a year. (they do have the best data though)
What you posted is from 2008. I trust industry numbers more than the state. Other companies are posting EUR numbers up to 1.5 million bbls a well now. (continental and Brigham)

Since 2008 companies have moved from just a few fracking stages to more than 30. The wellbore is in contact with a lot more rock now than it was in 2008.
User avatar
Moto
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu 13 Oct 2011, 19:47:12
Location: North Dakota

Re: Continuous Resources Vs Traditional Oil Fields

Unread postby Bruce_S » Sun 30 Oct 2011, 01:13:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')ind the URR for a well. Convert that into gigajoules. (6.1 Gj per BOE is the value I used).

Take the dollar cost to drill the well. Convert that into gigajoules. The conversion is done by using the energy intensity of an industry in j/$. In the case of the oil and gas industry, for 2005 that was 20e6j/$. Drilling is about twice as energy intense as the US average. The energy intensity value came from Dr. Hall's EROI nat gas paper.

So 100k bbl out per well = 6.1e5Gj and $5 mil to drill the well = 1e5Gj

EROI = 6.1e5Gj/1e5Gj = 6.1.


It therefore follows that if 1 bbl/oil = 6.1Gj, 1 dollar =0.02 Gj, an EROEI of 6.1 means that a single dollar of energy (0.02GJ) generates (0.122Gj) oil equivalent. 0.122/6.1 = 0.02 bbls energy equivalent or 5 gallons of crude.

I am surprised that an EROEI=6.1 can be so profitable, and now I understand why they are drilling so many Bakken wells. Would anyone here care to make this horribly bad trade with me, preferably as fast and as often as possible? Matter of fact, I would like to make this trade with anyone, immediately. I will pay $1 for 5 gallons of crude from anyone who wishes to sell it to me. Minimum volumes of 5000 gallons at a time please, deliverable to a refinery of my choice. Payment upon delivery.

Let us investigate this concept further. At an EROEI=1, we can only collect 0.02Gj of oil, or 0.02Gj/6.1Gj Oil = 0.8 gallons. So now I must think a little harder....$1 = 0.84 gallons crude at an EROEI=1, so each barrel of crude will cost me $50. This is a little tougher..uummm.....okay...I'll do it. Same deal as before, I will pay for EROEI=1 crude from anyone who wishes to sell it to me, same conditions as above.

It should be noted that esteemed Messers Hall and Cleveland predicted in 1981 that drilling in the US should cease by approximately 2005 because of these types of yield per effort and net energy analysis. (Hall and Cleveland, 1981, Petroleum Drilling and Production in the United States: Yield Per Effort and Net Energy Analysis, Science, Vol. 211, pp. 576-579)

I am somewhat surprised they are still at it, considering A) the US is still drilling like crazy and B)calculations such as those above showing the validity of the method in general.
Bruce_S
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu 22 Sep 2011, 21:45:40
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests

cron