[Newfie]

Rocman,

My apologies if you addressed this before but could you please give me your reaction to this article. It has gotten some local attention.

http://www.minnpost.com/propublica/2013 ... king-sites

[ROCKMAN]

Newbie - Sounds like good study. Read thru and you find that they've found no direct proof that the higher concentration of heavy metals were caused by frac'ng. They point out the toxins occur naturally and that they found high concentrations in areas with no frac'ng and normal levels in areas with a lot of frac'ng activity. They actually offer that high concentrations may not be directly from frac fluids but that drilling activities might 'loosen up' arsenic that has accumulated naturally.

Again, back to the basic question: how likely is it for frac fluids from the actually frac'ng operation to leak out of that particular well? Certainly possible due to a bad cement job or a casing rupture. Not sure of the regs in PA but it Texas and La. such incidences are know via our mandatory certification process. But such situations are very rare and could cause widespread contamination problems.

OTOH improper/illegal dumping of frac fluids would be a much more likely source. And I have seen such activity in Texas and with no exceptions those buttholes dump far away from their wells. Which makes sense if you think about it. You've probably seen some of my posts about discovery of illegal dumping in PA once the stopped focusing on the well sites and started tracking fluids that were hauled away.

Despite what many think all arsenic is naturally occurring. The manmade problems develop from improper disposal from concentrated solutions from any industrial efforts. At one time plants making paint were a common source. Twice I personally assisted the Sierra Club in such battles. Arsenic is a good marker because it's much more mobile than other contaminants and shows up in samples much sooner. But in those cases we ran into the problem of naturally occurring concentrations. There have been quite a few cases of folks getting ill in Texas from water wells with natural concentrations. Back to the same point your reference study even admits: they had developed no direct evidence that the frac'ng lead to those high concentrations. That's there actual words. They simply say more research is needed. And I said earlier it's easy: sample the water wells before frac'ng begins in an area. This is not a secret: everyone involved in contamination studies fully understand the importance of establishing a pre-drill baseline. What I find suspicious is that I yet to see one analysis that has taken this approach. Drilling and frac'ng activity are know from the publicly available data base many months before the activity begins. I've made that same recommendation to a number of concerned landowners. Given that pre and post drill analysis would be a rather simple and cheap approach to proving a real smoking gun are 't you surprised we have seen many such reports?

IOW why test hundreds of samples after frac'ng is done when no baseline has been established when a dozen can be done pre and post drill? I know this is an silly comparison but true none the less: in probably ever case where high concentrations of arsenic has been discovered the landowner owner owned a radio. TA DA! Now we have evidence that listening to the radio POSSIBLY causes well water contamination. Yes...very silly. But many of the reports we see follow the same logic. But here's a little reality check: how many of those landowners with high arsenic concentrations used pesticide that contained such nastiest?

And I'm curious: do you understand why I would very pleased to see all frac'ng banned in the US?

[Newfie]

OK, I'm a sucker, I'll bite.

Supply and demand, you are in oil and don't want the competition.

BTW, thanks for the thoughtful response.

[ROCKMAN]

Newbie - Exactly. LOL. That's why I have smile when folks say the oil industry wants to frac or produce the Canadian oil sands. Lots of US pubcos want to frac everything in sight. The majority of all energy companies would love to see frac'ng banned...more NG production hurts our profit margins. And probably something like 98% of US oil companies would be glad to see all Canadian oil imports banned. Same reason.

I make this heavy handed point so folks understand the explanations I give about frac'ng and Keystone pipelines are based on a desire for folks to understand the facts...at least as what I see as factual. I try my best to keep self-interest out of the equation. That doesn't make me infallible. Hopefully just honest.

[copious.abundance]

Abundance aplenty. Mass quantities of plenitude. Billowing founts of wholesome goodness.

Marcellus Gas Production Rising Fast in Pa., W.Va.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')ITTSBURGH (AP) — Marcellus Shale natural gas production is rising even faster this year than energy experts had predicted, and that's having a national impact on energy.

Bentek, a Colorado company that analyzes energy trends, said 2013 production in Pennsylvania and West Virginia is up about 50 percent compared with last year. Figures for the pipelines that take gas out of the Marcellus show that in the first six months of the year, Pennsylvania produced about 1.5 trillion cubic feet of gas, with projections for a year-end total of about 3.2 trillion cubic feet.

That yearly number translates into the equivalent of about 550 million barrels of oil.

The official mid-2013 production figures for Pennsylvania and West Virginia haven't been released yet by those states, but Bentek's figures are considered very reliable by government and industry sources.

Marcellus production this year "has definitely outpaced our expectations," said Diana Oswald, a Bentek energy analyst, and it's changing long-established national energy trends.

[...]

[ROCKMAN]

The unconventional NG plays have certainly done well and should continue to do well now that prices have recovered from the 08' price bust. But I think the "changing long term established trends" is a bit of hype. The US has been the leading NG producer on the planet along with Russia since the beginning of the fossil fuel age. We may consume a disproportionate share of the global all production on the planet but have always produced a disproportionately large portion of the worlds NG. NG will continue to be a major energy source for the country for many decades. And as prices continue to rise will be developed further. But IMHO it's the same ole same ole. A good thing but certainly not a step change. No need to hype a good thing when it's been a good thing for so long.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', ' ')But I think the "changing long term established trends" is a bit of hype.

[kuidaskassikaeb]

Dear Rockman;

That was a good reply thanks for taking the time


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'k') – Haven’t been able to follow the entire conversation. But note on your map that the red dotes are wells that tested between 0 and 2 mmcf/d. In reality there are very few if any “dry holes” in the trend. But there may be a high percentage that test a non-commercial flow rate of NG and are thus never produced.

[kuidaskassikaeb]

Dear John:

I guess I should stop making fun of you. I did understand your arguments.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ot quite. See, the short circuit of cement opens up a pathway to somewhere...that somewhere may be to yet a higher pressure formation...in which case nothing happens (or something flows the other way through the cement) or the pathway opens up WAY UP ABOVE somewhere, at a lower pressure, and suddenly the formation has an escape route. Call it a thief zone. An aquifer could potentially be just that, if the leak through the layers of steel and cement allowed a producing formation to get to it.

Of course, we aren't talking about fracking now but well design, and well design by law puts fresh water aquifers up top behind cement and steel. I should say, MORE cement and steel, so now we need multiple failures for something to get that far up top.

[ROCKMAN]

K - you have a better handle on it then most. But for clarity: a fracture in the rock is just that... a fracture. A weak point of sort but not so much on a large scale. The natural fractures are actual porous AND permeable areas in the shale. The shale rock (the 'matrix') may have porosity but the small grain size kills the permeabity to practical zero. The only production volume of any meaningful volume comes from the natural fracture planes that were able to fill with oil/NG over millions of years. That's why hz wells are critical: the fractures tend to be sub-vertical and statistically more likely to be cut by a hz well path. Also the productive zone tends to be only a few hundred feet thick at most.

The purpose of frac'ng is two fold. First to open up the natural fractures and increase their permeability. Second is to extend the manmade fractures out to cut any nearby natural fractures the well didn't cut. You can frac an unfractured shale all day long and get no commercial flow. That's one problem with folks who think there is a lot of potential for all shales around the world to be big commercial plays. A shale with no natural fractures will never be commercial. A shale with lots of natural fractures and no hydrocarbons in the fractures will never be commercial. I've drilled many badly fractured shales that produced no oil/NG. They are well known in areas where they occur because the tend to cause serious drill problems. The most common sedimentary rock is shale. Most have no commercial potential. For instance there are dozens of other shale formations above and below the Eagle Ford. And they have been penetrated by tens of thousands of wells in the area of the EFS play and very few have shown any commercial potential.

Now, back to frac'ng. Yes microseismic is a great technology that shows exactly where the manmade fractures are propagated. The frac vendors are always trying to convince operators that there frac system can produce longer and taller fractures. And time and again microseismic has shown they seldom hit their target. Not once has microseismic shown any fractures that have extended upwards thousands of feet. A really good fracture at 8,000' or 10,000' might extend upwards 100'. And think about the primary goal: an operator will spend several $million to frac a zone less than 200' thick. Why would he create fractures that extended upwards above the target zone to a formation that has no production potential? The goal is to extend the fractures out laterally as far as possible to cut as many natural fractures as possible. And even if they cut a deep fault the volumes of sand pumped wouldn't be sufficient to come close to reaching fresh water acquirers. Of course, if a company is frac'ng a shallow zone, say above 3,000, that's a different situation. But for the vast majority of the formations under discussion they are too deep for fractures to reach the surface.

Bad cement jobs can allow a frac job to reach the surface. Likewise with rupturing the casing shallow. But the annulus pressure is monitored during a frac job and they shut down at first sign of such a problem. And they do so not for the sake of the aquifer or environment. Such accidents tend to kill the hands, destroy $millions of frac equipment and totally waste $millions of the operator's capes as well as failing to frac a well they just spent several $million+ to drill.

Again, as I read the story no one had shown that problem didn't exist before Cabot drilled. They just showed the probe existed afterwards. And they also repeatedly pointed out that they found similar problems in areas where there has been no oil patch drilling. And I've seen many companies settle when they've done nothing wrong because it was a cheaper gamble than going to court. In your case my recommendation is the same I always make: get a baseline established by a certified company before drilling starts. And if you haven't signed a lease yet make them pay for your independent test. That's cheap insurance for them especially when they realize you're no dummy.

[Tanada]

For those who are looking at the world shale picture a rather confused piece recently apeared in the Telegraph about Estonia.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')“We are the most energy independent country in the European Union, and we will not compromise our energy security. We have a large neighbour,” said Juhan Parts, the economy minister.

It is the same story wherever you go across Eastern Europe: the fuel debate comes down to Vladimir Putin’s Russia, and Gazprom’s stranglehold on gas supplies. Global warming inevitably plays second fiddle. “Estonia is not rich enough to experiment with immature technologies,” said Mr Parts.

“Even if we had to invest in new power plants today, shale would still be cheapest. Russian gas costs 1.8 times as much; onshore wind 2 times as much; and offshore wind 2.5 times as much.”

[ROCKMAN]

Tanada - Especially when you consider they way Estonia uses their "shale production" is more akin to burning coal than drilling horizontal holes. Their position is easy to understand; if it ain't broken don't fix it. Ignoring the environmental factor they are in a comfortable situation.

[ROCKMAN]

Apparently not all shales are created equal. From:

http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/1 ... w/?all=HG2

“China has gone back to the drawing board on how to develop what could be the world's largest shale gas reserves after attempts to stimulate investment and engineer an energy revolution brought little progress in the gas fields. Beijing has struggled to find a way to emulate the frenetic exploration and production activity of the shale gas boom in the United States, and the latest setback makes reaching even a modest 2015 output target of 6.5 billion cubic metres unlikely.

An eclectic mix of new participants in the sector drag their heels on development, while China's biggest energy companies prioritize spending on other oil and gas projects. Frustrated with slow progress on shale from state energy giants PetroChina and Sinopec Corp, China in late 2012 encouraged a broad range of companies - including a property developer and a grains trader - to bid in its second shale gas auction.

Not one of the 16 firms that won exploration rights had ever drilled a gas well. But they did promise to spend at least $2 billion over three years to pump gas from shale. Beijing hoped this might give the sector a jolt. But eight months later, the Ministry of Land and Resources (MLR) said the firms have barely started seismic work and one of them sold a stake in a block before doing anything.

Slow development of China's enormous shale gas potential and missed output targets may be bad news as the country tries to develop domestic gas supplies to ease its heavy dependence on dirtier coal and expensive imports of oil and gas. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates China is sitting on 1,115 trillion cubic feet of shale gas, nearly double the size of the reserves in the United States.”

Apparently “sitting” on huge reserves is not the same thing as producing huge reserves.

“The problem for Beijing is that PetroChina and Sinopec are reluctant to devote resources to shale gas after experiencing hefty exploration costs for low output in pilot drilling. China has to date spent around 10 billion yuan ($1.6 billion) to drill around 130 shale gas wells. PetroChina and Sinopec, which hold the rights to the most prospective shale acreage in China, have drilled most of them. Only a handful of those wells are producing over 40,000 cubic metres of gas a day, deemed a break-even level for the $13 million to $16 million each well costs, officials said.

One of the challenges Chinese firms have struggled to overcome is how to adapt shale technology developed in the U.S. to China's geology. Chinese shale formations tend to be deeper than those in the U.S."

[SamInNebraska]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'A')pparently not all shales are created equal. From:

http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/1 ... w/?all=HG2

One of the challenges Chinese firms have struggled to overcome is how to adapt shale technology developed in the U.S. to China's geology. Chinese shale formations tend to be deeper than those in the U.S."

[rockdoc123]

Actually a lot of China's shale gas is located at depths of 6000 metres, add to that a couple of km for a horizontal well and you are talking about 8000 m which say comparing to an equivalent horizontal section in the eagleford would be just slightly less than double.
At greater depths you have to overcome greater pressures in order to induce a fracture which requires more surface equipment etc. As well temperatures are higher which limits some of the equipment that can be used (certain logging equipment isn't built to function at very high temperatures).

[ROCKMAN]

Once again the oil patch owes President Obama and his administration a big thanks. Shipping more LNG out of the country will hopefully get the price of NG up sooner. It’s always helpful to have the govt doing what it can to increase the cost of fossil fuels to the American consumer. If all goes to plan this one plant will be able to remove 7.3 TRILLION CUBIC FEET of NG from the domestic market place over the term of the contracts.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/En ... cellus-gas

"On Wednesday, the Department of Energy approved the application of Dominion Energy to export LNG from its Cove Point terminal in Maryland. Originally built as an import terminal, with this approval the facility will undergo extensive retrofitting and upgrading, at an expected cost of $3.4-$3.8 billion. This approval is important for drillers because it is the first LNG export facility to be approved outside of the Gulf Coast. Cove Point is the terminus of a direct pipeline from Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale region, allowing direct exports of the gas coming from Pennsylvania. This region has largely suffered because of a lack of natural gas pipeline interconnections with markets; there simply has not been enough capacity to use the record amounts of gas produced from the Marcellus in Pennsylvania. Once this facility is up and running (projected for 2017), Dominion has secured contracts with Japan's Sumitomo and India's GAIL to provide the full capacity of about 1 billion cubic feet per day over 20 years.

This is the fourth approval of LNG exports, and the third approved in less than three months signaling an acceleration in permit approvals. Secretary Moniz, in his confirmation hearings, had pledged that he supports LNG exports, and President Obama has signaled that he does as well. In meetings with the State Department, they have made clear that their goal is to help create a global market for natural gas."

Global smobal….just get the NG out of the US market place. Thanks Dog the democrats are in charge. Mucho thanks, bro!

[godq3]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'O') It’s always helpful to have the govt doing what it can to increase the cost of fossil fuels to the American consumer.

[ROCKMAN]

g - Some validity to you point. OTOH I was just being my smartass self with that post. Higher NG won't significantly increase efficiency IMHO. We are already rather efficient converting NG to energy. I suspect what you really mean is reduced consumption. What it would do is destroy an amount of demand. That demand destruction would equate to folks being colder in the winter and hotter in the summer increasing suffering and mortality. It would also reduce commercial activity, especially in manufacturing, to some degree. Not a good approach to reducing unemployment.

Using NG more efficiently would be good for the economy. Having a significant portion of the economy lost to higher NG prices wouldn't be good. Also consider the exported US NG isn't being saved for our future use so it's not as if the world is burning fewer Btu's. Lots of energy lost converting NG to LNG and then there's the energy spent to transport many thousands of miles. Not a particularly "efficient" of our finite resource IMHO. The only difference would be that the US wouldn't be burning those Btu's but consumers would be paying more.

OTOH it would be a great boost for me and my cohorts. Higher NG prices would allow us to utilize more energy inefficient methods to drill for NG that currently aren't economic. Or as Tarzan would say: "Efficiency good. Demand destruction juju." LOL.

[dcoyne78]

Higher prices will prepare us for the future. Iow ng prices in the us are kind of like gasoline prices in venezuela.

DC

[dcoyne78]

Why shouldn't energy companies be able to export their products, whether it is efficient or not does not matter? It is a good thing for the US that all other countries don't have a policy of no energy exports.

On the jobs front, if natural gas prices are too low, then less natural gas will be produced which means fewer jobs in the energy industry, as natural gas prices rise, wind power and solar become more competitive and again we could see a rise in employment building wind turbines and installing solar panels. Higher heating and cooling costs may lead to replacement of older air conditioning and heating systems again more jobs, and to improved insulation and sealing of older homes, and possibly window and door replacements. People may decide to build a new low energy use home. Again more jobs. All of this puts the economy in a better position to adjust to lower future oil and gas availability.

DC