[onlooker]

well just been reading up some about this subject of Hydraulic fracturing. Trying to get up to speed with some of the more erudite members here about this subject.
It sure seems like opinions vary wildly on it's potential. This quote is from a site Energyfromshale.org "After just two to five days of hydraulic fracturing, a well can supply oil or natural gas for 20 to 40 years." Again I am just a layman but this seems just hyperbole. Curious what others think of this particular claim. I recommend Richard Heinberg who I know from reading his book the "The Party is Over". He seems very knowledgeable about the energy sector and the future options. His new book is "Snake Oil", which I myself have not read but have just read summaries and reviews of. He argues that Shale Fracking is but a costly distraction
from the necessary work of reducing our fossil fuel dependence via renewables. In fact a statement he uttered was that he think the shale boom will be pretty much over this decade. What do others think?

[dissident]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', 'w')ell just been reading up some about this subject of Hydraulic fracturing. Trying to get up to speed with some of the more erudite members here about this subject.
It sure seems like opinions vary wildly on it's potential. This quote is from a site Energyfromshale.org "After just two to five days of hydraulic fracturing, a well can supply oil or natural gas for 20 to 40 years." Again I am just a layman but this seems just hyperbole. Curious what others think of this particular claim. I recommend Richard Heinberg who I know from reading his book the "The Party is Over". He seems very knowledgeable about the energy sector and the future options. His new book is "Snake Oil", which I myself have not read but have just read summaries and reviews of. He argues that Shale Fracking is but a costly distraction
from the necessary work of reducing our fossil fuel dependence via renewables. In fact a statement he uttered was that he think the shale boom will be pretty much over this decade. What do others think?

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he ultimate cause of this difference is physics. Fracking cannot convert a small porosity rock like shale into porous rock like sandstone or dolomite. So the volume of gas accessible after fracking is smaller than from a conventional well and the flow to the well peters out faster.

[ROCKMAN]

"This claim is utter rubbish". Actually it isn't. But unless qualified it can be very misleading. The lifetime of any well is much more controlled by the nature of the reservoir than how it's completed. It has already been proven that frac'd Eagle Ford wells won't produce for 2 decades before reaching non-commercial flow rates. But Bakken wells will last longer than EFS wells. And wells in the New Albany Shale (an Appalachian Basin trend) have commercially produced for 30+ years. But the key point: those wells typically produce less than $100 of NG per day. Likewise there are frac'd wells in the Permian Basin that are still producing since they went on line in the 70's. But, again, at very low stripper rates.

[coffeeguyzz]

Onlooker, I think it is great to encounter an inquisitive mind, one receptive to various streams of input on this most divisive, emotionally charged topic.
I, personally, am an unabashed, uber cornucopian fossil fuel booster. (Checking up on the predictive track record of some 'authorities' may provide an enlightening experience vis-à-vis their accuracy ... or lack thereof).
The amount of hydrocarbons remaining in the matrix surrounding horizontals is regularly estimated at 90%.
Ten per cent is currently being recovered. I'll not list the numerous process, techniques, hardware that are in the early - even planning only - stages, but suffice to say the high-intensity fracturing process which rubbilize rock near the wellbore, allowing the MUCH closer spacing of laterals, is but one approach recently adopted by operators within the past year.
Tools conveyed by Coiled Tubing is enabling 80/100 stages to be frac'd with stages 100' long and one entry point - no more unstimulated areas per frac. 40 stages per day is now routine.
The use of so called energizing fluid to frac and carry proppant is continuing apace as is the re-injection of field gas (check out deethree up in the upper Bakken silt). The ongoing increase in recovery rates points to further implementation going forward.
Re-frac'ing is picking up steam as the economics are proving favorable to applying new processes to "old" wells pre 2010.
The EOR processes using Liquified/emulsified Nat gas, nitrogen, or CO2 are entering field trials in all the basins with the expectations of significant success. The tens of billions of dollars in research money provided by GE alone should prompt discerning observers to look less to past output and more to future potential to accurately grasp what lies ahead.

[dissident]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', '&')quot;This claim is utter rubbish". Actually it isn't. But unless qualified it can be very misleading. The lifetime of any well is much more controlled by the nature of the reservoir than how it's completed. It has already been proven that frac'd Eagle Ford wells won't produce for 2 decades before reaching non-commercial flow rates. But Bakken wells will last longer than EFS wells. And wells in the New Albany Shale (an Appalachian Basin trend) have commercially produced for 30+ years. But the key point: those wells typically produce less than $100 of NG per day. Likewise there are frac'd wells in the Permian Basin that are still producing since they went on line in the 70's. But, again, at very low stripper rates.

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Bakken is a variant of a conventional reservoir and it is extremely misleading to compare to fracked tight gas fields like the Marcellus.
You just cannot get the flow of gas through shale-like reservoir rock compared to sandstone and dolomite. No amount of fracking can increase shale-like rock porosity to that of sandstone. All that fracking does is produce a large surface area for slow outgassing from the tight rock matrix. This gas flows towards the well through the fracture channels. It does not flow towards the well at any commercially viable rate from the part of the rock, which is most of it, that is not fractured.

[coffeeguyzz]

Hey, dissident, I just re-read your posts and I gotta ask ya, with all due respect, do you follow much of the production reports coming out of the shale plays? Seriously, cuz when you describe [b]slow[b] outgassing from frac'd gas wells, you cannot be including the likes of the half dozen monster wells that Rice Energy has coming out of the Utica ... the ones that are choked back and producing 17 million cubic feet/day (depicted in oil equivalence, nearly 3,000boepd). Their Bigfoot 9H is coming up on its first full year online and will exceed 5 1/2 b (that's billion with a 'b')cf - nearly a million boe ... one well ... one year.
The Mighty Marcellus play has just been described by the EIA as covering 72,000 sq miles, an area slightly larger than the entire state of North Dakota. The underlying Utica is not only significantly larger in area, it has a much thicker payzone.
The science of conducting more "intelligent" fracs is ongoing and the operators' results are provable demonstrations of that.

[sparky]

.
the " 20 years production" is true as far as an advertisement claim is , but the exctraction rate is grossly non linear
for comparison the first drilled well , the Drake well drilled 150 years ago , in cherrytree township, Pennsylvania is still producing
.........about a gallon a day , it is a curiosity and a museum

[ROCKMAN]

dis - "Sorry but Bakken has nothing to do with tight gas.: Apparently you're not following the conversation very closely. I was responding to the statement mischaracterize all the unconventional reservoirs (both oil and NG productive). Please try to stay up. Obviously there is no one size fits all characterzation...just as I pointed out. As far as the Bakken goes those wells do tend to have a longer commercial life then the Eagle Ford Shale wells. OTOH those later years of production are at such low rates that those Bakken wells are not very relevant to the Big Picture.

[careinke]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coffeeguyzz', 'O')nlooker, I think it is great to encounter an inquisitive mind, one receptive to various streams of input on this most divisive, emotionally charged topic.
I, personally, am an unabashed, uber cornucopian fossil fuel booster. (Checking up on the predictive track record of some 'authorities' may provide an enlightening experience vis-à-vis their accuracy ... or lack thereof).
The amount of hydrocarbons remaining in the matrix surrounding horizontals is regularly estimated at 90%.
Ten per cent is currently being recovered. I'll not list the numerous process, techniques, hardware that are in the early - even planning only - stages, but suffice to say the high-intensity fracturing process which rubbilize rock near the wellbore, allowing the MUCH closer spacing of laterals, is but one approach recently adopted by operators within the past year.
Tools conveyed by Coiled Tubing is enabling 80/100 stages to be frac'd with stages 100' long and one entry point - no more unstimulated areas per frac. 40 stages per day is now routine.
The use of so called energizing fluid to frac and carry proppant is continuing apace as is the re-injection of field gas (check out deethree up in the upper Bakken silt). The ongoing increase in recovery rates points to further implementation going forward.
Re-frac'ing is picking up steam as the economics are proving favorable to applying new processes to "old" wells pre 2010.
The EOR processes using Liquified/emulsified Nat gas, nitrogen, or CO2 are entering field trials in all the basins with the expectations of significant success. The tens of billions of dollars in research money provided by GE alone should prompt discerning observers to look less to past output and more to future potential to accurately grasp what lies ahead.

[ROCKMAN]

care - Actually no scarier then it has been. Regardless of the number of frac stages the potential for environmental damage caused DIRECTLY by the frac'ng process itself is still small. The potential pollution remains to be with the improper/illegal disposal of the produced frac fluids. Just as it has been since frac'ng began over half a century ago.

[careinke]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'c')are - Actually no scarier then it has been. Regardless of the number of frac stages the potential for environmental damage caused DIRECTLY by the frac'ng process itself is still small. The potential pollution remains to be with the improper/illegal disposal of the produced frac fluids. Just as it has been since frac'ng began over half a century ago.

[onlooker]

Yes that is what is worrying many now. Can we afford to keep burning whatever is still left of FF. But then again can we afford not too. Lose Lose situation.

[coffeeguyzz]

Hey, care, as Lili von Schtupp said in "Blazing Saddles" "It's twue, it's twue!".
Just so you all don't get too down about this stuff, the LENR/LANR technology seems poised for an imminent breakout in the coming years.
Virtually every source that I've encountered that disparages this field seems profoundly ignorant of the people, companies and track record of this off-the-wall technology.
Interesting times indeed ...

[ROCKMAN]

care - A valid point but only to a small degree. As I've said many times folks greatly over estimate the amount of energy we use to directly develop fossil fuel resources. I make what seems like an extreme quess but I bet if we could find the data it would prove me correct: in the US more energy is used by McDonald to deliver those "healthy meals" then all the energy used to drill and frac every shale well even during the high point of the boom. Might even be able to use Starbucks as another example. But all that pails in comparison to what we burn driving the kids to Chucky Cheese et al. LOL.