Commentary: Reconsider Obama fracking rules

[thackney]

Commentary: Reconsider Obama fracking rules
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Commentary-Research-supports-EPA-s-decision-to-11230177.php
June 27, 2017

Last month, researchers published two major studies showing minimal environmental risks posed by oil and natural gas development. These peer-reviewed studies directly contradict two of the main claims leveled by environmental activists – namely, that fracking poses a significant risk to air quality and groundwater.
You may not have heard about them, but they're certainly worth examining.

The first study, conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), found that fracking is not a major threat to groundwater. Examining 116 water wells in three different shale plays (the Eagle Ford, Fayetteville and Haynesville) across three states, the researchers concluded that chemicals and methane levels found in the wells were most likely naturally occurring. The researchers also declared that oil and natural gas operations "did not contribute substantial amounts of methane or benzene to the sample drinking-water wells."

This is in line with numerous other studies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's comprehensive report published last December, which presented no evidence of widespread water contamination from fracking.

The scientific finding that fracking does not pose a major risk to drinking water directly contradicts environmental campaigners. For example, Sierra Club claims on its website that "fracking has contaminated the drinking water of hundreds of thousands of Americans." There is no evidence to support that claim, but the Club is so invested in its position that it tried to downplay the significance of this latest scientific finding.

In addition to not posing a major risk to groundwater, another study suggests oil and natural gas operations are even less a threat to air quality than previously thought. Led by a research scientist from the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a study published in Environmental Science & Technology concluded that previous methane emissions studies relied on measurements taken during peak emissions events, which are both episodic and not reflective of average emissions rates. As a result, they may significantly overstate methane emissions from oil and natural gas development.

The NOAA findings are also noteworthy because they could undermine several of the Obama Administration's climate rules, which targeted methane emissions from oil and natural gas activities and were based in part on the very studies that the NOAA team scrutinized.

Activist groups often reference methane as a reason to ban fracking – again, basing their claims on scientifically unfounded conclusions. In its "urgent case for a ban on fracking," Food & Water Watch claims that "fracking wells release large amounts of methane gas."

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), meanwhile, has credited fracking – and the increased natural gas it unlocked – as "an important reason for a reduction of GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions in the United States."...

[Smokin Joe]

Anyone in the industry knew this. Methane is the desired component of natural gas for sale in the US. The other components of wellhead gas may or may not be desirable, but will be captured and sent for processing anyway, along with the Methane.

For all the howling about "Greedy Big Oil", the Left won't even attribute to it a profit motive in capturing and marketing the very products it spends billions of dollars to seek.

[thackney]

The other components of wellhead gas may or may not be desirable, but will be captured and sent for processing anyway, along with the Methane.

In many wells, like the wetter parts of the Eagle Ford, the Methane is a byproduct but the NGLs are the target.

[Smokin Joe]

In many wells, like the wetter parts of the Eagle Ford, the Methane is a byproduct but the NGLs are the target.

In the Bakken, all the gasses are a byproduct. That doesn't stop them from being valuable, though. NGLs are important, too, but the oil was and remains the moneymaker. That icing on the cake helps when oil prices drop, and the gas plants have been built along with a lot of feeder infrastructure, too.

Here, the State has requirements for reducing flaring, and the compliance has been great, reducing flared percentages even as production increased.

The irony of the Feds whining about flaring was that those wells on Federal land (BLM) had a harder time getting tied in to gas processing facilities because of all the Federal hoops to jump through to install the needed infrastructure, so it was the Federal Leases which had the worst compliance (again, because of Federal rules).

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Almost all unconventional liquids production must have an appreciable amount of gas produced to provide enough energy to drive the liquids to the wells through such tite rock.  In many cases, there are little liquids existing at reservoir conditions so the liquids are not created until it reaches the well or surface and flashed out of the natural gas as the heavy ends of the product, as condensates in field separation and NGLs once the gas plant processes.  In other cases, operators target the high gas zones along with more liquids-bearing zones to get that energy from the gas.

The Bakken and Three Forks are exceptions to the rule.  Nowhere else I have found the conditions are such that relatively low GOR, high undersaturated oil can flow readily through such tite rock.  It is surmised that the very light crude, the over-pressured conditions of the reservoir and the myriad of natural fractures enhanced with stimulated fractures create an ideal environment for economic oil production to occur on a basin-wide basis.

I continue to believe that geology, not highly-technical enhancements to hydraulic fracturing, control the principal avenues to produce widespread commerciality.  Those places are painfully few and once they are fully developed within those core areas, this country's advantages to continue high levels of liquids production will decrease.

I am bullish on liquids only over the short term and bearish over the longer term.  Call the breakover 5 to 10 years.

[Smokin Joe]

Almost all unconventional liquids production must have an appreciable amount of gas produced to provide enough energy to drive the liquids to the wells through such tite rock.  In many cases, there are little liquids existing at reservoir conditions so the liquids are not created until it reaches the well or surface and flashed out of the natural gas as the heavy ends of the product, as condensates in field separation and NGLs once the gas plant processes.  In other cases, operators target the high gas zones along with more liquids-bearing zones to get that energy from the gas.

The Bakken and Three Forks are exceptions to the rule.  Nowhere else I have found the conditions are such that relatively low GOR, high undersaturated oil can flow readily through such tite rock.  It is surmised that the very light crude, the over-pressured conditions of the reservoir and the myriad of natural fractures enhanced with stimulated fractures create an ideal environment for economic oil production to occur on a basin-wide basis.

I continue to believe that geology, not highly-technical enhancements to hydraulic fracturing, control the principal avenues to produce widespread commerciality.  Those places are painfully few and once they are fully developed within those core areas, this country's advantages to continue high levels of liquids production will decrease.

I am bullish on liquids only over the short term and bearish over the longer term.  Call the breakover 5 to 10 years.

When we're done with these, I have a couple more places to look...

[IsailedawayfromFR]

When we're done with these, I have a couple more places to look...

I do hope you find them in time.  So far, there are a lot of sharp guys that haven't found a basin like the Williston Bakken.

[Smokin Joe]

I do hope you find them in time.  So far, there are a lot of sharp guys that haven't found a basin like the Williston Bakken.

I broke out in the Williston, and worked most of the 224 wells I have done there. I have seen similar things in a couple of other places I have been. Saturated tight sands bound by shale in one, in the other, stringers of dolomite. The former has the very best shot, the latter is a maybe.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I broke out in the Williston, and worked most of the 224 wells I have done there. I have seen similar things in a couple of other places I have been. Saturated tight sands bound by shale in one, in the other, stringers of dolomite. The former has the very best shot, the latter is a maybe.

I know you know all this, but those shales boundaries are very important to contribute to the expulsion from the source rock to the zone of production.  Being sealing helps the great overpressures which causes those natural fractures in the Production zone, which must be brittle of course.

The big thing in my mind is scale.  It must be a basin-event to be meaningful.

Plenty of good areas in the Niobrara but is not comprehensive enough to be any thing other than localized stuff.

Lastly, the thing which hurts the Permian in general to having a Bakken is the lack of continuity of a zone horizontally.  Being able to drill distances and stay in the zone of interest is another thing that makes the Bakken exceptional.

I had hoped the Monterey might be the next Williston until I found out that the maturity window really sucks, stranding that oil without the proper generation needed.

[Smokin Joe]

I know you know all this, but those shales boundaries are very important to contribute to the expulsion from the source rock to the zone of production.  Being sealing helps the great overpressures which causes those natural fractures in the Production zone, which must be brittle of course.

The big thing in my mind is scale.  It must be a basin-event to be meaningful.

Plenty of good areas in the Niobrara but is not comprehensive enough to be any thing other than localized stuff.

Lastly, the thing which hurts the Permian in general to having a Bakken is the lack of continuity of a zone horizontally.  Being able to drill distances and stay in the zone of interest is another thing that makes the Bakken exceptional.

I had hoped the Monterey might be the next Williston until I found out that the maturity window really sucks, stranding that oil without the proper generation needed.

This has about ten feet of well defined tight sand through the area, and I'm not sure how large that is, but it does cover quite a bit. It's tight, and generally considered to be unproducible (but that was pre-Bakken). I expect gas, NGLs and condensate. My only concern is that there may be overgrowths in the sand which might cause problems breaking it down. It isn't as large an area as the Bakken, but I believe it is as large as the Red River play down near Bowman, area wise.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

This has about ten feet of well defined tight sand through the area, and I'm not sure how large that is, but it does cover quite a bit. It's tight, and generally considered to be unproducible (but that was pre-Bakken). I expect gas, NGLs and condensate. My only concern is that there may be overgrowths in the sand which might cause problems breaking it down. It isn't as large an area as the Bakken, but I believe it is as large as the Red River play down near Bowman, area wise.

If you can define the core area, you can profit immensely/

Need a lot of these smaller ones to continue the unconventional liquids phenomenon for the US.

Make a believer out of the rest of us, SJ.

[Smokin Joe]

If you can define the core area, you can profit immensely/

Need a lot of these smaller ones to continue the unconventional liquids phenomenon for the US.

Make a believer out of the rest of us, SJ.

I'm pretty sure I can, but I need some way to develop it (and make enough to retire).

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I'm pretty sure I can, but I need some way to develop it (and make enough to retire).

All roads begin with access.  Then the dreams can become more concrete.

Those old-timers like you who spend a lifetime in a basin are becoming fewer and fewer.  And the knowledge base shrinks when those guys are no longer around.

[Smokin Joe]

All roads begin with access.  Then the dreams can become more concrete.

Those old-timers like you who spend a lifetime in a basin are becoming fewer and fewer.  And the knowledge base shrinks when those guys are no longer around.

I have watched a couple of outfits reinvent the wheel again. (Yes, that's twice). But it's tough to tell folks in most offices anything.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I have watched a couple of outfits reinvent the wheel again. (Yes, that's twice). But it's tough to tell folks in most offices anything.

Youthful professionals are always suspect to do this.  In my early days, I recall the field personnel giving an uncomplimentary adjective in front of my name.  I thought it was they hated engineers, but what they really disliked was young guys who wished to reinvent that wheel.

And another thing I noticed in my last years working - too many younger geos and engineers who had been hired since the last downturn.  They made lots of money, lived it up, and thought they didn't need to worry about understanding those pesky wheels of history.

[Smokin Joe]

Youthful professionals are always suspect to do this.  In my early days, I recall the field personnel giving an uncomplimentary adjective in front of my name.  I thought it was they hated engineers, but what they really disliked was young guys who wished to reinvent that wheel.

And another thing I noticed in my last years working - too many younger geos and engineers who had been hired since the last downturn.  They made lots of money, lived it up, and thought they didn't need to worry about understanding those pesky wheels of history.

Yeah, that kinda bit me. All the geo people were so new they didn't know that I had set the company that the company they bought out bought on to the Bakken early on. It was a good ride for a while, though. Most of the folks I worked with retired. I have some years left yet, though.

[MajorClay]

Good conversation,  thanks guys

[IsailedawayfromFR]

This has about ten feet of well defined tight sand through the area, and I'm not sure how large that is, but it does cover quite a bit. It's tight, and generally considered to be unproducible (but that was pre-Bakken). I expect gas, NGLs and condensate. My only concern is that there may be overgrowths in the sand which might cause problems breaking it down. It isn't as large an area as the Bakken, but I believe it is as large as the Red River play down near Bowman, area wise.

Last thing I forgot about writing is it would be a lot easier on you finding another Dickinson Lodgepole rather than the tedious way of proving a new unconventional zone is commerical.  You and I know both know it is out there and someday someone will drill through it and recognize it for what it is.

[Smokin Joe]

Last thing I forgot about writing is it would be a lot easier on you finding another Dickinson Lodgepole rather than the tedious way of proving a new unconventional zone is commerical.  You and I know both know it is out there and someday someone will drill through it and recognize it for what it is.

It seems so, but Waulsortian mounds are hit or miss.

Any more, the Lodgepole, and for that matter, to most producers, the Spearfish, Charles, Ratcliffe, Midale, Mission Canyon, and the Lodgepole are those rocks over the Bakken. One Billion Barrels of oil out of the Beaver Lodge Field, and very little of that out of the Bakken before this last round of horizontal drilling and fraccing, and those more traditional reservoirs from the Deadwood Sands up are being pretty much ignored. By the time interest in those is renewed, the people who worked those reservoirs, the folks who can still read a laterolog 3 or a microlaterolog (or even a DLL or a CNL/LDC) will be long gone.

Then someone gets to reinvent the wheel again...

[Joe Wooten]

Then someone gets to reinvent the wheel again...

That is the story of engineering development all over. I was just at an energy storage conference at MIT this last week and there were a lot of interesting ideas presented, but the most practical one was using steam accumulators, first developed in the late 19th century and used occasionally well into the 1920's, as a method of storing steam energy for use later as a peaking cycle in a baseload nuclear plant. The guy who presented that idea at first had no idea what he was thinking about existed prior until he started researching the topic. With modern material tech, they can be more efficient that past installations, but you still will lose about 15% of the energy you put in when you discharge them.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

That is the story of engineering development all over. I was just at an energy storage conference at MIT this last week and there were a lot of interesting ideas presented, but the most practical one was using steam accumulators, first developed in the late 19th century and used occasionally well into the 1920's, as a method of storing steam energy for use later as a peaking cycle in a baseload nuclear plant. The guy who presented that idea at first had no idea what he was thinking about existed prior until he started researching the topic. With modern material tech, they can be more efficient that past installations, but you still will lose about 15% of the energy you put in when you discharge them.

Very interesting.

We are doomed to repeat our mistakes if we do not take account of history.