Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 16, 2014 at 7:55

Here is a link to an article I posted previously and that gives a good idea of the scope of the problem with abandoned wells in LA.

http://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2014/06/louisianas_regula...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 1kw6x71km1v37 on September 16, 2014 at 13:38

It's Louisiana. You were expecting better?

The legal code is great. But does not always translate in practice.

If you live here, you learn to love bananas.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Craig Cooper on September 17, 2014 at 3:49

National Energy Technology Lab (NETL) yesterday released a nice report detailing their study of frac'ing in the Marcellus and I think it's worth reading through (at least) the executive summary.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/Research/onsite%20research/p...

Though the study focused on Marcellus, I think their methodologies & conclusions are pertinent and applicable to all of today's currently active shale and unconventional plays.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 17, 2014 at 4:03

Thanks, Craig.  It's good to see studies focused on this element of the debate over fracing.  Those who would care to read the full study or the executive summary may use Craig's link above.  Here is a cut and paste of the final paragraph of the summary.

Conclusions of this study are: 1) the impact of hydraulic fracturing on the rock mass did not extend to the Upper Devonian/Lower Mississippian gas field; and 2) there has been no detectable migration of gas or aqueous fluids to the Upper Devonian/Lower Mississippian gas field during the monitored period after hydraulic fracturing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by kirby decker on September 21, 2014 at 0:10

Test 123

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve P on September 21, 2014 at 6:54

The two lead authors of this study, Darrah at Ohio State and Rob Jackson, both recently departed Duke University.  I don't know if these 2 were the authors of the Duke study on fracking and drinking water that caught so much fire a few years ago, but I think that this report is very significant.  These 2 are clearly not mouthpieces for the oil and gas industry.  On prior postings on this site, I have mentioned attending lectures by a geophysicist at Stanford University who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences in which he opined that there was a very low likelihood of fracking fluids migrating out of a shale formation up to water tables used for domestic drinking wells.  This study presents important evidence supporting that.

Well quality, particularly the integrity of older wells, is a significant issue.  A few years ago I spent a small amount of time discussing the prospects for using a depleted oil field in Desoto and Red River Parishes for a "carbon injection" demonstration project.  the idea was to install a CO2 capture device on the Dolet Hills lignite power plant, build a pipeline to the depleted field, and store the CO2 underground in the depleted reservoir.  That idea got no traction because there was a presumption that all of the CO2 would leak back out into the atmosphere from the reservoir through the old well bores.

there is a similar project being constructed now in Texas, but I am not familiar with the details. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 21, 2014 at 7:06

It's good to have a confirming opinion on the study.  I wonder how widely it will be read and how it will stand up to criticism. 

The CO2/Dolet Hills storage project is interesting.  In the right location CO2 is valuable in Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR).  Denbury Resources actually has a business focus on CO2 Flood projects in depleted oil fields.   Here is some detail on CO2 Flood.

http://www.kindermorgan.com/business/co2/flood.cfm

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jim weyland on September 21, 2014 at 8:53

steve,

the texas project is to strip co2 from a stack at the houston area parish plant (coal fueled).

they'll be knocking it out using a big-ass (technical term) amine unit. they'll then compress the co2 and pipe it to an old oil field some where in midcoastal tx, i forget the name of the field, where it'll be injected for teriary oil recovery.

the project is only going forward due to the doe funding a good bit of things. thanks, good old uncle sugar.

i think they'll be using an existing pl to get the stuff from the plant to the field. by my reckoning the new build facilities will be the amine plant, compression and field piping to wells to be converted /used for injection.

jim

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on September 23, 2014 at 17:58

Excellent post Skip, many thanks for the in depth discussion. Good science is vital - but I am not sure it trump history and public perception. We need a lot more of these studies from several universities.
 This is a good one.

We could use a handful of links that address environmental issues - a quick references of GOOD information. I'll bookmark this post and if anyone knows of others please suggest them.

HANG

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 24, 2014 at 2:41

HANG, the  problems associated with E&P are fairly straight forward and solvable.  IMO there are two categories: legacy and industry best practices.  Legacy involves old wellbores and surface locations and equipment much of which is abandoned with no obvious or financially solvent ownership.  It will take governmental entities  to address these issues through fees that fund proper mitigation and fines where possible to deter those wells still in operation.  Best practices involve a commitment by the industry going forward to identify and use proper designs, materials and operations that protect the public and the environment. 

The industry generally pays lip service to best practices and adopts the individual elements that make them money or promote their corporate image but the only way that legacy sites get cleaned up and companies are held to high standards with consequences for violations is that very unpopular term, regulations.  The political allies of big business decry regulations as government overstepping its authority and wasting tax payer money.  That debate will go on without getting to the crux of the issue as that seems to be the way we deal with issues in our country in this age.  Every time I read rants about regulation I think of the financial crisis that has so damaged our country and the BP Macondo oil spill debacle in the Gulf.  No rational person can ignore that there are some things that only a state or the federal government can do.  And relying on industries to police themselves is a recipe for disasters.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by William C. Morrison on September 24, 2014 at 3:27

I agree with you Skip. but there is a difference between over sight and over management.  Currently, the EPA is in the over management mode especially dealing with coal fired power plants.  Perhaps, just perhaps, they are under sighted regarding deep Gulf wells.  But their solution is just to cut everybody off.  It will take a change in administration to get the EPA back into reality and functionality.  At least they have finally given up on Fracking and have acknowledged that Fracking does not impact drinking water, except may during disposal of porpant laden back flow.

All things in moderation!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 24, 2014 at 4:03

Anit-regulation as with anti -tax sentiment as a general position is irrational and counter productive.  You're right the devil is in the details.  However I'm not convinced that the current administration is the problem.  Lots of folks didn't like the EPA during prior administrations.  Any debate about what is appropriate regulation runs into problems with parsing the terms. I wouldn't suggest that the fractivists have given up on claiming frac fluids contaminate shallow depth aquifers by migration from the frac zone thousands of feet below.  Their attempt to argue that point may be made more difficult because of scientific studies.  Many EPA opponents are climate change deniers who ignore the overwhelming preponderance of science in the same way that the fractivists ignore the science that threatens their view..  Those with extreme positions on the subject of EPA regulations are not necessarily  motivated by facts and science.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page