Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 30, 2011 at 8:19

Les,  do you know if the 12,800" permitted Wildcat depth would be SMK or Norphlet in that portion of Harrison County?

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on March 30, 2011 at 15:42

Skip, I do not have enough information in Texas to know formation depths below the Haynesville Shale.

Permalink Reply by Josh on March 30, 2011 at 10:37

Without getting into a lengthy technical explaination regarding large (high molecular weight) organic molecules particularly hydrcabons, here's why I have trouble believing this:

 

1. We know the Haynesville's temp. in the area is +300 F (148.9 C). This mystery formation is below the Haynesville so it will have a higher temperature..

 

2. See attached picture. Oil, which consists primarily of high molecular weight molecules, is broken down to more basic molecules (hexanes and smaller) at those temperatures which exist mostly in the gas state at atmospheric pressure (on surface).

 

 

Because of the pressures that the hydrocarbons are exposed to in formation, not all of the oil would be broken down to the smaller molecules, but the majority of it would.  This is the reason that Cotton Valley and Haynesville wells in the area make oil/condensate which is extremely "light".  It would be safe to assume that any formation below the Haynesville would makes less barrels oil per million cubic feet of gas, just as the Haynesville makes less barrels oil per million feet of gas than does the Cotton Valley.

Following that logic, the idea that a formation at that depth and temperature could produce the volumes of natural gas liquids that the rumor mills have been producing (+2000 bbls/day) is very difficult to swallow.  it would require the gas flow rates beyond that of any existing Haynesville horizontal (the two wells in question are vertical). It's hard not to be sceptical of these rumored results, even thought it would be a great thing for the area.

 

Thoughts...?

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 30, 2011 at 10:48

I agree, josh.  Oil at that depth is unlikely in the quantities rumored.  If productive, I would expect relatively dry gas.  We have had the "Oil Window" debate here on the site a number of times over the years.  The "Oil Below The Haynesville" rumor in its myriad forms is like the Energizer Bunny.

Permalink Reply by Josh on March 31, 2011 at 2:41

I've largely stayed out of the previous discussions in the past, but I just couldn't refrain this time.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 31, 2011 at 2:52

Those discussions are how members learn.  And can be quite entertaining as I'm sure you have seen.  Those that follow the regular contributors here on GHS soon learn that members like Jay (Shalegeo) and Les B., just to name a few,  are extraordinarily knowledgeable and have many years of experience in the industry.  Please don't hesitate to join discussions in the future, josh.

Permalink Reply by Joe Hahn on March 30, 2011 at 10:44

Les,

I have heard from 3 different people (believed to be credible) in the last two years of what they term as a "large fine" oil discovery beneath the Haynesville Shale, but technology was not available to recover?  I also heard that the recent seismograph activity was geared toward getting maps on this find rather than the limits of the Shale?  Is the oil find you are perhaps referencing in this post?

Permalink Reply by Joe Hahn on March 30, 2011 at 10:49

Les,

I am referencing NW La.

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on March 30, 2011 at 15:11

Joe, I believe the activity in Harrison County is recent and may be unrelated to some of the older rumors in NWLa.  But it is still too early to understand the geographic size of any oil discovery in Harrison County and the geologic details such as formation, conventional -vs- unconventional, etc.  Only time and additional drilling will reveal the true picture. 

Permalink Reply by v on March 30, 2011 at 11:29

Just wondering why there is oil 25000' under the gulf and not here? Wouldn't the temps be the same?

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 30, 2011 at 12:03

v, google the oil window.  The key is temperature and pressure.  Normally both are functions of depth but there are exceptions such as formations under the sea and on land formations below massive salt formations.  At whatever depth the bottom hole temperatures surpass 400 degree F, the conditions are not favorable for hydrocarbons.

Permalink Reply by v on March 30, 2011 at 14:32

(Bloomberg) -- Brazil's plan to become one of the world's biggest oil exporters hinges on exploiting crude 6 miles below the ocean surface in deposits so hot they can melt the metal used to carry uranium to nuclear plants.

Tapping what may be the biggest oil finds in the Western Hemisphere in three decades will require equipment that can withstand 18,000 pounds per square inch of pressure, enough to crush a pickup truck, pipes that can carry oil at temperatures above 500 degrees Fahrenheit (260 Celsius) and drill bits that can penetrate layers of salt more than one mile thick.

Petroleo Brasileiro SA, the state-controlled oil company, is betting on the Tupi and Carioca fields to become one of the world's seven biggest crude exporters. Until the tools needed to exploit the reservoirs are invented, the crude will remain locked under the sea, said Matt Cline, a U.S. Energy Department economist.

``This is a very, very technically challenging environment where no one's ever done this,'' Cline, who tracks the Latin American oil industry, said in a telephone interview from Washington. ``These discoveries are in very deep water, and once you get to the seabed they are very deep under the floor, with a layer of salt that is definitely a difficult barrier.''

Brazil's oil will be harder to develop than the Gulf of Mexico, where the deepest wells are now in production, Cline said. Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp., the two biggest U.S. oil companies, saw diamond-crusted drill bits disintegrate and steel pipes crumple when they attempted to tap deposits beneath the Gulf's seafloor two years ago.

Uncharted Depth

Pumping oil from the Brazilian finds, parts of which are 32,000 feet (10,000 meters) below the ocean's surface, will require boring almost twice as far down as the world's deepest producing offshore well.

The obstacles will discourage development unless crude prices stay high, said Tina Vital, an analyst at Standard & Poor's in New York. U.S. oil futures, which reached a record at $119.93 a barrel in after-hours electronic trading yesterday, have jumped 81 percent in the past year.

Engineers will have to overcome temperatures that range from near freezing above the ocean floor to temperatures that can melt bismuth, used for transporting uranium rods and for shotgun shells. Layers of salt will also increase the challenge because the crystals absorb seismic waves used to pinpoint oil deposits.

Seismic Issue

``The seismic issue is important because if you don't identify the location of the oil properly, you're going to waste a lot of money when you drill the hole in the wrong spot,'' said Vital, a former Exxon engineer.

Brazil pumped 2.13 million barrels of oil a day in the last three months of 2007, more than OPEC members Angola, Libya and Algeria.

Tupi, 155 miles (250 kilometers) off Brazil's coast, may begin production by 2012, according to consulting firm Strategic Forecasting in Austin, Texas. The field may have 8 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

No start date has been set for Carioca, which Petroleo Brasileiro said will take at least three months to evaluate. A Brazilian regulator said this month the reservoir may have 33 billion barrels.

If confirmed by further drilling, the reserves will be triple the size of Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, the largest U.S. field.

Record Depth

The ocean-depth record for production was set last year by Anadarko Petroleum Corp. The company is extracting natural gas from beneath 8,960 feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico, where pressure measures 3,069 pounds per square inch, squeezing joints and tearing at seals.

``What we do at that water depth in the ocean is similar to NASA's space program, but they get to do it without any pressure trying to attack them,'' Kevin Renfro, production engineering manager at Woodlands, Texas-based Anadarko, said in a November interview.

Petrobras hasn't said how much it spent to sink wells at Tupi and Carioca. Similar drilling by Exxon and Chevron Corp. in the Gulf of Mexico cost $180 million to $200 million for each well.

``A big find might not be a good find if it costs so much to develop that it's not commercially viable,'' S&P's Vital said. ``We don't have any idea at all yet of all the costs that are going to be involved. Those costs are going to set the floor for oil prices.''

$50,000 Drill Bits

Chevron, which has the deepest Gulf of Mexico exploration well, including distance below the seafloor, destroyed as many as a dozen $50,000 drill bits at each of the 14 wells in its $4.7 billion Tahiti project.

Exxon Mobil abandoned a Gulf project that would have been the deepest well after pressure and heat shut down the venture in August 2006. The Irving, Texas-based company developed pipes tough enough to withstand temperatures that would shatter regular steel at its Sakhalin-1 project in Russia. The metal may help make Brazil's offshore fields accessible, Vital said.

``These challenges in the Brazilian offshore area are too great for any one company or even country to be able to digest themselves,'' Vital said.

 

•  

Sponsored Links

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page