Technology

  As some of you know I work for a fracking company. As a landowner I question a bit more than most.

So let me throw this out as no question is a dumb question when learning.

  We know that fracking as its called creates cracks in a formation and with the use of sand it holds these cracks open allowing oil to drain along with a path way for gas. (Trying to keep it simple) We know that wells are  best managed by finding the balance between pressure and flow. In older formations (such as the Clinton) that were repeatedly drilled these formations do not have the pressure they once had nor the production as a result.

 With horizontal drilling it opens up more ideas at least to me,lol. I doubt that all of the oil was drained out of the Clinton and believe that if horizontal drilling was used to say connect the dots (voids between the Clinton wells spaced 20 acres apart and fracked we would obtain more oil. 

 Ah the pressure problem. Suppose we use the gas pressure from a different formation? Say we drill into a deeper formation and channel that pressure into say a Clinton formation? We know how to separate the oil and liquids from a well, we know how to pressurize gas store gas and even inject it back into the earth for storage. Call it a loop if you will. 

  I personally have never heard of this but in some areas water is injected (not fracking) into oil fields to increase production so why couldn't we use gas the way nature uses it?

  OK oil engineers, geologist tear it apart if you want but I remind you some of the most intelligent scholars said man would never fly until a couple bicycle mechanics  proved them wrong.

Views: 1332

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Area Man on March 18, 2013 at 4:16am

Its a fine idea, and is definitely done (some CHK wells were energized using Co2 or Ar I believe).  The big issue is cost - do you justify the cost with the added production?

 

-AreaMan

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on March 19, 2013 at 2:54am

If a market exists and / or demand exists then the cost to recover the marketable resource will rise to cover the increased production costs.

Look at the example of gasoline refineries that shut-down to change over from summer to winter blends or vice-versa.  Either way the price at the pump rises to satisfy the market.

Costs are recoverable.

Recoverable costs are also reasons (excuses ?) to raise the price.

It's Capitalism (At it's best or worst ? That always depends on personal circumstance / perspective).

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on March 18, 2013 at 6:54am

Area Man made brief mention of CO2 flood as a means of enhanced recovery in aged oil fields.

Denbury Resources is the company that I consider one of the leaders in utilizing this technology (www.denbury.com).

They have produced this nice little 3 minute video offering a nice explanation of the process (from start to end):

http://vimeo.com/6537367

 

One limitation of CO2 flood has been obtaining a cheap source of CO2.

There is the potential to obtain this CO2 from power plant exhaust, and using this waste product in a manner that will remove it from the atmosphere.

 

JS

Permalink Reply by Tim Tarr on March 19, 2013 at 3:01am

Jack,

Thanks for the info on Denbury Resources. I've been waiting for this enhanced oil recovery in my area before the Marcellus. Now just waiting for some company to start using this low cost Marcellus methane for enhanced oil recovery in the "shallow" oil fields. I don't think water flooding has even been tried in my area.

Permalink Reply by John OBrien, landowner advocate on March 18, 2013 at 11:17pm

Billy,

Could it be that horizontals in the Clinton, where it is somewhat closer to the water table, would be more likely to contaminate said water source?   Hey, I don't know so I'm asking.  It does seem possible for high pressure, at shallow depths to cause problems.

Also, I have heard of Nitrogen being used.  True or not?

Permalink Reply by Keith A Williams on March 18, 2013 at 11:47pm

John,

The Clinton is much deeper that the fresh water table. In much of Ohio, the Clinton is below the Salina Group, a series of salt deposits, in many areas more than 1000 feet thick. Frack water is not getting through that!

Remember also, most of the Clinton wells have been being stimulated by Fracturing for many, many years. Lately water, before that Nitro.

Billy,

I believe the better formation to horizontal drill would be the source rock that the oil/gas originated in. Maybe the Queenston Shale?

Permalink Reply by Brian Powers on March 19, 2013 at 2:25am

Billy -

Many operators around the world use water, natural gas, or CO2 for pressure maintainance, secondary or tertiary recovery. Most of the projects that I worked on were in conventional reservoir types; at first thought, the ultra low permeability of the Marcellus would reduce the effectiveness of gas re-injection, and the cost would be prohibitively expensive.

 

Oxygen saturated water is very corrosive to most steels used in the business, so the Oxygen is usually scrubbed or chemically scavenged before injection, or corrosion resistant alloy steel piping is used. For gas injection, any amount of CO2 in excess of 4 or 5 percent becomes corrosive when mixed with water (it forms Carbonic acid (the same as acid rain).

 

I'm not trying to tear down your thought or idea, but rather to remind you of the reservoir engineering challenges involved along with the very high costs of the injection/ compression systems and the associated corrosion issues that occur.

 

Whoever can crack this nut in the ultra tight shale plays of the world will become very wealthy, indeed.

 

Brian

Permalink Reply by Brian Day on March 19, 2013 at 3:21am

Do such corrosive elements such as excessive CO2 or even oxygen ever occur in the natural gas itself?  Would this require a special, non corrosive pipe in the well itself, or perhaps the distibution line?

Permalink Reply by Brian Powers on March 19, 2013 at 8:46am

Brian -

Several of the fields that I worked in had CO2 in the natural gas, up to 5% by volume. Corrosion resistant alloy (CRA) steel  is considerably more expensive than the regular carbon steel typically used in wells, pipelines, etc., and many operators forego the extra cost of steel (pro-action) and deal with the sometimes negative consequences of corrosion after it occurs  (reaction).

In my experience, oxygen in the gas stream, while highly corrosive in the presence of free water, becomes highly explosive in the methane steam itself.

 

One field that I worked in had an appreciable amount of helium present  in the gas, which was extracted and injected into the National Helium Reserve in the Texas Panhandle  (Helium was a strategic element for the USA for many years, the reserve is now being depleted and sold off.)

 

Its a wonderful and diverse industry that we follow and work in.

 

Brian

Permalink Reply by Brian Day on March 19, 2013 at 9:05am

Thank you very much BP.  The reason that i asked was because I had heard a rumor of a well requiring some copper-lined piping.  Now, I thought the "copper lined" part of the rumor was a little far-fetched, but i did think there might be something in the gas or oils flowing from the well that would require a more durable, less corrosive pipe.  The rumor is still a mystery, but it is fun speculating a little.

Permalink Reply by Brian Day on March 19, 2013 at 9:17am

What about the Utica at 10 or 11 thousand feet?  Would that be too permiable for CO2, water, or natural gas injection?

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on March 19, 2013 at 11:06am

The Utica at 10 or 11 thousand feet would be (in all likelihood) overmature for Oil or NGLs.

The Utica at 10 or 11 thousand feet would have very little permeability.

The Utica at 10 or 11 thousand feet might well be overmature for Natural Gas.

 

All IMHO,

                  JS

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service