Shale Gas, The game changer.

[Pinner]

I remember when lots of natural gas vehicles were driving around Calgary, company cars and trucks.

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/b...oes-green.aspx

This is why it's a game-changer. The majors buying shale gas also control most of the American gasoline stations which means that they can bring about the gasification of transportation fuels and power generation.

The idea of using compressed natural gas instead of gasoline was the brainchild of Calgary's Jim Gray of Canadian Hunter in the 1980s. It's inexpensive to retrofit a car to use gas and easier on engines.

But the idea went nowhere because gasoline chains weren't interested and governments weren't concerned about the environment or about the cost of oil imports.
Shale gas supporters include ExxonMobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell and ConocoPhillips and those three are the biggest gasoline station marketers in the United States.

[burn_this_city]

I see bigger things from gasifying coal into diesel for transport fuel versus natural gas. People don't like driving around with gas pigs strapped to the underside of their car. I think the majority of these supermajors are buying gas while its cheap for the long term price increase..

[Pinner]

I would think a gas cylinder (pig) is pretty safe, I'm sure I could jab a screwdriver through a conventional gasoline tank...

Witch would you rather BBQ with, gasoline or natural gas?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Pinner

I would think a gas cylinder (pig) is pretty safe, I'm sure I could jab a screwdriver through a conventional gasoline tank...

Witch would you rather BBQ with, gasoline or natural gas?

Natural gas, but that's because it burns cleaner. And my BBQ isn't likely to crash into other BBQs.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by SebC

Natural gas, but that's because it burns cleaner. And my BBQ isn't likely to crash into other BBQs.

And Im pretty sure we don't care about the flavor differences in internal combustion engines.

[Pinner]

Originally Posted by Ducay

And Im pretty sure we don't care about the flavor differences in internal combustion engines.

So what your saying is natural gas burns cleaner...

Originally Posted by SebC

Natural gas, but that's because it burns cleaner. And my BBQ isn't likely to crash into other BBQs.

I'm asking, is a gas cylinder really more dangerous that a gasoline tank? I don't think so.


The biggest problem with Shale gas is the mind boggling amount of water being wasted fracing the wells.

Recycling the flow back and production water is the only answer.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by SebC

Natural gas, but that's because it burns cleaner. And my BBQ isn't likely to crash into other BBQs.

Sounds like a pretty boring BBQ to me

[dustyanddaflames]

Pinner, you seem to have some knowledge on this topic, and I would like to ask you for your insight, as me being both a farmer and gas well operator - outside of legal paperwork, why isn't there anything being done with even produced water out of these wells for agriculture benefits?
We have had some wells tested (belly river water, and tested drinkable) but yet legislation says we as farmers aren't able to use it in our dugouts? Instead these companies pay to pump this good, workable water into the viking formations where it is no longer usable.
Thoughts?

[dustyanddaflames]

Originally Posted by fotze

Oil companies would blow a load if they were able to use produced water for agricultural use. The approval process is prohibitive. Plus I imagine if it were ever approved, the testing regime would be ridiculous, not to mention the stigma of water from a TOXIC oil well.

David Suzuki would be all over it saying that he was right about the oil companies spilling toxic water all over the surface. The oil company will gladly pay CCS ridiculous fees to just dispose of it and peace of mind.

It would help if the request came from farmers and not the oil company. I imagine if your Belly river water is dsrinkable you must be quite east of the Calgary range.

The best water would be that from coalbed methane (coal filtered), but the stigma there is ridiculous.

as far as shale gas, its not just water, its sand that is needed too.

You're bang on Fotze, after talking with a few peeps above the food chain, they said the same thing, that it would be of extreme benefit if the calling for the water came from the farmers themselves.
I am located 3 hours east of Calgary, and ya we need that water bad. It's a shame it's all wasted the way it is.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by SebC

And my BBQ isn't likely to crash into other BBQs.

You're not doing it right.

[Pinner]

[QUOTE=dustyanddaflames;2428221]Pinner, you seem to have some knowledge on this topic.[QUOTE]

I really don't Dusty. I do realize what is about to happen in N.E. B.C. with the Montney and Horn river basins.

The flow back and produced water I'm talking about is polluted, and needs to be recycled for the next frac...

I suppose a big frac company will be able to clean the water up as part of the job, but I was hoping to see a smaller companies make some money. Halliburton,Trican, and the like have gotten fat enough and the employees don't seem to sick around long, what does that say ?

How clean does the water have to be to use it for a frac?

It shouldn't be "Rocket Science"

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Pinner

I'm asking, is a gas cylinder really more dangerous that a gasoline tank? I don't think so.

So I looked into it and apparently it is safer.

1) NG is requires a higher concentration and higher temperature in air to ignite.
2) Cylinders are rated to withstand a bonfire or a 0.30 callibre bullet.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by fotze

The key is, Exxonmobil don't spend 41 Billion dollars on a hunch (they don't spend 5000 dollars without having 47 layers of approvals). In the extremely unlikely case they are wrong, they will make sure they are right.

While I can only imagine you are insinuating that ExxonMobil may have some political swagger if need be and the pursuit of manipulating demand in North America (and I don't disagree)- I do think their XTO purchase was also partly to offset their declining production in Q4 last year and show that the markets that they're not completely asleep at the wheel.

I think we're set for some more interesting M&A activity this year. But yeah, if early predictors about Shale gas supply are correct, than North America may seriously want to consider heading towards this as a primary fuel source, it's a hell of a lot cleaner than coal or boiling drums of oil to create various liquids such as gasoline or any of the "ane's".

[macker]

It is 30% cleaner vs diesel and 50% cleaner vs coal. India has switched from diesel to natural gas to help with air quality problems and Iran is moving away from oil also towards nat gas. Natural gas is a domestic fuel and it helps get the US off of foreign oil. Consider that with Shale gas the US has the most natural gas in the world...more then Russia, Iran etc. The US imports 5 million barrels per day from countries that are not friendly to the US and that the State department recommends not travelling to so you can see where this is going.....8.5 million trucks in the US burning diesel so as they get older replace them with natural gas fitted trucks and this action alone would cut 2.5 million barrels of oil per day and would cut OPEC in half.

[Mad Mel]

Originally Posted by fotze

The best water would be that from coalbed methane (coal filtered), but the stigma there is ridiculous.

Is that true in Canada's geology? I work on a number of coal seam gas projects here, specifically on the water management side. Water management is THE issue with CSG (CBM for you guys). Two big problems: 1. Huge volume of water. 2. It's too saline to be useful water. Hell, it's too saline to discharge, it'll kill everything in it's path. So we build some big-ass ponds.

Another potential issue that the hydrogeologists are working on is whether removing that much water from the coal seams will depressurize adjacent aquifers of better water quality, which are being used for water supply.

Originally Posted by macker

It is 30% cleaner vs diesel and 50% cleaner vs coal. India has switched from diesel to natural gas to help with air quality problems and Iran is moving away from oil also towards nat gas.

And it gets better when you add some hydrogen to the natural gas. It burns even cleaner and more efficiently. Disclaimer: holds ASX:EDE.

[KTown]

[QUOTE=Pinner;2428312][QUOTE=dustyanddaflames;2428221]Pinner, you seem to have some knowledge on this topic.

I really don't Dusty. I do realize what is about to happen in N.E. B.C. with the Montney and Horn river basins.

The flow back and produced water I'm talking about is polluted, and needs to be recycled for the next frac...

I suppose a big frac company will be able to clean the water up as part of the job, but I was hoping to see a smaller companies make some money. Halliburton,Trican, and the like have gotten fat enough and the employees don't seem to sick around long, what does that say ?

How clean does the water have to be to use it for a frac?

It shouldn't be "Rocket Science"

But it can be very dangerous to clean the water, I am no expert on this but you have to use chemicals that are even far more dangerous than sour gas at low levels. Hence not making it very feasable for most companies and the risk might not out way the benefits. It would all depend on how many wells you plan on doing and how much fracing is required, I think there is some limits per year there, not 100% sure there, or it may be just for cost cutting.

For example I believe you can use a chemical like Acrolein but this chemical kills at 2 parts per million. I think you would also need quite the facility to make it feasable. Lots of large pumps, storage tanks, etc.

[SeeGeeWhy]

I am behind the curve on this market ever since moving into the bitumen world a few years ago. I do try to stay up on things however and a few interesting things I've seen in the past year included a presentation from the CFO of EnCana, and a breakdown of this month's CERA conference in Houston.

The EnCana CFO was discussing their move to peel out the oil properties and form Cenovus. Her discussion included an interesting tidbit about the golden horseshoe in Ontario and how that a company with the proper infrastructure might be able to create demand in the natural gas market by supplying transportation companies with an alternative to expensive gasoline and/or diesel. I thought that was an interesting idea and definitely shows that its not just the majors that are thinking about ways to help improve natural gas demand in North America.

CERA Week is a four day conference with day one usually dedicated to oil, day 2 to gas, day 3 to power generation/transmission, and day 4 to sustainable energy. Apparently all the head honcos could talk about on both day 1 and 2 was the 100+ year supply of natural gas in North America and how the population here will have to shift their energy mix to rely more on this source.

On the plus side, I think shale gas has generate a lot of value via landsales, m&a, horizonal drilling, stack fracing, and production. New lines are being built, new compression stations will be built, more operators are being hired. The petrochemical, power generation, and transportation industries should benefit from this supply. Other plays are being opened up with the same methodology (Bakken/Shaunavon, Cardium, Nikanassin, etc), which is pretty big for the industry.

On the negative side, I think the mentality of NA owners has definitely shifted to "resource play only" for the most part, meaning that the risky, deep exploration that has driven our business for decades will continue to decline. Someone has already mentioned the water use issues and lack of control on this use. I have to go through a flaming hoop of balls to get the water our company will need to generate steam on a SAGD project and God forbid that it is non-saline or surface water.

Also, I think the domestic gas supply will all but kill any LNG ambitions that any companies had prior to the technology shift that allowed the access to this play.

[Pinner]

I'm wondering how clean does the water need to be to reuse as frac water, flowback from one frac will or should be used for the next frac...

From what I understand the Shale gas is dry, so the water from a producing well would be flowback, but I guess to longer it stays downhole the dirtier it gets...

Like I said earlier, the amount of water being used fracing is mind blowing and obviously unsustainable without recycling water.

I wouldn't think it would be that difficult to filter the water to reuse for fracing ?

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by Pinner

I'm wondering how clean does the water need to be to reuse as frac water, flowback from one frac will or should be used for the next frac...

From what I understand the Shale gas is dry, so the water from a producing well would be flowback, but I guess to longer it stays downhole the dirtier it gets...

Like I said earlier, the amount of water being used fracing is mind blowing and obviously unsustainable without recycling water.

I wouldn't think it would be that difficult to filter the water to reuse for fracing ?

What do you mean by clean?

Clays are very sensitive to fresh water and shale is esstentially a mix of silty sand and clays. I'm not sure of the production mechanism in shale gas production i.e. does the gas flow to the wellbore via the sand lenses in the clays, with ultimate reserves being "fed" over time by the shale itself, or does the gas flow directly from the clay into the wellbore? This is somewhat important because VERY fresh water would cause any clay imbedded within the sand to "gum up" and prevent gas production all together. You need a certain level of salinity in order for the clays to remain stable and the sand to remain clean in conventional gas completions.

Shale gas is probably a different animal (again, I've never worked on these types of wells), with the sand proppant actually holding the clays open after they are "broken" by the pressure induced during the fracturing operation. In that case, I am not sure how you design your completion fluid.

Perhaps it is sensitive to certain types of ions, so you need very fresh water to make up specific blends of completion fluid that will prevent formation damage. Recycling the water on flow back is probably not economical when looking at the cost of processing plus waste disposal versus just trucking in new volumes from some supplier or pulling it out of a local surface source (lake, etc), or just producing water from a source well that you already have handy. Those supplies may be drinkable, but a high iron content might make it unsuitable, for instance.

Please take all of this with a grain of salt because I have no specific shale gas experience and haven't read any technical papers on specific completion/production issues. All I can say is that completion fluid design is very important and varies from formation to formation if done properly.

[Eagle Eye]

There are deep formations in which you can produce water for these large fracs, doesnt have to be surface or shallow water