Global Warming Cont...

[Guisslapp]

Besides, my wife and I just discovered we have made one more than our two replacements.

Congrats

[Dawgbitten]

thank you

[9701Dawg]

IMO, there are no easy fixes and a combination of both along with huge investments by our government in research for technological solutions would be my idea.

This should be something where everyone comes together for a common goal, but when the two (dems. vs. Rep.) are as polar opposites on this topic as I have read them to be, no solutions will be forthcoming in the near future.

Things already being done to advance technology. It doesn't take the government, as the dems and reps would have you believe, to make change happen and technological innovations to occur.

[DogtorEvil]

Besides, my wife and I just discovered we have made one more than our two replacements.

Congratulations, you dawg you!

[Bill Pup60]

Thanks for that explanation. If we could change to an off-topic question. What kind of gas reservoirs would one usually find at deep levels, say 22,000 ft. Would such reservoirs contain more than a reservoir at 12,000 ft or does it have more to do with the porsity of the rock no matter what the depth? At that depth of 22k, how large of area would one well drain, assuming it was at the top of the structure.

The 2nd question concerns that recent deep Gulf well that some people indicated a reservoir of 15 billion barrels of crude. What's your take on that estimate?

Well Salty, in general, the deeper the reservoir the more dense the gas since it's at a higher in-situ pressure and thus a given amount of reservoir pore volume would contain more gas (measured in surface units). So all other things being equal, the deeper reservoir would contain more gas. Obviously the porosity is a key here, since that is the most critical value in determining the volume of gas in place. Having said all that , there are sometimes pressure gradient anomalies where a reservoir can have a higher pressure at a depth much shallower than the normal gradient would dictate. ( A good example of this is found in some areas of the North Louisiana Cotton Valley formations -- not too far NE of Ruston.) These "over-pressured" formations can be heck to deal with from a drilling standpoint.

As for how much reservoir volume a single well could efficiently drain, that depends more on the permeability of the rock, in other words, how well are the pore spaces connected. There are obviously other factors as well, but the main ones are porosity, permeability, and pressure. In general, deeper gas reservoirs at higher pressures contain a richer gas that will yield more condensate liquids.

As for your 2nd question, I would say the 15 billion number is way too high. In geneal after a brand new discovery, the "estimates' are based purely on geophysics based mapping that at best gives an upper limit as to what's there in terms of the very best possible outcome, which almost never happens.( these are the numbers the media love to report.) At the other end of the spectrum, the reservoir engineers generally understimate the size based on the first well or so as their information is very limited. In the long run the ultimate recoverable reserves from a new discovery generally fall somewhere in between, normally toward the lower end of the spectrum. Based on this, and a tiny bit of inside info, since my company is the one who discovered it, my wild guess (and that's all it is) at this point would be somewhere in the 3 to 5 billion range . But that's still a true giant for North America.

[saltydawg]

Well Salty, in general, the deeper the reservoir the more dense the gas since it's at a higher in-situ pressure and thus a given amount of reservoir pore volume would contain more gas (measured in surface units). So all other things being equal, the deeper reservoir would contain more gas. Obviously the porosity is a key here, since that is the most critical value in determining the volume of gas in place. Having said all that , there are sometimes pressure gradient anomalies where a reservoir can have a higher pressure at a depth much shallower than the normal gradient would dictate. ( A good example of this is found in some areas of the North Louisiana Cotton Valley formations -- not too far NE of Ruston.) These "over-pressured" formations can be heck to deal with from a drilling standpoint.

As for how much reservoir volume a single well could efficiently drain, that depends more on the permeability of the rock, in other words, how well are the pore spaces connected. There are obviously other factors as well, but the main ones are porosity, permeability, and pressure. In general, deeper gas reservoirs at higher pressures contain a richer gas that will yield more condensate liquids.

As for your 2nd question, I would say the 15 billion number is way too high. In geneal after a brand new discovery, the "estimates' are based purely on geophysics based mapping that at best gives an upper limit as to what's there in terms of the very best possible outcome, which almost never happens.( these are the numbers the media love to report.) At the other end of the spectrum, the reservoir engineers generally understimate the size based on the first well or so as their information is very limited. In the long run the ultimate recoverable reserves from a new discovery generally fall somewhere in between, normally toward the lower end of the spectrum. Based on this, and a tiny bit of inside info, since my company is the one who discovered it, my wild guess (and that's all it is) at this point would be somewhere in the 3 to 5 billion range . But that's still a true giant for North America.

BillPup, thanks for that clear explanation on my O&G questions. Getting back to the climate models, based on your previous comments, it would appear that given the range of possible outcomes, a particular model outcome that is released to the public might be viewed as conservative if the real world data is higher than that predicted, but that if the model predictions are high and the data reported is lower, the skeptics can say that AGW is not as bad as what the modelers were predicting, hence casting doubt on the validity of AGW. Would you agree with that statement?

[TECH88]

Well Salty, in general, the deeper the reservoir the more dense the gas since it's at a higher in-situ pressure and thus a given amount of reservoir pore volume would contain more gas (measured in surface units). So all other things being equal, the deeper reservoir would contain more gas. Obviously the porosity is a key here, since that is the most critical value in determining the volume of gas in place. Having said all that , there are sometimes pressure gradient anomalies where a reservoir can have a higher pressure at a depth much shallower than the normal gradient would dictate. ( A good example of this is found in some areas of the North Louisiana Cotton Valley formations -- not too far NE of Ruston.) These "over-pressured" formations can be heck to deal with from a drilling standpoint.

As for how much reservoir volume a single well could efficiently drain, that depends more on the permeability of the rock, in other words, how well are the pore spaces connected. There are obviously other factors as well, but the main ones are porosity, permeability, and pressure. In general, deeper gas reservoirs at higher pressures contain a richer gas that will yield more condensate liquids.

As for your 2nd question, I would say the 15 billion number is way too high. In geneal after a brand new discovery, the "estimates' are based purely on geophysics based mapping that at best gives an upper limit as to what's there in terms of the very best possible outcome, which almost never happens.( these are the numbers the media love to report.) At the other end of the spectrum, the reservoir engineers generally understimate the size based on the first well or so as their information is very limited. In the long run the ultimate recoverable reserves from a new discovery generally fall somewhere in between, normally toward the lower end of the spectrum. Based on this, and a tiny bit of inside info, since my company is the one who discovered it, my wild guess (and that's all it is) at this point would be somewhere in the 3 to 5 billion range . But that's still a true giant for North America.

I'm not an expert in this field by a long shot, but apparently you are. I have worked summers as a mudlogger drilling in the Barnett Shale area south of Fort Worth and fortunately our family does have several interests in natural gas wells in Lincoln Parish. Drilling to depths of 22k on land would be a major expense for the exploration company. The geologists would have to make damn sure there's a substantial reservoir before they would go ahead with something this costly.

Btw, you're right about the CV formations, I was offered a position a little closer to Ruston but told them no thanks. The Barnett Shale formations are much safer and easier to drill IMO.

[Bill Pup60]

I'm not an expert in this field by a long shot, but apparently you are. I have worked summers as a mudlogger drilling in the Barnett Shale area south of Fort Worth and fortunately our family does have several interests in natural gas wells in Lincoln Parish. Drilling to depths of 22k on land would be a major expense for the exploration company. The geologists would have to make damn sure there's a substantial reservoir before they would go ahead with something this costly.

Btw, you're right about the CV formations, I was offered a position a little closer to Ruston but told them no thanks. The Barnett Shale formations are much safer and easier to drill IMO.

Your point about the expense is very valid. Drilling to 22K anywhere is VERY expensive! Actually it's a lot costlier offshore. And -- in spite of much more advanced technology today -- there are still a lot of dry holes drilled and the cost is enormous. Isn't it funny that all the bleeding hearts who want to take "greedy Bil Oil's" profits away don't seem to raise an eyebrow about the huges losses and risk of this high stakes business.

[Bill Pup60]

BillPup, thanks for that clear explanation on my O&G questions. Getting back to the climate models, based on your previous comments, it would appear that given the range of possible outcomes, a particular model outcome that is released to the public might be viewed as conservative if the real world data is higher than that predicted, but that if the model predictions are high and the data reported is lower, the skeptics can say that AGW is not as bad as what the modelers were predicting, hence casting doubt on the validity of AGW. Would you agree with that statement?

If you're saying what I think you're saying, Salty, I think I would agree with what you said.

My main problem with what's being reported is that NONE of the extremely high uncertainty in any of these predictions is being addressed.

[saltydawg]

Your point about the expense is very valid. Drilling to 22K anywhere is VERY expensive! Actually it's a lot costlier offshore. And -- in spite of much more advanced technology today -- there are still a lot of dry holes drilled and the cost is enormous. Isn't it funny that all the bleeding hearts who want to take "greedy Bil Oil's" profits away don't seem to raise an eyebrow about the huges losses and risk of this high stakes business.

I had an oilman in Dallas tell me that those deep exploratory wells have a good success rate because of all the modern technology. A lot of drilling risks for sure, like stuck pipe and hitting over-pressurized zones, but 3-D and HD 3-D plus the other tools cut the dry-hole risks down quite a bit. JMHO.

[Bill Pup60]

I had an oilman in Dallas tell me that those deep exploratory wells have a good success rate because of all the modern technology. A lot of drilling risks for sure, like stuck pipe and hitting over-pressurized zones, but 3-D and HD 3-D plus the other tools cut the dry-hole risks down quite a bit. JMHO.

Salty...

If you look closely you'll see that I said ... "In spite of the advances in technology........"
I was implying that those advances cut the risk, but it's still significant. I guesss I didn't do a very good job of conveying what I meant. Sorry. Although the success rate in actually finding hydrocarbons is much better than it was say 40 years ago, there are still a lot of dry holes drilled, and since the "low hanging fruit" was picked many years ago the stuff we're going after today is generally locazted in much more costly to operate areas and at much greater depths. So a single dry hole can be a huge loss. And the companies don't really do a lot of PR to highlight their dry holes.

I agree 100% that enhanced 3D seismic technology greatly enhances the chance of actually finding a hydocarbon deposit, but the only thing that actually proves it are wells drilled into the structure. ( Or stratigraphic trap.)

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Inconvenient Truths
Novel science fiction on global warming.

By Patrick J. Michaels

This Sunday,Al Gore will probably win an Academy Award for his global-warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth, a riveting work of science fiction.

The main point of the movie is that, unless we do something very serious, very soon about carbon dioxide emissions, much of Greenland’s 630,000 cubic miles of ice is going to fall into the ocean, raising sea levels over twenty feet by the year 2100.

Where’s the scientific support for this claim? Certainly not in the recent Policymaker’s Summary from the United Nations’ much anticipated compendium on climate change. Under the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s medium-range emission scenario for greenhouse gases, a rise in sea level of between 8 and 17 inches is predicted by 2100. Gore’s film exaggerates the rise by about 2,000 percent.


For entire article link below
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...mI5MGEwZTFhM2E=

[saltydawg]

Inconvenient Truths
Novel science fiction on global warming.

By Patrick J. Michaels

This Sunday,Al Gore will probably win an Academy Award for his global-warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth, a riveting work of science fiction.

The main point of the movie is that, unless we do something very serious, very soon about carbon dioxide emissions, much of Greenland’s 630,000 cubic miles of ice is going to fall into the ocean, raising sea levels over twenty feet by the year 2100.

Where’s the scientific support for this claim? Certainly not in the recent Policymaker’s Summary from the United Nations’ much anticipated compendium on climate change. Under the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s medium-range emission scenario for greenhouse gases, a rise in sea level of between 8 and 17 inches is predicted by 2100. Gore’s film exaggerates the rise by about 2,000 percent.


For entire article link below
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...mI5MGEwZTFhM2E=

I haven't see the movie so I can't comment about it. However, a rise in the sea level of 12 inches by 2100 would cause serious problems to States like Louisiana and Florida. The bigger problem is the sea level rise during the next 100 years.

The danger is that nobody really knows how the climate will respond to this un-natural massive short-term increase on CO2 levels.

[saltydawg]

Salty...

If you look closely you'll see that I said ... "In spite of the advances in technology........"
I was implying that those advances cut the risk, but it's still significant. I guesss I didn't do a very good job of conveying what I meant. Sorry. Although the success rate in actually finding hydrocarbons is much better than it was say 40 years ago, there are still a lot of dry holes drilled, and since the "low hanging fruit" was picked many years ago the stuff we're going after today is generally locazted in much more costly to operate areas and at much greater depths. So a single dry hole can be a huge loss. And the companies don't really do a lot of PR to highlight their dry holes.

I agree 100% that enhanced 3D seismic technology greatly enhances the chance of actually finding a hydocarbon deposit, but the only thing that actually proves it are wells drilled into the structure. ( Or stratigraphic trap.)

All I can tell you BillPup is that I read the drilling reports in the OK City paper and it is very rare to see a duster at 20k ft.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Salty...

If you look closely you'll see that I said ... "In spite of the advances in technology........"
I was implying that those advances cut the risk, but it's still significant. I guesss I didn't do a very good job of conveying what I meant. Sorry. Although the success rate in actually finding hydrocarbons is much better than it was say 40 years ago, there are still a lot of dry holes drilled, and since the "low hanging fruit" was picked many years ago the stuff we're going after today is generally locazted in much more costly to operate areas and at much greater depths. So a single dry hole can be a huge loss. And the companies don't really do a lot of PR to highlight their dry holes.

I agree 100% that enhanced 3D seismic technology greatly enhances the chance of actually finding a hydocarbon deposit, but the only thing that actually proves it are wells drilled into the structure. ( Or stratigraphic trap.)

Exactly BP60.