Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Dangerous Business

Another accident at rig in Haynesville Shale

12/30/2009

Associated Press

Chesapeake Energy Corp. says two contract workers were injured during equipment maintenance at a natural gas well in the final stages of completion in DeSoto Parish.

Company spokesman Kevin McCotter says one worker is being treated for a serious hand injury at LSU Health Sciences Center in Shreveport, and the other was treated for minor injuries.

McCotter says both men work for Bronco Oilfield Services of Longview, Texas.

The accident occurred about 9 p.m. Tuesday at a well operated by Chesapeake Operating, Inc.

Accidents at DeSoto Parish rigs for Haynesville Shale natural gas exploration have caused three deaths, several head injuries and one arm amputation since last year.

McCotter says the accident will be investigated

Monday, December 14, 2009

Exxon Is Now Into Shale Gas

I guess this confirms the viability of gas from shale, because XTO is/was one of the biggest players. It seems Exxon doesn't believe in global warming.....not any time soon.
Peter

Exxon Mobil Agrees to Buy XTO Energy for $41 Billion

Exxon Mobil said Monday that it has agreed to buy XTO Energy,

a natural gas producer, for $31 billion in stock and the

assumption of $10 billion in debt, in one of the biggest

energy mergers of recent years.

Read More:

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/exxonmobil-to-buy-xto-energy-for-41-billion/?emc=na

Friday, December 4, 2009

Shale Gas: A Quick Overview

The following is a good summary of how the shale is drilled and gas produced. (source)

Shale gas

Shale Gas: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

Whoever coined the phrase about having to sacrifice for your lunch could have been talking about energy. You name the source of energy and look into it and you'll find there are pros and cons about every one of them. We have been deluged with negative information about big bad oil companies and dirty, filthy coal. Now we're hearing about all this natural gas we can produce from shale rock in many places around the country (USA) and the world. What is the real story?

The following article is a good introduction to shale gas and how it has the potential, or even probability of changing America's energy picture. Why isn't the mainstream media paying more attention? Why are we bombarded with pictures and stories of how windmills and solar panels are the answer to our energy needs? I think the answer is in the forces that have been behind the great scandal going on over the myth of man-caused global warming. For more information on that subject, go here.
Peter


An energy answer in the shale below?
New technology opens vast stores of natural gas, and the land rush is on

By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 3, 2009 (source)

The first time Chesapeake Energy tried to buy mineral rights from Diana Whitmore, a 74-year-old retired real estate broker in southern New York, it offered her $125 for every acre of land plus a 12 percent royalty on whatever natural gas it extracts.

Nearly two years later, she's still holding out. Along with hundreds of other landowners, she has joined a coalition that is negotiating with nine oil and gas companies. The latest offers in the area are running as high as $5,500 an acre with 20 percent royalties.

"It's what's really going to turn this whole place around," said her son Daniel Fitzsimmons, who has since helped form the Binghamton Conklin Gas Lease Coalition.

This corner of the state is at the forefront of an old-fashioned land rush that has implications far beyond Conklin, N.Y. Oil and gas companies are vying to stake out territory where they can tap natural gas trapped in shale rock. Just a few years ago, the industry didn't have the technology to unlock these reserves. But thanks to advances in horizontal drilling and methods of fracturing rock with high-pressure blasts of water, sand and chemicals, vast gas reserves in the United States are suddenly within reach.

As a result, said BP chief executive Tony Hayward, "the picture has changed dramatically."

"The United States is sitting on over 100 years of gas supply at the current rates of consumption," he said. Because natural gas emits half the greenhouse gases of coal, he added, that "provides the United States with a unique opportunity to address concerns about energy security and climate change."

Recoverable U.S. gas reserves could now be bigger than the immense gas reserves of Russia, some experts say. The Marcellus shale formation, stretching across swaths of Pennsylvania, New York and West Virginia, has enough gas to meet the entire nation's needs for at least 14 years, according to an estimate by two Pennsylvania State University experts. Just in Broome County, N.Y., where Fitzsimmons lives, shale gas development could create $15 billion in economic activity, according to consultants hired by the county.

The country is carpeted with shale gas plays, including the Barnett in Texas, Fayetteville in Arkansas and Haynesville in Louisiana. Since 2000, gas from shale has grown from less than 1 percent of the nation's production to about 10 percent, according to the consulting firm PFC Energy, and it's picking up fast.

That's changing the energy and economic landscape from Broome County to the Gulf of Mexico. It could mean lower prices and reassurance to homeowners who heat with gas, or towns and companies with vehicle fleets running on the fuel. As winter begins, the price of natural gas is about a third of the level it was 14 months ago. Storage facilities are bursting.

With new supplies, the country will be less vulnerable to disruptions from Gulf Coast hurricanes and need to rely less on imports. Already, deliveries of liquefied natural gas from places such as Qatar, Nigeria and Trinidad are down 58 percent in 2008, idling costly U.S. terminals.

The prospect of new gas supplies at stable prices is also transforming debates over climate change. It deals another blow to proposals for new coal plants. And because gas plants can be switched on and off quickly, unlike coal and nuclear, natural gas could supplement wind and solar power facilities, whose output varies with the weather.

"Natural gas can serve as a bridge fuel to a low-carbon, sustainable energy future," said former Colorado senator Timothy Wirth, now head of the U.N. Foundation. Indeed, this year, coal use is down about 13 percent, while electricity demand has fallen only 5 percent and natural gas use has remained about steady.

But the prospect of widespread shale gas drilling is also driving wedges in the environmental community. Many environmentalists have sounded alarms about the chemicals that drillers use to fracture the rock and the danger of natural gas or other substances contaminating water supplies. A video posted on the Web shows a man in Fort Lupton, Colo., lighting a fire with the tapwater in his kitchen sink -- although it isn't clear what caused that problem.

Residents of New York City, which draws drinking supplies from a large watershed that reaches up to the Catskill Mountains, have protested, and Chesapeake Energy has voluntarily announced that it would not drill in the watershed. Gov. David A. Paterson (D) has declared a moratorium on drilling until the state's Department of Environmental Conservation issues rules, which are open for public comment. A raucous meeting in Manhattan last month ended before even a third of the people who wanted to comment got a chance to speak.

"This is probably the biggest thing to happen to the state of New York since the initial clearing by settlers," said Wes Gillingham, executive director of the Catskill Mountainkeeper.

In north Texas, some people are also wondering whether drilling in the Barnett shale is to blame for a series of barely perceptible but highly unusual earthquakes now being investigated by geologists.

Yet other environmental groups favor developing gas to displace coal. "There are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed," said Bruce Nilles, a lawyer at the Sierra Club. But, he added, new natural gas supplies could be a "game-changer" in the battle against coal plants.

Nilles said New York's 20 coal plants largely burn Appalachian coal from areas with mountaintop removal. "The status quo means continuing to destroy the oldest mountain range in the country," he said.

Credit for discovering that gas could be economically extracted from shale generally goes to George Mitchell, former head of Mitchell Energy. In the early 1980s, as the company's production was declining, Mitchell and his geologists started experimenting with "hydraulic fracturing" -- blasting underground layers of shale with a mixture of water, chemicals and sand to crack the rock and get gas flowing out of it.

"Mitchell had hired an investment banking firm in 1999 to see if anyone wanted to buy them," recalled Larry Nichols, chief executive of Devon Energy. "Devon and everyone else looked and said, 'No, that technology doesn't work.' We, like everyone else, turned up our noses."

Three years later, Devon paid $3.1 billion to acquire Mitchell. It combined hydraulic fracturing with horizontal drilling, which enabled a single well to turn, follow a seam of shale for up to two miles and produce much more gas. Now a quarter of the natural gas produced by Devon, a $30 billion company, comes from shale.

Historically, most of the natural gas produced in the United States came from relatively small pockets in porous rock. The oil and gas industry has been "eternally searching for relatively small traps," Nichols said. Shale, by contrast, is widespread and hard to miss. "Devon has drilled 4,000 wells in the Barnett and is planning 4,000 more, at least. And we have not drilled a dry hole," Nichols said.

The stakes are high for companies and consumers, as well as the environment. Shale gas has already added billions of dollars to the value of companies like Devon, but it unsettles people living in scenic portions of Pennsylvania and New York, which were the first places oil was discovered but which have been relatively undisturbed for decades.

Some people are just happy about the money. Fitzsimmons, for example, suffers from arthritis and has a nonverbal autistic 18-year-old son. He and his family own 185 acres. "If you're a property owner, it's amazing," he said. "Even some of the ones who are members of these organizations that are supposedly against it -- when it comes time to get a check on their property, suddenly they're all for getting the check."

Hydraulic Fracturing And Shale Gas

The gas industry needs to be honest and open about the hydraulic fracturing process. The public is understandably skeptical and the environmental media love to exxagerate and inflame people's passions by scaring them in any way they can.

This much we have learned from the battle (that continues) to expose the fraud-based myth of man-caused global warming. The gas industry must maintain the moral high ground while exposing the lies, unethical and illegal behaviour of climate "scientists" exposed in the recent Email and computer code leak from the CRU in England. See here for more information on the great global warming scandal.

Hydraulic fracturing can be and has been done safely for decades. Groundwater acquifers used by people are very well protected. There needs to be an education effort aimed at the concerned public about the basics of subsurface hydrogeology. That said, these shale gas developments and hydraulic fracturing activities need to be monitored in a honest and sensible way. Ask the people living in the Barnett Shale area of north Texas, or the Haynesville Shale Play area in northwestern Louisiana if they oppose gas development and hydraulic fracturing. You can bet they like it.
Peter

Drilling right into a heated environmental debate

By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 3, 2009 (source)

Oil and gas companies have figured out how to turn shale rock into natural gas gushers, but they have also hit a deep well of anxiety about the environmental impact of drilling in some of the country's most scenic areas.

The debate revolves around a technique known as hydraulic fracturing, which unlocks natural gas by shattering shale rock with high-pressure blasts of water, chemicals and sand.

Starting up a well requires 3 million to 7 million gallons of water. Drillers mix in chemicals that environmentalists say can imperil rivers and springs. Critics say natural gas can seep into drinking supplies, too.

Large volumes of water, containing leftover chemicals and mineral waste, return to the surface once a well is complete; that water requires safe disposal or treatment. Residents fear accidents, even if firms take precautions such as using steel tanks.

Cabot Oil & Gas has been mired in two disputes. Earlier this year, residents of the Dimock, Pa., area reported evidence of natural gas in their water supplies. Inspectors from the state's Department of Environmental Protection discovered that the casings on some of Cabot's gas wells were cemented improperly, allowing contamination.

On Sept. 16, Cabot's contractors, Baker and Halliburton, spilled 7,980 gallons of fluids in Dimock. Cabot said that it included only 0.5 percent chemical lubricating "gel" and that the mixture was "not hazardous or dangerous." But the DEP suspended the company's drilling activities.

Gas exploration companies say that proper drilling techniques seal off wells with concrete and that the shale layer is a mile or more below drinking-water aquifers, providing protection. Moreover, they assert, the water pumped underground contains only a tiny percentage of chemicals. Once the rock is fractured, no further water is needed. Larry Nichols, chief executive of Devon Energy, said the water needed to "frac" a well equals what's needed to water a golf course or fill three Olympic swimming pools.

What chemicals are used isn't clear. In 2005, Congress exempted chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act and said firms need not disclose the chemicals, which are often viewed as trade secrets. This is widely known as the "Halliburton loophole," after the company whose former chief executive, Dick Cheney, was then vice president.

The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, a nonprofit group run by Florida public health advocate Theo Colborn, has identified 344 hazardous chemicals used in fracturing, including 2-butoxyethanol and formaldehyde. Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.) and three House members have introduced bills that would repeal the exemption.

"The environmentalists have come out with long chemical names, but most are in baking soda and things we have around our houses," Nichols said.

Some companies are voluntarily disclosing the chemicals they use. "We as an industry need to demystify [hydraulic fracturing]," Chesapeake Energy chief executive Aubrey McClendon told a conference, according to Reuters.

Oilfield services giant Schlumberger said it is developing "green" fracturing fluids. Range Resources said it has figured out how to recycle 100 percent of the waste water from drilling.

Many environmentalists aren't satisfied. "While toxic chemicals may be found in commonly used household products, they should not be in a home's drinking water," said a report by Environment America. The group's legislative director, Anna Aurilio, said, "Natural gas might be a little cleaner than coal, but drinking water is precious to us."

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Shale Gas, Why It Is So Important

America's Natural Gas Revolution

A 'shale gale' of unconventional and abundant U.S. gas is transforming the energy market. (source)

The biggest energy innovation of the decade is natural gas—more specifically what is called "unconventional" natural gas. Some call it a revolution.

Yet the natural gas revolution has unfolded with no great fanfare, no grand opening ceremony, no ribbon cutting. It just crept up. In 1990, unconventional gas—from shales, coal-bed methane and so-called "tight" formations—was about 10% of total U.S. production. Today it is around 40%, and growing fast, with shale gas by far the biggest part.

The potential of this "shale gale" only really became clear around 2007. In Washington, D.C., the discovery has come later—only in the last few months. Yet it is already changing the national energy dialogue and overall energy outlook in the U.S.—and could change the global natural gas balance.

From the time of the California energy crisis at the beginning of this decade, it appeared that the U.S. was headed for an extended period of tight supplies, even shortages, of natural gas.

While gas has many favorable attributes—as a clean, relatively low-carbon fuel—abundance did not appear to be one of them. Prices had gone up, but increased drilling failed to bring forth additional supplies. The U.S., it seemed, was destined to become much more integrated into the global gas market, with increasing imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG).

But a few companies were trying to solve a perennial problem: how to liberate shale gas—the plentiful natural gas supplies locked away in the impermeable shale. The experimental lab was a sprawling area called the Barnett Shale in the environs of Fort Worth, Texas.

Getty Images

The companies were experimenting with two technologies. One was horizontal drilling. Instead of merely drilling straight down into the resource, horizontal wells go sideways after a certain depth, opening up a much larger area of the resource-bearing formation.

The other technology is known as hydraulic fracturing, or "fraccing." Here, the producer injects a mixture of water and sand at high pressure to create multiple fractures throughout the rock, liberating the trapped gas to flow into the well.

The critical but little-recognized breakthrough was early in this decade—finding a way to meld together these two increasingly complex technologies to finally crack the shale rock, and thus crack the code for a major new resource. It was not a single eureka moment, but rather the result of incremental experimentation and technical skill. The success freed the gas to flow in greater volumes and at a much lower unit cost than previously thought possible.

In the last few years, the revolution has spread into other shale plays, from Louisiana and Arkansas to Pennsylvania and New York State, and British Columbia as well.

The supply impact has been dramatic. In the lower 48, states thought to be in decline as a natural gas source, production surged an astonishing 15% from the beginning of 2007 to mid-2008. This increase is more than most other countries produce in total.

Equally dramatic is the effect on U.S. reserves. Proven reserves have risen to 245 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) in 2008 from 177 Tcf in 2000, despite having produced nearly 165 Tcf during those years. The recent increase in estimated U.S. gas reserves by the Potential Gas Committee, representing both academic and industry experts, is in itself equivalent to more than half of the total proved reserves of Qatar, the new LNG powerhouse. With more drilling experience, U.S. estimates are likely to rise dramatically in the next few years. At current levels of demand, the U.S. has about 90 years of proven and potential supply—a number that is bound to go up as more and more shale gas is found.

To have the resource base suddenly expand by this much is a game changer. But what is getting changed?

It transforms the debate over generating electricity. The U.S. electric power industry faces very big questions about fuel choice and what kind of new generating capacity to build. In the face of new climate regulations, the increased availability of gas will likely lead to more natural gas consumption in electric power because of gas's relatively lower CO2 emissions. Natural gas power plants can also be built more quickly than coal-fired plants.

Some areas like Pennsylvania and New York, traditionally importers of the bulk of their energy from elsewhere, will instead become energy producers. It could also mean that more buses and truck fleets will be converted to natural gas. Energy-intensive manufacturing companies, which have been moving overseas in search of cheaper energy in order to remain globally competitive, may now stay home.

But these industrial users and the utilities with their long investment horizons—both of which have been whipsawed by recurrent cycles of shortage and surplus in natural gas over several decades—are inherently skeptical and will require further confirmation of a sustained shale gale before committing.

More abundant gas will have another, not so well recognized effect—facilitating renewable development. Sources like wind and solar are "intermittent." When the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine, something has to pick up the slack, and that something is likely to be natural-gas fired electric generation. This need will become more acute as the mandates for renewable electric power grow.

So far only one serious obstacle to development of shale resources across the U.S. has appeared—water. The most visible concern is the fear in some quarters that hydrocarbons or chemicals used in fraccing might flow into aquifers that supply drinking water. However, in most instances, the gas-bearing and water-bearing layers are widely separated by thousands of vertical feet, as well as by rock, with the gas being much deeper.

Therefore, the hydraulic fracturing of gas shales is unlikely to contaminate drinking water. The risks of contamination from surface handling of wastes, common to all industrial processes, requires continued care. While fraccing uses a good deal of water, it is actually less water-intensive than many other types of energy production.

Unconventional natural gas has already had a global impact. With the U.S. market now oversupplied, and storage filled to the brim, there's been much less room for LNG. As a result more LNG is going into Europe, leading to lower spot prices and talk of modifying long-term contracts.

But is unconventional natural gas going to go global? Preliminary estimates suggest that shale gas resources around the world could be equivalent to or even greater than current proven natural gas reserves. Perhaps much greater. But here in the U.S., our independent oil and gas sector, open markets and private ownership of mineral rights facilitated development. Elsewhere development will require negotiations with governments, and potentially complex regulatory processes. Existing long-term contracts, common in much of the natural gas industry outside the U.S., could be another obstacle. Extensive new networks of pipelines and infrastructure will have to be built. And many parts of the world still have ample conventional gas to develop first.

Yet interest and activity are picking up smartly outside North America. A shale gas revolution in Europe and Asia would change the competitive dynamics of the globalized gas market, altering economic calculations and international politics.

This new innovation will take time to establish its global credentials. The U.S. is really only beginning to grapple with the significance. It may be half a decade before the strength of the unconventional gas revolution outside North America can be properly assessed. But what has begun as the shale gale in the U.S. could end up being an increasingly powerful wind that blows through the world economy.

Mr. Yergin, author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, & Power" (Free Press, new edition, 2009) is chairman of IHS CERA. Mr. Ineson is senior director of global gas for IHS CERA.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Shell To Focus On Natural Gas

Shell has announced they are backing away from (presumably unprofitable) investments in "alternative" energy projects such as solar, wind and hydrogen, and putting their focus, and money into the worldwide development of natural gas. This formal announcement comes as no surprise because it has been coming for some time, see here: "Shell Goes Cold On Wind, Solar, Hydrogen.."
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE52G4SU20090317

This also indicates (in my opinion) that Shell isn't terribly concerned about any danger of man-caused global warming because of carbon dioxide emissions. It would seem that the thinkers and planners at the world's 2nd largest energy company are in distinct disagreement with the current Administration on energy policy. Shell is forging ahead while the Obama Administration seems to be living in some sort of past dreamland. These are interesting times.
Peter

The energy company of the future

08/10/2009

Speech given by Peter Voser, Chief Executive Officer, Royal Dutch Shell plc, at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington D.C. on Thursday 8, October 2009. An archived video webcast of this speech will become available shortly.

Amid concerns over energy scarcity and climate change, the wants, needs and aspirations of energy customers are changing. Shell’s response to this challenge is multi-faceted. We develop scenarios and share them with the outside world. We invest more in new energy projects than any other private company and spend more on Research & Development than any of our competitors. We develop new businesses, including in renewable energy. We help motorists to save fuel. And we are increasing our production of natural gas, the cleanest-burning fossil fuel. The most successful energy companies of the future will be those that stay ahead of the rising aspirations of energy customers, through innovation and by pushing the limits of what is possible. The race for better energy is on and Shell aims to be an industry leader.

This speech is available for online reading (see below) and as pdf download (PDF, 174 KB) - opens in new window. An archived video webcast - opens in new window of this speech will become available shortly via the Woodrow Wilson Center website.