 | World Energy and Population: Trends to 2100 | The Oil Drum: Canada | The Finance Round-Up: October 17th 2007 |  |
User login
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
OilmanBob and I just discussed the following related to the Barnett and Fayetteville Shale Gas Plays in AR/TX.
Looks like EnCana thinks there's one in B.C.-
http://www.dogwoodinitiative.org/newsstories/bc-beckons-oilandgas
"You just know that when they pay that kind of money, they've got something," he said. "That's good for us. Our geologists tell us that the potential resource from shale gas is 250 trillion cubic feet, and that's just in B.C. Even if we recover just a portion of that, it's huge."
The two areas of interest are the Horn River Basin, which Mr. Neufeld says is the largest shale gas play in Canada, and the Cordova Embayment. In 2007 alone, companies have spent $40-million on leases in Cordova and $240-million over two years on leases in Horn River.
Gas trapped in shale is not a new resource, it has been overlooked in Canada in the past because it is difficult to produce compared with gas from other types of reservoirs. But significant volumes of natural gas are produced from gas shales in the United States.
"It's huge because it's shale," said Vic Levson, assistant executive director in the resource development and geoscience branch, Ministry of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources. "It's a completely new target.
"Five years ago people would have laughed you off the street if you said there'd be a huge land sale in shale."
This quote right here stands out:
"You just know that when they pay that kind of money, they've got something," he said. "That's good for us. Our geologists tell us that the potential resource from shale gas is 250 trillion cubic feet, and that's just in B.C. Even if we recover just a portion of that, it's huge."
The same was said in Arkansas. Reality has set in here.
Very limited potential in a small area of the Total Potential. And if gas doesn't go to $10, progress on that
will be measured.
Arkansaw of Samuel L Clemens
powder river basin (wyoming) coal gas prices:
jan '07 : $us 2.78 to 3.83/mmbtu
feb '07 : 4.83 to 5.66
mar '07 : 4.74 to 5.23
apr '07 : 2.18 to 3.08
may '07 : 3.65 to 3.82
jun '07 : 2.62 to 2.79
jul '07 : 1.99 to 2.85
elwooddelmore:
I've a friend who got 3 coalbed methane wells dug i the Powder River Basin, and he had to sell his gas for $2/MCF just to keep his farm-in. He sold his wells, and has got a real job now.
Bob Ebersole
Bob,
Care to add anything more on the Powder and Tongue coalbed methane fields?
Development of these fields has cost both Montana and Wyoming. The dirty, saline waters trapped in the beds must be vented from these fields. There are major water quality issues, and they have lowered water tables throughout the region. Montana's governor filed suit this year, claiming Wyoming was stealing their water. IMO, it highlights a smaller version of the problems tar sands will produce, Here, the water problems don't have near the contamination of Alberta, but look at the mess.
doug fir, i dont have any firsthand knowledge of the water quality in the coal seams but i have heard that it is suitable for livestock( and pronghorn antelope). but if the water being discharged is of a low quality, then the water table on the low quality water is being lowered. so which way is it, is it bad water being discharged or is it good water being depleted ?
oilmanbob, I dont have a real job either but the royalties from coalbed methane are sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet.
I do not have any firsthand knowledge either, relatives have spoken concern.
I do know the area is under a 10 year plus drought, so water is scarce irregardless. It creates alot of wiggle room for denial or "not responsible." The quality issue stems from untreated discharge, which is killing native vegetation along stream channels, creating saline creep, and killing fields among ranchers who have historically used these streams or rivers for irrigation. Existing surface water is usually of high quality, dumping all the overflow into it degrades it exponentially. The old saw-dilution is the solution to pollution-comes back to mind reversed.
There are several solutions, but only some operators are biting the bullet. I guess due to cost. First among these would would be re-injection or reverse osmosis. Unlined evaporation ponds are proving a boondoggle, from overflows and disposal of residue.
The companies and ranchers have been fighting in court for years. Enough said on that-allegations back and forth and only money is spent, little solution.
As to suitability for livestock and antelope, you can drink water, as I know from personal experience, that surface applied regularly kills. The evaporated salts are left on the surface and evaporation rates in the area are very high. Though I am not familiar with the Powder-Tongue area, I know in other areas water wells may be 500 ft deep, grabbing what we termed "geologic water" Compared to closer water or sweet springs, it's foul stuff. Add a softener, do what you have to.
I got on this board from a deep concern and worry about energy supplies. I like other views. I hate to throw out or belittle solutions. But we have to pay the cost, not find more externalities.