Bishop Hill Outgassing
Jun 27, 2013 Energy: gas It looks as though we are going to finally get a look at the British Geological Survey's report on shale gas resources later today. The media seem to have got their hands on a press release and there are some big numbers being touted around:
UK shale gas resources may be far greater than previously thought, a report for the government says.
The British Geological Survey was asked to estimate how much gas is trapped in rocks beneath Lancashire and Yorkshire.
It said there could be 1,300 trillion cubic feet at one site alone, but it is unclear how much could be extracted.
With UK demand at slightly less than 3 tcf per annum, that looks like very good news, but of course the figure of 1300tcf (assuming the reports are correct) is not what will ultimately be extractable. There's an interesting exchange of views about these figures on Twitter, with Greenpeace's Damian Kahya (an ex-BBC journo) saying that we should be using a figure of 4% and the BBC saying 10%. Nick Grealy notes that the average in the USA is 18%, and one has to recognise that this incorporates all the older wells, in which relatively primitive fraccing approaches were used. Cuadrilla have said that 15-20% will ultimately prove to be a conservative estimate, as the technology improves, and numbers as high as 40% have been mooted by industry insiders.
I'm not sure this will even make a difference though. If there really is 1300tcf at one site alone, the amount of gas in place in the whole country must be so huge as to make the recoverable percentage somewhat irrelevant.
[Updated - the 40% figure covers good parts of the shale - the bits you decide to exploit. Some parts of the shale will be so unsuitable for exploitation they will not be touched at all.]
Bishop Hill
The BGS report is here. Interestingly, it covers the Bowland Hodder region only, rather than the UK as a whole. So the 1300tcf figure is only part of what's out there.
Reader Comments (111)
thinkingscientist
Drilling one very deep well is a lot cheaper than drilling multiple wells, in addition although the current extimate of shale thickness is about 6000 feet, Cuadrilla stated that it could be greater because they did not drill deeper after they reached shale depth of 6000 feet :)
Cuadrilla are also in possession of information about their license area that no other group has got:
Geophysical
Survey
The Geographical Survey of Fylde was completed by 22nd June 2012.
A Geophysical Survey is a study of the subsurface geology – that is, the various layers of rock beneath the surface.
Using advanced imaging technology, the Survey mapped the layers of rock in the region improving knowledge of subsurface geology.
The process can be likened to a submarine’s use of sonar to generate an image of what it cannot otherwise see. In this case, we built an image of the rock beneath the surface.
They know exactly what they are sitting on.
If the report and "the numbers" are now free for us base-born mortals to look at, is it the correct moment to ask what the numbers were (and how calculated) before the department of anticarbonites and climatearse wanted the BGS to 'redo' the numbers.
It's just that I am wondering if the numbers have changed at all, or if the definition of how they are calculated has changed at all, or neither, or both.
Picking up on my point at 10.42AM (along with oldtimer at 3:38 PM), the timing of this announcement by the Chancellor the day after the spending review is significant. I did not realise how significant, until I read Nick Grealy said in the comments to his article that the treasury take a 62% cut of the gas price. This is a huge revenue boost to the Treasury if shale gas increases gas usage. It will also drive economic growth, provide cheap back-up power for renewables, and fill the projected energy gap.
However, to obtain the fullest impact to the Treasury the government needs to act quickly, as other countries will exploit their much larger estimated reserves. Some of these will not have the planning regulations, labour costs or payments to the community that Osborne is imposing. Production elsewhere will impact the imported cost of gas - conventional and shale. One thing that needs to be ensured is that Britain ramps up production quickly from a number of different sources. Those in first will make large profits, as market prices will still be determined by conventional gas prices, and are likely to be well above production costs.
The other discussions about what is technically recoverable (particularly from thinkingscientist) are very interesting but largely irrelevant to what will be recovered. It is the economic cost of recovery that matters. Technically it might still possible to be self-sufficient in coal, but, it far cheaper to import from the mega open-cast mines in Australia. In terms of shale gas, there is a high investment cost in establishing a wellhead, and associated services. In the US this is about $50m according to a recent Horizon programme. As the Bowland formation is many times thicker than the Marcellus, the capital cost per unit of gas could be lower despite the extra planning and community costs.
@TerryS
Diesel from gas, a 3 or 4 years ago I watched Euro News in the mornings. One of the regular adverts was from an oil company, Total I think but that could wrong, saying how they were developing the diesel from gas technology. Do you have any idea how it is going as it is 50 years between you article and my TV adverts? The best I can find is here
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7815172/ns/us_news-environment/t/green-diesel-natural-gas-its-coming/#.UcyV4zTI1Ao
BryanBerlin dont hear of many rare birds getting killed by Shale Gas Drilling Rigs.
Fly over perch themselves up on the tower of the Drilling Rig .Then the birds look around see if there's any food, cats or any other birds to mate with ,They get bored and fly off.
So Entropic did the melting ice in the Arctic somehow mess up the Birds Natural Internal Navigation System and drive it hundreds of miles off course and that's how it got killed the Wind Turbine.
Not your fault Entropic
Its all because of Global Warming innit.
"The poor public image of shale gas extraction."
And just why do you think that is EM?
Surely not green misinformation?
SandyS; diesel from gas has been on the market for a while. Shell's "V-Max" diesel is produced from natural gas in a huge plant in Qatar. They are rumoured to be looking at a plant in the US and, of course, they have a refinery at Stanlow (or used to have?) just down the road from the Bowland area.....
J4R; two or maybe 3 LNG export plants are under construction in the US and Canada with something like another 20 in various stages of assessment and planning. However that is unlikely here as we are well connected (pun alert) to the European gas network.
Another thought......this stupendous resource figure is just the gas. Is it known that the Bowland is entirely "dry"? From the US experience, maybe there will be significant gas liquids and even oil. Now that really would be a bonanza.
MikeH
Thanks for that information interesting that it's not made more of by Shell.
SandyS; quite agree. A couple of years ago I happened to meet a Shell marketing guy who was responsible for V-max in the Benelux area. He was full of its virtues: frees up oil for other uses; virtually zero particulates; ditto sulphur; higher cetane rating; it even smells better. Baffling why they don't promote it more, especially as they are making a fortune with it.
The Qatar project cost around $19bn but it is generating revenues, after running costs, of around $8bn per year. And they hold the world-wide patents. Go well, go ..... (showing my age).
Don Keiller
County Fernanagh , just up the road from me, makes its living from tourism around Lough Erne and farming. You may have seen the area on television during the G8 coverage.
The local people are concerned that the 100 drill pads needed to exploit the shale gas reserves under Fermanagh, and the leakage of drilling fluid from a proportion of those wells, will reduce their income from tourism and agriculture more than any gain from shale gas.
Here's an opportunity for you.What detailed arguments can be used to reassure them and convince them that the risk is worthwhile?
MikeH
The Ulster shales are dry. If the Bowland Hodder shales were laid down under similar conditions they are probaly dry too.
Dung: "Drilling one very deep well is a lot cheaper than drilling multiple wells, in addition although the current extimate of shale thickness is about 6000 feet, Cuadrilla stated that it could be greater because they did not drill deeper after they reached shale depth of 6000 feet"
Dung, go and read the BGS report. They have a lot of experience and regional seismic data about expected depths and thicknesses. I was present at the DECC presentation at PETEX 2012. Its generic geology, but its based on knowledgeable regional understanding of the geology. Drilling deep wells requires rigs with sufficient depth capacity. Drilling into possible overpressure zones (as many US shale gas plays are) requires special precautins. Deep and overpressure will significantly increase the well cost.
Dung also says "Cuadrilla are also in possession of information about their license area that no other group has got:
Geophysical Survey
The Geographical Survey of Fylde was completed by 22nd June 2012.
A Geophysical Survey is a study of the subsurface geology – that is, the various layers of rock beneath the surface.
Using advanced imaging technology, the Survey mapped the layers of rock in the region improving knowledge of subsurface geology.
The process can be likened to a submarine’s use of sonar to generate an image of what it cannot otherwise see. In this case, we built an image of the rock beneath the surface.
They know exactly what they are sitting on."
Dung, as keen as you are, you do not know what you are talking about. A geophysical survey is not at all like a sonar survey. If its gravity (see the BGS report) it will give very broad estimates of basin thickness and outline. If its seismic (see the BGS report), it will give a good idea of the top and base of the shales and the structural architecture of the basin, nothing more. Geophysical surveys will tell you nothing about the likely gas resource other than gross rock volume (GRV) of possible shales. Cuadrilla are as much in the dark about what to expect until they drill as anyone else. The BGS report is a good general guide (and check out the earlier report from late 2012), but this is like all exploration in a new basin for a new play - the reserves are unknown and subjective. I have read the BGS report and it is about as professional and informative as one could expect. Their numbers are as good as anyone elses at this moment in time.
Cuadrilla know they are sitting on a pile of very thick shale that will almost certainly produce shale gas. So does everyone else. Other than that, until they drill, test and produce over a long term well test they know nothing more than anyone else.
I am very much in favour of exploiting shale reserves.
The US has reaped enormous beneffit fromtheir reserves. However, I understand that Poland has not been so successful. Does anyone know how Poland has fared, and if not particularly successful, why this is so?
Since all figures for reserves are guestimates, and since all figures for recovery are also guestimates, perhaps the best way of getting a feel on what may happen is to look at the experience of other countries who have taken steps to exploit their reserves of shale gas. Hence my question about Poland.
Entropic Man "The Ulster shales are dry. If the Bowland Hodder shales were laid down under similar conditions they are probaly dry too."
You should go and read the BGS report, [snip] You think the British Geological Survey knows less than you about the geology of the United Kingdom? You think that shales with TOC's of 3 - 8%, sitting in the thermal maturation window are dry?
Who are you - a geological expert?
[snip] So Entropic Man is now more expert than the professional geologists at the BGS? Give me break! [snip. Manners]
Richard Verney: "Since all figures for reserves are guestimates, and since all figures for recovery are also guestimates, perhaps the best way of getting a feel on what may happen is to look at the experience of other countries who have taken steps to exploit their reserves of shale gas. Hence my question about Poland."
Well, one can take other areas as analogues but the oil industry is quite used to making its own assessment of the economic value, assessing the risks and making the appropriate investment. The oil industry pays its own way and carries its own risk, all to bring the essential product of energy to fuel the growth of our economies. They have done this for over 100 years without subsidy and entirely in a free market. Read Daniel Yergin's "The Prize" for a historical perspective.
If oil companies think they can make money from Bowland shale, they will invest and drill. Watch this space. They don't require feed-in tariffs or windmill subsidies or anything else. They will use their own investment capital and carry their own risk.
Newsnight BBC - Thursday 27th. Allegra Stratton on shale gas and the lights going out etc.
Panel featuring, Minister for energy Michael Fallon, with some WWF gel and a bloke from IGas who was very lucid.
Fallon averred that, the lights would remain on in and after 2015........er wanna bet Micky?
WWF lady and some global rambling about saving the planet and then she was mentioning the
bollox report cobbled togetherlearned study - by some lads from this one I presume at Duke University - on shale gas contamination blah blah.All in all, typical BBC biased rubbish and a rather unsatisfactory report by Stratton, made worse by inadequate questioning of Fallon by Paxo [who were both out of their depth - aren't they all in the bbc and Westminster bar Peter Lilley?].
However, the IGas representative came across as astute and 'well' clued in - scuse the pun.
Apol's - can't dig up a link - Beeb i-player today maybe?
btw keep talking ThinkingScientist, I am enjoying shale gas instruction - thank you.
ThinkingScientist
In evidence to a government committee Richard Moorman, the Chief Executive of Tamboran Resources Ltd described the shale gas in the Northern Irish and Irish shales as "very dry". I am quite happy to take his word for it.
http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/Assembly-Business/Official-Report/Committee-Minutes-of-Evidence/Session-2011-2012/June-2012/Shale-Gas-Exploration--Tamboran-Resources-Ltd/
I have not yet had time to read the BGS report. Perhaps you could enlighten us on the state of the Bowland Hodder shales.
"btw keep talking ThinkingScientist, I am enjoying shale gas instruction - thank you"
Agree totally Athelstan.
Thinking Scientist,
Your posts seem to make a lot of sense. The fact is that drilling is the only way to know for sure what, or how much, is down there. I've worked on geotechnical engineering projects where even engineers who have worked in certain geographical areas for all of their careers, cannot predict exactly what overburden or shallow bedrock conditions will be at a certain site. I can only imagine that deeper depths will present even more uncertainty.
Enthropic Man,
As you mentioned, some members of the public believe that fracking for natural gas may lead to groundwater contamination issues. You did not specify your position on this matter and by not doing so you are giving the impression that you also believe this to be real environmental threat. I have spent quite a few years working in the field of contaminant hydrogeology; identifying, tracking and remediating DNAPL and LNAPL plumes of a variety of contaminants. I have spoken to several hydrogeologists on the topic of potential groundwater contamination as a result of fracking and in each and every instance these experts have indicated that properly installed and inspected wells should pose a negligible threat to groundwater conditions. Sealing and inspecting the seal of wells through overburden and shallow bedrock layers is not very difficult, in fact it must be done during every residential well installation. Granted a natural gas well will be deeper and the seal will need to withstand higher pressures, the principle will be exactly the same. Maybe you should tell the locals in your area to consult some hydrogeologists and contaminant hydrogeologists to better understand the real (minimal) risks involved. In addition you could tell them that their drinking water may even come from a water well which has been fracked. Many people don't realise that drinking water wells advanced in tight rock are often fracked to increase water production.
Thinking Scientist
Had a quick look at the BGS report. I note that the modal TOC from the sample frequency distribution on page 32 is 2.2%. Would you regard that as wet or dry?
Entropic Man, you are BitBucket and I claim my £5.
(Iz I right? )
Jun 28, 2013 at 12:32 AM | ThinkingScientist
//////////////////////////
I have commented on many occassions that the UK government need not be that concerned about the extent of reserves and/or what can be extracted. This is largely a risk that the oil company takes. The government can tender licences for fields on the basis of estimated reserves, and should the reserves be larger, the oil company has to pay an additional sum. that can be the format of the tender, and the tender can also make it clear that the oil company gets no rebate if the reserves turn out to be less than the estimate. The oil companies will no doubt commission their own independent/in house surveys before they tender.
I have on numerous occassions commented that there is no need for subsidies. The oil company will make its profit on joint ventures, and/or the sale of the gas.
I have also, in the past, pointed out that one substantial difference between the US and the UK is that in the US, the land owner, usually owns the mineral rights under their land. This enables the land owner to make important decisions as to what goes on, on their land. The UK has a different approach to mineral rights. This different approach might benefit the tax payer since the government can sell off licences (in the US the land owner, not the state, may receive up to 25%, but usually far less, of the profit on reserves extracted from their land), but it handicaps development due to red tape, planning and enevironmental issues that the government must, at the very least, pay some lip service to.
Shale is a win win stuation for the government and was something that it should have done on day 1. It should have encouraged development by cutting red tape, restricting local planning objections, and largely ignoring all environmental objections. This would have stimulated growth without tjhe government having to borrow or to put its hand in its pocket. This was a big mistake by the government since had it taken this step on day 1, and fast tracked it, the economic benefits would already be apparent (at least on a local basis) by the time of the 2015 election. They have missed the boat since apart from some exploratory drilling, little on the ground development will take place between now and 2015.
That said, everyone presumes that we will receive a US type boom. I hope that we do and whilst I have no reason to doubt that that will be the outcome if the government plays its cards right, I understand from a news report that that has not been the case in Poland. That news report was brief and was on the BBC so it cannot be trusted and it may be biased, but it is that report that prompted my enquiry.
Is it true that Poland has run in to difficulties, its reserves proved far smaller than estiated, cannot be economically extracted, or whatever? If so what went on and why? I just want to know whether anyone knows anything about it.
"...All in all, typical BBC biased rubbish and a rather unsatisfactory report by Stratton, made worse by inadequate questioning of Fallon by Paxo [who were both out of their depth - aren't they all in the bbc and Westminster bar Peter Lilley?].
However, the IGas representative came across as astute and 'well' clued in - scuse the pun..."
Jun 28, 2013 at 12:39 AM | Athelstan
//////////////////////////////////////
I did not see the interview, but have seen a number of interviews where Paxman has not been robust. I had understood that he was somewhat sceptical on climate change, but his recent interviews have been disappointing in the lack of rigour. Perhaps Andrew Neil is the interviewer who presses the most.
Earlier this evenning, I saw a news bulletin on the BBC (might have been on their 24hours news channel0 and they interviewed a chap from the US.
He was very good. He advised that there had not been one single case of contamination of water by shale gas restriction, and that fracking was not new and had been going on in the states for 70 years. He also said that the earthquakes were only slight tremors and did not cause building damage.
I was surprised that the BBC allowed the interview to be broadcast since it gave the impression that the concerns were very much over exagerated and that there were no serious adverse consequences. It would not surprise me if that interview is not being aired on later repeats since the interview was off message.
Entropic Man: "Had a quick look at the BGS report. I note that the modal TOC from the sample frequency distribution on page 32 is 2.2%. Would you regard that as wet or dry?"
Its got nothing to do with "wet or dry". TOC's are the total organic carbon in the shales. The TOC's need to be cooked (actually, natural cracking of long chain molecules) at depth and pressure to produce hydrocarbons. At lower temperatures oil is produced, at higher temperatures gas is produced. There is a nice schematic (Figure 34) of this in the BGS report on numbered page 36.
To produce shale gas the BGS notes "Shales should be rich in organic matter, with total organic carbon (TOC) values > 2%".
As to what you mean by wet or dry, I have no idea. In a conventional resource a "dry hole" is one without hydrocarbons present. However, this still means it will have brine in the pore space (all rocks are "wet" in that sense). So this differentiation of "wet" and "dry" makes no sense.
Perhaps you are confusing the distinction between gas and liquid phases?
Also, there is no doubt these shales produce hydrocarbons - they are source rocks for some conventional fields in the area. From the BGS report "Within the study area, significant amounts of gas have been discovered in conventional plays in the Bowland, Cleveland, Edale, Gainsborough, Humber and Widmerpool basins"
Now there's a first ;)
Programme - Newsnight - is on iplayer 00.00-16.50 mins: here
I don't suppose Paxman was that bad on second viewing.......interview with Jenny Banks WWF UK energy spokesperson, Andrew Austin chief executive IGAS, Michael Fallon.
Richard Verney "The government can tender licences for fields on the basis of estimated reserves, and should the reserves be larger, the oil company has to pay an additional sum. that can be the format of the tender, and the tender can also make it clear that the oil company gets no rebate if the reserves turn out to be less than the estimate."
That is not how it works. The government, through the BGS, has given an outline case that argues that:
(a) There are substantial shales with
(b) Appropriate TOC
(c) In the thermal maturation window to generate hydrocarbons
(d) so shale gas is expected.
They have also made a simple geological model to estimate the total resource in one significant area.
Oil companies will make up their own minds about taking up licences. They don't tender on the basis of govenment numbers, they pay a fee for the right to explore and test. If they think it possible to produce, they will obtain a production licence. At that point they will pay royalties/tax on the hydrocarbons they produce, as well as corporation tax and of course VAT on what is sold. Oil and gas are taxed 4 times over, with some taxes being taxes on taxes. That's why the stuff costs so much in the UK - government takes about 60% of the price.
Richard Verney "Shale is a win win stuation for the government and was something that it should have done on day 1. It should have encouraged development by cutting red tape, restricting local planning objections, and largely ignoring all environmental objections."
I agree it is a win-win and should have been encouraged earlier.
Regarding environmental objections, it depends which ones you mean. If you mean gas contamination of water supplies and earthquakes, these are nonsense bogey man stirred up by environmental groups and should be ignored. If you mean the general environmental problems of an industrial process being carried out in what in some cases are environmentally sensitive and beautiful areas, then no, the government (and local government) should be enforcing strict regulations to avoid pollution, noise, ugly sites and so forth. However, that is something that is already managed with any existing onshore developments, power generation schemes and so forth.
Oil companies are generally highly responsible and are very sensitive about their public image (rightly so, after all they are demonised by environmental groups, the BBC and so forth). No oil company wants a spill or claim for contamination of lands etc. Can oil companies manage this effectively? Of course they can. How many environmental incidents have you seen reported from onshore oil and gas production in the UK? Go and check out Wytch Farm Oil Field in Poole Harbour. Most people don't know its even there, but it is the largest field produced onshore in Europe.
Entropic Man RE: "very dry"
That is an interesting link to a professional presentation from an oil company.
Mr Moorman states "Not in the composition of the gas, although, shale gases — unconventional gases — are traditionally usually cleaner due to the nature of the rock. It is so tight that bigger particles, such as what are called BTEXes — benzenes and toluenes — if they even exist, cannot move in that kind of rock. The shale gas in Ireland and Northern Ireland is very dry."
He is talking about the gas composition. Dry gas is high quality and will burn very clean. Wetter gases will have associated liquids (hydrocarbons) that may be commerically valuable as well and will condense out of the gas when the pressure is droppped as it is produced to surface. Sometimes the wetter phases contain things that are less desirable as hydrocarbons and that is the context he is talking about. Dry gas means very little liquids produced, so very clean.
Mr Moorman also goes on to make another very valid statement "With almost five million wells drilled worldwide, it is a universal challenge. How do you drill a well and protect the groundwater? It does not matter what you do in the well; if you have not protected the groundwater with a surface casing and cement, anything you do in the well puts the groundwater at risk. Fracking is simply the latest step in that direction, it is simply higher pressure. "
The point he is making here is that the risk of groundwater contamination is present for any well every drilled in the world if proper procedures are not followed to line (case) the open hole with steel, use proper cementing to seal the gap between the steel casing and the borehole wall etc. These are practical, normal problems for any well drilled anywhere in the world. Fraccing is irrelevent in this context . The risk of groundwater contamination is because a well has been drilled at all, not because it might be fracced. But Mr Moorman correctly points out that millions of wells have been drilled without incident. That is not to say that proper regulation is not required - of course it is. It is to point out that this is a known and successfully managed risk for wells drilled every day, all over the world.
I must again object to the expression 'back-up' with reference to the regular and reliable means of generating electricity. Such means - gas, coal, oil, and nuclear - power stations continually front-up and can be relied upon to do so and long as Man's ingenuity and Nature's bounty provides the fuel - that is, indefinitely. These generating systems are simply made less efficient and more costly to run when they are occasionally and irregularly required to step aside to allow some pampered and unreliable darling of the politicians to perform their party-piece and then rapidly to step back in and take up the load once the spoilt brat has manifestly run out of puff.
Very instructive posts from thinkingscientist - thank you.
The great thing about allowing private enterprise to invest their own money in extracting the gas is that they will decide themselves if extracting the gas is economic or not. Secondly, as they are investing their own money (and not one single penny of tax payer money) there is no economic risk for the country.
Additionally, as its all private money being sunk in to the extraction of the gas let them also benefit financially from any gas they do extract. These financial benefits will be passed back to the country via increased employment, reduction in taxation (as we now no longer need to p1ss tens and hundreds of billions of pounds away on windmills, mirrors and ground unicorn horn power generation), lights stay on, power bills WILL come down, reduction in the around 40,000 cold related deaths a year (as the elderly, amongst others, can afford to heat their homes) and so on. The only counter to these benefits from big green is based on ignorance and deliberate misinformation...which funnily enough pretty much sums up climate science doesn't it?!?!?
If there is no gas worth extracting private enterprise with private funding will not attempt to extract it. Therefore vangels and Entropics argument about the economics of shale gas is nothing but a straw man to build their fragile arguments upon.
Mailman
Re gas to liquids, this technology has been around getting on for a hundred years, pioneered in scle largely by Sasol (using mostly coal) and Mossgas (using gas) in South Africa.
It is one of those ideas that has always had a glorious future behind it, essentially because whenever oil demand was high enough to make it viable, gas prices and EPC cost made it unviable again.
What has worked out neatly for Shell is that gas prices (ie input cost) have fallen while oil prices (ie product values) have not.
Diesel and jet produced from gas are white rather than straw-coloured and the waxes produced from the process at smaller plants such as Bintulu are so clean they are actually edible. They make one wax which is sprayed onto fruit to make it look shiny. You couldn't live on the stuff but neither is it harmful.
Amazing, really, and it absolutely damns the environmental movement that in the face of such astoundingly promising technology all they can contribute is Luddite obstruction.
The fundamental economics of gas or oil depend on the location of the hydrocarbons from market. For gas, it is valuable if you have a local consumer (eg power generation, either for grid power or power intesnive industry such as a cement or fertiliser works) or are close to exsiting gas pipeline transportation facilities eg a mature area with a lot of infrastructure such as the North Sea. If gas is far from market, it may not be commercially valuable unless in sufficiently large quantities to support an LNG plant.
On the other hand oil is valuable wherever it is found as it is more easily transported.
Remember that nearly all oil exsolves some gas on production (unless its what is known as "dead oil" ie no gas in solution). If there is no market for gas locally then some is used for power generation on the rig and the remainder was historically flared (burnt) - this is now generally prevented by regulations, unless absolutely necessary. Gas will also condense out liquids when produced, these are also of value.
There is also another state for hydrocarbns known as condensates. In these, when the raw gas is produced a lot of low density (ie high quality) petroleum liquids condense out.
For those who are interested in some of the detail, other gases may also be present including nitrogen, CO2 and H2S. Nitrogen and CO2 are "inerts" and reduce the value of the gas, CO2 needs scrubbing or removing before the gas can enter a pipeline, usually. H2S is very unpleasant - it is a major hazard for drilling rigs as it is highly toxic and cannot be smelt except in very low concentrations (rotten egg smell) and is a killer. It is heavier than air, very poisonous, flammable and explosive It is also highly corrosive and will hugely increase the cost of production as special corrsoion rsistive materials such as chrome-moly steel are required, which are very expensive. Natural gas with added H2S is referred to as sour gas and it will trade at a discount. All personnel attending rigs will have to have training in donning breathing equipment if the H2S alarm sounds.
Oils can also contain nasty things to. Sulphur compounds in oils will devalue the crude oil considerably. North Sea crude is generally good quality, crudes from places such as Venezuela are heavy crudes, poorer quality and may contain high sulphur levels, generally bad for refining.
The South Africa programme was mainly borne out of necessity. In terms of mineral wealth, South Africa got everything except oil and gas. During sanctions they needed a strategic means of generating fuel. South Africa has lots of coal, so the main effort and reasearch went into liquids from coal (ie SASOL). Mossgas was about utilising the modest quantities of offshore gas that were discovered, slightly different objectives.
Has Nick Grealy produced details and the source for his 18% figure yes, as he has been requested to do?
To all those who expressed thanks - thanks!
Bish - thanks for snip! Apologies! Late, irritated, etc etc...try not to let it happen again.
Richard V; I have not been following Poland's experience closely but I do keep an eye on a few websites which report on these things.
My impression is that the story so far in Poland has been a mixed bag. Some exploration has not found gas or not enough to be economic. Also a couple of big-name outfits have decided to concentrate their efforts elsewhere.
These negative stories have been highlighted by the media for all the usual reasons.
Meanwhile there is still a lot of work going on with a number of very positive reports, for example: http://www.naturalgaseurope.com/san-leon-energy-czaslaw-1-well-nowa-sol-licence-poland. But those don't make the news. It is mainly 2nd-tier companies which are making the running. This is often the way it goes: if they find useful reserves, expect the big boys to "farm in", as Centrica have just done with Cuadrilla.
Thinkingscientist: thanks for all your excellent postings. It is very helpful to have expert opinion. What are your thoughts on the potential for NGLs and oil in the Bowland?
thinkingscientist
A lot of people who attended the DECC meeting knew precisely zip about shale ^.^
You tell me I don't know what I am talking about, that is strange since I copied the text from the Caudrilla website. Oh I get it, Cuadrilla don't know anything about geophysical surveys so that is OK then.
Bowland shale OIL is already discovered and yes it is strange that nobody is talking about it. The license area adjacent to Cuadrilla, just to the south is an OIL exploration company (Aurora Petroleum) and they refer to their shale as THE MOTHER LODE! This is the same shale Cuadrilla are drilling into. Does nobody read anything about this subject???
MikeH, I am not a shale gas expert by any means, but I am a professional geoscientist working 28 years in the oil industry so I can read the reports as they are very familiar content to me and I contribute to and review such reports internally for oil companies. I am expert on in-place volume estimation and my company sells software for this purpose too, as well as consulting in this and other geoscience topics such as seismic rock property estimation.
Regarding your question about liquids, this depends on depth of burial, thermal history, uplift etc Figure 34 in the BGS report shows the different gas/liquid generated at different thermal maturity levels, but note that much of the Bowland-Hodder shale complex has been uplifted at some time, so present day depth is not necessarily the same as thermal maturation depth.
Regarding shale oil potential I can only defer to the BGS report which says in the summary:
"The maturity of the Bowland-Hodder shales is a function of burial depth, heat flow and time, but subsequent uplift complicates this analysis. Where they have been buried to sufficient depth for the organic material to generate gas, the Bowland-Hodder shales have the potential to form a shale gas resource analogous to the producing shale gas provinces of North America (e.g. Barnett Shale, Marcellus Shale). Where the shales have been less-deeply buried, there is potential for a shale oil resource (but, as yet, there is inadequate geotechnical data to estimate the amount of oil in-place)." (my emphasis).
So depending on burial history, there is a putative potential for shale oil (liquids) but until companies start exploring and drilling, we won't know much until some hard data gets collected from wells.
Don't forget the BGS is work on other reports and resource assessments for other onshore basins - the southern weald/jurassic basins are next I think. From what I recall of the geology I think the resources here will be less and the burial depth and thermal history will be different. There is oil in the onshore eg at Kimmeridge Bay. Although Kimmeridge Bay is famous for the outcrop of the main North Sea source rock (the Kimmeridge Clay) it is immature at this depth, so the Kimmeridge well (nodding donkey) is producing an oil derived from an older, deeper Lias age source rock. Wytch Farm is a large oil field - again Lias source rock, so an active oil kitchen is likely present in these basins. Kimmeridge Clay itself was also mined as an oil shale as early as the 17th Century up until the 1890's or so (wiki - I don't know this stuff from memory, but I can easily put the story together) so shale oil, with probably smaller resource numbers, would be my expectation for the Weald/Jurassic basin.
Dung, copying it from a website does not mean you know it is. What I don't agree with is:
"A Geophysical Survey is a study of the subsurface geology – that is, the various layers of rock beneath the surface.
Using advanced imaging technology, the Survey mapped the layers of rock in the region improving knowledge of subsurface geology.
The process can be likened to a submarine’s use of sonar to generate an image of what it cannot otherwise see. In this case, we built an image of the rock beneath the surface.
They know exactly what they are sitting on."
You are confusing a general knowledge of the structural geology (ie the main layers and fault locations, basin geometry etc) obtained from geophysical seismic surveys with trying to say whether the outline skeleton structural geology framework contains shales which actually have gas in them. For a shale, you cannot do this from seismic. I should know, I make my living quite successfully from trying to predict rock properties from seismic, but this works best for conventional reservoirs and even then only sometimes is the technique successful, depending on the rock physics. I currently have Terabytes of 2D and 3D seismic sitting on my company servers, undergoing analysis and predictions based on seismic inversion and rock physics, on behalf of oil company clients from around the world.
For undrilled intervals, you can only surmise its even a shale by looking at the basin deposition from a structural geology/fault perspective and by having a few wells drilled into the shale here and there (they normally stop then, because the older wells were drilled for conventional oil/gas exploration). With a few control points to relate the main seismic reflections to the geology you build up a picture of the structural history and faulting. You don't know if there is any gas though from seismic surveys over shales. What I am describing is what BGS show as Figures 20 to 25 of their report - seismic interpetation. I would expect Cuadrilla and others to have somewhat better quality seismic, up to a point. Then BGS makes assuptions about what is shale and TOC and builds a 1D basin model - see Figure 37 - to estimate likely gas generation. This is all standard oil industry stuff for exploration.
Regarding the sonar analogy, whilst the analogy of seismic survey to sonar is used for a lay audience, seismic surveys are not really sonar - they are far more complex, eg sonar is generally for location/distance in a single medium (water) whereas seismic pentrates deep within the earth and gives multiple reflections. Seismic imaging is way more complex and difficult than sonar.
@geoffchambers
There is no doubt that the non-oil sector was badly hit by the rising £ when N Sea oil came on stream from c1975. For a few years, the early 1980s, fuel exports accounted for over 20% of all UK exports. But the non-oil sector was also badly hit by the global recession resulting from the second oil shock. That was marked by an increase in oil prices from c$11-$12 a barrel to over £30 a barrel in the space of just three years. Recycled petrodollars caused a debt bubble, which duly burst. Excess debts in many markets, at the time many of them in what was then described as third world, caused the effective closure of many of them to industrial imports - they could not even afford spare parts. This devastated many parts of UK (and European) industry which supplied these markets. The appreciation of the £ resulted in a double whammy for UK exporters. As for the tax cuts, they had the effect of increasing tax revenues raised from the better off not reducing them.
@jamesp
You make a valid point about alarmism vs alarming, but we are talking about politicians here where spin is the order of the day. My view is that there are two energy camps in government. One supports the green lobby with subsidies. The other wants to exploit shale gas. Until now the green lobby has been dominant. The shale gas supporters need reasons to counteract green propaganda, so it needs alarmism (as I described it) to get support for exploration and production and its quota of goodies too. This may be a cynical view, but politics is a cynical business.
Thanks for your input thinkingscientist, I enjoy a bit of detail.
Question: Over at Tallbloke's, Doug Proctor takes a very cautious line after mentioning the tensive or compressive nature of the rock being drilled. Do you have any comments to add?
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/06/27/bgs-shale-gas-study-released/comment-page-1/#comment-55204
Hi Michael,
Read Doug proctor's comment over at Tallbloke's. All very rational and reasonable. I am not a structural geologist, but my reading of the report would agree with Doug Proctor's: currently likely to be compressional setting caused by the uplift associated with the Variscna orogeny. His comments concerning fracturing etc are all reasonable as his assessment of why Cuadrilla would stop the frac.
The only part I probably would not agree with is the assertion that the BGS would be singing higher praises - that's not their job and they are really only qualified to produce the kind of general report that they have.
Entropic Man: "What detailed arguments can be used to reassure them and convince them that the risk is worthwhile?"
I tried to address this question earlier, however my comment was stuck in moderation for a while and ended up in the middle of the thread rather than at the end and therefore you may have missed it (Jun 28, 2013 at 2:20 AM).
An entire industry of environmental engineers and contaminant hydrogeologists exists who answer these questions on a daily basis. I do not have time to write a complete proposal of work on how potential risks pertaining to groundwater contamination due to fracking for natural gas may be addressed and mitigated, but I can outline some techniques which could be used:
Proper installation, testing and inspection of well seals;
Hydrogeolocial studies to determine drinking water aquifer characteristics (porosity, groundwater flow directions and speeds);
Advancing sentry boreholes for periodic groundwater testing in close proximity to the working well head in order to quickly detect any contamination before it can migrate, and allow swift effective cleanup before it affects local residents;
Periodic testing of any water wells in the vicinity to determine contaminant trends.
As thinkingscientist points out, every single well, not matter what type, presents a potential pathway to contaminate underground water aquifers. This has been a well know fact for many years and there is a whole industry which specialises in this area. If these locals are truly worried about groundwater contamination they should focus on improperly decommissioned drinking water wells, petrol stations, septic tanks and furnace oil tanks located in close proximity to drinking water wells. These issues cause more groundwater contamination than fracking ever could.
Even if fracking resulted in a minor groundwater contaminant plume (and it would be minor as I outline methods above to quickly detect such an event) in-situ groundwater treatment technology has come a long way and can be used to effectively remove contaminants quickly and efficiently before they can impact residents who rely on groundwater for drinking water or agricultural purposes.
kilroywashere
The people of Fermanagh get their drinking water from the lake; the tourists fish in it and boat on it. The core of the Fermangh shale play is near the headwaters of the lake, as are the headwaters of the Shannon. They are concerned that fluid leakage will contaminate the shallow groundwater, the lake and the river.
thinkingscientist
Thank you, I stand corrected.
My confusion arose from American usage. I have read discussion of the Barnett shale plays, referring to wells as wet or dry on the basis of the liquid/gas ratio of the hydrocarbons harvested. A " dry" well was referred to as producing all gas; a "wet" well as producing significant amounts of liquid hydrocarbons. The latter was regarded as more profitable, to the point at which the gas could be sold well below market price as almost a throwaway byproduct.
Mr Moorman's point about controlling well leakage was not regarded as reassuring locally. Most of the drilling and well construction in Fermanagh would take place through a thick layer of glacial till. The groundwater extends to the surface. Most of the landscape is peaty soils, bog and lakes of various sizes. A typical field varies between wet and waterlogged, in Summer, and is too wet to drive a tractor on in Winter. Even a surface spill would contaminate the groundwater immediately.
There is a local saying that " In Summer Lough Erne is in Fermanagh; in Winter Fermanagh is in Lough Erne.
Perhaps I should clarify my position regarding shale gas. Technically, I am not very concerned about the drilling process and its effects. The earthquake risk is minimal and proper practice would constrain leakage in dry environments. In England shale gas harvesting is unlikely to be a problem.
In Fermanagh, in a very wet environment and an area which depends very much on tourism and farming, I regard the risk to other sources of income as exceeding the benefit.
My prime objections are economic. In the US a temporary boom is already showing signs of turning into a gas bubble. In the UK conditions would make shale gas harvesting marginally profitable. The cheap gas arguments are likely to be hype, rather than reality.