Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

Gas/Oil eastern Ohio boom

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Serious Business ▸ Gas/Oil eastern Ohio boom
F

fan_from_texas

Senior Member

2,693 posts
Jan 3, 2012 1:35 PM
I Wear Pants;1036852 wrote:A+ would read again.
+1
Jan 3, 2012 1:35pm
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
Jan 3, 2012 9:52 PM
GoPens;1034639 wrote:This might be true and worth it if the gas was being used to wean the US off foreign energy, however much of this gas will be drilled out of Ohio and PA and shipped overseas--mainly to China.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_731595.html

Kind of makes you feel like we're one of those 3rd world countries back in the good ol' colonization days. One country would come in and strip another country of its natural resources.
LOL, yeah except we aren't being stripped of anything, we are selling it. Selling our oil to China is a good thing. It will close the trade gap we have with them.
Jan 3, 2012 9:52pm
j_crazy's avatar

j_crazy

7 gram rocks. how i roll.

8,372 posts
Jan 3, 2012 10:44 PM
You know fracking and disposal are 2 entirely different things. Namely in volume and rates. Disposal is high volume at low rates and low pressure. Fracking is the exact opposite. The two are not related except that both happen in the oilfield. I'm questioning the relationship between the disposal and the quakes but do think its possible. If the quakes keep up with no injection I will be convinced they're not linked. Hell the fact that they shut it in and there hasn't been a quake is beginning to help me form my argument.
Jan 3, 2012 10:44pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jan 3, 2012 10:45 PM
j_crazy;1037702 wrote:You know fracking and disposal are 2 entirely different things. Namely in volume and rates. Disposal is high volume at low rates and low pressure. Fracking is the exact opposite. The two are not related except that both happen in the oilfield. I'm questioning the relationship between the disposal and the quakes but do think its possible. If the quakes keep up with no injection I will be convinced they're not linked. Hell the fact that they shut it in and there hasn't been a quake is beginning to help me form my argument.
I believe it affected it, they were injecting right into a deep fault apparently.
Jan 3, 2012 10:45pm
j_crazy's avatar

j_crazy

7 gram rocks. how i roll.

8,372 posts
Jan 3, 2012 11:37 PM
Faults are impermeable. You can't inject into them. You can inject into fractures but they are not the same thing. Injecting into fractures would not cause an earthquake.
Jan 3, 2012 11:37pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jan 3, 2012 11:38 PM
j_crazy;1037816 wrote:Faults are impermeable. You can't inject into them. You can inject into fractures but they are not the same thing. Injecting into fractures would not cause an earthquake.
Care to elaborate?
Jan 3, 2012 11:38pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jan 3, 2012 11:43 PM
j_crazy;1037816 wrote:Faults are impermeable. You can't inject into them. You can inject into fractures but they are not the same thing. Injecting into fractures would not cause an earthquake.
I am just going by what the geologists are saying
Jan 3, 2012 11:43pm
j_crazy's avatar

j_crazy

7 gram rocks. how i roll.

8,372 posts
Jan 3, 2012 11:44 PM
How so? Faults are impermeable. It's like a thin sheet of glass. Two huge rocks grinding on each other creates incredible circumstances that don't allow fluids to be transferred into or across the fault. You cam drill 2 wells on either side of the fault and have 2 different pressure regimes.
Jan 3, 2012 11:44pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jan 3, 2012 11:46 PM
Ah, I see what you're saying now. But couldn't you weaken one side of a fault and then make it easier for it to slip or move? I really don't know anything about this beyond what I learned in my basic geology class.
Jan 3, 2012 11:46pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jan 3, 2012 11:49 PM
j_crazy;1037839 wrote:How so? Faults are impermeable. It's like a thin sheet of glass. Two huge rocks grinding on each other creates incredible circumstances that don't allow fluids to be transferred into or across the fault. You cam drill 2 wells on either side of the fault and have 2 different pressure regimes.
Well I don't mean dumping into a fault (as if it was a hole) I mean like well and fault butted against each other. Basically they had no idea the fault was there (there is already tons of pressure in the region) and the injection well was upsetting the pressure causing small earthquakes. I don't think the wells cause any harm when they are placed properly, but this one was an "oops".
Jan 3, 2012 11:49pm
j_crazy's avatar

j_crazy

7 gram rocks. how i roll.

8,372 posts
Jan 3, 2012 11:52 PM
I Wear Pants;1037841 wrote:Ah, I see what you're saying now. But couldn't you weaken one side of a fault and then make it easier for it to slip or move? I really don't know anything about this beyond what I learned in my basic geology class.

Exactly why stopping injection should've caused a quake. They shifted during injection theoretically because pressure was building on one side of the fault (which is asinine because you have a maximum allowable injection pressure that is below the point it would cause anything like that) so shutting it off should case it to shift back. I say this because I can guarantee that this well is now on a vacuum (no pressure at surface).
Jan 3, 2012 11:52pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jan 3, 2012 11:53 PM
Are faults springy like that?
Jan 3, 2012 11:53pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jan 3, 2012 11:54 PM
j_crazy;1037869 wrote:Exactly why stopping injection should've caused a quake. They shifted during injection theoretically because pressure was building on one side of the fault (which is asinine because you have a maximum allowable injection pressure that is below the point it would cause anything like that) so shutting it off should case it to shift back. I say this because I can guarantee that this well is now on a vacuum (no pressure at surface).
They are predicting a few over the next few weeks.
Jan 3, 2012 11:54pm
OneBuckeye's avatar

OneBuckeye

Senior Member

5,888 posts
Jan 4, 2012 12:01 AM
Who the fuck cares. No one was hurt. Put that shit in the ground.
Jan 4, 2012 12:01am
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jan 4, 2012 12:03 AM
OneBuckeye;1037921 wrote:Who the fuck cares. No one was hurt. Put that shit in the ground.
I have no problem with deep injection waste wells, like I said, this one was just an "oops"
Jan 4, 2012 12:03am
ts1227's avatar

ts1227

Senior Member

12,319 posts
Jan 4, 2012 12:56 AM
I Wear Pants;1036844 wrote:The big drilling...thing up the road from me is now gone though the guard shack at the beginning of the drive they built remains and is stiill manned. What does that mean?
I assume you're talking about the one on Georgetown road? I came through there Thursday and wondered where in the hell the thing was.
Jan 4, 2012 12:56am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jan 4, 2012 12:58 AM
ts1227;1038027 wrote:I assume you're talking about the one on Georgetown road? I came through there Thursday and wondered where in the hell the thing was.
The same. That's the way I reacted when I first noticed it was gone too. Because it was a big fuckin thing, and then there was no fuckin thing.
Jan 4, 2012 12:58am
GoPens's avatar

GoPens

Senior Member

2,339 posts
Jan 4, 2012 5:26 PM
dwccrew;1037490 wrote:LOL, yeah except we aren't being stripped of anything, we are selling it. Selling our oil to China is a good thing. It will close the trade gap we have with them.
We are selling it, which goes to the post I was responding to. We aren't using this gas to wean ourselves off of foreign energy as he said. Foreign companies are coming in and buying it. Chesapeake just made a $2.3 Billion dollar deal with a French company to take our natural gas. We are still going to be as dependent on foreign energy as we were before the Utica shale discovery
Jan 4, 2012 5:26pm
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
Jan 4, 2012 5:30 PM
GoPens;1038967 wrote:We are selling it, which goes to the post I was responding to. We aren't using this gas to wean ourselves off of foreign energy as he said. Foreign companies are coming in and buying it. Chesapeake just made a $2.3 Billion dollar deal with a French company to take our natural gas. We are still going to be as dependent on foreign energy as we were before the Utica shale discovery
And? Gas is still cheap when compared to what most of the free world pays for it. I don't see a problem with exporting something we have a large abundance of.
Jan 4, 2012 5:30pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jan 4, 2012 5:33 PM
GoPens;1038967 wrote:We are selling it, which goes to the post I was responding to. We aren't using this gas to wean ourselves off of foreign energy as he said. Foreign companies are coming in and buying it. Chesapeake just made a $2.3 Billion dollar deal with a French company to take our natural gas. We are still going to be as dependent on foreign energy as we were before the Utica shale discovery
If U.S. industries were willing to use NG as much as they could, then this wouldn't happen. It's being sold because it isn't being used.
Jan 4, 2012 5:33pm
D

Doverbuck

Senior Member

122 posts
Jan 4, 2012 7:55 PM
Tremcar of Dover,Strasburg expanding after opening 2 months ago.

Tremcar [maker of tankers to carry petrolum products] will invest 1.8 million for equipment and expect to create 145 full and part time jobs while retaining the current 55. What we are seeing from Tremcar is likely just a hint ofwhats to come to Tusc. county
Jan 4, 2012 7:55pm
bases_loaded's avatar

bases_loaded

Senior Member

6,912 posts
Jan 5, 2012 7:16 AM
As long as the port authority stays out of it
Jan 5, 2012 7:16am
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Jan 5, 2012 9:50 AM
I Wear Pants;1038030 wrote:The same. That's the way I reacted when I first noticed it was gone too. Because it was a big ****in thing, and then there was no ****in thing.
The big derricks are only on site for a brief time period --- for the drilling etc, and then after the frack, the big equipment is removed. The gas will then flow into tanks and on to transmission pipelines. Not a lot of equipment remains and the footprint is relatively small. I think some have the misconception that these large platforms and derricks remain forever, that is not the case. All told, the sites I have seen look good and are well maintained. And the amount of natural gas being produced from some of the early wells is tremendous. Win/win for all.
Jan 5, 2012 9:50am
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Jan 5, 2012 9:59 AM
GoPens;1038967 wrote:We are selling it, which goes to the post I was responding to. We aren't using this gas to wean ourselves off of foreign energy as he said. Foreign companies are coming in and buying it. Chesapeake just made a $2.3 Billion dollar deal with a French company to take our natural gas. We are still going to be as dependent on foreign energy as we were before the Utica shale discovery
The deal is not to "take our natural gas", it is to become a partner in the development of the resource. Chesapeake by itself does not have the ability to completely develop the plays as aggresively as they would like, in fact they are reducing debt levels right now. Bringing in SA allows them to reduce some debt now and at the same time expand on the resource development at a faster pace. SA will get a signficant return on their investment regardless of who the end users of the gas are. There is, at least, over 500 trillion cubic feet of nat gas here --- that is almost an incomprehensible figure. If we play our cards right, this region will benefit in an enormous fashion for decades if not a century or more.
Jan 5, 2012 9:59am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jan 5, 2012 1:13 PM
QuakerOats;1039630 wrote:The big derricks are only on site for a brief time period --- for the drilling etc, and then after the frack, the big equipment is removed. The gas will then flow into tanks and on to transmission pipelines. Not a lot of equipment remains and the footprint is relatively small. I think some have the misconception that these large platforms and derricks remain forever, that is not the case. All told, the sites I have seen look good and are well maintained. And the amount of natural gas being produced from some of the early wells is tremendous. Win/win for all.
From what I can see there is nothing there anymore though. Like, at all.
Jan 5, 2012 1:13pm