Questions about energy exploration/production

[jmcd]

There are obviously some of you on this board that have training and/or expertise in this arena and I was wondering about a few things:

1. Are oil/gas companies required to post any kind of reclamation bond before they begin exploration or production from actual wells?

2. Are the roads that are built permanent or are they to be torn up and reclaimed when drilling is ceased?

3. How long are these wells usually productive (ie. how long are they around?)

4. What are the main negative effects of this activity and is it long-term/permanent or short-term.

5. Can it be done reasonably without too much impact on wildlife, or is it a "one or the other" situation.


I appreciate any and all responses in advance. I'm really not looking for opinions one way or the other or B.S. remarks and squabbling, just known facts from knowledgeable people. I'm asking because this is an issue I really don't know alot about and am interested in. And I think that we as public land hunters should learn the facts.

 

[BuzzH]

Check out this picture of the Jonah field in Wyoming...it should answer parts of your questions:

To answer your questions further:

1. Maybe. depends on the state, depends on how old the drilling is, etc.

2. Yes, the roads are permanent. They're needed for the life of the wells for maintanence.

3. Depends, I've read 20-40 years is pretty normal.

4. Many negative effects, an absolute novel could be written on just the negative impacts from the roads involved. Noxious weed invasions, wildlife disturbance, increased access leading to more legal hunting pressure as well as poaching pressure, loss of habitat, water quality issues, lowering of water tables, surface run-off, salinization, animals using less favorable habitat, the list goes on and on and on.

5. Please see above picture...and tell me how theres any "reasonable" way to have both quality wildlife, quality wildlife habitat, and oil and gas extraction.

I'd say we're far from seeing a "compromise" on anything but the compromising of OUR wildlife and OUR public lands at the expense of an administration that is hell bent on putting a well-pad and road on every last stitch of PUBLIC lands in the West. They're ignoring common sense, using the best technologies available, and the health of the land as well as circumventing environmental laws and regulations.

Any hunter with more than 1 firing brain cell should be absolutely outraged. But, in the true spirit of laziness, stupidity, and out-right complacency...they just let out-of-control development destroy wildlife and its habitat.

Any more questions?

 

[Wyodeerhunter]

Hey buzz,
How old is that photo? I think you might need an updated photo. Sadly its getting worse and worse.....

Winter time drilling now on the mesa......

I was out there last week and its disgusting.

 

[MarvB]

jmcd- If you've got Powerpoint here is a BLM presentation on VFM/BMP for fluid minerals (nat gas). "Sometimes" its a matter of not what can be done but rather what will be done.....

BLM presentation

 

[mtmiller]

Click the link to see a few more pics. There are two pages of pics.
http://skytruth.mediatools.org/objects/view.acs?object_id=4419

 

[MarvB]

Good comparitives mtmiller....again that's why I put in the disclaimer of what "will be done"- probably should have added or "what will be enforced" to it as well. Wildlife impact guaranteed nonetheless....

 

[jmcd]

Thanks for the responses and pics/powerpoint, guys. I've got a few more questions. In Buzz's picture above, how big of an area is that? Or for that matter, how much area to these fields generally cover? Are they isolated pockets or several thousans acres at a crack? Also, alot of the drill sites seem to be very close together. Isn't it possible to cover the same area from one pad? As to the roads, are they open to the general public or are they gated with access given only to personel?

 

[ELKCHSR]

Not stirring the pot, but this is the only "Massive" picture that keeps popping up on the subject.

I believe the technologies are getting better all of the time so this sort of affair is as with a lot of the older way's of doing things, becoming a thing of the past...

I have seen some old well heads in Eastern Montana that look like they are this close together, but the newer stuff in Wyoming on our trip back thru looks like they have it more spread out. This could be due though to the fact they need to be more spread out to achieve the same thing. I wasn't able to get out of the truck and inquire...

When I was in Wyoming a few years ago, traveling thru (I think) this very same area, it seemed all public, the vantage point where this pic was taken was on a high messa overlooking this area (If it is the same one).

 

[Tom]

"Any more questions?"

Why not put in their contract to plant some good stuff along side the roads to keep the habitat net value up or even? Use the water they get out of the ground to make the habitat better.

I've heard, I don't deal in these contracts, they have to put the land back to what it was when done now, at least around here, why not request the contracts make some improvements to the habitat for the wildlife, making it easier for them to stay there.

Yes, lock the gate, that helps keep the hunting pressure lower. Maybe give only so many tags for that area per week, keep the pressure low that way too.

Charge the local people a decent price for a tag, so the local people can manage the habitat well, why not do that? Either that or stand on the hill, look down at and "whine" about it some more, instead of do something to fix it. It seems like there are lots of things that could be done, if those people up there valued the wildlife more.

That's one way to look at it.

 

[noharleyyet]

Tom, have you ever flown over west Texas, the Permian basin, in particular?

jmcd, I'm certainly not endorsing rape and pillage of habitat ecosystems but demand is not going to do anything but increase, nationally and globally...no doubt, the 'anywhere but here' argument is going to be tougher to sustain. All those people rushing to paradise want light bulbs and heat. Reclamation is the key, but I'm sure even exploration proponents will agree, it's hard to unring the bell once road and pad networks have pierced the subsoils.

..my 2 cents and an oversimplification at best.

 

[MarvB]

Buzz is right about the longevity of the wells…some last decades but on avg. they use a 20-25 year expectancy for most CBM wells and similar for nat. gas. What is interesting is that although initial rates of production have actually improved in recent years, the rates of decline in production have dramatically changed for the worse. In the 1970’s the first year decline averaged 16% per year, and the five year overall decline rate averaged about 15% per year. But in the late 1980’s the first year decline rate began a sharp increase to the present 56% per year. Furthermore, the five year average decline also increased to 28% by 1994. Some of the sharply higher decline rates are due to new technology, for example horizontal drilling, but it is still pretty clear that depletion is taking place at a faster rate and the expected life of the newer wells will be much shorter than older vintage wells. Here is a graphic example.

Along with that its easy to see that you can’t impact wildlife for 20+ years and then expect them to suddenly rebound/reestablish with reclamation. That is why on some of the bigger sites they are mandating that reclamation begins as individual well or pad abandonment begins rather than wait for the entire site to be done with- incremental reclamation so to speak.

Tom, as far as using the water to make the “habitat better” that is a very site specific thing as in some sites the water is almost as saline as seawater and would actually kill or alter the veg, in the area. It is just often disposed of by injection. On some sites the water is very good (nearly potable) and could serve other uses. Other times its not the water itself, but the site that is the problem. The water produced may not be suitable for irrigation on clay soils without proper management. It may contain dissolved sodium ions and very low concentrations of dissolved calcium and magnesium ions. The ratio of the dissolved sodium concentration to the dissolved magnesium and calcium concentration is called Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR). Application of high SAR waters to soils can cause the clay minerals in the soil to swell and disperse, resulting in a reduction of soil permeability.

Probably more babble then you or anyone else asked for but, as everyone has eluded to….no easy or “fit all” answers to any of this. I would hope they’d get to more short cycle smaller projects to avoid area like depicted by Buzz in the future but unfortunately for these companies (as enviro friendly as they’d like you make you believe) its ALL ABOUT THE BENJAMINS!

 

[Tom]

noharleyyet, I've hunted out there, for years, its not the only place they drill wells either. Why? Say something.

 

[1_pointer]

but the newer stuff in Wyoming on our trip back thru looks like they have it more spread out.

Wrong. The new Energy Bill is allowing for well pad spacing of only 5 acres! Also, check out the link provided by miller, not all the photos are from the Jonah field.

MarvB- That rate of decliine is astounding!!! Is some of it due to the ability to pump more efficiently the first year? Also, do you know what impacts that pumping all that water has on adjacent or lower lying water tables? Messing with those can make managing wildlife and plant resources pretty tough...

 

[Tom]

Neat info., part of the chart says "first year decline rate" At that rate, it seems like we'd be to zero pretty quick. ????

 

[ELKCHSR]

Wrong. The new Energy Bill is allowing for well pad spacing of only 5 acres!

Come on Tyler.... Your starting to dig into some thing that isn't there...

but the newer stuff in Wyoming on our trip back thru looks like they have it more spread out.

Read it again... It say's...

"LOOKS LIKE THEY HAVE IT MORE SPREAD OUT"

Whether the "The new Energy Bill" say's any thing, doesn't mean squat from the free way and what one can see, except to state what some can do, not what they have done....

Come on now, I'm not looking for a pissing match from you...
and you don't need to start trying to make some thing out of "NOTHING", no matter what your feelings on the subject or towards me are...

So, before you start jumping down my throat, or up my ass, make sure you have a good stick, and not one that is immaginary or made up....

 

[MarvB]

Don't know that the above is about but...to get back on track....

A great deal of the faster decline rates can be attributed to new technology for quicker extraction but a large part is the fact that vast “open” gas aquifers are not nearly as prevalent as they once were….kind of akin to Moosie having to more the straw to the side of the cup to get his last few slurps of choco shake. It’s now smaller pockets over larger areas that are the norm. Plus, not all gas can be removed (physically or efficiently) from existing wells and I hope that the technology moves towards more compete extraction rather than additional exploration/development.

Pointer- You’re right about water being critical in the process…not only in management but in project costs as well.

A new CBNG well discharges about 12 gallons of water per minute declining to about 8 gallons a minute after about a year of production…this is every minute of ever day for every well…can be a staggering amount of H20!

Water evaluation needs to consider landowner needs and requirements, regulatory requirements, produced and surface water quality and quantity, soil types and terrain, land uses at the project site and downstream, the timing of the project and the economics of the project, etc. (I know that you Buzz, miller, et. all know all this but I’m just throwing it out there for sake of conversation) Most water management plans I’ve seen for any given project will include several of the possible water management alternatives including providing water to ranchers for stock water, conducting managed irrigation on some lands, providing water to nearby coal mines for industrial use (primarily dust abatement), discharging limited volumes of water directly into waterways under a discharge permit, etc.

For those that ask why they just don’t “put the water back” you’ve got to understand the other surface impacts associated with injection. Most coal areas, for example, are not very effective receptors of produced water. Therefore, to return the water to the coal, one would have to drill one injection well for every 1 to 2 producing wells and you’d now have additional wells and the related infrastructure (i.e., injection lines, pumping stations, power lines, etc.) to deal with as well….cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

[Tom]

Neat slide show, it shows VRM with BMP and how it works. Visual Resource Management and Best Management Practices. They resored a well area (temporary use) back to its original looking landscape, pretty neat.

 

[Oak]

Tom, you're oversimplifying things, and I think you know it. We've discussed with you numerous times about how roads degrade wildlife habitat. You can't simply plant good stuff along the roads "to keep the habitat net value up or even." Yes, I suppose most companies are required to "put the land back to what it was when done," but when is that? Twenty years from now when the well stops producing? Notice that much of the slide show Marv posted was what is done when production is over. You know, it's kind of hard to do something to "fix it" when the president is doing everything in his power to increase the speed at which wells are going in. Read the following thread. They can't keep up with inspections of current wells.

http://www.hunttalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23612

What good is it to put more requirements on gas companies if there's not going to be enforcement. And still, those companies, along with Western politicians are saying that new well apps are not being approved fast enough:

http://www.hunttalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24438

Elkchsr said:

I believe the technologies are getting better all of the time so this sort of affair is as with a lot of the older way's of doing things, becoming a thing of the past...

You've got to be kidding...just because the technology is there doesn't mean it's being used. You can thank your good president for that. I'm not sure why every time someone disagrees with you, you try to make it personal. It's not personal, it's just that you don't know what you're talking about. Look at the people disagreeing with you: BuzzH, Ithaca, 1_pointer, MtMiller, etc. Do you think they are ALL wrong, and you are right?|oo

Whether the "The new Energy Bill" say's any thing, doesn't mean squat from the free way and what one can see,

If you think what you can see from the freeway is the extent of what's going on, you're sorely mistaken.

Here's some pictures I took this year. The first is of a herd of elk on (very limited) winter range. Know what those flags are marking? Where the well holes are going to be drilled when that pad goes in.

The second picture shows the bottom of a canyon with four pads visible. What's not visible in the picture is the flags marking where the next pads are going in, in between the existing pads and all down the creek bottom out of view to the right. Notice that the pads are/will be touching each other! That creek is permanent, and is the primary water source for a town of a couple thousand people.

The third pic shows development along the same creek, further down the canyon. Look closely, as it's hard to see all the well pads with the small scale of the picture, especially the ones up on top where most folks can't see them.

The fourth picture is up on top. The drainages between the ridges drain down into the creek shown in the last two pictures. What can't be seen in this picture is the other three future pad sites on the same ridge the drill rig is on in the background, the future pad site on the ridge between the pad in the foreground and the rig, and the future pad site on the ridge I took the picture from.

Oak

 

[1_pointer]

At that rate, it seems like we'd be to zero pretty quick. ????

Achim's (sp?) razor...

MarvB- Thanks for the info as so fare we haven't had to deal with any drilling on the district I work on. I can see where managing the water; where it goes, who gets to use, and if it's not usable, could be a nightmare. Also, given that $$ talks, I'm guessing the management of such favors the $$ and not other resources, which is sad.

Elkchsr- WHAT??? Maybe try ironing those panties and they won't bunch up on you so bad... I didn't jump on anyone. You said it appeared that they are farther apart and I said you're wrong. I know for a fact that the recently passed Energy Bill is allowing for 5 acre pad spacing in some areas. I also know that it has been recently done on an 'experimental' basis in more than area.

 

[Oak]

Don't know why those pictures aren't showing up correctly. Maybe an admin can fix it. Edit: Got it fixed.

I think it's Occam's razor.

Oak