FRACK’S LACKING BACKING

From The Sun

Theresa May has been urged to back fracking as company says it has found ’30 years worth of gas’ in East Midlands

Chemical giant Ineos claims the gas field in Nottinghamshire is the richest in UK history

Exclusive By Steve Hawkes, Deputy Political Editor |15th February 2019, 1:43 am Updated: 15th February 2019, 1:43 am

THERESA MAY is today urged to back the fracking revolution as new tests signal the East Midlands is sitting on “30-years’ worth of gas”.

Ineos, Britain’s biggest private company, claims drilling results from its field in Nottinghamshire suggest “US levels” of shale gas under the soil.

 Ineos Director Tom Pickering claims his company has seen the most significant drilling result so far in the short history of Britain’s shale industry
Ineos Director Tom Pickering claims his company has seen the most significant drilling result so far in the short history of Britain’s shale industry

Tests found an average level of 60.7 standard cubic feet per tonne of gas – compared with an average 39 (scf) at a vast shale field in Texas.

Ineos Shale chief operating officer Tom Pickering claimed it was the most significant drilling result so far in the short history of Britain’s shale industry.

He told The Sun: “It’s obviously early days but these are the highest readings in the UK we have ever seen.”

Geologists believe there could be 436 trillion cubic feet of gas in this part of the Bowland Basin. This test is consistent with that.

“With a recovery rate of 20 per cent that’s equivalent to 30 years’ worth of gas for the country. We believe this really is something to shout about.”

Now is the time for strong leadership to take advantage of a once in a generation opportunity.

Tom Pickering, Ineos Director

Read The Full Story Here.

 

 

0 0 vote
Article Rating
101 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
joe - the non climate scientist
February 16, 2019 6:11 am

The hydrocarbons are 10,000x more toxic than fracking fluids

The saltwater in the formation is 1,000x more toxic than the fracking fluids

The risk of both the hydrocarbons and saltwater migrating into the drinking water is significantly higher than than the fracking fluids.

Yet the activists have latched onto the fracking fluids as the evil devil.

Schitzree
Reply to  joe - the non climate scientist
February 16, 2019 7:07 am

Fracking Fluids, CO2, Glyphosate, ect. It’s easy to vilify something when you refuse to learn about it and instead believe ever bit of nonsence that the Greens claim about it.

~¿~

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Schitzree
February 16, 2019 11:34 am

Shale isnt producing salt water. The wells are totally cemented off preventing any problem with groundwater. This non problem was the fake news from US greens fighting against the miracle of hydraulic fracturing. They have been ‘fracking’ waterrwells to improve flow and conventional O&G wells around the world for over a century. They did it first with gunpowder (invented by a Civil War vet) and then with nitro up until the1990s aka ‘torpedoing’ the well. Hydraulic fracturing does the same thing with more control and precision. We never had complaints until the anti- fossil fuel nimrods came along.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 16, 2019 3:00 pm

Fracking takes place far below the domestic water table. If the gas-containing rocks were near the surface there would be a continuous bubbling of gas at the surface and rivers would catch fire. Oh, wait…

http://theconversation.com/river-on-fire-even-if-its-not-coal-seam-gas-we-should-still-be-concerned-58718

There are natural gas seeps all over southern Ontario. Must have been all those pre-contact Mohawks fracking for fuel to can pemmican or something.

There is approximately twice the content of the oceans worth of water in the Earth’s mantle. So “water” is hardly a threat. I suppose if the world was shaken very hard, and the rocks consolidated, the entre planet would be covered in deep oceans with the top of Everest a kilometer down. We could call it Water World. Hey, that sounds like a great movie title.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
February 17, 2019 9:25 am

Crispin, raising a smile.

“Waterworld”.

Hollywood / La-La-Land / already done it.

Move along, nothing to see here.

R Shearer
Reply to  joe - the non climate scientist
February 16, 2019 7:38 am

It’s worse than that. First, the UK must get rid of Friesian cows because of black face and they fart.

Bill Powers
Reply to  R Shearer
February 16, 2019 8:39 am

And of course the farting can be tolerated. But that other? Well that just can’t stand. Sensitive people around the world are dropping dead over those faces. Its just intolerable!

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  R Shearer
February 16, 2019 8:55 am

Humour is often more effective in discrediting foolish views than long arguments. When combined with clever cartoons it become more memorable. It is high time ludicrous views get this kind of exposé.

KaliforniaKook
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
February 16, 2019 10:42 am

I’ll second that! humor is great for bringing stupidity to light – or the underlying truth.

Twobob
February 16, 2019 6:17 am

Now emerge the melons.
No fracking way will they allow this fracking to happen.
I live just up the road from the area (20miles away).
I once experienced a small earth quake in my area. 3.5 I think it was.
It rattled the tea cup on my dash board and caused a lady walking by to stumble.
Of course the dangerous chemicals used will be another factor (sarc).
I think the T.M.submarine will duck the issue.

Twobob
February 16, 2019 6:26 am

I wonder if the Nottinghamshire, school kids will go on strike?
I mean this is damaging the planet.
It has only been lying dormant under their feet these last few million years.
It will turn Nottinghamshire into some thing from Tolkien.
SARC :-}

Greg
Reply to  Twobob
February 16, 2019 7:29 am

Nottinghamshire is also full of coal but previous govts decided to abandon the pits and the jobs. Britain now discovering it has no economy.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Greg
February 16, 2019 11:51 am

Ah yes! Coal mines. The original ‘manual fracking’ system (think about it) that nobody protested. In fact, miners went on strike for a whole year to force the government to allow them to keep ‘fracking coal’ even though the heritage of closed mines risks more (cough) ‘earthquakes’ than fracking ever will.

MarkW
Reply to  Greg
February 16, 2019 9:57 pm

The unions played a big part in making the mines uneconomical.

R Shearer
Reply to  Twobob
February 16, 2019 7:41 am

Better to get rid of them in their 4th plus trimesters or indenture to Muslim servitude.

Taylor Pohlman
Reply to  Twobob
February 16, 2019 8:59 am

If it turns it into Hobbiton, I’m there in a shot! Mordor, not so much…

My money’s on Hobbiton

vukcevic
February 16, 2019 6:29 am

THERESA MAY is today urged to back the fracking revolution as new tests signal the East Midlands is sitting on “30-years’ worth of gas”.
Leave it where it is, there is plenty of cheap Norwegian and Russian gas at the moment, just remove exorbitant ‘green’ surcharges. Those badly mislead silly kids bunking off school yesterday will need it in 30 years time to keep warm, when N. Atlantic cooling set in, when all the windmills rust and grind to a halt and the solar proved to be uneconomical.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  vukcevic
February 16, 2019 11:55 am

I could agree with you about leaving the gas where it is, Vuk, if we could depend on foreign gas being plentiful, cheap(er) and always available. But when the brown stuff hits the fan and we risk losing it I’d like to think we were in a position to capitalise on our own gas without spending years in planning consultations. IOW, we need to be prepared and get some gas wells in production.

vukcevic
Reply to  Harry Passfield
February 17, 2019 8:48 am

see my comment at the end of the thread

MarkW
Reply to  vukcevic
February 16, 2019 12:59 pm

Money now is always worth more than some time in the future.
One thing to be wary of while hoarding gas waiting for the price to go up. Some other form of energy generation technology may come along that completely obsoletes your hoarded gas. (Unlikely, but the possibility can never be totally dismissed.)
Who knows, there may actually be something to all the molten salts talk.

The smartest strategy is to always use what you have now, then invest the money.

michael hart
Reply to  MarkW
February 16, 2019 4:15 pm

Using what we have, domestically, also has other merits apart from considerations of GDP and the tax revenue-base being expanded. There are national security considerations about maintaining security of supply and a functioning two-way market. For something as important as energy supply, it’s never good to have a monopoly supplier in a foreign land, or even be faced with the prosepect of suchmay

What fills me with dismay is that I fully expect us to be having the same argument a decade from now. Unfortunately this country hates industry, and hates any industry associated with ‘kemicals’ twice as much as any other industry that isn’t associated with the word “nuclear”.

HotScot
February 16, 2019 6:32 am

I suspect once the Brexit cock up is done and dusted on the 29th March, parliaments interest will be directed at fracking and the opportunities it offers.

Once free of the EU I would be prepared to bet the Climate Change Act will be gradually sidelined and more attention paid to the prosperity of the country rather than the fictitious climate change threat.

Ian Magness
Reply to  HotScot
February 16, 2019 6:59 am

Dream in Scotty

Ian Magness
Reply to  Ian Magness
February 16, 2019 7:00 am

I meant “on”

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  HotScot
February 16, 2019 7:09 am

You have to be free from the UN first, after Brexit of whatever sort eventually happens or doesn’t only the middleman has been removed. Don’t forget it was the UN that set up the IPCC, organises conferences around the world, gives ineffectual civil servants power beyond their wildest dreams. I honesty can’t see much changing, nor more than a handful of MPs wanting to repeal the CCA. In this instance the EU isn’t the primary cause of the problem altough it does make a handy scapegoat and fulfills its role as an Aunt Sally.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
February 16, 2019 11:44 am

Trump changes everything. UK wont let itself become a third world country with a prospering US.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 16, 2019 1:24 pm

Trump has signed a new agreement with the UK basically saying there will be no changes in US/UK trade aiming to prevent any disruptions of trade because of Brexit.

And Trump intends to make a Big, Beautiful New Trade Deal with the UK as soon as the UK can legally enter into one.

I read both these stories this morning but can’t find the links to them now.

vukcevic
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 17, 2019 3:47 am

As long as the UK stops breaking the Trump’s sanctions on Iran.

Newminster
Reply to  HotScot
February 16, 2019 8:44 am

Aye! In yer dreams, pal!

Reply to  HotScot
February 16, 2019 11:23 am

Hello HotScot my friend.

Acceptance of the (failed) global warming hypothesis leads to huge errors in government policy, which drive up energy costs, drive away jobs and increase Excess Winter Deaths. Earth is colder-than-optimum for humanity and the environment. Global warming is NOT a serious problem, but cool and cold weather clearly is.

COLD WEATHER KILLS 20 TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE AS HOT WEATHER
by Joseph d’Aleo and Allan MacRae, September 4, 2015
https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf

More than 50,000 Excess Winter Deaths occurred in just England and Wales last winter.

This huge Excess Winter Death rate in the UK, which last winter was about THREE TIMES per capita the average rate of Canada and the USA, is the issue that should be emphasized to the voting public – it is a national tragedy and a national disgrace.

Excessively high energy costs, poor home insulation and inadequate home heating systems are the primary causes, and these could have been solved for a fraction of the cost of Britain’s costly and ineffective foray into green energy nonsense, allegedly to combat (false) global warming alarmism.

My co-authors and I published the following in a 2002 written debate sponsored by the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA).

“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

I have known these truths since the 1980’s, when I started my detailed examination of the deeply flawed “science” of global warming alarmism and the popular myths of intermittent grid-connected “green energy”.

It is frustrating to see the enormous costs in squandered resources and wasted lives that resulted from false global warming mania. We told them so, 17 years ago.

Best, Allan in freezing cold Calgary

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
February 16, 2019 8:47 pm

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/03/brexit-horror-liberated-british-might-de-prioritise-climate-change/#comment-2226620

[excerpt]

On Brexit:

Britain will be vastly better-off out of the EU. The economic future of Britain should reside in a new Free Trade Agreement with the USA and the Commonwealth – as we leave Europe to fail under its imbecilic leftist/green energy policies.

Best, Allan

steve case
February 16, 2019 6:39 am

Yet the activists have latched onto the fracking fluids as the evil devil.

S.W.I.N.E. Students wildly Indignant about Nearly Everything – an Al Capp creation are still here, they haven’t changed, they just aren’t “students” anymore. They probably weren’t students then either.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  steve case
February 16, 2019 3:31 pm

Fracking fluids are mostly water, sand, and agar to suspend the sand. And they cannbe reused.

Keith Sketchley
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 16, 2019 3:46 pm

Just because they can be re-used doesn’t mean they are being reused: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/09/07/the-connection-between-earthquakes-and-fracking/

Phil Rae
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 17, 2019 1:14 am

Rud

Actually, they’re mostly water (>99.5%) plus very small amounts of guar gum (NOT agar) with sand added at low concentration for fracturing these types of low permeability rock formation.

Guar gum is a natural polysaccharide extracted from a type of bean and is totally harmless. It’s used for any number of other things including food applications, like thickening desserts, soups and suchlike.

Fresh water is the preferred base fluid for frac fluids although brackish water and even seawater can be used with appropriate tweaking of the formulations. Other constituents are present only in trace concentrations and, as such, the fracturing fluid presents no risk to mankind or the environment either prior to injection or even on flowback.

It can indeed be re-used, as you say, but that involves some chemical gymnastics and doesn’t make much sense in countries like the UK who typically enjoy lots of rainfall. It’s cheaper, simpler and much for sensible to collect the flowback fluids returned from the well and let nature biodegrade the tiny residuum of material left in the water, then dispose of it in the normal way.

The whole “toxic frac fluids” nonsense is just that – NONSENSE promulgated by people who have no knowledge of the subject or who have an agenda to try to scare people.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 17, 2019 3:11 am

About 90% of frac fluid is recycled in the largest shale gas play, the Marcellus.

The recycling rate elsewhere varies with the cost of disposal vs. recycling.

Phil Rae
Reply to  David Middleton
February 17, 2019 7:09 pm

Yes, David…….I realise there is plenty of fluid “recycling” going on where it makes sense to do so and, given the level of frac activity in the US in both the conventional and unconventional plays, it’s probably essential. We both know, however, that the percentage of load recovery from these tight wells can be significantly less than what was injected and you can only recycle what you get back so that 90% figure is somewhat disingenuous.

Please don’t misinterpret that caveat since I’m a strong proponent of fracturing and consider the UK government’s lack of strong support for the sector to be nothing short of scandalous. Given the UK’s frac activity is effectively zero and there is no shortage of rain in the UK, frac’ing a few wells is insignificant in terms of water consumption so I’d like to see the initial wells treated with the best fluids available rather than complicate things unnecessarily at this stage by recycling.

Reply to  Phil Rae
February 18, 2019 5:46 am

Phil,

In the UK, as in the US, it will come down to costs. Unless the government makes it too costly to not recycle, the preference is generally to not recycle.

However, it isn’t so much a lack of water supply, as it is a lack of economic disposal options. Disposal options in Pennsylvania are very limited, so recycling is preferred.

Injection wells are often ideal disposal methods. However, in a few areas, this carries an induced seismicity risk.

Also… probably 90-99% of the produced water is not frac fluid, it’s formation water.

Wastewater disposal/recycling is probably the greatest hurdle that major frac’ing operations have to clear.

Dr. Bob
February 16, 2019 7:01 am

Let the Useful Idiots provide actual data on the toxicity of these nearly harmless chemicals at the levels that are seen in the water table beneath the well. There is none, so they are stymied. So they make it up as they go along. Just like RoundUp. Proven for 35 years to be harmless is now the villain in numerous lawsuits so that lawyers can get rich.
Such a waste.

R Shearer
Reply to  Dr. Bob
February 16, 2019 7:52 am

Pay no attention to those cosmetics and personal care products in every women’s (male or otherwise) powder room, where the most exposure to hazardous chemicals occurs for the average person, other than those we consume in the form of tobacco and alcohol.

Fraizer
Reply to  Dr. Bob
February 16, 2019 9:02 am

“…Useful Idiots…actual data…”

Well there is your problem right there.

commieBob
February 16, 2019 7:09 am

Tests found an average level of 60.7 standard cubic feet per tonne of gas – compared with an average 39 (scf) at a vast shale field in Texas.

I have no idea what that means. I would guess that the writer also had no idea. It’s probably supposed to sound good. On the other hand, it could actually mean it’s pretty crappy.

Is there a geologist in the house?

tty
Reply to  commieBob
February 16, 2019 7:31 am

It is a good but by no means sensational amount of gas. About comparable to the Antrim or New Albany shales in the US (which are major gas fields).

“scf per tonne” is simply a measure how much gas there is in a tonne of rock.

Reply to  tty
February 16, 2019 9:34 am

In the real oil & gas industry, it’s scf per acre*foot or cubic meter. Rock volume can be mapped.

Greg
Reply to  commieBob
February 16, 2019 7:34 am

Yes, I suspect it may be meant to read “per tonne of rock” not per tonne of gas. Maybe “60.7 standard cubic feet of gas per tonne”. As you say the journo clearly does not understand what his/she/it is writing and worse, does not even care that they don’t know and want to find out.

R Shearer
Reply to  Greg
February 16, 2019 8:48 am

Yeah,that is likely it.

Juan Slayton
Reply to  commieBob
February 16, 2019 7:34 am

I have no idea what that means.

Been wondering about that myself.

Greg
Reply to  commieBob
February 16, 2019 7:35 am

Typical modern illiteracy. They no longer know where to put the commas, nor how to organise their thoughts into a coherent sentence.

Remo Williams
Reply to  commieBob
February 16, 2019 7:37 am

I’m guessing that it means that for every tonne of gas vented from the well head, 60.7 cubic feet of natural gas (at standard temperature and pressure) could be recovered. I’m guessing most of the rest of the mass of the gas would be carbon dioxide. Since 60.7 cubic feet of natural gas weighs only a tiny fraction of one tonne, this is actually quite a paltry yield, although probably in line with the industry as a whole.

John MacDonald
Reply to  Remo Williams
February 16, 2019 8:20 am

You have no basis for this assumption about CO2. If indeed there was that ratio of NG to CO2 then the field would be totally uneconomic.
The explanation of gas per tonne of rock is more certainly what was meant.

Reply to  Remo Williams
February 16, 2019 9:39 am

Remo…

Not even wrong.

Keith Sketchley
Reply to  David Middleton
February 16, 2019 9:57 am

Looks like somebody forgot to teach David Middleton about “double negatives.”

MarkW
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
February 16, 2019 1:04 pm

Keith, the clueless school marm pops his head up.
It’s a yolk son, for once in your life stop being offended by everything.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
February 16, 2019 1:20 pm

Keith Sketchley,
I have not seen comments from you until a few weeks ago.
Maybe I’ve just missed them.
Why not tell us about yourself and what brings you to the climate debate?

Note that the “Not even wrong” phrase has been used a few times per month for the last 11 years (maybe longer) here on WUWT. Other sites as well. I’ve been reading a dozen or so places since Sept. 2008.

Just to be clear: I don’t think anyone reading can teach David Middleton anything about the oil and gas industry. That’s likely true for certain types of music, also.

Keith Sketchley
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
February 16, 2019 1:30 pm

Hultquist, you may, or may not be correct with regards to teaching Middleton about the oil and gas industry, but he can be taught about incorrect German to English translations.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
February 16, 2019 1:49 pm

Keith,
Do you argue about
– flammable versus inflammable,
– “Could Care Less” versus “Couldn’t Care Less”,
Do you rail about “Climate Normals”

Read what I wrote above about the phrase “not even wrong”

This use is quite old and generally not argued about.
You are the first here to do so.
Why? What chip is on your shoulder?

Got to go move some snow. Over & Out!

Keith Sketchley
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
February 16, 2019 2:13 pm

Hultquist, I gave the German sentence to my friend who is fluent in German and he said, “it makes no sense.”

MarkW
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
February 16, 2019 2:49 pm

John, Keith is only interested in picking nits. It’s the only satisfaction he gets in high school.

Keith Sketchley
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
February 16, 2019 2:58 pm

John, MarkW is an ineffectual WUWT attack dog, that chases me around this blog. I truly enjoy having a fan like him constantly responding to my posts.

MarkW
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
February 16, 2019 3:13 pm

Keith, you have an undeservedly high opinion of yourself.
Reading every article here constitutes chasing you around?

Keith Sketchley
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
February 16, 2019 3:20 pm

Thank you Mr. MarkW. Your post of “February 16, 2019 at 3:13 pm” proves the point I was making. I like you being my “fan.”

It also shows how ineffectual you are.

MarkW
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
February 16, 2019 9:59 pm

Keith keeps using big words, but it’s pretty obvious he doesn’t know what any of them mean.

tty
Reply to  David Middleton
February 16, 2019 10:31 am

No, he is citing a comment by Wolfgang Pauli on a physics paper:

“Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!”

“That is not only not right, it is not even wrong.”

Reply to  tty
February 16, 2019 10:42 am

Bingo… Something that is so far from right, that it doesn’t even qualify as being wrong.

M Courtney
Reply to  tty
February 16, 2019 12:46 pm

For example:
“The Sydney Harbour Bridge is the longest bridge in the world”. Wrong.
“The Sydney Opera House is the longest bridge in the world”. Not even wrong.

Keith Sketchley
Reply to  tty
February 16, 2019 1:17 pm

Mr. TTY: there is something lost in the translation from German to English…….”This is not only not properly; it is not even wrong”

Reply to  tty
February 16, 2019 4:06 pm
tty
Reply to  tty
February 17, 2019 10:31 am

”This is not only not properly; it is not even wrong”

I definitely wouldn’t translate “richtig” as “properly” in this context, the best english equivalents are ‘right’ or ‘correct”. It is true that “richtig” can mean the adverb “properly” in some cases, but not here. Machine translations aren’t yet smart enough to handle cases like this where the same word can be used as different parts of speech.

Remo Williams
Reply to  David Middleton
February 18, 2019 2:48 am

No, I’m actually right about this, as a little further research will uncover.

Reply to  Remo Williams
February 18, 2019 5:49 am

You’re not even wrong. Yoiur comment merits a Billy Madison.

Reply to  Remo Williams
February 18, 2019 7:04 am

This “guess” isn’t even wrong…

Remo Williams February 16, 2019 at 7:37 am Edit
I’m guessing that it means that for every tonne of gas vented from the well head, 60.7 cubic feet of natural gas (at standard temperature and pressure) could be recovered. I’m guessing most of the rest of the mass of the gas would be carbon dioxide. Since 60.7 cubic feet of natural gas weighs only a tiny fraction of one tonne, this is actually quite a paltry yield, although probably in line with the industry as a whole.

The article was written by a journalist who was even more ignorant of the subject matter than you are.

Tests found an average level of 60.7 standard cubic feet per tonne of gas – compared with an average 39 (scf) at a vast shale field in Texas.

It should have read, 60.7 standard cubic feet per tonne of rock. Although, no one expresses it as scf per tonne. The standard is scf per acre*foot. Or mcf 1,000 scf) per acre*foot. Shale plays are often expressed as bcf (billion scf) per acre, because wells are spaced by area.

The Barnett is one of several “vast” shale plays in Texas…

The Barnett has 50 billion scf per acre of gas in place. A typical well can recover about 6% of this, about 3 billion scf. At $2/mcf, that’s worth about $6 million. A Barnett well costs $3-4 million to drill and complete.

If Ineos’ shale play has 50% more gas in place and a comparable recovery factor, a typical well would produce about 4.5 bcf, worth about $9 million at $2/mcf.

Greg
Reply to  commieBob
February 16, 2019 7:41 am

A standard cubic foot defines a standard unit of molecular quantity for gases, and not of volume, as the name suggests. In spite of the label “standard”, there is a variety of definitions, mainly depending on the type of gas. Since, for a given volume, the quantity is proportional to the pressure and (absolute) temperature, each definition fixes base values for pressure and temperature. The ideal gas law allows then to compute the quantity per unit of volume for actual pressures and temperatures.

Basically it tells you home much energy is in a ton of that gas.

Loren Wilson
Reply to  Greg
February 16, 2019 8:22 am

The gentlemen above you have it correctly. Production in a tight gas field is measured in standard cubic feet of natural gas per ton of rock in the formation. For the energy industry, a standard cubic foot is the volume of gas at 60°F and one atmosphere. In chemistry the basis is 273.15 K (32°F).
The density of a typical shale is close to 2.6 g/cc, or about 2-3 short tons per cubic yard. Think of a field that covers many acres and is 200 feet thick. There is a lot of gas in it waiting for us to turn it into energy and plant food. The reason we call it tight gas has nothing to do with the gas and everything to do with the size of the pores and passages in the rock. In an open sandstone, the gas can move easily several hundred feet to the well. Tight formations are composed of shale or sandstone (chalk, coal, etc.) that have pores and passages so small that it takes years for the gas to move this distance. To improve this, the formation is fractured by pumping in water, guar gum, and sand. The water expands the rock and creates cracks – the sand enters the cracks and stays behind when the pressure is reduced. This props the crack open. The guar gum allows the water to carry the sand – otherwise the sand would just settle out and not get to where we want it. In my past position for a major oil and gas company, I explored how much methane is adsorbed onto the rock, as opposed to how much is in the void spaces in the pores of the rock.

beng135
Reply to  Loren Wilson
February 16, 2019 8:50 am

Thanks, good info.

Reply to  Loren Wilson
February 16, 2019 10:50 am

We just express it as scf, or more commonly, mcf per acre*foot. We can’t weigh the reservoir. We measure the area (acres in US) and true vertical thickness (feet) of the reservoir.

Area × average net thickness = volume.

Gas in place is expressed as thousands of scf (mcf) per acre*foot. Recoverable gas is the recovery factor (%) times the volume of gas in place.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Loren Wilson
February 16, 2019 1:35 pm

For those not aware of Guar gum: from Web MD –
Guar gum is a fiber from the seed of the guar plant.

Guar gum is used as a laxative for treating constipation.
It is also used for treating . . . a n d m a n y m o r e

In foods and beverages, guar gum is used as a thickening,
stabilizing, suspending, and binding agent.

In the 4th paragraph at this Wikipedia page, its use in fracking
is explained:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guar_gum#Thickening

Reply to  Greg
February 16, 2019 10:43 am

Scf of natural gas is a volume.

MarkW
Reply to  David Middleton
February 16, 2019 1:06 pm

Are you measuring scf at stp?

Reply to  MarkW
February 16, 2019 4:10 pm
Jimb
Reply to  commieBob
February 16, 2019 10:09 am

I had the same problem I think it means scf of gas per tone of shale. But why this metric is used is beyond my comprehension.

Reply to  Jimb
February 16, 2019 10:58 am

It’s doubly confusing. Tonne is metric. Scf is non metric. To make a meaningful comparison, you would need to know the rock density (also metric, g/cm3)… which can be quite variable.

It should have been expressed as scf per acre*foot or scm per km3.

Jimb
Reply to  commieBob
February 16, 2019 10:09 am

I had the same problem I think it means scf of gas per tone of shale. But why this metric is used is beyond my comprehension.

Jimb
Reply to  commieBob
February 16, 2019 10:09 am

I had the same problem I think it means scf of gas per tone of shale. But why this metric is used is beyond my comprehension.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  commieBob
February 16, 2019 11:50 am

per ton of shale. A ton of shale (in situ) would sit easily under your coffee table.

Phillip Bratby
February 16, 2019 7:47 am

Don’t expect any sense from the dysfunctional politicians in the UK. They couldn’t organise a piss-up in a brewery or a clean Brexit.

beng135
February 16, 2019 8:20 am

No shortage of gas, but leadership/courage to fight the eco-loons is gone.

troe
February 16, 2019 8:27 am

Good fortune for our many friends in the UK. Once the treasure is discovered it is there to exploit. Like AOC and her ilk killing 25K jobs at 150K per year and the tax revenue from it in NYC the hard lessons will be learned. Meanwhile the resource lies waiting.

Congrats

Ivor Ward
February 16, 2019 8:52 am

I agree that the shortage is in leadership. 650 monkeys in the House of Commons would do a better job of Brexit. They lack courage, vision, statesmanship, intellect and patriotism. The MP’s that is, not the monkeys.

The Climate Change Act is proof……They all voted for something they did not have the faintest idea about, just like monkeys. (Apologies to Matt Ridley and four others who had not swallowed the Lemming juice)

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Ivor Ward
February 16, 2019 9:16 pm

That many? I think you are not giving monkeys enough credit.

February 16, 2019 9:14 am

Shale gas coal and nuclear power compete with renewables, and conventional gas.

Therefore they are painted as evil and legislated against.

Guess who has the most effective lobby in the EU…

HAS
Reply to  Leo Smith
February 16, 2019 11:09 am

Actually the UK needs its natural gas to support its hydrogen economy. The recent UK Climate Change Committee report on hydrogen makes it clear that natural gas with CCS will be needed to meet the emissions reduction targets.

So it would be surprising if they didn’t support these developments, although they may argue they have enough already and don’t need to start fracking.

markl
February 16, 2019 9:34 am

Once free of the EU Britain will need everything at its’ disposal to build the economy. Screw the UN. Ignore them like the USA does. Once America rid itself of the Obama era it prospered again and most of the prosperity is triggered by the re invigoration of the fossil fuel industry and shelving of so called environmental rules that did nothing for the environment and only hurt the economy (as planned).

jim hogg
Reply to  markl
February 16, 2019 1:15 pm

The prosperity trend – GDP growth – was well established during the later Obama years, and has simply continued through Trump’s first two years. The evidence isn’t hard to find.

William
Reply to  jim hogg
February 16, 2019 5:56 pm

US GDP never exceeded 3% for ANY year during the Obama administration. The first President to preside over such stagnation. When we began work at my company to develop an ultralow maintenance, high reliability emergency generator, we relied on a letter from the EPA stating that our application was not regulated under the Clean Air Act. But once Obama took over, suddenly the EPA decided it wasn’t bound by the actual wording or intent of the law but by green at any cost ideology. Obama’s EPA destroyed my small tech startup by demanding certification fees of $250,000 with another $50,000 in application fees required every year, regardless of numbers sold and another $50,000 per 100 units manufactured. They then bankrupted us by demanding another $500,000 up front, just in case they ever needed to fine us. All this for a device that would produce a TOTAL of 2.5 lbs of NOx pollution over its entire 20 year life. A single lightning bolt produces more. Insanity.

MarkW
Reply to  jim hogg
February 16, 2019 10:01 pm

There was no take off in economic activity until after the election. Even then, the big acceleration did not happen until after inauguration.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  markl
February 16, 2019 1:33 pm

I also read this morning that the UK is doing better economically than any of the other nations in the EU. The pundits claimed Brexit would harm the UK economically. So much for the pundits.

I read that this morning but can’t find that link, either.

Patrick MJD
February 16, 2019 8:58 pm

Apparently, this is causing an effect in coal demand globally:

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/these-residents-stopped-a-coal-mine-made-history-and-sent-ripples-through-boardrooms-around-the-world-20190214-p50xw9.html

It sure is:

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/nsw-government-projects-big-jump-in-coal-shipments-20190216-p50y8n.html

I can hear alarmists heads exploding all over Australia. NSW holds the world record for the single largest shipment of coal. It also holds the record for coal exports.

vukcevic
February 17, 2019 3:25 am

Ineos fracking company majority owner Britain’s richest man quits the UK, billionaire Brexiteer Sir James Ratcliffe ‘relocates to Monaco in a bid to save £4bn in tax’.
Daily mail the Brexiteers’ newspaper is not pleased, so isn’t Her Majesty Treasury and since I’ve been and will be paying proportionally large amount of my income to tax-men, I’m not exactly overjoyed either.
Gates, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Buffet, Ellison, Koch-es, etc .. stay in their country and pay taxes on their income.
Keep British wealth in Britain !
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6713413/Billionaire-Brexiteer-Sir-James-Ratcliffe-relocates-Monaco-bid-save-4bn-tax.html

bonbon
Reply to  vukcevic
February 17, 2019 8:00 am

Have you seen Nicholas Shaxson on Tax Havens, the Banking system & UK Uncut . Or Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men Who Stole the World ? The amount of money offshore is staggering, actually an empire.

F.LEGHORN
Reply to  vukcevic
February 17, 2019 9:46 pm

So cut taxes and all that money in tax havens will come flowing back. It is working in America as we speak.

Phil Rae
Reply to  F.LEGHORN
February 18, 2019 5:24 am

F. Leghorn

100% agreed! If governments weren’t so stupid with their tax legislation and taxed people at reasonable levels, there would be no offshore tax havens and no financial services business in those same tax havens. The whole thing is a scam where the usual suspects – bankers, lawyers and accountants – have created a vast industry to help people avoid rapacious tax regimes while they themselves pocket large fees for all kind of dubious activities.

If tax rates were reasonable and the tax code simplified, enormous amounts of money would return to the mainland where it would boost tax receipts (rather than “wealth managers'” & offshore bankers’ wallets) and provide additional liquidity to the banking system.

%d bloggers like this: