coffeeguyz....I did mention the effect you point to that re-frack fluid can come back over time for various reasons. But as you point out sometimes they manage it. Looking at water production without understanding it (as pstarr seems apt to do) is folly.
As to pstarrs comments
He discerns the difference, I discern the difference, even your frosh students (perhaps) understand and discern the difference.
Exactly how do you discern the difference? Nowhere in his article does he actually tell us how he is figuring out what is re-frack and what is reservoir fluid. In many cases the two are completely indiscernible. And I seriously doubt you even understand the difference let alone how to tell them apart.
DeAngolo said nothing regarding peak oil. Or peak bakken. The post is all about the increasing cost, failed business model that all US fracting reflects and the stupidity if it posters and investors. All money losing.
Lets add illiteracy to stupidity on your less than shiny resume. Here is quote from the article
Furthermore, the rapid increase in the amount of water to oil from a well or field suggests that peak production is at hand
Peak production is Peak Oil, same thing as it applies to a single field or a group of fields.
Oh crap. What nonsense. Of course late stage or EOR methods scrubs a reservoir clean and the end game is a rapid decline. You need to teach your frosh students basic before they fly with the shale playa's
What a moronic statement. Firstly it has absolutely nothing to do with the quote from the article nor my statement as to why that articles observation is incorrect. Please tell us how the statement I made
The initial rate is higher which means the economics of the well are better (time value of money) and associated with higher rates are higher EUR which also improves the per unit economics.
Is incorrect. If you can’t do that then save us all the grief from having to read your mindless blather.
Hello so-called 'closed system' ain't so closed. Additional handling, additional diesel and materials create additional costs. Teacher . . . your student have left the class for more interesting climes.
Do you even understand what a closed system is? It doesn’t require additional handling, it doesn’t require additional diesel or additional materials.
And as to your latest stupidity
Rapidly increasing GOR in the Bakken probably indicates partial reservoir depletion and subsequently decreasing GOR suggests more advanced depletion accompanied by declining reservoir pressure, declining oil production and increasing water cut (Figure 6).
The operative word here is increasing GOR
could signal partial reservoir depletion....not
probablyPlease stop posting pictures from articles where you actually haven't a clue about the science behind any of it. You should be embarassed.
The apparent permeability of gas is always higher than the apparent permeability of oil. It is very easy to cone gas into a well bore either from a free gas cap or along fractures which penetrate a different reservoir. At surface all you see is increasing GOR whereas in the subsurface the oil column is not depleted, it is being by-passed.
And the diagram you posted is only applicable with reservoirs that have pressure dropped below bubble point. This means gas depletion drive where there is no outside pressure support. In water drive support reservoirs the produced pressure can remain above bubble point meaning gas doesn't come out of solution until it is near surface.