Posted on 12/03/2013 5:26:20 AM PST by thackney
I thought you probably meant Fracking, but thought I would ask.
Hydraulic Fracturing is done in California, but not on most wells like other locations.
If you read from the link in post #9, it documents some of the hydraulic fracturing already done in California.
Few techniques have garnered more scrutiny in California than hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which entails injecting water, often mixed with chemicals, into a well to fracture rock formations and unlock trapped oil and natural gas. Widely used in North Dakota and other big fields, fracking is less common in California, where only 560 of 50,000 producing wells were fracked in 2012, according to the Western States Petroleum Association.
Yes, as does the Eagle Ford, and essential all tight formations like shale. I wasn't trying to imply that wasn't done.
By the numbers: How much Monterey Shale is being Produced?
http://www.kerngoldenempire.com/story/by-the-numbers-how-much-monterey-shale-is-being-produced/d/story/66ovvxdrt0WN39-hyrv8eQ
11/04/2013
According to the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources or DOGGR, oil companies have produced oil from the Monterey formation for years, including includes parts of the formation made of shale or dense rock.
17 News asked DOGGR what is currently being produced from Monterey shale in the Central Valley to find out how far along producers are into tapping into what could be a 15.4 billion barrel potential in the Monterey shale.
DOGGR could not give us that answer, saying the Division does not keep track of oil production by formation.
So 17 News decided to calculate the numbers on our own, calculating that last year only 1.6 million barrels of oil were produced from the Monterey Shale.
That’s 0.8 percent of the state’s total oil production (197,500,000 barrels in 2012, according to the Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources).
Here’s how we calculated this number.
Searching through DOGGR field history data sheets, we isolated each field that has produced from the Monterey formation.
From there we identified the pool the field was producing from (Antelope, Stevens Sand, etc.). Then we identified which pools in the Monterey are shale, consulting California State University-Bakersfield geologist Janice Gillespie.
This is important because producers pull millions of barrels of oil from Stevens Sand, a pool in the Monterey formation but not shale.
Breakdown by individual play at the link:
sheesh I couldn’t get through all the regs. the state seems to think the political work is the real work.
good luck to the california frackers.
Colorado Shale fields were in this same state in the 70s. Much was claimed, much was ‘started’….nothing was produced and all major players have pulled out.
..........
The niobrara formation in Colorado is currently experiencing a huge boom.
I think you and I have vastly different ideas about what is a huge boom.
I would define a huge boom in this case as huge for colorado. Huge for california of course would mean much higher production increases off a much higher base.
Last month, Colorado averaged 69 active drilling rigs.
Two years ago, they averaged 80.
Three years before that, they averaged 123.
Nov 07, 113.
Nov 06, 88.
Nope. Not a boom at this time. Potential, yes, today, no.
Rigs by State - Current and Historical
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MjEzNTkxfENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1
that is a new turn around….at least in 2010 and 2011 the last of the majors were pulling out. glad to hear it. Though California is so deeply in liberal hands it is a different place than COlorado ever was
I know. Unlike you I have spent a good chunk of my life living there. I know all about California oil and what they do and do not do. One of the reasons I am a recent evacuee from that state is the hopeless nature of its politics
I do wish you guys would stop using the spelling “fracking”
The word is fraccing as used in the oil industry.
The word was purposely changed by a NYT editor some time ago in order to make the work seem more onerous than it is.
It also reads more sinister, perhaps even dirty.
I read a lot of oil/gas related news. I almost never see it written with two "C"s.
When you are looking for an accurate term, rather than the common one, use Fracturing.
http://www.halliburton.com/public/projects/pubsdata/hydraulic_fracturing/fracturing_101.html
For reference: the Oil & Gas Journal stopped using “Fraccing” in 2011 and continues to use “Fracking”. The also use “Fracing” even more commonly but that doesn’t pronounce even close to the right term.
http://www.ogj.com/topics/search?&q=fraccing&y=-188&x=-1195&sort=date
http://www.ogj.com/topics/search?&q=fracking&y=-229&x=-1195&sort=date
http://www.ogj.com/topics/search?&q=fracking&y=-229&x=-1195&sort=date
By the way, the Oil & Gas Journal was using the Term Fracking back in 1990, as can be seen in my links above.
California once produced 1 million bbls per day of crude.
Also was site of Hq. for several major oil companies; Union, Occidental, Arco, Signal, Chevron, etc.
Also Hq. of several major oil service and related forms.
So called “fracking” has been used for decades, including in California, which was once at the front of technologies for secondary and tertiary recovery.
Bottom line: A lot of data for their study is locally available, and if they can’t see the bottom line impact, they are getting led astray for political reasons.
There are legitimate environmental safety concerns (like infiltration to ground water) but there are also technologies to minimize and/or mitigate those concerns.
If Brown sees it help pay for his trains, and if workers see it paying their pensions, it will get the green light.
Do you mean thick as in thickness or in low API gravity?
Do you mean thick as in thickness or in low API gravity?
oil column thickness
been working 40 years and was fraccing wells at McAllen Ranch in the 70s and never saw another way of spelling it until recently when the enviro wackos changed spelling to degrade it as something bad.
I'm struggling with different terminology.
Do you mean the thickness of the reservoir penetrated by the well bore? Sorry to continue to ask what is probably straight forward from your point of view.
I was looking at oil production in colorado not rig count.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPCO2&f=M
Booms are usually described by number of jobs. More related to drilling rigs and employment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.