Tight Gas Production Marks Key Milestone For Pakistan's Energy Sector

RiazHaq

Senator (1k+ posts)
http://www.riazhaq.com/2013/07/tight-gas-production-begins-in-pakistan.html

First tight gas well producing 15 million cubic feet per day of natural gas is on line at Sajawal gas field in Kirthar block in Sindh province, according to a report in Express Tribune. This marks a major milestone in development of unconventional hydrocarbon energy sources in Pakistan. Sajawal gas field is located 110 km south east of Karachi, Pakistan. It puts Pakistan in an exclusive club of just a few nations producing unconventional natural gas.


The tight gas well in Kirthar belt is being operated jointly by Poland's Polskie Gornictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo (PGNiG) and Pakistan Petroleum Limited (PPL).

The state-owned Sui Southern Gas Company (SSGC) is buying gas from the joint venture at$6 per million BTUs (half the price agreed for Iranian gas) for distribution through its network in southern Pakistan. SSGC is laying a 52-kilometre-long pipeline at an estimated cost of Rs 325 million, carrying gas from the Suleman Range to the Nooriabad industrial estate.

First tight gas production launch in Sajawal is a very significant milestone for Pakistan. It augurs well for the future of both tight and gas production in the country because there are similarities in how both are extracted. Pakistan is endowed with huge deposits of both---105 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of shale gas and at least 33 trillion cubic feet of tight gas. In addition, Pakistan is also blessed with 9.1 billion barrels of shale oil which is also extracted in a similar way.

Pakistan's current demand for natural gas is about 1.6 trillion cubic feet per year. Even if consumption triples to 5 trillion cubic feet per year, the current known reserves of over 150 trillion cubic feet of conventional and unconventional gas are sufficient for over 30 years.

Wells for both of these unconventional resources (tight and shale) must be "hydraulically fractured" (fracked) in order to produce commercial amounts of gas. Operator challenges and objectives to be accomplished during each phase of the Asset Life Cycle (Exploration, Appraisal, Development, Production, and Rejuvenation) of both shale gas and tight gas are similar, according to a paper on this subject. Drilling, well design, completion methods and hydraulic fracturing are somewhat similar; but formation evaluation, reservoir analysis, and some of the production techniques are quite different.

The current technology known as hydraulic fracturing or fracking was developed in the United States and it has spawned shale oil and gas revolution increasing supplies and reducing gas prices. The Chinese are now working on further cutting costs to make the equipment and technology more affordable.

Like the shale gas revolution in the United States, tight gas is transforming China's gas production - accounting for a third of total output in 2012 -- and will form the backbone of the country's push to expand so-called "unconventional" gas production nearly seven-fold by 2030, according to Reuters. The speed and size of the boom has exceeded forecasts and has been led by local firms developing low-cost technology and techniques, already being rolled out by Chinese companies in similar gas fields outside of China. Pakistan can benefit from the Chinese in its efforts to increase tight and shale gas and oil production.

http://www.riazhaq.com/2013/07/tight-gas-production-begins-in-pakistan.html
 

Mojo-jojo

Minister (2k+ posts)

This method of extracting natural gas and petroleum has become a very hot issue at least for people who are concerned about the damage it can cause to the environment and to wildlife and human health
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facts On Fracking, Pros & Cons of Hydraulic Fracturing For Natural Gas (Infographic)



Mat McDermott
Energy / Fossil Fuels
September 9, 2011


20110909-fracking-concerns-infographic.jpg

image: WellHomeIn case your just getting up to speed on the loudly contentious debate about fracking then we've got an infographic for you. Produced by WellHome, it goes over the talking points of both proponents and detractors with a fairly even hand (though I have to say that the financial viability of fracking isn't as sure as the graphic makes it seem).
Check out the full infographic below:

20110909-fracking-facts-infographic.jpg


http://www.treehugger.com/fossil-fu...c-fracturing-for-natural-gas-infographic.html

 
Last edited:

RiazHaq

Senator (1k+ posts)
No source of energy is without risks, including wind. You have to try and reduce the risks weigh them against benefits.

Here's an excerpt from a San Francisco Chronicle report:


The long hot summers of the San Joaquin Valley suck great tsunamis of cool coastal air through the Altamont Pass, producing winds so powerful that a person can lean nearly 45 degrees without falling down.

Such awesome force gave birth in the early 1980s to the world's largest collection of wind turbines, pioneers in what is now America's fastest-growing form of renewable energy and an increasingly important weapon in the battle against global warming.

But the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area is also a symbol of the wind industry's biggest stain - the killings of thousands of birds, including majestic golden eagles, by turbines. The result has been a wrenching civil war among those who are otherwise united in the struggle to save the planet and its creatures.

It's been nearly a year since a controversial legal settlement was forged among wildlife groups, wind companies and Alameda County regulators. That agreement, opposed by some parties to the dispute, promised to reduce deaths of golden eagles and three other raptor species by 50 percent in three years and called for the shutdown or relocation of the 300 or so most lethal of the approximately 5,000 windmills at Altamont.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/THE-DEADLY-TOLL-OF-WIND-POWER-3299197.php

Although it does burn much cleaner than coal and oil, the process of extraction of shale gas in Pakistan, or anywhere else, is not without risks, particularly risks to the environment. In the United States, there have been many reports of ground water contamination from chemicals used to fracture rocks, as well as high levels of methane in water wells. In the absence of tight regulations and close monitoring, such pollution of ground water could spell disaster for humans and agriculture.

Given Pakistan's heavy dependence on natural gas for energy and as feedstock for industries such as fertilizer, fiber and plastics, it's important to pursue shale gas fields development under reasonably tight environmental regulations to minimize risks to the ground water resources.

http://www.riazhaq.com/2011/05/pakistans-vast-shale-gas-deposits.html

Shale gas extraction uses a lot less water than other forms of energy production and the water can be reused in producing more gas.

Here's a comparison:

One MMBtu, or 1 million British thermal units, a standard measurement for the energy content of fuels, was produced from these energy sources using the following amounts of water:

Deep shale natural gas 0.60-5.80 gallons

Nuclear (uranium ready to use in a power plant) 8-14 gallons

Conventional oil 8-20 gallons

Synfuel-coal gasification 11-26 gallons

Coal (ready to use in a power plant) 13-32 gallons

Oil shale 22-56 gallons

Tar sands/oil sands 27-68 gallons

Fuel ethanol from corn 2,510-29,100 gallons

Biodiesel from soy 14,000-75,000 gallons

http://www.greeningofoil.com/post/Deep-shale-gas-drilling-uses-least-amount-of-water.aspx
 

RiazHaq

Senator (1k+ posts)
The Express Tribune story I referred to in my post above says ENI wants $14 an mmBTU for shale gas.


http://tribune.com.pk/story/577736/...hale-gas-price-terming-it-too-much-to-absorb/


I think the ET correspondent has misunderstood the figure.


The COST (not price) calculation I have seen from ENI is $14 per boe (barrel of oil equivalent).


Each boe has 5.55 mmBTU energy. So $14 per boe works out to about $2.53 per mmBTU.


http://www.ppepca.com/pdfs/presentations/Scope_of_Tight_Gas_Reservoir.pdf


Of course, the price would be significantly higher than the cost of production to incentivize investors with higher ROI.


ENI proposes putting the floor at $42 per boe which translates into $7.57 per mmBTU cost plus some additional profit margin.


It also suggests using oil price as reference and shows a graph that puts gas price at $10 per mmBTU when oil price is $100 a barrel.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top