Differentiating between biogenic and thermogenic sources of natural gas in coalbed methane reservoirs from the Illinois Basin using noble gas and hydrocarbon geochemistry

2018 ◽  
Vol 468 (1) ◽  
pp. 151-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Myles T. Moore ◽  
David S. Vinson ◽  
Colin J. Whyte ◽  
William K. Eymold ◽  
Talor B. Walsh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Natural Gas ◽  
Coalbed Methane ◽  
Noble Gas ◽  
Illinois Basin

Split Estate and Wyoming’s Orphaned Well Crisis: The Case of Coalbed Methane Reclamation in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Bills Walsh
Keyword(s):  
Natural Gas ◽  
River Basin ◽  
Technological Innovation ◽  
Coalbed Methane ◽  
Powder River Basin ◽  
Gas Wells ◽  
Mineral Rights ◽  
Split Estate ◽  
Legal Condition

This case presents the stakeholder conflicts that emerge during the development and subsequent reclamation of abandoned natural gas wells in Wyoming where split estate, or the separation of surface land and mineral rights from one another, occurs. From 1998 to 2008, the Powder River Basin of northeastern Wyoming experienced an energy boom as a result of technological innovation that enabled the extraction of coalbed methane (CBM). The boom resulted in over 16,000 wells being drilled in this 20,000 square-mile region in a single decade. As of May 2017, 4,149 natural gas wells now sit orphaned in Wyoming as a result of industry bankruptcy and abandonment. The current orphaned wells crisis was partially enabled by the patchwork of surface and mineral ownership in Wyoming that is a result of a legal condition referred to as split estate. As the CBM boom unfolded in this landscape and then began to wane, challenges emerged most notably surrounding stalled reclamation activities. This case illuminates these challenges highlighting two instances when split estate contributed to issues between landowners and industry operators which escalated to litigation.

Caprica Energy and Its Choices

2017 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Jared D. Harris ◽  
Samuel E. Bodily ◽  
Jenny Mead ◽  
Donald Adolphson ◽  
Brad Carmack ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Natural Gas ◽  
Coalbed Methane ◽  
The United States ◽  
Gas Production ◽  
Potential Harm ◽  
Natural Gas Development ◽  
Unconventional Natural Gas ◽  
Potential Risks ◽  
Different Parts

Jane Barrow, CEO of Caprica Energy, must recommend to the board which of three potential “unconventional ” natural-gas development sites in different parts of the United States the company should pursue. The case takes place in January 2011, when the “low-hanging fruit ” of natural-gas production in the United States had essentially been picked. All three of the potential sites (shale, coalbed methane, and tight sands) would require hydraulic fracturing, a process of removing gas that was formerly considered inaccessible by injecting water and chemicals into the ground. Because of emerging concerns about the potential harm “fracking ” can do to drinking water, Barrow must not only analyze which site might be most profitable but also what the potential risks to the environment and area residents might be.

Effect of Coal Dust on Coalbed Methane Wells Productivity

2013 ◽  
Vol 641-642 ◽  
pp. 26-29
Author(s):  
Hong Ze Ma
Keyword(s):  
Natural Gas ◽  
Coal Seam ◽  
Coalbed Methane ◽  
Coal Dust ◽  
Path Model ◽  
Well Productivity ◽  
Vertical Well ◽  
Parallel Path

CBM has the largest reserve except for conventional natural gas and is the cleanest energy. However, neither coal seam permeability nor CBM vertical well productivity has been determined when the immigration of coal dust are considered, which restricts the economic CBM exploitation. Based on coal seam characteristics, use permeability parallel path model and CBM seepage equation. The results show that with different ratio of non-clogging path and the total path, coal seam permeability and CBM vertical well productivity may either increase or decrease.

PUTTING IT BACKWHERE IT CAME FROM: IS GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE AN OPTION FOR AUSTRALIA?

2000 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 654 ◽  
Author(s):  
P.J. Cook ◽  
A. Rigg ◽  
J. Bradshaw
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Dioxide ◽  
Natural Gas ◽  
Oil Recovery ◽  
Coalbed Methane ◽  
Gas Industry ◽  
Geological Disposal ◽  
Natural Gas Industry ◽  
Petroleum Companies ◽  
Australian Greenhouse ◽  
Minerals Processing

Liquefied natural gas projects with a total value of around $20 billion are planned for Australia. Over the next decade or so, they have the potential to generate an increase of approximately 3% in Australia's GDP, and an excess of 50,000 jobs. One of the major risks to this vast investment is uncertainty over how to deal with the major increase in direct carbon dioxide (C02) emissions that will result from these developments. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol has served to focus even more attention on this issue.Potentially, a solution to sustaining Australia's economic development, whilst at the same time meeting emission targets, may lie, in part, in developing suitable methodologies for C02 sequestration. One of the key sequestration options is geological disposal. The method, which involves injection of supercritical C02 into the deep subsurface, is being tested on a commercial scale in only one place in the world at the present time, although several other countries are now developing research programs into the technique.The APCRC research program GEODISC is investigating the applicability of this method in Australia. Whilst the focus of GEODISC is on the application of C02 disposal to the Australian natural gas industry, its outcomes will have implications for other industries such as power generation and minerals processing. It will also be looking at some of the other potential benefits of geological sequestration, such as enhanced oil recovery and enhanced coalbed methane recovery.The program will establish the most viable locations for C02 injection, determine the key areas of technical, social and economic risk, and help define a pilot injection program to address the most critical areas of uncertainty. GEODISC brings together six major petroleum companies, the Australian Greenhouse Office and key Australian research groups. The total cost of GEODISC will be approximately $10 million over four years. The major expected outcome of GEODISC will be to help the Australian gas industry plan the way ahead in terms of C02 emissions in an environmentally acceptable manner, whilst concurrently ensuring that the industry does not incur major cost disadvantages, which may adversely impact upon Australia's international competitiveness.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document