Feb 28

San Leon Energy Partner Reports Crude Finding off Irish Coast

By Curve oil production, San Leon Energy No Comments »

 

SHARES in Providence Resources soared yesterday after the company reported that it has found crude oil at what could be a large oil reservoir off the south coast of Ireland.

“We’ve delivered on what we said,” Providence chief executive Tony O’Reilly said yesterday. “The markets are reacting.”

The shares rose as much as 25pc in Dublin after Providence said it had found light crude oil in a large sandstone reservoir about 7,550ft under the sea off the south coast. Providence found the crude oil while drilling an appraisal well — its fifth in the area.

All the wells have shown evidence of oil, which suggests the field could be larger than previously hoped. Oil samples from the reservoir have now been sent for testing in a UK laboratory.

“This is uniformly good news for Providence shareholders,” said Joe Langebroek, of Davy Stockbrokers. “The next step is the flow test but so far so good.”

Providence, which owns 80pc of the Barryroe oil field, expects to conduct a flow test in few days’ time. That test will give a good indication of whether the find is commercial and the results could be made public in early March.

Analysts said the well must produce about 1,800 barrels of oil or gas equivalent every day to make commercial sense. Any oil could eventually be transported by pipe to the Whitegate refinery in Cork.

Providence is engaged in the biggest drilling programme in Irish history as it looks for oil and gas off the Irish coast. Barryroe was one of the first areas to be drilled because it has proven reserves. Providence hopes new drilling techniques and better computer imaging mean that it will be possible to find commercial oil.

“The market is moving to us,” Mr O’Reilly said. “Prices and technology are helping.”

Technical director John O’Sullivan said Providence could now look forward to materially progressing the project.

“These sands, which appear to have an intact overlying pressure seal, sit directly on proven, mature and oil-prone source rock and therefore open the route to significant resource volumes within the Barryroe licence area,” he said.

Providence holds an 80pc interest in the licence and operates it on behalf of its partners, San Leon Energy and Lansdowne Oil and Gas. The shares closed up 77c, or 22pc, at €4.20 in Dublin yesterday.

Source: Irish Independent

Tagged with: • •
Feb 09

Addendum to ExxonMobil Story; The Original Announcement

By Curve natural gas in Europe No Comments »

 

Following on from the story earlier this week on Germany’s renewed investment in the unconventional gas industry, we’re publishing the original piece from “Handelsblatt” detailing the announcement from the head of the company’s Central European Operations, Gernot Kalkoffen. An addendum of our own – we’ve used Google translate here with a bit of our own tidying up, so please take that into consideration!

International energy companies rely on vast natural gas fields in North Rhine-Westphalia and hope to generate billions of dollars in revenue. The U.S. oil giant Exxon Mobil plans to invest heavily in “Dallas in Münster” to search for sources of natural gas. ”We expect to invest in the hundreds of millions during the exploration phase,” said Gernot Kalkoffen, head of Exxon Mobil Central Europe.

Just how high will the sum actually be, depends on whether the gas also exists in the concentration necessary to benefit the economy. ”If successful, this could be mean an investment of billions of dollars,” said Kalkoffen. This was the first time he had spoken publicly about the potential for exploration.

Nine companies want to search for natural gas and have secured options on several areas of the province. Overall, North Rhine-Westphalia could be harbouring reserves of 2 100 billion cubic meters of gas, the second largest natural gas deposit in Europe.

The benefits of success for the state would includ mining royalties and new jobs. In addition, municipalities collect the business taxes, when natural gas is mined on their territory. An example of this is in Lower Saxony, where a total of 27,000 jobs have been created by natural gas. Gernot Kalkoffen, chief of the Exxon Mobil Central Europe, spoke exclusively with Handelsblatt about the find.

Handelsblatt: “Mr. Kalkoffen, Germany is not in a gold but in a GAS rush. Do you think that the deposits are economically viable?”

Kalkoffen: “We are still at an early stage of exploration. But the theoretical potential is relatively large. The question is whether the gas is present in sufficient concentration to promote economic growth and stability.”

Handelsblatt: “The first test drillings have been carried out, how do the results look?”

Kalkoffen: “If you’re looking for an economical assessment, then it’s too early to tell. For unconventional gas, there are two components that have not been promoted in Germany: gas in coal seams and shale. Exxon Mobil has made two coal seam drilling holes and four wells in shale gas. Both need to be investigated further.”

Tagged with: • • • • •
Jan 20

San Leon Energy Announces Tarfaya Oil Shale Update – Hydraulic Connectivity Established

By Curve shale gas No Comments »

 

San Leon Energy PLC

Tarfaya Oil Shale Update

RNS Number : 4968V
San Leon Energy PLC
13 January 2012

San Leon Energy Plc

(“San Leon” or the “Company”)

Tarfaya Oil Shale Update – Hydraulic Connectivity Established

San Leon is pleased to announce that is has established connectivity between its two test wells in its Tarfaya Oil Shale project.  Injection water has been observed in three wells, including pilot Well A and Well B drilled by the Company as part of the pilot project, and the pre-existing Star 12 core hole.  Several transmissivity and static formation pressure tests were performed to identify the origin of the water which have confirmed connectivity between the two pilot test wells which are ~10 meters apart.  Operations have been temporarily suspended pending continued technical analysis and forward operational planning.

Based on the test results, the Company has reached the following conclusions:

Well A, Well B and Star 12 are hydraulically connected through a permeable zone from 191.00 to 197.62 meters below ground level (mbGL);

Star 12 provided, over a long period, a flow path from the upper aquifer, feeding the permeable zone below 184.80 mbGL;

After cementation of the Star 12 well, the formation from 191.00 – 197.62 mbGL acted as a closed system with depletion related to formation water production (via airlifts);

The water samples suggest that the water from the deep permeable zone is similar to the shallow aquifer.  The water contains primarily sodium chloride (78-91% of dissolved solids by weight), with small amounts of magnesium, calcium, potassium, sulfate and nitrate.

Despite establishing hydaulic connection between the two pilot wells, the Company has decided not to risk contaminating the shallow water aquifer.  Further analysis will be performed prior to resuming operations either at the same location or at an alternative site.

Based on the recent results the Company will now identify an alternative drilling site away from existing wells to test the extent of the play and the associated water acquifers.Future wells will be cored and completed based upon the new information gained during this phase of the pilot project. In parallel, a hydrodynamic study of the basin is being contemplated to understand the regional aquifer systems in relation to the potential oil shale pay zones.

A permanent presence has been maintained at the site to ensure the security of the equipment and facilities installed to date.

The Company has been contacted by several companies with oil shale experience regarding partnering with San Leon on the Tarfaya Oil Shale project.  A data-room is now open that includes geotechnical information as well as engineering designs for the pilot plant.  The Company is in active discussions with interested parties.

Oisin Fanning, Chairman of San Leon, commented:

“We are delighted to have confirmed natural connectivity between the wells. However, we have decided that San Leon should not be taking any environmental risk whilst we aim to continue to prove up the in situ extraction concept of the Tarfaya oil shale resources and to rapidly progress toward operations of the processing pilot plant designed and built for the project. Several firms have expressed a desire to partner with us in the project, confirming our belief  that the Tarfaya oil shale resource development represents a significant opportunity as an unconventional play.”

Source: San Leon Energy

 

Tagged with: • •
Dec 21

Encana Speaks Out on EPA Report on Fracking

By Curve hydraulic fracturing No Comments »

 

Natural gas giant Encana Corp. is stepping up an unusually public battle with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over water-contamination findings that threaten to fuel opposition to the industry’s controversial drilling methods.

The Calgary-based natural gas giant hosted an hour-long presentation Tuesday, detailing errors it believes the EPA made in its study concluding natural gas wells in Wyoming controlled by Encana contaminated the area’s water. Encana’s criticism ranged from EPA lab results to methodology and the agency’s understanding of geology and hydrology.

“It is our belief the EPA made critical mistakes and misjudgments in almost every step in the process – from the way it designed the study, to the way it drilled and completed its wells, to the way it collected and interpreted the data, and to its decision to release a preliminary draft report without independent third-party review,” said David Stewart, the environment, health and safety head for Encana’s Wyoming operations.

Canadian oil and gas companies rarely voice their opposition to regulators so openly and bluntly, given the power the agencies wield over their operations. But experts say Encana is making a worthwhile gamble, given what’s at stake.

The fight centres on an environmental issue increasingly facing the natural gas industry. The EPA is critical of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, techniques used to extract natural gas from tight geological formations in its Wyoming gas fields. The method involves blasting water, sand, and chemicals into wells in order to allow gas to escape. Fracking has made it possible for energy companies to access vast resources of oil and gas that were previously beyond reach.

Critics argue groundwater can be contaminated by the process, and the EPA on Dec. 8 said its research determined wells near Pavillion, Wyo., have been dirtied by drilling activity. The regulator drilled its own wells for the study. The problems, however, may have predated Encana’s ownership of the natural gas field, exist naturally, or were caused by the EPA’s own work, Encana says.

Encana discussed its concerns with the EPA prior to the report’s release, but the gas company’s perspective was not included, according to executives on the media call. Encana is no longer discussing the report with the EPA, and will instead further refute the report’s claims as part of the public comment process, the executives said.

The EPA is not backing down from its analysis. Catherine Milbourn, a spokesperson for the EPA, in an e-mail said the “EPA and its contractor used stringent standards for the installation and development of the two monitoring wells, practices that addressed the possibility of influencing sampling results.” The EPA also defended its decision to release its draft findings. “To ensure we have the best science in place, we released the draft analysis for public review and for review by independent scientists and experts before it is finalized.” The EPA is also planning a broader, national study on fracking and water.

Encana, North America’s second-largest natural gas company, has more leeway to speak out against the regulator because the battle is taking place south of the border, experts said.

“It is less unusual in the U.S. than it is in Canada to air your differences of opinion [publicly on] a very important issue for the industry,” said Dennis Mahony, head of Torys LLP’s environmental, health and safety practice. “It is more the culture in the U.S.”

Because the EPA chose to release its report on such a sensitive topic in such a high-profile way, Encana is wise to debate the regulator publicly, Mr. Mahony said. “From Encana’s perspective, this is a legitimate effort to balance the debate.”

Michal Moore, a professor of energy economics at The School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary, and also a visiting fellow at New York’s Cornell University, said now that the Republicans wield a great deal of power in Washington, the EPA is weak. Now is the time for its opponents to strike, he said.

“They [the EPA] don’t have a champion right now, and so people can yell at them right now because they can, and not worry about repercussions,” he said.

Source: The Globe and Mail

 

 

Tagged with: • • •
Dec 15

Benefits of Shale Gas Outweigh the Risks

By Curve natural gas in the USA No Comments »

 

In a week where shale gas = job creation stories, Deloitte has issued a report which says opinion on shale gas is positive, particularly when it comes to employment:

A majority of Americans think developing natural gas by tapping shale formations offers greater rewards than it does risks, including those associated with hydraulic fracturing, according to a survey conducted by the Deloitte Center for Energy Solutions. Moreover, 8 in 10 respondents link natural gas with job creation and economic revival.

Specifically, 83 percent of respondents agree that natural gas development can stimulate job growth in the United States, while 79 percent believe the development of natural gas resources can help revitalize the economies of the states and communities where shale gas is located.

Further, the survey indicates that the public associates jobs in the natural gas industry with good pay. More than half (56 percent) of respondents in areas where shale gas development is planned or underway believe that jobs producing gas from shale formations command a “much” or “somewhat” higher pay grade than the average in their communities. The number jumps to 62 percent when looking at relatively mature shale regions like Texas.

Peter Robertson, an independent senior adviser for oil and gas at Deloitte, points out that the role of natural gas in job creation and economic revival is only going to grow as production of shale gas ramps up. Citing a separate Deloitte research project, Robertson points out that “shale gas made up a small share of domestic natural gas production in 2005, but has surged since then – and in 2010 made up 20 percent of what is produced domestically. By 2030, the portion could be close to 50 percent.”

Shale benefits seen to outweigh risks

Only 2 in 10 respondents (19 percent) feel the risks of developing shale gas “somewhat” or “far” outweigh the benefits; 58 percent believe the benefits outweigh the risks; and almost 25 percent are unsure.

Moreover, a clear majority of respondents (58 percent) in areas where shale development is underway or planned would recommend that their family and friends lease their land to a shale gas developer. In fact, 7 in 10 survey respondents (71 percent) in established shale areas like Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas would advise family or friends to lease their land to a natural gas developer.

The survey consisted of 1,694 online interviews conducted in November 2011 with adults age 21 to 74 and examined three different audience segments: residents of areas where shale gas development is an established phenomenon, specificallyTexas, Louisiana and Arkansas (537 respondents); residents of areas where shale is a newer phenomenon, specifically New York (89 respondents in New York City and 162 in western New York State) and Pennsylvania (243 respondents); and finally, the survey canvassed an additional 663 respondents in the United States nationally.

“The survey findings are especially interesting among the more mature shale areas where people are long-accustomed to oil and gas development,” said Gary Adams, vice chairman, Deloitte LLP, and leader of Deloitte’s oil and gas practice. “There, 8 in 10 respondents who currently do, or ever have, leased their land to a natural gas developer (83 percent) would do so again.”

As Adams points out, in contrast, these numbers are lower in newer shale regions – indicating a higher level of discomfort with the processes and technologies involved in shale gas development. “In Pennsylvania and New York, where people are not as used to oil and gas development, a more modest majority of respondents (52 percent) would advise family or friends to lease their land to a natural gas developer. Similarly, a slimmer majority of respondents who currently do, or ever have, leased their land to a natural gas developer (53 percent) would do so again,” Adams adds

Shale seen to improve energy independence and air quality

The survey also indicates that shale gas could play an increasingly important role in making America more energy independent: Respondents with at least some degree of familiarity with shale gas development view energy independence as the single most important benefit of shale – ahead of all other benefits, including: boosting the national economy, job creation, cleaner air, and boosting local economies. And a near majority (47 percent) of national respondents believes shale is “extremely” or “very” impactful on energy independence.

In addition, survey respondents believe shale gas development could improve air quality: 6 in 10 national respondents (62 percent) with at least some degree of familiarity with shale gas development associated the word “clean” with natural gas – making it the top association over other words such as: reliable (47 percent), domestic (41 percent), affordable (40 percent) and abundant (38 percent). Finally, 88 percent of all national respondents think it is at least “somewhat believable” to claim that “using natural gas resources to generate electricity can significantly reduce our carbon footprint.”

Strong need for better dialog, more information on shale

Still, the road to increased shale production is likely to be rocky. There is controversy about the environmental impact of shale development and heated rhetoric – all of which was reflected in Deloitte’s survey.

Most notably, respondents are not familiar with the processes involved in shale gas production: 37 percent of national respondents report being “not very” or “not at all” familiar with hydraulic fracturing – and 23 percent “never heard of hydraulic fracturing.”

Nonetheless, a large percentage of the public is aware of the dominant concerns about shale development. 58 percent of national respondents with at least some degree of familiarity with shale gas development are aware of potential water contamination issues and 49 percent know about the potential for surface-land impact issues.

Curiously, while the news media is seen as the primary source of information on shale (much higher than sources like word-of-mouth, non-profits, industry websites, academics and town hall meetings), it is not trusted: 73 percent of respondents nationally get information about shale development from the news media, yet only 17 percent see the media as “extremely” or “very” trustworthy when it comes to providing unbiased coverage of the natural gas industry.

At the same time, respondents in areas where shale gas development is planned or underway indicate that oil and gas production companies need to communicate better. While nearly half (45 percent) believe shale gas producers are “somewhat” transparent and open, just 35 percent believe shale gas companies communicate “extremely” or “very” effectively. Only 34 percent see shale gas companies as “extremely” or “very” trustworthy.

“There’s so much shale activity in so many parts of the country that it’s important to communicate and operate effectively,” said Robertson. “Everything shale gas producers do gets enormously magnified. That’s why they have to get it right every time, on every well drilled. Consistently operating with excellence and communicating effectively with all impacted stakeholders are critical attributes.”

Interestingly, the survey shows that there is faith that the shale development is currently being regulated appropriately: 54 percent of respondents nationally believe that regulation of shale development is “just right” or “evolving, but on the right track.” Approximately 20 percent think there is too much regulation and 16 percent think there is too little regulation. Ten percent are not sure.

Source: Deloitte

Tagged with: • •
Nov 16

Shale Gas Advisory Board Completes Final Report

By Curve shale gas No Comments »

 

The Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Subcommittee on Shale Gas Production has posted its second and final 90-day report about its 20 recommendations for improving the safety and environmental performance of shale gas development. The subcommittee met Nov. 14 to review the document and then send it to Energy Secretary Dr. Steven Chu.

The panel posted its initial report in August 2011. The follow-up report says federal agencies, state governments, industry, and public interest groups have planned or taken actions to reduce shale gas production’s environmental impact, such as the Interior Department’s plan to require disclosure of all chemicals in fracturing fluids used on federal lands and EPA’s proposed NESHAPs for oil and natural gas production, currently scheduled to be finalized by April 2012.

Energy companies are planning to collect and disclose air emissions data from shale gas production sites, according to the committee, which has recommended independent technical review of the methodology.

The report says as many as 100,000 more gas wells are likely to be drilled in the United States in the next several decades. “The development of shale gas is one of the biggest energy innovations, if not the biggest, in several decades,” said Subcommittee Chairman John Deutch, an MIT professor. “It is now about 30 percent of total U.S. natural gas production; it has reduced energy costs and created hundreds of thousands of jobs. But to ensure the full benefits to the American people, environmental issues need to be addressed now -– especially in terms of waste water, air quality, and community impact. We believe that our twenty recommendations provide the basis for a pragmatic route forward and hope that they will be acted upon.

“Industry, working with state and federal regulators and public interest groups, should increase their best field engineering practices and environmental control activities by adopting the objective of continuous improvement, validated by measurement and disclosure of key operating metrics,” he added. “This is the surest path forward to assure that shale gas is produced in an environmentally sound fashion, and in a way that meets the needs of public trust.”

Other members of the subcommittee are Stephen Holditch of Texas A&M; Fred Krupp of the Environmental Defense Fund; Kathleen McGinty of Weston Solutions; Susan Tierney of Analysis Group; Daniel Yergin of IHS-Cambridge Energy Research Associates; and Mark Zoback of Stanford University.

Source: Occupational Health and Safety

 

Tagged with: • • •
Aug 31

The Energy Collective: 3 Studies Confirm Shale Gas Is Not Worse Than Coal

By Curve shale gas No Comments »

 

Geoffrey Styles, Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC, an energy and environmental strategy consulting firm, has posted on The Energy Collective, the combined findings of different studies into the environmental impact of shale exploration and extraction:

For most of this year the enormous potential of shale gas has been clouded by controversy over its alleged climate impact. This began with the draft and later the leaked pre-publication version of a paper from a Cornell professor suggesting that the greenhouse gas emissions from gas were no better than those from coal and might even be worse. When I examined Dr. Howarth’s analysis in two postings last December and this April I found that his methodology and assumptions were sufficiently flawed to undermine his conclusions. However, I also recognized the informal nature of my assessment and suggested the need for further scrutiny of this issue by organizations with more resources. That has now taken place, though I claim no credit for it. Within the last month three separate teams have issued reports bearing on this question, and not one of them validates Dr. Howarth’s findings against shale gas.
The first of these studies comes from IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, addressing not just Dr. Howarth’s paper, but also the EPA’s estimates of methane leakage that were a key input for its calculations of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from shale gas. Although a skeptic might find reasons to dismiss a study from a consultancy with a large energy industry clientele, the other two studies have connections to groups with unimpeachable environmental/sustainability credentials.

One is a collaboration between Worldwatch Institute and Deutsche Bank, while the other paper, published in Environmental Research Letters, is from a team at Carnegie Mellon University with financial support from the Sierra Club. I encourage you to read them, but here are the highlights:

The Carnegie Mellon team focused on shale gas from the vast Marcellus formation underlying several eastern states.  They found that while the current techniques for developing and completing a Marcellus shale gas well do result in higher methane emissions than from conventional gas wells, the extra methane only increases lifecycle GHG emissions from well to burner tip by 3% on average. This is the case because, “The life cycle emissions are dominated by combustion that accounts for 74% of the total emissions.” As a result, when burned in a combined cycle power plant to generate electricity, shale gas results in emissions per kilowatt-hour (kWh) that are 20-50% lower than those from coal, depending on equipment and sources.

This is the crucial comparison that Howarth’s paper gave short shrift. They also compared shale gas emissions to those from LNG, which we’d now be importing in large quantities had shale gas development not ramped up as it did a few years ago. The Mellon team found shale gas and LNG roughly comparable, with both emitting around a quarter less CO2 equivalent per BTU than diesel fuel. That suggests that shale gas isn’t just a lower-emitting fuel for power generation, but also for transportation.

Finally, they looked at the possibility of shale gas wells being fractured multiple times, rather than just once during their production life, and found that it would take more than 25 fracturing events to negate gas’s advantage over coal.

The Worldwatch/Deutsche Bank study considered both top-down and bottom-up views of shale gas emissions, including that of Howarth. They looked at the average US natural gas supply including current proportions of shale gas and found that the emissions from gas-fired power plants beat coal-fired plants by an average of 47%, even with the EPA’s higher figures for methane venting during gas production.

They also found that among bottom-up assessments of shale gas emissions, including the one from Carnegie Mellon and another from the DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, Howarth’s results appear to be an outlier, and that shale gas is materially lower than coal in lifecycle emissions for power generation. And while their analysis was performed using the standard 100-year global warming potential for methane of 25 times CO2, they considered sensitivities ranging up to a GWP of 105:1, at which extreme gas still performed better than coal.

It’s probably too much to hope that these independent studies will alleviate all of the concerns that have been raised about the greenhouse gas emissions from shale gas, which will only improve as technology and standards progress. (The studies also highlighted both the need and potential to reduce methane emissions from shale gas development, in order to minimize the extra greenhouse gas contribution, irrespective of any comparison to other fuels.) I also get that with the current mood in much of this country, claims for the game-changing energy potential of shale gas must sound too good to be true, without some fatal flaw.

Yet everything I see indicates that the problems associated with shale gas development are all manageable, and that while it isn’t a panacea, it does represent an extraordinary opportunity for the US from an economic, energy security and environmental perspective. It’s time to recognize this as the tremendous gift that it is.

Source: The Energy Collective

Tagged with: • • • • •
Aug 11

A Measured Response to Prelim Subcommittee Report

By Curve Environment, shale gas No Comments »

 

The Natural Gas Subcommittee set up by President Obama back in May, to report on the safety and environmental impact of shale gas fra’king is set to release its initial report on August 18th and the final report on November 18, 2011.

The draft 90 day report is now available  and has been receiving widespread coverage.  Among the recommended blogs offering insight and balance, is one by Michael A. Levi, the David M. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment.

Levi calls the draft report: “..an exceptional piece of work. Anyone who wants to understand the environmental consequences of shale gas development, and the tools available to manage them, should read it in its entirety.”

Levi’s blog can be read in its entirety here.

Tagged with: • • • •
Jul 12

Realm Energy Appoints Lindell Bridges as Vice President, Exploration

By Curve domestic oil and gas production, drilling, Energy, energy market, shale gas, Shale gas production, shale gas reserves No Comments »

 

Realm Energy International Corporation (“Realm Energy” or the “Company”) (TSX VENTURE: RLM) (www.realmenergy.ca) is pleased to announce the appointment of Mr. Lindell C. Bridges as the Company’s new Vice President, Exploration.

Mr. Bridges is a highly regarded shale exploration geologist with over 30 years experience in the oil and gas industry. Mr. Bridges joins Realm Energy from Pittsburgh’s EQT Corporation, where he served as Senior Vice President of Geoscience, responsible for directing the company’s geoscience activity in the Appalachian Basin. One of his key accomplishments, at EQT, included the implementation of a technology program that resulted in one of the best wells in the Marcellus shale gas play, with a 30 day production rate of 22 MMCFGD and a EUR of 13 BCFG.

Prior to this, Mr. Bridges served as Exploration Manager for the Barnett Shale North Division of EOG Resources and Geological Manager, Eastern Division for Chesapeake Energy Corporation. While at Chesapeake, Mr. Bridges successfully drilled Fayetteville Shale discovery wells in White County Arkansas, extending the play more than 40 miles east of the established core areas. He also was responsible for directing geoscience activities in 10 eastern USA States, including several shale plays.

Mr. Bridges was an independent consultant, for 11 years, working projects in several basins including the Appalachian, Illinois, Michigan, Anadarko and Arkoma basins. Prior to this, he spent nine years as Senior Exploration Geologist with Union Oil Company where he was responsible for exploration and development in the Arkoma, Anardarko, Illinois, Michigan & Appalachian Basins.

Mr. Bridges received his BSc and MSc in Geology from the University of Arkansas. His thesis was supported by NASA, and utilized imaging radar data from the Space Shuttle Program.

He is a member of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, the Geological Society of America, the Society of Petroleum Engineers, the Oklahoma City Geological and the Sigma gamma Epsilon Society. Mr. Bridges has also been a guest speaker at many industry conferences and authored numerous geological thesis’, publications and papers. The most recent include “U.S. Shale Case Studies-Marcellus”, “Tight Oil from Shale….or Something Like That”, “Strategies to Identify ‘Sweetspots’ in Shale Gas Reservoirs” and “Basic Tools for Shale Exploration”.

Craig Steinke, Chairman & CEO, says “We are very pleased to welcome Mr. Bridges aboard the Realm Energy shale team. Lindell has a distinguished track record in creating value through unlocking new North American shale plays and high grading the most productive zones. With Realm Energy’s present involvement in multiple early stage shale plays, he is the ideal complement to our Company at this point in the ramp up of our development.”

Dan Jarvie, Realm’s consulting Shale Geochemist and Technical Advisory Board Member remarked, “This is a very significant step for Realm Energy in advancing its worldwide operations. Mr. Bridges has a distinguished track record in successfully developing unconventional shale resource plays in the Barnett, Fayetteville, and Marcellus shales. It is difficult to find people with such broad and specific working knowledge and experience. Realm has indeed advanced its global capabilities.”

Lindell Bridges commented, “I am joining the Realm Energy team with a great deal of enthusiasm. Based on the diversity of the portfolio they are building and the range of my experience in developing new shale plays, I look forward to making a significant contribution in driving the Company’s on-the-ground exploration activities.”

About Realm Energy

Realm Energy International Corporation is a Canadian domiciled global energy company focused on driving the exploration and development of major shale plays throughout Europe and emerging countries. The Company presently has projects in Poland and Germany and is in the process of acquiring additional petroleum and natural gas rights in other European basins which have been identified as high potential. Realm Energy is committed to leveraging the most advanced shale technology to bring these resources into production. Visit Realm Energy’s website at www.realmenergy.ca.

REALM ENERGY INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

Craig Steinke, Executive Chairman & CEO

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION: This news release includes certain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of applicable Canadian provincial securities legislation. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to statements with respect to the possible acquisition of rights to exploration lands that remain under application, the ultimate suitability of lands for drilling for gas development, and the possibility of Realm Energy entering into a joint venture to develop yet to be secured lands in the Paris Basin. Forward-looking statements are necessarily based upon estimates and assumptions that, while considered by the Company’s management to be reasonable, are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors which may cause the actual results and future events to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such factors include, but are not limited to: general business, economic, competitive, political and social uncertainties; the delay or failure to receive regulatory approvals, including rights to lands under application, the characteristics and viability for gas development on lands that have yet to be fully explored and assessed, the willingness of third parties to conclude agreements with Realm Energy on terms that are acceptable to Realm Energy management, and the ability of Realm Energy to secure sufficient future funding to carry out all of its business plans. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. The Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law or the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange.

Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

 

Tagged with: • • •
Jun 29

Energy Information Administration, Industry Heads Fire Back at New York Times

By Curve natural gas, shale gas No Comments »

 

The Energy Information Administration has issued a rare statement in response to a New York Times piece earlier this week on shale gas and its long-term viability as an energy source.  Not only that, the EIA has been joined by many industry heads who point to the fact the Times article does not attribute quotes or anonymous emails to any reliable sources and the research they quoted, flies in the face of the long-term research and exploration by the companies involved in horizontal drilling.

CNN’s Money division details the latest in the – now very public – debate:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)  – Big energy company executives and government researchers are firing back at a recent New York Times story suggesting the recent boom in natural gas production from shale rock is unsustainable and perhaps fraudulent.

“You really have to wonder why the New York Times is campaigning against cleaner-burning, domestically produced natural gas,” ExxonMobil Vice President Ken Cohen wrote in a blogpost Monday. “If the writer had bothered to call us, we would have told him that ExxonMobil’s investment approach is disciplined and based on a long-term view of global market conditions.”

Exxon through its $41 billion purchase of XTO Energy last year, is now North America’s largest shale gas producer.

A spokeswoman for the Times noted that Exxon was barely mentioned in the story, and that the article contained several quotes from others in the industry defending natural gas production rates.

The multi-part story, run in the Times Sunday and Monday, cited numerous, anonymous emails from government staffers, industry consultants and energy company executives questioning whether natural gas production from shale rock is really living up to the hype or is instead just another bubble.

The emails, which the Times posted online with the names redacted, say the wells may be running dry much faster than anticipated and could actually lose money.

The story suggests that the industry may be aware of this, and could be concealing it to boost their stock price. Emails quoted in the piece refer to the shale gas companies as “Ponzi schemes” and say they are having an “Enron moment.”

The story further accuses the government’s Energy Information Administration of relying too heavily on industry data to make its projections. Many of the emails the paper cites are from EIA staffers.

Monday night EIA struck back, issuing a rare statement, saying the agency’s views on shale gas were “different in significant respects from those outlined in the June 27 article.”

EIA posted the letter it sent to the Times in response to questions from the paper online, noting that shale gas production has risen from 4% of all U.S. gas production to 23% in just 5 years.

“It is clear the data shows that shale gas has become a significant source of domestic natural gas supply,” Michael Schaal, EIA’s director of petroleum, natural gas and biofuels analysis, wrote in the letter.

A letter from the chief executive of Chesapeake Energy, another big shale gas company, took a similar tone.

“It is absurd to conclude that shale gas wells are underperforming while America is awash in natural gas,” said CEO Aubrey McClendon. “The Times story was obviously motivated by an anti-natural gas agenda.”

The letter goes on to say that the company’s production numbers and estimates are verified by various third-party organizations, and any recent production declines are more the result of low natural gas prices.

Shale gas production has taken off in the last few years as new technology has allowed the industry to unlock vast quantities of the domestic fuel. Some say the country now has 100 years worth of natural gas.

When used to generate electricity, natural gas burns about twice as cleanly as coal.

The boom has caused a surge in investment, both in the towns where it’s located and in the stock price of the companies that produce it.

But it’s not without controversy. To produce the gas, the shale rock needs to be cracked by a process called hydraulic fracturing. Known as “fracking” for short, it involves injecting vast amounts of water, sand and some chemicals deep into the ground.

There have been spills of this fracking fluid before it’s injected into wells which have contaminated local streams. There are also concerns about the disposal of the fluid and other tainted water that comes up with the gas, as well as fears that the natural gas itself may be seeping into drinking water wells as a result of the drilling process.

Many are calling for tighter regulations on the industry, and the Environmental Protection Agency is studying the procedure.

 

Source:  CNN Money

 

 

Tagged with: • • • •
Previous Entries
preload preload preload