Comments on: Can we establish presence of hydrocarbons in a petroleum prospect before drilling a well down to the prospect? http://askalandman.com/can-we-establish-presence-of-hydrocarbons-in-a-petroleum-prospect-before-drilling-a-well-down-to-the-prospect.htm Questions and Answers Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:01:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: carbonates http://askalandman.com/can-we-establish-presence-of-hydrocarbons-in-a-petroleum-prospect-before-drilling-a-well-down-to-the-prospect.htm/comment-page-1#comment-5134 carbonates Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:31:01 +0000 http://askalandman.com/can-we-establish-presence-of-hydrocarbons-in-a-petroleum-prospect-before-drilling-a-well-down-to-the-prospect.htm#comment-5134 We do use quite a few tools to establish a higher probability of hydrocarbons before drilling, but drilling is the only way to arrive at the final truth. (by the way, I don't think your 70% failure number is wildly incorrect for exploration wells.) When oil was easier to find, often the indicator that was used was the oil seeping to the surface. Also consider that dry holes are not always wasted money. They are expensive sources of data, but are often the most reliable data that leads to later discoveries. Most companies actually include dry holes into drilling plans, as they have all seen the examples where one company walked away and the next one made a major discovery using the information from the first dry hole. Seismic data has reached a point that certain indicators are likely to be caused by the presence of hydrocarbons. Geometric patterns in the seismic data, and processing to isolate frequency responses of sound to lower density gas concentrations are used commonly. There are advances being made in seismic techniques, such as using multi component seismic acquisition, and processing to determine things like fracture orientation. Geochemical surveys are something I think is underutilized in the industry today, especially surface biogeochemical surveys that can detect natural gas and oil that slowly escapes upward from oil and gas reservoirs. These are not new, but are improving. A decade ago Texaco announced that they had created a new airborne petroleum detection instrument called a hyperspectral airborne imaging spectrometer that they were patenting. It was such a big advance they were planning to spin it off as a separate company. About that time Chevron came along and bought out Texaco and I never heard what happened to TEEMS. To me, it was an impressive way of gathering vast amounts of data more quickly than doing it by hand on the surface, but seemed likely to have equally impressive errors. It was expected to provide structural mapping, outcrop lithology, identification of hydrocarbon seeps, and could be used for drill-site planning and seismic program planning. It probably had more useful applications in environmental studies and oil spill tracking however. While Texaco presented it as a revolutionary new tool for hydrocarbon exploration, most of the data it was obtaining can be obtained by boots on the ground. http://www.eomonline.com/Common/Archives/1996may/96may_prelat.html As for satellite data, there is probably little that a satellite can detect other than hydrocarbon seeps, that is not already available from airborne surveys. Airborne surveys are used for mapping geomagnetic data, gravity, and structural geology, and have been for many decades. NASA's ASTER (Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer) has been used to map oil seeps on the surface of the ground or at sea. However, these seeps are not often unknown, and are of such a scale that they would be hard to miss by anyone on the ground. The real problem with satellite data is that there are no direct indicators of hydrocarbons on the surface of the planet, so even if it is utilized, it still takes a drill bit to confirm the discovery. http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc03/p0868.pdf Also see "satellite systems commonly used in basin-scale applications" http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/2006am/techprogram/A102760.htm We do use quite a few tools to establish a higher probability of hydrocarbons before drilling, but drilling is the only way to arrive at the final truth. (by the way, I don’t think your 70% failure number is wildly incorrect for exploration wells.) When oil was easier to find, often the indicator that was used was the oil seeping to the surface. Also consider that dry holes are not always wasted money. They are expensive sources of data, but are often the most reliable data that leads to later discoveries. Most companies actually include dry holes into drilling plans, as they have all seen the examples where one company walked away and the next one made a major discovery using the information from the first dry hole.

Seismic data has reached a point that certain indicators are likely to be caused by the presence of hydrocarbons. Geometric patterns in the seismic data, and processing to isolate frequency responses of sound to lower density gas concentrations are used commonly. There are advances being made in seismic techniques, such as using multi component seismic acquisition, and processing to determine things like fracture orientation.

Geochemical surveys are something I think is underutilized in the industry today, especially surface biogeochemical surveys that can detect natural gas and oil that slowly escapes upward from oil and gas reservoirs. These are not new, but are improving.

A decade ago Texaco announced that they had created a new airborne petroleum detection instrument called a hyperspectral airborne imaging spectrometer that they were patenting. It was such a big advance they were planning to spin it off as a separate company. About that time Chevron came along and bought out Texaco and I never heard what happened to TEEMS. To me, it was an impressive way of gathering vast amounts of data more quickly than doing it by hand on the surface, but seemed likely to have equally impressive errors. It was expected to provide structural mapping, outcrop lithology, identification of hydrocarbon seeps, and could be used for drill-site planning and seismic program planning. It probably had more useful applications in environmental studies and oil spill tracking however. While Texaco presented it as a revolutionary new tool for hydrocarbon exploration, most of the data it was obtaining can be obtained by boots on the ground.
http://www.eomonline.com/Common/Archives/1996may/96may_prelat.html

As for satellite data, there is probably little that a satellite can detect other than hydrocarbon seeps, that is not already available from airborne surveys. Airborne surveys are used for mapping geomagnetic data, gravity, and structural geology, and have been for many decades. NASA’s ASTER (Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer) has been used to map oil seeps on the surface of the ground or at sea. However, these seeps are not often unknown, and are of such a scale that they would be hard to miss by anyone on the ground. The real problem with satellite data is that there are no direct indicators of hydrocarbons on the surface of the planet, so even if it is utilized, it still takes a drill bit to confirm the discovery.
http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc03/p0868.pdf

Also see "satellite systems commonly used in basin-scale applications"
http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/2006am/techprogram/A102760.htm

]]> By: Andrew L http://askalandman.com/can-we-establish-presence-of-hydrocarbons-in-a-petroleum-prospect-before-drilling-a-well-down-to-the-prospect.htm/comment-page-1#comment-5135 Andrew L Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:31:01 +0000 http://askalandman.com/can-we-establish-presence-of-hydrocarbons-in-a-petroleum-prospect-before-drilling-a-well-down-to-the-prospect.htm#comment-5135 why dont we use hydrogen. there are cheap ways of converting water that can be hooked up to existing engines. and the only wast is water. then we can tell the middle east to f off why dont we use hydrogen. there are cheap ways of converting water that can be hooked up to existing engines. and the only wast is water. then we can tell the middle east to f off

]]> By: rhsaunders http://askalandman.com/can-we-establish-presence-of-hydrocarbons-in-a-petroleum-prospect-before-drilling-a-well-down-to-the-prospect.htm/comment-page-1#comment-5136 rhsaunders Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:31:01 +0000 http://askalandman.com/can-we-establish-presence-of-hydrocarbons-in-a-petroleum-prospect-before-drilling-a-well-down-to-the-prospect.htm#comment-5136 I don't have a good answer to the main question, but I must address the previous responder's advocacy of hydrogen. In the first place, hydrogen is not cheap; it is made from natural gas, and has much less energy than the original gas. (Hydrogen can also be made by elecrolyzing water, but that is even more expensive because so much electricity is required.) Secondly, hydrogen is a pain to transport: it likes to seep into the tiny cracks between steel crystals, which embrittles the steel and weakens it. (You can deal with this by lining your pipes with plastic, but that's a nuisance.) Thirdly, hydrogen is a pain to deliver: if delivered as a liquid, it is the second coldest substance there is, and special materials, not embrittled by such cold temperatures, are required to handle it. If delivered as a gas, extremely high pressures (5000 - 10000 PSI) are needed. Fourthly, hydrogen is not dense: to have a useful quantity of it, you need a large tank: a standard gas cylinder (about five feet high) holds only the equivalent of a half gallon of gasoline. My advice: if you hear that a car maker is spending money on hydrogen, short the stock. I don’t have a good answer to the main question, but I must address the previous responder’s advocacy of hydrogen. In the first place, hydrogen is not cheap; it is made from natural gas, and has much less energy than the original gas. (Hydrogen can also be made by elecrolyzing water, but that is even more expensive because so much electricity is required.) Secondly, hydrogen is a pain to transport: it likes to seep into the tiny cracks between steel crystals, which embrittles the steel and weakens it. (You can deal with this by lining your pipes with plastic, but that’s a nuisance.) Thirdly, hydrogen is a pain to deliver: if delivered as a liquid, it is the second coldest substance there is, and special materials, not embrittled by such cold temperatures, are required to handle it. If delivered as a gas, extremely high pressures (5000 – 10000 PSI) are needed. Fourthly, hydrogen is not dense: to have a useful quantity of it, you need a large tank: a standard gas cylinder (about five feet high) holds only the equivalent of a half gallon of gasoline. My advice: if you hear that a car maker is spending money on hydrogen, short the stock.

]]> By: wini_da_cutie http://askalandman.com/can-we-establish-presence-of-hydrocarbons-in-a-petroleum-prospect-before-drilling-a-well-down-to-the-prospect.htm/comment-page-1#comment-5137 wini_da_cutie Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:31:01 +0000 http://askalandman.com/can-we-establish-presence-of-hydrocarbons-in-a-petroleum-prospect-before-drilling-a-well-down-to-the-prospect.htm#comment-5137 at the moment, there aren't any ways of indirectly establishing the presence (or quantity) of hydrocarbons in a prospect. the only way to verify its presence at this time is to actually drill to it. however, prospecting methods have been refined such that a lot of wells that would have been drilled in the early days are not being drilled, which saves some money. however, those that are being drilled are still expensive. your mention of remote-sensing techniques is not really very practical as most prospects are located beneath kilometers of not only earth and rock, but water as well. there are no techniques of overcoming this hurdle which is practicable at this time. at the moment, there aren’t any ways of indirectly establishing the presence (or quantity) of hydrocarbons in a prospect. the only way to verify its presence at this time is to actually drill to it. however, prospecting methods have been refined such that a lot of wells that would have been drilled in the early days are not being drilled, which saves some money. however, those that are being drilled are still expensive.

your mention of remote-sensing techniques is not really very practical as most prospects are located beneath kilometers of not only earth and rock, but water as well. there are no techniques of overcoming this hurdle which is practicable at this time.

]]> By: kany001kool http://askalandman.com/can-we-establish-presence-of-hydrocarbons-in-a-petroleum-prospect-before-drilling-a-well-down-to-the-prospect.htm/comment-page-1#comment-5138 kany001kool Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:31:01 +0000 http://askalandman.com/can-we-establish-presence-of-hydrocarbons-in-a-petroleum-prospect-before-drilling-a-well-down-to-the-prospect.htm#comment-5138 use hydrogen use hydrogen

]]>