RE: RE: RE: RE: Waste Disposal First of all I'm very pleased with the share price today. We could only hope to have another day like today, tomorrow.
Cheer to alls.
The waste discussion is a downer; but OilEng asked for my thoughts so these comments are provided without prejudice:
Produced water for the 2013 drilling program won't be a problem for the current program and I agree with OilEng that in the near term Husky may have reached an agreement with IOLR to use thier disposal in Norman Wells or for that matter long haul to disposal wells further south. It's just stupid that the cost for hauling is so high for such a small volume of water.
Nearby disposal wells will need to be part of any oil battery facility as the inlet separators and treaters will generate volumes that won't be economic to haul. I suspect that they will find a zone in one of the carbonate formations...they're typically fractured or have better permeability/porosity. In Alberta the ERCB are on a major review of disposal zone integrity and numerous operators are having trouble with new applications and need to ensure existing licenced disposal formation integrity is intact and isolated.
There is also the issue of NORMs as one formation is known to be radioactive. NORMs usually drop out as scale in the facility piping and treaters but sometimes cause problems for licencing of disposal zones.
What I was on about is the GNWT/NEB are concerned with drilling wastes (cuttings and cement returns). The MacKenzie Delta sumps and remote sumps are causing issues with the permafrost due to elevated salinity issues. Husky's early and mid 2000's sumps were failing inspections too; not sure if they were certified or not now but that pushed current operators to propose the long haul to Zama. A regional Class II oilfield waste management facility (a landfill in layman terms) is likely needed for larger scale drilling programs. I saw one document that proposed thermal disorption but that only addresses hydrocarbons and not salts. I also saw an evapourator in one of the proposals so the water phase could be boiled off but that would in turn trigger a bigger emissions profile. Both landfills and ehigh emission profiles push regulators into more strignet approval conditions. Not sure if these wells are being drilled with invert mud? As they may be for the horizontals as that would reduce the risk of formation damage if swelling clays were present.
Long horizontal wells typically generate a lot of cuttings and cement returns. I read an article where one shale gas operator generated 24,000 m3 of drill cuttings for 49 horizontal wells (no length provided); it caught me off guard. Long hauling that much solid wate would not be inexpensive. Landspreading in that climiate and sensitive ecosystem would be a bust and a sure way to trigger an EIA.
Maybe the operators could get together and build a regional segrated landfill for incresed domestic and oilfield wastes (the two cannot be mixed into the same cell; against the rules) ...I'm sure Norman Wells and Tulita would love to have a facility as it would address long term infrastructure development issues.
Enough about waste; I'll sideline the negative dialogue for now and ride the possibility of reaching my retirement goals.
Again cheers to all.
Regards,