Wildabeest
Well-known member
It’s just down the road from me. There was quite a bit of activity there last summer/fall. Looked like mostly site engineering work based on the trucks and equipment. Been pretty quiet so far this year though.
U.S. says it will cut costs for clean energy projects on public lands
- Thread starter Wildabeest
- Start date
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
20 Most Useless College Degrees 2024
Numerous degree options and professional trajectories are available to students embarking on their college journey. We'll help you by going over the most
www.edsmart.org
I got it. We hire the people with the above degrees to go to every feedlot and pasture in the US with small vacuum machines collecting each and every cow fart. We burn the methane to create electricity. This solves the cow fart problem, the glow bull warming problem, the energy problem, and most of all, the useless degree having entitled kid that’s lived off mommy and daddy will have to get dirty and be someone of a benefit to society instead of a drag. I know this last sentence was very long, I don’t care.
You can keep the medal but I want my $1,000,000 for the Nobel prize. Thank you.
Poke 'Em
Well-known member
Lol. 500 bbls/day average. That's nowhere close to reality.
BackofBeyond
Well-known member
Ok, maybe this is a dumb idea, but I'm going to throw it out anyways.
Why put these solar arrays on public lands, when there is more than enough "acreage" on top of people's houses? Seriously. The space is already there, no new development needed; they're already hooked into the electrical grid, so no new development there; not harming any wildlife habitat that hasn't already been screwed up; pay the lease money to the homeowner for added economic benefit. I agree, we do need investment in green energy, we can only run off fossil fuels for so long, but why do we need new development? I mean hell, I have a huge southern exposure on the roof of my house. If they want to pay for the panels, and install, and pay me a lease fee... let's roll.
Not exactly a fleshed out plan, probably doesn't work in the end, but i think its a better idea than NEW development.
Why put these solar arrays on public lands, when there is more than enough "acreage" on top of people's houses? Seriously. The space is already there, no new development needed; they're already hooked into the electrical grid, so no new development there; not harming any wildlife habitat that hasn't already been screwed up; pay the lease money to the homeowner for added economic benefit. I agree, we do need investment in green energy, we can only run off fossil fuels for so long, but why do we need new development? I mean hell, I have a huge southern exposure on the roof of my house. If they want to pay for the panels, and install, and pay me a lease fee... let's roll.
Not exactly a fleshed out plan, probably doesn't work in the end, but i think its a better idea than NEW development.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
The spread of production is really massive, OXY Silvertip 13H just IP'd at 7717 bbls/day, probably most of the wells in a more mature inventory are going to be in the 5-50 range.
Midland/Delaware/SCOOP/STACK/DJ/Powder... etc are all going to be different. Also IP30 versus average for a year.
It's just a WAG...
Poke 'Em
Well-known member
IP's are the most useless stat in terms of production. Companies will literally open the well for 15 minutes and multiply by 96.The spread of production is really massive, OXY Silvertip 13H just IP'd at 7717 bbls/day, probably most of the wells in a more mature inventory are going to be in the 5-50 range.
Midland/Delaware/SCOOP/STACK/DJ/Powder... etc are all going to be different. Also IP30 versus average for a year.
It's just a WAG...
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
@Poke 'Em
most of our wells are sub 20 BOE/d but most of our production comes from above 500 BOE/d wells.
most of our wells are sub 20 BOE/d but most of our production comes from above 500 BOE/d wells.
Our wells when they were first drilled 15 years ago came on around 300/day. Now they are around 50/day
TwistedSage
Well-known member
New Mexico's hydrogen plan subsidizes fossil fuels -Energy News Network
The Hydrogen Hub Act hopes to help New Mexico solve its reliance on fossil fuels. But is hydrogen just another dirty energy option?
energynews.us
Probably out of my league here but here goes..
New Mexico recently had a Hydrogen hub development act fail to pass. the bill was written to show how NM can meet cleaner energy emmison goals by using Hydrogen as the main fuel source for energy production. however the bill did not have the framework to take into account the emmisons created in the production of the hydrogen itself. the vast majorty or the hydrogen production comes from extracting the hydrogen from natural gas. So while the hydrogen burns cleaner the bill did nothing to account for the extraction of the natural gas from the ground or the emmisons from the process of extracting the hydrogen from the natural gas.
I'm sure you know way more about developing technologies, but from my pov until they can come up with efficient tech to extract hydrogen from water or ways to capture all energy from extraction from the natural gas instead of venting were not really solving anything. The main source or energy still being natural gas.
I think I think with a lot of the green energy push we are putting the cart before the horse.
I am not a solar proponent, but I don't understand this comment? Don't need slope and aspect with a panel that tilts.
Non-renewable vs renewable?
People don't need to develop south facing slopes for townhouses, condos and giant retirement homes, but they do.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
The joys of decline curves, tech changes, and basin differences...
Bakken
(Spud date)
2006-2022, 12 month cum oil, average ~395 bbls/d
2016-2022 vintage, 12 month cum oil, average ~452 bbls/d
2016-2022 vintage, 6 month cum oil, average ~1644 bbs/d
2016- Present, 12 month cum oil.
165,271= 452bbls/d
2016-Present, 6month cum oil
107,863 = 599 bbls/d
Which I think more than anything makes the point that you have to keep drilling and expanding and creating more impact to produce oil. So it's not a set amount disturbance.
My original post was more meant to provide some context for what that amount of acreage means. Elon musk has floated 10,000 sq miles others 22k as what you would need to power the US with solar.
He acts like that's small... but my point above is that 183,000 is pretty staggering. The Elon number is flirting with the total amount of public land east of the Mississippi.
Oil and Gas is very problematic, but I think one is insane if they think doubling down on development of public lands is the answer.
Part of me wonders why we don't target abandoned/orphaned/ marginal well sites for solar... you could probably add thousands of acres of solar doing that...
I couldn’t agree more. Cover the beaches in solar panels and place the wind turbines to catch the ocean breezes in the shallow water. See how many Washington bureaucrats and Hollywood actors like them in their yards compared to having them ruin the landscapes amongst us peasants on the prairies. We don’t need power out here anyway. I got me a shotgun, rifle, and a four-wheel drive……… you know the rest.
brocksw
Well-known member
Just some Info to add to the conversation.
I believe there is already around 100k oil wells on federal public land in the US of A. There have been various studies and analysis done to measure surface impacts in acres. Some specific to basins, some nationwide totals.
www.google.com
I believe there is already around 100k oil wells on federal public land in the US of A. There have been various studies and analysis done to measure surface impacts in acres. Some specific to basins, some nationwide totals.
Study: Oil and gas drilling consuming millions of acres | Energy News Network
Drilling for oil and gas, which has increased substantially in many parts of the country over the past decade, has impacted millions of acres of agricultural and range land.
www.google.com
Similar threads
