Today's Drilling Leaves A Tiny Footprint vs. 1970s
New oil development technology, developed over 30 years on Alaska's North Slope, will allow companies to tap underground producing reservoirs with a much smaller "footprint" on the surface.
When Prudhoe Bay was developed in the 1970s, about 2% of the surface area over the field, or 5,000 acres, was covered by gravel for roads and drilling and production facility sites. If Prudhoe Bay were developed today, using lessons learned since the 1960s, gravel would cover fewer than 2,000 acres, a 60% reduction.
Advances in directional, or extended-reach, drilling now allow producing companies to reach a reservoir 3 miles from the surface location. Soon "extended reach" wells out to four miles will be possible on the North Slope. When Prudhoe Bay was first developed, wells could reach out only 1.5 miles.
In the 1970s, production wells on drill pads in Prudhoe Bay were spaced 100 feet or more apart. New directional drilling techniques and drill equipment allow wells to be spaced 25 to 15 feet apart, and in some cases 10 feet apart. A drill pad that would have been 65 acres in 1977 can be less than nine acres today (an -87% reduction, see chart above). The same number of wells that required a 65-acre pad in the 1970s can be drilled on less than a nine-acre pad today.
Source: Anwr.Org
MP: To put the advances in computer and oil drilling technology since the 1970s in perspective, keep in mind that the slide rule (pictured below, click to enlarge) was "state-of -the art" technology for performing engineering calculations at about the same time that oil development was designed for Pruhoe Bay in Alaska. Because of the advances in oil drilling technology, the "footprint" of the drilling operation in ANWR today would be one sixth the size of Washington's Dulles airport, in an area (ANWR) the size of the entire United Kingdom.
13 Comments:
> MP: To put the advances in computer and oil drilling technology since the 1970s in perspective, keep in mind that the slide rule (pictured below, click to enlarge) was "state-of -the art" technology for performing engineering calculations at about the same time
Mmmmmm, sorta-not-really. Given lead times, this may have been the case for those developing Prudhoe, but I recall a friend with a TI-99 (ca. 100, IIRC) in 1973 was a full, four-function LED calculator with (gasp!!) a "pi" key!!
By two years later (1975) engineers could opt for an HP-55, which was fully programmable, and within the price range of a well-to-do High School Student (I know, a friend had one -- public school, mind you).
While I certainly learned to use a slide rule, they were certainly not the tool for typical engineers anytime past 1972-ish. An HP programmable was the tool of choice for most (employed - LOL) engineers for the latter 2/3rds of the decade.
LED watches had mainstreamed by then, too -- you could get a fairly good one for ca. $100 (more than it sounds in 1970s dollars, but still affordable)
BTW, for those of you wondering, the main trick employed by slide rules was the additive principle of logarithms of A and B as equivalent to multiplication of A and B (If you don't know what that means, don't worry, you probably don't care).
For example, the west side of LA used to look like this.
Today, it is tough to pick out the oil derricks at Beverly Hills High, Beverly Center Mall, this fake "clock tower" or this fake office building on Pico Blvd.
All of the new derricks can do "horizontal drilling".
With regard to the size of the ANWR, Charles Krauthammer's article stated that the area was 1/3 the size of the UK while this post indicates that the land mass is the size of the entire UK.
According to Wikipedia, the ANWR is 19,049,236 acres (79,318 sq. km) while the UK is 244,820 square km. Using these land areas, the total landmass is 32.4% of the area of the United Kingdom.
Mark, you may wish to correct this.
> Because of the advances in oil
> drilling technology, the
> "footprint" of the drilling
> operation in ANWR today would be
> one sixth the size of Washington's > Dulles airport, in an area (ANWR)
> the size of the entire United
> Kingdom.
This is completely false, as been repeated several times on this blog.
There is not some 2,000 acre pool of oil waiting to be slurped up – oil drilling would occur over a vast area of almost 2 million acres. The famous "2,000 acre" figure that drilling proponents cite includes only the space where equipment actually touches the ground. That figure does not include roads, pipelines (except for the tiny footprint of their support posts), gravel mines, exploration wells, and other sites that severely affect the well-being of wildlife to roam and thrive. You can be sure that heavy industry will criss-cross the entire area before they are through.
Dr. Perry,
Do I deserve another hat tip?
Or, do our minds just think alike?
Either way, keep up the good work!
If you are still reading my blog, I am still honored.
"david appell" still staggering around in delusion land...:-)
"There is not some 2,000 acre pool of oil waiting to be slurped up – oil drilling would occur over a vast area of almost 2 million acres"...
Nice of you to describe the 1960s oil drilling technology though...
Thanks...
> pipelines (except for the tiny footprint of their support posts)
And caribou, where the land supports them at all, LIKE pipelines -- they tend to warm the area immediately around them and make it more hospitable.
Does this matter? Nah, not to NeoLuddites, the enemies of all tech.
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. The motorcycle engine is coughing. Time to stop and check it out before it actually breaks down and strands you, numbnuts. Groovin' on the ride is only for part of the time.
David Appell,
You asked for more information on drilling technology and now that it is supplied you don't even so much as look at it.
You present the same arguments as the last post still without a shred of evidence to support your claims. What form of argumentation is this?
Why don't you try posting a link to support your assertions about the 2,000 acres or your assertion that there will be gravel pits, for example? Opinion is not the same as a proof in argumentation.
Am fully prepared to take you seriously if you substantiate your claims. Just harranguing and whinging doesn't cut it for me but then, I no longer read Mother Jones or Now Magazine.
"You asked for more information on drilling technology and now that it is supplied you don't even so much as look at it"...
You've supplied information David Appell ?!?!
Where, when, and how credible was it?
I've yet to see it...
Juandos,
Obviously, you jest, sir. I think that you & I will be making cocktails with arctic ice before that happens.
What can one expect from someone who argues that drilling in ANWR is immoral based upon GHG theory. Anyone with even a glancing knowledge of the oil industry is aware that over 80% of the world's oil supply is controlled by government run oil companies. How is it immoral for a private company but virtuous for a government controlled entity to extract oil? Does Mr. Appell propose an international ban on oil extraction and if so, just who does he think will pass such a measure?
If only, he would make the debate a bit more challenging but I fear he would likely link us to some dribble in Mother Jones. Hey, I just had lunch.
> Does Mr. Appell propose an
> international ban on oil extraction
Of course not. I have no interest in seeing civilization brought to its knees. I live, work, love, and play in the same world you do.
But we do need to transition from fossil fuel technologies as soon as possible. Its emissions are damaging our planet, and will significantly damage its future. The sooner we transition to non-carbon sources of energy, the better.
Yet, still nothing to substantiate the claim of catastrophic environmental devastation resulting from drilling in ANWR.
Surprise, surprise.
"Obviously, you jest, sir. I think that you & I will be making cocktails with arctic ice before that happens"...
Yeah anon @ 2:13 PM, my bad...:-)
"But we do need to transition from fossil fuel technologies as soon as possible"...
Why?
"Its emissions are damaging our planet, and will significantly damage its future"...
No damage in my neighborhood...
Anyone else seeing any signs of damage caused by this alledged human induced global weather change (that's the loons' next argument, the GORON said so)?
Oil today, oil tomorrow, oil a hundred years in the future...
Abiotic Oil, google it...:-)
Post a Comment
<< Home