What the Fracking .... ?

[TravelGal]

150 years ago when I was in college I spent a lot of time in the Geology Dept, which was in the same building as the Petroleum Dept so I've at least heard the word "fracking." There are moves afoot and being fought to expand this in California's Monterey Shale Formation. Opponents say it contaminates the water, causes cancer, and your toe nails to fall off (I made up the last one).

Pros? Cons? Any reliable scientific evidence either way?

[dando]

150 years ago when I was in college I spent a lot of time in the Geology Dept, which was in the same building as the Petroleum Dept so I've at least heard the word "fracking." There are moves afoot and being fought to expand this in California's Monterey Shale Formation. Opponents say it contaminates the water, causes cancer, and your toe nails to fall off (I made up the last one).

Pros? Cons? Any reliable scientific evidence either way?

My understanding is that the primary issue with fracking is where to put the waste water that is used to extract the natural gas. It's a big issue in these parts as well (oHIo, PA and WV).

EDIT: Linky (http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2011/apr/26/state-leaders-get-facts-about-fracking-ohios-state-ar-466801/) for more 411 from oHIo.

-Kevin

[emjaya]

Big issue over here at the moment as well.

From what I have read it is the chemicals that are used in the process that are the problem.

[TRDfan]

I've been doing some research because I'm in the hotbed of where the sand comes from for the fracking process.

I work with a couple of mines and also one plant that coats the resin, but there are new mines popping up around here almost weekly.

Lots of discussion on both the mining process and also the fracking process with pros and cons on both ends. I'm guessing the truth lies somewhere in the middle (as it usually does).

[Ankf00]

it's not a new process, just newer directional drilling tools have made it feasible on a greater scale, as well as more nano-science research. feasible on such a level that we're moving into shale oil, beyond just shale gas.

not all wells are drilled properly, but if drilled properly there should be no contamination (absent formations like fault zones that allow communication w/ the surface), the formation that is drilled is thousands of feet below the aquifers/water table in question, that one "documentary" that shows flammable water is showing already contaminated water. there are piping and cement layers that isolate the fluid flow from the surrounding formation until the operator reaches the desired depth

O0kmskvJFt0

the biggest issue imo is the proper disposal of contaminated water, and the use of those water resources in the first place

[dando]

From what I have read it is the chemicals that are used in the process that are the problem.

Correct. It's the chemicals, byproducts and waste water disposal that is driving the anti side up here.

-Kevin

[cameraman]

It doesn't help that the chemicals are largely proprietary mixtures of secret ingredients. It is hard to test for "stuff". The biggest problems I can foresee are improper well design and execution. There was nothing special about the well the Deepwater Horizon was drilling. There is a huge amount of toxic water produced and how that water gets handled, stored and remediated is going to be huge.

[Tifosi24]

Since I work in natural gas regulation (well, not at the moment since the Minnesota government is shutdown), I have sat in on a couple workgroups about unconventional natural gas drilling. From what I have heard, I will tend to agree with what Ank has presented. As long as it is "fracked" correctly, there shouldn't be much in terms of issues, beyond disposal, but that assumes no corners are cut. The big problem with this process is when things go bad, or are done at a less than quality level, terrible things can happen, like drinking water exploding.


it's not a new process, just newer directional drilling tools have made it feasible on a greater scale, as well as more nano-science research. feasible on such a level that we're moving into shale oil, beyond just shale gas.

not all wells are drilled properly, but if drilled properly there should be no contamination (absent formations like fault zones that allow communication w/ the surface), the formation that is drilled is thousands of feet below the aquifers/water table in question, that one "documentary" that shows flammable water is showing already contaminated water. there are piping and cement layers that isolate the fluid flow from the surrounding formation until the operator reaches the desired depth

O0kmskvJFt0

the biggest issue imo is the proper disposal of contaminated water, and the use of those water resources in the first place

[Ankf00]

supposedly a well known operator blew out a hillside in the Marcellus last month, but my friends won't tell me who it was

[SurfaceUnits]

I'll just throw in earthquakes for good measure

[TravelGal]

I'll just throw in earthquakes for good measure

Yes, that's what I was thinking. As in, "(absent formations like fault zones that allow communication w/ the surface)," [Ank] We got a bunch of them guys. Not Anks but faults and fault zones.

As Ank also referenced, the issue under debate here ATM is for oil recovery, which seems to be not quite as well defined as the gas process. Yes? No?

[cameraman]

People have been doing fracking in oil wells for ages, it is called shooting a well.. The production of a well would slow and they needed to open the well up to increase recovery. They place explosives in the well at the level of the oil bearing rock and cover it with either water or drilling mud and boom. That fractures the rock surrounding the well and if done correctly increases the output of the well.

Fracking is just the modern, high tech version of shooting a well.

[Ankf00]

We got a bunch of them guys. Not Anks
yes you do. see: Sunnyvale, CA :gomer:


As Ank also referenced, the issue under debate here ATM is for oil recovery, which seems to be not quite as well defined as the gas process. Yes? No?
the process is the same (relatively speaking), the improvement in the ability to fracture formations at appropriate sizes to enable flow for longer/larger hydrocarbon chains (as opposed to much smaller methane/ethane chains) is what's making shale oil possible.

in essence, they're turning what once was barrier rock into reservoir rock. oil or gas, the same dangers apply with the wellbore/casing/cement, etc. (but much better economics with oil as gas sits at $3-4 MMbtu).

however, seemingly the entirety of the present anti-fracing media push is focused on gas. the NYT had a lengthy piece w/ minimal substance last week, which then resulted in an open letter response from Chesapeake's CEO Aubrey McClendon, who obviously has a bias given Chesapeake's ridicously leveraged investments, but Chesapeake is also supposedly in the primest real estate in all the major shale fields, very profitable real estate, and moving the company into shale oil as a result. Media should be focusing on the lack of well integrity regulations in most states specifically targeting shale gas drilling and the enviro impact of both water shortages & contaminated wastewater instead of what are largely red herrings in aquifer contamination and "ponzi economics." [/holiday inn express]

[stroker]

This has nothing to do with BSG?

:p

[TravelGal]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TravelGal View Post
We got a bunch of them guys. Not Anks

yes you do. see: Sunnyvale, CA :gomer:


the process is the same (relatively speaking), the improvement in the ability to fracture formations at appropriate sizes to enable flow for longer/larger hydrocarbon chains (as opposed to much smaller methane/ethane chains) is what's making shale oil possible.

[snip]

Media should be focusing on the lack of well integrity regulations in most states specifically targeting shale gas drilling and the enviro impact of both water shortages & contaminated wastewater instead of what are largely red herrings in aquifer contamination and "ponzi economics." [/holiday inn express]

Ank, we don't have a bunch of you. There is only ONE. :)

Last paragraph is the conclusion I was reaching during the conversation. Appreciate the knowledge gained. I promise to use it constructively.

[Corner5]

dZe1AeH0Qz8

Water on fire

[Ankf00]

that documentary's been debunked from beginning to end.

[nrc]

that documentary's been debunked from beginning to end.

Bah! Your facts hold no power against the forces of sensationalism! :gomer:

[Corner5]

that documentary's been debunked from beginning to end.

Really?

http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=0&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=fracking&btnmeta_news_search=Search+News

[cameraman]

I have a major problem with sending waste water from these rigs to municipal waste water treatment plants. They are designed to remove human waste from the water and they depend upon bacteria to do much of the heavy lifting. They are not designed to remove heavy metals and Mr Wizard proprietary solvents. Unless they can prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that a municipal plant can remove everything that is in that drilling waste there is no way they should be allowed to use those plants. That means they must tell us exactly what is in that waste.

And I am not a fan of the current process of injecting the waste into deep wells as a disposal method. High pressure water will find a way to a lower pressure environment, that is basic physics.

[Ankf00]

Really?

http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=0&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=fracking&btnmeta_news_search=Search+News

yes, really. that flammable water was flammable before drilling, the drilling didn't introduce hydrocarbons to that aquifer.

[Ankf00]

for your reading pleasure, gasland debunked from start to finish: http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/

the specifics regarding water contamination:

Dunkard Creek: Fox includes images of dead fish along a 35-mile stretch of Dunkard Creek in Washington Co., Pa.; attributes that event to natural gas development. (01:23:15)

•Fox’s attempt to blame the Dunkard Creek incident on natural gas exploration is contradicted by an EPA report – issued well before GasLand was released – which blamed the fish kill on an algal bloom, which itself was fed by discharges from coal mines.

•EPA report: “Given what has been seen in other states and the etiology of this kill, we believe the toxin from this algae bloom led to the kill of fish, mussels, and salamanders on Dunkard Creek. … The situation in Dunkard Creek should be considered a chronic exposure since chloride levels were elevated above the criteria for long periods of time.” (issued 11/23/09)

•Local PA newspaper calls out Fox: “One glaring error in the film is the suggestion that gas drilling led to the September fish kill at Dunkard Creek in Greene County. That was determined to have been caused by a golden algae bloom from mine drainage from a [mine] discharge.” (Washington (Pa.) Observer-Reporter, 6/5/10)

Mike Markham: Fox blames flammable faucet in Fort Lupton, Colo. on natural gas development

•But that’s not true according to the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC). “Dissolved methane in well water appears to be biogenic [naturally occurring] in origin. … There are no indications of oil & gas related impacts to water well.” (complaint resolved 9/30/08, signed by John Axelson of COGCC)

•Context from our friends at ProPublica: “Drinking water with methane, the largest component of natural gas, isn’t necessarily harmful. The gas itself isn’t toxic — the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t even regulate it — and it escapes from water quickly, like bubbles in a soda.” (Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica, 4/22/09)

Lisa Bracken: Fox blames methane occurrence in West Divide Creek, Colo. on natural gas development.

•That assertion has also been debunked by COGCC, which visited the site six separate times over 13 months to confirm its findings: “Stable isotopes from 2007 consistent with 2004 samples indicting gas bubbling in surface water features is of biogenic origin.” (July 2009, COGCC presentation by Margaret Ash, environmental protection supervisor)

•Email from COGCC supervisor to Bracken: “Lisa: As you know since 2004, the COGCC staff has responded to your concerns about potential gas seepage along West Divide Creek on your property and to date we have not found any indication that the seepage you have observed is related to oil and gas activity.” (email from COGCC’s Debbie Baldwin to Bracken, 06/30/08)

•More from that email: “These samples have been analyzed for a variety of parameters including natural gas compounds (methane, ethane, propane, butane, pentane, hexanes), heavier hydrocarbon compounds including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX), stable isotopes of methane, bacteria (iron related, sulfate reducing, and slime), major anions and cations, and other field and laboratory tests. To date, BTEX compounds have not been detected in any of the samples.”

Calvin Tillman: Fox interviews mayor of DISH, Texas; blames natural gas development, transport for toxins in the air, benzene in blood.

•Tillman in the press: “Six months ago, nobody knew that facilities like this would be spewing benzene. Someone could come in here and look at us and say, ‘You know what? They’ve sacrificed you. You’ve been sacrificed for the good of the shale.’” (Scientific American, 3/30/10)

•A little more than a month later, Texas Dept. of State Health Services debunks that claim: “Biological test results from a Texas Department of State Health Services investigation in Dish, Texas, indicate that residents’ exposure to certain contaminants was not greater than that of the general U.S. population.” (DSHS report, May 12, 2010)

•More from the agency: “DSHS paid particular attention to benzene because of its association with natural gas wells. The only residents who had higher levels of benzene in their blood were smokers. Because cigarette smoke contains benzene, finding it in smokers’ blood is not unusual.”

[Corner5]

There was a good piece on this last night on 60 minutes.

It's true they drill below the aquifer, but to do this they construct concrete pipelines which can break or fail or have been shabbily built in a hurry.

cameraman is right to question the chemicals used to get the gas, which is seen leeching into the soil."People who have tested the frack fluid have found toluene, formaldehyde, and benzene, all extremely toxic."

For your viewing pleasure-

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7372850n&tag=contentMain;contentAux

The problem is the regulations that were taken away in 2005. It's a free for all with no oversight.

[Ankf00]

It's true they drill below the aquifer, but to do this they construct concrete pipelines which can break or fail or have been shabbily built in a hurry.

yes, they can fail if not built properly. this does not mean they do fail on a significant basis. the pipelines aren't made of concrete either, the concrete functions as a substrate between the wellbore drilled through the geological formation and the steel pipe casing that functions as the structural barrier. then within the first casing there'll be another concrete layer, and then another steel pipe casing, and then generally 1 more.


cameraman is right to question the chemicals used to get the gas, which is seen leeching into the soil."People who have tested the frack fluid have found toluene, formaldehyde, and benzene, all extremely toxic."
frac fluid is comprised of 99.5%+ water & sand. various operators use different other agents in their process, they do not, however, use a cocktail of 57 different chemical agents for their fluid.

and unless the 3 layers concrete and steel pipe casing fail, they don't contaminate the soil. they certainly don't leech into the soil from the reservoir below b/c it's geologically impossible to w/o fault formations or the like, which again is an operational issue, not a technical issue.


The problem is the regulations that were taken away in 2005. It's a free for all with no oversight.
what regulations would those be, specifically? shale gas development predates 2005 by a decade, and the process of fracing is 60+ years old.


Misstating the Law

(6:05) “What I didn’t know was that the 2005 energy bill pushed through Congress by Dick Cheney exempts the oil and natural gas industries from Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Superfund law, and about a dozen other environmental and Democratic regulations.”

•This assertion, every part of it, is false. The oil and natural gas industry is regulated under every single one of these laws — under provisions of each that are relevant to its operations. See this fact sheet for a fuller explanation of that.

•The process of hydraulic fracturing, to which Fox appears to be making reference here, has never in its 60-year history been regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). It has, however, been regulated ably and aggressively by the states, which have compiled an impressive record of enforcement and oversight in the many decades in which they have been engaged in the practice.

•Far from being “pushed through Congress by Dick Cheney,” the Energy Policy Act of 2005 earned the support of nearly three-quarters of the U.S. Senate (74 “yea” votes), including the top Democrat on the Energy Committee; current Interior secretary Ken Salazar, then a senator from Colorado; and a former junior senator from Illinois named Barack Obama. In the U.S. House, 75 Democrats joined 200 Republicans in supporting the final bill, including the top Democratic members on both the Energy & Commerce and Resources Committees.

(6:24) “But when the 2005 energy bill cleared away all the restrictions, companies … began to lease Halliburton technology and to begin the largest and most extensive domestic gas drilling campaign in history – now occupying 34 states.”

•Once again, hydraulic fracturing has never been regulated under SDWA – not in the 60-year history of the technology, the 36-year history of the law, or the 40-year history of EPA. Given that, it’s not entirely clear which “restrictions” in the law Mr. Fox believes were “cleared away” by the 2005 energy bill. All the bill sought to do was clarify the existing and established intent of Congress as it related to the scope of SDWA.

•Interest in developing clean-burning natural gas resources from America’s shale formations began to manifest itself well before 2005. The first test well in the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, for example, was drilled in 2004. In Texas, the first wells in the prolific Barnett Shale formation were spudded in the late 1990s. But even before natural gas from shale was considered a viable business model, energy producers had been relying on hydraulic fracturing for decades to stimulate millions of wells across the country. The technology was first deployed in 1948.

•The contention that current energy development activity represents the “largest … drilling campaign in history” is also incorrect. According to EIA, more natural gas wells were developed in 1982 than today. And more than two times the number of petroleum wells were drilled back then as well, relative to the numbers we have today. Also, while it may (or may not) be technically true that fracturing activities take place in 34 states, it’s also true that 99.9 percent of all oil and gas activity is found in only 27 U.S. states (page 9, Ground Water Protection Council report)

(32:34) “The energy task force, and $100 million lobbying effort on behalf of the industry, were significant in the passage of the ‘Halliburton Loophole’ to the Safe Drinking Water Act, which authorizes oil and gas drillers exclusively to inject known hazardous materials, unchecked, directly into or adjacent to underground drinking water supplies. It passed as part of the Bush administration’s Energy Policy Act of 2005.”

•Not content with simply mischaracterizing the nature of existing law, here Fox attempts to assert that the law actually allows energy producers to inject hazardous chemicals “directly into” underground drinking water. This is a blatant falsehood. Of course, if such an outrageous thing were actually true, one assumes it wouldn’t have taken five years and a purveyor of the avant-garde to bring it to light.

•The subsurface formations that undergo fracture stimulation reside thousands and thousands of feet below formations that carry potable water. These strata are separated by millions of tons of impermeable rock, and in some cases, more than two miles of it.

•Once again, to characterize the bipartisan 2005 energy bill as having a “loophole” for hydraulic fracturing requires one to believe that, prior to 2005, hydraulic fracturing was regulated by EPA under federal law. But that belief is mistaken. And so is the notion that the 2005 act contains a loophole for oil and natural gas. As stated, hydraulic fracturing has been regulated ably and aggressively by the states.

[cameraman]

frac fluid is comprised of 99.5%+ water & sand. various operators use different other agents in their process, they do not, however, use a cocktail of 57 different chemical agents for their fluid.

You are talking about compounds that have significant toxicity in the ppm range. I would not be drinking any water that contained 0.5% miscellaneous organics. At the moment regulatory oversight concerning the waste stream is an idiotic patchwork of state regulations and some of those states (especially Utah) expend the barest minimum of effort to enforce them. There are hundreds of drillers out there of wildly varying operational and managerial mindsets, budgets and skills. The process presents a clear opportunity for **** to happen and there needs to be a consistent, clear and concise governmental policy towards the operation of these wells. These operations are going to continue and they will become increasingly common over the next few decades. It would be nice, for once, to get out ahead of the technology and try to prevent or at least greatly minimize the inevitable screw ups. Implicitly trusting any industry not to cut corners to save time/money is a recipe for disaster.

[Ankf00]

Unless you're drinking the frac water straight from the hose you're not finding a 0.5% fluid. I agree on the need for aggressive controls for well integrity and don't want to downplay the risk, but if these operators are polluting aquifers left and right there'd be much more contamination presently found. But most importantly, my main point was merely that operators aren't shoving cocktails of 75 or 50% toxic substances into the ground despite what anti-shale activists try to portray it as, still risky, but not a runaway nuclear reactor