THE Fracking Thread (merged)

[WildRose]

The Rosebud issue is first of all, nothing to do with shale gas fracing and secondly was investigated by Alberta Environment. Encana was engaged in coalbed methane production which is completely unrelated in terms of activity. Here they use nitrogen not to frac but to open up the natural coal “cleat” system and then produce all of the bound water in the coal until the point at which methane is produced. Alberta Environment issued a report in early 2008 which stated the methane in Ernst’s water well was naturally occurring and due to poor condition of the water well and poor maintanence of the well.
Ernst having not gotten the answer she wanted is now suing Encana, Alberta Environment and the ERCB for 30 MM. Her claim is that it was the Encana production activity that caused methane to appear in her drinking water. I see this as highly unlikely given the distance to the nearest Encana wells. In CBM operations well spacing is very, very close (less than a hundred metres) simply because it is the only way to properly de-water the coal and get gas transmissibility. As I mentioned in a previous post the simply production of water from a water well that has coal seams exposed will de-water that coal and after a period of time methane will be desorbed and produced. This can take years of water production under normal rates so her experience is not uncommon.
It’s in front of courts so Encana has gone silent which they are required to do.

It's important to understand that CBM and shale gas extraction are completely different operations with completely different risks. CBM requires more care simply because operations are generally shallow and close to acquifers and the ability to case off the well is more challenged.

Alberta Environment, as relates to the investigation in this case, is a joke.

It seems to me that there are some similarities with regards to the fracturing process that infiltrated Ms. Ernst's property in the way that water, sand and chemicals at high pressure were used, and also in the way that new pathways and fractures created in the fracturing process are probably responsible for the contamination of the aquifer at Rosebud and Ms. Ernst's well. CBM is done at shallower depths, but the network of fractures, man-made and natural, that results underground after lots of fracturing in an area is one of the main concerns for people wanting to protect their water from contamination, isn't it? In any case, the Ernst vs. Encana case is a good example of wrongdoing by both industry and government boards that are supposed to protect the environment from industry.

http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/

[rockdoc123]

Alberta Environment, as relates to the investigation in this case, is a joke.

Making a statement like without any backup or rationale doesn’t strengthen your case. I’ve pointed out that there is a very scientific and reasonable explanation why she should have seen methane in well water after having produced from a coal seam for a number of years…it is entirely predictable.
If you can point us all toward where Alberta Environment made their mistakes in the investigation it would be useful.

It seems to me that there are some similarities with regards to the fracturing process that infiltrated Ms. Ernst's property in the way that water, sand and chemicals at high pressure were used

Encana notes that they use nitrogen as a agent to open up coal cleats in their CBM operations in the area. They are not using sand and they are not using chemicals other than nitrogen and normal drilling fluids. Nitrogen has been used for many, many years in the industry for gas lift and in enhanced recovery schemes. When you speak of “high pressure” it is not the same as high pressure for shale. They are likely injecting at only a few hundred psi (versus 5000 psi or so for shales) and are not proping the opened cleats so the pressure pulse is pretty short lived.

and also in the way that new pathways and fractures created in the fracturing process are probably responsible for the contamination of the aquifer at Rosebud and Ms. Ernst's well

whats your rationale for this? All they have done is opened up the natural coal cleat network, they have not created new fractures. Coal naturally has a cleat or joint system to it. This is why hyrdraulic open face mining is so effective. The cleat system is quite weak and easily opened with pumped nitrogen. At the same time because of overburden pressure without proping the cleats open the area of change around a given well is quite small. A well would have to be almost immediately adjacent to her water well to have created any effect. She admits that the aquifer she is using is the coal seams themselves. By definition they are already contaminated with methane (hence the term coal bed methane).

In any case, the Ernst vs. Encana case is a good example of wrongdoing by both industry and government boards that are supposed to protect the environment from industry.

Horsecrap. The only investigation conducted to date by the regulatory network has indicated the methane is naturally occurring. There is no study, independent or otherwise that states the company, ERCB or Environment Alberta were involved in “wrongdoing”. Methane in well water is not something new in Alberta. The difference is that before they had “evil oil” to blame farmers simply shut in their well, drilled a new one and produced water until they saw methane again and then repeated the process. Ernst may consult to industry with regards to the environment but she is hardly an authority in this particular area, she is a veterinarian by training which doesn’t really qualify her as an oilfield best practices expert.

[kublikhan]

Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA) signed China’s first shale-gas production sharing contract as the world’s second-largest economy seeks to unlock resources similar to those that sparked the U.S. natural gas boom.

Shell and China National Petroleum Corp (CNPZ)., the state- controlled parent of PetroChina Co. (857), agreed to explore, develop and produce shale gas in the Fushun-Yongchuan block in the Sichuan basin, an area covering about 3,500 square kilometers (1,350 square miles), London-based Shell said in a statement on its website today.

Hydraulic fracturing, the technology behind shale gas that breaks open underground rocks, allowed the U.S. to become the world’s biggest gas producer. China may have 50 percent more shale gas reserves than the U.S., according the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Shell Chief Financial Officer Simon Henry said last month that the company invested more than $400 million in shale projects with CNPC in China last year and that they plan to drill as many as 25 wells this year.

Chinese shale may hold 1,275 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable gas, or 12 times the country’s conventional natural-gas deposits, according to a U.S. Energy Information Administration report published in April. China’s “technically recoverable” reserves are almost 50 percent more than the 862 trillion cubic feet held by the U.S., the EIA said.

Shell Signs First Chinese Shale Gas Production Deal With CNPC

[radon]

Energy Bulletin
Obviously, ominous Moscow's hand.

[dissident]

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-03-19/speaking-france
Obviously, ominous Moscow's hand.

Indeed. The evil Czar in the Kremlin has more control over defenseless western societies than the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the USSR during the Cold War. Or maybe these journalist monkeys should lay off the crack.

[Graeme]

"Unprecedented" Rise in Earthquakes Directly Linked to Oil and Gas Drilling

Kelleymcd is an anti-fracking activist, and he clearly attributed the large amount of earthquakes to recent drilling activity—and not without reason. The US Geological Survey (USGS)had already linked 50 Oklahoma earthquakes to fracking, and a British fracking operation had recently fessed up to causing earthquakes in England.

Not long after, an earthquake linked to fracking in Ohio was so strong that its effects were felt in Toronto.

No wonder people are getting nervous.

Now a new report from the USGS to be presented next month at the annual meeting of the Seismological Society of America in San Diego directly links an "unprecedented" increase in frequency and magnitude of earthquakes to drilling for oil and gas:

In Oklahoma, the rate of M >= 3 events abruptly increased in 2009 from 1.2/year in the previous half-century to over 25/year. This rate increase is exclusive of the November 2011 M 5.6 earthquake and its aftershocks. A naturally-occurring rate change of this magnitude is unprecedented outside of volcanic settings or in the absence of a main shock, of which there were neither in this region.

treehugger

[Ferretlover]

The process of hydraulic fracturing is a mining technique which uses injected fluid to propagate fractures in a rock layer to release hydrocarbon deposits that would otherwise be uncommercial. Developed in the U.S. and first used in 1947 for stimulating of oil and natural gas wells, the use of “fracking” soared in the past decade as thousands of wells have been drilled into the Marcellus Formation, also referred to as the Marcellus Shale, a deposit of marine sedimentary rock found in eastern North America.

While initial environmental protests of the technique centered around its possibility of polluting underground water aquifers as a number of known carcinogenic substances are used in the procedure, more recently research has focused on an even more ominous byproduct of the technique – the increased possibility of earthquakes. While in the U.S. the U.S. Geological Survey and the state governments are investigating the link, in Britain the Department of Energy and Climate Change on 17 April published an independent expert report recommending measures to mitigate the risks of seismic tremors from hydraulic fracturing and invited public comment on its recommendations.

The report reviewed a series of studies commissioned by Cuadrilla, whose fracking operations in Lancashire aroused public debate, and the document “confirms that minor earthquakes detected in the area of the company’s Preese Hall operations near Blackpool in April and May last year were caused by fracking.” DECC’s Chief Scientific Advisor David MacKay remarked, “If shale gas is to be part of the UK’s energy mix we need to have a good understanding of its potential environmental impacts and what can be done to mitigate those impacts. This comprehensive independent review of Cuadrilla’s evidence suggests a set of robust measures to make sure future seismic risks are minimized - not just at this location but at any other potential sites across the UK.”

The report is certain to reopen debate about the Lancashire tremors, which on
Full article at: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gener ... ebate.html

[Timo]

So, this finding just begs the question, which is more important: jobs and profits for big oil, or a stable, liveable, and safe planet to live on?

Let's hire someone to burn the house down to keep us warm at night. That creates a job, while it also creates energy to keep us warm.

Unfortunately, our understanding of economics precludes any consideration of the common good, or any consideration for geological stability. If someone can make a buck off of the planet's resources, that's just capitalism. To suggest otherwise is heresy!

Mining the ocean floor has begun in Papua New Guinea. Money to be made. Planet's survival be damned. Oh well. As long as my way of life is made as easy as possible, why should i care what we do to our planet?

[Cog]

Barring any major earthquake damage caused by fracking, I'm not seeing the problem here. If anything, fracking releases strain on fault lines before they build up to create major quakes which cause damage.

Fracking has been going on for a very long time, and when properly regulated, is safe to the environment.

[Lore]

Fracking has been going on for a very long time, and when properly regulated, is safe to the environment.

Isn't that the goal of some members of Congress and Presidential contenders, to reduce regulation?

[Cog]

Give me the link where anyone running for office wishes to reduce regulation on fracking. I would like to read it and send them my objection.

You do realize that states like Texas and Oklahoma have been doing fracking for well over 4 decades in a completely safe and regulated manner. If states like PA and Ohio don't know how to regulate it, they should contact the states that do know how.

[Lore]

Give me the link where anyone running for office wishes to reduce regulation on fracking. I would like to read it and send them my objection.

Sure, here ya go. Get your email ready.

Romney rips Obama for imposing ‘onslaught’ of energy regulations

“Holding off on drilling in the Gulf, holding off on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, holding off on drilling in Alaska, trying to impose the federal government into ‘fracking’ regulations with regards to natural gas,” Romney said at a western Pennsylvania campaign stop.

“Then, of course, all the regulations related to coal, making it harder to mine it, making it harder to use it. These things have made the cost of energy go up,” he added.
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wir ... egulations

[Graeme]

Fracking requires a minimum distance of at least 0.6 kilometers from sensitive rock strata

The analysis is based on data from thousands of fracking operations in the USA and natural rock fractures in Europe and Africa.
It is believed to be the first analysis of its type and could be used across the world as a starting point for setting a minimum distance between the depth of fracking and shallower aquifers used for drinking water.
The new study, published in the journal Marine and Petroleum Geology, shows the probabilities of 'rogue' fractures, induced in fracking operations for shale gas extraction, extending beyond 0.6 kilometres from the injection source is exceptionally low. The probability of fractures extending beyond 350 metres was found to be one per cent.
During fracking operations, fractures are created by drilling and injecting fluid into the rock strata underground to increase oil and gas production from fine-grained, low permeability rocks such as shale. These stimulated fractures can significantly increase the rate of production of oil and gas from such rocks.

physorg

[Cog]

Fracking regulations should be on a state level. Romney is correct in his approach. If PA or Ohio wants some knowledge on fracking regulations, instead of depending on the feds who know nothing about it, they should consult with Texas.

Next please.

[dinopello]

Fracking regulations should be on a state level. Romney is correct in his approach. If PA or Ohio wants some knowledge on fracking regulations, instead of depending on the feds who know nothing about it, they should consult with Texas.

Next please.

So you don't think that the environmental impacts of fracking can cross state lines ? Or, just don't care ?

[Lore]

Fracking regulations should be on a state level. Romney is correct in his approach. If PA or Ohio wants some knowledge on fracking regulations, instead of depending on the feds who know nothing about it, they should consult with Texas.

Next please.

That's not what you asked about. There's your candidate, I'm sure he'll appreciate hearing from you.

As Dino makes reference to, I'm also sure the dangers of unregulated fracking take a holiday in states that would have none.

[Cog]

Fracking regulations should be on a state level. Romney is correct in his approach. If PA or Ohio wants some knowledge on fracking regulations, instead of depending on the feds who know nothing about it, they should consult with Texas.

Next please.

So you don't think that the environmental impacts of fracking can cross state lines ? Or, just don't care ?

If you think fracking has contaminated your cubicle coffee, you are free to resort to the court system to prove it.

lsol

[Outcast_Searcher]

Barring any major earthquake damage caused by fracking, I'm not seeing the problem here. If anything, fracking releases strain on fault lines before they build up to create major quakes which cause damage.

+1

One never hears about the well-known science describing what causes major earthquakes, or that the forces involved are (thus far) WELL beyond anything people can cause.

But then again, rational analysis precludes the political hay to be made about all the "evil rich business owners" even while the whiners drive their cars and fly internationally.

There are PLENTY of environmental issues (including potential water table contamination by fracking) to concern ourselves with. I suggest the whiners get a grip and focus on issues with fracking and energy usage that actually matter (i.e. AGW).

Edit - fixed quote command syntax I messed up for Cog's quote.

[rockdoc123]

One never hears about the well-known science describing what causes major earthquakes, or that the forces involved are (thus far) WELL beyond anything people can cause.

in most cases this would be correct. As I've pointed out on a different thread there are two issues that are somewhat separate, one is water injection into somewhat unknown rock environment and the other is induced fracing where the rock environment is generally (or should be) well understood.
An example where water injection could indeed create a major earthquake would be along the system of subsidiary faults in the San Andreas. The mechanism of earthquake generation along the San Andreas is mainly "stick-slip" where strain builds up to a point where there is a rapid release which can cause an earthquake. The strain then continues to build until the next release point. All of this due to the convergent plate boundary along the west coast. If you were to start injecting water willy-nilly into one of the connecting fault planes that had built up extensive strain energy over time you could easily cause it to suddenly fail...the size of the earthquake would be commensurate with the amount of strain energy built up.
The reason that the injection earthquakes in Ohio have been small is that the tectonic environment doesn't favor large strain build up. The only case that has been identified of shale gas fracing having anything to do with an earthquake is the Cuadrilla story in Blackpool. Here their well accidently hit a fault and when they started to pump rather than fluids going to build new fractures they simply opened up the pre-existing fault and low and behold, minor earthquakes. If you look at the depth and tectonic environment it is extremely unlikely any such earthquake created could reach 3.0 on the richter scale.

[Graeme]

Algae technology cleans up fracking

Safer fracking may be possible. Biofuel start-up OriginOil has devised a new process to treat water that’s been tainted by gas and oil drilling, reducing production costs and limiting environment harm.

A noxious brew of chemicals, mineral, or petroleum, mixes with drilling water whenever oil and gas companies use a drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing, or “hydro-fracking.” This waste is typically pumped out and trucked off to disposal wells for storage, or is eventually treated.

The industry’s term for the brew is “flowback water”, and it’s aptly named. Handling it harms the bottom line of energy companies as well as the environment. Transporting flowback water adds US$2-5 cost per barrel of oil, said Riggs Eckelberry, CEO of OriginOil. “There’s nothing pretty about that.”

“Permits for disposal wells not being granted anymore,” Eckelberry added. Energy companies are “looking for a fig leaf” as public scrutiny increases, he said. “The fact is we really do help. They need the petro fully recovered and water cleaned.”

Recent Environmental Protection Agency studies found that hydro-fracking tainted an aquifer in Wyoming.

OriginOil is applying its algae harvesting process to the problem. Third party PACE Engineering showed that the technology was able to remove 98% of hydrocarbons from a sample of West Texas oil well flowback water in the first stage of its treatment, the company says.

smartplanet