THE Fracking Thread (merged)

[bike2work]

Can anyone tell me what price natural gas needs to be to make natural gas fracking operations profitable (without all the government subsidies)? I cannot imagine, given the front-end costs, that natural gas from fracking is profitable at $2.34.

[Plantagenet]

It varies for each region and even for each well depending on the local geology (depth to the production zone, etc.) and final productivity of the producing well.

Overall, to make US natural gas exploration and production companies like Cheasapeake (CHK) and service companies like Carbo Ceramics (CRR) healthy again, NG prices would have to roughly double from their currents levels in the USA. Note that NG in Europe and other parts of the world is as much as 4-5x greater then the current price in the USA.

[rockdoc123]

It depends on liquid content of the gas as well. In the Eagle Ford companies can still produce simply because the MMCFE (millions of cubic feet equivalent) price is actually closer to $4 or $5/Mcf due to the high liquid content.
EagleFord has some of the lowest breakeven costs, Marcellus is around $3.00/Mcf, Montney is around $4/Mcf and Horn River is around $5/Mcf. You might get slightly different numbers from different operators as break even costs aren't always calculated the same way (i.e. full cycle vs point forward).

[Graeme]

Check the math: Study touting ‘safer’ fracking reveals Big Oil’s ties to academia

What do you call a report that makes major math mistakes, pulls language directly from other publications without citation, and fails to disclose the researchers’ financial conflicts of interest?

In the fight over fracking, it might just be called “peer-reviewed” science.

The most recent example of such sketchy research comes from the University of Buffalo, which released a report [PDF] this month concluding that fracking is getting safer and pointing for proof to Pennsylvania, ground zero for drilling.

The problem isn’t just that the study itself is misleading and riddled with errors (which it is). It’s that in their efforts to win public favor, the fracking industry increasingly hides behind academia to circulate misinformation — and the University of Buffalo is the latest cover.

grist

[Ferretlover]

We insist on deforming ourselves in the name of maintaining business as usual.
http://www.propublica.org/article/the-other-fracking-north-dakotas-oil-boom-brings-damage-along-with-prosperi

According to data obtained by ProPublica, oil companies in North Dakota reported more than 1,000 accidental releases of oil, drilling wastewater or other fluids in 2011, about as many as in the previous two years combined. Many more illicit releases went unreported, state regulators acknowledge, when companies dumped truckloads of toxic fluid along the road or drained waste pits illegally.

State officials say most of the releases are small. But in several cases, spills turned out to be far larger than initially thought, totaling millions of gallons. Releases of brine, which is often laced with carcinogenic chemicals and heavy metals, have wiped out aquatic life in streams and wetlands and sterilized farmland. The effects on land can last for years, or even decades.

[rockdoc123]

So what are the "better alternatives to fracking"
the article posted makes no mention of that. You should change the title of the thread.
One of the issues that most people don't realize is that in the US oil companies subcontract pretty much everything except the drilling and fracing operations where they use service companies but have prime oversight. Water trucking is done by a lot of mom and pop outfits and it isn't surprising to me that they would tell the oil companies that yes they are delivering the water to disposal wells but in reality are dumping it. The regulatory environment doesn't recognize this and assumes the oil company is responsible for everything. The oil company can refuse to hire trucking outfits who don't abide by the rules but then they are trapped as to what services might be available. The solution to my mind is that the gov't have a signoff requirement for trucked disposal water and truckers who do not adhere to this lose their business license.
Also in terms of the large number of spills most oil companies will report any level of spill which could be a small as 100 ml of fluid of any kind other than potable water. A rig site is a busy place with lots of refueling etc. You can imagine that the refueling station on site is continually reporting small spills (how often have you filled your car at the gas station and not spilled a few drops of fuel?). It isn't the number of spills that one needs to be concerned about but rather what the fluid is and whether it is in a sufficient quantity to affect important damage.

[dinopello]

Water concerns with fracking in Kansas

In hydraulic fracturing, water is injected into the ground at a high pressure to help crack shale rock and bring oil to the surface. The industry says it takes as much as 2 million gallons of water to drill a single horizontal well in Kansas.
...

And after farmers suffered around $2 billion in crop damage from a drought last year, this is a very dangerous time to be taking any water out of the supply, he said.

In fact, water levels in the High Plains aquifer system, which supplies water for about 86% of the state's irrigation permits, have been declining for 14 straight years -- dropping more than two feet in the last year alone, according to the Kansas Geological Survey.

[Timo]

Water concerns with fracking in Kansas

In hydraulic fracturing, water is injected into the ground at a high pressure to help crack shale rock and bring oil to the surface. The industry says it takes as much as 2 million gallons of water to drill a single horizontal well in Kansas.
...

And after farmers suffered around $2 billion in crop damage from a drought last year, this is a very dangerous time to be taking any water out of the supply, he said.

In fact, water levels in the High Plains aquifer system, which supplies water for about 86% of the state's irrigation permits, have been declining for 14 straight years -- dropping more than two feet in the last year alone, according to the Kansas Geological Survey.

Alarmist!!! Me and my family are perfectly capable of drinking oil and natural gas. It gives my tea a rather unique flavor, and besides, it's awfully hard to make millions on value added water! Between water and oil (and the money oil makes), i'll take money. Eh...I mean oil. Pure drinking water for people, irrigation, wildlife, flora, fauna, and nature in general is just a hippie idea. No one really neads water. Us folk in Kansas will become the first extinct group humans to testify to that fact. Just ask the Brothers Koch.

[WildRose]

One of Jessica Ernst's presentations. For those who aren't familiar with this woman, she is an Alberta resident and former
oil and gas consultant (for 30 years) who is suing Encana and the Alberta regulatory board re: contamination of her well and many others in the community of Rosebud, Alberta. It is quite the ordeal that she and her neighbors have endured.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezLu5WGeM-0

[rockdoc123]

One of Jessica Ernst's presentations.

this crap again. As I've pointed out in several threads previously methane in well water in Alberta is a phenomena that has been here since the first settlers, before oil and gas drilling let alone fracing. The issue is that the shallow acquifers that perform the best are usually in the Upper Cretaceous Edmonton Fm which has a number of coal seams in it. What happens is a natural coal gasification whereby sweet water is produced until such time as the coal seams have been depressurized and the naturally trapped coal methane is suddenly released (the same principle that oil and gas companies utilize to purposefully produce gas from coal seams throughout North America). This is why a well could produce good water for a number of years and then suddenly have methane in it. The folks who have been farming and ranching the land for generations know enough to close down a well once it starts to produce methane and drill another well, prepared to go through the same process in about 5 years time.

[WildRose]

One of Jessica Ernst's presentations.

this crap again. As I've pointed out in several threads previously methane in well water in Alberta is a phenomena that has been here since the first settlers, before oil and gas drilling let alone fracing. The issue is that the shallow acquifers that perform the best are usually in the Upper Cretaceous Edmonton Fm which has a number of coal seams in it. What happens is a natural coal gasification whereby sweet water is produced until such time as the coal seams have been depressurized and the naturally trapped coal methane is suddenly released (the same principle that oil and gas companies utilize to purposefully produce gas from coal seams throughout North America). This is why a well could produce good water for a number of years and then suddenly have methane in it. The folks who have been farming and ranching the land for generations know enough to close down a well once it starts to produce methane and drill another well, prepared to go through the same process in about 5 years time.

Ms. Ernst's issue is that the company fracked directly into the acquifer, fracking at levels which they promised they would not.

I didn't post this to argue with you about it, rockdoc. Whoever wants to listen to her presentation can do so and decide what they think for themselves. As she states, she's not in this for a settlement.

[Tanada]

James Lovelock has come out in favor of Fracking especially Natural Gas Fracking.

Lovelock on "fracking":

Gas is almost a give-away in the US at the moment. They've gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it: the amount of CO2 produced by burning gas in a good turbine gives you 60% efficiency. In a coal-fired power station, it is 30% per unit of fuel. So you get a two-to-one gain there straight away. The next two-to-one gain you get is that methane has only got half its energy in the carbon, the other half is in the hydrogen, so there's a four-to-one gain in CO2 output from the same amount of electricity by burning methane. Let's be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it. The fear of nuclear is now too great after Fukushima and the cost of building new build plants is very expensive and impractical. And it takes a long time to get them running. It is very obvious in America that fracking took almost no time at all to get going. It happened without any debate whatsoever. Suddenly you found there was this abundant fuel source. There's only a finite amount of it [in the UK] so before it runs out we should really be thinking sensibly about what to do next. We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can't stand windmills at any price. Hydro, biomass, solar, etc, have all got great promise, but they're not available tomorrow, or even in 10 years. There's a very good tidal stream farm that I've come across using a sunken barge with a turbine on it. It's much more reliable. They should have gone ahead with the Severn Barrage.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... sfeed=true

IMO James Lovelock is a real environmentalist, he looks for the best available solution instead of reaching always for pie in the sky solutions that are never practical at the time.

[dissident]

James Lovelock has come out in favor of Fracking especially Natural Gas Fracking.

Lovelock on "fracking":

Gas is almost a give-away in the US at the moment. They've gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it: the amount of CO2 produced by burning gas in a good turbine gives you 60% efficiency. In a coal-fired power station, it is 30% per unit of fuel. So you get a two-to-one gain there straight away. The next two-to-one gain you get is that methane has only got half its energy in the carbon, the other half is in the hydrogen, so there's a four-to-one gain in CO2 output from the same amount of electricity by burning methane.

At the end of the day CO2 is still produced in vast quantities. There are also plans to burn CH4 to power the US truck fleet and that is not going to be 60% efficient.

Let's be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it. The fear of nuclear is now too great after Fukushima and the cost of building new build plants is very expensive and impractical. And it takes a long time to get them running.

Yes, we want to address the looming climate catastrophe with Luddite fear. The Fukushima reactors were trash by design and the people who installed them did not use their brains and place the backup generators on the hill right behind the plant but left them in the basement as if the plant was in the USA. So in may ways this is like Chernobyl, a bad design applied with near criminal or criminal incompetence.

New plants take long to build because of loopy environmental regulations. Either build the plant or don't, but don't spend 10 years discussing the feelings of anyone who decides to give their "input". They don't have this sort of process when they allow the building of some monster condo complex. I don't understand why coal plants are more easily approved. They rain mercury and radioactivity (thorium and uranium) onto the surrounding countryside.

The price argument is lame. The cost of the Olkiluoto-3 plant in Finland ( http://www.areva.com/EN/operations-2389 ... oto-3.html ) was about $7 billion with all of its construction problems. It has a capacity of 1.6 GW
while the construction cost of a new coal plant in the US is $3,500 per kW or $3.5 billion per GW ( http://www.synapse-energy.com/Downloads ... .A0021.pdf ).

IMO James Lovelock is a real environmentalist, he looks for the best available solution instead of reaching always for pie in the sky solutions that are never practical at the time.

Nuclear based on metal cooled fast neutron breeder reactors would be the best solution. Any fossil fuel based solution is patently not a solution. The one good thing is that fracking is basically a hysteria driven by hopes and desires and not real reserves. The natural gas price will shoot up once this bubble of delusion bursts.

[rockdoc123]

The one good thing is that fracking is basically a hysteria driven by hopes and desires and not real reserves. The natural gas price will shoot up once this bubble of delusion bursts.

where do you think the huge increase in natural gas production came from in the US? Why do you think the natural gas price is so low?
This hardly speaks to delusion but rather to success.

Not sure where those not in the oil and gas industry get this idea that shale gas is somehow in peoples imagination. There has been an immense amount of success in North America.

[seenmostofit]

where do you think the huge increase in natural gas production came from in the US? Why do you think the natural gas price is so low?
This hardly speaks to delusion but rather to success.

Not sure where those not in the oil and gas industry get this idea that shale gas is somehow in peoples imagination. There has been an immense amount of success in North America.

Belief system, meet reality. (huge smacking noise follows)

Success is not permitted to be the answer in the greater scheme of things. Success has been rearranged to actually be the PROBLEM, so it certainly can't be also used as the answer.

Q: "Why didn't we run out of oil back when we only had 500 billion barrels of reserves and we produced all of them?"
A: "Because oil companies were quite successful at finding and producing more."

WRONG.

Correct A: "Because mankind strip minded Alberta, desecrated the Gulf and everywhere else it could drill, tore up ecosystems and created global warming which caused a tornado which killed my friend in Joplin Missouri last year."

This is how "success" can be cast into a context more in line with the proper way of thinking about things. White is black, black is white, small is big, etc etc.

[Lore]

That is Coo Coo Daddy!

[rockdoc123]

Belief system, meet reality. (huge smacking noise follows)

Success is not permitted to be the answer in the greater scheme of things. Success has been rearranged to actually be the PROBLEM, so it certainly can't be also used as the answer.

Q: "Why didn't we run out of oil back when we only had 500 billion barrels of reserves and we produced all of them?"
A: "Because oil companies were quite successful at finding and producing more."

WRONG.

Correct A: "Because mankind strip minded Alberta, desecrated the Gulf and everywhere else it could drill, tore up ecosystems and created global warming which caused a tornado which killed my friend in Joplin Missouri last year."

This is how "success" can be cast into a context more in line with the proper way of thinking about things. White is black, black is white, small is big, etc etc.

look my friend, when you stop using natural gas or oil or any of it's derivatives then you can make comments like this. The reason you have the lifestyle you do now is because of the extraction of hydrocarbons. If you don't want that then please give away all of your earthly possessions and move into the wilderness where you promise us you will live in a cave, only use materials you can make from naturally grown materials (no steel, iron or aluminum for you I'm afraid as they take energy to extract and mill) and eat only what you can grow or kill with your wooden spears which of course you will have to fashion with chipped flint tools.

There is real debate about the environmental aspects of oil and gas extraction....your comments don't fall into that but rather into the realm of uninformed stupidity. When you have educated yourself properly on the subject then please post to your hearts content, otherwise you make a fool of yourself.

[seenmostofit]

look my friend, when you stop using natural gas or oil or any of it's derivatives then you can make comments like this.

I don't have to do it until the Sierra Club does. Goose, gander, etc etc.

The reason you have the lifestyle you do now is because of the extraction of hydrocarbons.

And, as RocDoc has mentioned, massive success in natural gas production as companies have overwhelmed the supply side of the equation by...<gasp>... drilling success. And I assume none of us wants to talk about North Dakota and the consequences of that drilling?

There is real debate about the environmental aspects of oil and gas extraction....your comments don't fall into that but rather into the realm of uninformed stupidity. When you have educated yourself properly on the subject then please post to your hearts content, otherwise you make a fool of yourself.

Really? So you disagree with RocDoc that companies have been so successful with their fraccing techniques that the word "success" applies to the results, rather than what was claimed prior?

http://www.amazon.com/High-Noon-Natural ... B001O9LBHM

[dinopello]

There really is not a realistic 'debate' about whether we are going to Frack. We are going to frack, frack, frack. We are going to pulverize this Earth and squeeze out every last economically recoverable drop of burnable solids, liquids and gasses. Nothing will stand in the way of that.

The real debate should be about what we do with the energy we are using up. We can talk about whether it's a good idea to use it up as fast as we possibly can, but fast or slow, what are we doing with it ? Are we doing anything with it that will help us get by when it's petering out ? Or, not? Right now it looks like not.

[seenmostofit]

The real debate should be about what we do with the energy we are using up. We can talk about whether it's a good idea to use it up as fast as we possibly can, but fast or slow, what are we doing with it ? Are we doing anything with it that will help us get by when it's petering out ? Or, not? Right now it looks like not.

Was it ever any different? During the early 1920's the head of the geological survey in Kentucky wrote a book, and in it decried the waste of the precious natural resource, natural gas. The abandon with which people burned it to wantonly create streetlights, the inability of production to keep up with expected future demand, the need to conserve such a vasty important commodity for future generation, lest they be deprived of such wondrous fuel.

We have been petering out for quite some time. I imagine we will continue petering out. And I agree with you that it is just as unlikely we will use it for anything more meaningful in the future than we have in the past. Fortunately, tales of its demise have been greatly exaggerated.