THE Fracking Thread (merged)

[Lore]

Why would anyone pay $10,000 to convert to CNG? You can buy a kit and an instruction book at amazon and do it yourself for $1000, or if you aren't mechanically inclined just buy a new Honda Civic CNG and coming next year there will be Chrysler and GM CNG pickup trucks at your neighborhood dealer.

The same reason why people don't grow their own food, even though it would be cheaper and easier to do then converting your used car to NG.

Why not? It only costs $1000 to convert, and you'll save that money back in the first year because CNG is so much cheaper than gas.

Because of the price I quoted on, and then to be put into an already very used vehicle. People who are broke already will not be throwing $10,000 into a $5,000 vehicle with limited life left.

Saving money on gas is another big positive.

Except you won't, due to the law of supply and demand.

Depends where you live. And if you travel where there isn't a NG station its no problem----you can just flip a switch and go back to running on gasoline.

Which is about 99.9% of the country. Better figure on using gas a lot. Meanwhile you're rolling around in a very expensive overweight conversion dragging your mileage down.

Oil peaked at the end of 2005, causing the price to double. NG hasn't peaked and there is so much available now due to frakking that its price has fallen by 75%. Even that noted energy expert Obama says there is enough NG for the next 100 years.

NG is at the point in time where ethanol was at. Unrealized and overrated. The price can only go up with more use of a commodity in limited supply, which is just basic econ 101.

[Plantagenet]

NG is at the point in time where ethanol was at. Unrealized and overrated.

You really can't compare the price of ethanol and the price of NG. You don't seem to understand that ethanol was heavily subsidized by the government. Its price was never set by the free market. In contrast, the current low price of NG reflects an abundance of supply----not artificial and unsustainable government subsidies.

[Lore]

BUT don't forget the $7500 per car tax deduction in the USA for buying an energy efficient vehicle---include this deduction and the CNG Honda which can run on CNG and gasoline--- may actually be a tiny bit cheaper than a regular old Honda that only runs on gasoline.

You only get the tax deduction if you qualify for a tax deduction. if you already are paying close to no Federal taxes, you get zip.

[kublikhan]

Are you quoting the 2008 consumer reports article? Prices have change in the last 4 years:

The 2012 Honda Civic Natural Gas model starts at $26,905, including a $750 destination charge, making it the most expensive Civic in the 2012 lineup. The 2012 Honda Civic Natural Gas model is $645 more expensive than the outgoing 2012 Honda Civic GX, also a natural-gas model. It is also $10,350 more expensive than the base 2012 Honda Civic DX sedan.

2012 Honda Civic Natural Gas Is Most Expensive Civic in Lineup

And you left out the rest of the quote that suggests that the natural gas premium is in fact 10 grand:

Suggested retail for the Civic GX is $24,590 plus $635 for freight. A comparably equipped, gasoline-powered Civic LX lists for $17,760. Honda concedes GX resale values can also be $1,000 to $3,000 less than their gasoline counterparts. Add to that the cost of a Phill refueling unit at $3,400 plus the installation cost, upwards of $500, and the premium could easily top $10,000.

The pros & cons of buying a CNG-powered Honda Civic

And yes, I know you were talking about a conversion kit. But I already mentioned that I don't trust conversion kits to have the same quality standard as what is produced by Honda. The Tata Nano is a fraction of the cost of a Honda Civic. Yet the difference in cost is not just inflated dealer markup. They are 2 different vehicles. I have less faith in the Tata Nano being a quality piece of engineering compared to the Honda Civic. I have even less faith in a $1,000 conversion posted to youtube.

[Lore]

NG is at the point in time where ethanol was at. Unrealized and overrated.

You really can't compare the price of ethanol and the price of NG. You don't seem to understand that ethanol was heavily subsidized by the government. Its price was never set by the free market. In contrast, the current low price of NG reflects an abundance of supply----not artificial and unsustainable government subsidies.

You're substituting one illusion of abundance for another, which was my point.

[Plantagenet]

illusion of abundance....

So you don't believe that frakking has act produced so much Natural Gas that the price has collapsed?

Well it has.

There's no point in pretending otherwise---frakking has produced much more NG then the market can use right now.


It is better to light candles than to curse the darkness.

[Lore]

illusion of abundance....

So you don't believe that frakking has act produced so much Natural Gas that the price has collapsed?

Well it has.J

There's no point in pretending otherwise---frakking has produced much more NG then the market can use right now.

The time at which you start to multipurpose it, it won't be so abundant. On top of that, it's still questionable how much we actually have, or can extract profitably and safely.

Economics would also tell you, why price a valuable and finite resource substantially lower then competing products.

[Plantagenet]

why price a valuable and finite resource substantially lower then competing products.

Because frakking has resulted in the discovery of huge reserves of natural gas in tight rocks that formerly couldn't be produced.

[Lore]

why price a valuable and finite resource substantially lower then competing products.

Because frakking has resulted in the discovery of huge reserves of natural gas in tight rocks that formerly couldn't be produced.

That doesn't answer the question. They are already slowing the drilling of new wells to keep pace with demand and support prices.

[Plantagenet]

why price a valuable and finite resource substantially lower then competing products.

Because frakking has resulted in the discovery of huge reserves of natural gas in tight rocks that formerly couldn't be produced.

That doesn't answer the question. They are already slowing the drilling of new wells to keep pace with demand and support prices.

Yes it does answer the question. The slowing and even cessation of drilling doesn't change the fact that recent exploration drilling has been highly successful, thanks to frakking, and there now exists a huge over-supply of natural gas, resulting in a collapse of the NG price.

Yup. Life is good and NG is cheap.

[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?