holy shit this is awesome if true, could reduce oil imports by half in 10 years

[RGR]

I haven't seen Gasland, but understand the basic fracing procedure: Pump liquid down a hole at high pressure, and "Fracture" the underlying formation.

Pretty much.

Generally the stimulation technique is used on older wells, which comprise most plays in the USA, including Pennsylvania where a couple of producers have been shut down because of groundwater contamination issues, real or imagined.

There are environmentally friendly alternatives...ClO2 comes to mind, but it is not as easy to apply as dumping a bunch of HF down hole.

Stimulation is used on brand new wells, part of the primary completion. They use it in all sorts of low permeability rock, which are the unconventional resources like the shales of the Bakken (oil) and Barnett (gas). It is quite possible for a wells construction to be compromised in some way, leading to all sorts of bad secondary effects. However, state well design requirements require freshwater protection as a matter of course, if something bad happens, the companies are required (and are well equipped) to handle it.

 

[uscitizen]

you could reduce your oil import down to a quarter within 1 year if you would finally scrap your useless and chauvinistic SUV/Pick-Up/V8 monsters and take cars für intelligent people instead. The whole world drives mid-size sedans (except from russian gangsters and saudi sheikhs) and is happy with it. Why you can´t?

Do save up for your trip here. You must have some really weird fantasies.

This statement makes as much sense as I were to assume Germany is nothing more than brown shirts and liederhosen.

Ya, you forgot das Fraulines

Drill baby drill!

 

[Mr. H.]

Take me to your Liederhosen.

 

[Samson]

However, state well design requirements require freshwater protection as a matter of course, if something bad happens, the companies are required (and are well equipped) to handle it.

I'm not sure how "the companies are well equipped to handle [something bad happening]?"

Bill to Regulate Hydraulic Fracturing of Wells Introduced in Congress - Oil and Gas Lawyer Blog

A house exploded in late 2007 near Cleveland, Ohio after gas seeped into its water well. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources issued a 153-page report blaming a nearby gas well's faulty casing and hydraulic fracturing for causing the seep.

In Dimock, Pennsylvania, several drinking water wells have been contaminated with methane, and some have exploded. In February, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection charged Cabot Oil & Gas with two violations it says caused the contamination.

After gas contamination showed up in water wells in Garfield County, Colorado, local officials financed a three-year study examining the connection between the contamination and gas wells being drilled by Encana in the area. The study found that gas and wastewater from drilling was making its way into drinking water.

After an area near Cleburne, Texas, in the Barnett Shale field, experienced 15 minor earthquakes over the last seven months, Cliff Frolich, a geophysicist at the Institue for Geophysics at the University of Texas at Austin, said that it is possible that the eartquakes are related to the Barnett Shale production.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

REALLY?

you are going to go there?


Do you understand at all what high speed rail offers a country?

Nothing.

Whatever benefits you think can be offered by that 19th century technology can easily be topped by the flexibility more modern technology.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, Zander understands little. If Grandpa didn't do it, it ain't worth doing. Another willfully ignorant ass.

This from a guy who is promoting trains!?!?

 

[Zander]

No, Zander understands little. If Grandpa didn't do it, it ain't worth doing. Another willfully ignorant ass.

This from a guy who is promoting trains!?!?

He wants a choo choo twain, and ice cream too!!

 

[RGR]

However, state well design requirements require freshwater protection as a matter of course, if something bad happens, the companies are required (and are well equipped) to handle it.

I'm not sure how "the companies are well equipped to handle [something bad happening]?"

If you need to do a remedial squeeze job on your surface casing, because the integrity is somehow compromised, you don't ask Farmer Joe or our local oil idiot Jiggsy to design, supervisor and verify the procedure.

I myself get called in by various organizations to offer professional advice on how these things happen, how can they be fixed, can liability be determined in specific cases, those sorts of things. Including one of the examples of things going wrong that you referenced.

 

[uscitizen]

REALLY?

you are going to go there?


Do you understand at all what high speed rail offers a country?

Nothing.

Whatever benefits you think can be offered by that 19th century technology can easily be topped by the flexibility more modern technology.

If airplanes flew on electricity I could agree with you.
However they do not. And electricity can be generated from several sources that are NOT oil based.
Even diesel locomotives are electric drive. they just have a diesel generator onboard.

 

[Samson]

However, state well design requirements require freshwater protection as a matter of course, if something bad happens, the companies are required (and are well equipped) to handle it.

I'm not sure how "the companies are well equipped to handle [something bad happening]?"

If you need to do a remedial squeeze job on your surface casing, because the integrity is somehow compromised, you don't ask Farmer Joe or our local oil idiot Jiggsy to design, supervisor and verify the procedure.

I myself get called in by various organizations to offer professional advice on how these things happen, how can they be fixed, can liability be determined in specific cases, those sorts of things. Including one of the examples of things going wrong that you referenced.

Frac'ing operations seem to have become more prone to litigation in the past 5 years: I would expect your business to get even better.

I'm convinced that Jiggs is one of thousands of academia that have been accumulating "Peak Oil Evidence" for the past 60 years and presenting it to his junior college Freshman Government and Sociology 101 classes in a misguided effort to keep them awake.

 

[RGR]

Frac'ing operations seem to have become more prone to litigation in the past 5 years: I would expect your business to get even better.

The increase in litigation isn't because of the modern use of hydraulic fracturing, but its use in more populated areas. Litigation increases not because people have honest gripes about the procedure, but because there is this big, noisy, lit up at night THING beside their house and it turns out that they don't own the mineral rights and therefore derive no financial benefit from the production of oil and gas. They then sue for all sorts of ridiculous reasons, the pollution of their groundwater just being one that sounds more serious than "I'm pissed because I won't be making any money off this thing and I was stupid for not buying the mineral rights when I purchased the property".

I'm convinced that Jiggs is one of thousands of academia that have been accumulating "Peak Oil Evidence" for the past 60 years and presenting it to his junior college Freshman Government and Sociology 101 classes in a misguided effort to keep them awake.

Surely you jest? A parrot of such low intellectual capabilities surely couldn't collect an academic position even at the local community college, massage therapy diploma mill...could he?

 

[Samson]

Frac'ing operations seem to have become more prone to litigation in the past 5 years: I would expect your business to get even better.

The increase in litigation isn't because of the modern use of hydraulic fracturing, but its use in more populated areas. Litigation increases not because people have honest gripes about the procedure, but because there is this big, noisy, lit up at night THING beside their house and it turns out that they don't own the mineral rights and therefore derive no financial benefit from the production of oil and gas. They then sue for all sorts of ridiculous reasons, the pollution of their groundwater just being one that sounds more serious than "I'm pissed because I won't be making any money off this thing and I was stupid for not buying the mineral rights when I purchased the property".

I'm convinced that Jiggs is one of thousands of academia that have been accumulating "Peak Oil Evidence" for the past 60 years and presenting it to his junior college Freshman Government and Sociology 101 classes in a misguided effort to keep them awake.

Surely you jest? A parrot of such low intellectual capabilities surely couldn't collect an academic position even at the local community college, massage therapy diploma mill...could he?

Based on my experience getting a Masters, his example is the rule, rather than the exception.

I agree that there is more litigation as a result of wells being drilled nearer to populations, but the response from industry has to be more than, "It's Your fault for living near our well sites," and, "There's no way we're telling you what we injecting into the ground, but trust us, it won't hurt you."

Industry needs to accept that they will face more litigation if they are unable, or unwilling to provide evidence that they are innocent. I know this contradicts the "Innocent until Proven Guilty" basis of our law, however, why wait for someone to prove your guilt?

 

[RGR]

Surely you jest? A parrot of such low intellectual capabilities surely couldn't collect an academic position even at the local community college, massage therapy diploma mill...could he?

Based on my experience getting a Masters, his example is the rule, rather than the exception.

This is an awful thought.

I agree that there is more litigation as a result of wells being drilled nearer to populations, but the response from industry has to be more than, "It's Your fault for living near our well sites," and, "There's no way we're telling you what we injecting into the ground, but trust us, it won't hurt you."

In America, if you do not have full ownership of your property, you do not by default get to to blame everyone else for the consequences of this oversight. Either you sold those mineral rights, and must deal with the consequences of your actions, or you bought the property knowing you did not have the mineral rights, and by implication someone, someday, will show up to claim their rights. In neither case is it the developers "fault" for exercising legal rights which you had every opportunity to know about in advance, and choose to ignore.

As far as "trust us, it won't hurt you", that isn't it at all. In many cases the chemicals added to the water during hydraulic fracturing are harmful to humans. The entire point of a proper well design is to keep those chemicals encased in rock, cement and steel. For a period of hours, after which they are retrieved back up the wellbore to the surface and either reused or disposed of. No one pumps a frac job away hoping it ends up in someones well water, which is often the implication from some in their efforts to demonize the development of natural resources.

Industry needs to accept that they will face more litigation if they are unable, or unwilling to provide evidence that they are innocent. I know this contradicts the "Innocent until Proven Guilty" basis of our law, however, why wait for someone to prove your guilt?

Industry can't prove a negative any more than someone else can. They are, however, more susceptible to a large court damage award on the general principles of "deep pockets" regardless of actual proven fault.

 

[Samson]

Surely you jest? A parrot of such low intellectual capabilities surely couldn't collect an academic position even at the local community college, massage therapy diploma mill...could he?

Based on my experience getting a Masters, his example is the rule, rather than the exception.

This is an awful thought.

I agree that there is more litigation as a result of wells being drilled nearer to populations, but the response from industry has to be more than, "It's Your fault for living near our well sites," and, "There's no way we're telling you what we injecting into the ground, but trust us, it won't hurt you."

In America, if you do not have full ownership of your property, you do not by default get to to blame everyone else for the consequences of this oversight. Either you sold those mineral rights, and must deal with the consequences of your actions, or you bought the property knowing you did not have the mineral rights, and by implication someone, someday, will show up to claim their rights. In neither case is it the developers "fault" for exercising legal rights which you had every opportunity to know about in advance, and choose to ignore.

As far as "trust us, it won't hurt you", that isn't it at all. In many cases the chemicals added to the water during hydraulic fracturing are harmful to humans. The entire point of a proper well design is to keep those chemicals encased in rock, cement and steel. For a period of hours, after which they are retrieved back up the wellbore to the surface and either reused or disposed of. No one pumps a frac job away hoping it ends up in someones well water, which is often the implication from some in their efforts to demonize the development of natural resources.

Industry needs to accept that they will face more litigation if they are unable, or unwilling to provide evidence that they are innocent. I know this contradicts the "Innocent until Proven Guilty" basis of our law, however, why wait for someone to prove your guilt?

Industry can't prove a negative any more than someone else can. They are, however, more susceptible to a large court damage award on the general principles of "deep pockets" regardless of actual proven fault.

Indeed, and I would think that obvious vulnerability would inspire "Responsible Care."

From 2005 to 2009, Halliburton Co. (HAL), Baker Hughes Inc.'s (BHI) BJ Services Co., and other firms injected 32.2 million gallons of fluid that contained diesel fuel in wells in 19 states, according to a Jan. 31 letter than Reps. Henry Waxman (D. Calif.), Edward Markey (D. Mass.), and Diana Degette (D. Colo.) sent to Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson.

....
Lawmakers raised concerns that diesel fuel in the fluids could pollute drinking water supplies.

"If America is to get the benefit of expanded access to domestic natural gas supplies using hydraulic fracturing, key industry players are going to need to improve their environmental performance or they will not be able to convince a skeptical public that this drilling technique will not threaten our drinking water," Markey said in a statement.

The largest users of fluid containing diesel fuel cited by the lawmakers were BJ Services, Halliburton, RPC, Inc. (RES), and Sanjel Corporation. Those companies did not respond to requests for comment.

The Safe Drinking Water Act requires "fracking" companies to obtain water-quality permits when they are injecting fluids underground, but the lawmakers said that EPA has issued no permits authorizing the use of diesel fuel in those wells

Read more: UPDATE: Fracking Companies May Have Violated US Law - Investigators - Investing - Dow Jones Newswire - SmartMoney.com UPDATE: Fracking Companies May Have Violated US Law - Investigators - Investing - Dow Jones Newswire - SmartMoney.com

 

[Quantum Windbag]

REALLY?

you are going to go there?


Do you understand at all what high speed rail offers a country?

Nothing.

Whatever benefits you think can be offered by that 19th century technology can easily be topped by the flexibility more modern technology.

If airplanes flew on electricity I could agree with you.
However they do not. And electricity can be generated from several sources that are NOT oil based.
Even diesel locomotives are electric drive. they just have a diesel generator onboard.

Trains do not run on electricity, they run on diesel fuel. Or do you somehow think that electricity somehow springs into existence magically?

 

[RGR]

Industry can't prove a negative any more than someone else can. They are, however, more susceptible to a large court damage award on the general principles of "deep pockets" regardless of actual proven fault.

Indeed, and I would think that obvious vulnerability would inspire "Responsible Care."

What obvious vulnerability? Short of firing a depleted uranium sabot round from an M1A1 tank through the redundant layers of cement and steel designed to protect the freshwater table, are you aware of anything else which wouldn't be covered under any reasonable definition of "responsible care" already built into current well designs?

 

[Samson]

Industry can't prove a negative any more than someone else can. They are, however, more susceptible to a large court damage award on the general principles of "deep pockets" regardless of actual proven fault.

Indeed, and I would think that obvious vulnerability would inspire "Responsible Care."

What obvious vulnerability? Short of firing a depleted uranium sabot round from an M1A1 tank through the redundant layers of cement and steel designed to protect the freshwater table, are you aware of anything else which wouldn't be covered under any reasonable definition of "responsible care" already built into current well designs?

Actually, I was simply agreeing with you: "They are, however, more susceptible to a large court damage award."

I also posted the example:

From 2005 to 2009, Halliburton Co. (HAL), Baker Hughes Inc.'s (BHI) BJ Services Co., and other firms injected 32.2 million gallons of fluid that contained diesel fuel in wells in 19 states

I'm guessing that WHAT is injected is as important as "redundent layers of cement and steel." However your point is valid: as long as it it impossible for frack fluids to contact the freshwater table, then what does it matter what is in them?

UNTIL...the day contaminates are found in a large aquifer.

Then it won't matter HOW it happened, unless Halliburton, Baker, or BJ can prove that your hypothetical Sabot Round was responsible.

The legislatures have covered their ass.

 

[Samson]

Nothing.

Whatever benefits you think can be offered by that 19th century technology can easily be topped by the flexibility more modern technology.

If airplanes flew on electricity I could agree with you.
However they do not. And electricity can be generated from several sources that are NOT oil based.
Even diesel locomotives are electric drive. they just have a diesel generator onboard.

Trains do not run on electricity, they run on diesel fuel. Or do you somehow think that electricity somehow springs into existence magically?

Electric Train at the Oil and Gas Museum

 

[RGR]

I'm guessing that WHAT is injected is as important as "redundent layers of cement and steel." However your point is valid: as long as it it impossible for frack fluids to contact the freshwater table, then what does it matter what is in them?

I'm betting that diesel is simply covered under a separate regulation than "all other frac fluids", which is why they focused on something so minor. Because they are exempt in what other fluids they pump, the people wanting to make a fuss picked one they knew was specifically exempted from the regulations.

UNTIL...the day contaminates are found in a large aquifer.

Sure. And the law of averages says sooner or later, it is bound to happen. Omelet, egg shells, etc etc.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If airplanes flew on electricity I could agree with you.
However they do not. And electricity can be generated from several sources that are NOT oil based.
Even diesel locomotives are electric drive. they just have a diesel generator onboard.

Trains do not run on electricity, they run on diesel fuel. Or do you somehow think that electricity somehow springs into existence magically?

Electric Train at the Oil and Gas Museum

OK, those trains run on electricity.