U.S. Fracking's Larger Implications

[RGR]

What those people obviously don't understand are the reservoir dynamics of hydraulic fracturing. No problem as far as I'm concerned, part of my job nowadays is explaining the geoengineering obvious to the uninformed, so it is a form of job security.

The difference is, I actually know these people, or some of them. They are not just looking for a pay day.

But your position is not surprising since you admittedly work for them.

Sorry. Wrong answer. Haven't been in industry for more than 15 years now. My involvement only happened because the state asked for an independent opinion from someone with experience in the field, and unquestionable objectivity. That's the only reason my phone rang.

I have no doubt you know the people, that just isn't really relevant to the physics involved in how frac fluids could make it into water wells. I am familiar with both the claims and the science. Those making the claims aren't, which is why they can even make the claims. Once the science gets involved, the claims, they don't hold up so well.

 

[Underhill]

What those people obviously don't understand are the reservoir dynamics of hydraulic fracturing. No problem as far as I'm concerned, part of my job nowadays is explaining the geoengineering obvious to the uninformed, so it is a form of job security.

The difference is, I actually know these people, or some of them. They are not just looking for a pay day.

But your position is not surprising since you admittedly work for them.

Sorry. Wrong answer. Haven't been in industry for more than 15 years now. My involvement only happened because the state asked for an independent opinion from someone with experience in the field, and unquestionable objectivity. That's the only reason my phone rang.

I have no doubt you know the people, that just isn't really relevant to the physics involved in how frac fluids could make it into water wells. I am familiar with both the claims and the science. Those making the claims aren't, which is why they can even make the claims. Once the science gets involved, the claims, they don't hold up so well.

I know enough about the science to know that their claims certainly could be true. Claiming that it can't is nonsense.

You are essentially using hydraulic pressure to crack rock under ground releasing oil or gas. So the notion that it couldn't affect water tables, is absurd. Of course it can, and does. It is a science, but certainly not exact.

I recognize that is not the goal of fracking. I might even buy that it doesn't happen all that often in the big picture. But it does happen.

I can even relate to the frustration in the industry. I work in the engineering department of a company who designs and builds equipment for coal power plants for ***** sake.

 

[chikenwing]

So far there has been zip!!! proven water well contamination from fracking.

 

[RGR]

I know enough about the science to know that their claims certainly could be true. Claiming that it can't is nonsense.

Really? Excellent! Then YOU can explain to them that differential pressure going in the wrong direction will never, ever, ever, allow frack fluid in one rock to zip off into another. Glad we can get this settled for the locals. No one ever talks about the flowback, and they miss the boat because of it.

Once you eliminate reservoir dynamics as a cause, all you are left with is regulatory inspections on things like well casing integrity and whatnot. By the way...I recommend you and everyone you know advocate that the state pay inspecters enough to get more qualified people, last time I was working with Pennsylvania EPA folks they didn't have a single petroleum engineer in the bunch. Poor people were listening to lawyers and ex-welltenders and whatnot.

You are essentially using hydraulic pressure to crack rock under ground releasing oil or gas. So the notion that it couldn't affect water tables, is absurd. Of course it can, and does. It is a science, but certainly not exact.

I recommend you update your knowledge on what happens as soon as the hydraulic fracturing is complete (that's the part where differential pressure really, REALLY begins to matter). And some brushup on current microseismic science work during hydraulic fracturing wouldn't hurt either.

I recognize that is not the goal of fracking. I might even buy that it doesn't happen all that often in the big picture. But it does happen.

But you apparently aren't aware of WHY. Tsk tsk.

I can even relate to the frustration in the industry. I work in the engineering department of a company who designs and builds equipment for coal power plants for ***** sake.

Nothing wrong with coal, makes good and useful energy, we have plenty of it. The reason why hydraulic fracturing seems to collect so much grief is it happens in people's backyards and whatnot, really up close and personal to the landowners.

 

[Underhill]

I know enough about the science to know that their claims certainly could be true. Claiming that it can't is nonsense.

Really? Excellent! Then YOU can explain to them that differential pressure going in the wrong direction will never, ever, ever, allow frack fluid in one rock to zip off into another. Glad we can get this settled for the locals. No one ever talks about the flowback, and they miss the boat because of it.

Once you eliminate reservoir dynamics as a cause, all you are left with is regulatory inspections on things like well casing integrity and whatnot. By the way...I recommend you and everyone you know advocate that the state pay inspecters enough to get more qualified people, last time I was working with Pennsylvania EPA folks they didn't have a single petroleum engineer in the bunch. Poor people were listening to lawyers and ex-welltenders and whatnot.

Think the EPA has a similar problem? Because in 2011 they found fracking fluid in the Wyoming Aquifer.

EPA Finds Fracking Compound in Wyoming Aquifer: Scientific American

I recommend you update your knowledge on what happens as soon as the hydraulic fracturing is complete (that's the part where differential pressure really, REALLY begins to matter). And some brushup on current microseismic science work during hydraulic fracturing wouldn't hurt either.

Of course, but even you, and every website I visit on the subject, admit that a cracked casing can lead to water table problems. Again, not common, but it does happen. Which is pretty much what I said. Whenever you are working at high pressures with toxic chemicals, affecting ground water is going to be an issue.

I see it much like the pipeline issue. It's a low risk problem, but if it happened in the wrong place, it could be disastrous.

But you apparently aren't aware of WHY. Tsk tsk.

Sure.

Nothing wrong with coal, makes good and useful energy, we have plenty of it. The reason why hydraulic fracturing seems to collect so much grief is it happens in people's backyards and whatnot, really up close and personal to the landowners.

I don't know if I would go so far. Of course there are problems with coal. I could give you a laundry list. But they are routinely exaggerated by the media and those who don't have any clue.

 

[RGR]

Think the EPA has a similar problem? Because in 2011 they found fracking fluid in the Wyoming Aquifer.

EPA Finds Fracking Compound in Wyoming Aquifer: Scientific American

You might know something about science, but you don't know dick about that study. And you really shouldn't reference it until you do.

Whenever you are working at high pressures with toxic chemicals, affecting ground water is going to be an issue.

By spilling them on the surface mostly. Hardly the recipe for polluting freshwater aquifers. Were your neighbors drawing their water from the frac tanks themselves, or puddles on the ground after the crews left?

I see it much like the pipeline issue. It's a low risk problem, but if it happened in the wrong place, it could be disastrous.

Sure. But the problem isn't fracking into the local freshwater supply. Unless your freshwater supply happens to be in a producing oil and gas formation (that is a hint for your EPA study..

Nothing wrong with coal, makes good and useful energy, we have plenty of it. The reason why hydraulic fracturing seems to collect so much grief is it happens in people's backyards and whatnot, really up close and personal to the landowners.

I don't know if I would go so far. Of course there are problems with coal. I could give you a laundry list. But they are routinely exaggerated by the media and those who don't have any clue.

Sounds like landowners and fracking.

 

[Underhill]

Think the EPA has a similar problem? Because in 2011 they found fracking fluid in the Wyoming Aquifer.

EPA Finds Fracking Compound in Wyoming Aquifer: Scientific American

You might know something about science, but you don't know dick about that study. And you really shouldn't reference it until you do.

So Scientific American got it wrong?

By spilling them on the surface mostly. Hardly the recipe for polluting freshwater aquifers. Were your neighbors drawing their water from the frac tanks themselves, or puddles on the ground after the crews left?

Mostly...

Sure. But the problem isn't fracking into the local freshwater supply. Unless your freshwater supply happens to be in a producing oil and gas formation (that is a hint for your EPA study..

So the fracking fluid was already there? Right.

Sounds like landowners and fracking.

It would. Except I admit there is a problem. You want to gloss it over and deny a problem ever existed. Sounds more like corporate dogma than real science.

 

[editec]

I note that in CO fracking tends ONLY TO HAPPEN where the midcle class and poor live.

the weathy communities somehow get a pass.

Gee! that's surprising, isn't it?

That GOD knew where the people who didn't matter would live, all those millions of years ago, when she was creating those shale oil deposits.

God must really love the well off.

Clearly she doesn't give a **** about the rest of us.

 

[SanTropez]

I note that in CO fracking tends ONLY TO HAPPEN where the midcle class and poor live.

the weathy communities somehow get a pass.

Gee! that's surprising, isn't it?

That GOD knew where the people who didn't matter would live, all those millions of years ago, when she was creating those shale oil deposits.

God must really love the well off.

Clearly she doesn't give a **** about the rest of us.

Yep, fracking is nasty and damages the rock layers/artesian springs.

 

[RGR]

You might know something about science, but you don't know dick about that study. And you really shouldn't reference it until you do.

So Scientific American got it wrong?

Nope. They reported what was in the report. The report got it wrong. One of the reasons why you don't take a journalists word for anything, not only is it possible they have their own slant on an issue, it is a rule that they never actually understand the particulars of scientific reports. Lift a paragraph from the conclusions is about the extent of their talents, and if the report pulls a boner, the journalist will never know it.

I've participated in these real time, it was hysterical. I told the reporter, "you don't know the difference between X and Y". The reporter was indignant. "Of course I do!". My response was, "then stop writing it wrong in the paper". That same reporter, when he wrote his article on that meeting, got it wrong. Because he didn't know the difference between X and Y. Absolute riot.

So the fracking fluid was already there? Right.

No. The water wells were drilled into, and produce water from, oil and gas producing formations which were hydraulically fracked. Don't put your water well into a producing gas field and act surprised when it produces something besides water. Are your neighbors dumb enough to drill their water wells into the Marcellus?

Would you like another clue? Another report from the same area found traces of anti-freeze (ethylene glycol) in their samples. Let me know when you think you know where that came from, it being not used in frac jobs but gee...wonder why...it might be in the samples? Ummmm.......

It would. Except I admit there is a problem. You want to gloss it over and deny a problem ever existed. Sounds more like corporate dogma than real science.

Not true. I know better than to drill my water well into an oil and gas field and pretend that only water will come out. My expertise is the science of these things, I don't get asked whether or not reporters know what they are talking about, I get asked whether or not the science is valid, the study done properly, and the conclusions sound. You picked a bad report to reference, you just don't know why. I get paid to know why. Sorry, but verifying preconceived notions isn't part of the job, getting it right is.

 

[RGR]

Yep, fracking is nasty and damages the rock layers/artesian springs.

Really? Can you even name an artesian spring that a frack job came blowing out of one afternoon? Because I promise you, when someone puts 4000# of pressure against your shallow artesian spring, you should be able to get a wonderful photo of the Old Faithful geyser it will imitate. Got a pic?

 

[Underhill]

You might know something about science, but you don't know dick about that study. And you really shouldn't reference it until you do.

So Scientific American got it wrong?

Nope. They reported what was in the report. The report got it wrong. One of the reasons why you don't take a journalists word for anything, not only is it possible they have their own slant on an issue, it is a rule that they never actually understand the particulars of scientific reports. Lift a paragraph from the conclusions is about the extent of their talents, and if the report pulls a boner, the journalist will never know it.

I've participated in these real time, it was hysterical. I told the reporter, "you don't know the difference between X and Y". The reporter was indignant. "Of course I do!". My response was, "then stop writing it wrong in the paper". That same reporter, when he wrote his article on that meeting, got it wrong. Because he didn't know the difference between X and Y. Absolute riot.

So the fracking fluid was already there? Right.

No. The water wells were drilled into, and produce water from, oil and gas producing formations which were hydraulically fracked. Don't put your water well into a producing gas field and act surprised when it produces something besides water. Are your neighbors dumb enough to drill their water wells into the Marcellus?

Would you like another clue? Another report from the same area found traces of anti-freeze (ethylene glycol) in their samples. Let me know when you think you know where that came from, it being not used in frac jobs but gee...wonder why...it might be in the samples? Ummmm.......

It would. Except I admit there is a problem. You want to gloss it over and deny a problem ever existed. Sounds more like corporate dogma than real science.

Not true. I know better than to drill my water well into an oil and gas field and pretend that only water will come out. My expertise is the science of these things, I don't get asked whether or not reporters know what they are talking about, I get asked whether or not the science is valid, the study done properly, and the conclusions sound. You picked a bad report to reference, you just don't know why. I get paid to know why. Sorry, but verifying preconceived notions isn't part of the job, getting it right is.

So what you are claiming is that drilling an oil/gas well and pressurizing it, in an area with water wells, cannot possibly affect them, but drilling a water well where there is oil wells will get you shitty water.

Got it.

 

[RGR]

So what you are claiming is that drilling an oil/gas well and pressurizing it, in an area with water wells, cannot possibly affect them, but drilling a water well where there is oil wells will get you shitty water.

Got it.

Of course it can effect them. The same thing would happen if the Marcellus landowners had drilled their water wells into the Marcellus, rather than being miles higher in the section. Worse yet in the EPA example, surface casing is set to a depth shallow of where the landowners wandered with their water wells. Can't blame the companies for that one either, need to talk to your state regulatory agency.

It is similar to setting up a card game on the back stretch at Daytona during the Daytona 500 and complaining that the noise is disturbing your game. Don't want bad water? Don't drill into an active oil and gas producing formation and pretend it is the companies fault that you did so.

 

[Underhill]

So what you are claiming is that drilling an oil/gas well and pressurizing it, in an area with water wells, cannot possibly affect them, but drilling a water well where there is oil wells will get you shitty water.

Got it.

Of course it can effect them. The same thing would happen if the Marcellus landowners had drilled their water wells into the Marcellus, rather than being miles higher in the section. Worse yet in the EPA example, surface casing is set to a depth shallow of where the landowners wandered with their water wells. Can't blame the companies for that one either, need to talk to your state regulatory agency.

It is similar to setting up a card game on the back stretch at Daytona during the Daytona 500 and complaining that the noise is disturbing your game. Don't want bad water? Don't drill into an active oil and gas producing formation and pretend it is the companies fault that you did so.

So playing cards at the Daytona 500 is stupid, but according to you, it's perfectly acceptable for street racers to show up at my weekly card game.

Got it.

It's never the companies fault for anything. If the landowners want to drill on their own land after fracking started they are to blame if their wells are shit. And if the drilling company is allowed to drill in an area where there are water wells, it is the fault of regulators for allowing them.

You are a company man through and through.

 

[Mr. H.]

RIGZONE - API: Investment in US Shale Drilling Up in 2011

An estimated $65.5 billion was invested drilling an estimated 10,173 U.S. shale oil and natural gas wells in 2011, according to API's 2011 Joint Association Survey on Drilling Costs. The investment number represents an 87.6 percent increase in shale drilling expenditures from 2010 levels and more than half of an estimated $124.8 billion spent on all new wells drilled in 2011. The number of estimated shale wells drilled in 2011 is 43.8 percent more than in 2010.

^ This is what other sectors of our economy should look like.

Investment, jobs, economic activity, contributions to the GDP....

Yet oddly enough, Obama has chosen to single out these two vibrant booming industries for over $40 billion in taxation.

The idiot has his head screwed on backwards.

 

[RGR]

So playing cards at the Daytona 500 is stupid, but according to you, it's perfectly acceptable for street racers to show up at my weekly card game.

Now you are just being cute.

Still stinging from my original and valid idea about how to keep people from fracking under nearby property?

Hey, like I said, job security because of the people who don't get this, you don't have to be ashamed that you fall into that category just because of your inexperience in the field, just as I might be with coal stuff.

It's never the companies fault for anything.

Wrong again. I blew up a frack job once upon a time, they are easy to see, it didn't require landowners running around with mason jars of their poor well water quality for me to fix it. I just did. Industry spec to do those types of things, do whatever is required by the regulations to get it done. Don't like your regulations? I recommend letter writing campaign. Just make sure to find yourself someone who knows something about this stuff first, you wouldn't want to go waving around a copy of the EPA study as "proof" and have someone like me working for the other side.

If the landowners want to drill on their own land after fracking started they are to blame if their wells are shit. And if the drilling company is allowed to drill in an area where there are water wells, it is the fault of regulators for allowing them.

You are a company man through and through.

Not any more. But don't feel bad about it, fortunately for you the odds are near astronomical that nothing bad will happen to your water supply, fracking or no fracking. Rejoice in the good news! At the very least you know not to drill your water well down 10,000' to the Marcellus!

 

[RGR]

Investment, jobs, economic activity, contributions to the GDP....

Yet oddly enough, Obama has chosen to single out these two vibrant booming industries for over $40 billion in taxation.

The idiot has his head screwed on backwards.

Obama has other things on his mind than creating jobs and whatnot.

 

[Mr. H.]

State: Drilling didn't foul northeast Pa. wells | Press & Sun-Bulletin | pressconnects.com

MONTROSE, PA. — Gas drilling isn’t to blame for a high-profile case of methane contamination in northeastern Pennsylvania, state environmental regulators declared Monday, but a homeowner with fouled water vowed to press on and said she doesn’t trust the agency.

Anti-fracking celebrities including Yoko Ono and Susan Sarandon had visited the Susquehanna County village of Franklin Forks in January as part of a tour of natural-gas drilling sites. There, the stars met with Matthew and Tammy Manning, who blame the high level of methane in their well water on a natural gas driller, WPX Energy.

But the state Department of Environmental Protection said its 16-month investigation shows WPX isn’t responsible for high levels of methane and other contaminants in the private water wells at three homes.

The methane in the residents’ wells is naturally occurring shallow gas — possibly from nearby Salt Springs State Park — and not production gas from the Marcellus Shale formation, DEP said. The agency said that samples taken from the wells and from Salt Springs exhibited similar water chemistry, including high levels of barium, iron, chlorides and other contaminants.

Check out the picture of Yoko.

 

[freedombecki]

I could have buried this in one of the many existing threads on Fracking, but it deserves it's own look.

The article touches on the effects of increased U.S. natural gas production in far-flung parts of the world including the Middle East, China, Russia, Venezuela, etc.

U.S. Shale Boom Reduces Russian Influence Over European Gas Market

The U.S. shale gas boom has not only virtually eliminated the need for U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports for at least two decades, but significantly reduced Russia’s influence over the European natural gas market and "diminished the petro-power" of major gas producers in the Middle East and Venezuela.

And here's the kicker- Obama's proposed tax policies are directed at bringing the American oil and natural gas industries to it's knees:

Changes to U.S. tax policy for upstream oil and gas, including proposed changes to expensing rules, investment credits, and/or royalty rates, could also make shale exploration and production unprofitable at current prices.

It's too bad American politics have gotten to the point of liberals punishing those who bring them tax money in return for their hard work. He can't leave office soon enough. We need to restore government to governing people, not diapering them. That's the parents' job.

 

[freedombecki]

RIGZONE - API: Investment in US Shale Drilling Up in 2011

An estimated $65.5 billion was invested drilling an estimated 10,173 U.S. shale oil and natural gas wells in 2011, according to API's 2011 Joint Association Survey on Drilling Costs. The investment number represents an 87.6 percent increase in shale drilling expenditures from 2010 levels and more than half of an estimated $124.8 billion spent on all new wells drilled in 2011. The number of estimated shale wells drilled in 2011 is 43.8 percent more than in 2010.

^ This is what other sectors of our economy should look like.

Investment, jobs, economic activity, contributions to the GDP....

Yet oddly enough, Obama has chosen to single out these two vibrant booming industries for over $40 billion in taxation.

The idiot has his head screwed on backwards.

It's not going to be easy to change 8 years of beating up winner companies to disable them from paying taxes and stimulating the investment market.

Oh, that's the point. Finish off Wall Street as a tactic of avoiding terrorist strikes of jealous extremists.