« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Energy 101: Hydraulic Fracturing

By: Steve Maley (Diary)  |  January 23rd, 2010 at 12:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

This week, several news stories converged on an odd topic: hydraulic fracturing.

Fracking Schematic

Fracking Schematic. Note: Vertical scale grossly underrepresents the depth of the producing formation.

Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”, has been used since the 1950s to stimulate oil and gas wells. The process involves pumping a sand-laden slurry into a well and subjecting it to enough pressure that the rocks in the productive formation fracture, or break. The purpose of the sand is to prop open the fracture, so it stays in place. The carrying fluid can then flow back out of the well, along with oil and gas if it’s been a successful frac.

Item: In 2009, the U.S. surpassed Russia as the world’s leading gas producer, largely driven by industry’s successful shale developments in Texas, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and other states.

The US, with its big gas shale resources, has surpassed Russia as the world’s leading gas producer. The US government’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) said US gas production for the year probably rose 3.7% to 624 billion cubic meters, its highest level of the decade. Russia’s output fell 12% to 582 billion cubic meters last year, the Russian energy ministry said this week.

And what technology makes the shale developments possible? Hydraulic fracturing.

Item: House Panel Looks Into Effects of Exxon-XTO Merger

The proposed all-stock deal valued at $41 billion between Exxon Mobil and XTO Energy Inc. has been seen by many in the oil and gas industry as a show of confidence for the future of unconventional reserves such as those from shales, tight sands and coal seams. Exxon Mobil has said it wants to use the merger as an opportunity to set up a new business unit to develop and deploy technologies to extract fuels from unconventional plays.

The proposed purchase would boost Exxon Mobil’s acreage in unconventional natural gas reservoirs to 8 million acres — the largest portfolio in the industry, according to the company. The reservoirs include significant acreage in the Barnett, Marcellus and Haynesville shales, among others.

On Wednesday, XTO founder and chairman Bob R. Simpson told the House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment that “… virtually every well drilled by his company uses hydraulic fracturing. [XOM Chairman Rex] Tillerson added there have been more than a million wells drilled using hydraulic fracturing in the United States, and not one has been documented as contaminating ground water. Furthermore, he said, ‘Without hydraulic fracturing, the gas locked in the shale rock stays locked.’ ” (Source.)

So what technology does Subcommittee Chair Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) now want the EPA to regulate under the Safe Drinking Water Act? That’s right, boys and girls.

Hydraulic fracturing.

Specifically, the fracturing fluid. Frac fluid does contain some nasty-sounding additives, stuff that I’d rather not have in my drinking water.

The Environmental Working Group just hates fracking. The EWG Facebook page links to a page at their website with the ironically appropriate title “Fractured Logic: The Peril in ‘Fracking’ Chemicals”.

“EWG Senior Counsel Dusty Horwitt has spent six months looking into the issue.” His findings can be summarized as follows: Chemicals! Toxic stew! Petroleum distillates! Contaminated drinking water! Benzene! Diesel! More benzene! Cancer!

Read it yourself, and note the lack of specific scientific or technical details. Note also that Mr. Horwitt is a lawyer. Why not get the opinion of a geologist or engineer? Mr. Horwitt speaks the language of the trial lawyer, playing on the emotion and ungrounded fears of the general population.

So, how valid are EWG’s claims? From a New York Times “Green Inc.” blog entry on the EWG study:

In 2004, the United States Environmental Protection Agency released a report declaring that hydraulic fracturing posed little threat to human health. The following year, drawing support from the E.P.A. report, Congress voted to exempt hydraulic fracturing from oversight under the Clean Water Act.

Then there’s Energy Secretary Stephen Chu:

Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Friday said a controversial natural gas drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing, which energy companies are increasingly using to access abundant U.S. shale gas reserves, can be performed safely.

In his remarks, Chu went on to acknowledge: “Can you do it incorrectly and start to pollute water tables? Yes.” Could I drive my car off a bridge? Could I use home power tools to make a hole in my skull? Yes, but why would I?

The whole purpose of fracking is to stimulate gas-bearing reservoirs. It is an expensive process. Wells are designed expressly to handle the pressures involved; shallow freshwater sands are typically protected by multiple strings, or layers, of concentric steel pipe called casing, and these in turn are sealed in place with sheaths of cement. Well designs are closely considered by the various state permitting bodies; one of their primary areas of concern is the protection of groundwater resources.

But the most important protection of groundwater is that it is separated from the gas-bearing formation, typically by many thousands of vertical feet, as much as two miles, or even more. Geomechanical forces tend to confine the fracture to the target geologic zone; this has been confirmed by ultrasensitive seismic montioring that can map the zones failure, in three dimensions, while the frac treatment is in progress.

Industry’s case is well presented at the website, Energy in Depth, sponsored by the Independent Petroleum Association of America. You’ll find there a regulatory timeline, IPAA’s Open Letter to Congress, and some interesting animations (sample below) which depict the process of drilling and completing a well. I invite you to visit the site, consider the issues and the facts, and make up your own mind.

[VIDEO REMOVED]

[Not my favorite graphic, in that I don't understand the multiple lines emanating from the vertical line of the wellbore. It does, however, do a good job of depicting the depth of a typical gas well, in relation to the Empire State Building.]

Cross-posted at VladEnBlog.

Tags: , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • dswardstrom

    One of the current techniques used in wells is to drill down to the main area and then fork off into multiple branches. The last graphic provides a picture where the branches go at an angle and then go down again. I understand that many of the new wells in North Dakota have horizontal branches.
    This technique reduces the cost of drilling the main well and increases the amount of oil or gas recoverable from any one well.

    • not_neo_just_conservative

      It’s called directional drilling, and it’s yet another reason why the whole “oilfield development is a blight on the countryside” is another greenusist fallacy. One well can do the work of many, and certainly isn’t the same kind of eyesore as, oh, I don’t know, thousands of acres of windmills or solar panels.

      • http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

        http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/2008/11/solar-follies.html

        • http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

          oops

      • not_neo_just_conservative

        is that all of the supposedly green alternatives are things that the greenunists would want outlawed if they were proposed by anyone else.

        A mandate that everyone use mercury bearing lightbulbs? Covering thousands of acres of environmentally sensitive countryside with solar panels? Giant windmill migratory bird Cuisinarts? Can you imagine that the environmental movement would approve of any of these frankly ridiculous ideas if they hadn’t come up with them themselves? It also puts the lie to the environmental movement by showing that they are totalitarians first and conservationists maybe not at all.

    • Vladimir

      Multiple laterals are more common in horizontal drilling. I don’t know how multiple vertical wells could be effectively fracked.

      • Raven

        But that’s mostly because I don’t know that kind of engineering. I Do know that they are, however.

      • makemyday

        I’ve invested in oil and gas wells for 10 years and get the reports from the wells monthly. A vertical well can be frac’ed multiple times. If you drill into a structure that has multiple levels, you drill to the deepest. Frac that level and withdraw the gas until the pocket gives out. You then inject a slurry into the well to fill to the next level up and continue the process all the way up. I’ve had several wells come in with this process.

      • nessa

        The ANWR has long been a burr under my saddle, it would be sweet revenge to steal it out from under the greenies without them even knowing.

  • http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

    …I have to say I love this stuff. Thanks for the post.

    There is no reason the US should be importing energy in any form. According to our very own government via the Congressional Research Service (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34233), and not evil oil and gas companies, we, the USA, have more oil, coal, and gas than any nation on the planet. We could in fact be net exporters and exert immeasurable power over world energy prices and use that power to crush our enemies. There are countless benefits to our nation including massive inflows of dollars to our Treasury from fees, export dollars to help drive down our balance of trade, hundreds of thousands maybe millions of high paying energy jobs. Union jobs likely too.

    Direct link to the CRS report: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=f7bd7b77-ba50-48c2-a635-220d7cf8c519

    • Vladimir

      Profitable firms incur Obama’s wrath.

      Unprofitable firms get propped up.

      • Praying

        that the $$ that drives all their stupid social engineering projects comes from private industry in the USA. If they continue to squeeze the private industries, the very people that hire, invest, and pay excessive taxes to the government, which in turn pays for the multitude of “social engineering” programs that the government comes up with, they will find that a) the unemployment rate will remain high, b) there will be virtually no capital invested back into the economy and c) the government will receive less and less in tax payments to fund their ridiculous welfare programs. Of course, the latter may not be a problem, they will continue to borrow money, and when China stops lending us money, they will simply print it.

        Hard to believe that the Department of Energy (DOE) was originally formed in order to REDUCE OUR RELIANCE ON FOREIGN OIL. Hows that working out? It is criminal, given that the US has vast reserves of oil, gas, and coal, that our imports of foreign oil continue to increase. To the benefit of countries that would just as well assume we were wiped off the face of the earth. The EPA has become the high priest of the Mother Gaia worshiping crowd – we’ve banned Christianity from our society, and replaced it with the false god of Mother Earth.

        Thanks for an excellent explanation of the hydrofracture process (as a geologist, it made me smile) and even more importantly, the potential hurdles the US will face in moving towards energy independence. It was somewhat reassuring to note that Chu said that this procedure can be performed safely. In the meantime, I’ve pretty much lost all respect for the EPA.

      • DefendUSA

        Have you seen the article about a farmer from North Dakota, I believe, who drilled for oil in his own back yeard….

        http://www.startribune.com/business/19577194.html

        For the life of me, I cannot understand why we are not doing what we need to do!!

  • http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34233

    • nod90

      …we are definitely short of oil. And we need liquid fuels to power transportation.

  • grinlap

    is the predominant method used today in the “shale plays”. The examples shown in the article show tight sands and vertical wells. Sands are relatively porous so fracking the area exposed by the thickness of the formation (maybe only 50 ft or so) where the well intersects it provides enough surface area to release a worthwhile amount of gas.

    Shales, like the Barnett in Texas or Marcellus in Pennsylvania where I’m located are less porous. In these formations the operator drills vertically to a point somewhat above the desired formation and then turns the drill string in a gentle arc as it goes deeper until it is moving horizontally through the desired formation. The horizontal section of the hole may be several thousand feet long. The explosive device is sent down the hole and the entire horizontal extent of the hole is fractured in sections of about 1000 ft. This exposes much more surface area through which gas can be extracted.

    This method has really come into prominence in the last 5 to 10 years and has made available an enormous amount of gas that could not be obtained profitably before. The Marcellus formation, from NY to WV, is said to contain 100 years of supply for the US at current rates.

  • bobojake
  • http://www.tenmilestonowhere.com mead

    I grew up in E. Montana on the Bakken shale formation (same field that got a lot of national attention from North Dakota).

    My family is connected to the industry and I grew up knowing this stuff since I was very little.

    Re: Groundwater. The major concern on the Bakken is not necessarily protecting the groundwater from contamination, those problems are easily solved by either geology or protected waste pools. A larger concern is that the Bakken is under an agricultural area that relies heavily on irrigation in order to be productive. Fracking a new well uses a lot of water, 1,000s of gallons a day. That is water diverted from wells or systems which would otherwise go into the agricultural economy. It is the same debate as coal bed methane folks run into on the Montana-Wyoming line. Water rights and water usage out west are a huge point of contention, and locally much more divisive than groundwater contamination.

    Another major issue on the Bakken is the natural gas burnoffs. Fracking produces a large amount of natural gas byproduct while drilling for oil. Yet, mostly because of poor infrastructure (no gas pipelines or plants to speak of) that gas is burned off into the air. Out in the countryside it is not a huge issue, but out in Sidney there are wells within city limits that create burn off for 4-5 hours a day.

    Finally, just to give you an idea of the scale I am talking about on the Bakken. Richland County, MT is approx 2,000 sq. miles (The State of Rhode Island is 1,500 if you need a comparison). Within the county, at the peak in 2007, there were 40 operating drilling rigs with close to 1,000 active wells. Even with the advances in horizontal drilling techniques there were a lot of wells. It should be noted, XTO was one of the first outfits to move into the area in 2004. My experience with them was always good and I am sad to see them leave.

    On the balance, I am glad my hometown could be part of the energy solution. But, the oil boom was, and still is, hugely upsetting to the entrenched economy.

    • DefendUSA

      I never knew about the Bakken shale stuff until I was so pissed off about the US not drilling that I went and researched it. No where did I read the things that you say, so I am glad to know that it can be done and hopefully, over time things will get better and better.

      In regard to the economic impact…remember, the US is all about innovation, if you can keep the government out.

  • hickorystick

    I don’t know squat about mining, but I do know about keeping water out of basements and crawlspaces. Installing perforated pipe around the house is useful only for about one to three years before the holes get filled with sediment and water no longer flows into the pipe to carry away the excess rainwater/groundwater. If you surround the perforated pipe with gravel, it lasts longer. If surrounded with gravel encased in filter fabric, it lasts twenty to thirty years.
    I would make my case as good maintenance of the site reduces the number of wells having to be drilled. I would phrase it as sediment filtration or preventing holes/perforations from being blocked. I would also make the case it is a wiser use of gas industry dollars that results in greater revenues to state treasuries, helping to sponser responsible governance. Also mention that compared to Stimulus bills, these techniques do not take away dollars from taxpayers.
    Using the industry term “fracturing” sounds like your breaking something. ‘Filtration Filling’ would sound like good maintenance of a State resource.

  • fisk2521

    I recently heard a radio commentator say that New York State is attempting to use new rules and regulations to stop the fracturing of the Marcellus shale that runs from Tennessee to the northern part of New York State. They apparently are requiring that any well MUST have a state official on site at all times. There are apparently hundreds of applications for permits to drill in the Southern tier, and just a handful of NYS inspectors. It seems evident that this is a deliberate move to delay and stop the wells. Please remember that we are so far in the red in New York that the only state that is worse is California. Thank you Democratic liberals in Albany. Our State Senator recently called for a separation of upstate NY and New York City?making each sovereign state. The obvious reason for this is that the ?City? makes all the rules, spends all the money, uses the resources from upstate and sends their prisoners and their garbage to us. Industry has been driven away, by huge energy costs and taxes that are simply unsustainable.

    Pennsylvania is allowing, no welcoming, the drilling on the Marcellus shale. In Lycoming County Pennsylvania (Williamsport, pa) I’m told the gas companies are paying landowners $5000 a month for rights and a percentage if they drill. Fox had a large story on this last week. God knows the liberals in NY wouldn?t want the middle class to actually make money on their own land. (since many have been told here that ‘the land never actually did belong to you” from a federal official.

    Meanwhile, so called New York State ‘environmentalists’ are doing what they always do – - stopping whatever they can to allow the use of these natural resources. Our mayor in a little town in upstate (pop. 14,000 and dwindling) actually felt he knew enough about it to write to the state environmental agency urging caution and delay. Meanwhile this little city, and this big state are going to hell in a hand basket

  • MrAleGuy

    I can assure you that the big players in Oil Field Service are trying to address this issue. They don’t want the water tainted any more than anyone else.

    They drink water, too.

  • http://www.criterionchemical.com Chemical Sam

    This is what you get for allowing someone who doesn’t understand basic mechanics or science to make decisions about people’s lives based on their scientific knowledge.

    And now for your latest public horsewhipping, Ed. Round two.

    The lion’s share of the material used in fracking solutions are sand and water.

    Water is the transport medium. Sand is primarily the substance that is being transported. Sand, the proppant, primarily quartz and feldspar (aka ground up rock), is the material that gets lodged in cracks that open up, and keep those cracks open when force and pressure are removed, allowing less resistance between underground hydrocarbons, to allow them to become newly liberated hydrocarbons, which we use to power a significant portion of our country.

    The remainder of the mass of the fluid (0.5 wt%) is a mixture of substances which gel in water, gel in organics, and there are some salts, and yes, some hydrocarbons. The are there to keep the sand from settling in the water, from getting jammed up, during pumping, long enough to do its job. Sand and water alone won’t do it.

    DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT IF SAND AND WATER DID WORK ALL BY ITSELF, THAT THEY’D BOTHER TO PUT IN ALL THOSE OTHER INGREDIENTS MAKING IT ONLY 99.5% SAND AND WATER, just so some “environmental activist” or “community organizer” can latch on like the tapeworms that they are?

    The component the people are mostly blabbering about is the hydrocarbon part, which is essentially diesel fuel. (In fact one of the more comical things I heard a few nights back was (gasp) NPR on the way home. Some woman, a self-proclaimed “environmental activist” or “community organizer” was arguing with another woman, a geologist about the hazards of these fluids. Well.)

    Diesel fuel is a very refined version of what these drillers are removing from the ground in the first place. There’s more benzene and toluene in the crude oil drillers are attempting to remove from the ground than there is in the diesel. Most of those hydrocarbons (aromatic and polyaromatic) get converted into nice, clean carbon dioxide in American automobiles, mixed right in with our gasoline.

    Also, much of the fracking liquid components, aqueous and organic, come back out relatively quickly (closest to the shaft leading out, after all). Eventually the gelling agents the foaming agents, the glycols, the salts, get pushed back out as well. Right up through the hole in which they are pumped. None of it ever sees ground water, sealed away hundreds or thousands of feet up, bypassed by the shaft.

    None of these fracking fluids even enter the ground unless the dirllers have already bypassed the water table and have reached a layer where they have detected gas or fossil fuel. These mixtures are expensive to get just right, and they aren’t going to waste it on an unknown.

    Some moron is probably out there making noise about the acids and the salts, and the mercury in the zinc and all that. These people have never drunk the water in Saratoga Springs, NY.

    Again most of the salts and inorganics, either react harmlessly, or come back out. IF there ever was a problem before, the salts introduced are mercury-free now.

    So…This is what’s really going on. Ed Markey got publicly horsewhipped (round one) for attempting to subdue America the energy industry by regulating carbon dioxide, like the good little Socialist that he is. This talk about regulating drilling by forcing ridiculous measures on the drilling industry is merely a way for him to continue the attack on the fossil fuel industry in general.

    I figure he’ll get circulated out in November, seeing as how Massachusetts is turning these days.

    Keep up the good work Ed, but you better hurry. Your time in office is almost up.

    • Vladimir

      …obviously don’t read food labels.

      A lot of the additives in drilling & completion fluids are also food additives, like guar gum and xanthan gum, which are both used in making ice cream. The Energy In Depth site has a chart showing the common uses of many of the additives.

      • hickorystick

        pancakes every Saturday. To buy it I have to go into the Liberals Lions Den of Whole Foods or Puget Consumers Co-op, the very ones who are in most likely-hood protesting this process. In this case Xanthum Gum is used to prevent fracturing, not to maintain it.

  • i8bugs

    Someone had to do it…

  • Common_Cents
    • Vladimir
  • nod90

    …of the past decade. This technology was never promoted by environmentalists, and to my knowledge it recieved no government subsidies. It was developed right here in America, with small and medium sized oil and gas firms taking the lead. It has completely transformed the natural gas supply picture here in the US.

    And now the environmentalists want to “regulate” it. Typical.

    • Vladimir

      …which were widely considered to be corporate welfare back in the 1990s.

      They were unbelievably successful, to the point that 40-50% of the gas we now use is considered “unconventional”, an outgrowth of the old tax credits (which expired around 2001).

      I blogged about it some years back, but it would be a good topic to resurrect.

  • nod90

    However my guess is that if you compare it with what was spent on wind or solar, then we have spent far more on wind and solar with far less result.

    I think there should be a time limit on government support. If a technology isn’t viable after X years then the support gets eliminated.

    • Vladimir

      You got a tax credit for production, not for drilling a well. Therefore, there was a significant incentive to be successful.

      Now, we give tax credits for building windmills or for installing solar panel. If they never generate a kilowatt, the tax credit is the same.

      People will do exactly what you give them a monetary incentive to do, so you’ve got to be careful when you structure those incentives.

  • izoneguy

    My brother produced the animations of the drilling rigs.
    That is stock that is sold by the company he used to work for.
    I have also shot many videos for oil & gas companies.
    The company that produced this video should get rid of
    the Beverly Hillbilly clip due to copyright infringement.
    I would take it off of this site ASAP.

    They are on their own in regards to YouTube…..

    • Vladimir

      I pulled down the video. I suppose that anyone that’s interested can find it at the website.

      IPAA has a youtube channel; I’ll poke around a little & try to figure out what’s the deal.

      • izoneguy

        I know that stock footage animation costs $5000…..
        And the guy that owns that is a real stickler about
        copyrights. So to see a clip from an old TV show?
        People should know better.
        Thanks

        • Vladimir

          The IPAA guy emailed me first thing this morning. He says that all copyright issues are in order. The video was produced by a 3rd party & they bought it “off the shelf”.

  • blooch

    Hugo Chavez’s Powerpoint presentation about our earthquake machine.

  • 1SGinTN

    I wish we had more infrastructure to utilize it for vehicles. I live outside the network of gas lines, otherwise I would seriously consider converting at least one vehicle and putting in a home filling point off the gas line. Has anybody here at RS done that?

    As a nation we are damn foolish for importing so much energy while having so much potential going underutilized. We need to put a stop to the Democrats’ continuous policy of handicapping our energy industry. That includes the full spectrum; from nuclear, hydropower, petroleum/hydrocarbon.

    • Vladimir
  • AceInTX

    Tillerson added there have been more than a million wells drilled using hydraulic fracturing in the United States, and not one has been documented as contaminating ground water. Furthermore, he said, ?Without hydraulic fracturing, the gas locked in the shale rock stays locked.? ?

    My aunt and Uncle in WV are having water trucked in by a gas company that drilled a deep well near their farm and their water has been contaminated with acid and other fracking fluids….

    I’m not a radical green and I thing my history here proves that…but I don’t think we gain anything when someone makes a statement like this that is demonstrably un true!

    • mschmitt

      If you test any random sample of water anywhere in the world, with few exceptions, you’re bound to find an array of impurities. If you tend to test water close to fracking wells (to make sure nothing is messing up groundwater), then the assumption is that the impurities are there because of the well (which may or may not be true).

      That’s why energy companies hire smart people to make their case and the greenies send their drug addicted children to Berkeley — so we can work this kind of thing out without having to speculate on straw-men (with all due respect to your folks in WV, who may — or may not — have gotten screwed by that gas company).

      • AceInTX

        when the well is completed…and the frack it a week later…and the well water immediately goes bad that the ground water was contaminated. The water has been tested and the drilling company is having to truck in water to my aunt and uncle because their well water has become unusable.

        I also have experience selling limited partnerships in drilling operations in Texas and I happen to know the Texas Railroad Commission requires drillers to double case their wells down to a certain depth to prevent infiltration of salt water into the ground water because we’re so close to sea level in the Valley.

        As for whether someone got screwed by the gas company and drug addicted children at Berkley…You’re wasting your breath with me…I’m not a radical greeny…and I don’t have an agenda here…I’m all for drill here and drill now…and I’ve got limited experience in the Oil and Gas business…so I’m not ignorant either…

        my only point it…that statement is not true number 1…that it is possible to contaminate ground water with drilling and fracking fluids…and that it happened with my Aunt and Uncle’s water. I’m not for stopping anyone from producing out reserves…I’m not for sticking it to big oil….

        but I am for using common sense…and doing what we can to prevent contaminating our drinking water. double casing the wells to a level below the water table is all it would do to fix it….but saying something ain’t so when there is absolute proof to the contrary doesn’t serve the oil companies interests in the long run…and gives fuel to the Greenies who don’t want ANY oil and gas development in this country!

        • AceInTX

          and just happened to match with one of the fluids added to the fracking solution

        • Vladimir

          …to protect fresh water & coal. They are supposed to cement it with returns to the surface. The oil company would then drill through that casing, set a smaller production casing, and frac through that.

          So they do require “double casing” the wells.

          • AceInTX

            and I would assume the gas company followed the regs…so I can only assume so I can only assume the fluids infiltrated the water table through fissures in the rock or there was a void in the cement

            but my point stands that it’s not true that the fracking process has never contaminated the water table.

            Since you looked it up…I’d be curious to know how deep they are required to double case…I know these are deep wells I’m talking about and I know…even in Texas they only have to case to a certain depth.

            the other question that comes to mind is…I assumed the casing was the problem…if contaminating the water table can happen through fissures between the strata as I’ve hypothesized which opens up a whole different can of worms

          • Vladimir

            … but they have to set pipe before and salt water bearing sands.

            They also have to protect any coal seams in a similar manner. One string can do it all.

            Trust me. They use nitrogen, but not to “freeze” the formation.

            Coal seams don’t have naturally-occurring acid in them.

            Look, lots of lay people “know” a lot about the oil business. I’m not lay people. I’ve been doing this for thirty-two years.

          • AceInTX

            which I have here. I’m in trouble now because I simply pointed out where a statement was made that is patently untrue.

            I’ve stated over and over that I’m a fan of this process and I’m not a radical green looking to stop it but for someone to say ground water has never contaminated ground water is simply not true.

            As far as it goes…as someone with knowledge in this process…given that there is a finite amount for fluid put into the ground, isn’t it likely these fluids would be diluted….or that the levels would go down if the water wells were bailed so as to remove any Fracking fluids that infiltrated?

            secondly, given the pressures involved, isn’t it reasonable to expect fluids to follow fissures into the rock which can place it in the ground water?

            I really was unaware WV requires Double casing and was working off bad info on that

          • AceInTX

            Coal in the Pittsburgh seam is high in sulfur whc is an acid.

            I grew up in the Ohio Valley and know the effects of the acids from abandoned coal mines.there is a song from the 60s written about the creek/river running along Route 20 between Folsom WV and Clarksburg.

            We used to drive along it when I was a kid…the water in it was a redish brown and there wasn’t a fish, a crab, a shell or any plant life in it…and it came from the acid in the coal seams and the water running out of the abandoned mines in the area.

            WV has a program where they have lime drums in dozens of rivers in WV that exist to neutralize the acids in the rivers. again…I posited this as a possibility for another source of the acids in my Aunt and Uncle’s well water in good faith….but you are wrong that acids are not a naturally occurring element in the coal seams.

            And I would add, if the acids did come from a different source be it the coal seams or whatever…and not from the fracking fluid…I still say there is a good case to be made that it got in the ground water from whatever it’s source as a result of the pressures used to force the fracking fluids into the petrochemical zones…therefore the fracking caused it.

            That’s not to say these methods should be abandoned but it is to say…the oil and gas industry would be better served to acknowledge the fact that it can happen and figure out who to prevent it rather than acting like it’s never happened and have to dial that back at some point and wipe the egg of their faces!

    • Vladimir

      Can you back your claim up?

      “Acid and other fracking fluids…” In the first place, acid is not a primary frac fluid. What kind of acid was it?

      Are you sure it wasn’t drilling mud? Or produced water?

      Were there lab analyses that confirmed that it was frac fluid? Or is this a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc?

      Pardon my skepticism, but experience tells me that if a cow is killed and an oilfield company was anywhere around, then the cow becomes a prize bull. If my tugboat damages an oyster reef, it is the most prolific reef in the state.

      • AceInTX

        I note your qualifier….”acid is not a primary frac fluid” That’s not the same as saying Acid is not used in fracking fluids at all is it?

        In fact…it’s hard to find out what is in the fracking solutions because different drillers use different fracking solutions and their formulas are often carefully guarded secrets. Then you add in the different fracking techniques and the different chemicals used whether it is done with Pressure…Freezing, or shock…all involve putting one chemical or another into the ground under extremely high numbers. Sopme use acids, some use detergents, some use liquid hydrogen, and who knows what else.

        Yes the water was tested which is why we know one of the chemicals is acid…(I’m thinking it was hydrochloric acid…but I’m not positive about that).

        And yes I can back it up…My family has seen it first hand…and you’re welcome to go by and drink the water if you’d like…

        Oh…and I suppose the drilling company is trucking in water to them just because they like spending the extra funds required to operate a tanker truck and pay an employee to truck the water in to them?

        Is it produced water? maybe…but that would be salt water and wouldn’t explain the other chemicals in the water would it? and it also doesn’t change the fact that it was caused by either the drilling or fracking process since the production water didn’t travel into the ground water till the well was drilled and fracked…

        additionally…if it came from the drilling mud…it should have contaminated water during the weeks when the well was being drilled…yet it didn’t appear into the ground water until the fracking was completed!

        Are you accusing ME of lying?

        Can you back your claim up?

        Look…it doesn’t take an engineer or a genius to figure out that when you put fluids in any container and put it under the kinds of pressures necessary to fracture rock that is thousands of feet under the ground for hundreds of feet around…that if there is a path for that fluid to travel whether it be through fissures or weak areas between the petroleum producing sands and the ground water or along the casing and the mud used to hold it in place that it will do so.

        I know from personal experience what this individual said is not true…and again…I’m not a tool of radical environmentalists…and I have no agenda here…in fact…I’m a fan of these techniques and anything that will increase our domestic production of energy and I don’t think our cause is well served by saying something isn’t so when it is so and can be proven to be so!

        in fact…the Oil and Gas industry would do well to get out ahead of this and come up with simple solutions to it on their own like double casing the wells…before the Government decides to get involved and force more extreme and expensive solutions on them. because this is where it will end up if they try to stone wall and deny what is a plain and simple fact!

        finally this isn’t a case of a cow dying and the farmer tring to hose the oil company…We had a case of that where a farmer found a cow that was dead and the farmer swore it was our company’s pump jack hitting it in the head that killed it…probably one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard…but our company paid him to make it go away!

        • AceInTX

          I’m not familiar with any coal mines around there…but the acids could come from the coal seams which are prevalent in the area…but it would be the pressure from the fracking that pushed the acids from the coal seams into the ground water…which is another problem….

          • Vladimir

            “Liquid hydrogen”? Bwhahahahaha! This isn’t NASA!

            “…a farmer found a cow that was dead and the farmer swore it was our company?s pump jack hitting it in the head that killed it?probably one of the stupidest things I?ve ever heard?but our company paid him to make it go away!” Kind of like the company that’s giving your aunt & uncle water?

            “I?m not familiar with any coal mines around there? the pressure from the fracking that pushed the acids from the coal seams into the ground water?which is another problem?.” So the contamination couldn’t have just come from the coal mine?

            I know of a case where a company got a daily call from a lady who had a drilling rig near her house in S. LA. By the time the well was completed, her dog was sick, her hog had died, her herpes had flared up, and it was all the drilling company’s fault!

            Look, I’m not saying it didn’t happen. I do not have the information regarding the design of the well to say whether it is possible. But I’m also saying that you don’t know enough about the situation to make the categorical statement that Tillerson LIED!

            I also know that if I could prove I had a bathtub full of acid & there was a recently-drilled well nearby, I wouldn’t settle for free water, I’d own me an oil company. What, they don’t have environmental lawyers, or a State Dept of Environmental Quality in WV? (Oh, how about that! They do!)

          • AceInTX

            I said Hydrogen when I meant Nitrogen…they freeze the gas producing zones to break up the rock…

            I sited the cow instance to tell you I understand your concern because I know how things can be twisted…but I know it wasn’t in this instance because it affects my family…it’s a pretty good indicator of cause and affect when you apply 10s of thousands of PSI pressure into a rock formation and you get fracking solutions showing up in the water table almost simultaneously.

            Yes it could have come from the coal seam which is why I sited it as a possibility…I’m trying to have an open and honest debate with you on this but you want to play childish games…I didn’t say there was a Mine in the area…I said I didn’t know of any…if the acids came from the coal seam…it still was forced out as a part of the fracking process because of the pressures…I’m making your arguments for you because I’m citing possible sources of the acid forced into the ground water from the fracking process

            But I?m also saying that you don?t know enough about the situation to make the categorical statement that Tillerson LIED!

            Fair enough…saying he lied implies he has specific knowledge that something occurred that he says did not…I guess it’s possible he is an ignorant jackass running his mouth about something he knows nothing about….(which seems to be happening a lot here) but either way…it’s not true that there has never been an instance where ground water has been contaminated during the fracking process.

            I also know that if I could prove I had a bathtub full of acid & there was a recently-drilled well nearby, I wouldn?t settle for free water, I?d own me an oil company. What, they don?t have environmental lawyers, or a State Dept of Environmental Quality in WV? (Oh, how about that! They do!)

            Considering your snarks about why they are trucking in water…it’s because they’ve tested the water…and it is TOXIC…as for the statement above…I’m sure my aunt and uncle will be seeking compensation in the matter…but haven’t yet proceeded because it’s a recent development.

  • renny

    We have oil and natural gas off the coast of NJ, and our reps. and Sens. never say anything except, “We’ll never allow drilling off NJ.”

    CA could solve most of its problems by simply starting the platforms that are still in place off the coast. They should just do it: Join state sovereignty movements and go for the energy, jobs, and taxes. Let the courts rant and dare them to send in the marshals.

    ’nuff said.

    • Vladimir

      They are producing oil in federal waters.

      CA could permit drilling into CA waters anytime it wants to. The deal was cut some time back, but the greens killed it.

      People don’t seem to realize that property rights exist offshore, too. Past 3 miles offshore, CA is a visitor.

      • Achance

        on ALL waters and there are only vestigial remains of state sovereignty even inside 3 miles if the water is navigable. We’ve been fighting with them practically since statehood over who controls fish and game in navigable water in and through State lands – and we ain’t been winning. It has mostly taken the form of a State v. Federal Indian question here. Alaska has gone far out of its way to NOT treat Alaska Natives like federal Indians and in many ways the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act eliminated their status as federal Indians in all but a couple of places in the State. But the Indian sovereinty crowd and the BIA have not gone gently. Our Constitution required equal access to fish and game for all citizens of the State. It is a bedrock principal because the Fed used to give (sell) whole river mouths to private companies and individuals where they would set up huge wooden fish traps and wipe out the salmon stock in that river. They’d put up armed guards to keep local Alaskans off “their river.” But, somehow a provision giving preference to “subsistence users” got into the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and the Fed has used this to give a “subsistence” user preference to Alaska Natives in navigable waters. The Democrats both here and Nationally go along with the sovereignty crowd and they howl “RACIST” in unison at the Republicans for trying to protect the State’s sovereignty Look for Comrade Obama to cause some real mischief in State-Indian relationships, and not just in Alaska.

  • http://truthupfront.blogspot.com jsanzone

    Being from a town where this is now a huge issue as many residents and landowners have already signed leases (in some areas up to 90% of land is potentially leased), there are a few factors at play. First, many in the pro-drilling crowd were ready to give it up with total disregard to any regulation. The initial problem with this was the amount of companies which obtained gas rights–several of them had questionable cash flow or stability, and the worry is if anything did go wrong with the drilling, or they backed out of a well half way through, would they have the resources to clean up their mess? The less regulation, the better, but it’s only because of regulation that there hasn’t been significant groundwater contamination throughout the country. We must be cautious not to advocate giving corporate drillers of all stripes free reign over whatever property they have leased, local water supplies, etc.

    • Vladimir

      Anyone who signs a lease needs to be concerned about the track record of the operator. Some are responsible, some are not. Some are sound financially, some are not.

      And responsible operators don’t mind regulation. It’s our environment, too, and government should be setting some standards. But the states are perfectly capable.

      And as the EPA has shown with their move to declare CO2 a dangerous pollutant, the limits of their sphere of influence in their minds are boundless.

  • Pingback: Homepage