Hubbs Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 So, thoughts from Team Captain Planet and Team Drill, Baby, Drill? Link PITTSBURGH (AP) — A landmark federal study on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, shows no evidence that chemicals from the natural gas drilling process moved up to contaminate drinking water aquifers at a western Pennsylvania drilling site, the Department of Energy told The Associated Press. After a year of monitoring, the researchers found that the chemical-laced fluids used to free gas trapped deep below the surface stayed thousands of feet below the shallower areas that supply drinking water, geologist Richard Hammack said. Although the results are preliminary — the study is still ongoing — they are a boost to a natural gas industry that has fought complaints from environmental groups and property owners who call fracking dangerous. Drilling fluids tagged with unique markers were injected more than 8,000 feet below the surface, but were not detected in a monitoring zone 3,000 feet higher. That means the potentially dangerous substances stayed about a mile away from drinking water supplies. Rest of story at link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 nothing new, been other studies showing the same thing. I think the scare crowd has moved on to earthquakes and emmissions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Gee, this looks like the same information somebody pointed at, recently, when it was revealed that GASES (which travel faster than liquids) HAVE made it to the drinking water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted July 21, 2013 Author Share Posted July 21, 2013 Gee, this looks like the same information somebody pointed at, recently, when it was revealed that GASES (which travel faster than liquids) HAVE made it to the drinking water. Not sure why the speed thing is relevant. Are you saying the DOE hasn't figured out how long it needs to wait for the liquids to get there as well, if they're going to get there at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjinhan Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 As a person that is considered to be an expert in the hydraulic fracturing design, execution, and monitoring... Should I even bother to make comments on numerous false and misleading statements in this article? There are so many that its going to take some time and plus would it even matter to the people that are anti - hydrualic fracturing to make it worth my while... Just want to say Eight new Marcellus Shale horizontal wells were monitored seismically and one was injected with four different man-made tracers at different stages of the fracking process, which involves setting off small explosions to break the rock apart. The scientists also monitored a separate series of older gas wells that are about 3,000 feet above the Marcellus to see if the fracking fluid reached up to them. There is not small explosions taking place... It is just breaking and shearing of the rock and the seismic monitoring devices are picking up the sound signatures of rock breaking (NOT explosions). One finding surprised the researchers: Seismic monitoring determined one hydraulic fracture traveled 1,800 feet out from the well bore; most traveled just a few hundred feet. That's significant because some environmental groups have questioned whether the fractures could go all the way to the surface. Seismic monitoring is showing that hydraulic fracture travels possibly 1800 ft HORIZONTALLY and not vertically up to the surface. Even if it did grow up 1800 ft, these shale rock that we are breaking is 7000-13000 ft under ground. We are still far away from the drinking water reservoirs. Although this is out of reality, lets say the frac can grow vertically up 1800 ft. This is bad news for the oil companies because then it would definitely be hard to keep zonal isolation and have potential of cross flow going on. Pretty there is a huge risk that they can junk the well without getting any oil and gas out of it. With possibly $7-15 millions invested in the well, the oil and gas companies have plenty of incentives to keep the fracture with the target zone to produce only gas and oil. anyways I feel like I am wasting time here trying to explain so I will stop... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted July 21, 2013 Author Share Posted July 21, 2013 No, honestly, sjin, I'd like you to explain more if you could, I'm still trying to figure out what I think about fracking in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjinhan Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 No, honestly, sjin, I'd like you to explain more if you could, I'm still trying to figure out what I think about fracking in general. ok I will go in little more detail later tonight. I am actually working right now in Angola... I get the Sunday afternoon off so I will spend some time to actually break down this article... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 No, honestly, sjin, I'd like you to explain more if you could, I'm still trying to figure out what I think about fracking in general. ok I will go in little more detail later tonight. I am actually working right now in Angola... I get the Sunday afternoon off so I will spend some time to actually break down this article... I would also appreciate it. I will openly admit this is a subject I know very little about and hear only the extremes from bot sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabR Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 I think this is a great unknown and we will know the results in 100 or so years. What does not contaminate now may in so many years from now I don't know but they say the well bore is encased in 1inch of concrete to prevent leakage. That will never last over time, it will crack if it does will that cause leakage ? I don't know enough to be judge just be cautious as I have heard the past promises of big companies that proved hazardous to our health in the long term Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Was this study sponsored by Haliburton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Botched Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Maybe the chemicals wore protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 One problem is we have so many reports that conflict each other. One report will make it sound like doomsday, the other will say it is the safest method every. Then you have the issue of gov't agencies "encouraged" to be friendly to certain industries for something in return. I am sure there are a ton of industry lobbyist groups that have influence in how these reports are worded and constructed in order to paint them in good light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 We've all seen videos of folks who are now able to get flames from their faucets due to the amount of methane gas in their water supply. There are several reasons for this, including poor construction of drilling operations. Here's some background: http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/tag/methane-migration/ And photographers documenting impacts in PA: http://www.slate.com/blogs/behold/2013/07/19/nina_berman_fractured_the_shale_play_looks_at_lives_affected_by_fracking.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_share_blogpost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 it is almost comical http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/062113-661014-epa-rejects-peer-review-of-fracking-study.htm?p=full http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_coalbedmethanestudy.cfm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted July 22, 2013 Author Share Posted July 22, 2013 We've all seen videos of folks who are now able to get flames from their faucets due to the amount of methane gas in their water supply. There are several reasons for this, including poor construction of drilling operations. My understanding is that those famous clips of people lighting their water on fire are essentially bogus because it turns out that you could do that before any fracking ever happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 My understanding is that those famous clips of people lighting their water on fire are essentially bogus because it turns out that you could do that before any fracking ever happened. The article I linked to discussed this. Sure, there is lots of methane underground and it will "try" to vent naturally, and in some locations this natural venting may be concentrated enough to ignite it (i.e. marsh gas). But the question is the extent to which the process of fracking and drilling through thousands of feet of earth releases quantities of methane which impacts communities that did not have contaminated water before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 There was a PNAS publication by a research group from Duke on methane levels near shale gas wells. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/06/19/1221635110.full.pdf+html Doesn't seem like the videos are bogus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 I live in ground zero of fracking and drilling. I have at least 3 pumping stations within a ten mile radius of me. Pipeline's are going in everywhere and I'm, seemingly, one of the few unfortunate people that didn't own farm land at the time to benefit financially. Unlike most people across America and even in my town, this isn't a theoretical exercise. I had a conversation with my wife recently that we need to actively do the research on the health effects of this drilling. And move if we need to. Drinking water, air quality, etc... we don't want to be the modern day version of people living near coal plants etc. The most recent research about drinking water is comforting but I'm not 100% satisfied. I have two kids, 3 and 6 months so they're at a really vulnerable developmental age. Then there's the other pollution, the human kind, in the form of rough neck types working in the fracking industry. Asshole drivers are the least of the concern. My barber got a gun pulled on him by one of these guys because he told him not to use his cell phone in his shop (there's a sign on the wall too). And that's not a unique occurrence. Plus the growth in the drug scene seems to have nicely coincided with the arrival of transient types with cash and nowhere to spend it. I didn't believe it at the time, but the whole fracking thing was sold around here as a "Boon for all!" type sales pitch. Money will come in and spread through the community. Yeah. Didn't believe it then. Don't believe it now. Natural resources and money are being extracted from the area. Workers are being imported instead of being trained locally. I'll freely admit, maybe I'm being myopic. Maybe the economic benefit will come in a few years. Additionally, we all know how the published versions of federal studies can be affected by the stake holders. I've been trying to get a hold of the data behind the study and see it for myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 There was a PNAS publication by a research group from Duke on methane levels near shale gas wells. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/06/19/1221635110.full.pdf+html Doesn't seem like the videos are bogus. that study did not use random selection for starters, but elevated levels right around a area selected for it's likelihood of abundant NG should not be too surprising. it is a simple fix for methane anyway,and one that should be done for any groundwater well whether around drilling or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 nothing new, been other studies showing the same thing. I think the scare crowd has moved on to earthquakes and emmissions Yes, which is why some are linking the 36 earthquakes this past month in Oklahoma to fracking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 This is bad news for the oil companies because then it would definitely be hard to keep zonal isolation and have potential of cross flow going on. Pretty there is a huge risk that they can junk the well without getting any oil and gas out of it. So you're saying we should run man coverage instead of zone when they are running crossing patterns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 Yes, which is why some are linking the 36 earthquakes this past month in Oklahoma to fracking. makes good headlines......."earthquakes" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 This is good news. I do not oppose fracking, but I do oppose the idea that fracking should be unmonitored and essentially unregulated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 more good news More oil and gas drillers turn to water recycling http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/11/11/more-oil-and-gas-drillers-turn-to-water-recycling/ Just a few years ago, many drillers suspected water recyclers were trying to sell an unproven idea designed to drain money from multimillion-dollar businesses. Now the system is helping drillers use less freshwater and dispose of less wastewater. Recycling is rapidly becoming a popular and economic solution for a burgeoning industry. The change is happening so swiftly that regulators are racing to keep up and in some cases taking steps to make it easier for drillers to recycle. Fracking operations require millions of gallons of relatively clean water. Each time a well is drilled, about 20 percent of the water eventually remerges, but it is jam-packed with contaminants from drilling chemicals and heavy metals picked up when the water hits oil. Until recently, that water was dumped as waste, often into injection wells deep underground. Video: Turning oily sludge into crystalline water Many companies, each using slightly different technology and methods, are offering ways of reusing that water. Some, like Schlosberg’s Water Rescue Services, statically charge the water to allow particles of waste to separate and fall to the bottom. Those solids are taken to a landfill, leaving more than 95 percent of the water clean enough to be reused for fracking. Other operators, such as Walton, Ky.-based Pure Stream, offer two technologies — one that cleans water so it can be reused in the oil patch and another more expensive system that renders it clean enough to be dumped into rivers and lakes or used in agriculture. Todd Ennenga, Pure Stream’s vice president of business development, said interest in the technology has doubled in the past year alone. Some others tout methods that leave behind no solid waste at all, eliminating the need to transport anything to a landfill. A few companies insist they can frack without any water. “It’s really taken off,” Ennenga said of recycling. Two years ago, he said, most operators were still vetting the different systems. These days, they have a plan and are saying, “We need to do this right now.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.