Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CERAWeek: The ‘Prince of Hydrocarbons’ may be ready for the throne
Fuel Fix ^ | March 9, 2011 at 10:22 am | Tom Fowler

Posted on 03/09/2011 10:41:38 AM PST by thackney

The surge in natural gas production via shale developments and massive liquefied natural gas projects continues to change the dynamics of the global energy industry, according to a report released this morning by IHS-CERA and the World Economic Forum.

Energy Vision 2011: A New Era for Gas, affirms what many in the energy industry have been saying for a while now — new gas drilling technologies and numerous LNG export projects coming on line are making natural gas a more abundant and attractively priced hydrocarbon.

Natural gas provides about 24 percent of all global energy needs, but the refinement of drilling technologies — namely hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling — has nearly doubled the estimates for world gas reserves by making unconventional sources more accessible.

“Natural gas, proudly labelled ‘the Prince of Hydrocarbons,’ may be about to inherit its kingdom,” says Simon Blakey, Belgium’s special envoy to the Eurogas consortium in a piece included in the CERA/WEF report. “Gas is likely to be the main means of reducing the carbon footprint of mankind’s energy use in the coming years.”

In North America, shale gale has made the continent much less reliant on LNG than was expected just a few years ago, the report notes, slowing the anticipated development of a global gas market via LNG.

“Shale has essentially made the U.S. an island market,” said Samantha Gross, director of integrated research with IHS-CERA and an author of the report.

The success of shale gas drilling and its potential be exported to other regions is also changing the dynamics of long established relationships between supply and demand, particularly in Europe.

The abundance of natural gas has the potential to help Europe meet many of its greenhouse gas reduction goals through switching from coal-fired plants to natural gas fired, the report notes.

But the switch to natural gas won’t be a quick one, the report says.

Europe may not be so eager to switch to gas as a power source because the mandates there tend to be for zero emission sources, not simply reduced emissions.

“The primary uses for gas are expected to remain the same — space and water heating in residential and commercial applications, fuel and feedstock for industrial applications and power generation,” the report says. “In OECD countries with mature gas distribution networks, the most robust growth is expected to come from power generation.”

The report does address the backlash that is being seen in a number of U.S. markets to the potential environmental threats from natural gas drilling. It largely concludes the risks can be managed by industry and aren’t all that different from earlier generations of oil and gas development.

“Some of [the backlash] has been due to not very good ground work by some of these companies in developing a relationship and trust with the local communities,” Gross said. “One would hope that companies move forward having learned from the experience and be more engaged in working in Europe.”

Pawzel Konzal, the head of the World Economic Forum’s Oil & Gas Industry group, notes that the outlook on shale gas is very different in ‘Old Europe’ versus the newer members of the European Union. Countries like Poland are more likely to see shale gas production first as a new means of energy security.

In a letter included in the report, Wojciech Jasinski, the chairman of the Polish Parliament’s Economic Committee, notes that LNG shipments and the development of domestic shale gas resources would help diversify beyond a 60 percent reliance of coal and lignite and ties to a single gas supply — the Siberian gas fields.


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: energy; energyfacts; hydrocarbons; methane; naturalgas; opec; shalegas

1 posted on 03/09/2011 10:41:40 AM PST by thackney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: thackney

I thought Algore was the Prince of Hydrocarbons.............


2 posted on 03/09/2011 10:46:32 AM PST by Red Badger (How can anyone look at the situation in Libya and be for gun control is beyond stupid. It's suicide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

You are confusing “hydrocarbons” with “gas”.


3 posted on 03/09/2011 10:51:52 AM PST by Pecos (Liberty and Honor will not die on my watch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Too bad fracking contaminates ground water.


4 posted on 03/09/2011 11:00:16 AM PST by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
Even though that has never happened, only speculated as possible by the same environmentalists crowd that push CO2 limits.
5 posted on 03/09/2011 11:02:03 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Would you let your kids drink well water in Dimock, Pa.?


6 posted on 03/09/2011 11:08:50 AM PST by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
I'm hoping the Haynesville Shale development extends 10 more miles to the south to reach my retirement property.

Natural Gas in Water Wells has been documented as naturally occurring for over 100 years.

Fracking fluid chemicals have never been found in the drinking aquifers. Please correct me if I am wrong.

7 posted on 03/09/2011 11:16:09 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
We have been using hydraulic fracturing in oil and gas wells for 60 years. 90% of all US onshore oil/gas wells, not just shale, will be hydraulically fractured sometime in their operational lifetime.

The entire Fort Worth and greater area is covered with hydraulic fractured shale gas wells.

8 posted on 03/09/2011 11:18:36 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: thackney

“Fracking fluid chemicals have never been found in the drinking aquifers. Please correct me if I am wrong.”

I don’t know exactly what was found. But something got in the wells in Dimock, PA. after the fracking began. And I’m not talking about natural gas.

“I’m hoping the Haynesville Shale development extends 10 more miles to the south to reach my retirement property.”

Why is that?


9 posted on 03/09/2011 11:33:04 AM PST by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: thackney

“The entire Fort Worth and greater area is covered with hydraulic fractured shale gas wells.”

Maybe they do it right in Texas. I don’t know. Maybe the geology is different.

The question remains:

Would you let your kids drink the well water in Dimock, PA.?


10 posted on 03/09/2011 11:38:03 AM PST by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

Not from the well Victoria Switzer. I believe she contaimnated her well deliberatly. But the other wells, yes. We have documented methane naturally occuring in water wells for over 100 years. It has to be dealt with properly, but this was a scam following a bad cement job on a well. It is not a hydraulic fracturing issue and I would welcome a hydraulically fractured well on my property with a water well, as have hundred of thousands of others.

http://nyshalegasnow.blogspot.com/2010/09/what-really-happened-in-dimock-pa.html

Reading closely, we find that a private consultant, who earlier did pre-drilling water tests paid for by Cabot, is now working for the litigating homeowners. In Spring and Summer 2010, this consultant found “positive test results” for certain toxic chemicals — hydrocarbons such as ethyl benzene, toluene, and xylene, and antifreezes such as ethylene glycol and propylene glycol — within basically the same set of domestic water wells that are already known to have suffered methane infiltration.

If you read this and follow-up articles really closely, you would also see that the elevated levels of hydrocarbons were found in “almost everybody” tested along Carter Road, while the elevated levels of the antifreezes were found in only one well — that of new anti-fracking crusader, Victoria Switzer.

...

But then there was more. A week later, on 9-22-2010, the original reporter Legere did a follow-up story headlined, “Cabot: Dimock Water Contaminated Before Drilling…”


11 posted on 03/09/2011 11:50:20 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

Cabot: Dimock water contaminated before drilling; residents’ tests show water more contaminated now

http://thetimes-tribune.com/cabot-dimock-water-contaminated-before-drilling-residents-tests-show-water-more-contaminated-now-1.1024831#axzz1G8KJcQTn

Tests of two private water wells in Dimock Twp. showed traces of toxic chemicals in 2008 before Marcellus Shale gas drilling began nearby, according to test results made available to The Times-Tribune on Tuesday by the gas driller active in the township.

But a spokesman for Cabot Oil and Gas Corp. said those chemicals - toluene, benzene and surfectants - were not detected in 2008 in pre-drill samples taken at more than a dozen nearby water supplies along Carter Road in Dimock where a private environmental engineering firm recently found toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene. Cabot also said that it does not use those chemicals in hydraulic fracturing, and so it could not be the source of the contamination.

The contaminants found this spring and summer by Scranton-based Farnham and Associates Inc. were at levels 1,000 times higher than the toluene levels detected in the two wells in 2008, the firm’s president, Daniel Farnham, said.

Cabot released the 2008 water tests on Tuesday in response to reports last week that Mr. Farnham had found widespread chemical contamination in water wells already tainted with methane linked to the gas drilling in Susquehanna County.

Mr. Farnham took the samples for families in Dimock who have sued Cabot for allegedly damaging their water, health and property.

The drilling company said the toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene found in the drinking water could not have come from hydraulic fracturing fluids used in its Marcellus Shale drilling operations because its service contractors do not use those chemicals.


12 posted on 03/09/2011 11:52:46 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Maybe she is perpetrating a fraud. I have no problem admitting my perspective is limited. I have tried to educate myself a little bit.

Do you agree with any of the following:

Fracking fluid is nasty stuff.

Millions of gallons get pumped in and about half is recovered afterwards. The rest remains...somewhere.

The recovered waste water is also nasty stuff that you sure would not want spilled around your house or dumped into any river near you.


13 posted on 03/09/2011 12:02:49 PM PST by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
Fracking fluid is nasty stuff.

I have no idea but casual reseach indicates it is 99% sand and water and that companies are reluctant to release exact formulations.

14 posted on 03/09/2011 12:11:23 PM PST by SeeSac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
Fracking fluid is nasty stuff.

CleanSuite™ Technologies
http://www.halliburton.com/public/projects/pubsdata/Hydraulic_Fracturing/CleanSuite_Technologies.html#

Millions of gallons get pumped in and about half is recovered afterwards. The rest remains...somewhere.

Into the same reservoir containing ethane, propane and many other items you don't want to drink either. And was already there. You should realize the amount of separation and seal sources that already exist in place. That is why the gas/oil was trapped there in the first place.

The recovered waste water is also nasty stuff that you sure would not want spilled around your house or dumped into any river near you.

True of millions of gallons of industrial fluids used every single day in thousands of business. Care needs to be given. But we should not be reduced to living in caves. Fear mongering by environmentalists and ambulance chasing attorneys should not dictate our access to our resources. Recycling the fracture water is becoming more common. It reduces the demand for water when fracturing the next well.

I really recommend doing more to educate yourself on the topic if you are truly interested.

http://www.rangeresources.com/rangeresources/files/6f/6ff33c64-5acf-4270-95c7-9e991b963771.pdf

Look at the critics, but also get information from the industry using it and people who have lived with hydraulic fracturing for decades.

15 posted on 03/09/2011 12:22:26 PM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
It contaminates groundwater when it comes back out the drill rig. All they have to do is run the drill water thru a filter or series of filters.

There is no regulation in Pennsylvania to process the water now. It will be an unfortunate, but necessary regulation and well worth the cost and clean up in the short and long term.

16 posted on 03/09/2011 12:26:20 PM PST by muleskinner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeeSac
http://www.halliburton.com/public/projects/pubsdata/Hydraulic_Fracturing/fluids_disclosure.html

More and more are becoming available online.

MSDS sheets of individual components available at the link.

17 posted on 03/09/2011 12:27:58 PM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: muleskinner
I would rather see Pennsylvania handle it than have the feds step in.

http://www.timesleader.com/opinion/commentary/Pennsylvania_doesn_rsquo_t_need_federal_agency_rsquo_s_help_regulating_shale_gas_development_COMMENTARY_Chris_Kulander_09-19-2010.html

Methods exist and are being further developed to minimize this threat of contamination. For example, currently about 60 percent of fracking fluid can be recycled for use in other wells, cutting down on the need to dispose of it through treatment or off-site disposal.

Earlier this year, Gov. Ed Rendell proposed amendments to existing drilling regulations that would specifically affect the use of hydraulic fracturing. The proposed rules heighten protection of water supplies, strengthen the requirements for constructing well casing and impose a stricter obligation on operators to replace any water supplies they contaminate. The governor also proposed hiring more inspectors to enforce the new rules, with the cost to the state being covered by introduction of a severance tax on natural gas extraction.

18 posted on 03/09/2011 12:33:18 PM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeeSac

That’s my understanding too. And if it were ONLY sand and water, we probably wouldn’t be talking about it.

I have found out the following.

Fracking was granted explicit exemptions from the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act.

Frackers are allowed to pump millions of gallons of fluid containing toxic chemicals into the ground without having to identify them.

Substances used include benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, boric acid, monoethanolamine, xylene, diesel-range organics, methanol, formaldehyde, hydrochloric acid, ammonium bisulfite, 2-butoxyethanol, and 5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazotin-3-one.

I don’t want these things in the water that my family drinks.


19 posted on 03/09/2011 12:35:29 PM PST by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: thackney
CNG powered cars and trucks, massed produced for the commercial market, would be a huge plus for all kinds of reasons. Honda is the only company that has one for sale right now.

the U.S. would no longer be required to bow to the Middle East Masters, although Obama would continue to do so.

20 posted on 03/09/2011 12:36:57 PM PST by muleskinner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muleskinner

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/natural_gas_related.html


21 posted on 03/09/2011 12:45:19 PM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard; thackney

Hydraulic fraccing is done at such a tremendous depth below ground that the fraccing itself is no threat to groundwater. There are thousands of feet of rock between the fracced rock and any aquifers, which are at a much shallower depth. There’s no way any of the frac fluid can possibly migrate through that much rock. The only way groundwater can be contaminated by fraccing is if the gas well isn’t constructed properly and frac fluid leaks out of the well, or the frac waste water is dumped illegally above an aquifer. But that’s the same issue we have with any kind of industrial waste water. The waste water has to be disposed of properly and if it’s just dumped somewhere than can contaminate soil or groundwater.

So fraccing is like many other industrial processes that has to be done with the right equipment and engineering methods, and produces waste that has to be disposed of properly. There’s nothing really new going on except that fraccing has moved into environmentalist territory in Pennsylvania and New York. This kind of scientifically complex subject can easily to distorted or simply misunderstood by journalists and environmentalists, and then there are the greedy people who distort the facts or even manufacture evidence because want to sue oil companies for profit.


22 posted on 03/09/2011 12:52:42 PM PST by socialism_stinX (Why did California go bankrupt?...because of unfunded mandates, medicaid, and illegal immigration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
If local fracking process is giving your well water a bad taste, get the drilling company to buy you a reverse osmosis filter for your home and/or bottled water. If you're on municipal water, it's the water company's job to supply clean water.

That's a short list of all the compounds found in drinking water. The important data is the PPM of each compound on your list found in the test sample and where and when were the test samples taken.

The enviro's, in order to scare folks, list everything ever found in water, even if that compound isn't found within 500 miles of where you might live.

23 posted on 03/09/2011 12:52:52 PM PST by muleskinner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

I have no doubt that overall the pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers used by farmers and growers and sprayed right onto food we eat are much more of a hazard to humans than hydraulic fraccing. But pesticides and herbicides are much more familiar substances and therefore less threatening to environmentalists than the new, largely imaginary threat of fraccing. There’s also the political motive to attack fraccing because it’s used mainly in the conservative oil-producing states to produce products that wacko environmentalists believe will cause “global warming.”

The main environmental threat from fraccing is illegal dumping of waste water, so I would say regulators need to focus on proper disposal of waste water and make sure all the waste water is accounted for and isn’t disappearing somewhere late at night.


24 posted on 03/09/2011 1:03:25 PM PST by socialism_stinX (Why did California go bankrupt?...because of unfunded mandates, medicaid, and illegal immigration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
Frackers are allowed to pump millions of gallons of fluid containing toxic chemicals into the ground without having to identify them.

That statement isn't true. They may not publish them in the local paper, but every drill site using them has the MSDS sheets available on site to all the chemicals used.

25 posted on 03/09/2011 1:06:03 PM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: thackney

So the fluid formula is in the MSDS sheets but not in the papers. So it is not proprietary info? Who gets to see the MSDS sheets?


26 posted on 03/09/2011 1:28:50 PM PST by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
There has never been a single case of a an aquifer being contaminated by a frac job. If you have a court case# with conviction brief I would love to see it. I won't hold my breath. The only known contamination is a couple of wells near a drill site that the operators were using substandard practices and equipment, and lost integrity of the drill string through water bearing strata. These would not have occured had that the operator had equipment up to standards and maintained mechanical integrity of the well string as required by law.

As with any drilling if the operator used substandard equipment or procedures there is always a risk of losing integrity of the drill string. This is not just a frac problem but a drilling industry wide issue that has been address since the 1950's by the industry. There is no way that a properly maintained well string fracing a formation that is 5000+ feet deep can reach communication with an aquifer that is 200-800 feet deep. It is just not geologically possible to propagate induced fractures that far the max induced fracture distance is on the order of 10's meters almost never into the hundreds let alone the kilometers that would be needed to cross that much strata sorry just wont happen.

Gasland is propaganda by the econazi's pure and simple. Natural Gas has been associated with ground water in a number of places that happens naturally. The TRC just threw out 2 cases where N-gas was found in shallow drinking wells near a drilling site because after isotopic analysts of the gas present it was determined what every one knew all along that the gas in the water was shallow, young, and local coming from a naturally occurring seepage from an organic shale layer just below the aquifer not from 5000+ feet deep. These types of local seepage are well known, having been documented since the 1920's much much older than frac technology. The gas operators set samples of Their deep shale gas and the gas from the drinking wells to a interdependent mass spectrometer. Which proved without a shadow of a doubt that the fracing released gas was not the same as the shallow well water associated gas.

Yes as a matter of fact I am a Geoscientist :)

27 posted on 03/09/2011 1:33:36 PM PST by JD_UTDallas ("SRT stops those who stop at nothing")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
Anyone working on site can see them.

Haliburton has begun publishing them online for everyone. They are one of the largest suppliers of the fuilds.

28 posted on 03/09/2011 1:46:06 PM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: JD_UTDallas

“There has never been a single case of a an aquifer being contaminated by a frac job...The only known contamination is a couple of wells near a drill site...”

Are you saying the wells were contaminated, but the aquifer was not?

“There is no way that a properly maintained well string fracing a formation that is 5000+ feet deep can reach communication with an aquifer that is 200-800 feet deep. It is just not geologically possible to propagate induced fractures that far...”

Can naturally occurring fractures or other geological feautes allow such communication? Is every site so similar?

I have never seen Gasland.


29 posted on 03/09/2011 1:47:49 PM PST by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

Pennsylvania WaterFrac Formulation
http://www.halliburton.com/public/projects/pubsdata/Hydraulic_Fracturing/disclosures/Pennsylvania_WaterFrac_Formulation.html


30 posted on 03/09/2011 1:48:28 PM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
naturally occurring fractures

That would mean the gas wasn't contained in that field in the first place.

31 posted on 03/09/2011 1:49:55 PM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
There has never been a single case of a an aquifer being contaminated by a frac job. If you have a court case# with conviction brief I would love to see it. I won't hold my breath. The only known contamination is a couple of wells near a drill site that the operators were using substandard practices and equipment, and lost integrity of the drill string through water bearing strata. These would not have occured had that the operator had equipment up to standards and maintained mechanical integrity of the well string as required by law.

As with any drilling if the operator used substandard equipment or procedures there is always a risk of losing integrity of the drill string. This is not just a frac problem but a drilling industry wide issue that has been address since the 1950's by the industry. There is no way that a properly maintained well string fracing a formation that is 5000+ feet deep can reach communication with an aquifer that is 200-800 feet deep. It is just not geologically possible to propagate induced fractures that far the max induced fracture distance is on the order of 10's meters almost never into the hundreds let alone the kilometers that would be needed to cross that much strata sorry just wont happen.

Gasland is propaganda by the econazi's pure and simple. Natural Gas has been associated with ground water in a number of places that happens naturally. The TRC just threw out 2 cases where N-gas was found in shallow drinking wells near a drilling site because after isotopic analysts of the gas present it was determined what every one knew all along that the gas in the water was shallow, young, and local coming from a naturally occurring seepage from an organic shale layer just below the aquifer not from 5000+ feet deep. These types of local seepage are well known, having been documented since the 1920's much much older than frac technology. The gas operators set samples of Their deep shale gas and the gas from the drinking wells to a interdependent mass spectrometer. Which proved without a shadow of a doubt that the fracing released gas was not the same as the shallow well water associated gas.

As for half recovery that's because half the fluid remains in the formation it was injected in. The reason the gas is there in the first place is the formation has a caprock over it that is not only watertight but has to be gas tight too or the gas would have dissipated away eons ago. The frac fluid that is recovered is cleaned and as required by federal law disposed of in deep saline injection wells below the caprocks of the shale formation. where like the saline waters that have been there for 10,000 to hundreds of thousands of years they are trapped in the rock pores. this is easily verifiable again with isotopic data specifically the O16 to O18 ratios which will tell you how long the formation has been capped and out of communication with the biosphere for. Putting the saline frac waters in an already deep isolated saline sandstone is common practice, in the industry. Those waters will be entombed there for all of man's existance. Think in geologic time not human time. 10,000 years is not even a blink in geologic time if those waters have been stable for that long they will far outlast humankind.

There are companies now making edible yes edible fracing fluids that use algae and seaweed surfactants and gelling agents. Those fluids should put an end to the chicken little people since even if a well operator broke the law and lost integrity and then even when his instruments are telling him that he has lost well integrity kept fracing the leakage would biodegrade and in is drinkable from the start.

The pressure curves would clearly indicate a lose of well seal, as would down bore flow meters and as a third glaring signal the micro seismic events from the fracturing would diminish and there would be clear seismic signals shallow at the site of the lose of integrity. Believe me a well operator would see his instruments screaming at him that he lost his well strings sealing. The new fluids would prevent even this crook from damaging shallow water stratas. Yes as a matter of fact I am a Geoscientist :)

32 posted on 03/09/2011 1:53:49 PM PST by JD_UTDallas ("SRT stops those who stop at nothing")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
"Are you saying the wells were contaminated, but the aquifer was not? "

sorry for the double post my computers wifi locked up, the term aquifer is thrown around a lot but in reality any water bearing formation is technically an aquifer, be it unconfined and having a subareal extent of a few square miles or confined having a extent of hundreds of square miles. At these two sites the local water bearing strata was contaminated because of willful operator error. Its not like dumping oil in a river where the flow takes the contamination over hundreds of miles. Most water moved very slowly underground the Darcy equation defining this movement its a nasty double partial derivative. People where aquifer and think omg they contaminated the whole states water supply no these 2 well operators contaminated someone's shallow back yard well. not a muni supply. that and they were grossly negligent and rightfully should pay the local land owners compensation. The overwhelming majority of drillers 99.9+% follow the laws and complete the well strings per code with ZERO up string contamination.

33 posted on 03/09/2011 2:01:58 PM PST by JD_UTDallas ("SRT stops those who stop at nothing")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: thackney

“That would mean the gas wasn’t contained in that field in the first place.”

And also that the fracking fluid would not be contained.

Is every fracking operation productive? Or do some of them fail to find natural gas?


34 posted on 03/09/2011 2:04:35 PM PST by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
Can naturally occurring fractures or other geological feautes allow such communication? Is every site so similar?

if there was fracture the gas wouldn't be there. over geological time even the smallest communication from the source rocks through the caprocks would have the gas leak out. There is some debate over jointing in the strata layers but shales, sandstones and lime/dolomitic carbonates are bedded these joints do not propagate well normal to the plane of bedding they tend to follow the axis of weakness which would be horizontal not vertical. Even giving regional faulting such as the Barnett shows you cannot push enough fluids down a well string to open a existing joint or fault 1000 of feet up dip. Drillers avoid these faults as there is no much gas to be had near them. Faults = gas has leaked out already.

35 posted on 03/09/2011 2:09:38 PM PST by JD_UTDallas ("SRT stops those who stop at nothing")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
That would mean the gas wasn’t contained in that field in the first place.”

And also that the fracking fluid would not be contained.

It means there would not have been a gas field there so there would not be any fracking operation.

Is every fracking operation productive? Or do some of them fail to find natural gas?

Hydraulic Fracturing is not exploration. It is done only after a gas source is found and needs additional porosity in the rock to get economic flow rates.

So in simple terms, first you do seismic to determine likely locations of oil/gas. Then you exploratory drill to confirm the location and quantity of sufficient gas/oil. Then you fracture the rock if additional flow is required.

36 posted on 03/09/2011 3:00:12 PM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
I thought you might find this interactive explanation interesting:

http://www.halliburton.com/public/projects/pubsdata/Hydraulic_Fracturing/disclosures/interactive.html

37 posted on 03/10/2011 5:49:24 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson