Posted on 11/11/2011 8:12:03 AM PST by chessplayer
BS. Nearly 1000 wells a year in ND, and no, repeat, no water contamination from fracking outside of a wrecked truck or two.
There may be places the procedure could come into question, but shutting it down everywhere is about as smart as shutting down all the oil rigs in the Gulf that didn't have a problem--and could be far more damaging to the economy.
And can be checked before proceeding with a bond log. If there's a problem, the cement job can be 'squeezed' (set packers above and below after perforating the casing in the problem interval and pump cement into the problem interval to seal any bad spots).
Most wells use intermediate casing inside the surface casing, also cemented into place which should seal the wellbore near the surface. It, too, can be checked and remediated, if necessary.
Well, this didn’t take long: http://www.water-contamination-from-shale.com/north-dakota/crews-work-to-staunch-north-dakota-fracking-blow-out/
Something similar was done near Rifle Colorado (Nuke frac in oil shale up on the Book Cliffs). It was a boondoggle, too.
First off, that isn't a 'normal' fracking operation, it was a blowout. Any contamination is not from fracking fluid from a deeper formation upward into a shallower formation, but from spilling it onto the surface because of an equipment failure.
The reason for setting the plugs deep is to stop production from the wellbore. Once plugged (not "capped" which tells me your blogger has not worked in the oil patch, BTW), they can fix the problem with the casing and remediate the site, and the (near surface) aquifer.
Since there is a different operator listed than the one who drilled the well (from the article), it may be that this is older casing and that was the reason for the failure. Most wells are fracked within a couple of months of being drilled.
Next, note the following, from the blog/article: The state’s director of the Department of Mineral Resources told the Bismarck Tribune that only one of the chemicals used in the fracking fluid, potassium hydroxide, is toxic. However, he maintained it did not pose a risk at the dilution ratio used in the fracking fluid. He also maintained that the Killdeer Aquifer flows less than one foot a day, so it would take decades for any contamination to reach the community’s drinking wells. If needed, he said the aquifer would be remediated.
The State people take their jobs seriously, here, and if that is what the man said, that is what will be done.
We have excellent regulatory oversight at the State Level, and do not need the Federal Government coming in and mucking that up.
Now, it would be nice to have dates in the article, as 'last Wednesday' doesn't permit me to do any more research on this but an article on a blogsite covered with ads for lawyers sourcing a newspaper.
Backtracking to the article this column was apparently basec on, in the Bismarck Tribune, Lynn Helms, director of the Department of Mineral Resources, said the agency has required pressure testing and pressure release valves during high-pressure frac procedures since 2008.
“It’s very possible that some of this was violated,” Helms said. “We had a field inspector out there within an hour of the report. We’ll know (what happened),” he said.
In short, if regs were violated, more regs aren't going to fix that, but the State here takes a very dim view of violators and will nail them to the wall if that is the case.
Again, we don't need the Feds coming in, fining someone, and cutting out with the fines. The State will take care of investigating and any remediation will be on the oil company's tab. Read more:
That may not have taken you long, but note, too, that the site has only that one instance--there are over 5,000 wells in the state.
This, too would qualify as a surface spill, as the leak is not at depth--or not so you can tell from the piece.
In other words, this is not an example of deep contamination of an aquifer by fracking, but a surface event.
Now, about that town in Wyoming, did they have a Railroad shop there?
True, so true. BAN ALL DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE! For our children’s future!
If you “don’t know what it might be”, how do you know it is much more destructive? Can you say cognitive dissonance?
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.