Gasland (1 Viewer)

[bueno]

Cliffs Notes something like this?"Natural Gas mining is bad for the environment"??

The guy who made this did a tech ticker video on Yahoo Finance a few days back. The real cliff notes version to this is simple, but I'm not even a little bit certain as to how true any of this is or isn't. In short - they drill down into the earth into shale. The shale has Nat Gas in it (or around it, or it makes it, or something). To get the gas out of the ground they shoot water down to create pressure. BEFORE they do this, they basically shoot up the shale with this "hydro fracturing" solution with >500 chemicals in it. This hydro fracturing solution makes the gas, or it breaks down the shale that creates gas.... all I can say is it does something to help get the gas out of the ground. Stating what I think it obvious, the hydro fracturing process is all types of bad for the water supply.That's what I got out of it - this is on my list of things to investigate.

Gas 101 from a geologist:You need two things to create a conventional gas deposit: source rocks that have a lot of carbon in it that will mature into natural gas and a porous unit with traps (such as salt domes) where the gas can migrate out of the source rocks and into the trap.Shale gas is different. Shale gas is trapped in the source rocks themselves. The shale is not permeable, so the gas does not escape. We now have the technology to drill into these formations and turn the drill bit so it drills more or less horizontally, following the beds of the rock. So horizontal drilling is the first technological breakthrough required to produce from shale gas. Directional drilling has been around for decades, and it is generally used to minimize the surface footprint of exploiting an oil (or gas) field.As an aside, this is why we could easily exploit ANWAR without leaving a huge disturbance behind. (another argument.)So the first requirement is to be able to start drilling a vertical hole, and then slowly turn it to drill parallel to the beds of relatively impermeable shale that contain natural gas.The second requirement is the ability to increase the permeability of the formation in order to allow the natural gas to migrate into the drill hole. This is where fracking comes in. What fracking is is pumping pressurized water and sand into the hole and using that pressure to fracture rock (the sand helps to hold the cracks open). Fracing can be done with fluids or with foam, or even gelatinous natural gas. It can also be done with nitrogen. A number of companies are involved in this process, including Canyon Services Group, GasFrac Energy services, Trican well Services and Wavefront Technology.The issues are that you can't bend a drill string quickly and still continue drilling, nor can you use high pressure fracing at shallow depths. Most (if not all) of the shale gas wells are thousands of feet deep. I don't know of a single water well anywhere that is that deep.Now there are some issues that do concern me. Companies that use water hydrofracing use benzene as an additive. I don't know why. But it is there. So we wouldn't want that technology used in shallow wells. I would have no problem with other technologies, such as gelatinized natural gas being used though.As to the "Bush did it" crowd, this same technology is being used worldwide, even in France.

 

[BoltBacker]

I'm always suspicious of TV documentaries. Especially when I know that most hydrofracturing takes place at depths orders of magnitudes deeper than water wells reach.

Are you suspicious that the flammable water is staged? I'm not sure exactly what you're suspicious about.

 

[Chaka]

I'm always suspicious of TV documentaries. Especially when I know that most hydrofracturing takes place at depths orders of magnitudes deeper than water wells reach.

Are you suspicious that the flammable water is staged? I'm not sure exactly what you're suspicious about.

Anything that threatens his world view.Just like the rest of us.

 

[Major]

Damn good film. Thanks for the rec

 

[bueno]

I'm always suspicious of TV documentaries. Especially when I know that most hydrofracturing takes place at depths orders of magnitudes deeper than water wells reach.

Are you suspicious that the flammable water is staged? I'm not sure exactly what you're suspicious about.

More suspicious of cause and effect.CBS ran an "expose" about uranium back in the mid-80s. It was so full of bs that it was absolutely incredible. In one scene, which was shown repeatedly, they had avajo kids roilling down a tailings pile, playing games. Except I knew where that tailings pile was - no Navajo kid lived within walking distance. It was totally staged. So no, MSM lost credibilty with me a long time ago. Especially the narrator of that program - one Dan Rather. I also know that water wells are rarely more than a few hundred feet deep, while gas wells in that area are thousands of feet deep. The connection between the two seems a bit far-fetched.But don't bother to approach things that fit your world view with a skeptical mind. You might have to think too hard.

 

[Socrates11]

I'm always suspicious of TV documentaries. Especially when I know that most hydrofracturing takes place at depths orders of magnitudes deeper than water wells reach.

Are you suspicious that the flammable water is staged? I'm not sure exactly what you're suspicious about.

More suspicious of cause and effect.CBS ran an "expose" about uranium back in the mid-80s. It was so full of bs that it was absolutely incredible. In one scene, which was shown repeatedly, they had avajo kids roilling down a tailings pile, playing games. Except I knew where that tailings pile was - no Navajo kid lived within walking distance. It was totally staged. So no, MSM lost credibilty with me a long time ago. Especially the narrator of that program - one Dan Rather.

I also know that water wells are rarely more than a few feet deep, while gas wells in that area are thousands of feet deep. The connection between the two seems a bit far-fetched.

But don't bother to approach things that fit your world view with a skeptical mind. You might have to think too hard.

From wiki- Water wells typically range from 10 to 600 feet (180 m), but in some areas can go deeper than 3,000 feet (910 m).I was also floored by how many tanker trucks of water and other chemical crap they had to use to do the fracking. Also that almost half of the solution used isn't recovered.

If that guy staged everything in the doc then he's the greatest con artist ever since PT Barnum. However if even half of his movie is legit, we need to take a serious look at frack mining and the environmental ramifications.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I'm always suspicious of TV documentaries. Especially when I know that most hydrofracturing takes place at depths orders of magnitudes deeper than water wells reach.

Are you suspicious that the flammable water is staged? I'm not sure exactly what you're suspicious about.

More suspicious of cause and effect.CBS ran an "expose" about uranium back in the mid-80s. It was so full of bs that it was absolutely incredible. In one scene, which was shown repeatedly, they had avajo kids roilling down a tailings pile, playing games. Except I knew where that tailings pile was - no Navajo kid lived within walking distance. It was totally staged. So no, MSM lost credibilty with me a long time ago. Especially the narrator of that program - one Dan Rather. I also know that water wells are rarely more than a few feet deep, while gas wells in that area are thousands of feet deep. The connection between the two seems a bit far-fetched.But don't bother to approach things that fit your world view with a skeptical mind. You might have to think too hard.

Could there be any "drift" of the chemicals? Are you saying that as long as we bury it deep enough it will never come up?

 

[Raiderfan32904]

The amount of these horizontal shale drilling rigs in operation fluctuates with the price of natural gas. At its peak last August, the price was hovering around $4.50 per mmbtu. There were around 95 rigs in operation back then and now there are only about 87. The cost of gas is projected to cover $3.75 per mmbtu, so it stays profitable to operate, but it's a losing game for the drillers at about $3.50 per mmbtu.

With gas reserves at near 5 year highs, the expectation for natural gas is a weak one, with little room for upward movement. Couple this with a mild tropical storm season last year and mild forecasted upcoming storm season, and the fact that we just came off a very cold winter and are all still close to storage peak, and gas should continue to be plentiful and cheap.

Moving forward, it will be wise to tap this shale resource slowly and carefully, and the price restraint is a fortunate break to the environment as perhaps it buys time for more detailed environmental studies to be executed to ensure we don't bring harm to our drinking water. (This paragraph is just my personal speculation/opinion)

 

[bueno]

I'm always suspicious of TV documentaries. Especially when I know that most hydrofracturing takes place at depths orders of magnitudes deeper than water wells reach.

Are you suspicious that the flammable water is staged? I'm not sure exactly what you're suspicious about.

More suspicious of cause and effect.CBS ran an "expose" about uranium back in the mid-80s. It was so full of bs that it was absolutely incredible. In one scene, which was shown repeatedly, they had avajo kids roilling down a tailings pile, playing games. Except I knew where that tailings pile was - no Navajo kid lived within walking distance. It was totally staged. So no, MSM lost credibilty with me a long time ago. Especially the narrator of that program - one Dan Rather.

I also know that water wells are rarely more than a few feet deep, while gas wells in that area are thousands of feet deep. The connection between the two seems a bit far-fetched.

But don't bother to approach things that fit your world view with a skeptical mind. You might have to think too hard.

From wiki- Water wells typically range from 10 to 600 feet (180 m), but in some areas can go deeper than 3,000 feet (910 m).I was also floored by how many tanker trucks of water and other chemical crap they had to use to do the fracking. Also that almost half of the solution used isn't recovered.

If that guy staged everything in the doc then he's the greatest con artist ever since PT Barnum. However if even half of his movie is legit, we need to take a serious look at frack mining and the environmental ramifications.

Sorry, meant to type a few hundred feet deep for the water wells. I'll fix that.

 

[bueno]

I'm always suspicious of TV documentaries. Especially when I know that most hydrofracturing takes place at depths orders of magnitudes deeper than water wells reach.

Are you suspicious that the flammable water is staged? I'm not sure exactly what you're suspicious about.

More suspicious of cause and effect.CBS ran an "expose" about uranium back in the mid-80s. It was so full of bs that it was absolutely incredible. In one scene, which was shown repeatedly, they had avajo kids roilling down a tailings pile, playing games. Except I knew where that tailings pile was - no Navajo kid lived within walking distance. It was totally staged. So no, MSM lost credibilty with me a long time ago. Especially the narrator of that program - one Dan Rather. I also know that water wells are rarely more than a few feet deep, while gas wells in that area are thousands of feet deep. The connection between the two seems a bit far-fetched.But don't bother to approach things that fit your world view with a skeptical mind. You might have to think too hard.

Could there be any "drift" of the chemicals? Are you saying that as long as we bury it deep enough it will never come up?

First we have to remember that the chemicals are being pumped into impermeable rocks to fracture them. The fracturing is confined to a radius that is somewhat dependent on the formation itself, including the thinkness. You certainly don't want to frac into an aquifer, because then you lose product (FYI well that have to be fraced have a lower life span than conventional oil wells, but usually have higher yields in the beginning, tapering off quickly). Losing product = bad. So it is in the best interest of the well owner to keep the contacts between the shale gas units and the surrounding aquifers intact.As to other potentials, a lot will depend on the geology of the overlying rocks. If there are any aquitards (opposite of aquifer) in the stratigraphic column, they tend to confine fluid migration should there be a breach in the contacts of the shale gas unit.

 

[Chaka]

I'm always suspicious of TV documentaries. Especially when I know that most hydrofracturing takes place at depths orders of magnitudes deeper than water wells reach.

Are you suspicious that the flammable water is staged? I'm not sure exactly what you're suspicious about.

More suspicious of cause and effect.CBS ran an "expose" about uranium back in the mid-80s. It was so full of bs that it was absolutely incredible. In one scene, which was shown repeatedly, they had avajo kids roilling down a tailings pile, playing games. Except I knew where that tailings pile was - no Navajo kid lived within walking distance. It was totally staged. So no, MSM lost credibilty with me a long time ago. Especially the narrator of that program - one Dan Rather. I also know that water wells are rarely more than a few feet deep, while gas wells in that area are thousands of feet deep. The connection between the two seems a bit far-fetched.But don't bother to approach things that fit your world view with a skeptical mind. You might have to think too hard.

Could there be any "drift" of the chemicals? Are you saying that as long as we bury it deep enough it will never come up?

First we have to remember that the chemicals are being pumped into impermeable rocks to fracture them. The fracturing is confined to a radius that is somewhat dependent on the formation itself, including the thinkness. You certainly don't want to frac into an aquifer, because then you lose product (FYI well that have to be fraced have a lower life span than conventional oil wells, but usually have higher yields in the beginning, tapering off quickly). Losing product = bad. So it is in the best interest of the well owner to keep the contacts between the shale gas units and the surrounding aquifers intact.As to other potentials, a lot will depend on the geology of the overlying rocks. If there are any aquitards (opposite of aquifer) in the stratigraphic column, they tend to confine fluid migration should there be a breach in the contacts of the shale gas unit.

So the short answer is, Yes.

 

[bueno]

The amount of these horizontal shale drilling rigs in operation fluctuates with the price of natural gas. At its peak last August, the price was hovering around $4.50 per mmbtu. There were around 95 rigs in operation back then and now there are only about 87. The cost of gas is projected to cover $3.75 per mmbtu, so it stays profitable to operate, but it's a losing game for the drillers at about $3.50 per mmbtu. With gas reserves at near 5 year highs, the expectation for natural gas is a weak one, with little room for upward movement. Couple this with a mild tropical storm season last year and mild forecasted upcoming storm season, and the fact that we just came off a very cold winter and are all still close to storage peak, and gas should continue to be plentiful and cheap.Moving forward, it will be wise to tap this shale resource slowly and carefully, and the price restraint is a fortunate break to the environment as perhaps it buys time for more detailed environmental studies to be executed to ensure we don't bring harm to our drinking water. (This paragraph is just my personal speculation/opinion)

Raiderfan, I think you have to have a larger view than just US rig count. The Alberta and Saskatchewan Bakken is every bit as big as the South Dakota play, maybe even larger, plus there are several other shale oil/shale gas plays in Canada. The three companies I mentioned earlier have backlogs of six months or more and are manufacturing new fracing units as fast as they can. I see the limitation on production being more related to the fracing units than to price.As to costs, the biggest is obviously drilling, so the very deep plays might be put on hold due to lower gas prices well before shallower ones. The other factor you have to consider is that biggest costs in oil and gas are up front - the geophysics, the stratigraphic testing, the horizontal drilling and the fracing. After that, it is just a matter of paying the pipeline company a toll. The Canadian companies are so desperate to keep product in the pipeline that they are actually reducing their tolls in order to stay competitive with American pipelines and producers. I don't think the price restraint will be as significant a factor as you think it is. I'm not saying no factor, but I doubt it will slow down the amount of fracing being done in the US and Canada.

 

[bueno]

I'm always suspicious of TV documentaries. Especially when I know that most hydrofracturing takes place at depths orders of magnitudes deeper than water wells reach.

Are you suspicious that the flammable water is staged? I'm not sure exactly what you're suspicious about.

More suspicious of cause and effect.CBS ran an "expose" about uranium back in the mid-80s. It was so full of bs that it was absolutely incredible. In one scene, which was shown repeatedly, they had avajo kids roilling down a tailings pile, playing games. Except I knew where that tailings pile was - no Navajo kid lived within walking distance. It was totally staged. So no, MSM lost credibilty with me a long time ago. Especially the narrator of that program - one Dan Rather. I also know that water wells are rarely more than a few feet deep, while gas wells in that area are thousands of feet deep. The connection between the two seems a bit far-fetched.But don't bother to approach things that fit your world view with a skeptical mind. You might have to think too hard.

Could there be any "drift" of the chemicals? Are you saying that as long as we bury it deep enough it will never come up?

First we have to remember that the chemicals are being pumped into impermeable rocks to fracture them. The fracturing is confined to a radius that is somewhat dependent on the formation itself, including the thinkness. You certainly don't want to frac into an aquifer, because then you lose product (FYI well that have to be fraced have a lower life span than conventional oil wells, but usually have higher yields in the beginning, tapering off quickly). Losing product = bad. So it is in the best interest of the well owner to keep the contacts between the shale gas units and the surrounding aquifers intact.As to other potentials, a lot will depend on the geology of the overlying rocks. If there are any aquitards (opposite of aquifer) in the stratigraphic column, they tend to confine fluid migration should there be a breach in the contacts of the shale gas unit.

So the short answer is, Yes.

To which of the questions? I'm trying to give you enough data to form an educated conclusion.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

The amount of these horizontal shale drilling rigs in operation fluctuates with the price of natural gas. At its peak last August, the price was hovering around $4.50 per mmbtu. There were around 95 rigs in operation back then and now there are only about 87. The cost of gas is projected to cover $3.75 per mmbtu, so it stays profitable to operate, but it's a losing game for the drillers at about $3.50 per mmbtu. With gas reserves at near 5 year highs, the expectation for natural gas is a weak one, with little room for upward movement. Couple this with a mild tropical storm season last year and mild forecasted upcoming storm season, and the fact that we just came off a very cold winter and are all still close to storage peak, and gas should continue to be plentiful and cheap.Moving forward, it will be wise to tap this shale resource slowly and carefully, and the price restraint is a fortunate break to the environment as perhaps it buys time for more detailed environmental studies to be executed to ensure we don't bring harm to our drinking water. (This paragraph is just my personal speculation/opinion)

Raiderfan, I think you have to have a larger view than just US rig count. The Alberta and Saskatchewan Bakken is every bit as big as the South Dakota play, maybe even larger, plus there are several other shale oil/shale gas plays in Canada. The three companies I mentioned earlier have backlogs of six months or more and are manufacturing new fracing units as fast as they can. I see the limitation on production being more related to the fracing units than to price.As to costs, the biggest is obviously drilling, so the very deep plays might be put on hold due to lower gas prices well before shallower ones. The other factor you have to consider is that biggest costs in oil and gas are up front - the geophysics, the stratigraphic testing, the horizontal drilling and the fracing. After that, it is just a matter of paying the pipeline company a toll. The Canadian companies are so desperate to keep product in the pipeline that they are actually reducing their tolls in order to stay competitive with American pipelines and producers. I don't think the price restraint will be as significant a factor as you think it is. I'm not saying no factor, but I doubt it will slow down the amount of fracing being done in the US and Canada.

I am sure that there are many components that make up the cost of fracing. It seems that the production cycle is as aggressive as you claim for this fracing units. Notwithstanding those gains, the riggers must judge the costs associated with fracing and determine if it’s worthwhile. Right now, the economics still encourage aggressive drilling as the price setpoint guarantees profits. My point is that about a year ago, the profits were bigger, and the pressure to drill was greater. I am not predicting a slowdown in fracing. I did qualify my last statement as speculation on my part. I don’t have a clue if this will be enough to slow down fracing. Certainly, the profits aren’t what the riggers envisioned a couple of years ago. The simplified model of breaking down all of the riggers overhead costs vs. the cost of natural gas provides a peek into the flow and acceleration of production in that business. I think you’d agree that money indeed makes the world go round.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'm a bit of a left-leaning tree-hugger type, and I've got plenty of experience with this stuff. And for the most part I agree with Bueno here. The risks associated with fracing are mostly overblown. The shale formations where most fracing takes place are far below the aquifer. If it's done in more shallow wells, that's more of a concern, but there it's mostly done to enhance recovery, not enable it. We should be taking a closer look at it- and the exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act, commonly known as the "Halliburton Exemption," is something Americans have every right to be pissed about. But ultimately fracing is, in my opinion, a net positive for America- it taps into a huge domestic resource, and the environmental price, while not negligible, is not nearly as steep as most of the other options.

One thing that is a concern that's not discussed as much is what is done the "flowback." The fracing agent- usually a mix of water, sand and chemicals- doesn't stay in the ground. A lot of it comes back up and needs to be treated. And we're talking about a very large amount of this stuff. Shale formation areas are going to need greatly expanded storage well or treatment facility capacity, and at the moment it's not entirely clear that this stuff is being handled properly.

 

[Mello]

I'm always suspicious of TV documentaries. Especially when I know that most hydrofracturing takes place at depths orders of magnitudes deeper than water wells reach.

Are you suspicious that the flammable water is staged? I'm not sure exactly what you're suspicious about.

More suspicious of cause and effect.CBS ran an "expose" about uranium back in the mid-80s. It was so full of bs that it was absolutely incredible. In one scene, which was shown repeatedly, they had avajo kids roilling down a tailings pile, playing games. Except I knew where that tailings pile was - no Navajo kid lived within walking distance. It was totally staged. So no, MSM lost credibilty with me a long time ago. Especially the narrator of that program - one Dan Rather. I also know that water wells are rarely more than a few feet deep, while gas wells in that area are thousands of feet deep. The connection between the two seems a bit far-fetched.But don't bother to approach things that fit your world view with a skeptical mind. You might have to think too hard.

Could there be any "drift" of the chemicals? Are you saying that as long as we bury it deep enough it will never come up?

First we have to remember that the chemicals are being pumped into impermeable rocks to fracture them. The fracturing is confined to a radius that is somewhat dependent on the formation itself, including the thinkness. You certainly don't want to frac into an aquifer, because then you lose product (FYI well that have to be fraced have a lower life span than conventional oil wells, but usually have higher yields in the beginning, tapering off quickly). Losing product = bad. So it is in the best interest of the well owner to keep the contacts between the shale gas units and the surrounding aquifers intact.As to other potentials, a lot will depend on the geology of the overlying rocks. If there are any aquitards (opposite of aquifer) in the stratigraphic column, they tend to confine fluid migration should there be a breach in the contacts of the shale gas unit.

So the short answer is, Yes.

To which of the questions? I'm trying to give you enough data to form an educated conclusion.

Might as well give up. Your being appropriately skeptical of a documentary from a likely biased source. They've already made up their minds.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

I know of 5 natural gas wells (including one on our property) and so far there are no flaming water problems or any other issues. We just had our well tested again, by two different companies (one by the energy company and one by our choice) and other than still having a higher than normal sulfur content (we have had this issue for ever) our well water is normal.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I'm always suspicious of TV documentaries. Especially when I know that most hydrofracturing takes place at depths orders of magnitudes deeper than water wells reach.

Are you suspicious that the flammable water is staged? I'm not sure exactly what you're suspicious about.

More suspicious of cause and effect.CBS ran an "expose" about uranium back in the mid-80s. It was so full of bs that it was absolutely incredible. In one scene, which was shown repeatedly, they had avajo kids roilling down a tailings pile, playing games. Except I knew where that tailings pile was - no Navajo kid lived within walking distance. It was totally staged. So no, MSM lost credibilty with me a long time ago. Especially the narrator of that program - one Dan Rather. I also know that water wells are rarely more than a few feet deep, while gas wells in that area are thousands of feet deep. The connection between the two seems a bit far-fetched.But don't bother to approach things that fit your world view with a skeptical mind. You might have to think too hard.

Could there be any "drift" of the chemicals? Are you saying that as long as we bury it deep enough it will never come up?

First we have to remember that the chemicals are being pumped into impermeable rocks to fracture them. The fracturing is confined to a radius that is somewhat dependent on the formation itself, including the thinkness. You certainly don't want to frac into an aquifer, because then you lose product (FYI well that have to be fraced have a lower life span than conventional oil wells, but usually have higher yields in the beginning, tapering off quickly). Losing product = bad. So it is in the best interest of the well owner to keep the contacts between the shale gas units and the surrounding aquifers intact.As to other potentials, a lot will depend on the geology of the overlying rocks. If there are any aquitards (opposite of aquifer) in the stratigraphic column, they tend to confine fluid migration should there be a breach in the contacts of the shale gas unit.

So the short answer is, Yes.

To which of the questions? I'm trying to give you enough data to form an educated conclusion.

Might as well give up. Your being appropriately skeptical of a documentary from a likely biased source. They've already made up their minds.

If you are talking about me I dam sure have not made up my mind. I asked Bueno a serious question because I have heard of cleanups in regards to using the technique.

 

[Mello]

I'm always suspicious of TV documentaries. Especially when I know that most hydrofracturing takes place at depths orders of magnitudes deeper than water wells reach.

Are you suspicious that the flammable water is staged? I'm not sure exactly what you're suspicious about.

More suspicious of cause and effect.CBS ran an "expose" about uranium back in the mid-80s. It was so full of bs that it was absolutely incredible. In one scene, which was shown repeatedly, they had avajo kids roilling down a tailings pile, playing games. Except I knew where that tailings pile was - no Navajo kid lived within walking distance. It was totally staged. So no, MSM lost credibilty with me a long time ago. Especially the narrator of that program - one Dan Rather. I also know that water wells are rarely more than a few feet deep, while gas wells in that area are thousands of feet deep. The connection between the two seems a bit far-fetched.But don't bother to approach things that fit your world view with a skeptical mind. You might have to think too hard.

Could there be any "drift" of the chemicals? Are you saying that as long as we bury it deep enough it will never come up?

First we have to remember that the chemicals are being pumped into impermeable rocks to fracture them. The fracturing is confined to a radius that is somewhat dependent on the formation itself, including the thinkness. You certainly don't want to frac into an aquifer, because then you lose product (FYI well that have to be fraced have a lower life span than conventional oil wells, but usually have higher yields in the beginning, tapering off quickly). Losing product = bad. So it is in the best interest of the well owner to keep the contacts between the shale gas units and the surrounding aquifers intact.As to other potentials, a lot will depend on the geology of the overlying rocks. If there are any aquitards (opposite of aquifer) in the stratigraphic column, they tend to confine fluid migration should there be a breach in the contacts of the shale gas unit.

So the short answer is, Yes.

To which of the questions? I'm trying to give you enough data to form an educated conclusion.

Might as well give up. Your being appropriately skeptical of a documentary from a likely biased source. They've already made up their minds.

If you are talking about me I dam sure have not made up my mind. I asked Bueno a serious question because I have heard of cleanups in regards to using the technique.

Referring more to Chaka with the "So the short answer is, Yes." response.

 

[onionsack]

Cliffs Notes something like this?

"Natural Gas mining is bad for the environment"

??

The guy who made this did a tech ticker video on Yahoo Finance a few days back. The real cliff notes version to this is simple, but I'm not even a little bit certain as to how true any of this is or isn't. In short - they drill down into the earth into shale. The shale has Nat Gas in it (or around it, or it makes it, or something). To get the gas out of the ground they shoot water down to create pressure. BEFORE they do this, they basically shoot up the shale with this "hydro fracturing" solution with >500 chemicals in it. This hydro fracturing solution makes the gas, or it breaks down the shale that creates gas.... all I can say is it does something to help get the gas out of the ground. Stating what I think it obvious, the hydro fracturing process is all types of bad for the water supply.

That's what I got out of it - this is on my list of things to investigate.

Gas 101 from a geologist:You need two things to create a conventional gas deposit: source rocks that have a lot of carbon in it that will mature into natural gas and a porous unit with traps (such as salt domes) where the gas can migrate out of the source rocks and into the trap.

Shale gas is different. Shale gas is trapped in the source rocks themselves. The shale is not permeable, so the gas does not escape. We now have the technology to drill into these formations and turn the drill bit so it drills more or less horizontally, following the beds of the rock. So horizontal drilling is the first technological breakthrough required to produce from shale gas. Directional drilling has been around for decades, and it is generally used to minimize the surface footprint of exploiting an oil (or gas) field.

As an aside, this is why we could easily exploit ANWAR without leaving a huge disturbance behind. (another argument.)

So the first requirement is to be able to start drilling a vertical hole, and then slowly turn it to drill parallel to the beds of relatively impermeable shale that contain natural gas.

The second requirement is the ability to increase the permeability of the formation in order to allow the natural gas to migrate into the drill hole. This is where fracking comes in. What fracking is is pumping pressurized water and sand into the hole and using that pressure to fracture rock (the sand helps to hold the cracks open). Fracing can be done with fluids or with foam, or even gelatinous natural gas. It can also be done with nitrogen. A number of companies are involved in this process, including Canyon Services Group, GasFrac Energy services, Trican well Services and Wavefront Technology.

The issues are that you can't bend a drill string quickly and still continue drilling, nor can you use high pressure fracing at shallow depths. Most (if not all) of the shale gas wells are thousands of feet deep. I don't know of a single water well anywhere that is that deep.

Now there are some issues that do concern me. Companies that use water hydrofracing use benzene as an additive. I don't know why. But it is there. So we wouldn't want that technology used in shallow wells. I would have no problem with other technologies, such as gelatinized natural gas being used though.

As to the "Bush did it" crowd, this same technology is being used worldwide, even in France.

The above description of fracking neglects to mention the hundreds of chemicals that are used in the process, which is of course the crux of the issue. A New York Times investigation seems to confirm Gasland's main points, especially the following:

With hydrofracking, a well can produce over a million gallons of wastewater that is often laced with highly corrosive salts, carcinogens like benzene and radioactive elements like radium, all of which can occur naturally thousands of feet underground. Other carcinogenic materials can be added to the wastewater by the chemicals used in the hydrofracking itself.

While the existence of the toxic wastes has been reported, thousands of internal documents obtained by The New York Times from the Environmental Protection Agency, state regulators and drillers show that the dangers to the environment and health are greater than previously understood.

The documents reveal that the wastewater, which is sometimes hauled to sewage plants not designed to treat it and then discharged into rivers that supply drinking water, contains radioactivity at levels higher than previously known, and far higher than the level that federal regulators say is safe for these treatment plants to handle.

Other documents and interviews show that many E.P.A. scientists are alarmed, warning that the drilling waste is a threat to drinking water in Pennsylvania. Their concern is based partly on a 2009 study, never made public, written by an E.P.A. consultant who concluded that some sewage treatment plants were incapable of removing certain drilling waste contaminants and were probably violating the law.

The Times also found never-reported studies by the E.P.A. and a confidential study by the drilling industry that all concluded that radioactivity in drilling waste cannot be fully diluted in rivers and other waterways.

But the E.P.A. has not intervened. In fact, federal and state regulators are allowing most sewage treatment plants that accept drilling waste not to test for radioactivity. And most drinking-water intake plants downstream from those sewage treatment plants in Pennsylvania, with the blessing of regulators, have not tested for radioactivity since before 2006, even though the drilling boom began in 2008.

In other words, there is no way of guaranteeing that the drinking water taken in by all these plants is safe.

That has experts worried.

What I find particularly telling (and chilling) is that these gas companies assure us all that the process poses absolutely no threat to drinking water...but then when directly challenged by a congresswoman who notes her own personal experience with the health and environmental damage associated with various mining techniques ("Why would you object to the disclosure of the chemicals used in the fracking process under the Safe Drinking Water Act?") the industry lobbyist DOES object because he doesn't want the process to fall under the reporting regulations of that act. Pretty clear there's some nasty stuff involved. This is drinking water we're talking about, people. If I lived in the States this kind of evasion and obfuscation would scare the crap out of me.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

http://www.wtae.com/r/27389252/detail.html

 

[Chaka]

Referring more to Chaka with the "So the short answer is, Yes." response.

The question was:

Could there be any "drift" of the chemicals? Are you saying that as long as we bury it deep enough it will never come up?

And the answer to the first is "Yes" and the answer to the second is "No".That is not a reflection of my personal beliefs on this issue merely an observation.Who cares if it is just a small number of people impacted by the fracking process? If this process is polluting wells then we need to do something about it. Water >>>>> fuel.

 

[bueno]

The amount of these horizontal shale drilling rigs in operation fluctuates with the price of natural gas. At its peak last August, the price was hovering around $4.50 per mmbtu. There were around 95 rigs in operation back then and now there are only about 87. The cost of gas is projected to cover $3.75 per mmbtu, so it stays profitable to operate, but it's a losing game for the drillers at about $3.50 per mmbtu. With gas reserves at near 5 year highs, the expectation for natural gas is a weak one, with little room for upward movement. Couple this with a mild tropical storm season last year and mild forecasted upcoming storm season, and the fact that we just came off a very cold winter and are all still close to storage peak, and gas should continue to be plentiful and cheap.Moving forward, it will be wise to tap this shale resource slowly and carefully, and the price restraint is a fortunate break to the environment as perhaps it buys time for more detailed environmental studies to be executed to ensure we don't bring harm to our drinking water. (This paragraph is just my personal speculation/opinion)

Raiderfan, I think you have to have a larger view than just US rig count. The Alberta and Saskatchewan Bakken is every bit as big as the South Dakota play, maybe even larger, plus there are several other shale oil/shale gas plays in Canada. The three companies I mentioned earlier have backlogs of six months or more and are manufacturing new fracing units as fast as they can. I see the limitation on production being more related to the fracing units than to price.As to costs, the biggest is obviously drilling, so the very deep plays might be put on hold due to lower gas prices well before shallower ones. The other factor you have to consider is that biggest costs in oil and gas are up front - the geophysics, the stratigraphic testing, the horizontal drilling and the fracing. After that, it is just a matter of paying the pipeline company a toll. The Canadian companies are so desperate to keep product in the pipeline that they are actually reducing their tolls in order to stay competitive with American pipelines and producers. I don't think the price restraint will be as significant a factor as you think it is. I'm not saying no factor, but I doubt it will slow down the amount of fracing being done in the US and Canada.

I am sure that there are many components that make up the cost of fracing. It seems that the production cycle is as aggressive as you claim for this fracing units. Notwithstanding those gains, the riggers must judge the costs associated with fracing and determine if it's worthwhile. Right now, the economics still encourage aggressive drilling as the price setpoint guarantees profits. My point is that about a year ago, the profits were bigger, and the pressure to drill was greater. I am not predicting a slowdown in fracing. I did qualify my last statement as speculation on my part. I don't have a clue if this will be enough to slow down fracing. Certainly, the profits aren't what the riggers envisioned a couple of years ago. The simplified model of breaking down all of the riggers overhead costs vs. the cost of natural gas provides a peek into the flow and acceleration of production in that business. I think you'd agree that money indeed makes the world go round.

One key to watch on the fracing front is the Montney Shale play. Keith has some rough numbers in the linked article that might interest you. The Montney is producing many kinds of gas – not just methane, but also propane, butane and condensate. The byproducts are 2 to 15 times more profitable than methane. There is one company in the Montney on the Alberta side that I am following that is producing from a single well 10.2 million cubic feet of dry gas and 500 barrels of condensate a day. Figure methane at $4/thousand cubic feet and condensate at the current price of oil. Methane will have to go down substantially before the turn off the valve on that well.And while money certainly makes the world go round, unlike oil, gas is priced locally. Currently a company called GOLAR is retrofitting ships for natural gas storage and exporting. That gas will be sold to countries that don't have their own resources, at more than what we pay for it in the US. I think you'll see them ultimately shipping a lot of US natural gas to Japan.Part of the issue with Libya is that Italy gets most of their natural gas from that country. Without that production, they will have to turn to Russian natural gas. It is not in the best interest of NATO or the US to have allies dependent on Russia for energy. I'm sure the present administration has had this explained to them, but I'm not sure they fully understand the implications (western Europe is already too dependent on Russian energy).What I really was trying to get across though, is that most of the cost associated with energy production is up-front. There are over 600 small cap oil and gas stocks in the US and Canada. These guys have to produce or die, and because most of them have already invested the capital up-front, they will produce, no matter what the price is, so long as it meets cash cost (rather than full costs - which would include amortizing sunk capital). The other issue is the technology itself. A horizontal well with fracking costs twice as much as a vertical well, but gets 4-7x as much oil and gas in less time– so it’s very profitable, especially if sunk costs are not considered. PetroChina just paid $5.7 million per square mile for oil and gas rights in an undeveloped part of the Montney. Many companies are buying tens to hundreds of square miles. A well in the Montney is costing $5-6 million. Once that money is sunk and the gas is flowing, the gas will flow. If not, the company loses market value and has unhappy shareholders. You are right that it is all about money. But I think you are missing whose money it is all about.

 

[bueno]

I'm a bit of a left-leaning tree-hugger type, and I've got plenty of experience with this stuff. And for the most part I agree with Bueno here. The risks associated with fracing are mostly overblown. The shale formations where most fracing takes place are far below the aquifer. If it's done in more shallow wells, that's more of a concern, but there it's mostly done to enhance recovery, not enable it. We should be taking a closer look at it- and the exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act, commonly known as the "Halliburton Exemption," is something Americans have every right to be pissed about. But ultimately fracing is, in my opinion, a net positive for America- it taps into a huge domestic resource, and the environmental price, while not negligible, is not nearly as steep as most of the other options.

One thing that is a concern that's not discussed as much is what is done the "flowback." The fracing agent- usually a mix of water, sand and chemicals- doesn't stay in the ground. A lot of it comes back up and needs to be treated. And we're talking about a very large amount of this stuff. Shale formation areas are going to need greatly expanded storage well or treatment facility capacity, and at the moment it's not entirely clear that this stuff is being handled properly.

Check out Ridgeline Energy Services. according to their web page, the Company is developing proprietary technology capable of efficiently treating large volumes of contaminated water generated by oil and gas producer. There are other companies involved in on-site wasterwater treatment; this is the first one I thought of.Also check out GasFrac Energy Services they use gelled Liquified Petroleum Gas in place of conventional fracturing fluids. The fluid then becomes a recoverable product rather than waste.

Maybe that will make things a little clearer as to how to solve the problems that concern you. For the record, both these comapnies can't get units in the field fast enough.

 

[bueno]

Referring more to Chaka with the "So the short answer is, Yes." response.

The question was:

Could there be any "drift" of the chemicals? Are you saying that as long as we bury it deep enough it will never come up?

And the answer to the first is "Yes" and the answer to the second is "No".That is not a reflection of my personal beliefs on this issue merely an observation.Who cares if it is just a small number of people impacted by the fracking process? If this process is polluting wells then we need to do something about it. Water >>>>> fuel.

If the process is polluting wells, the EPA would be all over it like ugly on an ape. Haven't heard of any problems reported by the EPA yet, and I watch this fairly closely.

 

[bueno]

Cliffs Notes something like this?

"Natural Gas mining is bad for the environment"

??

The guy who made this did a tech ticker video on Yahoo Finance a few days back. The real cliff notes version to this is simple, but I'm not even a little bit certain as to how true any of this is or isn't. In short - they drill down into the earth into shale. The shale has Nat Gas in it (or around it, or it makes it, or something). To get the gas out of the ground they shoot water down to create pressure. BEFORE they do this, they basically shoot up the shale with this "hydro fracturing" solution with >500 chemicals in it. This hydro fracturing solution makes the gas, or it breaks down the shale that creates gas.... all I can say is it does something to help get the gas out of the ground. Stating what I think it obvious, the hydro fracturing process is all types of bad for the water supply.

That's what I got out of it - this is on my list of things to investigate.

Gas 101 from a geologist:You need two things to create a conventional gas deposit: source rocks that have a lot of carbon in it that will mature into natural gas and a porous unit with traps (such as salt domes) where the gas can migrate out of the source rocks and into the trap.

Shale gas is different. Shale gas is trapped in the source rocks themselves. The shale is not permeable, so the gas does not escape. We now have the technology to drill into these formations and turn the drill bit so it drills more or less horizontally, following the beds of the rock. So horizontal drilling is the first technological breakthrough required to produce from shale gas. Directional drilling has been around for decades, and it is generally used to minimize the surface footprint of exploiting an oil (or gas) field.

As an aside, this is why we could easily exploit ANWAR without leaving a huge disturbance behind. (another argument.)

So the first requirement is to be able to start drilling a vertical hole, and then slowly turn it to drill parallel to the beds of relatively impermeable shale that contain natural gas.

The second requirement is the ability to increase the permeability of the formation in order to allow the natural gas to migrate into the drill hole. This is where fracking comes in. What fracking is is pumping pressurized water and sand into the hole and using that pressure to fracture rock (the sand helps to hold the cracks open). Fracing can be done with fluids or with foam, or even gelatinous natural gas. It can also be done with nitrogen. A number of companies are involved in this process, including Canyon Services Group, GasFrac Energy services, Trican well Services and Wavefront Technology.

The issues are that you can't bend a drill string quickly and still continue drilling, nor can you use high pressure fracing at shallow depths. Most (if not all) of the shale gas wells are thousands of feet deep. I don't know of a single water well anywhere that is that deep.

Now there are some issues that do concern me. Companies that use water hydrofracing use benzene as an additive. I don't know why. But it is there. So we wouldn't want that technology used in shallow wells. I would have no problem with other technologies, such as gelatinized natural gas being used though.

As to the "Bush did it" crowd, this same technology is being used worldwide, even in France.

The above description of fracking neglects to mention the hundreds of chemicals that are used in the process, which is of course the crux of the issue. A New York Times investigation seems to confirm Gasland's main points, especially the following:

With hydrofracking, a well can produce over a million gallons of wastewater that is often laced with highly corrosive salts, carcinogens like benzene and radioactive elements like radium, all of which can occur naturally thousands of feet underground. Other carcinogenic materials can be added to the wastewater by the chemicals used in the hydrofracking itself.

While the existence of the toxic wastes has been reported, thousands of internal documents obtained by The New York Times from the Environmental Protection Agency, state regulators and drillers show that the dangers to the environment and health are greater than previously understood.

The documents reveal that the wastewater, which is sometimes hauled to sewage plants not designed to treat it and then discharged into rivers that supply drinking water, contains radioactivity at levels higher than previously known, and far higher than the level that federal regulators say is safe for these treatment plants to handle.

Other documents and interviews show that many E.P.A. scientists are alarmed, warning that the drilling waste is a threat to drinking water in Pennsylvania. Their concern is based partly on a 2009 study, never made public, written by an E.P.A. consultant who concluded that some sewage treatment plants were incapable of removing certain drilling waste contaminants and were probably violating the law.

The Times also found never-reported studies by the E.P.A. and a confidential study by the drilling industry that all concluded that radioactivity in drilling waste cannot be fully diluted in rivers and other waterways.

But the E.P.A. has not intervened. In fact, federal and state regulators are allowing most sewage treatment plants that accept drilling waste not to test for radioactivity. And most drinking-water intake plants downstream from those sewage treatment plants in Pennsylvania, with the blessing of regulators, have not tested for radioactivity since before 2006, even though the drilling boom began in 2008.

In other words, there is no way of guaranteeing that the drinking water taken in by all these plants is safe.

That has experts worried.

What I find particularly telling (and chilling) is that these gas companies assure us all that the process poses absolutely no threat to drinking water...but then when directly challenged by a congresswoman who notes her own personal experience with the health and environmental damage associated with various mining techniques ("Why would you object to the disclosure of the chemicals used in the fracking process under the Safe Drinking Water Act?") the industry lobbyist DOES object because he doesn't want the process to fall under the reporting regulations of that act. Pretty clear there's some nasty stuff involved. This is drinking water we're talking about, people. If I lived in the States this kind of evasion and obfuscation would scare the crap out of me.

I'm scratching my head as to why mining techniques (which are relatively near surface) are being equated with gas wells here.And I can tell you why any company would rightfully resist disclosure: because the federal government is a pain in the ###. I don't want them in my business at all. I can understand why other companies wouldn't either.

And I have already noted that this process is being used deeper than just about any aquifer we tap for drinking water.(I say just about because I know of no drinking water wells that tap aquifers that are adjacent to shale gas units. Those who worry about drinking water need to produce that data, if it exists.

 

[Major]

Dylan Ratigan just had Josh (the director) on his MSNBC show about solving the energy crisis. He was a real ### to Josh and would continually talk over him when trying to discuss the dangers of natural gas exploration. I could tell Josh was getting frustrated. Quite frankly, I wanted to punch Dylan in the mouth. I think Dylan has man love for T. Boone or something.

 

[bueno]

Dylan Ratigan just had Josh (the director) on his MSNBC show about solving the energy crisis. He was a real ### to Josh and would continually talk over him when trying to discuss the dangers of natural gas exploration. I could tell Josh was getting frustrated. Quite frankly, I wanted to punch Dylan in the mouth. I think Dylan has man love for T. Boone or something.

Josh is the director of what again?

 

[Chaka]

Referring more to Chaka with the "So the short answer is, Yes." response.

The question was:

Could there be any "drift" of the chemicals? Are you saying that as long as we bury it deep enough it will never come up?

And the answer to the first is "Yes" and the answer to the second is "No".That is not a reflection of my personal beliefs on this issue merely an observation.Who cares if it is just a small number of people impacted by the fracking process? If this process is polluting wells then we need to do something about it. Water >>>>> fuel.

If the process is polluting wells, the EPA would be all over it like ugly on an ape. Haven't heard of any problems reported by the EPA yet, and I watch this fairly closely.

Yeah, I'm not as confident as you are about that.

 

[Chaka]

Your sig sucks bueno. I'm fine with the content but, come on man, shorten it up.

 

[bueno]

Your sig sucks bueno. I'm fine with the content but, come on man, shorten it up.

Well, I wouldn't do that for just anybody, and only on April 1, but since you asked nice...

 

[Chaka]

Your sig sucks bueno. I'm fine with the content but, come on man, shorten it up.

Well, I wouldn't do that for just anybody, and only on April 1, but since you asked nice...

Sweet, a shorter version of something I won't read.Seriously, big improvement.

 

[bakes]

I'm a bit of a left-leaning tree-hugger type, and I've got plenty of experience with this stuff. And for the most part I agree with Bueno here. The risks associated with fracing are mostly overblown. The shale formations where most fracing takes place are far below the aquifer. If it's done in more shallow wells, that's more of a concern, but there it's mostly done to enhance recovery, not enable it. We should be taking a closer look at it- and the exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act, commonly known as the "Halliburton Exemption," is something Americans have every right to be pissed about. But ultimately fracing is, in my opinion, a net positive for America- it taps into a huge domestic resource, and the environmental price, while not negligible, is not nearly as steep as most of the other options.

One thing that is a concern that's not discussed as much is what is done the "flowback." The fracing agent- usually a mix of water, sand and chemicals- doesn't stay in the ground. A lot of it comes back up and needs to be treated. And we're talking about a very large amount of this stuff. Shale formation areas are going to need greatly expanded storage well or treatment facility capacity, and at the moment it's not entirely clear that this stuff is being handled properly.

Check out Ridgeline Energy Services. according to their web page, the Company is developing proprietary technology capable of efficiently treating large volumes of contaminated water generated by oil and gas producer. There are other companies involved in on-site wasterwater treatment; this is the first one I thought of.Also check out GasFrac Energy Services they use gelled Liquified Petroleum Gas in place of conventional fracturing fluids. The fluid then becomes a recoverable product rather than waste.

Maybe that will make things a little clearer as to how to solve the problems that concern you. For the record, both these comapnies can't get units in the field fast enough.

There are a number of companies that are developing treatment systems for horizontal hydrofracturing flowback and production water. The longer the water stays in the formation, the higher the TDS and NORM (naturally occurring radioactive minerals) concentrations in this water. Most of the proposals that I have seen rely on three or four step processes, including precipitation to remove NORM and other metals followed by evaporation/crystallization to deal with the high levels of TDS. Some of these systems are for onsite, and there have been proposals for regional treatment facilities; oddly, the biggest hang-up has been transportation as truck traffic for a regional facility could get pretty heinous, as most of these facilities have been proposed for cities and villages close to interstate highways. I don't see a lot of this water being taken to municipal sewage treatment plants over time, as the high TDS and NORM levels could wreak havoc on their biological treatment trains as well as prevent the sludge from being land applied or used for other purposes.A number of producers in PA have started to recycle the wastewater; basically send the flowback through a small treatment system, then combine it with fresh water and chemistry and send it down the next well. Still, since the rock's pretty tight in this part of the country (they're looking at 15-30% flowback in Pennsylvania) there's a LOT of water staying down in the formation.

Gas fracturing seems to me to be a far more ecologically sound solution. We have limited fresh water to begin with, and even though the Northeast is pretty much a water rich area, sending millions of gallons down a wellhole and removing it from our potable resources seems shortsighted, especially when you're looking at literally thousands of wells in the Marcellus shale, and possibly that many or more in the underlying Utica shale when that gets developed. Why expend one valuable (albeit inexpensive) resource to develop another? My understanding is that gas fracturing is a lot more prevalent in Canada than the US from talking to people in the industry, and that more than one company is considering it for New York once the Marcellus is opened here.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Dylan Ratigan just had Josh (the director) on his MSNBC show about solving the energy crisis. He was a real ### to Josh and would continually talk over him when trying to discuss the dangers of natural gas exploration. I could tell Josh was getting frustrated. Quite frankly, I wanted to punch Dylan in the mouth. I think Dylan has man love for T. Boone or something.

Here's the clipAs you guys know, Josh is a personal friend, so I'll refrain from commenting. But here is what he posted on FB tonight:

Josh Fox: Not really sure why Dylan Ratigan invited me on his show (actually a two day long commercial for Natural Gas and T Boone Pickens) if he was just going to shout me down, insult me and mischaracterize my positions. It was very rude. I'm gonna have to write down what is wrong with the Pickens Plan and get it out elsewhere. Makes you really miss Keith Olbermann doesn't it?

Random Friend: Josh, he came off like a GasAss bully and you were a gentleman as always. As far as I'm concerned, the interview only exposed another industry shill with an agenda not unlike the GLOP and FOX News.

Josh Fox: Above all, it is very important to me to be graceful and polite during an interview, just out of basic respect for the process. I was a bit taken aback by the way it all went, but whatever, brush off your shoulders. More importantly though, it is clear that the Pickens Plan push has to be opposed with vigor, and soon.

I couldn't do what he does. I'd be

 

[bueno]

I'm a bit of a left-leaning tree-hugger type, and I've got plenty of experience with this stuff. And for the most part I agree with Bueno here. The risks associated with fracing are mostly overblown. The shale formations where most fracing takes place are far below the aquifer. If it's done in more shallow wells, that's more of a concern, but there it's mostly done to enhance recovery, not enable it. We should be taking a closer look at it- and the exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act, commonly known as the "Halliburton Exemption," is something Americans have every right to be pissed about. But ultimately fracing is, in my opinion, a net positive for America- it taps into a huge domestic resource, and the environmental price, while not negligible, is not nearly as steep as most of the other options.

One thing that is a concern that's not discussed as much is what is done the "flowback." The fracing agent- usually a mix of water, sand and chemicals- doesn't stay in the ground. A lot of it comes back up and needs to be treated. And we're talking about a very large amount of this stuff. Shale formation areas are going to need greatly expanded storage well or treatment facility capacity, and at the moment it's not entirely clear that this stuff is being handled properly.

Check out Ridgeline Energy Services. according to their web page, the Company is developing proprietary technology capable of efficiently treating large volumes of contaminated water generated by oil and gas producer. There are other companies involved in on-site wasterwater treatment; this is the first one I thought of.Also check out GasFrac Energy Services they use gelled Liquified Petroleum Gas in place of conventional fracturing fluids. The fluid then becomes a recoverable product rather than waste.

Maybe that will make things a little clearer as to how to solve the problems that concern you. For the record, both these comapnies can't get units in the field fast enough.

There are a number of companies that are developing treatment systems for horizontal hydrofracturing flowback and production water. The longer the water stays in the formation, the higher the TDS and NORM (naturally occurring radioactive minerals) concentrations in this water. Most of the proposals that I have seen rely on three or four step processes, including precipitation to remove NORM and other metals followed by evaporation/crystallization to deal with the high levels of TDS. Some of these systems are for onsite, and there have been proposals for regional treatment facilities; oddly, the biggest hang-up has been transportation as truck traffic for a regional facility could get pretty heinous, as most of these facilities have been proposed for cities and villages close to interstate highways. I don't see a lot of this water being taken to municipal sewage treatment plants over time, as the high TDS and NORM levels could wreak havoc on their biological treatment trains as well as prevent the sludge from being land applied or used for other purposes.A number of producers in PA have started to recycle the wastewater; basically send the flowback through a small treatment system, then combine it with fresh water and chemistry and send it down the next well. Still, since the rock's pretty tight in this part of the country (they're looking at 15-30% flowback in Pennsylvania) there's a LOT of water staying down in the formation.

Gas fracturing seems to me to be a far more ecologically sound solution. We have limited fresh water to begin with, and even though the Northeast is pretty much a water rich area, sending millions of gallons down a wellhole and removing it from our potable resources seems shortsighted, especially when you're looking at literally thousands of wells in the Marcellus shale, and possibly that many or more in the underlying Utica shale when that gets developed. Why expend one valuable (albeit inexpensive) resource to develop another? My understanding is that gas fracturing is a lot more prevalent in Canada than the US from talking to people in the industry, and that more than one company is considering it for New York once the Marcellus is opened here.

I laugh sometimes at the waste water issue, given that conventional oil field brines are equally bad, but because fracing is new, suddenly the tree huggers have discovered a "brand new" issue.

 

[onionsack]

Time magazine article gives a pretty good summary of the issue.

 

[bakes]

I laugh sometimes at the waste water issue, given that conventional oil field brines are equally bad, but because fracing is new, suddenly the tree huggers have discovered a "brand new" issue.

There's a substantial difference in water quality, at least as far as the northeast gas fracking goes.Conventional vertical well brines have TDS levels in the 10,000 - 30,000 ppm range; horizontal well return water can be over 300,000 ppm. Radium in horizontal wells is also higher as the water stays in the formation longer and the barium in the drilling mud preferentially leaches out radium over time. Combine that with the far larger quantities of water used in horizontal wells and there is a major difference, both in quality and the ability to treat the water.

 

[32 Counter Pass]

saw some of this today. I'd like to know more about it...They find issues allegedly related to natural gas production all around the country. The most disturbing bit, IMO, is how the federal gov't does not work to represent the interest of the people, but rather help facilitate business.

Seriously? This is shocking to you.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Now to balance the equation:

 

[joffer]

This is almost too depressing to finish

 

[The General]

Gasland II is on HBO rotation recently.

Just as depressing as the first.

 

[CurlyNight]

Gasland? Seems like it would be stinky to me...