New Boom Reshapes Oil World, Rocks North Dakota
npr.org
npr.org
Pumping millions of gallons of chemical-laced water under high pressure to fracture geological formations and extract gas is akin to fishing with dynamite, but the long-term environmental implications are far, far worse.
Because once the underground aquifers which form part of the groundwater table are disrupted / damaged they can't be fixed. The water table becomes contaminated with fracking chemicals and the gas the process is meant to extract. What does contamination of a region's water table look like over generations?
Apart from the risk to fresh water, there's also (unsurprisingly) concern over geological instability from the process. A few months ago a fracking company operating in the UK (Cuadrilla Resources) was forced to stop after two mini-earthquakes were linked to their activities: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jun/01/blackpool-earthquak...
In France the practice is banned, and in Australia a national coalition of farmers, scientists, environmental and community groups ( http://lockthegate.org.au/ ) has formed to oppose the spread of gas wells through prime agricultural land.
The big story with fracking is the long-term economic downside. So it's disappointing that the NPR article almost solely focuses on the short-term economic upside.
"Dave Neslin, Director of the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, offered to speak on camera with Gasland director Josh Fox during filming. Neslin requested that he be allowed to review any material that would be used in the film because "the issues are technical and complex and arouse concerns in many people." The statement concludes that "Such a discussion might have prevented the inaccuracies [in COGSS's opinion] noted above." Director Fox refused those terms, which would have given editorial control to COGCC for this segment of the documentary.[9]
Letting someone know what you're going to talk with him about is not giving editorial control, it's just letting someone prepare.
Now, hydraulic fracturing may be primitive sounding. But compared to what? Most modern oil and gas recovery is startlingly similar. Drilling muds frequently cause some hydraulic fracture because you cannot balance all borehole pressures along the entire length of a borehole simultaneously with a single drilling mud weight. Granted these muds contain a different set of chemicals than what is used for purposefully fracturing horizontal wells.
Which brings up another point which even a 'little' research should have lead you to realize. The depths where these wells are drilled are well below drinking water aquifers. In fact, all pore fluids at these depths are quite concentrated brines. You're looking at 1 km + below ground surface. There is a density barrier between these brines and the fresh, drinking water aquifers which we frequently use for tap water and farming. At the flow rates you are dealing with (cm/day to cm/year) no mixing can really take place due to the extremely low Reynold's numbers. I won't say that contamination cannot migrate, since I cannot know that, only that it is exceedingly unlikely.
Furthermore, if fluids could flow freely in these formations, would we need to fracture them at all? The answer is obviously no. That would be what is known as a conventional reservoir. Hydraulic fracturing generally takes place in gas shales. These have hydraulic conductivities on the order of 10^-12 cm/s. Unless the fracture reaches a more conductive body, that fluid isn't going anywhere.
Would the fluid reach a more conductive body? Its possible. It would be undesirable, since you would lose any production from that particular well. Chances are any loses would be trapped by a different aquitard (a layer with very low hydraulic conductivity). Hydraulic fractures tend to deflect when they reach such a phase interface, though. The stresses tend to not be the same on both sides of the interface. A useful analogy would be activation energy in chemistry.
The gas itself is methane. Methane is produced in the subsurface naturally (which is why its called natural gas). It is concievable that greater amounts might be present in the subsurface due to hydraulic fracturing of gas shales, but this would be undesirable for everyone involved since that gas would be lost from production. Which isn't to say that leaks cannot happen, but I am aware of no such cases (and yes, I looked, this is my area of study).
As for earthquakes, you have to first understand what causes earthquakes. Earthquakes are caused when the crust of the earth yields. This means that the stresses become greater than the rock's ability to withstand them. Hydraulic fracture also yields rock. There was research done in California to determine if such yielding could be used to control stresses on the San Andreas fault. It came to nothing because, presently, we are not able to drill deep enough and pump enough fluid to reduce effective stresses to sufficient levels to induce controlled yield. Furthermore, any deep mining city experiences rock bursts. These are also caused when stresses in the rock lead to yield. These feel like small earthquakes, and are picked up on seismographs just like earthquakes, but they cause no damage.
I do believe we need to better understand what goes on during hydraulic fracture. It is exceedingly complex. It is not, however, akin to fishing with dynamite. Open pit mining may be a fair comparison to that, although even there your analogy falls short. I am glad you have an interest in this field, however. It is an important one with a lot of potential. Further study on your part may not change your mind, but will help you make sounder arguments.
Good Luck
If the wells in question are "well below drinking water aquifers," can you comment on the water contamination shown in the documentary, Gasland?
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasland
"Laboratory tests concluded that Markham’s water well contained biogenic methane, a combustible gas that occurs naturally in underground coal beds.[10] Further investigation revealed that Markham’s water well had been drilled through four different coal beds containing naturally occurring biogenic methane gas. The 2008 investigation concluded that "there [were] no indications of oil & gas related impacts to [Markham's] water well." It was also concluded that the water well of Weld County landowner Renee McClure, also featured in the film, contained naturally occurring biogenic methane not related to oil and gas activity in the area.[11] On the other hand, Dr. Anthony Ingraffea, the D. C. Baum Professor of Engineering at Cornell University, whose research has involved fracture mechanics for more than 30 years, has said that drilling and hydraulic fracturing can liberate biogenic natural gas into a fresh water aquifer. Thus, just because gas is biogenic does not necessarily indicate that it reached a well by natural means. [12]
"The COGCC concluded that a well belonging to Weld County landowner Aimee Ellsworth, also featured in the film, contained thermogenic methane that was attributable to oil and gas activity in the area. The report states that Mrs. Ellsworth and an operator in the area had reached a settlement in that case.[9]
Note that "oil and gas activity" doesn't imply fracking wells.
http://1trickpony.cachefly.net/gas/pdf/Affirming_Gasland_Sep...
I no longer trust industry to protect me after such major failures and Bhopal or Deep Horizon. Even if those were isolated accidents, the repercussions are so large that we need to know without question that what we are doing is safe. We don't.
Furthermore, companies constantly try to get less regulation. That's part of what they do. They want lax regulation on living conditions, safety and wastewater. Not to mention that they recently hired a former governor to lobby for lower taxes on oil companies. I don't trust these guys to keep us safe.
Those issues aside, the destructiveness goes beyond the environmental issues immediate to that area. Fracking simply gives us more greenhouse gases to burn and they do not force us to reanalyze our lifestyles and public policy as it relates to the environment or our communities.
Welcome to HN, mostly good post, but please check the snark at the door. It's not informative or helpful in any way, and tends to degrade the quality of discussion over time. We try to do things a little differently here. Muchos gracias.
On the surface your response appears to be an informed, expert rebuttal but it falls apart with the briefest of examinations.
Take for instance your assertion that 'no mixing (of groundwater aquifers and fracking wells) can really take place'. That it is 'highly unlikely'. You state that even a 'little' research should have led me to realise this. However there is a 1987 EPA report acknowledging that groundwater contamination from fracking has taken place: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/drilling-down-document..., and increasing reports from US and Australian landowners that their drinking wells have become contaminated, with nearby fracking activities suspected. The bore wells themselves pierce all geological layers, and although the risk of the casings corroding or leaking is low, when you measure the number of gas wells in the tens of thousands some wells will inevitably pollute aquifers this way.
However if we accept your assertion that groundwater contamination is 'exceedingly unlikely', the fact still remains that fracking depressurizes aquifers across whole regions, so communities and industries (such as agriculture) which rely on bore water inevitably find many wells become unusable, with aquifer recovery measured in hundreds, and even thousands of years. Fracking also results in the generation of millions of gallons of chemically-laced water per well, with no appropriate means of disposal or long-term storage.
Obviously I do not accept your assertion that groundwater contamination is 'exceedingly unlikely'. Hydrologists are on record stating we know very little about the complexities of underground aquifers, you caveat all your own assertions with 'won't say it cannot', 'chances are', and 'isn't to say that leaks cannot happen' and conclude by agreeing we need to better understand what goes on, and that fracking is 'exceedingly complex'. By your own admission you agree we do not know enough about the process, and yet assert in expert tones that it is all fine. Curious.
I cannot comment on that EPA document yet, since digesting that takes much longer than a day. I think its safe to assume that the NYT wouldn't lie about this, so point taken.
As for the boreholes intersecting all layers from surface to source location, this is true of all boreholes used in oil and gas production. These are legally required to be sealed from surrounding aquifer layers. I say legally here speaking as an Ontarian, I do not know what the case in individual states are. Which is not to say that this is a risk-free process. But the risk is no greater or worse than with conventional oil and gas production.
I am not sure what you mean by depressurizing aquifers. I either understand this as causing subsidence by soil consolidation due to decreased pore fluid pressures, as happened in New Orleans during the 20th century (which to the best of my knowledge they are now trying to control). I can also understand this as generally depleting an aquifer, as is going on with the Ogallala Aquifer in what I would describe as the south-central United States. Some clarification is perhaps in order.
You are correct that the recharge time on many aquifers of importance is thousands or more years. The Ogallala Aquifer, for instance, is usually considered to be a 'fossil aquifer' since it is not expected to recharge on a human/engineering time scale.
As for my use of qualifiers, I was just trying to be honest about the unknowns. From my understanding, limited as it is, I see cautious development in the field as a reasonable course of action. There is risk. I would even agree that the risk is probably greater than that of conventional oil and gas production. But we are also in need of more energy. I fully support renewables and conservation and would like nothing better than to see humanity moving beyond fossil fuels. Unconventional gas (and natural gas as a whole) is seen as a stepping stone to help bridge between oil and renewables.
The above account was created 3 hours ago and is most likely to be from a public relations org for the gas/oil industry.
On another note, if you turn on your TV you'll notice this industry is spending a considerable amount of money right now on commercials, trying to prove to the US public that fracking is the new green. And giving ad money to CNN, Fox, etc, virtually guarantees the buyer that no news that makes them look bad will ever be shown.
Though it begs the question: is HN significant enough in other circles that the oil/gas industry would care?
And it's not about monitoring HN as much as it is about Google Alerts and real-time-search for keywords that trigger one of their shills to post.
The amount of oil being produced is expected to double on the conservative estimate and it looks like ND will go from #4 to #2 state in the next year.
This theory does not appear to be borne out by the figures - the interested reader is invited to consult this week's EIA petroleum balance sheet:
http://205.254.135.24/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publication...
Domestic production is about 10% higher than in 2007, but rows 14, 4 and 1 in the Petroleum Supply table nevertheless suggest that America continues to import roughly two thirds (or maybe it is more like ten twenty-sevenths?) of the oil used.
America is burning about 18 million barrels per day (mbpd), down from about 21 mbpd in 2005-2006, and producing about 9 mbpd with conventional oil production declining (even including North Dakota's Bakken) and off-shore and deep off-shore compensating.
America is one of the world's largest producers with Russia and Saudi Arabia also in the 9 mbpd range. Together the top three account for almost a third of world capacity. The next largest producers are significantly smaller. Of course, Russia and Saudi Arabia are exporters.
America's per capita usage and per dollar of income usage is absurdly high compared to the rest of the world. If America wants to invest in efficiency, it could be a net exporter again with current technology and a 10-20 year investment in more efficient machines and better quality infrastructure. Unfortunately, American government seems to have chosen to drive head-on at 100mph into a worldwide peak production crisis.
Interesting. What accounts for the decline?
If it was worth it to trade your guzzler for a new car people would do it on their own without incentives. But a new car uses more energy than it saves for many many years. It's only worth it when the old car dies.
Basically how far down and across the manufacturing chain do you count the energy. Most places use the second number since it's direct energy for that car. I prefer the first since it also includes things like overhead for the sales team, the engineering, building the manufacturing plant and everything else it takes to actually make a car.
I'm not sure I'd personally count refinery processing gain as crude oil production, but perhaps that is how things are done.
So the choice is really between 1) Oil and gas extraction using new technologies with all the attendant risks (and there many) 2) Forget the new technologies and continue to rely more and more on unstable oppressive regimes (Middle East, Russia, etc) 3) Take a major hit to economic growth and aggressively push alternative fuels.
I would recommend (1). Option (2) leads to greater geopolitical instability and very significant long-term risks. Option (3) will undermine economic growth at a time when there is consensus that growth is a priority.
Obviously, this is grossly simplified, but my general point is that we have a limited option set and in truth, none are very attractive. Three rotten apples, we're starving and we must eat one, let's pick the least rotten one.
There's a lot of jobs and money around, but it's a mixed blessing for sure. When the oil dries up, and it will someday, a lot of these towns are going to get hit really hard.
That all said, it will probably be a number of years before it goes away.
I recommend it higly to my fellow HNers.