Fracking, coming to a town near you.

Parent Cafe
121

<p>I am not surprised at the vehement defense of fracking in certain quarters, the same thing is going on in NYc where they are planning to allow fracking in NY State, in regions that happen to be zones that supply water to NYC and other places…and basically like in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, a lot of this is in the desperate attempt for rust belt towns that have experienced decades of decline seeing some hope for a decent economic future and that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, I can understand when something gives hope.</p>

<p>The problem for me is the assumption that this comes without a cost and more importantly, that the oil and gas providers doing the drilling are going to put safety and environmental concerns above gold rush profits and sadly it is more likely then not they won’t, history is a guide. The lure of profits is just too great, and what has been shown time and again is greed sets in and you end up with disaster. Think Love Canal ended up the way it did because of a freak accident? The reason people ended up getting sick and dying is because the region so desperately needed jobs, that no one wanted to question what hooker chemical was doing. When people questioned GE dumping tons of pcb’s into the hudson river, the head of the NYC state DEP was fired because he was taking GE into court for violating federal environmental regulations, because GE threatened to leave the state and the Reagan era government wasn’t about to prosecute them either.</p>

<p>Time and again, when profits loom, reason and reasonable behavior go out the window and everything gets perverted. The current financial crisis was caused by the same kind of mentality that is driving fracking, people who should have known better, lured by the fools gold of insane instant profits, drove ahead with financial instruments they didn’t know how to price, banks eager to ‘get into the action’ both lent money to people trading these things and traded it themselves, and it cratered the economy. The idea that businesses somehow always act rationally is something that simply isn’t true, plenty of businesses have cratered doing stupid things and left disaster in its wake…</p>

<p>Does that mean we don’t do fracking? No, but it also means we should be really careful with it and not make assumptions like we can do this and assume that the industry has a vested interest in doing it safely, one thing about corporate beancounters,they will urge cutting corners anytime they can to ‘increase yield’, and with the economic pressure on states and localities, do you think they aren’t eager for the ‘gold to flow’ and won’t look the other way? This has happened time and again, and to assume ‘things are different now’ assumes that even if fracting itself is safe (and given the fact that as far as I know, there still are no long term studies of fracting and the safety of aquifiers and such) that companies won’t be looking to cut corners or otherwise find ways to make the gold flow even faster, one thing history has shown with gold rushes like this is that is more likely then not to happen. Enron happened because a bunch of greedy, smart people saw ways to manipulate the energy business to become insanely rich and stretched well into the area of the illegal (the california ‘energy crisis’ anyone?), manipulated markets, and ended up cratering, destroying a lot of people’s lives. </p>

<p>And ask yourselves this question, if fracting causes an environmental crisis, what happens to those property values? What happens when people get sick and die because some finance type saw a way to save a couple of bucks? </p>

<p>As far as fracting and such being hype, when something is promoted as a cure all the way fracting and nat gas has been, you are darn right it is hype. You see a shot in the arm economically, but bubbles have burst before, in a lot of places like Vegas people would tell you things were booming, housing prices were rising, jobs were plentiful, it was great…and in a couple of years, Vegas went from boom to bust, as did places like Tampa, Orlando and the like, because the boom was based on ‘irrational exuberance’ to quote greenspan.</p>

<p>I also work in a field where I understand the dynamics of the energy industry, and one thing I know for certain is that the kind of estimates for reserves and such are often complete hype, they are basically guestimates, often done in good faith, that don’t play out. I have seen estimates for oil reserves in shale out west that claim we would have enough oil to last 300 years at current rates of consumption, and the guy who did the actual survey said that was crap, that the numbers didn’t reflect that, and the official US government estimates put it at maybe supplying 10 years of oil, and more importantly, that much of that would be at significantly higher prices then what oil costs today…I have seen the estimates for natural gas reserves that can be picked up by fracking, and to my eyes they don’t gybe with what I know about how things work and what is out there…right now it is a gold rush mentality, people for various reasons see this as a panacea (cheaper energy, energy independance, economic boom) and reality is, it is likely nothing could be that good.</p>

122

<p>Look, those who are questioning the industry, in a reasonable way, are helpful to our area. Since they’ve arrived, transparency and best practices have improved. To have the industry under a microscope is in many ways helping everyone.</p>

<p>The dramatic misrepresentation is tiring. On this thread the gas industry has been linked to Enron, the tobacco industry, Love Canal, the current financial crisis, etc. I don’t see the same drama coming from those of us who support this industry. In Pa, land is leased in affluent communities as well as “desperate” rust belt towns. The industry people are buying homes and relocating to areas in SW PA. The estimates, in this area, are that drilling will remain for 20 to 50 years. Most people understand the definition of estimates. They’ve already been drilling here for around 5 years.</p>

123

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s easy for you to say when you are not in financial need. There are thousands and thousands of people with little skills who can be restored to the work force and live productive lives through domestic oil production. If fracking is done right, it occurs below the water tables and with protection to any water sources. Within a year, fracking will be “green”. If you do not like fracking then sell all of your cars and walk to work, the grocery store, and every where else until you realize others in need live on the planet too.</p>

124

<p>

</p>

<p>oh come on, please stop using that fallacy. I’m a chemist. If my utilities company is being abusive, does this mean I stop buying electricity if they are the only monopoly in town? No, I clamour for a more moral competitive.</p>

<p>even considering your moral fallacy, we can simply be willing to pay for higher, but more moral gas prices, or opt for fracking-free gas.</p>

<p>not that fracking you know, produces any petroleum. America doesn’t even consider using compressed natural gas in our cars. Maybe if it did, it would be nice. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>fracking in the Marcellus shale (our main point of discussion) doesn’t produce any oil. Are you thinking of the Bakken?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>oh yes, temporary jobs. big sustainable boon to local communities.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Even when well production dramatically declines within the first year by as much as 80%? okay.</p>

125

<p>In fact fracking isn’t even cheaper than conventional fossil fuels. Current conventional gas wells have a breakeven price of around 3-4 dollars per million british thermal units – fracking wells have a breakeven price of 6-8 dollars per MMBTU. The wellhead price of natural gas is likely to remain below $4.50 per MMBTU for a while.</p>

<p>Of course, in the future, fracking may make sense. What the public can ask for is a slowdown or moratorium in the pace of drilling – it makes both financial, economic and environmental sense. Let technology improve, the environmental impacts be assessed, local policies be modified, and gas prices rise (maybe as America switches to natural gas for transport). Then a more informed fracking practice may make sense.</p>

<p>Not this crazy land speculation fracking frenzy we have right now. People are so eager to grab pieces of the Marcellus and “drill baby drill” that both the real resource may be squandered and environmental issues ignored in the frenzy.</p>

<p>This applies to the Bakken formation as well.</p>

<p>This link explains past historical resource rushes and their impact, and draws a parallel with the current fracking industry. In the Alaskan gold rush, vast amounts of water, in a process called “hydraulic mining” were pumped into the wilderness demolishing entire hillsides, such that the soil could be processed and sorted for dense gold dust.</p>

<p>[The</a> Oil Drum | The Bakken Boom - A Modern-Day Gold Rush](<a href=“The Oil Drum | Not found”>The Oil Drum | The Bakken Boom - A Modern-Day Gold Rush)</p>

<p>

</p>

126

<p>

</p>

<p>then you might be pleased to know I’m an AccessUVA student with an EFC near zero.</p>

127

<p>

</p>

<p>It is environmental extremists who claim they are acting with a higher moral compass. A better morality is to look at the thousands and thousands of unskilled Americans seeking work. A better morality is to consider that an energy independent American would not have to fight wars in the middle east over oil. </p>

<p>It is environmental extremists who object to things like the Keystone pipeline because lower oil prices will make their inefficient sacred cows like solar energy useless. </p>

<p>The last estimate I read showed American may have 20 billion barrels of tight oil. It is nuts to oppose doing everything possible to safely produce that oil. </p>

<p>Oil has to come from somewhere. It is better for our needs to be filled from our own country rather than sending billions to nations that hate us and mistreat women, homosexuals, and any other religion but their own. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Fracking is used to recover tight oil. Pickens has been trying to get the US government to convert many of the large trucks to compressed natural gas, but the environmental extremists and oil companies have prevented it time and time again.</p>

<p>Fracking is safe and does not endanger water sources because fracking rarely occurs above water levels.</p>

128

<p>

</p>

<p>[COLUMN-Fracking</a> no more risky than other oil, gas wells: Kemp | Reuters](<a href=“http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/12/column-fracking-risks-idUSL6E7NC2RL20111212]COLUMN-Fracking”>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/12/column-fracking-risks-idUSL6E7NC2RL20111212)</p>

129

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[Daniel</a> Yergin: America’s New Energy Security - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204449804577068932026951376.html]Daniel”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204449804577068932026951376.html)</p>

130

<p>

</p>

<p>::rolleyes::</p>

<p>I do not believe in ruining half of the ecology of the Canadian provinces to achieve “cheaper oil prices”. If we pay the costs upfront now, we will get our bounties of energy later.</p>

<p>Also, I am generally not an “environmental extremist”; I generally buy non-organic food; the Economist is one of my favourite publications. If you are referring to the ONE failed solar company out of many, may I refer you to the many failed oil drilling companies out there, some of whom were very big when they speculated on the Alaskan oil rush, drilled billions of dollars’ worth of wells, and lost the gamble. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>are /you/ from a low-income household? I am. The jobs argument has been rather superficial; people don’t even apply any critical economic analysis to it, such as is this increased economic productivity sustainable, or is it temporary for a more permanent environmental cost. Alaska and California have not yet recovered from the environmental costs of hydraulic mining, practiced over a hundred years ago.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>you could kindly read the following link, featuring an old report discovered recently dating from the 1980s, in which there was one documented case that was investigated that showed one mechanism for how hydraulic fracturing can connect gas and fluids to the aquifiers if the conditions are right.</p>

<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.ewg.org/reports/cracks-in-the-facade]Cracks”>http://www.ewg.org/reports/cracks-in-the-facade]Cracks</a> in the Fa</p>

131

<p>First, when an environmental incident occurs, the company reports to the DEP. This is and has happened. Read the DEP website. </p>

<p>Second, everyone agrees on the dangers of fracking fluids, chemicals, etc. They shouldn’t be smoked, they cause cancer, they aren’t addictive. Tobacco industry???</p>

132

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, environmental extremist. </p>

<p>Undoubtedly, had you lived in Mr. Jefferson’s day, you would have opposed the building of UVa because it would ruin the ecology of Charlottesville. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The solar industry has been around for 4 decades and every year there are more and more promises of sustainable energy. It never happens. Solar is not a viable alternative energy source and never will be. It’s too expensive and does not work absent government subsidies. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And may I refer you to the Alaskan pipeline that generated thousands of jobs, has created substantial wealth for Alaskans, generated billions of dollars for investors, and prevented us from buying billions of barrels of oil from middle eastern countries who hate us.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I am trying to prevent even more low income households. You are determined to make sure there are as many as possible. Maybe being poor is acceptable to you, it is not to me. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>In other words, you do not have a point you can defend.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Your false analogy shows nothing.</p>

133

<p>

</p>

<p>oh do you know how shale oil and oil sands processing works? they’re incredibly destructive processes. they’re nothing like building a fine university. Hydraulic mining – which I’ve pointed out before, has a deeper parallel.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Oh that sounds like an extremist position. I wonder if you work in science – because my physics department for example, is working on a way to subvert the energy transported by the cytochromes in photosynthesis for generating electrical current. (Do this in living plant cells and you have self-replicating solar panels.) There are many different approaches to solar energy, because if you think about it, solar energy in a sense is what built our fossil fuels in the first place.</p>

<p>I’m not a big solar proponent, although I’m waiting. That’s not why I find myself opposing the careless practices of fracking companies, no.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The output of the Alaskan oil fields (North Slope oil rush) is declining from its peak back in 1989. The output is now a mere fraction of what it was before. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>*because oil drilling is going to rescue them from their mire for the next 100 years, yes. *</p>

<p>You haven’t really addressed the point that it takes a 100 men to a drill well, and less than one man to man it. </p>

<p>When I say “these conditions are rare”, it means admitting there is some danger to fracking to aquifiers which companies must be responsible for. Certainly it happens frequently enough to appear on NYT and NPR. You can stop quoting me out of context now. In addition to weak casings that are sometimes drilled, or fluid-containing fractures connecting with fault lines and old abandoned gas wells, flowback is another environmental issue. Where do you release it? Flowback ponds have been known to leak, even into rivers. (Range Resources paid one such fine…) Flowback goes on and on for years, perhaps well after useful gas has stopped being produced and the company has abandoned the well.</p>

<p>Such incidents do not happen most of the time. But they happen noticeably occasionally. Occasionally enough for one to be quite wary. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>it’s a matter of human nature. What companies claim their methods are “perfectly safe”? Unethical ones, companies out to deceive the public. Truly ethical companies recognise that there are some risks in their otherwise perfectly safe methods and they are eager to detail them out for you.</p>

134

<p>Conventional gas wells btw, do not generate flowback. Conventional gas wells use between 60,000 to 80,000 gallons of water. Fracking wells use water by the millions upon millions of gallons.</p>

135

<p>The name-calling of the “anti-environmental extremists” is obvious evidence of their lack of a rational, coherent argument. If you insist that environmental degradation is “free” then fossil fuels are “cheap.” If you assign a rational value to the damage done by following the logic that there are no alternatives but war or pollution you eventually realize that the drill, baby, brill mentality is impoverishing ourselves and, even more so, our children and their children.</p>

<p>Razorsharp’s spitting at solar energy production is telling. Long term, pollution free energy production has a value due to the fact that it doesn’t pollute and leaves organic chemicals unburned. Petrochemicals have lots of valuable uses other than burning to produce heat. But in the future our descendants will find that we’ve burned up most of the easily available petrochemical resources of the earth, simply because the current “cost” is marginally lower than less destructive alternatives. Will they thank us for our “Screw you, I’m saving two cents a KWH” mentality?</p>

136

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I’m a new member, and also a Petroleum Engineer with over 30 years in drilling, production and fracking. I’d like to say a few things.</p>

<p>First, as a landowner, no company can force you to lease. A lease is a contract between willing parties. If you don’t understand the terms, of want additional clauses, either negotiate yourself or hire an experienced landman to do so on your behalf.</p>

<p>Oil companies hate pollution, we make no money from oil on the ground or in the water, these are expensive, awful problems we go to great lengths to avoid.</p>

<p>If you think of all business people as evil, and are prone to conspiracy theories, you should quit reading now. Nothing will change your mind.</p>

<p>I live in West Texas. In our area there are oil wells in schoolyards and mall parking lots. We’re comfortable with this, as our communities have a strong understanding of the geology and engineering involved.</p>

<p>I just fracked a well a week ago. The base of the fresh water was at 350’. The zone being fracked was at 8000’. The freshwater zone is protected by three concentric strings of high strength steel casing, all cemented in place to standards set by our state regulatory agency, the Texas Railroad Commission. Given the geological setting, it is more likely that I would turn on my FM radio and hear gas music from Jupiter than that I could contaminate the fresh water zone. </p>

<p>Frac fluids are a largely a combination of treated fresh water and sand. The primary gelling agent is a guar based viscosifier. Guar is also the primary gelling agent in salad dressing. In past decades we did a lot of fracking with gelled crude oil and other oil based systems. This is much less common now, mostly because of the cost of oil and the danger of pumping it under very high pressure.</p>

<p>Companies wish to keep their proprietary fluids proprietary because they’ve spent a lot of R&D money on special formulations to achieve a clean “break” (when the gel turns back to water) and to avoid damaging the producing formation. Coca-Cola is also reluctant to divulge their recipe, and some of you let your kids drink that stuff.</p>

<p>Nonetheless, the state of Texas has recently passed regulations requiring disclosure of the contents of frac fluids.</p>

<p>The other major component of frac fluids is sand, which is left in place as a proppant.</p>

<p>Some in this thread have mentioned the Range Resources case. I would urge you to review the conclusions from the technical hearing held by the Texas Railroad Commission.</p>

<p>[NEWS</a> RELEASE: Railroad Commissioners Find Range Resources’ Natural Gas Not Source in Parker County Water Wells](<a href=“http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/pressreleases/2011/032211.php]NEWS”>http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/pressreleases/2011/032211.php)</p>

<p>The Railroad Commission had it’s own technical staff investigate the issue, and determined that Fracking and Range were NOT at fault. The EPA was invited to attend, as were the owner and representatives of the wells in question. Depsite the RRC rescheduling the hearings to accomodate the EPA, neither the EPA not the well owners (or their attorneys) could be bothered to attend or to submit evidence. Apparently, the EPA can’t be bothered with science, and chose instead to release a finding with absolutely no technical basis. The attorneys, of course, are more interested in a lawsuit than in science.</p>

<p>Each area or state should institute their own rules, and decide for themselves if they want oil and gas development. In Texas we made that decision a long time ago. If others don’t want oil and gas development, that’s their choice, but they should make informed decisions, and if they choose to ban development, should be prepared to compensate mineral owners for their economic loss, just as Oil companies should be prepared to remediate and compensate anyone who is shown to have been harmed by our operations. </p>

<p>The EPA should absolutely NOT be given regulatory authority over fracking, as they have a demonstrated bias and disregard for science.</p>

<p>Cheers and Merry Christmas!</p>

137

<p>Name calling??? Kluge, what is your source of energy? Solar panels? Wind mills? Today, in the “desperate” rust belt, we have overcast skies, no wind, mid thirties. My furnace is burning natural gas.</p>

138

<p>Hi sparkybarkin, I appreciate your point of view. I’m going to a Christmas Eve event, but I do want to comment on one quote </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This is not quite true. Eminent domain considerations (and related laws) often force landowners to accommodate pipes, wells or fractures on or beneath their surface properties. In many cases, mineral rights are divorced from surface rights (especially in Western Pennsylvania where the rights were divorced long ago due to various coal, oil and gas booms of the past) so you can be a surface landowner and have no say over what activities are going on beneath you.</p>

<p>This is not to say that these considerations are completely unjustified, but there are some issues of individual liberty and safety that should be resolved in the American way: democracy, not plutocracy. Local and regional governments should also have some discretion over such activities of local and regional concern. It is possible for my water supply to suffer because of a private decision between my neighbour and a fracking company.</p>

139

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m curious because one of our environmental chemistry professors was a former highranking official at the EPA, and she writes her own textbooks, and the sheer barrage of quantitative data that she asks students to process each week is quite notorious.</p>

<p>Certainly, the EPA’s politics has often depended on the incumbent administration. During the Bush era, the EPA was a very industry-friendly agency.</p>

140

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t think you get it.</p>

<p>It’s called accounting for the future.</p>

<p>Now modern financial accounting (if you’re familiar with financial theories) has ways of calculating futures and options prices from spot prices and present versus future value, Black-Scholes etc. etc. but they become woefully inadequate the further into the future you go. At 100 years out the techniques are nearly useless.</p>

<p>Now I’m not very religious, but I remember there’s a biblical story of two brothers named Jacob and Esau, where Esau, being very hungry from the fields and thinking he wouldn’t be able to last much longer, sold his birthright in exchange for a bowl of soup from Jacob. At that time, the consequences of the birthright was years and years away – what did it matter? The hunger was NOW.</p>

<p>Where else would Esau get a source of rich plentiful soup??? Instant noodles didn’t exist back then. God forbid he tolerate some momentary pain for a lifetime of abundance.</p>