Fracking - where is it headed ?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Ibby

That's what government is for. to step in when the market fails.
We need infrastructure spending anyway. we need clean or renewable energy anyway. we need more research anyway. all of those things will return on their investments hugely, but not in a time frame that makes economic sense for corporations or private capital. Thats why we have a government.

Ideally I agree but increasing funding on research doesn't guarantee results since many breakthroughs are technologically limited. My research for example. No matter how much funding was poured into the topic 10-15 years ago, the smartest professors could not produce more results than I, a single master's student, can now solely because of computing power. Much of the technology is just not ready yet and improvements come slowly. Over the course of years, as technology improves, these alternative energies will become slowly more efficient until it either reaches a peak or becomes close to economically feasible and the private industry will invest an incredible amount of money in it.

Also, it is possible that reducing greenhouse gases requires more research in producing cleaner fossil fuels than research in alternative energy. Then, as technology catches up, alternative energy can take off.

Although, if you really want to promote non-fossil fuel sources as energy, push nuclear. The technology is there and it is safe and clean. The only obstacles are politics and a lack of incentive for private companies to invest in new nuclear facilities (that is where the government comes in).

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Technically, I'm sure everyone in the industry believes fracking is technically and economically feasible. But I also believe the industry has so far avoided discussion of environmental damage, and especially the means of remediation for when, not if, it occurs. It seems to me the majority offered so far is "low probability", "best practices", etc.

It is no different than off-shore drilling. If a bad accident happens, the local environment is most likely devastated. In the case of fracking, the local aquifer. I agree that the industry is not good with public relations in that sense and needs to improve but I doubt the industry could ever produce an acceptable plan.

On the other hand, environmental groups also need to be more technical. The basic concepts of fracking are not that difficult (unlike financial regulation) but there seems to be a refusal to learn.

As I've posted earlier, we are still dealing with contamination problems that resulted from the "best practices" of industry years ago.

Based on how many incidents that have happened, I don't think it was failure of "best practices". It is more likely a mix of probability (spills can happen no matter how good the practice is) and bad practice (improper sealing of boreholes for example). Increasing technology will create safer practice but those are more design and regulation issues than fracking technology.

For me right now, deliberately leaving toxins and carcinogens in the ground is a non-starter.

EPA found such chemicals in Wyoming aquifer-monitoring wells, and did not find the sort of agricultural chemicals as insecticides or fertilizers.

You realize that these two issues are unrelated?

Once again, shale formations are thousands of feet deep (8,000 or so) and aquifers are below 1,000 ft if not 100. That leaves 7,000 feet of very low permeability rock for the chemicals to travel. And remember, this is going against gravity! In order for the chemicals to travel that 7,000 feet, there must be a TREMENDOUS pressure gradient. If there are chemicals still left in the ground, that means there either is a very small pressure gradient from the rock and the borehole or a lot of friction, which means it is a near impossibility for the chemicals to reach the surface.

Also, gas companies are not deliberately leaving toxins and carcinogens in the ground. I mentioned this. This are irrecoverable with our current technology.


What contaminates groundwater are leaks or failure of the steel and concrete coverings separating the borehole from the aquifer. This has nothing to do with the injection process and is preventable.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

<snip>

Once again, shale formations are thousands of feet deep (8,000 or so)
and aquifers are below 1,000 ft if not 100. That leaves 7,000 feet of
very low permeability rock for the chemicals to travel.
And remember, this is going against gravity!
In order for the chemicals to travel that 7,000 feet, there must be a TREMENDOUS pressure gradient.
If there are chemicals still left in the ground, that means there either is
a very small pressure gradient from the rock and the borehole or a lot of friction,
which means it is a near impossibility for the chemicals to reach the surface.

Also, gas companies are not deliberately leaving toxins and carcinogens in the ground.
I mentioned this. This are irrecoverable with our current technology.

What contaminates groundwater are leaks or failure of the steel
and concrete coverings separating the borehole from the aquifer.
This has nothing to do with the injection process and is preventable.

Although the EPA Report will not be out until the end of this year,
the link/article I cited above was pretty explicit.

A pair of environmental monitoring wells drilled deep into an aquifer in Pavillion, Wyo.,
contain high levels of cancer-causing compounds and at least one
chemical commonly used in hydraulic fracturing, according to new water test results
released yesterday by the Environmental Protection Agency.
<snip>
The EPA said the water samples were saturated with methane gas
that matched the deep layers of natural gas being drilled for energy.
The gas did not match the shallower methane that the gas industry
says is naturally occurring in water, a signal that the contamination
was related to drilling and was less likely to have come from drilling waste spilled above ground.

I readily agree this gas field has been drilled and fracked
for many years, and so technology has (almost certainly) improved.
But nonetheless, that aquifer is now contaminated.
Other than "dilution is the solution", what does the industry offer
to mitigate such events, particularly if 20 years from now we find that
today's best practices are not sufficient.

[Lamplighter]

PH45, in an earlier post you mentioned nanotechnology.

Is that something like the "Fabreze" deodorizer in which
the offending smell molecule is physically trapped inside
the deodorizer chemical... e.g. inside a special "Bucky-ball" ?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

particularly if 20 years from now we find that today's best practices are not sufficient.

For your concern to be justified many more aquifers need to be contaminated then currently realized. From Classicman's link, there have been reported groundwater contamination at 0.10% of total fracking boreholes (as of 2009). That is 1 in a 1,000. Assuming that the number of reported incidents is the actual amount, that is probably not a problem with "best practice". That is likely just mess ups or bad luck. It would the same as blaming a single plane crash on our lack of understanding of aerospace engineering.

Yet, even if the number of reported incidents are only a tenth of the actual amount of contaminated wells, which is still unacceptable, that is most likely a regulation issue. In other words, something that can be avoided.

Although, I fully support additional testing of groundwater around fracking locations. That would give invaluable information of what borehole sealant designs works and the reliability of them.

Other than "dilution is the solution", what does the industry offer to mitigate such events,

No idea. Honestly, there probably isn't much that can be done. Not sure though.

PH45, in an earlier post you mentioned nanotechnology.

Is that something like the "Fabreze" deodorizer in which the offending smell molecule is physically trapped inside the deodorizer chemical... e.g. inside a special "Bucky-ball" ?

This is all speculation but nanotechnology possibly could get to the point where we can produce machines that can physically rearrange an atom's infrastructure. Therefore, it will be able to destroy (or rearrange) any particle that is considered harmful.

Although, if we ever get to that point, it won't be for centuries.

[classicman]

MIT issued a 178-page report called “The Future of Natural Gas”
With over 20,000 shale wells drilled in the last 10 years, the environmental record of shale gas development
has for the most part been a good one — but it is important to recognize the inherent risks and the damage
that can be caused by just one poor operation. (page 39) The fracturing process itself poses minimal risk to
the shallow groundwater zones that may exist in the upper portion of the wellbore. (page 40)

The physical realities of the fracturing process, combined with the lack of reports from the many wells to date of fracture fluid contamination of groundwater, supports the assertion that fracturing itself does not create environmental concerns. (page 41)
The report also finds that it’s very likely we’ll see an increase in the number of compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles due to the abundance of cheap natural gas.
It’s a fascinating report. Take the time to at least scan it.

[Lamplighter]

Classic, I actually had "scanned" that report earlier. I don't remember
all my thoughts, but IIRC I felt it was a valid engineering study.
By that, I mean... as written from the "technical side" of the industry.

In scanning the Study Group Participants, it looks as though all are
well-credentialed members from engineering, management, or banking.
For a technical study group, that is fine. (I do believe this)
But I looked for people that might be representing public health or
environmental aspects, and found only one... maybe there are others.

Technically, I'm sure everyone in the industry believes fracking is technically and economically feasible.
But I also believe the industry has so far avoided discussion of environmental damage,
and especially the means of remediation for when, not if, it occurs.
It seems to me the majority offered so far is "low probability", "best practices", etc.
As I've posted earlier, we are still dealing with contamination problems
that resulted from the "best practices" of industry years ago.

Urgency is a factor in making decisions, but short term economic
needs should not overwhelm planning for long term (unintended) consequences.
My major concerns to avoid repeating our history in Montana and Appalachia,
are the technical "how-to's" and the $cost of cleanups after a water supply is contaminated.

For me right now, deliberately leaving toxins and carcinogens in the ground is a non-starter.

[Undertoad]

deliberately leaving toxins and carcinogens in the ground is a non-starter

But natgas is toxic and it's in the ground now! What to do???

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

But natgas is toxic and it's in the ground now! What to do???

UT, just to be argumentative... If by "natgas" you mean "natural gas" or methane,
so are 02 and CO2 (in high enough concentrations).

I was referring to the compounds they add to the fracking fluids,
such known carcinogens as benzene and s2-Butoxyethanol (2-BE)
(Scientific American. Nov 2011).
EPA found such chemicals in Wyoming aquifer-monitoring wells,
and did not find the sort of agricultural chemicals as insecticides or fertilizers.
.

[Lamplighter]

Newsmax
Wednesday, 28 Mar 2012 04:29 AM
By Sandy Fitzgerald

Kasich-Backed Bill Keeps Some Fracking Compounds Secret

A bill that requires that companies disclose chemicals used in gas fracking
in Ohio still allows some of the compounds to be kept secret.<snip>

The Senate bill, backed by Gov. John Kasich,
will require that companies report most fracking compounds to the state,
unless they involve chemicals deemed proprietary or a trade secret.
In that case, the substances would only be identified by their chemical class.
<snip>
Trent Dougherty, a lawyer with the advocacy group Ohio Environmental Council,
said the bill will not inform the public what is being used in fracking operations.
“It will only spark more debate and more discussion about what is a trade secret
and what really needs to be held in confidence,” he said.

[busterb]

Not to worry. My old buddy is on job inspecting in upper PA. Ya trust him!!!

[Griff]

Some good news for this thread.

CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low

PITTSBURGH (AP) — In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal.

Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere.

Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, said the shift away from coal is reason for "cautious optimism" about potential ways to deal with climate change. He said it demonstrates that "ultimately people follow their wallets" on global warming.

"There's a very clear lesson here. What it shows is that if you make a cleaner energy source cheaper, you will displace dirtier sources," said Roger Pielke Jr., a climate expert at the University of Colorado.

In a little-noticed technical report, the U.S. Energy Information Agency, a part of the Energy Department, said this month that energy related U.S. CO2 emissions for the first four months of this year fell to about 1992 levels. Energy emissions make up about 98 percent of the total. The Associated Press contacted environmental experts, scientists and utility companies and learned that virtually everyone believes the shift could have major long-term implications for U.S. energy policy.

[classicman]

Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming, in large part because
it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action

[Griff]

People only see what they want to see.

[piercehawkeye45]

I was waiting to post this link until they post more videos but I feel this group does make an effort to talk to a wide variety of people on the energy debate.

http://www.rationalmiddle.com/movies/preview/

[xoxoxoBruce]

What it shows is that if you make a cleaner energy source cheaper, you will displace dirtier sources,...

No shit, business will always choose the cheaper alternative... that's not new.