Bishop Hill Crunch time for UK fracking
Dec 3, 2012 Energy: gas There was lots of action on the UK shale gas front over the weekend. The Telegraph carried an interview with the head of Cuadrilla who was keen to press ahead, but warned against delay:
We have proven that there is gas and that it will flow. In the three years we have been doing tests, they have drilled 60,000 wells in the US. We don't have infinite patience and our investors don't have infinite patience.
The suggestion that George Osborne is going to offer tax breaks to shale gas developments was also surprising. Given that oil and gas fields pay a supertax on top of corporation tax this probably makes sense.
Commenting favourably on the interview, shale gas expert Nick Grealy revealed that he has had early information about the results of the forthcoming estimates of the UK's shale gas resource.
Total UK resource estimate will be confirmed by DECC scientists, not Cuadrilla posturing. I've seen the logs: MONSTROUS
Reader Comments (114)
Looking through the thread, I can see many similarities between the delivery of Refraction and the oeuvre of our dear friend ZBB. Identical twins?
LOL - Just LOL - really - If you only hear what you want to hear you will never learn anything. Now I *know* one of you will accuse me of the same because that's how these childish exchanges pan out, but at least I have made the effort to try to find out about both sides of the coin, and I really don't like what I've found out about fracking.
I don't believe the conspiracy theories. I don't believe Cuadrilla are evil. I do believe the peopIe I know, and you guys need to consider why, if no damage was done why did they had to stop drilling for 18 months. I'm sure you'll find an answer that suits :-) I also believe the local engineer I know who has years of fracking experience and who regards the current regulatory set up as totally inadequate - but you don't want to know that either do you as it might be a bit inconvenient.
Refracktion: your
and I really don't like what I've found out about fracking.
You have yet to demonstrate any actual knowledge of fracturing.
I don't believe the conspiracy theories. I don't believe Cuadrilla are evil. I do believe the peopIe I know, and you guys need to consider why, if no damage was done why did they had to stop drilling for 18 months. I'm sure you'll find an answer that suits :-)
There is, demonstrably, zero damage from fracturing in the UK. They were stopped, due to an excess of caution (read: political posturing) by politicians.
I also believe the local engineer I know who has years of fracking experience and who regards the current regulatory set up as totally inadequate - but you don't want to know that either do you as it might be a bit inconvenient.
I would love to have an example of the inadequacy of current regulations. I would also like to know the experience your "engineer" friend has regarding fracturing. Types of fracture jobs done, where, when, etc.
Why do you have so many anecdotal stories, but absolutely zero real world data? I tend to side with Grumpy on his theory.
"I would also like to know the experience your "engineer" friend has regarding fracturing. Types of fracture jobs done, where, when, etc. "
He probably knows more than all of you put together and then some having worked as a wireline engineer ( I think that's the correct term) in the fracking industry in various global locations for some years but heck don't let that stop you lot choosing to believe I know nothing.
He certainly knows a lot more than I do, but then I'm happy to admit that whereas most of you guys seem intent on showing a:) that you already know everything and anyome who doesn't agree with you is an idiot and that b:) you don't bother with argument when insult will do.
To be honest there's not much point in a reasonable person hanging round here listening to you lot clapping each other on the back whilst deliberately distorting anything that is said to you that you don't like, and sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "We're not listening"
it's been a blast chaps, but life is just too short.
Refracktion: your
He probably knows more than all of you put together and then some having worked as a wireline engineer ( I think that's the correct term) in the fracking industry in various global locations for some years but heck don't let that stop you lot choosing to believe I know nothing.
A wireline engineer would know very little of fracturing. At best, he would perforate the pipe in advance of the fracture treatment. At worst he would be evaluating the open hole log prior to running the pipe. That is, assuming he is an engineer, and not an operator.
In either case, its highly unlikely he will have any actual fracturing expertise. I, on the other hand, have been doing it for 35 years.
I find it amusing that you think that knowing someone with knowledge, in a totally different arena, entitles you to believe that you have actual expertise.
He certainly knows a lot more than I do, but then I'm happy to admit that whereas most of you guys seem intent on showing a:) that you already know everything and anyome who doesn't agree with you is an idiot and that b:) you don't bother with argument when insult will do.
Hardly. I have asked you for proof of your assertions. You have provided none, only anecdotes. Quite the opposite in fact. You have shown your ignorance of basic fracturing theory.
To be honest there's not much point in a reasonable person hanging round here listening to you lot clapping each other on the back whilst deliberately distorting anything that is said to you that you don't like, and sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "We're not listening"</i.
Again, I ask for some proof of your assertions. I am trying to listen, but I am not getting anything in response.
I was going to make a further response to Refraktion but since he seems to have decided that discretion is the better part of ignorance I will go and pollute another thread ^.^
Well one last comment before I bid you adieu Les
LOL - if you've advised and conferred the DECC, the HSE, and EA and local councils as he has then you might be qualified to be so dismissive of the opinions of others in the industry who you don't know. Of course I have no idea whether you have been asked to consult with these bodies so I shan't be ignorant and rude back to you, but I get the feeling you probably haven't - if not ask perhaps you should ask yourself why they consulted him and not you if he knows so little?
Life just isn't fair is it? :-)
Refracktion,
Wow. What a disappointment you turned out to be. You came here and delivered, to use Hilary’s words, a sermon from the mount, deliberately giving the impression that you had all the answers. Then, when challenged by several of the commenters here to provide some actual facts or citations, you refuse to do either and instead accuse us all, in so many words, of being close minded bullies. Seems I was more right than I imagined and you really did get all your opinions second-hand from Frack-Off. Oh, and your “mate” the “engineer” of course. Poor show.
Refraction,
Now you're just making yourself look silly.
refracktion: your
LOL - if you've advised and conferred the DECC, the HSE, and EA and local councils as he has then you might be qualified to be so dismissive of the opinions of others in the industry who you don't know.
That is correct, I don't know your friends name, which is why I qualified my statements with "unlikely". If you would be so kind as to identify him, then I would be able to comment on his expertise.
But, you tar yourself with that brush, as you comment on my expertise, while demonsrating your own lack thereof.
Of course I have no idea whether you have been asked to consult with these bodies so I shan't be ignorant and rude back to you, but I get the feeling you probably haven't - if not ask perhaps you should ask yourself why they consulted him and not you if he knows so little?
I am consulting with DECC, through a different enitity, on carbon sequestration. I have also been called as an expert witness in a civil suit involving fracturing. I have done original research in fracturing chemistry and equipment; and written fracturing software.
I am also quite familar with the oilfield. Wireline engineers have very little expertise in fracturing. Its two different functions. I would not believe it likely that a airplane mechanic could fly a 747, nor a pilot could repair the hydraulics.
Life just isn't fair is it? :-)
I find life eminently fair. But then, I know my capabilities and limitations, whereas you don't.
But please, give me your friends name. If he is an expert in the field, then I would almost certainly know of him, as it is a rather small fraternity.
But, it is still funny that you believe that friends supposed expertise also makes you an expert. I can't wait to pass this around the office.
" I also believe the local engineer I know who has years of fracking experience and who regards the current regulatory set up as totally inadequate - but you don't want to know that either do you as it might be a bit inconvenient."
I'm sure people here would be really interested in knowing about inadequate regulations. Why would it be inconvenient? Why not get your local engineer friend to post his issues here?
Rob: I asked our friend about these regulations. Sadly, he didn't respond. I would be more than happy to discuss this with either Refracktion or his unkown friend.
LOL - the engineer I refer to is well enough known to people who know about fracking on both sides of the camp and at senior levels of government. The fact that you guys don't know who I am talking about speaks volumes about your "knowledge" of what you are all prattling about. You'll be saying climate change is a myth soon.
"I'm sure people here would be really interested in knowing about inadequate regulations"
Well just do a bit of research then - it doesn't take much to find out where the holes are. Start with Cuadrilla's breach at Banks and go from there. Google is your friend. I'm not.
"Why not get your local engineer friend to post his issues here?"
er well, maybe because he'd be wasting his time give the standard of "debate" here.
In closing I'm not sure why you keep accusing me of pretending to be an expert based on other people's knowledge - maybe it's because you don't bother reading what I posted or maybe you are just thick and aggressive. Either way, like I said life is to short ... Ciao baby.
Laurie Childs will have you believe that concerns about the health effects of fracking are false.
Take a read of the article today in the Guardian to see the horror of what is going on in parts of the US: How fracking boom shook a family
the single braincell brigade are here...watch while bitty passes it to refrak....oooo they missed the handover.
BB
The Guardian article is frightening I agree but there is also a great deal of "slight of hand".
The first story is about a family who bought a farm:
Just concentrate on that last line for a moment and then read some of the comments. You will find that it was the Jorgensons themselves who sold the mineral rights beneath their land in 1984.
What the frack does that have to do with it? Laurie Childs will have readers believe that fracking has no environmental/health effects:
Does he say anything about who owns the mineral rights? Why would that have any effect on health?
BTW: gold star for copy/paste proficiency.
BB
At the moment I do not have an answer to some of the issues raised by this article, I am agreeing with you that the sickness/illness caused is unacceptable (in terms of the chemicals). Until and unles some other evidence comes to light then I will continue to agree with you about the article you have highlighted.
However there is as I said, a great deal of slight of hand; cattle getting sick based on clouds of dust kicked up because heavy vehicles are using dirt roads, why are there no asphalt roads?
BitBucket,
First of all, please stop twisting my words, something I see you do here all the time. I didn’t say that concerns over health/environmental issues were false, I said they were unproven. In case your comprehension skills are lacking, that’s not the same thing.
So lets have a look at the Guardian article you link to. At the beginning, the article concentrates on the story of one particular family. A family who, as it turns out, bought their farm knowing the purchase didn’t include mineral rights but later went to court to unsuccessfully try to claim a share of those rights. Strangely enough, this was right around the time of the start of the fracking boom in their area. Note that they didn’t try to get the whole of the rights in order to prevent drilling on their land, but a share of them. The article then goes on to discuss various impacts of the drilling on the family. It talks about the death of some eighty olive trees. It admits that this was most likely caused by changes in the land drainage of the area next to the trees, but throws in an off the cuff accusation of exposure to fracking fluid as a contributory factor. Not the slightest piece of evidence is offered to show that this was indeed the case. It’s merely mentioned and then left hanging. Then, the article goes on to talk about a series of times when there were bad smells in the air. Unpleasant for sure, but a certain risk to health? They mention their granddaughter waking up screaming with a headache, but don’t say if there were any further problems with her health or whether any efforts were made to ascertain that the headache was actually a direct result of the drilling operations. On one day apparently, the smell was so bad it prevented the lady of the house from hanging out her washing and the air burnt her nostrils. Again, no actual evidence is offered, merely her testimony. Strangely enough, none of these events seemed to have any effect on those that were in closest contact with the process, and continue to be on a regular basis, the fracking crews themselves. Logic dictates that this group would likely be amongst the first to show any ill effects, yet, once more, I can find no evidence of toxic poisoning or increased cancer rates amongst fracking industry operatives. I’m not saying it isn’t out there, merely that I can’t find it. Maybe someone like Les Johnson would know more. The article then talks about the night the flare went out. This, I totally agree, was bad. That no proper emergency procedures were in place is inexcusable. Whilst on that particular subject though, in this country such a situation is less likely to develop. Here, if you’re unsure who you should ring, you can simply ring the police and they will get hold of the appropriate people. I know this to be true because I’ve actually done just that. Also, of course, as gas is likely to be the main target of the drilling, it won’t be flared off.
The article then spends a couple of paragraphs giving background to the situation in Nth Dakota today. Over 40,000 jobs created giving the state the lowest unemployment rates in the country etc. etc. Followed by quite a long section on the upheaval it’s all caused. Mostly one long complaint about the extra dust and traffic interspersed with individual anecdotal tales of such things as the farmer who can’t find a viable use for 13 acres of land, a local Native American environmental activist complaining about the increase in truck related road deaths and a woman farmer complaining about the litter a drilling crew left behind. With the exception of the farmer (I’ve never met a farmer who couldn’t find use for a 13 acre patch of land), all legitimate and understandable complaints. Are any of these complaints reason enough to condemn the fracking industry as undesirable and a danger to peoples health though?
There then follows a section explaining the fracking process, itself followed by a section pointing out some of the leakage problems that, finally, might well be based on truth. As we’re only getting the story from the author’s own point of view, it’s difficult to know how much is truth and how much is exaggeration, but what it does seem to show is a failure of the regulatory bodies to adequately do their job. However, it doesn’t list any evidence of either contaminated land or associated health problems.
Finally the article concentrates on the Schilke family and their various problems. The death of the dog, whilst sad, can’t be taken as a serious example of being caused by fracking. No information is given on the dog’s age, the circumstances of it’s death, the result of any autopsy or whether one even took place. The arsenic poisoning is far more likely to be a result of naturally occurring contamination of their water well than as a result of fracking. It’s a big problem in the states. See here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-drinking-water-wells-contaminated-with-arsenic-other-elements This likely explains the cattle health problems too, though I note there is no mention of vetinary reports or any evidence of proper investigation into their condition. The farmer merely shoots them when they get sick. Strange. The article reports that an independent air quality test was performed and that pollutants were found. But no figures on the levels of those pollutants are given. The article says the levels were high, but it doesn’t say that they were dangerously high. Bearing in mind the way the author is trying to swing the article, one would assume that if the levels were classified as anywhere near dangerous, then the author would have driven that point home. The one, single thing of real interest in this section is the fact that when the local Health Department tested their well water, they apparently found evidence of ethylene dichloride, though, again it‘s not stated at what levels. This is a compound often used in the fracking process, though it’s used in other industries as well and could certainly explain some of Mrs Schilke’s symptoms and possibly those of the cattle. No mention of finding arsenic in the well though. No mention of the Health Department recommending they don’t use the well water. No mention of any steps being taken to decontaminate the well. No mention of any legal steps being taken against anybody at all over the whole issue. Only a claim that the Schilkes know they are being poisoned, but can’t prove who’s doing it.
So in summary what new evidence does this article bring to the table? Basically, some generalised reports of spillage and leakages with no proper reference to what the consequences, if any, were. The stories of two families claiming to have been affected by fracking pollution, the first of which is undoubtedly bitter at failing to get their share of the spoils and failing to offer any evidence whatsoever of any adverse effects other than anecdote. The second apparently in possession of some at least circumstantial, but in no way conclusive, evidence seemingly unwilling or unable to take it any further. Despite getting the involvement of the North Dakota Health Board, they seem to have been unable to garner their support in any subsequent steps. All very strange. And that’s just about it. So, all in all, BitBucket, you can colour me unimpressed.
Apologies to all for the long post.
To blame fracturing for the problems is to violate two laws; one physical, the other of economics.
The Bakken formation is 2000 to 3000 meters, depending on the part of the state.
A fracture grows vertically, in a penny shape, until it reaches a barrier. There must always be a barrier, or else the oil and gas would not be there. They would have leaked to surface millenia ago.
But, lets assume that there is no upper barrier, and assume there is a lower barrier. This maximizes the height the fracture can grow.
For a 2000 meter well, it will take 9800 bbls of fracture fluid to reach surface, in a 1 mm wide fracture. It would take 23000 bbls in a 3000 meter well. Note that 1 mm is impossibly small. It would be impossible to place 20-40 mesh sand, with a large diameter of 0.08 mm. It takes a fracture width of at least 2 times largest diameter, up to 10 times largest sand particle size. The longer the fracture length, the larger the fracture width needed to place the sand.
Thus, it would take up to 200,000 bbls of frac fluid to reach the surface. This is the first violation. There is not enough volume pumped to reach surface.
The second is the economics of pumping a fluid that costs up to 100 per bbl (even $1000!), into a formation that will not produce oil or gas. If the fracture is moving through rock above the Bakken, its fracturing zones with no economic value. A company could do this, but they will soon go broke. Why spend 20 million dollars, when they get the same results with 1 million invested?
Les,
Interesting and educational stuff. I think what many of the environmentalists and their ilk are complaining of though, is contamination from above in the way of spillages when inserting or recovering the fracking fluids, or leaking from holding ponds, rather than contamination from below. Personally, I cannot see how these small and localised spillages, where and if they even happen, could have any measurable effect on groundwater supplies. Do you have a view on this?
I agree that surface spills are more likley. Its also easier to mitigate. Most companies/governments require berms around the tanks with frac fluid. Most large fracs are mixed on the fly, from chemicals stored in containment. In other words, if there is a spill, its inside another container.
Most regulatory agencies require reporting and remediation of any spill. In Alberta, for instance, the spill of transmission fluid from a broken hose, on the highway, is reportable.
Any spill is likely to be small, and regardless of the size, will be probably be mandated to be cleaned up. Even sand spills must be reported and cleaned. The reportable amount varies inversely with its toxicity.
It should also be mentioned that most fracturing products are found in the home, like water, sand, soap and an extract of the guar bean. The latter is found in many food products, as a vsicosifier. Anti-bacterial agents are also used, like bleach.
For comparison, more non-biodegrable soap is poured into the rivers and seas of the US, everyday, than was used in the entire BP Gulf of Mexico spill. And they used bio-degradable surfactant there.
Laurie Childs, if you tell me you have actually toured these areas, seen for yourself and talked to those affected, I will take your words seriously. If, on the other hand, your 'research' took you no further than your study, then you and your results are not credible. The fact that you feel it necessary to denigrate those discussed in the report (the better to dismiss them as money grabbing, unreliable etc) makes me think the latter.
Les Johnson, in my understanding, a well is cased in pipes and seals are cleverly created in concrete - all of this is underground many meters out of sight. The well is then pumped full of fluid, a huge pressure is applied and sometime later a third of the fluid and other gunk returns to the surface. And the industry reckons that the fluid and whatever comes back up goes cleanly up and down the tube without problem.
Now tell me, how many failures are there in the sealing/capping/whatever of wells? I seem to remember a figure of 20% (but I am unsure where that came from). When are failures found - before or after fracking. What happens to the fluids when a well fails?
Also please tell me, why were various environmental restrictions waived explicitly for the industry, if the processes have no effect on the environment?
Bitbucket: your
The well is always full of fluid, except in production mode or in a blowout. A typical well has a minimum of 3 layers of steel, and two of cement, between gas, oil or produced water, and any surface (potable) water. Some wells will have 3 or 4 strings of pipe, cemented in place, plus the production tubing. Annuli are monitored for leakage. All pipe is pressure tested to about 80% of burst pressure.
Leakage must be reported to regulatory bodies, and repaired immediately or on well abandonment, depending on severity. As an example, in Alberta, if there is one gas bubble in 60 seconds, the well must be repaired.
Most leaks are from shallow, non-economic gas zones, and not from the primary zones, where fracturing will occur. Shallow coal is a major source.
Failures are much lower now, than 20 or 30 years ago. Now it is south of 10%, and falling. Companies find it much cheaper to do it right the first time, than pay to fix it. But, any failures found before fracturing, would require a cement squeeze to isolate the zone to be fractured, before the treatment could occur. Again, this is regulated. Failures after fracturing are extremely rare, and always involving co-mingling with nearby hydrocarbon zones, or salt water zones. If the authorities allow co-mingled production, no problem. If not, then the leak would need to be repaired. If it leaks into a salt water zone (actually the other way around, water into the oil/gas), then the company will try to seal the leak, as too much water production is costly, and inhibits hydrocarbon production.
If there is any danger of contaminating surface waters, companies will not proceed. This is monitored by governmental bodies, and is not at the oil company discretion.
A myth. No environmental restrictions have been waived for the oil and gas industry, at least in North America or Europe.
Yeah that is the corporate sales job over. Now what is the practice on the ground? There are apparently 500,000 natural gas wells in the US (don't know how many were fracked) and the proportion of those that can have been inspected must be tiny. If 'only' 10% of those are known to have "failed", that is 50,000 wells leaking/seeping whatever. And then there are the wells that are leaking but not known about.
"Annuli are monitored for leakage." What all of them? So in the kilometers of piping etc, how many "annuli" are there and how many are monitored?
And regarding myths, when Wiki says of the Energy Policy Act of 2005:
are you saying that is a myth? If the above statement is true, why is the exemption necessary if fracking processes have no effect on the environment?
Laurie
Thank you for correcting my bleary eyed speed read of the court proceedings involving the Jorgensons ^.^
Les
Great to have a hands on expert on the blog so can I ask some questions?
My understanding of what happens at a new shale well site is that for a short period (weeks) there will be a drilling rig/tower in place and that once the initial well is complete it will be fracked. The fracking is the only period involving the pumping of water/sand/chemical(s) into the well. How long does the actual fracking take?
During the frack the fluids returning to the surface might tempeorarily go into a pit/container but surely these fluids are very quickly taken away?
For most of the life of the well there is no rig/tower, there is no fracking and no fluid involved, there is simply a pipe coming out of the ground and pipes away to where ever. Is this correct?
bitbucket: your
You aren't listening. Before a well can be put on production, the logs certifying that there is a sufficient cement bond, must be given to local regulators. On any workover, it must be shown that there is still sufficient cement bond, or have it repaired. Before the well is abnandoned, logs must again be presented to prove there is no leakage.
"Orphan wells" are being repaired by the industry under state and provincial law, at industry expense. This is not just the oil industry, but also mining, forestry, even gravel pits that fall under this type of legislation. Almost all resource industry pay into an "orphan" fund, to remediate land exploited by a now non-existent company.
There are no annuli in pipelines. An annulus only occurs between pipe and pipe or open hole. Pipelines rely instead on sensitive pressure monitors and flow meters to detect leaks. In wells, all annuli are inspected before production, workover or abandonment. Local complaints and regulatory spot checks catch leaks between these events.
Wiki? Funny.
The 2005 non-partisan bill (voted for by both republicans and democrats), simply reaffirmed the 60 plus years of policy by the EPA, that fracturing oversight was the function of the states, not the feds. Historically, in both Canada and the US, resource extraction is the domain of the state/province, not the feds. (note the 60 plus years).
As for the non-disclosure myth? All enforcement personnel in Canada and the US can demand the MSDS sheets for any transported chemical. Even if just water, this is required. The MSDS contains not just chemical information, but also fire fighting, spill control and toxicity level information on every single chemical used. Failure to do so, would result in that company facing a huge fine, and loss of its operating license. Similar laws also apply in the EU.
Dung: your
A rig usually stays on the well for the farcture, as a rig is usually needed to clean the well after the treatment. as well, most companies use a "frac string", to do the job. This is high pressure pipe, better designed to handle the pressure involved, than the production pipe. A Frac job can take 30 minutes to 24 hours, depending on fluid volume. The largest I know of, did 274 fracs in 111 days, on the same pad. Multiple wells, with multiple zones were stimulated. One zone would be fractured, then that would be isolated, and they woudl move on to the next zone.
Pits are rare nowadays, Tanks are almost exclusively used to catch any returned fluids. The attention is turning to reusing these fluids. If it isn''t reused, its disposed of in state or provincial water disposal sites.
As for the myth of lost fresh water to the hyrdological cycle? Its been estimated that a shale gas well will consume several million gallons of fressh water drilling and fracturing it. On the other hand, over 20 million gallons of fresh water will be created when hydrogen in the gas combines with oxygen.
Correct. But as I have said before, there will be at least 3 different pipes, and 2 different cement sheathes, between the gas and the surface waters. There will also be several SSSVs (sub surface safety valves) in the tubing, which will close if the back pressure falls too far; in other words, a blow out on surface. There will also be several profiles in the pipe, where a steel plug can be landed, even under pressure, to shut the tubing off.
Great stuff Les. It's made this thread very worthwhile. Thanks for all your answers, whichever source they came from ;-)
BitBucket,
That’s right, hand-wave me away because you don’t like what I say. What a surprise. All I did was read the article you linked to and then did a little bit of googling and background work to satisfy myself that what I read was accurate. The same thing I do with just about every story or article I read. The same way I’ve spent the odd few minutes here and there today checking out Matt Ridley’s article in this morning’s Telegraph. Maybe you ought to do a little bit more of the same. So I’m denigrating people am I? Was that the Jorgenson family, simply because on closer inspection I found that , on hearing that the circus was coming to town, they tried to grab their little piece of the action and after failing to do so, they then coincidentally happened to suffer various episodes of discomfiture and mysterious ailments, for none of which they produced even so much as a doctor’s note? Or was it the farmer who’s field was perfectly viable at 20 acres, but no longer viable at 13? Maybe it was the Schilke family who despite apparently holding several air, water and medical reports, including one from the North Dakota Health Department aren’t able to get anyone interested in their case including the aforesaid North Dakota Health Department. A family that when their cattle get sick, rather than call in a vet to cure them or at the very least do some investigative work and thereby maybe help build a case, they just shoot them instead and then write off the financial value. Is that the people I denigrated? Or perhaps it was Mr Gibson, the environmental activist reporter working for the Earth Island Journal, itself a part of the Guardian Environment Network that I was denigrating?
Since 2007, there have been some 2,500 productive wells established in North Dakota, not counting those that have been built this year. So does it not seem a little odd to you that in the 5 years since then, this reporter has only managed to find two families that claim sickness due to the fracking? He found quite a few people complaining about other things like the traffic and dust and litter and noise, for sure. But if that had been middle England instead of Dakota and people complaining about windmills instead of the frackers, you would have immediately written them off as nothing but NIMBYs. Next time you want to give a link to the “horrors” of fracking, maybe you should take a closer look yourself first.
My post at Dec 5, 2012 at 6:02 PM, should have read: "whichever source the questions came from"
Sorry :-)
Les
Thank you for the time and trouble you have taken and I echo Laurie in that it has made this thread really worthwhile. If and when you have more time to spare I have just one more question. ^.^
I had thought that the "pad" referred to the footprint of a single well but it is now obvious that it is a much bigger area so how would you define "pad"
The Cuadrilla license area in Lancashire is about 28 square miles. How many pads would be used in your estimation?
Ups that was two questions hehe.
LC: "Environmental damage and health concerns. - For the past two years I’ve been looking for conclusive evidence of either." You sound like some grand Researcher, diligently trawling the records for signs of health problems. Yet your two years of research took you no further than Google would take you.
LJ:
So what does this clause of the bill mean?:
Looks like a specific exclusion from regulation to me... (see also http://www.envcap.org/energy/sdwa.cfm)
Why would they include such an exclusion from regulation if the process is without risk?
Regarding mineral rights (and that Guardian article was fascinating for mentioning that the Jorgensons don't own the mineral rights of their land, but omitting that this is because they sold them themselves) and horizontal drilling, are you allowed to drill under boundaries or is there some clever way to stop that?
Les/Laurie
Very many thanks for this thread.
Since I know of no way of producing the energy which is essential for a modern society without some level of hazard at most stages from acquring the raw material on to the final consumption stage, I cannot see from what you say about fracking that there needs to be any greater public concern than for any other method of production.
The intrusion of both BitBucket and Refracktion into this argument has, if anything, simply confirmed me in that view.
BitBucket has more than adequately reinforced my impression that, rather like his near namesake BBD, he seeks out opinions that run counter to the general trend of this blog, which would be no bad thing in itself except that he then reproduces them without allowing them to trouble his brain on the way past.
Refracktion, on the other hand, is a 24-carat "Flannel Merchant" and I have been forced to deal with enough of them in a long life to recognise one at a distance. His arguments are, at best, sixth form level and I have enjoyed ticking off each clichéd response as he produces it. I have very nearly a full set!
Mr Portarto
The US has different laws on mineral rights from the UK, over here the damn government owns all the mineral rights ^.^
In the USA you can not drill horizontally across into another "rights" area legally but what goes on in the real world I have no idea hehe.
I posted this (or something like it) earlier, but it disappeared.
LC: 2 years of research into health and environmental effects of fracking equates in practice to not leaving your desk. Your posts give the impression of expertise but you are just a verbose googler.
LJ: you imply there are no exclusions:
So what is this, from the bill:
SEC. 322. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING.
Paragraph (1) of section 1421(d) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h(d)) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(1) UNDERGROUND INJECTION.—The term ‘underground injection’—
‘‘(A) means the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection; and
‘‘(B) excludes—
‘‘(i) the underground injection of natural gas for purposes of storage; and
‘‘(ii) the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities.’’.
if not an exclusion from some part of the regulation affecting clean water (see also http://www.envcap.org/energy/sdwa.cfm and search for 1421).
Why would such an exclusion be required do you think?
I posted this earlier and something similar even earlier, but both disappeared...
LC: 2 years of research into health and environmental effects equates in practice to not leaving your desk. Your posts give the impression of expertise, but you are just a verbose googler.
LJ: you imply there are no exclusions:
So what is this, from the bill:
SEC. 322. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING.
Paragraph (1) of section 1421(d) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h(d)) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(1) UNDERGROUND INJECTION.—The term ‘underground injection’—
‘‘(A) means the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection; and
‘‘(B) excludes—
‘‘(i) the underground injection of natural gas for purposes of storage; and
‘‘(ii) the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities.’’.
if not an exclusion from some part of the regulation affecting clean water (see also http://www.envcap.org/energy/sdwa.cfm and search for 1421).
Why would such an exclusion be required is there were no risks?
Mike,
What I found most surprising, staggering even, when I started looking into this issue, was that despite all the noise that was being made, despite all the accusations that were flowing, I couldn’t find a single case where damage to health or property had even reached court, let alone been proven. A few months later, the Dimock case started and I guess most people know by now how that turned out. I find it quite amazing that the anti-frackers have managed to put so many question marks over an entire industry with no verifiable evidence whatsoever, using only the weapons of fear and hearsay. It’s nothing short of superstition. How on earth have modern, supposedly enlightened western societies allowed such a thing to happen?
Refracktion turned out to be worth his weight in comedic gold. I doubt he’ll be back, but you never know, you might get the chance to tick those last couple of boxes :-)
BitBucket is a different kettle of fish. I was foolish to engage with him really. As I said earlier in the thread, he’s not interested in making points, only scoring them. His views won’t change in the slightest no matter how long he engages here, if that’s what you can even call it. He is everything he accuses us of being. I’ll give you an example. On this thread, on Dec 5th he was asking Les Johnson questions in an attempt to get Les to admit some of these alleged problems with fracking. You will have seen Les’s answers. Clear, concise and packed full with information. After answering one of my own questions, which would have already given BitBucket partial answers to some of his. Les’s first answer directly to him was at 3.36pm. Les’s last answer to him was at 4.53pm. Now, Les’s answers were so good that, had they been directed at you, me or anyone else here, no doubt they would have given us pause for thought. We would likely have spent a little time absorbing what had been said. Probably, we would have gone off with some new google searches in mind and done a little digging, either to verify what Les had said or to try to prove him wrong. But not BitBucket, oh no. He jumps straight back over to the “Frackin get a move on” thread, where he had already started in on Hector Pascal, and at 5.08pm he asks a very similar question of Hector, as with Les, trying to get him to admit to some of these alleged problems. So everything Les had said to him was a complete waste of time and effort on Les’s part. BitBucket didn’t believe him. At all. Obviously, in BitBucket’s eyes, Les is a liar. As rude and obnoxious as BBD could be, even on his worst day, I can’t imagine that he would ever have been so disrespectful to Les. I can almost guarantee that BBD would have gone off to check both his own info and Les’s answers. This other bloke’s a waste of time.
Dung: your
Pads can be a single well, but it has evolved. Its now much cheaper, and leaves a much smaller footprint, if multiple wells are drilled from the same pad. There can be 20 or more wells on a pad not much larger than conventional single well pad.
The number of pads needed will vary according to formation productivity, how well its interconnected, the surface topography, surface rights, planned horizontal sections length etc. At a very rough guess, 10 to 20 pads of 10 to 20 wells each, would service Cuadrilla's license. Each pad, after drilling was completed, would be about the size of a football pitch.
bitbucket: your
Not much knowledge of the law, then?
There would be exclusions under several conditions:
1. There is no risk, thus its excluded.
2. Its covered under different federal legislation.
3. Its covered under state legislation.
If it was risky, and it was excluded, the US governmnet would leave itself wide open for lawsuits.
The correct answer is 2 and 3. Note that most of the risks are surface related, and pertain to personal injury, rather than environmental issues.
Drilling and completions do fall under OSHA (Occupational Health and Safety Act) , CWA (Clean Water Act) and state legislation. Procurement of water for fracturing still falls under the CWA.
The fracture treatment itself falls under OSHA, Superfund and EPRCA (Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act) legislation. The first is about personal injury, the latter 2 are about environmental issues. Note that Superfund is responsible for cleaning up and protecting surafce water. (side note; Superfund sometimes uses fracturing technology to help clean up contaminated ground water sites)
After the fracture, the site goes back to CWA authority.
During production, the CWA again applies, as well as the SDWA (Safe Drinking Water Act).
In all cases, state legislation also applies, unless its on federal or native land.
There is no environmental waiver, at any point in the process. A different agency simplies takes over.
One interesting tidbit. Obama, along with 23 other democarts, voted for this bill. In the House, 75 democrats voted for it.
"Refracktion turned out to be worth his weight in comedic gold. I doubt he’ll be back, but you never know, you might get the chance to tick those last couple of boxes :-)"
Always happy to be of service. Most of the tripe on here is quite amusing (but I really don't have time to waste chatting with gonzos.)
However, when your self proclaimed experts claim things like "The Cuadrilla license area in Lancashire is about 28 square miles." and "At a very rough guess, 10 to 20 pads of 10 to 20 wells each, would service Cuadrilla's license." I have to laugh out loud at the idea of YOU telling ME I am short on facts!
DO SOME RESEARCH. Find out how many wells Cuadrilla says they will put on each pad, and how many wells they say they will site on PEDL 165. It's easily found in their own documentation. Then measure PEDL 165 - that's not exactly challenging either.
When you have done that perhaps one of you "experts" will post something post that isn't more than 400% out in the case of Cuadrilla's planned number of wells and well pads and 1800% in the case of the square miles covered by the PEDL licensed to them.
Is THAT funny enough for you :-) I do hope so!
Refracktion: I always like it when someone says search for the information on a particular site. It almost always means that they are spouting nonsense, and are hoping no one will check.
http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Full_Report_Economic_Impact_of_Shale_Gas_14_Sept.pdf
Note that Cuadrilla's site backs up my calculations. They plan 10 wells per pad (Fig 3.3), and plan 190 to 810 wells, with 400 wells in a medium case scenario (Table 8.2). They also say the pad is bit smaller than a football pitch.
Refrac: I am still waiting for the name of your "expert". Also, which regulations does he find insufficient?
Refrac: I hope you don't mind if I use the name "Refrac". Its an oilfield term that applies to a well when there is no useful production. The well is Refrac'ed in the hope, often misguided, that something useful will be produced.
http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Full_Report_Economic_Impact_of_Shale_Gas_14_Sept.pdf
I say - well done! That's the one. It wasn't hard to find even for you was it? 800 well is the high figure in that scenario. Bingo. 80 pads. If you are going to try to suggest they intend to go with the medium case scenario don't forget to reduce the resulting economic benefit estimates like jobs, gas recovered etc in line. :-) Even in their high end scenario they aren't exactly mind blowing.
Why would I hope you wouldn't check? It was simply obvious that you had NOT read that before you spouted. You don't really help your case by making silly suggestions like that.
"which regulations does he find insufficient?"
OK Johnson - I hope you don't mind if I use the name "Johnson". It's American slang isn't it? A little test for you, to see how much you really know
How important would you say Cement Bond Logs are in ensuring and maintaining well integrity and which regulatory body is responsible for ensuring that they are done here in the UK?
Refrac: your
Not hard at all to find. And the numbers are in line with my very rough calculations. Certainly not out by 400% as you said.
I never suggested that I had read it. It was obvious, by not posting the URL, that you did not wish further investigation.
<Blockquote>"which regulations does he find insufficient?"
OK Johnson - I hope you don't mind if I use the name "Johnson". It's American slang isn't it? A little test for you, to see how much you really know.
A pity I am not American. But, its a reference to someone's male genitals. Its usually used by someone with envy for said genitals.
Cement bond logs, as I have said earlier, are the primary measure of well bore integrity. In the US and Canada, production cannot commence until proof of a bond is provided to the regulators. In the UK, its DEFRA or DECC, depending on jurisdiction, but mostly DECC. As well, pressure testing and monitoring of wells for leakage is mandatory.
You never really answered the question. Which regulation is faulty? Be precise, please.
LOL - you said At a very rough guess, 10 to 20 pads - they are planning 80. Maths not your strong point Johnson? Even the were to go with their middle scenario of 40 pads you were out by 200- 400%.
Rubbish - I just don't feel the need to do the research you should do before spouting for you.
Maybe . But not, I'm afraid, in your case.
Precisely
LOL - Big Big LOL - you seem to be misleading your friends here to make yourself look clever.
DEFRA? You mean the Environment Agency which they oversee I take it - nope that's not their bag. DECC - not theirs either. ) I am going by what these regulators said themselves at a public meeting a couple of months ago - were you there?
And why would one regulator be responsible in a certain jurisdiction and the other in a different one. Please explain. That would be ludicrous and dangerous.
Is there any particular reason, apart from ignorance, that you omitted to mention the HSE who are in fact responsible in the UK for all aspects of drilling safety?
I can't quote you a regulation that does not exist can I?
If you want to question the fact that there IS no requirement for Cuadrilla to do CBLs. then please quote me the regulation that insists upon them being done. Be precise please.
Of course you can't because it does not exist. You do KNOW that a a senior member of the HSE Offshore Division is reported to have stated that there is no point inspecting the well on site as there is “nothing to see” as it’s all underground. You really couldn't make this stuff up.
Anyway I look forward to your extensive knowledge of regulation being proved by your quoting me the regulation concerning CBLs and explaining to me how this non-existent regulation is enforced and by whom.
Refrac: I said 10 to 20 pads, for 10 to 20 wells each. I guessed th number of wells per pad correctly, at least in the range, and I guessed the number of wells in total, based on low and middle scenarios. I also guessed the size of the pads correctly. The fact that I arrived at numbers close to Cuadrilla's plans, should indicate my level of expertise.
your
Maybe . But not, I'm afraid, in your case.
This would require intimate knowledge of me, on your part. I don't believe that likely. This does reflect on your accuracy in your posts, though.
And why would one regulator be responsible in a certain jurisdiction and the other in a different one. Please explain. That would be ludicrous and dangerous.
You expect consistency from governments? Interesting.
DEFRA? You mean the Environment Agency which they oversee I take it - nope that's not their bag. DECC - not theirs either. ) I am going by what these regulators said themselves at a public meeting a couple of months ago - were you there?
DEFRA is responsible if there is a leak. DECC licenses the actual well. The conditions of the license I discuss further below. I suspect you misheard the regulators.
I can't quote you a regulation that does not exist can I?
I say - well done!
Actually, I was surprised when I found that out too. But, while not in law, it is in practice. As part of the well license, the operator must show that there is sufficient sealing to prevent leaks. This comprises pressure tests, tagging cement plugs, and bond logs, as well as visual inspection by the relevant authority. Failure to meet the license requirement, will mean failure to proceed.
It should also be noted that the Joint Academy paper in June this year, and the University of Aberdeen paper, also recommended that DECC require bond logs formally, among other measures.
http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/shale-gas/2012-06-28-Shale-gas.pdf
http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/Documents/RaISe/Publications/2012/enterprise_trade_investment/13812.pdf
LJ, you are wriggling like a worm on a hook. You explicitly said there had been no exemption from environmental regulation:
Now, without admitting that your 'myth' is in fact true, you want to claim there might be reasons for such an exemption:
But you also want to claim that fracking, which has been going on for 40-60 years, is already regulated by the states etc, etc.
That is inconsistent. If it was already regulated and already occurring then why the need for the new exemption?