Bishop Hill Preparing the ground
Aug 18, 2013 Energy: gas The Mail on Sunday reveals another UK oil well that has been fracked in the past without obviously poisoning anyone or anything. This time in Nottinghamshire:
The beautiful expanse of grassland on the RSPB’s Beckingham Marshes reserve is exactly the kind of environment antifracking protesters are so determined to protect.
During their ‘Solidarity Sunday’ today in the West Sussex village of Balcombe, thousands of eco-warriors will tell the world that fracking – the process of pumping water into underground wells to ‘fracture’ the rock and force out oil and gas – should be banned to avoid ‘industralising’ the countryside.
In fact there has been fracking here in Nottinghamshire since 1963, the last time in 1989. One well has been fracked four times.
Interestingly, the focus this time is on a proposed development by iGas rather than the greens' favourite whipping boys at Cuadrilla. Spreading the focus of the green disinformation campaign seems to me like a good thing to do.
Bishop Hill
Also well worth a read this morning is Douglas Carswell, whose article on shale and Luddism includes this rather wonderful quote:
Tim Yeo yesterday suggested that we are better at regulating shale gas here in Britain than they are in America. Indeed. Which is why right now we have no shale industry to speak of.
Reader Comments (78)
http://theenergycollective.com/jimpierobon/257691/george-p-mitchell-founder-shale-gas-here-s-how-he-and-his-team-did-it
Slickwater contains Guar gum.
Wikipedia: "The largest market for guar gum is in the food industry."
Where its used as a thickening agent. Obviously deadly stuff.
stewgreen at 4:09 PM
Delicious. Pot meet kettle.
"Report: Fracking 'Brings Breathtaking Economic, Environmental Benefits'"
• According to the federal government’s Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, by 2035, 80% of America’s domestic gas supply will come from shale and other unconventional sources.
• A 2012 study by forecasting firm HIS Global Insight found that shale oil and gas generated $87 billion in domestic capital investments; by the end of the decade, that figure is expected to jump to $172.5 billion and could reach $5.1 trillion by 2035.
• By 2025, PricewaterhouseCoopers projects lower costs of shale gas will produce 1 million domestic manufacturing jobs and tack on .5% to America’s GDP.
• Between 2012 and 2015, shale gas will save American households an average $900 annually on heating and electricity.
• From 2011 to 2012, the rise of natural gas use has reduced U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions 5.3%.
• A study by Columbia Law School’s Thomas Merrill and David Schizer concluded that “there is little evidence so far that subterranean fracturing activity can directly contaminate groundwater, and this risk may never materialize.”
Read it all:-
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/17/Report-Fracking-Brings-Breathtaking-Economic-Environmental-Benefits
----------------------------------
Well Yeo & Co, looks like the old fashioned "steam" roller is gathering momentum. Started hedging yet?
Sorry, wrong thread.
A lot of people commenting in the press articles seem to under the misconception that the only thing protecting the integrity of the well from leakage by produced gas or oil is the well casing and the cement set around it sealing off the sedimentary formations from the well. Back in the days, barefoot completions did happen in the early days. No more.
Almost invariably now produced gas or oil flows through narrower bore production tubing with downhole safety valves. This production tubing is run inside the casing string and separated from the casing by drilling mud. i.e. both production string and casing string integrity is protected by safety shut in systems.
In fact, the primary function of the well casing is to maintain pressure integrity in the initial drilling phase, together with a blowout preventer choke system at the wellhead, to close in the well in the event of an emergency situation of lost circulation- sudden loss of drilling mud- causing an underbalanced hole, allowing uncontrolled inflow of hydrocarbons. Drilling mud is a slurry of water, clay and natural higher density minerals maintaining a safe overbalanced well during the drilling phase. It remains in the annulus isolating the production tubing from the cemented casing string during production balancing the hydrostatic gradient in the formation, which is, if normally pressured, between 0.433 psi/ft for fresh formation waters and 0.465 psi/ft or more for saline water.
It is very difficult to envisage a situation in a producing well where the production fluid could contaminate the superficial formations.
I came on to thank Alex Cull but Pharos has educated me there. Thanks. Alex, I didn't know Anand and Singh are an item. Very interesting. She might even talk some sense into him on policy, who knows?
Dear "thinkingscientist"
Thank you for your response, I am fully aware that hydraulic fracturing first occurred in in 1947 but I think that to suggest that there is no difference as you seem to between the process carried out then and the current methods used in "unconventional" oil/gas recovery is to be kind, over egging the pudding.
I note the Environment Agnecy themsleves state on their website: "Exploration of unconventional gases is at a very early stage in the UK. There are no commercially active sites in operation in the UK at the moment."
I would therefore find it difficult to discuss the effect of this with you.
Regards the DM article regarding fracking at "Beckingham Marshes" I can find no other corroborating evidence that this has actually occured so cannot agree with you that it is an example of "a producing field where many hydraulic fracture processes have been run". I therefore maintain my postin that the DM article is "bollocks" to use my previous Rabelaisian description. I look forward to your evidence that this has occurred at this site.
Regarding coal bed methane which you seem quite enthusiastic about I am also looking forward to you supplying links for my consideration regarding the large scale industrial production of gas via coal bed methane gasification in the UK and then we can discuss further.
regards
Mr JH
It's hilarious that leftists believe that government has god like powers to change the climate by "skyrocketing" fuel costs that impoverish and kill poor people http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/15/james-hansens-policies-are-shafting-the-poor/ and by destroying virgin forests and pristine land with toxic windmills, solar and biofuel that are inefficient unreliable and provides a fraction of the energy fossil fuel does. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rORiooCvMac What is even more hillarious is that they justify all this destruction to the environment and impoverishment of poor people based on climate models that have no relationship to reality. http://notrickszone.com/2013/08/15/vahrenholt-thrashes-leading-ipcc-former-ncar-scientist-in-hamburg-debate-the-wound-of-climate-science/
Thank you "tty" you have proven my point entirely. The DM article quoted at the top is utter bollocks by your own admission. Fracking as under debate, cannot have been used for "50 years" showing this is indeed nothing more than a circle jerk..
Way to go bringing in the red herring!
Who cares exactly how old modern fracking is? The iPad is less than four years old, yet I don't know anyone who refuses to use one on the basis that although similar devices have been used for decades that the latest versions may be dangerous!
There is no substantive reason to believe the new fracking techniques are any more dangerous than the old ones. If there was you would have used that as your opening argument. Instead you weasel around arguing over exact dates.
I urge everyone to listen to the hapless BBC anchor being handed her hat by the American farmer; he answers every one of her increasingly desperate questions thoroughly and clearly.
The anchor has to keep trying lines like "Activists say this, so .... ?" but cannot in any way ruffle the very well-informed American gentleman.
When she signs off the interview, with a curt "We're very grateful for your time", you can all but hear her gritting her teeth.
Mr JH, you should try a little harder. Even Wikipedia has a reference for fracking at Beckinhgam:
"Beckingham West (Nottinghamshire)[edit source | edit]Discovered in July 1985 by BP with production starting in October 1987. Formerly owned by Pentex Oil UK Ltd. Oil transported by pipeline to Gainsborough. The field in operated by IGas Energy which acquired Star Energy in 2011. Situated just off the A631 at Beckingham. Known also as the Gainsborough-Beckingham oil field, production is near the RSPB Beckingham Marshes nature reserve with daily production of 300 barrels of crude oil and 1 million cubic feet of natural gas. The gas is piped to a nearby power plant. The wells in the field have been fracked to improve production without resulting in any environmental impact.[3]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Midlands_Oil_Province
Are you disputing the Royal Society report that around 20% of modern onshore wells have been fracked?
Can you be specific about what is so different about shale gas fracking? I note your "slick water" reference. So what is harmful about Guar Gum?
Can you cite a single, substantiated example of environmental damage caused by hydraulic fracturing?
James Verdon, University of Bristol provides 4 nice examples of hydraulic fracturing in UK fields:
• Beckingham, Lincolnshire: oil field, 1988 (with horizontal drilling)
• Wytch Farm oil field, Dorset (with horizontal drilling)
• Rosemanowes, Cornwall, 1977-1980: geothermal energy project
• Airth, Falkirk, 1997-2003: coal-bed methane
Nice to see the geothermal energy project using fracking. I don't remember the environmentalists complaining about that. Wytch Farm is in an environmentally sensitive area. Fracking used, no problems.
http://www1.gly.bris.ac.uk/~JamesVerdon/PDFS/Glastonbury_talk.pdf
thinkingscientist
Guar Gum the subject of many That's Life programmes as it was a filler in slimming products in the 70s and 80s. As I recall it the only problem was it caused was flatulence but for some reason good old Esther hated the stuff.
Mr JH
I think this is really one of the links you're after know your enemy for BH regulars
Pharos, poor casing/cementing is still the most likely cause of groundwater contamination. You are correct about production tubing etc, but the sleeve between the rock and well is the weakest point. The risk for a shale gas well is no higher, and probably lower, than for conventional wells. The presentation by James Verdon of Univeristy of Bristol:
http://www1.gly.bris.ac.uk/~JamesVerdon/PDFS/Glastonbury_talk.pdf
is a pretty good primer on the real risks of fracking. There are no known examples of environmental harm caused by fracking, but he provides good examples of the small risk of contamanation due to poor cement/casing jobs. These are proven and monitored. Also, there have been occasional spillages, none particulalry harmful.
None of this is particularly high risk to the environment. Farming and other industrial processes are far more likely to cause local environmental problems and are less well regulated.
"Mr JH" is a wind farm owner and I claim my £5.
Dear colleagues (I hope) Dung and Athelstan
My point is pretty simple. Artists do not see the world in the same way as plodding slaves of fact do. It is not a criticism, it is just a fact of life. And it doesn't mean that they are stupid.
I will give you an example. And, before the brickbats come raining down, I am not claiming that Myers-Briggs is anything more than an imperfect tool.
When I worked in the highest level of policy advice in my country, we were all asked to do the Myers-Briggs test. Not surprisingly, about 70% of us exactly fitted the profile for a high level policy adviser and about 20% were very close.
Years later, I read an article about M-B and artists. Well, well. The same profile emerged, in reverse.
It's just the way it is. No good complaining about it. Plus, we icy rationalists need to be forced to engage with the slush of human emotion now and then. :)
DNFTT
(Bitbucket, EM and now Mr JH)
Indeed we do and I hear you johanna.
Let peace break out;~)
El Sabio
Excellent link, thank you. As you say, it adds a sense of scale to the whole argument.
Here it is again, for convenience. Check it out for the best graphical explanation of fracking I have seen
http://exploreshale.org/
johanna
Colleague still indeed ^.^!
In my experience the more "specialised" some talented people are in their own field, the more utterly stupid their behaviour and thoughts in other fields, of which they have no knowledge. The "stupid" bit is taking the decision to speak out in those other fields (Prince right Charlie comes to mind).
Johanna: "we icy rationalists need to be forced to engage with the slush of human emotion now and then. :)"
Extending your metaphor -- perhaps beyond its breaking point -- the anti-fracking demonstrators at a non-fracking site are a puddle warming in the sun of Gasland demagoguery.
But I take your point. CAGW alarmism is a slush of facts [e.g., greenhouse effect] and appeals to emotion. [E.g. imagery, however improbable, of feet of meltwater drowning our cities. (Littorally!)]
I appreciate those who try to keep the rhetorical temperature down.
Back in '63, the sort of fracs done is not the same as the current ones. They were in vertical wells, small, designed more to get through near-wellbore "damage", i.e. reduced permeability, induced by drilling muds and drilled rock fines. The interval was the entire thickness of a thin horizon or a partial portion thereof. A couple of 10m fracs in more than one zone was all you'd see.
The modern frac is a multi-stage affair in a horizontal or near-horizontal wellbore. The single or near single horizon may be frac'd in 18 stages from one end of the wellbore to the beginning of the horizontal section (the end of the cased vertical and curving section). The modern frac is also designed to go a long way away, perhaps 80m or more from the wellbore.
There are also progressive fracs, in which the zone is pressured up until a fracture propogates, at which time the pressure drops as sand etc. is forced down the frac. Once the frac pressure has stabilized at a lower level, the wellbore is repressurized until, for the second time, the horizon splits apart, generally as an extension or offshoot of the first fracture pattern. This can be done many times.
This technique creates a web of fractures. How long it stays open, though, is a question, as the further from the wellbore you go, the harder you have to get some proppant to the new fractures - the first dump of proppant near the wellbore effectively plugs the fracture and prevents new proppant getting there. This technique can be used with ground sensors to identify where the fractures are going.
Still not a problem, but not the same.
I Have just listened to the fracking interview mentioned in the above links (BBC iPlayer Radio 5 , Double Take Sunday 18 - about 43 mins in).
She certainly put forward the 'Green' viewpoint, but also let the farmer make very good rebuttals to all her questions.
He was allowed to point out the recycling of water that took place, the reclaiming by the fracking firm of about 20 acres of his land that was used in the initial fracking, to the point where it is now some of his most productive land.
He was also allowed to point out the difference between the fracking depth (thousands of feet down) and the level of the water table ( a few hundred feet) and drew attention to the strength of the casing used to reinforce the holes.
Seemed a very informative interview and blew away a lot of the green propaganda surrounding this issue.
I enjoyed Boris J's comments on all the alarmist hype about fracking which included this choice excerpt:
" In their mad denunciations of fracking, the Greens and the eco-warriors betray the mindset of people who cannot bear a piece of unadulterated good news. Beware this new technology, they wail. Do not tamper with the corsets of Gaia! Don’t probe her loamy undergarments with so much as a finger — or else the goddess of the earth will erupt with seismic revenge. Dig out this shale gas, they warn, and our water will be poisoned and our children will be stunted and our cattle will be victims of terrible intestinal explosions. "
Whatever you may think of him, the man does have a way with words.
The Anita Anand segment on fracking is right here - available till Sunday. I finally got around to listening to it. Very persuasive from the US farmer. Like Mr Bliss I was impressed by Anand as interviewer but then she's always been one of my favourite BBC journalists. The fracking debate is becoming more and more realistic in my book - unlike some other parts of the climate debate - and this was another example.