Friday
Aug232013
by 
Josh
Josh Fracking far away - Josh 236
Aug 23, 2013 Energy: fracking Josh ;)
Click image for a larger version
Another Fract Sheet, again with thanks to James Verdon for his help.
Water contamination is one of the big anti-fracking scare stories but fracking takes place rather a long way away from any water sources, like, about six whole Shards away - that's over a mile.
Note to all eagle eyed readers: the drilled well is actually only eight inches wide, so not drawn to scale here where it is drawn about three feet wide. Sorry about that.
Update: James Verdon now given his proper name - mea (Josh) culpa!
Reader Comments (66)
"there is no record of contamination of an aquifer from fraccing."
ChrisM
Actually there is. For example:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/06/19/1221635110.full.pdf+html
@ EM 12:35 am
Thanks for your answer. Apart from that one crash example, I was expecting a longer list that would substantiate your absurd claim of 1% going wrong.
FYO, there are 30 million commercial flights per year.
With everything mankind does, there's a risk. In the UK alone, thousands die unnecessarily each year because of the cold weather (climate!), so providing low(er)-cost fuel and energy saves lives.
If you're so risk-averse, tell BH's readers you never ever cross the road.
Josh, can we look forward to a cartoon showing the hapless police being told "these aren't the Druids you're looking for"?
@ Rud Istvan:
Since I am a geologist employed in the oil and gas industry in the US,I can confidently state that the average diameter of producing shale gas wells is about 8.75" (22.15cm). The first section of the well is usually about 13.5" (~ 35cm) and is drilled to below the deepest known aquifer that provides potable water. It is then cased off(called 'surface casing") and the casing is cemented in place. The well is then drilled with a smaller diameter bit until such time as a second set of casing is put in. This casing also extends to the ground surface and it too is cemented in place. The final piece of casing, about 14cm dia, (called "production liner') is then put in and cemented. This last piece is perforated and the fracking solution is injected into the formation. The sole job of the casing (or liner) is to prevent the hole ffrom collapsing and to keep unwanted fluids from entering the well bore. The pipe you see at the surface on the well pad is typically about 10 cm in dia.
EM
The paper definitely does indicate that there are justifiable causes for concern. However, it isn't the slam-dunk that you think it is. Disregarding the obligatory need for more research, the authors indicate there are a number of potential causes. Only one of these directly, and one indirectly, were fraccing related. The rest seemed to be well completion, historic well abandonment or even formation damage.
As the paper is very new, it would also be good to see if the data is reproducible or the method is established as valid by tests on other fields. It would be good if there was before and after data. That would be a lot more conclusive.
Claim No. 4
"[THERE'S] NEVER BEEN ONE CASE—DOCUMENTED CASE—OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION IN THE HISTORY OF THE THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING [WELLS]"
SEN. JAMES INHOFE, R-OKLA., APRIL 2011
The senator is incorrect. In the past two years alone, a series of surface spills, including two blowouts at wells operated by Chesapeake Energy and EOG Resources and a spill of 8000 gallons of fracking fluid at a site in Dimock, Pa., have contaminated groundwater in the Marcellus Shale region.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/top-10-myths-about-natural-gas-drilling-6386593#slide-4
Not an authoritative source, but it suggests you are overoptimistic.
On further research:
The Pennsylvania Depertment of Environmental Protection reports a considerable number of fines following problems with gas drilling operations, varying from poor well construction through to various types of contamination.I enclose a source from which you can verify a number of these prosecutions.
http://www.lhup.edu/rmyers3/marcellus.htm
http://www.lhup.edu/rmyers3/marcellus.htm
EM
1. The paper you refer to does not establish anything beyond higher levels of methane in the vicinity of natural gas deposits. Admittedly I've only skimmed the paper but I didn't see any suggestion of any control research into increased methane levels in areas where fracking is not taking place.
2. Your rebuttal of Josh is disingenuous. The examples you quote are the result either of bad practice or possible equipment failure, neither of which is unique to fracking. The surface spills are not the result of fracking per se and if you're going to argue that if it weren't for fracking they wouldn't have happened then the answer is that you can make that claim about any human activity.
The Dimock case is one EPA employee disputing the findings of his organisation. Given the EPA's political stance in recent years I doubt very much that they would have been looking to cover up evidence of drinking water contamination if there were even the slightest doubt.
Interesting that the first two Google hits (after Wikipedia) are desmogblog and huffpo.
I wouldn't even honour your link to Myers with a comment.
Mike Jackson
Go past Myers paper into the Pensylvania state government links and you will find official documents documenting the problems with fracking that I was told did not exist.
I am rather disappointed that you are applying the same tactic of denial to shale gas that you already apply to climate change. Having presented the evidence requested and had it rejcted by your cognitive dissonance, I see no point in continued discussion.
You are not giving up are you EM. It couldn't be because the facts are turning against you is it? I note even the broadsheets are seeing the rubbish in the anti-fraccers claims:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266881/Prof-Robert-Mair-Here-are-the-facts-about-fracking.html
Chris M
I've given up on Mike Jackson. No point arguing with a man who refuses to accept documented evidence.
Did you read the Myer link? It included a number of documented cases of groundwater contamination from shale gas pads.
These falsify your claim that "there is no record of contamination of an aquifer from fraccing."
Myer describes and documents 53 (by my count) contamination incidents from shale drilling pads in Pennsylvania. With some 5000 wells drilled, that is pretty close to my estimated 1% failure rate.
Chris M
The Jackson et al paper would have benefitted from baseline data taken before fracking started, for comparison with monitoring during and after drilling. The isotopic ratios and composition of the contamination matched the composition of the gas in the deep shale, which would be unlikely if the contamination had come from a shallow source. Baseline data would have provided further confirmation.
Mair makes the same point in his article. I hope the collection of such baseline and monitoring data becomes standard practice as part of any planning application for shale gas extraction. If the industry were able to show such information for existing plays it would be easier to convince planners elsewhere to allow new activity.
EM I started reading through the myers stuff.
In the first example, he states:
In April 2004 the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) fined Encana Oil and Gas a record $371,200 for contaminating water supplies in West Divide Creek, Colorado.
yet the notice of hearing for the court case is dated June 16, 2004.
If the basic facts like that are wrong, how much credibility can I place in the rest of his blog. I also note that many of his examples are surface contamination from pond or vehicles crashing.
@EM
Your statements have been debunked however I would like to draw your attention to the following:-
1 For a well casing to fracture there would need to be horizontal ground shear.
2 Thus the rock beds would need to move laterally relatively to each other.
3 This would not be caused by earth tremors but would require an earthquake of significant magnitude.
4 As none were recorded your argument for failure falls down.
When a child thinks that there is a monster in his bedroom wardrobe, the responsible parent doesn't move the wardrobe out of the room they open the door and show the child there is nothing inside.
Just think that most of the posters who have responded to you above are parents?
Stacey
Well casings can also break when there has been excessive thermal expansion, causing buckling or rapid cooling pulling a joint. If the natural gas has a choke downhole, this can cause big and rapid temperature changes. The other problem that does occur is a poor cement job, leaving a bubble of water trapped in it. Then this can expand and deform the casing. More applicable to geothermal wells but some O&G wells like those in South Australia have comparable bottom hole temperatures.
The other big problem is subsidence. On the sides of a bowl, the horizontal movement can be similar magnitude to the vertical movement so shear occurs. This does happen when mudstones are dewatered (Mexico city water supply is the classic) or pressures of shallow field are significantly drawn down.
Not saving it has happened but it can
Regarding the correct information that Josh depicts in his cartoon, in part of Quebec, there is a moratorium on fraccing. One of the companies which holds acreage in the Utica shale play in the St lawrence lowlands area of Quebec, Questerre, produced this good, informative video on fraccing and how it is done.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CM8Lh7SAm6A
Chris M
I would not expect anyone sensible to accept or reject any source a priori. I linked the Myers article because of its large number of links to PDEP documents. I am glad to see you checking them, rather than just relying on Myers' own information.
As I sad to Mike Jackson elsewhere, surface activity such as fluid transport and storage is part of the the shale gas extraction process. The risk assessment should be applied to the whole process, not just to what happens down the well.
I've checked a sample of the links myself and my basic thesis is sound. About one violation per 100 wells seems to be the norm for Pennsylvania. I see no reason why this would change significantly under UK conditions. The shale oil development companies should be telling the public themselves, with explaination of the ways they intend to reduce this figure, rather than giving the inaccurate impression that there is zero risk.