Hydraulic Fracturing aka Fracking

waldo · April 20, 2012

Fracking causes earthquakes, studies confirm
GH, I admire your concern but you have to understand that without a technical background it is easy to get snowed! Many enviromentalists are not very technical. When they make movies they can make many mistakes but they always seem to make them in their own favour. They have already decided how something works and will never be convinced by scientific evidence, because they can't understand it anyway!

uhhh, WB... a big huh! Did you even read the linked reference?... the one that relates recent scientific study results... in particular a study from scientists at the US Geological Survey - this study: Are Seismicity Rate Changes in the Midcontinent Natural or Manmade?

abstract:
A remarkable increase in the rate of M 3 and greater earthquakes is currently in progress in the US midcontinent. The average number of M >= 3 earthquakes/year increased starting in 2001, culminating in a six-fold increase over 20th century levels in 2011. Is this increase natural or manmade? To address this question, we take a regional approach to explore changes in the rate of earthquake occurrence in the midcontinent (defined here as 85° to 108° West, 25° to 50° North) using the USGS Preliminary Determination of Epicenters and National Seismic Hazard Map catalogs. These catalogs appear to be complete for M >= 3 since 1970. From 1970 through 2000, the rate of M >= 3 events averaged 21 +- 7.6/year in the entire region. This rate increased to 29 +- 3.5 from 2001 through 2008. In 2009, 2010 and 2011, 50, 87 and 134 events occurred, respectively. The modest increase that began in 2001 is due to increased seismicity in the coal bed methane field of the Raton Basin along the Colorado-New Mexico border west of Trinidad, CO. The acceleration in activity that began in 2009 appears to involve a combination of source regions of oil and gas production, including the Guy, Arkansas region, and in central and southern Oklahoma. Horton, et al. (2012) provided strong evidence linking the Guy, AR activity to deep waste water injection wells. In Oklahoma, the rate of M >= 3 events abruptly increased in 2009 from 1.2/year in the previous half-century to over 25/year. This rate increase is exclusive of the November 2011 M 5.6 earthquake and its aftershocks. A naturally-occurring rate change of this magnitude is unprecedented outside of volcanic settings or in the absence of a main shock, of which there were neither in this region. While the seismicity rate changes described here are almost certainly manmade, it remains to be determined how they are related to either changes in extraction methodologies or the rate of oil and gas production.

Wild Bill · April 20, 2012

uhhh, WB... a big huh! Did you even read the linked reference?... the one that relates recent scientific study results... in particular a study from scientists at the US Geological Survey - this study:

" M > 3 "? Are they talking about earthquakes greater than 3 on the Richter Scale? Until and unless they exceeded 5 no one would likely notice!

Still, let's assume that this point is absolutely true and incontrovertible. What about everything else in the documentary? If this point is true, did it cause flammable gas to come out everyone's shower head?

What was the distribution of those M > 3 quakes? 80% between 3 and 4? Or only 20%, with 80% being 8.9 or more?

If the tremors are on the low side, they may actually act as a safety valve!

It seems to me that the picture has many facets and is nowhere near as simplistic and as negative as this documentary apparently claims.

If I concede your one point, do I have to accept everything else? I don't think you actually are saying that at all.

waldo · April 20, 2012

What about everything else in the documentary?
...as this documentary apparently claims.

If I concede your one point, do I have to accept everything else? I don't think you actually are saying that at all.

another "huh!" coming your way... again, the latest MLW member 'GostHacked' linked reference speaks to scientific studies. Again, my reply speaks to that same link... speaks to the scientific studies. You keep on about some 'documentary'.

Wild Bill · April 20, 2012

another "huh!" coming your way... again, the latest MLW member 'GostHacked' linked reference speaks to scientific studies. Again, my reply speaks to that same link... speaks to the scientific studies. You keep on about some 'documentary'.

Well, I suppose I missed the thread drift! I have been following the OP - where GH said he watched "Gasland, the Movie!".

I didn't get the sense from subsequent posts that the movie was a valid scientific study.

August1991 · April 21, 2012

When the guy was able to light the water coming out of the tap on fire with a simple lighter, that shows it's not an exaggeration.

That critical scene was fraudulent:

Colorado debunks the claim: “Dissolved methane in well water appears to be biogenic [naturally occurring] in origin. ...There are no indications of oil & gas related impacts to water well.”(COGCC, 9/30/08)

Link

IMHO, the movie Gasland is the worst form of propaganda. As Leftists used to once remind everyone, don't believe everything you see or hear.

----

With that said, underground hydraulic fracking poses myriad technical problems and from what I understand, it requires alot of fresh water. Natural gas though is a wonderful energy source and we in North America have huge reserves locked underground in several regions.

What about quantifying it in terms of environmental impact and damage? Short and long term damage to vegitation, crops, water table, animal life, human life, ect ect. There is no amount of money that can bring that back to what it was. We depend on the land to work, to eat, to live. What does that do to us as humans? Nature may be able to correct itself, but how long does that take?

GH, you would have the world never change because any change involves unimaginable potential costs.

I sometimes think that the Leftists/Greens are the new "conservatives". They oppose any kind of change or development. They don't like the modern world and would prefer if we all went back to a primitive Khmer Rouge lifestyle.

Edited April 21, 2012 by August1991

waldo · April 21, 2012

That critical scene was fraudulent:

IMHO, the movie Gasland is the worst form of propaganda. As Leftists used to once remind everyone, don't believe everything you see or hear.

fraudulent? Was it? Per your link, per the referenced COGCC, all they did is label the gas as "biogenic", without regard to how the gas actually got there. Alternatively, per Cornell University Professor, Anthony R Ingraffea:

The drilling process itself can induce migration of biogenic gas by disturbance of previously blocked migration paths through joint sets or faults, or by puncturing pressurized biogenic gas pockets and allowing migration through an as-yet un-cemented annulus, or though a faulty cement job

. The hydraulic fracturing process is less likely to cause migration of biogenic gas; however, the cumulative effect of many, closely spaced, relatively shallow laterals, each fracked (and possibly re-fracked) numerous times, could very well create rock mass disturbances that could, as noted above, open previously blocked migration paths through joint sets or faults."

I sometimes think that the Leftists/Greens are the new "conservatives". They oppose any kind of change or development. They don't like the modern world and would prefer if we all went back to a primitive Khmer Rouge lifestyle.

an idiotic, baseless and unfounded statement... certainly fits your standard myopia and expressed fixations

GostHacked · April 23, 2012

IMHO, the movie Gasland is the worst form of propaganda. As Leftists used to once remind everyone, don't believe everything you see or hear.

It's no worse than the propaganda you see every day on the tv.

----

With that said, underground hydraulic fracking poses myriad technical problems and from what I understand, it requires alot of fresh water. Natural gas though is a wonderful energy source and we in North America have huge reserves locked underground in several regions.
GH, you would have the world never change because any change involves unimaginable potential costs.

I can accept changes. But I don't like idiocy when it comes to extracting resources from the ground. The amount of fresh water used in these operations are staggering. Maybe sea water can be used. There is a finite amount of fresh water on this planet, other places are dying for fresh water and here we are throwing it down a well to get some gas. I understand the need for energy, but I don't understand the fracking. It is making the ground in several areas more unstable and now prone to more frequent earth quakes. The quakes may not be large, or noticable, but they are getting more frequent and with a little more intensity. How long are you willing to continue that? What are the risks if fracking keeps going?

Industries and even people in this thread threw away the idea that fracking and quakes exist. And now we get some info from the USGS connecting the two. Does that make you comfortable that fracking can cause 3.0 quakes? Does anyone understand the amount of energy being released in a 3.0? It is making areas very unstable.

I sometimes think that the Leftists/Greens are the new "conservatives". They oppose any kind of change or development. They don't like the modern world and would prefer if we all went back to a primitive Khmer Rouge lifestyle.

I love the modern world, but at what expense? I need water to drink and stable land to live on.

Also for the guy who lit his tap on fire...... what are the sources of this methane and where does it come from?

Edited April 23, 2012 by GostHacked

August1991 · April 24, 2012

fraudulent? Was it? ...
an idiotic, baseless and unfounded statement... certainly fits your standard myopia and expressed fixations

Waldo, you may have a reason but this is my first, simple response:

Edited April 24, 2012 by August1991

waldo · April 24, 2012

Waldo, you may have a reason but this is my first, simple response:

Once again, your premise is

complete nonsense

.

cybercoma · April 25, 2012

There are some researchers here at the University of New Brunswick that claim you don't need water to release shale gas and that their primary concern is the waste water that's created in the process.

The researchers contend alternatives to hydro-fracking, using liquefied carbon dioxide or petroleum gas, should be studied.
...

It's unlikely that fracking will contaminate aquifers, according to the researchers. ... Their main concern is the waste water extracted from gas wells because it's too salty and contaminated to be disposed of at water treatment plants or in streams and rivers.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2012/04/23/nb-unb-hydro-fracking-shale-water.html

GostHacked · April 25, 2012

There are some researchers here at the University of New Brunswick that claim you don't need water to release shale gas and that their primary concern is the waste water that's created in the process.

Not to crazy about those alternatives. Liquified Co2??? PETROL ????????????????!!!!?????? Wasting gas to get gas. Kind of like how much natural gas is used in excess to extract the oil from the Alberta Tar Sands. Sure, makes sense to me.

cybercoma · April 25, 2012

the waste-wells filled with polluted water that are causing seismic activity in the US don't make any sense either.

GostHacked · April 25, 2012

the waste-wells filled with polluted water that are causing seismic activity in the US don't make any sense either.

It makes sense to me, although it's hard to explain why it makes sense to me. It's got to do with liquefaction, and making the ground unstable. You frack, break up the ground underneath to get to the gas/oil pockets. Then you fill it all with water when it used to be oil/gas bubbles surrounded by solid ground. There is no more solid ground. So all the dirt above is now sitting on water. The ground becomes less stable and prone to (I am guessing here) amplify a small natural quake, which normally would not move the ground that much or be really be detectable.

Wild Bill · April 26, 2012

It makes sense to me, although it's hard to explain why it makes sense to me. It's got to do with liquefaction, and making the ground unstable. You frack, break up the ground underneath to get to the gas/oil pockets. Then you fill it all with water when it used to be oil/gas bubbles surrounded by solid ground. There is no more solid ground. So all the dirt above is now sitting on water. The ground becomes less stable and prone to (I am guessing here) amplify a small natural quake, which normally would not move the ground that much or be really be detectable.

So this happening 5 miles underground will cause all this seismic activity?

Seems a bit of a stretch to me.

GostHacked · April 26, 2012

So this happening 5 miles underground will cause all this seismic activity?

Seems a bit of a stretch to me.

If you understand that the earth is dynamic and the ground is always moving (fault lines and plates run deep into the ground) so, if you are fracking on a fault line you will run this risk. Even if it is that far underground. Quakes happen from very shallow (a couple kms) to very deep (50 - 100 kms down).. It takes a lot of force to throw the liquid down there to break up the ground to get at the pockets of gas and oil. You are literally breaking up the ground and making it unstable. The more fracking, the more unstable ground and quakes we should experience.

Wild Bill · April 26, 2012

If you understand that the earth is dynamic and the ground is always moving (fault lines and plates run deep into the ground) so, if you are fracking on a fault line you will run this risk. Even if it is that far underground. Quakes happen from very shallow (a couple kms) to very deep (50 - 100 kms down).. It takes a lot of force to throw the liquid down there to break up the ground to get at the pockets of gas and oil. You are literally breaking up the ground and making it unstable. The more fracking, the more unstable ground and quakes we should experience.

Yeah, but GH, you make it sound like the fracking is liquifying hundreds of square miles! It would take the water from an entire Great Lake to cause such problems from 5 miles deep!

Does pissing over the side of your fishing boat pollute the entire Pacific Ocean? Let's keep in the real world here!

GostHacked · April 26, 2012

Yeah, but GH, you make it sound like the fracking is liquifying hundreds of square miles! It would take the water from an entire Great Lake to cause such problems from 5 miles deep!

http://earthjustice.org/features/campaigns/fracking-across-the-united-states

http://earthjustice.org/features/campaigns/texas-and-fracking

Oil and gas drilling is nothing new in Texas. But as drilling rigs move ever closer to populated areas, air quality problems loom large for local residents. Today there are over 12,000 gas wells in the Barnett Shale surrounding the Dallas-Fort Worth area. In addition to the wells, infrastructure such as compressor stations are springing up near the drill sites, adding to air quality problems. In towns like DISH, TX – where 11 high-pressure gas pipelines and their associated compressor stations all converge – residents have reported serious health impacts and severely degraded air quality.

What does 12,000 gas wells in a concentrated area do? Fracking is done with LOTS of wells in a specific area, if they are all doing the same thing a few miles down, it covers a large area.

Does pissing over the side of your fishing boat pollute the entire Pacific Ocean? Let's keep in the real world here!

Coastal cities essentially piss into the oceans. L.A. would be an example. Vancouver another one.

But let's talk pissing in the Great Lakes (care to go swimming in Lake Ontario??????)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/09/28/toronto-fracking-lake-ontario.html

Environmentalists worry that Toronto's drinking water could be threatened by the nearby treatment of toxic wastewater in New York State.
Residents on both sides of the border worry about the potential for a spill if 'fracking fluid' — the liquid byproduct from the process of extracting natural gas from the ground — could flow into the Great Lakes.

The Niagara Falls Water Board in New York is mulling plans to treat fracking water at its wastewater plant on the U.S. side of the border.

So along with the other issues, this water will be treated, and let back out into the wild, or it will be treated to enter into the water supply that we drink/cook with/bathe in.

Off-topic-but-somewhat-related.....One good piss into the Gulf of Mexico was the sunken rig Deep Water Horizon. Then they threw corexit all over the piss that bubbled up from the bottom, creating another environmental disaster. Fukushima is still pissing out radiation which has circled the globe twice now, and they have not even begun to get that under control. That pissing will continue for a few more years until they decide to bury the damn thing.

August1991 · April 28, 2012

Does pissing over the side of your fishing boat pollute the entire Pacific Ocean? Let's keep in the real world here!

Well said.

Pacific Ocean? How about pissing into a lake. I wonder about les ordres de grandeurs.

waldo · April 28, 2012

Does pissing over the side of your fishing boat pollute the entire Pacific Ocean? Let's keep in the real world here!

speaking of the, 'orders of magnitude', on (you) continuing to ignore one of the referenced studies; again:

uhhh, WB... Did you even read the linked reference?... the one that relates recent scientific study results... in particular a study from scientists at the US Geological Survey - this study:

Are Seismicity Rate Changes in the Midcontinent Natural or Manmade?

abstract:

A remarkable increase in the rate of M 3 and greater earthquakes is currently in progress in the US midcontinent. The average number of M >= 3 earthquakes/year increased starting in 2001, culminating in a six-fold increase over 20th century levels in 2011. Is this increase natural or manmade? To address this question, we take a regional approach to explore changes in the rate of earthquake occurrence in the midcontinent (defined here as 85° to 108° West, 25° to 50° North) using the USGS Preliminary Determination of Epicenters and National Seismic Hazard Map catalogs. These catalogs appear to be complete for M >= 3 since 1970. From 1970 through 2000, the rate of M >= 3 events averaged 21 +- 7.6/year in the entire region. This rate increased to 29 +- 3.5 from 2001 through 2008. In 2009, 2010 and 2011, 50, 87 and 134 events occurred, respectively. The modest increase that began in 2001 is due to increased seismicity in the coal bed methane field of the Raton Basin along the Colorado-New Mexico border west of Trinidad, CO.
The acceleration in activity that began in 2009 appears to involve a combination of source regions of oil and gas production, including the Guy, Arkansas region, and in central and southern Oklahoma. Horton, et al. (2012) provided strong evidence linking the Guy, AR activity to deep waste water injection wells
. In Oklahoma, the rate of M >= 3 events abruptly increased in 2009 from 1.2/year in the previous half-century to over 25/year. This rate increase is exclusive of the November 2011 M 5.6 earthquake and its aftershocks.
A naturally-occurring rate change of this magnitude is unprecedented outside of volcanic settings or in the absence of a main shock, of which there were neither in this region. While the seismicity rate changes described here are almost certainly manmade
, it remains to be determined how they are related to either changes in extraction methodologies or the rate of oil and gas production.

GostHacked · May 17, 2012

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/17/us/vermont-fracking/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

(CNN) -- Vermont's governor has signed a bill making it the first U.S. state to ban fracking, the controversial practice to extract natural gas from the ground.
"This is a big deal," Gov. Peter Shumlin said Wednesday. "This bill will ensure that we do not inject chemicals into groundwater in a desperate pursuit for energy."

Good on them.

jbg · January 12, 2013

So this happening 5 miles underground will cause all this seismic activity?

Seems a bit of a stretch to me.

These are emotional, not factual arguments. See this thread on the noted "scientist", Yoko Ono's, hysterical views on the subject (link).

January 13, 2013

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t2

Good on them.

I wonder if they are going to ban the use of natural gas from other fracked sources elsewhere.

January 13, 2013

Just so we're clear, fracking doesn't contaminate groundwater. We are all aware of that fact, right?

waldo · January 13, 2013

Just so we're clear, fracking doesn't contaminate groundwater. We are all aware of that fact, right?

that's... a most definitive statement! And here I was under the impression the initial EPA analysis/findings wouldn't be released until 'early' 2014. Given your factual certainty, do you also have any facts stating as to why no oil company has come forward in response to the EPA request to partner with the EPA in its analysis/work concerning fracking?

by the by... PNAS study/responses:

-

Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing

-

Hydraulic fracturing remains a possible mechanism for observed methane contamination of drinking water

-

Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturi

ng