Hydraulic Fracturing aka Fracking

[Guest]

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

Fracturing takes place thousands of feet below groundwater sources. When the well is drilled properly, it can't affect those sources. Any well, conventional oil, conventional gas, or hydraulic fracturing, can be drilled poorly such that the initial casing does not protect the groundwater source, but that would have nothing to do with the fracturing.

I can't speak to the regulations concerning drilling in other countries, or provinces for that matter, but in Alberta we have strict regulations in place regarding drilling that protect groundwater sources.

[jbg]

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

Good on them.

Is it any surprise that Vermont and New York (which so far has subliminally banned fracking) have serious fiscal problems?

[waldo]

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 fracturing

I can't speak to the regulations concerning drilling in other countries, or provinces for that matter, but in Alberta we have strict regulations in place regarding drilling that protect groundwater sources.

in that oil companies in Alberta are self-monitoring, your Alberta ERCB 'strict regulations' are effectively, and simply... recommendations. More pointedly, your ERCB, in just recent days, has issued an extension for solicited feedback to its fracking related draft directive issued in Dec, 2012.

balanced against your declared 'strict regulations'... which they very well may be in relative comparison to other jurisdictions, the draft ERCB directive aims to introduce such new requirements:

- to

prevent the loss of well integrity at a subject well;

-

for a licensee to assess, plan for, and mitigate the risks of interwellbore communication with offset wells;

-

to protect nonsaline aquifers from hydraulic fracturing operations at depths less than 100 metres below the base of groundwater protection.

additionally, this new draft ERCB directive includes new:

- increased vertical setback distances for hydraulic fracturing operations near water wells;

- increased vertical setback distances for hydraulic fracturing operations near the top of the bedrock surface;

-

pumping volume restrictions and exemptions to setback distances for nitrogen fracturing operations for coalbed methane;

-

new notification requirements to ensure that licensees notify the ERCB, a- prior to commencing hydraulic fracturing operations and, b- in the event that hydraulic fracturing operations have caused an unintended communication event with an offset well or a nonsaline aquifer

perhaps given all these new, as yet unimplemented, requirements/inclusions..... just how 'strict' is your 'strict regulations' declarative - hey?

Fracturing takes place thousands of feet below groundwater sources. When the well is drilled properly, it can't affect those sources. Any well, conventional oil, conventional gas, or hydraulic fracturing, can be drilled poorly such that the initial casing does not protect the groundwater source, but that would have nothing to do with the fracturing.

notwithstanding your most narrow and isolated focus on well casing, are you completely discounting above surface risks related to water source depletion, or to fracking chemicals and fluids spills and leaks, or to the mismanagement of fracking wastes? Are you completely discounting other below surface risks related to out-of-zone fracture growths into aquifers, or to unrelated improperly constructed or plugged oil/gas wells providing a migration pathway for frack fluid or other contaminants to reach groundwater, or to induced fractures linking to natural fractures/faults potentially providing migration pathways for gas and fluids to groundwater?

even accepting to your declared best practices followed drilling/cementing/casing, are you discounting all those other risks? Really?

[Guest]

Oill companies in Alberta are not self monitoring and the ERCB's strict regulations are just that, not recommendations.

Granted there is a new directive on the way that will contain more strict regulations than are already in place for oil and gas companies to adhere to, regardless of whether or not they are monitoring themselves.

perhaps given all these new, as yet unimplemented, requirements/inclusions..... just how 'strict' is your 'strict regulations' declarative - hey?

Very strict. They just got stricter, hey?

notwithstanding your most narrow and isolated focus on well casing, are you completely discounting above surface risks related to water source depletion, or to fracking chemicals and fluids spills and leaks, or to the mismanagement of fracking wastes? Are you completely discounting other below surface risks related to out-of-zone fracture growths into aquifers, or to unrelated improperly constructed or plugged oil/gas wells providing a migration pathway for frack fluid or other contaminants to reach groundwater, or to induced fractures linking to natural fractures/faults potentially providing migration pathways for gas and fluids to groundwater?

My narrow and isolated focus (really?) on casing is because casing is designed to protect groundwater, which is what we were discussing.

Is there any evidence of an out of zone fracture growth travelling thousands of feet up into an aquifer? I assume by out of zone fracture growth you mean in zone fractures that travel out of the intended zone? A horizontal fracture might stretch a couple of hundred feet.

Any oil and gas drilling operation can pollute, given that many use a hydrocarbon based mud. Any facility or well can pollute, given that many inject chemicals into the production stream for ease of production and safety/environmental considerations.

I'm not discounting any risks associated with the oilpatch. I mentioned that in my last post. I'm saying that hydraulic fracturing is not going to affect groundwater. I should have qualified that in my original post by stating that that would be the case when the well was drilled and fracked according to the regs.

What you mention in the quote above are risks associated with all oil and gas activity which we mitigate with strict regulations. Except the last point. Do you have any evidence of that happening? I'd be very interested to read of that.

I have heard of fractures travelling to nearby wells. In some cases, causing greatly increased production at an old well. Still within the producing zone though.

Edited January 13, 2013 by bcsapper

[waldo]

Oill companies in Alberta are not self monitoring and the ERCB's strict regulations are just that, not recommendations. Granted there is a new directive on the way that will contain more strict regulations than are already in place for oil and gas companies to adhere to, regardless of whether or not they are monitoring themselves.

Very strict. They just got stricter, hey?

nice spin! How cavalier of you to simply dismiss the proposed missing requirements/inclusions. You seem to offer up all manner of unqualified absolutes... full certainties abound in your missing absolute unqualified statements.

no - the ERCB 'monitoring' is not arm's-length. It presumes on most random and sporadic requests made to oil companies to provide data/material/information. Let's see if the relatively new Alberta announcement to setup an arm's-length environmental monitoring agency extends beyond its initial tarsands focus... to include fracking, as well - hey?

My narrow and isolated focus (really?) on casing is because casing is designed to protect groundwater, which is what we were discussing. I'm not discounting any risks associated with the oilpatch.

yes - you were quite selective. Yours was a very narrow focus that completely discounted the other 3 below surface risks I mentioned... that also hold potential risk for groundwater.

[Guest]

nice spin! How cavalier of you to simply dismiss the proposed missing requirements/inclusions. You seem to offer up all manner of unqualified absolutes... full certainties abound in your missing absolute unqualified statements.

no - the ERCB 'monitoring' is not arm's-length. It presumes on most random and sporadic requests made to oil companies to provide data/material/information. Let's see if the relatively new Alberta announcement to setup an arm's-length environmental monitoring agency extends beyond its initial tarsands focus... to include fracking, as well - hey?

yes - you were quite selective. Yours was a very narrow focus that completely discounted the other 3 below surface risks I mentioned... that also hold potential risk for groundwater.

Yeah, I'm not really sure what you're getting at. The ERCB has regs, and when they feel it necessary, they develop new regs. It's what a regulatory agency does. If you could actually put together an argument without accusations we could go somewhere. As it is, you just seem to have a problem with me, not the discussion at hand.

The new monitoring agency is being set up with the oil sands as its initial focus, but the intention is that it will expand to the rest of the province. I have no Idea how that will affect the new Alberta Energy Regulator, which is a separate entity and will also include environmental monitoring as part of its mandate. The AER will regulate fracking. I don't think the new monitoring agency will, but who knows? Both are in the planning stages at the moment.

[waldo]

Yeah, I'm not really sure what you're getting at. The ERCB has regs, and when they feel it necessary, they develop new regs. It's what a regulatory agency does. If you could actually put together an argument without accusations we could go somewhere. As it is, you just seem to have a problem with me, not the discussion at hand.

huh! I didn't accuse you of anything... feel free to quote the "accusation".

and yes... it's a fluid process - regulations develop! I simply pointed out your absolute "strict" assessment was a quite relative term, particularly against the new proposed, (still being drafted), requirements/inclusions that your Alberta ERCB intends to bring forward. Perhaps one should highlight a few of the recent Alberta incidents that prodded the ERCB forward with some of these new proposed fracking regulation changes - like the infamous 2011 Crew Energy fracking fiasco, or the 2012 Innisfail, Alberta blowout, etc. Apparently, not so strict today, hey? It certainly begs the question, 'just how regulated is fracking, within Canada (province to province), within the U.S. (state to state)'? Why... apparently... there's such a thing as cross-provincial, cross-state... and international trans-border aquifers within/between Canada and the U.S. - go figure!

The new monitoring agency is being set up with the oil sands as its initial focus, but the intention is that it will expand to the rest of the province. I have no Idea how that will affect the new Alberta Energy Regulator, which is a separate entity and will also include environmental monitoring as part of its mandate. The AER will regulate fracking. I don't think the new monitoring agency will, but who knows? Both are in the planning stages at the moment.

yes, as I said, the initial focus of the arm's-length monitoring agency is the tarsands - perhaps its scope may expand to also include fracking. Until it does, as I stated, today, there is no arm's-length monitoring of the recommended ERCB fracking regulations... that monitoring is reliant upon industry responding to random/sporadic requests to provide its own data/information.

[Guest]

You're right. Accuse is a harsh word. I withdraw it.

I don't think the intent of the new monitoring agency is to regulate fracking. The ERCB will do that until the AER takes over, and then they will do it. Those Directives that apply before that happens will still apply after it.

As for blowouts, they happen. All the regs in the world won't prevent every single one. It's the same with pipeline leaks. If we want to heat our homes and drive to work, the best we can do is mitigate such things as much as possible. But they will happen.

I don't know when the new fracking directive will come into affect. Feedback is being accepted until Feb 04. I'd rather they got it right than rushed it.

Edited January 14, 2013 by bcsapper

[GostHacked]

Is it any surprise that Vermont and New York (which so far has subliminally banned fracking) have serious fiscal problems?

Look around you jbg, many cities, states, provinces, countries ect are have serious fiscal problems. Fracking won't solve that anytime soon.

[waldo]

As for blowouts, they happen. All the regs in the world won't prevent every single one.

yes, of course. However, in this case, the reason I mentioned it as one of the examples leading to the new proposed Alberta ERCB fracking related regulations, was because... the ERCB ruled that particular (conventional oil well) blowout resulted directly from a fracking operation in a neighbouring well that had inadequate separation to the conventional oil well. Of course, the overall point being: fracking regulations are in a most fluid developing process. Which, of course, presumes that regulation in respective domains is even a focus, let alone being actively monitored/enforced. And again, on a general note, when industry is the active monitoring body on the regulations, or in fact driving the fracking regulations, just how is the interested public to gain a sense of independent regulation/monitoring/enforcement?

[Guest]

yes, of course. However, in this case, the reason I mentioned it as one of the examples leading to the new proposed Alberta ERCB fracking related regulations, was because... the ERCB ruled that particular (conventional oil well) blowout resulted directly from a fracking operation in a neighbouring well that had inadequate separation to the conventional oil well. Of course, the overall point being: fracking regulations are in a most fluid developing process. Which, of course, presumes that regulation in respective domains is even a focus, let alone being actively monitored/enforced. And again, on a general note, when industry is the active monitoring body on the regulations, or in fact driving the fracking regulations, just how is the interested public to gain a sense of independent regulation/monitoring/enforcement?

I'm not sure what you mean by the highlighted words. Do you say that because the regs go out for consultation before they are completed? I'm quite sure you could send them feedback if you want.

[waldo]

I'm not sure what you mean by the highlighted words.

your most immediate posts suggest selective regulatory knowledge/perspective. There are no federal/national fracking regulations or regulatory bodies... regulation falls upon respective provincial/state levels. The overall lack of public confidence/certainty in the safety of fracking can be no more evident than from seeing drilling moratoriums in certain provinces/states contrasted against full-bore, unfettered industry development in others. Most particularly active in the U.S., industry lobby interests are forcefully working to influence legislation and regulation (or the lack of). I recently referenced a stat that suggested only 4 of the active 31 U.S. states participating in any manner of fracking are subject to meaningful regulatory oversight (I can't speak to the current date veracity of this statement)... that active well inspection oversight is limited, if at all... that enforcement/fines are insignificant, if existing.

in Canada, as I'm aware, the industry association, CAPP, is the only source of active regulatory "input", separate from whatever initiatives emanate from respective provincial government levels... with CAPP offering 'best practice quide-lines' for only voluntary action by industry. On a more specific level, relative to the ongoing U.S. EPA study initiatives, you ignored my earlier request/challenge to you concerning the EPA and the refusal of all oil-drilling companies to partner with the EPA to test groundwater around drilling sites... forcing the EPA to rely upon computer simulations with corresponding constraint/limitation influences. And... does one really need to highlight the 2005 industry/political influence that allowed/allows fracking to remain isolated from any EPA regulation related to groundwater protection laws within the U.S. 'Safe Drinking Water Act' (the so-called Haliburton-Dick Cheney loophole)?

you were most absolute in your 'factual' certainty, stating unequivocally that fracking does not affect groundwater quality. I simply showed you a topical study (with accompanying challenges/responses), one scientific study of several I easily found, that suggests examples of possible contamination. Apparently, this didn't seem to temper your absolute certainty... at all. And meanwhile, fracking operations steamroll on!

[jbg]

you were most absolute in your 'factual' certainty, stating unequivocally that fracking does not affect groundwater quality. I simply showed you a topical study (with accompanying challenges/responses), one scientific study of several I easily found, that suggests examples of possible contamination. Apparently, this didn't seem to temper your absolute certainty... at all. And meanwhile, fracking operations steamroll on!

To me the most "factual" certainty is that importing energy seriously distorts our foreign policy interests.

[Guest]

your most immediate posts suggest selective regulatory knowledge/perspective. There are no federal/national fracking regulations or regulatory bodies... regulation falls upon respective provincial/state levels. The overall lack of public confidence/certainty in the safety of fracking can be no more evident than from seeing drilling moratoriums in certain provinces/states contrasted against full-bore, unfettered industry development in others. Most particularly active in the U.S., industry lobby interests are forcefully working to influence legislation and regulation (or the lack of). I recently referenced a stat that suggested only 4 of the active 31 U.S. states participating in any manner of fracking are subject to meaningful regulatory oversight (I can't speak to the current date veracity of this statement)... that active well inspection oversight is limited, if at all... that enforcement/fines are insignificant, if existing.

in Canada, as I'm aware, the industry association, CAPP, is the only source of active regulatory "input", separate from whatever initiatives emanate from respective provincial government levels... with CAPP offering 'best practice quide-lines' for only voluntary action by industry. On a more specific level, relative to the ongoing U.S. EPA study initiatives, you ignored my earlier request/challenge to you concerning the EPA and the refusal of all oil-drilling companies to partner with the EPA to test groundwater around drilling sites... forcing the EPA to rely upon computer simulations with corresponding constraint/limitation influences. And... does one really need to highlight the 2005 industry/political influence that allowed/allows fracking to remain isolated from any EPA regulation related to groundwater protection laws within the U.S. 'Safe Drinking Water Act' (the so-called Haliburton-Dick Cheney loophole)?

you were most absolute in your 'factual' certainty, stating unequivocally that fracking does not affect groundwater quality. I simply showed you a topical study (with accompanying challenges/responses), one scientific study of several I easily found, that suggests examples of possible contamination. Apparently, this didn't seem to temper your absolute certainty... at all. And meanwhile, fracking operations steamroll on!

As they should.

If CAPP is separate from whatever initiatives emanate from respective provincial government levels, why does it matter? As an umbrella organization representing the industry they are going to try and influence regulations, but so long as the respective provincial government levels actually set them, what of it? It can only help to have all perspectives, unless you are saying there's some corruption/intimidation going on.

Back to my original statement that has you so upset. I do tend to post without editing. What I meant was, shale gas fracking, when done properly, will not contaminate groundwater.

If it migrates to an offset well, that has surface casing issues, it might. If the fracking company accidentally dumps all their mud in a local creek, it might.

A lack of public confidence in anything is probably not hard to engender, but is meaningless.

Given this:

The overall lack of public confidence/certainty in the safety of fracking can be no more evident than from seeing drilling moratoriums in certain provinces/states contrasted against full-bore, unfettered industry development in others.

Why not this?

The heightened public confidence/certainty in the safety of fracking can be no more evident than from seeing the full-bore, unfettered industry development in certain provinces/states contrasted against drilling moratoriums in others.

I probably do have a selective regulatory knowledge/perspective. I just didn't select it myself. These things just happen. I certainly bow to your superior knowledge of US regulations. I have a hard enough time reading regs that I have to read. I'm not going to read those that I don't.

[Guest]

Now, this maked for some pretty depressing reading. So much for me defending the regs.

Of course, it's written by Andrew Nikiforuk, so it might as well have been written by the good reverend himself, but still.

http://thetyee.ca/Ne...t-Frack-Update/

Edited January 16, 2013 by bcsapper

[GostHacked]

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/fracking-practices-blame-ohio-earthquakes-8C11073601

Confirmed: Fracking practices to blame for Ohio earthquakes

Youngstown quakes

Before January 2011, Youngstown, Ohio, which is located on the Marcellus Shale, had never experienced an earthquake, at least not since researchers began observations in 1776. However, in December 2010, the Northstar 1 injection well came online to pump wastewater from fracking projects in Pennsylvania into storage deep underground. In the year that followed, seismometers in and around Youngstown recorded 109 earthquakes, the strongest registering a magnitude-3.9 earthquake on Dec. 31, 2011. The well was shut down after the quake.

Scientists have known for decades that fracking and wastewater injection can trigger earthquakes. For instance, it appears linked with Oklahoma's strongest recorded quake in 2011, as well as a rash of more than 180 minor tremors in Texas between Oct. 30, 2008, and May 31, 2009.

Yes they are causing quakes. The USA has confirmed it and the UK has confirmed it.

[Shady]

Complete nonsense. Fracking is the alarmist dujour. When done properly, it's safe and economical. I've had enough of the hysteria whipped up by the likes of Matt Damon and his dishonest propaganda movies involving fracking.

[Mighty AC]

Matt Damon fan or not, fracking chemicals are finding their way into drinking water and radioactive materials like Radium are also a concern. Destroying local groundwater sources to access gas pockets is probably not a worthwhile trade.

Radium is also perceived as a threat to water quality. The brine that returns to the surface after hydraulic fracturing has been found to contain up to 16,000 picoCuries per liter of radium-226. The discharge limit in effluent for Radium 226 is 60 pCi/L, and the EPA’s drinking water standard is 5 pCi/L.

Fracking Truck Sets Off Radiation Alarm At Landfill

[jbg]

Matt Damon fan or not, fracking chemicals are finding their way into drinking water and radioactive materials like Radium are also a concern. Destroying local groundwater sources to access gas pockets is probably not a worthwhile trade.

Fracking Truck Sets Off Radiation Alarm At Landfill

Is buying Arab oil a worthwhile trade?

[Mighty AC]

Is Arab oil the only other option?

[GostHacked]

Complete nonsense. Fracking is the alarmist dujour. When done properly, it's safe and economical. I've had enough of the hysteria whipped up by the likes of Matt Damon and his dishonest propaganda movies involving fracking.

You may want to visit the USGS site. Some info in the studies came from them.

[cybercoma]

When done properly

Nice hedge. It's interesting to note that you're saying the exact same thing as people who criticize it. "When done improperly *fill in the blank*".

[jbg]

On September 16, 2013, or two (2) days ago, an analysis, produced cooperatively by the Environmental Defense Fund and nine petroleum companies found that the risks of fracking are overstated (link to article):

The study, conducted by the University of Texas and sponsored by the Environmental Defense Fund and nine petroleum companies, bolsters the contention by advocates of fracking — and some environmental groups as well — that shale gas is cleaner and better than coal, at least until more renewable-energy sources are developed. More than 500 wells were analyzed.

Another article on the same day (link to article) referenced and described the series of studies:

....a comprehensive on-the-ground gas measurement initiative has been published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The analysis, led by David T. Allen and other energy and environment researchers at the University of Texas, finds that estimates of methane escaping from gas drilling made by the Environmental Protection Agency are fairly accurate, over all, while those from industry critics and some indirect studies of leakage (from aerial measurements, for example) appear far too high. A comprehensive package of background on the research has been posted by the university. [updates | Seth Borenstein and Kevin Begos filed a helpful Associated Press piece on the study. The New York Times story is here.]

While the researchers found that emissions from a critical stage of well construction — “completions” — are far lower than regulators had estimated, they pinpointed an important under-appreciated source of escaping gas — pneumatic devices powered by the pressure of the extracted natural gas. Authors said this should help regulators and industry close in on ways to further reduce emissions.

In other words, the benefits of fracking appear to far outweigh the harm.