Fracking in the West -

MadsL

nedzer2011 wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong... but this post suggests that you believe that the hydraulic fracturing process virtually guarantees groundwater pollution?

The more these threads progress, the more it becomes clear that hydraulic fracturing won't go ahead. Not because of any technical reason, but because of this somewhat blind perception that people have. As was stated in another thread, it's those who shout loudest who are listened to; not those who research the subject and educate themselves prior to coming to a conclusion.

Very well, please enlighten me. How do you

A. Adequately monitor what is being injected?
B. Predict the effect precisely enough to make the process safe?
C. Clean up the fuckups?
D. Do with well water that is now polluted as a result of groundwater pollution?

Unless you think diesel is an appropriate thing to be injecting into the earth?

http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=news/waxman-markey-and-degette-investigation-finds-continued-use-of-diesel-in-hydraulic-fracturing-f

Yahew

I don't know, but it will show den russians.

MadsL

Yahew wrote: »

We are talking about Ireland - at best that project might work in Spain. It is more likely to work in Africa, and relying on Africa for a significant portion of our energy would be madness. And we have 40 years to wait.

Like we rely on the Middle East for oil now, jeez how would that ever work :rolleyes: Personally I;d say we'll figure out wind and wave soon enough.

No it came from Michael Moore's bollocks. Of course it came from the geological scientists who know the actual science behind fracking - unlike that luddite documentary ( already destroyed in a previous link here). That's where geological scientists go - they work in multinationals. The people who produce the peer reviewed papers, not some arts student with a camera.

Link? Seriously can we have a source for this, or is it like the marketing spin you fell for about "double, or triple the world's known reserves" I'd seriously love to know which marketing dept that came from.

Well like the prosperity and jobs which would have increased employment and generated tax revenues had the project not be curtailed by a insane ignorant cabal of sophomoric pseuds, aging Marxists, tricolour waving republicans, semi-literate druids and rosary toting neanderthals, yes.

How much will Shell be contributing to Ireland's tax coffers again, oh that's right. Fuck all unless they hit unobtainium out there. All of their costs underwritten by a Irish tax break and a giveaway deal. Employment? sure, dream on. Lots of experienced Oil workers in Mayo are there? Go away out of that.

What are you taking about? Why would this project, or indeed the Shell project on which they spent 2B be "half-assed". It wold be big mining operation. In fact we are sitting on massive gas reserves. Lets use them.

Fine, lets use them. But not at the cost of a much more valuable resource - water.

Yeah, lets ban all oil refining because of a tiny % of faults.

Where did I say that?

Now go back and read the link which pointed out exactly how biased the Gasland documentary.

I'm not using Gasland as an resource - I linked to US Congress concerns about fracking.

( And who do you think is going to fund the solar panels in Europe but multinationals. The people who hire the scientists. )

And more power to them, but they need to be regulated as they are profit-driven. My point is that fracking is unregulatable, you cannot control what goes down the hole because the profit margins are marginal. Multi-nationals will not stand for losing money because of regulation, and the EPA cannot monitor this effectively.

What a mass of Ludditism, Anti-science, and Anti-progress commentary this is.

Ok, explain to me from a scientific viewpoint how you;
A. Adequately monitor what is being injected?
B. Predict the effect precisely enough to make the process safe?
C. Clean up the ****ups?
D. Deal with well water that is now polluted as a result of groundwater pollution?

The EPA employs scientists too, guess what they found...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fracking-linked-water-contamination-federal-agency

source ^^^

In a first, federal environment officials today scientifically linked underground water pollution with hydraulic fracturing, concluding that contaminants found in central Wyoming were likely caused by the gas drilling process.

The findings by the Environmental Protection Agency come partway through a separate national study by the agency to determine whether fracking presents a risk to water resources.

In the 121-page draft report released today, EPA officials said that the contamination near the town of Pavillion, Wyo., had most likely seeped up from gas wells and contained at least 10 compounds known to be used in frack fluids.

That is hardly Ludditism, Anti-science, and Anti-progress - it is empirical analysis of a pollution problem. Unless the semi-literate druids put that sh1t in the water.

Sicking medieval nonsense.

Compared to your childlike all-trusting niavete. Whoah 'Scientists!' got to trust them, when did they ever lead anyone astray or make a catastrophic mistake??;

Now we can continue in this silly name-calling nonsense or try to have a proper discussion. Would you like to try?

Mother Ireland is rearing them yet.

Whatever;

As for your link - lets not even get started on the politics of Gas production, we are discussing the environmental impact.

Coillte_Bhoy

Yahew wrote: »

( And who do you think is going to fund the solar panels in Europe but multinationals. The people who hire the scientists. )

Exactly. And of course the scientists are not going to be bought off are they?

Yahew

MadsL wrote: »

Like we rely on the Middle East for oil now, jeez how would that ever work :rolleyes: Personally I;d say we'll figure out wind and wave soon enough.

Depending on the Middle East hasnt been a barrel of laughs.

Link? Seriously can we have a source for this, or is it like the marketing spin you fell for about "double, or triple the world's known reserves" I'd seriously love to know which marketing dept that came from.

You could google oil reserves, and shale oil reserves your self.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_reserves

How much will Shell be contributing to Ireland's tax coffers again, oh that's right. Fuck all unless they hit unobtainium out there. All of their costs underwritten by a Irish tax break and a giveaway deal. Employment? sure, dream on. Lots of experienced Oil workers in Mayo are there? Go away out of that.

Shell would be paying wages spent in the local economy. Of course the deal they got was ridiculous, but they spent 2B of their own money already. Too much because of the luddites.

Yahew

Actually given the amount of Shale oil in the world, and the fact that IReland doesnt register, we might as well not bother. Once that gas comes out of the ground in quantities, the cost of energy will trend towards free. In the US gas costs are collapsing already.

nedzer2011

MadsL wrote: »

How much will Shell be contributing to Ireland's tax coffers again, oh that's right. Fuck all unless they hit unobtainium out there. All of their costs underwritten by a Irish tax break and a giveaway deal. Employment? sure, dream on. Lots of experienced Oil workers in Mayo are there? Go away out of that.

A well known engineering and environmental consultancy in Dublin are pretty much being kept operating by Shell E&P. It may not be mass employment but it's still a sizable number of jobs.
Regarding a fraccing program there are a huge number of jobs that could be created and sustained. Resource estimation, infrastructure design and construction, environmental planning, management and monitoring are just some of the required skills which we have (and are required) in abundance.

MadsL wrote: »

Like we rely on the Middle East for oil now, jeez how would that ever work :rolleyes: Personally I;d say we'll figure out wind and wave soon enough.

C'mon... dependence on the middle east for our energy is one of the greatest problems we face in the west! Security of supply is the issue.. why do you think the EU pumps so much money into agriculture... Security of supply!!

Attempts have been made to develop wind and wave over the last 30 years. Technical feasibility has been proven but the economics are a mess and will be for the forseeable future.


Sure, Shale Gas has had problems during it's infancy and is not without some risk (like the risk of a oil lorry crashing into a river or an oil tank leaking close to an abstraction well) - I accept that.

The problem I have is that the (minimal) risk of contamination is being completely blown out of proportion on blogs, forums and in the general media.

Do we wait until the escalating price of utilities and fuel push us all closer to poverty or do we do something about it?

nedzer2011

MadsL wrote: »

Very well, please enlighten me. How do you

A. Adequately monitor what is being injected?
B. Predict the effect precisely enough to make the process safe?
C. Clean up the fuckups?
D. Do with well water that is now polluted as a result of groundwater pollution?

A. Not difficult. Can be stipulated as part of a permit/licence that full monitoring of input material is required. Technical execution would be routine for a nominated environmental/engineering consultancy.

B. More difficult. Given that any possible hydrofrac jobs are a long way off in this country, it is best to see how those countries at a more advanced stage than us (i.e. Poland and the UK) get on. It is not entirely appropriate to base our preconceptions on experiences in the USA. A lot of jobs there were carried out when the technology was in it's infancy and the potential environmental effect of poor installation was not appreciated. It is my firm belief that the best minds in the industry are employed to minimise risk environmental damage through the process. It's simply not in the interest of the O&G companies to cause pollution.

C. Providing that groundwater and surface water monitoring on site is frequent, any problem can be detected quickly before widespread contamination occurs. In the unlikely event of this happening, production will stop and if necessary a groundwater remediation program could then be employed. Obviously if this was to occur, I would fully support fracturing to be halted immediately pending investigation.

D. Not going to occur if the above procedure is followed. The fraccing pad is simply not going to be allowed to be placed immediately upgradient of an abstraction well and monitoring can help identify a problem before it becomes a widespread issue.

The funny thing here is that runoff resulting from agricultural practices pose a far far (far) greater risk to groundwater, surface water and drinking water quality than fraccing ever will. It's much easier to monitor and control a point source of (potential) contamination that is being well monitored than a nationwide source that people seem to overlook.

MadsL

nedzer2011 wrote: »

A. Not difficult. Can be stipulated as part of a permit/licence that full monitoring of input material is required. Technical execution would be routine for a nominated environmental/engineering consultancy.

And of course we are excellent at this type of monitoring and control. My point is that until we can find an effective way of independently monitoring on a live basis what goes into the hole there is no way to monitor that dangerous crap is not being pumped.

B. More difficult. Given that any possible hydrofrac jobs are a long way off in this country, it is best to see how those countries at a more advanced stage than us (i.e. Poland and the UK) get on. It is not entirely appropriate to base our preconceptions on experiences in the USA. A lot of jobs there were carried out when the technology was in it's infancy and the potential environmental effect of poor installation was not appreciated. It is my firm belief that the best minds in the industry are employed to minimise risk environmental damage through the process. It's simply not in the interest of the O&G companies to cause pollution.

Pollution is a byproduct of Oil & Gas production and in their eyes seen as a cost of doing business, we have become less tolerant certainly of such pollution; but BP (for example) are still in business. Fracking at the moment is like coal mining by lobbing grenades down a old mine shaft to see if some coal will fall out, I agree that geological prediction will become easier, but I don't in all honesty believe these guys know exactly what they are at. Risking our biggest industry (agriculture) on a gamble seems absurd. We need to be reducing our reliance on Gas not increasing it.

C. Providing that groundwater and surface water monitoring on site is frequent, any problem can be detected quickly before widespread contamination occurs. In the unlikely event of this happening, production will stop and if necessary a groundwater remediation program could then be employed. Obviously if this was to occur, I would fully support fracturing to be halted immediately pending investigation.

You don't say. Explain to me how you remediate a major aquifer on the scale of fracking - even septic tank contamination/remediation is massively expensive. What about the non-polluting impacts - like the requirement in certain operations to lower the water table, effectively disrupting water supplies in rural areas and agricultural use. In some cases water extraction runs at a 1:25 ratio of gas/water pumped.

D. Not going to occur if the above procedure is followed. The fraccing pad is simply not going to be allowed to be placed immediately upgradient of an abstraction well and monitoring can help identify a problem before it becomes a widespread issue.

Except that this ain't Texas. Group water schemes are all over Ireland and you are going to be hard pressed to find a fracking location that won't impact a well.

The funny thing here is that runoff resulting from agricultural practices pose a far far (far) greater risk to groundwater, surface water and drinking water quality than fraccing ever will. It's much easier to monitor and control a point source of (potential) contamination that is being well monitored than a nationwide source that people seem to overlook.

And look how well we are monitoring that, as well as septic tanks. you think fracking will be any different. Ah sure, it'll bring jabs!

Yahew

MadsL wrote: »

Ah sure, it'll bring jabs!

what do you think mis spelling "jobs" gets you. Whats the ideology behind that?

MadsL

The mantra and justification behind every bad development idea in Ireland is..."Sure, it'll bring jabs!" Usually uttered by some gob****e therefore spelt J.A.B.S

jabs  plural noun, excuse, distraction,
noun
1. a vaguely expressed promise of future employment, usually without substance or basis in reality.

2. A reasoning for undertaking a course of action that does not stand up to rational scrutiny, but gains popular support through the hypnotic power of the the word. Found in popular usage by politicians (example:....yada yada jaaabs yada yada yada jaabs)

Often also found used in press releases by large multinationals or property developers to justify excessive development or rezoning attempts. The formal form 'employment opportunities' is often found in such usage.

nedzer2011

And of course we are excellent at this type of monitoring and control. My point is that until we can find an effective way of independently monitoring on a live basis what goes into the hole there is no way to monitor that dangerous crap is not being pumped.

Pardon my naivety but I find it difficult to see why this would not be possible?

Fracking at the moment is like coal mining by lobbing grenades down a old mine shaft to see if some coal will fall out, I agree that geological prediction will become easier, but I don't in all honesty believe these guys know exactly what they are at.

Do you base this on any actual knowledge of the industry, or is it just a hunch?

the requirement in certain operations to lower the water table, effectively disrupting water supplies in rural areas and agricultural use.

Not to to harp on, what is the likelihood of a water supply being disrupted and is there a basis for this claim? In the area of the Marcellus Shale play (which has a dryer climate and a huge amount of fraccing wells) the total extraction due to fracturing operations is 0.03% to 0.13% of the total water requirement. I really don't think that this is going to be an issue.

and look how well we are monitoring that, as well as septic tanks. you think fracking will be any different.

Bloody hell... it's hard to win! It's far easier and very achievable to monitor a specific operation.


Theres a slight touch of double standards here though. Why is agricultural pollution seen as unavoidable (cryptosporidium anyone?) or even overlooked when we're all getting militant over something which poses less of a risk of pollution?

MadsL

nedzer2011 wrote: »

Pardon my naivety but I find it difficult to see why this would not be possible?

Monitoring would be very difficult because of the massive complexity of 'ingredients' being used to facilitate the fracking process (do you need me to list the long list of acids, VOCs, additives and radioactive elements used)
Switching 'recipes' would be so easy to do 'under the radar'...you would need a lab and eyes full time on site to keep up with the samples. Even then it wouldn't be real-time.

Do you base this on any actual knowledge of the industry, or is it just a hunch?

The industry admits it is unpredictable;

In December of 2010, the EPA issued an Imminent and Substantial Endangerment Order because two landowners in Parker County, Texas had explosive levels of methane in their water wells and in their homes, plus they had drilling toxins in the water.

The attorney for Range Resources, elaborated in great detail about how “abundantly clear” it is that the area has “angular and nonconforming and unpredictable geology”

Schlumberger's Oil Field Review (Winter, 2005/6, p. 44) entitled "The Source for Hydraulic Fracture Characterization": "While it is possible to have a good understanding of existing natural fracture systems, our ability to determine hydraulic fracture geometry and characteristics has been limited. Geologic discontinuities such as fractures and faults can dominate fracture geometry in a way that makes predicting hydraulic fracture behavior difficult. Clearly, the exploration and production (E&P) industry still has much to learn about hydraulic fractures."

"Hydraulic fracture geometries are difficult to predict. Even in environments with relatively simple fracture geometries, hydraulic fractures can grow asymmetrically, have variable confinement across geologic horizons, and change orientation. In naturally fractured reservoirs, such as the Barnett Shale, hydraulically created fracture patterns become amazingly complex as the injected slurry preferentially opens the pre-existing fracture network."

http://www.epmag.com/EP-Magazine/archive/Fracs-tracked-microseismic-images_2809

Not to to harp on, what is the likelihood of a water supply being disrupted and is there a basis for this claim? In the area of the Marcellus Shale play (which has a dryer climate and a huge amount of fraccing wells) the total extraction due to fracturing operations is 0.03% to 0.13% of the total water requirement. I really don't think that this is going to be an issue.

Pollution would be a fairly hefty disruption, one well in Pennsylvania was disrupted to the point it exploded! Regarding level drops; Texas are geting pretty steamed up as any water extraction in that area has a massive impact of potential drought levels; I think longer term continued use is going to be a significant factor, oil companies are seeing the problem and investigating alternative sources and reuse of water - the problem would be the intensification of pollution of the aquifer as a result of reuse.

Bloody hell... it's hard to win! It's far easier and very achievable to monitor a specific operation.

It is hard to win, truth is we do not know enough to regulate this industry effectively, that may (may!) be ok in Texas with land to 'burn' not OK on a small island.

Theres a slight touch of double standards here though. Why is agricultural pollution seen as unavoidable (cryptosporidium anyone?) or even overlooked when we're all getting militant over something which poses less of a risk of pollution?

err...never said agricultural pollution was OK...
Where are you getting the less risk of pollution from? Fracking pollutes, no one disputes that - you cannot do the process without injecting pollutants, the question is how much of that are we prepared to take coming through our wells/taps?? Cryptosporidium is easy to kill if you treat the water - hell UV light will do it, extracting a cocktail of many different chemicals is a bit tricker...

nedzer2011

Schlumberger's Oil Field Review (Winter, 2005/6, p. 44) entitled "The Source for Hydraulic Fracture Characterization": "While it is possible to have a good understanding of existing natural fracture systems, our ability to determine hydraulic fracture geometry and characteristics has been limited. Geologic discontinuities such as fractures and faults can dominate fracture geometry in a way that makes predicting hydraulic fracture behavior difficult. Clearly, the exploration and production (E&P) industry still has much to learn about hydraulic fractures."

This is not really related to your point - the point made here is that induced and reactivated fracturing is difficult to characterise from a production point of view. Nothing mentioned here about fracture propagation to aquifer depth. Bear in mind that we're talking about vertical distances of thousands of metres (which, depending on depth of the shale, is close to impossible).

The attorney for Range Resources, elaborated in great detail about how “abundantly clear” it is that the area has “angular and nonconforming and unpredictable geology”

Not saying that this is completely wrong - but these are the words of an attorney representing a client. Angular and unconforming geology may exist but does it promote fracking to aquifer depth?? A technical report would be needed.

http://www.epmag.com/EP-Magazine/archive/Fracs-tracked-microseismic-images_2809

Again this is irrelevant - microseismics are used to assess production potential.

err...never said agricultural pollution was OK...
Where are you getting the less risk of pollution from? Fracking pollutes, no one disputes that - you cannot do the process without injecting pollutants

I'm trying to be objective about this though - objectivity is lacking from a lot of (not all) the posts here.
The term "Fracking Pollutes" gives the impression that pollution is guaranteed. An inaccurate statement.

Theres completely objective article here by the BGS which pretty much sums up what I'm trying to put across. Doesn't argue for or against fracking, simply tries to put the truth across

MadsL

Nedzer, I think we both want this;

I'm a (I like to think) rational environmental activist, you appear to be a geologist. I've been supporting a moratorium, not a kneejerk ban.

Let's have this....



At the moment we have this....





I'd dispute this however...

The term "Fracking Pollutes" gives the impression that pollution is guaranteed. An inaccurate statement.

pol·lu·tion (p-lshn) n.
1. The act or process of polluting or the state of being polluted, especially the contamination of soil, water, or the atmosphere by the discharge of harmful substances.
2. Something that pollutes; a pollutant or a group of pollutants: Pollution in the air reduced the visibility near the airport.


Pretty much what is being done is it not, harmful substances being injected into the earth?? The question is how much pollution will we accept?

nedzer2011

pol·lu·tion (p-lshn) n.
1. The act or process of polluting or the state of being polluted, especially the contamination of soil, water, or the atmosphere by the discharge of harmful substances.
2. Something that pollutes; a pollutant or a group of pollutants: Pollution in the air reduced the visibility near the airport.


Pretty much what is being done is it not, harmful substances being injected into the earth?? The question is how much pollution will we accept?

Ok.. I'll take your definition and raise you the following definition (admittedly from Wikipedia).

"Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into a natural environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem"

(I would possibly argue that this is a more accurate definition in many peoples eyes...)

If the process of fracking can be carried out without having an effect on groundwater i.e. at great depth, km's beneath impermeable material, No instability, disorder harm or discomfort would be caused.


But yeah fair enough.. we've similar enough viewpoints and I do support a wait-and-see attitude. I just tend to get annoyed by the exaggeration (bordering on lies) that tends to happen on the anti-fracking side who want an immediate outright ban. Best keep objective until we have enough evidence to argue either way.

MadsL

nedzer2011 wrote: »

Ok.. I'll take your definition and raise you the following definition (admittedly from Wikipedia).

"Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into a natural environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem"

(I would possibly argue that this is a more accurate definition in many peoples eyes...)

If the process of fracking can be carried out without having an effect on groundwater i.e. at great depth, km's beneath impermeable material, No instability, disorder harm or discomfort would be caused.


But yeah fair enough.. we've similar enough viewpoints and I do support a wait-and-see attitude. I just tend to get annoyed by the exaggeration (bordering on lies) that tends to happen on the anti-fracking side who want an immediate outright ban. Best keep objective until we have enough evidence to argue either way.

I'd say that "introduction of contaminants into a natural environment that causes instability" would be a good definition of Fracking, but hey...

But I agree that we both are closer in viewpoint than it would appear, I'd say there is sufficient risk to halt any licencing to take a deep objective look at what the potential risks to the environment could be from an Irish perspective - which is a very different kettle of fish to Wyoming or Texas.

Sponge Bob

I hear that some fracking tests are to be conducted in the Clare West Limerick area as well. Don't have any more info.

cavedave

Energy production is one of the few bright spots in the American economy. A back of the envelope cost-benefit calculation from a Yale-associated group estimates that recent increases in shale gas production have been worth just over $100 billion annually to US consumers. In comparison, the authors estimates that groundwater contamination costs $250 million per year, a 400 to 1 benefit to cost ratio. The calculation is crude and the authors do not take into account environmental benefits from using natural gas over coal but the ratios are of interest.

$100 Billion in Consumer Surplus from Fracking

Macha

What about the other costs?
- air pollution
- reduced real estate prices
- noise pollution (from traffic bring water in and out - these wells run 24/7)
- impact on local agriculture
- impact on local tourism
- carbon emissions
- soil pollution from tail ponds
- water clean up
- water use (shale uses a LOT of water)

The authors admit that they used a 'traditional cost benefit analysis' methodology that is unlikely to cover the scope of all environmental and social costs.

4.legs.good

Macha wrote: »

What about the other costs?
- air pollution
- reduced real estate prices
- noise pollution (from traffic bring water in and out - these wells run 24/7)
- impact on local agriculture
- impact on local tourism
- carbon emissions
- soil pollution from tail ponds
- water clean up
- water use (shale uses a LOT of water)

The authors admit that they used a 'traditional cost benefit analysis' methodology that is unlikely to cover the scope of all environmental and social costs.

How come you are not asking for the very same type of analysis when it comes to giant windmills destroying the landscape in our countryside?

How about you eat your own greens first?

Macha

4.legs.good wrote: »

How come you are not asking for the very same type of analysis when it comes to giant windmills destroying the landscape in our countryside?

Windmills are subject to SEAs and EIAs in this country, so I don't have to ask for the same type of analysis - it's already being done.

However, it is unclear whether current EU or member state legislation would cover the extraction phases of shale gas.

And if you think wind turbines are "destroying the landscape", try having the landscape covered in fracking well pads like they do in Oklahoma:

garth-marenghi

Sligo Rovers players Gavin Peers and Pascal Millien wearing "Love Football-Hate Fracking" t-shirts to help raise awareness about the dangers of Hydraulic Fracturing.