hydraulic fracturing

...now browsing by tag

 
 

Water = Life (or maybe just some more natural gas)

Friday, July 22nd, 2011

It’s almost impossible in any discussion of fresh water resources not to run up against what by now should be an obvious fact; our Earth is a closed system, so the same water that was here millions of years ago is still here now, it just keeps getting recycled through the water cycle we all remember from grade school science class.  The revelation Will Rogers famously had about land also holds true for water, “They ain’t making any more of the stuff.”

Water is known as a “flow resource” due to this ability for the same mineral to be recycled and used over and over again.

Flow resources are resources that are not permanently expendable under usual circumstances; they are resources which are replaced. They are commonly expressed in annual rates at which they are regenerated. Examples are fresh-water runoff and timber. Stock resources can be permanently expended and whose quantity is usually expressed in absolute amounts rather than in rates. Examples are coal and petroleum deposits.  From Ecology Dictionary

This definition ceases to be true for water in unusual circumstances, say when it is used for commercial purposes and then injected deep within the Earth’s crust rather than getting cleaned up and put back in the system.  Unusual use of this sort, which nature hasn’t had to deal with up until now, effectively takes our most precious, valuable-to-life, recyclable, flow resource and makes it a stock resource.  This is a particularly troubling development because life on earth is possible only due to the happy accident that we have the right amount of liquid, available water in the system.  Much more water and we’d all have fins.  Much less and most of us wouldn’t be here at all.

With the explosion of the human population, global deforestation, global climate change, the industrialization of large, once third-world countries like China and India, and the associated increased demand we are making on our planet’s water we are headed toward a future where water will become so coveted and rare that we will go to war over it.  (Call it blood water.)  We simply cannot afford to squander water any longer.

As a brief historical aside, early in the development of oil and gas as energy sources it was common practice to “flare off” or burn the gas so you could get the oil out of the ground without getting blown-up.  The practice is illegal in most areas today except during exploration, before a pipeline is completed to transport the gas,  or at sea where no other way of dealing with it is available.*  At the time they didn’t realize that they were squandering what would become a very valuable commodity and contributing to the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  Today we think, “Morons.”  *From The Dictionary of Petroleum Exploration by Norman J. Hyne.

Speaking of oil and gas production, it is fast becoming the biggest user of water as a stock resource through a process called Hydraulic Fracturing, Hydro Fracking, or just Fracking.  Briefly, hydro fracking drills a hole down into the gas bearing rock, and then at right angles to the rock layers.  Then millions of gallons of water mixed with a proprietary, toxic witch’s brew of chemicals and sand are pumped into the holes under enormous pressure to fracture the rock strata, releasing natural gas trapped in small pockets within the rock.   (Oh, and sometimes the gas or fracking fluid gets into the local aquifer and poisons it.)

Here is a YouTube video that shows the process generically.

Once this is done the millions of gallons of badly polluted water are pumped out of the well and hauled away to be deep well injected, never to be used again for drinking, watering the garden or crops, as a home for fish, for outdoor recreation, rain, snow or fog.  It is locked away forever deep within the earth because it can’t be treated with current water treatment facilities, and the oil and gas industry and our government(s) have determined that it just isn’t cost effective to make drillers develop the tech to treat the water so that it can be reused.  (Remember when we used that excuse for municipal and industrial sewage until we killed one of the Great Lakes and our rivers were catching on fire?  And as to the wisdom of burying toxic wastes to get rid of them, Google “Love Canal.”  No, it isn’t porn, but it is disgusting.)

Economics has historically had a hard time putting a value on ecosystem services and flow resources because of the fact that commonly used market models don’t work so well for them.  But economists are pretty good at valuing stock resources like oil and natural gas.  I would like to propose that we start demanding that our governments do the work to figure out what the cost for an eternally wasted gallon of water is in terms of lost value to our ecosystems, and add that to the value it has to oil and gas drillers as a fracking fluid, and start charging oil and gas companies for our water that they are removing from the global ecosystem forever.  And the cost needs to be a steep one, not a token, with the goal being to charge such a high price that treating water so that it is able to be safely released back into the environment becomes economically attractive, not to get in the water selling business.  Just make the price of a barrel of water used for fracking the current price of a barrel of West Texas Intermediate crude oil.  A better solution still would be to demand a complete ban on fracking until such time as the treatment facilities to deal with the insane volumes of water involved are in place.

Unfortunately, I don’t think that we have the public support to accomplish either of these solutions today.  The discussion on fracking has been centered on the toxic soup fracking fluid becomes, not the scandalous misuse of the foundation of life on Earth.  We can’t live without LOTS of clean, fresh water.  We can’t make new water.  Global warming scenarios predict that Great Lakes summers will be hotter and drier.  And we are letting corporations permanently destroy our water to produce energy for their financial gain?  Pardon the vernacular, but “WTF!?”  In what universe does this make any kind of sense?

If T. Boone Pickens is willing to invest $100 million in fresh water to sell it later to water utilities in cities, and believes that water is going to be the new oil, I think we should listen-up and quit giving away the thing upon which all life depends.  Right now oil and gas companies are buying up water rights in the west so that they can use the water at their discretion.  On our side of the Mississippi we don’t have the same water laws, and so we are trying to limit water withdrawals by all industries with very scientific models, which are being challenged by some of our state legislatures and ignored by some in our governor’s mansions.

Even if the water withdrawal limits are adhered to (they won’t be), they don’t adequately take into account the cumulative effect of permanently removing hundreds of millions of gallons of water from the system forever, as fracking and a few other industries are doing.  It is like the miracle of compounded interest, only we are paying it.

And the cost we are being asked to pay is too dear to to be allowed to continue another day.

 What do you think? Tell us by leaving a comment below.

The Round River has been covering the fracking debate for a while.  Search our archives for more articles on this subject.

EvernoteGoogle ReaderGoogle GmailDeliciousShare

New York State Gets It Right!

Thursday, December 2nd, 2010

Today the New York General Assembly voted to halt the process of hydraulic fracturing for the extraction of natural gas trapped in shale deposits.

It’s about time we had some good fracking news!  (Sorry.  I couldn’t help myself.)

It was good to see that the gas lobby wasn’t caught without a response.  They promptly pointed out that producing natural gas makes them money, and some other people will maybe make some money too, so why gum up the works?

They were curiously silent on the merits of the argument that hydraulic fracturing poisons water, land, and living things.  Or that hydraulic fracturing consumes gazillions of gallons of perfectly good water and makes it toxic and unfit for other uses.

I am continually amazed that there are still greedy SOBs out there who don’t see anything wrong with poisoning our environment so that they can make a buck.

Good job, NY Assembly!  It was long past time for somebody to draw a line in the shale.

EvernoteGoogle ReaderGoogle GmailDeliciousShare

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Feedback

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

Here are my recommendations to the GLRI folks.  You can give them your ideas at http://greatlakesrestoration.us

  • Construct wetlands to filter run-off and address water quality issues from urban and agricultural areas.  Use remediated brownfield sites where possible.
  • Develop and implement a comprehensive restoration plan for coaster brook trout throughout their historical range (not just Lake Superior).
  • Thoroughly regulate the practice of Hydraulic Fracturing in minerals extraction to eliminate both water quality and withdraw quantity issues, and to protect the public’s health, safety and property.
  • Work to prohibit metallic sulfide mining near waters tributary to the great lakes.  The lakes have no buffering capabilities and leachate washing into the lakes will have devastating effects.
  • Develop ballast water discharge and invasive species regulations with real teeth. Develop comprehensive control and eradication plans for invasive alien species in the great lakes.  Yes this is a huge job and will cost well into the billions of dollars.  Shoulda regulated ballast water and planned for invasion through the Welland canal.  Too late to go back and do that, and we do not accept “Woops!”  as an acceptable response.  RESTORE the lakes.  Don’t just work on them, FIX THEM!

I don’t know if anybody is going to read these things, or if they are like the old cartoon of the office suggestion box with a pretty sign and mail-slot on one side of the wall and a paper shredder on the other.

It is such a joke that they are making all this hoopla about a couple hundred million dollars when the task will run into the hundreds of BILLIONS at the least.  (Too bad the Great Lakes aren’t as important as Iraq to the well being of our nation, eh?)

If the federal government were a dog owner and the Lakes their dog, it would be as if they refused to feed us or take us to the vet, let us suffer with poisonings and parasites of all kinds, kicked us whenever they felt like it, and let their friends treat us as poorly as they pleased.  Then they throw us a Milk Bone from time to time and expect us to be satisfied and the ASPCA to leave them alone.

What jerks.

EvernoteGoogle ReaderGoogle GmailDeliciousShare

Gasland

Friday, June 25th, 2010

I don’t have HBO, so haven’t seen all of this, but here is the trailer to the movie everybody is talking about.  It’s certainly powerful stuff.  Depressing, but powerful.  Where’s Erin Brockovitch when you need her?

Anybody know if the whole thing is available on-line somewhere?

EvernoteGoogle ReaderGoogle GmailDeliciousShare

More coverage of Fracking in natural gas production.

Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010

I was bushed, but decided to check my e-mail before bed last night after fishing over a great Hex hatch on a local river until well after midnight.

Found this piece on Fracking over at Pro Publica.  Falling asleep wasn’t so easy after reading it.  With new deep reserves of natural gas having been discovered in Michigan, we need to be aware of the potential downside associated with some of the extraction technology.

###

EvernoteGoogle ReaderGoogle GmailDeliciousShare

Pennsylvania Finds Gas Wells Have Contaminated Drinking Water

Friday, April 16th, 2010

Just a very short up-date and a link to an article on Marcellus Shale gas well problems over at Pro Publica.

As I’ve said here before, there are numerous impacts to water resources from hydraulic fracturing of gas-bearing shales.  It’s not a ‘what if,’ but just a question of when and how much impact.

The reporters over at Pro Publica are really setting the bar quite high in on-line journalism.  (What’s up with that?)  These folks are reporting the way they taught the craft back in the old days at Ernie Pyle Hall on the Indiana University Campus.  Objective, factual, well researched, informative.  The 5 “W’s” and the “H” all get explored.  I’m really impressed.  So was the Pulitzer Committee.

Enjoy the weekend!

Brian

###

Cabot Oil & Gas’s Marcellus Drilling to Slow After PA Environment Officials Order Wells Closed

EvernoteGoogle ReaderGoogle GmailDeliciousShare

WTF?* Hydraulic Fracturing in Antrim Shale will impact water resources

Friday, March 19th, 2010

(*What the Frack?  Research indicates that you have to use some variant of this pun in any discussion of the topic.  Sorry.)

There has been a lot of interest lately in the implications of increased use of hydraulic fracturing technology in gas and oil bearing shales to enable extraction of stocks of gas or oil that are not recoverable by conventional means.  First, what is hydraulic fracturing?

A really good introduction (with some industry and scientific jargon) is a paper written by ALL Consulting of Tulsa, OK.  In part, they say that-

The process of hydraulic fracturing as typically used for shale gas development involves the pumping of tens of thousands of barrels of sand laden water into the target shale zone. Fluids pumped into the shale creates fractures or openings through which the sand flows, at the same time the sand acts to prop open the fractures that have been created. Once the pumping of fluids has stopped the sand remains in place allowing fluids (both gas and water) to flow back to the wellbore.

A quicker overview was made by an intern from Cornell University in this PowerPoint presentation on fracking for the Broome County, NY county health department.

While we need natural gas, we also need clean water, and must protect our surface and ground water from both pollution and depletion as oil and gas reserves are extracted.  This presents challenges everywhere you might drill a well, and there are some particular implications for drilling in the Antrim shales in northern Michigan.  These challenges are made all the more difficult because fracking fluids are specifically exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act, at the urging of (wait for it!) VP Cheney!!  What a shock, huh?

In a February 18, 2010   memo to Energy & Environment sub-committee members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Chairman Henry A. Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Edward J. Markey point out some of their concerns with fracking, including the exemption from EPA oversight.

In 2005, Congress exempted hydraulic fracturing from regulation under the SDWA as part of the Energy Policy Act.18 Many dubbed this provision the “Halliburton loophole” because of Halliburton’s ties to then-Vice President Cheney and its role as one of the largest providers of hydraulic fracturing services. Specifically, Congress modified the definition of “underground injection” to exclude “the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities.” As a result of this exemption, EPA cannot use the SDWA to regulate hydraulic fracturing unless it can show the use of diesel fuels.

Environmental groups, public health officials, and communities across the country have raised other concerns about hydraulic fracturing, beyond potential impacts on drinking water. In Texas, state regulators are responding to tests showing high levels of benzene in the air near wells in the Barnett Shale gas fields. In Pennsylvania, state regulators are facing a new challenge of how to ensure proper disposal of the millions of gallons of wastewater generated from natural gas development in the Marcellus Shale. In New York, the state Department of Environmental Conservation analyzed wastewater extracted from wells and found levels of radium-226 as high as 267 times the limit safe for discharge into the environment and thousands of times the limit safe for people to drink. Others have raised concerns about water scarcity, since the drilling and hydraulic fracturing of a horizontal shale gas well may require 2 to 4 million gallons of water.

This is a big issue when it comes to water here in Michigan.  Most gas bearing shales don’t produce as much water as the Antrim “play” during extraction, in part because the Antrim formation is shallow, only 200 feet below the surface in some areas, and less than 2500 feet everywhere.  Most other gas bearing shale formations are thousands or tens of thousands of feet below the surface.  The Antrim is already naturally fractured to a good extent, yet still needs additional fracking.  And fracking isn’t a one and done procedure.  It will need to be re-fracked several times to keep production up, and with the water present in the formation it probably won’t hit peak production volumes for a year or more after fracking, while the fracking fluids and the natural water, bearing a variety of chemicals and NORMs (Naturally Occuring Radioactive Materials), are pumped out to allow the gas to flow.  All of this water has to be treated, which means hundreds or thousands of trips over the surrounding roads with big tank trucks, or pipelines.  Municipal water treatment plants aren’t set up to deal with this type of pollution (and in the case of fracking fluids, they won’t even know exactly what is there due to “trade secrets”) so often drillers seek to inject the polluted water deep underground and forget about it.  Doesn’t sound like a good idea to me.  Recycling and re-use sounds better, and would lessen the demands on local water supplies (aquifers, streams, lakes) as well.

And the demand on local water resources will be phenomenal.  Horizontal bore fracking uses lots of water, as was pointed out in the congressional memo above.  According to the Michigan Public Service Commission web site there were 9700 producing wells in the Antrim play in 2008.  If we add just a few thousand that aren’t producing, but will with fracking we can easily imagine 10,000 wells working at a time.  If they all are fracked every few years, to the tune of 4 million gallons of water each time, we are talking about a whole lot of water that won’t be available to drinking wells, irrigation wells, rivers, streams and lakes.

The area’s major river is the Jordan, Michigan’s first wild and scenic river.  According to the USGS, the 40 year average mean daily flow in East Jordan ranges from 218 cubic feet per second in April to 171 cfs during July and August.  My back-of-an-envelope math translates that into about 14.77 million cfs/day.  One cfs = 7.48 gallons per second.  That’s about 110.5 million gallons per day (if my math is good.  YMMV.)  So fracking 27 wells would use the equivalent of all the water that flows through the town of East Jordan in a day.  Fracking 10,000 wells would use more water than flows through the river in East Jordan in a year.

And that is each time they are fracked, and we know that they will need to be given repeated treatments to keep the gas flowing.

We need natural gas.  But in northern Michigan, we need abundant, clean, cold, water more.  Pollute that water, or seriously reduce the volume available, and our regional ecology, quality of life, and our number one industry, tourism suffer proportionally.

Until we have rock solid rules and procedures in place to safely monitor and regulate hydraulic fracturing, it isn’t a practice we should accept.  Until we have assurances that our water resources won’t suffer, either through pollution from extracted water and fracking fluids or excessive de-watering of our aquifers and surface waters, hydraulic fracturing is a gamble we can’t afford to take.

EvernoteGoogle ReaderGoogle GmailDeliciousShare
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes
Proudly using Dynamic Headers by Nicasio WordPress Design