Is there any other energy-extraction process so mind-numbingly primitive and destructive? After doing a little research on fracking recently I honestly can't think of any.
Pumping millions of gallons of chemical-laced water under high pressure to fracture geological formations and extract gas is akin to fishing with dynamite, but the long-term environmental implications are far, far worse.
Because once the underground aquifers which form part of the groundwater table are disrupted / damaged they can't be fixed. The water table becomes contaminated with fracking chemicals and the gas the process is meant to extract. What does contamination of a region's water table look like over generations?
Apart from the risk to fresh water, there's also (unsurprisingly) concern over geological instability from the process. A few months ago a fracking company operating in the UK (Cuadrilla Resources) was forced to stop after two mini-earthquakes were linked to their activities: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jun/01/blackpool-earthquak...
In France the practice is banned, and in Australia a national coalition of farmers, scientists, environmental and community groups ( http://lockthegate.org.au/ ) has formed to oppose the spread of gas wells through prime agricultural land.
The big story with fracking is the long-term economic downside. So it's disappointing that the NPR article almost solely focuses on the short-term economic upside.
First thing, I like the false comparisons. They really add to your point. It also goes to drive home that point you made in the second sentence, you know, a little research.
Now, hydraulic fracturing may be primitive sounding. But compared to what? Most modern oil and gas recovery is startlingly similar. Drilling muds frequently cause some hydraulic fracture because you cannot balance all borehole pressures along the entire length of a borehole simultaneously with a single drilling mud weight. Granted these muds contain a different set of chemicals than what is used for purposefully fracturing horizontal wells.
Which brings up another point which even a 'little' research should have lead you to realize. The depths where these wells are drilled are well below drinking water aquifers. In fact, all pore fluids at these depths are quite concentrated brines. You're looking at 1 km + below ground surface. There is a density barrier between these brines and the fresh, drinking water aquifers which we frequently use for tap water and farming. At the flow rates you are dealing with (cm/day to cm/year) no mixing can really take place due to the extremely low Reynold's numbers. I won't say that contamination cannot migrate, since I cannot know that, only that it is exceedingly unlikely.
Furthermore, if fluids could flow freely in these formations, would we need to fracture them at all? The answer is obviously no. That would be what is known as a conventional reservoir. Hydraulic fracturing generally takes place in gas shales. These have hydraulic conductivities on the order of 10^-12 cm/s. Unless the fracture reaches a more conductive body, that fluid isn't going anywhere.
Would the fluid reach a more conductive body? Its possible. It would be undesirable, since you would lose any production from that particular well. Chances are any loses would be trapped by a different aquitard (a layer with very low hydraulic conductivity). Hydraulic fractures tend to deflect when they reach such a phase interface, though. The stresses tend to not be the same on both sides of the interface. A useful analogy would be activation energy in chemistry.
The gas itself is methane. Methane is produced in the subsurface naturally (which is why its called natural gas). It is concievable that greater amounts might be present in the subsurface due to hydraulic fracturing of gas shales, but this would be undesirable for everyone involved since that gas would be lost from production. Which isn't to say that leaks cannot happen, but I am aware of no such cases (and yes, I looked, this is my area of study).
As for earthquakes, you have to first understand what causes earthquakes. Earthquakes are caused when the crust of the earth yields. This means that the stresses become greater than the rock's ability to withstand them. Hydraulic fracture also yields rock. There was research done in California to determine if such yielding could be used to control stresses on the San Andreas fault. It came to nothing because, presently, we are not able to drill deep enough and pump enough fluid to reduce effective stresses to sufficient levels to induce controlled yield. Furthermore, any deep mining city experiences rock bursts. These are also caused when stresses in the rock lead to yield. These feel like small earthquakes, and are picked up on seismographs just like earthquakes, but they cause no damage.
I do believe we need to better understand what goes on during hydraulic fracture. It is exceedingly complex. It is not, however, akin to fishing with dynamite. Open pit mining may be a fair comparison to that, although even there your analogy falls short. I am glad you have an interest in this field, however. It is an important one with a lot of potential. Further study on your part may not change your mind, but will help you make sounder arguments.
A patronising tone is really unnecessary in HN discussions. Well-argued points should be enough.
On the surface your response appears to be an informed, expert rebuttal but it falls apart with the briefest of examinations.
Take for instance your assertion that 'no mixing (of groundwater aquifers and fracking wells) can really take place'. That it is 'highly unlikely'. You state that even a 'little' research should have led me to realise this. However there is a 1987 EPA report acknowledging that groundwater contamination from fracking has taken place: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/drilling-down-document..., and increasing reports from US and Australian landowners that their drinking wells have become contaminated, with nearby fracking activities suspected. The bore wells themselves pierce all geological layers, and although the risk of the casings corroding or leaking is low, when you measure the number of gas wells in the tens of thousands some wells will inevitably pollute aquifers this way.
However if we accept your assertion that groundwater contamination is 'exceedingly unlikely', the fact still remains that fracking depressurizes aquifers across whole regions, so communities and industries (such as agriculture) which rely on bore water inevitably find many wells become unusable, with aquifer recovery measured in hundreds, and even thousands of years. Fracking also results in the generation of millions of gallons of chemically-laced water per well, with no appropriate means of disposal or long-term storage.
Obviously I do not accept your assertion that groundwater contamination is 'exceedingly unlikely'. Hydrologists are on record stating we know very little about the complexities of underground aquifers, you caveat all your own assertions with 'won't say it cannot', 'chances are', and 'isn't to say that leaks cannot happen' and conclude by agreeing we need to better understand what goes on, and that fracking is 'exceedingly complex'. By your own admission you agree we do not know enough about the process, and yet assert in expert tones that it is all fine. Curious.
I cannot comment on that EPA document yet, since digesting that takes much longer than a day. I think its safe to assume that the NYT wouldn't lie about this, so point taken.
As for the boreholes intersecting all layers from surface to source location, this is true of all boreholes used in oil and gas production. These are legally required to be sealed from surrounding aquifer layers. I say legally here speaking as an Ontarian, I do not know what the case in individual states are. Which is not to say that this is a risk-free process. But the risk is no greater or worse than with conventional oil and gas production.
I am not sure what you mean by depressurizing aquifers. I either understand this as causing subsidence by soil consolidation due to decreased pore fluid pressures, as happened in New Orleans during the 20th century (which to the best of my knowledge they are now trying to control). I can also understand this as generally depleting an aquifer, as is going on with the Ogallala Aquifer in what I would describe as the south-central United States. Some clarification is perhaps in order.
You are correct that the recharge time on many aquifers of importance is thousands or more years. The Ogallala Aquifer, for instance, is usually considered to be a 'fossil aquifer' since it is not expected to recharge on a human/engineering time scale.
As for my use of qualifiers, I was just trying to be honest about the unknowns. From my understanding, limited as it is, I see cautious development in the field as a reasonable course of action. There is risk. I would even agree that the risk is probably greater than that of conventional oil and gas production. But we are also in need of more energy. I fully support renewables and conservation and would like nothing better than to see humanity moving beyond fossil fuels. Unconventional gas (and natural gas as a whole) is seen as a stepping stone to help bridge between oil and renewables.
I think the issue is that fracking is far from a solved problem, environmentally or scientifically. The scientific community is divided on the issue and, as a result, we're letting that unsolved problem get drilled into the ground permanently. It would be one thing if this were a relatively small scale issue and a few wells were around to let us analyze the long term effects, but we seem to be drilling up a quarter of the state in North Dakota.
I no longer trust industry to protect me after such major failures and Bhopal or Deep Horizon. Even if those were isolated accidents, the repercussions are so large that we need to know without question that what we are doing is safe. We don't.
Furthermore, companies constantly try to get less regulation. That's part of what they do. They want lax regulation on living conditions, safety and wastewater. Not to mention that they recently hired a former governor to lobby for lower taxes on oil companies. I don't trust these guys to keep us safe.
Those issues aside, the destructiveness goes beyond the environmental issues immediate to that area. Fracking simply gives us more greenhouse gases to burn and they do not force us to reanalyze our lifestyles and public policy as it relates to the environment or our communities.
The above account was created 3 hours ago and is most likely to be from a public relations org for the gas/oil industry.
On another note, if you turn on your TV you'll notice this industry is spending a considerable amount of money right now on commercials, trying to prove to the US public that fracking is the new green. And giving ad money to CNN, Fox, etc, virtually guarantees the buyer that no news that makes them look bad will ever be shown.
"First thing, I like the false comparisons. They really add to your point. It also goes to drive home that point you made in the second sentence, you know, a little research."
Welcome to HN, mostly good post, but please check the snark at the door. It's not informative or helpful in any way, and tends to degrade the quality of discussion over time. We try to do things a little differently here. Muchos gracias.
"Laboratory tests concluded that Markham’s water well contained biogenic methane, a combustible gas that occurs naturally in underground coal beds.[10] Further investigation revealed that Markham’s water well had been drilled through four different coal beds containing naturally occurring biogenic methane gas. The 2008 investigation concluded that "there [were] no indications of oil & gas related impacts to [Markham's] water well." It was also concluded that the water well of Weld County landowner Renee McClure, also featured in the film, contained naturally occurring biogenic methane not related to oil and gas activity in the area.[11] On the other hand, Dr. Anthony Ingraffea, the D. C. Baum Professor of Engineering at Cornell University, whose research has involved fracture mechanics for more than 30 years, has said that drilling and hydraulic fracturing can liberate biogenic natural gas into a fresh water aquifer. Thus, just because gas is biogenic does not necessarily indicate that it reached a well by natural means. [12]
"The COGCC concluded that a well belonging to Weld County landowner Aimee Ellsworth, also featured in the film, contained thermogenic methane that was attributable to oil and gas activity in the area. The report states that Mrs. Ellsworth and an operator in the area had reached a settlement in that case.[9]
Note that "oil and gas activity" doesn't imply fracking wells.
For a nice summary of the issues in the US, watch Gasland; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasland My wife and I enjoyed it immensely, or as much as you can enjoy a documentary about how we're destroying our own water.
"Dave Neslin, Director of the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, offered to speak on camera with Gasland director Josh Fox during filming. Neslin requested that he be allowed to review any material that would be used in the film because "the issues are technical and complex and arouse concerns in many people." The statement concludes that "Such a discussion might have prevented the inaccuracies [in COGSS's opinion] noted above." Director Fox refused those terms, which would have given editorial control to COGCC for this segment of the documentary.[9]
Letting someone know what you're going to talk with him about is not giving editorial control, it's just letting someone prepare.
It is a little unreal driving in western ND. The roads are full of trucks (worse traffic than the last time I was in Chicago). McDonalds is starting at $15/hr, Wal-Mart cannot hire enough people to stock the shelves, and rent on a one bedroom is around $2100 if you can get it. Counties are now trying to figure out what to do about sewage treatment, and the projects in Devils Lake ND (eastern ND) to mitigate the flooding are slowed by years because of lack of trucks to hire.
The amount of oil being produced is expected to double on the conservative estimate and it looks like ND will go from #4 to #2 state in the next year.
"Two years ago, America was importing about two thirds of its oil. Today, according to the Energy Information Administration, it imports less than half."
This theory does not appear to be borne out by the figures - the interested reader is invited to consult this week's EIA petroleum balance sheet:
Domestic production is about 10% higher than in 2007, but rows 14, 4 and 1 in the Petroleum Supply table nevertheless suggest that America continues to import roughly two thirds (or maybe it is more like ten twenty-sevenths?) of the oil used.
You need to add in the Natural Gas Liquids (oil that is dissolved in hot natural gas and liquifies on cooling) and other fuels from lines 15-20.
America is burning about 18 million barrels per day (mbpd), down from about 21 mbpd in 2005-2006, and producing about 9 mbpd with conventional oil production declining (even including North Dakota's Bakken) and off-shore and deep off-shore compensating.
America is one of the world's largest producers with Russia and Saudi Arabia also in the 9 mbpd range. Together the top three account for almost a third of world capacity. The next largest producers are significantly smaller. Of course, Russia and Saudi Arabia are exporters.
America's per capita usage and per dollar of income usage is absurdly high compared to the rest of the world. If America wants to invest in efficiency, it could be a net exporter again with current technology and a 10-20 year investment in more efficient machines and better quality infrastructure. Unfortunately, American government seems to have chosen to drive head-on at 100mph into a worldwide peak production crisis.
But caused a significantly greater demand for energy to make new cars.
If it was worth it to trade your guzzler for a new car people would do it on their own without incentives. But a new car uses more energy than it saves for many many years. It's only worth it when the old car dies.
I have a hard time believing this. Let's take an environmentally attractive car, like the TDi Jetta. How many barrel-of-oil equivalents would you estimate it takes to produce a car like this, in mass quantity?
About 200 to 300 barrel of oil. Or about 20 - depending on who you ask.
Basically how far down and across the manufacturing chain do you count the energy. Most places use the second number since it's direct energy for that car. I prefer the first since it also includes things like overhead for the sales team, the engineering, building the manufacturing plant and everything else it takes to actually make a car.
Certainly as others have said the major economic downturn has contributed to this. I do wonder what effect energy savings programs from the past few years have helped as well. I'm thinking about things like CFLs, better energy saving appliances, etc. But... what effect do those have on barrels of oil? Perhaps none. I'm not enough of an energy geek to know. :/
Most of the fossil fuel that's burned to produce electricity is natural gas or coal. Natural gas is generally for smaller production more variable production (peak load) and coal for larger base load demands.
Remember the choice isn't between dirty oil/gas and a wonderful future of clean/green fuel and no damage to the environment. Transitioning to alternative energy sources is incredibly expensive - it will be a major drain on the economy to do so because alt fuels are still struggling to hit grid parity and we still don't have a serious way to reduce oil consumption for gasoline.
So the choice is really between
1) Oil and gas extraction using new technologies with all the attendant risks (and there many)
2) Forget the new technologies and continue to rely more and more on unstable oppressive regimes (Middle East, Russia, etc)
3) Take a major hit to economic growth and aggressively push alternative fuels.
I would recommend (1). Option (2) leads to greater geopolitical instability and very significant long-term risks. Option (3) will undermine economic growth at a time when there is consensus that growth is a priority.
Obviously, this is grossly simplified, but my general point is that we have a limited option set and in truth, none are very attractive. Three rotten apples, we're starving and we must eat one, let's pick the least rotten one.
I'm concerned what will happen when they run out of wells to drill. The area has seen an oil boom before, but nothing like this. 5 years ago the town of Stanley had about 1,500 residents. Today it has over 10,000, many of those in temporary housing. Williston has put a moratorium on any further expansion because they simply can't handle any more people.
There's a lot of jobs and money around, but it's a mixed blessing for sure. When the oil dries up, and it will someday, a lot of these towns are going to get hit really hard.
People will move on and hopefully the cities will bank the money. Farming will go back to its #1 position. If they conserve their cash, the towns will be fine. If they spend like a drunken sailor, or worse, borrow heavy, then there will be problems.
Except as they add infrastructure and upgrade existing roads, utilities, etc, they also add long term upkeep costs. When the oil goes away and people leave you're left with roads and sewers to maintain, people to lay off at Wal-Mart and McDonalds and lots of empty housing to depress real estate prices. That's why boom cycles seem so often to be followed by serious bust, because boom creates long term costs.
I'm not sure the towns will be fine even if they conserve their cash. When the oil jobs decline, there will be no reason for that many people to live there, so the population will likely decline precipitously (as with any boom town), which tends to produce social problems and a general feeling of malaise (not to mention abandoned buildings).
It's the second time around for most of these towns and there is another industry. A lot of the people will move on, but I think the folks in that area are pretty resilient.
That all said, it will probably be a number of years before it goes away.
Enjoyed the article, I couldn't help be reminded that the same thing (but at 10x scale) has been going on in Canada (the tar sands) for at least a decade.
Does anybody know of jobs for computational scientists, programmers, and techies in these industries for people over here who wouldn't mind moving to ND for a few years?
No. I live near Grand Forks and ND is definitely not a hot spot for programmers. Fargo always has jobs for people skilled with Microsoft tech as Great Plains was started there and turned into a Microsoft campus. There are scattered embedded systems and IT style jobs throughout the state. I've never seen anything advertised out by Williston. Outside of Fargo, the pay for programming jobs is very low, even by North Dakotan standards.
Pumping millions of gallons of chemical-laced water under high pressure to fracture geological formations and extract gas is akin to fishing with dynamite, but the long-term environmental implications are far, far worse.
Because once the underground aquifers which form part of the groundwater table are disrupted / damaged they can't be fixed. The water table becomes contaminated with fracking chemicals and the gas the process is meant to extract. What does contamination of a region's water table look like over generations?
Apart from the risk to fresh water, there's also (unsurprisingly) concern over geological instability from the process. A few months ago a fracking company operating in the UK (Cuadrilla Resources) was forced to stop after two mini-earthquakes were linked to their activities: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jun/01/blackpool-earthquak...
In France the practice is banned, and in Australia a national coalition of farmers, scientists, environmental and community groups ( http://lockthegate.org.au/ ) has formed to oppose the spread of gas wells through prime agricultural land.
The big story with fracking is the long-term economic downside. So it's disappointing that the NPR article almost solely focuses on the short-term economic upside.