This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

5 Things You Probably Don’t Know About Fracking

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Martin Tillier of OilPrice.com,

I would hazard a guess that most people in the developed world are now aware of what hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is. For those who aren’t, it is a technique used to extract oil and gas from previously inaccessible underground shale (rock) formations.

Fracking has had profound effects on the energy industry, so far mostly in the U.S., where it has created oil and gas booms in non-traditional places, moved the country closer to energy independence, and resulted in a huge reduction in the cost of energy, particularly natural gas.

It is, however, not without controversy. Environmental groups worry that we don’t know the possible effects of chemicals used in the process, and that contamination of the water supply could cause major environmental problems at some point in the future. Breaking up subterranean rock formations just sounds like a harmful thing to do and many believe that earthquakes have been or will be caused.

I have no interest in taking sides in the debate, but any debate benefits from knowledge, so here are 5 things that you may not know about fracking.

It isn’t new.

Hydraulic fracturing has risen to prominence over the last five or six years, but the technique itself has been around a lot longer. The first hydraulic fracturing experiment was conducted in Kansas in 1947. It was not successful, but a patent on the process was granted in 1949 and the licensed user of the technique, Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company, began commercial operations later that year. Since then about 90 percent of U.S. wells have been fracked.

It mainly uses sand and water.

Environmental concerns about fracking center on the possibility of contamination by chemicals used in the process. This leads many people to believe that it is just a chemical cocktail that is being pumped into the ground. In fact, over 99 percent of what is pumped typically consists of sand and water. That doesn’t mean that contamination and environmental damage isn’t possible, but it may not be what you envisage.

It makes your ice cream more expensive.

One component of the small percentage of fracking fluid that is not sand or water is guar gum. This natural product of the seeds of the guar plant is also used to improve the texture of ice cream. A chart of guar gum prices since 2000 looks like this:

Guar gum prices

Ice cream and other foods that utilize the product have seen significant increases in cost. For those of us with a sweet tooth, this alone may be reason enough to be wary of any more rapid expansion of fracking.

The biggest environmental threat could be from the amount of water used, not chemical contamination.

If the benign nature of guar gum and the small percentage of chemicals used in fracking fluid has you believing that the environmental concerns have been massively exaggerated, think again. Fracking just one well uses somewhere in the region of 3 to 8 million gallons of water. Using 2011 data, this article by Jesse Jenkins calculates that to mean that the amount of freshwater consumed by all the shale wells in the U.S. was about 0.3 percent of total U.S. freshwater consumption. That doesn’t sound like a lot, but in a world where water scarcity is becoming more of an issue it has to be considered as fracking use spreads.

It has uses beyond oil and gas.

Hydraulic fracturing of rock formations is not just used to extract oil and gas. It is also used to stimulate production from water wells, to enhance geothermal production of electricity and, most surprisingly of all, used by the EPA to clean up superfund sites.

Proponents and opponents of fracking will no doubt cherry pick from these lesser-known facts about the process to support their arguments. As I said, I have no interest in taking sides here. My only hope is that everybody who reads this will learn something that they didn’t know before. The debate will continue to rage, but the more informed that debate is, the better for all of us.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 06/19/2014 - 19:53 | 4875917 potato
potato's picture

Importantly, these chemicals are pumped through a steel pipe encased in very high-strength concrete. The steel pipes weigh 600 lbs per ~43 feet and the concrete is stronger than any concrete you come across in daily life. They get pumped about 11,000 feet underground, beneath bedrock. 

Think about it. The odds are stacked against them ever coming to the surface or even close to any aquifiers.

Thu, 06/19/2014 - 19:57 | 4875929 NOTaREALmerican
NOTaREALmerican's picture

Exactly,  it's like they've ever been wrong before either.  

Thu, 06/19/2014 - 20:19 | 4876025 alien-IQ
alien-IQ's picture

I recall similar statements made by BP about Deepwater Horizon. So I guess there's nothing to be concerned about.

Thu, 06/19/2014 - 20:03 | 4875957 Stumpy4516
Stumpy4516's picture

There are so many stories of rural people who have had their lives turned upside down due to fracking.  Terrible health effects and the inability to sell their land.  Twice I thought I found my great deal on a house only to be turned away by fracking.  Each time the water wells on the property could not be used due to compounds in the water that made it unsafe to drink.  On the second house, land with frontage to a nice stream, they identified one of the main compounds as methane and that it did not show up until the fracking started.  One the first house they just said the well water could no longer be used due to fracking.  Both of these were older houses that had no problems prior.

Was looking at a third house that had a good price that was lower than expected.  It was not more than 5 years old.  Went to google earth and saw the new fracking sites in the area, a mile or more away still.  The owners were trying to escape before the value dropped, I did not consider it further.

This article is biased and deceptive.  If I give you 99% pure water and 1% cyanide do you want a drink.  And such large volumes of the mix is shot into the ground it results in large amounts of chemicals. 

Thu, 06/19/2014 - 20:07 | 4875972 NOTaREALmerican
NOTaREALmerican's picture

Re:  If I give you 99% pure water and 1% cyanide do you want a drink. 

If an expert tell ya it's ok, who you gonna believe?    Have a drink;  cyanided water hasn't killed that many Chinese people.

Fri, 06/20/2014 - 00:09 | 4876888 Augustus
Augustus's picture

The well water was likely contaminated before any fracking.

It is the normal situation.

BTW, Your cyanide example is pure BS.

Thu, 06/19/2014 - 20:05 | 4875965 teslaberry
teslaberry's picture

fracking fluid is mother natures jizz. its good for the earth.

Thu, 06/19/2014 - 20:18 | 4875973 news printer
news printer's picture

 

 

 

 In the practice discussed therein the well is fractured by any suitable method, such as injecting a fracturing fluid comprising a gas, a liquid, or a mixture of gas and liquid, and the pellets are injected into the fractures or tailed in in suspension or dispersion in a suitable carrier fluid which may comprise gelled water, diesel oil, kerosene, and similar gelled heavy hydrocarbons. Waterin-oil emulsions are also suitable.

A concentration of pellets in the carrier fluid of at least 5 pounds per gallon of fluid is required to provide a continuous layer of pellets in the fracture. After the propping pellets have been tailed in to form a continuous layer in the fracture, the pressure is reduced in the injection well and the excess 3,227,211 Patented Jan. 4, 1966 pellets are removed from the well in conventional manner.

Heat stimulation of fractured wells

https://www.google.com/patents/US3227211

https://encrypted.google.com/books?id=X5xUuWvYow8C&pg=PA142#v=onepage&q&f=false

PS.: Don't be shy; vote for me ;)

 

Thu, 06/19/2014 - 20:07 | 4875975 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

On a long enough time line there will be virtually nothing, and I mean nothing that ZH followers believe actually works. I think of myself as pretty cynical, but the comment thread constantly amazes me how everything is so absolutely fucked.

Thu, 06/19/2014 - 20:13 | 4875977 azblackbird
azblackbird's picture

I've fraced over 100 wells in my career. So far "potato" is about the only one here even remotely close to having a clue of what the fuck he's talking about. The rest of you numbnuts have your heads up the environmentalist's asses!

Thu, 06/19/2014 - 20:17 | 4876018 alien-IQ
alien-IQ's picture

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Upton Sinclair

Thu, 06/19/2014 - 20:39 | 4876105 Kprime
Kprime's picture

I presume you get paid for fracking,  yep, no bias here.

Thu, 06/19/2014 - 23:10 | 4876704 sylviasays
sylviasays's picture

It is very likely that you got your information from watching 'Gas Land', financed by......Qatar. yep, no bias here.


Fri, 06/20/2014 - 00:14 | 4876900 Augustus
Augustus's picture

You can safely presume that he knows a great deal more about fracking than you do.

Just as the electrician you pay knows more about wiring.

And your surgeon knows more about heart valve repair.

But you, you are convinced that Albert Gore is the all knowing font of knowledge.  Did he ever get paid?

Fri, 06/20/2014 - 00:26 | 4876932 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

And Michael Mann knows a fuck of a lot more about how the climate works than anybody here...

Fri, 06/20/2014 - 12:38 | 4878307 Augustus
Augustus's picture

Yeah.  Michael Mann.  The man who claimed to have won a Nobel Prize.

He did know enough about his research that he destroyed the data set that he claimed to have used.

His field of expertise is data manipulation to generate false results.

Sun, 06/22/2014 - 00:55 | 4882037 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Ah, the Mann Hedgetard Theme...

MM and his hockey stick have been verified so many time and in different ways, I have almost lost count...

  • Jones et al. (1998), calibrated by Jones, Osborn & Briffa 2001 "The Evolution of Climate Over the Last Millennium".
  • Mann, Bradley & Hughes (1999)
  • Briffa (2000), calibrated by Briffa, Osborn & Schweingruber 2004 "Large-scale temperature inferences from tree rings: a review".
  • Crowley & Lowery 2000 "How Warm Was the Medieval Warm Period?".
  • Briffa et al. 2001 "Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree ring density network".
  • Esper, Cook & Schweingruber 2002 "Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability",
    recalibrated by Cook, Esper & D'Arrigo 2004 "Extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere land temperature variability over the past 1000 years".
  • Mann & Jones 2003 "Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia."
  • Pollack & Smerdon 2004 "Borehole climate reconstructions: Spatial structure and hemispheric averages".
  • Oerlemans 2005 "Extracting a climate signal from 169 glacier records".
  • Rutherford et al. 2005 "Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere surface temperature reconstructions: Sensitivity to method, predictor network, target season, and target domain".
  • Moberg et al. 2005 "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data".
  • D'Arrigo, Wilson & Jacoby 2006 "On the long-term context for late twentieth century warming".
  • Osborn & Briffa 2006 "The spatial extent of 20th-century warmth in the context of the past 1200 years".
  • Hegerl et al. 2006 "Climate sensitivity constrained by temperature reconstructions over the past seven centuries".
  • Smith et al. 2006 "Reconstructing hemispheric-scale climates from multiple stalagmite records".
  • Juckes et al. 2007 "Millennial temperature reconstruction intercomparison and evaluation".
  • Lee, Zwiers & Tsao 2008 "Evaluation of proxy-based millennial reconstruction methods".
  • Huang, Pollack & Shen 2008 "A late Quaternary climate reconstruction based on borehole heat flux data, borehole temperature data, and the instrumental record"
  • Mann et al. 2008 "Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia"
  • Kaufman et al. 2009 "Recent warming reverses long-term arctic cooling".
  • Tingley & Huybers 2010a "A Bayesian Algorithm for Reconstructing Climate Anomalies in Space and Time".
  • Ljungqvist 2010 "A New Reconstruction of Temperature Variability in the Extra-Tropical Northern Hemisphere During the Last Two Millennia".
  • Christiansen & Ljungqvist 2011 "Reconstruction of the Extratropical NH Mean Temperature over the Last Millennium with a Method that Preserves Low-Frequency Variability".
  • Ljungqvist et al. 2012 "Northern Hemisphere temperature patterns in the last 12 centuries".
  • Christiansen & Ljungqvist 2012 "The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature in the last two millennia: Reconstructions of low-frequency variability".
  • Marcott et al. 2013 "A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years"
  • Ahmed et al. 2013 (PAGES 2k Consortium) "Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia"
  • Shi et al. 2013 "Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction during the last millennium using multiple annual proxies"
Fri, 06/20/2014 - 14:18 | 4878686 Kprime
Kprime's picture

you don't know if that is a safe presumption or not.

However, we can clearly see that you are given to deriving baseless hypothesis'.

Fri, 06/20/2014 - 01:03 | 4877006 phaedrus1952
phaedrus1952's picture

Hey, AZ, the people who are adamantly opposed to fossil fuel use tend not to be receptive to ANY info that promotes hydrocarbon production/consumption. That's the way it is ...

Quick technical question for you if you get to read/respond.

Slide 10 on Whiting's June 16th presentation (accessible on their website) describes what some say may be the next revolutionary stimulation technique - the latest iteration of Coiled Tubing conveyed BHA from NCS Energy Services.  Sucker fracced 60 stages in about a day with flow 40% greater than two offset plug/perf.  Thoughts?

Thu, 06/19/2014 - 20:28 | 4875985 kurt
kurt's picture

The reason the fracking fluids are secret is because they are putting every god damn poison they can get their hands on down the well. They get paid for putting chrome 5 mutagen, carcinogen, radioactive waste, mercury. Why? They get paid to do so. One side of a Cheney-Like company has the contract for hazardous waste, the other is the fracking end. Get paid twice, oh and help advance the depopulation agenda. If you think it's bad, you're wrong, it's WAY WORSE!

Thu, 06/19/2014 - 21:19 | 4876244 Puck Xue
Puck Xue's picture

Oracle is systems engineer for a Calgary startup led by two mud engineers producing fracking fluid.  Very hush hush regarding contract size &

formulaic ingredients.  In other words, intent is to boiler-plate legal comebacks.  Everyone in on this scam will disapear on que.

 

Fri, 06/20/2014 - 00:19 | 4876911 Augustus
Augustus's picture

Nothing screwey about that post.  Complete accuracy.

BTW, do you have any mercury in your mouth?  fluoride in the water?  Chlorine in your water? Acetone in the cleaning fluid?  Do you wear the clothing after their cleaning?

Thu, 06/19/2014 - 20:15 | 4876010 Ban KKiller
Ban KKiller's picture

How are the earthquakes in Oklahoma working out? No doubt, at all, fracking is the cause. Don't fucking bug me...look it up.

Thu, 06/19/2014 - 20:19 | 4876028 rosiescenario
rosiescenario's picture

Another interesting point (and this might be viewed as a + or a -)...fracking may bring on earthquakes by forcing water into faults and thereby overcoming someof the friction holding back the fault slippage. There have been many small quakes reported in areas doing fracking.

Fri, 06/20/2014 - 00:21 | 4876919 Augustus
Augustus's picture

Fracking therefore allows small tension release events rather than waiting for The Big One.  It creates a more stable condition.

Thu, 06/19/2014 - 20:51 | 4876142 Grouchy Marx
Grouchy Marx's picture

So it's expensive oil, or expensive ice cream.

This is not the solution America is looking for; we need to drive our SUVs out for a double scoop!

Thu, 06/19/2014 - 21:05 | 4876195 Sages wife
Sages wife's picture

Conventional oilwell drilling - Natural chemicals, including fresh water, are allowed to rise to the surface.

Oilwell fracturing - Unnatural chemicals, combined with fresh water, are pumped into the earth where they will permeate and contaminate indefinitely

Fri, 06/20/2014 - 12:47 | 4878341 Augustus
Augustus's picture

for Sages wife -

If any fluids are allowed to rise to surface without control it is called a blowout.

the control is the weighted drilling mud circulated down the hole and then out.  The objective is to weight the mud so that any gas or fluids encountered are kept in the formation, not circulated out as it reduces the mud weight, leading to an uncontrolled release - BLOWOUT.

the small amount of chemical ingredients used in frac fluids are no more unnatural than the ingredients in Pam or Mr. Clean.

Thu, 06/19/2014 - 21:19 | 4876247 potato
potato's picture

I see earthquakes caused by fracking as good since the many small earthquakes are dislodging stored tension between techtonic plates.

Fracking guns vary in the number of charges and their angles, but the charges used in fracking are very small, so even if you have 3 charges per foot, fracking is not causing earthquakes. It can only help release tension that is already stored. Many small earthquakes are better than one large one. 

It takes about $8 million to drill each pad. If a well needs 2.5 million gallons of water, and a water truck carries 150 barrels in each trip (so it can make weight on 80,000 lb roads), @42 gallons per barrel, it takes 400 trips. Those trucks get 6 miles per gallon of diesel and the pads are in the middle of NOWHERE. 

The main problem with fracking is the waste water disposal. They usually pump it into old wells. THe problem isn't fracking; it's the regulations surrounding waste disposal.

Thu, 06/19/2014 - 21:20 | 4876248 Magooo
Magooo's picture

INDEPENDENT US OIL PRODUCERS SPEND $1.50 DRILLING FOR EVERY $1.00 THEY GET BACK

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-27/dream-of-u-s-oil-independence-slams-against-shale-costs.html

 

SHALE DRILLERS FEAST ON JUNKE DEBT TO STAY ON TREADMILL

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-30/shale-drillers-feast-on-junk-debt-to-say-on-treadmill.html

 

SHAKEOUT THREATENS SHALE PATCH AS FRACKERS GO FOR BROKE

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-26/shakeout-threatens-shale-patch-as-frackers-go-for-broke.html

 

DREAM OF US OIL INDEPENDENCE SLAMS AGAINST SHALE COSTS

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-27/dream-of-u-s-oil-independence-slams-against-shale-costs.html

 

THE FRACKING PONZI SCHEME

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insead/2013/05/08/shale-oil-and-gas-the-contrarian-view/

 

WHY AMERICA’S SHALE BOOM COULD END SOONER THAN YOU THINK

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/06/13/why-americas-shale-oil-boom-could-end-sooner-than-you-think/

 

SCIENTISTS WARY OF SHALE OIL AND GAS AND U.S. ENERGY SALVATION

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131028141516.htm

 

U.S. SHALE OIL BOOM MAY NOT LAST AS FRACKING WELLS LACK STAYING POWER

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-10/u-dot-s-dot-shale-oil-boom-may-not-last-as-fracking-wells-lack-staying-power

 

 

 

 

Thu, 06/19/2014 - 21:37 | 4876315 pipes
pipes's picture

Complete and utter bullshit.

 

Thu, 06/19/2014 - 22:05 | 4876457 Clifftastic
Clifftastic's picture

Pretty shit article Martin. Like the popular saying, 'dont put anything in your ear smaller than your elbow' would you like some fracking fluid up your ass Martin? Yes or no?

Fri, 06/20/2014 - 00:44 | 4876972 Augustus
Augustus's picture

Clifftastic,

Would you like a quart of that naturally safe BenGay up your ass?  Yes or no?

"Already done that" you say?

Thu, 06/19/2014 - 22:23 | 4876538 fwaynemartin
fwaynemartin's picture

It is very likely the majority of anti-frackers got their information from watching 'Gas Land', financed by......Qatar.

They are the same types that said the Alaskan pipeline was going to destroy the Caribou population, and probably also think wind and solar are viable energy sources that can replace coal, petroleum and gas for our energy needs. ROFL.

 

 

Thu, 06/19/2014 - 23:41 | 4876808 SgtShaftoe
SgtShaftoe's picture

Everything promoted main-stream is bullshit.  I don't know if fracking is bullshit, I'm sure that some have been hurt by it, but for me, the jury is still out.  Modern implementations are just too new. 

I am however worried about the FED, pressurized nuke reactors, fuel pools, monsanto, fucked up agriculture practices, and desertification from the same. 

Those above items are boring to most, aren't covered by any media and are the biggest threat to humanity.  Fracking, smells like a distraction, but I'm not convinced either way yet. 

I take a Talebian approach to risk - if it has a disasterously high negative impact potential, don't do it.  The former items in my list fit that bill.  I don't know if fracking does yet, but it may. 

Fri, 06/20/2014 - 00:29 | 4876937 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

There might some hope for this place after all....

For an oil addict like the US fracking is like scraping your hash pipe for one last hit...

Fri, 06/20/2014 - 04:33 | 4877178 spacehedgie
spacehedgie's picture

It's good that the truth is getting out. Fracking's largest component really is toxic, namely dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO). Want any of that in your drinking water?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide

Fri, 06/20/2014 - 07:04 | 4877235 Roger Knights
Roger Knights's picture

The article says, "The biggest environmental threat could be from the amount of water used, not chemical contamination."

There is a new drilling lubricant called Encapso, a powder made from a proprietary strain of dried algae, that eliminates the need for guar gum or certain chemicals. The algae only release the organic oil stored inside them at a friction point. The algae that are not crushed can be recovered from the water after drilling -- a process that also purifies the water. A drilling consultant, Ptarmigan Services, briefly describes the process here--the sidebars, plus googling for Encapso, say more:

http://www.ptarmiganservices.com/7-2/

http://www.ptarmiganservices.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Encapso-Comp...

It has a bad odor after it's been crushed--its only downside.

Encapso is made by algae-fermenter Solazyme (SZYM)

 

Fri, 06/20/2014 - 11:32 | 4878052 general ambivalent
general ambivalent's picture

What are people's thoughts on 'dynamic fracturing'? Using propane gas or other methods which would remove or severely limit water use (in theory)?

http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2014/01/alternative-to-hy...

I suspect there are other huge problems here, in terms of energy input water is the perhaps the only way to ensure (insure?) a return. If water is the insurance derivative for gas we are done.

Edit: It seems propane would also result in greater fracture length, so get ready for more shaking screens.

Fri, 06/20/2014 - 13:08 | 4878415 Augustus
Augustus's picture

Gasses are mixed with some fluid to create a foam that can carry the propant.  The foams are more difficult to use as the propant drops out and the foam is compressible.  Much more difficult to know what is happening down hole.  Water works pretty well and is easily handled.  It will be hard to change from that.

Mon, 06/23/2014 - 22:59 | 4888108 VangelV
VangelV's picture

My problem with fracking has nothing to do with the environment because as long as it is done to industry standards there is nothing to worry about.  The problem is economic because shale oil and gas producers cannot make a profit if they have to write off the well costs using a depreciation schedule that is suggested by the depletion curves shown in the produciton data.  Geologists can ASSUME a hyperbolic decline rate but that is not what the actual data is showing.  While it may be good for the shale areas for now I do not think that investing $1.6 billion a month just to increase produciton by 20 thousand barrels a month does not seem a good idea giving the steep depletion rates and the short lives of wells.  

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!