This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
5 Things You Probably Don’t Know About Fracking
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:

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.
- 29237 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


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.
Exactly, it's like they've ever been wrong before either.
I recall similar statements made by BP about Deepwater Horizon. So I guess there's nothing to be concerned about.
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.
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.
The well water was likely contaminated before any fracking.
It is the normal situation.
BTW, Your cyanide example is pure BS.
fracking fluid is mother natures jizz. its good for the earth.
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 ;)
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.
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!
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Upton Sinclair
I presume you get paid for fracking, yep, no bias here.
It is very likely that you got your information from watching 'Gas Land', financed by......Qatar. yep, no bias here.
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?
And Michael Mann knows a fuck of a lot more about how the climate works than anybody here...
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.
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...
recalibrated by Cook, Esper & D'Arrigo 2004 "Extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere land temperature variability over the past 1000 years".
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'.
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?
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!
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.
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?
How are the earthquakes in Oklahoma working out? No doubt, at all, fracking is the cause. Don't fucking bug me...look it up.
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.
Fracking therefore allows small tension release events rather than waiting for The Big One. It creates a more stable condition.
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!
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
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.
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.
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
Complete and utter bullshit.
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?
Clifftastic,
Would you like a quart of that naturally safe BenGay up your ass? Yes or no?
"Already done that" you say?
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.
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.
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...
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
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)
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.
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.
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.