This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: "Don't Frack Me Up"

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Marin Katusa of Casey Research

"Don't Frack Me Up"

To many walking the planet, fracking has a seriously bad reputation. Thanks to hyperbole and misinformation, fracking opponents have convinced a lot of people that the operators who drill and then hydraulically fracture underground rock layers thumb their noses at and even hate the environment.

Anti-fracking claims may be twists on reality – for example, that a legislative loophole makes fracking exempt from the America's Safe Drinking Water Act, when really this federal legislation never regulated fracking because it is a state concern. Then there's the completely absurd, such as the idea that frac operators are allowed to and regularly do inject frac fluids directly into underground water supplies.

We decided to set the record straight by using facts, not playing on emotion like many of the frac-tivists do. It's important because unconventional oil and gas constitute an increasingly pivotal part of the world's energy scene. In the United States, where shale gas abounds but imported energy rules the day, this is especially true.

America's shale deposits hold a heck of a lot of gas. According to the United States Geological Survey, the Marcellus Shale alone is home to 84 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of technically recoverable natural gas. Estimates of the amount of recoverable gas contained in all of America's shale basins range as high as 3,000 TCF.

To access this gas, fluids made of water, sand, and chemicals to increase lubrication, inhibit corrosion of equipment, and possessing other qualities are pumped into the shale formation. When the pressure from the fluids exceeds the strength of the rocks, the rock fractures, and in a demonstration of might by the mighty small, the granules of sand prop the fractures open. Once the fracturing is completed, the internal pressure from the formation pushes the injected fluids to the surface again.

Frac wells are only open to the surrounding rock at the depth of the target formation. Starting at 250 feet (76 meters) or thereabouts above the producing interval – it varies a bit from state to state – the production casing must be cemented. This graphic, borrowed from the Texas Oil and Gas Association, shows what the procedure entails.

 

 

Casings are the liners that isolate the inside of the well from the surrounding rock, and from any

Casings are the liners that isolate the inside of the well from the surrounding rock, and from any water that might be contained in that rock. The surface casing is the first line of defense, while the production casing provides a second layer of protection for the groundwater.

Casings do require proper cementation to be effective: the cement seals the annular spaces between successive casing layers to provide a barrier to vertical and horizontal fluid movement. A poor cementation job was a significant factor in the Deepwater Horizon well blowout, and that transpired because deepwater regulations were insufficient. On land, however, cementation is highly regulated, and inspections of wells in progress, announced and unannounced, are common.

Unlike deepwater drilling, fracking is not new. Nor is fracking specific to natural gas or to the United States. Drillers frac many thousands of oil and gas wells around the world every year. In America, oil and gas producers have been using hydraulic fracturing since at least the 1940s to enhance recoveries from older oil wells and to access the oil in tight reservoirs, such as the Bakken.

Then there's shale gas, a domestic source of energy for North America that's much more reliable and secure than the millions of barrels of oil that come from places like Nigeria, Venezuela, Iraq, Angola, and Algeria every day. And as we've said, accessing that gas using hydraulic fracturing is much less dangerous and damaging than many people think.

Gasland – More Drama Than Documentary

Frac-bashing really took off last year, with the debut of the film Gasland. After receiving a letter offering his family US$100,000 for the right to drill frac wells on their land, a documentary film maker by the name of Josh Fox decided to investigate. Gasland is the product of that investigation, which took Fox to Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, and West Virginia to interview other people living atop the newly discovered Marcellus Shale. Fox also visits Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and Texas to talk to those who have been living alongside natural gas drilling for the last decade.

The resulting film is well crafted, dramatic, and emotional. However, documentaries are also supposed to convey context and a fair representation of the facts. That's where Fox failed.

Let's be clear: fracking is not without drawbacks (and more on that in a moment). What drives us Casey "Focused on Facts" Research types crazy is messing with the data. Some examples:

Fox "Fact"
Fracking Reality
An energy bill pushed through Congress by Dick Cheney in 2005 exempts the oil and gas industries from the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA), the Superfund Law, and about a dozen other regulations. The oil and gas industry is regulated by every single one of these laws except for the SDWA, which has never regulated oil and gas activities. If it seems these federal statutes do not sufficiently regulate fracking, that's because the states do it instead.
Oil and gas drillers are allowed "to inject hazardous materials, unchecked, directly into or adjacent to underground water supplies." Disposing of frac fluids is a challenge. One method does involve sending them down old natural gas wells, but the wells are always cased, cemented, and grouted where they pass through drinking water supplies to seal off contact with the surrounding rock and terminate in formations many thousands of feet below water reserves.
Drilling and fracking a well pollutes aquifers. The shales that contain natural gas are 5,000 to as much as 18,000 feet below ground. The aquifers we tap for drinking water are at about 500 feet. That means roughly 2 miles of rock lie between aquifer and frac. A 2010 report by Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection concluded "no groundwater pollution or disruption of underground sources of drinking water have been attributed to hydraulic fracturing of deep gas formations."
Frac fluids are toxic mixtures of 596 deadly chemicals. Allowing for variance among companies and operations, fracking fluid is typically a bit under 91% water and 9% sand. Tiny amounts of added chemicals reduce friction, fight microbes, control pH, and prevent corrosion of equipment. Many are found around the house, including guar gum (in ice cream), borate salts (a fungicide), and mineral oil. And yes, there are 596 ingredients that have at some point been used to make frac fluids, but any single fracturing job uses only a few of the available options.

Figure 1. Composition of typical gas shale frac fluid (modified from Bohm et al., All Consulting, 2008a).
Drilling companies refuse to disclose just which deadly chemicals they use to create their frac fluids. Drilling companies must disclose the names of all chemicals stored and used at a drilling site. Anyone who knows how to read a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) can find out what chemicals are present.
Fracking makes people's drinking water flammable. It's possible for improperly cemented wells to leak, but one study after another has failed to find frac fluid chemicals in drinking water supplies. Flammable tap water is more likely related to dissolved methane, which is naturally found in well water. (No worries here either – the methane bubbles out quickly, and the US Environmental Protection Agency does not even regulate it.)
Fracking is severely underregulated, and it's because the industry has lobbied for and achieved so many regulatory exemptions. Fracking is very closely regulated, and reviews of fracking regulations regularly find them to be very rigorous. For example, the State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations, an independent panel of environment, industry, and EPA personnel, found Pennsylvania's fracking process was not only safe but "merits special recognition."
Frac fluids that flow back out of a well are often stored in pits in the ground that aren't even lined, where a lot of the fluid just seeps into the ground; even if they are lined, they often leak. Here Fox has finally hit upon some truth – that some pits have in the past leaked. That's why they are being phased out in most states in favor of above-ground storage solutions that enable much better leak detection and repair capabilities. In fact, this month's recommendation is a rapidly growing company with an innovative solution to storing frac fluids.
People who live near fracs have been found to have elevated levels of benzene in their blood. The only residents who had elevated benzene levels were those who smoked. Cigarettes contain benzene.
The EPA has never really studied fracking – the current study, which won't even release its preliminary findings until the end of next year, is the first real environmental assessment of the practice. EPA started a study on hydraulic fracturing in 1999 that focused on coalbed methane reservoirs and whether fracturing them impacted underground sources of drinking water. Published in 2004 after peer review, the study concluded that fracking posed little to no risk in terms of contaminating drinking water.

Industry Efforts

As we alluded to earlier, fracking does has its drawbacks, two of which stand out in particular. The first is that hydraulic fracturing uses a fair chunk of water – an average multi-stage frac requires a total 5 million gallons of water. To put that number in context, electric generation uses nearly 150 million gallons per day in the Susquehanna River Basin of Pennsylvania.

Nonetheless, industry engineers are working hard to reduce water usage. After all, they know as well as anyone else what their livelihood depends on.

The most important shift here has been toward recycling frac fluids. In Pennsylvania, the fracking industry now reuses more than 60% of its water, for example. In addition, companies are exploring other, more creative water reduction strategies. In British Columbia, energy giant EnCana Corp (T.ECA) and its partner Apache Corp (NYSE.APA) spent nine months and C$10 million finding a deep, sour water aquifer and then figuring out how to make the super-salty, hydrogen sulfide-laced water usable for fracking. This novel technique could significantly reduce the need for fracking operations to use freshwater supplies.

The second drawback is that the fluids that flow back to the surface after a fracturing are often stored in containment units that have been known to leak.

As we pointed out, pits, lined or not, are being phased out in many jurisdictions, precisely because it's truly difficult to tell whether a pit dug into the earth is leaking. This is where companies like  Poseidon Concepts (T.PSN) come in. Instead of lined pits and even the dozens of steel tanks that are the not-so-ideal alternative, PSN offers above-ground lined frames that are inexpensive and much more environmentally sound.

Another way to ease the problem of frac fluids spills or leaks is to make frac fluids so benign that we could literally drink them. It sounds pie-in-the-sky, but the world's second-largest oilfield services company is working hard on the idea. In fact, Halliburton (NYSE.HAL) has created a frac fluid called CleanStim, made from materials sourced from the food industry. A Halliburton executive showed the stuff at a recent conference – and then tossed it down his gullet.

Where there's a need, an innovator will rise to the challenge, and there are plenty of innovators in the world of oil and gas.

Fracking Earthquakes: Hazard or… Preventative?

A few weeks ago privately held Cuadrilla Resources, the first company to successfully frac natural gas shales in Europe and a Casey Energy team recommendation back in early 2008, announced that its fracking operations caused two small earthquakes in northwest England last April and May. After the earthquakes, Cuadrilla voluntarily suspended its fracking operations in the area while an independent group investigated the events.

The earthquakes measured 2.3 and 1.5 on the Richter scale. Seismic events, to be sure, but so gentle they were barely felt. Indeed, the independent report found that Cuadrilla's work had caused the tremors, but the earth moved so little that they posed no threat to anyone or anything.

And what others may consider concern, we consider potential. As two plates of Earth's crust naturally shift along their fault line, they can sometimes get hung up on rocky "hooks" called asperities. As the plates keep trying to move, stress builds and builds. The huge earthquakes we all fear occur when the stored energy has built enough to break through the asperity: the gradual slide becomes a destructive jerk.

Small tremors, on the other hand, reduce the pressure one bit at a time. Whenever there is a major earthquake or a discussion of when California or Vancouver or Japan will get hit with the next Big One, someone often laments, "If only we had a way to release the pressure beforehand!"

What if hydraulic fracturing could relieve the stress on the faults in earthquake-prone areas? Clearly the notion needs a battery of modeling and tests before it's anything but a concept, but on a basic level the idea makes sense. Perhaps by releasing the accumulated stress at depth slowly with small tremors, we could mitigate the Big One enough that it might not be so big after all.

If nothing else, the concept is a reminder not to fear serendipity. Finding something you didn't expect when attempting something else is how the scientific world achieved many of its major breakthroughs.

A Resource We Can't Ignore

The ability to produce clean-burning natural gas from the 48 shale basins in 32 countries around the world could transform the global energy economy and increase energy security, starting in the United States.

Hydraulic fracturing has become a scapegoat, targeted by environmentalists as another attempt by the oil and gas industry to lock America into fossil fuel dependence. The thing is, America is already addicted to fossil fuels. Until that changes, even environmentalists will need to heat their homes, charge their cell phones, and purchase products made at gas-powered factories.

We of the Casey Research energy team are always looking for alternative energy ideas that stand the test of economics, but to date only geothermal and run-of-river power have come close. In the case of geothermal power, the industry has gotten ahead of itself and for now, at least, has failed to come through on its promises. As for run-of-river, the projects often work, but they provide only a drop into the big bucket of power needs, and each project requires major negotiations from landowners afflicted with NIMBY ("not in my back yard") syndrome.

So next time someone says that America should put an end to fracking, ask them how they plan to ensure America's energy security over the next 30 to 50 years. If the answer involves alternative or renewable energies, ask for some hard facts and numbers to support it. Like it or not, none of our alternative energies are as yet even close to stepping up as a major energy pillar for America.

Natural gas is ready to step up. It's not a perfect solution – it's much better at providing peak demand than baseload power, still takes energy to produce, and still produces greenhouse gases – but it's an important part of the solution for now. Not only does America have the reserves, the fracturing process that can unlock them has been demonstrated as safe – and equally important, not demonstrated as not safe. And the industry that uses it seeks and incorporates improvements along the way. Just the facts, ma'am.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 01/19/2012 - 21:02 | 2079927 Fedaykinx
Fedaykinx's picture

exactly.  and since i agree with him/her, i am unrepentant.  my mother was a foul mouthed bitch too, soap was just for washin yer asscrack and armpits on sunday morning.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 21:05 | 2079931 hardcleareye
hardcleareye's picture

You really are a troll.... and damaged goods to boot... lol

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 18:59 | 2079604 Evil Bugeyes
Evil Bugeyes's picture

Estimates of the amount of recoverable gas contained in all of America's shale basins range as high as 3,000 TCF.

Wow! 3000 TCF is a lot of gas.

Based on 1000 BTU/CF, 5.6M BTU/barrel of oil, 20M barrels/day US consumption, that works out to about 73 years of US oil consumption.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 19:18 | 2079653 kaiserhoff
kaiserhoff's picture

There is another 100 year supply of methane in the Carolina Seeps, and that's already leaking into the atmosphere. 

There is no shortage of fuel in North America, but oddly enough, no one discovers any of it while hiding under the covers in Mom's basement.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 20:07 | 2079767 hardcleareye
hardcleareye's picture

You must be talkin about Robo... 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 19:48 | 2079720 paint it red ca...
paint it red call it hell's picture

your math is much less than accurate considering that domestic consumers are not necessarily who gets domestically produced shale gas. the reality is domestic production will feed international consumption. i saw this tidbit of news some months back.

"The Department of Energy has given Cheniere Energy approval to export liquefied natural gas from its Sabine Pass LNG terminal on the Louisiana side of the waterway.

The project still needs final environmental permits and approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, but the DOE approval is a key step forward for the project to turn U.S. natural gas into a super-chilled liquid for export.

Sabine Pass opened in 2008 as a terminal to take in shipments from overseas. A surge in natural gas production from U.S. shale gas fields turned the market on its head, however, reducing the need for imports.

Houston-based Cheniere and other LNG terminal owners first sought, and were granted, permits to re-export LNG that was offloaded at their terminals. The permits to turn U.S. natural gas into a liquid for export were first filed last year when it became clearer that U.S. supplies were likely to remain strong.

Cheniere said the DOE approval will allow it to export up to 803 billion cubic feet of gas per year."

http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Cheniere-wins-an-OK-for-LNG...

 

now that north american energy is abundant, you can bet it will be sold at market until north america is reduced to a net importer once again.

 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 19:58 | 2079745 deflator
deflator's picture

Are you trying to say that since there may be 3,000 TCF recoverable that it could be recovered at 20M barrels/day for 73 years?

 A typical deception... It will take many more years than 73 to extract America's shale basins of their "recoverable" deposits.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 20:42 | 2079872 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Someone who gets it....

There is hope....

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 21:15 | 2079966 Evil Bugeyes
Evil Bugeyes's picture

I didn't say anything about recovery time or who gets the gas. I just said that 3000 TCF is heck of a lot of gas.

But since you brought up the subject, could you point to some links that justify your assertion about the recovery time?

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 22:31 | 2080104 deflator
deflator's picture

"I didn't say anything about recovery time or who gets the gas. I just said that 3000 TCF is heck of a lot of gas."

  You didn't have to, the implication of your statement was clear. I have been dealing with energy cornucopians for years. The implication that unconventional energy is equal to conventional energy isn't new. For years many have pointed to Americas coal reserves and have stated that there is enough coal to last 200 years at our present total consumption rates of all energy combined. Common sense will tell you that we cannot even come close to recovering coal at the rate we are presently consuming all energy combined. Those 200 years of coal will last much longer than 200 years.

 Fracking is similar to coal in many ways primarily in that it's production and distribution actually takes away from the "energy base" which is crude oil. Think of all those trucks hauling fracking fluid and water constantly to and fro to the rapidly changing drilling sites. The drilling equipment, the pipe, rock base for the drilling pads, so on and so forth. The detention ponds and those big pond liners(that are no doubt derived from crude oil). Conventional oil and gas production that has produced the past 100 years of persistent economic growth was all about the elephant fields that oil bubbled and gurgled out of the ground at on average 200,000 barrels/day for 50-60 years in the same spot. This fracking business is constant drilling all over the place wells that produce on averge 800 barrels/day and deplete rapidly in less than a year. If I didn't know any better, I would say this fracking, drill baby drill business is a Ponzi racket.

  Anyone that knows anything about commodities knows that daily sustainable production does not come from producing alot of little deposits. Big daily sustainable prodution numbers such as the world has enjoyed in the past have come from producing the large deposits.

 You know these oil and gas companies are picking the low hanging fruit first and the low hanging fruit is 800 barrels/day?

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 00:19 | 2080303 UP Forester
UP Forester's picture

Yeah, it's like saying that there's 200 times the amount of gold ever minied on this big asteroid in space, so gold should actually be $8 an ounce.

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 01:36 | 2080397 Captain Nukem
Captain Nukem's picture

Only an idiot would jump to a conclusion like that. I guess that would be you.

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 01:13 | 2080385 Evil Bugeyes
Evil Bugeyes's picture

There are a lot of words there, deflator, but no links and not many facts. You really haven't convinced me.

I did a quick search of the web and found that Exxon is claiming that the wells last 25 to 40 years:

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2011/06/17/facts-hydraulic-fractur...

So unless you can document where you got your assertion that wells "deplete rapidly in less than a year", I will be inclined to believe that you just made it up.

25,000 wells, each producing 800 barrels(equivalent)/day would get us to the US oil consumption of 20M barrels/day. Doesn't seem so infeasible to me.

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 02:08 | 2080431 Teamtc321
Teamtc321's picture

Keep in mind that most of the well's in the shale play's do produce oil when they are first turned on, depending on the field the well will produce oil and nat gas to start. Alot of the well's the oil/crude will die off after 3 month's to a year. Then leaving just the flow of nat gas. At times when a well is re-fracked you can get small production's of oil again but in my experience the 2nd sand frac rarely bring's the oil volume as when the well was brought to sales the first time.

Also keep in mind that horizontal well's are new technology drill's, meaning where the actually drilling rig drill's vertical for a depth and then kick's off a lateral leg. So these well's do produce more nat gas than there sister vertical usually but the 25-40 year time frame has yet to be seen.

In my personal experience I have not been around many if any 25-40 year old nat gas well's that are worth cap exing to keep going to sales. Most of those well's I have been around the tubing, casing and liner's are rotted rusted junk and are required by our Texas Rail Road Commision to be plugged. 

My experience is Texas, LA mainly, other shale play such as North Dakota etc. maybe different to a extent. 

Sat, 01/21/2012 - 10:44 | 2083977 Fedaykinx
Fedaykinx's picture

haynesville is bone dry far as i know, i mean you see a barrel or two of condensate here or there but that's mostly shallower.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 19:02 | 2079613 Eisenhorn
Eisenhorn's picture

What if hydraulic fracturing could relieve the stress on the faults in earthquake-prone areas? Clearly the notion needs a battery of modeling and tests before it's anything but a concept, but on a basic level the idea makes sense.

 

No....clearly the notion is effing INSANE and under no circumstances should venture capitalists and oil barons have the authority to induce EARTHQUAKES. 

Elemental Oligarchy.....awesome.

 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 19:14 | 2079641 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

While I have not looked -- nor am I a lawyer (thank god) -- I am reasonably certain there is no actual law stating they cannot in fact create actual earthquakes, strictly as a legal issue only, if it is within their power to do so in the exercise of mineral rights.

If they were using explosives then they would need to have permits to make noise, cause disturbances and break shit. But as it is, probably nothing applies.

Therefore they will go ahead as if it's just fine and nobody will be able to pin it on them except without a costly fight all the way to the Supreme Court.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 20:55 | 2079903 Goldilocks
Goldilocks's picture

eminent domain

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 22:28 | 2080133 weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

Well, you just had to bring up lawyers....      ;-)

This sort of thing may be either a 'public nuisance' or a 'private nuisance'.  A public one is typically something like a rendering plant located in a residential area.  A private nuisance on the other hand usually only affects 1 or several other landowners.  Both are state based causes of action, and if state law is mushy or silent, well the only other option is usually an EPA (federal) violation.  But as we already know, the EPA is virtually useless when it is owned by the oil and gas industry. 

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 02:17 | 2080439 Teamtc321
Teamtc321's picture

What if hydraulic fracturing could relieve the stress on the faults in earthquake-prone areas? Clearly the notion needs a battery of modeling and tests before it's anything but a concept, but on a basic level the idea makes sense.

 

No....clearly the notion is effing INSANE and under no circumstances should venture capitalists and oil barons have the authority to induce EARTHQUAKES. 

Elemental Oligarchy.....awesome.

-------------------------------------------------------------

I have actually spoke with field geologist about this exact thought, there overwhelming response was that it would not work for the formation layer's in some area's anyway, run in differnt direction's.

One gentleman I asked a joking question along the lines of the movie armegedon, where they set a charge at depth to break the rock. His response was, "only in the movies son, lol." 

 

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 11:31 | 2081051 Archduke
Archduke's picture

we should nuke japan slowly with tactital warheads to prevent another fukushima.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 19:10 | 2079629 tbd108
tbd108's picture

Our dear friends in Russia are very concerned about fracking because they continue to stay afloat with natural gas money from the West. It is believed that the Poles (not known for caring much about their Eastern neighbors) have enough gas available through fracking to supply Europe with hundreds of years of energy, leaving Russia literally out in the cold. You have to be very careful in believing any analysis of the effects of fracking when so much is at stake.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 19:32 | 2079681 kaiserhoff
kaiserhoff's picture

Good points.

Nat Gas prices are near a ten year low in mid winter!  Anyone here know how to spot a trend, read a chart, or like, trade the oil complex?  This is not the normal seasonal pattern.  With or without Obummer's sorry ass, the transition will be made. 

The price equivalent is  $1.25/gallon. 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 20:25 | 2079761 kaiserhoff
kaiserhoff's picture

Oops, check that, MY BAD.  Down another 6.1 percent today, AT decade lows and essentially in a freefall.

Reality can be such a BITCH;)

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 20:35 | 2079850 Fedaykinx
Fedaykinx's picture

american shale gas single handedly crushed russia's dream of a gas cartel.  suck it comrades.

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 01:49 | 2080404 Matt
Matt's picture

Is Gas-To-Liquids not allowed in North America, or is it simply that no one has made any plants? If you could lock in those prices, even at 50 percent conversion, you could make gasoline at $2.50 per gallon, plus the initial cost of the plant.

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 02:26 | 2080443 Teamtc321
Teamtc321's picture

Can't get congress to pass the bill, here is a site with a detailed plan that will start the process to switch our tranportation fleet's from diesel to nat gas. It work's also.

http://www.pickensplan.com/act/

 

Here is actual map of location's with the fueling station are trying to get a foot hold, Clean Energy Fuels are semi truck/mid size truck nat gas fueling station.

http://www.cleanenergyfuels.com/main.html

 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 19:12 | 2079637 sdmodiano
sdmodiano's picture

What if hydraulic fracturing could relieve the stress on the faults in earthquake-prone areas? Clearly the notion needs a battery of modeling and tests before it's anything but a concept, but on a basic level the idea makes sense. Perhaps by releasing the accumulated stress at depth slowly with small tremors, we could mitigate the Big One enough that it might not be so big after all.

If nothing else, the concept is a reminder not to fear serendipity. Finding something you didn't expect when attempting something else is how the scientific world achieved many of its major breakthroughs.

 

What if your snot was really well disguised gold? Let's not be afraid to embrace that fortunate conceptualization and begin hoarding boogers.  Another round of peyote buttons for all!

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 21:31 | 2079645 David Fiderer
David Fiderer's picture

This post cannot withstand cursory fact checking. It tries to obscure the obvious, that hydrofracking has not been sufficiently vetted or stood the test of time. There is simply no consensus about the risks to ground water. As noted by the Congressional Research Service. http://www.arcticgas.gov/sites/default/files/documents/hydraulic-fractur...

And he simply ignores all the data he doesn't like, such as the peer-reviewed Duke University study that showed how methane leaks contaminated the local water supply. http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/methane-contamination-of-drinki...

Or how about this one:

"Anti-fracking claims may be twists on reality – for example, that a legislative loophole makes fracking exempt from the America's Safe Drinking Water Act, when really this federal legislation never regulated fracking because it is a state concern." 

The suggestion that any water systems are not regulated by the head of the EPA is totally false, as is the suggestion that hydrofracking--as opposed to every other  contaminant of the water supply, including interstate waters--is exclusively a state concern. Read the federal legislation: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sup_01_42_10_6A_20_XII_30_B.htm...

Then there's his reference to the "State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations,an independent panel of environment, industry, and EPA personnel." which is really an industry front group, and no one from the EPA is affilated with that group. http://www.strongerinc.org/board/members.asp

Sat, 01/21/2012 - 10:48 | 2083982 Fedaykinx
Fedaykinx's picture

you complain about work from people with agendas, and counter with work from other people with agendas?  brilliant, i don't know why anyone hasn't thought of that before.  it's amazing nothing gets done in this country any more, i can't imagine why.

Sat, 01/21/2012 - 13:28 | 2084260 David Fiderer
David Fiderer's picture

It's about full disclosure, not about "agendas."

It's also about peiople who claim to "set the record staight wthe the facts," who do no such thing.

Sat, 01/21/2012 - 17:34 | 2084981 Fedaykinx
Fedaykinx's picture

if you believe that the impetus behind all of the hydrofracking hate is objective and fully transparent, i don't know what to tell you

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 19:24 | 2079668 prodigious_idea
prodigious_idea's picture

After the first paragraph I wanted to know Casey Research's bias.

http://www.caseyresearch.com/sponsor-profiles

Didn't read all the posts to see if someone already posted on this

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 20:05 | 2079764 hardcleareye
hardcleareye's picture

Thanks for the link I was getting ready to look for that information.

Gag me with a spoon......   nothing "conflicted" with these boys!

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 19:28 | 2079676 nasa
nasa's picture

"This graphic borrowed from the Texas Oil and Gas Assocation" should read "This horseshit article is written by the TexASS Oil and Gas assocation". 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 19:35 | 2079693 PaJoad
PaJoad's picture

I'd like to get (the) Tyler's take on this article. Why was it posted? Because Casey is a trusted source of info? Is this article an anomaly? Or should we toss all future Casey reports onto the same dung heap?

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 20:30 | 2079835 Fedaykinx
Fedaykinx's picture

maybe to give all of you energy experts a bit of contrarian viewpoint?

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 23:34 | 2080227 GNWT
GNWT's picture

PaJoad, 

All due respect, you sound like the mob following Brian in "Life of Brian", when they are chasing the would-be Messiah, who loses a sandal, picks it up and keeps fleeing.

The crowd stops as the leader says, "It's a sign, we should all take off a sandal!" as they run after Brian.

Or as Dylan said, Bob, not Thomas...

Don’t follow leaders
Watch the parkin’ meters

 

G

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 19:36 | 2079697 PrintPressPimpin
PrintPressPimpin's picture

I wish they would make some nice cheap production wood gassifiers for use in our trucks.  Even though my gf has a CNG civic which has been great it would be very cool to go totally off the grid in terms of personal transportation on 4 wheels.  The whole system is rigged for us to be dependent on the govt and corporations.  At my place in the woods we use firewood and logs for everything. For cooking, heating, hot tub, hot water, shittakes, building.  Living in the woods is probably one of the best places to be to free yourself from hydrocarbons. Here you are surrounded by concentrated renewable energy that can even be used to drive your 4x4.  Fracking just delays the inevitable peak and allows our lifeboat earth to take on a few more passengers.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 23:48 | 2080256 hidingfromhelis
hidingfromhelis's picture

"The whole system is rigged for us to be dependent on the govt and corporations."  +1

+1 additional (if I could) for finding a cool girlfriend who's into living in the woods and understands the rewards of being less dependent on TPTB.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 19:40 | 2079705 abducens
abducens's picture

sorry there are wells in PA that have been polluted by fracking , they really cant predict where the chemicals will go

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 19:58 | 2079742 Tsar Pointless
Tsar Pointless's picture

As posted above...

http://post-gazette.com/pg/12019/1204630-100.stm

You are correct, sir!

Or madam. I don't want to be presumptuous.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 20:02 | 2079755 ReeferMac
ReeferMac's picture

Thanks for sharing! Great to see all viewpoints represented.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 20:06 | 2079766 percolator
percolator's picture

The author said "Fracking is very closely regulated, and reviews of fracking regulations regularly find them to be very rigorous."

Yeah, the banking industry said they were very closely and rigorously regulated too. 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 20:32 | 2079844 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

He slipped that in there so we can all have a nice laugh.

What a kidder.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 20:15 | 2079790 Strawboss
Strawboss's picture

My favorite snippet from the article:

Allowing for variance among companies and operations, fracking fluid is typically a bit under 91% water and 9% sand. Tiny amounts of added chemicals reduce friction, fight microbes, control pH, and prevent corrosion of equipment. Many are found around the house, including guar gum (in ice cream), borate salts (a fungicide), and mineral oil. And yes, there are 596 ingredients that have at some point been used to make frac fluids, but any single fracturing job uses only a few of the available options.

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 02:39 | 2080447 Teamtc321
Teamtc321's picture

I caught that as well. I can not speak for over all national frac's but alot of frac procedure's call for what is called 26% sodium. This frac fluid consist of pure rock salt mixed in fluid manufacturing plant's with water until the weight of the water is atleast 9.7 # per gallon of water/salt mix. This allow's the fluid to be heavy enough when pumped at site mixed with sand to force the sand into the well bore to the specific plug or depth of the well to fracture the layered formation's to release the nat gas. 

There are other fluid's such as 24% kcl, which is potash mixed with water to a weight as well. Many other formulation's as well depending on the need to formation procedure. 

I agree, if they are going to release information they need to detail there information period imho. 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 20:18 | 2079791 haskelslocal
haskelslocal's picture

This is propaganda. Can't even get through the "Fox Facts" vs. "Realaties" without being bull shitted by lawyerisms.

First point; An Act isn't a law and a law isn't always an Act but nice try attempting to confuse readers into thinking you are being truthful.

Second point; To respond that "injecting hazerdous materials" implies only the disposal process is a total diversion. The injected chemicals in question are those used to frac, not the residual disposal of said contaminants.

Third point;  You are now an ass. To describe that natural gas fracturing occurs in a range of shale between 5000 and 18000 feet. Okay so far. But thanks for being a douche and saying that aquifers reside right at 500 feet. Not any higher or deeper, no range here, just at 500 feet. Clown. 

Yeah. The lies are so easy to detect via the cover up B.S.

Fact: You cannot drop a bomb on a building and save the basement.

Fact: Your secret sauce sucks, that's why I order my burger plain.

 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 20:32 | 2079842 hardcleareye
hardcleareye's picture

A degree in education, a teacher till 2006 and he is lecturing us about his vast knowledge on fracking!!!!!!  ROTFLMAO

Mr. Marin Katusa serves as Chief Energy Investment Strategist at Casey Research, LLC. He serves as the Senior Editor of Casey Energy Opportunities, Casey Energy Confidential, and Casey 50 at the firm. Mr. Katusa has been a Director of Copper Mountain Mining Corporation since April 4, 2007. He has been a Director of Beanstalk Capital Inc. since March 2010. Mr. Katusa is a Member of the Vancouver Angel Forum where he and his colleagues evaluate early seed investment opportunities. ... He also manages a portfolio of international real estate projects. Mr. Katusa has extensive relationships within the Canadian financial community. He was Teacher of Fraser Academy from August 2003 to August 2006. Mr. Katusa left a successful teaching career to pursue analyzing and investing in junior resource companies. He is a regular commentator on BNN. Mr. Katus graduated from the University of British Columbia with a Bachelor degree in Science and then obtained a Degree in Education.

Tyler is this your idea of a joke? 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 21:10 | 2079948 Fedaykinx
Fedaykinx's picture

sucking cock for a living doesn't make you an expert on the subject either.  now see, that was a troll post.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 21:30 | 2079996 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

The Tylers are talking book again.  Go check out their "full disclosure" policy.

Heh.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 22:16 | 2080112 blindman
blindman's picture

no one listens to paul anymore..
Op-Ed Columnist
Here Comes the Sun
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: November 6, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/opinion/krugman-here-comes-solar-energ...
"..Speaking of propaganda: Before I get to solar, let’s talk briefly about hydraulic fracturing, a k a fracking.

Fracking — injecting high-pressure fluid into rocks deep underground, inducing the release of fossil fuels — is an impressive technology. But it’s also a technology that imposes large costs on the public. We know that it produces toxic (and radioactive) wastewater that contaminates drinking water; there is reason to suspect, despite industry denials, that it also contaminates groundwater; and the heavy trucking required for fracking inflicts major damage on roads.

Economics 101 tells us that an industry imposing large costs on third parties should be required to “internalize” those costs — that is, to pay for the damage it inflicts, treating that damage as a cost of production. Fracking might still be worth doing given those costs. But no industry should be held harmless from its impacts on the environment and the nation’s infrastructure.

Yet what the industry and its defenders demand is, of course, precisely that it be let off the hook for the damage it causes. Why? Because we need that energy! For example, the industry-backed organization energyfromshale.org declares that “there are only two sides in the debate: those who want our oil and natural resources developed in a safe and responsible way; and those who don’t want our oil and natural gas resources developed at all.”

So it’s worth pointing out that special treatment for fracking makes a mockery of free-market principles. Pro-fracking politicians claim to be against subsidies, yet letting an industry impose costs without paying compensation is in effect a huge subsidy. They say they oppose having the government “pick winners,” yet they demand special treatment for this industry precisely because they claim it will be a winner. " ...

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 02:15 | 2080436 Lore
Lore's picture

Who would be good enough for you? 

Academic credentials are no subsitute for INTEGRITY. Give the guy credit for pointing out BS in the "Gasland" mockumentary. More info here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/04/the-gasland-movie-a-fracking-shame-director-pulls-video-to-hide-inconvenient-truths/

 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 20:47 | 2079877 boooyaaaah
boooyaaaah's picture

Me ole grandaddy is rolling over in his grave -- an immigrant Breaker Boy

Because of all the wimpy Americans that do not know what to do with found riches

 

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=0&oq=breaker+boys+photo&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GDHP_enUS419US419&q=breaker+boys+photograph&gs_upl=0l0l0l545906lllllllllll0&aqi=g3

 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 21:16 | 2079967 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

I imagine grandaddy would agree with the observation that a bunch of little boys digging with picks is not operating on the scale being discussed here.

As for found riches -- some people like their homesteads just the way they found/bought them, with drinkable water and breathable air and such.

Got anything else for us? Any other dead relatives you think would like to comment for us, Houdini?

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 21:28 | 2079990 boooyaaaah
boooyaaaah's picture

Cougar

If they want to sell their mineral rights --- they do not need your apporval --- it is theirs to sell

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 01:56 | 2080416 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

Feh

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 08:32 | 2080617 DarkAgeAhead
DarkAgeAhead's picture

Sure as long as they don't contaminate my groundwater or force me to sell mine. Google compulsory integration. This is not capitalism the frackers are undertaking but rather a feudal corporate monopoly, preserved by government law.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 20:53 | 2079897 Nawaralsaadi
Nawaralsaadi's picture

The solution to the fracking issue is waterless fracking, Gasfrac has already done over a 1000 fracks with gelled propane; no water is used, no waste water or waste fluid is produced and the oil and gas production is enhanced with the process, it is a win for the industry and a win for the environment; here is my write up on the company and its technology on seekingalpha:

 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/317173-gasfrac-energy-services-fracturin...

 

Regards,

Nawar 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 21:16 | 2079969 hardcleareye
hardcleareye's picture

That was an interesting link.   Would like to read more "techie papers" on it.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 21:18 | 2079972 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

An even better solution to the fracking issue is to not frack.

Fracking falls under the category of things that just because they can be done does not mean they should be done. Sort of like how you can burn down crowded orphanages but you really shouldn't.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 21:30 | 2079994 boooyaaaah
boooyaaaah's picture

Only thing Cougar

Who made you the decider of what should be done

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 01:57 | 2080419 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

I have an opinion. Actually I have lots of them. Get used to it.

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 02:46 | 2080450 WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

Diverse opinion is hard to find these days. I thank thee.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 21:39 | 2080002 Goldilocks
Goldilocks's picture

Far from...

be•nign

1. of a gentle disposition : gracious <a benign teacher>
2. showing kindness and gentleness <benign faces>
    favorable, wholesome <a benign climate>
3. of a mild type or character that does not threaten health or life;
    especially : not becoming cancerous <a benign lung tumor>

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 23:38 | 2080236 gravedestruction
gravedestruction's picture

Scanned through the article - Interesting process.

In it's gaseous state LPG is a heavier than air gas unlike LNG which is lighter than air.

Since LPG gas can flow and collect underground my question is where does the total sum of it go after the process?

My extrapolation would be the remainder (be it liquid or gas) that is not recovered upon completion of the process being heavier than air (and natural gas) is exactly that. It does not rise to the surface but stays within the rock strata.

Perhaps some additional links as this interests me. Thanks

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 09:12 | 2080684 falak pema
falak pema's picture

What does maestro Flak feel about Lpg fracking...paging Flak and oil drum specialists, on lpg frack.

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 11:02 | 2080953 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

The LPG fracking technique is new... I gotta read up on it. At first blush, I see it being expensive (comparatively) and only applicable to shales that produce significant liquids....For predominately NG sites, it strikes me as cutting silver with gold...

A lot of people don't realize the the current glut in NG is because the shale guys are desperate for NGL....

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 20:56 | 2079913 March Hare
March Hare's picture

Its worth looking into GasFrac, a company which uses liquid gas to frac wells. It induces a higher initial production. Thus higher eventual IRR. Its possibly cleaner too, as you can recover gases more readily.. go look for yourself. http://www.gasfrac.com/

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 21:08 | 2079941 non_anon
non_anon's picture

greed knows no bounds

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 21:10 | 2079945 q99x2
q99x2's picture

Take the fracking money away from those Pennsylvania hillbillies and put it to use building von Tiesenhausen's self-replicating orbital solar panel stations and microwave that shit back to earth. I'm in California and I don't need to hear propaganda that says relieving pressure on one side of a fault line is a good thing.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 21:14 | 2079963 boooyaaaah
boooyaaaah's picture

America is a country of debaters

and debaters do not have dirty hands, or dirty jobs,

Dirty minds , yes

But that is beside the point

Let's get real people, how much money can we save if we dont have to keep our reserves in the middle East

Wouldn't it be great if they had to compete with American energy.

And read the "The Deep Hot Biosphere" if you believe that our carbon based oil & gas came from dead animals

Carbon is a plentiful element in our solar system. Like Hydrogen and Helium.Photosynthesis is not the only way it comes about.

Titan one of Saturn's moons, yes Kurt Vonnegut, is covered with liguid methane CH4, Carbon plus Hydrogen

Years from now --- maybe centuries they will look back and say that we belived in peak oil!!!!!

With the same incredulity that we have when we look back at the 1400's and say they believed the world was flat

Why is Carbon and Hydrogen so plentiful because it was created that way --- end of debate

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 21:22 | 2079978 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

So tell us, how long have you suffered from terminal stupidity? Because you seriously do not know jack shit. Not even a little bit.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 21:32 | 2079999 boooyaaaah
boooyaaaah's picture

Stick and stone Cougar

Keep it real, you great debater, you

Sticks and stones will break my bones

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 00:28 | 2080324 UP Forester
UP Forester's picture

Sooner or later.

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 02:02 | 2080427 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

No actually I wasn't debating whether or not you know anything, I was pointing out from the vantage of superior exposure to an actual working reality that you do not in fact have your shit wired together.

It happens. We'll all pray for a speedy recovery.

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 04:45 | 2080511 Element
Element's picture

Photosynthesis is not the only way it comes about.

 

LOL!

Nucleosynthesis ... fool

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 21:33 | 2080003 hardcleareye
hardcleareye's picture

OMG....  I must say I enjoyed reading your post. Thank you for the laugh... 

I appreciate the logic and the reasoning you used, your conclusions are priceless ----

Perhaps they will look back, with the same incredulity that we have for people who believed in alchemy,  to those that believe in an endless economically recoverable supply of oil.

It's time to go have drink.......

 ----end of debate

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 21:22 | 2079980 Lazane
Lazane's picture

Jobs Jobs Jobs

Sand wash and sort operation coming online couple miles down yonder as the crow flies, this special sand is found in only a few places around the world, sand that needs water every week in order to grown decent crops, the farmer scratching out an existence toiling in his sand praying for rain on sundays plate offerings now finds that his freaking sand dunes made him a millionaire overnight, who would have guessed. 20 trucks an hour 24/7.  this fracking thing is just getting its legs, bring it on.  

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 21:28 | 2079987 Lazane
Lazane's picture

Sorry to hear that Califiornia, you folks still there, seems we don't hear much back here in hillbilly country anymore about California's broken financial nightmare, or who is at fault, ha! maybe this fracking and drilling will set off the big one you folks are waiting on.   

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 21:37 | 2080013 Poofter Priest
Poofter Priest's picture

So there is this....,

"Disposing of frac fluids is a challenge. One method does involve sending them down old natural gas wells, but the wells are always cased, cemented, and grouted where they pass through drinking water supplies to seal off contact with the surrounding rock and terminate in formations many thousands of feet below water reserves."

If the purpose of fracking is to fracture the ground to release more product and when they 'dispose' of the used fluids I imagine they do that under pressure, one could reasonable expect the fractures to reach the aquifers. And since there is at this time several well documented accounts of fracking affecting wells and such, this would have already appeared to be the case.

There is also the claim that all the chemicals used are listed. But that is not totally true. One web site a pro fracker sent me to in fact stated that the list was not complete (as stated on the site that 'companies also use 'additional' materials) In addition, there have been lawsuits for full disclosure of all chemicals in the fluids. But these suits were fought on the basis that some information was 'proprietary'.

I'm sorry, this article does nothing to quell my concerns. It reminds me of the tobacco industry in the 70s. But it does re-enforce my view that propagnda and name calling is still utilized to cover up valid questions and concerns.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 21:48 | 2080035 sajeevnara
sajeevnara's picture

Looks like the author has a vested interest to promote fracking. Yes we will get energy fr the next 30-50 years for riding hummers and to satisfy our fuel addiction. Everyone who is really interested to know about fracking - Wathch this documentary called "Gasland". There is no hyperbole or misinformation, but you will clearly see how the oil industry controls this. I really feell bad for all those helpless families who are up against the oil industry. 

 

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/613/index.html

 

 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 22:45 | 2080171 Fedaykinx
Fedaykinx's picture

most of you people aren't going to be happy until flyover country is back to a 19th century standard of living with about 4-5 billion less people on the planet, amirite

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 23:07 | 2080186 toomanyfakecons...
toomanyfakeconservatives's picture

Got Hydrocarbons?

Natural gas and fracking operations are nice subjects to talk about... but the BE ALL, END of the current global system is cheap oil, and every single life-sustaining product that comes from it. Skip forward to 2:23:43 of the latest Zeitgeist movie for the inside scoop on the looming petroleum downslope... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 23:08 | 2080193 Miles Kendig
Miles Kendig's picture

Time for the folks in NE Panna or Wyoming to bring that water in for those freakin, frackin flamers flailing for fuckin funds at Casey to use, special.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TjEklyF7-E

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 23:17 | 2080203 blindman
blindman's picture

@"Small tremors, on the other hand, reduce the pressure one bit at a time. Whenever there is a major earthquake or a discussion of when California or Vancouver or Japan will get hit with the next Big One, someone often laments, "If only we had a way to release the pressure beforehand!"" not sara palin (seriously, she didn't write this?)
.
frankly, this is just pathetic shilling and pandering. oh, for fiat money
no less, no more.
consider .... wiki
"Shallow-focus and deep-focus earthquakes

Main article: Depth of focus (tectonics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake
The majority of tectonic earthquakes originate at the ring of fire in depths not exceeding tens of kilometers. Earthquakes occurring at a depth of less than 70 km are classified as 'shallow-focus' earthquakes, while those with a focal-depth between 70 and 300 km are commonly termed 'mid-focus' or 'intermediate-depth' earthquakes. In subduction zones, where older and colder oceanic crust descends beneath another tectonic plate, deep-focus earthquakes may occur at much greater depths (ranging from 300 up to 700 kilometers).[14] These seismically active areas of subduction are known as Wadati-Benioff zones. Deep-focus earthquakes occur at a depth where the subducted lithosphere should no longer be brittle, due to the high temperature and pressure. A possible mechanism for the generation of deep-focus earthquakes is faulting caused by olivine undergoing a phase transition into a spinel structure.[15]
"
5000ft=1.524km
whatever.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 23:19 | 2080211 Scalaris
Scalaris's picture

Fuck hippies 

- Overweight on shale since 2009

 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 23:32 | 2080222 blindman
blindman's picture

this was so long ago, i almost forgot.
Fracking could have caused East Coast earthquake
Published: 24 August, 2011, 20:36
http://rt.com/usa/news/fracking-earthquake-virginia-dc-817-061/
.
Experts are looking for a reason behind Tuesday afternoon’s unlikely 5.8 magnitude earthquake that shook people up and down the East Coast, and some are saying that a recent rise in fracking could be the culprit.

Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is the man-made splintering of underground rocks to expedite the exploiting of natural resources. It’s become a widespread phenomenon since its introduction in 2004, and though the practice can help increase supplies of oil and gas without reaching out internationally for imports, the result it can have on the geological make-up of the Earth can be ravaging. Now some experts say the rise in fracking could be to blame for yesterday’s quake.
Earthquake shuts down Virginia nuclear plant

.
Earthquake shuts down Virginia nuclear plant ( now that is ironic )

An earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 5.9 struck Tuesday afternoon near Washington, D.C., the U.S. Geological Survey said.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/23/quake-hits-near-washington-d-c/

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 23:36 | 2080230 geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

What really jumps out at me in this article is the breakout of the fracking material. Everyone knows water is H20, and most sand is SiO2, but notice how all the other chemicals are described by their desired function rather than their chemical composition? This is deliberate subterfuge and a pattern I've seen over and over again. As a consequence, nothing can be said of the toxicological properties of the fracking fluid; producers of this material have repeatedly invoked trade secret protections to keep the public from knowing the actual chemicals used. Yet it is well known that some classes of chemicals can have significant deleterious effects at concentrations as low as parts per trillion, e.g. endocrine disrupting chemicals. I've tried to find out what is in these fracking fluids but there's not much information out there apart from industry advertisements, which always make claims similar to the OP that everything is perfectly safe but providing precious little in the way of actual information.

The "functions" that are most likely toxic chemicals are the biocide (duh) [ bio=life, cide = kill ], the surfactant, crosslinker, scale inhibitor and corrosion inhibitor, and it is useful to keep in mind that 0.001% = 10 parts-per-million which is 10 million parts per trillion. Until the actual chemical composition of the fracking fluids is released to the public, I call BS on all fracking proponents.

The rest of the article is a series of spurious arguments in favor of pursuing more fossil fuel energy while at the same time completely ignoring the ecological cost of adding much more CO2 to the environment.

As to the conclusion of the OP: "So next time someone says that America should put an end to fracking, ask them how they plan to ensure America's energy security over the next 30 to 50 years. If the answer involves alternative or renewable energies, ask for some hard facts and numbers to support it. Like it or not, none of our alternative energies are as yet even close to stepping up as a major energy pillar for America."

All I can say is that I don't plan to "ensure America's energy security," because the very idea is ridiculous on its face. We are facing a massive decline in available energy, and the best way to cope is to downscale, and fast.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 23:36 | 2080232 GNWT
GNWT's picture

Hey, 

Relax kids, ZH did not change, still requiring you to think for yourself.

Also, if you find the aricles redundant or need a theme that agrees with your world view to participate, maybe you should turn off the channel.

Why not an article taking its best shot at one of your sacred cows?

Will prepare you for President Gingrich.

 

G

 

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 05:05 | 2080515 Element
Element's picture

Expect more of this sort of shit.

When they can't control something they cry for 'solidarity', and affinity of views, and a wise consensus outlook, and a common unified approach.

Then when/if they don't get it, (and they won't at zerohedge) they will scream silly accusations of 'betrayal' of their 'solidarity' (i.e. Tyler not toeing their party-line).

Thus they can attempt to undermine, and divide.

To hell with that. The last thing I want (especially at zh) is 'solidarity', or consensus or a common approach.

The beauty of zh is that shit gets what it deserves.

Sat, 01/21/2012 - 01:43 | 2083498 Fedaykinx
Fedaykinx's picture

does it, though?  i have to admit i love the free-for-all thing, i grow so tired of having to watch what i say.  thunderdome, bitchez

Sat, 01/21/2012 - 07:19 | 2083793 Element
Element's picture

Well let's beat that shit up then!

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 23:37 | 2080233 GoingLoonie
GoingLoonie's picture

Source, so Tyler who paid you for this one.  What kind of information did you expect the, "Texas Oil and Gas Association" to provide?  Duh..............

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 23:41 | 2080244 GNWT
GNWT's picture

Going, 

Let's hope he was paid a fortune, why not?

A fool and his money are soon parted.

 

G

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 23:39 | 2080237 GNWT
GNWT's picture

The fact that there is even a discussion about this shows how truly fucked we are.

From a straight on compassion POV, it is a lot easier to get one's mind around a West Virginia farmer with fire water than, say, a faceless "Taliban".

But, same thing.

G

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 23:46 | 2080251 onlooker
onlooker's picture

SOoooo, IF the oil/gas/petroleum/US Government can contaminate a large portion of the drinking WATER, then it has to be processed. And guess who has the bucks to do that, has the bucks to bribe, that has the bucks to get the media on board to do that. Underground water does not self heal, and you dont take a hose to it for cleaning

 

As a third generation oil field trash, I got a little idea of the stuff and why.

 

  1. Use their oil first.
  2. We SHOULD do the exploration work to get our fields found to drill and get production. Then drill when there is no other option and maybe be the last man standing. Of course it takes money to find new fields, and giving the super rich oil men money for anything is not gonna work—except how it works.
  3. Gas is cheap and clean and we have some. We also have a BUNCH of coal which is dirty, or used to be. So what can you live longer with, dirty air, or undrinkable water.

 

As a boy some 65 years ago I roamed the East Texas oil patch with my .22 every summer. There were areas of white fields coated from salt water (from the formations that were drilled into) there were areas of black oil on the ground that were bigger than a large football stadium. My grandfather and I would set on fire the Sabine River to burn off the oil because it flowed by his cattle field in the bottom; I guess he wanted petroleum free milk that he sold in Kilgore.

 

Anyhow, I go there every few years to look and remember. There is lush grass growing in the oil and salt flats. The pine trees are to the sky and dense. It is always a surprise. There are still a few pumpers at work but not like in the 30s thru the 60s. It is a story of oil depletion and the resilience of nature. Now, Texas had a worst ever summer for lack of rain and I suspect the lush nature does not apply to this year. AND again, when the underground water is contaminated, it is for many, many decades, maybe longer.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 23:47 | 2080252 The Heart
The Heart's picture

NOTE BELOW.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 23:47 | 2080253 The Heart
The Heart's picture

PLEASE EXCUSE THE CHANNEL CHANGE.

 

From Rose King:

http://rosekingwritings.blogspot.com/2012/01/zio-media-propaganda-is-dru...

Thursday, January 19, 2012

ZIO-MEDIA-PROPAGANDA IS A DRUG!

1-19-12

Just have to say,

It is really bad when you have a tax cheat predator and a womanizing two-timer hypocrite running for office. Both of these corrupted rat bigots romney and gingrich are evil to the core and are NOT for the American People and their records PROVE IT!

THE CRIME IS THE ZIO-MEDIA-PROPAGANDA TV DRUG COVERS IS ALL UP!

Why aren't people asking more about mitt romney's tax havens and his tax cheating? Why is he above the tax requirements of the American People? How many tax haven shelter bank accounts does he have? This is where the poor people's money whose jobs he took is stored. How many in Switzerland too? How about all those poor people he put out of work for his personal profit? Is this what america wants? Another cheating lying predator corporate sock-puppet for the banksters that are supporting him? The people do not support him, the wall street zio-bankers do. How can anyone be so dam stupid as to vote for any of these two faced zio-puppet hypocritical criminals?

Why aren't Americans asking about the CFR newt gingrich and his two faced disdain and disrespect for all women in his treacherous actions in his marriages? Is this what the American family is all about? Women in America are complicit with, Honey, I hope you are OK with me having an extramarital affair and if not, I will divorce you and go home with her. This disgusting two timing rat is actually trying to be president of America?

He talks about jobs? Does anyone remember this newt clown was a major supporter of NAFTA and Agenda 21? That whooshing sound of your jobs going overseas? Look at his voting record is not in the interests of America, but for the globalist profiteers. He is a CFR NWO PUPPET!

Both of these clowns talk about jobs and yet their records show they have actually done more to kill jobs in America than to create them. Wake up people!!!! Do you all really want more of this criminality and corruption in your govt? Do you really want MORE WAR???

And how about those warmongering democrats pushing for more big govt and obama care taxes on every single thing the people can buy that went into effect on the first of January? The BFD they would not talk openly about. Every big govt agency profits from obama/romney care taxes. Never considered that after eight years of the bush agenda and profiteering wars, the democrats would push that exact same republican agenda and romney care package and still actually want four more years totaling 16 years of useless WARS and higher taxes.

It is unflipinbelievable to see how many of these stupid sheeple still support all the wars and corruption of obama the illegal alien puppet. It is in fact, totally ludicrous! On the cover of time's yellow journalism magazine it asked, what is wrong with those who oppose obama? The real question in Orwell's world is, WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THESE OBAMABOTS AND ZOIDS THAT SUPPORT HIS WAR MONGERING HIGHER TAXES AGENDA FOR THE WALL STREET PUPPETEERS OF PROFIT AND PLUNDER?

And what has that done for you America? What has obama done for you personally? What have the senseless wars that only the oil companies and bankster rothschilds profit from done for you? How many people do you personally know that are doing better in their lives after 12 years of war AND THE BUSH/OBAMA TAX AND SPEND BIG GOVT POLICE STATE AGENDA?

If you feel a need to be sensible, look at the records people and vote for who has the record of PAST honesty to stand on. The choice is quite simple this coming election, if we actually have one. The people will vote as zazi's and for more totalitarian police state wars, or as Americans and for peace and resolution to our financial and foreign policies. It is a no brainier for anyone who can read. War, or not? Bring our troops home, or send more. Recover our economic structure, or all fail and depression and more war comes. Nazi Isramerica, or America the good ol USA? Easy choice. Only one candidate stands head and shoulders above all the others and it does not take a genus to figure it out. Ron Paul is America's Last Chance. ANY OTHER CHOICE FOR LEADERSHIP WILL END AMERICA AS YOU ALL KNOW IT! Choose well.

Just GO AHEAD AND MAKE A CHART comparing the past voting records of all the republicans and obama too and then you will see the truth. The question is, will you still deny your own eyes and heart of truth for what you believe on the drug TV and zio-media-propaganda following course with the sheeple headed off the cliff, or will you turn into the wind and lead the pack out of danger and destruction?

Follow your Heart and NOT the zio-media-propaganda.

In Service,

ROSE KING

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 00:21 | 2080306 msnrochny
msnrochny's picture

Hey Marin Katusa of Casey Research - if you agree to drink a nice, cold, refreshing glass of that .44% "Other" stuff, then you'll have me convinced.  Otherwise, I'm betting you're getting a consulting fee from the Fracking Industry.  I'll find a way to live without oil.  I don't know how to live without water.  So, put your mouth on the glass and swallow deeply or else shut the fuck up.

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 00:24 | 2080316 blindman
blindman's picture

From the floor of Congress in 2002, Ron Paul made some predictions. He asked Americans to look back on these predictions from 2012 to see if he was right or wrong . . .
Posted on January 20, 2012 by stacyherbert
http://maxkeiser.com/2012/01/20/ron-paul-predictions/
.
who won the iowa republican nomination in 2012? romney? santorum?
the press knew and then didn't know? then ....
Iowa GOP won't declare a winner of state caucuses
Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/01/19/1989140/republicans-set-to-rele...
( ? )
"..Strawn had announced hours after the Jan. 3 caucuses concluded that Romney had won by eight votes. Most news organizations, including The Associated Press, relied on that party announcement, since the results were not officially collected by the state, while waiting final party certification of the vote." ..
( o.k. )
.
Mitt Romney in Worcester 2002 "My views are progressive"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMcjJEXt9To
.
"..the people who have been left behind. " ( laid off )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney
"Gambling

In October 2011, Romney told the Las Vegas Sun that he had not yet taken a serious look at the issue of legalizing online poker, but that he would do so and state a position "[b]efore the caucuses come along".[51]"

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 00:44 | 2080342 williambanzai7
williambanzai7's picture

Clearly, the propaganda campaign is mustering full steam.

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 02:04 | 2080428 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

Gee ya think?? Must mean the heat is going up somewhere. I hope they screw themselves over.

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 03:10 | 2080465 patb
patb's picture

oklahoma and virginia had big quakes.  

5.6 is not tiny,  given the cracs in the washington monument.

 

 

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 04:00 | 2080498 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Moving to the point of no return.

US citizens have pushed the world to a point fracking can not be ignored.

Freedom in US citizenism: be pushed to situations you have not control over.

Nice.

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 05:29 | 2080525 Dempster
Dempster's picture

To Marin Katusa

Interesting article, they're Fracking around 30 miles from where I live in the UK and the concern is mainly the small earthquakes, as in this area of the UK there are many abandoned mine workings which may not be as stable  as one would like.  The fear is that such quakes may destabilise existing workings that have been dug out on the 'room & pillar' method and thus cause subsidence to properties.  My personal view is that such is unlikely, but others are not so convinced.

 

 

 

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 07:51 | 2080577 AchtungAffen
AchtungAffen's picture

Apologist for an already dead industry. I wonder what spin there is for the flammable tap water...

Tue, 01/24/2012 - 00:37 | 2091426 geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

Folks can cancel their NG service? <jk>

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 08:29 | 2080611 DarkAgeAhead
DarkAgeAhead's picture

Hey Marin, fuck you.  This isn't even close to factual and is way below ZH's generally exceptional standards.

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 08:45 | 2080632 overmedicatedun...
overmedicatedundersexed's picture

coal mining is dirty and dangerous, mining co's dung under my home in Scranton Pa. and the whole block fell into the mines ..why because the co's removed support to areas of the mine still producing, we had hills of mine waste that caught fire and burned ..millions were spent on putting the fires out..(looked cool at night you could see blue flames across the hills) air pollution was common.

the coal gave us energy to heat our homes and run our factories providing millions with jobs and warm homes..

if you go to Scranton today it is a depressed town with few jobs. The residents there wish big coal was still going on for the good jobs it gave. Oh and the pollution and cave ins have been long over..but no one has a job.

man cannot destroy the earth only change it for a short period of time..cheap energy will keep you alive and working. 

most in Scranton would want it all back for families had a future back then. now it's snap cards for all.

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 08:57 | 2080647 Dollar Bill Hiccup
Dollar Bill Hiccup's picture

Oh, now it all makes sense. I want a fracking well right in my backyard. I trust government agencies to look out after my best interests. I trust oil and gas companies to also look out after my best interest. I especially trust the wise and sage scientists who work for both oil and gas and government ... and I'm sure the earthquakes that are not being caused by fracking practices will in no way shape or form endanger the already old nuclear plant which is storing its nuclear waste in tins on site, since Harry Reid's buddies in Las Vegas are not partial to Yucca Mountain.

I'm perfectly satisfied with narrow self interest, theft and corruption in order to turn a profit and am certain that I will be immune to any adverse affects.

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 09:10 | 2080676 ApukalyptusNow
ApukalyptusNow's picture

This has got to be one of the douchiest articles I've read in weeks. Thanks a lot, Tyler Doucheden, for allowing a fracking industry dillhole free space for his propaganda.

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 11:52 | 2081115 CEOoftheSOFA
CEOoftheSOFA's picture

Good article on fracking. I have done about 200 of them and i have nothing to add.

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 12:04 | 2081164 El Yunque
El Yunque's picture

Google - Haliburton Eco-Friendly Fracking Fluid.

Apparently you can use it on Baskin Robbins ice cream cakes when you're not pumping it into formations.

Of course with 550,000 holes in the ground here, and the hundred thousand or so already abandoned, that's a lot of ice cream cakes to frost when your balloon has that many holes in it.

I suppose we really do know all there is to know about these things, like bodies lost in Bottomless Lake in New Mexico popping up like corks in Carlsbad Caverns 150 miles away from time to time.

Dupont finally backed over it's claims on Imprelis when they used it on their own golf course and had a tree extinction event on their hands. Decided it really did kill the fuck out of trees.

I'll believe fracking is completely safe when Dicky Dick Cheney uses it for something other than keeping the fractures in his stone cold heart open for another month of his gas production.

Your Recovery dollars were being spent recently on plugging abandoned wells as a way to keep ground water from being contaminated forever, kind of like the MTBE problem that Dicky helped squelch against at least 100 municipalities that wanted to hold Chevron and BASF for instance, accountable for that debacle.

We've pumped a LOT of this shit into the ground for a long time. That much KY, and rocks are going to slip around a little bit.

Denver experienced it in the fifties when Uncle Sam injected nuclear waste into a fault ten miles deep there. Denver rolled around a little bit until TPTB figured out why faults are faults.

When Okies know to stand in the doorway while living on a pile of glacier alluvium because that shit is floating in a sea of fracking fluid, you know the jig is up.

I guess on the positive side, when OWS gets rowdy, buys Nestle' bottled water, pops the lids, inserts the rags, lights them and chucks them, it'll give new meaning to peaceful protest.

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 12:38 | 2081302 sullymandias
sullymandias's picture

Thanks to hyperbole and misinformation, fracking opponents have convinced a lot of people that the operators who drill and then hydraulically fracture underground rock layers thumb their noses at and even hate the environment.

Give me a break. Environmentalists are concerned for the environment itself; you make it seem like they were just out to blackball and pick fights.

We decided to set the record straight by using facts, not playing on emotion like many of the frac-tivists do.

Right, "facts". You lay all your biases out in the first couple of paragraphs, and then you expect us to take your exposition as "factual"?

Sat, 01/21/2012 - 08:08 | 2083838 Fedaykinx
Fedaykinx's picture

yeah, i'm pretty sure he was talking to you specifically.

Sat, 01/21/2012 - 13:35 | 2084280 David Fiderer
David Fiderer's picture

 

Fracking Would Emit Large Quantities of Greenhouse Gases

"Fugitive methane" released during shale gas drilling could accelerate climate change

From Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fracking-would-emit-met...

 

Sat, 01/21/2012 - 17:31 | 2084975 Fedaykinx
Fedaykinx's picture

this is trod ground, they are dragging this particular dead horse through the streets again so all of the greenie weenies can beat on it some more while frothing at the mouth. 

 

ferinstance, these fuckers can't even keep their lies straight.  your link from unscientific american states: "Molecule for molecule, methane traps 20 to 25 times more heat in the atmosphere than does carbon dioxide."  but, the ipcc has been saying for a few years now that suddenly methane traps 72 times more than CO2, and iirc that's the number howarth used back last january in the original "study." 

 

here are some inconvenient facts, like em or not, despite their origin: http://api.ning.com/files/mmjbQ4BJi5JvHV6Sext5z8k2WLwiK25kTb58ktjF-mFxSV...

 

so which is it, 20-25 or 72?

 

Tue, 01/24/2012 - 00:40 | 2091430 geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

Uh, I think 2x would be a problem, given all the releases percolating up in Siberia, Alaska, Canada, and the Arctic circle. Don't you?

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