05-24-2012, 10:02 PM
Actually that article is a bit erroneous. It also has this disclaimer
"The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (March 2012)"
What they are calling fracking is actually primary and secondary waterflooding. In the petroleum business ( I spent about 22 years working for my dad who owned an oil company) a large portion of what comes out of the ground is not oil but a highly mineralized water, generally referred to as salt water. In areas where oil production needs such help there is already an overabundance of this type of water to dispose of. Returning it to the formation from which it came, but in a location so that it pushes the oil towards your well is called secondary waterflooding. If you pump water from a different formation than the one you are pumping to put it into the one you are pumping from, this is called primary waterflooding. As the water is traveling down a minimum of a two inch pipe at a minimum of three thousand pounds pressure, there is no reason to buy water that is potable, when you can pump as much as you want, right out of the ground
"Detractors point to potential environmental impacts, including contamination of ground water, risks to air quality, the migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, surface contamination from spills and flowback and the health effects of these."
sounds to me like someone is trying to stir up some shit. Most potable water is pumped from less than 200 feet. Even in what is called shallow well oil production, you are talking about a minimum of 1500 feet. That means that you have over a thousand feet of highly compressed material between one level and the next. I doubt there is a pump that could generate the necessary pressure it would require to push the water vertically, even if the formation was somehow blocked as to allow such a moment. The truth is it is several orders of magnitude easier to move horizontally than it would be to move vertically the distance of a thousand feet. I do think it is possible, although not highly probably, that injecting water back into the ground as is done in primary water flooding could act as lubricant to a Strike-slip fault, or a dip-sli[p fault, and thus help to create conditions favorable for an earthquake to occur. However, it would be of such low magnitude as to be only discernible by a seismograph. despite all of the high pressure water flooding that has occurred since the middle of the last century, there has never been an incident of any level of earthquake that could be correlated in any way to the water flooding. It is much more likely (and I believe there was a case recently in Pennsylvania that may support this) that Geothermal power production would create condition favorable for an earthquake that might be large enough to actually notice. This is because, unlike oil and natural gas production, Geothermal looks to exploits the fault lines as a way to more easily get to the necessary depth where there is enough heat to produce the power. Oil and gas production generally avoid such location because it fractures the zones, and is just not generally conducive to the conditions that would give rise to accessible, and producible formations.
Now back to fracking, which the article finally does address under "Fracturing fluids". There are two points. One, fracking is not a continual process and generally only last a few days at most, and often only a few hours. Two, it also does not need pure, or potable water, and in fact never uses such (the water is mixed with chemicals and frack sand, which is pushed into the formation, and it is actually the sand that is the main and most costly ingredient in this, as it has to be of the appropriate coarseness to get the results you desire), as the cost of doing so would outweigh any benefit that you would receive. generally before the process starts a dirt pit is dug and filled with water to be used in the process. Generally you are pumping hundreds to thousands of barrels per hour back into the ground, any pit used in fracking could certainly be filled in less that a day and with very little trouble gone to in order to divert the water from being put back in the ground, and instead sent down at least a 2" tube of flexible plastic hose that can be transported on a moveable spool, that is mounted on a trailer. In application, not much different than how people roll up a garden hose. Considering that there is an easily accessible supply of water that is adequate to the task, and which basically has no cost, except in the time it takes you to unroll the hose and attach it to the water supply. It would make no sense to go and buy water that you will have to transport probably many miles via tank trucks. Even for a small job this would increase your cost several tens of thousands of dollars.
So at least in terms of potable water being used in fracking I don't think you have much to worry about. Sorry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"water resources [among other things]should be in the hands of [responsible]governments,not private companies"
So you think there is a big difference between the two?
Dale
"The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (March 2012)"
What they are calling fracking is actually primary and secondary waterflooding. In the petroleum business ( I spent about 22 years working for my dad who owned an oil company) a large portion of what comes out of the ground is not oil but a highly mineralized water, generally referred to as salt water. In areas where oil production needs such help there is already an overabundance of this type of water to dispose of. Returning it to the formation from which it came, but in a location so that it pushes the oil towards your well is called secondary waterflooding. If you pump water from a different formation than the one you are pumping to put it into the one you are pumping from, this is called primary waterflooding. As the water is traveling down a minimum of a two inch pipe at a minimum of three thousand pounds pressure, there is no reason to buy water that is potable, when you can pump as much as you want, right out of the ground
"Detractors point to potential environmental impacts, including contamination of ground water, risks to air quality, the migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, surface contamination from spills and flowback and the health effects of these."
sounds to me like someone is trying to stir up some shit. Most potable water is pumped from less than 200 feet. Even in what is called shallow well oil production, you are talking about a minimum of 1500 feet. That means that you have over a thousand feet of highly compressed material between one level and the next. I doubt there is a pump that could generate the necessary pressure it would require to push the water vertically, even if the formation was somehow blocked as to allow such a moment. The truth is it is several orders of magnitude easier to move horizontally than it would be to move vertically the distance of a thousand feet. I do think it is possible, although not highly probably, that injecting water back into the ground as is done in primary water flooding could act as lubricant to a Strike-slip fault, or a dip-sli[p fault, and thus help to create conditions favorable for an earthquake to occur. However, it would be of such low magnitude as to be only discernible by a seismograph. despite all of the high pressure water flooding that has occurred since the middle of the last century, there has never been an incident of any level of earthquake that could be correlated in any way to the water flooding. It is much more likely (and I believe there was a case recently in Pennsylvania that may support this) that Geothermal power production would create condition favorable for an earthquake that might be large enough to actually notice. This is because, unlike oil and natural gas production, Geothermal looks to exploits the fault lines as a way to more easily get to the necessary depth where there is enough heat to produce the power. Oil and gas production generally avoid such location because it fractures the zones, and is just not generally conducive to the conditions that would give rise to accessible, and producible formations.
Now back to fracking, which the article finally does address under "Fracturing fluids". There are two points. One, fracking is not a continual process and generally only last a few days at most, and often only a few hours. Two, it also does not need pure, or potable water, and in fact never uses such (the water is mixed with chemicals and frack sand, which is pushed into the formation, and it is actually the sand that is the main and most costly ingredient in this, as it has to be of the appropriate coarseness to get the results you desire), as the cost of doing so would outweigh any benefit that you would receive. generally before the process starts a dirt pit is dug and filled with water to be used in the process. Generally you are pumping hundreds to thousands of barrels per hour back into the ground, any pit used in fracking could certainly be filled in less that a day and with very little trouble gone to in order to divert the water from being put back in the ground, and instead sent down at least a 2" tube of flexible plastic hose that can be transported on a moveable spool, that is mounted on a trailer. In application, not much different than how people roll up a garden hose. Considering that there is an easily accessible supply of water that is adequate to the task, and which basically has no cost, except in the time it takes you to unroll the hose and attach it to the water supply. It would make no sense to go and buy water that you will have to transport probably many miles via tank trucks. Even for a small job this would increase your cost several tens of thousands of dollars.
So at least in terms of potable water being used in fracking I don't think you have much to worry about. Sorry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"water resources [among other things]should be in the hands of [responsible]governments,not private companies"
So you think there is a big difference between the two?
Dale
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.