Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Gas fracking to start near Blackpool this summer

F

ferrelhadley

There is no love between us anymore.
Link

The process is expensive and allegedly polutes groud water, but now has a proven track record of delivering gas.
 
Not knowing much about this apart from what I'm reading at the moment on the net, what exactly is causing the groundwater polution and how?

Is it the fracturing fluids used? If so surely this can be avoided by the correct choice of fluid (I've read that carbon dioxide can be used but I presume that depends on the depth being drilled, or water even). The only other possible source that I can think of at the moment is the extracted hydrocarbons, but surely these would be released by any extraction method?

I'm not picking sides here I would just appreciate it if someone who is a bit more clued up would educate me.
 
Fuchs66 said:
Not knowing much about this apart from what I'm reading at the moment on the net, what exactly is causing the groundwater polution and how?

Is it the fracturing fluids used? If so surely this can be avoided by the correct choice of fluid (I've read that carbon dioxide can be used but I presume that depends on the depth being drilled, or water even). The only other possible source that I can think of at the moment is the extracted hydrocarbons, but surely these would be released by any extraction method?

I'm not picking sides here I would just appreciate it if someone who is a bit more clued up would educate me.
Click to expand...

It's the "Frac Fluid", used to perform the hydraulic fracturing, itself that is the main problem...
The fluid , which consists of largely sand & water, which is injected into the initial cracks produced by the "Perf Gun" at pressures of up to 10,000 PSI, often has chemicals, such as benzine added to it, to "Improve it's characteristics", which is the main concern to health, if it seeps through the "Frac Craks", into any aquifers...
In addition the used "Frac Fluid" often has to be stored on site, until safely processed/disposed of, as it can contain various salts, heavy metals, & possibly low level radioactive materials, such as Radon 222...
Apparently, in the U.S according to Popular Science magazine, the EPA, launched a review in Autumn 2010 on this method of gas extraction, and it's potential effects on the environment...
 
Supporters of hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" say it could unleash so much gas across the globe that it will solve the energy crisis for the next century, as well as help reduce carbon emissions.
Click to expand...

Anyone got any links to back up these fantastical claims?
 
spacemonkey said:
Anyone got any links to back up these fantastical claims?
Click to expand...
One of the issues with it is cost, I am not totally sold that it is a show stopper but the theory goes like this: its expensive to set up a well, the well initially produces very high volumes but drops off quickly (within two years) although you get a much lower gas flow for a long while after it. Now there are questions about the long term economic model of the technology in that what is happening is shale\ tight gas companies are expanding, they are drilling more and more wells that require more capital but you are getting big returns on previously drilled wells just not enough to cover the expansion; so some argue its a ponzi scheme and when you run out of new leases to drill you do not have a stable business with long term infrastructure. I think that that was the case with the original fields drilled back in 03-07, but the costs of the technology are coming down so the economic model may be self sustaining.

As for the water table poisoning, again its a pretty new technology (actually not, its old technology applied in a new way) but there has been cases of water table poisoning, industry people say that know the problem and are dealing with it, critics say that is just bull. Pick a side and take that, unless you have specialist knowledge of where the technology is going.

As for the reserves, Ive seen the 100 year figure kicked around for the US, but its just hype. It is a big new resource but I really strongly doubt 100 years. No one has really done a lot of exploring beyond the US to test reserves, they have found gas bearing shales but its been seen as nothing to bother with. There may be a lot of it or the US may be geologically unusual to have so much.

The thing though with burning CH4 you get 1CO2 + 4H20. So it pretty clean for a the energy you get. I suspect it is also a lot easier to seperate the CO2 out form the flue gas as well, so it may be more economic to extract and sequester from a CO2 mitigation POV, although I am thinking it is likely to be reasonably sour (high sulfur content), maybe not just that is running round my head.

Together with coal bed methane it does represent 'the acceptable face of hydrocarbon energy' so to speak. Put it this way, if we shut down our coal station for new gas ones, we will be a hell of a lot better off in terms of CO2 prodcution, sequester it and we may be quite a way to meeting really strict targets with a big push for alternatives.

If we use it for BAU then scew it, we are right back to square one. First though we have too see how safe it is.
 
G. Fieendish said:
It's the "Frac Fluid", used to perform the hydraulic fracturing, itself that is the main problem...
The fluid , which consists of largely sand & water, which is injected into the initial cracks produced by the "Perf Gun" at pressures of up to 10,000 PSI, often has chemicals, such as benzine added to it, to "Improve it's characteristics", which is the main concern to health, if it seeps through the "Frac Craks", into any aquifers...
Click to expand...
Surely its a case of choosing the right fluid for the job though? Plus even if the fluid does not contain benzine (benzene?) or other hydrocarbons surely similar compounds would be pressed out of the gas bearing shale itself (remember I dont know much about this so I'm guessing at the moment)
G. Fieendish said:
In addition the used "Frac Fluid" often has to be stored on site, until safely processed/disposed of, as it can contain various salts, heavy metals, & possibly low level radioactive materials, such as Radon 222...
Click to expand...
Not really a problem, hazardous materials are routinely stored quite safely in the UK and many other countries. Also I can't see the problem with Radon so much, whilst it is radioactive it's also a gas and unless for some strange reason a huge bubble of it is hit, its probably a lot safer than going into a cellar in a granite region.
G. Fieendish said:
Apparently, in the U.S according to Popular Science magazine, the EPA, launched a review in Autumn 2010 on this method of gas extraction, and it's potential effects on the environment...
Click to expand...
I'd be interested in the results of this, I have a nasty feeling that most if not all environmental problems are down to bad working practises rather than the method itself as is often the case in the oil industry (I may also be totally wrong)
 
The French Channel, TV5 showed a interesting report on "Fraking" in Pennsylvania, last night, which shows the problems with the process in some parts of the U.S at least...
The report dealt with the natural gas operation, based near Dymmock, Pennsylvania, which used said process...
Although the locals initially supported the operation, due to it bring much needed jobs to the area, many of them are now having second thoughts about it, due to contamination of the water table, & hence the water supply by "Frak Fluids", as most of the local water supply is obtained from artesian wells...
One of the most graphic demonstrations concerning such, was the setting of a sample of freshly obtained well water on fire, by a litigant...
 
tigh_l.jpg


Colonel Tigh approves of this frakking thread...
 
Oswaldtwistle said:
If it's under the sea, is ground water pollution such a big issue?
Click to expand...
Plausibly, but I would not think too often.

But I really dont think fracking tight gas rocks will be a big offshore activity. The wells run down real quick and it needs a lot of them to get the gas out. Seems very expensive for platforms other then very shallow seas, drill ships may be cost offective.... maybe. But you are going to need somewhere pretty calm for that.
 
ymu said:
Gas is cleaner than other fuels, and it produces less CO2 per unit of energy released.
Click to expand...

Cleaner than being forced to look for alternatives? I think not. Mankind will blates burn all the fossils they can get their hands on, then worry about the consequences afterwards, itf there is an afterwards. Finding more stuff to burn is no real help.
 
ymu said:
Gas is cleaner than other fuels, and it produces less CO2 per unit of energy released.
Click to expand...

Ok so gas os cleaner than other fossil fuels, but there are other issues, like being able to drink water and grow food. It's high time we started on a low energy future, yes this is probably less environmentally damaging than drilling for oil in the Arctic, but capitalism will do both anyway given the slightest chance. Let's try for neither.
 
With hydrofracking, a well can produce over a million gallons of waste-water that is often laced with highly corrosive salts, carcinogens like benzene and radioactive elements like radium, all of which can occur naturally thousands of feet underground
Click to expand...

Fracking Report
 
There was an article about this in the Independent this weekend. I've seen other stuff too. I can't decide whether it just sounds like a really bad idea because I'm not a scientist, or whether it's genuinely a total nightmare waiting to happen.
 
8115 said:
There was an article about this in the Independent this weekend. I've seen other stuff too. I can't decide whether it just sounds like a really bad idea because I'm not a scientist, or whether it's genuinely a total nightmare waiting to happen.
Click to expand...

No, it's a really bad idea.
 
stuff_it said:
In earthquakes near a nuke plant it's 'near', and then there's the groundwater issue.

I can't see that this has any common sense advantages really.
Click to expand...
Its not a seismically active area, its most likely the sedimentary layer the gas is in adjusting slightly to the increased pressure. Your shoving loads of water (and frak fluid) into a thin layer of sedimentary deposit which means it will have to expand slightly (thats the whole point) this seems that a bit of that expansion was sudden hence the earth quake


A 2.2 is unlikely to have been felt by humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale

You will get a much bigger tremor from a rock burst in a conventional mine they will be at between 4-5 o the richter scale. Most likely you will get similar tremors in the oil and gas fields of the North Sea like Forties, Brent, Piper and so on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Anyone got any ideas about this?
Replies
4
Views
354
Ax^
Ax^
editor
Do not read this thread if you like strawberries. Seriously.
Replies
24
Views
900
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
A
Meteor? Space rubbish? What fell near the Hebrides last evening? 14/09/22
Replies
27
Views
789
Aladdin
A
Nylock
Well, this isn't good: The north Atlantic current may shut down as soon as 2025...
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
Nylock
Nylock
Sasaferrato
Time started from the Big Bang? Why
Replies
13
Views
523
Signal 11
Signal 11
Back
Top Bottom