• 3 hours UK On Track To Approve Construction of “Mini” Nuclear Reactors
  • 7 hours LNG Glut To Continue Into 2020s, IEA Says
  • 9 hours Oil Nears $52 With Record OPEC Deal Compliance
  • 12 hours Saudi Aramco CEO Affirms IPO On Track For H2 2018
  • 14 hours Canadia Ltd. Returns To Sudan For First Time Since Oil Price Crash
  • 15 hours Syrian Rebel Group Takes Over Oil Field From IS
  • 3 days PDVSA Booted From Caribbean Terminal Over Unpaid Bills
  • 3 days Russia Warns Ukraine Against Recovering Oil Off The Coast Of Crimea
  • 3 days Syrian Rebels Relinquish Control Of Major Gas Field
  • 3 days Schlumberger Warns Of Moderating Investment In North America
  • 3 days Oil Prices Set For Weekly Loss As Profit Taking Trumps Mideast Tensions
  • 3 days Energy Regulators Look To Guard Grid From Cyberattacks
  • 3 days Mexico Says OPEC Has Not Approached It For Deal Extension
  • 4 days New Video Game Targets Oil Infrastructure
  • 4 days Shell Restarts Bonny Light Exports
  • 4 days Russia’s Rosneft To Take Majority In Kurdish Oil Pipeline
  • 4 days Iraq Struggles To Replace Damaged Kirkuk Equipment As Output Falls
  • 4 days British Utility Companies Brace For Major Reforms
  • 4 days Montenegro A ‘Sweet Spot’ Of Untapped Oil, Gas In The Adriatic
  • 4 days Rosneft CEO: Rising U.S. Shale A Downside Risk To Oil Prices
  • 4 days Brazil Could Invite More Bids For Unsold Pre-Salt Oil Blocks
  • 4 days OPEC/Non-OPEC Seek Consensus On Deal Before Nov Summit
  • 4 days London Stock Exchange Boss Defends Push To Win Aramco IPO
  • 5 days Rosneft Signs $400M Deal With Kurdistan
  • 5 days Kinder Morgan Warns About Trans Mountain Delays
  • 5 days India, China, U.S., Complain Of Venezuelan Crude Oil Quality Issues
  • 5 days Kurdish Kirkuk-Ceyhan Crude Oil Flows Plunge To 225,000 Bpd
  • 5 days Russia, Saudis Team Up To Boost Fracking Tech
  • 6 days Conflicting News Spurs Doubt On Aramco IPO
  • 6 days Exxon Starts Production At New Refinery In Texas
  • 6 days Iraq Asks BP To Redevelop Kirkuk Oil Fields
  • 6 days Oil Prices Rise After U.S. API Reports Strong Crude Inventory Draw
  • 6 days Oil Gains Spur Growth In Canada’s Oil Cities
  • 6 days China To Take 5% Of Rosneft’s Output In New Deal
  • 6 days UAE Oil Giant Seeks Partnership For Possible IPO
  • 6 days Planting Trees Could Cut Emissions As Much As Quitting Oil
  • 7 days VW Fails To Secure Critical Commodity For EVs
  • 7 days Enbridge Pipeline Expansion Finally Approved
  • 7 days Iraqi Forces Seize Control Of North Oil Co Fields In Kirkuk
  • 7 days OPEC Oil Deal Compliance Falls To 86%
Alt Text

Why U.S. Crude Exports Are Booming

U.S. crude oil exports are…

Alt Text

Is OPEC Considering Deeper Output Cuts?

You could argue OPEC and…

Alt Text

Are Combustion Engines Reaching Peak Demand?

As countries announce plans to…

What the Frack? A Look at the Possible Dangers of Fracking

What the Frack? A Look at the Possible Dangers of Fracking

Lot's of people are discussing the HBO movie "Gasland" which has aired on HBO. I encourage everyone to watch it, if, for no other reason than as a starting point towards developing critical thinking skills.

When I was an undergraduate, I was taught to learn what was in textbooks. In graduate school, I was taught to question what was in textbooks. I was exposed at that point to the ugly, ugly world of humans in science. We all have egos, and we all have self interests. These combine to color our perspectives. We discard as "bad science" the information that challenges our beliefs, and we accept whole-heartedly the data or someone elses comments or conclusions that supports our core beliefs or worldview. It is the human condition, I guess.

One of the things that you hear about in these sorts of political debates (make no mistake, they are political, even if they try to use the sheep clothing of 'science') is that any data or conclusion put out by or funded by the hydrocarbon industry is meaningless and suspect, because it is just protecting its business. That is an interesting perspective.

Here is a link to a factual counter to many of the claims made in Gasland. The comments made by readers at the bottom highlight how ridiculous and hysterical the debate has become. When you see this sort of hysterical response, it means you are challenging some deeply held and core beliefs. Religious, actually.

http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/

Here is my take on the dangers of fracking ...

1. If someone is trying large fracs within 1000' of an aquifer, we need to be cognizant, and extra effort should be applied to insure that it doesn't frac into the aquifer. I would support regulation of fracs and wells within this 1000' zone.

2. Wells that are frac'ed several thousand feet away from an aquifer can't directly frac into an aquifer. To illustrate, how hard would you have to shoot a hose of water at the ground outside your office to create cracks in the ground all the way from downtown Houston to Rice University (around 10,000' to W Gray, and 12,000' to Discovery Green)? An atomic bomb could impart that kind of energy. A pressurized stream of water? That is physically non-sensical.

3. I think we should regulate some things we put into the ground. For instance, I think we should REQUIRE operators to inject biocide along with water so that we don't introduce bacteria to the subsurface anoxic environments. They can create H2S and create a real health and economic hazard. It seems the new registry of compounds that are introduced should suffice.

4. If there are old, unplugged and abandoned wells in an area that extend to the same formation that is being fractured. I think that the operator should insure that the old abandoned well is plugged or otherwise protected from interacting with the aquifer. I would support regulation to do that because it also cleans up an ongoing pre-existing environmental liability.

5. Just because water catches fire at the faucet doesn't mean that a frac job damaged an aquifer. Many US aquifers are actual natural gas reservoirs. This was the case for the 'flaming water' segment in Gasland in Colorado, and for the recent accusation of Range Resources that they damaged an aquifer near Fort Worth. Both were natural biogenic gas reservoirs. It was definitely proven by regulatory agencies and independent scientists using chemical signature testing.

6. I do think that aquifer base line studies should be carried out in areas where fracking has not yet occurred but is planned. The best outcome is real, incontrovertible evidence of prior damage, so that future damage can be quantified and liability allocated appropriately.

7. Oil and gas companies should be and are responsible for the damage that they cause.

We need cool heads, scientific methods, and a lot less politics and heated discussion in order to craft regulations that address the REAL issues, and avoid creating regulations that don't accomplish anything other than impede progress. Good regulations are costs imposed on society for a tangible and quantifiable benefit, Bad regulation latter is a cost imposed on society for no or negative benefit. It's like paying someone $5 bucks to hit you in the face with a shovel. That would be ridiculous. Unless you are into being hit in the face with a shovel.

By. Allen Gilmer




Back to homepage


Leave a comment
  • Anonymous on April 09 2011 said:
    This is probably a very interesting article if someone would explain in a sentence preferably at the beginning what fracking is, for ignoraemuses like myself...Thanks

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News