You need a lot of water to frack

[mooncliff]

And there are interesting alternatives like injecting sewage instead...
CARRIZO SPRINGS, Tex. — In this South Texas stretch of mesquite trees and cactus, where the land is sometimes too dry to grow crops, the local aquifer is being strained in the search for oil. The reason is hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a drilling process that requires massive amounts of water.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/us...pagewanted=all

“In Coahuila, there’s no water, and that’s where our shale plays are,” said Miriam Grunstein Dickter, an energy expert at Mexico City’s Center for Research and Teaching of Economics. “We’d have to transport the water in pipelines to Coahuila to do the fracking, and we’re not a water-rich country.”


http://www.greeleytribune.com/news/f...co-natural-oil

[bpwoods]

Re: You need a lot of water to frack

You need water, period! Like, to drink! I seem to recall that some civilizations who are no longer extant became so due to water poverty. No matter. Frack on!

[DRumsfeld2000]

Re: You need a lot of water to frack

I wish I could find out the truth about fracking in the USA. I understand the principle, but I just get the feeling that a lot of BS is talked about it, especially the quantity, the economics of it etc. In EJ's recent missive he seems to be sceptical as well. I just cannot believe that it is as good as it is painted by the media. It feels like a short term (3-5yrs) hyped story.

[bpwoods]

Re: You need a lot of water to frack

The issue is whether or not the injected water + other substances will percolate away from the site and find their way into a freshwater aquifer. The probability is positive for this, but the speed and rate of percolation will be geology dependent. Contaminated freshwater aquifers are a significant hazard - that's the issue! If the Fracking Co. is either unwilling, or unable, to provide a 101% guarantee that no percolation will occur, then fine. Frack on! If not, then Fracking is a disastrous folly. Very negative economics! But if you are a Hedgie on Wall Street, what do you care about folks in the outback? Nada!

[c1ue]

Re: You need a lot of water to frack

I wish I could find out the truth about fracking in the USA.

It seems the information on iTulip is reasonably clear on the positives and negatives - from an economic standpoint.

There is no question that fracking has increased the natural gas supply in the US - and that this will last for some period of time. There is equally no question that the same has happened for oil.

The primary differences between what iTulip/EJ has noted, vs. what is being yakked about in the MSM - is what the medium and long term impact will be.

We're right at the cusp of what is supposed to be the peak growth period for US oil production - so watching the EIA production numbers for the next 6 months should be fairly instructive:

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_...c_mbblpd_m.htm

[GRG55]

Re: You need a lot of water to frack

The issue is whether or not the injected water + other substances will percolate away from the site and find their way into a freshwater aquifer. The probability is positive for this, but the speed and rate of percolation will be geology dependent...

This is not correct. It's more complex. Let me try to explain - briefly - so I don't put everyone to sleep.

There are a variety of different frac fluid categories; I will use gelled water as one example. The chemical concoction is designed to gell the water in order to hold the proppant (high specification frac sand or ceramic beads if deep reservoirs under high rock pressures). Once the hydraulic frac pumping units on surface have increased the pressure at the rock face in the well the rock will fracture and the frac fluid with the proppant will start to flow into the productive reservoir zone. When the pressure at surface is removed the rock fractures will close. It is the physical proppant (the sand or ceramic beads) that is trapped in the fractures under the rock closure pressure that creates the artificial higher permeability channels for the reservoir hydrocarbons to flow toward the wellbore. The frac fluids that were used to suspend the proppant to get it down the well and into the fractures is a foreign material in the reservoir and is removed during the "clean-up" flow back. In the case of gelled water the gelling compounds are designed to break down under heat and within a short time (hours) so that the frac water will flow back easily and completely. Leaving any of the foreign materials, other than the physical proppant, in the reservoir impairs the ability to produce the hydrocarbons...which defeats the purpose of the frac in the first place. That is why it is important to get them all out of the reservoir.

Fracing is an unbelievably technical and highly specialized set of processes.

Contaminated freshwater aquifers are a significant hazard - that's the issue! If the Fracking Co. is either unwilling, or unable, to provide a 101% guarantee that no percolation will occur, then fine. Frack on! If not, then Fracking is a disastrous folly. Very negative economics! But if you are a Hedgie on Wall Street, what do you care about folks in the outback? Nada!

Contaminated freshwater is an issue. But not exactly for the reasons indicated or that some of you may have read about in the no-nothing media.

In most reservoirs, in most places in the world, the rock mechanics and stresses are such that the fractures tend to preferentially propagate vertically, instead of the preferred horizontal direction. This creates the risk of "fracing out of the zone" and compromising the reservoir seal that allowed the hydrocarbons to be trapped in the first place. Once the seal is broken it creates the risk that hydrocarbons will migrate upward (both natural gas and oil are less dense than water). This is the real risk to shallower aquifers...the ongoing contamination by the native hydrocarbons in the deeper reservoirs...that is what gives rise to the potential for natural gas coming out in tap water in the kitchen and being able to be ignited.

This happens naturally in many places, probably due to tectonic movements of the earth that break the upper reservoir seals naturally and allow seeps to surface. Such seeps in places like Pennsylvania, offshore Gulf of Mexico and in the Middle East were the first clues for early explorers to search for oil.

As for the 101% guarantee, that is the usual demand that can never, ever be fulfilled.

As I have posted before, if society wants a guarantee that there shall never be another offshore blowout, then the only way to achieve that is to immediately and permanently suspend ALL offshore exploration and drilling. If society expects an absolute guarantee that there shall never be another automobile fatality then the only way to achieve that today is to suspend virtually all automobile traffic. If you want an unequivocal guarantee that there shall not ever be another public railway or airline disaster, then shut down the railways and stop the jets from flying. And if one wants a 101% guarantee that no aquifer will ever again be contaminated by petroleum exploration (and there are many examples over the decades did not involve fracing) then it is pretty clear what that demand really means.

There is virtually nothing that mankind does, including building acres and acres of housing subdivisions, that does not in some way change the environment around us...little of it could be considered positive.

There is not much in life that is guaranteed. As rough as it sounds we make trade-offs in society. Suggesting there is some risk free way to secure any of the hydrocarbons we all consume and depend on daily is nothing short of delusional. There is a cost to someone, somewhere for every damn molecule. If the cost is judged too high then by all means the activity should be stopped. But that would appear to have some costs associated with it also...

[bpwoods]

Re: You need a lot of water to frack

GRG55: Much obliged for that update. Close-coupled, complex systems ring a a bell? Fracking might fit that bill. 101% = a skeptical sob! The lesson, from history (which folk never learn, do they?): Do not mess with your freshwater sources - ever! The 'dash' for gas and oil to satisfy our consumption (and sustain our somewhat unsustainable lifestyle) will completely over-ride all considerations of environmental safety. Hubris rules! And as that man said, nature is not fooled by theoretical guff and PR spin.