#fraccing

New Post has been published on http://ravishontechnology.ravishpatwardhan.us/2015/06/07/fracking-hydraulic-fracturing/

Fracking (Hydraulic Fracturing)

The now more-famous “fracking” term is short for “hydraulic fracturing, hydrofracturing, hydrofracking, and others. It is the topic of movies, politics involving the United States and Middle East, and has direct impact upon communities and consumers in both negatively and positively portrayed ways. But what is it exactly? As with many concepts, fracking has a history, a present, and a potentially strong future. Each is explored here.

History

The ability to increase production of oil and gas production from shallow hard rock has been a refined process from nearly 150 years ago – with dynamite and other materials to separate and “fracture” rock allowing channels which yield such oil and gas. With well outputs related to treatment pressures studied in 1947 by Farris in Kansas, napalm (gelled gasoline) injected into limestone resulted in marginal increase if any in production. However, subsequent improvement and patent granted to Halliburton in 1949 has led to widespread use in the U.S., with greater success.

Since gas-saturated sandstones with low permeability don’t yield gas, the combination of hydraulic fracturing and use of horizontal wells led to greater yields in the early 1970s. In the late 1970s, a technique for shale extraction in low-permeability using slickwater was shown to be successful.

Present

The process of fracking involves pumping fluid to create pressure sufficient to exceed the gracture gradient or pressure gradient of rock – measured in PSI. Sand is then placed to “keep the fractures open” when fluid pressure is decreased. This, in turn, has allowed greater recovery of oil and gas.

Other uses of fracking have included groundwater well increase in production, improving containment of wasteful spills, stress measurement in earth, electricity generation in geothermal areas, and others.

Despite what appears as a significant improvement in oil and gas production in recent years, fracking may not be completely responsible for such increase per some studies – for example, a cited IDDRI study of 2014 suggested that there would not be significicant economical impact in competitiveness. However, unless most of the increased production of the U.S. can be attributed to simply other recovered reserves besides from fracking, there appears to be a meaningful impact upon OPEC and oil prices worldwide (see www.RavishOnPolitics.com).

Future

Newer techniques in fracking technology continue to be introduced, with materials used, methods of drilling, costs, and yields being affected. This improvement may or may not affect other relevant issues for fracking – the concerns over communities being affected in terms of local environmental hazards, on-the-job injuries, and practices for profits. Health risks hae been considered with respect to chemicals used, with some calling for disclosure; environmental issues such as earthquake incidence increase, air emissions, noise pollution, and the significant use of water have been raised. In 2011, France banned fracking; other countries have imposed regulations, but not outright ban. As far as safe drinking water, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, at www.epa.gov) does require specific caution when diesel is used, but otherwise has not reported on any significantly high risk in most regions (as reported by National Public Radio, at www.npr.org). However, some sites report a 17-fold increase in methane from drinking water wells near fracking sites (compared to normal wells, at www.dangersoffracking.com), and increased pollution promoted by truckloads for the millions of water gallons required for fracking (www.earthworksaction.org).

Fracking of the future will need to consider all of these implications – the science and technology, the political aspects, economic aspects, environmental impact, and societal perception of need of one vs. the other alternative, while maximizing safety.

     Graham Oliver of the Port au Port/Bay St. George Fracking Awareness Group says the group is happy to see the recent decision of the Nova Scotia government to institute a ban on high volume slickwater hydraulic fracturing in that province. The decision comes in the wake of a report  by a Nova Scotia panel, headed by David Wheeler, set up to investigate the potential for hydraulic fracturing there, which concluded that the practise should not be implemented currently. Nova Scotia Energy Minister Andrew Younger announced the ban on Wednesday, citing uncertainties about the process and the risks involved.

     While the speed of the announcement came as a surprise to the Port au Port/Bay St. George Fracking Awareness Group, Oliver said that Younger “showed a real understanding of the Wheeler panel and report.” The ban is likely to have far reaching effects outside of the province of Nova Scotia. The results of the Wheeler panel had already been cited by some commentators as representing a significant obstacle to the re-election hopes of New Brunswick’s Premier David Alward, who has been adamantly in support of fracking (CBC Nova Scotia Aug 29th, 2014). Oliver stated that the decision to ban the process in Nova Scotia reduces Alward’s chances of re-election even further.

    Oliver says 2014 has so far seen the release of much more data on hydraulic fracturing than has been seen in prior years, particularly concerning health and environmental effects. He added that a clearer picture of the impact the process has emerges every month. Of particular note are the recent findings of 243 cases of well water contamination in Pennsylvania (CBS Local August 29, 2014). Oliver says that the companies involved in hydraulic fracturing in that state now face the possibility of future lawsuits.   

The vocal minority?

     Those who either oppose fracking, or who simply raise concerns about the process, are often accused of being a small but vocal minority. However, in Nova Scotia, at least, there seems very little evidence to support that argument. Minister Younger made it clear in recent comments to the media that while the Nova Scotia government is open to a case by case discussion of the benefits of fracking – if a community were to ever come forward in favour of it – no such requests have been made; “We’ve had no requests to come and start talking about the idea of hydraulic fracturing” he told the CBC. In fact, Younger said that the public in Nova Scotia had "overwhelmingly expressed concern" regarding hydraulic fracturing (CBC News September 03, 2014).

     As more information comes to light the supposed benefits of fracking (as they have been promoted by industry) are increasingly facing scrutiny world-wide. Indeed the United Kingdom’s Advertising Standards Authority recently ruled against a pro-fracking advertisement by Breitling Energy, a company well-known as an advocate of the process, because the advertisement made misleading claims about the benefits of fracking (The Guardian [UK], September 3, 2014).

     A desire for greater information on the process is certainly not limited to Nova Scotia. With an independent review of fracking due to take place here in Newfoundland and Labrador, it seems clear that proper scrutiny of industry’s claims will be a necessity if that review is to meet with public confidence.

Article by Conor Curtis

The Initial report on the Independent Review of Coal Seam Gas Activities in NSW, by Chief Scientist & Engineer Mary O’Kane leaves me to ask.

How many more of these reports do we need? Where is the value?

The language tries desperately not to tread on anyone's toes, it laments the lack of actual data and the uncertainty of the law. It recommends that government should spend more money on R&D into CSG and acknowledges the “emotive concerns” of the community.

All this stuff we know and have heard before. So without having to invoke clairvoyant powers, I predict the final report will be more of the same. It will trigger an avalanche of political debate resulting in several specialist committees, recommending further desperately needed investigation.

While it is not without merit to have as many facts as possible, it is time to shift the debate away from how can we make CSG work, to what are the alternatives.

I have recently been in Germany, where family and friends are producing more energy with solar panels and heat pumps in their houses than they can consume. Without having to sacrifice any of today’s mod cons they are all feeding back their surplus energy into the power grid all year round. A friend is generating solar power with his house for 8 years now. Their solar system is paid off completely, admittedly with the help of generous kickstarter allowances from the German tax office in the early days. His words were, with today's technology I could produce double the amount of power.

Strangely enough the cost of solar energy is coming down, and new innovations and technologies keep appearing on the market, despite ridiculously low research grants or tax incentives. Would governments around the globe stop their fossil fuel subsidies it most certainly would make even more economic sense.

So how about it Premier. O'Farrell? Thank Mary O'Kane for her work to date, take the rest of the allocated money and implement the required transparent laws and regulations, and stop and revoke any CSG exploration licences until then.

'UT initial study sees no direct link between fracking, water contamination'

They have come to the same conclusion as Suzuki Foundation and Pembina Institute and Worldwatch.  Its amazing anyone still believes this myth.  I still see all over social media that people need to watch Gasland that helped start this myth in the first place. 

Its as if people think Government and Industry haven't watched Gasland.  Like its a cult secret and conspiracy or something.