70bigblockdodge
Old Man with a Hat
They are coal seams I think the Pittsburgh seam is the shallowest. Fairly narrow (height) the Freeport seam is much thicker.
How's your day
- Thread starter tbm3fan
- Start date
They are coal seams I think the Pittsburgh seam is the shallowest. Fairly narrow (height) the Freeport seam is much thicker.
didnt know that about OK vs CA. interesting.
Fracking...there's an interesting topic to a shade-tree geologist like me. steering CLEAR of the politics completely, and staying with the science, I feel two ways about this.
the earth is massive, and any US state-sized piece of it has a mass of BILLIONS of tons, and we are going into the crust a mere fraction of its 30 mile thickness. what could drilling into it possibly do to it, even the high pressure work of fracking, to cause an earthquake?
on the other hand, fracking also involves storing treated water underground, and coupled with locally dormant faults, that water can 'lubricate" those rocks so they slip more easily past each other (like a air hockey puck with air on vs. air off on the table). the slipping in turn may create local earthquakes.
i guess i come down on the side that fracking MAY create localized quake conditions that MAY not otherwise be there without the fracking. it is entirely possible that fracking (assuming the water table doesnt get polluted) does NOTHING at all to the local area.
sorting it out with rational, fact-based discussion however, can be challenging with people taking hardline stances on either side hence I again stay away from THAT debate here as I like being on FCBO :icon_pirat:
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
I don't want to be within 150 miles of fracking polluting my drinking water.
We are EFN running out of water.
Wars in the future will be about water.
We are EFN running out of water.
Wars in the future will be about water.
patrick66
Old Man with a Hat
Fracking sends that water BELOW the water tables/aquifers...if done correctly. Most places where people have complained about "water that will catch fire" had that problem long before the first well was drilled.
Dunno if USGS has any political axe to grind with anyone..they seem like a bunch of serious scientists to me but here's their take which seems to make sense:
Per the USGS: http://www.usgs.gov/faq/categories/9833/3428
Does the production of natural gas from shales cause earthquakes? If so, how are the earthquakes related to these operations?
To produce natural gas from shale formations, it is necessary to increase the interconnectedness of the pore space (permeability) of the shale so that the gas can flow through the rock mass and be extracted through production wells. This is usually done by hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"). Fracking causes extremely small earthquakes, but they are almost always too small to be a safety concern. In addition to natural gas, fracking fluids and salt water trapped in the same formation as the gas are returned to the surface. These wastewaters are frequently disposed of by injection into deep wells. The injection of wastewater and salt water into the subsurface can cause earthquakes that are large enough to be felt and may cause damage.
More USGS: http://www.usgs.gov/faq/categories/9833/7711
Oklahoma now has more earthquakes on a regular basis than California. Are they due to fracking?
In a few cases, yes, but in most cases no. The majority of the earthquakes in Oklahoma since 2011 occur in areas where oil is being produced by pumping massive volumes of water out of naturally fractured formations to extract much smaller volumes of oil. Most of the wells used to access the oil are completed without being fracked. The natural formation water that comes to the surface with the oil is too saline to be released into the environment. Disposal by injection into deep formations is currently the most common method of disposal. Injecting large volumes of water into the deep sedimentary formations raises the pore pressure over large areas that can induce earthquakes.
Per the USGS: http://www.usgs.gov/faq/categories/9833/3428
Does the production of natural gas from shales cause earthquakes? If so, how are the earthquakes related to these operations?
To produce natural gas from shale formations, it is necessary to increase the interconnectedness of the pore space (permeability) of the shale so that the gas can flow through the rock mass and be extracted through production wells. This is usually done by hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"). Fracking causes extremely small earthquakes, but they are almost always too small to be a safety concern. In addition to natural gas, fracking fluids and salt water trapped in the same formation as the gas are returned to the surface. These wastewaters are frequently disposed of by injection into deep wells. The injection of wastewater and salt water into the subsurface can cause earthquakes that are large enough to be felt and may cause damage.
More USGS: http://www.usgs.gov/faq/categories/9833/7711
Oklahoma now has more earthquakes on a regular basis than California. Are they due to fracking?
In a few cases, yes, but in most cases no. The majority of the earthquakes in Oklahoma since 2011 occur in areas where oil is being produced by pumping massive volumes of water out of naturally fractured formations to extract much smaller volumes of oil. Most of the wells used to access the oil are completed without being fracked. The natural formation water that comes to the surface with the oil is too saline to be released into the environment. Disposal by injection into deep formations is currently the most common method of disposal. Injecting large volumes of water into the deep sedimentary formations raises the pore pressure over large areas that can induce earthquakes.
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
"If done correctly".
Everything works perfectly "if done correctly"
Every man made disaster was not done correctly. Does BP use fracking?
From the [h=4]TVA Kingston Fossil Plant Coal Fly Ash Slurry Spill[/h]to the [h=4]The Bhopal Disaster.[/h]
yeah my only fracking worry .. is the water thing.
so i'll take the 'shakin' risk to get the resources, keep or get people workin', take in a few less supertankers from overseas, IF they protect the local water.
yep, they almost always drill well below the local water table, BUT they have to correctly traverse it to get to the depths to get the resources. then the water they use to bust up the formations they drag back out of the hole, then they store it/treat it on the surface, then finally inject it BACK into the ground.
no debate to me that the water is "toxic" (the salts, the drilling fluids, the residual radioactivty, et. al) at every step after it goes down the hole for the first time, right up to the last time they inject it back into the ground. (aside: does the process render good water unusable, so there's a net loss of drinking water??)
and at no time do they want it anywhere near/getting into drinking water sources. i am sure the industry is keen to do the right thing here 100% of the time. but the equation changes for me (and them) if anything goes wrong with the local water supply because of fracking.
here's NPR's take:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown...iver-prompts-state-democrats-call-regulation/
so if fracking was going on in my "backyard", i'd support it probably but i'd be most curious/concerned about the water stuff and them NOT messin' that up .. EVER.
so i'll take the 'shakin' risk to get the resources, keep or get people workin', take in a few less supertankers from overseas, IF they protect the local water.
yep, they almost always drill well below the local water table, BUT they have to correctly traverse it to get to the depths to get the resources. then the water they use to bust up the formations they drag back out of the hole, then they store it/treat it on the surface, then finally inject it BACK into the ground.
no debate to me that the water is "toxic" (the salts, the drilling fluids, the residual radioactivty, et. al) at every step after it goes down the hole for the first time, right up to the last time they inject it back into the ground. (aside: does the process render good water unusable, so there's a net loss of drinking water??)
and at no time do they want it anywhere near/getting into drinking water sources. i am sure the industry is keen to do the right thing here 100% of the time. but the equation changes for me (and them) if anything goes wrong with the local water supply because of fracking.
here's NPR's take:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown...iver-prompts-state-democrats-call-regulation/
"The number of spills from North Dakota’s booming oil industry has risen steadily since 2006, the New York Times reported in November. A Times investigation found that 18.4 million gallons of oil and chemical substances have leaked into the North Dakotan air, water and soil between 2006 and October 2014. The Summit Midstream leak follows on the heels of a 50,000 gallon oil spill in the Yellowstone River near Glendive, Montana — the second oil spill in the river in four years."
so if fracking was going on in my "backyard", i'd support it probably but i'd be most curious/concerned about the water stuff and them NOT messin' that up .. EVER.
70bigblockdodge
Old Man with a Hat
They used to dump our brine water right into the nearest creek or stream this was before our Marcellus shale gas boom when just regular gas wells like the one in my yard.
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
"...the one in my yard..."
That still sounds weird as hell...
Picture, please and thank you.
That still sounds weird as hell...
Picture, please and thank you.
here's what the water guys say:
http://www.waterworld.com/articles/...caribbean/fracking-wastewater-management.html
My own question was answered too. They use freshwater first goin' down the hole, get back 60% of that (so 40% is gone), then "dispose" and "recycle", with whatever is "disposed" of is lost by deep injection back in to the ground. not sure if the "recycled"water means reused by the fracker, or is made drinkable again?
looks like its a NET user of freshwater....the great majority (70%+ at least with initial losses and disposal quantities) of it is gone for a long time as a freshwater source.
If anyone is interested, here is how fracking works from an driller's perspective. so its a bit "self-serving" and polished by marketers to say the right things, but seems accurate depiction, and it talks a LOT about the water management.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY34PQUiwOQ
http://www.waterworld.com/articles/...caribbean/fracking-wastewater-management.html
The US has vast reserves of oil and natural gas which now are commercially reachable as a result of advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies. But as more hydraulic fracturing wells come into operation, so does the stress on surface water and groundwater supplies from the withdrawal of large volumes of water used in the process – needing up to one million gallons (3,780 m3) of fresh water per wellhead to complete the fracking process alone.
Equally important is the growing volume of wastewater generated from fracking wells, requiring disposal or recycling. Up to 60% of the water injected into a wellhead during the fracking process will discharge back out of the well shortly thereafter, as flowback wastewater. Thereafter, and for the life of the wellhead, it will discharge up to 100,000 gallons (378 m[SUP]3[/SUP]/day) of wastewater. This wastewater needs to be captured, and disposed of or recycled.
Equally important is the growing volume of wastewater generated from fracking wells, requiring disposal or recycling. Up to 60% of the water injected into a wellhead during the fracking process will discharge back out of the well shortly thereafter, as flowback wastewater. Thereafter, and for the life of the wellhead, it will discharge up to 100,000 gallons (378 m[SUP]3[/SUP]/day) of wastewater. This wastewater needs to be captured, and disposed of or recycled.
My own question was answered too. They use freshwater first goin' down the hole, get back 60% of that (so 40% is gone), then "dispose" and "recycle", with whatever is "disposed" of is lost by deep injection back in to the ground. not sure if the "recycled"water means reused by the fracker, or is made drinkable again?
looks like its a NET user of freshwater....the great majority (70%+ at least with initial losses and disposal quantities) of it is gone for a long time as a freshwater source.
If anyone is interested, here is how fracking works from an driller's perspective. so its a bit "self-serving" and polished by marketers to say the right things, but seems accurate depiction, and it talks a LOT about the water management.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY34PQUiwOQ
70bigblockdodge
Old Man with a Hat
Not much to look at but this is about 175' from my house.
Sorry about the bad lighting. The pipe in center of last pic is the actual well that goes down approx 3500', the tank to the left is to catch moisture and oil that comes up, this well has hardly any. The picture above that is the we'll and to the right meters, dryer and the far end is my house meter with the house bottle that is in the grass you can't see (it puts the smell in the methane) there is regulators and relief valves also.
Sorry about the bad lighting. The pipe in center of last pic is the actual well that goes down approx 3500', the tank to the left is to catch moisture and oil that comes up, this well has hardly any. The picture above that is the we'll and to the right meters, dryer and the far end is my house meter with the house bottle that is in the grass you can't see (it puts the smell in the methane) there is regulators and relief valves also.
Similar threads
- Locked
