Learning about Fracking

[Barciad]

In recent months, Hydraulic Fracturing (aka Fracking) has gradually eased alongside Abortion, Evolution, Gun Control, and Climate Change, as things that are close to impossible to talk about in a rational manner on the internet. Of the above, I have my opinions, since there are certian key facts that are readily available.
However, on the issue of fracking, I refuse to make any judgement. This is for the simple reason that I do not know the full facts. On the one hand you have a corporate Public Relations/Legal juggernaut that I do not trust one iota. Alongside them, you have paid-for politicians, journalists, and compliant scientists that would all claim the moon was made of cheese so long as their cheques were large enough.
On the other hand you have the environmentalists and environmental campaigners. They have their views, which usually involve global Armageddon around sometime next Tuesday. These too, seem to be lacking in the basic appreciation of science.
From what little I know, it is a question of geology, some physics, and rather a lot of chemistry. Much like Climate Change is a small matter of heat physics and fluid mechanics, made difficult to the point of impossible by the existence of an incredibly large amount of variables. So, could someone please, tell me just what are the risks and benefits of this particular procedure.
No PR guff, no scare-mongering, just simple cold hard science.

 

[tomtom94]

What I read this as at first: Well, when a man and a woman love each other very much...

When I looked again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing

Factually speaking, it's a process of fracturing rocks to extract natural gas from the earth. All the descriptions, along with potential risks, will be there, I should imagine.

 

[Moth_Monk]

Incidentally global warming is a real thing going on right now. Throwing that in, right off the bat.

 

[OneCatch]

I can't really comment on the mechanics of it, but politically it's a bit suspect.

Here in the UK, the Tory govt seems very keen to establish it mainly in Labour dominated areas in the North, and leave the rich, southern, Conservative, counties relatively unspoiled.
Sure, they're making a token effort there too, but I imagine that they'll be much more amenable to quietly shelving those plans and leaving the ones 'Oop North' to carry on unmolested.
Which is shite - it's bringing party-political bullshit to energy production.

And it's basically resigning us to more fossil fuels, which might be great for 30 years, but it's targeting the symptom not the disease.
Can we please build a tidal lagoon in the conveniently placed Severn Estuary [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severn_Estuary#Tidal_power] instead?

 

[Do4600]

It's essentially pumping a fluid into a shale bed at such high pressures that the shale bed fractures. The cracks fracture through natural gas pockets and allow the mining company to extract the gas.

The fluid itself is about 90% water, 9.5% sand and between 2-0.5% additives. The additives that are most commonly associated(but not limited to) are Sodium Chloride, ethylene glycol, borate salts, potassium carbonate, guar gum and isopropanol. Ethylene glycol and isopropanol are toxic substances. Ethylene glycol has a LDLO of 786mg/kg meaning that the lowest deadly dose of ethylene glycol is 786mg per kilogram of body weight but lasting injury can occur with doses smaller than that. Isopropanol is flammable and can also cause lasting injury if ingested in sufficient quantities. Different companies use different formulas of fluid some more and less "harmful"

One of the potential risks of fracking is the contamination of groundwater, this can occur if the shale bed being fracked is shallow. In this case the fracturing of the shale results in the methane being allowed to escape into the upper layers of the earth and enters the groundwater, which can then be ingested by people, animals etc. Methane is known to have harmful effects when ingested. This risk should be able to be mitigated through good geology and surveying techniques, but it has been known to happen.

After the process has been performed they typically extract 50-70% of the fluid used, some of the fluid remains in the shale bed. This fluid is then stored based on local regulations, sometimes in open pits lined with a barrier of some sort to prevent it from leaching into the soil, other times in concrete storage tanks.

There are dangers associated with this as well, if the linings of the pits or the storage tanks fracture the fluid will enter the soil and groundwater. If the pits are open wildlife could drink the water, if there is a flood the waste water could be swept along with the floodwaters. If waste water is stored in open pits the chemical additives can break down and evaporate or interact with other chemicals present at the site like irrigation run-off. The chemicals are dilute but the amount of fluid necessary is quite large because you have to effectively fill an entire geologic structure with fluid. It typically takes between 3-5 million gallons of fluid, at the low end that means that they are using about 15,000 gallons of additives

There is some data that suggests fracking can trigger earthquakes.

As I've written, it requires 3-5 million gallons of fluid typically, 90% of which is freshwater, this is a large drain on the freshwater resources in an area, in a drought this could be a problem. In my home state of Wisconsin we are trying to resist the outsourcing of the water from the great lakes because at a certain point you are taking more water out than is returning to the basin and the lake begins to drain slowly.

I believe that covers most of the risks, many can be mitigated with diligent geology and good storage regulations, not all companies are as good at these things than others.

The benefit is a relatively cheap way to extract natural gas that adds to the energy profile of a country and to the wealth of a company. It provides jobs for a few thousand people in a single operation, creates opportunity for local business and creates tax revenue for the state, region or country. Let me make sure I don't understate this, it creates a tremendous amount of wealth.

I hope I've provided a non-biased overview of the industry, I'm against it's use, because I simply don't trust companies to take adequate precautions against the danger, just as BP didn't take adequate safety precautions aboard their oil rig that exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. The tendancy to me appears that mining companies take the absolute minimum precautions if they do take precautions at all. They are interested in minimizing expenditure and maximizing profit instead of extracting resources in a way that provides the fewest risks to the surrounding area. I would trust them more if we had stronger regulations regarding it's use.

 

[Esotera]

All you need to know about fracking is that if we burn more than 1/3 of conventional fossil fuels, the climate is going to rise in temperature by more than 2C and there will be many bad consequences. It's more inefficient than conventional fuels, has more disadvantages, and is stopping a renewable economy from being created.

 

[gigastar]

All you need to know about fracking is that if we burn more than 1/3 of conventional fossil fuels, the climate is going to rise in temperature by more than 2C and there will be many bad consequences. It's more inefficient than conventional fuels, has more disadvantages, and is stopping a renewable economy from being created.

Problem is the renewable economy cant satisfy the current, and rising demand.

So we need to take what we can get now, and convert to renewable gradually.

 

[mad825]

Can we please build a tidal lagoon in the conveniently placed Severn Estuary [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severn_Estuary#Tidal_power] instead?

I could tell you one thing: it would be better than building the HS2.

In fracking, there is a lot of money and energy security to be generated. For one thing, we won't have to rely on gas tankers coming from the middle east no doubt just to give us 2 weeks supply of gas.

 

[Psychobabble]

It's essentially pumping a fluid into a shale bed at such high pressures that the shale bed fractures. The cracks fracture through natural gas pockets and allow the mining company to extract the gas.

The fluid itself is about 90% water, 9.5% sand and between 2-0.5% additives. The additives that are most commonly associated(but not limited to) are Sodium Chloride, ethylene glycol, borate salts, potassium carbonate, guar gum and isopropanol. Ethylene glycol and isopropanol are toxic substances. Ethylene glycol has a LDLO of 786mg/kg meaning that the lowest deadly dose of ethylene glycol is 786mg per kilogram of body weight but lasting injury can occur with doses smaller than that. Isopropanol is flammable and can also cause lasting injury if ingested in sufficient quantities. Different companies use different formulas of fluid some more and less "harmful"

One of the potential risks of fracking is the contamination of groundwater, this can occur if the shale bed being fracked is shallow. In this case the fracturing of the shale results in the methane being allowed to escape into the upper layers of the earth and enters the groundwater, which can then be ingested by people, animals etc. Methane is known to have harmful effects when ingested. This risk should be able to be mitigated through good geology and surveying techniques, but it has been known to happen.

After the process has been performed they typically extract 50-70% of the fluid used, some of the fluid remains in the shale bed. This fluid is then stored based on local regulations, sometimes in open pits lined with a barrier of some sort to prevent it from leaching into the soil, other times in concrete storage tanks.

There are dangers associated with this as well, if the linings of the pits or the storage tanks fracture the fluid will enter the soil and groundwater. If the pits are open wildlife could drink the water, if there is a flood the waste water could be swept along with the floodwaters. If waste water is stored in open pits the chemical additives can break down and evaporate or interact with other chemicals present at the site like irrigation run-off. The chemicals are dilute but the amount of fluid necessary is quite large because you have to effectively fill an entire geologic structure with fluid. It typically takes between 3-5 million gallons of fluid, at the low end that means that they are using about 15,000 gallons of additives

There is some data that suggests fracking can trigger earthquakes.

As I've written, it requires 3-5 million gallons of fluid typically, 90% of which is freshwater, this is a large drain on the freshwater resources in an area, in a drought this could be a problem. In my home state of Wisconsin we are trying to resist the outsourcing of the water from the great lakes because at a certain point you are taking more water out than is returning to the basin and the lake begins to drain slowly.

I believe that covers most of the risks, many can be mitigated with diligent geology and good storage regulations, not all companies are as good at these things than others.

The benefit is a relatively cheap way to extract natural gas that adds to the energy profile of a country and to the wealth of a company. It provides jobs for a few thousand people in a single operation, creates opportunity for local business and creates tax revenue for the state, region or country. Let me make sure I don't understate this, it creates a tremendous amount of wealth.

I hope I've provided a non-biased overview of the industry, I'm against it's use, because I simply don't trust companies to take adequate precautions against the danger, just as BP didn't take adequate safety precautions aboard their oil rig that exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. The tendancy to me appears that mining companies take the absolute minimum precautions if they do take precautions at all. They are interested in minimizing expenditure and maximizing profit instead of extracting resources in a way that provides the fewest risks to the surrounding area. I would trust them more if we had stronger regulations regarding it's use.

My goodness. What a polite informative and well thought out reply. You Sir have no business being on the internet. 8P

I have to admit I'm torn on this issue. While I see the need to plan for the replacement of fossil fuels, I also see it as something that will not happen over night, and probably not even in my lifetime. Trying to rush to transform the energy market when nearly no one can agree on just what fossil fuels will be replaced with is dangerous to the entire world economy, with impoverished developing nations getting the short end of the stick. So during this transitional phase the world is going to need to figure out how to make our diminishing resources stretch further. Fracking is one of these methods that seems to work well on paper. How it is handled by companies with a history of bad behavior when profit vs regulation is on the line remains very much to be seen. But since many of us seem uninterested in curbing our addiction to this wonder called electricity, like you know, not wasting the precious voltage to banter our silly opinions back and forth on the internet ...... shit...... then other methods will need to be applied. That is why the topic of Fracking has become such a hot button issue.

 

[Chromatic Aberration]

It's more inefficient than conventional fuels, has more disadvantages, and is stopping a renewable economy from being created.

Source on that one please. Especially the point about efficiency - is it really less efficient than replacing oil which has (to my knowledge a lower energy efficiency than natural gas) plus the transportation costs from places like Nigeria or Saudi-Arabia? Also the whole political dimension is a variable to take into account, too - I don't think its very unsurprising that Eastern European states [http://www.economist.com/news/business/21571171-extracting-europes-shale-gas-and-oil-will-be-slow-and-difficult-business-frack-future] might be very eager to adopt the procedure as a way to gain more independence from Russia which has far too often used its energy-political clout as a means to blackmail them.

 

[generals3]

All i know for sure is that petro-chemical companies are trying to do it over here but luckily our government's stance is that it needs more research on the environmental impact. I think france has banned hydaulic fracking and the french people want a total ban of fracking.

Fracking may be a good source of $$$ and jobs. But are the environmental risks worth it? it's not like we aren't fucking the environment enough.

 

[LiberalSquirrel]

-snip-

This is a beautiful response. Very detailed. I'd say that's the best summary the OP is going to get on the internet.

I'm against fracking - of course, I'm biased, as I work for an environmental organization. But I wouldn't say I lack basic appreciation of science: I trained as a technical writer and studied civil engineering for a few years before that. The problem is that there isn't much in-depth research on the industry at large.

 

[crimsonshrouds]

Im just going to leave this here. Fracking hurts more than it helps. If you are for fracking, then you care more about money than poisoning the planet with which we live on.

 

[Hagi]

From what I'm reading on the subject I'm gathering that there's not too much regulation on the practice and what regulation there is is often ignored by the companies.

Whether or not the practice itself is more harmful than coal I don't know. But I can easily believe that when done with little to no regard to regulations to simply get it done as quickly and cheaply as possible it can cause major environmental damage. And I can just as easily believe that major gas companies are doing so if given the possibility.

So yeah, I'd believe the environmentalists in this case. By simple virtue that any capitalistic venture interacting on such a scale with the environment without proper regulations is much more likely than not to cause significant damage to it as precautions will be skipped to ensure preservation.

 

[Proeliator]

*Pulls out quarter*
Alright, tails, is about lovemaking in Battle Star Galactic, Heads, about the method of hydrocarbon extraction.
*Flips coin*
Huh, heads.
*Reads Opening Post*
Damn chance, you win again.

Oh and here's my 25¢,
(Though Do4600 did a pretty good job)
Fracking, when done correctly, is effective at extracting large amounts of Hydrocarbons trapped in subterranean rock that would otherwise be too expensive or unfeasible to recover. It requires a lot of water.
But that's been said, and you know that.

A lot of hubbub has been about the contamination of groundwater, which can happen. It is tragic, and is harmful, but if the fracker's (hehe, frackers) equipment and procedures are well off enough, this is very unlikely to happen.
Increased regulation means that companies are less likely to drill in that given area because it means more money from them, along with more tax dollars spent for inspection. The trade-off being the wells are usually safer.

In my opinion, I think its a great way to get the energy we need, done correctly. Finding the perfect middle ground between the company's autonomy, regulation, and restriction is a hard but worthwhile debate to have. Now to wait for this tread to turn into something about Global Carbon Dioxide Induced Anthropogenic Climate Change

 

[MHR]

There was a recent Daily Show guest that was presenting his documentary on fracking that had some things to say.

Some people say hes got bad facts, but I'll just leave the link here anyway. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-26-2013/josh-fox

Among his complaints about groundwater he mentions that a lot of the gas company pumps are leaking the methane which is a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide making the natural gas option worse than coal.

 

[Esotera]

It's more inefficient than conventional fuels, has more disadvantages, and is stopping a renewable economy from being created.

Source on that one please. Especially the point about efficiency - is it really less efficient than replacing oil which has (to my knowledge a lower energy efficiency than natural gas) plus the transportation costs from places like Nigeria or Saudi-Arabia? Also the whole political dimension is a variable to take into account, too - I don't think its very unsurprising that Eastern European states [http://www.economist.com/news/business/21571171-extracting-europes-shale-gas-and-oil-will-be-slow-and-difficult-business-frack-future] might be very eager to adopt the procedure as a way to gain more independence from Russia which has far too often used its energy-political clout as a means to blackmail them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_economics#Energy_usage (and also the water usage section)

With conventional oil you're mostly just pumping it up from the ground which doesn't require too much energy. With fracking you've got energy expenditure on pumping millions of litres of water and various chemicals into the earth, then extracting waste water - you need to put more energy in to get out something like conventional oil. Energy independence is always good but it's not sustainable and we need to be moving rapidly towards that approach, however expensive or painful it might seem.