|
Post by phydeaux2363 on Nov 14, 2015 16:14:39 GMT
Icefisher, By bad, I mean toxic if it gets into an aquifer in a strong enough concentration to be harmful if consumed. If the wells are cased, cemented and pressure tested properly there is essential no risk to the environment. However the Deepwater Horizon event in the Gulf of Mexico has shown us that proper drilling, casing and completing parameters are not always followed. As someone who has benefited greatly from the North American Shale play I would welcome a nationwide standard for fracking these wells that establishes strict guidelines and even imposes criminal penalties for non compliance. In the current downturn with extremely low margins I would hate to think that safety takes a back seat to profits but I know better and have seen it too many times. Mr. Glenn, I'm not sure anyone on the national level has the requisite expertise to set the standard, or that it would be a good idea. As you know, oil and gas production regulations have historically been promulgated by state agencies; the Texas Railroad Comission being the perfect example. These regulators study and understand the geology of the subsurface of their states. They work closely with the industry in the specific state to tailor regs to what makes sense locally. This regimen protects the state's environment while not imposing needless regs that might be appropriate for Pennsylvania, but not Texas. This system has worked well. It has particularly worked well in places like your Texas and my Louisiana, where wells have been fracked since the 70s. As you point out, there has never been an incident where fracking fluid migrated to an aquifer. There is good reason for that. Most, if not all, fracking takes place in formations thousands of feet below aquifers with usable water. The fractures extend at most hundreds of feet vertically. There is, of course, danger of contamination from improperly cased wells. That's a well integrity issue, for which well a well developed regulatory testing and reporting scheme has been in place for years. New regs add nothing but additional needless costs. Let the current scheme continue its perfect work to date. As for Deepwater Horizon, I think that accident was more caused by classic human error then by a willful failure to abide by regulations. The classic case of tired, hurried humans making critical decisions in a situation they didn't fully understand. I'm not sure more regs solves that problem, which is as old as human ingenuity. Deepwater Horizon is an outlier. Thousands of ultra deep water 20,000 foot plus wells have been drilled in the GOM without a blowout. We should never not strive for perfection, but accidents will happen. Planes crash. As for the canard that the drive for profit causes these things, I think that absurd on its face. Accidents cost way more to fix than what is saved by cutting safety corners. No sensible, modern executive puts his company at risk by knowingly ordering the avoidance of safety rules to turn a quick buck. You may think me naive, but I've been in the industry since 1976, and I've not seen that happen. How much time left on our bet?
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Nov 16, 2015 3:04:40 GMT
[/quote]Mr. Glenn, I'm not sure anyone on the national level has the requisite expertise to set the standard, or that it would be a good idea. As you know, oil and gas production regulations have historically been promulgated by state agencies; the Texas Railroad Comission being the perfect example. These regulators study and understand the geology of the subsurface of their states. They work closely with the industry in the specific state to tailor regs to what makes sense locally. This regimen protects the state's environment while not imposing needless regs that might be appropriate for Pennsylvania, but not Texas.
This system has worked well. It has particularly worked well in places like your Texas and my Louisiana, where wells have been fracked since the 70s. As you point out, there has never been an incident where fracking fluid migrated to an aquifer. There is good reason for that. Most, if not all, fracking takes place in formations thousands of feet below aquifers with usable water. The fractures extend at most hundreds of feet vertically. There is, of course, danger of contamination from improperly cased wells. That's a well integrity issue, for which well a well developed regulatory testing and reporting scheme has been in place for years. New regs add nothing but additional needless costs. Let the current scheme continue its perfect work to date.
As for the canard that the drive for profit causes these things, I think that absurd on its face. Accidents cost way more to fix than what is saved by cutting safety corners. No sensible, modern executive puts his company at risk by knowingly ordering the avoidance of safety rules to turn a quick buck. You may think me naive, but I've been in the industry since 1976, and I've not seen that happen.
How much time left on our bet?[/quote]
[font color="94e619"]I strongly disagree with most of your statements. In places like Texas and Louisiana wells have been fracked for decades. We have experience and most of the Shale producing formations are deeper (below 7500' TVD). Geology does not recognize man made imaginary lines. What is risky or dangerous in Texas is just as risky and dangerous in North Dakota.
Not all regulations are needless, unwanted and costly. The key is effective regulation. My biggest fear is the fracking of shallow formations that are much closer to water tables. These aquifers extend beyond state lines and what happens in one state can effect the underground water in multiple other states. For example wells in the Fayetteville Shale in Arkansas can be fracked and produced at depths as shallow as 2500' TVD (true vertical depth). While still probably safe it's much closer to water tables than say it is in the Eagle Ford, Bakken or Utica shale plays.
As far as my statement that you claim is "absurd on its face". For big companies like BP, Exxon and Shell? Yes, Cutting corners can be an expensive propositon. They have billions and billions of dollars to lose. But many of the smaller companies may be family owned and drilled with borrowed money. Just how much do they have to lose? Drilling and fracking a horizontal well with "tons" of upside that just so happens to be a few hundred feet below an aquifer may pay off big. And if it goes wrong? Who pays?
And just what federal state or local law dictates the minimum distance you can or can't frack a well from an aquifer? What is the bounds of reason? 100', 1000', 1500'?
Because 100' is just as dangerous in Texas as it is in Nebraska.
As for our wager, I am guessing we are 5 or 6 months in. But if you ever are in the vicinity I would gladly submit. I think it would be an enjoyable dinner.[/i][/font][/font]
|
|
|
Post by phydeaux2363 on Nov 16, 2015 16:23:52 GMT
I'm not sure I strongly disagree with your position, I just don't see the utility of a federal regulation when state regulators have not failed in their duties. As you know, in Louisiana, Texas and all Bakken states any oil and gas well must be permitted. The permit application includes a well protocol with casing and cementing plans. If the well is to be fracked, fracture gradient calculations for the relevant formations are required. This procedure allows regulators to review pertinent information for every well, and lessens, if not eliminates, the risk of production or frack fluids migrating to aquifers. As you point out, there is no magic distance from an aquifer that a well can be safely fracked. Using offset well information and calculating fracture gradients in each individual well is a far better method of protecting aquifers then some arbitrary national guideline or regulation.
I think the regulatory system in place works with your "Mom and Pop" scenario as well. Mom and Pop have to permit their wells providing the same information as Shell or BP. That information should be vetted by regulators, and permits approved only if the well appears safe. Now, if your concern is that Mom and Pop won't follow their protocol, I'm not sure all the regs in the world protect us from that eventuality. As I think about it, I wouldn't object to state mandated EED and pollution cleanup cost insurance limits for Mom and Pop. Nor would I object to states routinely inspecting wells during drilling, and certainly before fracking begins, especially if the fracking is taking place in a zone say, above 5000 feet TVD, or where there is a legitimate concern that an aquifer might be implicated. You have to be careful to not over do things, however. For example, what is happening now in St. Tammany Parish is a good example of what happens when you let the loonies have a say in the process. The VD of the zone to be fracked is below 13000'. The well permit has been help up by greens who fear contamination of the Mississippi Alluvial Aquifer which is at less then 750' in the area of the well. The critics argue precautionary principle. Valuable hydrocarbons will go unproduced for no good reason.
I'm in H-Town every couple of weeks. I'll let you know next time I have a trip planned. I usually stay in the downtown Four Seasons. Perhaps we can get together somewhere downtown.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Nov 18, 2015 2:06:15 GMT
Phydeaux,
Horizontal drilling in concert with multi stage fracking is a relatively new technology. Many of the non traditional plays in states that do not have decades of experience with safe drilling practices may not have the proper protocol in place.
Since many of the plays in question cross multiple state lines why not have a federal guideline in place? One that establishes a minimum safe distance from aquifers, a minimum curing time for cement used in casing and a minimum guideline for pressure testing?
Once again not all regulation is bad. I am not necessarily for "more" regulation as I am for "effective regulation". The stakes are very high. One accident could do irreparable damage to an aquifer and cost 10's of thousands of jobs in the oiifield.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 18, 2015 14:20:55 GMT
Phydeaux, Horizontal drilling in concert with multi stage fracking is a relatively new technology. Many of the non traditional plays in states that do not have decades of experience with safe drilling practices may not have the proper protocol in place. Since many of the plays in question cross multiple state lines why not have a federal guideline in place? One that establishes a minimum safe distance from aquifers, a minimum curing time for cement used in casing and a minimum guideline for pressure testing? Once again not all regulation is bad. I am not necessarily for "more" regulation as I am for "effective regulation". The stakes are very high. One accident could do irreparable damage to an aquifer and cost 10's of thousands of jobs in the oiifield. The intent of regulation may not be bad, but they can then be (mis)used to prevent completely what they are meant only to regulate. This is the politicians' way at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 18, 2015 16:26:13 GMT
Phydeaux, Horizontal drilling in concert with multi stage fracking is a relatively new technology. Many of the non traditional plays in states that do not have decades of experience with safe drilling practices may not have the proper protocol in place. Since many of the plays in question cross multiple state lines why not have a federal guideline in place? One that establishes a minimum safe distance from aquifers, a minimum curing time for cement used in casing and a minimum guideline for pressure testing? Once again not all regulation is bad. I am not necessarily for "more" regulation as I am for "effective regulation". The stakes are very high. One accident could do irreparable damage to an aquifer and cost 10's of thousands of jobs in the oiifield. The intent of regulation may not be bad, but they can then be (mis)used to prevent completely what they are meant only to regulate. This is the politicians' way at the moment. It has a name! The Law of Unintended Consequences! Its a "law" because it as certain as the law of gravity. Comes with the territory when a law is written there is a strong desire to make it enforceable and its impossible to precisely describe anything in the real world in words and words themselves are subject to broad interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 18, 2015 17:01:28 GMT
As far as my statement that you claim is "absurd on its face". For big companies like BP, Exxon and Shell? Yes, Cutting corners can be an expensive propositon. They have billions and billions of dollars to lose. But many of the smaller companies may be family owned and drilled with borrowed money. Just how much do they have to lose? Drilling and fracking a horizontal well with "tons" of upside that just so happens to be a few hundred feet below an aquifer may pay off big. And if it goes wrong? Who pays? Here we find the statement that is causing the loss of our freedoms and the incorporation of America where all the assets are being garnered into giant oligarchies. You have to be able to pay to play! First I think looking at this from the point of view of the ability to pay is wrong. There have been more problems with small "corporations" and "limited partnerships", often spun off by the big guys, than with individuals who put all their net worth on the line. If you control that you can still allow a smaller entrepreneur with the assets to make a play. But it hardly even seems worthwhile to start looking into minimum investments when a risk has not yet presented itself to be anything more than a fear of something that hasn't happened or has happened rarely. I get the idea of government overacting but what needs to be fixed needs to be fixed and not our freedoms reduced to account for ineffective government. The insurmountable problem for the "precautionary principle" is you are prevented from ever ever ever getting the data necessary to determine how much precaution is necessary if the best guess at how high to set the precautionary hurdle is set too high. That last sentence means precisely that the precautionary principle is junk! If you want to avoid ignorance you have to set the level of regulation at a level already proven itself to be advisable. As soon as some moron opens his mouth and says we need the standard needs to be higher for the sake of precaution he is begging for an already high level of ignorance to continue forever. What I see as a good precautionary principle is not a standard at all. The precautionary principle might be appropriate to enact as a limited experiment. New technology can be slowed down for the purpose of establishing statistical information that indicates the new technology poses a low level of risk much like they do in drug testing. The hard cold facts of life are is we learn from the school of hard knocks and everything else is the boogeyman in the mind of an innocent adolescent and no amount of wishing is going to change that.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Nov 18, 2015 17:28:39 GMT
I don't trust this federal gov't with making or changing any regulations whatsoever. Maybe one day the adults will be back in charge, but I am not holding my breath. Present Administrator of the EPA is a liberal loon. She has legal authority, and she has federal guns to back it up:
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Nov 19, 2015 1:07:38 GMT
For those of you against any regulation of the fracking Industry I have simply one question. What would the consequences be if the Ogallala or Edwards Aquifers were contaminated by a bad frack job? I work in the industry and I have seen more than enough to concern me. The shale play revolution has provided hundreds of thousands of well paying jobs and gone a long way toward lowering our foreign energy dependency and it will only take one mistake to change all that. I will once again ask the question. What is the minimum required distance above an aquifer considered "safe" to frack. Because I can promise you the distance is being pushed in the name of profits. phys.org/news/2012-04-fracking-requires-minimum-distance-kilometers.html
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 19, 2015 1:45:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Nov 19, 2015 3:14:36 GMT
For those of you against any regulation of the fracking Industry I have simply one question. What would the consequences be if the Ogallala or Edwards Aquifers were contaminated by a bad frack job? I work in the industry and I have seen more than enough to concern me. The shale play revolution has provided hundreds of thousands of well paying jobs and gone a long way toward lowering our foreign energy dependency and it will only take one mistake to change all that. I will once again ask the question. What is the minimum required distance above an aquifer considered "safe" to frack. Because I can promise you the distance is being pushed in the name of profits. phys.org/news/2012-04-fracking-requires-minimum-distance-kilometers.html I am assuming that any 'required minimum distance' from an aquifer will vary based on the under or over-lying strata. No reason the USGS could not specify such distances (or maybe they already have) based on the best available science and in conjunction with professional associations. These, undoubtedly come with fudge factors. They have such things in medicine when removing possibly mallignent tissue.
Government is supposed to protect the public from issues that citizens cannot protect themselves from. I do not trust the government to ever do the minimum necessary. If they do it at all it is done to excess. The archeology of government can be found in the sarcophagi of procreative bureaucrats that filled every such space available, then expanded that space for the next generation by promulgating new deviants...or missionary society builders. OTHER THAN THAT ... l have no problem with the federal government drafting industry-specific standards that are proposed and agreed to by the industry and outside watchdogs. AND THEN giving them to the states with no budget or stake in it for themselves.
To that end I suggest they hire Sigurdur and his battleaxe to personally decapitate any bureaucrat that promulgates a regulation greater than one page in length ... and does not have another job to go back to.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 19, 2015 3:50:38 GMT
Better be double spaced too!! Those regulations.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Nov 19, 2015 4:47:46 GMT
Sometimes it is best to answer a question with a question.
What is the minimum distance an oil company can frack a well from an aquifer?
Because we all know that the oil companies have our backs. I am done with this but save this comment in your memory banks over the next 5 or 10 years. Personally, I see it every day and have my concerns
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Nov 19, 2015 4:53:37 GMT
The answer to the above question is "none". Then the big question is just what is the aquifer below your farm worth?
You heard it here first. And I hope to God I am wrong.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Nov 19, 2015 7:14:27 GMT
Millions done very little evidence of problems.
For issues to occur there needs to be an anomalous pressure gradient. In addition the flow from a formation below to one above needs to have a salinity significantly higher.
natural faulting has naturally allowed a conduit from one level to another over millions of years thus the salinity gradient moves from fresh to saline as you go deeper. Fracing is no major issue unless you happen to be a Russian or an Arab who are deeply threatened by this technology. Who's music are you dancing to?
|
|