MID Posted August 30, 2012 #76 Share Posted August 30, 2012 *barely resists urge to make "fracking" jokes* must...not...give...in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starchild1976 Posted August 30, 2012 #77 Share Posted August 30, 2012 You don't have to convince me fracking should be outlawed. Sink holes and earthquakes in areas where they're not supposed to have earthquakes both have been recently noted in Texas and elsewhere concerning towns where this practice goes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashotep Posted August 30, 2012 Author #78 Share Posted August 30, 2012 I think we are just asking for trouble if we keep doing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 30, 2012 #79 Share Posted August 30, 2012 I think we are just asking for trouble if we keep doing this. The trouble is already here. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Fluffs Posted August 31, 2012 #80 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Nothing scares me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted September 1, 2012 #81 Share Posted September 1, 2012 Nothing scares me. Excellent, King Fluffs! Excellent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted September 11, 2012 #82 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Ehrenberg, R. 2012. Scientists weigh in on the hydraulic fracturing debate. Science News, 8 September 2012. Osborn, S. G. 2011. Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 17 May 2011. Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted September 11, 2012 #83 Share Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) well i think the main point here is frakings bad case closed Ok! Let's get it FRACKING BANNED! Edited September 11, 2012 by MID Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 11, 2012 #84 Share Posted September 11, 2012 The EU has recently reported that regulation would have to be massively tighter in Europe than it is in America, it points to their history of contamination and accidents in America as justification. This should kill it dead, since for the industry to ensure adequate safety, would make an already marginally profitable business a loss maker. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted September 12, 2012 #85 Share Posted September 12, 2012 The EU has recently reported that regulation would have to be massively tighter in Europe than it is in America, it points to their history of contamination and accidents in America as justification. This should kill it dead, since for the industry to ensure adequate safety, would make an already marginally profitable business a loss maker. Br Cornelius With natural gas prices at a record low, only the threat of regulation is keeping drilling going. The producers are worried that they won't be able to continue fracking, so they're developing wells as fast as they can before it is outlawed. And then there's Chesapeake Energy: they put all their eggs in the natural gas basket and have run out of money to produce more wells - they have to use current income to service the debt. Other companies are using oil profits to support gas drilling, so they aren't quite as strapped. The big problem seems to be inadequate concrete in the casings. If the seal is too loose, then gas and fluids can leak into other strata. Some companies seem to have a lot of fracking problems while others don't. Has anyone looked into the reasons for this? Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2012 #86 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Industry stats suggest that over the lifetime of a well almost all casings end up leaking. This is rarely detected and actioned by the regulator's so the figures for well casing integrity are based upon the initial single test carried out before the well is certificated for operation. This is a very serious climate change issue due to the number of wells needed to develop a Shale gas field. Its seems that all the rumours flying around the industry and financial press warning that Shale gas was a huge ponzy scheme have come true. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted September 12, 2012 #87 Share Posted September 12, 2012 (edited) With natural gas prices at a record low, only the threat of regulation is keeping drilling going. The producers are worried that they won't be able to continue fracking, so they're developing wells as fast as they can before it is outlawed. And then there's Chesapeake Energy: they put all their eggs in the natural gas basket and have run out of money to produce more wells - they have to use current income to service the debt. Other companies are using oil profits to support gas drilling, so they aren't quite as strapped. The big problem seems to be inadequate concrete in the casings. If the seal is too loose, then gas and fluids can leak into other strata. Some companies seem to have a lot of fracking problems while others don't. Has anyone looked into the reasons for this? Doug The problem is concrete itself as over time it develops cracksif either over an unstable settling or or mechanical work is applied to it. Besides that there is weather and other factors that can compromise its integrity. Additionally the gas pressure itself applies tensile forces that also cause fatigue. Last but not least there is a not insignificant gas leakage problem using concrete. Whoever devised concrete sealing for gas wells should be hit with a wet towel until he faints. Edited September 12, 2012 by questionmark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2012 #88 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Remember as well that a well head is generally re-fracked multiple times over the lifetime of the well - each time placing the casing under increasing risk of total failure. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted September 14, 2012 #89 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Remember as well that a well head is generally re-fracked multiple times over the lifetime of the well - each time placing the casing under increasing risk of total failure. Br Cornelius Really? Show the data to ilustrate that contention. I can tell you I saw a well fracked once in thr 56 years it had been on the property I lived on years ago. It did improve performance, but that wasn't the complete issue. The landlord of the place didn't realize that the drop in water prssure from the well was due to a broken pipe underground that had well water leaking into the ground on the side of the house. Once that was repaired, there was high pressue water forever! Not once, did I experience something negative from it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashotep Posted September 15, 2012 Author #90 Share Posted September 15, 2012 I'm sure there are cases where water was contaminated naturally but we are making these events more numerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 15, 2012 #91 Share Posted September 15, 2012 (edited) The EPA should require the gas industry to produce data on the number of cement jobs in high-volume slickwater fracked wells that fail, Ingraffea says. “That goes right to the point of risk.” Cement failure has been a chronic problem, and the industry is not sharing the failure numbers with regulatory agencies.“It’s a complex job in horizontal wells, many with horizontal bores running up to three miles long,” Ingraffea points out. Those bores are fracked in 500-foot sections. “Each time you re-pressurize the well bore for a frack job, it puts the cement at risk,” says Ingraffea. The industry already knows frequently stressed cement has a higher failure rate. Ingraffea would like to see regulations require cement logs. After completing a cement job, drillers lower a device into the well bore that sends images of the cement. That way drillers should catch tiny cracks that might allow gas migration, Ingraffea explains. “But it doesn’t take much dis-bonding between the cement and the casing to provide a pathway for methane molecules.” Tens of thousands of slickwater hydraulically fractured wells have been drilled into Barnett shale and Fayetteville shale and now Marcellus shale, Ingraffea pointed out. The EPA needs to demand data on cement reliability of these wells, not vertical wells drilled a decade or more ago. ........... Another problem is aging. Over the years cement shrinks and cracks, and casings corrode, says Ingraffea. This raises a number of questions about well integrity during re-fracking. http://newyork.sierr...ol41/impact.htm That is evidence that the industry is under reporting failure and the EPA is not investigating. As I said the wells are multiply fracked over their lifetime. There is industry data built up over years showing the progressive failure rates of well casing with time. It reaches about 100% after 30yrs. This data is available but a little bit more difficult to track down. Br Cornelius Edited September 15, 2012 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted September 15, 2012 #92 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Just curious... Is everyone now adequately fracking scared?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now