Fracking, again.

[robnisch]

MSN

Nothing to see here, please move on.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Pet peeve, articles the lead up with fracking being the cause, when it is the fracking waste water disposal that is the cause.

Instead, it must be pumped back deep underground where it cannot leech into groundwater, a process called saltwater disposal.

The large amounts of water being pumped underground in turn can cause earthquakes. "We've found evidence that saltwater disposal is the most likely cause of the earthquakes in Scurry County. This specific area has seen seismic activity going back to 2020," Rubinstein said.

This has been observed in Oklahoma, Texas (apparently), and Ohio. Once again, it proves that while we aren't creating giant lizards roaming the Earth, destroying power plants, we can and do impact very large system on our planet.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, once again focusing on the wrong thing. You can't hope to solve a problem you're not even addressing.

 

[robnisch]

Yeah, once again focusing on the wrong thing. You can't hope to solve a problem you're not even addressing.

Who is "you"? What is the problem "you're are not addressing?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah, once again focusing on the wrong thing. You can't hope to solve a problem you're not even addressing.

Who is "you"? What is the problem "you're are not addressing?

I presume it'd be the ancestors of Professor Lidenbrock who are wondering why there is this periodic flooding of their home.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, once again focusing on the wrong thing. You can't hope to solve a problem you're not even addressing.

Who is "you"? What is the problem "you're are not addressing?

It's not the fracking, it's improper disposal of the waste. You can't fix that with regulations on the fracking.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yeah, once again focusing on the wrong thing. You can't hope to solve a problem you're not even addressing.

Who is "you"? What is the problem "you're are not addressing?

It's not the fracking, it's improper disposal of the waste. You can't fix that with regulations on the fracking.

Yes you can, mostly by not allowing the activity that generates the waste, or by mandating regulations that require a deposit (a very high one, associated with the expected resource value of the site) prior to drilling operations.

This would increase the liability of the frackers, possibly to the point where they don't frack... But it would guarantee care is taken if a major portion of the company's assets were tied into a bond on environmental responsibility.

 

[robnisch]

Yeah, once again focusing on the wrong thing. You can't hope to solve a problem you're not even addressing.

Who is "you"? What is the problem "you're are not addressing?

It's not the fracking, it's improper disposal of the waste. You can't fix that with regulations on the fracking.

Yes you can, mostly by not allowing the activity that generates the waste, or by mandating regulations that require a deposit (a very high one, associated with the expected resource value of the site) prior to drilling operations.

This would increase the liability of the frackers, possibly to the point where they don't frack... But it would guarantee care is taken if a major portion of the company's assets were tied into a bond on environmental responsibility.

Project 2025: Drill baby drill!
It would be safer to drill more in Alaska.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah, once again focusing on the wrong thing. You can't hope to solve a problem you're not even addressing.

Who is "you"? What is the problem "you're are not addressing?

It's not the fracking, it's improper disposal of the waste. You can't fix that with regulations on the fracking.

Yes you can, mostly by not allowing the activity that generates the waste, or by mandating regulations that require a deposit (a very high one, associated with the expected resource value of the site) prior to drilling operations.

This would increase the liability of the frackers, possibly to the point where they don't frack... But it would guarantee care is taken if a major portion of the company's assets were tied into a bond on environmental responsibility.

Project 2025: Drill baby drill!
It would be safer to drill more in Alaska.

No, it wouldn't. Fracking isn't a dreadful thing.

 

[starwater]

Yeah, once again focusing on the wrong thing. You can't hope to solve a problem you're not even addressing.

Who is "you"? What is the problem "you're are not addressing?

It's not the fracking, it's improper disposal of the waste. You can't fix that with regulations on the fracking.

Yes you can, mostly by not allowing the activity that generates the waste, or by mandating regulations that require a deposit (a very high one, associated with the expected resource value of the site) prior to drilling operations.

This would increase the liability of the frackers, possibly to the point where they don't frack... But it would guarantee care is taken if a major portion of the company's assets were tied into a bond on environmental responsibility.

Why are you so against fracking? This technology along with horizontal drilling has made the US energy independent. Do you want to rely on imported oil again?

Like it or not our society is built around petroleum. It is in EVERYTHING, no matter how many wind farms and solar farms you build.

It is not going away. I agree that energy needs to be less dependent on oil. How about plastics? going to get rid of that? Medical equipment? etc., etc., etc.,

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, once again focusing on the wrong thing. You can't hope to solve a problem you're not even addressing.

Who is "you"? What is the problem "you're are not addressing?

It's not the fracking, it's improper disposal of the waste. You can't fix that with regulations on the fracking.

Yes you can, mostly by not allowing the activity that generates the waste, or by mandating regulations that require a deposit (a very high one, associated with the expected resource value of the site) prior to drilling operations.

This would increase the liability of the frackers, possibly to the point where they don't frack... But it would guarantee care is taken if a major portion of the company's assets were tied into a bond on environmental responsibility.

Why are you so against fracking? This technology along with horizontal drilling has made the US energy independent. Do you want to rely on imported oil again?

Like it or not our society is built around petroleum. It is in EVERYTHING, no matter how many wind farms and solar farms you build.

It is not going away. I agree that energy needs to be less dependent on oil. How about plastics? going to get rid of that? Medical equipment? etc., etc., etc.,

The problem is they tend to be reckless with the waste they produce.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yeah, once again focusing on the wrong thing. You can't hope to solve a problem you're not even addressing.

Who is "you"? What is the problem "you're are not addressing?

It's not the fracking, it's improper disposal of the waste. You can't fix that with regulations on the fracking.

Yes you can, mostly by not allowing the activity that generates the waste, or by mandating regulations that require a deposit (a very high one, associated with the expected resource value of the site) prior to drilling operations.

This would increase the liability of the frackers, possibly to the point where they don't frack... But it would guarantee care is taken if a major portion of the company's assets were tied into a bond on environmental responsibility.

Why are you so against fracking? This technology along with horizontal drilling has made the US energy independent. Do you want to rely on imported oil again?

Like it or not our society is built around petroleum. It is in EVERYTHING, no matter how many wind farms and solar farms you build.

It is not going away. I agree that energy needs to be less dependent on oil. How about plastics? going to get rid of that? Medical equipment? etc., etc., etc.,

The problem is they tend to be reckless with the waste they produce.

Well, it's not just that. For me it's also about the geological damage.

Putting fractures in the rocks surrounding deposits of oil allows the oil to become more mobile in the ground. Yes, this allows more ready extraction, but it also allows the chemicals to invade other strata, and has the potential to expose aquifers to oil and gas intrusions.

This is borne out by the fact that in some communities near fracking sites, the pipes will occasionally spit methane or have clear hydrocarbon contamination. To me this represents environmental irresponsibility on an epic scale.

The fact that they pump the hydrocarbon tainted water back into the wells when they are done just adds another fucked up element to the problem, and makes it even more likely that groundwater contamination will result.

I would as soon leave the underground vaults alone, and sate ourselves on what a standard oil well will yield. I think we should be focusing on all the options for energy that don't involve irreversibly damaging strata and altering water tables in disruptive ways.

This could mean building out more nuclear, or more solar and wind options, or even working on technologies that create hydrocarbons for the development of plastics.

I think that rather than pulling up hydrocarbons, we should be working on ways to put hydrocarbons in the ground. I'm talking stuff like straight up farming industrial quantities of hemp for the purposes of sterilizing it, and burying impregnated with glass-beaded radioactive waste material to eventually become oil again, without any industrial benefit other than decarbonizing the atmosphere.

 

[starwater]

So the "chemicals" are oil and 99 percent water.

Again without fracking you will be relying on foreign oil which is also fracked.

Oil does not occur in "underground vaults"

Why would you put oil (chemicals in your parlance) back in the ground? It takes energy to do that.

Ethanol production on the other hand uses industrial farming for the corn, which requires tons of water, the extraction of the ethanol uses even more water, and produces vast amounts of CO2 which is injected back into the ground using more energy. Which on the mass balance, is using more energy, water and CO2 to produce than it give back.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, it's not just that. For me it's also about the geological damage.

Putting fractures in the rocks surrounding deposits of oil allows the oil to become more mobile in the ground. Yes, this allows more ready extraction, but it also allows the chemicals to invade other strata, and has the potential to expose aquifers to oil and gas intrusions.

This is borne out by the fact that in some communities near fracking sites, the pipes will occasionally spit methane or have clear hydrocarbon contamination. To me this represents environmental irresponsibility on an epic scale.

The fact that they pump the hydrocarbon tainted water back into the wells when they are done just adds another fucked up element to the problem, and makes it even more likely that groundwater contamination will result.

Fracking water is injected into wells that are deep, thousands of feet. Aquifers we get water from are not remotely that deep, about one-tenth as deep. Cross contamination between the formations isn't generally possible. The gap is too large.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, it's not just that. For me it's also about the geological damage.

Putting fractures in the rocks surrounding deposits of oil allows the oil to become more mobile in the ground. Yes, this allows more ready extraction, but it also allows the chemicals to invade other strata, and has the potential to expose aquifers to oil and gas intrusions.

This is borne out by the fact that in some communities near fracking sites, the pipes will occasionally spit methane or have clear hydrocarbon contamination. To me this represents environmental irresponsibility on an epic scale.

The fact that they pump the hydrocarbon tainted water back into the wells when they are done just adds another fucked up element to the problem, and makes it even more likely that groundwater contamination will result.

Fracking water is injected into wells that are deep, thousands of feet. Aquifers we get water from are not remotely that deep, about one-tenth as deep. Cross contamination between the formations isn't generally possible. The gap is too large.

Tell that to all the folks who had natural gas coming out their taps.

Fluid rarely ever actually stays put in the earth unless the rocks around it are "whole", sealing it in.

Fracking explicitly breaks up that "whole" rock.

What you have here is an assumption, and a bad one, that in a geologically destabilized area there will be no such migration. It's a fluid in a compromised geological position in a geologically active world. It's not going to stay still no matter how much you might wish it would.

You can kvetch over "it's only a problem if they frack irresponsibly", but the vast majority cannot/will not/have not been forced to be responsible, and it's very difficult to provide oversight to make sure they are.

Until you frack-happy folks are willing to endorse and enforce legislation that allows the government to contract the well cleanup at the fracker's expense to the satisfaction of public oversight, it's going to continue to fail to happen.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, it's not just that. For me it's also about the geological damage.

Putting fractures in the rocks surrounding deposits of oil allows the oil to become more mobile in the ground. Yes, this allows more ready extraction, but it also allows the chemicals to invade other strata, and has the potential to expose aquifers to oil and gas intrusions.

This is borne out by the fact that in some communities near fracking sites, the pipes will occasionally spit methane or have clear hydrocarbon contamination. To me this represents environmental irresponsibility on an epic scale.

The fact that they pump the hydrocarbon tainted water back into the wells when they are done just adds another fucked up element to the problem, and makes it even more likely that groundwater contamination will result.

Fracking water is injected into wells that are deep, thousands of feet. Aquifers we get water from are not remotely that deep, about one-tenth as deep. Cross contamination between the formations isn't generally possible. The gap is too large.

Tell that to all the folks who had natural gas coming out their taps.

Called oil shales. There ia a waterfall in western NY that you can light a stream gas coming out of the shale.

Fluid rarely ever actually stays put in the earth unless the rocks around it are "whole", sealing it in.

If there was transmissivity, the water woulf all drain to that formation.

Fracking explicitly breaks up that "whole" rock.

That is at least half a mile deeper.

What you have here is an assumption, and a bad one, that in a geologically destabilized area there will be no such migration.

Actually thr opinion more based on professional geology knowledge.

Until you frack-happy folks are willing to endorse and enforce legislation that allows the government to contract the well cleanup at the fracker's expense to the satisfaction of public oversight, it's going to continue to fail to happen.

Frack happy? Having a competent understanding of geology doesn't mean I'm frack happy, just that I'm not an ignoramus on geology.

 

[Jarhyn]

If there was transmissivity, the water woulf all drain to that formation.

Not really. That deep down, the pressure will often push less dense materials up, especially if it's been disrupted AFAIK.

The reality is that we shouldn't knowingly be pumping toxic materials anywhere, and making some facile, and yes it is facile, assumption that "geography knowledge" will somehow prevent unforseen consequences is laughable.

The reality is that yes, you are frack happy.

It's not like there's endless space down there for stuff to go like some bottomless hole.

The rock is heavier than the oil, water, and any other fluid we could push down there, and will push the fluids up so long as the structure is capable of moving and settling (for reasons such as that it has been fractured).

This will create natural pockets and voids, which will bubble slowly towards the surface. If the "void" is composed of fracking fluid, eventually it will make contact with a water table, where the water cycle will bring it in contact with the surface. Do you really want to be willing to bet that among the countless fracking wells out there that no such process of cavitation will propagate? Do you really want to hang your bets for the future of the environment of such regions on "we haven't proven it happens or not, yet".

It seems like a really thin bet to say when you remove material below rock, that the rock won't cave in towards the fresh void, especially if the surrounding rock is freshly fractured for the sake of freeing up the material there... Or that all the fracking wells are as deep as you say. Or that other systems of fractures and strata won't be compromised, and it's the sort of damage that cannot be undone.

I reiterate we should be focused on putting carbon in the ground, not bringing more up.

Humans will innovate other solutions. Perhaps costlier ones in terms of overall power generation? But that might be the price we have to pay to unfuck our prior mistakes.

 

[lpetrich]

This would increase the liability of the frackers, possibly to the point where they don't frack... But it would guarantee care is taken if a major portion of the company's assets were tied into a bond on environmental responsibility.

Why are you so against fracking? This technology along with horizontal drilling has made the US energy independent. Do you want to rely on imported oil again?

Like it or not our society is built around petroleum. It is in EVERYTHING, no matter how many wind farms and solar farms you build.

Is there some upper limit on how many wind turbines and solar panels that one can build???

It is not going away. I agree that energy needs to be less dependent on oil. How about plastics? going to get rid of that? Medical equipment? etc., etc., etc.,

 Electrolysis of water
2H2O + ️ -> 2H2 + O2

 Fischer–Tropsch process
(y/2+2x-z)(H2) + x(CO2) + -> CxHyOz + (2x-z)(H2O)

making hydrocarbons and oxyhydrocarbons -- one can make gasoline and kerosene and methanol:

3H2 + CO2 + -> (CH2) + 2H2O
where long-chain hydrocarbons are roughly (CH2)x - hydrocarbons of gasoline and kerosene (diesel fuel, jet fuel).

4H2 + CO2 + -> CH3OH + 2H2O
methanol

One can make not only vehicle fuels, but also plastic feedstocks, with the Fischer-Tropsch reaction.

 Haber process
N2 + 3H2 + -> 2NH3
Already used for making nitrogen fertilizer, but one replaces steam reforming with electrolysis as the source of hydrogen.

Steam reforming:
CH4 + H2O + -> CO2 + 4H2

Uses natural gas and releases CO2.

 

[starwater]

This would increase the liability of the frackers, possibly to the point where they don't frack... But it would guarantee care is taken if a major portion of the company's assets were tied into a bond on environmental responsibility.

Why are you so against fracking? This technology along with horizontal drilling has made the US energy independent. Do you want to rely on imported oil again?

Like it or not our society is built around petroleum. It is in EVERYTHING, no matter how many wind farms and solar farms you build.

Is there some upper limit on how many wind turbines and solar panels that one can build???

It is not going away. I agree that energy needs to be less dependent on oil. How about plastics? going to get rid of that? Medical equipment? etc., etc., etc.,

 Electrolysis of water
2H2O + ️ -> 2H2 + O2

 Fischer–Tropsch process
(y/2+2x-z)(H2) + x(CO2) + -> CxHyOz + (2x-z)(H2O)

making hydrocarbons and oxyhydrocarbons -- one can make gasoline and kerosene and methanol:

3H2 + CO2 + -> (CH2) + 2H2O
where long-chain hydrocarbons are roughly (CH2)x - hydrocarbons of gasoline and kerosene (diesel fuel, jet fuel).

4H2 + CO2 + -> CH3OH + 2H2O
methanol

One can make not only vehicle fuels, but also plastic feedstocks, with the Fischer-Tropsch reaction.

 Haber process
N2 + 3H2 + -> 2NH3
Already used for making nitrogen fertilizer, but one replaces steam reforming with electrolysis as the source of hydrogen.

Steam reforming:
CH4 + H2O + -> CO2 + 4H2

Uses natural gas and releases CO2.

According to your formula above you are still using hydrocarbons that come from an oil well.

Yes, but how much energy does it take to do this? What is the mass balance?

What is the source material for the plastics? Can this process be upgraded for mass production?

Natural gas is still a fossil fuel, that you need oil rigs to drill for.

 

[Rhea]

Fracking water is injected into wells that are deep, thousands of feet. Aquifers we get water from are not remotely that deep, about one-tenth as deep. Cross contamination between the formations isn't generally possible. The gap is too large.

You will need to explain all of the contaminated wells in Dimock, PA, among other places in the Marcellus Shale region.

How do you think this water got contaminated?
You won’t find my town’s name in the news, but that’s because the frackers shipped in water - and still do - for all the people who complained, with samples, and who were subsequently pressured to sign an NDA to get their drinkable water deliveries.

It’s easy to say, but unsupported, that “it’s too far away to happen.” It *DID* happen. However it happened, it happened, and has every likelihood of doing so again if no one knows how it happened.