Jump to content

"trade secret" for fracking

Rate this topic


dogboy

Recommended Posts

fracking- an effective means of getting a LOT more natural gas from otherwise spent wells entails injecting a solution into the the ground in large quantities to open up the sedimentary layers which allows them to release the natural gas that had been trapped there

 

turns out a major component of the stuff they inject into these wells is:

 

DIESEL FUEL

 

how close are any of these old wells to any aquifers?

 

won't it eventually find its way into our water supply?

 

how can the folks doing this claim "trade secrets" and go ahead with it when it is clearly against the laws of both this country and common sense to contaminate the ground with refined hydrocarbons

 

i mean, old gas stations are expected to install expensive mitigation systems to deal with contaminated soil

 

discuss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to tell you that you are wrong.

 

When water is forced at very high preasure +10,000PSI sand that was pumped down with the water, is forced into the cracked rocks keeping the cracks open.

 

Yes, traces of other stuff like diesel, and other chemicals get inside the well pipe. Do you think that the well drillers, the frackers, and others who work the well should do so in a sterile environment?

 

Since you say Diesel is used to frack, how gallons are used?

 

Or is Diesel so damn good it only takes a couple parts per billion to get the job done.

If being stupid got us into this mess, how come being stupid can't get us out?
I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks skiddd;

 

 

 

""Limiting fracking contamination

October 18, 2010 - By DAVID THOMPSON - dthompson@sungazette.com

Save | Comments (1) | Post a comment |

Of the hundreds of thousands of gallons of water removed from streams, rivers and public and private water systems every day by the gas industry tapping into the Marcellus Shale, at least 90 percent of it is used to hydrofracture gas wells, according to hydrologist David Yoxtheimer, extension associate with the Penn State Marcellus Initiative for Outreach and Research.

"The other 10 percent is used for various things," Yoxtheimer said. "Some will be used for drilling, cementing the steel (well) casing in place, dust control and pressure testing gas lines, but it's a relatively small amount compared to hydrofracturing."

To hydrofracture - or "frack" - a gas well, millions of gallons of pressurized water mixed with sand and chemicals are pumped deep into the ground to pulverize the shale and release the gas trapped within it.

The practice, along with horizontal drilling, is a key technology in developing shale gas, but it also has created controversy in Pennsylvania and other areas of the country where shale gas is being developed.

Environmentalists say fracking could contaminate - and already has contaminated - drinking water sources, while the industry counters that there have been no substantiated claims of ground water being contaminated by the process.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency plans to study the impacts of fracking on the environment and recently held a series of public hearings to receive input on the scope of the study.

New York state has imposed a moratorium on gas drilling until its impacts can be studied further. Some people, including state legislators, have called for a moratorium in Pennsylvania.

Yoxtheimer said transparency by the industry regarding the chemicals used for fracking is one way of taking the mystery out of the process.

The state Department of Environmental Protection recently released on its website a list of chemicals used industry-wide in the process. Range Resources became the first gas exploration company to divulge the chemicals it uses.

"On some level, being that the chemicals haven't previously been disclosed makes them seem more exotic than they are," Yoxtheimer said. "When you look at it, it's not that exotic or mysterious. It's compounds found in common household chemicals."

According to the industry organization Energy Indepth, more than 99.5 percent of the material used for fracking is water and sand. The rest are compounds found in swimming pool cleaners, laundry detergents, food additives, cosmetics, household cleansers and hair coloring.

Brady Russell, Pennsylvania director for Clean Water Action, said some of those compounds are toxic and capable of polluting fresh water supplies.

For example, ethylene glycol, an ingredient used in frack fluid to prevent scale deposits on pipes, commonly is used as an antifreeze, Russell said.

According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Control of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, ingesting ethylene glycol can cause serious illness or even death.

Russell said industry assertions that no groundwater contamination has ever occurred during the fracking process refers only "to just what happens a mile or two under the ground."

Fracking fluids or the saltier-than-seawater flowback fluids that return to the surface following the fracking process can get into groundwater through poorly constructed well casings, leaking retention ponds or spills from trucks, Russell said.

There have been spills reported in Pennsylvania, Russell said.

"No matter where it comes from doesn't matter to us," Russell said. "Fracking fluids are getting into groundwater and there is no way of getting it out."

"If you consider flowback as a part of hydraulic fracturing, then there has been issues," Yoxtheimer said. "If that water isn't totally captured and spills on the ground, it could seep down into the aquifer. That has reportedly happened."

Dan Spadoni, a spokesman for the DEP, said most spills reported to the agency over the last 16 to 18 months "have been small in quantity and confined to the well pad itself."

Those spills have included drilling mud, flowback or brine water, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, motor oil and other materials, Spadoni said.

Some larger spills that escaped the well pad were contained before they reached surface water sources and the contaminated soil was excavated to reduce the chances of groundwater contamination, he said.

A few spills have reached creeks or streams and have harmed aquatic life and degraded the water quality, Spadoni said.

Matt Pitzarella, director of public affairs for Range Resources-Appalachia LLC, said the company uses best management practices designed to reduce pollution-causing mishaps. Those practices must be standard operating procedures industry-wide, he said.

The gas industry has to have zero tolerance for mistakes in order to minimize impacts on the environment, Pitzarella said.

"There is no margin for error. We're under an incredible microscope and we want to get it right," he said.

Pitzarella would not comment on companies that have caused pollution, but he did say: "We're only as good as our weakest link. We want to take (drilling practices) to a higher standard of care."

Pitzarella said he understands the concerns people have regarding the gas industry because of the negative impact resource extraction, particularly with the coal industry, has had on the state.

"If you look at the industrial past of the commonwealth, you can understand where they would be skeptical," Pitzarella said. "We have to demonstrate to the people that we are not the second coming of the coal industry from a century ago."

"If (companies) are not doing it the right way, we need to fix it as an industry," he said.

"It's how you manage your operation," Yoxtheimer said. "It's just like any industry. If you're doing a careful job, there shouldn't be a problem. If your work is sloppy, you will (have problems)."

Yoxtheimer said companies are using more practices that reduce the chances of a pollution-causing accident.

Those practices include using steel tanks instead of retention ponds to contain flowback fluids, covering well pads with liners to contain spills, and treating wastewater for reuse at the well site with mobile treatment units to cut down on trucking incidences.

Yoxtheimer said natural gas exploration, if done properly, can have a positive impact on Pennsylvania.

"If natural gas can be produced to provide a cleaner energy while enhancing economic opportunities, that is something to consider," he said. "It's not all awful.

"The reality is - accidents will happen," he said. "I think a few isolated accidents cumulatively won't have a significant impact on the state compared to the potential benefits that natural gas can provide.""

 

 

"Those spills have included drilling mud, flowback or brine water, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, motor oil and other materials, Spadoni said."

 

db,is this what you are refering to? A small percentage of 0.5%, and it being spilled on the surface, not pumped down the well.

 

"The gas industry has to have zero tolerance for mistakes in order to minimize impacts on the environment, Pitzarella said."

 

Mabe they should tighten up "zero tolerance", since that has so much wiggle room.

If being stupid got us into this mess, how come being stupid can't get us out?
I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i was under the impression that diesel fuel was one of the ingredients in the schmutz they pumped into the ground

 

doing that and calling it a "trade secret" is not a good idea IMO

 

if that is what is happening

 

spilling a small amount of it on the ground is a different story, but it should still be cleaned up

 

and if there is something less toxic with the same properties, they should look into using that

 

maybe a mixture of anti-freeze and agent orange would be just as effective

Link to comment
Share on other sites

View Posti was under the impression that diesel fuel was one of the ingredients in the schmutz they pumped into the ground

 

doing that and calling it a "trade secret" is not a good idea IMO

 

if that is what is happening

 

spilling a small amount of it on the ground is a different story, but it should still be cleaned up

 

and if there is something less toxic with the same properties, they should look into using that

 

maybe a mixture of anti-freeze and agent orange would be just as effective

 

 

View Postdb,is this what you are refering to? A small percentage of 0.5%, and it being spilled on the surface, not pumped down the well.

 

 

maybe a more highly refined product would do the same thing and be a bit less toxic

 

 

 

What would pumping Diesel into rock fractures possibly do?

 

On it's face, it would be counter productive.

If being stupid got us into this mess, how come being stupid can't get us out?
I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

View PostWhat would pumping Diesel into rock fractures possibly do?

 

On it's face, it would be counter productive.

 

 

it has lubricating properties, and mixed with a wetting agent, would really get down in the crevices- maybe make the sand a lot slipperier to so it would be less apt to get hung up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not what is fracked into that ground that is causing the problems, it is the storage of the fluids in giant reservoirs/lagoons which leak.

The fractkng goes much deeper below where groundwater is used.

 

Do you really think they would pump diesel fuel into the ground at $3 a gallon?

"Where is my mind?  Waaaaay out in the water see it swimming?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

View PostIt's not what is fracked into that ground that is causing the problems, it is the storage of the fluids in giant reservoirs/lagoons which leak.

 

The fractkng goes much deeper below where groundwater is used.

 

 

Do you really think they would pump diesel fuel into the ground at $3 a gallon?

 

That's the part that should make people scratch their heads. This is about a profitable way to extract natural gas and doing it by pumping a bunch of diesel fuel into the soil doesn't sound very profitable to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

View PostDo you really think they would pump diesel fuel into the ground at $3 a gallon?

 

 

if it made a million cubic feet of natural gas available for every hundred gallons- yes, they would

 

it isn't a zero sum operation- there are literally boatloads of natural gas in areas once thought played out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

View Postif it made a million cubic feet of natural gas available for every hundred gallons- yes, they would

 

it isn't a zero sum operation- there are literally boatloads of natural gas in areas once thought played out

 

 

There is zero credit for making shi* um, stuff up. Lubricate water, pfft.

 

The fracking engineers are not as dumb as we are.

If being stupid got us into this mess, how come being stupid can't get us out?
I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The industry has been saying they stopped injecting toxic diesel fuel into wells. But our investigation showed this practice has been continuing in secret and in apparent violation" of the Safe Drinking Water Act, said Waxman, a former chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and currently the panel's ranking Democrat.

 

WASHINGTON, DC, February 4, 2011 (ENS) - Oil and gas service companies have injected over 32 million gallons of diesel fuel or hydraulic fracturing fluids containing diesel fuel into wells in 19 states between 2005 and 2009, without permits, a congressional investigation has revealed. Begun by three Democratic members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce in February 2010, the investigation looked at the potential impact on water quality of using diesel fuel injected at extremely high pressure to crack rock seams, releasing the natural gas and oil trapped within.

Under the 2005 Energy Policy Act, any company that performs hydraulic fracturing using diesel fuel must receive a permit to be in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act.

In the course of their investigation, Representatives Henry Waxman of California, Edward Markey of Massachusetts, and Diana DeGette of Colorado sent letters to 14 oil and gas service companies requesting information about the type and volume of chemicals they used in hydraulic fracturing fluids between 2005 and 2009.

All the companies voluntarily provided the committee with data on the volume of diesel fuel and other hydraulic fracturing fluids they used during the five year period. Twelve of the 14 companies acknowledged using diesel in their fracking operations.

In a letter to U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson dated January 31, the legislators wrote, "We learned that no oil and gas service companies have sought - and no state and federal regulators have issued - permits for diesel fuel use in hydraulic fracturing."

"This appears to be a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act," they wrote. "It also means that the companies injecting diesel fuel have not performed the environmental reviews required by the law."

20110204_fracking.jpgHorizontal fracking operation in Dimrock, Pennsylvania (Photo by Helen Slottje courtesy ShaleShock)

 

The EPA's Office of Research and Development also is currently conducting a scientific study to examine the possible relationships between hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and drinking water quality.

"A key unanswered question is whether the unregulated injection of diesel fuel or fluids containing diesel is adversely affecting drinking water supplies," the legislators wrote to Jackson.

None of the hydraulic fracturing service companies track the nearness of the wells they fracture to underground sources of drinking water, which they said is the responsibility of the oil and gas well operators.

For this reason, the legislators told Jackson they have been "unable to draw definitive conclusions about the potential impact of these injections on public health or the environment."

Analysis of data provided by the companies shows that BJ Services used the most diesel fuel and fluids containing diesel, more than 11.5 million gallons, followed by Halliburton, which used 7.2 million gallons.

Four other companies, RPC (4.3 million gallons), Sanjel (3.6 million gallons), Weatherford (2.1 million gallons), and Key Energy Services (1.6 million gallons), used more than one million gallons of diesel fuel and fluids containing diesel.

Of the 19 states where diesel-containing fluids were injected, Texas accounted for half of the total volume injected, 16 million gallons.

The companies injected at least one million gallons of diesel-containing fluids in Oklahoma, North Dakota, Louisiana, Wyoming, and Colorado.

In total, the companies used 10.2 million gallons of straight diesel fuel and 21.8 million gallons of products containing at least 30 percent diesel fuel.

But in January 2010, Energy In Depth, a group representing most of America's oil and gas producers, wrote that "diesel fuel is simply not used in fracturing operations."

"The industry has been saying they stopped injecting toxic diesel fuel into wells. But our investigation showed this practice has been continuing in secret and in apparent violation" of the Safe Drinking Water Act, said Waxman, a former chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and currently the panel's ranking Democrat.

Diesel fuel contains toxics, including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes. The Department of Health and Human Services, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have determined that benzene is a human carcinogen.

Chronic exposure to toluene, ethylbenzene, or xylenes has been shown to cause damage to the central nervous system, liver, and kidneys.

While fracking is used in more than 90 percent of natural gas and oil wells, not all fracking operations use diesel fuel. Other fracking fluids are water-based, but some formations cannot be cracked by these fluids because clay or other substances in the rock absorb water.

Last August, more than 25 conservation organizations wrote to Waxman and Markey and separately to the EPA, urging probes into the use of diesel in fracking operations and its effect on drinking water quality.

The Environmental Working Group is pleased that their prompts have yielded information.

"Companies are increasingly drilling in populated areas and using ever more intensive hydraulic fracturing in shale formations," said EWG Senior Counsel Dusty Horwitt. "Reps. Waxman, Markey and DeGette deserve credit for pursuing this important investigation and working to ensure that drilling is conducted carefully and in compliance with our laws."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...