everything you've heard about fossil fuels...

[Azazello1313]

interesting. focuses mostly on advances in natural gas recovery.

 

According to the conventional wisdom, the U.S. and other industrial nations must undertake a rapid and expensive transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy for three reasons: The imminent depletion of fossil fuels, national security and the danger of global warming.

 

What if the conventional wisdom about the energy future of America and the world has been completely wrong?

 

As everyone who follows news about energy knows by now, in the last decade the technique of hydraulic fracturing or "fracking," long used in the oil industry, has evolved to permit energy companies to access reserves of previously-unrecoverable “shale gas” or unconventional natural gas. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, these advances mean there is at least six times as much recoverable natural gas today as there was a decade ago.

 

Natural gas, which emits less carbon dioxide than coal, can be used in both electricity generation and as a fuel for automobiles.

 

The implications for energy security are startling. Natural gas may be only the beginning. Fracking also permits the extraction of previously-unrecoverable “tight oil,” thereby postponing the day when the world runs out of petroleum. There is enough coal to produce energy for centuries. And governments, universities and corporations in the U.S., Canada, Japan and other countries are studying ways to obtain energy from gas hydrates, which mix methane with ice in high-density formations under the seafloor. The potential energy in gas hydrates may equal that of all other fossils, including other forms of natural gas, combined.

 

If gas hydrates as well as shale gas, tight oil, oil sands and other unconventional sources can be tapped at reasonable cost, then the global energy picture looks radically different than it did only a few years ago. Suddenly it appears that there may be enough accessible hydrocarbons to power industrial civilization for centuries, if not millennia, to come.

 

on the ramifications for future geopolitics...

 

So much for the specter of depletion, as a reason to adopt renewable energy technologies like solar power and wind power. Whatever may be the case with Peak Oil in particular, the date of Peak Fossil Fuels has been pushed indefinitely into the future. What about national security as a reason to switch to renewable energy?

 

The U.S., Canada and Mexico, it turns out, are sitting on oceans of recoverable natural gas. Shale gas is combined with recoverable oil in the Bakken "play" along the U.S.-Canadian border and the Eagle Ford play in Texas. The shale gas reserves of China turn out to be enormous, too. Other countries with now-accessible natural gas reserves, according to the U.S. government, include Australia, South Africa, Argentina, Chile, France, Poland and India.

 

Because shale gas reserves are so widespread, the potential for blackmail by Middle Eastern producers and Russia will diminish over time. Unless opponents of fracking shut down gas production in Europe, a European Union with its own natural gas reserves will be far less subject to blackmail by Russia (whose state monopoly Gazprom has opportunistically echoed western Greens in warning of the dangers of fracking).

 

The U.S. may become a major exporter of natural gas to China -- at least until China borrows the technology to extract its own vast gas reserves.

[bpwallace49]

Very interesting.

 

Are there drawbacks to the fracking technique? Wasnt there a documnetary about how it infiltrates and messes with the groundwater?

 

Or is that another issue entirely?

[Yukon Cornelius]

Very interesting.

 

Are there drawbacks to the fracking technique? Wasnt there a documnetary about how it infiltrates and messes with the groundwater?

 

Or is that another issue entirely?

who needs water?

[cliaz]

Very interesting.

 

Are there drawbacks to the fracking technique? Wasnt there a documnetary about how it infiltrates and messes with the groundwater?

 

Or is that another issue entirely?

 

Chemicals used in fracturing fluid

 

A number of chemicals identified in fracturing fluid are hazardous chemicals that may cause health risks that range from rashes to cancer. Some chemicals are identified as carcinogens. Some chemicals found injected into the earth identify as endocrine disruptors, which interrupts hormones and glands in the body that control development, growth, reproduction and behavior in animals and humans.[26]

 

Energy in Depth, an oil and gas industry organization has published a list of chemicals in a "typical solution used in hydraulic fracturing," but notes "The specific compounds used in a given fracturing operation will vary."[30]

 

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has published a list of chemicals used in fracturing fluids. The report addresses many issues with well fracturing.

 

The EPA has stated that on December 3, 2010, Halliburton has provided “written confirmation” that it will disclose hydraulic fracturing operations as per request. The EPA initiated a mandatory request for all operations to be disclosed. Halliburton is to provide the EPA with information by January 31, 2011. EPA’s mandatory request is subject to enforcement.[31]

 

A 2008 newspaper report states that medical personnel were inhibited in their treatment of workers injured in a fracturing accident because they did not know which specific chemicals were used. In the article, a nurse claimed she may have been exposed to the unknown chemicals on the patient's clothes.[32] Release of information, pertaining to hazardous components of any and all industrial chemicals, to medical and emergency personnel has been governed by OSHA since the 1974 Right-To-know legislation. If referenced by medical personnel, Material Safety Data Sheets will provide all information necessary for personal protection and the treatment of chemical exposure.

[SuperBalla]

Because shale gas reserves are so widespread, the potential for blackmail by Middle Eastern producers and Russia will diminish over time. Unless opponents of fracking shut down gas production in Europe, a European Union with its own natural gas reserves will be far less subject to blackmail by Russia (whose state monopoly Gazprom has opportunistically echoed western Greens in warning of the dangers of fracking).

 

This

[Pope Flick]

Several counties in New York blame recent seismic instability on tracking that went on there. Between that and the chemicals they refuse to divulge I'd say there's more than enough reason to slow this down and find a better alternative than destroying water tables.

[Caveman_Nick]

Several counties in New York blame recent seismic instability on tracking that went on there. Between that and the chemicals they refuse to divulge I'd say there's more than enough reason to slow this down and find a better alternative than destroying water tables.

 

I agree with that.

 

Who knows what the ling term effect of drilling for oil and removing it from underground caverns will be on the earth. I feel the same way about gas that's sitting under the ground under pressure. Is it structurally important? Is there any way to measure that? Might we create a giant sinkhole somewhere if we empty out what's underneath the ground?

 

It's a big unknown and there's more to the story and just drillin' baby.

[Tford]

I agree with that.

 

Who knows what the ling term effect of drilling for oil and removing it from underground caverns will be on the earth. I feel the same way about gas that's sitting under the ground under pressure. Is it structurally important? Is there any way to measure that? Might we create a giant sinkhole somewhere if we empty out what's underneath the ground?

 

It's a big unknown and there's more to the story and just drillin' baby.

 

There are a lot of misconceptions about fracturing techniques. I frac for a living as a production engineer for an oil and gas company in Canada. Fracturing techniques are the future of energy production in North America but I agree that we need to make sure we get a handle of it before we cause more problems than we solve.

 

1) Fracturing leaves a void by cracking the formation and leads to geological instability.

 

This is incorrect. The formations are indeed forced open by the pressure of fluid entering the zone. But if we take the pressure off of the formation, the formation closes off. There is plenty of empirical evidence to support this in many engineering papers. To hold the formation open and allow oil and gas to flow into the well more readily, we actually inject sand in with the fluid to both "prop" open the fractures we create and provide a high permeability channel for the production to flow through. There is no void, no open fracture that causes instability. In fact, the formation is in many ways, more stable than it was before fracturing.

 

2) Fracturing messes with water tables

 

This is true and false. Wells are drilled by cutting a hole with a drill bit and drill mud to open the hole open. Steel pipe (called casing) is then inserted into the well to provide a strong conduit in which to execute production well operations. To hold the casing in place, cement is pumped down the casing and forced between the hole and the casing (called the annulus). In addition to holding the casing in place, the cement in the annulus also isolates each formation that the well was drilled through, from the others. This includes the fresh water table. Provided that cementing is done correctly and proper cement bond is achieved, fracturing will not affect the water table because the cement will do its job and isolate the zones from each other. Fracturing typically does not pass through boundary shale layers (these are different from gas and oil bearing shales) so the rock also holds the fracture to the zone is was intended to go.

 

Unfortunately, cementing is also expensive and time-consuming to many unscrupulous producers and it may not be done properly. If cement bond (or casing integrity) is not achieved, you cannot control where your fracture goes. This is where you see issues in the water table. I am of the opinion that a proper cement bond log should be produced to a regulatory body before any fracturing takes place. It is the policy of my company and many others that this is done even though it is not mandatory currently.

 

 

I have a strong background in fracturing and I'd be willing to answer any questions you guys have about it. It's not the great evil many make it out to be. As with most things, provided it is done according to design, it is quite safe.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Interesting Az but you didn't go into anything that disputes how continued pollution of the atmosphere for centuries or millennia will affectus all as opposed to switching to the higher cost alternatives. Or is price of energy and availability the only thing that matters?

[bpwallace49]

.

 

1) Fracturing leaves a void by cracking the formation and leads to geological instability.

 

This is incorrect. The formations are indeed forced open by the pressure of fluid entering the zone. But if we take the pressure off of the formation, the formation closes off. There is plenty of empirical evidence to support this in many engineering papers. To hold the formation open and allow oil and gas to flow into the well more readily, we actually inject sand in with the fluid to both "prop" open the fractures we create and provide a high permeability channel for the production to flow through. There is no void, no open fracture that causes instability. g.

 

Sooo you are makin pockets of quicksand under us?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Azazello1313]

Interesting Az but you didn't go into anything that disputes how continued pollution of the atmosphere for centuries or millennia will affectus all as opposed to switching to the higher cost alternatives. Or is price of energy and availability the only thing that matters?

 

well first of all, the article is dealing almost entirely with natural gas, which is quite clean. if you're talking about global warming, the article does go into that a little bit.

[Square]

I frac for a living

Aye, I live for fracking.

[Clubfoothead]

Is that flamable water coming out of your tap or are you just happy to see me?

[whoopazz]

well first of all, the article is dealing almost entirely with natural gas, which is quite clean. if you're talking about global warming, the article does go into that a little bit.

 

True, but your still extracting tons of carbon from the planet and moving it to the atmosphere...just sayin'. We just need to consider all the options for our energy future: gas, nukes, clean coal, and renewables, and not just based on cost. All of em done right would be a good thing.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

True, but your still extracting tons of carbon from the planet and moving it to the atmosphere...just sayin'. We just need to consider all the options for our energy future: gas, nukes, clean coal, and renewables, and not just based on cost. All of em done right would be a good thing.

This.

 

I read the other day that Germany is shutting down all their nuclear plants over the next few years because of political pressure from the public after the Japan disaster.

[Yukon Cornelius]

This.

 

I read the other day that Germany is shutting down all their nuclear plants over the next few years because of political pressure from the public after the Japan disaster.

yup they are

[Caveman_Nick]

There are a lot of misconceptions about fracturing techniques. I frac for a living as a production engineer for an oil and gas company in Canada. Fracturing techniques are the future of energy production in North America but I agree that we need to make sure we get a handle of it before we cause more problems than we solve.

 

1) Fracturing leaves a void by cracking the formation and leads to geological instability.

 

This is incorrect. The formations are indeed forced open by the pressure of fluid entering the zone. But if we take the pressure off of the formation, the formation closes off. There is plenty of empirical evidence to support this in many engineering papers. To hold the formation open and allow oil and gas to flow into the well more readily, we actually inject sand in with the fluid to both "prop" open the fractures we create and provide a high permeability channel for the production to flow through. There is no void, no open fracture that causes instability. In fact, the formation is in many ways, more stable than it was before fracturing.

 

 

I just want to be clear...

 

I am not assuming or misconceiving that any of these things will happen. I am stating that the long term effect of these processes can't be known. The questions/examples I gave above were just to promote the discussion.

 

I understand that companies that drill take precautions for structural integrity and so on. I just wonder if over years, decades, centuries this kind of process might have an unintended consequence or suffer a consequence that was thought to be covered by the practiced precautions.

[BeeR]

This.

 

I read the other day that Germany is shutting down all their nuclear plants over the next few years because of political pressure from the public after the Japan disaster.

Those.

 

And they're replacing it with.......?

 

I'm still amazed stuff like solar panels/power haven't taken over and have to suspect that it's largely due to the oil baron monopoly thing as to why - I mean w/all our technology and we can't make these more practical? Have any real advances come out in even the last few decades??

[Chavez]

I agree with that.

 

Who knows what the ling term effect of drilling for oil and removing it from underground caverns will be on the earth. I feel the same way about gas that's sitting under the ground under pressure. Is it structurally important? Is there any way to measure that? Might we create a giant sinkhole somewhere if we empty out what's underneath the ground?

 

It's a big unknown and there's more to the story and just drillin' baby.

 

The bolded sounds socialist, anti-American, and possibly homosexual as well.

[Chavez]

This.

 

I read the other day that Germany is shutting down all their nuclear plants over the next few years because of political pressure from the public after the Japan disaster.

 

 

They should. Germany is a prime spot for a tsunami to hit.

[Chavez]

Those.

 

And they're replacing it with.......?

 

I'm still amazed stuff like solar panels/power haven't taken over and have to suspect that it's largely due to the oil baron monopoly thing as to why - I mean w/all our technology and we can't make these more practical? Have any real advances come out in even the last few decades??

 

 

Germany is actually the world leader in energy supplied by solar.

 

DARPA is shooting for a solar panel that converts 50% of the sunlight hitting it into energy. That would be up from the (I believe) 20%-25% we have commercially available now.

[yo mama]

Well if everything I've heard about fossil fuels is wrong, wouldn't that include this article?

[Chavez]

Well if everything I've heard about fossil fuels is wrong, wouldn't that include this article?

Well, see you didn't know this article until it told you that everything you had heard UP TO THE POINT YOU STARTED READING was wrong. This article, obviously, is 100% right.