 | The Gulf Deepwater Oil Spill, barriers, flow rates, and top kill | The Oil Drum | Drumbeat: May 25, 2010 |  |
A Photographic Tour of a Natural Gas Well in the Marcellus Shale
Posted by David Murphy on May 24, 2010 - 9:23am
Recently I had the opportunity to attend a tour of a natural gas well in Troy, Pennsylvania, courtesy of Talisman Energy USA. Founded in 2002 as Fortuna Energy, Talisman Energy USA is a subsidiary of Talisman Energy Inc., of Canada. They are currently producing over 100 wells in New York and Pennsylvania with 200 miles of pipeline, and according to the information provided to us, they plan to invest over 1 billion dollars in Pennsylvania gas before the end of 2010.
Specifically the gas they are trying to access is in the Marcellus Shale. The Marcellus Shale has become very popular because advances in horizontal drilling and hydrofracking have made it possible to access large amounts of gas trapped in unconventional shale plays. Negative publicity has been just as noticeable, with many organizations claiming that the fracking procedures are reeking havoc on local watersheds.
My goal in this post is to provide some pictures and statistics for one operation in the Marcellus Shale. For those familiar with the drilling and hydrofracking, this may seem a bit basic.
On the day I visited the well, the drilling company, Pioneer, was in the process of moving the drilling rig to drill a second horizontal well on this pad. Pioneer uses a multi-well pad design that incorporates 4 to 6 horizontal wells per pad spaced 25 feet apart (Figure 1). Each well extends roughly 5000 to 6000 feet into the ground and then extends about 1000 feet out in the horizontal direction.
Figure 1
Photo 1
Photo 2
Photos 1 and 2: Pioneer Drilling Rig #59. I visited on a day when the rig was being moved, so neither drilling nor fracking were being performed. This explains why there is not much equipment on the drilling pad in Photo 1. The amount of equipment will increase during drilling and even more so during fracking as roughly 3 million gallons of water is used per well. We were also told that the drilling time for each pad (i.e. 4 to 6 wells) is roughly 6 months, and the time it takes to frack the wells is roughly 3 months.
Photo 3
Photo 4
Photos 3 and 4: 20 inch pipeline (soon to be subterranean) that will be used to transport gas from the wells to the compressor station.
Photo 5
Photo 5: The compressor station. This facility uses 3 compressors to elevate the pressure of the gas to 1200 psi so that it can join with the main gas pipeline in the region. It has a capacity of 108 million cubic feet per day and sits on roughly 2 hectares (5 acres) of ground area.
Anecdotal information:
My first question for the tour guide was “how much gas are you producing per well and for how long will it produce at that level?” The answer I received was between 1 – 6 million cubic feet per day and for 30 to 45 years. I found this very interesting as TOD’s Art Berman and my own analysis has shown that these type of drilling operations have very steep decline curves. My own analysis shows that the average production from a similar well in the Barnett Shale decreases to the level of a stripper gas well (60 mcf per day) in only 5 years. Also, if Talisman has been drilling in the Marcellus for only 2 years, how do they know that production will last for 30 – 45 years? Clearly more research needs to be done in this area to determine the appropriate decline curves of Marcellus gas wells.
Photo 6
Photo 6: Not to be without a sense of irony, a wind farm is located on the crest of the opposing hillside.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Good arrangement of energy souces:
Wind farm to provide electrical power, then gas can supply power when wind is not blowing. Remember combined cycle gas turbine/steam turbine power plants have 60% efficiency.
But, I have heard of decline rates in shale gas plays being 25 to 50%. Non fractured wells can last 30 to 40 years at very low decline rates. I also question the viability of wells that decline to very low production in five years.
Is this a wise investment with prices for gas in the $4.00 per million BTU range?
Based on $4 gas the investment does not work. Big investment in new shale plays based on future increase in price. Range of economic viability from $5-7/MCF. Note that land owners were being paid up to $30000/acre just for leases (usual oil plays and conventional plays few hundred)in Texas shale plays. Lot of rich folks out there who just own a few acres of land . Then they get their royalties. Add in the seismic costs the relatively, high drilling and completion cost you can see why they need to have a high early flown and good price to pay out the well quickly and a continuous, long term, large drilling program. The declining flow (from lots of wells) provides long term cash flow like coal bed methane wells. A new play in Michigan still payed landowners over $1000 per acre even with current prices.
Frac approaches have come a long way, as had the ability tomap fracture orientation to allow effective well plans that maximize flow and recovery.
How about conserving gas by investing in pumped-storage hydroelectric capacity (esp. seawater-based) in combination with offshore wind?
Seems like a good way to keep the lights on and take advantage of low- (or zero-) price off-peak power, and save gas for higher and better uses: cooking fuel, CNG vehicle fuel, etc.
Totally dependent on geography.
True, but most populated areas (at least in the U.S.) are near water, near seawater in fact (or Great Lakes water). It might not work everywhere, but it is definitely something we could do a whole lot more of...there are plenty of examples of cases where investment in hydroelectricity has not occurred because the ancillary benefits it provides for load balancing are undervalued. And using seawater or a large body of water like Lake Michigan for the reservoir would take care of a lot of the problems with conventional hydro.
Not perfect for everywhere, no, but it could sure save us an awful lot of gas over here on the East Coast...
Now decline curves brings up the heart of the issue. Gas shale plays have yet to prove economic, and none have existed long enough to really provide example decline curves which are not entirely the result of various completion styles. Further, the shale plays are rarely true shales. Rather, they are really dirty sand/carbonate/chalk plays which leads to much confusion in comparisons since these details higely change the degree and ease with which fluids are released and flow through the rock. Lastly, true shales present physical constraints on realistic decline curves since the productive capacity of the well ought to be entirely a function of the fractures stimulated into the shale since nearly all storage capacity is the result of kerogen maturation, and surface area sampled defines the drained volume. In other words, your getting what you touch, not drawing through the formation as occurs in conventional reservoirs. Therefor, the decline curve will very likely plummet and have an awful tail.
Chesapeake published some interesting figures that relate to their profitability in various price scenarios. (2009 investor and analyst meeting, page 9). The prices are at Henry Hub;
At $4-00 gas they forecast $580m profit in 2010, $220m in 2011
at $5 that was $950 and $710 respectively
They forecast more than $1bn in both years if prices are greater than $6.
Note that their debt is 4 times earnings in 2010 when the gas price falls to $4. Quite high leveraging and it gets worse as prices drop. They really need $5 or more to be comfortable.
stoph -- you have to study such statements closely. Especially when a company uses the term profit. I haven't seen the details of Chesapeake's report but: is the $580 million "profit" what they receive beyond the monies spent to drill those wells? IOW revenue - total cost to drill = $580 million? A simple example: I spend $10 million to drill a well. It produces $6 million of revenue (gross income less operating expenses) in 2010. Does this mean the well made me $6 million in profit? It didn't cost me anything in 2010 other than op expenses which I already subtracted. And if the well produces only $8 million before it depletes then did I make a $8 million profit or did I lose $2 million? That's why you have to closely study press releases from the public companies. Essnetially you need to distinguish cash flow from profit: two very different animals.
I went through a couple of NG producers' 10K /Qs and without the income of their hedges they would all ( DVN, HAWK, CHK) be losing money. IIRC the hedges are rolling off mid 2012 latests.
It is hard to figure out what their cost per mmcf is because of all the assumpions qua amortization, allocation of costs etc.
Rgds
WeekendPeak
WP - And to add to your point making money from a hedge might make the company's effort profitable but not the wells. The hedges are made by the comany traders. The wells are drilled by the E&P dept. The economic value of a well isn't dependent on the hedges. You can make/lose money on hedges whether you drill a well or not. Two different businesses.
Are they hedging against their own company?!?! or something else?
realist -- Not so much hedging against themselves but essentially two different biz units. But they can complimment each other: if NG pices had spiked instead of drop they would have lost money on the hedges but made more from production. For a producer it's a way to buffer their cash flow from radical price swings.
Commodity producers, and certainly the more heavily indebted ones, frequently have to hedge in order for a bank to give them loans. That is because the bank wants to make sure that there is going to be enough money to pay the loan back at maturity. I have seen it close up and personal that the loan and hedge are done as a package, and the hedges are closely monitored by the bank(s).
(Most) commodity producers are in the business of extracting commodities, not speculating. The idea is to produce a good (say natural gas) at a price of X and sell it at a price of X+something. If the owner of the company (i.e. shareholders in case of a public company) wanted to simply speculate on the commodity price they could simply buy some NG contracts.
It is inevitable that NG producers stock move with NG commodity prices somewhat because the producing company is structurally long NG – they have reserves, and are often long the gas in pipelines (line fill) etc.
Rgds
WeekendPeak
CHK is on the record saying that "even the best shale plays are not economic at $5." This is reflected in their break-down of expenses which shows ~$1.50/mcf in pipeline/compression costs, and $3.50/mcf in drilling, depletion, G&A, etc expenses.
The reason CHK can be profitable at $5 gas today is they have old hedges so roughly 50% of their production is being sold at $7+. If they had to sell everything on the spot market today, they'd be losing money.
But they don't have to produce every well every day. They can deliver just enough to meet contracts and make a reasonable profit if they so choose.
I live in the Barnett Shale, and the well under my Mom's property has been drilled, fraced and tanks installed (for water) and is on the pipeline but it is not producing yet. Why? Because a lot of the non-drilled leases are in urban areas and if they don't drill under current leases they hold they may be "zoned out" and not allowed to drill there in a couple years. Cities and towns don't like the noise and pollution and the water trucks tearing up the roads, and of course "safety issues" so they are passing laws saying "no new wells" so drill now or maybe never drill. If they can hold on long enough the price may go up as well. They can they also hold back on supply to increase demand but at the risk they might lose contracts to others. It's a very thorny business problem.
It is not that hard.
1) Buy 10x or 100x more gas leases than you could possibly develop. (like Talisman Energy)
2) Pick the best locations and get some production history.
3) Sell off the less desirable leases leveraging your data (even though it is not truly representative).
4) Make big profits while others figure out that they have been had.
LOL..that looks more like a scam or pyramid scheme than a business model that you can operate for many years. Once the lawsuits start rolling in about misrepresentation do they pull up stakes and run for places with non-extradition?
Really? Has any oil or gas company filed a law suit against the company that sold them the lease when they got a dry hole?
Actually guys what realist describes is a very old oil patch biz model. And, if done properly, is considered a reputable way of doing business. At the early stages of a play few want to risk their leasing $'s until a play is proven viable. But some risk takers will take the gamble and lease up the country side cheap. If the play flounders they lose their investment. If the play takes off they may drill a few wells for confirmation but then "promote" the rest of the acreage out. These promoters might sell 100% of their lease or have a new company pay for 100% of a well with the promoters getting 25% of the well when it starts producing. The only time the promotores run afoul of the law is when they offer such investments to individuals and it takes the form of a "security". The SEC takes a dim view of unregistered securities especially when they are sold across state lines.
There is a very old saying among land promoters regarding boom plays: "You roll into town with the first wagonload of whores and roll out before the first wagon of production equipment arrives."
And no...every deal I've ever bought/sold has a very clearly written disclaimer: in no way is there any guarantee or promise of success. It's absolutely buyer beware.
and there have been a few cases where someone drilled a dry-hole on someone elses property and got sued.
lol
The wild west is so last century. It is now the wild east in mild Upstate NY! Who would have guessed?
I presume that virtually everything in the line of pipe, materials , and machinery that goes down the hole is necessarily left there when the well is finished, and when it is eventually abandoned.
But I am wondering about the above ground or near surface infrastructure such as pipelines and roads.
Can the pipelines be salvaged for scrap? Are the roads constructed to standards such that they might be useful later?
Are large flat spots frequently graded off in hilly ground to to make level spots for compressor stations?
Will it be necessary to eventually remove hundreds or thousands of tons of concrete to reclaim the forest and farmland used for drilling pads?
mac -- typically a poor move to dig up a pipeline: labor costs can exceed scrap value. Also, there are two types of pipelines: regional sales lines and field lines. The field lines tend to be small and only run from the well to the processing system. Regional transport lines have long term value. Also two types of compressore stations: well site for just a well or two and they go away when the well is depelted. And then there may be compressore stations of the regional gathering pipelines. They stay there for the life of that pipeline.
thanks Rockman.
Now as a person who knows only what I learn here, plus what I read in an occasional newspaper article, about the costs and revenue of shale gas, it seems obvious there are a hell of a lot of people who don't understand the dollars and cents of shale gas.
The problem for me is to decide which group has its head up its collective butt.
Maybe the drillers/players are wrong and prices will stay low over the long term. If so, they must eventually eat their losses and get out.It is hard to believe that so many supposedly savvy people are investing so much money in shale gas, unless (one) the development costs are substantially less than they are reported to be.I don't think thus can be so, as there are simply too many people involved to keep such a thing secret ; OR (two) the price of gas is virtually certain to rise sharply before too long, assuming of course that the economy simply doesn't roll over and die.
If the people who are selling the public on cheap natural gas for the long term are wrong, it wouldn't be the first time, and they for the most part have the incentive to fool themselves and their audience too;a continued recovery, if there is one, obviously depends on cheap gas to a substantial extent.
I conclude that the people touting cheap gas are either fools who believe their own own sales pitch, or cynics, hypocrites , and liars;and my guess is that while some of them are simply fools, the majority ARE liars, or perhaps more charitably, unwitting mouthpieces for better informed liars a little farther up the pecking order.
I haven't been into my stash of fermented apple juice , and I can't see any flaw in my argument, other than that the supply of importable conventional gas might be large enough, and cheap enough, to keep domestic prices down.
Somebody set me straight if I am out in left field , but but it looks as if gas prices are going to go up sharply before too long unless the economy continues to contract.
mac -- And don't forget the pressure on public companies to keep Wall Street happy by replacing reserves. It is a tremendous pressure: been there and had it beaten into more times than I care to remember. I've seen wells drilled that were certain to lose money in the long run but were drilled because it got the "booked reserves" numbers where Wall Street demanded. That's how the SG plays turned into such a trap for those public companies - Wall Street: replace your rapidly depleting previous SG wells or we'll trash your stock. It is never a subtle or false threat. So companies take the chance that prices will rebound fast enough to make the wells truly profitable. But the BIG problem remains: the wells decline so fast that even if NG prices jump 2 or 3 years after a well is drilled most of the reserves have already been sold at the lower prices.
I'm from California and we don't have Wall st types, we call them VCs. My experience is that they are young MBA with excel experience and not much else. The retired successful business guys call them "punks", that are not worth doing business with.
Better to get money from strategic partners if you want to create a long term business. Perhaps these shale gas guys are just like the "punks". Get in and get out quick before people realize there is no sustainable business here.
Good thinking, Mac. How about a third possibility? Call it the Wall Street, Credit-Derivative Swap Model. I put together the package, drill the wells (Marcellus, Baaken, wherever) and sell the stock. I take my salary, commissions and bonuses off the top. If the price goes up, I make more money. If the prices go down, the venture eventually crashes, I walk away with my up-front loot and the investors lose their shirts ...as Realist implies.
So it’s great if prices rise and I make even more. But if it loses, “Gee, I’m really sorry. Saint Market is so unpredictable.” But either way I’m not going to lose. So why not drill it?
Regards. Always enjoy your perspective.
Cap'n Daddy
Hi Cap'n,
Getting back a response from people like you, Realist, and Rockman makes my day!
Bouncing my thoughts of you guys puts an edge on them that they would otherwise lack.You, and all the other regulars, are shining a spotlight onto and into the blind spots in my thinking.
There is little doubt in my mind that I have learned more, and more important, lessons here in the last year than I could have learned in business school or even in an MBA program.
I just got off the phone with a very bright young lady who is the daughter of a friend and just happened to answer his phone.She is majoring in business, will graduate soon, and has taken a number of econ courses.
So I took the opportunity to bs a little with her.She has no doubt natural resource prices have nowhere to go but up if the economy revives;she does not believe in peak oil, except as an intellectual exercise;has no conception of the necessity of oil companies, or gas companies, developing cruddy fields in order to book reserves as outlined by Rockman;would agree with you and Realist, for the most part;has a lot of faith in spreadsheets and business modeling and the value of an MBA;and costs her Daddy about forty of fifty thousand bucks total per academic year, as she attends a supposedly elite private school..
My conclusion is that as far as understanding what is going on in the world is concerned, she would be much better off if she had spent the last year exhaustively studying TOD.
Things are changing too fast for us too grasp the realities;our own prejudices and deep seated beliefs are keeping us from seeing clearly what is going on.I also spent an hour talking over the recent bank bailouts,etc, with a VERY INTELLIGENT and perceptive business man who is best described as a conservative realist.
He is kicking himself for not buying bank stocks at the bottom; but he estimated the risks as high enough to make the investments even at those prices out of the question.
What he is kicking himself over is his failure to realize that the bailout was , given our current political climate, INEVITABLE.He simply did not believe the govt of the US was so corrupt as to make the bankers whole at the taxpayers expense, or to put the finances of the UAW ahead of the recorded liens held by Govt Motors creditors.
In other words he actually believed in the rule of law.
He cannot bring himself to talk about the OBama administration being staffed with former bankers at the highest levels- who should by any ordinary reckoning be very worried indeed about criminal investigations of their recent activities - without losing his temper.
He has concluded that the writing is on the wall, and that the financial shenanigans of the past decade, combined with the sorry state of our leadership, are in and of themselves enough to bring down the economy-permanently, or for the next decade at least.
a mad dog republican ?
Mainly just mad, but a republican of sorts, kind of Rockerfellerish attitude without the money. He made his own, with his hands, rather than in the stock market.
In reply to 'oldfarmermac':
It's clear that no one really KNOWS for certain what is going to happen with NG prices (or any free-market price)? So, is anyone telling flat-out lies? You can't lie about something that's both in the future, and outside of your control. No doubt there are liars in every human enterprise, but they are NOT lying about future price levels. Is a failed prediction a lie? I think not. I would just say that the experienced players may have (or think they have) a better feel for these things than those around them, and based on this they often like to gamble.
And the idea that the people "at the top" already know the future of a large market, is slightly insane. Even if they know about a huge scam that's about to unfold, it can always fail, or be exposed or even produce the opposite result in the market. Executives may know the future actions of their own company, and maybe even another company, but not entire national or global markets.
Hi Josserand,
I believe it is clear that some of the bankers were telling what are essentially flat out lies and committing fraud when they were selling their customers derivatives with one hand while shorting them with the other.
And while it is true that nobody has any absolutely reliable way of predicting the future, the big boys have inside information you and I don't.And it seems quite obvious that they frequently believe one thing, but say another for public comsumption;this is lying in my book.
If you believe the stock market is going to do poorly, but mislead your customer into thinking you believe otherwise,this is lying, morally if not technically.
A failed prediction is a lie if it is made in bad faith.
Hi Mac,
I'll add to your good points.
Bankers who commit acts which are currently deemed legal because no one expected such unethical behavior in advance, but laws are later passed making those acts illegal, are just as guilty before the law was passed as when they break it after. To continue a society where we have to constantly pass new laws to keep up with the continuous immoral conduct of bankers is madness.
We are losing the race and the consequences are dire.
Medical doctors have a simple code of conduct which is easily understood. Why not require the same of bankers?
it took manzoni only a few years to take this built by buckee company to a run of the mill shale gas hyp-ster, imo.
is this what a company run by a cheney deciple and former refiner looks like ? sadly, yes,imo.
Estimating that some Marc. wells will produce 30+ years doesn't take a geology degree. That's not uncommon in many of the SG plays. BUT what type of production do you get those last 25 years or so? Very little. I've seen New Albany SG wells still producing after 40 years. But only flowing 15 mcf/day for the last 30+ years. Less royalty and ops costs those wells are probably netting around $15 to $20 per day.
Estimating that some Marc. wells will produce 30+ years doesn't take a geology degree. That's not uncommon in many of the SG plays. BUT what type of production do you get those last 25 years or so? Very little. I've seen New Albany SG wells still producing after 40 years. But only flowing 15 mcf/day for the last 30+ years. Less royalty and ops costs those wells are probably netting around $15 to $20 per day.
is there any reason to believe that single stage frac'ed vertical sg wells will provide a performance analog to multi-stage frac'ed long lateral sg wells ?
That's a tough question elwood. If you're in a play where natural fractures are critical for profit then a hz well is all the more important. If the shale is deep then a hz well could be important (less vert. footage to drill for multiple wells). But if it's shallow and you are only going to produce from the frac job then single vert wells might make more sense.
Rockman,
Excellent point. These guys are clever with words. 30 years of 15mcf/day is different from 30 years at 250,000mcf/day.
Curious George,
If you read the fine print in the 2009 Talisman Energy Annual Report, they declare that the estimates are based on "estimate" NOT production history. No need to worry about law suits if they can manage to sell this "sure fire gold mine" to some unsuspecting investor.
Do you think anyone will release 2-3 years of production data from the same well?
The article says "some speak of the havoc wrought on local watersheds" as if it is going to answer that point but never does. The damage gas seeking in these last undeveloped places of open-space in America does is well-documented. The article then shows pictures of highly intrusive gas infrastructure development in rural places. What I don't understand is if we encourage more growth and sprawl by feeding it this way aren't we just setting up for a bigger collapse when it runs out? Or are these things solely decided on the basis of rank politics and what can be grabbed in the short term? Are there even any studies done on fracturing underground rock?
In answer to your last question ,yes.
ProPublica has over sixty articles here:
http://www.propublica.org/series/buried-secrets-gas-drillings-environmen...
From the Talisman 2009 annual report:
Looks like they are making a big bet on shale. Let's check back in a year and see how things are going.
From the Talisman 2009 annual report:
Looks like they are making a big bet on shale. Let's check back in a year and see how things are going.
250 mmccf/d = 25m BTU/day @$4 per mmBTU = $100m per day or $36B in 2011. Even if they can do this for one month they will pay off the capital expense.
Do I have my math correct?
Rereading that sentence, it looks like the $1.6B is just for the land rights. Drilling expenses are on top of that.
realist -- probably. I'm having trouble understanding your abreviations: m = 1 million or 1 thousand? An "m" in the oil patch doesn't mean 1 million. In the oil patch 1 mcf = 1 thousand cubic feet. About the same as 1 BTU. So 250 mmcf/d is 250,000 mcf/day. So at $4/mcf that's around $1 million per day. So to generate $100 million/day you'le need net production of 25,000,000 mcf. Or 25,000 mmcf (25,000 million cubic feet)
I know you know this Rockman, but for the uninitiated 1mcf NG = 1 mmBTU. Just clarifying.
Thanks greg...even we old farts slip some times.
250mmcfd=250k mcfd@$4=$1,000,000*365=$365,000,000 need to knock off one qtr or more for royalty and subtract op costs and taxes.
Then get net investment to calculate: PO, ROR or NPV.
Ah, that makes more sense. I'm used to k meaning one thousand and m meaning one million.
I was reading that Chesapeake Energy is spending 2x to 10x more on drilling than land acquisition. So Talisman is going to have to invest quite a bit to turn that land into gas. Perhaps they are hoping to sell off some of the rights and try to make a quick buck.
More real estate speculation anyone?
Lots of companies from here and abroad are making a big bet on shale gas. These include BP and Devon who just sold all for their deep water stuff to BP.
talisman recently acquired about $ 0.5 b in eagle ford properties. cant find the link just now.
edit:make that $ 359 m from common resources,llc. this from businesswire.com
Great post. To get a visual, you can view how horizontals or laterals are laid out using this interactive map for the Barnett Shale. Too bad this does not exist for the Marcellus...
http://www.barnettshaledata.com/
Click on the layers in the legend to the right.
I like in Harrisburg, PA, which is on the edge of all this Marcellus shale business. Several people I have spoken to who live in the northern and western parts of the state say that they have direct experience with polluted water sources as a direct result of hydrofracking. My concern isn't whether the wells will ever be profitable. My concern is with the health of our planet. Why doesn't anyone talk about conservation? We can't drink dirty water, we can't eat polluted food, we can't breath contaminated air. All this drilling and extracting is done for US, the consumer. If we stop consuming, they will stop drilling.
Who speaks for the plants and animals and insects in this endeavor?
This confuses me more than anything. How is hydrofracking 5000-6000feet into the ground contaminate the water table at much shallower depths (what is it, 1000-2000 feet down)?
lunzie -- I made this point some time ago. Don't worry about frac'ing messing up the water. A casing rupture can happen but is not common. What you and other folks want to watch closely is how they get rid of the fluids produced back from the wells after the frac job. That can be very nasty stuff. Don't get distracted by those rows of big noisy frac trucks. It's those small unassuming tank trucks running down the road at night ("midnight runs" -- another way of describing illegal dumping) that could foul your water. Several months ago I caught a story about some land owner in PA that cut a deal with some disposal company to dump NY toxic frac discharges into a small lake he had on his property. The disposal business is big bucks and is run by a completely different set of companies then the oil operators. And the oil operators are happy to not worry about disposal once they give it to a disposal company.
This is a big problem in the Barnett Shale. Devon or Chesapeake (can't remember which) has built a facility where they can clean the water they produce such that it meets or exceeds the standards for drinking water. Problem is it takes quite a while to filter the water and it doesn't come close the handling the volume produced. Maybe there is a business to charge producers to clean up the water that comes back when their wells are produced after fracing??
I've also been hearing that diesel fuel that is used in fracing has polluted some places in the Barnett. I didn't know diesel was used in fracing or maybe it is a component of "oil based mud" I'm hearing talked about on the DW Horizon thread and the press has it screwed up.
Wastewater treatment...I hear it is quite energy intensive. Wonder how this might affect the EROI of shale gas?
"the fracking procedures are reeking havoc on local watersheds"
I'm sorry, sometimes I just can't help myself. The correct term is "wreaking havoc".
From the term "To Wreak " - To inflict or execute, especially in vengeance or passion; to hurl or drive; as, to wreak vengeance on an enemy; to wreak havoc. [1913 Webster]
Re:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36630980/ns/us_news-environment/page/1/
You fossil fuel fanatics have your heads up your butts; heads that enclose a true and perfect vacuum.
I live on a patch of paradise in southern PA. It is nestled in an old growth forest thick with life. The sun dapples my lawn though the gentle shade of hichory leaves in the easy caresses by the kindly breeze; a good place to live the plain life.
The Pennsylvania Dutch carved my plot from the wilderness before the englisher George Washington was a glint in his father’s eye. All was fine and easy on the old homestead until the EPA sent me an easement. The nervy numb nuts want to install a high capacity water extraction well placed at the bottom of the water table under my property. Its purpose is to purge the water table 24/7/365 under my place to relieve contaminated water seepage into a nearby stream.
I told the EPA that their well would drain my small well dry leaving me trusty without a water supply.
Their response: too bad! If I don’t comply with the easement, they will condemn my place with a property value commensurate to a superfund site.
My people have been here since this place was called Goshenhoppen. They made cannon balls for the revolution down by the creek. The hickory made the coke for the forges; such a long time we been here. Can it now be over?
The rain that falls gently on my lawn finds it way to the water table and the creek in its slow way feeds the flow of the Delaware. It is now tainted and unfit to drink.
My idyllic and rural lifestyle...a plain life...and my happiness are forfeit so that people like you can enjoy cheap heat and electric power derived from gas (and those idiotic wind mills that gas makes possible). My place is forfeit to sustain your decadent and profligate lifestyle; a lifestyle that is gradually killing our world. You resist nuclear power that has shown over many years to have harmed no one and is a true friend to all. The legacy of fossil fuel extraction and usage is laying waste far and wide across the land as you sit comfortably in your homes enjoying its benefits but not its true costs. People like me pay your share.
But your time will come. I am comforted by the fact that in the due course of time you will get yours; stupidity will eventually reap its tragic harvest; justice be done; yes truly, your time will surly come.
Last ausgang off the autobahn?
When I lived in NYC I used to go to Dutch Springs and dive the quarry, nice part of the world.
Air of superiority much? It's great to walk the walk, but "idiotic windmills," really, while calling that money hole called "nuclear power" a "true friend to all?" If you care so much about water, you might want to dig just a touch deeper in this area.
There are people who have been on this continent a lot longer than "your people" too, I might add. And some of their water got fracked up by your lovely nuclear industry, too.
Thank you for this article!
Thanks for this article. Europe appears to be the next frontier for shale gas E&P companies and for investors. European politicians are hoping that shale gas will provide increased energy security and reduced dependence on Russian sources of energy. As the first wells are drilled this year, it will be interesting to see the outcome and impact of shale gas in Europe.