Some speculative binary thinking on shale plays and frac contamination of water supplies

Hi folks,

I am just throwing this out there, because I don't see many discussions of this sort about the whole "does hydraulic fracturing contaminate water supplies?" quandry.  These thoughts were stimulated by reading the article that starts "Fracking practice for natural gas" under the HS news sidebar.  I know there are (presumably) good studies showing it is basically not a problem, at least where the studies were done.  But there is a fairly continual whine coming from the NE of the US, and it is true, I believe, that 1) the shale is shallower there, 2) there is a history of natural contamination of groundwater with hydrocarbons in the area.  Therefore, one might conceivably conclude that there may be places up there where the hydrocarbon sources and water sources do comingle to some extent, and it is possible that fracking could impact the water supply.  Perhaps the major objections will be overcome with methods where there is less in the way of toxic materials in the frac fluid, but in general folks are probably not going to be wild about hydrocarbons in their water unless you also give them a good separation method...  At any rate, it could be perfectly safe to go after the HS with wild enthusiasm, due to the depth and geology, while more caution would be required in some other plays.  It seems to me that the "net impact" of this is twofold:  1) yes, the total shale resource across the US either drops or costs more to develop due to additional measures being required, but 2) the value of areas like the HS increases, because these problems don't exist.  I am reasonably objective on this; I have some HS holdings, but I own a lot more land near the Fayetteville Shale, which I believe is a pretty darn shallow formation...  Anyway, just a thought - the answer to this question could well be "depends on where you are", I would think.

Views: 221

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Robert Duke on November 30, 2010 at 19:55
Yes, I guess this was sort of the point I was hoping to bring out - whether they are credible or not, the complaints in the Marcellus have to be addressed and effectively discredited or otherwise resolved if there is any basis for a problem that is location-specific (I am saying locale-specific problems are a logical possibility, not a proven fact). Only when that is done will the uproar subside; otherwise, the "problems" up there, either imagined or real, will be used as an indictment of fracking everywhere. When I was in North Carolina and Gasland came out, I spent a month getting grilled by everybody I knew about the hazzards of fracking, so once you get to the coasts, all this criticism tends to play pretty well, be that logical or not.
Permalink Reply by sesport on December 1, 2010 at 0:02
Here's a presentation by Dr. Hanson from a little over a year ago.

http://www.landman.org/WCM/Documents/Hanson,%20Gary%20-%20Developme...

Note that there are differences in the recommended approaches to fracking Marcellus vs. Haynesville Shale.

80)
Permalink Reply by Robert Duke on December 1, 2010 at 8:11
Wow, interesting doc. Is there a bibliography somewhere for his sources? (or did I just miss it paging through...). I loved the specs on water usage for corn ethanol and biodiesel!
Permalink Reply by sesport on December 1, 2010 at 18:58
Are you referring to the slide at the bottom of page 10? I believe the citation is embedded at the bottom of that slide. Most PP presentations have citations the slides where appropriate. Sometimes the presenter provides a hard copy hand-out that includes a bibliography. If I run across one online for this presentation, I'll post it.

80)
Permalink Reply by Robert Duke on December 1, 2010 at 19:07
Hi Sesport,
I was referring to the Buller 2009 and Ewing 2009 refs on a bunch of the slides. There are also "Halliburton" refs - I presume from some company presentation. Slide 10 I have access to original info, since I am a AAAS member (publisher of the journal Science and various online content).
Permalink Reply by Mike Myera on December 1, 2010 at 7:53
Permalink Reply by Tom Hough on December 2, 2010 at 10:41
While Drake was the first to drill specifically for petroleum he was not the first to hit oil while drilling. Water well drillers were finding oil in shallow formations either comingled with water or very close to the water formation. That is why Drake chose the part of Pennsylvania he did for the first well.

RSS

Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com

Top Content 

1 Monster’ Gas: Aethon’s 16,000-foot Dive in Haynesville West

Monster’ Gas: Aethon’s 16,000-foot Dive in Haynesville West
2 Texas Standard article - Potential lithium boom simmers in East Texas

Texas Standard article - Potential lithium boom simmers in East Texas
3 Associated gas boom hurting gas-focused producers

Associated gas boom hurting gas-focused producers
4 U.S. natural gas trade will continue to grow with the startup of new LNG export projects

U.S. natural gas trade will continue to grow with the startup of new LNG export projects
5 Could a US lithium glut develop in the near future?

Could a US lithium glut develop in the near future?
6 Update: Companies Withdraw Plan to Set Arkansas Lithium Royalties

Update: Companies Withdraw Plan to Set Arkansas Lithium Royalties

Not a member? Get our email.

Groups



© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service