

New Boom Reshapes Oil World, Rocks North Dakota - cellis
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/25/140784004/new-boom-reshapes-oil-world-rocks-north-dakota

======
justsee
Is there any other energy-extraction process so mind-numbingly primitive and
destructive? After doing a little research on fracking recently I honestly
can't think of any.

Pumping millions of gallons of chemical-laced water under high pressure to
fracture geological formations and extract gas is akin to fishing with
dynamite, but the long-term environmental implications are far, far worse.

Because once the underground aquifers which form part of the groundwater table
are disrupted / damaged they can't be fixed. The water table becomes
contaminated with fracking chemicals and the gas the process is meant to
extract. What does contamination of a region's water table look like over
generations?

Apart from the risk to fresh water, there's also (unsurprisingly) concern over
geological instability from the process. A few months ago a fracking company
operating in the UK (Cuadrilla Resources) was forced to stop after two mini-
earthquakes were linked to their activities:
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jun/01/blackpool-
earthquak...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jun/01/blackpool-earthquake-
tremors-gas-drilling)

In France the practice is banned, and in Australia a national coalition of
farmers, scientists, environmental and community groups (
<http://lockthegate.org.au/> ) has formed to oppose the spread of gas wells
through prime agricultural land.

The big story with fracking is the long-term economic downside. So it's
disappointing that the NPR article almost solely focuses on the short-term
economic upside.

~~~
jpetrosky
First thing, I like the false comparisons. They really add to your point. It
also goes to drive home that point you made in the second sentence, you know,
a little research.

Now, hydraulic fracturing may be primitive sounding. But compared to what?
Most modern oil and gas recovery is startlingly similar. Drilling muds
frequently cause some hydraulic fracture because you cannot balance all
borehole pressures along the entire length of a borehole simultaneously with a
single drilling mud weight. Granted these muds contain a different set of
chemicals than what is used for purposefully fracturing horizontal wells.

Which brings up another point which even a 'little' research should have lead
you to realize. The depths where these wells are drilled are well below
drinking water aquifers. In fact, all pore fluids at these depths are quite
concentrated brines. You're looking at 1 km + below ground surface. There is a
density barrier between these brines and the fresh, drinking water aquifers
which we frequently use for tap water and farming. At the flow rates you are
dealing with (cm/day to cm/year) no mixing can really take place due to the
extremely low Reynold's numbers. I won't say that contamination cannot
migrate, since I cannot know that, only that it is exceedingly unlikely.

Furthermore, if fluids could flow freely in these formations, would we need to
fracture them at all? The answer is obviously no. That would be what is known
as a conventional reservoir. Hydraulic fracturing generally takes place in gas
shales. These have hydraulic conductivities on the order of 10^-12 cm/s.
Unless the fracture reaches a more conductive body, that fluid isn't going
anywhere.

Would the fluid reach a more conductive body? Its possible. It would be
undesirable, since you would lose any production from that particular well.
Chances are any loses would be trapped by a different aquitard (a layer with
very low hydraulic conductivity). Hydraulic fractures tend to deflect when
they reach such a phase interface, though. The stresses tend to not be the
same on both sides of the interface. A useful analogy would be activation
energy in chemistry.

The gas itself is methane. Methane is produced in the subsurface naturally
(which is why its called natural gas). It is concievable that greater amounts
might be present in the subsurface due to hydraulic fracturing of gas shales,
but this would be undesirable for everyone involved since that gas would be
lost from production. Which isn't to say that leaks cannot happen, but I am
aware of no such cases (and yes, I looked, this is my area of study).

As for earthquakes, you have to first understand what causes earthquakes.
Earthquakes are caused when the crust of the earth yields. This means that the
stresses become greater than the rock's ability to withstand them. Hydraulic
fracture also yields rock. There was research done in California to determine
if such yielding could be used to control stresses on the San Andreas fault.
It came to nothing because, presently, we are not able to drill deep enough
and pump enough fluid to reduce effective stresses to sufficient levels to
induce controlled yield. Furthermore, any deep mining city experiences rock
bursts. These are also caused when stresses in the rock lead to yield. These
feel like small earthquakes, and are picked up on seismographs just like
earthquakes, but they cause no damage.

I do believe we need to better understand what goes on during hydraulic
fracture. It is exceedingly complex. It is not, however, akin to fishing with
dynamite. Open pit mining may be a fair comparison to that, although even
there your analogy falls short. I am glad you have an interest in this field,
however. It is an important one with a lot of potential. Further study on your
part may not change your mind, but will help you make sounder arguments.

Good Luck

~~~
powertower
Be warned...

The above account was created 3 hours ago and is most likely to be from a
public relations org for the gas/oil industry.

On another note, if you turn on your TV you'll notice this industry is
spending a considerable amount of money right now on commercials, trying to
prove to the US public that fracking is the new green. And giving ad money to
CNN, Fox, etc, virtually guarantees the buyer that no news that makes them
look bad will ever be shown.

~~~
pg
Actually he seems legit.

~~~
ceejayoz
Surely a PR agency would try to make astroturf posts "seem legit"?

------
protomyth
It is a little unreal driving in western ND. The roads are full of trucks
(worse traffic than the last time I was in Chicago). McDonalds is starting at
$15/hr, Wal-Mart cannot hire enough people to stock the shelves, and rent on a
one bedroom is around $2100 if you can get it. Counties are now trying to
figure out what to do about sewage treatment, and the projects in Devils Lake
ND (eastern ND) to mitigate the flooding are slowed by years because of lack
of trucks to hire.

The amount of oil being produced is expected to double on the conservative
estimate and it looks like ND will go from #4 to #2 state in the next year.

------
to3m
"Two years ago, America was importing about two thirds of its oil. Today,
according to the Energy Information Administration, it imports less than
half."

This theory does not appear to be borne out by the figures - the interested
reader is invited to consult this week's EIA petroleum balance sheet:

[http://205.254.135.24/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publication...](http://205.254.135.24/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/weekly_petroleum_status_report/current/pdf/table1.pdf)

Domestic production is about 10% higher than in 2007, but rows 14, 4 and 1 in
the Petroleum Supply table nevertheless suggest that America continues to
import roughly two thirds (or maybe it is more like ten twenty-sevenths?) of
the oil used.

~~~
WildUtah
You need to add in the Natural Gas Liquids (oil that is dissolved in hot
natural gas and liquifies on cooling) and other fuels from lines 15-20.

America is burning about 18 million barrels per day (mbpd), down from about 21
mbpd in 2005-2006, and producing about 9 mbpd with conventional oil production
declining (even including North Dakota's Bakken) and off-shore and deep off-
shore compensating.

America is one of the world's largest producers with Russia and Saudi Arabia
also in the 9 mbpd range. Together the top three account for almost a third of
world capacity. The next largest producers are significantly smaller. Of
course, Russia and Saudi Arabia are exporters.

America's per capita usage and per dollar of income usage is absurdly high
compared to the rest of the world. If America wants to invest in efficiency,
it could be a net exporter again with current technology and a 10-20 year
investment in more efficient machines and better quality infrastructure.
Unfortunately, American government seems to have chosen to drive head-on at
100mph into a worldwide peak production crisis.

~~~
jey
> America is burning about 18 million barrels per day (mbpd), down from about
> 21 mbpd in 2005-2006

Interesting. What accounts for the decline?

~~~
chicagobob
cash for clunkers got a statistically signification number of poor milage cars
off the road, that also helped with our nations oil consumption.

~~~
ars
But caused a significantly greater demand for energy to make new cars.

If it was worth it to trade your guzzler for a new car people would do it on
their own without incentives. But a new car uses more energy than it saves for
many many years. It's only worth it when the old car dies.

~~~
cellularmitosis
I have a hard time believing this. Let's take an environmentally attractive
car, like the TDi Jetta. How many barrel-of-oil equivalents would you estimate
it takes to produce a car like this, in mass quantity?

~~~
ars
About 200 to 300 barrel of oil. Or about 20 - depending on who you ask.

Basically how far down and across the manufacturing chain do you count the
energy. Most places use the second number since it's direct energy for that
car. I prefer the first since it also includes things like overhead for the
sales team, the engineering, building the manufacturing plant and everything
else it takes to actually make a car.

~~~
cellularmitosis
Whoa. For reference, 300 barrels of at today's prices is over $24k.

------
tryitnow
Remember the choice isn't between dirty oil/gas and a wonderful future of
clean/green fuel and no damage to the environment. Transitioning to
alternative energy sources is incredibly expensive - it will be a major drain
on the economy to do so because alt fuels are still struggling to hit grid
parity and we still don't have a serious way to reduce oil consumption for
gasoline.

So the choice is really between 1) Oil and gas extraction using new
technologies with all the attendant risks (and there many) 2) Forget the new
technologies and continue to rely more and more on unstable oppressive regimes
(Middle East, Russia, etc) 3) Take a major hit to economic growth and
aggressively push alternative fuels.

I would recommend (1). Option (2) leads to greater geopolitical instability
and very significant long-term risks. Option (3) will undermine economic
growth at a time when there is consensus that growth is a priority.

Obviously, this is grossly simplified, but my general point is that we have a
limited option set and in truth, none are very attractive. Three rotten
apples, we're starving and we must eat one, let's pick the least rotten one.

------
LargeWu
I'm concerned what will happen when they run out of wells to drill. The area
has seen an oil boom before, but nothing like this. 5 years ago the town of
Stanley had about 1,500 residents. Today it has over 10,000, many of those in
temporary housing. Williston has put a moratorium on any further expansion
because they simply can't handle any more people.

There's a lot of jobs and money around, but it's a mixed blessing for sure.
When the oil dries up, and it will someday, a lot of these towns are going to
get hit really hard.

~~~
protomyth
People will move on and hopefully the cities will bank the money. Farming will
go back to its #1 position. If they conserve their cash, the towns will be
fine. If they spend like a drunken sailor, or worse, borrow heavy, then there
will be problems.

~~~
_delirium
I'm not sure the towns will be fine even if they conserve their cash. When the
oil jobs decline, there will be no reason for that many people to live there,
so the population will likely decline precipitously (as with any boom town),
which tends to produce social problems and a general feeling of malaise (not
to mention abandoned buildings).

~~~
protomyth
It's the second time around for most of these towns and there is another
industry. A lot of the people will move on, but I think the folks in that area
are pretty resilient.

That all said, it will probably be a number of years before it goes away.

------
ojbyrne
Enjoyed the article, I couldn't help be reminded that the same thing (but at
10x scale) has been going on in Canada (the tar sands) for at least a decade.

------
baltcode
Does anybody know of jobs for computational scientists, programmers, and
techies in these industries for people over here who wouldn't mind moving to
ND for a few years?

~~~
rdouble
No. I live near Grand Forks and ND is definitely not a hot spot for
programmers. Fargo always has jobs for people skilled with Microsoft tech as
Great Plains was started there and turned into a Microsoft campus. There are
scattered embedded systems and IT style jobs throughout the state. I've never
seen anything advertised out by Williston. Outside of Fargo, the pay for
programming jobs is very low, even by North Dakotan standards.

~~~
baltcode
I guess they would use some embedded systems/instrumentation stuff to run the
equipment.

------
hardik
I am surprised there is no mention of environmental impact of fracking and
that some countries are planning to ban it.

~~~
josefresco
In the comments a user mentioned the documentary that covers this _impact_
called Gasland: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasland>

I recommend it higly to my fellow HNers.

------
Joakal
Huge list of resources by 4 Corners on Fracking related to Australia.
<http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2011/s3144681.htm>

