The Forestry Forum

t boones pickens is making the media rounds 3 years into the pickens plan

OK I'll bite  ;D What's the Pickens Plan  ???
jim

A lot of it has to do with switching vehicles to natural gas. Its actually a good idea. Slight problem though; T Boon Pickens is heavily invested in natural gas. A whole lot of conflict of interest. Seems to me there was something about wind energy too.

Pickens was a little quick out of the gate. He didn't realize we'd have the collapse in the economy we did and then an Administration that's anti- natural gas and oil. The fact is though, Natural Gas is coming to a town near you on the automotive side. It's already here. We have several stations in the area. I took these pictures a few weeks ago at a station in town. Look at the prices and then compare it to what you're paying for Unleaded. The Flying J truckstops are putting in CNG pumps coast to coast. There will be stations in every one of the lower 48 states.  :) Chesapeake energy just made a big investment in the process as well. $150 Million I believe. I'll have to pull the article up again.

Here are the prices:

(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/13926/CNG_prices_June_9%2C2011.jpg)

Here's what the pumps look like:

(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/13926/CNG_pump.jpg)

Here's what the fill nozzle looks like. Notice the 3600 psi.
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/13926/CNG_pump_nozzle.jpg)

Here you can see the price and how it's sold. PPGE = Price Per Gallon Equivalent.

(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/13926/ppgge.jpg)

Saudi Arabia just spent something like $180 Billion to begin switching their entire economy over to Nat Gas. Now, why would the country who is sitting on 250 Billion barrels of oil reserves decide to do that at this particular moment in time? Why would the majors in the USA be buying up all the Nat Gas reserves they can from smaller independent producers? There's a reason.  ;)

CNG works OK as a vehicle fuel, NZ had a lot of cars running on it a few years back (later 70s, early 80s). But it does have a few down sides. The tanks are heavy for the amount of fuel they hold, and that limits the range between fill ups. And the CNG inherently has less power. Unless the engine is running a turbo and you can adjust the boost, you will notice a drop in power. You can't just adjust the mixture like Ethanol, and get the power back by a bit burning more.

Apart from that, it worked, and the conversion doesn't loose the petrol fuel system, so you can change back with a dashboard switch if you are on a trip away from the filling station. Fuel economy was pretty good at low speed, better than petrol as the fuel is injected as a gas, and mixes properly, even at low revs.

But LPG (propane) is a better option for cars. The tanks aren't high pressure, so they are lighter, and hold a similar fuel equivalent to petrol. LPG conversions are still sold here, but mainly to delivery drivers and taxis, where the high mileage means they save enough to make the cost worthwhile. I think Ford Australia is building cars with dedicated LPG systems from the factory.

Ian

A bit of possibly useful trivia for you. There's a series of chemically related hydrocarbons known as the "parafin hydrcarbons". You'll recognize some of them for sure.

NAME	Mol Wt	Boiling Temp	Density		Liq pressure
		Deg C	g/ml		PSI
Methane	16	-162	0.00072	gas	1000+
Ethane	30	-88	0.0014	gas	600+
Propane	44	-42	0.002	gas	40
Butane	58	-0.6	***	gas	3
Pentane	72	36	.62	liq	N/A
Hexane	86	69	0.66	liq	N/A
Heptane	100	98	0.68	liq	N/A
Octane	114	126	0.70	liq	N/A
Nonane	128	151	0.72	liq	N/A
Decane	142	174	0.73	liq	N/A

Notice how every column follows a trend. Boiling temperature increases, Density increases (and makes a big jump when the gas is normally liquid. Note in particular how the pressure to liquefy the gases drops.

It only takes about 40 PSI to liquefy propane, so a metal tank with relatively thin walls will do the job. And it only takes 3 PSI to liquefy Butane, which is why you can use plastic in a disposable lighter.

Natural gas is made up of Methane and Ethane. It's not worth trying to liquefy it for vehicle use -- the containers would be way too heavy.

These numbers are rounded off. I will see if I can add to the table in the next couple of days.

QuoteI think Ford Australia is building cars with dedicated LPG systems from the factory.

Your right there, back in 2003 we bought 10 Ford utilities that were dedicated LPG. I am no mechanic but opperationally I couldn't tell the difference.

we have a natural gas line in the street and there is a pumping station available for the garage cost about 3000 but only new car is honda for 27000 flea bay has some used fleet vehicles but i was told tanks usualy need to be replaced

There has been a refueling station for years in a small city near me. Farmers have used natural gas on irrigation pumps where its available, also some use propane.

Didn't realize the flying J truck stops were all putting it in. You can bet the big truck lines will be converting. No good reason not to. Guess Detroit is coming out with some cars before long as well.

Yep, check out this company called Westport: http://www.westport.com/

They're a leader in producing Natural Gas engines. Almost all of Chesapeake Energy's fleet of pickup trucks here run on CNG. Our municipalities have changed over and bought buses that run on CNG. Next are the Garbage trucks. They apparently are some of the least efficient users of fuel historically.

Read this article: http://www.chk.com/news/articles/Pages/1583997.aspx

That's the Chesapeake investment article I spoke of earlier. $155 Million investment in the next three years to build out LNG fueling infrastructure along Interstate Highways for Heavy Duty Trucks. Awesome!!! With plans to invest $1 Billion over the next 10 years. I believe Encana is working on something similar. Down here, Encana is also partnered with Shell Oil.

It's coming. T. Boone was a tad early, but it's better to be early to the party than late. Might take a strong stomach depending on the timing but the case for Natural Gas is certainly there. The Natural Gas play that we're sitting on top of produces more Natural Gas on a daily basis than the Gulf of Mexico. I read that the other day.

The price for CNG I posted above .... CNG was about half that much at 87 cents ppge up in OK around the same time. That's cheap fuel.

I am surprised railroads aren't switching to natural gas. I know they dabbled in it years ago. With the price difference between that and diesel, and their infrastructure, seems like it would be natural to switch over.

One thing I do wonder about though. If in 5 years a lot of over the road trucks are switched along with local route trucks, will the price go up to negate the advantage? Too many variables, not knowing what diesel would be priced at in 5 years. I also don't hear much anymore about that natural gas pipeline from Alaska. They got tremendous reserves up there.

I am pretty ignorant about this stuff.  Thank for the posts and the links.

How do thin-walled propane tanks hold up in vehicular accidents?  For all the fake explosions we see in car crashes on TV, we don't have too many explosions with gas powered vehicles in real life. (Remember the Pinto!)

Yep, railroads have my interest as well. I think it's just a matter of time. Railroads are already a very efficient way to move a lot of freight even using today's diesel engines.

And you're right, with increased demand price will go up on NG. But right now 1 MCF or 1000 cubic feet of NG is the equivalent of almost 8 gallons of diesel. (I think that's what T.Boone said a few weeks back.) So 1 MCF of NG right now costs $4.39+/- and 8 gallons of diesel would cost me $30.00 at $3.75. So $4.39 vs. $30.00 .... there's a ton of room for inflation in NG. The par value of NG to Diesel currently is $35.12/MCF minus the appropriate road tax for your state. Lots of room to run.  :)

But let's say that it was a break even. Par. At least we'd be spending those dollars in America and creating U.S. jobs vs. buying that much more foreign oil and sending our money overseas. That gets us nothing.

I've had the explosion question in my mind as well. I haven't seen a ton of talk about it. I do believe the flash point of NG is substantially higher than unleaded though. I want to say NG is like 1200 degrees and Unleaded maybe 600 for a flash point. I'd have to double check.

thats what it is about keeping fuel dollars in the usa not overseas not perfect but another option

Quote from: LOGDOG on July 14, 2011, 11:55:29 AM
I've had the explosion question in my mind as well. I haven't seen a ton of talk about it. I do believe the flash point of NG is substantially higher than unleaded though. I want to say NG is like 1200 degrees and Unleaded maybe 600 for a flash point. I'd have to double check.

I did not know what the CORRECT/FORMAL definition of Flash Point was, so I Wikipedi it and here is what they say:  The flash point of a volatile liquid is the lowest temperature at which it can vaporize to form an ignitable mixture in air. Measuring a liquid's flash point requires an ignition source. At the flash point, the vapor may cease to burn when the source of ignition is removed.
The flash point is not to be confused with the autoignition temperature, which does not require an ignition source.
The fire point, a higher temperature, is defined as the temperature at which the vapor continues to burn after being ignited. Neither the flash point nor the fire point is related to the temperature of the ignition source or of the burning liquid, which are much higher.
Wiki has the flash point of gasoline as -43 C (-45 F) and the autoignition temperature as 246 C (495 F). The flash point of natural gas is -188 C (-306 F).  It becomes explosive between 5-15%.

I had an idea of them, but I like the fact that they seperated the 3 different type of points: Flash, autoignition and fire point.

BTW - the official number of gallons of diesel fuel per mmBTU (approximately equal to an MCF) is 7.19 gallons (138,960 BTUs per gal)

Bruce

Good stuff Bruce. You left out the autoignition temp on NG though. Do you have that off hand?

I like that they break it down into the three categories as well. It's a more specific way of addressing potential scenarios.

My neighbor works for Centerpoint Energy  and has for the last 30 years. We were discussing some of this the other day. He's actually done quite a few conversions with success.

Even at 7.41 to 1 it looks good next to Diesel. Adjust the above numbers by 6/10 of a percent.  ;)

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-ignition-temperatures-d_171.html

Looks like autoignition temp on NG/Methane is 1076 F .

Couple of things on this .Maybe 20 some years ago there was push to convert service type vehicles to propane .Supposed to be cheaper but as so stated they didn't have the power as with gasoline .

While at one time farm tractors used in the southern part of the US were propane burners but it didn't work so well in the north .During cold weather the regulaters would malfunction .

Now they may have remedied that situation but so far you don't see many propane equipted service trucks in this area  because of the problems of the past . What you do see is propane fork trucks and like vehicles that are used for in plant industrial usage .Almost nothing is use on the outside .

Now Pickens and his gas evidently failed to mention that the natural gas consortium also has had so called "shortages " in the past .Weather the were man made or true noone is fessing up to . Kinda like OPEC with different players in my opinion .

Al ... when were the shortages? Prior to 2008 I'm guessing when every Natural Gas Shale play in the world came out of the woodworks? We've got hundreds of years worth with just what we have in the USA.

I also wanted to mention that there are NG reserves that are currently not being tapped because they're not economical to drill. They require NG to be at maybe $7-$10/mcf. So as the price goes up more supply will come on line because it will make sense then.  :)

Quote from: LOGDOG on July 14, 2011, 01:57:43 PM
I also wanted to mention that there are NG reserves that are currently not being tapped because they're not economical to drill. They require NG to be at maybe $7-$10/mcf. So as the price goes up more supply will come on line because it will make sense then.  :)

I just reading a piece yesterday that stated there is about 450 TCF of recoverable gas that this time.  But if prices were to increase to about $8.00/MCF the number goes to about 705 TCF.  And As I have said before, all these numbers do not include the methane hydrates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate) located all over the place.

BTW - Your comment about your neighbor working for CenterPoint Energy, reminded me I needed to call one of my POCs that CenterPoint Enrgy.  Thanks for the reminder. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

QuoteHow do thin-walled propane tanks hold up in vehicular accidents?  For all the fake explosions we see in car crashes on TV, we don't have too many explosions with gas powered vehicles in real life. (Remember the Pinto!)

The "thin walled" tanks are still 10X stronger than a petrol tank.

Locally some have been in accidents and caught fire. The tanks have "burst disks" that vent the gas if the tank starts cooking, and so only feeds a relatively normal sort of fire. No worse than a leaking petrol tank really.

Yes there is a fire risk, but a normal car is carrying around a similar amount of potentially explosive fuel.

Ian

Quote from: LOGDOG on July 14, 2011, 01:57:43 PM
Al ... when were the shortages? Prior to 2008 I'm guessing when every Natural Gas Shale play in the world came out of the woodworks? We've got hundreds of years worth with just what we have in the USA.

Judging by the age you listed you were just a little fellow in say 1978 .Supposidely gas was in short supply .The powers to be suggested every one turn their home heating to 65 degrees during the day .That was also about the time when woodburners enjoyed somewhat of a rebirth for want of a better word .

Companys came out of the woodwork,Buck Stove ,Earth stove and a hundred others .

Now in say 1987-88 or so after the price was deregulated and the cost per MCF jumped at least 5 fold they all of the sudden had all kinds of gas .Funny how that worked .There seems to be a connection ,doesn't there .

You know the little first home I had in 1971 could be heated for 15 bucks a month .I'd say it would take about 225 now in January . It's doubtfull it uses any more gas though .

Glad I could help out with the reminder Submarinesailor.  :)

Yep Al, I would have been 3 years old. Now I know why my dad kept the thermostat on 65 up in WI in the winter and we burned wood primarily. Used to hate splitting that wood every night after school and wheeling 2-3 wheelbarrow loads in every night. I was skinny so it was a real push for me. I remember my little brother used to hold the wedge and I'd swing. I had the better end of the deal let me tell ya'!  :D I wasn't a real good shot with a splitting mall back then. ....My poor little brother. Wow, that brings back memories.

I hope all or most of the current energy suppliers get locked out and shut out of any new streams of energy.
That would create some competition for your energy dollar.  If the current players harvest the next line of solutions there won't be any relief.  This is probably most unlikely to happen. ::)

Yep, too late. In fact, were it not for them driving advancements in those fields and investing in infrastructure it wouldn't be happening any other way right now.

This is true.

The oil companies are the ones with the cash to invest in different forms of energy.

Of course they are doing it for their own financial reason, not from the kindness of their hearts. But if everyone starts switching to solar panels and battery cars, they want to be the ones selling the panels and the batteries, even if their oil becomes worthless.

It's called free enterprise.  ;) :D

Ian

Oh no doubt it's all coming out of the same pot so to speak . The big boys have a lot of irons in their fires .

T Boone is heavy vested in Clean Energy Fuels stock ticker (CLNE).  (So am I :D)  I have 200 shares is all now I picked up last week, it jumped 4 bucks this week with Chesapeake Energy (CHK) shelling out 150 million this year (10 billion over ten years) to them to build LNG stations (and to use gas from them CHK natural gas that is.)   I dont have any CHK stock anymore sold out a while back.   They CHK has a estimated natural gas reserves to last 100+ years at today's current usage just themselves.  They have more gas holdings than EXXON (XOM) (or did as of a few months back but they CHK did sell a bunch off to CHINA and XOM bought a 5th or 6th place player so I think as of very recent times CHK is now 2nd place for total proven reserves of Nat Gas.   

Anyhow ask a question & I can probably answer about either of these companies as I done a lot of work & invested my own $ into them ...

The CNG stations also are coming to different places all over mostly so far on Interstates with Flying J and near Trash/Muni Bus lines and UPS is also putting in stations at many of the distribution hubs...   

LNG (Propane) is a Oil Process by product so you need to be pulling oil out of the ground and converting it to liquid fuel and you will get methane/propane off as byproducts of the cooking process I believe.   Nat Gas comes out in a mostly 100% usable state as is.   LNG will foul oil pretty bad as it contains a lot of moisture and has no "Lead" MBT to seal up rings when running so you do have long term damage when no additives are used in it.   Most propane does not contain the motor fuel additives to help it and the use in Winter can be a problem as the engine needs to heat up to vaporize the LPG liquid into gas form with a little water to air convertor (forget its name but used to have to fix em on fork trucks) that once the engine warms up it will be able to pull more off the tank & run better.   I'm not sure if this is needed with Nat Gas conversions but I would imagine something similar is needed even though Nat Gas is still gas only at higher pressure and not turned into liquid that I know of...

Mark

Good to have another fan of NG around SPIKER. :)

Actually our own Pineywoods has a good bit of experience on this topic. Maybe when he gets back from the EAA fly in we can have him chime in with his two cents. He and I had talked about starting a thread on this subject. That's actually why I went and took those pictures I posted in this thread.

Submarinesailor ... do you happen to have a link to that piece you were reading about the 450 TCF and 705 TCF of NG? I'd like to have that around for reference in other conversations at my office.

I find it hard to believe that the long haul truckers will ever convert to CNG because you cannot carry enough volume of fuel. Most heavy over the road trucks carry 300 gallons of diesel and from these numbers that would require 37.5 MCF of CNG and compressed to 3600 psi it would take the equivalent of two 2 foot diameter high pressure tanks of 24 feet long each tank. And those are some seriously big, heavy, and expensive tanks.

On the other hand, you could put nozzles on the back of those tanks and light them off when going up hills and get a boost.   ;D

As far as fuel density is concerned, the truckers will burn whatever makes most sense economically.  If it makes more sense to stop every 200 miles and fuel up for 15 min, then that's what they will do.  If it makes more sense to burn liquid vs gas, then that's what they will do.  Same reason why the railroads are not burning CNG in diesel engines, because somewhere the numbers become lopsided.  (I'd guess, here, that it might be in the form of road tax, which railways don't pay on fuel).  It's the same reason why classic coal fired steam doesn't make economic sense, even when coal is far cheaper than CNG, or basically, anything else on a $/BTU basis, save nuclear/hydro & perhaps wind.  If it made sense for railways to electrify, Canadian Pacific Railway has the rights for a bunch of water in the Rockies, and would have done so.  I'm sure they have someone who has done the study to prove at what point it is worth electrifying.  If it made sense for them to invest in building new steam locos, they'd be in on the ground floor.  It doesnt make $$$ sense, on a return on capital basis.

I'm saying that, as someone who works with oil fired steam on a daily basis, and plays with coal fired steam on an as I find time basis.  I know, probably better than most, what the trade offs for running "cheap" fueled vehicles are, and they don't make sense at the current fuel cost vs labour costs. 

Ultimately, both Coal and Oil have fed a huge amount of development of our world, via the reduced input cost of energy they have provided.  If there truely is 100 years of NG reserves in Canada/USA, then that will take us a long way from here.  I'd like to think that we can come up with something over the next 100 years that will take the place of the majority of fossel fuel use, but we're on year 300 or so of burning them, and haven't got much better yet.  I do apprecate driving my van @ 12.1 L/100 km, vs my truck at 25 or so...so, I think we are moving in the right directions.

James

I think it will remain cheaper than gas/diesel as long as it is a second option. If everyone switches over, in a short time it will put a hurt on supply and drive up prices. But, that being said we have to move forward to advance research in other energy options. ;)

QuoteLNG (Propane) is a Oil Process by product so you need to be pulling oil out of the ground and converting it to liquid fuel and you will get methane/propane off as byproducts of the cooking process I believe.   Nat Gas comes out in a mostly 100% usable state as is.

Depends on the actual well.

Some structures produce just gas, others gas / propane, some that + heavier crude oil.

You are probably right that a pure gas well is pretty clean, and any water / CO2 can easily be removed, leaving a clean burning gas.

If a well produces heavier hydrocarbons it will get more technical to separate out, and you tend to get hydrates and all sorts of weird stuff in there. But on the Maui B FPSO they were recovering a gas/lpg/oil mix. On the floating station they used centrifuges to separate gas / oil / water. The water was cleaned up and dumped overboard. The oil went into the tankers storage for later offloading, the the methane thru butane mix went by pipeline to a shore station where the natural gas and lpg were separated and purified.

I'm not a petrochemical engineer, but I did fix computers for them for a while, and on the platforms / FPSO and shore based processing plants. In the "waiting for Windows too..." times you got to look at the maps and diagrams on the wall, and got to work out how the places worked.

Ian

A few thoughts.

I know we have a plentiful supply of natural gas. But what would happen if most trucks and even cars did switch over? Just because you have a 100+ year supply does not mean that you can extract it all at once. That is, you would be replacing a huge amount of fuel on a daily basis. Wonder if anyone has done studies regarding how many could switch with what capacity we have to take it out of the ground.

I think railroads would shy away from coal simply from a  regulation standpoint plus a pr standpoint regarding pollution, plus a water infrastructure problem. There is a set of tracks right behind our mill. Once every year or two, an old steamer comes through. People line up along the tracks to take pictures. You can see it coming from a long ways away. If I am not mistaken,they use fire trucks to replenish the water supply as needed along the way. Its really neat to see, just from a historical perspective.

Natural gas however, would be clean burning. And if volume was a problem, I would think they could always have a car right behind the engine with it, just swap out a mostly empty tank with a full one.

We won't find one magic bullet to end our dependence on foreign oil. I still think algae to oil holds tremendous promise. Plug in electric and/or electric hybrids do so as well. Just wish we had an energy policy in this country committed to putting all the pieces of the puzzle together. We could wipe out 2/3 of our trade deficit if we could.

With trains it's probably more efficient to use electric trains, even if they are powered by a "combined cycle" natural gas power plant.  The efficiency of those is pretty good as they use gas turbines (jet engines) to generate, then put the hot exhaust gas through a heat exchanger, to make steam and generate another 20% more power from the same gas.

Then with a train, it uses power going uphill, but downhill they can use regenerative braking to pump power back into the grid while slowing the train down. Was talking to a local railway engineer and he said they that with a train between Wellington and Auckland, they got 1/2 the power back on the downhill parts of the track. Solves the problem of having to carry the fuel, AND you get much better efficiency. As modern Locos are diesel / electric anyway, you move the generating part off the train, meaning it can have more powerful electric motors, powered from 100s of miles away.

Ian

I think if one were to look at sources of fuel or motive power it would just depend on the area and sources available .Propane might work real well in the southern part of the US might  not be  so good in Indiana ,certainly not on Alaska .

Electric plug ins would be great for short commutes in say Washington DC but not worth a hoot in New Mexico where the nearest town might be 90 miles away .

Low pressure natural gas works just fine to power home standby generaters but would present a problem powering a big semi because they'd have to have about 3 times the engine size and have a pressure  can tanker following them .So it's all in the application  the way I see it .

As far as trains ,portions of the eastern seabord run fully electric trains fed from overhead trolley systems ,works fine .Not so good going across Kansas though .

Steam consumed so much coal and water they had to have three times the work force back in the day just to keep them fueled .Those big steamers would eat up like a ton of coal per mile and use huge amounts of water .The one thing you don't want to do is run a steamer out of water,not good . :o

Besides that they tore up the tracks .When General Motors started selling the diesel electrics they often used the monatary  figure of what the diesel would save in just track maintainance as a selling point over steamers .My friends father was a GM man ,pretty high up too .I got the whole history of the diesel  electrics right from the source over many cans of beer BTW . :D We'd often compair the drive systems of same to the diesel subs I served on . Old Joe is gone now but never forgotten .

Speculation on the subject is interesting for sure. One thing we have to remember though, is that even though "we" may think that it's not viable to use a NG variable for over the road heavy trucks ... the fact is, it's getting ready to happen. You have a company like Westport that's fully prepared to supply the motors and systems for the trucks. You have a companies like Chesapeake spending $155 Million near term and a $1 Billion over the next ten years building infrastructure to support this shift. Add to it companies like the Flying J adding CNG pumps in every state in the lower 48. It's happening. We need to at some point let go of what didn't work years ago, and come to grips with the idea that somewhere along the line, engineers in these companies have addressed some of these concerns right? Surely these companies wouldn't go off half-cocked and spend Billions of dollars pre-maturely without having a viable plan.

You know and I know that we will not see a 100% change over with the snap of a finger. We all drive the cars we drive. Those will need to wear out. The segment of the population that can't afford new technology will drive the older cars until they're flat worn out ...just like they do today. However, there will be those that switch. I'll be one of the first. I'm actually considering it now. I was going to convert my F350 but I've got that 6.0 in there and I'm thinking about just trading it and ordering a new vehicle that's set up for CNG. We's still have the Tahoe as a back up in case we needed to go very far where there wasn't a CNG fueling option for my vehicle.

My point is, it has to start somewhere. If not now, when? Between the U.S. and Canada, we're sitting on a mecca of fuel sources. I'd much rather spend money with our peace loving Canadian neighbors than the hateful dictators of the Middle East. Wouldn't you guys?

News Bulletin:

In this morning's news Petrohawk is bought for $12.1 Billion dollars in cash by BHP BILLITON!!! The stock is up 63.35% overnight to $38.37/share.

See below:
BHP Billiton Ltd. (BHP), the world's largest mining company, agreed to acquire Petrohawk Energy Corp. for $12.1 billion in cash to extend its shale oil production in the U.S.
Melbourne-based BHP will pay Petrohawk $38.75 a share, the two companies said today in a statement. That's 65 percent more than the Houston-based company's closing price on July 14.
The acquisition gives BHP three assets across about one million net acres in Texas and Louisiana. BHP agreed to pay $4.75 billion in cash in February for Chesapeake Energy Corp.'s Arkansas shale gas assets to tap growth in the U.S. gas market, the world's biggest.
"Petrohawk has a focused portfolio of three world class onshore natural gas and liquids rich shale assets," BHP Petroleum Chief Executive J. Michael Yeager said in the statement.
Petrohawk fell 1.8 percent to close yesterday at $23.49 at in New York. BHP fell 0.1 percent to A$43.60 at the 4:10 p.m. close of Sydney trading yesterday.
The purchase would be the largest acquisition of a U.S. exploration and production company since Exxon Mobil Corp. bought XTO Energy Inc. for $34.9 billion in 2009, according to Bloomberg data.

I agree that a lot of vehicles won't change for a long time. But... you take the national chain trucking companies, once the infrastructure is in place to fuel them, they will change fast. I don't know how often national chains like Schnieder, J B Hunt, Fed Ex and others replace their trucks. But if they can get fuel for not much more than half price of diesel, they will change quickly. If they have the clout to contract natural gas for whatever length of time to depreciate out the trucks, and I imagine they would, bean counters in the companies will change over fast. And they really won't worry if the drivers have to spend more time fueling up. After all, log books dictate resting times.  And with all the GPS systems in trucks now, they will know when and where to fuel, and how often. Those companies operate on really thin margins. Lowering the price of fuel that much will mandate it simply to compete with the others.

Pickens might have an idea for a portion of the energy crunch but it's not the whole plan, nothng in itself is .Collectively between coal,wind power ,hydro ,natural gas and the like it could make a dent in it though .

It just depends on what you have on hand as to what to use . For example the Hoge lumber company of New Knoxville Ohio has a wood scrap burning electrical generation plant that has proven cost effective .Due to the fact they are the largest supplier of bowling alley hard maple in the world they are just burning  refuse that would otherwise just be a waste product .That wouldn't work too well in parts of the great plains where just a single tree is rare to find .

You're right Kansas. The heavy trucks will change quickly. Especially if the $64,000.00 tax credit for the NG powered trucks is approved. It'll be awesome. I'd rather pay for that through tax-spending vs. a war in the Middle East. Americans will be building these trucks and if we're smart ... we won't buy these vehicles from overseas. Put our people to work building them and infrastructure.

Al ...one thing different about the scrap wood burning electrical generation from NG is that the pipeline network is outstanding in the USA. Costs very little to move NG vs. say loading wood scrap and shipping it to an area where there is none either by rail or heavy truck. Here's a link to the NG pipeline network. http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngpipeline/ngpipeline_maps.html

For the most part, pipelines are present wherever there is much population in the USA. We'd probably need to build more as demand comes online but that's great ...more American Jobs. :)

Well yes in fact there are a bunch of pipe lines going hither and yon ,worked on a few myself .

Generally speaking they only use gas for what they call "peaker" units .These are smaller generating stations which cost more to operate than say a giant coal burner .However that cost is cheaper than either bringing a larger unit on line or purchasing additional power from the grid during times of peak demand usage ..It gets complicated .

With electrical generation or any other form of using a prime mover the efficiency is much greater if the unit is ran as close to maximum output as possible rather than be over sized and basically just idle .The same deal as sizing a furnace or air conditioner for your house .

Steam power does work. The trouble is, the average Joe has to know a little something about how it works. Where as at the petrol pump you just open the tank and insert nozzle and squeeze. A monkey could do it. :D

 :D Oh yeah I can see  99 percent of the members on this forum lighting the boiler of  a Stanley steamer some morning when it's 20 below.  :o Worse yet they either forget to water it up or forgot to drain it the last it was used .Either one could rather bad .Lawdy if it were Ohio they'd find parts and pieces in Indiana .

Quote from: Ianab on July 15, 2011, 06:33:43 AM
Then with a train, it uses power going uphill, but downhill they can use regenerative braking to pump power back into the grid while slowing the train down....

Standard operating practice in Switzerland. Not a great benefit on the prairies but certainly useful on the west coast and probably the east as well.

Quote from: Al_Smith on July 15, 2011, 08:50:19 AM
... Steam consumed so much coal and water they had to have three times the work force back in the day just to keep them fueled. ...

I worked with a Welsh mechanical engineer who had started as an apprentice on steam locomotives. He did a lot of research on the beginning of the diesel era and discovered that several devices had been patented that would have increased the efficiency of steam locomotives to the point where they could compete with diesel. He figured if they had come along 5 years earlier we'd still be using steam instead of diesel-electric.

I don't think Natural Gas is a good long-term solution to the energy problem. Yes, there is plenty of it under the US (and Canada) but the problem is to extract it fast enough to meet demand. Shale deposits are a particular problem in this regard. Keep in mind that there is plenty of oil under the US and Canada in shale deposits as well. Same problem -- it's hard to extract.

Rather than investing huge sums of money into new infrastructure (CNG service stations, CNG tanks in vehicles) I'd like to see oil extracted from algae become the modern fuel. It would use the existing infrastructure and many vehicles out there could use it without modifications.

I think the problem with the algae might be the scale and the volumes coming off not meeting demand. Unless they make it on the ocean or something. ;D

What I have heard it would take the land mass of a state like Maryland to produce what we need. I have heard figures of 15,000 to 20,000 gallons per acre. I did the math once and thought that was a little short of land, but not by much. And of course, you can use waste land to do it. As a matter of fact, think of all the lagoons from city sewer operations. That's being worked on.  And all the land around coal fired power plants where they can use the CO2 in the algae to make oil. That is starting to be done in Australia right now.
The other thing is, they are now really beginning to find strains of algae that will produce more. 

Quote from: Al_Smith on July 15, 2011, 06:34:22 PM
Lawdy if it were Ohio they'd find parts and pieces in Indiana .

Well.......you could look at it this way.......the boys in Indiana will have lots of spare parts for free. :D :D :D

Quote from: Brucer on July 16, 2011, 02:00:59 AM

I don't think Natural Gas is a good long-term solution to the energy problem. Yes, there is plenty of it under the US (and Canada) but the problem is to extract it fast enough to meet demand. Shale deposits are a particular problem in this regard. Keep in mind that there is plenty of oil under the US and Canada in shale deposits as well. Same problem -- it's hard to extract.

Rather than investing huge sums of money into new infrastructure (CNG service stations, CNG tanks in vehicles) I'd like to see oil extracted from algae become the modern fuel. It would use the existing infrastructure and many vehicles out there could use it without modifications.

Brucer ... Shale Gas is not hard to extract. Not at all with Hydraulic Fracturing. Why do you say we can't extract it fast enough to meet demand? I can show you a whole list of wells here in the Haynesville Shale that are producing 20-30 Million cubic feet PER DAY. Per Day now .... The Haynesville Shale is producing right at 5.5 Billion cubic feet per day and can produce a lot more than that. We're scaling back down here because most of the leases are HBP'd and NG prices are low. We've just barely scratched the surface. See this link:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/265171-haynesville-shale-a-key-producer-in-natural-gas-industry

On top of the Haynesville Shale sits the Bossier Shale. It's almost as big and rich and the Haynesville is. I can go right around the country and tell you about different oil and gas plays I'm involved in and what the daily well productions are as well as reserves. To say that we can't produce it fast enough is totally incorrect. The fact is, we're producing it TOO fast and that's why we have a glut and $4.50 NG today. The pipelines have been crammed full because of the operators drilling out their lease hold to HBP them before the leases expire.In fact, we've been choking the wells back instead of flowing them wide open. Right now we're laying rigs down left and right because things are getting to the point where the core has been drilled and held. They'll come back in and do step out wells once the prices increases or depletion reduces the well to a less than profitable level to maintain the lease.

Algae is not the answer. It may work, like recycling fryer oil into diesel works. But on any large scale ...it's not going to make a dent.

Another article that you should check out Brucer .... as well as anyone else interested in the truth about Nat Gas and the numbers attached to the discussion. Notice in particular the words "QUADRILLIONS of cubic feet" .... :) Algae can't even nip at the heals of NG.

http://www.energyindepth.org/tag/haynesville/

I would very much disagree on the algae not being an answer. Maybe not for it all, but it is very much a part of the solution. Simply being able to make specialty chemicals, or  tailoring it to ethanol or diesel, and getting rid of CO2 out of coal plants. Whether or not we believe in global warming in this country, almost all other countries do. That is why MBD Energy in Australia is backed by one of the biggest mining companies in the world. If they want to keep mining coal, they know they have to solve the CO2 problem. Algae can fix that. Its possible portability is also why the military is looking so hard at it. Given the cost of trying to transport diesel into Afghanistan, you could home grow your own fuel. And it is being done. I don't think algae is the proverbial 10 years down the road. Some projects now are moving into the commercial scale. And imagine a country like China, that is so dependent on coal plants. Imagine their fuel needs as they become more prosperous. Think India. A country like China, the governance it has, can move very quickly to grow their own fuel. That is why this country needs to get out in front with the technology. While I believe natural gas can play a big part, there is room for other players as well. This is one of them.

I have a better idea Kansas. How about we just stay out of Afghanistan altogether and cut those idiots off from all of our American dollars? Problem solved and we don't have to worry about transporting diesel there. Plus we can redirect the dollars we've been giving them, only to have them stab us in the back and harbor terrorists all the while we're spending Trillions of $$$ hunting said terrorists.  ::) Winds me up every time I think about my tax dollars going to people like that.

I agree there is room for multiple solutions. I always say the great thing about time is that you eventually get to look back and see if your forecasts were correct. One day, ten years from now, we can all look back on this thread and see which is the dominant fuel source. We might all be wrong about these alternative methods. We might still be dependent on oil. Let's hope not.  ;)

I don't know if shale gas will be able to have a chance supplementing our energy needs with all the environmental controversy it has erupted in many areas including up here. A full blown environmental movement can bring it to a screeching halt. There is always a group against anything that comes up, some fights they win some they don't. There are several class action law suits against companies already concerning shale gas. Some areas you drive by up here and signs are up everywhere that folks don't want it.

Most folks know (believe) that the wealth will leave out of province and the jobs will be outsiders around it. The number one worry is well and water contamination, real or imagined.

Yep ...there's plenty of environmentalist propaganda out there opposing the NG industry. They also oppose oil though, and coal mining, and logging, and fishing, and hunting, and  ..... well, you get the idea. Still we're engaged in all those things. And still, those environmentalists have gas ranges in their homes and electricity that's often powered by NG, and they drive cars that burn gasoline that comes from oil, they wear leather shoes and boots, live in houses built of wood, etc, etc ...right?

I consider myself an environmentalist as well as most of our members. I think we genuinely care about the land and being stewards of it. But it's the wacko sector of environmentalist zealots out there that have no problem bending the truth to assert their agenda. I think we'll get past that like we always do and have with most other things, as long as we stand up to it that is. If we lay down for them we're making it that much easier.

Re: revenue leaving the province ... Do you guys own your mineral rights up there in CA? I was of the understanding that the Queen owns most of the mineral and timber rights. Although, I have looked at land up there to buy that did indeed have the mineral rights. It's rare that I find it though.

I think that the post about algae is ok and that it should be part of the solution to help out out CO2 from the emitted gases from power generation as well as a way to power some stationary power sources as part of a REAL energy plan.   

this is the biggest problem is that the GOV has not made a plan on how to deal with our problem like other countries there is only plans are to get as much $ as they can ahead and then buy solar/wind as eventually all natural recoverable minerals of all types will be gone.   We will be back to fully renewable wood bio-chemicals ect.  Algae will probably have to be part of a plan at some point for sure to.
One of the GOOD options now is using Fischer Tropic processes to convert Nat Gas to Liquids (a additional new plant was just oKed in FLA)   there are several players in this area one start up I have $ in is Rentech (RTK) which has licensed its tech to a number of players as well as had at least one good Production proven unit up & running for over a year in Colorado and it also provides a lot of great additional fuel sources other than Nat Gas as they are converting Bio-Mass to gas then to liquid.   Using high temp conversion they create a synthetic gas that they convert to fuel that is good for Jets or for Diesel fuel.   lots of by product waxes and fertilizers ect..   stock is cheap at the moment at a buck or so / share.  I'm looking for this one to be bought out by someone some time soon as they are becoming a threat to the oil conglomerates.

Mark

The crown here is referred to the provincial government. The Queen gets no cut. ;)

The wealth is always exported, especially when the value added isn't done here, and royalties are low.

One of the reasons Danny Williams of Nfld (the former premier) made them build a refinery or no oil.

Spiker ...I've liked RTK's possibilities for some time but they can't seem to catch a bid. I bought them when the stock was around 25/26 cents. I've read numbers that suggest the fertilizer side of their business is worth $3.00 a share and there has been pressure for them to spin off that side of the company as a stand alone company and stop holding it back. I sold at 78 cents I think and haven't followed it for a while. RTK comes into the money or makes sense anyway when oil is over $75.00/bbl. Below that the stock gets beat up.

Logdog:

I agree there should be more interest in the company as a hole & like you said it seems to not get much of a break from either side of the green movement.   The adaption of the FLA permits should get them back above 1.50/share should it make real news and like you mentioned the specialty waxes & fertilizer side is worth a lot on its own.    With Nat Gas so low they should be making actual profit this year but catching a break is most important.

mark

Check out this news bulletin from today. Look at the jobs created by the Energy sector. This is why I keep saying that Nat Gas is the answer to the problems America is in. At least part of the answer.




Posted: Jul 19, 2011 12:02 PM CDT
Updated: Jul 19, 2011 12:02 PM CDT


LAKE CHARLES – Today, Governor Bobby Jindal joined Cheniere Energy Chairman and CEO Charif Souki to announce that one of the first natural gas liquefaction facilities in North America will be constructed at Cheniere's Sabine Pass terminal in Cameron Parish. Cheniere will invest $6 billion to expand its existing facility, which will be one of the largest capital investments in Louisiana history.

The new project will create 148 new jobs and retain 77 existing jobs, with a total compensation and benefits package that will exceed an average of $100,000 a year. The new jobs will support another 589 indirect jobs in the area and 3,000 construction jobs will be created by the project at the peak of construction activity. Cheniere will build its new facility near the Louisiana-Texas border in Cameron Parish to handle the shipment of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the company's international LNG terminal.

Gov. Jindal said, "Cheniere Energy's construction of one the country's first liquefaction facilities at the Sabine Pass terminal in Cameron Parish is a huge win for our state. This multi-billion dollar investment will be one of the largest capital investments in the history of Louisiana, and build on our incredible record of job creation projects all across the state. Cheniere's facility will grow our economy, increase natural gas production and become a major exchange in continuing to meet the demand for energy around the world."

Cheniere is expected to utilize the Quality Jobs and Louisiana FastStartTM programs, as well as the Industrial Tax Exemption Program, to support the expansion project.

"The construction of Cheniere's Liquefaction Project in Cameron Parish will provide key support to Louisiana's economy and natural gas industry, which has been transformed by the development of the Haynesville Shale," said Charif Souki, Chairman and CEO of Cheniere. "In only two years, Louisiana's natural gas production has doubled as the Haynesville has grown into one of the most prolific shale plays in the world. Our Liquefaction Project will provide thousands of jobs in Southwest Louisiana while connecting the state's natural gas industry to global markets, making Louisiana the world's first dual importer and supplier of LNG. We greatly appreciate the support that Cheniere has received from the State of Louisiana and the people of Cameron Parish, who have demonstrated a strong commitment to our Sabine Pass LNG terminal."

Cheniere Energy anticipates beginning construction of the facility in early 2012. Hiring of the new permanent jobs will begin in 2014 and the facility will commence operations in 2015. The final phase of the project is expected by the end of 2018.Adding liquefaction capabilities will transform the Sabine Pass terminal into a bi-directional facility capable of exporting LNG in addition to receiving LNG for regasification.

LED Secretary Stephen Moret said, "This project is a terrific example of the tremendous secondary economic benefits associated with the Haynesville Shale and other unconventional natural gas plays in our country. We expect to see even more massive capital investment projects associated with the Haynesville Shale announced in Louisiana over the next few years. The economic benefits of historically low, stable natural gas prices in Louisiana have only begun to be realized."

Logdog:

that is good news about "Cheniere Energy" stock ticker (LNG) I have watched them but missed out on the real moves so far they are up form 2 buck this year to almost 10bucks, they were at one point prior to the recession a 40 buck stock and with the finishing/operation of the LNG station it could get back there IF Nat Gas prices stay low and we can ship it out of USA to Japan/China & Asia/Europe.   I am not sure that investing in them is good at this point BTW I would look at Stealth Gas (GASS) which is a shipper of LNG via ships mainly going into Japan from Russia and others.   With the station being worked on in LA and one in AK there should be plenty of room for GASS to make more $ and they are closer to a 52week low than a 52 week high so there is a lot more room to run and make $ on them...

mark

Well now think about it .Wood,coal,peat ,natural gas .It's all hydracarbons .You just have to figure out how to utilize it or extract by some methods to change  it into a usable form . I mean it's not like you can pull a trailer load of coal and water down the road behind the family car to run the thing like it were a locomotive on steam .

Pickens and his natural gas might be fine but there's a zillion ton of coal just in southern and eastern Ohio alone .Not to mention vast reserves in Ky ,Tenn ,W Va or Wyoming just to name a few . Coal was once king and may again be in time .

Thanks Spiker. I'll check out GASS. I think it'll be 2015 by the time Cheniere is ready to go with this port. I know guys like Aubrey M. are looking to it though as a potential game changer.

On coal ... I'd like to see us export more of that to countries like Japan who now, may be thinking twice about doing anymore Nuclear energy. The only reason NG is as low as it is, is because it's competing with Coal which as Al says is incredibly abundant. Clean energy regulations and legislation are making it more difficult for Coal to compete with NG though. There's no such thing as "clean coal". That stuff is dirty from start to finish.

Sorry for the delay. Here's my take on LOGDOG's comments.

Unlike conventional gas deposits, shale gas does not flow quickly to the well head. To get adequate flow you need to drill down into the shale, then drill horizontally through the deposit. Even then you still need to fracture the shale after the drilling is done. This means more time, more resources, and more money than for conventional deposits.

Right now supply exceeds demand and the price is really low. This will lead to new markets and that will cause demand (and prices) to rise. One likely use of natural gas is to provide replacement power generation for coal plants. There's pressure now to head in this direction. Natural gas is cleaner and produces a lot less CO2 to generate a given amount of power.

Another use is as a replacement for liquid petro-fuels. Sometimes this makes a lot of sense. When you have a stationary process burning oil, it's not that difficult to substitute natural gas. Using it for vehicles (and aircraft, and ships) isn't so simple.

Using EIA projections, if you take the current market for natural gas, replace all the coal demand with natural gas, and replace all the imported crude oil with natural gas, by 2022 you will be consuming 3 times as much natural gas as at present.

Quote... I can show you a whole list of wells here in the Haynesville Shale that are producing 20-30 Million cubic feet PER DAY. Per Day now .... The Haynesville Shale is producing right at 5.5 Billion cubic feet per day and can produce a lot more than that.

It's hard to wrap your head around RBN's (Really Big Numbers) if you don't work in the field. This applies to climate change, oil & gas consumption, national and global finances, and food demand. I try to deal with the issue by converting the RBN's to something that most of us can relate to. For example ...

The US consumed 22.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in 2009. A well that produces 25 million cubic feet per day will put out 9 billion cubic feet of gas in a year. That's 0.04% of the national demand. The total current rate of production from Haynesville  works out to 2 trillion cubic feet per year. That's about 9% of the current demand.

Finally, again trying to make the numbers easier to relate to, the proved US reserve of natural gas was 284 trillion cubic feet. That will last 12 years at the present rate of consumption. And that doesn't include substituting natural gas for coal or crude. [NOTE: "proved" means we know it's there and we're very confident we can recover it].

Unproved reserves are much higher, but know one is sure how much of it can be recovered.

Interesting to note but with this mentioning of "hydra-fracing " of the oil shale that brings up something  that few people consider .A similar process is used on oil wells .Fact being my youngest brother worked for Western hydrafac in the early 80 during the boom in Gillette Wy .

Now I live right on top of the biggest oil boom during the very early portion of the last century .Most of that oil is still trapped under ground .The oil companies know it's there ,most likely they still hold the leases . As far as I know no modern means of recovery has ever been used to release it .Kind of like money in the bank .

Considering that plus other things of possibley a political nature ,face it they've got us by the short hairs on this energy .It isn't just OPEC as some might think it is .

Brucer ...

Did you read this article? http://www.energyindepth.org/tag/haynesville/

Quadrillions .... add 3 more zeros to Trillions. The price of NG today tells the truth as to what the supply capacity is. If it were in short supply you'd see the price much higher than it is, and we surely wouldn't be building LNG ports to send it across the pond to other countries.

In other news ... I have a lunch meeting today with a representative/attorney/landman for a large oil and gas company that T.Boone is affiliated with.It seems as though we have a huge oil play under us as well. They're leasing land at $15,000.00 - $45,000.00 an acre. They just paid a gentleman here $258 million dollars to buy his land outright. So .... we'll see if we can make some millionaires today.

Believe me, when I lived up in WI and had no experience with oil and gas ...all these numbers would have seemed like fiction. But once you're down here in it, researching it everyday, doing the deals, seeing the meters on the wells read what they read .... you can't ignore it.

Al .... what oil play are you referring to when you say you live right on top of it?

Job creation is always good. Nothing negative there. But not all the jobs around these projects are salaried. Many are production based, no salary, no benefits. It's the same in the prospecting business and in forestry. Less liability and someone actually has to produce to get paid.

Quote from: LOGDOG on July 20, 2011, 08:09:56 AM
   

Al .... what oil play are you referring to when you say you live right on top of it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lima,_Ohio#Lima.27s_oil_history

Yep Al ... that was a good one for Standard Oil. For some reason I was thinking you were in Wyoming though? Not sure why I had that idea. Have you looked at this oil play to compare it to the one around Lima? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_formation
That's a biggee. Have you heard about Chesapeake energy leasing over 1 Million acres of oil shale in the Utica Shale in Ohio? I'll be watching that one close.

I was down in the oil and gas patch today. One of my clients has a well in his section that's producing 600 million cubic feet per month. That's a lotta gas.  ;)

Quote from: LOGDOG on July 20, 2011, 08:09:56 AM
Did you read this article? http://www.energyindepth.org/tag/haynesville/

Yep, I read it. Interesting but not very informative. It looks like basically an attack on a New York Times article. It didn't have any useful references so I didn't pay it much attention.

Quote
Quadrillions .... add 3 more zeros to Trillions. The price of NG today tells the truth as to what the supply capacity is. If it were in short supply you'd see the price much higher than it is, and we surely wouldn't be building LNG ports to send it across the pond to other countries.

The most recent estimates I've seen say (depending on the source) between 1.4 and 2.6 quadrillion cubic feet. The average is about 2.0 quadrillion, and half if that is "inferred". In other words, it might be there but no one knows if it is recoverable.

I didn't say it was in short supply. On the contrary, there is too much on the market and that is driving prices down.

My concern is that demand will increase (for various reasons) until natural gas does end up in short supply sometime in the foreseeable future. Keep in mind that this is all being developed by publicly traded companies. A Henry Ford could take the long view, because he held enough shares in his business. Most modern businesses take a short view, because that's what the shareholders demand.

---

The Haynesville discovery isn't new. It was discovered more than 100 years ago. In fact, it's very easy to find shale gas. The problem has always been recovering it.

Hydraulic fracturing isn't new, either. It's as old as I am. Even horizontal drilling isn't all that new. What is new is combining all three. And that itself is a problem. Nobody is sure just how long a gas well in a shale formation will continue to produce. Initial production figures are high, but can they be sustained? It's expensive to drill the wells and expensive to fracture the rock. If the well depletes too quickly then prices will have to rise to make shale gas pay.

There are other potential issues. Industry claims to the contrary, fracing near groundwater supplies has, in fact, contaminated groundwater. Deep underground there doesn't seem to be a problem. If fracing chemicals show up in drinking water near shale gas wells then development may slow to a crawl until it gets sorted out.

Water is another issue. Fracing uses 2-3 million gallons of water per well. It all has to come back out before the well can produce gas but very little of it gets recycled. Where's the water going to come from? In Texas they have to co-ordinate fracing activities with the seasonal availability of water.

Dealing with fracing chemicals is another issue. I've seen apologist articles claiming that water makes up 99.5% of a typical fracing fluid. OK, so in 2 million gallons of fluid that leaves you with 10,000 gallons of rather nasty chemicals that are going to have to be pumped out of a well before it can begin producing. Those have to be dealt with safely as well.

Technologically none of these problems are insurmountable. But they may slow development of a gas field down considerably.

Brucer ...

That site has an "enormous" amount of information. You simply need to click on the various tabs and search it out. It discusses in full the hydraulic fracturing process, the individual chemicals used, and how the majority of the same chemical can be found in everyday household items.

Tell me ... do you have hands on experience in the oil and gas field?

For what it's worth, there is in fact frac water reclamation equipment and processes that are being used to recycle the water in certain areas. Also, fact ....I have a client who is one of several here that handles the drilling mud and frac water that comes back up out of the well bore into the pit. This is no big deal. They do it day in and day out.

Most of my client base and friends here are in the oil and gas business. I know and speak with individuals involved at all levels of the process, from Geologists and Geophysicists to the guys who vacuum the drilling pits. I can tell you this ... the N.Y. Times article was a sensationalized, slanted attack on the oil and gas industry that was comprised of misleading, deceptive statements intended to bring the readers to a negative conclusion. Since the article has been written, this journalist has been brought under intense scrutiny for these deceptive practices. He'll be lucky to keep his job.

Just ran across this in Oil and Gas Journal

The Marcellus shale could become the leading supplier of natural gas in the US within a decade......

http://www.ogj.com/index/article-display/5738791757/articles/oil-gas-journal/drilling-production-2/20100/july-2011/report-notes_big_marcellus.html?cmpid=EnlEDJuly212011


Bruce

Wish I owned this well:  http://www.ogj.com/index/article-display/9213479200/articles/oil-gas-journal/drilling-production-2/production-operations/20100/july-2011/oklahoma-springer.html?cmpid=EnlEDJuly212011

2700% ROI.  Not bad money if you get it. :D :D :D :D :D :D

Bruce

Quote from: submarinesailor on July 21, 2011, 12:59:59 PM
Wish I owned this well:  http://www.ogj.com/index/article-display/9213479200/articles/oil-gas-journal/drilling-production-2/production-operations/20100/july-2011/oklahoma-springer.html?cmpid=EnlEDJuly212011

2700% ROI.  Not bad money if you get it. :D :D :D :D :D :D

Bruce

Yep, a friend and I were actually talking about this well yesterday. Funny that it comes up here. It's a HOSS!

Quote from: submarinesailor on July 21, 2011, 12:46:20 PM
Just ran across this in Oil and Gas Journal

The Marcellus shale could become the leading supplier of natural gas in the US within a decade......

http://www.ogj.com/index/article-display/5738791757/articles/oil-gas-journal/drilling-production-2/20100/july-2011/report-notes_big_marcellus.html?cmpid=EnlEDJuly212011


Bruce

The Marcellus is awesome. We have quite a few O&G LP's up there. The geologists and geophysicists gave us a number of 65 years as being the length of time each well will produce. Great thing about the Marcellus is that it's profitable below $4.00/mcf. It's shallower too. Lease rates were much lower (not good for landowners but good for the O&G companies and returns) as were the royalties lower too.

Logdog, being your in the business, maybe you can answer some questions for me. I always have been curious about something that happened in my area.

About 7 or 8 years ago, some guy came around signing up leases for natural gas. They were representing a California oil company, Berry Petroleum I believe. It was for the shelf gas. They weren't offering much; buck an acre for 3 or 5 years, don't recall, plus money from the sale of the gas, if they found it. I went on ahead and took it. Figured it was more than I had and I knew they drilled for oil on my place years ago. If they found any, they didn't develop it. They signed up thousands of acres in the flint hills, mostly to the south and west of me. They drilled 3 or 4 test wells on a ranch south of me about 7 miles. They promptly wrote off the entire project on the balance sheet. They had an option to renew the lease and never did.

Questions are, why would they only drill test wells in a very small area, when they had leases miles away? Wouldn't you spread out and do a few test wells in different areas that you had leased?

If this ever presents itself again, what is your advice on leasing? Through the years, I have seen a lot of the equipment doing whatever they do taking readings looking for something. I suspect they think there is something there. There are a few old oil wells about 2 miles south of me, abandoned. There are some working wells that have been there for years about 4 or 5 miles south of me. Reading about the new fracturing process on oil as well as gas got me to thinking what to do if the situation ever comes up again.

Kansas my thoughts are this:

There are essentially 3 types of drilling programs out there that a person can be involved with for oil and gas.

Exploratory = Wildcat = Most risk
Developmental = proven area with known assets below= very little risk until you get out to the fringe of the play and begin doing "step out wells" to find the edge.
Income Programs= proven assets that are and have been in production and are being sold off it interests = least amount of risks other than depletion of the well or potential environmental risks if you're a General Partner in the well.

In your area it appears that they were involved in the first ....Exploratory. Depending on the laws of the state and the methods involved for drilling it will determine what the minimum "unit size" can be. If horizontal techniques are being employed then they usually need to lease the majority of the section involved in order to receive a permit and run the lateral well bore under the entire section. Unit size is different depending on States and laws in those areas. A vertical stem doesn't impact neighboring landowners as long as it's drilled far enough away from the adjoining property line so it doesn't drain the neighbors asset when they're using fracking techniques.

For the price they were leasing at, they could gather up a large amount of acreage just in case one or two wells came in. Then they would have this "asset" they could do something with. In oil and gas leasing, you want to lease up as much as you can afford around your target, on the cheap and before you "prove" the asset. Another way of saying that is "legitimize" the asset. Once word gets out that you've hit a winner, people want a whole lot more for their leases and their royalties. Lease bonuses are also a 100% write off for the driller as well as the IDC's or Intangible Drilling Cost Deduction in year one. So if they hit some good revenue somewhere else that year, it can be a good time to go wildcatting and create sometax deductions and maybe find a new asset.

That said, if it comes back around, you don't want to be the first to lease. You also probably don't want to be the last to lease because once they typically get the necessary percentage they need to get permitted your bargaining power goes down. Unless of course you're sitting on a very valuable asset. Ideally, a company would love to have 100% interest in the section they're drilling. Sometimes they get it when they lease a farmer who owns whole sections or timber companies. If there are multiple companies leasing, solicit offers from both or all. Never sign the first offer. Never sign the lease form they put in front of you. It has all kinds of provisions and conveyances of rights that stack things in favor of the oil and gas company. It also usually gives them all rights to all depths of your minerals. You do NOT want this. You want your lease to include a vertical and horizontal Pugh Clause (also referred to as Depth Limitation) that limits how far down they will have rights to. There's an entire list of things that you need to exchange in the way of wording to counter what is written in the traditional Bath Lease Form.

If it ever comes up again just let me know and I can give you a template that I use as a starting point. I would recommend always having a professional like myself negotiate the lease and lease terms for you. Landmen like to "dummy up" when you're asking questions. Guys like me have direct lines to decision makers to get clarification. In fact, I was on the phone several times today with an individual such as this over some negotiations I'm working on. Turns out the landman had not been honest and made several misrepresentations. I have friends who are landmen. They're good guys and have proven themselves to me over time. Other landmen can be downright scoundrels that will lie to your face. I've met some. This individual I was discussing today likely won't have a job come Monday, and I'm as serious as a heart attack. I'm also not a landman. I negotiate on behalf of the landowners so I'm usually on the other side of the table from the oil and gas companies.

Guys like me also have the ability to pull up well data from surrounding wells and see what the production is and what results have been. We can see what formation is being targeted, pull up the drilling permits and all drilling reports etc. That's not typically available to the general public, or if it is ...the general public doesn't usually know how to access it. You definitely want someone who knows what they're doing on your side when you're in negotiations. Don't opt to try and save money by not hiring a professional. What little you save you will usually give up hundreds or thousands of times over again by what you miss.

I'll be happy to help or at least point you in the right direction to someone who can in your area if it ever comes up again. 

They went through here a couple years ago and sunk some holes .How deep I have no idea but typically the oil is relatively shallow ,less than 2000 feet .

I suspect they  then analized their findings .I imagine  that because it's high sulfer they most likely if it is promising might wait until the price justifies the methods of recovery .

There were a few "strippers " ,might still be in certain areas .One on which the pulled the pump head about 5 years ago was about a mile from my house the way the crow flies .Bless their little hearts because when they drilled it they cracked the rock and blessed everyone with a deep well with hydrogen  sulfide gas in the water.Good old smelly egg water .I sunk a new well myself .  :(

Yep Al ...that H2S can be bad stuff. The well in the next section South of me has it. They had to put an Amine treatment system in there to scrub the H2S out. On yours though, I'm surprised they didn't cement the well bore and wall off the water aquifer from the H2S. Cementing the well bore is king of S.O.P. .

Thanks for the info Logdog. I doubt it will happen again, but you never know. I am curious about one thing you said. Is the information available about any test well drilled around here, including the one on my place? I would have guessed that would have been private information held by whoever drilled the well.

They may have kept the well logs private, but usually everything from the permitting process to plugging and abandoning a hole is reported. In LA they report it to the Dept. of Conservation. Then the DOC posts it to a dedicated website. Sometimes the well logs can be accessed though. Then if you have someone that can read them, they can give you insight as to what you're sitting on top of.

I wouldn't rule out the possibilities for the future. I always get a kick out of researching sections where wells had been drilled shallower than today. They just didn't go deep enough the first time in a lot of cases. But there they were, right on top of the mother load.  ;)

On that sulfer,this area sits atop a giant limestone base .It's either called the "fremont foundation " or tremont,can't remember which but it's huge .

The oil is usually below it and the water could be in it ,above or below .In my case the original well was in it .As such the gas just migrated  evidently after they drilled the oil well .The second water well was above the rock ,no gas .They are only about 100 feet apart .

Were I used to live my neighbor hit oil or a trickle at about 90 feet ,talk about mad .2 inchs of oil in 10 gallons of water,new hole fixed the problem .

Yep, Michigan can be that way too. Lots of shallow gas. I've heard of explosions happening during the process of drilling for water. Sometimes that methane is naturally occurring in those very shallow depths and water aquifers. That could be pretty unnerving drilling a water well up there. :o

My sister and her husband and family have a well drilling business. They have a very high dollar rig, capable of doing some serious drilling. They normally drill water wells, but they have also drilled natural gas wells. They live just on the south side of Kansas City. They have their own natural gas well on their place that they drilled. They have a greenhouse on the side that they sell stuff out of that they use natural gas for to heat. I'm thinking she told me that they had a natural gas supply for far longer than they would ever be alive. I know down in that area, there are a bunch of little oil wells. The pumps don't stand much of any taller than 5 or 6 feet, not like the big oil pumps you normally see. Kind of makes you wonder what really is out there.

Sure would be nice to have your own gas well for your own use.

and how do you tell your farm insurance

I don't know how having your own natural gas well works out to having insurance. My sister is both a licensed engineer and lawyer, so I guess she has something figured out.

(Now hangs my head in shame that a family member is a lawyer)

Your sister is lucky to be in the business and doubly so for having a well for her green house operation.

I would wonder how it would work in my neck of the woods, because I could bet the government up here would want royalties. We don't own gas and mineral rights here to my knowledge.

Just poked around in our provincial regulations here.

Oil and Natural Gas Act of NB:

OWNERSHIP

3 All oil and natural gas is hereby declared to be, and to have been at all times prior hereto, property separate from the soil and vested in the Crown in the right of the Province.

55 Royalties are reserved to the Crown in the right of the Province on oil and natural gas and any associated product or by-product, including sulphur, helium and condensate, obtained from any licence to search or lease acquired under this Act

Royalties

22(2)The royalty on natural gas shall be ten per cent of the actual selling price or fair market value at the time and place of production, whichever is the greater, free and clear of any deductions.

22(5) No royalty is payable for oil or natural gas that is
(a) consumed by a lessee or licensee in direct connection with development work under a lease or licence to search,
(b) returned to a formation, or
(c) flared.

The rental fee for each year of a licence to search or a lease is as follows:
(a) rental of a licence area
   
$0.15 per hectare per year
 
(b) rental of a lease area
   
$4.00 per hectare for each year during the continuance of the lease

For the purpose of calculating the royalty on oil, the stated percentage of the oil produced is as follows:

Monthly Production in m3     Royalty Rate for the Month
    1 −   49 m3                     5%
  50 −   79 m3                     5% of 50 m3 + 7½% of remainder
  80 − 109 m3                     6% of 80 m3 + 9½% of remainder
110 − 139 m3                     7% of 110 m3 + 11½% of remainder
140 − 179 m3                     8% of 140 m3 + 13% of remainder
180 − 219 m3                     9% of 180 m3 + 15% of remainder
220 − 289 m3                     10% of 220 m3 + 14% of remainder
290 − 719 m3                     11% of 290 m3 + 13½% of remainder
720 m3 and over                 12%

Kansas .... there's no shame in your sister being an attorney. Law is an interesting field and one that has interested me for years. Two of my former attorney partners encouraged me to go back to school and become an attorney. I seem to have a flavor for the details in life especially contractual details. I'm young enough but I doubt I'll pursue it. Between what law school costs and then what I'd lose by redirecting my efforts away from current business focuses ... it hardly seems worth it.

Oh, I'm joking about it. But I do have to tell her a lawyer joke once in awhile.

Around here, the mineral rights go with the land. I think you can sell them, or lease them, but if you own the ground, they are yours to do with as you want.

Thought I'd share this news with you guys. Texas becomes first to put legislation in place requiring full disclosure on fracking ingredients for hydraulic fracturing. That's awesome. There it is out in the open. Now we can move on to the next thing. See the link at the bottom as well.  :)

   
Texas Passes Hydraulic Fracturing Disclosure Law

Texas was the first state to construct a suspension bridge, the first to build a domed stadium and the first to host a rodeo. This state of firsts can now add another to the list: the first state in the country to pass hydraulic fracturing disclosure legislation.

The landmark legislation was signed into law by Gov. Rick Perry and will require the full disclosure of additives used in hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking." The process, which has been used safely and successfully since the 1940s, uses 99% water and sand to prop open fissures in the shale and allow natural gas to flow to the wellbore.

As one of the first energy companies to disclose the additives used in the hydraulic fracturing process, Chesapeake supported the move toward transparency. In Chesapeake's continuing efforts to educate the public and alleviate common misconceptions about fracking, it began on February 15, 2011, to load well completion data onto a publicly accessible web-based registry developed by the Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.

To view this data, along with information about the fracking process and measurements taken to protect fresh ground water aquifers, visit www.fracfocus.org .

Here is an interesting op-ed price I ran across in todays readings:
http://www.scoop.com/remote/article/include/271489046/53616c7465645f5fd55ebe3fa05c7078fa55282492387436a8067962ee05a28a00878e57f44c0650

It has a couple of interesting tid-bits on empolyment and enviromental cost for each natural gas well.

Bruce

Thanks Bruce. I'll check it out. I was going to mention in this thread that I got word the other day that they're building about a half dozen additional CNG stations in our immediate area at this time. I had a client call me the other day asking me about building one and maybe he and I going in together on it. When you start getting calls like that, you know things are getting ready to change.  :)

T.Boone on Nat Gas Bill ....

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/72310144/

Aubrey McClendon on Nat Gas as a motor fuel ....

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/72339650/

Good videos. Although i suspect T Boone Pickens is as concerned about his pockets as much as Koch is. Read an interesting article this weekend about Kansas. They predict lower natural gas production, but higher oil production in the future. They base it on the new technology of fracking for oil, plus lower natural gas prices. Logdog, does anyone really know what the potential for fracking for oil is? I know they are doing a bunch in N Dakota. Is there a chance it could be widespread and grow like natural gas fracking did? The article seemed to think Southern Kansas had a lot of potential.

They continue to protest fracking here, there have been 3 groups of demonstrators in the last 3 weeks. There has also been vandalism on equipment. I don't know where it will all lead. The premier said it's full steam ahead, so that's where we stand at the moment. And he was right in saying it was part of his election mandate, it was no surprise as the majority voted for it.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2011/08/19/nb-swn-stops-testing.html

Fracking for oil is already happening on a large scale in the oil shale plays. We've got wells in the Barnett Shale, and the Bakken Shale that employ fracking with oil as the major target. Chesapeake just leased over a million acres up in ohio that is in the Utica Shale. That will require fracking. If it's held in shale, you need to break up/ disrupt the shale so that the oil and gas can escape more easily into the well bore. The rock may be porous, because the hydrocarbons are held in the porosity of the rock, but for them to "migrate" more effectively you have to create fractures for them to escape through. Halliburton and Schlumberger are fracking every day down here in the Haynesville Shale. We don't have any protesters whatsoever.

Have you guys noticed that Exxon Mobil has really been advertising hard, talking about drilling for natural gas? There's a reason they're spending millions and millions of dollars on that advertising. There's also a reason that the major producers are buying up all the independents leasehold for their natural gas assets. Take for instance BHP Billiton buying up Petrohawk a few weeks back for a 65% premium. They had some oil assets too, but natural gas has been their bread and butter. I think one day Chesapeake will be bought by a major producer and it will be an enormous buyout. That's one to watch.

Hallibuton bears watching with both eyes .I never figured out how in the world a company who's main interest was in oil field related stuff could become such experts in feeding the troops in the middle east .Almost over night ,amazing .

Evidently the ex vice pres of the US saw in differently though .I sometimes wonder had that had continued if in a given amount of time they might have been building the space shuttle,perhaps privatising NASA .Perhaps running the social security program .The possibities were endless .Wow . ::)

Al,

Halliburton is into a lot of things.  Back in the early 90's I worked for a division that performed maintenance on power and food plants across the county.  Al, do you remember the PMT team that performed advanced maintenance on the boats?  That's what I did for Halliburton.

Bruce

No all that stuff kind  of came about after I was long gone from being a raider of the deep .I got out in '71 .

Raytheon and Liberscope,De-Lavall etc had techs that would occasionally service certain things but most times either the crew or the people from the tender did that stuff .

Like anything though I'm sure things changed .Fact I had a chance to work for Raytheon but they must have thought I was stupid no more money than they offered .Gov contracts are politics ,I realize that . ;)

about 35 miles to the south of me they discovered frac sand. 3 companies are buy up and making deals like crazy. my buddy dosent have sand buy the railroad is talking to him about a spur line with loading station.
his neibor signed a contract for 60 million tons of sand at $1.20/ ton do you think he needs to work again?

That's awesome red oaks lumber. That's like winning the Lottery. What town would it be closest to that they found this frac quality sand? I have a client up in AR that was actually thinking about selling frac sand as well. There's a huge market for the stuff.

just north of chetek wi ,new aburn area. i dont know how many square miles the find is but it sounds fairly large.
the protesters have already flocked in, claiming the way this sand is mined the cancer causing and how harmful the whole deal is. there is a trucking firm that signed a contract to put on 100 semis to haul the finished sand to texas somewhere

Yep, Texas would be a good market, Louisiana would be a good market, North Dakota and Montana would be good ...especially since they're closer. On the east cost, they could use it all the way up the Marcellus Shale.

I can just imagine the protesters back home.  ::) Funny thing is most of them probably drive cars powered by gasoline or heat their homes with natural gas or burn electricity in some form that's produced by natural gas. They never seem to make the connection between their lifestyle and the things it takes to make it possible.

You know over in Mole Lake by Crandon, they're sitting on something like the 10th largest deposit of copper in the world. I forget who last owned the rights to it. The reservation is involved though, and there have been plenty of environmentalists voicing their opinion too ... stating that the project would pollute the Wolf River because the headwaters of the Wolf run through Mole Lake. I don't want to see the Wolf River polluted anymore than the next guy but there's got to be a solution. Someday Copper will rise high enough that they'll finally move forward on the project.

Quote from: LOGDOG on August 23, 2011, 08:29:09 PM
Funny thing is most of them probably drive cars powered by gasoline or heat their homes with natural gas or burn electricity in some form that's produced by natural gas. They never seem to make the connection between their lifestyle and the things it takes to make it possible.

Some do, some don't. It's like farming. Some people don't think before they speak. They just watched the latest satirical video or movie and make snap decisions about their life and don't seek the truth themselves. ;)

True... but if they do make the connection, and they are using the very products produced by the methods they're protesting ...to me it's the ultimate in hypocrisy.  ::) I know some people get whipped up by things they watch or read. Even I get whipped up about certain things ... mostly government related. But not once have I ever thought about going and protesting or picketing. I think there's a way to handle things and that's not it.

We just opened another alternative fuel station here in Bossier City that includes Ethanol E-85 and CNG. Here's the link:
http://www.bossiercity.org/news/CITYS-SECOND-ALTERNATIVE-FUEL-STATION-TO-OFFICIALLY-OPEN---August-19-2011-690/

Several more are underway.  8)

Well on this natural gas business I find it rather odd .When it was a cheap way to heat a home they didn't seem to have enough of it .

Then out of the clear blue good old California had the bright idea to remove regulations regarding pricing and the price instead of going down went up .Now all the sudden they found a zillion cubic feet of it  as it were magic .

So being the skeptic I am it appears to me as if the price is directly related to the supply .More money they have tons of it .History will pretty much substanciate what I've said .

Al ...

Price is related to both supply and demand. The reason all the supply came online was because of advancements in horizontal drilling and fracking/stimulating techniques. Some shale formations couldn't be produced effectively via 100% vertical well bores because the fracking only extends so far beyond the stem. A 300' diameter seems to be the rule of thumb down here. Plus they're limited to 80 acre well spacings here. It just couldn't be accomplished with vertical wells.  Being able to go horizontal once they reached total depth, run that a mile horizontally, and then being able to frack the length of the horizontal well bore changed  everything. They need "X" amount of volume at "X" price per mcf to recoup "X" amount of drilling costs and leasing costs before they get in the black. Simple as that. Each well down here runs about $10 Million plus the cost of leasing the surface. Leases on the surface cost them as much as $30,000.00 per acre.

There's no magic. It just has to make sense financially. When NG went above $7.00 it made sense so they dove in. Then prices dropped as the financial world ended up on the rocks. The O&G companies had no choice but to keep drilling their leasehold because they only had 3 years on their leases to get it done. Otherwise they'd have to pony up another lease bonus for the surface lease. So they've been drilling their butts off to get their leasehold held by production. Thus the glut because of all the NG coming online. They can't shut the wells in, because most of us put "No shut in" clauses in our leases.

Well it went through the roof .About quadrupled in around 4 years as a matter of fact .

Because of the outragious service charges on my shop I had them put a lock on the meter .It's cheaper for me to pay the unlock fee as to have the service on when I seldom use .

Yeah I know "it's a business" .Be that as it  may it certainly cannot justify the charges they get for the stuff .

Now I know somebody in the business of natural gas would justiy those prices and those on the other end being consumers are going to  protest them .The end results will ultimently be as it always has been .We'll just continue paying the bill .

You should be in NB, then you can complain about natural gas prices. The distribution cost here is higher than the other end because they use us to subsidize delivery. Not this dumb Canuk. ;)

Since the laws have changed the company that owns the lines get the distribution fees .You can pick a supplier but it's 6 of one half a dozen of another as far as the price.

The phone is the same way .I got them though on that one ,it's voice over IP now with the cable company .AT and T hung themselves with their own rope  by being greedy .Sadly I own AT and T stock too .

Did any of you catch the all day special on the Bakken Shale today on CNBC? It's on again late tonight on Jim Cramer's late night segment. 11 eastern I guess. It's a good little segment.

T. Boone's House Bill 1380 proposes these tax credits to switch over to Nat Gas. If this gets passed it's gonna be on like donkey kong.

http://www.autoobserver.com/2011/04/bipartisan-house-lawmakers-introduce-nat-gas-act.html

By the way ... Jim Cramer just had an interview with the CEO of Halliburton and they were talking about hydraulic fracking and how there is NOT ONE documented case of a water aquifer being contaminated because of hydraulic fracking. He then holds up a jar of semi clear fracking fluid made up entirely of household items. Then Jim Cramer takes a drink of it!  :o He's a nut. But that's a bold illustration. I don't think the CEO of Haliburton was expecting that.

I wouldn't know if that is fact or like cigarette companies claiming smoking doesn't cause cancer. But, you can be sure if someone has a bad well, even before fracking, that they now have something to blame.

I would think they would test the water wells around a fracking site before they start. Then do a comparison after. Should be easy to tell if there is a problem.

So as far as testing the surrounding wells .... who would you say should be responsible for doing that? The citizens or the operators? I'm thinking neutral third party. But who would pay them? There may be a business to be had there.  :)

The relationship between smoking and cancer is pretty well established. Lots of documented cases of lung cancer related to smoking directly and indirectly via second hand smoke. That's why there's an Attorney General warning on every pack. That's why it's been banned down here in most public establishments. Unlike fracking, where as the CEO of Halliburton said ... they've done over 1 million fracs without one documented case of contaminating a water well.

I'd assert this: Until someone can bring me a documented case of contamination that has resulted directly from the fracking process, with all supporting documents and lab work, including before and after control samples from throughout the section being drilled, then it's a non-issue and we're talking about something that's never happened. It's that simple.

Give it time, it's before the courts already and one company in a legal battle is the one that just left. I think there are documented cases of wells going bad, just not proven to be caused by fracking.

Quote from: LOGDOG on August 25, 2011, 09:26:55 AM
So as far as testing the surrounding wells .... who would you say should be responsible for doing that? The citizens or the operators? I'm thinking neutral third party. But who would pay them? There may be a business to be had there.  :)

There is one up here, that has been in the business before fracking came to the area. Watermax or something similar. But, I see why these frackers don't want to, so it makes things harder to prove or disprove. Laws are such that you have to prove damages, not the other way around, such as prove it's safe. ;)

It's hard to imagine there not being a high risk there when your adding something to the system.

Innocent until proven guilty. Isn't that the way it should be? That's the foundation of our legal system in the USA. Thank goodness.

Yes, but it's not like your trying a murder case. It's more like taking away your tranquility and possibly subjecting you to a health risk with a wait and see attitude.  What if I live above you and decide to run a fish processing plant and I'll just toss the refuge over the side of the hill. Lets wait and see how it goes. ;)

Regarding the "what if" scenarios .... remember, I'm surrounded by drilling and fracking. Not to mention I'm familiar with the process from start to finish. If a water source is contaminated above ground because someone mishandles the the drilling mud or fracking fluids once they come back up the well bore that's a totally separate issue then contaminating the water aquifer below the surface. Contaminating the surface or surface water can happen  by way of a lot of accidents including logging and diesel spills. If the surface is contaminated it's not a result of the act of fracking that's occurring a mile or two miles deep.

And it is like trying a murder case. In this case it's the O&G companies reputation you're attempting to murder.  ::)

.....and by the way, "Innocent until proven guilty" applies to any accusation brought against a person in our justice system, not just murder. If someone accuses you of something, they better be prepared to prove it.

SwampDonkey are you referring to Southwestern Energy and the lawsuit pending against them? If so, the area in question isn't even in New Brunswick! It's in Pennsylvania, and now Arkansas after some more people jumped on the lawsuit bandwagon. Unbelievable! Here's a press release on the subject:

http://www.swn.com/investors/Press_Releases/2010/2010-10-12.pdf


NEWS RELEASE 
NO FACTUAL BASIS TO CONTAMINATION LAWSUIT AGAINST
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY
Houston, Texas  – October  12, 2010...Southwestern Energy Production Company
("SEPCO"), a subsidiary of Southwestern Energy Company, announced that it has filed
its first response to unfounded allegations contained in a lawsuit pending in federal
court.  The lawsuit claims that  SEPCO's  drilling operations in Lenox Township,
Pennsylvania, contaminated nearby water wells.
In the motion to dismiss, which was filed today in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania, SEPCO challenges the legal basis for several parts of
the complaint. The court will review the motion and the briefs to be filed by the parties
and decide how much of the lawsuit will be permitted to proceed. At this stage of the
lawsuit, the rules only allow SEPCO to challenge the complaint on legal grounds.
As the case moves forward, SEPCO will have the opportunity to place the facts before
the court. The complaint alleges that  SEPCO's  hydraulic fracturing activities
contaminated nearby water wells with barium, manganese and strontium. However,
neither the drilling fluids nor the fracturing fluids utilized by  SEPCO contained any of
these substances. Barium is one of the most common elements in the earth's crust and
occurs naturally in many water supplies, which has been noted by both federal and
state agencies. An August 2007 report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services specifically identified Pennsylvania as a state with many communities that
"have drinking water where barium content is up to 10 times higher than the
Environmental  Protection  Agency's  recommended  maximum concentration level."
Further, water samples from the area taken prior to the commencement of  SEPCO's
drilling operations indicated barium readings in excess of federal and state limits.
"SEPCO takes very seriously its obligation to operate safely and  is committed to
working with the governmental agencies and local communities to ensure that our
operations do not adversely impact the environment near  our work sites," says Mark
Boling, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Southwestern Energy. "We
have worked with the  Pennsylvania  Department of Environmental Protection  with
respect to our operations in Lenox Township in order to confirm that our operations
were not the source of any concern and that people residing in close proximity to our
work sites had safe water to use."
"We are concerned that lawyers for the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are making statements in
the media that we believe are demonstrably wrong.  The allegations in this lawsuit are
serious, and the parties should make their cases in court with accurate, scientific
evidence rather than in the press with statements that have no support in any evidence
SEPCO has seen."- MORE -
Southwestern Energy Company is an integrated company whose wholly-owned
subsidiaries are engaged in oil and gas exploration and production, natural gas
gathering and marketing. Additional information on the company can be found on the
Internet at http://www.swn.com.
Contacts:  Greg D. Kerley Brad D. Sylvester, CFA
Executive Vice President Vice President, Investor Relations
  and Chief Financial Officer (281) 618-4897
(281) 618-4803
All statements, other than historical financial information, may be deemed to be forwardlooking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. All
statements that address activities, outcomes and other matters that should or may
occur in the future, including, without limitation, statements regarding the financial
position, business strategy, production and reserve growth and other plans and
objectives for  the company's  future operations, are forward-looking statements.
Although the company believes the expectations expressed in such forward-looking
statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements are not guarantees
of future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from
those in the forward-looking statements. The company has no obligation and makes no
undertaking to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements. You should not
place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. They are subject to known and
unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may affect  the company's
operations, markets, products, services and prices and cause  its  actual results,
performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results,
performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements.
In addition to any assumptions and other factors referred to specifically in connection
with forward-looking statements, risks, uncertainties and factors that could cause  the
company's actual results to differ materially from those indicated in any forward-looking
statement include, but are not limited to: the timing and extent of changes in market
conditions and prices for natural gas and oil (including regional basis differentials); the
company's ability to transport its production to the most favorable markets or at all; the
timing and extent of the company's success in discovering, developing, producing and
estimating reserves; the economic viability of, and the company's success in drilling, the
company's large acreage position in the Fayetteville Shale play, overall as well as
relative to other productive shale gas plays; the company's ability to fund the company's
planned capital investments; the impact of federal, state and local government
regulation, including any legislation relating to hydraulic fracturing, the climate or over
the counter derivatives;  the company's ability to determine the most effective and
economic fracture stimulation for the Fayetteville Shale formation; the costs and
availability of oil field personnel services and drilling supplies, raw materials, and
equipment and services; the company's future property acquisition or divestiture
activities; increased competition; the financial impact of accounting regulations and
critical accounting policies; the comparative cost of alternative fuels; conditions in
capital markets, changes in interest rates and the ability of the company's lenders to
provide it with funds as agreed; credit risk relating to the risk of loss as a result of nonperformance by the company's counterparties and any other factors listed in the reports the company has  filed and may file with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC). For additional information with respect to certain of these and other factors, see
the reports filed by the company with the SEC. The company disclaims any intention or
obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of
new information, future events or otherwise.
# #

Looks to me like the gas companies would be ahead of the game to pay a neutral testing company, maybe let the state pick them so as not to show bias, to test the water for x amount of miles around before operations started. Seems like that would be cheaper than lawyers.

Logdog, yes I knew the case against  Southwestern wasn't in NB. But, I also knew it was them up here working as well. So basically, they have become a target up here as well because of association. We normally don't get protestors at all up here, but this sure has stirred up the hornets nest. And the biggest protestors are the natives because they have nothing to loose, including a job to go to tomorrow.

But, I guess you don't see or maybe don't want to see, that due diligence in insuring it's a safe process by third party testing and audit is better then, "let's see how it goes then react". ;)

Oh I see perfectly SwampDonkey. You forget that I'm involved in this issue much deeper than most any of these people running their mouths. Not only do I have an Oil and Gas business, I also have acreage currently in production that has employed horizontal drilling and fracturing. I also live on a large piece of land that will soon have a well site and as many as 8 horizontal wells running beneath our home. Then on top of that, I sell Oil and Gas Limited Partnerships with acreage all over the country in every major Oil and Gas play going. when it comes to due diligence, I've done more than most any person you're likely to meet. I've got the Presidents and Vice Presidents emails and phone numbers in my cell phone. When I have an issue or a question about something, I don't go to someone who knows nothing but what they've heard on the subject. I call my connections in these companies. That's just my due diligence. The due diligence the Oil and Gas companies have done makes mine look like just the beginning. I can tell you, they take the issue very seriously. Most of these guys are outdoorsmen just like I am. They're extremely accommodating when asked nicely. But if you turn your face against them and slander them with lies, all the nice goes away and they'll play hardball.

Personally, I hope that if Rick Perry gets elected he'll work to expand his State's law that makes losers pay for bringing frivolous lawsuits against a person or a company. That'll weed out some of the riff raff types who are looking to get rich off the backs of American businesses. http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2011/06/texas-makes-losers-pay-bringing-frivolous-lawsuits

By the way, the lawsuit against Southwestern Energy also names Chesapeake Energy, BHP Billiton (because they bought Petrohawk's leasehold) and a couple others I believe. I've got $20 that says the O&G companies win and it's ruled a baseless lawsuit.

WH_Conley ...did you notice in that article that the O&G company "did" test the water prior to the fracking?

Okay then take poor old Al in Ohio .

Just who's fault was it when aprox 20 years ago they sunk an oil well and turned everyones deep water wells into sulfer .It certainly wasn't mine I'll assure you of that fact .Yet who had to pay for another well .It wasn't the oil company or the well driller .Me,little old me .

Now I suppose I could prove it with a bunch of geoligists and a half million dollar lawsuit .Probabley get a whole 5 grand out it .Isn't that grand ?--and some people just can't understand why we get up in arms about the oil companys or gas for that matter .I guess it just depends on what side of that fence you are standing .

Al ...remind me again what the circumstances were and how they turned "everyone's well" into sulfur? Do you know what "exactly" happened that caused the contamination? ( I'm asking sincerely.)

Quote from: Al_Smith on August 25, 2011, 06:59:59 PM
Isn't that grand ?--and some people just can't understand why we get up in arms about the oil companys or gas for that matter .I guess it just depends on what side of that fence you are standing .

.... So Al I've got to ask you, what side of the fence are you standing on? Do you drive a vehicle that uses gas and oil? How about all those chainsaws? They use gas and oil. You said your shop is on Nat Gas? How about that? If you're "up in arms" about the oil and gas companies stop using their products. Simple as that. Live like the Amish. Use handsaws and axes, burn wood in your shop, get a horse and buggy for travel and stop supporting the oil and gas companies that you're up in arms with. ( By the way, I love the Amish. I think they live a good pure life. So me saying that is be no means derogatory. Just illustrating that there is a choice before you.)

As long as you continue to use gas and oil, those companies are going to need to drill for it. It's that simple. What I can guarantee you is that the reason your well ended up contaminated was NOT related in any way to hydraulic fracturing being used in horizontal drilling.

The more difficult you make it for companies to drill for oil and gas, the less of it we'll have, and the more it will cost. I've got another $20.00 bill that says you'd complain when that happens too.  ::)

By the way, drilling units are usually established. Here, they're usually done as sections that are about 640 acres +/-. You might have multiple companies that lease in a section but only one of them usually ends up being the operator that actually does the drilling. Regardless, in your lease you have every right to add an exhibit document that puts limitations and requirements on the Lessee regarding what they can and can't do, and what they must and must not do specifically if this or that happens. If you have groundwater concerns then you can put a clause in there regarding how you will be made whole by them if the groundwater is contaminated as a result of their drilling activity. This might include drilling a new deeper well, buying you out for a stated amount, letting you keep your land but paying to relocate you and your family to another place of your choosing where the water is of acceptable standards. My primary function in my Oil and Gas business has been negotiating these contracts with the O&G companies on behalf of the landowners so I'm quite familiar with what can be done.

The mistake people make is signing a naked oil and gas lease without first submitting their own exhibit document for approval to be attached and made part of the contract. People are so quick to grab the lease money and many people don't want to pay a professional to negotiate their lease for them. Then when something happens and they don't have protection in their lease the cry and moan.

LOGDOG, I read where the feds tested in 2007. I also read where "the area" was tested prior to drilling. The article did not say by who. I am sure the O&G company supplied the people or contract to do this. If you will look back I was stating that it would be better for an independent company, not chosen by the O&G company, a disinterested third party to do the testing. By the O&G company providing the tests it is more suspect. An independent company tests would protect them better. Be like getting a DUI and wanting provide your own blood test. Don't think that would fly very far.

WH ... If you look back to reply #111 I made the same assertion. I meant to comment further than the one sentence addressed to you but I was in my office and had to end the post when I had a visitor.  :)

Logdog, I kind of touched on this on a previous post. But do drilling companies test wells and bodies of water before they start drilling in an area? Can't imagine it would cost much money, and would protect the drilling companies if the wells were contaminated before they started drilling. It would also give protection to landowners, and legal recourse. I am all for drilling providing it does not contaminate wells or ponds. I think most people are. You mentioned the elements in the lawsuit. But is there a chance those got unleashed into the wells through the fracking process, even if that wasn't the chemicals used? Seems like totally independent testing of all water and wells before drilling by a completely independent entity, overseen by a government agency to make sure it was properly done, would eliminate a lot of problems. I think a lot of people don't have a clue what is in their well water.

Kansas you are right, most don't know what's in their water. And I can tell you that most people will not test it if it's from their pocket book to pay for the test. I know lots of people who have told me they wouldn't pay for a test and they've used that well for decades and that's the end of it. Now, myself, I have tested this well and mother and father tested it at different times over the past 40 years. So far, nothing that shouldn't be there. But you hit on a point about knowing your water. ;)

But once one person files a lawsuit these same people will pay for the test and climb on the band wagon.

As for Al's well, if there were no seismic activity, just the drilling, it would be awful hard not to think the drilling was at fault in some way. Might be some other reason, but, the drilling would look awful suspect.

Kansas ... that article would suggest that at least "some" companies do test the water prior to the drilling activity. The one thing you have to think about though is where do you get your test sample from? People's faucets? What if they have corrosion issues in their pipes or at the mouth of the faucet? Depending on where you'd get your samples from, it could be either very inexpensive or very expensive. Ideally, you'd have a neutral third party do the test. But there again, who pays? Department of Conservation maybe? Keep in mind the States are paid a severance tax on all of the oil and gas that comes out of the ground. I don't think it'd be unfair to ask the States to do the testing since the revenue they receive would more than cover the costs.

The short answer to your question about whether it's possible that fracturing would have released those chemicals into the water aquifer is, "It's highly unlikely." Please watch these videos on this page: http://www.energyindepth.org/multimedia/
Notice how far below the water aquifer the fracturing takes place. The fracturing doesn't have the ability to fracture the rock that entire distance between total depth and where the water aquifer is that people are getting their water from. Remember, I had said that on average we're looking at about 300' in diameter around the well bore. So if my well is 400 feet deep (and it is), but they drill below me to a total depth of say 10,000 -12,000 feet and fracturing takes place at that total depth (let's say 10,000 feet is where our horizontal well bore lays), then they stand to fracture the zone between say 9,700 feet and 10,300 feet max. Where's my water coming from? 9,300 feet above that with solid rock between it for most of the way. Notice in the video how they do the well in stages. Drill down a bit, run casing, pump concrete down so that it comes back up the outside of the casing sealing it off from the water aquifer. Once that's been sealed then they run on down. That sealing process takes place in the beginning. Fracking doesn't happen until the very end.

My point of bringing up the water well was just as an example .If there were a lawsuit which there won't be I'd stand a better chance of walking on water as to win it .

Now as far as this oil and gas business ,they have a powerfull lobbying group as evidenced by Mr Logdog .It's a business for profit,the maximum profit to be exact .

You might use the emotional issue of reminding people that natural gas is home grown rather than imported .Which is not to say it can't be exported ,it is a world market .

Lest we not forget about the Alaskan pipeland .Before it was no longer allowed that stuff went to Japan .Even a more sneaky deal loaded aboard an oiler in Alaska and shipped to Panama .Once it hit international waters it was no longer under the domestic price set at the time of $27.50 a barrel ,how nice .

Now once it was off loaded in Panama and pipelined to another oiler on the Atlantic side it became Panamanian oil ,see how it goes now .

Interestingly 20/20 did a report of just such a situation of a oiler of Liberian registry that broke up on the east coast .From the time it left Alaska up until the point it leaked out it had been traded 8 or 9 times .

It's kind of like Kenneth Lay buying excess power from California and selling it back to California by manipulating the laws .The only way to punish him is dig him up and grind his bones .Unless he's in Aruba with Elvis .We'll never really know .

So I'm saying that whatever big oil did in the past big gas is very able to do and will .If you got the gold you make the rules . So that's one side of that proverbial fence

Al, you should read up on the Irvings, they did that in the 70's using the spot market price and bought and sold the same load of oil several times on it's way to New Brunswick. They didn't get rich producing the oil, but by trading and selling like brokers. They went to court over it and was fined, but the fine was just a drop in the bucket compared to the profits.

"In the 1979 Iranian crisis "the major oil companies were in on the action [buying spot market oil which it not on contract so it's inflated in value], [like the Israelis were doing fearing supply shortages], paying huge mark-ups for their crude and, in the process, adding millions of dollars to the value of these cargoes a few nautical miles out of port. The 1979 spot market panic was a gold mine for companies with oil to sell at these skyrocketing prices. K.C., for the first time in his life, became a speculator: from the moment spot prices began climbing in early 1979, Irving Oil was wheeling and dealing itself to huge profits. The company continued to buy tankerloads of crude from Socal at contract prices. But many of the ships never reached Saint John. Instead, the cargoes were sold on the spot market for prices many times higher than Irving could get in Canada.

All along, K.C. knew that having loads of excess production capacity would one day pay off. The refinery was now receiving calls from all over the world from customers eager to buy gas and other refined products. The buyers had to use Irving vessels, to make the delivery. Some days tankers were lined up 5 deep in the waters of the Bay of Fundy, waiting to fill up with Irving products.... Less than 30 % was exported to the US..Irving Oil had become one of the world's great oil traders.

In 1973 federal investigators scoured its headquarters along with those of Gulf, Shell, Texaco, Esso and 7 others. ..investigators left carrying 200,000 pages of documentation, which they hoped contained evidence that the oil companies had conspired together to fix prices. Robert Bertrand ...failed to find the smoking gun. But they found enough to conclude that Canadians were out of pocket by about $12 billion because of overcharging between 1958 and 1973. The study showed in detail how Irving and others bought imported crude and petroleum products at inflated prices and under agreements not reflected in changing world price conditions....companies reduced competition by selecting which firms received refined products and at what price."

Citizens Irving

 this is for both al  and swampdonkey,
to me its clear you guys are against oil and gas mining. instead of critizing, what solutions do you guys have in mind?what option to replace  gas and oil can be brought to the market in the real near future? :P

Al and SD ...I thought we were talking about safety issues related to drilling and fracking?  ???

Quote from: red oaks lumber on August 26, 2011, 08:09:03 PM
this is for both al  and swampdonkey,
to me its clear you guys are against oil and gas mining. instead of critizing, what solutions do you guys have in mind?what option to replace  gas and oil can be brought to the market in the real near future? :P

How did you come to that conclusion? ::)
I think Al and SD are bringing up some valid points.My antennae always goes up when somebody tells me how wonderfull something is.I burn gas and oil but does that mean I should look the other way if peoples wells or property is being damaged?

If the only thing standing in the way of a company operating or not is the price of some tests then they should maybe get out of the biz.

No Paul, you shouldn't look the other way if people's property or wells are being damaged IF they can prove the oil and gas company are directly at fault. So far that has not been the case when it comes to fracking and contamination accusations. Invariably when you confront people who have consistently negative, pre-conceived opinions based on unsubstantiated claims with the facts, they want to change the subject, and I'm not limiting that to this discussion. I see it all the time.

You know, WH_Conley raised a good point regarding seismic activity. These days we're having seismic events/ earthquakes in places I never would have thought would have earthquakes. Arkansas is one of them. You know, if the Earth shifts and there are fault lines that open up, that would be the perfect scenario to see chemicals held in the earth being released into the water aquifer.

You know, if you think about it ... the Earth and Nature in general can be extremely violent. I was upset over the BP incident in the Gulf. But you know what? The ocean floor leaks oil all the time, and the microbes eat it up. Imagine that. who do we get to be upset with when the Earth just decides to throw us a curve ball and make a mess?

Is the oil and gas one of the only industries without greed and corruption?
Even in the small town I used to live in there were unscruppulous people that would actually rather take the crooked road than the straight and narrow.People who lived for deception as part of their life and work.
I think that if there is an ounce of doubt to the safety of future drinking water and health issues,that the companies should step up and allow transparency and even accountability.And you and I both know that individuals like Al are no match for a large companies legal team so it's a joke to expect him prove anything.
A bad joke.

I remember reading somewhere -what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but forfeits his life?

No Paul, there are corruption and unscrupulous individuals in most every industry ...including the wood business. Does that mean that my first thought goes to the negative when someone approaches me from some industry where maybe there was an individual who did something wrong? Of course not. That'd be a dark way to live a person's life. Definitely a "glass half full scenario". I don't live my life that way.

I don't think it's a joke at all to expect that Al could hold his own with a large company, especially if he teamed up with his neighbors and got a law firm to take the case on a contingency. Then the law firm would shell out their cash while they fight the case. Before they do that though, they're going to need to feel like they have a reasonable amount of evidence to prove their case. It takes two plaintiffs to have a class action lawsuit.

Transparency on the topic of fracking fluids has been available and was just made mandatory in the State of Texas. The first State in the Union to make it mandatory I believe. The facts have been available prior to that though for people who were sincere about searching them out.

As to the saying you quote ... it's a scripture found at Mark 8:36. Here's the surrounding text:
34 He now called the crowd to him with his disciples and said to them: "If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his torture stake and follow me continually. 35 For whoever wants to save his soul will lose it; but whoever loses his soul for the sake of me and the good news will save it. 36 Really, of what benefit is it for a man to gain the whole world and to forfeit his soul? 37 What, really, would a man give in exchange for his soul? 38 For whoever becomes ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man will also be ashamed of him when he arrives in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."

I don't think Jesus had Oil and Gas on his mind when he was speaking to the disciples and the crowd. He was telling them that their priority should be following him as a way to salvation vs. pursuing the things of the world. All the money in the world wouldn't buy them salvation. I won't get us off on that topic much further though. Seems like when religion comes up here we lose a member. But that's the source of that quote and I don't really see the correlation to the overall discussion.

He had the hearts and minds of men in mind of course and if the correlation to the topic escapes you well that's ok by me.
Do you think Al is misinformed or stretching the truth in regards to his well problems? What would you want done if it happened to you?
It's really cool that you are a half full kind of guy.I try to look at all sides so I might look at a gallon jug of milk in the fridge as half full but on the other hand see that it's less full that it was before and plan to replace it before it was 1% full.
It wouldn't do to go around BS-ing myself.

The fact is Paul, a man could have spent his life in pursuit of worldly pursuits and done so honestly and still forfeited his salvation. I was a full time minister for a period in my life so if you want to talk Scripture we can do so off to the side. I can hold my own there too.  ;)

I hesitate to single Al out or any other Forum member for diagnosis for fear that they'd take offense so I'll pass on that particular question.

However, in regards to your question, "What would I want done if it happened to me?" ...The answer is, I'd want whatever specifications and protection clauses I put in my Oil and Gas Lease honored to the "T". By the way, something could happen to me or my property. I have about 6 pages of clauses that I put in there to protect me as a landowner.

Some of you keep forgetting that more often than not, I represent the landowner helping them put these clauses in their contracs ...in fact about 99% of the time. This in spite of Al basically calling me a "Lobbyist" for the Oil and Gas companies.  ::)

Quote from: LOGDOG on August 27, 2011, 12:24:02 AM
I was a full time minister for a period in my life so if you want to talk Scripture we can do so off to the side. I can hold my own there too.  ;)

I see you have a new religion and a passion for preaching.   :)

Really Paul? What's my new religion? I have a passion for the "Truth".

This link discusses several ongoing cases relating to this subject and also comments on several that have been dismissed and found to be without merit recently in the State of Texas.
http://www.frackinginsider.com/litigation/

Texas Railroad Commission Confirms Fracking Operations Not Responsible for Contamination
Posted by Eric Waeckerlin on March 22, 2011
In a closely watched case of national importance, the Texas Railroad Commission (TRRC) today voted unanimously to finalize a prior order finding Range Resources not responsible for the contamination of private drinking wells near two of its hydraulic fracturing operations in the Barnett Shale. After holding a hearing and receiving evidence from Range Resources, TRRC found that any contamination in the drinking wells was due to natural causes, likely from the separate and shallower Strawn formation, and was unrelated to Range's drilling operations in the  deeper Barnett formation.

In a strongly worded statement, Texas state Rep. Jim Keffer, Chairman of the Texas House Energy Resources Committee, said of TRRC's findings:

[EPA] did this on hype . . .they thought they had a smoking gun and they didn't.  They overstepped . . .they overreached.

EPA countered that it stood by the order issued to Range Resources.  "The decision by the Texas Railroad Commission is not supported by EPA's independent, scientific investigation, which concluded that Range Resources Corporation and Range Production Company have contributed to the contamination of homeowners' drinking water wells," EPA's statement said.

Both EPA and Range Resources have pending lawsuits related to EPA's allegations, which were the subject of TRRC's order.

TAGS: Keffer, Railroad Commission, Range, Range Resources, TRRC

....and another .....

The Texas Railroad Commission Finds EPA's Claims Against Range Resources Without Merit
Posted by Eric Waeckerlin on March 11, 2011
The Railroad Commission of Texas (Commission) has issued its much anticipated Proposal for Decision and Proposed Order following a hearing on EPA's claims that Range Production Company's fracking operations contaminated private drinking water wells in the Fort Worth, Texas area. The Commission concluded that any contamination was due to natural migration from the much closer Strawn geologic formation and not Range's nearby natural gas wells. Despite having received notice, EPA did not send any representatives to the January Commission hearing, nor present any substantiating or rebuttal evidence. The Commission will decide whether to issue a final order on March 22.

Notable highlights from the report and proposed order include:

CONTINUE READING

TAGS: Barnett, Butler, Lipsky, Range Production Company, Range Resources, Strawn, Teal, Texas Railroad Commission

....and the EPA withholds evidence necessary to prove their case???

EPA Witholds Evidence Alleging Fracking Contamination Against Range Resources
Posted by Eric Waeckerlin on February 11, 2011
Despite having two months ago issued an Emergency Order under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) against Range Production Company accusing two of its fracking operations of contaminating private drinking water wells in the Fort Worth area, and subsequently filing suit to enforce that order, according to Range, EPA continues to withhold proof that Range is responsible. During a recent hearing before the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Range again argued that the only way it can rebut EPA's charges in pending matters before the Texas Railroad Commission (which could potentially shut down the operations) is if EPA hands over the requested technical basis for its allegations.

To date, Range has maintained that neither of its gas extraction wells (the first of which was drilled in 2005 (four years before natural gas was detected in the private drinking water well) is the cause of contamination; but rather, naturally-occurring migration from another gas formation right below and closer to the drinking water source is the cause. Range's experts have concluded, among other things, that the nitrogen content of the gas in its wells is too low to match the nitrogen content in the contaminated drinking water. And further that the nitrogen content in the naturally occurring formation closer to the drinking wells is a much better match.

CONTINUE READING

TAGS: Range Production Company

Here's another fraudulent case recently dismissed:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/environmental-climatechangelaw/blogs/mealeys/archive/2011/07/20/fraud-cause-of-action-dismissed-in-fracking-lawsuit-filed-in-texas-federal-court.aspx

07/20/2011 09:37:41 AM EST
Fraud Cause Of Action Dismissed In Fracking Lawsuit Filed In Texas Federal Court
Posted by LexisNexis® Mealey's™ Emerging Toxic Torts Legal News
SHERMAN, Texas - A fraudulent concealment cause of action against a natural gas extraction company sued in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas was dismissed in an order entered July 13 (Doug Harris, et uxor v. Devon Energy Production Co, No. 10-708, E.D. Texas; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75389).

What happens if the water well is on one persons property and O/G well is on another? The guy with the water well would not be protected by contract. A little off topic. We had a rock quarry that opened up here a few years ago that started blasting and some peoples wells went dry, they had to to court to get city water ran to their place, not sure who paid quarry or the utility.

Quote from: LOGDOG on August 27, 2011, 12:32:35 AM
Really Paul? What's my new religion?

Your passion for your business.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing like a half empty glass,it's just something that occured to me as I read your posts lately both in this thread and the political section.
You've written paragraph upon paragraph on the subjects of politics and business and you wouldn't do that if your heart wasn't in it wholly.

Well ... I am passionate about business yes. But it is not my "religion". Anyone who does business with me will tell you that money doesn't drive me. I do like a little competition though. Shocking I know.  ;D

Seriously though, how I got into the oil and gas business began with me being approached and asked to lease my land that we live on here. I didn't know much at all about negotiating an oil and gas lease. So I set out to learn. I talked to every old guy I could find that has signed a lease, asked what they did right and what they did wrong.  I consulted attorneys, pulled leases off the public records, etc, etc.... I knew I was getting ready to enter a serious contract. I spent two full months on the effort. I leased my property for 5 times the highest amount that had been paid up until then. People were shocked. Because I was in the investment business, I started helping some of my clients and neighbors for FREE ...for free now.... because I knew they couldn't dedicate the time I had to the process. They told people, those people told people and eventually it got too big , and was taking too much time to do it for free. It was taking time away from my other business. I partnered with two attorneys and a banker and formed a corporation. Before I knew it I was negotiating on behalf of 70,000 acres of land and it's owners.

One thing that I'm very good at (if I say so myself) is getting down to the truth in matters like this. We've helped people get paid millions of dollars and be able to sleep at night knowing that they didn't sign their life away on a generic contract.


Aside from all of that though, I believe that we are on the cusp of seeing a major shift in energy supply and use. I think having an accurate understanding of the factors is beneficial for the landowners involved and from an investment point of view as well.

WH_Conley .... It depends on what unit the water well is in. That would be my first question. Properties in one section are usually pooled to make a unit. So if the gas well or oil well is on my property, but my neighbor's water well is affected then he and I probably have the same issue because we share the same water aquifer. If he's in my section, then he's in my unit. If he doesn't have verbage in his contract like mine, he's not necessarily on his own. He may just have a longer road to travel. You have to remember, these companies are held first to the laws of the State and Federal Government, and usually in there is the DNR or Dept of Conservation, etc. You can't just ruin peoples water source and walk. There are provisions in the law for that. In this case, he'd be better off coming to me and riding my coat tails through a settlement agreement.

In fact, the subdivision next to me asked me to negotiate all of their contracts so we would have the same protection features. That's why I encourage landowners to team up and approach the process as a group, on a section by section basis. But that means they can't have an itchy trigger finger when it comes to signing ppwk and cashing a check from the O&G company.

Quote from: red oaks lumber on August 26, 2011, 08:09:03 PM
this is for both al  and swampdonkey,
to me its clear you guys are against oil and gas mining.

No we aren't against it, we just got side lined a bit to show how these big boys like the put the screws to the public. That's all. Besides that if we gotta pay what we were paying for it, make them work for it to justify it by making it as safe as possible. Maybe someone else can also get a job. ;)

Heck if you want another side track, a NB goat farmer who doesn't have $20,000 worth of milk equipment, but is clean and sterilized stainless steal vessels to make their cheese, got shut down. The inspectors never even showed up at the farm, just made the decision from an office desk, from a competitor he suspects. The farmer now has to sell shares on the goats ($5 a share if your interested) to buy this expensive equipment for his tiny operation just to satisfy the regulators if he wants to sell to the public. And you wonder why milk in NB is over $7 a gallon.  :P Up here the government giveth to Goliath and taketh from David.

There is a reason certain laws were enacted regarding wells strip mining etc .Simpley because of the practices in place which left the land virtually useless after what ever resource they were taking prior to enactment of such laws .

For example the prior strip mining around Cadiz Ohio that left the land looking like the craters on the moon .Since leaving such a mess the operaters are required by law to put the land basically back in the shape it was prior to those activities .

I could fill the entire forum with examples of back environmental issues caused by bad practices .It would be a shame if in future years to have to report simiilar issues simpley in the quest of natural gas .

Don't get the idea I'm oppossed to it just want it done with future generations in mind .Not all members of this forum have 70,000 acres of land .That you either have to be born into,marry into or be darned lucky .Never the less we of lesser land baronism are just as proud of our tiny 5 acre patches we choose to live on and would hate to see our way of life comprimised for the sake of a little gas to add to some jingle in the pockets of some wall street PT Barnum .

Hey Al .... for clarification, I don't own 70,000 acres of land. If you read the post again you'll see it says,"Before I knew it I was negotiating on behalf of 70,000 acres of land and it's owners." Trust me, I wasn't born into anything. Everything my wife and I have has come by our own hands.

If you ask me, coal is far more invasive that producing natural gas. We have a large open pit coal mine about an hour South of us. How do you restore that to the "shape it was prior to those activities". Even if you filled the pit back up you'd have to rob the fill from somewhere else. Plus, the costs involved with moving the fill would void any economic benefit provided by the coal.

That's just one of the reasons why Nat Gas is a better alternative than coal. As long as the water table is preserved, the process of producing the gas is really not that invasive. You've got a well pad that's about 5 acres in size to begin with, leveled out and soil cemented. It's maintained on a regular basis. Usually fenced for safety. A wellhead. A few condensation tanks and meters. In fact, you can see one from the air right below my section if you click on my location in my profile. That site is going to be about 1 mile, or the depth of one section to the South and just a bit west from me. The horizontal well bore on that well runs straight South for 1 mile towards I-20. So far that well has produced about 1 Billion cubic feet of Natural Gas in the last year, and that's a small well for here.
Compare the way that looks to a coal mine. Big difference.

LOGDOG, I have a question. With horizontal boring, when they cross a property line, does the surface owner get paid for what is under his property, if so, how do they figure that.

How that works is the property owners get paid if their property is in the section or unit that's being "drained". Sometimes because of logistics, there may not be a good drill site in section "A" ...maybe because it's densely populated. Section "B" might have a good drill site adjacent to "A". So they'll set up a pad in section "B", drill down and then turn the corner and run horizontally under section "A". The well is only perforated in Section "A" and only withing so many feet of the section line so that well doesn't drain section "B". In that case, only people who have land in section "A" get paid royalties and that's based on their number of "mineral acres". Now if section "A" and "B" were pooled together as a unit, then all landowners in both sections would split the royalties from that well. They can't drain your minerals without paying you for it.

We just had two new units formed like that here in Bossier City. They border densely populated subdivisions. But with very long laterals, as long as 2 miles, they'll be able to drain the gas from those sections. It's really an engineering marvel.  :)

I didn't know how that worked. I guess everybody in the subdivision will get a little check.

You are lucky you can get something. Up here the government owns all mineral and gas rights under the soil.

SwampDonkey, what happens if they go after something that has to be strip mined, do they compensate you or just boot you off? Can they just set up a drill rig in your front yard?

I wasn't advocating strip mining just pointing out one reason why some of those edicts came about with regard to land reclaimation .

The reclaimed lands I was refering to are in Southern Ohio former strip mines owned by Ohio power,now AEP .

Just so ya know,we have gas wells here also .None however that I'm aware or used any hydrafracing .It's high sulfer and of course needs to be purified before it's used or it has the same effect as sulfer water on the household innards such as the wiring, plumbing,the TV tuner and every item that uses an electric motor plus stinks like a skunk .

We own the mineral rights .However that just doesn't give you the rights to sink a well,gas or oil .Takes permits ,fees etc to do that  . So much for the Al Smith oil company . :D

Quote from: WH_Conley on August 27, 2011, 05:40:04 PM
SwampDonkey, what happens if they go after something that has to be strip mined, do they compensate you or just boot you off? Can they just set up a drill rig in your front yard?

No they don't move in on you and say good bye. There is a negotiation process, but you own what the land is worth not the mineral and gas worth. They base the compensation on the going rate of land in the area. Someone can file a mineral claim on your land, but that doesn't mean it will be worked, but is possible. They have 10 years on a claim I think after that they can file again. There are lots of claims that never get worked. I believe gravel pits and loam businesses are different as they are on the surface. It's unlikely that oil and mineral mining will happen in residential areas because of environmental regulations. And also, we aren't that desperate yet for minerals and gas under your front lawn.  Canada is a net exporter of about everything mineral and oil related. ;) In fact the natural gas lines that were set up in  this country in the 50's had to have connectors to the US market to be economical in some sections of the line.They never even brought the line to the Maritimes and even now that we have a line in NS and NB (Enbridge Gas) it has to connect to the US to be profitable.

I don't know a whole lot about "fracking"  for gas but they've fracked or blew in oil wells for years .

From what I understand it just causes the well to produce at a faster rate rather than sink a bunch of holes to  get the same effect .

I have no idea what fluids they use on gas wells but when my kid brother was working for Western hydrafrack out of Gillete Wy they used diesel fuel with a friction reducer .More or less like KY jelley so to speak  for want of a better discription .Once they lost the pressure or when the hole blew open they filled it with powdered bauxite .Being oil to begin with any residue left would just be sucked out of the hole when the well was pumped .

Now on a gas well or oil for that matter it would be very optimistic  to assume there wouldn't be at least some effect to the underground water aquafers as a result of such activities .The big question is how much and to what level is acceptable .These questions can only be answered by speculation because whatever damage that could be done can only be tabulated  after the fact .

Then you get the big pissen match of so called company paid experts such as what BP tried to do with the gulf spill recently .Big biz does not accept responsibilty willingly then if found guilty they try to negotiate their way out it .On that too I could fill many pages of this or any other forum to the point of server overload .That's just a fact that cannot be over looked .

Al ...

If you'd read the information and watch the videos I posted from www.energyindepth.org you'd have the answers to these questions. It's clear to me you're not interested in the facts in the least. That's fine though. Some people actually want factual answers to the issues at hand, and others just want to have something negative to talk about.

 :D--or conversely be so attuned to evangelising on a subject they get to the point they think they are the only ones with an educated opinion  on certain topics .

Sorry bud ,I have  both an opinion plus a keyboard ,just the way it is on forums . 8)

What else would you like to argue about ?  I'm not a preacher but I am a hell of a bar room lawyer .Besides that now what a boring world it would be if some didn't have opposing view points and acted lke a flock of sheep all the time,wouldn't it . :)

Come on guys....time for a group hug.  :D

 :D Oh this is just a lively discussion not a real war .

My learned opponent accused be of being pessimistic of which I agree .I on the other hand alledge he has an agenda of which he side steps .He has a brilliant carreer ahead in politics should he follow that calling .

Maybe I should lobby for less expensive natural gas prices .That should stir the pot a tad bit,say 4 bucks per MCF for starters prior to all this fracus or rather fracking .. Can I have an Amen brethren  and cistern . . ;D

Al the tormentor.  ;D :D :D

--not be confused with Conan the barbarion ,or that other Conan who thinks himself a match for Jay Leno .

I gotta back off a little bit before they start calling me Beano because they think I'm anti gas or something .

On second thought I could act as a liason officer for the gas consortium in charge of PR .A chicken in every pot and a gas water heater in every house for $2.50 per MCM .I suppose you'd have to be a resident of Louisiana to run for office though so that's out for know .I'd have to get on the corn band wagon to be effective in these parts or just go on the wagon period . :D

Well, I kinda dropped out of this conversation last month so's I could get caught up on my sales tax reporting. It's taken me this long to catch up on the discussion.

I did not mean to give the impression that I was against natural gas development or hydraulic fracturing. I'm not. I simply pointed out possible limitations on NG development to support my contention that we would be better off using oil from algae in our highway vehicles.

I mentioned problems with hydraulic fracturing because there are documented cases of well water being contaminated by fracing chemicals. The reason I brought this up is that these kinds of issues might delay the full development of shale gas. Then again, they might not. It's the uncertainty that's the problem.

Historically, the number of cases of well contamination by fracing chemicals seems to be relatively small. But shale gas extraction is different from oil extraction and from CBM (Coal Bed Methane) extraction -- so there is the potential for unexpected problems, or no problems at all.

Many of the chemicals used in hydrofracing are perfectly benign (I've even heard of instant coffee being used, but I haven't been able to confirm it). Some of them, however, are highly toxic and some are carcinogenic. Furthermore, some fracing chemicals are claimed to be proprietary or trade secrets and the users will not (or cannot) disclose what's in them.

Quote from: LOGDOG on July 27, 2011, 08:56:38 PM
Texas Passes Hydraulic Fracturing Disclosure Law

That's exactly the sort of thing we need to help put the issue to rest (or confirm that there's a problem).

One question, though. Does the legislation require disclosure of proprietary information chemicals?

Quote from: LOGDOG on July 21, 2011, 09:20:59 AM
Brucer ...
Tell me ... do you have hands on experience in the oil and gas field?

I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion. I expect my comments to stand (or fall) on their own merits.

Quote from: Brucer on August 29, 2011, 01:55:47 AM

I mentioned problems with hydraulic fracturing because there are documented cases of well water being contaminated by fracing chemicals. The reason I brought this up is that these kinds of issues might delay the full development of shale gas. Then again, they might not. It's the uncertainty that's the problem.


Many of the chemicals used in hydrofracing are perfectly benign (I've even heard of instant coffee being used, but I haven't been able to confirm it). Some of them, however, are highly toxic and some are carcinogenic. Furthermore, some fracing chemicals are claimed to be proprietary or trade secrets and the users will not (or cannot) disclose what's in them.

Quote from: LOGDOG on July 27, 2011, 08:56:38 PM
Texas Passes Hydraulic Fracturing Disclosure Law

That's exactly the sort of thing we need to help put the issue to rest (or confirm that there's a problem).

One question, though. Does the legislation require disclosure of proprietary information chemicals?

Quote from: LOGDOG on July 21, 2011, 09:20:59 AM
Brucer ...
Tell me ... do you have hands on experience in the oil and gas field?

I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion. I expect my comments to stand (or fall) on their own merits.

Brucer,

Please provide me with links to the "documented" cases of well water being contaminated by fracking chemicals. You said that your comments should stand or fall on their own merits. So I'll go along with that, and ask that you provide the backing for the comment in black and white from a credible third party. Is that fair?

As to the Texas requiring disclosure of the ingredients in fracturing fluids ...have you Googled the law and read it?

I want to ask this question of Logdog, being he is in the business. There seems to be a fair amount of secrecy about the chemicals used in fracking. Or there is a lot of misinformation or both.

Do you know what chemicals are used in fracking? Does someone monitor it, independent party like the EPA or the like.

Anything I've seen presented in this thread so far, unless I over looked something along the way, is what the companies say, not necessarily the full picture or full disclosure. I'm not sure quoting company statements qualifies anyone as an expert.

Quote from: Kansas on August 29, 2011, 09:40:32 AM
I want to ask this question of Logdog, being he is in the business. There seems to be a fair amount of secrecy about the chemicals used in fracking. Or there is a lot of misinformation or both.

Do you know what chemicals are used in fracking? Does someone monitor it, independent party like the EPA or the like.

Kansas,

Have you read the links I've posted earlier in the conversation? This was addressed there.

As to the question, "Does someone monitor it?" What would your gut tell you?

To your other point, there is both secrecy and misinformation on the subject. The source of either are many times separate.

Here's a question. Do we allow other industries to maintain trade secrets as it relates to not disclosing specific ingredients or perhaps "the specific blend of ingredients" in things that we perhaps ingest directly into our bodies? Of course we do. If a food company or a prescription drug company does not have to disclose to the public all of the ingredients and the specific blend of those ingredients even though we ingest them directly into our bodies, then why is it fair to make oil and gas companies do it? Where do we draw the line on disclosure of trade secrets?

Also, as it relates to probability, what ratio of probability is acceptable as it relates to accidents in any industry and how it may contaminate the ground or groundwater, or for that matter cause illness, physical harm or even death by way of it's operations, or utilization of it's end product?

Quote from: SwampDonkey on August 29, 2011, 10:05:28 AM
Anything I've seen presented in this thread so far, unless I over looked something along the way, is what the companies say, not necessarily the full picture or full disclosure. I'm not sure quoting company statements qualifies anyone as an expert.

SwampDonkey,

You have indeed overlooked information other than "what the companies say". If it's important to you, re-read the thread and the links in full. If it's not, that's ok too. I'm not going to re-hash it.

Regarding the statement, " I'm not sure quoting company statements qualifies anyone as an expert." You are correct. However, not providing any sound, third party evidence to support a person's opinion reduces it even further to "just something some guy, who probably isn't in the business, and has no experience in the field said without doing the research." (Not referencing you or anyone else here of course. Just in general.)

My new answer is going to be "Do the research." It'll mean more to you if you discover it yourself vs. having someone like me try to convince you of it. You might arrive at a different conclusion than me. That's ok. If it's not important enough for a person to do their own, thorough research ...then it's not important to me to waste spend my time doing it for them or convincing them of an alternate opinion. In the end, time will show us what the truth was.

I'm betting that 5 or 10 years from now hydraulic fracturing and natural gas/oil production will have continued to move ahead at full force and will be responsible for fewer contaminations or even deaths than other endeavors or methods that are widely accepted in other fields. In addition to that, I would foresee that we will be using Nat Gas on a much larger scale in that same time period than we are now and some version of T.Boone Pickens House Bill 1380 will be passed.

I was asked if I had been reading this topic. Now I know why.   >:(

it would seem to me, the problem lies with our own gov't agency that over sees oil and gas mining. logdog is just providing info, weather one wants to read it and either agree or disagree  :(
i haven't seen any info coming from the opposing side, does it exsist or not?

I'm taking no sides in this or singling one person out if you are talking to me, I'm talking about the attitude seething from the posts in this topic. I don't like it. I know each and every one of you are better than that.

Here's one study by Duke University on increased methane in drinking water near hydro fracking. The trouble is of course, as I've eluded to in an earlier post or two, is that there is no baseline data provided to Duke researchers to compare. It is "assumed" the companies have baseline data that they will not share as well as not being required to share the list of substances used in the fracking process in most states. So, with that in mind it's real easy to say there is no proof of contamination. Who knows it may have already been there to begin with. One side knows, if they have baseline data, and the others are guessing or making careers out of writing reports with questionable findings. There are also non-disclosure agreements with EPA, landowners and gas companies. Now the increased methane conclusion, is not necessarily something they used in fracking, but could simply be a result of displacement, seepage, and migration upward since it's a gas.

The EPA has found evidence back in the late 80's in one study and there is a "new" study ear marked for release by January 2012. There are a number of studies out there, but again the conclusions are based on the assumption that their hypothesis is correct going into these studies. It's almost like looking for a microscopic organism without a microscope. Something is making you sick, but can't prove what. ;)

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/02/1100682108

Below is an interesting article on water well contamination in Oklahoma caused by Halliburton in the past, it was not caused by fracking, and a very small scale.  Last I seen Halliburton was trenching in new water lines to these residents to provide city water to them at no costs.


Halliburton confirms Duncan water well contamination, takes corrective action
Halliburton has detected perchlorate contamination in 18 residential water wells near a site on the north side of Duncan where the company used to perform commercial activities, the company announced Thursday.

BY RANDY ELLIS rellis@opubco.com Oklahoman    Comment on this article 43
Published: July 8, 2011

DUNCAN — Halliburton has detected perchlorate contamination in 18 residential water wells near a site on the north side of Duncan where the company used to perform government contract work, the company announced Thursday.
Advertisement

"Halliburton has made arrangements to supply affected residents with bottled drinking water and, if needed, with a temporary water supply system, at no cost to the residents," the company said in a news release. "Halliburton will continue providing these temporary solutions until a long-term solution can be implemented."

Halliburton officials described perchlorate as a colorless salt that may cause adverse health effects — mainly with respect to the thyroid gland — at sufficiently high concentrations. The substance is not a carcinogen, the company said.

The contamination was discovered near Halliburton property along Osage Road, where Halliburton employees used to remove and burn spent missile fuel contained in missile casings under a contract with the U.S. Department of Defense, the company said.

Halliburton ceased such activities at the site in 1991, but believes they likely contributed to the contamination, company officials indicated.

Halliburton officials recently detected the contamination in water samples collected from the 18 wells as part of state Department of Environmental Quality requirements for ongoing closure activities at the property.

There is currently no legal limit for perchlorate in drinking water, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has begun the process of proposing a regulatory drinking water limit for the substance, Halliburton officials said.

"Halliburton will reimburse any potentially affected resident for the costs of health screenings they may seek," the company said. "Halliburton will also continue to determine whether additional water wells in the area have perchlorate impacts. Duncan residents who are connected to and using municipal or rural water lines should not be affected by this issue."

As part of an effort to keep affected residents informed, Halliburton and DEQ will host a public meeting at 6:30 p.m. July 19 at the Simmons Center, 800 Chisholm Trail Parkway, to discuss the contamination and answer questions.

Founded in Duncan in 1919, Halliburton is one of the world's largest providers of products and services to the oil and gas industry. The company has more than 60,000 employees in approximately 80 countries. Its U.S. corporate headquarters is now in Houston.

Read more: http://newsok.com/halliburton-confirms-duncan-water-well-contamination-takes-corrective-action/article/3583672#ixzz1WXrfg5JK

I think that the truth can be determined from a thorough search of the facts.  The problem with that statement, is that you have a government with an agenda, with many of these percieved "environmental" hot button issues, driven by political pressure, so they aren't always forthcoming with the truth in it's unaldulterated form, only the truth as it is filtered through their political lens.  You see examples of this with the "climate change" debacle that has been going on for some time, as well as many other issues at have been in the news of late.  My take on the discussion is that people need to be responsible.  Companies need to be responsible, and politicians neeid to be responsible.  We as individuals hold them responsible by supporting the truth wherever it can be found, and don't get so emotionally charged about something that our reason is clouded by our desire to defend one side or another.  It is known that drilling has caused well water contamination in the past, but does that mean that the most recent practices will always cause contamination?  I say NoWay!  Can a company or industry expert guarantee that it can not happen? Impossible,  to guarantee anything absolutely in this world, unless one is nigh unto God himself, IMO.  The truth can be found, I for one believe what I read from the stuff presented in the links provided by Logdog as I have been involved in supporting natural resource developement in many areas, (forestry, mining, petroleum) and other areas, and having had a front seat, and having spoken personally with engineers, and others involved in these areas of resource developement/extraction, the people on the ground want to provide a good product in the most responsible way possible in most cases.  Unfortunately there are those in any industry who are after the quick easy buck and it sullies the water (no pun intended), for everybody.  That is why I like this forum so much, there are a lot of level headed, common sense people on here, which has helped me to see things from a different perspective as well.  I think that just because someone is passionate about something because they have spend much time and energy to inform themselves of the intricacies of a topic, does not disqualify what they have to say about something.  I have to say though reading the back and forth and the "devil's advocate" role that Al had taken, was entertaining, though it may have touched a raw nerve with LD.  I hope that people can take things in stride, learn from one another and realize that even among seasoned "experts" there is rarely complete agreement on any subject that may be at hand.  I say go ahead and develope the resource, this earth is full and we have been blessed in these days to have knowledge beyond compare with any time in history, if things can be done responsibly and for the benefit of all, not a few, Go For IT!, that goes with Coal mining, Mineral mining, Logging, energy production, (even Nuclear), building more Hydro, what have you.  There has been too much of common sense thrown out in favor of political correctness in recent decades, we need more common sense injected back into the equation!! (I have said my piece, carry on folks)......

Well you've got several who  are in favor of giving the gas people free reign and others that are sceptical of them ruining the water tables  among other things .

I would think that's a natural reaction due to environmental mess ups  in the past .

Only a very few will reap any monitary benefits from this gas business but many could have their lifestyles altered drastically .If in the case that did happen past practices have shown that any payment or compensation for such damage could drag on for years in the court system .So with that in mind I would say that those of us who are concerned certainly have a right to be .

I would agree with you Al.  Anything with potentials like that should have contingencies well thought out and agreed upon by all potentially affected parties.  I believe that if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that an undertaking can be commenced without harm, or that the outcome(s) have postives that far outweigh the negatives, then why not move ahead with a measured approach?  THat is why I think that the rights to land and minerals ought to belong to the people locally, or the state at large, not the Federal government.  They are too far removed from the situation to help anyone but their own political future(s).  That is how it was meant to be in the beginning, and is how it should be now!  If you were looking at a risky medical procedure, but could see the benefits through the risks, and would you not proceed with that procedure?  I agree, it is too easy for ambulance chasers, and big corps to get off the hook on their liabilities when things go wrong, because they have the $$ to be able to pay the attorneys, with Tort Reform in place a lot of the legal shenannigans that go on would stop, and this country could get back to the business of real jobs, real energy and a brighter future for our kids and grandkids, rather than all the green fluff that has been floated around so much these last 15-20 years.  No one wants to contaminate peoples water, IMO, and if there is a Corp out there that is just in it for the quick $$, then they need to be held to the fire.  I believe that things can be done responsibly, and within reason.  Maybe I am one of those B.T. Barnum "suckers", but be it as it may....

Quote from: LOGDOG on August 29, 2011, 09:12:20 AM
... You said that your comments should stand or fall on their own merits. So I'll go along with that, and ask that you provide the backing for the comment in black and white from a credible third party. Is that fair?

Sorry for the delay – had to work the last couple of evenings.

I think the request for additional documentation is perfectly reasonable. As to a "credible third party", that may not be so easy. How do we define what a credible third party is?

Keep in mind that I'm not trying to build a case against natural gas development or the use of hydraulic fracturing. All I'm attempting to do is to support my prediction that natural gas development is not likely to happen as quickly as many people think.

My original information dates back 3 to 4 years, and is in hardcopy form. So I spent quite a bit of time checking to see if it's available on-line. Some of it is, but it isn't in a nice, neat package all on one web site. Perhaps that's for the best. I will provide links, but I encourage people to Google the subjects for themselves.

One case I read about in 2007 involved drilling for Coal Bed Methane (CBM) in the community of Rosebud, Alberta. The drilling program began in 2003 and two years later several residents suddenly experienced skin rashes and a burning sensation after bathing. In one case, the person's doctor said the rash looked like a burn from industrial soap. Alberta's Environment Ministry commissioned an analysis on the water in one resident's well, and eventually she obtained the results – but only after filing and access to information request. The analysis showed that her well water was contaminated with nearly 60 petroleum based chemicals, many of them found in fracing compounds.

A second case was that of Louis Meeks in Pavilion, Wyoming. One day in 2005 his normally sweet well water acquired an oily film that smelled like gasoline. Then suddenly the well ran dry. This occurred a few months after a gas well was put in near his home.

While searching for Web references to these cases, I found some much more recent information.

Jessica Ernst of Rosebud, Alberta is suing Encana Corporation, the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board, and the Province of Alberta, all related to CBM development. This is not a frivolous suit -- she's dead serious.

Here's one link about the case: http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/ (http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/)

Here's the lawsuit itself: http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Statement-of-Claim.pdf (http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Statement-of-Claim.pdf)

Here is a very up-to-date summary of Louis Meeks' case: http://www.propublica.org/article/hydrofracked-one-mans-mystery-leads-to-a-backlash-against-natural-gas-drill/single (http://www.propublica.org/article/hydrofracked-one-mans-mystery-leads-to-a-backlash-against-natural-gas-drill/single)

---

For those who've asked what is in fracing compounds, the answer is "a lot of stuff". Some of it is pretty harmless, like table salt or instant coffee (yes! I found the reference). Some of it is household chemicals (that you certainly shouldn't drink), such as hydrochloric acid or sodium hydroxide. Some of it is very toxic.

Here's a link to a Congressional Report. Appendix A includes a list of fracing chemicals, supplied by the corporations that engage in hydraulic fracturing. Note, however, that it doesn't contain the "proprietary" or "trade secret" compounds.

http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Hydraulic%20Fracturing%20Report%204.18.11.pdf (http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Hydraulic%20Fracturing%20Report%204.18.11.pdf)

Two things. The first one is, concerning food, yes, the ingredients all have to be listed. The amount of each one isn't but with fat, sodium, and other percentages listed its not hard to tell what is in there in amounts. About the only vague thing I ever see on a food label is "spices". And the production of a food product is watched carefully.

The second one that concerns me is this. What happens to the chemicals when they frack? That is, do they stay deep underground or are they used up and changed to some other form, or come out of the ground in the natural gas?  Can those chemicals come back to haunt us some day in case of earthquake or natural shifting of the earth?

I am all for natural gas production. I just want it safe. But you can't figure out how safe something is if everything is hush hush, and it isn't properly monitered by independent people.  You get something in wells and lakes, its a lot harder to get it out than put it in.

Again, I must ask the question:  Is it the drilling and casing of the well or is it the fracking of the well.  They are 2 completely separate operations.  A well must be completed before it can be fracked.  And if the well is COMPLETELY and PROPERTLY installed in accordance with "Best Practices", there should not be any type of contamination.  To include gas leakage into the shallower water tables.

Bruce

Well that's the big question it seems nobody can or will answer .Just lke the "sulfer" wells I alluded to .

If geoligy were an exact science they would first of all know where exactly every known pocket of gas,oil or probabley gold would exist .If they do know they certainly aren't telling .Nor for that fact are the so called experts able to predict with 100 percent accuracy exactly what will be the results with drilling or fracing .

Now I personally think there are those that have a pretty good idea if in fact there could be long or short termed effects which could be undesirable .I would also speculate that the powers to be might also be lobbying for legislation that would absolve them from liability in case something goes awry .We're talking zillions of dollars here,this is not penny ante poker .

Oh they'll drill it ,frac it ,sell it .That you can bet on .It'll be just like the transAlaskain pipe line .All that took was so called gas shortages for about two years in a row to get through .

Fact is while rambling along if they really wanted nuke power houses all it would take is a few brown outs nation wide and they would hit it like ants on honey .Just create a shortage,that's all it takes .

Al, I do agree with your sentiments about making sure that things are safe, but I must take issue with you on the Trans-Alaska pipeline comment.  I have lived and worked in Alaska, working for state agencies, federal agencies and oil industry service companies, all who would contract our helicopters for their various operations.  The miss-information about the "ill" effects of the pipeline are abundant and without founding in truth.  The truth of the matter is that wildlife has not been negatively impacted in the least.  In fact, the Porcupine Caribou herd (the herd that ranges across the Brooks Range and Northern tundra plain, has grown since the pipeline, and the caribou during the coldest months of the winter can be seen grouped along the line as the petroleum flow through the pipe has the effect of raising the ambient air temperature along the line albeit only a couple degrees, when it is -50 deg. farenheit, every little bit helps.  The pipeline corridor(3 miles either side of the line), is also a zero tolerance zone for hunting and firearms discharge, for obvious reasons, and this may have been an additional reason for a slight decrease in hunting pressure.  The area on the North Slope that is developed with oil exploration when compared to the size of the untouched area is miniscule, and the area that has been under dispute for development within ANWR is likewise tiny in comparison to the to the total size of ANWR.  Having been to both areas, the hype is way, way out of whack with th etruth of the matter.  The impacts to the environment have been minimal at worst, even with the very few spills that have taken place.  The Exxon Valdez accident is another matter entirely, which has little to do with the pipeline itself, except for the fact that the terminal at Valdez would not have been there were it not for the pipeline.  That debacle is Exxon's responsiblility, and they have yet to pony up to the people of Alaska, and most directly the people of the Valdez region, as they continue to stall in the courts since it is cheaper to feed attorneys for a big corp, than pay the $$ on a settlement.  That is plain wrong, and were it not for the fact that there is no tort reform in this country, would not be permitted otherwise, IMO.

Let me reclarify that statement .If you remember back there was not only a big debacle about the pipe line itself but also drilling on the north slope .After much ado and due to them playing with a gas supply it got through and the oil flowed .

I didn't say at the time I was opposed to it but I was just amazed at what lengths big biz will do  to get their way .

Fact being truth be known I had a chance to go on the pipeline but found work a tad closer at the time .--but then I've had the chance to go to Libia,the tar sands of Canada and several other places which I declined also .

That pipeline deal was just politics ,dirty perhaps but most in some ways are .This gas deal will no doubt have some arm twisting done before it's over if not already .Geeze maybe I should change my name before they come hunt me down . :o

Hey Al, they are awaiting approval from your president to build a tar sands pipeline to Louisiana. They have to maul the idea over some to see if it will benefit the US. I don't see how it wouldn't, two fold. Building it and using the oil. :D

I don't think the pres has a thing to do with it .Since Huskey owns the local refinery that pipeline idea has been in the works for several years .

Besides that since Lima Ohio is the geographical pipe line center of the midwest if not the nation ,a pipe line really isn't needed this far south .It's already there .It's just a matter of opening  the right valves .

They talked at one time about a transCanadian gas line once too but not much for a number of years .Louisiana may have a lot of gas but they aren't the only ones .

Now that local refinery was once a giant bean field,Lima bean coincidently .So in one form or another if you stop and think about it there's been gas on that site for a long time .Since I had bean burritoes for lunch and soon will ajourn to my patio for some of the famous St Louis beverage in the red and white can I too shall be blessed with some myself before the sun sinks in the western sky .

I wonder if Irving Oil owns interest in Huskey, because on the Irving gas cards we had years ago, the card could be used at any Huskey station and you don't see them until you get to western Ontario.

As far as the pipeline I think it's EPA approval they are waiting on. It's in the news every day practically. And Obama is involved some way as he was interviewed about it as I recall. Probably some kind of task force he's put together.

Well again it's all politics just like the subject of this thread .Ole T.Boone might be the front man but a bigger fish is behind it .The King fish no doubt whomever that might be .

I imagine though before it's all said and done especially with NAFTA some PT Barnum type like the allegedly deceased Kenneth Lay will figure a way to sell Canadas' gas back to Canada for a tidy profit .Even more ironic Lousianas' gas back to Louisiana .Now wouldn't that make you gnash the teeth .Oh Lawdy whatever you do don't buy any stock . :o

I don't however see any going to Mexico so that eliminates that part of NAFTA but you never know. Stranger things have happened .

Quote from: Kansas on September 01, 2011, 06:46:39 AM
... The second one that concerns me is this. What happens to the chemicals when they frack? That is, do they stay deep underground or are they used up and changed to some other form, or come out of the ground in the natural gas?  Can those chemicals come back to haunt us some day in case of earthquake or natural shifting of the earth?

In theory they get pumped back out. They used to get pumped into holding pits and they had quite a few cases of leakage from those. That practice appears to have changed. LOGDOG mentioned reclamation equipment back in post #68.

In practice it doesn't always work out as planned. There's lots of stages in the fracing operation and each one involves different chemicals.

The actual fracturing takes a lot of fluid -- the more you pump in, the more passages you are opening up. After the fracturing is complete, sand or beads mixed with a gel are injected to prop the fractures open. Biocides might be injected as well.

All this stuff is supposed to get pumped out (or pushed out by the methane). In reality, while the drilling can be precisely controlled, the fracturing process and subsequent reclamation pretty much depends on the local geology, existing fractures, etc.

I've come across one study (conducted in one particular operation in Alabama) where only about 60% of the fluid was recovered. There's no indication of whether that is typical or just applied to the one site.

It makes sense that you could not recover all the frac fluid .The question is what if any harm could be done to the water table should the stuff migrate into the aquafers   .If the fluid where jellied water probabley nothing would happen .

It's doubtfull that somebody would turn on the faucet and have KY jelley come out which is all jellied water is .The stuff would become dilluted to the point it wouldn't have any effect .

They often hit water when they least expect it ya know .Like a salt water blow when drilling an oil well in the middle of some place there hasn't been salt water for a zillion years .

It's only speculation if or not water would work .It stands to reason it should .Hydraulics are hydraulics .You can't compress a liquid be it water or oil or Budweiser  for that matter .Somebody mentioned coffee which seems to be getting rather high priced these days for some reason .Maybe they are brewing it by the tanker full and blowing it in the ground in LA gas wells .Hmm the plot thickens .

Quote from: Al_Smith on September 02, 2011, 09:40:08 AM
The question is what if any harm could be done to the water table should the stuff migrate into the aquafers

Al,

It can't migrate because there are no pathways.  See Professors Engelder comments from GasMart this year:  http://gasmart.com/gasmart2011/resources/pdf/engelder.pdf.  If there were pathways, like some people want to believe there is, then the gas wouldn't be there.  It would have moved though the rock to the surface a long time ago.  High pressure to low pressure.  In order for anything to move, it has got to have a path.  The only pathway though 20,000 feet of rock is the well and it's casing.  If it is PROPERLY installed, there is no way fracking fluid or nat gas can move though 20,000 or so feet of rock.

Bruce

I follow you on that .However you are hydraulically fracturing that rock that contains the gas .

Now I don't know exactly how they do it on gas .On oil according to my brother who worked the oil fields once they had a pressure drop on the frac they had to blow sand or bauxite down the hole as fast as the machines could take in case the formation closed back in .Those big sandmaster haulers held 40 tons and it didn't take long to empty one ,then another etc. untill they had the hole full .

I do get the gist if you blew the formation apart the natural gas would leak out .Geeze then what .Some poor fool puffing on a cigar while washing his hands and gets blown right out of bath room .--Or sitting on the throne and flushes the John then gets blown through  the roof .That would not be good . :D

Can you imagine trying to explain those burns to the ER Doc?

Tried to stay out of this one but I got to put in  a litle info. The deep wells don't pose much if any threat of contamination to fresh water zones. The shallow wells do have the potential to fracture the formation into the fresh water zones. The rock above shallow wells is just not as strong as deeper wells due to less compaction and is also more prone to natural fractures. Good geology work and structure studies need to be in place before fracturing and could well be that is not happening. Onshore wells just do not have the regulatory oversite that offshore does. I hate gov regulation as much as anyone but sometimes we have to live with it. As far as the salt water issue goes, almost all hydrocarbon resevoirs are water driven, this water being salt water

Quote from: WH_Conley on September 02, 2011, 01:41:36 PM
Can you imagine trying to explain those burns to the ER Doc?

Yeah that kinda would burn your butt so to speak ,a literal "hot seat " .

I don't know if you could get gas in a water well or not .I imagine it's possible .If they can cause hydragon sulfide gas alias "sulfer " I suppose natural gas wouldn't be out of the question probabley unlikely though .

Now joking aside about two years ago they hit a gas main and the gas traveled through the sewer and leveled a contractors office building .I'm thinking some receptionist was on the pot when the danged building blew up around her .What do you suppose went through her mind for a split second ? Perhaps not to eat Mexican food for lunch any more . :D

LeeB's comments confirm what I've been finding.

One thing I found in the literature regarding coal bed methane is that the fracturing in shallow wells tends to move horizontally, but in much deeper wells it tends to move vertically. I have no idea if the same would apply to shale deposits.

Quote from: Al_Smith on September 02, 2011, 03:20:51 PM
... I don't know if you could get gas in a water well or not .I imagine it's possible ...

It is. Methane, ethane, propane, butane (components of natural gas) are all soluble in water. As the pressure increases, so does the solubility. When methane levels are high enough, you can fill a bottle with water, cap it and leave it sit for a few minutes, remove the cap, and set fire to the gas that collects in the top of the bottle.

If it does that, then I wouldn't really call it soluble because bonds are not broken between solute molecules, but instead are in suspension and begin to separate. To be soluble, those substances would form new bonds with the water, giving off energy in the process. You could call those chemicals a solute though and water is a solvent, but the chemicals won't dissolve and bond to the water they are immiscible. They can only be held there under pressure, as they want to escape the water. It's like trying to hold two positive ends of a magnet together.

Quote from: Brucer on September 03, 2011, 01:51:12 AM
LeeB's comments confirm what I've been finding.

One thing I found in the literature regarding coal bed methane is that the fracturing in shallow wells tends to move horizontally, but in much deeper wells it tends to move vertically. I have no idea if the same would apply to shale deposits.

 

Aha the cats' outta the bag .That oil well I've been complaining about is about a mile away the way the crow flies .There is in fact shale along with gravel on top of the limestone base of the sub strata .

The water well is aprox 180 feet and the oil well probabley less than 1500 .So if it does go horizontal then the odds are they did cause the water to go sulfer by sinkng that oil well .Thus somebody owes old Al a new well due to the error of their ways .

Now who do I send the bill to is the next question .

Horizontal would be parallel to the structures and hence follow them as opposed to vertical which would be moving up and down through them. I don't think it would be likely that the well caused your water to go sulfer. I would more suspect a drop in the water table.

I would assume vertical would mean farther underground. I can see horizontal happening if the rock and shale structure is fractured, and allows sulfer to come up to the surface. It could have travelled quite a ways to get to where the well is, maybe not even in a straight line.  Kind of like a leak on the roof of a house.  Where the water is dripping may be far removed from where the leak actually is. Question is, is there more than one well contaminated? And if so, how far around that well?

As far as I know every well that was down in the limestone was affected .Those in a gravel bed above the bed rock were not .Seeings I'm about a mile away I'd assume others that close were affected too .

Quote from: SwampDonkey on September 03, 2011, 04:27:56 AM
... If it does that, then I wouldn't really call it soluble because bonds are not broken between solute molecules, but instead are in suspension and begin to separate. ...

From the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 36th edition. Solubility is reported in mL of gas per 100 mL of water at standard atmospheric pressure:

Methane: 9 @ 20 deg C (68 deg F)
Ethane: 4.7 @ 20 deg C (68 deg F)
Propane: 6.5 @ 18 deg C (64.4 deg F)
  ... and for reference, from the same source ...
Carbon dioxide: 90 @ 20 deg C
Carbon dioxide: 180 @ 0 deg C (32 deg F)

In more familiar terms, a 12 oz soft drink can full of water at just below room temperature can contain just over 1 ounce (by volume) of disolved methane, and about half that amount of ethane.

But water doesn't just "hold" that amount of gas. The amount that it can dissolve depends on temperature (colder water dissolves more gas) and on pressure (higher pressure will dissolve more gas). Notice above that ice water can dissolve twice as much CO2 as room-temperature water -- you've seen this for sure with soft drinks or beer. And underground water is usually much colder than room temperature water.

But the factor that determines how much gas is actually in the water is pressure. When gases dissolve in water, they establish an equilibrium with the same gases in the atmosphere. The higher the pressure in the surrounding atmosphere, the more will dissolve in water.

The pressure exerted by a gas depends how much of it is present. Oxygen makes up about 1/5 of the atmosphere. Air pressure is roughly 15 PSI. So oxygen contributes about 3 PSI to the total atmospheric pressure (it's called partial pressure). And this is what determines how much oxygen will dissolve in water (or blood, as any paramedic will know).

How much methane is in the atmosphere -- just a tiny fraction, so it's partial pressure is practically zero. That means water in ordinary air won't dissolve much methane at all. But underground in a natural gas pocket (or a coal bed) methane and ethane make up nearly 100% of the gases present. And the pressure is much, much higher. At the bottom of a 33 foot deep well, pressure is twice atmospheric. Go down to 100 feet and you're looking at a pressure four times as high.

So when methane deep underground comes into contact with an aquifer, the pressure is very high and a lot of gas will dissolve in the water. Bring that to the surface where the partial pressure of methane is zip, and most of the dissolved gas will leave.

---

And that's my last post for a few days. The computer needs some work done.

I'm enjoying this topic and I'm glad that everyone's been keeping it out of the restricted zone. Don't anyone tick of Jeff while I'm away, OK?

;D ;D

Seems like an oxymoron to me. They need to come up with a different term, since for instance, the bonds are not broken in the methane gas molecules. ;)

Hmm I didn't pay much attention to this fracing thing untill the subject came up on this site .It seems here of late the same questions with regards to the water tables must be of national concern .

USA Today had a little blurb and I saw a commercial by the gas industry on the TV last night .The spokesman brought out the point from what was said that the gas wells are a mile deep below the ground water .

It's going to be interesting to see what the outcome of this whole issue will be .I have to wonder what the odds makers in Vegas say about it .

It may make inroads Al where there is a need, but where I live we don't need it for a very long time. During the 70's oil debacle with the middle east, the pumps were never empty up here and in fact many home owners went to stove oil furnaces in combination with wood, or just an oil furnace alone and we never froze to death. ;) At one time the US was exporting oil until the plastics industry mushroomed creating a throw away society. Not that many decades ago folks were reusing flour bags to make clothing. ;) You didn't throw away the milk bottle because the milkman came to collect them and leave more milk in another sanitized bottle.

I remember as a kid that the pipeline in Alaska was going to kill off the caribou and all sorts of other calamities. Yes they leak some but so does mother nature and the harm is small and local. I'm sure we can protect our environment right back to the stone age and some will complain that chipping chert is bad.

I see the clebs are out in DC to protest the new pipeline. I'd believe they were sincere if they walked there and didn't fly over in their private jets.  :D

Yip, plus all the jobs writing reports and studies no one reads. :D

Norm, I wonder which pipeline, the one from the north or the south? :D

one of the big issues it comes to the environmental wackos that spout all sorts of doom & gloom about how EVERYTHING is bad.   Often they point to some obscure study done by the same environmental people which had no basis in scientific study.   Like several people posted before that tests were never done back in the day on the water well issues the drilling company came in & drilled a hole then someone said hey my water is bad they caused it.  when in fact the water may have been bad to begin with.   like other people also said there are a lot of wells that you can pop the top on and light the air inside.   (I would not recommend that though nor trying it with yours at home as the right mix it is a fuel air bomb!)  One of the first country wells we had as a kid had oil floating in it here in Ohio run a gallon of water let it sit and a sheen of oil would form on top.   I dont recall any gas wells and this was prior to Hydra. Fracing was being done.   

For the most part the depth of the frack depends on the shale they are going into. here in Ohio that is now bigger news the Marcellus & Utica Shale are pretty deep (ohio site http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/geosurvey/tabid/23014/Default.aspx )
the Utica shale gas is 6~8500 feet deep slightly below your water well which in Ohio is generally 60 to 120 feet for the most part.   Note the link above has a PDF sheet which is pretty detailed and shows aerial views of a Horz Drill pad in PA during the fracing process. here http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/portals/10/energy/Marcellus_Utica_presentation_OOGAL.pdf

on to fracing chemical issue for the most part 99% is water & sand, the last .5~1% is some form of chemical that helps to get the gas/oil to move.   Also these chemicals are all known not only to the company but also to the GOV.   these chemicals are all listed on-site as a OSHA requirements so they are known to many places the Oil companies are simply attempting to keep their own mixtures proprietary as they spent the $ developing them.   Not sure if any of them are selling their mixture formula or not but would be an additional stream of revenue for most of them as they would all buy each others formula & test them to see what works best & is the cheapest.   not to mention that each shale react differently to the mixtures which are usually customized to the local geology by looking at the spoils coming out of the hole during drilling they know the depth for the most part where the shale is and what it is made from but each bit is slightly different as the earth moves up/down and depth compression and the oil/gas is not all through the shale it still lays in regions/areas of shale.   

anyhow some people will believe the environmental wackos that are deliberately attempting to keep people from living their own lives...   they listen blindly and dont look for themselves into what is or is not true...   I say do your own research look around and see what amount of information is available from your own state and or fed gov.   go to local Dept of Nat resource and ask questions there as well/...

Mark M

Shales are notthe only formations to get frac treatments. Limestone, coal beds and tight sands also get treated. As for the commecial about the wells being a mile deep, this is not always so. Many of the wells are actually quite shallow in various places around the country.

I just spit that mile deep figure because that's what they said on the blurb about natural gas .I think it was Exxon /Mobil who did the commercial .

Like I said before I'm pretty sure the oil wells are around 1500 and I don't think  what gas is here is real deep either . Every so often they hit oil by accident  on a water well but it's not the main pocket of it .

Now I'm not saying that just by drilling an oil or gas well you stand the chance of screwing up the water ,the question is who is responsible for damages ? Every so often a fault caused by nature will sand a bunch of them in,that's just nature in action . Blasting in a lime stone quarry or fracing a well is man made so there lies the difference .

Looks like Nova Scotia is potentially going to do some deep water drilling near the Magdalen Islands.

http://novascotiaoffshore.com/news

Quote from: SwampDonkey on September 03, 2011, 04:27:56 AM
... I wouldn't really call it soluble because bonds are not broken between solute molecules, but instead are in suspension and begin to separate. ...

Quote
Seems like an oxymoron to me. They need to come up with a different term, since for instance, the bonds are not broken in the methane gas molecules. ;)

"They" have been using the term for a few hundred years. You could try to convince the world's chemists to change it, but I ain't holding my breathe ;D.

There is no requirement that bonds be broken when a substance dissolves. What you're referring to is a special case (called dissociation) where certain substances separate when they dissolve in a liquid solvent.

In any case, when gases like methane or carbon dioxide dissolve in water, they become part of the liquid -- in other words, they aren't just tiny suspended bubbles of gas. So they will travel wherever the water goes and if the pressure drops dramatically, they will separate back into the gaseous state.

Advice to people living near a new gas well project: Insist on a sample being taken of the gas to determine it's composition. Have your well water tested for methane/ethane/etc. content before drilling and fracturing starts. Make sure the test includes quantity dissolved and composition. That way if there is a problem, you can have your water tested again and have something to compare it to.

I should coin a new term and write a chemistry book, make my fortune. :D

Awe geeze now I've heard it all .All the sudden out of the clear blue parts of Ohio is sitting on top of a zillion billion cubic feet of gas .What like it just appeared ? So the price goes to the ceiling now they found so much of it they can tell OPEC to take a hike .They didn't know it was down there all along ? Something is fishy .

It's been a big hoopla in the news paper .

Quote from: Al_Smith on September 14, 2011, 06:55:07 PM
Awe geeze now I've heard it all .All the sudden out of the clear blue parts of Ohio is sitting on top of a zillion billion cubic feet of gas .What like it just appeared ? So the price goes to the ceiling now they found so much of it they can tell OPEC to take a hike .They didn't know it was down there all along ? Something is fishy .
...

It has been known for some time that it is there.   They just didnt know how far it extended and how much free gas is available out on the edges where I'm at    take a look at the Utica Shale maps on the ohio DNR site.  It is deeper than the Marcellus Shale and closer and or deeper than 6000feet for most part over  a mile deep.http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/10/Energy/Utica/UticaShale_WellPrototype_diagram.pdf

Mark

Well I heard another murmur in the media about exploring geothermal in Canada. I doubt we'll be seeing that route to energy for a very long time. The petroleum industry has the bucks not someone making a presentation to an academic audience. I'm sure it could be done, but from my understanding we'd have to all move to the Yukon or somewhere remote where the geothermal is closest to the surface. Your not likely going to transport it long distances and I'm not likely to move up there in this lifetime. Life is just fine right here. ;)

Al,

The CEO of Cheaspeake has recently stated that the Utica Shale is going to be more profitable then the Marcellus because it is a "wet" play - more liquids like propane, oil and other stuff in it.

Also, there was an article in today's Oil and Gas Journal that Hess Coparation is buying into the Utica big time.  Recently they purchased 2 companies that have been drilling in Ohio for years.  These 2 purchases give them about 300,00 areas of "play" in the area.

Bruce

Well on that which I recently commented about on several threads ,this area I live in was once the hottest oil field in the country .In addition within the last several years some outfit came through  and drilled test holes in what I know for a fact was once part of that great field .

Fact being on a property I owned with a former wife I found the foundation from a pump engine that was likely installed during the 30's when the field was active .My neighbor had supposidely 6 wells that were plugged and the farmer next to me still had the casings sticking out of the ground in the middle of a corn field with 5 gallon buckets on top of them .

Well so there might be something to it but none the less they're still going to hold our feet to the fire over the price we pay . It won't make any difference how much they find ,there will never again be cheap gas or gasoline .

Yup, and we export ours and we pay more already.  ;)

Now you don't suppose there's a scam going on in Canada about like old Ken Lay pulled on California do you ?? Like buying the excess electrical power from the state then selling it back during hours of peak demand or something like that . I mean it's not like you can put the gas or electrical power in a big bucket to save it for a later date .Made a fortune enough to pay for a 100 kings ransoms then backrupted the company when the heat got on .The cheese got binding then there were a bunch of dead people all the sudden .Maybe something in the water ?

Maybe like taking Alaskan crude oil then pipelining it across Panama to say it belongs to them then jacking the price or something to avoid the set price at that time on domestic crude oil .

You just never know about these things .One things for sure nobody  will fess up if it's true then lie about it if they do  get caught or blame it on some dead guy .Like I've said  zillion  times there's a lot of slippery eels  in this energy stuff .

Taxes Al, too many roads to nowhere, not enough tax base, so gotta up the taxes on fuels.

Well that makes sense . If they don't go any where you could drive for hours and be right where you started  at .

I'd get me evens ,don't buy any fuel .Get a hoss unless they tax oats in Canada then feed it saw dust .It might learn to like it about two days before it keels over from starvation .

Naw that would be mean .Feed your hoss and don't kick the dawg .If the cat climbs a tree ,leave it be .It got up there and it certainly should be smart enough to get down .

If not after a few days cut the tree out from under the cat .If it survives I'll bet the next time it gets in a tree and hears a saw fire up it will shinny down that thing toot sweet .Al the cat advocate . :D

Quote from: Al_Smith on September 15, 2011, 05:25:41 PM
Well that makes sense . If they don't go any where you could drive for hours and be right where you started  at .

I'd get me evens ,don't buy any fuel .Get a hoss unless they tax oats in Canada then feed it saw dust .It might learn to like it about two days before it keels over from starvation .

Naw that would be mean .Feed your hoss and don't kick the dawg .If the cat climbs a tree ,leave it be .It got up there and it certainly should be smart enough to get down .

If not after a few days cut the tree out from under the cat .If it survives I'll bet the next time it gets in a tree and hears a saw fire up it will shinny down that thing toot sweet .Al the cat advocate . :D

Good stuff Al!! :D :D :D :D

 :D Sometimes I just can't help myself .I get on a roll and can't stop .

I can be serious at times but it's rather short lived . ;)

B.C.'s energy regulator is investigating a cluster of earthquakes (seismic swarm) in a busy gas drilling area of the province. Since 2009, more than 30 earthquakes have been registered in the Horn River area, a region that has also seen extensive drilling and a process called hydraulic fracturing used by companies extracting natural gas.

CBC News Article (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/09/28/bc-fracking-gas-earthquakes.html)

New Brunswick government website on shale gas (http://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/corporate/promo/natural_gas_from_shale.html)

It seems there recently has been a lot of news about fracing . The gas industry has mounted massive advestisments on TV evangelising on the safety of same .

T Boone is no where in sight .He must have caught the last train to the coast . :D

Al,

He has been real busy back behind things. 

The latest big news about shale gas is Chesapeake's CEO statement about the Utica Shale, which is in the same area but lays deeper then the Marcellus.  "McClendon Values Utica at $500 Billion".  Here is the first part of the article: "The Utica Shale could be worth $500 billion, and the "biggest thing economically to hit Ohio, since maybe the plow," Chesapeake Energy Corp. CEO Aubrey McClendon told an audience in Ohio last Wednesday.  "I prefer to say half a trillion," McClendon said at the Ohio Governor's 21st Century Energy & Economic Summit in Columbus. "It sounds bigger." While admitting that fluctuating commodity prices make it difficult to accurately predict the value of a resource, McClendon called his estimate "reasonable."   One of the things they really like about this play is that it is very "wet".... Lots of oil and other natural gas liquids that they can sale off at a higher price then gas.  They are all ready starting to drill into this play.  Also, I think Ohio has learned a few lessons from Pennsylvania and they are better prepared for the "Drilling Madness,"

Bruce

ohio will be one of the next boom states the 650 million dollar steel mill in youngstown is just a start

Yeah they're making a big whoop te do about that shale gas in Ohio .About every day they do a plug for it .They might have something,well lots of money for one thing,that's for sure .

Youngstown used to have Youngstown sheet and tube until the steel crunch of the 80's when they closed mills down all across the country .Cheap imported steel flooded the markets .The old mills were still making the product like they did in the 1890's and never got with modernization .

They tried to blame it on the steelworkers who they claimed made 75 bucks per hour which they didn't .Besides that they got incintive pay,the more tonnage,the more money they made .It was nothing more than politics as usual .

If they ever get their heads out of their behinds and brought back just half the jobs this country let go off shore there would be so much tax money the gov wouldn't know what to do with .Well that's an exageration because they'd find a way to spend it if past practice means anything . :D

Well, here's the first violation of the rules.

Windsor Energy violated provincial law (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2011/11/02/nb-windsor-energy-sussex-1055.html)

I sit in total amazement of this whole gas/oil thing .Doom and gloom and the downfall of society as we know it .Then out of the blue they magically find a huge reserve of gas or oil like it were devine providence or something .

Just the other day they talked on the news about some boom town in Oklahoma  ,Nebraska or some other midwestern state. They can't find enough help to fill the jobs ,huge oil  strike .What like they probabley hadn't known about it for the last 50-60 years ?

Now just how stupid do these PT Barnum types think we are anyway ? Get the price up high enough they have all kinds of oil and gas . :D

All these "finds" were found 80 to 100 years ago. Compared to what was available when the discoveries were made, it was simply too difficult or too expensive to extract the stuff. Anytime oil and gas prices would rise, they'd go back and do some more exploration holes.

There is only one place with large, high quality oil fields where they still don't know the full extent of the fields: Iraq.

Well that too .As I've said in the past where I live at one time was the hottest oil field in the world ,there's still a bunch down there .I suppose though to the big players in the oil biz it's just as good as money in the bank ,it isn't going anywhere.

It just amuses me when they lay out all the hype and hoopla of a "new" find .

4 state governors sign deal to promote cng state owned fleet vehicles  ok  pa  co  wy    i also saw a local garbage truck that runs on nat gas  and i did not know a diesel can be converted to run on nat gas

mack truck is making a nat gas garb truck terrapro with a cummins westport ISL G engine  this engine is used in many applications on four continents and the 100,000 engine was just produced in NC

I just read that alliant energy is not going to renew their contract to buy power from our local nuc plant. Instead they are building a natural gas power plant. Apparently it's the flavor of the day to go along with the million windmills they have blighted us with.

Oh what shall we ever do if the wind stops blowing .Eat more beans ?

I've got some home baked ones here, so I'm doing my part. I have a whole mountain top covered in windmills in view of the house. They're still spinning. ;D

With all the rain this summer NBPower reported the highest profit in it's history from all the water for hydro power, $220 M profit. We are still paying for reburbishment ongoing to a nuclear plant that was suppose to be done 2 years ago. First off they dumped the new turbines in the ocean, so they had to be sent back to Europe and cleaned up.  Then some part of the structure, some type of tubes (25 or so) were all @#$^'ed up and had to be torn out and redone. This is NB, make the job last 3 times what it would take a confident outfit to do. By the time we have this rebuilt, China will have built 10. ::)

They really struggled with the decision to put in windmills around here. A company wanted to put them on hill tops in the flint hills in my county. It came down to, does the landowners have the right to make the money they would make if they went up? Or did we really want them here because so many people didn.t want to look at them, plus some other unanswered questions. Lots of passion both ways. Lots of hearings. In the end, the county decided not to allow them. I had somewhat mixed feelings, but in the end, I'm glad they didn't allow them.

At first I was for them but after you have a couple of hundred next to you the appeal wears off. We could build one nuc plant to keep from having this blight on the landscape. I'm also surprised how many you see not working, I'm guessing they are pretty high maintenance.

Take away the federal tax subsidies and wind power cost several times per kwh more than the same power produced by hydro, nuke or coal, the 3 cheapest forms of power we have. Here in the PNW, they have built hundreds upon hundreds of windmills on several windfarms scattered across the Columbia basin. I heard from one source that they get over .5 million in tax rebates for each tower erected. It costs a ton in maintenance to keep one going once it starts up, to say nothing of the costs to put up the grid intertie network for each farm. Colossal waste of $$ IMO.

It's not that's it's a bad idea but like most everything they got anal about windmills .Ohio for example legislated that  by some time in the future 20 percent of the states needs will be of alternate energy sources .Seems odd with the amount of coal the state has .Well I guess recently a whole bunch of gas mysteriously  appeared too ,magic perhaps .

Events such as TMI and Chernobyl pretty much killed the nuc program in the US .Then came the earth quake in Japan and closed the lid probabley forever .

On that though they never ever built one either on time or on budget .

China has been going gang busters building nuke plants.

Well that seems odd .Two things they got ,people and coal .

Quote from: Al_Smith on November 15, 2011, 06:27:17 PM
Well that seems odd .Two things they got ,people and coal .

Three things.. People, coal and pollution - Lots of pollution...

Ian

And don't care about any of the above.

This week is an ongoing debate about fracking shale gas in NB. CBC website called Fractured Future (http://www.cbc.ca/nb/features/fracturedfuture).

In Wyoming, the EPA found benzene and fracking chemicals in ground water samples, with 65 wells drilled in the test area. A Calgary based company was doing the drilling.

http://www.chron.com/business/article/EPA-links-fracking-at-Wyoming-well-to-tainted-2391084.php

I have tried to stay up on this media battle between the frackers and the no-frackers.  Has anybody got some non-biased stuff I can read about it?  This recent Wyoming case sounds pretty severe, but others have demonstrated minimal effect from the process.  Is this just a variable phenomenon dependent upon the locale or the way the fracking was done, or is each side trying to convict the other side in the court of public opinion?

On another note, my solar project was just finnished and seems to be working well.  As others have said, without subsidies and tax credits, it would not have happened.  Maryland is another state that expects to have 20% of its energy be green in the future.  So, I get some of my money back from the feds and the state, and have a barn roof covered with panels.  Payback for me is estimated to be 7 -8 years.

I can't say I'm really against it if it's found safe and sound and creates jobs. Some people in this province want to keep everyone poor. Those are the ones picking up their government social welfare cheques and blat'n that they haven't got enough. They are the ones that have nothing to do and still get paid. The sit-in at the legislature grounds is pretty much 100 % made up of this bunch. The ones out in the Stanley area causing mischief where some of the exact same bunch of bums.

Quote from: doctorb on December 10, 2011, 10:48:32 AM
This recent Wyoming case sounds pretty severe, but others have demonstrated minimal effect from the process.  Is this just a variable phenomenon dependent upon the locale or the way the fracking was done, ...

It varies a lot.

The original fracing done by Haliburton involved pumping things like diesel fuel into oil wells. Let's see -- diesel mixing with crude oil -- nope, won't be a problem.

Encana has done a lot of fracing to recover coal bed methane in Alberta and several US states. There are several cases of contaminants showing up in aquifers shortly after the fracing activity started. They claim the contamination was there all along. The homeowners dispute it. But no one did any sampling before the fracing started, and the oil and gas companies claim their compounds are proprietary so it's pretty hard to do a comparison. Some of the complaints are pretty credible.

As some forumites have pointed out, it seems pretty obvious that if drilling companies wanted to avoid all the complaints, they should simply have 3rd party testing done in all the surrounding wells and aquifers before starting to fracture. Strangely enough they seem very reluctant to do this. The cynic in me says they are probably afraid of proving that fracing is a bigger problem then they let on.

I suspect most fracing operations have no ill effect on the public. But the industry is sticking to their guns -- there are no cases of ill effects. I don't buy that.

Quote
... or is each side trying to convict the other side in the court of public opinion?

Partly that. Some drilling companies have so many outstanding (and credible) complaints against them that if they ever lost a case they'd be buried in lawsuits.

One case I've been following is Jessica Ernst in Rosebud, Alberta. She's a complainant against Encana. She's also a scientist -- in fact, she's an oil industry consultant. I could give you some links but then I might be accused of bias. Google "Jessica Ernst Rosebud" and you'll get lots of information.

I can see how Fracking could cause water contamination. Heck it can happen naturally in some geological structures. Getting in there with hydraulic pressure or explosive charges could easily increase this, or restart seepage that that naturally died out thousands of years ago. Heck some of the first oil well in the world were dug by hand on a local beach. The oil and gas was naturally seeping out and pooling on the beach. The first "drillers" dug a well by hand and collected the oil. No one knew what to do with it at the time, but eventually they found a market for it.  Now going back and fracking that formation is probably not a good idea unless you are willing to put up with oil and gas bubbling out on a city beach again.

Other formations are much deeper, and separated from groundwater by thousands of feet of impermeable sandstone and volcanic ash. Whatever they do down there has pretty much zero effect on the surface. The local fields usually use "re-injection". An old well starts to produce larger quantities of CO2 and water instead of gas and condensate. So they separate that stuff and pump it back down a played out well. This forces more gas from the formation to surface through the still producing wells. Eventually they get to the point where they are just recycling the same water and CO2 and not getting any useful amount of gas. Time to move on then.  I can see how this would cause problems in a shallower and permeable structure where it might force that residual gas up into the water table instead of the other wells.

So not ALL fracking is bad. But there are certainly places where it shouldn't be done.

Ian 

Quote from: doctorb on December 10, 2011, 10:48:32 AM
Has anybody got some non-biased stuff I can read about it?  This recent Wyoming case sounds pretty severe, but others have demonstrated minimal effect from the process.  Is this just a variable phenomenon dependent upon the locale or the way the fracking was done, or is each side trying to convict the other side in the court of public opinion?

One of my first jobs was on a frac crew back in the late seventies with BJ Hughes and I quit my job as an operator with the company in question (about fraccing) a few months ago.  I live very close (downwind) to a sour gas plant (where I worked) and near the terrorist bomber.  I think most of the wells surrounding my property have been fracced... can I give you an answer to your question...... no.  I am 56 yo lived here all my life... I have some clogging in my coronary arteries,  my well water makes ok coffee... dunno what else to say

The first mistake the province did just recently was to not issue a fine for breaking the regulations and within a town limit. That don't go over too good, I can tell ya that. It puts the mind set in the public that there is no real regulation at all to protect us. Which isn't hard to conclude.