Hydrofracking question.

I know there's much opposition to hydrofracking but I read a post by an engineer claiming that hydrofracking happens far below the water table. But surely when they pump the gas back up the well it and the contaminants must pass through the water table again. Can someone explain this technology to me?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

When they pump the gas back up the well, it will be inside a pipe.

That's what they do when they drill an oil or gas well, they put a PIPE down the hole they drill.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As they blow up below the water table . Cracks will develop in the water table because of the organic pressure below it will diffuse into the water table and contaminate it specially if the water table is sand . Than as the well owner pumps water he will pump a mixture or oil with water .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hydrofracking is intended to "blow open" pores in rock to allow gas to flow more easily, and also contains "proppants" like sand to keep the pores open. This makes the rock near the well more permeable - and thus allows both fracking fluids and methane to flow beyond the well itself. This has resulted in several cases of contamination of drinking water supplies and even one case where a well exploded due to high concentrations of methane.

In addition, leaks and well explosions can result in the release of fracking fluids directly into local streams and lakes.

 

Yes, but that's not typical.

Typically gas wells are many thousands of feet below any groundwater supply, with many layers of impermeable rock between them.

Indeed, if the rock layers above the gas were permeable, the gas wouldn't be there.

http://www.energyfromshale.org/ground-water-protection

 

Agreed. But keep in mind that the purpose of hydrofracking is to make impermeable layers of rock permeable. Done correctly fracking increases permeability only in areas that contain gas and does not affect nearby water tables - but in many cases the effects have extended beyond what geologists predicted.

 

Yes, but many THOUSANDS of feet below any water table.

Gas just isn't usually found nearly that close to the surface.

Most of the issues I've read about have been with surface disposal of the drilling fluids, not the actual wells.

 

And that had nothing to do with the process of Hydraulic Fracturing.

Which is the problem.

Just because a well that is using Hydraulic Fracturing causes a problem doesn't mean it is related to the Hydraulic Fracturing process itself.

As the report states:

Over 79,000 wells have been drilled to the “Clinton sandstone” in eastern Ohio.

So yeah, occasionally there will be problems.

Getting energy out of the earth, via well or mine is not totally without any risk.

 

So, what percent of hydrofracked wells cause contamination in the water table? How far does this contamination spread from the source? How long does it remain at toxic levels in the water table? How great is the area of a water table? Are they interconnected tables? Are there any substitutes for these proppants? What percent of natural gas wells are hydrofracked? thanks

 

Agreed. Looks like they have some work to do with hydrofracking to make it safe enough, though.

 

Nope.

BELOW THE BASE OF THE CEMENTED SURFACE CASING.

Here's a diagram

http://www.energyfromshale.org/sites/default/files/Shielding-Ensures-Safety.pdf

The leak was just below the Surface casing, near the TOP of the well.

(The Surface casing would be the one that extends just below the Aquifer)

The Fracking is going on at the very BOTTOM of the well.

 

Lisa Jackson on Fracking:

“I’m not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water, although there are investigations ongoing,” she said.

 

From Poland with love
Email


WARSAW, Poland (AP) — A scientific study in Poland has found that shale gas extraction at one site produced some toxic refuse but that the waste was reused and didn't harm the environment.

The report was presented Friday by the Polish Geological Institute, which carried out its study last year when a company, Canadian Lane Energy, began test drilling near Lebien, in northern Poland.

Poland has some deposits of shale gas and is hoping to exploit them to cut its dependence on Russian natural gas. It hopes to repeat what has happened in the United States, where large shale gas discoveries in the past 10 years have given the country independence in the gas sector.

It is still unclear, however, how much shale gas there is in Poland, and the process of extracting it has come under fire by environmentalists.

In hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a technology developed in the United States, large quantities of pressurized water and some chemicals are used to break underground rocks and release gas trapped in them. Most of the water remains underground, but some returns to the surface and is toxic.

"Cases of leakage and water contamination in the U.S. show that this is not a safe technology," Katarzyna Guzek of Greenpeace told The Associated Press.

The report said the procedure at the site it studied produced some highly toxic liquid and some solid refuse, but that it was all either reused or utilized. Laboratory studies found no pollution to surface or ground water, soil or air, it said.

"Soil, air, water — the studies show that all these elements of the environment are safe if exploration of shale gas is conducted in accordance with legal regulations," the study said.

Guzek said the study was carried out at the start of exploration in Poland and does not reflect dangers from a long-term activity.

Lane Energy is among more than a dozen international companies that have obtained licenses to explore for shale gas in northern and eastern Poland.

 

The Oil industry doesn't want to undermine its investment in oil at the moment.
When it wants to turn to fracking, we will have our fuel supply from fracking.
It is not necessarily polluting, any more than oil exploration.
If the fines for pollution are set high enough, the level of pollution will be limited.
You can be damn sure there will be no pollution in the Gulf of Mexico again.
As usual, poor countries will suffer far higher levels of pollution than rich ones.

 

I have looked at it.
And the Fracking wasn't done wrong, the problem was in the well that was improperly cemented, and the "communication" would have happened regardless if the gas was from a normal zone or a fracked zone.

As you diagram says, you can't frack upward to the groundwater layers.

Which is why, 3 years AFTER that report was issued the head of the EPA said: I’m not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water

 

If you were right then Lisa Jackson is a liar.

Don't think she's a liar.

And the report doesn't agree with you either and the only issue with the Fracking is it was done when there was minimal Cement behind the production casing.

Indeed, the Corrective action was simply a new Cement job:


1. Inadequate primary cementing of the production casing has been remedied by the
subsequent squeeze cementing operations;
2. The deep high-pressure gas zones that were the source of over-pressurization of the
aquifers have been isolated and sealed from the well bore through the squeeze cementing
procedures;
3. The confinement of annular gas, which caused the build up of pressure, has been
eliminated.