Fracking - what's really happening; Industry vs Public vs EPA

[Bob]

A 180 page report just came out.

US Environmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) (we could call them an oversight group checks and balances) raised some important questions and made some key observations about the rest of the Agency's overwhelming statements that Fracking (or fracing) is unequivocally safe.

After reading that 180 page report today, what I noted specifically is what I have pointed out observing the industry practice of "injection well" damage (leaks and earthquakes).

To recap, an "injection well" is different than "injecting water into a new well to open up cracks in oil and gas formations".

Point 1) An Injection Well is like a toilet, one is not expecting to pump out useful hydrocarbons from where the toilet flushes.

Point 2) A Frack'd well, using water injection is a new well, where the goodies are trapped tightly in a formation and need to have something added to expand the small cracks, (like sands need to be added), to facilitate migration of oil and gas through those cracks.

Point 3) Water table, the aquifer, underground fresh water reservoirs are located CLOSE to the surface of the earth.

Point 4) Injection disposal wells (think toilet) are supposed to DUMP the waste down many many thousands of feet BELOW where the water table, or aquifer resides. There are many layers of cap rocks/sands/caprocks/sands/ in-between where the hydrocarbon goodies reside and the aquifer resides. That is the "protection", shielding by distance and shielding by many layers of alternating rock/sand layers.

The industry then says, FRACKING IS SAFE. Logical really. People freak out, hearing injection and don't differentiate, don't understand depth of the bottom of the well, don't understand geology (they get shill geologists to say see fracking is dangerous..). Industry gets shill geologists to say it is perfectly safe, gets literally dozens of scientists to say fracking is safe.

ISSUES

1) A PROPERLY designed well, cased properly in sound rock layers is safe. That is the ideal scene. It is safe when the layers to be fracked are DEEP, and ONLY the deepest layer at the bottom of the well are to be fracked. A properly designed well will have had a geological study performed, doing core samples from top to bottom FIRST to analyze the stability of the layers from the aquifer surface drinking water, downwards through all the rock/sand/rock/sand layers and verify that they are intact.

Fact - such is not done because core analysis is costly. Rule of thumb is there are enough layers, nothing really is going to leak during the frack operation up to the surface. Any seepage may take hundreds if not more years for a pressurized zone to migrate upwards.

Fact - oil seeps, or hydrocarbon evidence on the surface of the earth is a result of deep formations having fractured, traveled upwards along the fractures (sometimes they are fault zones), and form on the surface. Early oil discovery in an area looked for surface seep evidence and used that to allow for wildcat drilling in an area.

A well know seep area in California for instance: The La Brea Tar Pits. These are a group of tar pits around which Hancock Park was formed in urban Los Angeles. Natural asphalt (also called asphaltum, bitumen, pitch or tar—brea in Spanish) has seeped up from the ground in this area for tens of thousands of years. The tar is often covered with dust, leaves, or water. Over many centuries, the bones of animals that were trapped in the tar were preserved.

Fact - when there is a strike, a prospect that pans out and provides production, if there is a potential for a reservoir, a channel, pocket, more wells will be drilled within those formations, in attempts to extract out ALL of the hydrocarbon. In actuality only 30-40% of the values are ever fully extracted due to the nature of the rock/sands, they are just not porous enough to release. That is why Fracking and Flooding operations are performed AFTERWARDS on a field when the oil starts to run out. (it's still there just trapped).

And this is where the problems can happen.

WHEN the OLD WELL runs dry, just how is it treated?

Starting with the well construction: A well is drilled, tubing/casing is put in through the water table. That section is fully tightly cemented (basically like putting liquid rock into the top layers), so that the inner piping is permanently blocked off from the water-table layers up at the surface. Proper bonding proper cementing is required. Wells have been drilled and cased back in the early 1900's.

Have you ever looked at OLD CONCRETE? Do you see it crumbling, breaking apart?

(Above is from an old concrete driveway, one can see this everywhere)

The process of concrete to remain strong, is a chemical process, but it shrinks, and it moves away from the outer and inner structure. The inner structure is the downhole pipe, the outer is the rock/sands to which it is supposed to be bound. BUT the shrinking results in de-bonding. When it debonds, over age, it (the concrete casing "shield" layer) can fracture, allowing migration.

In fact, there was an in-depth study done to figure out what in the world was causing methane seepage from formations getting into Pennsylvania water supplies:

The study published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined 133 water wells with high levels of methane. Researchers found the contamination was either naturally occurring or linked to faulty well construction by gas drillers.

Lead author Thomas Darrah of Ohio State University calls the findings a mix of good and bad news.

The bad news is that drilling activities can contaminate shallow aquifers with methane gas.

“The relatively good news is that the hydraulic fracturing process is not actually releasing the methane,” he says.

“Instead, it’s actually problems along the well (concrete casing seal/bond) and well integrity that are allowing the some gas to leak out into the shallow aquifer.

source: https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylv...ainted-water/”

So putting that in perspective...

When a new well goes in, the question to ask, are OLD WELLS PROPERLY SEALED, if they are still pumping, have the CASINGS been leaking?

IF they are, then one runs the risk that the facking operation WILL cause feedback UP the OLD WELL and into other formations, and possibly INTO the water table.

If one is using the INJECTION WELL (toilet) to dispose of wastes, and there are OLD WELLS nearby, ARE THOSE OLD WELLS properly SEALED? Has the casing been examined, tested? IF those casings are leaking (concrete cracked/shrunk over time), then it is quite possible, that the INJECTED substances can seep UPWARDS through the OLD WELLS, and leak into the formations and potentially the water table.

NOW, in the 180 page report -

SAB (US Environmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board (SAB)) said that the EPA testers were going to drill TEST WELLS within an area which was complaining about having natural gas seep into well water, and those test wells were to MONITOR for leakage coming from down below. A Fracking well was to be drilled into the production formation, and the MONITORING well was to record what happens or not.

Well EPA didn't do it. They just published that in over 900 studies there is no issue with FRACKING causing water table damage.. and left it at that.

The SAB scientists were quite livid in the current report just released a few days ago.. They brought up the same points that I did above, that OLD WELLS drilled through the water table can leak because of the concrete de-bonding from the pipe and rock/sand. It is called WELL integrity in geek speak.

Now, there is a process called WELL ABANDONMENT..

After a well dries up (if it is not flooded with water to push the oil into another well called a stripper), it is PLUGGED. So what constitutes plugging? Well in the old days, folks tossed in junk into the old hole down thousands of feet, to take up space, then they poured in X sacks of concrete, and walked away, it was plugged so they said.. Well concrete STILL in that case will shrink, and cracks will form, and a sealed well may not be sealed really.

Sometimes wells were just abandoned. The surface pumping rigged pulled and the operator walked. Or the operator died, and abandoned, or went out of business.. Records at times were scanty or not kept properly. Many records in the various state Oil commission's records SHOW "historically a well is supposed to be here, but upon inspection, no well could be found..." meaning it is somewhere else really, or the surface equipment pulled and no indication if the well was properly plugged...

Plugging then could last for a period of time.. Until the concrete cracks..

SO a new well being put in which is being FRACKED under pressure, where the same ZONE which was used (at a certain depth is where production happens, oil/gas extracted) for an old well nearby, IF the OLD well has "Well Integrity" issues can certainly LEAK into the water table.

AND if there are numerous FRACTURES and FAULTS (as pointed out with the seep phenomena above) where one is going to drill down, causing any minute earthquake activity during fracturing could cause GAS to be released, upwards through the existing rock/sand layers and cause contamination. An earthquake of natural origins could also in such a situation cause the natural gases to seep upwards.. AND if there is drilling happening, people will freak out that it is the DRILLING and FRACKING...

ALL without doing the proper pre-studies to point out the issues and risks.

My general feeling is a small operator oil company will NOT do the necessary studies, but will drill.

If an area has the potential for leakage, due to OLDER wells in the area, the proper older well studies SHOULD BE DONE FIRST. Verify WELL integrity.. If that is not done, then it is an irresponsible operation to pressurize a field with old wells in it, either with disposal (toilet) injection wells, or existing fracking operations, or re-fracking an existing NEW well which has started to run dry after 3 years of operation..

IT is the wells where operations started 25-100 years ago where the well integrity can be quite compromised.. Concrete shrinks and cracks, and debonding can happen, and a new well pushing pressure from the formation, up the OLD WELL casing/tubing certainly runs the risk for massive contamination.

THAT EPA skirted OVER THAT is very concerning..

References: Here is the link for the current report:

https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/LookupWebReportsLastMonthBOARD/BB6910FEC10C01A18525800C00647104/$File/EPA-SAB-16-005+Unsigned.pdf

Here is a IS FRACKING SAFE checklist (GO/NO-GO):

1) Is the region stable, with no hidden faults, and is the water-table isolated at shallow depths?

2) Have cores (drilled rock samples) been performed testing the rock layers from the surface to the proposed production zone? Are they showing zero fractures/seeps from the production zone upwards through the water table?

3) Are there old wells in the area? How old? Are those old wells sealed properly? (big question is how to test that they are sealed properly considering how concrete shrinks/cracks and debonds from pipe)

4) IS there a connection between the old wells into the NEW zone(s) to be fracked? IF SO the well integrity issue is a very high contention point.

5) IN a brand new area, stable rocks, no faults, proper separation between wells (if any), and extensive distance between the production hydrocarbon layer and the water table, AND A PROPERLY CURED SEALED CASING FOR THE TO BE FRACKED WELL - MOST LIKELY a fracking operation will be safe and successful and there will be no leakage from the currently fracked well and no damage will happen. Potentially micro-quakes will happen as the different ground layers settle, or expand and move..

For item 5 to be successful, the bonding MUST be proper, and cured..

Take for instance the BP DISASTER in the GULF of MEXICO about 6 years back.. IMPROPER BONDING of the CASING resulted in catastrophic blowout.

Here is the headline from the NY Times:

Panel Says Firms Knew of Cement Flaws Before Spill

hmm, what have we been saying all along above? What have the scientists been saying who did the oversight on the EPA study? CEMENT ISSUES...

Halliburton officials knew weeks before the fatal explosion of the BP well in the Gulf of Mexico that the cement mixture they planned to use to seal the bottom of the well was unstable but still went ahead with the job, the presidential commission investigating the accident said on Thursday.

Halliburton (remember Dick Cheney and his position in Halliburton? just as an aside..), is not a small oil company. IT IS HUGE. Why would they cut corners?

...[..]
commission staff determined that Halliburton had conducted three laboratory tests that indicated that the cement mixture did not meet industry standards.

"Another Halliburton cement test, carried out about a week before the blowout of the well on April 20, also found the mixture to be unstable, meaning it was unlikely to set properly in the well, but those findings were never sent to BP, Mr. Bartlit found after reviewing previously undisclosed documents.

"Although Mr. Bartlit did not specifically identify the cement failure as the sole or even primary cause of the blowout, he made clear in his letter that if the cement had done its job and kept the highly pressurized oil and gas out of the well bore, there would have been no accident."

HOW many of the OLD WELLS have used laboratory standards (like in 1919) for instance to ensure the integrity and bonding of the well bore, casing is properly done?

HOW many companies doing FRACKING will conduct the 5 steps above?

WHEN will the EPA carry out the proper monitoring steps and not just let the industry say, FRACKING unequivocally is SAFE and no damage to the water table will happen?

The above points out the REALITY of drilling and safely securing a well. IT is not rocket science, but certain steps must be completed properly prior to drilling, while drilling, and afterwards. Those not being done properly and there can be disaster - (see BP's Halliburton's drama in the Gulf of Mexico)..

Banning Fracking makes no sense, seriously. Such allows for energy recovery, such as CLEAN BURNING NATURAL GAS, and allows for gases in industry such as HELIUM to be recovered (which deep gas wells do produce in certain areas, and HELIUM is a necessary commodity, and it is NOT burned and does NOT contribute to the carbon footprint).. FRACKING done properly allows for immense recovery of hydrocarbon fuels.

BANNING fracking puts the world back into either the nuclear age as that is the only alternative where there is no wind and natural water power.

ENFORCING the proper STEPS 1-5 above is needed. That is not rocket science that is a political football.. Who has stopped those steps? Who will continue to interfere or stop those steps?

NY Times reference (BP/Halliburton) - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/us/29spill.html?_r=0