Fracking

[Rx_]

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/02/f8/hdtt_roadmap_june2013.pdf
As of 2013 the problem of distribution with trucks is a huge, huge issue. See bottom of page 25
Then the bottom of page 26 "Unlike bulk petroleum liquid off-loading, compressed gas or liquefied hydrogen bulk off-loading from a
truck must incorporate gaseous or cryogenic liquid engineering controls to ensure that the process is performed safely without exceeding storage operational pressure and temperature limits" The cost of these details boggles the mind.
On page 27 it actually only gloss over the GAPS and TECHNICAL BARRIERS in laymen terms. A.K.A. We need billions more to research this for a solution.
In a nutshell, Hydrogen is corrosive, requires temperature control, dangerous to transport, dangerous to store, expensive to make, ...
One of the proposals was to pipe Natural Gas then convert the Natural Gas to Hydrogen. The question is: if the purpose was to get off fossil fuels in the first place...
Then the question of, what is the bi-product of the natural gas conversion?

It is as if running on Hydrogen is just some end goal regardless of better alternatives.
Shield your eyes from the entire messy dangerous process, just look at the Hydrogen engine exhaust. This is an example of policy by lobby and subsidy instead of advances in science.

Just to put this in perspective:
If the Dept of Energy subsidy for Hydrogen research sink-hole had gone to:
- 30 year 0% loans to run Natural Gas lines on every US Interstate Highway and 1/2 mile away from the highway to every re-fueling (gas station).
-- Our Semi Trucks would be running on Natural Gas nationally.
-- Pollution levels would have dropped to set new standards just from semi-trucks
-- The cost of transportation, food, and delivery would have dropped increasing jobs
-- Cars would have refueling stations and convert too adding huge gains to pollution
-- The State of Texas alone vents enough unsold Natural Gas due to badly written tax laws to run every private car in the US. Yes, a tank of Natural Gas could be $10 with a $10 tax to rebuild our broken highways and bridges.

But instead of real world advances - the Dept Of Energy gave us the report above.
Not to worry, this group's public education financing to sway public opinion is well funded.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I was originally trained as an analytical chemist with a specialty in metal assay - which sometimes is an important part of water purity analysis. My PhD dissertation involved chemicals used to detect minerals in water, including phosphorus, transition metals, and a smattering of other items. However, due to economics, I became a computer program designer for oil and gas pipeline systems. Mineral analysis wasn't paying well - but if it was petroleum-related, jobs were available all over the place.

As a result of those economics, about 40 years ago I worked for a company that made the control systems for interstate and international petroleum pipelines. One customer comes to mind in our "fracking" discussion - MARAVEN, the Venezuelan nationalized oil and gas company. They had an oil field under a marshy area - not unlike the conditions found in southern Louisiana. I say "oil field" but it was a really nasty, thick, extremely high viscosity sludge. Our equipment not only had to run the pipeline but also the extraction wells and the storage/settling tanks.

We had to pump very hot water at boiling temperatures into the deep wells to loosen the sludge (essentially, melt it). Then we had to pump CO2 and more water to displace the melted sludge, which (of course) floats - because water was very slightly denser than the melted sludge. Once we got it to the surface, we had to stage it in huge settling tanks because once it cooled, the sludge wouldn't float any more. We eventually pumped the water back down into the hold to prevent total collapse of the oil pockets. The bottom of the tanks got pumped to the oil refineries. The excess CO2 got vented to the open atmosphere.


MARAVEN was actually pretty good about emphasizing that we had to replace the same volume of oil with that nasty water, which had become toxic by its contact with some of the lighter elements of the melted sludge. They knew even 40 years ago that they would kill the ecology of the region if they let that water loose above-ground again. They also knew that they would negatively affect the stability of the surface area above the wells, which is why they did what they did in an otherwise ecologically limited-use area, a swamp that had been partly poisoned by petroleum seepage. (The seepage is how they found the area in the first place.)

This is similar to modern fracking, if not in detail then at least similar in style. MARAVEN worried about surface stability and ecological contamination at levels faster than had already occurred. Soil subsidence, sinkholes, and contamination were a major worry - because, you see, MARAVEN wasn't "big oil" - they were (and still are, as far as I know) a publicly owned organization that answered to its people for the harm they did.

I will also point to Bayou Corne here in in southern Louisiana, which became a locally famous case of slant-well drilling in the vicinity of a salt dome - always a good place to find oil - that eventually collapsed into a sink hole under water. Some videos are available showing trees being sucked underground as the collapsed wells allowed the water of the bayou to try (vainly, so far) to fill up that dome. Over 100 people had to be evacuated because of this drilling method that didn't take into account that nature abhors a vacuum and will remind you if you forget that point.

It is anecdotal, but the Bayou Corne incident shows what happens when you are drilling carelessly. This example doesn't deal with pollution but it does deal with ground stability, which was part of Dick's question. For a marsh area, you don't have an earthquake, just a collapse. For areas that actually have bedrock, different instability modes might be expected. To see more on this incident, do a "Bing" search for "bayou corne sinkhole" and you'll probably get well over a dozen references with pictures, maps, and a case study.

MARAVEN, S.A. is also still in business, but their web structure is harder to decipher and that oil field was active 40 years ago. I don't know its current status and have lost touch with the person who was the project manager for our computer systems. They probably have been replaced at least once or twice since then.

 

[Rx_]

You make some really great points.

"This is similar to modern fracking" for something 40 years ago is interesting.
I don't think it represents modern fracking at all. I totally respect the "drilling carelessly" of the past. I was a small part of a huge EPA design process for the new methods. My specialty was concerned with detecting if drinking water was affected.

Your point is well taken that "drilling method that didn't take into account..." regarding modern ecological engineering and liability law. I agree, the Bayou Corne was one of the industry's Titanic moments. (Using the ship sinking and the sinkhole correlation)

I would argue most foreign country's disregard for ecology and safety is the same reasoning the Jones Act should not be abolished in our Maritime industry today.

The process of today is extremely regulated. There are many engineers involved, Federal, State and even local regulatory agencies overseeing the permits.
Layers of Shale being forced apart the width of a grain of sand (very controlled size of sand to a defined tolerance) doesn't resemble punching holes into loose bog sediments at the surface (less than 1,500 meters deep).

The Environmental Protection Agency Drinking Water division is involved with monitoring and permitting the pre and post drilling process.

Your right, the people that did that 40 years ago got away with things not tolerated today.

As far as the earthquakes go, the totally unregulated rush to drill and remove water aquifers is very concerning. The TV Show 60 Minutes exposed how there is no regulations for drilling deep (but way more shallow than oil) wells in a rush to get water out of the ground. One large aquifer spanning a huge fruit growing area in California is down something like 400 feet! As you say, nature doesn't like a sudden void in the ground. The abandonment of Old English Tort Law in regards to underground water has created an ecological disaster. It is too bad we can't hold those people to the same standards.