3 ms·
As a former oil field worker and a former scientist, reading articles on fracking is always confusing. Most writers on this topic do not adequately distinguish
by tynpeddler 7y ago
As a former oil field worker and a former scientist, reading articles on fracking is always confusing. Most writers on this topic do not adequately distinguish between drilling, fracking, extraction, maintenance or cleanup. When comparing fracked wells to non fracked wells, all of these processes are very similar except for the fracking itself and the cleanup.
Given that fracking usually happens 10,000 feet underground, and far below any water table, direct effects on the surface are rare. It took 60 years of fracking before we even discovered that it could cause surface earthquake detectable by humans. And even then, the last I checked the number of noticeable earthquakes caused by fracking can be counted on both hands.
Wastewater injection is a known issue. In certain areas, waste water injection can cause earthquakes. In other areas, waste water injection is fine. It's a matter of geological particulars, and a blanket ban doesn't make sense.
With the exception of these two processes, a fracked well is very similar to a non fracked well. On the other hand, the following statement doesn't seem to recognize the similarities between fracked and non fracked wells:
>“There’s really definitive evidence now that methane leaks at every stage of the fracking process” from drilling to storage, she says. And that’s contributing to a surge in methane, a potent greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere.
There's nothing in this statement, or in the surrounding context, that says this problem would be unique to fracked wells. Any well that emits methane (which is quite a few of them) would have the exact same issue. It appears that what organizations like Physicians for Social Responsibility and Concerned Health Professionals of New York (which doesn't seem terribly non partisan in the first place) are really concerned about is not fracking, but any hydrocarbon extraction.
The real issue at hand seems to be the expansion of oil wells into parts of the country that did not historically have that industry. Banning fracking may simply be the wrong approach. For example, as technology advances, non fracking methods may be discovered that would once again put oil wells in communities that don't want them. In addition, talking about fracked wells without comparing them against similar non fracked wells is sloppy science. Most of the research and white papers I've read on the topic do not adequately use traditional wells as controls, meaning it's impossible to tell if the deleterious health and environmental effects apply only to fracked wells or to every oil well.
- cwkoss 7y agoFracking was marketed around the world by the US State Dept under Clinton as a cleaner alternative to oil. It increasingly appears that fracking is as bad or worse for the local environment than standard oil drilling.
- 693471 7y ago> Given that fracking usually happens 10,000 feet underground, and far below any water table Ok so why are the fracking chemicals being found in groundwater and giving people cancer?
- tynpeddler 7y agoBecause of flaws in the casing which allows fluids in the well bore to leak outside of it. This exact problem can happen to any well, not just fracked ones.
- defterGoose 7y agoOk, but this seems to belie your previous point about groundwater contamination. If the bore lining is theoretically a permeable structure in any well, then using fracking techniques would almost definitely make it more likely to crack, right? You certainly can't control where the excess pressure you're providing goes, it's hydrostatic. Therefore it's much more likely that a fracked well will contaminate layers above the production layer, right? Not to mention the fracking fluid contains extra materials which are likely the cause of any deleterious health effects.
- devoply 7y agoWe have many better methods of producing energy. This sort of 20th century tech and resources need to die.
- wigl 7y ago> If the bore lining is theoretically a permeable structure in any well, then using fracking techniques would almost definitely make it more likely to crack, right? It's not always permeable. It's more of a design issue because well completion is not a science, it's more of a process of optimizing production vs cost. You're not going to just use the thickest strongest metal there is everywhere. > Therefore it's much more likely that a fracked well will contaminate layers above the production layer, right? Not to mention the fracking fluid contains extra materials which are likely the cause of any deleterious health effects. Not necessarily. There's layers of permeable and effectively impermeable rock, depending on the fluid. Typical fracking depths are well below groundwater layers and separated by impermeable layers. Shale for example, is so tight that basically only methane flows through it because it's the smallest hydrocarbon. Fracking fluids (ex. water) + extra materials (such as sand, isopropyl alcohol) are used precisely because they can't flow through, build up pressure, and then physically create fractures in the production layer. The fluid can get lost as the rock fractures more and pressure drops, but this is monitored and again, is well below groundwater depth.