3 ms·

I have no time for fracking and frackers and I reckon the process ought to be banned except under exceptional circumstances. That said, I don't think this stor

I have no time for fracking and frackers and I reckon the process ought to be banned except under exceptional circumstances. That said, I don't think this story is very objective in that it unduly pushes the buttons of people who are chemical-phobic and that makes matters worse. Here, ethylene glycol (aka MEG—mono ethylene glycol) is held up as a bogeyman without a satisfactorily explanation of why. When or if MEG gets into the water table how much damage would it do? How much would a person likely consume in say the course of a year and how dangerous would it be? I can't answer that directly as I simply don't have the leakage figures so let's look at MEG's known dangers. MEG is antifreeze that you put in your car engine and it is dangerous if consumed, and it doesn't take much to kill you about 50 to 100ml (a wineglass full if it's concentrated — in antifreeze it's quite diluted). It's also sweet and to deter kids from drinking it, it has Bitrex/denatonium added to make it extremely bitter. OK, it's nasty stuff but what happens when you consume it? Well, it breaks down into oxalic acid and that's what's dangerous about it as oxalic acid is poisonous. But how much so? It just so happens that oxalic acid ocurrs naturally in the leaves of many green vegetables such as spinich, its concentrations are so high in rhubarb leaves that we're told only to eat the stems. The point is that trace amounts of MEG won't do us harm because we're used to normally consuming somewhat more than just trace amounts of oxalic acid in our food. A much greater danger to health are the aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzene which is definitely toxic and carcinogenic but you'll notice it doesn't head the list in this article because much less of it is released during fracking. But small amounts aren't as noteworthy as the large amount of MEG released even though it likely poses a much greater health risk over the long run. This is why many articles of this type are both misleading and harmful. They not only distort the facts but they also give the frackers and their ilk ammunition to dismiss reports of their unacceptable activities as being inaccurate and or groundless.

coffeeshopgoth 3y ago
You are totally right, the amount of chemical in comparison to the total frac job is small, but when you start putting 8-16 wells in the same space where once we only did 4, then it starts to add up. I used to have a full chemical list somewhere, but can't seem to find it right now. Also, to your point, things like benzene and toluene are in the mix at times - and if a company has a "proprietary" mix there can easily be some really rough carcinogens in that, too. This is a slightly different topic, but the amount of clean water used in the process is an eye opener. Say you will have 8 wells on a 1280 spacing (so 2 mile laterals, roughly), and they use 75,000 bbls of water - fresh water, you can't have any side reactions happening and recycled water adds significant cost to an already pricey well (probably $7.2- $8 million each for drill/completion), that is 25.2 million gallons of water for just one pad of wells. In terms of future water access, coupled with "is that water clean?", it becomes a real issue. Typically frac flowback water is dumped to a lined pit (which, at times, it can leak through to the ground water), and that water is then transported to an injection well nearby to inject at some point below the water table. But you can't always trust people to do that right things when costs come up. There are bad injection wells where the water is absorbed at the water table level.
- hilbert42 3y ago
  It's good you added those figures to put fracking into perspective. I've also seen the chemical list sans info on the proprietary stuff but it was a while ago and the details escape me (but I do recall being rather alarmed as they weren't innocuous by any means). You're right about the amount of water used, where I am in Australia fracking is very controversial not only because of the water usage (this is a very dry country) but also that fracking sites were on some of the best farming land in the country.
  - coffeeshopgoth 3y ago
    True story. I have been to SA a number of times and know have seen how dry it can get down there (though with what water you have, it is beautiful). We also have a lot of farmers and ranchers picking up the oil and gas royalty income in the U.S. Weird thing/something I have never really gotten over in terms of agriculture...Not frac water, but produced formation water (which is also usually reinjected for disposal - and that is a whole other topic that is concerning), is land applied in some areas for cattle to drink. Here is the thing - it is potable for animals but not safe for human consumption, yet we will eventually eat them. Produced formation water (ancient seawater with some heavier and sometimes slightly radioactive materials) doesn't strike me as something anything living could properly filter. The practice is common in Wyoming - where a lot of beef cattle live. Not sure about TX, but wouldn't be surprised if it was acceptable practice there.
    - hilbert42 3y ago
      Well you know the place then, similarly I've been to the US many times, have worked there and have relatives there. "We also have a lot of farmers and ranchers picking up the oil and gas royalty income in the U.S." For many, it's probably a pragmatic decision and a guarantee of income in bad seasons. I don't think it's that different here although many farmers have objected, especially in Queensland's Darling Downs which has some of the best farming land in the country as I mentioned. These links fill in the details, it's quite tragic really: https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/australia-existing-proposed-gas-projects/ https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/australia-existi... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-14/coal-seam-gas-wells-drilled-under-farmland/100155818 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-14/coal-seam-gas-wells-d... What's really annoying is that the multinationals are exporting the gas at high world prices and we have to pay parity—and even then there's a shortage here especially in the populated South-East. Locals, pay huge gas and electricity prices even though we've an abundance. It's maddening but understandable as in this so-called democracy the corporations essentially run the place. "...it is potable for animals but not safe for human consumption, it'swe will eventually eat them." This is quite outrageous really, especially if those chemicals include traces of aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons as they aren't necessarily broken down in animals so they're passed onto us. You'll get the concern that many here have from those links. As you probably know, the equivalent to your formation waters here is the Great Artesian Basin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Artesian_Basin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Artesian_Basin. It too is under assault, read the section on 'Environmental Concerns'. It's all quite depressing really.

coffeeshopgoth 3y ago

You are totally right, the amount of chemical in comparison to the total frac job is small, but when you start putting 8-16 wells in the same space where once we only did 4, then it starts to add up. I used to have a full chemical list somewhere, but can't seem to find it right now. Also, to your point, things like benzene and toluene are in the mix at times - and if a company has a "proprietary" mix there can easily be some really rough carcinogens in that, too. This is a slightly different topic, but the amount of clean water used in the process is an eye opener. Say you will have 8 wells on a 1280 spacing (so 2 mile laterals, roughly), and they use 75,000 bbls of water - fresh water, you can't have any side reactions happening and recycled water adds significant cost to an already pricey well (probably $7.2- $8 million each for drill/completion), that is 25.2 million gallons of water for just one pad of wells. In terms of future water access, coupled with "is that water clean?", it becomes a real issue. Typically frac flowback water is dumped to a lined pit (which, at times, it can leak through to the ground water), and that water is then transported to an injection well nearby to inject at some point below the water table. But you can't always trust people to do that right things when costs come up. There are bad injection wells where the water is absorbed at the water table level.

hilbert42 3y ago
It's good you added those figures to put fracking into perspective. I've also seen the chemical list sans info on the proprietary stuff but it was a while ago and the details escape me (but I do recall being rather alarmed as they weren't innocuous by any means). You're right about the amount of water used, where I am in Australia fracking is very controversial not only because of the water usage (this is a very dry country) but also that fracking sites were on some of the best farming land in the country.
- coffeeshopgoth 3y ago
  True story. I have been to SA a number of times and know have seen how dry it can get down there (though with what water you have, it is beautiful). We also have a lot of farmers and ranchers picking up the oil and gas royalty income in the U.S. Weird thing/something I have never really gotten over in terms of agriculture...Not frac water, but produced formation water (which is also usually reinjected for disposal - and that is a whole other topic that is concerning), is land applied in some areas for cattle to drink. Here is the thing - it is potable for animals but not safe for human consumption, yet we will eventually eat them. Produced formation water (ancient seawater with some heavier and sometimes slightly radioactive materials) doesn't strike me as something anything living could properly filter. The practice is common in Wyoming - where a lot of beef cattle live. Not sure about TX, but wouldn't be surprised if it was acceptable practice there.
  - hilbert42 3y ago
    Well you know the place then, similarly I've been to the US many times, have worked there and have relatives there. "We also have a lot of farmers and ranchers picking up the oil and gas royalty income in the U.S." For many, it's probably a pragmatic decision and a guarantee of income in bad seasons. I don't think it's that different here although many farmers have objected, especially in Queensland's Darling Downs which has some of the best farming land in the country as I mentioned. These links fill in the details, it's quite tragic really: https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/australia-existing-proposed-gas-projects/ https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/australia-existi... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-14/coal-seam-gas-wells-drilled-under-farmland/100155818 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-14/coal-seam-gas-wells-d... What's really annoying is that the multinationals are exporting the gas at high world prices and we have to pay parity—and even then there's a shortage here especially in the populated South-East. Locals, pay huge gas and electricity prices even though we've an abundance. It's maddening but understandable as in this so-called democracy the corporations essentially run the place. "...it is potable for animals but not safe for human consumption, it'swe will eventually eat them." This is quite outrageous really, especially if those chemicals include traces of aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons as they aren't necessarily broken down in animals so they're passed onto us. You'll get the concern that many here have from those links. As you probably know, the equivalent to your formation waters here is the Great Artesian Basin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Artesian_Basin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Artesian_Basin. It too is under assault, read the section on 'Environmental Concerns'. It's all quite depressing really.