Graphically Speaking: Fracking and Injection Wells

Last week’s National Research Council report on hydraulic fracturing and earthquakes pretty much ends up where a number of scientists are on the correlation between fracking and quakes: that energy development from shale formations poses a low risk for tremors of significance. The report said more attention should be given to injection wells, which are used for waste disposal by a number of industrial enterprises, not just the oil and natural gas industry. AP science writer Seth Borenstein’s take on the report is here.

API, America’s Natural Gas Alliance and the American Exploration & Production Council have produced a couple of informational tools on hydraulic fracturing and seismic activity and underground injection control (UIC) wells that are especially timely with release of the council’s report. 

Highlights from the fracking document:

Hydraulic fracturing is done with a mixture of more than 99.5 percent water and sand. The other one-half of 1 percent is chemical – including anti-bacterials and lubricants. See the FracFocus.org site for more on fracking fluids.Fracturing that occurs thousands of feet below the surface (and below groundwater aquifers) is carefully mapped with sophisticated equipment to optimize recovery of the oil and/or natural gas and to monitor the well itself. In other words, microseismic activity associated with fracking is thoroughly understood.

One study of several thousand shale fracture treatments across North America showed the largest micro-quake measured about 0.8 or about 2,000 times less energy than a magnitude 3.0 earthquake. The chart below shows that most of the micro-quakes in this study were 10,000 to 1 million times smaller than a 3.0 earthquake, which is roughly equivalent to the passing of a nearby truck:

Highlights from the UIC document:

The U.S. has about 151,000 Class II UIC wells used by the oil and natural gas industry, of which only a handful are being studied for possible links to earthquakes. These wells are a subset of more than 800,000 injection wells nationwide used to dispose of a variety of industrial wastes and for development of various minerals and geothermal energy sources. Here’s a map that shows the state-by-state well distribution:

Injection wells are regulated by EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act. In many cases EPA has delegated authority for the UIC program to the states, with 39 states having primary authority over 95 percent of all UIC Class II wells.Literature published in the past five years shows that less than 40 incidents of seismic activity felt on the surface were associated with Class II injection wells.

Injection wells pump fluids into deep rock formations (see graphic). It’s unusual, but in some cases a quake can occur when a number of geological and operational factors come together – especially the presence of hard, dense and brittle crystalline “basement rock.”  These quakes are almost always small, below the level that would be felt on the surface.

For more information, check out the Energy From Shale website.

View the original article here

Editorially Speaking, New York Times is Behind the Curve on Shale Gas

Here’s what caught our eye in an otherwise relatively benign New York Times editorial on shale natural gas and hydraulic fracturing:

“For their part, the oil and gas companies — both the ExxonMobils and the mom-and-pops that abound in hydrofracturing — need to drop their warfare against necessary regulations.”

And later:

“Stronger federal rules are plainly needed.”

Last things first: Stronger federal rules? Where has the Times’ editorial board been the occasions when EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has downplayed the notion of federal shale gas regulation overlaying existing state regulation? Here’s Jackson last fall:

“We have no data right now that lead us to believe one way or the other that there needs to be specific federal regulation of the fracking process. … So it's not to say that there isn't a federal role, but you can't start to talk about a federal role without acknowledging the very strong state role.”

And a couple of days later, on MSNBC:

“States are stepping up and doing a good job. It doesn’t have to be EPA that regulates the 10,000 wells that might go in.”

It’s likely Jackson knows there’s not much the feds could add to the competent, efficient oversight that state regulators already are providing. And the Times doesn’t explain what it believes federal regulation – probably duplicative, almost certainly unnecessary – would accomplish.

In fact, industry recognizes the need for regulation. We just believe it’s best handled by the states. That’s why we’ve worked with the states through the STRONGER organization to develop regulatory regimes tailored for their specific circumstances. API and its members also have worked hard to develop industry standards that often form the basis for state regulations – on wellbore integrity, water management, community relations and more. Industry supports disclosure through the FracFocus online chemical registry.

All of the above address the editorial’s other assertion – that energy companies need to “drop their warfare” against regulation. Sorry, but the real warfare here has been waged by the Times in its “Drilling Down” series, a collection of inaccuracies, misrepresentations and manipulations that the Council on Foreign Relations’ Michael Levi dubbed a “war on shale gas.” This has included flawed reporting on mortgages, leases and the economic future of shale gas – at one point drawing a penalty flag from the newspaper’s own ombudsman. 

So, while noting the editorial’s positive points about shale gas, we encourage the newspaper’s editorial board to get up to speed on the good work states are doing to regulate industry activity, as well as industry efforts to get shale gas development right.

View the original article here