Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Rent a Mob. Frack off

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Rent a Mob. Frack off

Old 29th Jul 2013, 00:04
  #41 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 72
Posts: 2,394
I will not apologise for the first word in that headline, but maybe for the eighth
The word "frack" as in "fracking" came from a US TV comedy show, as in "WHAT THE FRACK?", rather than "WHAT THE FU<K?". As the work 'fu<k' cannot be said on TV in the US during prime time.

It has sod all to do with anything in the drilling industry, back then nor now. So anytime one uses the work fracking, one is just showing ignorance.

As for methane leaks in other countries, can't answer for them. Once again, in the US fracing has been ongoing since 1947, no earthquakes and extremely few cases of water pollution, less than one can count using the fingers on one hand.

Maybe your guys just don't know what they are doing.

Oh, one more thing. Use the spell checker on "fracking or frack". Then let me know what happened.

Last edited by con-pilot; 29th Jul 2013 at 00:06.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2013, 00:15
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,179
If Cuadrilla, the main company involved, along with HM Government and the British Geological Society choose to use the word "Frack" I guess thats good enough for most of us over here

Last edited by Milo Minderbinder; 29th Jul 2013 at 00:23.
Milo Minderbinder is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2013, 00:20
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 54
Posts: 4,245
Re the spelling, it's just another one to add to the list where
say, the US spells something one way and the British another.

Does it really matter ?

(And the above is an example, not yank bashing so don't jump down my throat !)
500N is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2013, 00:27
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Angular - apparently!
Posts: 622
Maybe your guys just don't know what they are doing.
Well the guys who've been interviewed on the local TV have American accents, ie are employed by Cuadrilla, so one can but assume that they do know what they are doing, to some extent at least.

I looked up fracking on Google and the first thing which came up was this:

Baffled About Fracking? You're Not Alone - NYTimes.com
barry lloyd is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2013, 06:47
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
Con's question was asking a city/town that has *suffered* from an earthquake due to fracking.. I wouldn't say a 1.4 earthquake is suffering or a 2.3 either.

And the uk does experience natural earthquakes.

Last edited by stuckgear; 29th Jul 2013 at 06:49.
stuckgear is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2013, 07:40
  #46 (permalink)  

More than just an ATCO
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 70
Posts: 1,768
Frack - hydraulic fracturing (also called "fracing", "fraccing" or "fracking"), a method for extracting oil and natural gas

so you're all right.

Last edited by Lon More; 29th Jul 2013 at 09:04.
Lon More is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2013, 07:53
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,179
I thought the carousing cheetah would have posted this one already

FraKctured

Milo Minderbinder is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2013, 07:53
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,473
The item I watched on fraking in the USA talked about the chemicals in the fluid they pump down the hole to cause the fracturing being a problem, why cant they just use plain water?
tony draper is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2013, 09:10
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Aberfreeze or the Sandpit
Age: 54
Posts: 136
The item I watched on fraking in the USA talked about the chemicals in the fluid they pump down the hole to cause the fracturing being a problem, why cant they just use plain water?
We do,
It's called a high rate water frac.

causes a dendritic frac which is fast, cheap and easy.
But only so so for reserve depletion.

X-linked Gel fracs on the other hand use lots of chemicals to get the viscosity of the fluid right up there close to "play doh" consistency and these give us linear fracs, much more expensive, much harder to do and much better for draining higher percentages of the reservoir.

the main chemical we use for this?

it's a food additive, called Guar Gum (with a crosslinker and temperature stabilisers) but 99.99% of the "Chemicals" are Guar Gum . .

you can eat the stuff.

as for the earthquakes . . .
Woop de doo, we actively monitor those on the higher end / more sensitive jobs as they let us "see" where the fractures are going in real time.
Which is handy.

and the spelling, frac or frac job.
Frack is NOT used within the industry excepy by newbies
(did my first frac in 1991, currently doing them in the sandpit)

Risks? yes there are some, but negligible compared to selling off the entire country to the current oil rich states to pay for the energy we need . . . .
airwave45 is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2013, 09:12
  #50 (permalink)  

More than just an ATCO
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 70
Posts: 1,768
The word "frack" as in "fracking" came from a US TV comedy show,
Probably much older than that. A corruption of the Dutch or German "verrek" ?

I wouldn't say a 1.4 earthquake is suffering or a 2.3 either.
It is if a chimney pot falls on your head
Lon More is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2013, 09:16
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 369
con-pilot wrote:

Once again, in the US fracing has been ongoing since 1947, no earthquakes and extremely few cases of water pollution, less than one can count using the fingers on one hand.

Maybe your guys just don't know what they are doing.
Quote from Wikipedia (so use with caution):

There are concerns about possible contamination by hydraulic fracturing fluid both as it is injected under high pressure into the ground and as it returns to the surface.[110][111] To mitigate the impact of hydraulic fracturing to groundwater, the well and ideally the shale formation itself should remain hydraulically isolated from other geological formations, especially freshwater aquifers.[79] In 2009 state regulators from at least a dozen states have also stated that they have seen no evidence[112] of the hydraulic fracturing process polluting drinking water. In May 2011, former U.S. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson (appointed by President Barack Obama) has said on at least two occasions that there is either no proven case of direct contamination by the hydraulic fracturing process, or that the EPA has never made a definitive determination[113] of such contamination. By August 2011 there were at least 36 cases of suspected groundwater contamination due to hydraulic fracturing in the United States. In more recent congressional testimony in April 2013, Dr. Robin Ikeda, Deputy Director of Noncommunicable Diseases, Injury and Environmental Health at the CDC listed several sites where EPA had documented contamination.[114] In several cases EPA has determined that hydraulic fracturing was likely the source of the contamination.[90][115][116][117][118][119]

Note the comment about hydraulic isolation. Here in the south of the UK the majority of the major water supply aquifers overlie the areas where drilling is proposed. There is therefore an issue with maintaining hydraulic isolation from groundwater, and this is one of the main reasons for concern here.

If this was being proposed well away from our major water supply aquifers then I doubt so many people would be so concerned. The problem is that it isn't, and Cuadrilla as a company are viewed with deep suspicion by some, on the basis of their track record here.
VP959 is online now  
Old 29th Jul 2013, 09:22
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 369
airwave45 wrote:

the main chemical we use for this?

it's a food additive, called Guar Gum (with a crosslinker and temperature stabilisers) but 99.99% of the "Chemicals" are Guar Gum . .

you can eat the stuff.
Slightly disingenuous. Sure the mix has a large proportion of guar, but also usually contains appreciable amounts of other chemicals which aren't so harmless (although I'd agree that in general the risks from the chemicals used are over-hyped).

Here's one list of things that have been used in hydraulic fracturing, make your own minds up, folks, as to whether you want to risk these in your drinking water:

List of additives for hydraulic fracturing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Last edited by VP959; 29th Jul 2013 at 09:22.
VP959 is online now  
Old 29th Jul 2013, 10:09
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Aberfreeze or the Sandpit
Age: 54
Posts: 136
Other thing to cut out of the equation is the use of the term hydraulic fluid for initiating the frac propogation.
The "Hydraulic fluid" in most common use is water, plain old water.

We do use some brines on occasion (brine in our definition is highly saline water, but we can and do mix other things than Calcium Chlorate such as other Chlorates to get _really_ heavy fluids when there is a cost driver to do so.

In some parts of the sandpit we just can't generate enough horsepower (or specifically, contain it) so we have to get gravity to do some of the work for us.
to initiate a frac with a heavy brine can involvle upwards of $750,000.00 of brine in the tubing before the frac is initiated (all of which is either lost or returned to surface in an unusable condition)

There is a natural isolation between the chalks and the gas containing shales or the shales wouldn't contain gas anymore.

Other than that the guys will routinely add another liner terminating just above the boundary between the gas containing shale and whatever "cap" formation is in place.

We can fairly accurately predict the frac half length (penetration distance) commonly in the order of 500m in either direction on a x-linked gel frac and the height of the frac.

Fracs are generally a series of vertical fractures joined by linear fracs the distance these linear fracs track out is known as the "half length" height is a function of fluid viscosity.

you can (in most cases) stay a long way from any sensitive areas relatively safely.

should we allow possible water contamination or the sale of what is left of the country to pay for our energy requirement ?

Besides, being Scottish, we will always sell you some of ours if yours gets a bit messed up . .
airwave45 is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2013, 11:18
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Is not the "k" added so that the "c" is hardened, otherwise fracing would be pronounced as in "pacing" (which is of course different from "packing")?

It is not unusual for a word root to be modified for the participle.
wings folded is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2013, 13:36
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Currently within the EU
Posts: 318
I don't give a toss what you call the process, that's not the point. Neither is it anything to do with the Greens.

The list of chemicals used includes some very nasty stuff - it's not just harmless gum and some operators won't even say exactly what they use because it's a commercial secret.

The fackt is that most of southern England - millions of people - rely on that water source in the soft, permeable chalk. I'm one of them. It would take just one serious accident to make that water supply undrinkable, perhaps forever.

It would be wonderful if fracturing could supply us with many years of gas supply so that we could stick two fingers up to the Russians. But we need to be very, very sure that it's safe before proceeding. The risk is just so great. Assurances from the management of an exploration company in another country who won't have to drink the water just won't do it for me.
Sallyann1234 is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2013, 13:56
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Currently within the EU
Posts: 318
airwave,
Your piece was interesting. I just have a couple of points.

"There is a natural isolation between the chalks and the gas containing shales or the shales wouldn't contain gas anymore"
That's before you apply a rather un-natural 300,000 psi pressure underneath it, right?

"you can (in most cases) stay a long way from any sensitive areas relatively safely."
Do you understand why people relying on a water supply vulnerable to just one serious accident might have some concern about words like 'most' and 'relatively'?
Sallyann1234 is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2013, 14:45
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The 3 Valleys
Posts: 187
Simce airwave appears to be in the industry, I would be interested to know if 300,000 psi is anywhere near true ? It seems a phenomenal pressure for large volumes of fluid: I thought 1500 bar for tiny amounts of diesel in common-rail injector systems was very high.
AlpineSkier is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2013, 14:45
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Angular - apparently!
Posts: 622
Sallyann:

We don't import very much gas from Russia (thankfully). The cartoon in the opening sequence of 'Have I Got News For You' is rather misleading! The last figure I heard was about 5%. Most of Russia's gas goes to Germany and other surrounding countries.

The highest percentage currently comes from Norway:

Gas from Norway, coal from Russia: eight graphs on the UK energy system | Carbon Brief

However, reading further down the document I see that they have spelt Colombia as Columbia, so I'm now doubtful as to how accurate the information is.
barry lloyd is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2013, 14:50
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 278
SallyAnn,

Assurances from the management of an exploration company in another country who won't have to drink the water just won't do it for me.
What would do it for you? Here's a report from the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering:

Final report - Shale gas extraction | Royal Society

Actually what we are learning in the States is that the greatest environmental risk comes not from water contamination, or earthquakes, or gas well blow-outs.

The true risks come from accidents and damage associated with much increased traffic in rural areas. These rural locations do not have the road infrastructure to support the hundreds of heavy trucks/lorries needed to complete a frac operation. Planners need to take into account car accidents, danger to children waiting at school bus stops, etc. before permitting hydraulic fracturing. Oil companies have stepped up and are funding road and bridge improvements, public service campaigns, etc.

Another risk is typically not covered in the engineering reports, but has to do with the large and sudden influx of manpower in new frac areas. Where to house, feed, entertain these transient workers is a huge problem, and not easily solved.

In 2009, a report on shale gas exploration by the US Department of Energy didn't even mention the Eagleford Shale area of south Texas. Why? It had not been developed yet. Now, in just four short years, the Eagleford is now one of the largest oil & gas producing regions in the country. Such a fast and large development strains local cities and infrastructure.

It can be managed, and we are learning as we go. But we are not about to 'just say no.'

Last edited by Matari; 29th Jul 2013 at 15:03.
Matari is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2013, 15:09
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 369
Matari wrote:
What would do it for you? Here's a report from the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering:

Final report - Shale gas extraction | Royal Society

Actually what we are learning in the States is that the greatest environmental risk comes not from water contamination, or earthquakes, or gas well blow-outs.

The true risks come from accidents and damage associated with much increased traffic in rural areas. These rural locations do not have the road infrastructure to support the hundreds of heavy trucks/lorries needed to complete a frac operation. Planners need to take into account car accidents, danger to children waiting at school bus stops, etc. before permitting hydraulic fracturing. Oil companies have stepped up and are funding road and bridge improvements, public service campaigns, etc.

Another risk is typically not covered in the engineering reports, but has to do with the large and sudden influx of manpower in new frac areas. Where to house, feed, entertain these transient workers is a huge problem, and not easily solved.

In 2009, a report on shale gas exploration by the US Department of Energy didn't even mention the Eagleford Shale area of south Texas. Why? It had not been developed yet. Now, in just four short years, the Eagleford is now one of the largest oil & gas producing regions in the country. Such a fast and large development strains local cities and infrastructure.

It can be managed, and we are learning as we go. But we are not about to 'just say no.'
BUT, and this is a big BUT that has been mentioned here several times, the issue here in the south of England is very different to the USA. Over the areas where Cuadrilla are currently drilling there lies a massive chalk aquifer that covers much of the south of England and supplies the drinking water to millions of homes.

The proposals are to drill through this aquifer to get at the shale below, hence the concern expressed here about possible contamination of drinking water.

If this drilling was taking place well away from the aquifer I doubt that there would be as much resistance to it. AFAIK the situation in the areas where this process has been used in the US are nowhere near as densely populated as the south of England and not as sensitive in terms of having a very porous chalk water supply aquifer in close proximity.

Last edited by VP959; 29th Jul 2013 at 15:10.
VP959 is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.