HOME NG USAGE/FRACKING—Carl Schwab

First just to give an update on how the oil-togas conversions have gone on Longwood Drive, where the write lives My conversion started operation on January 13,2009, so we have completed approximately 3 years operation. We have been pleased, as have the others that did the conversions at the same time. The writer has had no problems of any kind and with oil at $3.00+ per gallon; my gas costs are about ½ that oil would have been. My NG is billed an a monthly basis over the entire year and my past year has been $121 per month for the year or $1452 for the year. Before conversion to NG the same boiler used about 890 gallons per year so the savings are substantial.

 From a national policy standpoint, it is clear that this country should make maximum usage of NG for not only home heating use but also for electric power generation (replacing coal usage) and for commercial building heating. Oil usage, particularly oils such as #2 domestic are needed for transportation, both land and air.

 Now to the subject of fracking. What is fracking? This is the process of forcing water under very high pressure into rock formations deep below the earth’s surface. These formations are mostly in layer form and shale is a good example. Oil/NG is often trapped between these layers and VERY hard to extract as long as the layer is not cracked to let the oil and/or NG escape. If you go to Google and look up “wikipedia, fracking for oil/ng” you will be referred to MANY articles explaining the process. Reduced to a minimum it is (1) high hydraulic pressure to make the crack and (2) inserting a mixture of fine sand (usually) to keep the crack open and porous.”

 Legislation affecting fracking just now is a “hot potato” politically and certainly will be stonewalled until after the 2012 elections. BUT the facts are, that within the North American continent, there is enough oil trapped in shale that our need for ANY Middle East oil will be stopped by about 2025. The amount trapped in shale in US and Canada exceeds the entire amount that has been removed since 1846. And almost paralleling this is fracking to produce NG. Somehow in the politician’s minds (?) fracking for NG is NOT the same as fracking for oil.

 Another curious aspect of fracking is where do you get the water? An offshoot of this question is that seawater is equally as effective for fracking as is freshwater. So the argument that fracking will reduce the amount of freshwater for our “normal” uses is specious.

 The persistent question is what will happen to freshwater aquifers---will they be polluted and thus destroyed? It does appear that fracking for NG/oil and freshwater aquifers are at grossly different depths. Fracking rock structures seem mostly to be at 10,000 to 40,000 feet, while aquifers appear to be no more than 1000-10,000 feet depth range. (BTW I am still researching this.).

 So to wrap this blog up, I feel that fracking is just another engineering science that has to be understood and used. On a world wide basis we have only taken the “easy oilS” and much more than we have taken still exists. The writer is definitely a conservationist----“waste not---want not”. This is refreshing to know because the US government sallies into renewable energy has been expensive debacles mostly politically motivated.

Interesting!!

Comments

[Jerry]

I have the same opinion on fracking. When you look at the risk versus benefits, it seems like a no-brainer to me. There are admittedly some valid reasons to be concerned about aquifer contamination, particularly at upper end of the vertical bore, if cementing isn’t done carefully. But, I see no reason why a rigorous inspection regime can’t mitigate that. If we pursued that and at the same time began a longer-term program for nuclear plants, we could take care of lots of this country’s problems – jobs, cheaper energy, distancing from the chaos of the ME and less environmental impact.

[John Dunn]

Aquifer contamination appears to have already taken place where fracking processes have been initiated. Although contamination might have been prevented where it is now disclosed to have taken place, it hasn't been prevented. In my view, this is because the oil companies have absolutely no financial interest or motivation in mitigating risks of fracking. It is instead my perception that to them, the aquifers are as expendable as miners' lives were taken to be at the Upper Big Branch Mine of the Massey Energy Company just before the catastrophic explosion that occured there, an explosion that could have been prevented if proper measures had been taken.

[Nick Name]

The discussions about fracking and the very strong ecologic opposition lead in France to a ban of this research. It was claimed that not only water and sand will be used (or are used) but also some chemicals (not explained the reason)dangerous for clean water quality. There were as well presented burning gas fields in the USA. I think that a tight regulation with a good control could avoid failures. Failures with much more polluting stuff : oil occurred and oil is still used . I think that politics are not deciding the right way and where zealots use the tool of "fear" it cannot be done the right way.