I thought that was primarily disposal wells.

These are really good videos. Tons of information here. I would highly encourage everyone to watch.

I hate Chesapeake, they are an albatross flying over our industry, but these videos are great.





They showed these videos at a conference I was at in Pittsburgh this week. Tons and tons of useful information. Will provide more later.

for the record, that's exactly how the documentary for which this thread is named describes the process and, considering these actions are repeated "between 8 and 12 times," i'm even more skeptical that the fracturing (a) only occurs "6,200 ft" down; and (b) (once the fracturing is initiated) only occurs when y'all want it to from that initial point on.

What makes you think this?

The location of Marcellus and Utica shale is pretty well documented by geologists (the USGS), and we're only interested going after areas that are rich in gas, oil, and other liquids. These shales DO very from place to place in depth, they are around 5000 feet deep (Marcellus) and 7000 feet deep (Utica). We have no interest drilling outside of the shale zone. That's economically wasteful. We also want to ensure the gas is contained within the shale layer, so we won't try to frack into the next layer of permeable rock. This causes us to lose gas and liquids. Other rock formations don't require fracking as gas and oil under pressure flows real well with just a simple well bore.

Remember, the locations of where the fractures take place are mechanically fixed and controlled. The fracturing is targeted. These methods have been refined for decades now to maximize gas flow. The video is a little off though, as a typical frack job will now include 20-24 fracks instead of 8-12.

Why would the fracks NOT occur from the initial point on as described in the vieo? That's the physics of it. It's been done in granite mines, in salt mines, and can be visually seen in above surface mining operations.

Here's another piece of information that I learned that isn't covered in the video.

When shale is fracked they drill through the ENTIRE shale layer. Once they reach the bottom they pull out, report the thickness to the state, and report how deep their "heel" will be, and how far out the "toe" will be of the horizontal drilling operation. Some frackers will target the center, especially in dry gas. In wet gas the will target the lower part of the shale and only frack upwards. This is to get a gravity assist to allow liquids and oil to fall into the frack zone.

Frackers know how much of the shale has been fracked, and that they haven't fracked into other layers by monitoring the amount of fluid that's been pumped down, and what has come back up. This allows them to control the length and quantity of the fractures.

Also, which part of Gasland describes it in such detail? Where in Gasland does it state that there's multiple layers of steal and cement casing around aquifers to protect drinking supplies?

All I remember from Gasland is that fracking is evil and poisoning the planet - and that much of it is factually false, that the producer admits it, but continues to peddle it.

i trust all that and believe that you're completely faithful to it.

however, i'm skeptical that once rock is fractured that it simply stops where you and yours want it to (as if you can be certain of what's going on down there anyway). as you just said, you "try" to stay away from the permeable rock.

the chemicals introduced in the "blender" are not present in the earth beforehand, yet appear in drinking water... along w/ gas... after fracturing takes place. then there is the matter of open air evaporation pools of backflow water and this is not looking like an operation that should be carried out anywhere near homes or water supplies.

the video you've provided clearly shows the many layers being blown away in order to get at the shale and fracture the rock. what i'm talking about, is what happens as these solid rocks break apart two dozen times. you can't say for sure that it only occurs 7,000 ft below the surface. obviously the majority of the gas goes where you and yours want it to (the path of least resistance), to be sure that's what makes it profitable. My concern is for the weakened rock and loose gas throughout the frac-site.

It doesn't get any dumber than that...

there's a documentary in the works (scheduled for Aug. 2012) about the Fracking Sand industry and its laying waste growth in WI.




here's an article about this segment of the NatGas industry as well: http://www.salon.com/2012/05/21/farmers ... nightmare/

We've had quarries, including sand quarries, for centuries.

We're really reaching for that rainbow now.

Stone and sand quarries to pave roads? Awesome. Those are shovel ready jobs. Good paying middle class jobs.

Stone and quarry mining for fracking? (Which is microscopic compared to any road). The worst thing on the planet.

my stance has consistently been to point out where this could be done more safely (environmentally speaking). i don't know why you would take my post as an "all or none" proposal.

jobs, energy, and business are all good and necessary things. coming upon these three things recklessly is not a good formula.

These things are not being come upon recklessly. These are hyperbolic arguments. The amount of sand used in a frack job is miniscule compared to SO MUCH of the other things that we do. It doesn't matter whether you are talking about house construction, commercial or industrial construction, infrastructure construction, foundries, mining of ores, the list is so vast.

I don't think anybody has EVER complained about pit mines. But now we're fracking! Pit mines are everywhere, and if fracking went away they'd essentially be the same size.

There's roughly 1000 tons of sand used in a frack job. That's about 20 trucks tops. And we are now recycling 40% of it.

Seriously Ellis, how many times have you driven by a pit mine and ever thought twice about it?

the only quarry i know of was far from any homes and the production was nowhere near the scale or pace of the places being reported on in WI. now, recycling materials on your end of things is a good start, but as the article also points out, the sand itself is a growing industry that is going up around homes as neighbors sell their land.

i just wish it could all be done less harmfully. i appreciate your position and knowledge on all this, but an attempt on your part to even acknowledge that some things could be improved upon would be nice.

There are pit mines in URBAN areas all over the country. Huge quarries in the middle of major cities.

You talk about the measure of harm, what is it? I mean, in terms of the pre-existing pit mines, how bad is it? In terms of say... a giant chemical factory, or a coal mine, or a power plant? What can you do to make it "less harmful"? At what point, in your opinion, do the returns on ensuring safety become so high that it's not worth it?

There was an article on Yahoo about how a farmer in New York didn't want fracking because she heard that 17 cows go quarantined because of POTENTIAL exposure to frack wash, and another 23 died in another state. So we're gonna stop something that could add billions of dollars to the local economy over 40 cows?

I'm sorry, but the outrage is misplaced and completely irrational.

30,000 people die in car accidents in this country every single year and we accept it as a matter of course. But we will look to shut down something that has brought us immense wealth, reduced our energy costs, created tens of thousands of jobs, all because Chesapeake fucked up a SINGLE well in Pennsylvania, and forty cows died. After Seventy years, and hundreds of thousands of wells being successfully drilled, we're gonna shut it down because there's a CHANCE (even though there's no evidence that it ever happened) of fracking agents going up through a mile of solid rock, and getting back into the water table. It's just irrational.

I'd encourage you to visit a site called FracFocus. Check it out.

as far as prior quarries and these silicon mines, the pace and scale is what gives me pause.
combined w/ WI's lack of zoning laws, and it makes me think twice about it.

again, i'm not saying SHUT IT DOWN!!!
i'm saying take what you're doing (from how the land is purchased to how it's all developed and transported) and make it as clean as possible. considering how much gas is in the ground and how much sand there is to mine, i'd say a few more dollars spent by companies like yours is worth leaving things as close to how you found them as possible.

FYI: My company manufactures compressors.

http://www.arielcorp.com