Posted on 12/20/2009 9:46:37 AM PST by optiguy
An out clause exists for Exxon in its merger with XTO Energy if Congress decides to regulate hydraulic fracturing, reported Russell Gold of the Wall Street Journal’s Environmental Capital blog on Wednesday. Exxon will spend $41 billion to purchase XTO, an energy firm known for its expertise in natural gas drilling and production. XTO has invested heavily in the Marcellus Shale, a region in western New York and northern Pennsylvania which is home to large reservoirs of natural gas. However, obtaining this gas is difficult and requires the use of hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking, in which thousands of gallons of water are mixed with various fluids to fracture rocks holding natural gas. Critics maintain that hydrofracking causes water pollution, which could force Congress to look at the issue.
If Congress regulates hydrofracking to make it “illegal or commercially impracticable,” in the words of the merger agreement, Exxon can back out of its proposed purchase of XTO.
Frack the Fracking EPA.
The Destruction of America is their goal.
Mary Christ-mas
Fracturing wells to increase porosity and increase production has been going on for years. Its the practice of horizontal drilling that causes the problems. And thats what XTO is a specialist in.
They dont tell you that often times the bit ends up in places they dont want it to go, then the frac fluid also ends up going where they dont want it to go. Like into water wells.
Congress will do just that unless Exxon starts flooding the leftist coffers with silver and gold.
It IS the Chicago/Saul Alinski way.
Of course, they do it on purpose.
I worked 17 years in exploration. I never say a problem. Actually if there was free movement of water, natural gas and fluids in the shale it would not need these huge Frac jobs. Please tell me where and when we have had problems with these frac jobs.
I never “say” a problem
Opps: I never had a problem.
Yup, already been a number of lawsuits over “Fracks gone bad” destrying wells and in one case, causing gas to erupt out of a home well.
Nature is like a big balloon - you poke in one place, it pokes out in another.
There was a lot of shallow (methane IIRC) wells drilled here (Mat Su valley) that casued a lot of fuss. The drilling outfit was run out of town.
Recently
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/matsu/story/408264.html
Watch congress pass the legislation after the merger is complete. Our government has an erection for Exxon.
Natural gas is one of the few truly economic routes to reducing CO2 GHG emissions.
It was therefore predictable that the enviro-socialists would find something to shut down exploitation of unconventional gas in tight sands and coalbeds.
Look at their track record in thwarting any energy development that could possibly reduce CO2 emissions.
Nuclear - This is the only practical, large-scale solution to reducing CO2 emissions and the enviro-socialists are almost unanimously opposed.
Biofuels - Now that these are produced in large quantity, the enviro-socialists now oppose biofuels after years of touting them as alternative energy. (Personally, I agree with many of their objections ... large-scale biofuel is a loser with few exceptions.)
Wind - kills birds, noisy, and ruins the view at Martha’s Vinyard
Hydro - virtual moratorium on construction of new dams; old dams being taken out of service due to enviro-socialist protest
Tidal - kills fish and other marine life
Carbon Sequestration - pilot projects already being protested in Europe
Solar - requires enormous expanses of land, which displaces flora and fauna
Geothermal - air and water pollution, hazmat, and despoils local scenery
Bottom line: reducing energy consumption is the only route to achieving GHG emissions targets that is acceptable to the enviro-socialists.
The enviro-socialists know that capitalism requires energy. By persuading the capitalist countries to constrain energy consumption severely, they can kill capitalism.
Were talking about depths that water wells aren’t.
Every shale gas well, I have worked has been deeper than 10,000 ft. Too deep and expensive to drill for water, if there was any there.
A shallow oil or gas is now 4000 feet or more.
When you drill horizontal wells you at least go through the water table once correct? What about when drilling horizontal and the hole is off a few degrees for a few degrees for 10,000 ft? ? You can easily end up back near the surface if there is a mistake.
and thatis what happens. Plus a high pressure frac that can easily go up as well as laterally. I can certainly see the problems in a horizontal drill scenario.
Most water is found above 300 feet and is cased and cement off. Water at any depth is cased and cemented off, water kills wells, that is what is happening to wells in the middle east, according to many experts. A horizontal lateral is drilled 90 degrees to the pilot hole and measurements are taken every 30 feet. Horizontal holes are watched carefully to insure they stay in the pay zone.
From a depth of 10,000 or even 4000 feet, you would to drill miles to get back to the surface. Simple geometry will show you that.
Fracting is expensive, therefore is controled tightly to acccomplish the most with the least. Also the formations(rock) above the zone are impermable or the gas and/oil would pass through them upwards naturally.
We know the angle to a hundredth of a degree and the depth and lateral distance to a hundredth of foot.
I have worked coal gas wells in Colorado and never heard of fracking them, doesn’t mean it isn’t done somewhere.
Methane seeps up on it own, go to the coal country of Ohio Valley and houses have exploded because of it collecting in them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.