More and more are becoming available online.
MSDS sheets of individual components available at the link.
Posted on 03/09/2011 10:41:38 AM PST by thackney
The surge in natural gas production via shale developments and massive liquefied natural gas projects continues to change the dynamics of the global energy industry, according to a report released this morning by IHS-CERA and the World Economic Forum.
Energy Vision 2011: A New Era for Gas, affirms what many in the energy industry have been saying for a while now — new gas drilling technologies and numerous LNG export projects coming on line are making natural gas a more abundant and attractively priced hydrocarbon.
Natural gas provides about 24 percent of all global energy needs, but the refinement of drilling technologies — namely hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling — has nearly doubled the estimates for world gas reserves by making unconventional sources more accessible.
“Natural gas, proudly labelled ‘the Prince of Hydrocarbons,’ may be about to inherit its kingdom,” says Simon Blakey, Belgium’s special envoy to the Eurogas consortium in a piece included in the CERA/WEF report. “Gas is likely to be the main means of reducing the carbon footprint of mankind’s energy use in the coming years.”
In North America, shale gale has made the continent much less reliant on LNG than was expected just a few years ago, the report notes, slowing the anticipated development of a global gas market via LNG.
“Shale has essentially made the U.S. an island market,” said Samantha Gross, director of integrated research with IHS-CERA and an author of the report.
The success of shale gas drilling and its potential be exported to other regions is also changing the dynamics of long established relationships between supply and demand, particularly in Europe.
The abundance of natural gas has the potential to help Europe meet many of its greenhouse gas reduction goals through switching from coal-fired plants to natural gas fired, the report notes.
But the switch to natural gas won’t be a quick one, the report says.
Europe may not be so eager to switch to gas as a power source because the mandates there tend to be for zero emission sources, not simply reduced emissions.
“The primary uses for gas are expected to remain the same — space and water heating in residential and commercial applications, fuel and feedstock for industrial applications and power generation,” the report says. “In OECD countries with mature gas distribution networks, the most robust growth is expected to come from power generation.”
The report does address the backlash that is being seen in a number of U.S. markets to the potential environmental threats from natural gas drilling. It largely concludes the risks can be managed by industry and aren’t all that different from earlier generations of oil and gas development.
“Some of [the backlash] has been due to not very good ground work by some of these companies in developing a relationship and trust with the local communities,” Gross said. “One would hope that companies move forward having learned from the experience and be more engaged in working in Europe.”
Pawzel Konzal, the head of the World Economic Forum’s Oil & Gas Industry group, notes that the outlook on shale gas is very different in ‘Old Europe’ versus the newer members of the European Union. Countries like Poland are more likely to see shale gas production first as a new means of energy security.
In a letter included in the report, Wojciech Jasinski, the chairman of the Polish Parliament’s Economic Committee, notes that LNG shipments and the development of domestic shale gas resources would help diversify beyond a 60 percent reliance of coal and lignite and ties to a single gas supply — the Siberian gas fields.
I thought Algore was the Prince of Hydrocarbons.............
You are confusing “hydrocarbons” with “gas”.
Too bad fracking contaminates ground water.
Would you let your kids drink well water in Dimock, Pa.?
Natural Gas in Water Wells has been documented as naturally occurring for over 100 years.
Fracking fluid chemicals have never been found in the drinking aquifers. Please correct me if I am wrong.
The entire Fort Worth and greater area is covered with hydraulic fractured shale gas wells.
“Fracking fluid chemicals have never been found in the drinking aquifers. Please correct me if I am wrong.”
I don’t know exactly what was found. But something got in the wells in Dimock, PA. after the fracking began. And I’m not talking about natural gas.
“I’m hoping the Haynesville Shale development extends 10 more miles to the south to reach my retirement property.”
Why is that?
“The entire Fort Worth and greater area is covered with hydraulic fractured shale gas wells.”
Maybe they do it right in Texas. I don’t know. Maybe the geology is different.
The question remains:
Would you let your kids drink the well water in Dimock, PA.?
Not from the well Victoria Switzer. I believe she contaimnated her well deliberatly. But the other wells, yes. We have documented methane naturally occuring in water wells for over 100 years. It has to be dealt with properly, but this was a scam following a bad cement job on a well. It is not a hydraulic fracturing issue and I would welcome a hydraulically fractured well on my property with a water well, as have hundred of thousands of others.
http://nyshalegasnow.blogspot.com/2010/09/what-really-happened-in-dimock-pa.html
Reading closely, we find that a private consultant, who earlier did pre-drilling water tests paid for by Cabot, is now working for the litigating homeowners. In Spring and Summer 2010, this consultant found “positive test results” for certain toxic chemicals — hydrocarbons such as ethyl benzene, toluene, and xylene, and antifreezes such as ethylene glycol and propylene glycol — within basically the same set of domestic water wells that are already known to have suffered methane infiltration.
If you read this and follow-up articles really closely, you would also see that the elevated levels of hydrocarbons were found in “almost everybody” tested along Carter Road, while the elevated levels of the antifreezes were found in only one well — that of new anti-fracking crusader, Victoria Switzer.
...
But then there was more. A week later, on 9-22-2010, the original reporter Legere did a follow-up story headlined, “Cabot: Dimock Water Contaminated Before Drilling…”
Cabot: Dimock water contaminated before drilling; residents’ tests show water more contaminated now
Tests of two private water wells in Dimock Twp. showed traces of toxic chemicals in 2008 before Marcellus Shale gas drilling began nearby, according to test results made available to The Times-Tribune on Tuesday by the gas driller active in the township.
But a spokesman for Cabot Oil and Gas Corp. said those chemicals - toluene, benzene and surfectants - were not detected in 2008 in pre-drill samples taken at more than a dozen nearby water supplies along Carter Road in Dimock where a private environmental engineering firm recently found toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene. Cabot also said that it does not use those chemicals in hydraulic fracturing, and so it could not be the source of the contamination.
The contaminants found this spring and summer by Scranton-based Farnham and Associates Inc. were at levels 1,000 times higher than the toluene levels detected in the two wells in 2008, the firm’s president, Daniel Farnham, said.
Cabot released the 2008 water tests on Tuesday in response to reports last week that Mr. Farnham had found widespread chemical contamination in water wells already tainted with methane linked to the gas drilling in Susquehanna County.
Mr. Farnham took the samples for families in Dimock who have sued Cabot for allegedly damaging their water, health and property.
The drilling company said the toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene found in the drinking water could not have come from hydraulic fracturing fluids used in its Marcellus Shale drilling operations because its service contractors do not use those chemicals.
Maybe she is perpetrating a fraud. I have no problem admitting my perspective is limited. I have tried to educate myself a little bit.
Do you agree with any of the following:
Fracking fluid is nasty stuff.
Millions of gallons get pumped in and about half is recovered afterwards. The rest remains...somewhere.
The recovered waste water is also nasty stuff that you sure would not want spilled around your house or dumped into any river near you.
I have no idea but casual reseach indicates it is 99% sand and water and that companies are reluctant to release exact formulations.
CleanSuite™ Technologies
http://www.halliburton.com/public/projects/pubsdata/Hydraulic_Fracturing/CleanSuite_Technologies.html#
Millions of gallons get pumped in and about half is recovered afterwards. The rest remains...somewhere.
Into the same reservoir containing ethane, propane and many other items you don't want to drink either. And was already there. You should realize the amount of separation and seal sources that already exist in place. That is why the gas/oil was trapped there in the first place.
The recovered waste water is also nasty stuff that you sure would not want spilled around your house or dumped into any river near you.
True of millions of gallons of industrial fluids used every single day in thousands of business. Care needs to be given. But we should not be reduced to living in caves. Fear mongering by environmentalists and ambulance chasing attorneys should not dictate our access to our resources. Recycling the fracture water is becoming more common. It reduces the demand for water when fracturing the next well.
I really recommend doing more to educate yourself on the topic if you are truly interested.
http://www.rangeresources.com/rangeresources/files/6f/6ff33c64-5acf-4270-95c7-9e991b963771.pdf
Look at the critics, but also get information from the industry using it and people who have lived with hydraulic fracturing for decades.
There is no regulation in Pennsylvania to process the water now. It will be an unfortunate, but necessary regulation and well worth the cost and clean up in the short and long term.
More and more are becoming available online.
MSDS sheets of individual components available at the link.
Methods exist and are being further developed to minimize this threat of contamination. For example, currently about 60 percent of fracking fluid can be recycled for use in other wells, cutting down on the need to dispose of it through treatment or off-site disposal.
Earlier this year, Gov. Ed Rendell proposed amendments to existing drilling regulations that would specifically affect the use of hydraulic fracturing. The proposed rules heighten protection of water supplies, strengthen the requirements for constructing well casing and impose a stricter obligation on operators to replace any water supplies they contaminate. The governor also proposed hiring more inspectors to enforce the new rules, with the cost to the state being covered by introduction of a severance tax on natural gas extraction.
That’s my understanding too. And if it were ONLY sand and water, we probably wouldn’t be talking about it.
I have found out the following.
Fracking was granted explicit exemptions from the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act.
Frackers are allowed to pump millions of gallons of fluid containing toxic chemicals into the ground without having to identify them.
Substances used include benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, boric acid, monoethanolamine, xylene, diesel-range organics, methanol, formaldehyde, hydrochloric acid, ammonium bisulfite, 2-butoxyethanol, and 5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazotin-3-one.
I don’t want these things in the water that my family drinks.
the U.S. would no longer be required to bow to the Middle East Masters, although Obama would continue to do so.
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.