the frack thread

mobbsey · Post by **mobbsey** » 23 Dec 2012, 18:35

Well, they foolishly walked into that folly...
earthquakes are the least of the issues about unconventional gas they should be concerned about!

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 23 Dec 2012, 20:50

Eathquakes were a long way down the list. It started thus:

Peter Nixon, director of conservation at the National Trust, said: “We have a presumption against fracking because of the threats it poses to the countryside and because at the end of the day it is a fossil fuel that will do nothing to arrest climate change.”

An that's the truth.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 26 Dec 2012, 21:04

Minister 'misleads' over fracking
Energy Minister John Hayes has been accused of misrepresenting a Durham University study after he claimed it concluded fracking could not contaminate drinking water.
In an interview on Radio 5 Live, Mr Hayes, said “the idea that that water will get into the main water table has been categorically denied”.
“The claim that the water used in fracking gets into the aquifer was categorically refuted by the Durham University study earlier this year,” he said.
However Prof Richard Davies, who led the study, said the water table can be contaminated if the drilling is too close to the water table.
"We have not proved it could not happen, what we have shown is the safety distance,” he said. ...
The study published in the journal Marine and Petroleum Geology found the chance of a fracture extending more than 600 metres upwards, so that gas could travel upwards into the aquifer, was exceptionally low.
Prof Davis therefore said the safety limit should be around double that, at around 1.2km.
"Like anything there are safety limits and if you play rough and ready there could be an incident,” he added.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthn ... cking.html

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 26 Dec 2012, 22:19

Minister 'misleads' over fracking

Good, good, good.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 02 Jan 2013, 17:23

A few weeks old but here's a cast list of the bad guys:

http://frack-off.org.uk/gas-mafia-infil ... ment-ever/

mobbsey · Post by **mobbsey** » 16 Jan 2013, 10:42

http://www.montrealgazette.com/technolo ... story.html

Quebec shale-gas opponents have come under police surveillance

Monique Beaudin, Montreal Gazette, January 14th 2013

Quebec shale-gas opponents were surprised to learn the RCMP believes they have the potential to become radicalized and aligned with North American "extremist” groups.

Two reports by the RCMP’s Critical Infrastructure Intelligence Team say companies, organizations and people involved in the shale-gas industry could become targets, La Presse reported Monday after receiving the reports under the Access to Information Act.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 17 Jan 2013, 10:41

The unsurprising EPA.

“Thyne says he was told to cease his research by higher-ups. He didn’t,” The Checks and Balances Project explained. ”And when it came to renew his contract, Thyne was cut loose.”

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 24 Jan 2013, 15:18

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013- ... mic-growth

This short piece gives you all the numbers you need to see that fraccing is a bubble close to bursting.

2/3 of all theworld's oil and gas drilling rigs are operating in USA/Canada.

Half of those rigs are horizontal rigs used for fraccing wells.
Since 2008 the number of gas rigs has collapsed, and the rigs are now being used to drill for shale oil instead. On current trend, 100% of the rigs will be drilling oil within a year.

At that point the red queen can run no faster and the supply of shale oil will have peaked.

In practice, we may have reached that point anyway.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 24 Jan 2013, 16:17

RalphW wrote:http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013- ... mic-growth

This short piece gives you all the numbers you need to see that fraccing is a bubble close to bursting.

2/3 of all theworld's oil and gas drilling rigs are operating in USA/Canada.

Half of those rigs are horizontal rigs used for fraccing wells.
Since 2008 the number of gas rigs has collapsed, and the rigs are now being used to drill for shale oil instead. On current trend, 100% of the rigs will be drilling oil within a year.

At that point the red queen can run no faster and the supply of shale oil will have peaked.

In practice, we may have reached that point anyway.

Could the world build more drilling rigs if needed? If so then the number that exists today places no limit on future drilling and production.I think the limit comes from the number of profitable places to drill not the amount of machinery needed to drill them.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 24 Jan 2013, 17:01

Of course rigs are being built all the time. However, building them is skilled labour, requires expensive high quality materials that are in turn in limited supply, and operating them requires skilled and trained engineers and geologists and deck hands and these take years to decades to train. They are also another layer of capital investment that will take years for payback whilst the oil companaies are already highly leveraged.

I very much doubt you can build them fast enough to outrun the red queen.

Tarrel · Post by **Tarrel** » 25 Jan 2013, 19:43

There's also the question of why they are being re-deployed from gas to oil.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 26 Jan 2013, 04:30

I read somewhere that the only shale gas that is produced at a profit in the US is the gas found in conjunction with shale oil. That would be why the rigs are being redeployed to oil drilling.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 27 Jan 2013, 03:27

Tarrel wrote:There's also the question of why they are being re-deployed from gas to oil.

NG is at 3.50 per mmbtu and oil wti is at $96/ bbl. Which one are you going to drill for??

raspberry-blower · Post by **raspberry-blower** » 27 Jan 2013, 16:07

RalphW wrote:Of course rigs are being built all the time. However, building them is skilled labour, requires expensive high quality materials that are in turn in limited supply, and operating them requires skilled and trained engineers and geologists and deck hands and these take years to decades to train. They are also another layer of capital investment that will take years for payback whilst the oil companaies are already highly leveraged.
I very much doubt you can build them fast enough to outrun the red queen.

This is the heart of the matter. VT, while it is probable that the rigs will be built, the question is, can highly leveraged exploration and drilling companies afford them?

Taking this a stage further, these exploration companies are likely to be/already have been bought out by larger oil cos. Again, this continual under performance will drag on the big oil cos profit margins especially as the big oil cos have been reporting flat to declining production figures in recent years. (Oh dear, what a shame. Never ****ing mind!)

Although the big oil cos can offset these losses through tax loopholes, it is something that cannot be maintained indefinitely. In fact, given the steep decline rates that are associated with fracking, this will be far quicker than most anticipate. If the oil production is to be finacially worthwhile, then the oil price will have to rise considerably from the present level - ultimately, this price spike will result in a price crash, which, in turn, will send the economy into another tailspin.

Checkmate to The Red Queen.