Support NeoGAF

[fin]

I work in a similar industry where we need to model the subsidence of land from solution mining.

I think there are ways to minimise the effects of fracking, but it's too expensive for companies to want to pay for it. Then if one company does it, all of them would have to.

What happens to the voids left behind from fracking? Are they left empty? How are the wells decommissioned?

 

[thehypocrite]

Yeah, it is great isn't it? It beats all the other forms of fossil fuels that I know of!

But they are all objectively shit, so that's a rather weak argument. Sure, it can be potentially less shit but it's a rather new development and we lack a full concensus in regards to its externalities as we already have for coal and oil.

Am I wrong?

 

[Giant Panda]

But they are all objectively shit, so that's a rather weak argument. Sure, it can be potentially less shit but it's a rather new development and we lack a full concensus in regards to its externalities as we already have for coal and oil.

Am I wrong?

I don't think it's objectively shit, and everything that I have read suggests it is much better than coal. Fracking and natural gas is putting coal out of business and is cleaner, so that sounds like a win to me. What else would you replace coal with? Nuclear has potential but is hugely expensive and takes decades to set up given current construction speeds, and renewables are nowhere near ready to replace coal. So if you have been implying that we should be on all renewables then I'm afraid you simply aren't aware of the economics of energy generation.

 

[Trokil]

Yeah, it is great isn't it? It beats all the other forms of fossil fuels that I know of!

So it kills the planet the slowest, that is great I guess.

I don't think it's objectively shit, and everything that I have read suggests it is much better than coal. Fracking and natural gas is putting coal out of business and is cleaner, so that sounds like a win to me. What else would you replace coal with? Nuclear has potential but is hugely expensive and takes decades to set up given current construction speeds, and renewables are nowhere near ready to replace coal. So if you have been implying that we should be on all renewables then I'm afraid you simply aren't aware of the economics of energy generation.

It is not that wind or solar do not work, that they just a democratic system in a world controlled by big cooperations. If everybody could create its own energy you would not need big cooperations for that anymore and how would people become rich like that. So rather tell everybody it does not work.

For example when Germany turned off their nuclear power plants, everybody told them that would be the end of the word and guess what, nothing happened.

 

[pr0cs]

Fracking isn't this unambiguous evil,

Oh yes it is, especially on a very Left leaning forum like GAF, pretty much anything to do with oil in general is considered Satan's work on GAF.

Sorry but it won't matter how many positives you post about fracking,or how reasonable you are it's just related to an industry that isn't popular

 

[thehypocrite]

I don't think it's objectively shit, and everything that I have read suggests it is much better than coal. Fracking and natural gas is putting coal out of business and is cleaner, so that sounds like a win to me. What else would you replace coal with? Nuclear has potential but is hugely expensive and takes decades to set up given current construction speeds, and renewables are nowhere near ready to replace coal. So if you have been implying that we should be on all renewables then I'm afraid you simply aren't aware of the economics of energy generation.

I haven't said anything of the sort, nor implying that. But you can continue to argue with your reflection, don't let me stop you from that.

Also fracking != Natural gas.

 

[sasliquid]

I don't think it's objectively shit, and everything that I have read suggests it is much better than coal. Fracking and natural gas is putting coal out of business and is cleaner, so that sounds like a win to me. What else would you replace coal with? Nuclear has potential but is hugely expensive and takes decades to set up given current construction speeds, and renewables are nowhere near ready to replace coal. So if you have been implying that we should be on all renewables then I'm afraid you simply aren't aware of the economics of energy generation.

Eh, proper investment in renewables can easily phase out coal plus investment in energy efficiency would reduce the need in general

But I guess it always boils down to economics, the world treats short term financial gain as more important than a stable climate and people's lives and long term economic stability

 

[ahoyhoy]

Bleeding heart liberal geologst working in the environmental consulting industry here (i.e. my job is to delineate impacted soil and groundwater so our clients can remediate).

A lot of the popular arguments against fracking are largely disingenuous or rely upon a tenuous or absent understand of the mechanics of the fracking process and geology. Going to shoot from the hip a bit here as I've made like 10 almost identical posts like this on GAF in the last few years.

RE: Earthquakes: As noted earlier in this thread, large earthquakes that have been tied to fracking in the public eye are almost exclusively a result of wastewater injection wells. Some of that waste water is produced at fracking wells, some of it isn't. Some states are beginning to outlaw this until they have a better understand of the deep structural geology in their territories. Fracking itself can cause earthquakes as well, similar to the shaking causes by the train going through town or a big truck driving by.

RE: Groundwater contamination: The limited cases of groundwater contamination that have been documented and studied are by a large a result of poor wastewater management at the surface, and have nothing to do with the fracking process itself. If I remember correctly, there is a case study in Wyoming (maybe Nevada?) where a poorly installed well lead to groundwater contamination in a shallow aquifer, but I haven't heard reputable cases of any others.

Just as a frame of reference; if you're getting your water from a groundwater well, you're getting it probably within 500 to 600-feet of the earth's surface... In almost fracking wells, you're drilling a well that's thousands and thousands of feet deeper than that.

The pathway for hydrocarbons to migrate to shallower rock formations is almost non-existent. The shale has to be fractured because it is impermeable, so by definition, the hydrocarbons cannot move through it. This layer of rock is then underlain by many other layers of rock which alternate between permeable and impermeable layers. The aquifer you get your water from is likely sandwiched between two impermeable layers. It is a good way to make sure that your water is free from outside contaminants.

Fracking is a risk to groundwater when wells are not cased properly, meaning things can escape from the well during extraction, and when wastewater is stored improperly at the surface (If you live near a gas station, or in an old neighborhood with houses that have/had heating oil tanks you have a much great likelihood of being impacted by groundwater contamination).

Also, lots of water wells start on fire. If your water well isn't properly cased and was drilled through a coal seam (very common in areas of natural gas bearing shales), methane will seep out of the coal into your well water.

Regulate more IMO. We're not going to get rid of fossil fuels tomorrow, so I'd rather move to something less damaging while we get there. The all or nothing approach isn't going to work when half the country feels entirely opposite of you.

Good reads:

United States Geological Survey:
Induced Earthquakes: Myths and Misconceptions
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/induced/myths.php

Induced Earthquakes Raise Chances of Damaging Shaking in 2016
https://www2.usgs.gov/blogs/feature...es-raise-chances-of-damaging-shaking-in-2016/

United States Environmental Protection Agency:
Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources in the United States (Final Report)
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/hfstudy/recordisplay.cfm?deid=332990

I should go to bed 30 minutes ago. I apologize for any typos or confusing sentences.

Thanks for this post. Very informative.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

For example when Germany turned off their nuclear power plants, everybody told them that would be the end of the word and guess what, nothing happened.

German carbon emissions rose in both 2015 and 2016 (despite increasing solar and wind capacity), because guess what they used to make up for the decrease in nuclear? Coal and natural gas. Oops!

You'd think that environmentalists would be shouting about this from the rooftops and demanding they turn those nuke plants back on, but they're strangely silent about it. Huh.

 

[br3wnor]

It's so great that Tillerson sued to stop it near his home...

"Exxon Mobil's CEO has joined a lawsuit to stop construction of a water tower near his home that would be used to in the fracking process to drill for oil."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/02/22/exxon-mobil-tillerson-ceo-fracking/5726603/

While I agree that fracking is probably not good for the areas it's done in, this is pretty typical rich douchebag stuff where they sue over anything being put up in the vacinity of their estates.

 

[Trokil]

You'd think that environmentalists would be shouting about this from the rooftops and demanding they turn those nuke plants back on, but they're strangely silent about it. Huh.

Nuclear is the ultimate solution for people who like procrastinating. And of course environmentalists don't like something which produces waste we have to watch for 500'000 years and more. But we will find a solution to that, any minute now.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Its easy to sit back and enjoy the benefits of fracking while my state becomes devastated by it.

Guns under strict regulation and in the hands of the right people can be safe, but thats not the reality of the situation in america, and fracking is the same way, I dont give the slightest of fucks about how safe it can "potentially"be, i care about what its doing right now, which is fucking our shit up.

 

[AndyD]

I mean, isn't post-fraking considered part of the fraking process?

Shhhh....

But on topic, with real strong regulations it can be done well. However, we don't have a government keen on regulating the industry and protecting the environment, or even just basics like water. I mean the whole EPA is being put up for termination, we're not talking surgical changes to regulation.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Nuclear is the ultimate solution for people who like procrastinating. And of course environmentalists don't like something which produces waste we have to watch for 500'000 years and more. But we will find a solution to that, any minute now.

If only we had a way of converting 97% of nuclear waste back into fuel. We could call it "reprocessing" or something. Then we could run what's left through through next-gen nuclear reactors that literally run on waste, except development of them was kneecapped by the environmentalist lobby.

Now, let's say that the alternative we've been using, coal, kills an estimated 13,000 people per year and is pushing us towards global catastrophe.

I guess environmentalists are fans of global warming.

 

[Aikidoka]

Nuclear is the ultimate solution for people who like procrastinating. And of course environmentalists don't like something which produces waste we have to watch for 500'000 years and more. But we will find a solution to that, any minute now.

Nuclear may produce wate but it's much more manageable than any other nonrenewable. With coal and the like you are uncontrollably spewing radiation and pollutants everywhere. It's clearly much much worse than nuclear.

 

[Frankfurter]

German carbon emissions rose in both 2015 and 2016 (despite increasing solar and wind capacity), because guess what they used to make up for the decrease in nuclear? Coal and natural gas. Oops!

You'd think that environmentalists would be shouting about this from the rooftops and demanding they turn those nuke plants back on, but they're strangely silent about it. Huh.

I just love how people pick data however they like. 2015 is one data point. As far as I know there is no data available for 2016 yet (i.e.: citation needed). If you look at the medium and longer term, you'll see that German emissions are decreasing...

Edit: Also you claim about increasing coal and natural gas is just wrong. Black coal and lignite usage are flat compared to 2011. Gas is down.

 

[Giant Panda]

I guess environmentalists are fans of global warming.

Don't worry about Trokill, he's an anti-science kook.

I just love how people pick data however they like. 2015 is one data point. As far as I know there is no data available for 2016 yet (i.e.: citation needed). If you look at the medium and longer term, you'll see that German emissions are decreasing...

Edit: Also you claim about increasing coal and natural gas is just wrong. Black coal and lignite usage are flat compared to 2011. Gas is down.

I know the Economist has had articles on Germany's increased coal use. I'll find it when I get the chance.

 

[Goodstyle]

Bleeding heart liberal geologst working in the environmental consulting industry here (i.e. my job is to delineate impacted soil and groundwater so our clients can remediate).

A lot of the popular arguments against fracking are largely disingenuous or rely upon a tenuous or absent understand of the mechanics of the fracking process and geology. Going to shoot from the hip a bit here as I've made like 10 almost identical posts like this on GAF in the last few years.

RE: Earthquakes: As noted earlier in this thread, large earthquakes that have been tied to fracking in the public eye are almost exclusively a result of wastewater injection wells. Some of that waste water is produced at fracking wells, some of it isn't. Some states are beginning to outlaw this until they have a better understand of the deep structural geology in their territories. Fracking itself can cause earthquakes as well, similar to the shaking causes by the train going through town or a big truck driving by.

RE: Groundwater contamination: The limited cases of groundwater contamination that have been documented and studied are by a large a result of poor wastewater management at the surface, and have nothing to do with the fracking process itself. If I remember correctly, there is a case study in Wyoming (maybe Nevada?) where a poorly installed well lead to groundwater contamination in a shallow aquifer, but I haven't heard reputable cases of any others.

Just as a frame of reference; if you're getting your water from a groundwater well, you're getting it probably within 500 to 600-feet of the earth's surface... In almost fracking wells, you're drilling a well that's thousands and thousands of feet deeper than that.

The pathway for hydrocarbons to migrate to shallower rock formations is almost non-existent. The shale has to be fractured because it is impermeable, so by definition, the hydrocarbons cannot move through it. This layer of rock is then underlain by many other layers of rock which alternate between permeable and impermeable layers. The aquifer you get your water from is likely sandwiched between two impermeable layers. It is a good way to make sure that your water is free from outside contaminants.

Fracking is a risk to groundwater when wells are not cased properly, meaning things can escape from the well during extraction, and when wastewater is stored improperly at the surface (If you live near a gas station, or in an old neighborhood with houses that have/had heating oil tanks you have a much great likelihood of being impacted by groundwater contamination).

Also, lots of water wells start on fire. If your water well isn't properly cased and was drilled through a coal seam (very common in areas of natural gas bearing shales), methane will seep out of the coal into your well water.

Regulate more IMO. We're not going to get rid of fossil fuels tomorrow, so I'd rather move to something less damaging while we get there. The all or nothing approach isn't going to work when half the country feels entirely opposite of you.

Good reads:

United States Geological Survey:
Induced Earthquakes: Myths and Misconceptions
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/induced/myths.php

Induced Earthquakes Raise Chances of Damaging Shaking in 2016
https://www2.usgs.gov/blogs/feature...es-raise-chances-of-damaging-shaking-in-2016/

United States Environmental Protection Agency:
Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources in the United States (Final Report)
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/hfstudy/recordisplay.cfm?deid=332990

I should go to bed 30 minutes ago. I apologize for any typos or confusing sentences.

This is a great and informative post. Before people post their pseudo snarky "LOL MISUNDERSTOOD BY YOU MAYBE" posts and earthquake puns, they should at least make an effort to form some kind of argument that is as well organized as this one. Like, arguments that tackle the "regulate more" argument that's in defense of fracking have been good since we know for sure that this administration sure as fuck won't regulate shit.

 

[Frankfurter]

Don't worry about Trokill, he's an anti-science kook.

I know the Economist has had articles on Germany's increased coal use. I'll find it when I get the chance.

Temporarily, yes, i.e. up until 2014 or 2015. Not anymore. The reason was mostly due to exporting more than ever, though.

 

[theepicoftyler]

You think this is necessarily more likely to work? Where is the regulation going to come from. Like it as not, fracking is a pretty divisive industry, which has inflamed grass roots like few other issues. In reality, I agree that full transition to renewables isn't going to happen within a particularly helpful timeline, probably not in line with the carbon budget for 2C. Still, the the transition concept is also flawed, since the science says we need to go full on now, cutting something like total emissions by 10% per year to get the best chance of keeping below 2C. Given the chaos and incoherence in the current global geopolitics of energy, things just don't match up. There basically isn't any timeframe that enables a gradual shift, while avoiding dangerous climate change (2C+). As a solution, fracking is a joke because of the timeline that is ahead of us. Basically we need energy consumption to drop considerably across industry and personal use, and a global commitment to transition to majority renewables a decent amount before 2050. Renewable energy generation has increased by around 33% in 2013 from 2000 levels. In the US that was around 26%. Global consumption from renewables is at around 22%.

Honestly, my participation in these threads isn't to promote fracking, it's to keep people honest. This topic is subject, as evident by this very thread, a lot of drive by posts by people who don't have a good understanding of the topic, but think they do. (I think we can blame Gasland for that).

When people are critical of fracking, they need to target the actual problematic areas, which are things that tend to be tertiary or adjacent to the process. Things that there are real life solutions for TODAY (i.e. more conventional ways of processing wastewater vs. well injection, stricter regulations about waste water management at the surface, etc.). I'm not oblivious to the fact that those things are probably not going to happen with the current administration in office..

By pointing out that the process of fracking ins't inherently dangerous, I'm not endorsing it. I'm saying that there is a way to exploit this resources that is less dangerous/damaging that mining or burning coal, or drilling for oil in the ocean.

I also think that the black and white mindset regarding the phasing out of fossil fuels is unproductive. Bureaucracy and politics typically don't allow for paradigm shifts like a lot of people in this thread are asking for. China is in the process of building an astronomical amount of coal fired power plants right now. We are likely passed the tipping point as far as irreversible climate change is concerned, but we still have the ability to mitigate long term effects. I'm a huge proponent of bringing more nuclear plants online and getting as much coal/oil fired applications switched over to natural gas ASAP. A type of rolling progress spurred by incentives rather than mandates will be painless for the half of the country who is opposed to the idea of anthropogenic climate change, and it will be better for everyone in the long term.

How many people are still whining about incandescent bulbs? Keep pushing efficiency and we'll keep moving down the right path.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

I just love how people pick data however they like. 2015 is one data point. As far as I know there is no data available for 2016 yet (i.e.: citation needed). If you look at the medium and longer term, you'll see that German emissions are decreasing...

Weird, I could have sworn that there was data for 2016.

Regardless, numbers mean things, carbon emissions rose for a reason. Why would emissions rise at all when they're building new windfarms and solar panels? Spoilers: It's because both of those have limitations and have to be backed by a consistent power source.

And it's not "one data point," lmao. Emissions rose in 2012, 2013, ticked down slightly in 2014, and rose again in 2015 - it's emissions decreasing that's the lone data point being cherry-picked. I wonder what happened in 2011 that could have caused this?

Edit: Also you claim about increasing coal and natural gas is just wrong. Black coal and lignite usage are flat compared to 2011. Gas is down.

Lignite use went up in 2012, and is only began to tick back down in 2014. It's still much higher than it was before the nuclear phase-out, wonder if there's a correlation.

 

[akira28]

They should do undersea fracking and leave it at that. NIMBY.

 

[Frankfurter]

Weird, I could have sworn that there was data for 2016.

Regardless, numbers mean things, carbon emissions rose for a reason. Why would emissions rise at all when they're building new windfarms and solar panels? Spoilers: It's because both of those have limitations and have to be backed by a consistent power source.

And it's not "one data point," lmao. Emissions rose in 2012, 2013, ticked down slightly in 2014, and rose again in 2015 - it's emissions decreasing that's the lone data point being cherry-picked. I wonder what happened in 2011 that could have caused this?

That reason is not electricity, but cheaper gas prices, higher energy exports and a colder winter

"Hohe Stromexporte, eine im Vergleich zum Vorjahr kühlere Witterung und günstigere Kraftstoffpreise haben 2015 zu einem leichten Anstieg der Treibhausgasemissionen geführt. ... Bei der Stromerzeugung gingen die CO2-Emissionen zurück."

https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/pres...emissionsdaten-fuer-2015-zeigen-notwendigkeit

Umweltbundesamt is a part of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety in Germany.


As to your second part: emissions in 2015 are down compared to 2011 (https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/klimawandel/treibhausgas-emissionen-in-deutschland#textpart-1). And that is with a huge increase in energy exports.
And again: you are trying to bend the data like it fits you: that "slight" decrease in 2014 was bigger than those 3 increases combined.

Lignite use went up in 2012, and is only began to tick back down in 2014. It's still much higher than it was before the nuclear phase-out, wonder if there's a correlation.

"Much" higher. Yeah... preliminary data shows that lignite usage was at around ~150 TWh in 2016, i.e. back to 2011 levels, just like I said.