Green Energy versus Permian Basin Blues and fossil fuels

Here's some information about water pollution and threats to water quality related to fracking in the Permian Basin:

Wastewater – both the initial flowback and produced water – is pumped from the well with oil and gas and contains salts, minerals, chemicals, and petroleum residues naturally existing in the formation. This water is produced throughout the life of a well where initially, in the Permian Basin, 252 to 336 gallons (6 to 8 barrels) of water are "produced" per gallon of oil (Carr 2017), and the volumes of both produced water and oil decline at relatively the same rate as the well ages (Kondash and Vengosh 2015). Operators must dispose, treat, or reuse this wastewater. In Texas, this is usually done via injection into UIC Class II injection wells (Texas Railroad Commission, and Collins 2017). Yes -- polluted water is often injected into the earth --- the out of sight, out of mind mind set. In addition to posing what must be acknowledged as "unforeseen problems", disposal of produced water in injection wells has been connected to seismic activity in Oklahoma (Walsh and Zoback 2015). If Permian Basin produced water volumes continue to increase, as is projected to happen due to increasing hydraulic fracturing activity, issues related to produced water problems will become even more pronounced.

Carbon Dioxide Pollution? Carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant its the by product of animal respiration. Plants utilize Carbon Dioxide in their respiration for energy and give off Oxygen which is what we breath. You obviously have been taking in the misinformation spewed by Liberals. Originally Posted by Levianon17

CO2, climate change, global warming, pollution are words that liberals get mixed up.

CO2, climate change, global warming, pollution are words that liberals get mixed up. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Pollution is what we should all be concerned about. I am at my wits end with all the stupid talk about Climate Change, but what can you do.

Here's some information about water pollution and threats to water quality related to fracking in the Permian Basin:

Wastewater – both the initial flowback and produced water – is pumped from the well with oil and gas and contains salts, minerals, chemicals, and petroleum residues naturally existing in the formation. This water is produced throughout the life of a well where initially, in the Permian Basin, 252 to 336 gallons (6 to 8 barrels) of water are "produced" per gallon of oil (Carr 2017), and the volumes of both produced water and oil decline at relatively the same rate as the well ages (Kondash and Vengosh 2015). Operators must dispose, treat, or reuse this wastewater. In Texas, this is usually done via injection into UIC Class II injection wells (Texas Railroad Commission, and Collins 2017). Yes -- polluted water is often injected into the earth --- the out of sight, out of mind mind set. In addition to posing what must be acknowledged as "unforeseen problems", disposal of produced water in injection wells has been connected to seismic activity in Oklahoma (Walsh and Zoback 2015). If Permian Basin produced water volumes continue to increase, as is projected to happen due to increasing hydraulic fracturing activity, issues related to produced water problems will become even more pronounced. Originally Posted by agrarian

This is good news indeed Agrarian. Since 252 to 336 gallons (6 to 8 barrels) of water are produced per gallon of oil in the Permian Basin, capitalism will save the day. Given that disposal costs, if the producer has its own disposal wells, run upwards of $0.30 per barrel, the cost of water disposal exceeds the value of the oil. This isn't the first time I've seen these exact numbers quoted by the way. Apparently those who oppose the right of residents in West Texas and Southeast New Mexico to decide what's in their best interests have taken it and run with it. What probably happened was that Mr. Carr, the RBN Energy analyst who originally put this in a blog, confused barrels and gallons. Six to eight barrels of water per barrel of oil is a reasonable estimate.

This piece was written by someone with no knowledge of Permian Basin geology or regulatory and industry practices. Or someone who's doing a hatchet job because he opposes oil production period.

Disposal wells are carefully regulated and monitored in Texas and New Mexico. The operators inject produced salt water, and comparatively small quantities of drilling and completion fluids and hydrocarbon residue, from deeper intervals back into salt water zones in deeper intervals. Fresh groundwater is not affected. The water people use is not affected.

Yes, it is true that salt water injection, particularly into the Arbuckle formation in Oklahoma, has caused earthquakes. Water injection in high volumes at high rates can cause movement of faults in basement rock. This is a problem that can be largely solved by shutting in the offending disposal wells. The geology of the Permian Basin is totally different. You don't have the same kind of faulting, and the injection zones are mostly way above the basement rock, so that the risk to life and property is minimal, most likely "0" probablity of anything significantly bad happening. There has been an increase in the number of small magnitude quakes in the Permian Basin, mostly in the western part of the basin, and the the state of Texas is looking at regulating injection volumes. The vast majority of residents in the area are not in favor of shutting down the injection wells or the industry.

There was a spirited debate in the conservation community about fracking and natural gas. Those who advocated for more fracking extolled the value of fracking in serving as a bridge away from coal. Some of this strategy has worked, it is now clear. There were those in the conservation community who opposed fracking, and their rationale was strong, in my estimation. The lack of transparency regarding the chemicals used in fracking and the amount of freshwater needed to perform fracking is worrisome. It is worth investigating what has happened in North Dakota and eastern Montana regarding the use of freshwater in that region's fracking fields as evidence of that concern. Watching the legislative process in North Dakota during the fracking debate there provides an invaluable look into the long-term values of the fracking industry. They must be nudged and pushed and cajoled every step of the way toward improving the environmental impacts of their industry.

That's a halfway reasonable post Agrarian. More than halfway. Yes, hydraulic fracturing that made natural gas cheap and plentiful is the primary reason carbon dioxide emissions have gone down in the USA, as natural gas replaced coal for power generation.

I'm no expert on the issues you address, outside the Permian Basin. I believe that transparency in the constituency of fracturing chemicals has improved, so that now it has to be disclosed in most states. It was often secret before primarily because the companies believed they were giving away proprietary advantages to competitors by disclosing the composition of frac fluids. There wasn't really an issue of transparency regarding the volumes of freshwater required. It was more more of a case of fracking really catching on so that more water was required than expected early on. It's logical that freshwater in North Dakota and eastern Montana could possibly be more valuable to the residents if used in agriculture than hydraulic fracturing. And yes certain industry players need to be nudged and pushed to get them to install best practices. Well-regulated is probably a better way to describe it than "nudged and pushed."

To be clear, by "use of freshwater", I mean extracting freshwater and combining with sand to use to frack wells. Based on the little I know about the geology of eastern Montana and North Dakota, the risk of contaminating freshwater zones by injecting frac fluids into shale wells is low.