So mostly what you are mentioning doesn't happen much anymore for a few simple reasons; it's like saying a 1970's diesel car pumping out black soot is a diesel car today.
The geology is different in different areas, and the technology to seal around the bore is better. Basically, nowdays, the groundwater aquifer layers are kept sealed (are usually shallower too) from the (usually much lower) shale layers. With horizontal drilling advances, allows for very accurate drilling through the horizontal beds of shale (after the vertical down pipe); by keeping the bits horizontal through the shale, this keeps all the desired hydrocarbons from leaving the layers above/below it.
Some places have more complex geology (whereas say the Permian Basin is all pretty uniform). But technology has advanced very well.
Even in places with a freshwater problem, the cleanup to keep the water table clean with water injection wells just like for a gas station leak or tank farm leak; can keep things good. No one wants to pollute, it's a waste of the environment, drilling costs, and wasted product which isn't going to market or back down the borehole.
Also the number of vertical wells are fewer. So for instance the distance horizontal which can be drilled has increased and increased, up to 2.5 miles from the wellhead in all directions as of 2 years ago, so a well could be every 5 miles, with multiple underground horizontal bores.
How long will fracking last?
[Futuristic Redpill] Republican version of "fossil fuels" makes them renewable fuels by completing the loop at the wellheads. Or as in the olden times they were called liquid minerals. Unlike history, with gysers of oil/gas blowing from dome formations, reducing pressure, heat, and causing thickening/siezing;
With Fracking, and by maintaining down-bore pressure and temperature, and with some more advanced processing at the wellhead, means the fractions desired can be cleanly stripped and sent to market, while the rest can be cleaned (like sulfur removed) and then reinjected downbore. The natural geologic formation, acts like a refinery stack does, and like a refinery it has to have the right feedstock and temperature/pressure maintained.
So hydro-carbons required hydrogen and carbon, of which a significant amount already exists in the geologic formation. But as some is removed, some can be added back to hydro-crack in situ. This completes the hydro-carbon cycle, thus no need to regulate "CO2" or all the other leftie nonsense.
What are legit cons to fracking and how would one argue in defense of or in spite of those cons?
Since you asked, I got you fren:
Most bad reasons are from the past, which aren't done anymore-- from or because of it being done poorly particularly in the early years. Most frackers today, have LOTS of experience, excellent equipment, great data (including geologic data, drilling equipment data, drilled mud data, and data from other wells), better tools and materials including drilling mud. In the early days with tons of money flooding in, there sometimes was a push just to put wells in the ground and get stuff out (for investment, cashflow, or legal rights reasons); but those "shortsighted/careless" days are a many years back, and wont be back.
Using "reinjection" generally helps, but it's not yet done everywhere. This reinjection includes natgas (wet; or dried-removing the liquid fractions like Propane), and other things including water. Reinjecting all the things which instead of being: flared, sold to market, or sent for cleaning, or concentrated-out like sulfur(removing it out of the fuel-supply chain).
Some "best practices" like using reinjection, rather than flaring(burning excess natgas/methane at the wellhead). In many ways this is because people like in the Biden video, oppose pipelines to get the natgas to market (like NY Gov is blocking nat gas pipelines across NY to supply all of New England). More major pipelines need to be built! Even after these years of Trump it's MUCH better, but there is still much red-tape stopping pipelines--the most economical, safe, and environmentally friendly form of transportation.
The US alone wastes a crapload of energy just to flaring.
If flare gas isn't cleaned (before or after combustion), it can put more crap into the air, which isn't good. By and large, we could and should solve our Flare gas issues in a year if a major effort was made to get the pipelines and processing plants built, &/or to put more reinjection into the formations.
So completing the loop at the wellhead on product coming out is important. This lets the parts desired to move along the supply-chain, the rest is cleaned (eg desulfurization) and reinjected. Some wells use CO2 (incl frozen chips) as part of the fracking mud, and in the future better CO2 reinjection will accompany the wellhead.
Rapid advances happen every month for better technology to separate out the fractions desired at the wellhead or at a collection/processing plant.
A few places have very complex geology (like lots of folds, cracks, buckles, faults, etc.) and these places take extra care and might not be uniform enough to make worth while with low prices.
Some places have weak geology, and so fracking isn't suited well for these locations without other measures which generally aren't cost effective.
If only extraction is done, it can cause some issues like any extraction with land subsidence, and decreases in future oil/gas production. As it's physically reducing the volume underground. (insert pictures of Tokyo delta, Venice Bay, Bangladesh Delta, Mexico City, etc. where the ground has lowered "muh sea level rise" from (industrial) water wells extracting groundwater from 1960+ before it was stopped in many locations to nearly stop the sinking rate.)
Greenfield development (brand new) is often cleaner and less disruptive than existing operations; by simple things like fewer roads and fewer wellhead/vertical wells. The costs of re-doing an existing well or field of wells, might not make capital sense, rather than more Greenfield development.
Also many complicated answers about the money/Capital side of the industry; in how the industry is structured, cashflow, debt, prices, etc. Overall, there is still a great imbalance in the US Energy market segments, even with restrictions on exporting largely removed. Like the cost of (dry) natgas should be like $1/million BTU; but there's too much pipeline contraints; too much structured debt including by local utilities with guaranteed returns by regulation; too much legacy costs in other energy industries; and many other things including The FED's ZERP policies, I could go on and on for much storytime :)
Personally i'd rather have the 70's diesel pumping out black soot, the "emissions equipment" on modern diesels really kills their long term reliability.
Ya most of the current emission equipment is obsolete crap.
Diesel + Propane is much better!
Even Cummins FINALLY got dragged (with $6 million from the Propane industry) to finally build a propane engine 375 hp and 880 lb.-ft. of torque. (in road real world testing and bench-testing atm). But it's passing all their design standards including longevity.
It sounds like amazing technology, but I need some clarification of what you're talking about at the end there. I mean, no matter what, burning fuel releases CO2. And cracking- you're saying they're turning like C6 gas into more like C3 propane type gas? I thought franking wells didn't have oil?
So eventually, [future tech on a distributed scale] the similar processes which occur within a refinery stack, can occur within the downbore of the fracked shale, so long as the right heat/pressure and ratios can be maintained. So just like in an oil refinery, it stops working if it gets cold, or the pressures go out of range, etc. By keeping the down hole temp and pressure in the right zone, then the stuff removed can be separated either at the wellhead or at a processing plant (midstream) nearby; and the undersired fractions not sent to market or further processing (downstream); will be sent back down and reinjected into the formation (after desulfurization and removal of any other bad stuff).
So currently most wells produce what is the range of products based on what's in the geology currently. i.e. a wet well has larger amounts of liquid fractions of natural gas (eg propane), where a dry well doesn't have much liquid fractions it's mostly methane. The geology formation can vary from coal seams, to tight shale. There are gas wells and oil wells which are fracked, produce some variety of ratios of fractions of oil/gas. (too complex to put the data here, but they come in all kinds and varieties).
So in the future, the undesired fractions [based on market conditions, location, etc.] like say pure methane or bunker oil, can be reinjected, while stripping off the desired fractions like propane, natural gasoline, etc. The fractions desired can have some further processing(midstream or downstream), or go straight to market. Overall the costs and profits make sense, as wellhead processing technology advances.
Yes so with complete combustion, Hydrocarbons produce ideally just H20 & CO2.
To balance out the Hydrogen and Carbon ratios downwell desired to produce, more Hydrogen (often in the form of water) and Carbon (often in the form of CO2) can be put downbore, thus completing the Hydro-Carbon Cycle at the well head; and turning "fossil fuels" into "renewable energy". Some of the O2 can be stripped at the wellhead before sending the other parts downbore.
[Redpilled Climate Change Warning for any TDS sufferers] The net BTU energy required can come from any other sources, it's not really the constraint (muh global warming :) has spare BTUs to put downbore, and besides we don't want to cool the earth's core; bc that's the real climate disaster if we lose our magnetic field. Increased insulation of greenhouse warming is the best way, by keeping in our radiant heat the earth emits. But now even the BTUs can be recycled by being put downbore to the geologic formation acting like a mini-refinery stack.
So mostly what you are mentioning doesn't happen much anymore for a few simple reasons; it's like saying a 1970's diesel car pumping out black soot is a diesel car today.
The geology is different in different areas, and the technology to seal around the bore is better. Basically, nowdays, the groundwater aquifer layers are kept sealed (are usually shallower too) from the (usually much lower) shale layers. With horizontal drilling advances, allows for very accurate drilling through the horizontal beds of shale (after the vertical down pipe); by keeping the bits horizontal through the shale, this keeps all the desired hydrocarbons from leaving the layers above/below it.
Some places have more complex geology (whereas say the Permian Basin is all pretty uniform). But technology has advanced very well.
Even in places with a freshwater problem, the cleanup to keep the water table clean with water injection wells just like for a gas station leak or tank farm leak; can keep things good. No one wants to pollute, it's a waste of the environment, drilling costs, and wasted product which isn't going to market or back down the borehole.
Also the number of vertical wells are fewer. So for instance the distance horizontal which can be drilled has increased and increased, up to 2.5 miles from the wellhead in all directions as of 2 years ago, so a well could be every 5 miles, with multiple underground horizontal bores.
[Futuristic Redpill] Republican version of "fossil fuels" makes them renewable fuels by completing the loop at the wellheads. Or as in the olden times they were called liquid minerals. Unlike history, with gysers of oil/gas blowing from dome formations, reducing pressure, heat, and causing thickening/siezing;
With Fracking, and by maintaining down-bore pressure and temperature, and with some more advanced processing at the wellhead, means the fractions desired can be cleanly stripped and sent to market, while the rest can be cleaned (like sulfur removed) and then reinjected downbore. The natural geologic formation, acts like a refinery stack does, and like a refinery it has to have the right feedstock and temperature/pressure maintained.
So hydro-carbons required hydrogen and carbon, of which a significant amount already exists in the geologic formation. But as some is removed, some can be added back to hydro-crack in situ. This completes the hydro-carbon cycle, thus no need to regulate "CO2" or all the other leftie nonsense.
bruh... TIL
What are legit cons to fracking and how would one argue in defense of or in spite of those cons?
Since you asked, I got you fren:
Most bad reasons are from the past, which aren't done anymore-- from or because of it being done poorly particularly in the early years. Most frackers today, have LOTS of experience, excellent equipment, great data (including geologic data, drilling equipment data, drilled mud data, and data from other wells), better tools and materials including drilling mud. In the early days with tons of money flooding in, there sometimes was a push just to put wells in the ground and get stuff out (for investment, cashflow, or legal rights reasons); but those "shortsighted/careless" days are a many years back, and wont be back.
Using "reinjection" generally helps, but it's not yet done everywhere. This reinjection includes natgas (wet; or dried-removing the liquid fractions like Propane), and other things including water. Reinjecting all the things which instead of being: flared, sold to market, or sent for cleaning, or concentrated-out like sulfur(removing it out of the fuel-supply chain).
Some "best practices" like using reinjection, rather than flaring(burning excess natgas/methane at the wellhead). In many ways this is because people like in the Biden video, oppose pipelines to get the natgas to market (like NY Gov is blocking nat gas pipelines across NY to supply all of New England). More major pipelines need to be built! Even after these years of Trump it's MUCH better, but there is still much red-tape stopping pipelines--the most economical, safe, and environmentally friendly form of transportation.
The US alone wastes a crapload of energy just to flaring.
If flare gas isn't cleaned (before or after combustion), it can put more crap into the air, which isn't good. By and large, we could and should solve our Flare gas issues in a year if a major effort was made to get the pipelines and processing plants built, &/or to put more reinjection into the formations.
So completing the loop at the wellhead on product coming out is important. This lets the parts desired to move along the supply-chain, the rest is cleaned (eg desulfurization) and reinjected. Some wells use CO2 (incl frozen chips) as part of the fracking mud, and in the future better CO2 reinjection will accompany the wellhead.
Rapid advances happen every month for better technology to separate out the fractions desired at the wellhead or at a collection/processing plant.
A few places have very complex geology (like lots of folds, cracks, buckles, faults, etc.) and these places take extra care and might not be uniform enough to make worth while with low prices.
Some places have weak geology, and so fracking isn't suited well for these locations without other measures which generally aren't cost effective.
If only extraction is done, it can cause some issues like any extraction with land subsidence, and decreases in future oil/gas production. As it's physically reducing the volume underground. (insert pictures of Tokyo delta, Venice Bay, Bangladesh Delta, Mexico City, etc. where the ground has lowered "muh sea level rise" from (industrial) water wells extracting groundwater from 1960+ before it was stopped in many locations to nearly stop the sinking rate.)
Greenfield development (brand new) is often cleaner and less disruptive than existing operations; by simple things like fewer roads and fewer wellhead/vertical wells. The costs of re-doing an existing well or field of wells, might not make capital sense, rather than more Greenfield development.
Also many complicated answers about the money/Capital side of the industry; in how the industry is structured, cashflow, debt, prices, etc. Overall, there is still a great imbalance in the US Energy market segments, even with restrictions on exporting largely removed. Like the cost of (dry) natgas should be like $1/million BTU; but there's too much pipeline contraints; too much structured debt including by local utilities with guaranteed returns by regulation; too much legacy costs in other energy industries; and many other things including The FED's ZERP policies, I could go on and on for much storytime :)
I very much appreciate your replies in this thread. Learned something that I've been curious about for a long time.
Personally i'd rather have the 70's diesel pumping out black soot, the "emissions equipment" on modern diesels really kills their long term reliability.
Ya most of the current emission equipment is obsolete crap.
Diesel + Propane is much better!
Even Cummins FINALLY got dragged (with $6 million from the Propane industry) to finally build a propane engine 375 hp and 880 lb.-ft. of torque. (in road real world testing and bench-testing atm). But it's passing all their design standards including longevity.
https://www.lpgasmagazine.com/cummins-propane-engine-project-reaches-demonstration-stage/
https://resources.propane.com/cummins-inc-webinar-may-2020
Webinar worth watching if anyone is interested the topic.
Pure Propane = Sweet, clean, super-reliable, and cheaper engine to build, run, and maintain.
It sounds like amazing technology, but I need some clarification of what you're talking about at the end there. I mean, no matter what, burning fuel releases CO2. And cracking- you're saying they're turning like C6 gas into more like C3 propane type gas? I thought franking wells didn't have oil?
More elaboration , please
So eventually, [future tech on a distributed scale] the similar processes which occur within a refinery stack, can occur within the downbore of the fracked shale, so long as the right heat/pressure and ratios can be maintained. So just like in an oil refinery, it stops working if it gets cold, or the pressures go out of range, etc. By keeping the down hole temp and pressure in the right zone, then the stuff removed can be separated either at the wellhead or at a processing plant (midstream) nearby; and the undersired fractions not sent to market or further processing (downstream); will be sent back down and reinjected into the formation (after desulfurization and removal of any other bad stuff).
So currently most wells produce what is the range of products based on what's in the geology currently. i.e. a wet well has larger amounts of liquid fractions of natural gas (eg propane), where a dry well doesn't have much liquid fractions it's mostly methane. The geology formation can vary from coal seams, to tight shale. There are gas wells and oil wells which are fracked, produce some variety of ratios of fractions of oil/gas. (too complex to put the data here, but they come in all kinds and varieties).
So in the future, the undesired fractions [based on market conditions, location, etc.] like say pure methane or bunker oil, can be reinjected, while stripping off the desired fractions like propane, natural gasoline, etc. The fractions desired can have some further processing(midstream or downstream), or go straight to market. Overall the costs and profits make sense, as wellhead processing technology advances.
Yes so with complete combustion, Hydrocarbons produce ideally just H20 & CO2.
To balance out the Hydrogen and Carbon ratios downwell desired to produce, more Hydrogen (often in the form of water) and Carbon (often in the form of CO2) can be put downbore, thus completing the Hydro-Carbon Cycle at the well head; and turning "fossil fuels" into "renewable energy". Some of the O2 can be stripped at the wellhead before sending the other parts downbore.
[Redpilled Climate Change Warning for any TDS sufferers] The net BTU energy required can come from any other sources, it's not really the constraint (muh global warming :) has spare BTUs to put downbore, and besides we don't want to cool the earth's core; bc that's the real climate disaster if we lose our magnetic field. Increased insulation of greenhouse warming is the best way, by keeping in our radiant heat the earth emits. But now even the BTUs can be recycled by being put downbore to the geologic formation acting like a mini-refinery stack.