Fracking on the Blood Reserve

[abrigger]

This has been in the news of late and I have just read about it though I am no stranger to Hydro Fracking.

http://www.cjocfm.com/newscentre/local-news/s-a-c-p-a-hears-concerns-about-hydraulic-fracking-652

http://www.lethbridgeherald.com/letters-to-the-editor/fracking-can-have-effects-off-blood-reserve-102910.html

http://thecanadian.org/hot-links/item/628-gasland-filmmaker-josh-fox-in-lethbridge-solidarity-determination-needed-to-halt-fracking

If anyone is unclear what Hydro Fracking is just Google it. Better yet watch the movie "Gasland Movie" Here is the trailer; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8

This movie will open your eyes and get you involved. Tell your family and friends that live on the farms to watch this movie!

Now that you understand why hydro fracking creates an environmental disaster; get involved locally!

http://intercontinentalcry.org/blood-tribe-members-call-for-moratorium-on-hydro-fracking/

Sign the petition!!

I am an oilfield geologist with 12 years’ experience. I understand believe me.
Fracking destroys geology and the effects are irreversible. The effects contaminate watersheds in the area. Where do you thing Lethbridge gets its water from??
The type and amount of chemicals put down whole along with the staggering amount of water does not return. It becomes part of our groundwater and watershed. Anyone want a glass of water yet?

What is Southern Alberta’s most precious resource? Water.
What is at risk if they frack the hell out of the Blood Reserve? Water.

From an outdoorsmans prospective this concerns me. I hunt and fish in the areas of Lethbridge. Consider what the quality of fish and game will be after drinking (irreversible) chemical soup from our watershed?
Oh yeah, we are in that watershed too.

I am aware we need gas to heat our homes, cook our food and so on. I am also aware that Hydrofracking is not required to drill wells and recover gas. It is a technique to recover MORE gas after the well has been drilled.

The is a horrible practice and should be stopped dead in its tracks and guess what! If we stop fracking we will still have gas!

The Cheif of the Blood Reserve made this $50 million dollar deal without consulting the people. YOu thing this money will improve the lives of the Blood Reserve Residents! THis is different topic all together.

Get involved.

Stop hydro fracking on the Blood Reserve.

Stop Hydro Fracking on the lands your friends live on and your families are near.

Stop Hydrofracking in ALBERTA!

[Sundancefisher]

This has been in the news of late and I have just read about it though I am no stranger to Hydro Fracking.

http://www.cjocfm.com/newscentre/local-news/s-a-c-p-a-hears-concerns-about-hydraulic-fracking-652

http://www.lethbridgeherald.com/letters-to-the-editor/fracking-can-have-effects-off-blood-reserve-102910.html

http://thecanadian.org/hot-links/item/628-gasland-filmmaker-josh-fox-in-lethbridge-solidarity-determination-needed-to-halt-fracking

If anyone is unclear what Hydro Fracking is simple Google it. Better yet watch the move "Gasland Movie" Here is the trailer; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8

This movie will open your eyes and get you involved. Tell your family and friends that live on the farms to watch this movie!

Now that you understand why hydro fracking creates an environmental disaster; get involved locally!

http://intercontinentalcry.org/blood-tribe-members-call-for-moratorium-on-hydro-fracking/

Sign the petition!!

I am an oilfield geologist with 12 years’ experience. I understand believe me.
Fracking destroys geology and the effects are irreversible. The effects contaminate watersheds in the area. Where do you thing Lethbridge gets its water from??
The type and amount of chemicals put down whole along with the staggering amount of water does not return. It becomes part of our groundwater and watershed. Anyone want a glass of water yet?

What is Southern Alberta’s most precious resource? Water.
What is at risk if they frack the hell out of the Blood Reserve? Water.

From an outdoorsmans prospective this concerns me. I hunt and fish in the areas of Lethbridge. Consider what the quality of fish and game will be after drinking (irreversible) chemical soup though our watershed?
Oh yeah, we are in that watershed too.

I am aware we need gas to heat our homes, cook our food and so on. I am also aware that Hydrofracking is not required to drill wells and recover gas. It is a technique to recover MORE gas after the well has been drilled.

The is a horrible practice and should be stopped dead in its tracks and guess what! If we stop fracking we will still have gas!

The Cheif of the Blood Reserve made this $50 million dollar deal without consulting the people. YOu thing this money will improve the lives of the Blood Reserve Residents! THis is different topic all together.

Get involved.

Stop hydro fracking on the Blood Reserve.

Stop Hydro Fracking on the lands your friends live on and your families are near.

Stop Hydrofracking in ALBERTA!

I find it absolutely unbelievable that in this day and age an extremely bad case of false reporting can lead people to diverge from facts and common sense to utter hysteria.

You say you are a geologist...but I find it incredulous what you are advocating as it is far from true. For instance...how is fracture stimulating the Rock Creek formation at 3000 m going to harm anything when the tonage used is set based upon the desire to crack the formation on a horizontal plane? Cracking vertically is not done as to do so would be a 100% waste of money for an oil company. If you crack the egg vertically you lose all the hydrocarbon from the reservoir. Engineers are members of APEGGA and are under very tight control as to what they can and can't do. Knowingly causing an environmental problem would be the kiss of death for a career. http://www.apegga.com/ They have to be a member to work.

The fracture stimulation of subsurface rocks has been on going for longer than you probably can fathom with no problems. If you are a geologist...you should know that. Almost all wells in Alberta since drilling started have been fracture stimulated.

Your comment that fracture stimulating is not needed is so far from false...unfortunately it has me wondering what your motives are on this post.

Rather than jump on the paranoia bandwagon...please ask upfront questions and I will answer the simple and obvious ones and those outside my technical comfort level I will task myself with getting them answered by a professional. This goes for anyone on the forum and not just the original poster. As simple questions for each post to keep it organized.

If you are interested in the dialog and debate I will be happy to assist.

Cheers

Sun

[nick0danger]

Perhaps you should google gasland and you will see that most of it was made up or just plain BS. The tap where the water light on fire, was a natural methan source that was there long before fracking. Encana, had to go seal that well the guy drilled on his own with water well drilling equipment, encaca cleaned up that mess on there own dime, then the film maker turned it around to make it look like it was encana's doing.

Anytime you see a documentary, or editorial do some digging. I got taught this by my liberal loving high school English teacher take no one's word for anything, do your own research.

[Sundancefisher]

The type and amount of chemicals put down whole along with the staggering amount of water does not return. It becomes part of our groundwater and watershed. Anyone want a glass of water yet?

This one point alone is so false it is unbelievable.

Groundwater is only potable in the surface rock down to about 600 m. There is so much protection around that it is silly. These zones have to be cased with surface casing to prevent any fluid penetration. Zones below that are typically always saline and salty to the point of being sea water and often mixed with other natural chemicals and minerals.

Some people show gas in their water wells but on careful evaluation it is obvious they are producing gas from aquifers such as coal seams. As the water get produced out of the water wells...the formation pressure decreases and it causes naturally absorbed methane molecules to detach from the weak bonds with the coal and flow to the tap. That is nature...and caused by the water well owners.

Very rarely has an oil and gas operation caused a problem and the paranoia is so strong that oil companies typically get water well samples from the surrounding wells to protect themselves. Oil and gas has clear chemical signatures and if there is escape from a well or formation...it is trackable.

Your attempts to provoke fear is unfounded and as a geologist you should be careful to not promote false information.

Thanks

Sun

[Sundancefisher]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/34937

Natural gas industry is dumping carcinogenic agents into drinking water
Pitt prof caught off base in new frack attack

- Steve Milloy Monday, March 28, 2011
University of Pittsburgh assistant professor Conrad (Dan) Volz issued a report on March 21 to scientists and the U.S. EPA claiming that natural gas industry is dumping carcinogenic agents into drinking water.


But just two days after a group of professionals reviewed the “report,” Volz backtracked somewhat: apologizing, issuing a revised report, and explaining that numerous references he used in the report were incorrect and/or misstated. He nevertheless maintained that,

“… our overall environmental public health conclusions and recommendations have not changed despite these fundamental errors.”

Volz’s report continues to misstate, misrepresent and misuse facts, data and government criteria
But even with the “corrections,” Volz’s report continues to misstate, misrepresent and misuse facts, data and government criteria. Specifically, Volz:

Demonstrates a lack of understanding and/or a disregard of federal and state environmental standards. For example, he relies heavily on Safe Drinking Water Act maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) that apply only at points of use for actual drinking water supply systems. He wrongly compares effluent discharges from a commercial treatment plant that discharges into a nearly-dead creek to these drinking water standards.
Claims exceedances of drinking water standards despite that there are no drinking water intakes or uses — and none are possible because the creek is so polluted from abandoned coal mine discharges for miles above and below the brine treatment facility.
Claims limits for contaminants such as strontium that cannot be found in federal or state regulations.
Asserts that anglers frequent the stream and that it is listed for trout stocking. But there are no fish to be caught and the stream is not stocked due to mine water pollution that has degraded the entire stream. No trout have been stocked in Blacklick Creek for years.
Erroneously picks primary and secondary water quality criteria that are not applicable for discharges into Blacklick Creek. He then compares them to discharge levels from his brief, one-day study to claim that people “are at risk.” He called for an immediate shutdown of treatment plants while studies can be completed. But professional studies have already been completed showing the treatment plants are safe and these are available at Pennsylvania Department of the Environment (OPADEP) offices.
Relies heavily on U.S.Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease registry (ATSDR) minimal risk levels (MRLs) for comparison of risks from brine treatment discharges in Blacklick Creek. According to the ATSDR, “An MRL is an estimate of the daily human exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse noncancer health effects over a specified duration of exposure. These substance specific estimates, which are intended to serve as screening levels, are used by ATSDR health assessors and other responders to identify contaminants and potential health effects that may be of concern at hazardous waste sites. It is important to note that MRLs are not intended to define clean up or action levels for ATSDR or other Agencies.”
Fails in any way to evaluate daily human exposure — an evaluation that risk assessment professionals perform by evaluating actual populations, usage and acute/chronic toxicity exposure scenarios. While MRLs are used only in an initial screening evaluation, Volz uses these levels to reach his conclusions, which were remarkably unaffected even when monumental errors were found and corrected from his initial report.
Relied on sample results taken during one 24-hour period, three hours apart, for a total of eight samples during one day. We are aware of no federal or state agency that draws any risk-based conclusions from a study of results for just one day. Such a “study” ignores: seasonal variations, flow variation, stream mixing and dilution properties, unique thermal conditions and stream transects that are all critical components of studies that are essential for federal or state stream evaluations under the Clean Water Act or the federal Superfund law.
Used this extremely limited data as the basis for speaking of “mean,” “maximum,” and “average” levels — as if a statistically significant population of results had been used. Again, no federal or state agency would reach conclusions on such limited data nor review it if submitted by any party.
Includes an entire section devoted to “mass loadings” of pollutants in order to inform the readers of the “tons of pollutants” being discharged into Blacklick Creek. First, mass loadings have no scientific purpose. Only concentrations are of consequence and then only when considered over the relevant time/exposure period. The mass of “pounds or tons” of pollutants are presented to sensationalize and scare. If they were compared to things like road salt use, they will pale in comparison. In similar fashion, Volz seems to have converted part per million (ppm) concentrations to part per billion (ppb) concentrations so he could add three “zeros” to each number and make them appear much larger — even when the standard is in ppm.
Mentions anglers who catch and eat fish from Blacklick Creek and swimmers who will absorb contaminants by “dermal contact.” Governmental agencies who prepare or review such claims insist on studies of actual exposures. Volz only points to web sites indicating that locals “may be” using the creek. He claims such persons “are at risk” several times in the report.
Claims water users are at risk because their wells “may” be able to pump water from Blacklick Creek. This ignores all science and the fact that net flow is into Blacklick Creek, not from it to underground waters.
Claims that residents of Freeport on the Allegheny River are at risk despite that Freeport is dozens of miles away. Further, the stream is so extensively diluted at that point that the years of operation of brine treatment plants AND the decades of coal mine pollution have never come close to affecting that water supply system.
Calls for immediate shutdown of the brine treatment plant while his concerns can be studied. The good news, however, is that all his concerns have already been addressed. The PADEP and EPA have reviewed and approved permits for the discharges on several occasions. That review and approval process ALWAYS includes an evaluation of all influent and effluent streams; any “reasonable potential” for water quality standards to be exceeded at any time of the year; and assurance that no drinking water supply can be adversely affected. Volz also calls for signs and warning to fishermen and residents. But Volz is years late in his concerns for the dangers of pollution of Blacklick Creek. Through the efforts of local conservation groups, a once totally dead stream as a result of abandoned coal mines is now showing some signs of life. As the stream improves, the standards for the brine treatment plants are tightened to assure no adverse impact. This system has been in place since the 1970′s and continues to reap the desired benefit and goals of the Clean Water Act.
Volz’s errors don’t come as a surprise given that he has shed the mantle of scientist in favor of anti-fracking activism. As recently reported by CitizensVoice.com,

Volz repeatedly reminded people the [fracking] situation is political, urging them to vote out lawmakers who don’t do what the people want.

Will Volz’s junk science-fueled comments get him in the same water as this academic who spoke the scientific truth?





http://junkscience.com/2011/03/27/pitt-prof-caught-offbase-in-new-frack-attack/

[abrigger]

Hydro Fracking is the best know practice to maximize production from gas reservoirs. Are there safeties in place? Of course there are. Do associated professionals do their best to follow these safeties and try to accomplish fracking to the perfect model? Yes, they do.

Does it work how it should on paper? Not always.

Geology is not 100% predictable. When you cause mass tremor in a reservoir you hope to fracture the host reservoir rock and not the cap rock which is containing the hydrocarbon. If you do fracture this cap rock you now have an exit of hydrocarbons and nasty chemicals randomly migrating upward. A small/medium fracture in the cap rock would go un-noticed and there is no way to guarantee you have not fractured that cap rock.

Where will the migrating hydrocarbons and chemicals end up? When and where we find them we don’t know today. We might in 10 years, 20 years, and 50 years.

One rig drills one well in an area no big deal. When is the last time you saw one rig drill one well in a gas field? Ever been near NE of Fort Sask? Driven from Edmonton to Saskatoon? What happens when we drill hundreds of wells in an area?

Our Engineers and Geologists do their best to complete these operations to the perfect model. This does not always happen and THAT is the nature of hydrofracking.

[Snap Shot]

Im going to pipe in on this thread in alittle bit.. I just got home from installing a frac liner last night... Just a wee bit tired to give my .02 cents yet..

[Sundancefisher]

Hydro Fracking is the best know practice to maximize production from gas reservoirs. Are there safeties in place? Of course there are. Do associated professionals do their best to follow these safeties and try to accomplish fracking to the perfect model? Yes, they do.

Does it work how it should on paper? Not always.

Geology is not 100% predictable. When you cause mass tremor in a reservoir you hope to fracture the host reservoir rock and not the cap rock which is containing the hydrocarbon. If you do fracture this cap rock you now have an exit of hydrocarbons and nasty chemicals randomly migrating upward. A small/medium fracture in the cap rock would go un-noticed and there is no way to guarantee you have not fractured that cap rock.

Where will the migrating hydrocarbons and chemicals end up? When and where we find them we don’t know today. We might in 10 years, 20 years, and 50 years.

One rig drills one well in an area no big deal. When is the last time you saw one rig drill one well in a gas field? Ever been near NE of Fort Sask? Driven from Edmonton to Saskatoon? What happens when we drill hundreds of wells in an area?

Our Engineers and Geologists do their best to complete these operations to the perfect model. This does not always happen and THAT is the nature of hydrofracking.


Hmmm.... Are you currently working as a exploration geologist?

Calling a fracturing operation a mass tremor is very misleading and falls into the fear mongering side of the debate.

Companies are not causing earthquakes. The ground does not shake...they are in fact just opening up cracks...and we are talking small cracks...not giant cracks to increase perm and access porosity. They put small pellets in the cracks to keep them from closing. Many wells don't flow at all without fracturing due to wellbore or perm issues. Fracturing fluids up here that may be used are HCL water based, Light oil and propane.

You are all concerns about drilling lots of wells.

How many wells do you think have been drilled to date in Alberta with no problems like you are trying to foreshadow?

100,000 mabye 200,000 maybe 500,000?

What is the play type, zones of interest, depth they are chasing on this reserve?

As for risk...there is no way of guaranteeing a meteor is not going to kill you today...but that possibility does not give a person an excuse to go around causing panic that the sky is falling. There are regulations in place to make sure things are done right. The oil companies don't make more money if they make too big a fractures...but rather they will lose money by damaging the formation...therefore they err on the side of caution. The hundreds of thousands of wells drilled to date...should make you as a professional comfortable in what you doing.

[MountainTi]

I think one of the greater concerns of todays large fracs is the volume of fresh water being used, particularly horizontal wells. With todays focus on going back into old oil fields and of course shale gas, and the horizontal drilling, fracs are much more intensive than the vertical wells ever were. Quick example of the water consumption on a horizontal shale gas frac job-35,000 cubes to frac 2 zones, 7 more to go on that well. That's a lot of fresh water gone.

[nick0danger]

I thought most of the water was recovered, when the crack was filled with sand to allow the gas to makes its way to the top?

[ctd]

Hmm an Oilfield Geologist trying to stop Fracing. Wonder who is going to pay him if they do?

[abrigger]

Sand helps the cracks stay open and allows the gas to flow. Sand would never be used to plug or fill a crack in hopes of containment.

[Gunslinger257]

I am by no means an expert on any of this however my mind begs to ask a couple of questions. First would siesmic exploration not have a greater impact on water wells then frac. 15kg of dynomite at 15m depth would cause damage wouldn't it? And the amount of fresh water lost does it compare to the amount of fresh water that flows into the salty brine (the ocean) every year?:thinking-006:

[Alberta Girl]

[QUOTE=Sundancefisher;893533]For instance...how is fracture stimulating the Rock Creek formation at 3000 m going to harm anything

I have proof that Encana frack'd on my neighbors land on more than one CBM well @ about 25 m only. Yes, that is 25 m only. Our aquifer is around 250 to 300 m. Also, this was about 201 m from their house. 1 m more than allowed. And what did Encana do after chemicals such as tolulene were found in there water ? Nothing. And furthermore, denied that they did anything. So, why was it that Encana supplied them with water for 2 years ?

The proof is there but these companies are exempt from the safe drinking water act. My neighbors were powerless to do anything and now they cannot so much as take a shower or brush their teeth with their water. They had livestock die, which is their livelihood, and have now had to re-locate all the cattle to another farm. These people were the ones in the documentary Burning Water. The OP may want to watch that one as well.

I do not know why so many people brutally jump on this as lies. I can bring you a jar of my neighbors water if you like. I can show the the well info. I can show you the chems found in their water.

Industry aside, imagine unknowinly having yourself or your kids drink water with poison in it ? How can they even remotely let that happen. I would like to know.

I am at risk as well, we are only 4 kms from their farm.

(I am on lunch at work to sorry for the short and abrupt typing....)

Alberta Girl

[Muliemaster]

Hmm an Oilfield Geologist trying to stop Fracing. Wonder who is going to pay him if they do?

Seems a little suspicious to me as well... Why would you want to shut down your bread and butter??

Myself, as a oil and gas geologist, am embarrassed to be associated with abrigger, proclaiming to be a "geologist" If you were one, you would realize some of the asinine claims being tossed out from yourself and that so called documentary. I suggest you sit with another geologist around some beers and a bunch of napkins and doodle away on them. You'll realize that 3000m is a long ways down and there is not any method of communication upwards.

I go through rigourous measures every day to try and get wells drilled. It may seem like a pain but it is for our future and our land preservation. Things like setting surface casings below potable water levels and the such.

To another previous poster mentioning the vast amounts of fresh water being used for fraccing - Yes, I think that's an abhorred waste of good water as well, but in BC, there are regulations coming out which are making it harder to use fresh water. Again, its a pain but its for the better. Using run-off and water from rivers is getting much harder to do now and other sources of water are being sought out. I have been involved in water exploration wells, the sole purpose being to find non-potable water suitable for fraccing.

[Muliemaster]

I thought most of the water was recovered, when the crack was filled with sand to allow the gas to makes its way to the top?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Some formations absorb the water and you only really recover 10% of original volumes. Some formations spit most of it back too though. Its all dependent the characteristics of the formation.

Yes, proppant is carried in by water and other carriers as well (gel). The proppant is left in the induced fracture but the proppant filled fracture is significantly more permeable than the surrounding rock, which allows the gas (and sometimes oil) to flow through to the wellbore. Like I mentioned above, the water or carrying agent will flow back through these induced fractures, or it can be absorbed into the formation.

[hillbillyreefer]

[QUOTE=Sundancefisher;893533]For instance...how is fracture stimulating the Rock Creek formation at 3000 m going to harm anything

I have proof that Encana frack'd on my neighbors land on more than one CBM well @ about 25 m only. Yes, that is 25 m only. Our aquifer is around 250 to 300 m. Also, this was about 201 m from their house. 1 m more than allowed. And what did Encana do after chemicals such as tolulene were found in there water ? Nothing. And furthermore, denied that they did anything. So, why was it that Encana supplied them with water for 2 years ?

The proof is there but these companies are exempt from the safe drinking water act. My neighbors were powerless to do anything and now they cannot so much as take a shower or brush their teeth with their water. They had livestock die, which is their livelihood, and have now had to re-locate all the
cattle to another farm. These people were the ones in the documentary Burning Water. The OP may want to watch that one as well.

I do not know why so many people brutally jump on this as lies. I can bring you a jar of my neighbors water if you like. I can show the the well info. I can show you the chems found in their water.

Industry aside, imagine unknowinly having yourself or your kids drink water with poison in it ? How can they even remotely let that happen. I would like to know.

I am at risk as well, we are only 4 kms from their farm.

(I am on lunch at work to sorry for the short and abrupt typing....)

Alberta Girl

3000m and 25m is comparing apples to oranges. Can you post some verification on a frac done at 25m?

[Sundancefisher]

[QUOTE=Sundancefisher;893533]For instance...how is fracture stimulating the Rock Creek formation at 3000 m going to harm anything

I have proof that Encana frack'd on my neighbors land on more than one CBM well @ about 25 m only. Yes, that is 25 m only. Our aquifer is around 250 to 300 m. Also, this was about 201 m from their house. 1 m more than allowed. And what did Encana do after chemicals such as tolulene were found in there water ? Nothing. And furthermore, denied that they did anything. So, why was it that Encana supplied them with water for 2 years ?

The proof is there but these companies are exempt from the safe drinking water act. My neighbors were powerless to do anything and now they cannot so much as take a shower or brush their teeth with their water. They had livestock die, which is their livelihood, and have now had to re-locate all the cattle to another farm. These people were the ones in the documentary Burning Water. The OP may want to watch that one as well.

I do not know why so many people brutally jump on this as lies. I can bring you a jar of my neighbors water if you like. I can show the the well info. I can show you the chems found in their water.

Industry aside, imagine unknowinly having yourself or your kids drink water with poison in it ? How can they even remotely let that happen. I would like to know.

I am at risk as well, we are only 4 kms from their farm.

(I am on lunch at work to sorry for the short and abrupt typing....)

Alberta Girl

I don't think anyone jumps on the odd problem as lies...however...judging and lumping the entire process as at fault is extreme.

I know of one famous guy that said oil companies ruined his well...but studies showed his well was in a coal aquifer.

In a shallow CBM play there are other additional regulations set out to prevent problems...however what is not addressed is when oil companies dewater coal seams and thereby cause desorbtion of gas into the coal...and potentially offsetting sand members. While the methane was always there...the perception is that it was added by oil companies which is false.

We don't know exactly what the deal is with exploration on this reserve...anyone know specifically what the drilling depth objective is? What I hate is random noise created by naysayers who don't bring to light all points...but focus on one to stir up misguided resentment.

We would have to see the data to show Encana opsed there versus maybe they did not take the required water well samples to show nothing changed over background and they just assumed responsibility as a good corporate citizen. I would also need an evaluation of their cement bond log over the top 600 m of the well.

There have been some problems in the US where the regulations were poor compared to Alberta. As a result some have labeled everywhere with the same problem.

The premise is still the same. If the oil companies do what is insinuated that harms the residents...they are in fact significantly harming their value to the point of losing money. Therefore...doom and gloom does not make sense. The paranoia that oil companies are doing something to damage the environment to make more money is totally false assumption. There is nothing further from the truth. The truth and facts are...they need just enough propant in the formation to allow for economic recovery of hydrocarbons. Anything more that is spent is lost money and potentially ruined wells. At sometimes millions and millions of dollars worth of drilling...companies don't want to walk away with zero.

And any misconception that fracturing is not needed for economic production in most wells...is very, very wrong.

[Bound2Fish]

If anyone can find me an LSD I could be able to find some more information about drilling depths.

[Muliemaster]

[QUOTE=Alberta Girl;893718]

We don't know exactly what the deal is with exploration on this reserve...anyone know specifically what the drilling depth objective is? What I hate is random noise created by naysayers who don't bring to light all points...but focus on one to stir up misguided resentment.


They're going to be targeting the very western edge of the Bakken. I had to look up the depths, its a little shallower than I thought, at 1500-1800mTVD. Shallower than the Saskatchewan play.

The higher oil prices have sort of helped this play along.

[Alberta Girl]

Ok, I only have a few "tidbits" here are work. The one shows the most shallow at 42.7 m....I apologize, it is not the 25 m one but still, way too shallow. See bmp attached.

I also have various reports. One states how the groundwater was seeping in the the well and their attemps to cement it off to stop that.

My neighbor has her water report and I can get it from her if you wish. Of course we have methane in our water and it has been there a long time. Our water well guy has spoken to us about this. It is pretty safe and our water has been tested as safe to drink. The methane flashes off so fast that you do not notice anything. However, this is not a complaint about methane in the water. The tolulene is very scary. My water is very different from my neighbors. Their water fizzes constantly, it has a very white cloudly color and lots and lot of bubbles, very large bubbles. Plus, it will burn your skin if you have exposure for about 10 minutes or so. I don't want to think about what that would do to you inside.

Hopefully my attachments work. Had to convert to a pdf so not a bmp.

[Alberta Girl]

Um...the post above by Muliemaster...

You "quoted" me but, I never said what is below. I did not write "We don't know exactly...."

Please be careful that you are quoting the right person ok ?

Thanks

[Alberta Girl]

If anyone can find me an LSD I could be able to find some more information about drilling depths.

Bound2Fish, I sent you a pm.

[abrigger]

My bread & Butter it is. But what good are bread and butter when you may be irreversibly damaging watersheds? What good is Bread & Butter without health?

If you really think Gasland Movie is fictional you need to shake your head. Don’t believe everything you see and read, but you better consider it and find the truths that are in it.

Let's not confuse this as an attack on the oilfield. We need oil & gas and it is a very important industry for me, my family, my friends and my province.
Can we do it in a better way that does not threaten and irreversibly destroy watersheds, land and people’s lives? If we can’t we need to put that type of drilling and production on hold until we can do it in a better way.

The fact that natural gas is one of the cleanest, cheapest and most efficient sources of energy makes it a necessary component of an environmentally-friendly economy. Alberta is home to a large natural gas resource base and accounts for just over 75 per cent of the natural gas produced in Canada.

"It is estimated that 77 trillion cubic feet of recoverable, conventional natural gas is still beneath our feet. Coalbed methane is natural gas found in coal seams. Alberta’s coal seams could contain as much as an additional 500 trillion cubic feet of coalbed methane.
While it is not yet known how much of this coalbed methane is economically recoverable, Alberta’s natural gas supply will meet the needs of Albertans, Canadians and North Americans for the foreseeable future. Another potential unconventional gas source is shale gas which is still in the very early stages of development in Alberta. Shale gas is natural gas stored in organic rich rocks such as shale, mudstone or laminated siltstones."

This is our province, this is where we live. Would you not have the utmost interest in your house, backyard, community, and province????

We have a lot of gas and we need to get it. We better hope we know our process is sound for obtaining this mass amount of resource. If we screw up, just think of the magnitude of our ignorance.

How many wells do you think we will need to drill to get that gas out of the ground? How many frac jobs you think we will do?

[Alberta Girl]

abrigger, very well said !!

It bothers me that if this happened to say, Airdrie, something would have been done and rules would be changed. They managed to keep the poor farmers at bay. I don't know how they sleep at night cause they know damn well they did those people wrong. Of course it hits home for me as these are my friends and my son goes to school with their son.

Like the one old guy said in Gasland, these are grown men lying to us !!

I do think they have changed things since and MAYBE or should I say HOPEFULLY are doing something different.

If my water gets contaminated I am not sure what I will do. I LOVE where I live, that's why I live there. It would be a damn shame that's for sure.

Also, my husband and I are also in the industry and it feeds us. Makes it even harder to take. I am not "against" the industry per se, but we cannot ruin our water !!

[ishootbambi]

[QUOTE=Sundancefisher;893789]

They're going to be targeting the very western edge of the Bakken. I had to look up the depths, its a little shallower than I thought, at 1500-1800mTVD. Shallower than the Saskatchewan play.

The higher oil prices have sort of helped this play along.

is the bakken what the new wells are targeting? when i fracced out there 3 years ago, the target was gas in the medicine hat, milk river, and second white specks zones which are 400 to 800 meters if i remember right. mulie....it is obvious to me that you know and understand what frac is about and how it works. just wondering if you had heard anything about the proposal for water in NE BC?

it is also obvious from your terminology abrigger that you are not in the loop with what you are trying to sell here. if you were indeed what you say you are you would know better. cmon man, there are dozens of us on this board who do this for a living....you arent going to fool us.

alberta girl, im not saying you are purposely misleading anyone, but i dont think you have all your facts quite right. a frac at the depth you are saying just doesnt seem like something that would happen. there could well be contamination of surface water, but the reason you are saying just doesnt sound logical from my experience.

[Muliemaster]

is the bakken what the new wells are targeting? when i fracced out there 3 years ago, the target was gas in the medicine hat, milk river, and second white specks zones which are 400 to 800 meters if i remember right. mulie....it is obvious to me that you know and understand what frac is about and how it works. just wondering if you had heard anything about the proposal for water in NE BC?


ishoot - from what I understand, the Bakken will be the target of interest for these new wells. I could very well be wrong, if anyone has more info, I'd love to hear! The high oil price has really pushed the productive limits of the Bakken's productivity, which is somewhat more marginal in Alberta vs Sask. ishoot, when you were working out of the Lethbridge area a few years ago, yes, you're correct, those were shallower gas wells. The price for gas was a little more conducive for drilling and production then! The Bakken in Alberta has been talked about for some time now but since its rather marginal, at this time, there hasn't been a ton of interest. Maybe with drilling/producing on the reserve lands, the royalty rates won't be in affect, and maybe helping the economics??

I am assuming you are referring to water being used in Fraccing? I am a few months out of date... Previously, we were building water reservoirs and letting groundwater and run off fill them. If they weren't filled enough, we would pump out smaller ponds and surficial water bodies. My company didn't specifically pump from rivers as they were too far to be economical. Now the Gov't has put in regulations that we cannot be taking surface run off and heavily regulating river pumping. We had to start drilling water source wells and were running soft water lines to the pits to try and fill them during this last winter. It sure proved problematic at -40 to be filling water!!

I hope this is what you were looking for. I can dig up some gov't regulations from BC and see tomorrow, if that is indeed what you were looking for. If its outside of the oil and gas industry, I don't have any knowledge of what is going on.

[hal53]

[QUOTE=Alberta Girl;893718]

3000m and 25m is comparing apples to oranges. Can you post some verification on a frac done at 25m?
You can't frac a well at 25m...no way....there is no such thing as horizontal frac....maybe below 3,000m but at 25 meters there is no rock , or very unstable rock to fracture...99.9% of the fracs are outward and down or up from the entry point...proven time and agin by tracer logs .....and...Toluene is never used in frac fluids....production wells yes....initial completions...no

[MountainTi]

.

To another previous poster mentioning the vast amounts of fresh water being used for fraccing - Yes, I think that's an abhorred waste of good water as well, but in BC, there are regulations coming out which are making it harder to use fresh water. Again, its a pain but its for the better. Using run-off and water from rivers is getting much harder to do now and other sources of water are being sought out. I have been involved in water exploration wells, the sole purpose being to find non-potable water suitable for fraccing.

Yeah, you are right, it is gonna get tougher in places like the horn river. The well I am talking about was up there, and that 35000 cubes all came out of the Ft. Nelson river. They figured on getting about 40% flowback, but that water isn't much good for anything, most likely go down an injection well. There was an observation well drilled within a km, and they were looking for zones for reinjecting, and also for non-potable water like you say to replace the fresh water fracs. They already know that isn't going to last much longer. Like I mentioned, that 35000 was for 2 zones, 7 more to be completed at a later date.

[hal53]

[QUOTE=Muliemaster;893819]

is the bakken what the new wells are targeting? when i fracced out there 3 years ago, the target was gas in the medicine hat, milk river, and second white specks zones which are 400 to 800 meters if i remember right. mulie....it is obvious to me that you know and understand what frac is about and how it works. just wondering if you had heard anything about the proposal for water in NE BC?

it is also obvious from your terminology abrigger that you are not in the loop with what you are trying to sell here. if you were indeed what you say you are you would know better. cmon man, there are dozens of us on this board who do this for a living....you arent going to fool us.

alberta girl, im not saying you are purposely misleading anyone, but i dont think you have all your facts quite right. a frac at the depth you are saying just doesnt seem like something that would happen. there could well be contamination of surface water, but the reason you are saying just doesnt sound logical from my experience.
gotta wonder...just checked on Wellview and the Bakken is nowhere near there,,,if it is...at 25m would not be economically feasible

[MountainTi]

I am by no means an expert on any of this however my mind begs to ask a couple of questions. First would siesmic exploration not have a greater impact on water wells then frac. 15kg of dynomite at 15m depth would cause damage wouldn't it? And the amount of fresh water lost does it compare to the amount of fresh water that flows into the salty brine (the ocean) every year?:thinking-006:

I think in the good old days larger explosive sizes were common and there was most likely the odd aquafer damaged, screwing up a water well.For The last lot of years, you wouldn't have seen any 15 kg charges remotely close to any water wells. With the increased technology in instruments, there is no need. 1/2kg-2kg is much more commonplace nowadays, depending on how deep they are looking.
And that water that flows into the ocean every year, comes back as rain or snow

[sikwhiskey]

Its the Bakken, 700 mkb to 1200 mkb depending where you are. Hydro or fluid fracing(slick frac) in this case are used in oil wells, gas isn't worth crap right now. Most of the time the frac fluid is fresh water right from the river, 300-1500m3/ per frac. Sometimes its KCL ( calcium carbate enriched) with clay stabilizer added, sometimes its light Oil, like Diesel.. The formation water at this depth has a salinity content of 1- 2%, courtesy of the inland sea the used to be here(the Bear Paw Sea). Alot of water also contains NORM's.( Natural occuring radioactive material) and a host of other nasty stuff, witch is why it is not dumped onto the ground, but re-injected back into the formation from where it came.( unlike the US of A.)
Alot of hype for nothing, Shell and a host of other companies have been doing this on our side of the continental divide for 60 years. The first well drilled in Alberta was in Waterton. Drilling is where the water shed is most vulnerable, WITCH IS WHY THEY DRILL WITH FRESH WATER, then cement off surface casing.

[Hilgy]

AlbertaGirl,

I just had a quick look at the info you posted. The shallowest zone I see is a 1m shot at 125.7m. That zone was fraced with n2 started producing water at 5.6l/m and was cemented off.

I have alot of stuff on the go around here so I may have missed it but where do you see a 42.7m perf??


Hilgy

[sikwhiskey]

Sand helps the cracks stay open and allows the gas to flow. Sand would never be used to plug or fill a crack in hopes of containment.

Gas and OIL to flow. Thats the theory, doesn't always work that way. Cement is usually used to plug wells. Whats in Cement again? I left my geology book at work.:argue2:

[sikwhiskey]

AlbertaGirl,

I just had a quick look at the info you posted. The shallowest zone I see is a 1m shot at 125.7m. That zone was fraced with n2 started producing water at 5.6l/m and was cemented off.

I have alot of stuff on the go around here so I may have missed it but where do you see a 42.7m perf??


Hilgy

Those are coal bed methane wells, N2 is the usually the best stimulation because the fluid kills the well, as there is not enough gas pressure to lift the weight of the fluid.
Your not allergic to N2 are you? :sHa_shakeshout: I acually have a letter, given to me while delivering flare notifications from a lady stating that we cannot Frac because she is allergic to nitrogen, still not sure hows she remembers to breath while sleeping.:sHa_sarcasticlol: Its still posted in my office shack.

[Snap Shot]

[QUOTE=hillbillyreefer;893768]
You can't frac a well at 25m...no way....there is no such thing as horizontal frac....maybe below 3,000m but at 25 meters there is no rock , or very unstable rock to fracture...99.9% of the fracs are outward and down or up from the entry point...proven time and agin by tracer logs .....and...Toluene is never used in frac fluids....production wells yes....initial completions...no

X2

There is no such thing as a 25m frac its just not possible... toluene is not used in the frac fluids just in SOME production wells.

I have not heard of a horizontal frac period... Every frac i have dealt with is laid out lateral..

To me the only concern is with the amount of fresh water.

Mulie Master I have definently seen a increase in water wells with soft lines running to pits to retain fresh water for fracing.

Abrigger not even close is every well drilled from Fort Sask to Sask border a frac well.

[600twin]

[QUOTE=hal53;893986]

I have not heard of a horizontal frac period... Every frac i have dealt with is laid out lateral..



Not to be a stick in the mud but you do mean Vertical right?
Bakken Shale in Southeast Sask are running about 1420 +/- TVD. THere will be alot of Bakken wells drilled in southern AB , it was either Petrobakken or Crescent point that picked up a million acres.

[Sundancefisher]

Yeah, you are right, it is gonna get tougher in places like the horn river. The well I am talking about was up there, and that 35000 cubes all came out of the Ft. Nelson river. They figured on getting about 40% flowback, but that water isn't much good for anything, most likely go down an injection well. There was an observation well drilled within a km, and they were looking for zones for reinjecting, and also for non-potable water like you say to replace the fresh water fracs. They already know that isn't going to last much longer. Like I mentioned, that 35000 was for 2 zones, 7 more to be completed at a later date.

A lot of frac fluid is expensive and reused. Frac oil is recovered and sold. Propane in propane fracs is desired to be recovered due to cost. Most other fracs the same. I have also heard of brackish water being cleaned and used cause it is cheaper and simpler than getting permits.

[Sundancefisher]

My bread & Butter it is. But what good are bread and butter when you may be irreversibly damaging watersheds? What good is Bread & Butter without health? Out of hundreds of thousands of wells drilled in Alberta...over 500,000 I would think...where has there been irreversible damage to watersheds from fracturing? As a geologist surely you realize this is standard practice except in carbonate wells were sometimes you can just do an acid job.

If you really think Gasland Movie is fictional you need to shake your head. Don’t believe everything you see and read, but you better consider it and find the truths that are in it. You also need to think about how much of that show is sensationalized to prove a point for a lobby group in the US and whether it is really applicable to Canada or not.

Let's not confuse this as an attack on the oilfield. We need oil & gas and it is a very important industry for me, my family, my friends and my province.
Can we do it in a better way that does not threaten and irreversibly destroy watersheds, land and people’s lives? If we can’t we need to put that type of drilling and production on hold until we can do it in a better way. You are attacking the oil patch...and as a geologist you say...I find it interesting. Maybe you don't sit in on enough engineering meeting to understand fully what happens after you prog a well...but clearly since you feel fracturing is new...you are missing something.

The fact that natural gas is one of the cleanest, cheapest and most efficient sources of energy makes it a necessary component of an environmentally-friendly economy. Alberta is home to a large natural gas resource base and accounts for just over 75 per cent of the natural gas produced in Canada.

"It is estimated that 77 trillion cubic feet of recoverable, conventional natural gas is still beneath our feet. Coalbed methane is natural gas found in coal seams. Alberta’s coal seams could contain as much as an additional 500 trillion cubic feet of coalbed methane.
While it is not yet known how much of this coalbed methane is economically recoverable, Alberta’s natural gas supply will meet the needs of Albertans, Canadians and North Americans for the foreseeable future. Another potential unconventional gas source is shale gas which is still in the very early stages of development in Alberta. Shale gas is natural gas stored in organic rich rocks such as shale, mudstone or laminated siltstones."
what is you point for posting this? Fracturing is a common method used to simply stimulate a reservoir into economic production...in conventional and unconventional reservoirs. In 16 years...I have yet to NOT fracture stimulate a well except for carbonates...

This is our province, this is where we live. Would you not have the utmost interest in your house, backyard, community, and province???? Of course...but still saying I am fanatical about protecting my home and family separates the discussion from fact to emotion. When you invoke the fear response...it is out of fear and not out of facts. That means your not open to discussion but rather lashing out in fear and panic. we won't ask you about global warming then:thinking-006:

We have a lot of gas and we need to get it. We better hope we know our process is sound for obtaining this mass amount of resource. If we screw up, just think of the magnitude of our ignorance. 500,000 wells or so...should give you a hint...:thinking-006: Again...anyone know what our well number is at? I believe about 12,500 wells should again be drilled in Alberta in 2011.

How many wells do you think we will need to drill to get that gas out of the ground? How many frac jobs you think we will do? ROTFLMAO...now...being as you are the geologist...should you not know this question? :snapoutofit: The number of wells for a given play varies. The number of wells drillable for economic targets is dependent upon the commodity prices and the size of the prize and the finding and development costs. The easy wells and high production pools have been drilled. The harder to get at oil and gas locked in tighter rock needing new paradigms in technology and innovation is a progressive process. Then there is secondary and tertiary recovery projects. LOL... I can't believe you would ask that question as a geologist. If anyone knew where all the remaining oil and gas was...he/she would only be one geologist left working...

:)

[blackpheasant]

Sundance, thanks for taking the time to set the record straight with facts, this whole argument reminds me of the Global warming fear mongering debate...and where is Michael Moore and Al Gore now ? They've been real quiet lately..

[hal53]

[QUOTE=Snap Shot;894106]

Not to be a stick in the mud but you do mean Vertical right?
Bakken Shale in Southeast Sask are running about 1420 +/- TVD. THere will be alot of Bakken wells drilled in southern AB , it was either Petrobakken or Crescent point that picked up a million acres.
I meant where the frac goes when it leaves the wellbore.......and I think you meant TMD not TVD

[abrigger]

It is obviously me vs you. You win.

As long as people are aware of hyro fracking and the effects it can have we all win. They will decide for themselves if they want a well drilled on their land.

It's too bad the Chief of the Blood Reserve took a $50mil payment to allow this and the Indians of the Blood Reserve wont get to decide.

[Alberta Girl]

AlbertaGirl,

I just had a quick look at the info you posted. The shallowest zone I see is a 1m shot at 125.7m. That zone was fraced with n2 started producing water at 5.6l/m and was cemented off.

I have alot of stuff on the go around here so I may have missed it but where do you see a 42.7m perf??


Hilgy

The well casing is at 42.7m. The perf's all run right around the depth of our water table, which is about 300m.

Please note that I am no expert at fracing and do not claim to be. However, all professionals that I have shown this data to have told me for sure they could have (and did) contaminate our aquifer. I like getting more info from people with deep understanding of the details so please do jump in here and educate myself and others.

I am in the seismic end of the industry dealing with the actual raw and processed data that is shot in the field. I do not have anything to do with drilling except personally.

So, is 125.7m not a vast difference from 3000m which apparently in most cases is how deep they drill ?

This happened first in March 2004. In April 2004, these guidelines were released. (see attached groundwater diversion.pdf)

Also, see the attached ERCB document. (directive 27.pdf)

Just a read of the first few pages is pretty much sufficent to see that they knew what was going on and what had happened.

So far as I know, there are 3 landowners in our area that have contaminated water.

I am not trying to be just "the other side" or the pessimist, trust me, I really wish this had not happened so close to our home, let alone anyone else's. That is why I would like to get this info out there for people to judge for themselves.

Alberta Girl

[Alberta Girl]

[QUOTE=abrigger;894224]It is obviously me vs you. You win.

They will decide for themselves if they want a well drilled on their land.

Landowners do not have the right to refuse a well. We do not own the mineral rights to our land. If they want to drill, they drill. I would have no choice in the matter and it is not considered mine.

[Alberta Girl]

A lot of frac fluid is expensive and reused. Frac oil is recovered and sold. Propane in propane fracs is desired to be recovered due to cost. Most other fracs the same. I have also heard of brackish water being cleaned and used cause it is cheaper and simpler than getting permits.

In your experience, what is in "frac fluid" ? Frac oil and propane, also does not sound like anything I would like coming out of my tap.

[blackpheasant]

In your experience, what is in "frac fluid" ? Frac oil and propane, also does not sound like anything I would like coming out of my tap.

Most of the shallow wells are fracced with Nitrogen these days especially the CBM wells, Frac fluid can be water, Frac Oil (pure hydrocarbon C5 to C20), Crude Oil, C02, and now Propane, I would say the Propane Frac's would be the most desirable these days as 100% of it will flow back out of the well into existing production facilities...

[Cattle Dog]

Sounds to me like some of the folks on the Reserve might have taken an introductory course in geology.

Of course, abrigger, most would agree on the importance not to waste fresh water like it used to be wasted in the past. And, you are probably more educated now, having read the replies from some very informed people, than you were to begin with. (i know i am).

Have a hard time believing that there is horizontal drilling shallower than a 100 metres; and can't believe they would be able to frac anything that shallow.

It is nice to hear that a Reserve has actually made some money for a change,
instead of only sucking out millions of dollars from the taxpayers of Canada.

[Sundancefisher]

It is obviously me vs you. You win.

As long as people are aware of hyro fracking and the effects it can have we all win. They will decide for themselves if they want a well drilled on their land.

It's too bad the Chief of the Blood Reserve took a $50mil payment to allow this and the Indians of the Blood Reserve wont get to decide.

Well...actually...you started off this debate not with a question but with a super strong aggressive attack on the oil industry.

If you are the freehold owner of the mineral rights...you can decide if you want a well drilled or not. If it is Crown mineral rights or someone else's mineral rights then the land was acquired knowing full well that there are mineral rights present. Both rights have equal rights and the surface owner can not block the mineral owner from the exploration and production thereof. The surface owner does not trump the mineral owner in any jurisdiction in North America. Alberta has some of the fiercest surface rights owners legislation in North America...but if all the regulations are met with the ERCB then the well will be drilled. In the US...often the surface owner has zero say on what happens in the event wells need to be drilled.

Are you now stating on a public forum that the Chief of the Blood Reserve took a personal bribe to farmout the mineral rights of the Blood Reserve? If you have proof I would submit that to the media at least such that there is an investigation as I am sure that is illegal.

As for the effects of fracture stimulation...as a geologist of 12 years...please give us specific examples of how you participated in the wanton destruction of the environment. You seem very clear your goals with your post...so please come clean with all the damage your fracing has caused.

Thanks

Sun

[MountainTi]

[QUOTE=600twin;894125]
I meant where the frac goes when it leaves the wellbore.......and I think you meant TMD not TVD

I think he actually meant TVD.....total vertical depth

[Sundancefisher]

In your experience, what is in "frac fluid" ? Frac oil and propane, also does not sound like anything I would like coming out of my tap.

Let me track down some details if someone else does not beat me to it.

Here is GasFrac's corporate site. http://www.gasfrac.com/ propane

http://www.bjservices.com/website/Completions.nsf/CompletionFluidsFrameset?openframeset HCL

Oil fracs take oil and mix with propant and inject into an oil reservoir.

Basically...many reservoirs have kaolinite, smectite or bentenite (sp sorry) which are water absorbing clays. You can not use pure water based products...as it get soaked up and plugs up the reservoir.

[Sundancefisher]

[QUOTE=hal53;894219]

I think he actually meant TVD.....total vertical depth

Total Measured Depth...TMD

Total Vertical Depth...TVD

What you use depends upon it is directional, vertical, horizontal...but it sounds like you know that...maybe others did not...

[MountainTi]

A lot of frac fluid is expensive and reused. Frac oil is recovered and sold. Propane in propane fracs is desired to be recovered due to cost. Most other fracs the same. I have also heard of brackish water being cleaned and used cause it is cheaper and simpler than getting permits.

Was strictly talking water, and in this case the flowback was being trucked 2 hrs. one way to a CCS site, cheaper to pull out of the river again as it was only a 1/2 hr haul when the remaining zones are completed. As long as it is allowed, we all know the most cost effective route will be followed.

[abrigger]

By took I mean decided for the tribe and took the deal, I said no such thing as personal bribe.

"Protect Blood Land says that no one from the reserve was consulted before the deal was finalized. "KRI and the Blood Tribe Chief and Council neglected to maintain any degree of transparency during and after the negotiations--ultimately, leaving a large population of tribe members completely unaware of the situation until after the deal was made," says Protect Blood Land."

Found here

http://www.groundreport.com/Health_and_Science/Blood-Tribe-Members-Call-for-Moratorium-on-Hydro-F/2936596

[Sakoman]

I wish I would have seen this post earlier it would have been interesting to add some info earlier. You do realize that Gasland had about 90%+ of it recanted as bad info. Secondly environmental rules in some US states are no where near as stringent as AB. Lastly you need to educate yourself before you try and educate others......Alberta Girl you really have to know what the well was frac'd with before you can detemine what is in the frac fluid. Due to cost majority of wells are fracked with fresh water and chemicals. If someone tried to frac a well at 25 you would lift the overburden.

[Hilgy]

Those are coal bed methane wells, N2 is the usually the best stimulation because the fluid kills the well, as there is not enough gas pressure to lift the weight of the fluid.
Your not allergic to N2 are you? :sHa_shakeshout: I acually have a letter, given to me while delivering flare notifications from a lady stating that we cannot Frac because she is allergic to nitrogen, still not sure hows she remembers to breath while sleeping.:sHa_sarcasticlol: Its still posted in my office shack.

Oh dont worry I'm quite aware of how gas fracing works. I work with n2 everyday.

I was just wondering if AlbertaGirl could show me where those documents showed a set of perfs at 42.7m.

allergic to n2...thats a new one:sign0161:

[Sakoman]

I think Alberta Girl mixed up the Surface casing setting depth and the perfs.

[sikwhiskey]

I think Alberta Girl mixed up the Surface casing setting depth and the perfs.

not sure if those zones are fraced that shallow, most of the time they are hit by farmers drilling for water. Shallowest water well i ever frac't was 150 meters, coal bed seam ran right through the town of Preacville Sask. Some industrious farmers even tapped into it to heat their shops. Coal seams runs through many towns and villiages, and cities. with the current price of gas, No Oil company would even consider slick fracing these.

[sikwhiskey]

By took I mean decided for the tribe and took the deal, I said no such thing as personal bribe.

"Protect Blood Land says that no one from the reserve was consulted before the deal was finalized. "KRI and the Blood Tribe Chief and Council neglected to maintain any degree of transparency during and after the negotiations--ultimately, leaving a large population of tribe members completely unaware of the situation until after the deal was made," says Protect Blood Land."

Found here

http://www.groundreport.com/Health_and_Science/Blood-Tribe-Members-Call-for-Moratorium-on-Hydro-F/2936596

Try looking up national geographic from 1983, the Blood Indians sold their rights to Oil and gas for 70 million. BY THE CHIEF IN CHARGE AT THE TIME. Now you want them to get in a ****ing match for something they signed in 1983? well then all the treaties that were signed, by every cheif, prior, should be suspect as well, NO?

[sikwhiskey]

I wish I would have seen this post earlier it would have been interesting to add some info earlier. You do realize that Gasland had about 90%+ of it recanted as bad info. Secondly environmental rules in some US states are no where near as stringent as AB. Lastly you need to educate yourself before you try and educate others......Alberta Girl you really have to know what the well was frac'd with before you can detemine what is in the frac fluid. Due to cost majority of wells are fracked with fresh water and chemicals. If someone tried to frac a well at 25 you would lift the overburden.
Frac a well at 25m?? man that would be fun to watch from a mile away:sHa_shakeshout:

[sikwhiskey]

Was strictly talking water, and in this case the flowback was being trucked 2 hrs. one way to a CCS site, cheaper to pull out of the river again as it was only a 1/2 hr haul when the remaining zones are completed. As long as it is allowed, we all know the most cost effective route will be followed.

Any water, even fresh, that is put down any well, then recovered, is considered contaminated, and injected back down Via CCS or other disposal facilities, into, or well below all water tables.

[sikwhiskey]

Well...actually...you started off this debate not with a question but with a super strong aggressive attack on the oil industry.

If you are the freehold owner of the mineral rights...you can decide if you want a well drilled or not. If it is Crown mineral rights or someone else's mineral rights then the land was acquired knowing full well that there are mineral rights present. Both rights have equal rights and the surface owner can not block the mineral owner from the exploration and production thereof. The surface owner does not trump the mineral owner in any jurisdiction in North America. Alberta has some of the fiercest surface rights owners legislation in North America...but if all the regulations are met with the ERCB then the well will be drilled. In the US...often the surface owner has zero say on what happens in the event wells need to be drilled.

Are you now stating on a public forum that the Chief of the Blood Reserve took a personal bribe to farmout the mineral rights of the Blood Reserve? If you have proof I would submit that to the media at least such that there is an investigation as I am sure that is illegal.

As for the effects of fracture stimulation...as a geologist of 12 years...please give us specific examples of how you participated in the wanton destruction of the environment. You seem very clear your goals with your post...so please come clean with all the damage your fracing has caused.

Thanks

Sun

In the US of A, the owner of the land owns the mineral rights, to what ever depth. In communist Canada,MOSTLEY the US Oil companies own everything thats under 12 inchs of our soil. wicked EH? Well stated Post otherwise. THANKS RALPH!!!

[sikwhiskey]

[QUOTE=hal53;893986]

X2

There is no such thing as a 25m frac its just not possible... toluene is not used in the frac fluids just in SOME production wells.

I have not heard of a horizontal frac period... Every frac i have dealt with is laid out lateral..

To me the only concern is with the amount of fresh water.

Mulie Master I have definently seen a increase in water wells with soft lines running to pits to retain fresh water for fracing.

Abrigger not even close is every well drilled from Fort Sask to Sask border a frac well.
As with all changing technology, horizontal drilling has come a long way, most Oil wells are now drilled horizontally, very efficiently these days, to maximize production. In the Alberta Bakken, you can drill 800m tvd and 2200mkb in 5-14 days, and production,usually, is better.
You are worried about the amount of fresh water being lost? Water wells are usully made for Drilling purposes as it is cheaper to drill a water well than haul the water in. All in all, very little fresh water lost. By far the biggest enemy to our, and the worlds, water supply is FARMING. funny how that is not on the news!! But I like to eat. Take a look at what your irrigation district alone Sh*ts into our water supply, let alone the herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers! funny how the Corporate farmers get off easy, go down to UFA and buy some Magniscide, take a bath in it, and tell me how you feel, if you don't die within 20 minutes, then start crying the blues at fracing.

[blackpheasant]

In the US of A, the owner of the land owns the mineral rights, to what ever depth. In communist Canada,MOSTLEY the US Oil companies own everything thats under 12 inchs of our soil. wicked EH? Well stated Post otherwise. THANKS RALPH!!!

Not necessarily, there are still a few land owners that retain mineral rights here or the descendants of those land owners that bought the mineral rights when they purchased the land 60 or so years ago...these mineral rights can still stay in the family if turned into a corporation...what are you thanking Ralph for ?...:)

[Sundancefisher]

In the US of A, the owner of the land owns the mineral rights, to what ever depth. In communist Canada,MOSTLEY the US Oil companies own everything thats under 12 inchs of our soil. wicked EH? Well stated Post otherwise. THANKS RALPH!!!

LOL

Actually the same situation happened in both countries. As the country was settled going West...it started out granting mineral and surface rights to settlers. Then both governments wised up...as you move west...the percentage of provincial or state mineral ownership increases. As the government owned the land at the time...selling it and retaining the mineral rights was their right.

In terms of settling the country...the US was faster so proportionately speaking they do have more freehold.

I believe if you looked at the data...you would realize that most US companies are not in Canada and have few holdings. Canadian companies lease most of the leased land in Alberta etc.

[Sundancefisher]

Not necessarily, there are still a few land owners that retain mineral rights here or the descendants of those land owners that bought the mineral rights when they purchased the land 60 or so years ago...these mineral rights can still stay in the family if turned into a corporation...what are you thanking Ralph for ?...:)

The Alberta government does not take away existing freehold mineral rights. They can be sold or past on to heirs at the discretion of the owner. It has always been that way. Saskatchewan on the other hand went through a process that stole mineral rights from freehold owners. Very sad.:(

[Alberta Girl]

[QUOTE=Hilgy;894389]I was just wondering if AlbertaGirl could show me where those documents showed a set of perfs at 42.7m.

Please see the document I uploaded called directive 027.pdf from the ERCB. It is only 3 pages. My post is #043 in this thread.

Why are they re-stating that companies are not allowed to frac at these shallow of depths if it has never happened ?? Please explain to me what you get from this document.

[abrigger]

I used to feel sorry for the young men mixing mud on the rigs. They dont know how good they have it! Have a look at this Cancer Coctail;

http://www.hcn.org/issues/43.3/unpacking-health-hazards-in-frackings-chemical-cocktail

Any % of this left underground seems criminal. How many litres do we mix up for a frac job?

[hillbillyreefer]

I used to feel sorry for the young men mixing mud on the rigs. They dont know how good they have it! Have a look at this Cancer Coctail;

http://www.hcn.org/issues/43.3/unpacking-health-hazards-in-frackings-chemical-cocktail

Any % of this left underground seems criminal. How many litres do we mix up for a frac job?

You would have more credibility with your smear campaign, by not showing studies with table salt, borax (cleaning agent) and sorbitol a food safe sweetener in them. It lists sorbitol as having more bad effects on humans than lye. Besides that a table with no supporting documentation is pretty much meaningless. It is a wonderful propaganda aid, but pretty much useless for anything else.

TILT, please play again.

[Muliemaster]

How many litres do we mix up for a frac job?

I hope you mean this in a rhetorical sense... as a fear mongering "geologist" you should have some facts straight about how much frac fluid is used in different formations and areas. If you are going to preach the evils, you should at least know how much fluid is used...

Also, the general term in frac jobs for a volume is cubes or m3...

[hillbillyreefer]

I hope you mean this in a rhetorical sense... as a fear mongering "geologist" you should have some facts straight about how much frac fluid is used in different formations and areas. If you are going to preach the evils, you should at least know how much fluid is used...

Also, the general term in frac jobs for a volume is cubes or m3...

But liters gets you a number 1000 times larger, so much more inflammatory. The media uses crap like that to measure all kinds of spills. They measured the BP spill in gallons, not cubes or barrels. They are even measuring contaminated water from the Japanese power plant in liters. Who cares how many liters, it's the radioactive contaminants and their concentrations that are the problem. But anything to get stupid people to buy papers and get all worked up is the norm in media today.

[Muliemaster]

But liters gets you a number 1000 times larger, so much more inflammatory. The media uses crap like that to measure all kinds of spills. They measured the BP spill in gallons, not cubes or barrels. They are even measuring contaminated water from the Japanese power plant in liters. Who cares how many liters, it's the radioactive contaminants and their concentrations that are the problem. But anything to get stupid people to buy papers and get all worked up is the norm in media today.

I know, that drives me nuts when they purposely use the smaller unit to make the number 100 or 1000x larger.

I remember a few years ago there was a well blow out just west of Edmonton. Tomahawk maybe?? Anyways, the news reporter used the reverse measuring scheme. They went onto say that the H2S release was small and insignificant. It was reading less than 0.01% H2S... The reporter never did give the exact number but they tried to spin it so someone unfamiliar with H2S concentrations would believe that 0.01% is rather safe.

[DarkAisling]

In the US of A, the owner of the land owns the mineral rights, to what ever depth. In communist Canada,MOSTLEY the US Oil companies own everything thats under 12 inchs of our soil. wicked EH? Well stated Post otherwise. THANKS RALPH!!!

US oil companies do not own the mineral rights, they lease them (as do oil and gas companies from other countries, including Canada).

[Alberta Girl]

US oil companies do not own the mineral rights, they lease them (as do oil and gas companies from other countries, including Canada).

Who do they lease the land from ? In what way do you mean, like they have to lease the top soil to be able to drill below ? I know they do have to pay a landowner a royalty plus put in a road to the well & rebuild any fencing. Is that what you mean by lease ?

[DarkAisling]

Who do they lease the land from ? In what way do you mean, like they have to lease the top soil to be able to drill below ? I know they do have to pay a landowner a royalty plus put in a road to the well & rebuild any fencing. Is that what you mean by lease ?

They don't lease the land. They lease the mineral rights from the holder of the mineral rights: usually the government.

[DarkAisling]

They don't lease the land. They lease the mineral rights from the holder of the mineral rights: usually the government.

Not 100% correct, but I'm not talking about surface leases (which are a different animal) . . . I'm talking about mineral rights.

[Alberta Girl]

They don't lease the land. They lease the mineral rights from the holder of the mineral rights: usually the government.

Right, the government.

I believe that is some of the reason why when an "unfortunate incident" happens, we don't hear about it. Not only does the oil company stand to lose but so does the government. And by lose, I mean lose $$$.

Cause the government sure does not try to help out Joe taxpayer farmer guy. But the oil company, that has billions of dollars whom could do a little something, like install a cistern and supply these people water so they can move on with their lives, seemingly gets to say "not our fault, can't prove a thing" and the government does nothing or even backs them up. Oh maybe they will type a document or two to make it seem like they are slapping the oil companies hands, with us paying them to do so of course.

I am not saying this happens all the time. I realize how many wells are drilled just in our province alone. But if and when it does, do the right thing for your people at least !!! We are the ones buying your product !!!

[freeones]

I am an oilfield geologist with 12 years’ experience. I understand believe me.

Absolute NOTHING you've posted in this thread would make me believe that you actually have any formal training as a geologist or any experience working in the oil and gas industry, let alone that you actually understand what you're talking about.

FYI - impersonating a geologist is no different than impersonating a doctor, a lawyer, or any other professional, it's fraud, and it comes with severe criminal and civil penalties.

[dumoulin]

I'm far from being a "fracing" expert or even a geologist though I have taken geology classes in university and worked the oil patch for several years, but one thing is for sure, I'm positive that the oil and gas industry has not increased the overall quality of our drinking water in Alberta. If they had, this would not be such a contentieous issue. That said, I do beleive that the industries have made significant technological improvements which have helped resolve (some) environmental and economic enigmas.

As a kid growing up in Fort-Kent (near Bonnyville), we used to have great drinking water up until a huge plant was errected 2 km south of town. Within six months to a year we had to buy drinking water as it had turned too awfull--miasmic--to drink. The plant ran for about two years then shut down. Smaller riser and pump stations were later built and they eventualy shut down as well until recently. Kind of a waste in many ways....if you honestly think about the big picture. I have nothing against the industry, like everyone here I'm all for equality, a good quality of life and the environment.

Part of the problem is media. Anyone with an opinion can sound like, look like an expert if they have a sharp tongue or quick fingers. Unfortunatly, educated, experienced or good critical thinkers get to figure out who is (more) right and who is (less) wrong, the rest of the population gets to talk in circles and solve next to nothing. Equality isn't fairness.

[QA/QC]

I have nothing against the industry, like everyone here I'm all for equality, a good quality of life and the environment.

Part of the problem is media. Anyone with an opinion can sound like, look like an expert if they have a sharp tongue or quick fingers. Unfortunatly, educated, experienced or good critical thinkers get to figure out who is (more) right and who is (less) wrong, the rest of the population gets to talk in circles and solve next to nothing. Equality isn't fairness.

Wow.
Thank you for this first level headed response.

There have been a few posts on this thread that leave me scratching my head as to where this "info" came from.

As a regular reader of this forum, this thread finally made me register.

Whenever, someone starts blasting out "gossip" or "rumours" and then saying that they heard it in the hair salon so it must be true it is hard to take.

For the record, I am a retired 30+ year P.Eng. who made my entire career of fracturing, ERCB, fracture modelling, running a frac department for a large company, micro seismic measuring, back to regulatory, writing policy and procedures for same, going to advisory positions with no compensation and then retiring to conservation efforts.

90% of what was posted above is so far from reality I am shocked or sad, not sure which. I though we were informing those who could be educated.

For those of us who grew up near a coal mine, all of our water wells had methane. There was not a oil or gas well in 100 miles. Accept that methane exists and desorbs when the pressure is reduced by dropping the pressure by removing the potable water. But it sure makes for a sound bite.

For those of us who lived near Bonneyville and had the salt solution mining, that had nothing to do with the fracturing of wells. However, early steam injection plans did not understand a few things.

If you were on a Barnett Shale frac job at 2000m to 3000 m and saw the microseismic work and realized that the frac might have grown 50 m vertical height, it did not break out into your drinking water.

For those who believe in auto unions in detroit and Michael Moore, i suppose gasland is a source of facts like david suzuki and global warming. Oops. We forgot KD Lang and the "cow gas".

If an inert gas like N2 used to stimulate CBM below base of ground water gives you allergies, I have a copper bracelet from the Golf Channel I will let you have for a deal.

In closing, unless you have even 1 small fact based on scientific experience, please do not embarrass yourself.

I like hunting, shooting, reloading, and being part of the most successful province in the country. We have the best conservation efforts, the most regulated industry, the most stake holder involvement, and the most integrated regulatory environment with over 70 years of combined experience of measuring, evaluating and then policing of any jurisdiction in the world.

For those who cannot accept this, please move to manitoba and buy a fishing licence. For the rest, please enjoy the low tax rate, the high standard of living, and PLEASE take the time to get the real information.

Do not go to any frac company website as that is marketing information. Please to to ERCB and PSAC.

BTW, after reviewing most frac companies list of chemicals, most are food additives. It is the materials downhole that come back that need to be addressed.

I will get off the soap box. Please speak only of what you know.