What is fracking? Regardless, I don't think they should allow it. Shortage of food and drinking water will be a huge global issue in coming decades along with global population growth.

Fracking is drilling horizontally in a shale layer and fracturing with hydraulic pressure to release the gas.

And really, if you don't know what it is you should perhaps google it before commenting?

Yes I shall google first next time 34point5. The term caught me unawares and my ensuing reflex actions were to blame.

Indeed Ole', reflexes may be tricky - hereth may lie the rest of the lesson: Is Being First Being Best?

Fracking hasn't a blinkin thing to do with drilling horizontally. When I started in the oil field in 1978, fracking was already a common Halliburton service for the gas sands of northern Ohio. In the western NY area there are literally thousands of wells that have been fracked in the past 3 decades. None of these wells I am referring to were drilled horizontally.

Perhaps you should also try a bit of Googling before correcting someone else. Better yet - go watch a fracking operation sometime - they happen every day somewhere in the oil dields or gas patches of this country.

This whole issue really steams me as there are suddenly thousands of experts on fracking, who have never set foot on a drilling site in their life, let alone watched a fracking operation go down as you waited to be sure it worked so you could leave the site with your perforating rig. If it failed, we went back in and punched in some more holes in the casing.

Maybe everyone would fell better if we went back to the old method of fracturing the rock - jars of nitro-glycerin - drop them and run away from the borehole. Yeah, I am old enough to have seen this live too. The fun part of this was a truck of nitro would explode on a public highway every year or so.

I'll be the first to admit I know very little, not enough to argue the point either way.

I do know, as you said, hydraulic fracturing isn't a new thing. Isn't there a process/application that's been developed "recently" (the last 5 or 10 years) that does allow the same type of process (hydraulic fracturing) to be used in a horizontal fashion? I might not be asking the question quite right and hopefully you understand what I'm driving at. Is there a new application of fracking or a change of some kind that points everyone to understanding it as equivalent to horizontal drilling?

Has there been a major shift in the fluids used (in either case) over the last 10 or 20 years?

I'm interested in your opinion here since you're on the front line of the operation and frankly I'd trust that a bit more than wikipedia.

Why do you think this just now becoming an issue since it has been done for years?

1. It is being done where no driller has gone before - new industry to an area creates an automatic distrust - where it was used in the past it was a welcome relief to the nitro-glycerin approach and compared to what previous drilling operations had done to the area, it was of little concern. I have "slush pits" in the woods behind my house, one about every 1500 yards. This is where the run off from oil/water seperation tanks was discharged and pooled to allow the water to soak back into the ground. Ever smell 60 year old oil? The water, by the way, was brine from the sand formations. So we have these pits that held a brine/oil mixture for 20 or 30 years or so, just sitting in the woods and slowly returning to nature. A little fracking ain't gonna do nothin to our aquifer that ain't been done before.

2. This is the USA of the 21st century - if someone finds a solution to the energy crisis - someone is going to assume it is going to hurt them and the environment. We might as well go back to cutting down trees and burning them. How do you think the folks up in arms about fracking would like it if their woods were deforrested for fuel?

3. People assume incorrectly that big oil is behind it so it will be a danger to the environment, because big oil just doesn't care about anything but return on capital invested - WRONG - most gas drilling companies are small time operations and the fracking companies, save for Halliburton, are also rather small operations. Most gas wells are drilled on monies collected on speculation by small time investors. Biggest mistake I ever made on a gas well site was to declare the well to be the worst I had ever analyzed, while a group of investors were touring the site and within ear shot. Never well logged for that drilling venture again. I didn't know they were investors - no three piece suits - no big cigars - they were just every day Americans investing a few thousand in a long shot that someone told them was a sure thing. Too bad for them, because the well was a dud.

"Perhaps you should also try a bit of Googling before correcting someone else"

Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote was responding to.

And maybe read what I said about fracking in the context of 'why the halting'.

Then when your up to date with the differences in the old art and the all the ramifications of new approach; by all means, come back and jump down my throat.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/gas-drilling-goes-ahead-without-any-checks-20101114-17sq7.html

Righto Mate, I would never expect a good answer for this use of modern information flow. Just good to see that information is flowing at all and that is what this should be about. Not grandstanding and wanking. In my attempt to get a grip on things, I mean information, nobody should accept bully behavior.

How about just letting this be a normal discourse and not start some exchange of complete unwarranted rudeness. It takes brave people, not undereducated, to jump in and let the true available information flow to the top. Unless you have a job to lose or shares in such irresponsible activities you should not even be commenting (spreading unnecessary poison).

Why not meet the people concerned an air your opinion front on. Ah, I see, your water comes from a tap.

Ridiculous and rude that's how I evaluate your statements. OT my behind!

With all due disrespect, Ky.

So, if the exact same article had read, "fracking is the best solution currently available to reduce the risk of contaminating drinking water," then your response would have been, "We need more fracking!"

Don't be a mindless drone that moves in whatever direction a writer or politician wants to direct you. Learn the facts, compare the options, and decide for yourself before you jump on the band wagon.

Right to the point. Global population growth is much greater danger to the survival of mankind, greater than wars, hunger, crime, nuclear proliferation and dire health issues.

It is the greatest threat because it inevitably leads to an exponential increase in all those mentioned above.

Against. YOu only have to look to PA if you live in NY to see the damage they have done to what few resources we have for fresh drinking water. Fracking is NOT TO BE DONE IN NY, or anywhere else in America. If these companies want to drill for NG, do it the old safe way, or get out of my town. End of story. Either off my property nice, or Old Betsy will force you off. And let me tell you, You do not mess with Old Betsy!

Agreed. This is fracking madness! As I understand it the purpose of increased drilling for NG here in the US is to reduce our dependence on imported fuels. I think at this point we all understand that the vast sums of money we spend to pay for imported energy, and the large sums spent to support our military efforts to keep the supply flowing are wrecking our economy and creating a major national security problem. So against that background this increased drilling makes sense. What does not make sense is to allow the drillers to use the cheapest and dirtiest methods to extract the gas. Since the price of NG is largely set by the global market, the benefits of cheaper extraction will not extend to the customer but only to the driller in terms of higher profits. If as is often the case, the leaseholder is a foreign or multinational firm, these profits will be exported.

Fracking can clearly have unintended consequences as in pollution of ground water (I'm sure you've seen the flaming faucet video by now) and seismic instability. These unintended consequences impose costs and risks on the local inhabitants. It is an open question in our political and judicial systems whether or not the drillers would be held accountable for the damages.

As you point out, none of this is really necessary - drilling a larger number of conventional wells will still get most of the gas out, and with a higher safety margin. Drilling more wells will add to labor and material costs, but most of the labor costs will go to American workers, increasing employment and giving a boost to the economy. And some if not most of the materials will also be produced here in the US, giving a further boost. I'm sure the drillers and their shareholders would rather get the profits, but this is not about them and their private desires. This is about all of us.

From the discussions I've had, I've come to the conclusion we need to point a finger of greed at the land owners as well.

Here's what's happening in my area...

Drilling company wants to build a well on Person A's property (their first choice as it is the closest) and offers some type of royalty payment for it. Person A decides that they don't want it (for whatever reason). So the drilling company make the same offer to Person B next door/across the street. Person B unable to reject free money, accepts.

It's easy to point a single finger at a single company and reject fracking until it comes down to rejecting someone lining your pockets!

Too late for that - fracking has been done in western NY at least since 1980. That's when I first started as a well logging engineer in that area. Have you ever heard of anyone around Jamestown, Olean, East Aurora, Batavia, or any other small burg up that way complain about water pollution or had a gas leak in their water supply? There are thousands of wells in that area that have been fracked over the past 3 decades. For that matter, there are quite a few around the Bath area. I saw a surprise super gas well drilled for the village (city?) of Bath right in an open field on the edges of town - it was definitely fracked. Flowed very well indeed. Heck, there are even some wells up near Watertown, as they hit a surprise pocket of gas up there around 1982. Cortland has had a few done too. I was there to perforate a well near town just before Halliburton fracked it. Bit too late to stop fracking in NY - the question is "Why are we suddenly concerned about a procedure in use for at least 35 years?"

"Why are we suddenly concerned about a procedure in use for at least 35 years?"

Perhaps read post 17 and think about what that quote means against "American Values"

Let's not get the concept of fracking confused with horizontal drilling. Fracking is when you pump in an acidic mixture with some very large granular sand to create fractures in the rock - the acid helps to open them larger - the sand fills the void with a very porous media to keep the fractures open under the great pressures from the rock above and in the cases we are discussing, allow gas to flow to the perforations in the cased borehole. Horizontal drilling is self explanatory.

I can understand people being concerned over horizontal drilling and land owners rights. I don't want to step into that legal mess.

I just can't understand the flack over fracking which has been done somewhere around tens of thousands of times in this country over 3 decades. I see tree huggers trying to generate a paranoia about a process they know nothing of. The frack fluid can not come up to surface formations (aquifers) unless someone did a very bad job of logging the casing cement job. I used to do this, and yes, cement jobs will fail to bond. Then you perforate the casing and pump in more cement until the logging job shows a good bond.

I don't want to overly simplify a conclusion here, but in an attempt at it... Would it be valid to say that the process, if done by unscrupulous people in an unscrupulous fashion could create all the mess associated with it? (Are a few bad apples spoiling the barrel?)

Your comment "is" oversimplified. I seriously doubt most of the negative press being generated. This situation is like so many others, where "greenies" generate a lot of negative publicity about a subject they know nothing about. I have seen thousands of wells fracked near underground mines with not negative effects. If these wells really were causing all of these problems on the surface or in water wells, why wouldn't they be causing the same or greater problems in underground mines? This is a more of a non-issue that we realize.

That's why I'm asking the questions! But there are cases that people have legitimate points (the flaming faucet is but one). I don't think ALL of them can be dismissed as bogus. I spent a bit over 6 years in the nuke industry so I understand how the "greenies" blow things out of proportion / get things twisted.

Here's the ways I'm trying to see it.

1) The process is OK, but it's implementation has flaws (i.e. there are a few contractors/drillers/casers that are the root cause of the problems that have been seen.

or

2) The process is not OK.

or

3) Every news report that paints a case of a negative impact of fracking has it utterly wrong. (I have a VERY hard time seeing this as valid)

It's an oversimple view, as you agree, but is there another way to see it? There seems to be people much more knowledgeable than I about this process and that's why I'm asking.

Equally let's not focus on the term, use or, miss use, or media ignorance.

As I said, when you first flew up me, it's about the whole picture in this debate.

So let's not get the "halting" confused with drilling terminology.

So if the Author just makes up his mind of whether the drilling is the problem or the fracking will be good.

Fact is that Drilling allone can be source of contamination for water and it does not need the fracking to open a path for it. And when I say drilling, then it means the whole lot of associated work to complete a borehole.

Banning fracking will maybe not prevent drilling in the first place other than probably the need to do a frack job in order to retrieve the oil later. It seems short sighted or missleading what the ban tries to do.

Good luck with the evaluation.

Oh by the way there is another aspect to fracking: In Basel Switzerland a FU Fracking job caused an "Earthquake" 4.2 on the scale. Seems not to be much, but in fact when it occurs in 4 km underneath a city it can cause serious damage. So think twice!

I have stated before in other posts on this subject that the most dangerous time for an aquifer is in the inital drilling when the drill first passes through the aquifer to the point when casing is set and cemented into place. I mean - you are running casing into a live aquifer and then pouring in cement. Gotta be something get in then. Once that is set and the cement hardened, the aquifer should be safe from contamination. And that is not all the cenmenting on a deep well. There is another intermediate string run inside the surface casing, and also cemented into place. For the frack to get to the aquifer takes the failure of 2 casing/cement jobs.

Well, banning fracking would prevent drilling since the expected output from the well would drop too low to make it feasible to drill. There would be no incentive for drilling capital to be invested if the return was very low.

You can drill these thing vertically, and wait for 30 years to get most of the reserves out, as we did in WVa in the late 1970's, or you can go horizontal and retrieve them in a few years. Darn tough to find investors willing to wait 30 years for their return. Darn tough.

And then there's this from today's New York Times:

Gov. David A. Paterson of New York on Saturday vetoed legislation intended to curtail natural gas development using the technique called hydraulic fracturing until a closer review of its effects can be undertaken.

Instead, the governor issued an executive order instituting a moratorium that extends until July 1, 2011 — beyond the date specified in the legislation — and that more narrowly defines the types of drilling to be restricted...

...Mr. Paterson's veto, and the subsequent executive order, appeared aimed at distinguishing between vertical wells and newer "horizontal drilling" techniques, in which gas drillers plumb the underground shale seams laterally, and more typical vertical wells. The governor's order restricts permits for "high-volume, horizontal hydraulic fracturing."

Most modern wells that use fracking are, in fact, horizontal wells, but the industry welcomed the governor's veto as staking out middle ground.

Many new wells, both oil and gas, are horizontal wells. By using the horizontal method, drillers can centrally locate the extraction, without drilling a dozen wells all over the scenic views that everyone enjoys. I guess that we should continue to allow all of the middle-eastern countries to continue to use horizontal drilling and continue shipping their oil to us. That way we can continue to support their lifestyles. I am for safety and clean water, but we have been fracking wells in this country for over 50 years. Most people that say it is bad are only repeating something they heard on the news or in a newspaper. Please try to understand the issue before making comments.