Hey Buddy, Can You Spare a Little Sand? I've Got a Well to Frack

Anytime there is a finite amount of anything and it is being used up on a steady basis then it is not endless.

As an alternate supply we could use all the sand in kids sandboxes?

I guess yall are too slow to understand my post. This is why I dropped out of this forum in the first place.

There are a lot of posers in this forum. Either contribute or switch to social media.

Thanks

Ron

The problem is that once it is used in construction, and fracking, it's gone forever, just like the fracking water that is pumped back into the ground under extreme pressure that causes earthquakes.

The trolls can whine and cry "political agenda" all day and night, but that doesn't change the truth.

How about pretending you have a spine? Ya know, fake it till you make it. If your comment is essentially just a personal attack, don't be so cowardly as to hide behind the 'anonymous user' mask.

Don't worry. Within months, if not weeks, Secretary Zinke can reduce the size of the Great Sand Dunes National Monument, thereby freeing up a few months' supply of sand.

For those who have trouble with reading and comprehension, let me repeat the question:

"Any thoughts on what can be used as a replacement for sand in both construction as well as fracking?"

And another related topic, although there are some who deny greenhouse emissions, this is for the adults on the forum: Building Stronger Concrete with Sustainable Materials to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Perhaps a finer regrind of "grindings" would work. I just quickly Googled and Wiki'd it, didn't see the word. Maybe the industry came up with a better name, so I will explain;

Over 20 years ago now, I bought my first load of "grindings" from my friend and paving contractor. Hopefully y'all have seen the cool machine munching up the old road to level it then the new material is laid behind it. In the Mid-Atlantic, this was referred to as grindings. It was an awesome deal in the beginning, especially if you were on, or less distance, than the route they were headed with it. I laid it down on a poor part of the driveway and just running over it and a rake here and there... worked well. I'm sure it's still done, but I believe more as a favor thing because they have learned to recycle the stuff so well. But some stuff they probably can't reuse or perhaps the run is too long, but the point I'm making is that seems like the remoteness of your fracturing ties in with the negative side (distance) of "grindings".

My thought was having a machine that would take "qualifying grindings" like clean concrete and grind it on down to whatever size works best with that material, and bring it to the operation. You could add a step and containerize it. No one machine would grind anything that fine without starting with something already somewhat small and consistent, plus be portable in any regular sense. Portability is the factor that makes the $ part work, because we demolish a lot of stuff that's "in the middle of nowhere". A lot of littles add up, I just don't have any idea of what we should be putting in the ground, whereas I have a feeling it isn’t coming out.

My level of geo and bio engineering is very poor - but sometimes an ignorant (layman's) point of view can be a plus... I mean, you are fracking, right? And we have less history on that than I have knowledge of bad concrete, so I've never hushed for fear of being slapped down - kinda fun sometimes (especially if it's you know who...)

Good thought. I don't know enough about recycling concrete, but I think the "grindings" aren't the same as virgin sand. Still that may be better than trucking sand from hundreds of miles away and they might replace virgin sand in more and more applications as the cost increases with reduced availability.

Just some ideas and thoughts. Stick built houses are built on a concrete pad and concrete requires sand. Modular homes are supported on steel and plastic piers.

Maybe what is required is a new type of home construction.

One thing I've noticed is that after a tornado or hurricane, people say they are going to rebuild, but do they rebuild or create a new type of home, no, they build the house the same way and when the next tornado or hurricane arrives, the process is repeated.

As for the fracking, the lubricating sand combination that is injected in the ground may use a lot of sand and that sand is a natural resource, which although there is a drawback, it's got to be better than using a synthetic injection filler.

What was it that the red queen said about running faster in one spot ?

That solves the problem for the Permian Basin, maybe. "There is "little data to quantify the effect of usage of in-basin sands on well productivity, estimated ultimate recovery and initial production rates. Hence significant long-term adoption risks do exist in spite of frac sand suppliers investing heavily in in-basin supply capacity."

Now, what about the R.O.W.

Maybe you didn't read post #1. Take your political agenda and go.

https://www.saharaforestproject.com/qatar/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qattara_Depression_Project

Sahara Forest Project is interesting. Admirable even.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qattara_Depression_Project

But the canal project? "Calculations showed that digging a canal or tunnel would be too expensive. Bassler decided to use nuclear explosions to excavate the canal.

Because of the concerns about using a nuclear solution the Egyptian government turned down the plan,^[12] and the project's stakeholders gave up on the project."

..."The proposals call for a large canal or tunnel being excavated of about 55 to 80 kilometres (34 to 50 mi) depending on the route chosen to the Mediterranean Sea to bring seawater into the area.^[2] Or otherwise a 320 kilometre (200 mile) pipeline north-east to the freshwater Nile River at Rosetta.^[3][4] For comparison, the nearby Suez Canal is currently 193 kilometres in length.^[5] By balancing the inflow and evaporation the lake level can be held constant. Several proposed lake levels are -70, -60, -50 and -20 m. Flooding the depression to -20 m would lower the height of the world ocean by 2.16 millimeters.^[6]"...

^{Well they never took into account a booming market for the sand, possibly this would make a difference if the sand could be sold and also open up a huge sand source through the length of the canal....}

Another reclamation project in China, with a different approach....

Yeah I was curious as to what exactly the mixture was....

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095809916311560

So what you're saying is we are nowhere close to running out of sand.

(As if I don't know.)

Here in North Dakota our oil shale formations are pretty soft so normal natural sand has proven it's plenty hard enough to prop open a formation for while.

The problem here is the relative softness of oil shale makes it just pliable and soluble/erodible enough that when given time it will sort of mould itself or get eroded and then deposited around the sand particles and close off the fracture lines making it necessary to re fracc a well to keep it productive.

Or at least that's the common theory as to why our oil well will lose production after a number of years. They seem to have a tendency to close themselves off by one physical method or another.

Where I am, they are putting glass into landfill by the truckload. Could this be ground to the required size and used?

One doesn't normally consider sand as a finite resource. But, when demand outpaces supply we see shortages and economic penalties when suitable substitutes are not available.

Waste glass powder as partial replacement of cement for sustainable ...

Milling of glass to micro-meter scale particle size, for enhancing the reactions between glass and cement hydrates, can bring major energy, environmental and economic benefits when cement is partially replaced with milled waste glass for production of concrete (Rashed, 2014).

There was an interesting article in the New Yorker a few months back about the technology of sand.

Interesting point - Saudi Arabia has the wrong kind of sand for building products. The typical beach sand is wrong also. You really have to be particular for what kind of sand is needed in all the end uses. Geometry factors a lot and some chemistry.

There is a worldwide shortage for the kind of sand used in building.

How many different types of sand are there? Nobody knows an answer to this seemingly simple question because there are no such thing as an official sand classification. However, sand is a highly variable substance and therefore it is definitely possible to make an attempt to classify it into separate categories.

Nine sand samples above represent nine different sand types. Row by row from left to right: 1. Glass sand from Kauai, Hawaii 2. Dune sand from the Gobi Desert, Mongolia 3. Quartz sand with green glauconite from Estonia 4. Volcanic sand with reddish weathered basalt from Maui, Hawaii 5. Biogenic coral sand from Molokai, Hawaii 6. Coral pink sand dunes from Utah 7. Volcanic glass sand from California 8. Garnet sand from Emerald Creek, Idaho 9. Olivine sand from Papakolea, Hawaii.

	Coral sand	“Coral sand” has several meanings. Find out what it really is.
	Volcanic ash	Volcanic ash is a fine mixture of minerals and rock fragments thrown out of a volcano during exposive volcanic eruption.
	Glass sand	Traces of human activity are visible almost everywhere. Even sand may sometimes contain artificial fragments in quantities that justify the creation of a separate sand type.
	Immature sand	Sand composed of the same minerals that made up its parent rocks.
	Gypsum sand	A rare sand type composed of gypsum grains.
	Ooid sand	Ooids are rounded pellets formed in a shallow wave agitated water.
	Silica sand	Silica sand is almost pure quartz.
	Black sand	There are two types of black sand.
	Greensand	Greensand and green sand. What is the difference?
	Desert sand	What are the characteristic features of dune sand?
	Lithic sand	Sometimes sand is composed of tiny rocks.
	Mixed carbonate-silicate sand	Some sand samples are mixture of organic and inorganic sand grains.
	Biogenic sand	Sand may be composed entirely of tiny skeletons — sea shells, corals, forams, etc.
	Garnet sand	Garnet is a common mineral in sand but sometimes it forms the majority of it.
	Olivine sand	Olivine is very unstable in the weathering environment. Still, it is surprisingly common sand mineral in some regions and sometimes makes up major part of the sand.
	Volcanic sand	Volcanically active regions have their own unique type of generally dark-colored sand with a characteristic mineral assemblage.
	Heavy mineral sand	Heavy minerals are present in most sand types. However, they rarely make up more than few percent of it. Sometimes heavy minerals get concentrated enough to form heavy and usually very beautiful sand.
	Sands with hematitic pigment	Hematite is the mineral that gives reddish color to desert sands and sandstone formations all over the world.
	Continental sand	The name says it all. This sand is common weathering product of the continental landmasses.
	Quartz sand	Quartz is the most common sand forming mineral. This sand type consists little else than this mineral.

http://www.sandatlas.org/sand-types/

What is Frac Sand?

This special sand is one of the keys to producing oil and natural gas from tight shale formations

Frac sand: Close-up view of frac sand (on the right) and a typical sand of similar grain size (on the left). Notice how the frac sand has a more uniform grain size, nicely rounded grain shapes, and a uniform composition. It is also a very tough material that can resist compressive forces of up to several tons per square inch. Grains in this image are about 0.50 millimeter in size. Photo © iStockphoto / BanksPhotos.

"Frac sand" is a high-purity quartz sand with very durable and very round grains. It is a crush-resistant material produced for use by the petroleum industry. It is used in the hydraulic fracturing process (known as "fracking") to produce petroleum fluids, such as oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids from rock units that lack adequate pore space for these fluids to flow to a well. Most frac sand is a natural material made from high-purity sandstone. An alternative product is ceramic beads made from sintered bauxite or small metal beads made from aluminum.

http://geology.com/articles/frac-sand/

Assessment of High Purity Quartz Resources - Springer

http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9783642221606-c2.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1330453-p174129663

Solar : when I read your post, I said to myself, this guy sure knows a lot about sand.

I wonder if he is a " Sand Man " ?

My question is thus : What kind of magical sand does a Sand Man use to sprinkle into the eyes of sleeping people to give them good dreams at night ?

Sand in eyes, no good....eye drops good...

OK, people, listen up! The word is FRACCING, F-R-A-C-C-I-N-G, not fracking. There is no 'K' in fracturing, and there is no 'K' in fraccing. Sorry if you don't like it, but that's the way it's been in the industry since it was invented in 1947. And I've been in the industry in the Permian Basin for the last 40 years + or -.

There is no shortage of frac sand, either. In fact, a sand company recently acquired the Kermit sand dunes (near Kermit, Texas) to mine sand, much to the consternation of locals that have enjoyed playing in the dunes for decades. They are now closed for public access. The company (sorry, can't remember the name), says that the top layer of sand is not viable for fraccing, but they can dig down and find top quality sand. They estimate they can mine about 30 BILLION tons of sand from this one source.

There is no second "c" in "fracturing", either.

Furthermore, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary specifically includes the term "fracking".

Can you provide any substantiating background for your claims?

Some members are sticklers for documents and eschew opinions without verification.

Hydraulic fracturing - Wikipedia

Hydraulic fracturing (also fracking, fraccing, frac'ing, hydrofracturing or hydrofracking) is a well stimulation technique in which rock is fractured by a pressurized liquid. ( Bold words are from the web site, not me)

Wikipedia is well known for establishing fact based on consensus rather than truth.

Please cite an example to substantiate this claim.....

https://tech.slashdot.org/story/08/10/21/1657256/wikipedias-new-definition-of-truth

That's not an example, that's an opinion.... and I also could add it's from 10 years ago....So not only is it just an opinion, it's not even a current opinion....

You might also read the Wikipedia entry for Wikipedia Reliability especially the sections on librarian skepticism and noted inaccuracies.

All looks good to me....

..."A 2006 review of Wikipedia by Library Journal, using a panel of librarians, "the toughest critics of reference materials, whatever their format", asked "long standing reviewers" to evaluate three areas of Wikipedia (popular culture, current affairs, and science), and concluded: "While there are still reasons to proceed with caution when using a resource that takes pride in limited professional management, many encouraging signs suggest that (at least for now) Wikipedia may be granted the librarian's seal of approval""...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

Good cherry-picking from the article.

So you can't give me an example of an untruthful Wikipedia page?? That's what I thought.....

In the first example, the individual attempted to get Wikipedia to correct his line of work, which they got wrong.

In Wikipedia's article on their own reliability, they had a long section on mistakes they have made with the caveat that everyone else makes mistakes too.

There was also a long section on bias entering the editing. Is it that you don't consider Wikipedia's own article to be reliable?

Those are all truthful statements....except the last, because I do consider Wikipedia to be as reliable as any other reliable source...and that's as truthful as it gets.....

Easy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Please note I do not say its all a lie, but take for example the idea of: "unprecendented in the instrumental record"

Since the instrumental record is being used to show the "unprecendented" warming it is an oxymoron by itself!

Else very good assessment about the sand!

OTnerdio was here!

Let us look at this claimed oxymoron.

"Many of the observed changes since the 1950s are unprecedented in the instrumental temperature record which extends back to the mid-19th century,..."

So we have the subject "Many of the observed changes since the 1950s" the verb "unprecedented" and the predicate "the instrumental temperature record which extends back to the mid-19th century" to work with. The subject is a data set, the predicate is a data set, and the subject is a portion (subset) of the predicate.

So what this sentence means is "the observed changes in the data set since the 1950's have not been seen anywhere in the data set from the mid-19th century until the 1950's"

This is not an oxymoronic statement, it is a clear statement that the annual changes from the 1950's onward are much more severe than the annual changes from before the 1950's.

So your example shows not that the page is untruthful, but that you are either trying to distort the wording to create an untruth where there is truth, or that you are not well versed in understanding the English language.

Either way, I call Fake News on your example.

So you did miss the cooling periods, that were also observed during the instrumental records? Also unprecedented in the records. Now you have cooling and warming. You realise that the word "unprecedented" followed by "the instrumental records" is just an excuse, because in fact it is not unprecedented, but only if you want to fabricate it for the instrumental records.

The not clear to see, invisible lie is that this warming has never happen before, but it did! Only because we did not measure it, it does not mean it was not there.

Here is another big lie.

"So you did miss the cooling periods, that were also observed during the instrumental records? Also unprecedented in the records. Now you have cooling and warming."

Yes, I noticed that, which is why the term 'global warming' has been replaced by the more accurate 'climate change.' Not only are the annual averages rising, but the swing of the temperature ranges are becoming wilder, more unstable.

"You realise that the word "unprecedented" followed by "the instrumental records" is just an excuse, because in fact it is not unprecedented, but only if you want to fabricate it for the instrumental records.

The not clear to see, invisible lie is that this warming has never happen before, but it did! Only because we did not measure it, it does not mean it was not there."

We were measuring since the mid 19th century, so to put a rough number in it, we'll say from 1850. From 1850 through to 1950, the weather patterns were stable, the trend line was almost parallel to the X-axis of the graph, after 1950, the trend line started climbing upward, and not only that, but it's rate of change was also increasing. The chart went from a first order graph (linear) to a second order graph (parabolic).

Also, while we do not have the numbers from before 1850, we have the anecdotal evidence from before then, there are no records of a "year without a winter" or of the Northwest Passage being open and clear enough to use as a commercial shipping route, or "the year of three once-in-500-year floods."

"Here is another big lie."

And now you bring up another aspect of Climate Change just to deny it. I don't have the time to entertain your denial of the facts. Here's your bike horn, red nose, and big shoes, now go play with the other science deniers. The grownups are busy trying to save this planet's ability to keep us alive.

You are so full of facts then! It is not global warming any more because there is not warming and now it is climate change? Its an interesting view!

Humor me, what does ocean acidification have to do with climate change?

Besides nothing the only connection is the demonification of CO2.

Its your own view that both have a connection!

Your name calling does not support your arguments!

The term has been refined as more facts become known: At first we were only noticing the change in the trendline, so we called it "warming," then, when further data showed wilder swings than previously known, and the trend of the swings was that they were getting wilder every year, we revised the view to "climate change" as it was more than just the temperature trendline moving up.

The ocean is part of the global climate, as the ocean currents flow, they move heat from one part of the world to another. Did you know that it's the North Atlantic Ocean Current that makes England such a pleasant place to live, since, when looking at its latitude, the island SHOULD be a bitter, snowy realm almost year-round.

As to why the changing pH of the oceans is considered linked to the other aspects of Climate Change, you hit the nail on the head, there is one factor that affects both, increasing CO₂ levels in the atmosphere. Is that the ONLY factor? Of course not, it may not even be the only factor that's common across several effects, but it is an easily understood factor, and one that can be controlled. In Project management terms, reducing CO₂ emissions worldwide is "low hanging fruit." It is easy to accomplish (compared to adjusting other factors) and it provides a noticeable reward.

As to the closing of my previous post, I'm sorry if you were offended, I have been studying how the far-right uses words and treats debates, and I have been learning techniques to verbally 'disarm' them. Since the far-right sees debates not as a way to come to a consensus or discover the truth, but instead as contests to 'win,' they use certain methods to try to control the conversation, such as changing the topic to a point that is only worth discussing if the previous topic was agreed to in their favor, and by using posture and language to "show strength" and "intimidate" the opposition⁽¹⁾. If I suspect that the person I am debating is a far-right personality, then I move first and belittle them before they can belittle me. It's not something I enjoy doing, but sometimes it must be done.

Notes:

1. For an obvious example, look at the second Hillary-Trump debate. Whenever it was Hillary's turn to respond to a question, Trump moved into the frame, taking a 'looming' posture. People the looked at debates in the classic sense of a reasoned dialogue, saw this as an oafish breach of etiquette and standards, as if Trump couldn't understand the basic rules of the forum. The far-right saw his metaphorical stomping around and chest-beating as a 'dog whistle,' that he was an "Alpha Male⁽²⁾" and looked on him favorably for it.
2. Or as we intellectuals call it, a "brutish A-hole." The original research on wolves that led to the Alpha Male theory was later discovered to be erroneous by the researcher who did the original study: What he thought of as an "alpha male" was actually the father of a family unit, THAT is why the smaller wolves (his pups from the past 1-3 years) were deferring to him.

The term has not been "refined". Climate change is an introduction to explain wider swings as you say, which now includes cold and warm, while the warming in "global warming" cannot be supported any more, climate change just opened the door for an un-contestable position.

If you can not see the ironies in calling someone a "Climate Change denier" then there is no hope. This is not a right wing view it is a logical view that nobody ever can deny "Climate Change".

Climate is a statistical description of weather events. If the statistics never changes I will start believing in divine intervention. Up until then it would be good to know what we have to expect as maximums and minimums in the climate statistics.

You guessed right that I am aware of the oceans impact on climata all over the Earth. You also know about La Nina and El Nino events, all good examples. Yet ocean acidification has nothing to do with climate or any change by a wide stretch.

I wish we could have a honest scientific, not politically influenced debate. Right wing, left wing, green or whatever color should be left out of the thinking.

Whoever introduces that in a debate like this at an early stage, might be the winner of the debate, but eventually will lose on the truth.

And if it was so I wanted to lose the debate!

If you want something political here ya go. Something interesting to digest.

"... If I suspect that the person I am debating is a far-right personality, then I move first and belittle them before they can belittle me. It's not something I enjoy doing, but sometimes it must be done. ...."

.

I think that is bad strategy. By initiating the belittling, the topic is derailed early and it cost your opposition nothing (if that was indeed their goal). Your argument takes a hit from having the same spokesperson as a petty ad homenem attack.

The cure for ad homenem is not a preemptive ad homenem. Two lefts don't make a right, you just go backwards.

Take the high ground. Stick to solid arguments. The people who think name calling wins an argument are unlikely to forget or stray from the opinion they have been instructed is correct. Those that can be persuaded with logic will see personal attacks for the logical fallacy that those are.

There are a number of interesting examples. Some persisted for years.

The English language evolves based on usage, fracking seems to be a more common term among those of us who don't work in the oil fields.

Does that make it wrong?

Fracking, fracing or fraccing? — High Country News

I thought it was from Battlestar Galactica.

Arguing over the spelling of a name seems rather trivial.

Spell it however you want. We'll all recognize the generally accepted definition of the term in question, not that it matters.

Absolutely pointless to argue. I agree, However, it is such great entertainment.

Battlestar Galactica?

What is a Battlestar Galactica?

I searched (not usin Wiki as a source www.imdb.com/title/tt0076984/) and discovered that is a

Battlestar Galactica (TV Series 1978–1979) - IMDb!

I'm happy to say that, somehow, this TV show never saw any eye time in my house.

Now, I'm sure you must have misspoken about this. A TV show is your source?

Cultural illiteracy raises it's shrouded head in agony......

And simple illiteracy raises its head. (Not it's.)

uh,,, that would be punctuation.....

True. An apostrophe wasted....the horror. Eight (or is it 32, or horror of horrors, 64) bits of binary data flushed down the crapper in the prime of their youth. Oh, the digitallity...

If never having seen a particular TV show is cultural illiteracy, then I'm happily guilty!

It it unseemly for you to accuse someone on an engineering forum of cultural illiteracy for being unfamiliar with a TV program. The grammatical deficiency of your statement speaks volumes, as already pointed out.

Newton Minow said it best, "American commercial television programming as a vast wasteland." This is truer today than ever before with most "news" programming being propaganda.

Maybe this explains his source of the word, " Frak " . Also it may provide insight into the psychological make-up of an individual and or that which drives a narrative.

"...Still crazy after all these years...."

But only when it makes sense.

Fracing, fraccing, fracking...... To-may-toes, To-mah-toes, po-tay-toes, po-tah-toes, spuds. We know what is meant.

Just remember, better communications leads to mutual understanding which inevitably leads to more and bloodier wars.

That original Battlestar Galactica isn't worth watching IMO. The 2004 remake is pretty entertaining....far better than the original.

We've already established that there is no shortage in Texas, see #14....