Balcombe scheduled for Fracking
Footage from a Pennsylvania site being fracked 19/5/13 -
Hydraulic Fracturing (fracking) company Cuadrilla has planning permission to drill just outside Balcombe, West Sussex.
The company admits that its fracking process has already caused earthquakes in Lancashire.
Fracking in the US, South Africa and Australia has caused serious concerns around water pollution – to the extent that some US households are able to set their tap water on fire, people and pets are getting sick and livestock is dying. Air pollution, aquifer depletion and contamination and increased heavy truck traffic are increasingly alarming factors.
France, Bulgaria, 5 Irish Counties and some American and Australian States have already declared moratoria on hydraulic fracturing and there are calls for the same in the UK. Planning has been denied in the Vale of Glamorgan (mainly because of local outrage) but the industry is fighting that and many other sites are planned UK-wide including in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Yorkshire, the Mendips and in Kent.
Most advanced among sites outside Lancashire, is Balcombe. Cuadrilla has prepared a site at Lower Stumble (1 mile south of the village). Foundations have already been laid. The company is now ready to bring in the drill rig. Drilling could start any day.
You can watch an excellent documentary by the UK’s Ecologist Film Unit on the risks of fracking here -
Comments
Many thanks to all of you who have contributed your comments over the last year. This has created an invaluable resource, but due to the volume of them, we’ve had to archive what’s been said so far. To see comments previous to 10 May 2013 (all 1,072 of them), see our archive page here. Meanwhile, please feel free to recent comments below.
Many thanks to all of you who have contributed your comments over the last year. This has created an invaluable resource, but due to the volume of them, we’ve had to archive what’s been said so far. To see comments previous to 10 May 2013 (all 1,072 of them), see our archive page here. Meanwhile, please feel free to recent comments below.
Sorry to be negative but the government have decided to worship the Golden Calf and the light of truth has been turned off. It is a war between reason and selfishness and today reason never seems to win. Best of luck if I can help I will but I only have a small candle.
Michael, a linguistic question. Etching micrite: would you call acid-etching fracking?? Or even frac’ing??
Could you remind us what the typical pressure of a ‘normal’ frack might be? And of a micrite etch? For a given length of bore. Please wd you compare the volumes of liquid typically used to frack shale and to etch micrite? How deeply into the micrite could the hydrochloric acid solution be expected to work? With what kind of frequency would the acid etch be repeated?
How likely is it in your view that a frack will follow the ‘etch’?
Thank you.
Cuadrilla’s claim about fracking or not fracking at Balcombe and relayed enthuisiastically by a couple of members of the Balcombe Parish Council is a deception and a red herring.
http://balcombeparishcouncil.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/meeting-bpc-cuadrilla-on-03-05-133.pdf
http://balcombeparishcouncil.com/
There is no need to deal with the red hering but here is some information for those who want to to deal with red herrings:
This might help
In the planning application Cuadrilla explain it expects the oil and gas to flow naturally, that is without stimulation. But that if it doesn’t flow naturally it will use stimulation which it describes in the planning application in the following way:
“Stimulation is carried out by pumping water under pressure into the natural fractures in the shale formations to open them up to let the gas flow more freely.”
See appendix C page 9 under “Testing Procedure”
http://buildings.westsussex.gov.uk/ePlanningOPS/tabPage3.jsp?aplId=1154
One of the suggested target rocks is micrite and is a carbonate but is very fine grained and not likely to respond to a matrix treatment. Therefore the likelihood of rock breaking hydraulic fracturing is medium to high. The use of sand as a proppant may or may not be necessary.
The following definitions may help.
“stimulation”
A treatment performed to restore or enhance the productivity of a well. Stimulation treatments fall into two main groups, hydraulic fracturing treatments and matrix treatments. Fracturing treatments are performed above the fracture pressure of the reservoir formation and create a highly conductive flow path between the reservoir and the wellbore. Matrix treatments are performed below the reservoir fracture pressure and generally are designed to restore the natural permeability of the reservoir following damage to the near-wellbore area. Stimulation in shale gas reservoirs typically takes the form of hydraulic fracturing treatments.
“fracture acidizing”
A well-stimulation operation in which acid, usually hydrochloric [HCl], is injected into a carbonate formation at a pressure above the formation-fracturing pressure. Flowing acid tends to etch the fracture faces in a nonuniform pattern, forming conductive channels that remain open without a propping agent after the fracture closes. The length of the etched fracture limits the effectiveness of an acid-fracture treatment. The fracture length depends on acid leakoff and acid spending. If acid fluid-loss characteristics are poor, excessive leakoff will terminate fracture extension. Similarly, if the acid spends too rapidly, the etched portion of the fracture will be too short. The major problem in fracture acidizing is the development of wormholes in the fracture face; these wormholes increase the reactive surface area and cause excessive leakoff and rapid spending of the acid. To some extent, this problem can be overcome by using inert fluid-loss additives to bridge wormholes or by using viscosified acids. Fracture acidizing is also called acid fracturing or acid-fracture treatment.
“formation fracture pressure”
Pressure above which injection of fluids will cause the rock formation to fracture hydraulically.
“acid frac”
A hydraulic fracturing treatment performed in carbonate formations to etch the open faces of induced fractures using a hydrochloric acid treatment. When the treatment is complete and the fracture closes, the etched surface provides a high-conductivity path from the reservoir to the wellbore.
“micrite”
Dense, fine-grained carbonate mud or rocks composed of mud that forms by erosion of larger carbonate grains, organic precipitation (such as from algae), or inorganic precipitation. The grains in micrite are generally less than 4 microns in size.
Cuadrilla’s claim about fracking or not fracking at Balcombe and relayed enthuisiastically by a couple of members of the Balcombe Parish Council is a deception and a red herring.
There is no need to deal with the red herring but here is some information for those who want to to deal with red herrings:
This might help
In the planning application Cuadrilla explain it expects the oil and gas to flow naturally, that is without stimulation. But that if it doesn’t flow naturally it will use stimulation which it describes in the planning application in the following way:
“Stimulation is carried out by pumping water under pressure into the natural fractures in the shale formations to open them up to let the gas flow more freely.”
See appendix C page 9 under “Testing Procedure” in the planning appication documents.
One of the suggested target rocks is micrite and is a carbonate but is very fine grained and not likely to respond to a matrix treatment. Therefore the likelihood of rock breaking hydraulic fracturing is medium to high. The use of sand as a proppant may or may not be necessary.
The following definitions may help.
“stimulation”
A treatment performed to restore or enhance the productivity of a well. Stimulation treatments fall into two main groups, hydraulic fracturing treatments and matrix treatments. Fracturing treatments are performed above the fracture pressure of the reservoir formation and create a highly conductive flow path between the reservoir and the wellbore. Matrix treatments are performed below the reservoir fracture pressure and generally are designed to restore the natural permeability of the reservoir following damage to the near-wellbore area. Stimulation in shale gas reservoirs typically takes the form of hydraulic fracturing treatments.
“fracture acidizing”
A well-stimulation operation in which acid, usually hydrochloric [HCl], is injected into a carbonate formation at a pressure above the formation-fracturing pressure. Flowing acid tends to etch the fracture faces in a nonuniform pattern, forming conductive channels that remain open without a propping agent after the fracture closes. The length of the etched fracture limits the effectiveness of an acid-fracture treatment. The fracture length depends on acid leakoff and acid spending. If acid fluid-loss characteristics are poor, excessive leakoff will terminate fracture extension. Similarly, if the acid spends too rapidly, the etched portion of the fracture will be too short. The major problem in fracture acidizing is the development of wormholes in the fracture face; these wormholes increase the reactive surface area and cause excessive leakoff and rapid spending of the acid. To some extent, this problem can be overcome by using inert fluid-loss additives to bridge wormholes or by using viscosified acids. Fracture acidizing is also called acid fracturing or acid-fracture treatment.
“formation fracture pressure”
Pressure above which injection of fluids will cause the rock formation to fracture hydraulically.
“acid frac”
A hydraulic fracturing treatment performed in carbonate formations to etch the open faces of induced fractures using a hydrochloric acid treatment. When the treatment is complete and the fracture closes, the etched surface provides a high-conductivity path from the reservoir to the wellbore.
“micrite”
Dense, fine-grained carbonate mud or rocks composed of mud that forms by erosion of larger carbonate grains, organic precipitation (such as from algae), or inorganic precipitation. The grains in micrite are generally less than 4 microns in size.
For those of you who have not yet read the report on the parish council’s meeing last week with Cuadrilla: http://balcombeparishcouncil.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/meeting-bpc-cuadrilla-on-03-05-133.pdf
For a worrying example of seemingly dubious environmental risk assessment ere Cuadrilla’s operations in Lancashire, see http://reaf.org.uk/news.php?readmore=61
‘Coming to sites across the UK soon – fracking flares’
‘IGas chief warns that any production of shale gas would involve ‘flaring off’ leakages’
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/coming-to-sites-across-the-uk-soon–fracking-flares-8609940.html
We in Balcombe will be down-toxic-wind from Cuadrilla’s Lower Stumble gas flares.
When is a shale not a shale? Learn all about it. Text below was sent to me by a village member:
‘The classifications of shale and micrite and so on seem to be loose.
‘Don’t rush but when time’s available this might clarify things to the point of things clearly being unclear.
‘http://paleodb.org/public/tips/lithtips.html
‘For example:
‘”shale”: fine-grained siliciclastic rocks containing unknown proportions of clay and silt, but containing at least 33% clay. May be lithified or not. Avoid using this category, except in cases where the proportions of clay and silt are not known. This will be a catch-all category for poorly described fine-grained siliciclastic rocks. Also see: claystone, mudstone, siltstone.
‘lime mudstone: a limestone composed almost entirely of lime mud (micrite) and less than 10% grains (ooids, peloids, bioclasts, or intraclasts). Note that a lime mudstone is a carbonate rock. A rock composed of siliciclastic mud but with carbonate cement should be treated as one of the fine-grained siliciclastic rocks (“shale”, claystone, mudstone, siltstone).
‘”carbonate”: category to use for a carbonate rock that cannot be classified as either a limestone or a dolomite. Avoid using if possible.
‘and under Translations of lithologic terms
‘micrite: lime mudstone
‘and on it goes
‘Perhaps it proves that Geology really isn’t a science.’
Why do the posters publicising the meeting on Thursday night keep being taken down from the Parish Council Noticeboards? 82% of the village do not want fracking and it is a subject that is of interest to the village. Is there someone on Cuadrilla’s payroll that we don’t know about?
Why Cuadrilla really stopped work in Lancashire 2 months ago
http://www.refracktion.com/index.php/why-cuadrilla-really-stopped-work-in-lancashire-2-months-ago/
…
‘Lord Smith revealed that the process had been held up by “one or two months” after Cuadrilla Resources claimed it should not be subject to tough regulations requiring it to monitor closely any contamination of aquifers after fracking takes place.’ (…)
‘Cuadrilla’s plans for fracking involve blasting up to 8.5 thousand cubic metres of water as well as toxic chemicals and proppants into the shale to make the gas flow.
‘Between 20-50% of the fracking fluid flows back to the surface, having picked up some nasty carcinogens and other hazardous material whilst underground, and also becoming mildly (that’s 90 times the permitted disposal level without a permit) radioactive. The rest remains under ground. There is a danger that any failure in well integrity might lead to the contaminated fluid leaking into the local aquifer with the resulting contamination of the water.
‘It seems that Cuadrilla argued that the EU Mining Waste directive should not apply to the contaminated fracking fluids that remained underground. However, this directive makes it incumbent on operators to check on a regular basis that the fluid underground cannot and does not escape.
‘Under this Directive shale gas operators have to make absolutely sure that the underground fluid is under proper control, properly sealed and check that it continues to be the case for decades after fracking.
‘This is all right and proper as we can’t just have cowboys riding in, taking their profit and then abandoning the wells and leaving any clean up problems to us long after they’ve gone. It seems perfectly reasonable that if they want to build wells they have to be responsible for them.
‘In spite of initially fighting this ruling Cuadrilla have now had to accept that the Directive should apply.
‘Given that Cuadrilla have sought to reassure the public that it is well nigh impossible for fracking fluid to escape, (…) With that level of certainty we can’t really see why they had a problem with this – unless they are perhaps not as sure as that statement might suggest when it comes to having to back up their words with actions and hard cash?
‘However, we are pleased to see that the one of the disparate and rather uncoordinated band of regulators is at last taking meaningful steps to address some of the serious issues around the potential pollution which could arise from contaminated fracking fluids leaking into the environment.’
Just for the record {& to keep this site honest}:
• Cuadrilla has no plans to “blast” “toxic” chemicals anywhere
• no one knows what % of frac fluid returns or remains, at what time interval – particularly before any fraccing has taken place
• I doubt “nasty carcinogens” are anything of the kind
• I believe the mild radioactivity {less than that to which one is exposed on a flight to the Med?} dissipates
• there is almost zero danger that any failure in well integrity might lead to the contaminated fluid leaking into the local aquifer {thousands of feet of solid rock away}, so there is extremely little risk of resulting contamination of the water – none proven in over 1,000,000 fracs in the extremely litigious U.S.A.
{not that Refracktion is anything other than an agitprop site}
Visiting expert to address Sussex on fracking impacts
Distinguished Australian chemical expert Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith will be in Cuckfield, Sussex tonight, Thursday, discussing the impact of fracking on local environments and communities.
Her visit follows the announcement from energy firm Cuadrilla last week that it plans to drill for oil two miles from Cuckfield in West Sussex. This is widely understood to be the first phase in a future fracking operation.
Dr Lloyd-Smith, who is Senior Advisor to the Australian National Toxics Network, and has over 25 years’ experience in chemicals policy and waste management, has accused UK politicians of taking a “naïve” approach to fracking, having seen first-hand the adverse impacts such as air pollution, waste and water contamination.
In Cuckfileld, Dr Lloyd-Smith will discuss the fracking industry’s use of chemicals, evidence of impacts on air and water, methane emissions, and the problems of dealing with related wastes. “I’m here to talk about the real impacts of this industry,” she says.
Her talk will also focus on how communities across Australia from all walks of life and all shades of politics have joined forces to resist the expansion of ‘unconventional gas’ activities.
Media are welcome.
Event starts at 8pm.
Venue: Upstairs at The Old School, Church St, Cuckfield, Haywards Heath, West Sussex, RH17 5JZ. Please park in the Broad Street car park.
Please do bear in mind that “Distinguished Australian chemical expert Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith” cannot be an expert on shale gas development, & by extension “fracking” – as no shale gas development has occurred in Australia.
Australian shale gas development is at more or less the same stage as that in the U.K.
Perhaps we should send local ‘expert’ Vanessa Vine to Australia to address their parliament?
“Dr Lloyd-Smith, … having seen first-hand the adverse impacts” – no shale development yet, so what can she have seen “first hand”?
When I initially commented I clicked the “Notify me when new comments are added”
checkbox and now each time a comment is added
I get four emails with the same comment. Is there any way you can remove me from that service?
Thank you!
Kathryn, apologies, this re-jigged site was not sending out e-mail notice of new postings, so I have just seen your May 12, 2013 at 3:46 pm posting.
Linguistically, those antipathetic to “fracking” have painted themselves into a corner by their dire predictions. If, as they claim, “fracking” is something that will pollute, maim & rape – then Cuadrilla can claim that by not polluting, maiming nor raping, they are not “fracking”.
Your ‘local’ village member, who has a penchant for denying geology to be a science, is adept at quoting data devoid of knowledge & seems incapable of dialectic, which much lessens the value of any contributions. To knowledgeably answer your questions:
Hydraulic fracturing is neither more nor less than creating & extending fractures in rock by the application of hydraulic pressure. Nothing to do with rate {speed} of pumping, explosions {ha ha}, fluid characteristics etc – these {non-existent explosions aside} are only aids to effectiveness.
• To initiate a fracture, one has to overcome the tensile strength of the rock normal {perpendicular} to the fracture plane, after overcoming the least principal stress on the rock. Once sufficiently deep the least principal stress will be horizontal.
• To extend a fracture, one has to maintain the fracture pressure while allowing it to grow, i.e. to compensate for any loss of fluid due to leak-off into the rock face and, more so, the loss of pressure due to the increase in volume as the created fracture grows. The first is met by modifying the fluid characteristics, the second by pumping fluid into the fracture fast enough to maintain the pressure – so the rate of pumping needs to pick up as the fracture grows. The pump/ wellhead pressure must then additionally overcome all frictional pressures due to the pump rate, and compensate for changes in hydrostatic pressure of the fluid column, which will change with fluid density & proppant entrainment.
These two above are common to fracturing all rock, whether sandstone, shale or carbonate {or even granite – geothermal frac’ing}.
Since the purpose of fracturing rock is to alter the flow pattern by creating high permeability flow channels within low permeability rock and since the created fracture will close as soon as the applied pressure is bled off, it is necessary by some means to hold, or prop, the fracture open after the pressure within the fracture falls below the frac pressure – which it does as soon as wellhead/ pump pressure is reduced.
The most common proppant is something small round & spherical, graded ‘frac sand’ is the cheapest but stronger proppants might be needed for deeper fractures, where the closing pressure is greatest. However sometimes a proppant will embed in soft rock, rather than hold the fracture open; at other times pumping proppant, which is technically a challenge, can be avoided by creating self supporting fractures by etching the fracture surface so that etched flow channels will remain open to flow when the fracture closes. {Or one can create ‘worm holes’ though the rock}.
Etching by acid dissolution of the rock face is possible when the rock face dissolves unevenly in the applied acid wash, or means are employed to expose different parts of the rock face to differing times, strengths or types of acid. Acid etching of fracture faces is only possible in carbonate {acid soluble} rock & will only occur until the acid is ‘spent’, i.e. no longer has free H+ radicals. Where acid etching is possible it may well be the preferred treatment, so proppant use is not common in carbonate formations.
The maximum length achievable is dependent on the spend rate of the acid, rather than the total volume pumped, as in proppant fracturing. The modification of spend rate is technical & one reason why the materials & processes used are trade secrets. Spend rate is also temperature, hence depth, dependent. This too can affect the formulation of successful fluids.
To your specific questions –
Etching micrite: would you call acid-etching fracking?? Or even frac’ing??
A: Etching is a process subsequent to creating a fracture, to create flow channels that will remain after the fracture closes, so it is an integral part of acid frac’ing.
Could you remind us what the typical pressure of a ‘normal’ frack might be?
A: rock tensile strength plus least principal stress – which is why Cuadrilla need to cut core samples to measure tensile strength.
And of a micrite etch?
A: Rock tensile strength plus least principal stress – which is why Cuadrilla need to cut core samples to measure tensile strength.
For a given length of bore. Please wd you compare the volumes of liquid typically used to frack shale and to etch micrite?
A: Due to acid spend, acid fracs are generally smaller than proppant fracs. However acid etching spend can be retarded allowing more time, to pump more fluid & a lack of viscosity to support proppant can limit the volume of a proppant frac due to proppant settling.
How deeply into the micrite could the hydrochloric acid solution be expected to work?
A: Depends on the rate of spend, which depends on the acid reactivity {solubility} of the rock & the precise formulation of acid, as well as the rate of pumping {spending is time dependent, faster pumping moves the acid further within a given time}.
With what kind of frequency would the acid etch be repeated?
A: I don’t think any kind of frac ‘needs to be repeated’. I have addressed this quite extensively ‘below the line’ in the Grauniad.
How likely is it in your view that a frack will follow the ‘etch’?
A: The etch follows the frac, i.e. the exposed fracture face is surface etched by the acid{s}. If you mean ‘how likely is it that a frac treatment will follow an etch treatment’, they are one & the same & I remain unconvinced of any need to repeat treatments {without damn good diversion}.
———
To expand upon my only semi-jocular “If, as they claim, “fracking” is something that will pollute, maim & rape – then Cuadrilla can claim that by not polluting, maiming nor raping, they are not “fracking”“. As well as obtaining cores, Cuadrilla would value knowing the pressure at which their rock of interest fractures. To do this they do not need the full panoply of formulation & equipment necessary to extend a fracture, but merely quietly to increase the fluid pressure until the rock fractures. Because of the hysteria generated by the antipathetics, they will be able to do this while maintaining their commitment not to “frack”.
So we are back to linguistics – Cuadrilla will almost certainly crack {fracture} their chosen rock, calling it ‘ascertaining the in situ frac pressure’, but will adhere to their commitment not to “frack”, given the worthless inflation of that particular term.
Thank you! Please would you define ‘spend rate’? Rate at which it combines and is thereafter useless? What, other than (10% they now say) HCl, wd you expect to use in a Balcombe etch??
Nothing fancy – I just used “spent” to denote when the acid is no longer capable of reacting with the rock. Spend rate is the rate at which an acid spends – the greater the surface area you move it across while it is spending, the greater, but shallower, will be the subsequent etched area.
As an example, hydrochloric acid + calcium carbonate reacts to become {soluble} calcium chloride + water + carbon dioxide {CO2, oh horrors}. Once all the H+ in the HCl has become the H+ in the H20 {water}, there is no more H+ to react with the carbonate & the acid is “spent”.
One should not let the ideal drive out the good – I have a theory that Tamboran & Cuadrilla are so concerned to minimise opposition that they are designing less than optimal fluids to enable them to trumpet a lack of additives, Tamboran somewhat more so.
What besides 10% HCl? – I have an entire set of proprietary manuals upstairs. The Balcombe micrite is shallow & hence relatively cool, so an obvious additive would be Acetic acid {vinegar} as hydrochloric & acetic dissolve carbonate at differing rates & hence etch quite effectively.
This is not entirely a joke: were Balcombe’s micrite hot & deep, fire ants could be added to the mixture. {works in Latin}
The reaction of acid on carbonate is not linear – there are a lot of carbonates – think limestone, dolomite, marble, chalk, micrite etc. These will react at different rates & different examples of the same generic rock will also react at different rates. Look at polished marble – the changes in surface colouration & texture indicate differing reactivities. Differing reactivity = differing spend rates.
Another reason why Cuadrilla need the upcoming well to obtain core samples.
How it all started… I am searching for emails from DECC and found this from Rodney Saunders, deputy chair of the Balcombe Parish Council, early January 2012. Let us hope that attitudes amongst the council have evolved over the past 17 months, that our representatives have done some reading and listening, and that our council, unelected all bar the last two new members, will listen to ‘their’ public tonight and take action to represent us. Have any of the pre-election members been spotted at recent meetings and talks? This is how it seemed to Rodney back then:
‘I have no recollection of the discussion at the Parish Council two years ago. However the records show that there was a communication from WSCC in the correspondence box, and that Simon Greenwood mentioned a recent application relating to re-establishing exploratory oil drilling at the previous site off the London Road on Estate land. Presumably we assumed that as it involved drilling another borehole in a location where one had been drilled twenty odd years earlier (when none of the current members was on the Council) it was not a controversial matter. I don’t imagine we spent any time reviewing the detailed technical aspects of the proposed borehole, and it should be remembered that this was some 15 months before the minor seismic events in Lancashire. (To describe two events registering 2.3 and 1.5 on the Richter scale as “earthquakes” is serious over-egging!). I don’t imagine that any of us had heard of fracking. (…) ‘Have you heard the rumour of an application for planning permission to demolish the church and to build a (small, unobtrusive, tastefully decorated and landscaped) nuclear power station in its place?.’
Rodney Saunders’ comment seems relatively level headed & sensible. Why need any attitude evolve – Cuadrilla do appear to intend “drilling another borehole in a location where one had been drilled twenty odd years earlier”
Cuadrilla seem to have been rather smart here. By doing what they originally set out to do – drilling to 3,000 ft, then pulling back up & side-tracking, they should be able to demonstrate {if they work competently} how undramatic & uncataclysmic the whole process is.
If the antipathetic hysterics continue to focus on whether Cuadrilla are actually going to “frack”, they will deprive themselves of the opportunity of determining what really matters.
To wit –
• will the surface pipe terminate 50 ft, 100 ft, 150 ft or some other depth below the deepest potable aquifer?
• how many intermediate strings of casing are to be used?
• what grade of casing will be used?
• what coupling & thread will be used to link casing joints – bog standard or premium?
• how will each string be cemented? With what?
• is the vertical to 3,000 ft going to be cased & cemented?
• after the side-track window is cut higher up, how will the abandoned vertical below the window be plugged?
• what will be the disposition of the well at the end of the exercise?
These are all matters to be decided by Cuadrilla & vetted by the independent well examiner, but BPC might wish to insist on ‘premium’, rather than ‘sufficient’ choices, i.e. to ‘set the bar higher’. This should be done as a prior constraint upon the well examiner.
Just a thought.
Thank you, Michael. What exactly do you mean by ‘disposition’. Presumably the plan would be to go on to frack and extract. Yes, yes, might flow, but I suspect it won’t. Do you mean how would they seal it temporarily for the interval between exploration and a full-scale frack-and-extract?
Kathryn, There is no production infrastructure in Balcombe. Say the well flows copious quantities of oil – will they immediately go for infrastructure, if so what will they do with the well until production facilities are in place. Or the well might need stimulating which needs prior approval – what will they do with the well until approval is in place & if the well then flows …
Or they decide to leave the well in a state suitable for re-entry in 2 years time – what will they …
Or it is a complete dud – how will they permanently abandon it?
So it goes.
Kathryn, You know I’m a great believer in the sealing efficacy of 150 ft of cement. All I have seen from Cuadrilla is that they will have 3 strings {big deal} & that there will be cement well below the lowest aquifer. Well duh – the production string cement will be far below the aquifer – but how far below the aquifer will the surface string {the one run to isolate the aquifer} be run & cemented?
Also, how will the individual strings be cemented – bottom to surface, bottom to overlap by how much, or …?
Fracking as we know it is only 15 years old MAX. Don’t fall for industry myth making. Horizontal drilling, seismic arrays, and chemical formulations are all new. The fracking we’re seeing now is only happening because of a suite of new technologies and methods.
From Annie Kia in Australia
As Tony Ingraffea says, the 2 most important words for us all to understand are ‘Spatial Intensity’.
The relentless logic of the industry is to extract every last ounce of resource. This means ‘in-filling’ wells when the first ones diminish in yield.
Fracking is just one part of the problem. It’s how all the technologies fit together that creates an industrialised landscape.
Having seen the nightmare in southern Queensland, it would be a complete disaster in the closely settled English countryside.
The solution is solidarity of everyone working together to protect what they love. Strong social movements can succeed. We’ve got the gas miners in retreat here in the Northern Rivers NSW.
I am not aware that Tony Ingraffea has ever pronounced on Coal Seam Gas, or that Annie Kia has any experience whatsoever of shale gas.
& Balcombe, of course, has neither coal seam gas nor shale gas, but possibly oil bearing micrite.
These industrial process have many similarities. Many environmental concerns relate to both (or to all three if one considers micrite to be Variation No3 on the theme. We are not stupid, Michael, nor are we insular and only nimboid. We have links to groups opposing unconventional gas exploration around the world. You are picking nits.
No Kathryn, I am not picking nits. Your “These industrial processes” is the key – you are opposing all industrial development. If one wishes to oppose or to make safe as possible any of these three matters, then one must needs look at the fine & distinctly different details involved in each particular process.
God is in the details {Mies van der Rohe}.
I disagree. Sharing information on common aspects of these industrial processes, standing solidly alongside each other to combat shared menaces, this is valid.
Our campaign is wide-ranging. This is not just a Balcombe issue. Wells will no doubt be drilled in the near future in many other people’s back yards. As for Balcombe, yes, there is definitely also very much a nimby aspect. This well is half a mile from my house and those of many other villagers. Some people are closer than that. Yes, yes, yes, this is an inappropriate place for any heavy industrail process, and we reject and oppose any heavy industry this close to our community.
Several years ago, our council rejected my planning application for a wood store (I have one now, following appeal). What a pity they did not properly debate the planning application for an oil well.
By the way, should Cuadrilla have done seismic testing before their horizontal drilling and acid frack?
Kathryn, ‘Gas Drilling in Balcombe’, even though a misnomer, is fairly unique in the ‘Frack Off’ canon for the reasonableness & literacy of most of the posts, possibly due to the greater age & better education of most of the posters.
But for an example of the degree of ignorance of small details, consider this from a new site yesterday, which has the aim of ‘spreading awareness’
“Coal seams … [in] some cases, water, foam, or air are pumped into the well at high pressure, causing a jet of rock fragments, gas and water to explode to the surface for up to 15 minutes.
This is done repeatedly, creating up to a 16-foot crater and a radius of fractures through the ground.”
http://www.clevedonpeople.co.uk/Fracking-Awareness-North-Somerset/story-19035634-detail/story.html?email-tobe-verified=true&afterReg=Y&dwrMeth=addComment
Too much of this level of awareness & we’ll be back in the stone age.
I have it in mind to write for you & post a comparison between CBM & shale, because like Tolstoy’s ‘happy marriages are the same, it is the unhappy ones that differ’ successful unconventional gas production raises no issues, but the causes & types of failure hazard are different between the two … and it is failure we all wish to avoid.
As to ‘Balcombe being a rural idyll’ – I have just returned from a trip to Durness going through Assynt – now that is ‘rural’.
“By the way, should Cuadrilla have done seismic testing before their horizontal drilling and acid frack?”
Aah, but they have undertaken not to frac …
But an acid frack is a ‘frac’, I think you said, even though lower pressure and different ingredients in the soup? I thought we agreed that this was a small linguistic nit.
Anyway, should seismic testing be done prior to directional drilling and acid etching?
Not that seismic testing would be welcome, a most intrusive process, I hear from friends elsewhere.
People come new to the subject. You pick one newcomer’s misunderstanding. The groups with whom we have links worldwide are well-informed. New people are waking up to this menace every day. Give them time.
Indeed “an acid frack is a ‘frac’” – but I read their undertaking not to frac to include not acid fraccing. One only needs a fracture of less than an inch or so to determine the pressure at which rock fractures. The rate at which the fracture propagates is determined by the mechanics of the pumping, so is not needed at this early stage.
For a fracture of an inch, I hink full seismic would be over-kill. For a development programme, I would desire a full 3-D seismic.
But at this stage, perhaps just my May 20, 2013 at 1:01 pm questions should be brought to the meeting.
A great many of the people you have links to worldwide might be well informed, but they are engaging in a widespread dissemination of incorrect alarmist “facts” nonetheless. MMR all over again.
Consider CLR claiming that one cannot say fracturing today is the same as forty years ago, while simultaneously holding that “fracking” need not mean fracturing. Inconsistent, not so?
Listen to the deafening silence about the development stage of fracking in the Weald.
It really will be the end of the Weald as we know it.
Michael,
Please could you explain the difference between bog standard and premium coupling and thread? And explain exactly the nature of ‘intermediate strings of casing’? How would you (if in charge) seal the abandoned bottom section of the vertical bore? Cd you list what wd be required for production ‘infrastucture’? Posting answers one by one and not too detailed would be wonderful as I am about to go out with a photographer. Thank you.