The Austin American Statesman printed my op ed today.
The case against fracking
By Sharon Wilson
SPECIAL TO
THE AMERICAN-STATESMAN
Published: 5:35 p.m. Saturday, Aug. 11, 2012
The bottom line:
Through slick advertising brought to us by Hill and Knowlton — the same public relations firm used by the tobacco industry to hook generations on cigarettes — the oil and gas industry has convinced Americans that fracked oil and gas is the answer to our energy needs. Americans who live with the reality of fracking know shale oil and gas are really just dirty, finite fossil fuels that neither address our long-term energy needs nor address climate change — and are damaging our health and the environment. A comprehensive energy policy would acknowledge the real problems with all fossil fuels and spark a transition towards energy efficiency and clean renewables like wind and solar power.
Natural gas is not clean, it’s not safe and it’s not the answer.
Here’s a nice quote for you to enjoy and ponder on this beautiful Sunday.
“The purpose of a writer is to keep civilization from destroying itself.”
~ Albert Camus
About Sharon Wilson
Sharon Wilson is considered a leading citizen expert on the impacts of shale oil and gas extraction. She is the go-to person whether it’s top EPA officials from D.C., national and international news networks, or residents facing the shock of eminent domain and the devastating environmental effects of natural gas development in their backyards.
- Web |
- More Posts(5121)
I know you worked very hard crafting your well balanced and informed essay. You have my respect and admiration.
A lot of people had input and did editing starting with personal friends and ending with my colleagues.
Thanks.
EXCELLENT, what else can I say?
Great job Sharon. This covers many issues concerning natural gas and is a good piece to present to uninformed / uneducated residents. Gives a 50,000 foot overview that is thought provoking and perhaps will have some questioning the status quo and eager to learn more.
A very interesting article about fracking.
CNNMoney: Drought Hurting Oil-Fracking Production
The drought is affecting energy production in West Texas, North Dakota, Kansas, Colorado and Pennsylvania, states in which hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, has become popular.
“We’re having difficulty acquiring water,” Chris Faulkner, CEO of Breitling Oil and Gas, an oil company with operations in many of the shale regions, tells CNNMoney.
While most of the 70 percent increase in natural gas prices during the last several months has been due to increased demand for air conditioning and a switch by many utilities from coal to natural gas, some say part of the blame is because of the drought-induced production problems.
“Another rally in natural gas as drought concerns [deepen] may lead to a cessation of non-conventional shale production,” Stephen Schork, an energy trader and publisher of the industry newsletter the Schork Report.
http://www.moneynews.com/Markets/Drought-Oil-Fracking-energy/2012/08/01/id/447210
In 2010, the fracking industry used 91% of all the water used in Montague County. That’s is a primary farming and ranching community.
I read that the Texas farmers plowed under their crops and won’t grow any fall crops because they are under water restrictions. Yet the fracking continues.
When people start going hungry, the conversation will change.
As I wrote earlier, U.S. oil production is on the rise entirely because of shale oil, it’s the same situation with natural gas production.
In 2035, to meet U.S. natural gas demand, shale gas production will have to quadruple.
In 2035, to replace depleted oil fields, shale oil production will have to triple.
In 2035, in order to produce as much oil as in 1970 (10 million barrels per day), shale oil production will have to quintuple.
The reason is that U.S. conventional oil production continues its decline.
Without shale oil, U.S. conventional crude oil production was 4.7 million barrels per day in 2011. It was 5.5 million barrels in 2003.
There is not enough recoverable shale oil & gas to get us there. Industry claims these wells will produce for 30 to 40 years but they are pulling those figures out of the sky or somewhere else. There is absolutely no historical data to support those claims.
They are plugging Barnett wells like crazy, sometimes after only 2 years because there is not enough production there.
It’s all a fairy tale.
No, they are most likely shutting the wells in because the price of gas is in the toilet, and they probably only drilled them in the first place to save a lease. This happens in every gas or wet gas play across the country.
Show us some FACTS; some NUMBERS; some HISTORICAL DATA to support what you are saying.
You’ll spin anything in a way to back up what you believe, as long as it sounds logical, even if it is not the truth.
ABSOLUTELY!!! Show us the FACTS & historical data that will prove horizontal fracked wells last for 30 to 40 years. HINT: there is none because horizontal drilling and fracking were only combined in 2002.
The data we have since 2002 shows us that the decline is very rapid. Some operators have admitted the production is not holding up.
Of course the initial decline tends to be rapid, everyone can agree on that. The reason that you must frack in the first place is to allow movement of hydrocarbons that was not possible before because of low permeability in tight shale reservoirs. When the wells are fracked, immense pressure is released and the IP rates tend to be very high. But this fact does not mean that the wells do not level off and produce for years and years at lesser volumes. A vast majority of the time, operators choke the production starting on the first day as to not damage the reservoir and allow for a more steady decline. They also tend to keep the wells choked back for a considerable period of time. Every once in a while you’ll get a public operator that wants to show it’s muscle and appease the market and will not choke the well back enough, or run an open choke, and they’ll get huge IP rates but will often permanently damage the wellbore.
The data that you are using to come to your conclusion only starts in 2002 (according to what you say), so you are using the fact that the “decline is very rapid” because it sounds logical that if the decline is very rapid, entire volumes in shale gas wells must be depleted rapidly, when in fact you have no clue if this is the case or not.
Why would operators continue to drill the wells if they were all declining too rapidly and not holding enough gas to make the economics work?
I thought your main concern was water and evicting poor people so you can get that.
I don’t have time to get you up to speed on the whys. Maybe someone else can explain it or you could Google around about shale gas shell game.
What does the “shale gas shell game” (I googled it and read the first link that came up) have to do with well decline rates, which is what was being discussed?
That article outlines the state that some companies are currently in, whereby they have leased up more acreage than they can drill (much of it likely leased when nat gas was closer to $12/mcf), look better on paper than they might actually be (when you consider unpredictable fluctuations in nat gas prices, unpredictable well results drilled by third parties in fields where they have acreage, etc etc etc), and they go out and show their acreage to potential suitors.
No where do I see any scientific or fact-based discussion on shale gas decline rates. So why again would I want to google this?
Furthermore, I just noticed that the article was written on November 16, 2010.
So what it is REALLY talking about is the fact that, when natural gas was sky high at ~$12/mcf, companies raced to lease as much as they possibly could (mostly on 3 year leases, which is generally standard), the price of natural gas tanked beginning in early 2009, staying depressed throughout 2010, when the article was written.
At that point, the three year leases were coming up for expiration, the companies had stopped drilling wells at a furious rate, and they had undrilled lease acreage which they tried to monetize.
That’s the inherent reason that all of this was going on. What this has to do with decline rates and EUR of shale gas wells, I don’t know.
So you Google and only read the first article? Nice research.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYzU4bEfJ5U&feature=youtube_gdata_player
energypolicyforum.com/?p=465
http://www.texassharon.com/2012/05/04/energy-policy-forum-essay-exposes-shale-gas-as-all-spin-and-no-widget/
There are plenty of other sources for this information including my blog. It might take a little more effort.
I read the article that is posted multiple times on the first page of Google; the same article (which is laden with facts) that the Earthworks presentation (which is laden with enviro-spin) on the first page of Google was modeled after.
I clicked randomly in the middle of the presentation and saw a slide detailing city of Fort Worth gas revenues for 2008-2010. She stated that even though the number of nat gas wells quadrupled between 2008-2010, they were only able to produce 2/3 the revenue. I laughed and turned it off after seeing that, and I’ll point you to Exhibit ‘A’ – Historical Natural Gas Spot Prices by Month and let you figure that one out for yourself. Spin, dodge the facts, and more spin.
So you did not read the paper presented at Rio?
Okay then.
Oh my lookie! It’s not just us. But don’t dispair, you can divest.
With other U.S. shale gas plays in decline, is the Marcellus next?
At the same time, the Texas Barnett and Louisiana shale gas formations appear to be peaking in production, seeing significant decreases in drilling activity while shale gas development companies such as Chesapeake Energy and BHP Billiton have been quietly writing off billions of dollars of claimed shale gas reserves in those formations as they declare such reserves as no longer economically feasible to extract.
Just a few short years ago, those same companies were claiming those same reserves were solid evidence of future decades of natural gas supply as part of the U.S. “Shale gas revolution”.
Could you provide a source for this quote: “In 2010, the fracking industry used 91% of all the water used in Montague County” or is this just common knowledge?
Barbara Green, May 15th edition of The Bowie News. And reported in “The Watchdog” Montague County Property Owners Association. It is pretty much common knowledge among the people trying to live on the land and finding that their wells run dry.
Katy, if I request that you source some of your industry’s statements, will you comply as quickly as I have?
Anything verifiable? I’ll source any statement I make since I only represent myself. I’m not sure why you want me to be a spokesperson that I am not. You have google the same as I do.
Since you too have Google, I suggest you Google up the reporter and contact her with your questions. I already know the answer.
Are you not the same Katy from industry that frequently comments here? If not, my apologies.
I love these facts people…
Most of us have seen the graphs….
Based on production:
One can not afford to pay medical bills and/or their environmental testing on their royalty payments within the same time frame.
Now there’s some more truth for you.
Hi Sharon,
I finally got a few days off. I have been able to read a few of the article that I like to read on the internet.
Have not look at the Austin paper article that you made ref. to.
Got to go fishing, finally , and I hope to catch a few.
Just wanting to drop a comment.
Don’t slow down, because I think the light is starting to shine a little
stronger at the end of the tunnel.
BTW: I think after all of these years of hard work, I might have hit a home run in this business.
I have always kept the Faith.
Have A Nice Day!
Enjoy your time off, Leonard. Please don’t eat any fish you catch. I hear all our water is polluted and the fish carry a load of mercury.
Yes, USA has more oil than Saudi Arabia, but using this oil is unrealistic.
American oil shale is estimated to hold more than 1.8 trillion barrels of recoverable oil.
Oil shale is not to be confused with shale oil.
Oil shale must be heated to temperatures between 400C° and 500C°.
According to Shell, to produce 100,000 barrels per day, 5 million tons of coal and at least 4.6 billion gallons of water are needed each year.
The largest deposit of oil shale in the United States is near the Colorado River basin, which could run out of water in 2050.
As U.S. is using 18,8 million barrels a day…
No, I don’t need to Google anything; I’m pretty sure I can grasp the “why” as to “why” operators would choose to stop drilling shale gas if it was declining too rapidly and not economical. That seems like common sense to me.
You don’t have the time because you know that you wouldn’t be speeding me up on anything because I’m already speeding. That’s OK, I thought it’d be you (*disappointed face*), but someone else can do your dirty work, call me an industry hack, and exit stage left. That’s fine.
Deadly crashes keep adding up as area sees more truck traffic
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/08/14/deadly-crashes-keep-adding-up-as-area-sees-more-truck-traffic/
Is this guy serious? WHERE you been, boy? Every well declines, and virtually all of them lose 50% or more of production within the first year. If the operators really do choke off the production, which I doubt, why the need to install massive compressor LIFT pumps? If that’s not good enough, just take a look for yourself at the Texas Railroad Commission website, and you’ll see the production reports. Production ALWAYS goes down, not up. Sure, there are slight increases from time to time, but they ALWAYS coincide with either the installation of a lift compressor or re-fracking the well-both of which costs a great deal of money. So it’s completely illogical to say that the operators intentionally choke off the production only to then install a lift pump to increase production or to re-frack the well.
Shhh! Don’t upset him. I think he might be heavily invested. He needs to believe that choke back stuff.
You clearly do not have enough base knowledge of the subject to provide any useful insight. It’s laughable that based on what I’ve previously written, you are actually trying to school me on the fact that production rates of wells go down over time, not up (without secondary/tertiary recovery). 2+2=4, yea, I get it.
Did I ever say that wells producing out of over-pressured formations (oftentimes shale) are always run at restricted rates for the life of the well? No, I didn’t. I said “a considerable period of time”, choosing those words solely to say that many shale wells are run on restricted rates for longer than a day or a week. Every well is different, and “considerable period of time” will vary.
Did you not read my comment in which I gave a few possible scenarios in which an operator would choose to run a restricted rate?
The fact that an operator might choose to run a restricted rate on an overpressured shale gas well is completely unrelated to the fact that oftentimes, to stimulate production after the well has produced for a certain period of time and exhibits certain downhole pressure, an operator will install and utilize a lift mechanism. I’m not sure why you are trying to connect them.
I’ll very blunt with you on this; I could care less about production, and I have about zero interest in it. Personally, all I’ve ever seen myself is wells that do not produce nearly as much as they would have any investor believe they do, drop in production dramatically, and just simply fail and/or require constant maintenance of some level. This is not a sustainable energy source. It’s extremely hazardous, and economically, it’s not viable. And even if it was, I’ve moved on. I do not use gas, and never, ever will. Don’t need to. As I’ve mentioned in many other previous posts, I used to be part of the Drill Here, Drill Now crowd. People like you and companies that you worked for more than showed me their true colors. It’s all about the money, and it’s always at someone else’s expense.
I’ll concede that you know way more about the subject than I do. Production that is. And no, I’m not going to read all your previous posts and links and dissect every word you’ve ever said about it and then give great thought to why you’re choosing your words. 1) I don’t care. 2) I have no interest in it. 3) As a fracker, you’re doing what Industry does best-change the conversation to something you think can speak to as opposed to addressing the real problems and issues. When you’ve run out of lies, half-truths and deception, every Industry guy always then tries to change the topic. Notice how you’ve simply ignored much of this piece, the editorial and information contained herein-and have now focused on your vast knowledge of ‘production’, all the while being a condescending ass.
There’s something terribly wrong in this country when someone like you can park your crap in someone else’s backyard, take as much of their land as you decide is ‘reasonable’, spill and leak and emit all you want, destroy their property and any value, and then when the landowner dares speaks out, you cry about how you’ve tried everything you could to be their Good Neighbor. Failing that, the real bully comes out and beats his chest claiming that he has the ‘RIGHT’ to wreck the property and extract HIS minerals that MY property and home is inconveniently placed on.
I’ve seen your work, and the work your company has done, and what it’s done to people, and none of it’s good in any stretch of the imagination. Maybe you have the so-called right to drill, you do not have the right to destroy other people’s homes and their way of life, all so that you can have a job and your company makes a buck.