The Water Red Herring

The Marcellus Shale play has clearly been a game changer, not just in America's energy situation but in a range of businesses that are directly involved in the geophysical, drilling, pipelining, transportation and their legions of suppliers. We assume (correctly) that this cast of professionals can take what was until a few years ago inexpensive pastureland and turn it into a functional gas well providing natural gas and revenue for years. But when it comes to the press and to many people in the Marcellus stakeholder audience, they assume the water industry CANNOT meet the challenges of shale development. If you are of this mind, I have a word for you: BUNK.

Western PA has been a hotbed for the water treatment and chemical industry for decades with thousands of engineers and scientists directly related to this industry calling it home (me being one of them). The water quality from a Marcellus well is far different that what we have seen in the Haynesville and Barnett Shale for sure, but does that mean that it cannot be managed effectively? It can and will, just asks the dozens of firms working day and night to provide treatment equipment, plants and solutions to the natural gas industry.

Obviously one of the key problems are the high total dissolved solids (salts) present in the water, as well as the potential for some chemical additives to be present in the flow back water. The levels have been sometimes 3-5 times higher than seen in other shale plays, thus the industry has been working double time fine tuning their technologies to meet this challenge. Many firms have had successful on site trials for treating flow back water and more are planned almost on a daily basis. The other potential contaminants in the water have been successfully treated by our industry for decades, and will continue here. It is important to note that there is NOTHING in the frack water that cannot be managed effectively if approached scientifically and with the body of technology currently available to the industry.

They say there are two sides to every issue, but if you are on the side of good science, free markets and a sane regulatory framework, the only real side of this issue is to continue on the path of energy freedom given to us by this immense opportunity called the Marcellus Shale. Shutting industry down awaiting for a "silver bullet" is not a solution... it perpetuates the problem and slows down our ability to bring market based water treatment solutions to our E&P partners. The market forces are strong and the profit motive will continue to fine tune these offerings. A government program did not develop horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. The profit motive and free markets did and will continue if left properly regulated but not hamstrung.

The argument for drilling vs the environment is a red herring. We have both today and will continue to have both moving forward. Let the entrepreneurs do their thing, as it works every time it is tried.



Views: 243

Comment

You need to be a member of GoMarcellusShale.com to add comments!

Join GoMarcellusShale.com

Comment by Susan Oliver on May 16, 2010 at 3:03pm
Excellent. Well said. Clear thinking. Sounds like common sense which is refreshing.
Comment by Michael Havelka on May 13, 2010 at 10:37am
Denny

That is a fair request although there are too many chemicals (most of which are naturally occurring) to make a list here and furthermore some of the processes are very proprietary. In the spirit of sharing information though, we can group the chemicals into specific categories and list the specific technologies that can treat these. I will post that in a separate post under this blog.

Further I was not intentionally being dismissive, rather I responded to Frank's angle that it was all beliefs and short on facts which I do not believe it is. Sometimes facts are obvious, such that the US industrial water treatment industry is a $100 billion plus market that manages pollutants of all types. Those in the industry know what is available, possible and actually in play treating water. A blog post cannot summarize $100 billion worth of technologies. More to come.
Comment by Denny D on May 13, 2010 at 10:17am
Keith,
I know you are busy runnig this site but try and take the time to reread my response to Micheals blog. I neither disagreed with his opinions, nor did I disagree with any science, and I certainly did not dismiss him (if I had dismissed him there would be no comment). I was cautioning Micheal not to "dismiss" detractors as "long on emotion and extremely short on science" (as stated in his reply to Frank). That comment is dismissive. I'm all for drilling, I understand risks must be taken, I understand better processes will come as a result of market forces in some cases and mistakes in others. You might have noticed that since the original blog Micheal has provided a few comments containing very informative details/facts. I'm very appreciative of that because I'm not following this blog to be told how right I am and to get stroked everyday. I'm following it for the exposure to the kind of professional information that can be provided by a 23 year industry veteran like Micheal. So, you want a science based question? Here goes - Micheal, based on your contention that "there is NOTHING in the frack water that cannot be managed effectively" can you please provide me with an accurate list of the organics, heavy metals, and chemical compounds found in the frack water of a recent Central PA wellsight and how each of these is/was treated? Micheal, I did not even come close to suggesting that the water treatment capability was not available. I VERY SIMPLY stated that you can't get away with saying that it is without providing the detail. It is akin to the political "Trust Me" routine. That invites the naysyers to spout conspiracy throeries about what the drilling industry might be hiding or getting away with. Thanks guys! I do enjoy the conversation. Just want to be on the same conversational plane is all.
Comment by Tom Copley on May 13, 2010 at 5:01am
What is truth? It is an ideal, right? It's the same with reality. There is scientific reality, business reality and political reality. Some, or all of these, are as big an oxymoron as "business ethics".

Are we not living in a culture that is risk adverse? Isn't it far more important "not to screw up" than it is to take a risk and ultimately profit from it.

The good citizens of the Appalachian Basin states are being asked to take a huge risk on drilling for shale gas. The reward seems magnificent, if indeed the Marcellus shale turns out to be the equivalent of the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. However, even that reward itself has been questioned, as Frank rightly brings to our attention using, by extension, Art Berman's analysis. It all could turn out to be illusory--just another bubble waiting to implode.

While there is perceived risk in developing the Marcellus, the riskiness can be reduced by searching for greater information to help build confidence in dealing with alleged dangers.

It is a bit early in the game to cry "BUNK" or belittle anyone else's point of view, yet there's absolutely no harm in having one's own opinion. --Tom
Comment by Michael Havelka on May 13, 2010 at 3:54am
Fun Fact #107: Penn State University recently release a study indicating that up to 40% of all drinking water wells (there are 1.2 million in PA) are contaminated with methane (prior to Marcellus drilling) due to a combination of the geology in the state and the high hydrocarbon content of the substrata.
Comment by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on May 13, 2010 at 3:21am
DennyD. I stand behind my statement that his blog is "solid." I would know better to state "solid" in reference to the science, because guess what, I'm not a scientist. Obviously, Michael is going to give his opinion because this site isn't a textbook. Michael threw in some science mixed with opinion, so what? Ask him some science-based questions and see if we can learn something and see if he can further back his opinions up? How hepful is it to dimiss him because of opinions that you might disagree with?
Comment by Frank Gifford on May 13, 2010 at 2:36am
Michael, based upon my perspective, your the first 2 paragraphs of your blog post are basically belief, not science. You also state the belief that all the problems will be figured out. You end by citing beliefs about free markets and technology.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is science. The belief in free markets often flies in the face of the hard realities of Entropy.

Tom, yes, I am suggesting some pushing of the reality envelop may be happening.

Dan, M. Scott Peck who wrote "The Way Less Traveled" some years back suggests that deceit is the manifestation of evil. Until business ethics becomes something more than an oxymoron, what else could it be?
Comment by daniel cohen on May 12, 2010 at 5:29pm
Dear Shalers,
My apologies for not being computer literate enough to get the pictures to appear here.
Dan

Dear Shalers,
• With special thanks to Angel, below you’ll find a good reporting site (http://www.nrc.uscg.mil ) should you become aware of a site contamination. This contamination was spotted in Shaffer creek in clearville, Pa.
• IMGA0265.JPG
• IMGA0266.JPG
• IMGA0270.JPG
• IMGA0263.JP
• IMGA0439.JPG
• IMGA0444.JPG
• IMGA0445.JP



When you see this stuff , you can call your regions e.p.a. but the best thing that you can do is to fill out a reporting form on the web. http://www.nrc.uscg.mil

If you prefer to use a phone, then report any problems by calling 1-800-424-8802 You can send any pictures you take to senators and elected officials.

Bottom line folks-we need to help the Oil/Gas folks to be good neighbors. We need to be vigilant, and to hold them to good practices and proper working responsibilities. They are not evil, just business folks willing to cut corners if permitted.

Dan
Comment by Bonnie Gray on May 12, 2010 at 12:20pm
this is a great article, I agree.......hope it all works out.
Comment by Tom Copley on May 12, 2010 at 6:30am
Frank-- You mentioned, jokingly (said with a smiley-face), that Marcellus shale optimists are practicing selective perception--hearing what they want to hear and listening only to those things which support their pre-existing beliefs, ignoring all evidence to the contrary. Then you link to a David Cohen's blog who quotes Barnett shale skeptic, Art Berman, to the effect that his research suggests estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) projections in the Barnett have been overly exaggerated. Cohen extends his line of reasoning to imply that recent announcements of increases in EUR;s by Range Resources and other companies may be pushing the reality envelope to a degree. Is that about right?

If so, you seem to be saying that we may be in the midst of an inflating bubble. Living out here in Berkeley, CA I got to witness the Internet bubble first hand, where all one needed was a sock-puppet, computer, and college dropout-keyboard jocky or so to have a company with a market cap of $1 billion or more. The aftermath of that bubble was not pretty in terms of shattered careers, unemployment, and broken dreams when it imploded.

With the Marcellus shale you have the added potential of unknown environmental consequences to air, water and land not to mention doubtless economic dislocations within the Appalachian Basin.

While I have generally sided with the Marcellus shale optimists, there are always reasons to question our reality, and whether we are merely hearing only positive feedback and filtering out any countervailing opinion. Thanks, Frank, for having the courage to at least throw a caution flag on the field.

I believe we can ultimately pry open the reality behind the hype through knowledge and self-education.

--Tom

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service