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 Michael Havelka on May 12, 2010 at 6:27am
Denny

I did not paint anyone as no nothing I simple stated that many of the arguments are red herrings, you know put up a claim that cannot be proven true or false to get your desired ends (no drilling). I stated quite correctly that Frank accused me of spouting my beliefs which is not the case. I have been in the water treatment industry for 23 years and the contaminants that may be present in the frack water can be and ARE treated everyday.

Some facts:

- No less than 13 companies are doing trials in the shale right now for TDS removal technologies. While there have been varying degrees of success, the work continues. This technology has been employed throughout the world for other brine and brackish waters for decades. I have personally participated in several and have seen very positive results. Exploration and Production companies are investing millions in water resources - did you see the press release from Consol last week, they are investing hundreds of millions in treating mine water so that it can be reused as frack water. Just facts.

- Removal of organics and heavy metals from the frack water is both commonplace technology and very economical to Exploration and Production firms. Industry has used this technology for decades and it is being implemented in the field as we speak. I could take you to three sites without leaving Western PA where this technology is employed.

- The contaminated well issue is being studied but I can say factually that none of the claims thus far have held up to even the slightest scientific scrutiny. The rather public case in Washington PA was swept under the rug when it was determined that the homeowner had reported his well contaminated as far back as the late 80's. Just facts.

I am not pro-drilling damn the environment. I actually have worked very hard to keep the environment clean over my career and I can say the same is true for the thousands of scientists and engineers in our business. My original point stands that the science required to treat frack water is there and so is the business structure. To say it is not is to ignore the facts.
Comment by Denny D on May 12, 2010 at 5:56am
Micheal,
First point - I am PRO drilling. Second point - I am for demonstrable and compliant drilling and resource utilization. My problem, and you're not the first, is that you paint anyone other than fellow "Full Speed Ahead" practitioners as emotional, know-nothing flakes. And you do this by posting blogs that purport to cite scientific evidence and sound business practice without actually detailing what those are - not even a short list. Then you get the obligatory response from the site publisher (Keith) "...great to get solid information". If that is what you guys consider "solid" information then I suggest you get well acquaainted with the detractors because your approach is unconvincing. I'm not saying you are wrong. But save your breath on the "opinion pieces" about how the other guy is wrong. You want to talk science - then talk science. I honestly and truely can't wait to read it. Thanks!
Comment by Michael Havelka on May 12, 2010 at 5:28am
Frank

I am not sure what you meant by the first line, but the facts in my piece are not part of a "belief system". It is based upon provable scientific evidence. Thus far the anti-drilling faction has been long on emotion and extremely short on science.
Comment by Frank Gifford, Jr. on May 12, 2010 at 4:59am
Part of the human condition is filtering perceptions based upon belief systems. We create our own reality, even if it is not real:)

Based upon my reading, the jury is still out on how much gas is in the Marcellus. There are reports that the estimated reserves may by overstated by a factor of 4 times or more. http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2010/04/a-miracle-in-the-marcellu... Many wells may produce for only 1 or 2 years total.

From a water quality standpoint, draining a million gallons for water from a headwaters stream for any purpose flies in the face of common sense and the Clean Water Act. Frac'ing is an almost perfect example of privatizing profits while socializing costs. In the case of the Marcellus, a large chunk of Appalachia gets to bear yet more socialized costs while a few drillers, investors and landowners get the profits.

To believe that chemicals injected a mile underground do not disburse into the water table is to deny the existence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The extractive industries have been telling us what we want to hear since the very beginning. And yet we have situations like the ecological devastation of the coal fields of northeastern Pennsylvania, an undersea oil volcano currently spewing petro into the Gulf of Mexico, ... What is to be the fate of Appalachia?
Comment by Michael Havelka on May 11, 2010 at 8:35am
Bruce

A good question for sure but I think we have a terminology difference here. I use GTL to refer to gas to liquids technology which the natural gas industry uses to liquify natural gas for over the road service as well as export. Liquid hydrocarbons in natural gas are another matter completely. All natural gas streams have them but to your post, they are wide ranging. Since they are highly volatile and not water soluble, we do not see that (in general) in the bulk of the frack water. Rather we see a higher concentration of dissolved hydrocarbons where there are higher amounts of liquid hydrocarbons in the fraction. In any case, these are easily treated and do not effect the price of treatment (typically). We have worked in the past in recovery technology for these hydrocarbons but are not currently involved in any so I cannot intelligently speak on this matter.

Thanks
Comment by Bruce Wayne Allen on May 10, 2010 at 8:54am
Good afternoon Michael,
Just Read your post about Marcellus flow back water, and have a couple of questions? Is it a true statement that the Northeastern Marcellus natural gas composition, and GTL content is almost non-existant. Where in the Southwern Marcellus gas composition lots of GTL production is harvested. At least in the articles I have read there seems to be a big difference in the two, different production type areas? Is that why Mark West Industries has built gas plant in Washington County, because they can treat GTL, and make profit? As where Northeastern part mostly orginic compounds exist like Nitrogen & CO2? My next question is it more expensive to treat water in the Southern Marcellus then Northern section? And with no capital return on GTL's in the north all cost of flowback water is up to producer?
Comment by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on May 10, 2010 at 8:02am
Enjoyed that blog - it's great to get solid infomation!

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service