AAPG Explorer - American Association of Petroleum Geologists

AAPG
EXPLORER
An independent fact gathering analysis
Study Seeks to Inject Science into Frack Debate
By LOUISE S. DURHAM, EXPLORER Correspondent
Got a shale?
You need a frack job.
Following application in tight
geological formations for decades
with no fanfare, fracking now has
become essentially a household word –
sometimes good, sometimes bad – as
the shale plays continue to proliferate
not only in the United States but also
globally.
These dense, low permeability rocks
tend to have a lock on the hydrocarbons
within. Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing,
via injecting fluid under pressure usually
GROAT
is vital to create cracks, fracture networks
in the target zone to allow the trapped oil/
gas molecules to move through the rock
16 JULY 2011 WWW.AAPG.ORG
“Fracking has become almost
the catch-all for any problem
with gas production.”
to be extracted.
This can be particularly true for
relatively large oil molecules.
Even if you’re counting on smaller gas
molecules to move through nano-darcy
matrix permeability to reach the wellbore,
hunker down and put your life on hold.
Scientific research has shown gas
molecule movement to be perhaps 10
feet in a well’s lifetime, or maybe as much
as a few feet per year.
“The implication is if you don’t place a
high permeability pathway close to where
a gas molecule resides in the reservoir,
it will never find its way to the wellbore,”
said Randy LaFollette, manager of shale
gas technology at BJ Services in Tomball,
Texas.
“There’s no geological time to wait
around for these things to migrate out at
their own pace,” he said. “Therefore we
frack.”
A Problem Perceived
Yet the ongoing escalation of these
very necessary fracturing applications
has opened up a Pandora’s Box of sorts.
A plethora of complaints about
alleged problems related to fracking are
emanating from governing/regulatory
agencies, including federal, state and
local, as well as from private citizens.
Allegations include illness caused
by drinking water supplies supposedly
contaminated via the injected fracking
water, seismic events said to be caused
by the actual procedure, infrastructure
impacts on land use, impacts of disposal
of produced water, etc, etc.
The anti-fracking movement received
further encouragement with the 2010
release of a documentary film, “Gasland,”
which featured commentary guaranteed
to encourage fear and distrust.
Industry bears a share of blame as
well.
For example, when geologists say
something to the effect that frack fluid
was injected in a zone 10,000 feet deep,
and there’s no way it can migrate through
all of the overlying rock up to the surface,
they overlook the fact that the public in
general doesn’t understand this.
Until this is proven, they will remain on
the defensive.
Applying Science
Midst all of the accusations, handwringing,
etc., there’s a vital missing
ingredient for the most part.
It’s called science.
The Energy Institute at the University of
Texas at Austin has inaugurated a project
to remedy this.
The project is described as focused
on – but not limited to – fracking issues and
includes information gathering, analysis
and development of recommendations
regarding ways to ensure that policies,
regulations and public opinions reflect
actual conditions and impacts.
Seismicity and air quality impacts also
will be addressed.
The goal is to promote policies and
regulations that are grounded in scientific
understanding and to achieve effective
communication of fact-based assessments
of environmental impacts.
Contributing to the welcome news of the
See Frack Study, page 19