<strong>AAPG</strong> 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.<strong>AAPG</strong>.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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> these very necessary fracturing applications has opened up a Pandora’s Box <strong>of</strong> sorts. A plethora <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> disposal <strong>of</strong> produced water, etc, etc. The anti-fracking movement received further encouragement with the 2010 release <strong>of</strong> a documentary film, “Gasland,” which featured commentary guaranteed to encourage fear and distrust. Industry bears a share <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the accusations, handwringing, etc., there’s a vital missing ingredient for the most part. It’s called science. The Energy Institute at the University <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> fact-based assessments <strong>of</strong> environmental impacts. Contributing to the welcome news <strong>of</strong> the See Frack Study, page 19
<strong>AAPG</strong> EXPLORER WWW.<strong>AAPG</strong>.ORG JULY 2011 17