ExxonMobil & Chevron Eviscerate Democrat Frac’ing Ban Fantasies

Guest “that was easy” by David Middleton

Like most Bloomberg energy articles, this is very stupidly written… Starting off with the headline that implies that “Warren’s fracking ban” is something more than a fantasy…

Exxon, Chevron Begin Pushing Back Against Warren’s Fracking Ban
By Kevin Crowley
November 1, 2019

America’s two biggest oil companies are starting to push back against the fracking ban touted by the leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, which may become one of the most consequential flashpoints for energy markets during the election campaign.

Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. executives spoke out publicly against the proposals for the first time on Friday, saying they would shift profits from crude production from the U.S. to other countries, and may increase prices for consumers while doing nothing to reduce oil demand or greenhouse-gas emissions.


To be sure, whoever gets elected next year will find it difficult to end fracking. Presidential powers to enact a ban only extend to federal lands, something that would be certain to face immediate legal challenges. A wider restriction would need to go through Congress.

“Any efforts to ban fracking or restrict supply will not remove demand for the resource,” Neil Hansen, Exxon’s vice president of investor relations, said on a conference call with analysts. “If anything it will shift the economic benefit away from the U.S. to another country, and a potentially impact the price of that commodity here and globally.”


“It’s really unlocked an economic huge economic benefit for the country, as well as for the companies involved,” Jay Johnson, the boss of Chevron’s upstream business, said during the company’s earnings conference call.



Here’s Liawatha’s Tweet and one of the funnier replies…

Setting aside the fact that the President has no authority to ban frac’ing anywhere other than Federal lands, and might not even have the authority to do it there. Leasing on federal lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is governed by laws. Presidents are charged with faithfully executing the laws, not faithlessly disregarding them.

Obama’s unlawful drilling moratorium and subsequent permit-orium were repeatedly slapped down by Federal judges. Obama’s defiance of these rulings did more damage to Gulf of Mexico crude oil production than any hurricane has.

Day 9: Obama repeatedly defied federal court with Gulf oil policies
by Conn Carroll
September 26, 2013


After reviewing the facts and science in the case, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana found that Obama’s drilling ban was an “arbitrary and capricious” abuse of executive authority, and ordered the ban overturned.

But instead of following the law and allowing Gulf drilling to resume, Obama doubled down, issuing a new moratorium featuring minor technical changes from the first.

The second Obama drilling moratorium applied for the exact same length of time as the first moratorium, through Nov. 30, 2010.

But after intense bipartisan political pressure from Louisiana Sens. David Vitter, a Republican, and Mary Landrieu, a Democrat, Obama nominally lifted the moratorium on Oct. 12, 2010.

By that time about 36 rigs in the Gulf of Mexico had been put out of work, five rigs were being transferred to Egypt and other parts of Africa, and 12,000 jobs had been lost.

Energy industry experts predicted that if new oil leases were not issued, the long-term and indirect economic losses would include more than 175,000 jobs in the region.

But even though the Obama the moratorium had been nominally lifted, a functional ban remained because the Interior Department refused to issue any new drilling permits.

So oil companies again took Obama to federal court, this time seeking an order holding the chief executive in contempt of court and asking that the government pay all of their legal fees.

Again, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ruled against Obama, finding him in contempt of court for “a flagrant and continuous disregard of the Court’s Order.”

Finally, on Feb. 28, 2011, almost a month after he had been found in contempt, Obama granted the first oil lease in the Gulf of Mexico.
But while the Interior Department has since stepped up the pace of issuing leasing permits, Gulf oil production is still far below pre-Deepwater Horizon levels. The month before the blowout, according to the Energy Information Administration, oil companies were pumping 1.6 million barrels of oil a day out of the Gulf.

Today they are pumping just 1.07 million barrels a day, a 33 percent drop in production.

All told, according to a 2012 American Petroleum Institute study, Obama’s Gulf oil drilling moratorium cost the United States more than $24 billion in lost energy investments and about 90,000 jobs.

Those losses make the $440,596.68 in legal fees the Eastern District forced Obama to pay the oil companies for defying its court order seem like a drop in the bucket.

Washington Examiner

Hurricanes in 2005 (Katrina & Rita) and 2008 (Ike) inflicted extensive damage on Gulf of Mexico oil & gas infrastructure, depressing production by about 250,000 bbl/d from 2006-2008.  The Obama maladministration’s unlawful drilling moratorium and “permitorium” in response to the Deepwater Horizon blowout and oil spill depressed production by about 500,000 bbl/d from 2011-2013.

Figure 1. Gulf of Mexico OCS oil production. US EIA

Since then, Gulf of Mexico oil production has surged to record levels and is expected to top 2 million barrels per day in 2020 as a dozen recent deepwater discoveries are brought online.

Figure 2. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook

While a President Fauxcahontas could inflict similar damage, barring new legislation from Congress, the courts would probably slap her down even harder than they slapped Obama down.

What if a Marxist POTUS was able to ban frac’ing and offshore drilling?

POTUS = President Of These United States

JULY 8, 2019
U.S. crude oil production surpassed 12 million barrels per day in April

U.S. crude oil production and lease condensate reached another milestone in April 2019, totaling 12.2 million barrels per day (b/d), according to EIA’s latest Petroleum Supply Monthly. April 2019 marks the first time that monthly U.S. crude oil production levels surpassed 12 million b/d, and this milestone comes less than a year after U.S. crude oil production surpassed 11 million b/d in August 2018.

Texas and the Federal Offshore Gulf of Mexico (GOM), the two largest crude oil production areas in the United States, both reached record levels of production in April at 4.97 million b/d and 1.98 million b/d, respectively. Oklahoma also reached a record production level of 617,000 b/d.

The U.S. onshore crude oil production increase is driven mainly by developing low permeability (tight) formations using horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. EIA estimates that crude oil production from tight formations in April 2019 reached 7.4 million b/d, or 61% of the U.S. total.


Figure 3. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Petroleum Supply Monthly

About 9.2 million barrels per day of current US oil production comes from tight formations and the Gulf of Mexico.

Figure 4. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Petroleum Supply Monthly and State Energy Data System

Frac’ing and offshore drilling account for over 75% of current US crude oil production and almost all of the future growth potential for US production and reserves growth.

While an Enviromarxist ban on frac’ing and offshore drilling wouldn’t drop our production to zero-point-zero immediately, the decline would be quick and particularly sharp in the tight formations. There is a very significant relationship between “rig count” and production.

Figure 5. It takes about 400-500 drilling rigs to maintain and/or increase Permian Basin oil production. It only takes 20-40 rigs to maintain and/or increase GOM oil production. The Permian Basin accounts for nearly 2/3 of Texas oil production. The rig counts are only for rigs drilling oil prospects/development wells.

Obama’s unlawful Gulf of Mexico moratorium, very quickly dropped production by about 500,000 bbl/d and the 2014-2016 crash in oil prices caused a similar decline in the Permian Basin. A ban on frac’ing would be catastrophic in the Permian Basin.

Permian Basin oil production with frac’ing…

Figure 6. Peak Oil my @$$. (US EIA Drilling Productivity Report)

What would have happened if frac’ing was banned in 2010…

Figure 7. Drill, baby, drill or die. (US EIA Drilling Productivity Report)

It would be even worse for natural gas.

About 70% of current US natural gas production and all of the future growth potential is from “shale” and other tight formations requiring frac’ing.

Figure 8. Frac on! (US EIA)

The biggest slice of the “shale” gas pie is the Marcellus formation…

Figure 9. “Shale” gas production by play. (US EIA)

Natural gas production from the Appalachia region is mostly from the Marcellus and Utica formations.

Appalachia region natural gas production with frac’ing…

Figure 10. Appalachia region natural gas production. (US EIA Drilling Productivity Report)

What would have happened if frac’ing was banned in 2010…

Figure 11. Appalachia region natural gas production would only be about 1/30 of what it currently is without frac’ing. (US EIA Drilling Productivity Report)


Anyone calling for frac’ing ban is mentally ill. Any POTUS who tried to enact a frac’ing ban would be committing Treason. A frac’ing ban wouldn’t change this:

Figure 10. It’s a fossil fueled world. (2018 BP Statistical Review of World Energy).

A frac’ing ban would just drive up oil & natural gas prices, force us to import more crude oil and convert LNG export terminals into import terminals. To paraphrase Jeff Goldblum as Dr. Ian Malcolm in The Lost Word, Jurassic Park

A frac’ing ban would be “the worst idea in the long, sad history of bad ideas.”

Notes about nomenclature

Fracking vs. frac’ing

Frac’ing is a common well completion procedure that has been safely employed in oil & gas production for more than 70 years. There is no evidence whatsoever that frac’ing has ever polluted groundwater or triggered palpable earthquakes. Wastewater injection wells aren’t frac’ing. Frac’ing is a hyphenated abbreviation of “hydraulic fracturing”. Fracking is a cleaned up version of the “F” word.

What is frac’ing? And, is it the same as hydraulic fracturing?
In short, yes. The term “fracking,” which is (supposedly) shorthand for the well completion process of hydraulic fracturing, is actually correctly spelled “frac’ing.” Fracking has become the most used word to describe natural gas from shale deposits, such as the Barnett Shale.

Google “fracking” and you get 10,200,000 links.

Unfortunately, the word fracking appears to be widely misunderstood and misused. In fact, it is being used in ways that have nothing to do with the process of frac’ing.  For example, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram used the words “pipelines used for fracking” in a recent article’s title, which is incorrect, since pipelines are not used in frac’ing. It’s a good example of how fracking has become an epithet, not a proper description term.  
I asked a few people about the word usage recently. “It’s a co-opted word and a co-opted spelling used to make it look as offensive as people can try to make it look,” said Michael Kehs, vice president for Strategic Affairs at Chesapeake Energy, the nation’s second-largest natural gas producer. To the surviving humans of the sci-fi TV series “Battlestar Galactica,” it has nothing to do with oil and gas. It is used as a substitute for the very down-to-earth curse word.

So, to set the record straight, here is a quick primer on frac’ing:

First, frac’ing is a well completion or well stimulation technique actually called hydraulic fracturing. It is not a drilling technique, as is commonly written. The fracturing process consists of pumping a combination of 99.5% water and sand, and .5% chemical additives, into the wellbore under high pressure, creating tiny fractures in the shale to release the natural gas. Frac’ing is done after the drilling rig has been removed. 

Second, frac’ing is done after the drilling rig has completed the wellbore and has been removed. The actual process of frac’ing a Barnett Shale natural gas well takes less than a week to complete. At that point, the natural gas produced from the well that was hydraulically fractured is no different than any other natural gas well, regardless of how the well was completed.

Finally, and most importantly, the abundant quantities of natural gas contained in shale deposits have been unlocked by combining hydraulic fracturing with horizontal drilling. While the combination of these technologies has been used for decades, it was perfected for shales about 10 years ago. The result is a complete change in the energy outlook for the United States, and many countries in the world for that matter.


Barnett Shale Energy Education Council

Shale vs. “shale”

I try to put quotation marks around the word shale when I use it in reference to “shale” plays. Most “shale” plays aren’t actually shale.

Is it Shale or not Shale? That is the Question.

In a previous blog on unconventionals, ”Conventional vs. Unconventional Shale: What is my Reservoir?,” Richard Day wrote about the nontrivial problem of classifying reservoirs as conventional or unconventional formations. I would like to continue this topic, as, in Europe, this issue has made it into the headlines of local newspapers. People in small villages have become “experts” in the field of geology, and believe they can determine whether exploration is for conventional or unconventional hydrocarbons, and whether it threatens their tranquillity. If they deem it so, from England to Poland, they voice their concerns.

Personally, if I had a choice, I would prefer to have unconventional drilling in my backyard rather than conventional. The high environmental standards and restrictive regulations give more guarantees that unconventional drilling is more secure and environmentally friendly than conventional drilling. But, sometimes, local people are afraid of whatever we call “shale.” Here, I would like to show examples of rocks that do not meet the definition of shale, but are still perceived as shale. Definitions can be misleading, and the nature of shale is more complex than people believe.


Recently, I was forced to change my presentation because I used the word “shale” for a rock containing over 45% clay minerals (as was reported in an X-ray diffraction (XRD) test and consistent with my petrophysical analysis), but the operator was wary of naming this rock as a “shale.” Shale can be defined as: ”Shale is laminated, indurated (consolidated) rock with > 67% clay-sized materials.” Jackson, J.A. (1997). Glossary of Geology, 4th Ed., American Geological Institute.

While it is always good to have reliable sources of knowledge, please take a look at the mineral composition of known shale gas plays in the U.S., as presented in Fig. 1 – which shows that almost none of the U.S. shale gas plays meet the criteria of the definition given above. According to this definition, there are no shale gas plays in the U.S. “Houston, we have a problem…”


Halliburton Figure 1. ” Ternary diagram of all shales in database. The color represents the individual shale, and the size of the bubble represents the brittleness as determined from XRD data (computed by mineral composition).

Notes on comments

If you’re going to complain about my style and use of words like:

  • Liawatha
  • Fauxcahontas
  • Marxist
  • Enviromarxist

Don’t bother to comment. At best, I will ignore you. At worst, I will ridicule the living schist out of you.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Stuart Nachman
November 7, 2019 6:16 am

Trump should take heart that hopefully she will be the Democratic nominee and he will have been handed golden advertising content. Should she get the nomination, it will be interesting to see how she can manage to turn to the center left given the insane platform she has staked out.

November 7, 2019 6:26 am



I was going to complain that you don’t use them enough, but I’m too scared now. 🙂

Ron Long
Reply to  HotScot
November 7, 2019 9:06 am

Right on! Frack them and feed them fish heads! Somebody has to tell it like it is.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  HotScot
November 7, 2019 9:51 am

Not fair! EnviroNazi’s should get equal billing.

Reply to  HotScot
November 7, 2019 12:10 pm


You just need to try Pocahontas’s “Pow-Wow Chow” and her other authentic Cherokee Nation recipes.


John Endicott
November 7, 2019 6:27 am

Don’t bother to comment. At best, I will ignore you. At worst, I will ridicule the living schist out of you.

and you can be sure that other posters here very well may do so as well.

David Chorley
Reply to  John Endicott
November 7, 2019 8:45 am

that woud be gneiss

Reply to  David Chorley
November 7, 2019 9:57 am

I kinda took that for granite.

Reply to  commieBob
November 7, 2019 4:08 pm

Schorly you aren’t serious?

Paul Hildebrandt
Reply to  JohnB
November 9, 2019 10:42 pm

Of quartz, he is.

November 7, 2019 6:30 am

The tiny solar contribution is maybe misleading, does it refer only to solar farms whose output is metered, and not to embedded (such as rooftop) solar PV? As I write this I’m being warmed by direct sunlight through a window. I’m not at all a solar zealot, but sceptics should be prepared for counter arguments.

Reply to  climanrecon
November 7, 2019 10:02 am

Many years ago I saw an estimate of 7% (or so) for the thru window solar contribution to space heating. I haven’t been able to find it on the internet though.

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
Reply to  commieBob
November 7, 2019 7:46 pm

In Southern California, where I had the misfortune to live for 28 years, that 7% contribution to space heating is believable. I would imagine it was even higher at my place (which had lots of window area facing south), especially in the summer – when it was usually > 100 F outside. Because I couldn’t get past the eye-rolling from my ex whenever I would call for closing the blinds in summer (she was unmoved by terminology such as “radiative heat load”), our electric bills were around $1,000 a month in summer. Just one of the reasons she’s my ex.

Another Doug
November 7, 2019 6:48 am

A frac’ing ban would be good for coal.

Reply to  Another Doug
November 7, 2019 7:35 am


“fracking” won out for a reason. It makes sense.

John Garrett
Reply to  David Middleton
November 7, 2019 8:05 am

Technically, frac’ing is a contraction (like it’s or isn’t or wasn’t).

Your friend,
Marian the Grammarian

Tom Foley
Reply to  John Garrett
November 7, 2019 12:50 pm

How is frac’ing pronounced? With a soft c as in racing? Or with a hard c as in … fracking? If the former, will people understand the word when it is spoken?

Unclear pronunciation or unfamiliar spelling style works against adoption. Better options might be fracting or hyfracting. However, if the aim is to remove negative overtones of the word fracking, it may be a lost cause; the negative perception may just move to the new spelling.

November 7, 2019 7:00 am

Oh lord above, if warren becomes potus, then the american people have truly lost the plot.. If oil/production is shut down like these greens want the job loss would be horrific… who is going to support those familes who lose their jobs? From drilling to transportation to sales, goodness me i dont even want to think of how many jobs would be lost…

All told, according to a 2012 American Petroleum Institute study, Obama’s Gulf oil drilling moratorium cost the United States more than $24 billion in lost energy investments and about 90,000 jobs.

By that time about 36 rigs in the Gulf of Mexico had been put out of work, five rigs were being transferred to Egypt and other parts of Africa, and 12,000 jobs had been lost.

Energy industry experts predicted that if new oil leases were not issued, the long-term and indirect economic losses would include more than 175,000 jobs in the region.

Reply to  Sunny
November 7, 2019 7:33 am

It will mean that the number of people who believe they are entitled to steal from others, just because they want to, has reached a majority of the population.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Sunny
November 7, 2019 8:24 am

Since the source of all wealth creation is from agriculture, resource extraction, and manufacturing, the removal of a major source of resource extraction will affect far more jobs than those directly.

Reply to  Robert W Turner
November 7, 2019 6:11 pm

Intellectual activity also creates wealth.

John Garrett
November 7, 2019 7:10 am


You made my morning (in a lot of ways). Thank you for yet another excellent piece.

I hadn’t seen “Liawatha” before. It’s quite clever; I will add it to my vocabulary.

November 7, 2019 7:11 am

Funny (or not so funny). Obummer’s damage wasn’t as acutely damaging as 2 major hurricanes, but it was much longer lasting, and in fact would have continued had Shrillary-What-Does-It-Matter-Now been elected instead of Trump.

November 7, 2019 7:14 am

Glad that hurricane Barry disaster is past. Hopefully, hurricane Elizabeth will dissipate or turn right and disappear out to sea.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Scissor
November 7, 2019 10:03 am

WTF is this? I hadn’t heard of hurrcane Elizabeth so I googled it. Found this site:


Are they pre-writing history now?

John Endicott
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
November 7, 2019 10:33 am

I take it you are not in/from the US. Hurricane [insert person’s name here] is an idiom to indicate what a disaster the person is and/or causes. In this case “hurricane Elizabeth” is referring to Elizabeth Warren. (and Hurricane Barry was referring to Barrack Obama aka Barry Soetoro).

November 7, 2019 7:15 am

WARNING…Paleface’s Plans are for primary voters only and mentions of them could be hazardous or cause death to a General Election victory. Always take with a grain of salt.

November 7, 2019 7:16 am

Great job and excellent data, David!
Thank you!

Frankly, it’s refreshing to get the geological perspective!
As I devour the latest delicious Lithographie issue; “Rubellite, Tourmaline Rouge”.

Bruce Cobb
November 7, 2019 7:24 am

I guess the question is, why do Lyin’ Liz and her legions of marxist ecoloons hate America so much? And what sort of tardos would vote for her?

Clyde Spencer
November 7, 2019 7:27 am

One thing you have to give the enviro-alarmists is their skill at inventing and promoting new pejorative words such as “fracking,” “ocean acidification,” and “climate catastrophe,” to appeal to emotion rather than sticking to the objective facts. Their behavior says a lot about what they think of the audience they are addressing. It also speaks to their ethics, or lack thereof.

Nicholas McGinley
November 7, 2019 7:49 am

As for what Warren might do regarding laws and policies:
Not to worry.
My cat has a roughly equivalent chance as Warren of winning the White House in 2020.
And not just any of my cats, but the stupidest one.

As damaged as her brand already is/was, her $52 trillion Medicare math, in which everyone gets free health care that is better, and 99% of people do not pay a penny extra for it, is faker math than her fake genetic heritage math.

November 7, 2019 7:50 am

Note that we have just exited one of the most benign hurricane seasons. Extreme cold and high altitude shear ended it pretty abruptly. Bahamas got hit but that was all of real consequence. We observe Caribbean water temperatures throughout November to June as we sail the Windwards and Leewards. Last year was the coldest (least warm) of the last three. We even had to wear warm gear on long dive and snorkel trips. Each progressively cooler season has been accompanied by a down year for hurricanes.

November 7, 2019 7:56 am

David, I sure do enjoy reading your posts, and I’d hazard a guess that you enjoy writing them.

Have fun.


Nicholas Harding
November 7, 2019 7:58 am

I thought the term was “lining Schiff” as in “Schiff for Brains.”

November 7, 2019 8:14 am

A fracking ban is a great idea…..for short-term, get-ahead strategy in the poll reach using low information voter bases and tactical political consultants. Otherwise, it’s a dead end idea that only works in a state with no shale resources and 100x more service and financial sector jobs than natural resource potential. It all comes down to what is included in the claimed-mandate list the days after the election. That is where the real fiction writers are brought in.

Gary Pearse
November 7, 2019 8:14 am

David, aren’t the “shale” tight formations essentially the “impermeable” reservoir enclosing formations for conventional oil and gas deposits? Are there significant o&g shales with no conventional resources nearby?

Reply to  David Middleton
November 7, 2019 9:27 am


Um, I’m not sure I understood your reply to Gary. Generally “conventional” reservoirs are penetrated by a single vertical or directional well bore into a formation with good porosity and permeability. And after almost 10 years in Canada of horizontal drilling and multiple hydraulically fractured intervals in tight (low porosity and permeability) shale, we still call it “non-conventional”. I don’t have a graph handy, but most, if not all viable remaining conventional reservoirs are offshore, at least in North America. I added this BC government link just to provide clarification of the two terms.

Robert W Turner
November 7, 2019 8:16 am

IF someone were a Russian operative, they would speak exactly like Warren and Sanders. And here we sit, slowly letting our children be brainwashed by these exact type of people in our de-education system. There is no way our Republic will last with the poisoning that is currently happening to our youth’s minds.

Reply to  Robert W Turner
November 7, 2019 12:07 pm

They’d also try to label the other side (Republicans and the Republican President) as Russia Agents, and a stooge for Putin.

Oh wait… they already have.

We know who are the real Russian Stooges and Agents.
Mr. “Tell Mr Putin I’ll have more flexibility after the election” Obama was a god-send for the Russian’s go-ahead in seizing the Crimea and eastern Ukraine. And 30% of Democrats supporting Mr. “I honey-mooned in Moscow, and express love of Cuba and Venezuela” Sanders couldn’t be more clear as well.)

November 7, 2019 8:19 am

UK govt just banned fracking…

John W Braue
Reply to  griff
November 7, 2019 4:51 pm

No it didn’t.

John Endicott
Reply to  griff
November 8, 2019 5:14 am

No, griff, they didn’t (at least according to the BBC and I quote “However, it has stopped short of an outright ban” and “[Business Secretary] Andrea Leadsom emphasises that this is not a ban – and the government is ‘following the science'”, so griff even the climate-Kool-Aid drinking BBC disagrees with your assertion). What they did do was to temporarily halt it, a temporary halt is not a ban. Though Labour, Lib Dems and the Green Party want it banned, that hasn’t yet happened. Opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn called the pause an “election stunt” in a tweet, vowing that labour would “ban fracking permanently”.

November 7, 2019 8:20 am

It’s hard to try and explain to liberals there has not been one documented case of fracking causing pollution of groundwater. They might try the whole Gasland fairy tale but when you explain to them that Cabot O&G was cleared of any wrongdoing by both the EPA and PA DEP, you can see their minds close. My favorite example of the enviros crashing and burning was in Pavillion Field in Wyoming where the EPA claimed there was evidence of groundwater pollution from fracking only to discover their control samples of distilled water sent to their lab tested positive for the same pollutants they claimed were in the water samples from the wells. Yet libs take it as a matter of faith that fracking is evil, proving only that you can’t fight determined stupidity.

Reply to  GeoNC
November 7, 2019 6:39 pm

And didn’t the EPA label C02 as a “pollutant”?

John Endicott
Reply to  PeterT
November 8, 2019 9:37 am

As David pointed out, no the EPA did not. Don’t confuse the endangerment finding with labeling CO2 a pollutant, as that just shows your own ignorance of the facts.

The endangerment finding does not declare CO2, by itself, to be a pollutant – The EPA lumped carbon dioxide with five other gases — methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride — into a single class and that it was the aggregate of those gases that Endanger Public Health and Welfare. They declared that *the concentrations* of carbon dioxide and the other gases “are well above the natural range of atmospheric concentrations” and that while there were some benefits to the increased CO2 and to increased warming, that on balance, the negative impacts of climate change outweigh the positive.

In short the endangerment finding is an endorsement of “man-made climate change” as being a problem not a declaration that CO2, by itself, is a pollutant.

(hint: this is where you get to say “thanks, I learned something”, anything else is, by your own logic, acting like desmogblog).

November 7, 2019 8:43 am

This was great post, but there is one small error in it. “There is no evidence whatsoever that frac’ing has ever polluted groundwater or triggered palpable earthquakes.” Unfortunately, tremors induced by hydraulic fracturing are quite common in certain parts of northeast British Columbia. Geoscience BC is a non – profit, non-partisan organization, http://www.geosciencebc.com/major-projects/seismic-research-consortium/ conducting research into the phenomenon. More links to information on induced seismicity can be found at the BC Oil and Gas Commission’s website. https://www.bcogc.ca/public-zone/seismicity/induced-seismicity. Although people up here worry about it, as far as I know, there has never been a verifiable incident of fracturing fluids or produced water ever contaminating groundwater in BC. Geo Science BC also has new projects for water monitoring and deep aquifer fluid disposal. http://www.geosciencebc.com/our-research/?pt=17&sa=&sat=&pa=water. I am a new 100% supporter of WUWT, and I have 40+ years in the oil and gas industry in drilling and completions. I certainly do not claim to be an “expert” , but if anyone has any oil &gas activity related questions, I’ll try to answer them.

Reply to  David Middleton
November 7, 2019 9:48 am

David. Yes, the 4.6 event was from a disposal well.
Here’s a link from a local paper https://www.dawsoncreekmirror.ca/regional-news/prrd/kiskatinaw-seismic-monitoring-report-1.23999127.
Although the 14 events of 2018 were only 3.4 – 4.5, they were definitely “felt”. No verifiable reports of damage.

Reply to  David Middleton
November 7, 2019 11:05 am

I think there was an earthquake linked to a fracking operation in eastern Ohio but it was being conducted on a Utica well within a couple of miles of a deep disposal well. So, sort of linked to fracking but without the nearby injection well likely no earthquakes.

Reply to  David Middleton
November 7, 2019 12:41 pm

David, I am by no means trying to discredit your excellent article, but all the felt events above were due to hydraulic fracturing activity. Here’s another link: https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2018/5/bc-regulator-enacts-new-rules-seismic-monitoring-montney-region-after-increased-number-felt-events/.

Reply to  PeterT
November 7, 2019 1:04 pm

The BC article states: “Earthquakes are
well clustered around the hydraulic fracturing wells.
Babaie Mahani et al. (in press) studied seismic activity and
fluid injection in this region from October 2014 to the end
of 2015. It was found that events are better correlated in
space and time with hydraulic fracturing than other types of
fluid injection in the area.”

I see a problem with the scale. ” Well clustered” refers to three frac’ed wells, 10 km apart near an area of seismic activity. I checked a good detailed micro-seismic plot of a 24 stage frack. The lateral effect averages 250 meters and the maximum reach of the frack is 600 meters. I would hesitate to attribute any effect at the distances show in that publication, regardless of some spatial correlation.

Reply to  Doug
November 7, 2019 1:31 pm

David and Doug,
Please click on Special Project Order in the following link. https://www.bcogc.ca/kiskatinaw-seismic-monitoring-and-mitigation-area-ksmma. It’s from the provincial Regulator’s website, and please read this from Geo Science. http://www.geosciencebc.com/projects/2018-052/
Induced seismicity is real, and a bit mysterious in its distribution.
I live and work in the referenced area.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  PeterT
November 7, 2019 10:18 am

PeterT, is there a science-based argument to be made that the seismic energy which is being released more frequently by smaller earthquakes caused by hydraulic fracturing might actually reduce the magnitude of larger, more destructive earthquakes happening later, but at less frequent intervals?

Reply to  Beta Blocker
November 7, 2019 1:09 pm

That’s a really good question, and waaaay above my pay grade!
My only experience with earthquakes of any kind are the the ones induced by hydraulic fracturing. They are very common in the large Montney play in north eastern British Columbia, but are much more frequent between the cities of Dawson Creek and Fort ST. John. Geoscience BC is trying to get a handle on why this is happening in this specific area, instead of throughout the huge field which extends well into the province of Alberta. http://www.geosciencebc.com/projects/2018-052/

John Endicott
Reply to  PeterT
November 8, 2019 9:55 am

My only experience with earthquakes of any kind are the the ones induced by hydraulic fracturing.

so your experience with earthquakes is pretty much Zero point zero


from your link
With a focus on the populated Fort St. John-Dawson Creek area, where hydraulic fracturing and fluid injection by the petroleum industry is a concern for public safety

1) being a concern does not mean the concern is founded. I’m sure you can think of many things people are “concerned” about that aren’t really a problem. *cough*climate change*cough*
2) as David points out hydraulic fracturing and fluid injection are two different things. Even without David pointing it out, the “and” between the two terms should be a big honking clue.
3) That link does not make any conclusions about the subject (basically the link is says they’re studying the matter, not that they’ve finished studying the matter) as such it does not support *your* conclusions on the subject.

Jack Roth
Reply to  John Endicott
November 10, 2019 5:18 pm

The “populated Ft. St. John – Dawson Creek area” is not very populated at all. I drive through it at least twice a year on my way to and from Alaska and the lower 48s (Dawson Creek is the start if the Alaska Hwy), and that’s pretty dang empty. Beautiful countryside, I do see a few places where they vent gas, never felt a quake. Didn’t meet many people either. One has to really look to find any negative impacts there. The other thing that I find amazing is how people can complain about fracking in that area. The whole north of BC is hurting economically, despite its incredibly abundant resources, both below and above ground. It remains incomprehensible to me how bad BC is at developing its resources and providing high paying jobs to its residents

Reply to  PeterT
November 7, 2019 2:29 pm

If you have ever sat in on a fracing operation it is very intense for about 15 to 30 minutes. Depends on the formation and tubulars. There is no typical frac. But most don’t last long but there could be 40 individual fracs spaced along a very long section of horizontal shale play. Each frac spaced to gain maximum effect based on the characteristics of the formation. None of the fracs would communicate with the other to maximize their effect.

During a frac, there are probably two frac trucks working to pump down the fluid. If we make a guess that the trucks burn 100 gallons of diesel in that time, but only 15% is used as work the rest being waste heat, then only 15 gallons of diesel is used to pump the fluid. But most of the energy in fracing is used to overcome the friction of the tubulars. Which may leave about 5 gals of energy to actually pump the fluid and part the rock.

I have a problem with people telling me that the energy from 5 gallons of diesel is going to create an earthquake. We detonated several atomic bombs in Colorado in an attempt to frac a gas play. Didn’t work but we didn’t have any seismic activity afterwards.

If you look at the rate of energy expended, the atomic bomb expends it’s energy instantly, the hydraulic frac is drawn out and the rate that energy enters the formation is slow and steady. Not a process that would cause and earthquake. The fluid from the hydraulic frac if flowed back relativily quickly (several days to weeks).

I would seriously question any study showing a correlation between fracing and earthquakes.

James A. Schrumpf
Reply to  SMS
November 7, 2019 6:16 pm

Wait, what? Several atomic bombs detonated in Colorado in an attempt to frac a gas play?

I did not know that Edward Teller was still alive and working in the petroleum engineering field.

John Endicott
Reply to  David Middleton
November 8, 2019 8:35 am

As he died in 2003 and the “nuclear fracing” took place in the late 1960s/early 1970s, you think correctly – but then you already knew that 🙂

John Endicott
Reply to  James A. Schrumpf
November 8, 2019 8:33 am

Wait, what? Several atomic bombs detonated in Colorado in an attempt to frac a gas play?

yes. in 1967, 1969 and 1973. The tests were part of a government initiative to find peaceful uses for nuclear explosions.


Reply to  SMS
November 7, 2019 6:31 pm

Twenty years ago, after many years of operating pumping equipment on fracs myself (admittedly with much less hydraulic horsepower, and on vertical wells) I would have declared BS to any claim of induced seismicity due to hydraulic fracturing operations.
Now, with multi interval horizontal fracs, and a lot more HHP, these events are being felt. PLEASE dig into the links I’ve provided in earlier posts. For some reason, still being evaluated by Geoscience BC, the BC Oil and Gas Commission,and the AER- Alberta Energy Regulator, these events only take place in certain geographic areas. There are a lot more fracs in Alberta than BC, and fracs are done on virtually every well drilled in Saskatchewan. Very few events have been reported in Alberta, and none that I know of in Saskatchewan. Go figger. I guess geology may have something to do with it? We’re near the Rockies, my dad was an oilfield geologist in the area starting in 1949, and I’ve been in the the industry ( and continue to be) for more than 40 years. I double-dog dare anyone to challenge me on my experience in drilling, hydraulic fracturing, techniques or horizontal well completions. I am not a scientist, but I am here in the middle of the Canadian oil industry. Also, I’m not stupid, or uninformed.
Don’t do like Desmogblog, and refute every post. David, dig a little deeper, and qualify your comments with a little more research.

That said, I’ll repost a link. https://www.bcogc.ca/public-zone/seismicity/induced-seismicity.
Regulators are working to avoid exceeding felt events. Every major operator in NE British Columbia has its own dense seismic instrument array installed out to ~3km from the padsite in areas that have a propensity for these events, and by law, they will be shut down if they exceed a magnitude of 3, or consistently exceed 1.5. Nearby landowners must be notified by the oil company in advance of fracturing activities. Up here, Encana, Murphy Oil, ARC Resources, Tourmaline, CNRL, Kelt, and Seven Generations have been reporting, and occasionally have been at least temporarily shut down to mitigate effects directly attributable to their operations. This is not “journalistic arm waving” as David suggests. It’s simply a fact. Not a consensus. A fact. Please look into it. I don’t want devotees of WUWT to become exactly what we all hate. XR, Desmogblog, and a bazillion other sites/ organizations denying empirical evidence.
I work in a position that deals with this directly, but ironically, I’d probably get fired for posting on this site, only because Canada’s present posture is pro- Greta.

Reply to  David Middleton
November 7, 2019 7:29 pm

Au contraire mon ami.
You are the ignorant individual in this little “duel”. You don’t even read the links I’ve sent. Events recognized by oil companies, land owners, government agencies, and casual observers, have created government orders to mitigate the issue you say can’t exist. (As in: Law)
“Total ignorance of the subject matter.”
I absolutely defy you to challenge me on any step of the drilling, stimulating, and producing of an oil or gas well. If you aren’t aware of “things that really do occur” this will be a really short battle.
I’m deeply depressed that you, and a couple others in this discourse have decided to be experts in an area you know nothing about.

Reminds me of Desmogblog.

Reply to  David Middleton
November 7, 2019 9:09 pm


I’ve read your postings and I have to say I haven’t seen anything in your writings that would suggest you know anything about drilling, completions or production.

From your writing style I would say you are sixteen.

John Endicott
Reply to  David Middleton
November 8, 2019 5:28 am

PeterT, David’s knowledge of the oil and gas industry is well demonstrated through various posts on this site over the course of years. Your knowledge of the industry, has not been demonstrated at all. Any anonymous person on the internet can claim to be experienced in anything, doesn’t make it so. (and with a little googling, they may even fool some people for a bit). Your posting links that don’t back your assertions like you think they do does little to enhance your credibility (which is sorely lacking). Between the two of you, it’s obvious which one is the one that is ignorant on the subject (and it isn’t Mr Middleton). As SMS says, you are coming across like a teenager, one that’s trying to pretend he knows better than someone that actually does know what they’re talking about. Not only are you on the losing end of “this little “duel”.” as you call it, it’s clear you entered into it unarmed.

Reply to  PeterT
November 7, 2019 7:54 pm

Double sigh (see, even I can be condesending in my own way) In other words, grow up.

How much parted casing was a result of the claimed seismic activity? None.

We are talking about the difference between an EARTHQUAKE and parting of rock for a distance of, maybe 200 feet when hydraulic fracing is used to place a small amount of sand in a very thin crack. Both may cause seismic activity but one is significant and dangerous.

Reply to  SMS
November 7, 2019 11:40 pm

Thanks, SMS.
I’m actually 64 years old and have spent most of my adult life in drilling and production (in more countries than you most likely have years.)And right back atcha, I would seriously question the depth of your knowledge about the subject of hydraulic fracturing. A small amount of sand? Parted casing? 200 feet? Okaay…. You do the math. Let’s start with a medium frac job, maybe 25 intervals: Say 7000′ horizontal, with conservatively 400 lbs per foot of sand= 2,800,000 lb of sand + say 6,000,000 gal of water and chemicals (viscosifying agents and friction reducers, but I don’t want to bore you with the details.) It’s mixed in a thing they actually call a blender and pumped at pressures up to around 8,000 psi, at maybe 25 barrels a minute . The casing strings are isolated from all this violence by a device called a well head isolation tool, or tree saver. (Hence no damage from seismicity! /sarc) Not to mention erosion and pressure. Unlike you, I have actually participated in these operations more times than I can remember.
Let’s drop the insults, and get back to C02, and its supposed threat to life on Earth as we know it.

Reply to  SMS
November 8, 2019 1:06 am

Been there, done that. You are still sixteen.

You forgot to mention the mountain mover, limited entry, frac plugs, frac balls and so much more.

Your volumes sound about right as long as you have a 40 to 50% pad. I’ll give you that.

The casing part would have been a result of the earthquake caused by the fracing process. But that didn’t happen.

Go back to your links and read them again with a skeptics eye. It falls apart as you read it. But David already told you that.

Reply to  SMS
November 8, 2019 9:43 am

Sorry you have been insulted, and I hope you continue to bring your expertise to these discussions. I’m also 64, also have been out on all sorts of oil field operations in more countries than I care to mention. I also have advanced degrees in geology and geophysics (even had graduate courses in earthquake seismology).

One thing you learn in the academic world is to critically evaluate publications. I don’t doubt for a second that you work and live where there have been big-honkin’ frack jobs, and that there have been earthquakes. The papers you cite however, do nothing to establish cause and effect. Looking at the data, I’d say David is correct, those quakes are not caused by the fracking.

After a million frack jobs, there will undoubtedly be some done in areas of seismicity. Those will become poster boys for the anti-frack crowd. Be careful about promoting them as a cause and effect situation.

David Chorley
November 7, 2019 8:50 am

Someone needs to continue the message that cheap affordable fossil fuel is the best choice for maintaining civilization

Reply to  David Chorley
November 7, 2019 5:35 pm

Which is exactly why the left want to eliminate it.

Pointing out that what they’re calling for is massively destructive will not help, because massive destruction is the goal, not an unintended side-effect.

D Anderson
November 7, 2019 8:57 am

Warren threatens to invent vast new powers for the Chief Executive but we are supposed to fear Trump the dictator.

Craig Moore
November 7, 2019 9:33 am

Warren needs a real job in the real world. I suggest she replace Deputy Doug.


Farmer Ch E retired
November 7, 2019 10:09 am

Thanks for the added educational detail in this post.

November 7, 2019 10:13 am

Macondo happened in 2010. That was a significant event that drove down Gulf activity. Let’s give BP some credit too.

Reply to  David Middleton
November 8, 2019 7:29 pm

BP’s idiotic lack of safeguards drove the industry down.

Reply to  David Middleton
November 8, 2019 7:30 pm

And plus losing $30B+ in damages.

Vangel Vesovski
November 7, 2019 11:04 am

Both sides seem to be filled with wishful thinkers and fools. Fracking does make sense for Tier 1 wells that can generate a great deal more energy than the energy it takes to bring them to production. But fracking makes no sense if it is not economic, which is the case for most of shale production in the US at this time.

The shale miracle was a Federal Reserve and SEC scam. Change the rules to do away with test wells that prove reserves while adding trillions in liquidity can cause all asset classes to rise nicely, even the shares of shale companies that are destroying capital.

But the party is over. We have just seen many of the shale players get wiped out as they have no access to cheap financing but remain with huge funding gaps because their production costs are greater than the revenues that are received from the production output.

Gilbert K. Arnold
Reply to  Vangel Vesovski
November 7, 2019 3:27 pm

Vangel: We’ve seen you play this card over at Bishop Hill. It was as dumb then as it is now.

November 7, 2019 11:51 am

Pocahontas’s call to stop permitting and ban fracking has nothing to do with climate or pollution, b/c her ban wouldn’t affect either one.
Her ban would almost immeditately drive gas pump prices north of $5/gal, and probably to the $6-$8/gal range in most of US. With natural gas production severely crippled, electricity prices increase would likely result in folks monthly electric and nat gas bills doubling to tripling overnight.
This of course would be the Democrats pay-off to the GreenSlime billionaires who’ve been betting long on wind and solar for 2 decades, and funding Democrats’ campaigns and PACs with hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes.

Arec Bardwin
November 7, 2019 1:11 pm

For the record. Up in Canada there have had three, greater that 4.0 magnitude induced seismic events associated with Fracturing operations. FoxCreek AB, Farmington B.C. and Benalto/Sylvan Lake AB. It can happen. Total damage from the events are two broken windows.

4 Eyes
Reply to  David Middleton
November 7, 2019 4:42 pm

and include any science that demonstrates the earthquakes would not have happened if there wasn’t any fracturing

Reply to  David Middleton
November 7, 2019 7:03 pm

David. Really?

You’re very stubborn. I’ll send you basic instructions for using a mouse, and where Google is.
You’re pretty convinced. This isn’t happening, huh? Try to get over it. It does happen, and you denying it just annoys me and makes you look stupid after all the good stuff you’ve contributed.
If anyone ever again posts, and endorses a comment from the Tyee, or Narwhal, I’ll leave this site forever.

I know you’re busy (me, too) but this is important to me.
I absolutely refute the idea of AGW, but it really bugs me that you can’t accept:” Yeah, we cause little earthquakes in a small geographical area, but we’re working on it.”

Give me your phone number- we can discuss it.

John Endicott
Reply to  PeterT
November 8, 2019 8:52 am

If anyone ever again posts, and endorses a comment from the Tyee, or Narwhal, I’ll leave this site forever.

promise? /joke

Seriously though,
1) play the man not the ball. If you have a problem with the factual accuracy of the link by all means point out where and how you think the link got it wrong. Attacking the link because you don’t like the organization it comes from? That’s a desmogblog method of arguing. Rather than accusing everyone else of using desmogblog tactics, I suggest you stop projecting and start taking your own advice.
2) what exactly do you have against the Tyee? That’s an honest question, it’s a Canadian site, I’m not Canadian and thus not familiar with the site, a quick google shows that mediabiasfactcheck rates them as “on the far end of Left-Center Biased based on liberal editorial bias and story selection that often favors the left” but that they also “rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record”.

Reply to  Arec Bardwin
November 7, 2019 5:29 pm

For the record the mild quake in the Sylvan lake area was where mild quakes have happened in the past without oilfield activity. A completion operation was shut down as a precaution.
There have however been quakes in the Rocky Mountain House area nearby which may have been related to reservoir drawdowns, pressure relief, or disposal wells. Many disposal wells in this area are old producers that actually have considerable negative pressures or in other words no pumping pressures are applied.
I think the jury is still out but since the quakes are insignificant it is mostly a non-problem

Richard Patton
November 7, 2019 1:19 pm

While a President Fauxcahontas could inflict similar damage, barring new legislation from Congress, the courts would probably slap her down even harder than they slapped Obama down.

but it won’t make a difference if the Leftists control at least 1/4 of the Senate. You will have one-person rule. Filling the courts with Constitutionalists makes no difference if they decide that she doesn’t need to obey the law. 26 senators can prevent the removal of the president, no matter how dictatorial and abusive of the law that president is.

November 7, 2019 1:51 pm

I was working for an oil and gas production company when Josh Fox’s movie came out. We all had a good laugh at the many wrongs used by the movie to condemn fracing. But the one thing that really had us going was the miss-spelling of fracing. The only way fracing was spelled throughout the industry was “fracing” and not “fracking”. We knew that Josh Fox had done no homework for his movie, and had just made up devisive material to suit his politics. Josh just wanted a Michael Moore drive-by-shooting movie to impress his far left friends

The industry should have come out strongly against the doco at that time but they chose to be PC instead. The one thing I have to hand to Trump is that he is showing the Republicans and others how to grow a spine.

November 7, 2019 2:24 pm

I use the Murphy’s gas station price sign on our main drag to gauge the health of the oil market. It also serves well to educate friends less interested in this topic. Currently regular unleaded is selling at $2.15 a gallon. This despite an increase in the state tax, geopolitical issues in the MidEast, a ban on Venezuelan imports, and chronic instability in Libya.

A vote for Warren would return us to being a supplicant of Putin, The Supreme Douche in Tehran, and Nicky Maduro.

Abolition Man
November 7, 2019 2:27 pm

Fauxahontas calls for nation to follow in Commifornia’s footsteps and raise prices across the board with limit to energy production. She demands that only “good people” be allowed get licenses for oil and gas production on federal lands. “We need to make sure that only DemoKKKrats get these opportunities since we know they are pure of heart and much wiser than the evil conservatives and Republicans,” she said in a recent interview. She also plans on sending cadres from Commifornia to states in the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountain regions to help with their forest management programs!

Having a geolgist debate a politician is like having a major league slugger compete in a T-ball game!

November 7, 2019 2:55 pm

You’re kidding, right? I guess you didn’t read the links.
From the Geoscience link: “With an increase in seismic activity from hydraulic fracturing and fluid injection at oil and gas sites in northeast BC, it is important to understand how and where this can occur so that any risk can be reduced and managed.”
Here are the slides from the Geo Science open house in Dawson Creek held earlier this year, attended by a large group of concerned landowners. (I was there, as well.) http://www.geosciencebc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/2019-05-29-2018-052-seismic-amplification-open-house.pdf.
I really didn’t expect after being lambasted a couple of times (and quickly blocked from posting on Desmogblog) that someone with your credentials as a contributor to WUWT would call BS on me on a well known, and frequently occurring event. Please check secondary links in the ones I’ve already sent.

Reply to  David Middleton
November 7, 2019 10:01 pm

Au contraire mon ami.
You are the ignorant individual in this little “duel”. You don’t even read the links I’ve sent. Events recognized by oil companies, land owners, government agencies, and casual observers, have created government orders to mitigate the issue you say can’t exist. (As in: Law)
“Total ignorance of the subject matter.”
I absolutely defy you to challenge me on any step of the drilling, stimulating, and producing of an oil or gas well. If you aren’t aware of things that really do occur, this will be a really short battle.
I’m deeply depressed that you, and a couple others in this discourse have decided to be experts in an area you know nothing about. How about ” Thanks PeterT, I learned something today.” (Instead of shooting me down climatista style.) And please stop with the “frac’ing”. “Fracking” is bad enough.
I apologize for getting frustrated, and a little angry. I know I’m off topic, but I thought WUWT was interested in looking at empirical evidence. It’s there, if you’d bother doing a little research, already presented in links you won’t read.
Seismic activity in a small area of north eastern Canada due to hydraulic fracturing activity is only a small technical footnote, and although you refuse to accept it, it exists.
The real battle is convincing everyone that (1) “Fracked” gas is regular natural gas, and (2) C02 is not our enemy. Not everyone knows, but methane, CH4, when combusted forms two molecules of water and one of C02. So much for worrying about the large amounts of water used during “fracking”.
We’re just left to deal with that nasty C02.

Try not to behave like Desmogblog, David. Heck, even I’ve been wrong once or twice.

John Endicott
Reply to  PeterT
November 8, 2019 9:05 am

PeterT, David has been schooling you all throughout the thread. It is you who should be saying “Thanks David, I learned something today”. Instead you ignore his points, insult him, and try to pretend you know more than anybody else here.

You want a challenge on the process? try reading David’s posts (something I have my doubts that you’ve done, at the very least you haven’t comprehended it if you did read it). He says “Hydraulic fracturing is a specific process” and refers to it as a separate process from “wastewater injection” into wastewater disposal wells (which operate for longer durations and inject much more fluid than the hydraulic fracturing operations). since you claim to know so much, I challenge you to address that point.

Reply to  John Endicott
November 8, 2019 5:41 pm

John, I’m up to that challenge.
I am very much aware of the difference between the processes involved in both the hydraulic fracturing component of a completion, and disposal wells. I very much need to be, where I’m employed. I have an issue with one statement David makes. He says: “Hydraulic fracturing is a specific process” and refers to it as a separate process from “wastewater injection” into wastewater disposal wells (which operate for longer durations and inject much more fluid than the hydraulic fracturing operations).” (Huh?/sarc) Up here, there are a huge amount of regulations that apply to disposal wells. https://www.bcogc.ca/node/15117/download
Although disposal wells may accept a large amount of fluid over time, they never receive the volumes and pressures that happen during a frac all at once. Once monitoring systems and reporting requirements determine a disposal well is “full” they are capped, and the land around them is reclaimed. As to your point about “much more fluid than the hydraulic fracturing operations”, I’ll disagree. Much of the produced fluids are stored on surface in large tanks known as “C” rings, and if the fluid does not contain H2S, it may be stored in open, lined pits. Oil companies try to recycle as much of this fluid as possible (Shell claims 100%). The salinity of this fluid, typically 100,000 ppm of chlorides or higher, makes it difficult to use in a frac. (Hard to viscosify.) That said, technology is always evolving, and large strides have been made to be able to viscosify highly saline water to use in fracs.
I’d like to add one more thing in response to one of Davids’s comments to me earlier. “The Bakken, Eagle Ford and tight formations of the Permian were the source rocks for conventional reservoirs in their respective basins. Prior to the “shale” revolution, these basins were in decline.” They weren’t in decline. They basically didn’t deliver anything until the advent of horizontal drilling starting about 2008.
I used to be a “Drill Stem Tester” (DST operator) in the ’70’s in Canada. Drilling the Montney gave nothing but an annoying little burp while drilling through it (spitting drilling mud up on to the drill floor) because of relatively high pressure, but the formation has almost 0% permeability and porosity. Hence, no continuous flow, or blowout. We would never bother running a test on it. Today, look at the Montney / Duvernay. Who’d a thunk it? Wow, half the potential of the Canadian Oil Sands, and all due to improvements in horizontal drilling and multi-interval packer systems technology. I’m leaving hydraulic fracturing out of it, because it’s been around since WWII. Send me another challenge, John.
David is not an oilfield guru. I don’t claim to be one either, but I do know what I’m talking about. You simply don’t have a point of reference to be able to judge what it is you’re being fed .
Let’s stop this. Overall, I 100% agree with WUWT’s mission.

November 7, 2019 3:50 pm

luckily the US has 600 years of proven coal supplies to make up the shortfall in natural gas that would result from a ban on fracking.

get ready to convert your furnace room to a coal bin.

November 7, 2019 4:05 pm

The earthquakes that sometimes result from lubricating a seismic fault are very similar to what happens in forest management in Kalifornia.

If you burn the forest each year, especially at the start of the rainy season, all you get are cool fires that do little damage to existing trees and settlements, because the fuel load is low and moisture is high.

However, if you let the fuel accumulate through fire suppression, the fires that do result can be catastrophic.

The same for earthquakes. If you lubricate a fault you get lots of small, harmless quakes. Otherwise, the stress in the fault builds up until you get a powerful earthquake.

Fracking should be recognized for what it is. Controlled release of the next big earthquake.

Prediction: In the future, Fracking techniques will be used to minimize earthquake damage. People in the future will regard us a ignorant for not recognizing this simple solution to earthquakes.

Much the same way we look at current forest management as ignorant for not using controlled burning, when the native American population used controlled burning hundreds of years ago, long before the arrival of European invaders.

November 8, 2019 2:34 am

Pocahontas did not say she was going to ban fracking. She said she would sign an executive order to ban fracking. As the article points, these are two different things, and I suspect she is well aware of that.

November 8, 2019 8:19 pm

Doug, David.
From Doug: “After a million frack jobs, there will undoubtedly be some done in areas of seismicity. Those will become poster boys for the anti-frack crowd. Be careful about promoting them as a cause and effect situation.”
Good point, Doug.
However, the fact exists that in a small area of BC, it happens, and there are people working on it to figure out why.

November 8, 2019 8:55 pm

You refer to David Middleton as a deity. That’s a bit frightening. However, I’m glad you’re not chasing Greta instead.
“You forgot to mention the mountain mover, limited entry, frac plugs, frac balls and so much more.”

Are you referring to the Halliburton Bulk Storage Trailer (Mountain Mover) used in the 90’s? I guess no one told you, but frac balls are almost never used anymore. Frac plug? limited entry? I have no idea what you’re talking about, and neither do you. “Two trucks, 5 gallons of diesel, 15-30 minutes” etc. Sounds like you really know your stuff! /sarc. Checkout this website (one of many out there) that can explain to you step by step how a modern frac / completion is done. https://packersplus.com/

I did read my links. Did you? Can you?
You said you worked for an oil company. As what, exactly? Coffee boy?

Reply to  PeterT
November 9, 2019 2:20 am

You are a snarkly little snit. Calm down and start doing some critical thinking.

Think of what an earthquake would do to the numerous laterals that were drilled. You are claiming that, like the article you link to, that there is a slipping for the zones around the frac. That cannot be. If this were true all the casing in the laterals would be parted. Not hard to figure out that if this were true then the development of the Bakken would not be possible. Any suggestion that fracs are to blame for earthquakes is just fantasy. And your experience is the proof.

As for your atitude, go pound sand. I’m older than you, retired and worked for the oil and gas companies as a drilling/production/completion engineer for most of the time I was involved over 40 years. It sounds like you came out of the rigs, got a gig with Halliburton and rode it to a fracing consultant position.

So lets just drop the snarkiness. Tell me how you haven’t parted your lateral production casing in all this time if you believe fracing is inducing earthquakes. What does your experience tell you?

Johann Wundersamer
November 19, 2019 4:19 pm

“Frac’ing is a hyphenated abbreviation of “hydraulic fracturing”.”

OK. Then

– where is “hydraulic” in “Frac’ing”.

– what’s the advantage of “Frac’ing” against self explaining “hydraulic fracturing”.

– what other compilations are common of “hydraulic etc.” without “hydraulic”.

Just asking.

/ one could think on a hydraulic fracturing site everyone is used to the abbreviation Frac’ing. OTOH – how often on a hydraulic fracturing site is the designation hydraulic fracturing site needed … /

Johann Wundersamer
November 19, 2019 4:54 pm

Elizabeth Warren ✔@ewarren · Sep 6, 2019

On my first day as president, I will sign an executive order that puts a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases for drilling offshore and on public lands. And I will ban fracking—everywhere.

The politician Elizabeth Warren has a clue : ban frac’ing.

What’s next.

%d bloggers like this: