The whole oil scene in California is bad...Between the number of unplugged wells (just look at photos of South Belridge field to get an idea of the potential of what is out there) and the amount of water used in California for oil production (it is a bit different than every other basin in the U.S. due to the oil gravity - the vast majority need steam flooding, so 3-5 barrels of fresh water/bbl oil produced), the state, the one oil producer that you would think wants to be environmentally friendly, is probably the worst of the top producing states.
As someone from the South Hills area, I, too, am interested in seeing how this goes...Pittsburgh has really changed over the past 30-40 years, replacing a massively overwhelming population of blue collar jobs with white collar (mostly doctors and lawyers). I know a lot of folk who work at/have worked at U.S. Steel and hope the transition works out for them.
Having served on boards, the one thing I have not seen that would be really key (and maybe I just have not been lucky in my searches), is something that answers the question of what is the language around releasing information regarding the company to the press or in a research capacity? Typically there are rules that are set up to give the board notice of anything going out to the public, be it an article or research paper, that allows for a heads up or gives time to discuss the implications of such a thing. While whistleblowers are necessary, was there a need to be a sort of whistleblower in this case? Was there adequate board discussion around the subject and the paper before the release? If not, nobody needs a rogue board member like that and it was definitely not in the interest of the company - she is the one at fault here. If that process did happen, she definitely did the right thing and shame on the board for not getting out in front of it.
So, to capture this better, would you then design your factory with acoustics in mind (more so than now), too? Like areas where soundwaves would bounce to resonate and concentrate to hit sensors?
Interesting idea to jack up beef prices even more... So, having worked with a few ranchers out in Wyoming on the oil and gas side, I can tell you that in some cases the cattle have access to free water, but it ain't that good water you and I can drink. Produced water from oil and gas wells, depending on cleanliness at the well head, can be "land applied" and that is what some ranchers use. This water is a health hazard for us, but is supposedly fit for cattle. That water still evolves entrained gas and has some sort of rough minerals/chemicals for the body in it. I wonder if this is all getting captured by their calculations.
I agree with you that it would be better for cattle to simply never be born and to never live on Earth, than for them to have access to water of questionable quality.
This is in alignment with the perspective of the plant-based diet community, which holds that animals should not be born because then they might die.
You are totally right, the amount of chemical in comparison to the total frac job is small, but when you start putting 8-16 wells in the same space where once we only did 4, then it starts to add up. I used to have a full chemical list somewhere, but can't seem to find it right now. Also, to your point, things like benzene and toluene are in the mix at times - and if a company has a "proprietary" mix there can easily be some really rough carcinogens in that, too. This is a slightly different topic, but the amount of clean water used in the process is an eye opener. Say you will have 8 wells on a 1280 spacing (so 2 mile laterals, roughly), and they use 75,000 bbls of water - fresh water, you can't have any side reactions happening and recycled water adds significant cost to an already pricey well (probably $7.2- $8 million each for drill/completion), that is 25.2 million gallons of water for just one pad of wells. In terms of future water access, coupled with "is that water clean?", it becomes a real issue. Typically frac flowback water is dumped to a lined pit (which, at times, it can leak through to the ground water), and that water is then transported to an injection well nearby to inject at some point below the water table. But you can't always trust people to do that right things when costs come up. There are bad injection wells where the water is absorbed at the water table level.
It's good you added those figures to put fracking into perspective. I've also seen the chemical list sans info on the proprietary stuff but it was a while ago and the details escape me (but I do recall being rather alarmed as they weren't innocuous by any means).
You're right about the amount of water used, where I am in Australia fracking is very controversial not only because of the water usage (this is a very dry country) but also that fracking sites were on some of the best farming land in the country.
True story. I have been to SA a number of times and know have seen how dry it can get down there (though with what water you have, it is beautiful). We also have a lot of farmers and ranchers picking up the oil and gas royalty income in the U.S. Weird thing/something I have never really gotten over in terms of agriculture...Not frac water, but produced formation water (which is also usually reinjected for disposal - and that is a whole other topic that is concerning), is land applied in some areas for cattle to drink. Here is the thing - it is potable for animals but not safe for human consumption, yet we will eventually eat them. Produced formation water (ancient seawater with some heavier and sometimes slightly radioactive materials) doesn't strike me as something anything living could properly filter. The practice is common in Wyoming - where a lot of beef cattle live. Not sure about TX, but wouldn't be surprised if it was acceptable practice there.
Well you know the place then, similarly I've been to the US many times, have worked there and have relatives there.
"We also have a lot of farmers and ranchers picking up the oil and gas royalty income in the U.S."
For many, it's probably a pragmatic decision and a guarantee of income in bad seasons. I don't think it's that different here although many farmers have objected, especially in Queensland's Darling Downs which has some of the best farming land in the country as I mentioned. These links fill in the details, it's quite tragic really:
What's really annoying is that the multinationals are exporting the gas at high world prices and we have to pay parity—and even then there's a shortage here especially in the populated South-East. Locals, pay huge gas and electricity prices even though we've an abundance. It's maddening but understandable as in this so-called democracy the corporations essentially run the place.
"...it is potable for animals but not safe for human consumption, it'swe will eventually eat them."
This is quite outrageous really, especially if those chemicals include traces of aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons as they aren't necessarily broken down in animals so they're passed onto us. You'll get the concern that many here have from those links.
As you probably know, the equivalent to your formation waters here is the Great Artesian Basin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Artesian_Basin. It too is under assault, read the section on 'Environmental Concerns'.
