Military Review

The poisonous results of the shale revolution

139
The poisonous results of the shale revolution

And how it all began beautifully! In a message last year to Congress, US President Barack Obama said that thanks to the shale revolution, America was provided with its own natural gas for 100 years. However, just two years later, the huge bubble of shale swindle threatens to burst like a soap bubble.


Volunteers from the North American office of the Stringers Bureau of International Investigations drove through several US states and saw with their own eyes how the areas of shale gas production turned into centers of environmental disaster.

Big Fraction Theory

Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Texas — today these three names personify an environmental disaster in the United States, a consequence of corporate greed and unscrupulous government. In these states, the largest developed shale gas deposits are concentrated, turning endless farm lands into a stinking, poisoned desert. The chemicals pumped into the wells, along with the gas produced, enter the aquifers and make the water unusable.

Fracture technology is used to extract shale gas: up to 20 million liters of fracturing fluid is injected into the well under pressure, which forms cracks in the shale rock. The composition of the liquid is a commercial secret.

In order for you to understand what the poison injected into the earth consists of, we publish an official document that the group of American environmentalists handed us. The fracturing fluid contains more than 90 various chemicals. At the same time, environmentalists have calculated that such drilling fluids may contain up to 596 chemical names: corrosion inhibitors, thickeners, acids, biocides, inhibitors for shale control, gelling agents. Appointment of some chemicals causes a real shock: hydrochloric acid helps dissolve minerals; ethylene glycol fights against the appearance of deposits on the walls of pipes; light oil fractions are used to minimize friction; isopropyl alcohol is used to increase the viscosity of a liquid; glutaraldehyde fights against corrosion; guar gum increases the viscosity of the solution; ammonium peroxodisulfate prevents the decomposition of the guar gum; boric acid maintains fluid viscosity at high temperatures; formamide prevents corrosion; citric acid is used to prevent metal deposition; potassium chloride prevents the passage of chemical reactions between the soil and the liquid; sodium or potassium carbonate is used to maintain the balance of acids ...
And now the main thing: the amount of poisonous fluid seeping into the rock can exceed 70% of the injected volume ...

Unpleasant gas

“Our life has become a nightmare,” says Sheila Rasell from Bradford County in Pennsylvania. - My family settled in these places in 1797 year - the last year of the presidency of George Washington. But after shale gas was produced there, all the water in the area turned into poison. ” Examination showed that due to the leakage of gas from faulty wells in groundwater significantly exceeded the level of methane and heavy metals. Use this water for personal and farm needs is impossible.

Soon after the start of the booty, the entire family of Carol French living nearby was covered with a terrifying rash. Worst of all was the 24-year-old daughter, in whom doctors discovered pathology in the liver and spleen. The condition of the girl began to improve only after she was sent away from the infected state. “Living here is now impossible,” says Carol. “We'll have to sell the farm, which has already lost 90% of its value.”

“We know hundreds of cases of water poisoning,” confirms Iris Marie Bloom, director of the Protect Our Water Foundation located in Philadelphia. - We also know that the victims are threatened - they demand that they be silent. Gas companies advertise shale gas as a clean fuel, but at every stage of its production the environment is polluted. ”

The farm belonging to the Hallovich family also found itself in the shale gas production zone. For a long time, farmers tried to deal with the company engaged in the development of the company Range Resources, because of the pollution of water and air, their children became constantly ill. As a result, the company offered them compensation in the amount of 750 thousand dollars to cover the costs of resettlement from the polluted site, but in return Hallovichi had to be obliged not to disclose any information regarding the consequences of gas production.

In the same Pennsylvania in 2012, a law was passed, according to which companies are obliged to inform physicians what chemicals are part of the liquids used in shale gas production. However, doctors do not have the right to disclose this information even to patients whose diseases may be caused by chemicals.

The terrible ecological condition of the territories around the deposits is also confirmed by Professor Robert Jackson of Duke University. This summer, scientists analyzed an 141 sample of drinking water from private wells in northeastern Pennsylvania near shale gas zones. “The results are shocking - methane concentration is exceeded on average 6 times, and ethane - 23 times! This is caused by technical errors in the design and construction of wells, ”concludes Jackson.

It is not surprising that in the surrounding farms a new fun appeared - to set fire to the water flowing from the tap. And the one who is trying to drill a well for drinking water, runs the risk of running into methane, which is seeking access to the surface after the hydraulic fracturing. This is what happened to a farmer in Pennsylvania, who decided to take up hydroworks on his own plot. The methane fountain hit for three days, according to specialists' estimates, 84 took thousands of cubic meters of gas into the atmosphere.

Moreover, according to a report from the Center for Earth Studies at Columbia University, hydraulic fracturing technology can provoke ... earthquakes. The study was conducted in Ohio at one of the mining sites. During the observations from January 2011 to February 2012, 109 jolts were recorded, the largest of which was 3,9 points. So on top of all the troubles, those lucky enough to live in the shale gas area risk literally falling through the ground.

There is a lie, and there are statistics

So why is Barack Obama so indifferent to the protests of environmentalists and scientists? Why, in spite of the tragedies of thousands of citizens whose homes were in areas of shale gas, still promises an offensive shale paradise? The traditional answer is politics.

Ever since the 70 oil crisis, Americans still have a panic fear of dependence on hydrocarbon imports and the constant expectation of a sharp rise in energy prices. Not surprisingly, the country's energy security concept has become the favorite skate of all presidents, starting with Richard Nixon. Now remember, at what point did Obama make a fateful statement about a hundred years of gas paradise? That's right, during his second presidential race. It was a sin not to use the trump ace, which comes into your hands, and then - even though the grass does not grow (and in this case, not figuratively).

As a result, an ambitious PR campaign has been launched in the USA and around the world, which, thanks to shale gas production, America claims to be the leader in the energy sector. American companies producing shale gas are placed on the same level as traditional gas leaders such as Russian Gazprom and Norwegian Statoil. As an accomplished fact, it is said that the US economy has ceased to be dependent on oil supplies from the politically unstable countries of the Middle East and Africa. Famous American expert Daniel Yergin from the Energy Research Association at the University of Cambridge at the congressional hearings announced the geopolitical influence of shale: “The expansion of energy exports will further increase US global influence ... Shale gas production, which accounted for just 2% of total production in the country rose to 37%, and prices dropped significantly. " The report, “Energy Forecast for 2030,” was echoed by BP CEO Bob Dudley: “The growth in shale oil and gas production, along with the development of alternative energy sources, will make the countries of the western world almost self-sufficient in the energy sector.”

However, it is worth digging a little deeper than these bravura statements, and a monstrous lie is revealed, based on cynical manipulations of statistics. Arthur Berman, a leading American expert in assessing shale deposits, believes that a deliberate distortion of data has occurred - politicians have simply hidden the fundamental difference between what is commonly called resources and reserves in the oil and gas industry.

In short, in the estimates of the American Committee for Gas Reserves there are three categories of technically recoverable resources: probable, possible and speculative. Obama and his advisers took, naturally, the largest (speculative) figure, divided it into average annual consumption, and got a “good” result - 90-100 years of gas paradise. But the US president forgot to say about the very smallness: most of the “speculative” resources are technically inaccessible for mining. In other words, their extraction from the subsoil will be so fabulously expensive that it is easier to sink power plants directly in dollars. If we take the volume of reserves that can be extracted at an affordable price, then with the current consumption volumes, the US will have ... eleven "heavenly" years. And if gas consumption increases, this supply will be exhausted much earlier.

Political technology

Another question that the researcher inevitably poses is: why did the shale revolution take place in the 2000s, although the first commercial well in shale formations was drilled back in the 19 century, and the fracturing technology was developed by Halliburton in 1940's? Probably, in the 21 century there was a technological breakthrough? Not at all. The technology, which due to the catastrophic side effects of half a century lay on the shelf and which the green dubbed environmental terrorism, has not changed much. But under the influence of the then Vice-President of the United States (and before that, the Executive Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Halliburton) Dick Cheney, American lawmakers changed their attitude towards it.

In 2005, the US Congress simply removed the fracturing technology from the supervision of the Environmental Protection Agency and, accordingly, from the Act on the Safety of Drinking Water. In other words, being in a sober mind and solid memory, the congressmen officially allowed the gas industrialists to inject toxic chemicals into the ground without regard to environmental authorities. This environmental indulgence and provoked the shale boom.

However, in the last couple of years, success in extracting unconventional oil and gas has been reported less and less. First, both numerous green organizations and ordinary Americans, who found themselves at the center of an ecological disaster, grabbed their heads. And secondly, the technology advertised at the state level not only turns the surrounding lands into toxic wastelands, but is also not justified from an economic point of view.

You are not surprised why the American financial and industrial lobby, which at the beginning of the 20 century created tools to reduce production volumes and prevent prices from falling (which gas producers themselves suffer from), made gas prices fall below 5 USD per thousand cubic feet, Is there a cost below? Technology has let you down. The fact is that after pumping a water-chemical mixture into the well, the gas escaping from the rock cracks must be pumped out very quickly, until it dissolves into the remaining voids. During the year, the level of production from the well drops to 70 – 75%, so that in order to maintain volumes, oil and gas companies constantly have to drill new wells and pump new tons of chemicals into them that poison the land and water.

According to an American expert in the field of oil and gas production, David Hughes, to maintain the existing production volume, companies will have to drill 7 thousands of wells annually, which will cost them 42 billion USD. The cost of all shale gas produced in the United States over the past year amounted to 32,5 billion USD. “So the rhetoric about US energy independence with its current technological state is just bullshit,” Hughes comments.

Gas pyramid

After that, it is not surprising that, since last summer, manufacturers began to get rid of their shale assets in droves. BP announced write-offs on 4,8 billion USD, the British BG Group wrote off 1,3 billion shale investments, the Canadian EnCana lost 1,7 billion USD and notified shareholders that this amount would increase if gas prices did not return to an "acceptable" level.

Royal Dutch Shell announced the sale of sites in Texas, Kansas and Colorado, including the largest Eagle Ford deposit. The company acknowledged that 192 wells "are not able to reach the planned production volume", announced the write-off of 2,1 billion USD and began a strategic reassessment of investments in shale deposits in the United States. The Australian BHP Billiton joined the shale race only in 2011 year with the acquisition of 15,1 for a billion USD of the Texan company Petrohawk Energy, and a year later it was forced to declare the depreciation of American shale assets.

But the former locomotive of the shale revolution Chesapeake Energy from Oklahoma found itself in the most deplorable situation. To avoid bankruptcy, the company had to arrange a sale of almost 7 billion USD and at the same time invest in drilling new wells for the inflow of funds for servicing loans for 13 billion USD. That is, the company, not hiding, works according to the classical scheme of the financial pyramid.

Moreover, every day it is becoming more and more obvious that the entire shale revolution, advertised by Wall Street banks and supported by the White House, is built on the same fraudulent scheme. For the sake of extracting momentary profits (financial, political, or both at the same time), the American establishment is turning the biggest scam of the century that could trigger a new global economic collapse right before our eyes. After all, if the gas producing giants have actually recognized the “overvalued” shale gas and are gradually leaving American projects, then Wall Street financiers have nowhere to retreat. With the help of numerous analysts, they continue to inflate the shale bubble, drawing new companies and countries into it. So, when the pyramid collapses, the first will remain with profit, and the last - without the invested money and with environmental disaster.

“Shale gas production is spreading around the world,” said environmentalist Kevin Heatley. - Here, people come to Pennsylvania to exchange experience from Europe, Asia and even South Africa. They are told about huge profits, but they never show thousands and thousands of acres of contaminated areas with poisoned water and air. It will take 100-150 years to fully restore these lands, that is, this area is lost for several generations of Americans. And who needs this gas, if after its production it becomes impossible to live here? ”

Originator:
http://ru.fbii.org/investigations/914.html
139 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Igor39
    Igor39 30 October 2013 08: 38
    18
    What can I say? Well done, poison America yourself!
    1. Canep
      Canep 30 October 2013 08: 44
      41
      I would like to wish "good luck" to the Ukrainian shale gas producers, if it happens, as in the United States, then Chernobyl will seem an easy misunderstanding. The vast territories of Ukraine will turn into a "zone" with poisoned water. This will certainly "help" the Ukrainian economy.
      1. T80UM1
        T80UM1 30 October 2013 09: 24
        55
        why rejoice there is not far to the border of the Russian Federation, aquifers have no borders, I already become a supporter of a forceful solution to the issue of entering the eastern regions of Ukraine so that they do not poison their land.
        1. StolzSS
          StolzSS 30 October 2013 23: 47
          +1
          And I have always been a supporter of the forcible solution of the Yatsk issue, for they’re like in a saying that where a crest went there, a Jew has nothing to do angry So it's time to end their independence and point out to all neighbors that they would know and not blather. hi
      2. seller trucks
        seller trucks 30 October 2013 09: 55
        +8
        Quote: Canep
        I would like to wish "good luck" to the Ukrainian shale gas producers


        Shell and Chevron are not Ukrainian companies that clearly do not suffer from altruism, as I understand it is not all clear with the "dividends" of "U" from this production, besides: Ukraine already owes Chevron almost $ 3 million for shale gas, and the development has not yet started.

        http://hvylya.org/news/digest/ukraina-uzhe-dolzhna-shevronu-pochti-3-mln-za-slan
        tsevyiy-gaz.html
      3. mirag2
        mirag2 30 October 2013 11: 01
        33
        Ha! Yes, here I read (about two months ago) - that the Ivano-Frankivsk region refused to sell mineral resources (unlike many other regions of Ukraine, almost all of them) - refused to provide mineral resources to some oil giant- or there western gas workers, I’m definitely not going to tell anyone I found it, here’s a detailed reference:
        http://communitarian.ru/novosti/sng-i-sssr/ukraina_peredaet_svoyu_samostiynost_c
        hevron_24082013 /
        Chevron is about to buy mineral resources for shale gas.
        So Ukraine is already squandering its bowels, a little later the Israeli business will come there, its vibrant representatives, the Jews of Granovsky and Kolomoisky, the richest oligarchs of Ukraine, will take up the remains of the good of Ukraine — arable land, etc. etc.
        And Ukrainians will remain to continue to work in Norway, Poland, England, and, of course, Russia ...
        Here is such a prospect.
        But, to console the Poles, they will buy a couple of licenses for some gun, an armored personnel carrier, maybe they will throw some more bone.
        I’m saying what happened to my relatives in Estonia, who were also happy in 91g and waiting for the Golden Mountains from Europe (although the Russians didn’t want to live with Russia, they said it dirty, we will fill Europe with oil and sour cream and sprats) come out?
        85% we buy their products WE, not Europe, but we! And my brothers work — one in England and Norway worked — now he sings (Orthodox) at the church — and the other rushes about abroad. And the pension ...- Remember, what a storm because of 10 евро surcharges to veterans, raised in Latvia (or Lithuania) -!) Euro! Because they have money NO. And it won’t happen if we don’t buy something from them. Only the presence of the Russian-speaking population supports the Baltic economy — HELP THROUGH RUSSIA!
        I don’t even watch any propaganda on NTV and VGTRK-I know how it will be.
        And it is a pity for Ukrainians who strive to give someone a ride, to leave at someone's preferences, and the top of them will pick up bribes from the Jewish oligarchs for priority development for them, and from Chevron, they will force Rada to sell land for gas production with the help of the Rada.
        THAT WILL BE IN UKRAINE.
        1. edge
          edge 30 October 2013 12: 32
          +6
          Quote: mirag2
          So Ukraine is already squandering its bowels, a little later the Israeli business will come there, its vibrant representatives, the Jews of Granovsky and Kolomoisky, the richest oligarchs of Ukraine, will take up the remains of the good of Ukraine — arable land, etc. etc. And Ukrainians will continue to work in Norway, Poland, England, and, of course, Russia ... That’s the prospect

          and if you sit with your tongue in the ass ..... tsu, then the Western pederasts will fart to the kids ....... the perspective is gorgeous angry
          1. Basarev
            Basarev 30 October 2013 19: 37
            +6
            We do not have the right to surrender Ukrainian brothers to European capitalists.
      4. evgenii67
        evgenii67 30 October 2013 16: 02
        +5
        Back in the early 2000s, Russia needed to focus on machine building, agriculture, in general, not on raw materials production, but already in 2010 to be a competitive state (at least provide for itself with meat, milk and bread), and not on the oil needle then sit, so as not to jumble when prices collapse. Question to the article, why photographs with dead landscapes and hundreds of unfortunate people because of shale gas production were not posted, and so for information, why the article did not post information on how much gas and gas cost for the population in the USA, here is the 92nd in Smolensk about 30 rubles (however, as elsewhere in the country, in an oil-producing country).
        1. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 30 October 2013 16: 30
          +3
          Quote: evgenii67
          in the Smolensk region, 92nd is about 30 rubles (however, as elsewhere in the country, in an oil-producing country).

          But in Europe, 1 liter 98 on average, 1,5 euros
          1. Danafxnumx
            Danafxnumx 30 October 2013 19: 30
            +3
            it’s still divine, in Latvia I personally saw 2 euros ...
        2. sakmagon
          sakmagon 30 October 2013 16: 41
          +3
          yes there were pictures - a terrible sight, google to help, whole groves underground go online
        3. Danafxnumx
          Danafxnumx 30 October 2013 19: 29
          +7
          Quote: evgenii67
          2000's needed to be emphasized on engineering, agriculture, in general, not on raw materials production, but already with 2010 to be a competitive state


          everything is so simple with you ...
          due to what to raise something, if we had some budgets there since Soviet times ...
          say thank you, that thanks to GDP, they did not die of hunger and did not divide into several states ...
          second, we are provided with milk and bread at 100%, if there is import, then refusing it is not critical for the consumer ...
          60% of meat is provided and the share rises annually ...
          Well, for a snack, the one who consumes, and not the one who sells, usually sits on the needle ...
          1. Botanologist
            Botanologist 30 October 2013 20: 37
            +1
            Quote: DanaF1
            60% of meat is provided and the share rises annually ...


            And even that is about pork. Chicken under 90%.
            1. Pilat2009
              Pilat2009 30 October 2013 21: 05
              0
              Quote: Botanologist
              And even that is about pork. Chicken under 90%.

              With the advent of the WTO, the prospects are not so rosy
              1. Danafxnumx
                Danafxnumx 30 October 2013 23: 02
                +1
                Quote: Pilat2009
                With the advent of the WTO, the prospects are not so rosy


                what is this?
                with the entry into the WTO, our agricultural enterprises are not massively shutting down, Bush’s legs are still not held in high esteem ...

                the only thing I heard is that agricultural machinery began to buy more imported equipment ... well, you need to make your own competitive, and not whine, which WTO is byak, because no WTO can force manufacturers to buy the worst foreign-made product ...
            2. Danafxnumx
              Danafxnumx 30 October 2013 22: 59
              0
              Quote: Botanologist
              And even that is about pork. Chicken under 90%.


              chicken by 100%
              pork on 80 or 90, I don’t remember exactly ...
              beef at xnumx% ...
      5. Klibanophoros
        Klibanophoros 30 October 2013 16: 45
        +3
        Yes there will be nothing there. They steal money under this topic and forget everything.
      6. Basarev
        Basarev 30 October 2013 19: 33
        +1
        But the Exclusion Zone is now a biosphere reserve! It was hellish hell in the eighties, and now it is a thriving corner of the wild.
    2. Romn
      Romn 30 October 2013 08: 46
      -23 qualifying.
      The article does not correspond to reality, here the emphasis is on hydraulic fracturing, it can be done not by chemistry, but by ordinary water under high pressure, the rest of the chemistry is used correctly, and in America, I’m sure that they pay great attention to this, it won’t get anywhere, and this is most likely an isolated case. In any case, it can happen that it gets into formation water, but only in those cases when the studies are poorly conducted and, as a result, the work is also not carried out correctly. The only serious issue in this production, profitability, costs of this production somehow overlap the income received! Therefore, one should not rejoice over the imaginary failures of amers.
      Gas can be produced in this way, the risks are almost comparable to conventional production, it’s just that the process itself is more complicated, more time-consuming and expensive!
      And by the way, I’ll inform you for reference that in the United States there are large deposits of these same hydrocarbons that are simply in a mothballed state, as they say for future generations, and by the way this is correct! Almost half of the currently used fuel is bought by them and they are not yet exploiting their explored deposits (at least in most oil).
      1. winkiller
        winkiller 30 October 2013 08: 57
        20
        Exploring gas production methods and poisoning the land on an industrial scale are two different things. This is pure politics. Obama said to shut up the Russian gas suppliers and raise hysteria everywhere, and he didn’t give a lot of 300 million to people. eating biomass that doesn’t really produce anything.
        1. Romn
          Romn 30 October 2013 09: 14
          12
          winkiller

          I have an education and practice directly in the oil fields, YES I completely agree that all this hysteria around the production of shale gas is directed against Russia, but correctly said, this is hysteria. This is the same production. Understand that, we live in the era of internal combustion engines and whoever can produce these very hydrocarbons. Most likely, Russia, after 100 years or more, will switch over to such production. It’s just production, maybe at this stage of technology development, it may and may not have any benefit at all, this gas is elementary and income is also not big, tormenting a little with it will leave this venture. Go wild with yourself!
          And people who put cons, you are so kind as to motivate and justify them.
          1. 528Obrp
            528Obrp 30 October 2013 10: 58
            16
            Quote: Romn
            And people who put cons, you are so kind as to motivate and justify them.

            Honestly, I hardly put any minuses and didn’t put it to you, this is your opinion and it has the right to be. But, what you say [b] "regular water under high pressure" [/ b] Applies only to [b] hydraulic fracturing [/ b]. When water is injected into the well, sand is added (for abrasive treatment of hydraulic fracturing sites and filling of fractures [b] (formation permeability increases) [/ b].
            And then, if you [b] "an expert in oil fields" [/ b], you should know that oxygen is getting into the formation
            and oxidizes divalent iron dissolved in water and formation fluid to three valence. Precipitation occurs, which reduces the permeability of the formation by a factor of hundreds. It (iron) is then transferred to the solution again with different chemistry and held there by stabilizers. If, among other things, the permeability of the formation is low due to heavy hydrocarbons, the formation is either heated by chemistry or diluted with light oil products.
            In order to prevent the casing from being eaten by chemicals, inhibitors are added to the water. Since when the pipe is corroded, all the gas will go into the annulus. [b] "Russia in 100 years or more, will switch to such production" I'm not sure. Water will be shared. Water is both a source of hydrogen and just drinking water. Carbon and nitrogen will be extracted from the air. Carbon from carbon dioxide. Total assets are carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen - do what you want! And water is too valuable a product.
            1. Romn
              Romn 30 October 2013 12: 10
              +2
              528Obrp
              There are a huge number of hydraulic fracturing types and methods, the same sand is not always used at all, other systems are more often used.
              Also, as for specialists in the oil field, the problem of precipitation from iron oxidation is not the most common and even more so it does not clog the permeability as much as hundreds of times, the consequence of precipitation and other most common processes is the introduction of bacteria into the oil-bearing layer, one of the main is the deposition of salts again brought in with water, the permeability of the formation also decreases not precisely because of "heavy" hydrocarbons, but because of paraffin formation as a result of a decrease in the temperature of the formation as a whole. And the dissolution of these deposits is also different, inside formation combustion, perforation, acid treatments, injection of hot water or oil, etc., etc., about this, dozens if not hundreds of works exist.
              If we are talking about oil production, then corrosion inhibitors begin to be added constantly from the moment of watering the well, but if the preventive measures against corrosion and deposits are observed, then this does not create problems, and the volumes of injected chemistry are not huge. So that gas and two substances do not go into the annulus, the corresponding pressure is created there.
              The main thing I’m trying to bring is the answer to the question that, supposedly, it is in shale production and because of hydraulic fracturing that the formation water is polluted, that’s what we are talking about!
              The comments left here are too small to describe in detail the whole process and saying that hydraulic fracturing can be done only with water, although the phrase is exaggerated, it can correspond to reality.
              Water is already scarce and they are prophesying wars for water resources, and you say its use as fuel, hydrogen engines have been created for a long time, but either it will find a new source of energy comparable to or superior to nuclear energy, or there will be less fuel, prices will increase. and people will continue to pump more and more from the bowels of the earth. But you said correctly, every point of view has a right to exist!
              1. 528Obrp
                528Obrp 30 October 2013 12: 24
                +2
                Quote: Romn
                it does not clog patency hundreds of times

                Just iron oxides can reduce the flow rate of the well to zero!
                But bacteria occur when there is excess oxygen, it is sometimes pumped in the form dissolved in water for clean drinking water during iron removal in the reservoir. But bacteria get oxygen after the complete oxidation of iron. And these bacteria work mainly on manganese.
                Quote: Romn
                The main thing I’m trying to bring is the answer to the question that, supposedly, it is in shale production and because of hydraulic fracturing that the formation water is polluted, that’s what we are talking about!

                Pollution also occurs during normal mining. But only in the bottomhole sections. The extent of pollution is completely different.
                1. Basarev
                  Basarev 30 October 2013 19: 48
                  +2
                  There are generally zero emissions - absolutely without any pollution. Zero emissions are taken as a standard for production in the Arctic.
            2. Basarev
              Basarev 30 October 2013 19: 45
              +1
              Now I understand where the ears from the whole history of the Arctic come from. All these huge hydrocarbon reserves are just a cover for the most strategically important resource - water. The salty water of the Arctic Ocean and fresh - in the form of icebergs.
        2. Basarev
          Basarev 30 October 2013 19: 41
          0
          It would be very nice to shorten the livestock of the American services sector. And for manufacturers - those who actually produce, and do not sell or feint with candy wrappers - we have no offense for real producers. For example, the Chrysler company. It makes a wonderful Abrams tank and thus drives the economy USA forward. But the Uralvagonzavodovsky T-90 is still cooler.
      2. Mikhail3
        Mikhail3 30 October 2013 09: 11
        +8
        Yes Yes. Of course, everything can be done simply with water. And the additive package, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, is pumped into the wells just like that. So it is customary in the SGA - to throw money into the wind, because they fly beautifully ... Goryushko you grief ...
        1. Romn
          Romn 30 October 2013 09: 35
          -6
          Mikhail3
          And what kind of additives do you pump there, also worth hundreds of millions of dollars! ??? laughing
          Hydraulic fracturing is done simply, water injection into the well and into the formation occurs until the pressure is sufficient to break the formation, the fracture is visible by intricate devices in the diagram. On those bushes where it is preliminarily carried out research, about the rocks where the deposit is located, about the homogeneity of the formation subjected to hydraulic fracturing and the like (there is a large package of studies that are already well developed), they usually just begin to receive products from wells, the so-called inflow, for this he and this is a terrible hydraulic fracturing.
          Returning to YOUR injection of additives, production can also be increased by various treatments, for example, acidic (so to speak, washing off this same layer, increasing the passage of the pore channels), as you will probably tell the specialist in this matter, that this practice is widespread, which has been used for decades, nothing new they do not! Therefore, it’s certainly a bit hot when people don’t even want to understand ...
          1. rolik
            rolik 30 October 2013 11: 02
            11
            Quote: Romn
            Hydraulic fracturing with water is simple, pumping water into the well and into the reservoir

            You can make a break with water ... well, then tell me why they make hydraulic fracturing with chemistry ???? Water is cheaper, the environment does not suffer. But still, the main thing is that plain water is cheaper. Are they sophisticated masochists who want to buy money if there is a cheaper way nearby. And the money saved in this way can be spent on buying a house in the Bahamas, or sent to your account in offshore ??? I want to see the logic.
            1. Romn
              Romn 30 October 2013 12: 27
              -10 qualifying.
              rolik
              Tell me, how do you know that they are doing just that with a lot of chemistry?) You can’t be based on the data of one article in the opinion section, I have friends in foreign companies and take my word for it, how they approach the protection of the environment and what kind of environment punishments provided, even did not stand next to ours. They double-check everything by 100 (and, therefore, there is no need to recall the Gulf of Mexico and oil spills there, offshore production is a different story).
              It is not particularly possible to hear about pollution precisely as a result of shale gas production, precisely because of hydraulic fracturing and precisely the formation water pollution. The conversation began that shale production is only bad and so on, no, this is exactly the same method of gas production, no different from technology from the rest of the production! You need to calm down and understand that there is nothing special in gas production from shale.
              1. Mikhail3
                Mikhail3 30 October 2013 12: 48
                +4
                We got a good spot on the Gulf of Mexico. If you seriously want to understand something - well, look at how they drilled in that bay and why everything slammed there. Pay particular attention to the observance of technological maps and safety in the "safe" foreign company BP. If you have an acquaintance who works as a courier in the PR department, this does not mean that he understands something there. smile The composition of the injected fluid (an aqueous solution of a chemical bag, colloids, etc.) is the fruit of decades of intense R&D. And it's all worth it ... and the composition is there ... even uranium dust, they say, is where it goes. Here, I really doubt it. But money must be invested in these poisons - the sea and another glass, no less.
              2. rolik
                rolik 30 October 2013 13: 28
                +7
                Quote: Romn
                Tell me, how do you know that they do it with a lot of chemistry?)

                I do not know and did not know, I asked why they use chemistry if water is cheaper. In response, he received a complete nonsense.
                Recently, here one character (I don’t remember who) praised American milk. Like, they opened a package of American milk, so he stood for a week in a room on the table and did not turn sour .... they admired the quality of this milk. Our pier will turn sour the next day. Apparently the tovarisch does not know that REAL milk, and not chemical, is souring in a clean bowl at a temperature of 18-20 degrees for 10-20 hours.
                So here, why they use chemistry and not just water. Water, in any case, is cheaper than chemistry. Give me an answer
                -Hydraulic fracturing with water is simple; water is injected into the well and into the reservoir until the pressure is sufficient to fracture the fracture, the fracture is visible by intricate instruments in the diagram.
                Are these your words? Yours! So I asked, why do they use chemistry?
                1. Romn
                  Romn 30 October 2013 14: 03
                  -9
                  rolik
                  Well, I will answer your question briefly and clearly how you want it.
                  If you are wondering why they use chemistry !? Ask them!
                  1. rolik
                    rolik 30 October 2013 15: 05
                    +2
                    Quote: Romn
                    Ask them!

                    I’ll be in the States, and this is unlikely, I’ll definitely ask)))) Although why go there if Ukraine starts such production. You won’t have to travel far.
                  2. fedorovith
                    fedorovith 30 October 2013 17: 07
                    +3
                    Extend the return of the reservoir.
                  3. Ezhaak
                    Ezhaak 30 October 2013 18: 25
                    +1
                    Quote: Romn
                    Ask them!

                    So carried away by the discussion and suddenly on you. No answer, no greetings. It seems that 528Obrp is more right and more clearly demonstrates its point of view and understanding of the problem. It’s not good to send all of them sharply at once to .... This can also be done softer!
              3. Scoun
                Scoun 30 October 2013 17: 30
                +2
                Quote: Romn
                Not much to hear about pollution precisely as a result of shale gas production,

              4. Bober
                Bober 30 October 2013 18: 14
                +5
                I see in one line such a long name Monoethanolamine, briefly called MEA among absorbents. Sometimes I come across him at work. And her underground? If so, then this is a firing squad. MEA from production is taken in special plastic containers, draining into the sewer is strictly prohibited.
              5. chp67
                chp67 30 October 2013 22: 59
                0
                you're lying my friend. but for what it is not clear.
          2. 528Obrp
            528Obrp 30 October 2013 11: 46
            +6
            Quote: Romn
            Returning to YOUR injection of additives, production can also be increased by various treatments, for example, acidic (so to speak, washing off this same layer, increasing the passage of the pore channels), as you will probably tell the specialist in this matter, that this practice is widespread, which has been used for decades, nothing new they do not! Therefore, it’s certainly a bit hot when people don’t even want to understand ...

            With "Traditional" production, only the bottomhole section of the well is processed. The amount of reagents is minimal. During the production of shale hydrocarbons, the entire horizontal section of the well is fractured. In addition, cracks are formed along the seams, and they are often far from horizontal. Along the ascending cracks, both gas and water are driven to the surface, with all the ensuing consequences.
          3. 31231
            31231 30 October 2013 23: 19
            +1
            Hydraulic fracturing with water is simple; water is injected into the well and into the reservoir until the pressure is sufficient to fracture the fracture, the fracture is visible by intricate instruments in the diagram.

            AND?! A lot of you tearing the formation through cracks to release gas ?! The gas is located in micropores, which cannot be opened by fracture alone. For this, chemically active components are added there to increase the destruction of shale.
            Do not tell me why the composition of chemicals during hydraulic fracturing is still considered a great secret ?! And why companies do not publish openly how much and what is active pumped underground ?!
        2. Order
          Order 30 October 2013 11: 20
          +4
          Quote: Mikhail3
          And the additive package, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, is pumped into the wells just like that.

          I assure you, as a petroleum geologist, using chem. reagents common and ubiquitous practice on absolutely any hydrocarbon deposits. Without this, effective well construction in modern conditions is simply not possible. Another thing is that depending on the geological and technological conditions, such as: type of reservoir, reservoir pressure, depth, etc. various sets of chemicals are used. And in the case of shale oil and gas fields, the main problem is the cost of well construction due to a very rapid drop in production rates and only then environmental problems ....
          1. Mikhail3
            Mikhail3 30 October 2013 12: 57
            +3
            I know. Long gone are the days when oil itself went. So with oil production, the solution is not rushing back! As I understand it, the picture of the natural occurrence of oil and the artificial destruction of sandstones is fundamentally different. With these very man-made breaks, we just get the reagents back, directly into the drinking water. And how else, are we crumbling sandstone?
            The main problem of this hat is also known to me laughing As for environmental issues, you are used to pumping oil in uninhabited areas. Of course, the habits of our oil workers are not encouraged to leave the srach behind them ... but this does not threaten us directly. But the Americans ...
      3. Storyteller
        Storyteller 30 October 2013 11: 06
        +5
        Maybe they canned the wells, because there the oil began to run out? The type of bluff they love so much.
      4. mirag2
        mirag2 30 October 2013 11: 46
        0
        By the way, a very competent post, by the way Chevron stipulated such conditions that, if necessary, it can produce water where it is convenient for them ...
        Maybe they poisoned America, but they don’t buy gas anymore, and it seems they even export it themselves (the latter is debatable because it’s not sure of the exact information).
        And why did Putin say that Russia is facing critical years? Because we can lose our main income and an instrument of influence on Europe: because of this fucking shale gas, the INCOME of Gazprom, our main taxpayer, by the way, has already fallen. that's why there are problems with the "optimization" of everything that is possible, first of all, of course, social medicine, pensions, and so on.
        The only crap is that the economists we have are the main ones (moving the very essence of the domestic economy and cash flows within the country), the same liberals who are followers and editions of the Kudrinsky school that invests our money in foreign economies, where they developed their business and technologies and other venture topics - Not costly and profitable not soon - but we, due to lack of money, can’t afford to invest in venture projects that are highly science-intensive ...
        1. 528Obrp
          528Obrp 30 October 2013 11: 59
          +4
          Quote: mirag2
          gas may fall INCOMES of "Gazprom" - our main

          Not much fall. Shale industrialists will not give. Low prices are death for them.
          In addition, our gas is much cheaper to produce. The principle is simple: an expensive thing cannot compete with a cheap one with the same quality (I do not consider political pressure).
          As for Gazprom, this project is more political than commercial and very effective. I already gave the link, I repeat again
          http://www.forbes.ru/mneniya-column/konkurentsiya/240578-hrebet-semeinogo-hozyai
          stva-pochemu-gazprom-megaeffektiven
          1. mirag2
            mirag2 30 October 2013 15: 23
            +1
            I agree almost 100% - Gazprom is another political project - it is rather even a weapon - like the entire economy (now it is the main method of pressure) - and only then the military component, and it works like this: first, a potential adversary is drawn into an arms race that AGAIN WEAKENES HIS ECONOMY, and only then, later, in a critical case, a conflict will arise.
      5. nov_tech.vrn
        nov_tech.vrn 30 October 2013 13: 50
        +2
        stupid Europeans do not listen to this crap, only advanced Poles and well-moved Ukroevropeytsy are ready to poison their land, and zapadentsev, by the way, have already made the chevron love, and in the reserved lands they will also poison water and people, well, a hundred years later, after the earth will be cleared, if it can, will be delivered by Afro-Ukrainians, according to today's pygmies
      6. rexby63
        rexby63 30 October 2013 14: 07
        +1
        Recently I read an article by M. Yuryev: http: //www.odnako.org/almanac/material/show_8312/
        1. 528Obrp
          528Obrp 30 October 2013 15: 05
          -1
          Is it clear now! These nightingales do not sing their songs.
          See interested parties:
          About half of the reserves of the Bazhenov formation are licensed Rosneft in 2012, a state-owned company involved in the development of these deposits of the global giant ExxonMobil using its technology, successfully applied in North America.
          http://www.forbes.ru/infographics/kompanii/resursy/246613-eshche-odna-kubyshka-s
          kolko-u-rossii-slantsevoi-nefti
        2. fzr1000
          fzr1000 30 October 2013 15: 34
          +3
          The article is one-sided. Read at least two comments below it.
          1. rexby63
            rexby63 31 October 2013 22: 16
            0
            That's just the comments that interested
      7. fedorovith
        fedorovith 30 October 2013 17: 02
        +2
        In the USSR, all this was carried out on a trial basis, they refused immediately. Yes, it was not necessary for us either. It seems cheap.
      8. Scoun
        Scoun 30 October 2013 17: 15
        +1
        Quote: Romn
        The article is not true


        did not post a short video.
      9. bif
        bif 30 October 2013 19: 09
        0
        Quote: Romn
        The only serious issue in this production, profitability, costs of this production somehow overlap the income received! Therefore, one should not rejoice over the imaginary failures of amers.

        If we leave the issue of ecology aside, let the Americans themselves decide it - their country, their land ...
        Profitability, if you look at the prices for shale gas in the USA, then they are about 100 $ for 1000 cubic meters, much cheaper than natural gas ... all freebie lovers were delighted (especially Poland and Ukraine), Gazprom down! Drop the price ... etc.
        But only not long ago it became known that the cost of shale gas is approximately = the cost of natural (something about $ 400 per 1000 cubic meters), but when the US government even under Bush Jr. began to unwind this PR-action "Shale Revolution" in order to create "sensational profitability" the state took SUBSIDIDATE US shale gas companies, the scheme is quite confusing, but as a result of the 400 $ spent on development, the state compensated 300 $, this is where the attractive price of 100 $ for American consumers comes from.
        And now - there is no money for subsidies, and extracting shale gas outside the United States is not profitable, this is the reason for the wholesale sale of land in Poland and Ukraine.
      10. Danafxnumx
        Danafxnumx 30 October 2013 19: 31
        +1
        Quote: Romn
        here the emphasis is on hydraulic fracturing, it can be done not with chemistry, but with ordinary water under high pressure, the rest of the chemistry is used correctly, and in America, I’m sure that they pay a lot of attention to this, it won’t get anywhere, and this is most likely single happening.


        why then hide from environmental organizations?
        why hide information from people if it's safe?
    3. svp67
      svp67 30 October 2013 08: 47
      +7
      Quote: Igor39
      Well done, poison America yourself!

      The bad thing is that many people strive to become "Well done", including Ukraine, but the Earth is one and environmental problems from "internal" and "local" can very quickly become UNIVERSAL ...
    4. APES
      APES 30 October 2013 09: 10
      +3
      Quote: Igor39
      What can I say? Well done, poison America yourself!


      They are in a state where they simply no longer have the flowers.

      don't rejoice - ecology is such a thing - the planet is one for all
      1. Igor39
        Igor39 30 October 2013 09: 26
        +2
        And I’m not happy. I praise American companies for causing ecological and economic damage to the main enemy of Russia. Nothing personal.
    5. GDP
      GDP 30 October 2013 12: 01
      +3
      It seems to me that Americans support and praise the production of shale gas so that other countries will be led to it, for example, Ukraine.
      Those economic and environmental losses that the United States will now suffer in the future are compensated by the diversification of gas supplies and, accordingly, falling prices for it around the world ...
      1. Igor39
        Igor39 30 October 2013 17: 44
        0
        But in Ukraine, are there no people who can calculate the effectiveness of shale gas production? Or as in a joke: Yes, they take our word for it. Well, here I got the suit and flooded. smile
    6. edge
      edge 30 October 2013 12: 27
      0
      Ukrainian ..... but also wants a similar happiness for himself: the flag is in their hands, the people, - will disperse to its neighbors, - the state will cease to exist
    7. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 30 October 2013 13: 29
      0
      Quote: Igor39
      What can I say? Well done, poison America yourself!


      Yes, that's all, hysterics after hysteria. at first there was a hysteria that there will be a lot of gas for everyone, now there is a hysteria that there will be very few "everyone" and that someone should be different.

      It’s not my thing for me to just let this devil go free.

      Here is a good example of what exorbitant greed leads to.
    8. alexng
      alexng 30 October 2013 15: 26
      +1
      Quote: Igor39
      What can I say? Well done, poison America yourself!


      Yes, not quite like that. For example, Ukraine and America signed a contract for the production of shale gas in eastern Ukraine, and this is a targeted diversion ...
      1. stalkerwalker
        stalkerwalker 30 October 2013 22: 22
        +5
        Quote: alexneg
        Yes, not quite like that. For example, Ukraine and America signed a contract for the production of shale gas in eastern Ukraine, and this is a targeted diversion ...

        Have to deal with sabotage on the drill ...
    9. 0251
      0251 30 October 2013 16: 45
      0
      It is also scary here that Ukraine followed the lead of the "Slans organizers" of America and the West, which is very dangerous for both us and Ukraine. It is impossible and dangerous to develop shale mining.
  2. I do not care
    I do not care 30 October 2013 08: 43
    +5
    It’s a pity for ordinary Americans, we will soon regret the Ukrainians unfortunately.
  3. Same lech
    Same lech 30 October 2013 08: 43
    +2
    These are only flowers, berries will come later.
    The consequences of such a barbaric attitude to nature will affect in the most unexpected way.
    I want to say that the latest accidents in the Gulf of Mexico and FUKUSIM will affect the neighboring countries on a global scale and we will feel them in a very sad way.
  4. JIaIIoTb
    JIaIIoTb 30 October 2013 08: 46
    +1
    http://topwar.ru/28163-zaslancevyy-gaz.html

    Much has been written on this subject but the Peoples are still underway. However, not all dreams lead to paradise.
  5. Black Colonel
    Black Colonel 30 October 2013 08: 46
    +9
    And on the territory of non-skid territory, they have already begun to conduct a shale gas revolution. And what kind of chernozems are there !!! Politics, b ...
  6. Yves762
    Yves762 30 October 2013 08: 47
    +4
    Many letters, few numbers ....
    Personally, it bothers me.
    1. Asgard
      Asgard 30 October 2013 10: 07
      29
      I will tell you as a Mining Engineer about the "gas bubble")))))
      In general, shale gas began to be produced first ..... than natural.
      I studied at the UGA academy, we were told that in 1821 William Hart, somewhere on the territory of the "Big Apple", not in the state of New York, drilled a well and received gas, it did not become a commercial well, because it quickly died, the gas ran out))))
      Shale wells received a second life in 2002, when they drilled the first HORIZONTAL WELL — this allowed to increase the gas collection area, but Merla’s well also didn’t work))) without justifying the headstock invested in drilling .....
      What is slate? This clay has no place to drill it worse, it is dense and viscous, but it is almost everywhere — that is, a stupidly drilled well — will always give gas !!!!! Hurray !!! ... but unprofitable, even at current prices ????

      The next milestone is hydraulic fracturing — water with chemistry is pumped into the well (this is a commercial secret, but Komrad will open it a little bit with a complex bouquet of acids, glycols, alcohols, chlorides and sodium and potassium carbonate, glutaraldehyde fights corrosion, guar gum increases the viscosity of the solution, and ammonium peroxodisulfate interferes with the breakdown of guar gum, - in general, you understood That still poison.
      With such chemical additives, the well is able to function for up to a year, BECAUSE EVERYTHING EVERYTHING DIES ...
      But this chemistry dissolves in the gas and burns in your home !!!!!!
      This cannot be separated))) the soil is contaminated for many kilometers, Water in the springs = death !!!!

      Is this a shale revolution ?????
      Ukraine and the end of the soil and the people and the state ....


      In my opinion, as a geologist, engineer and Man)))
      1. rolik
        rolik 30 October 2013 11: 09
        +1
        Quote: Asgard
        sodium and potassium carbonate,

        Carbonate?
      2. 528Obrp
        528Obrp 30 October 2013 11: 14
        +3
        Quote: Asgard
        What is slate? It's clay to drill it.

        - These are clay shales, gas in the more porous - sandy and sandy clay or with a predominance of carbonate rocks. mostly in the last
        1. Asgard
          Asgard 30 October 2013 11: 20
          0
          For typos excuse the scoundrel (phone, uncomfortable))))
          about clay, in general, it’s right ...... yes sandstones .....,
          especially clay is frayed sandstone to the state of powder)))
          it’s just possible to make hydraulic fracturing with water, but then Gaza will not)))
          Chemistry is also used for the well to live for three months))) then again it is necessary to pump chemical explosion .....
          1. 528Obrp
            528Obrp 30 October 2013 11: 33
            +2
            Quote: Asgard
            Chemistry is also used for the well to live three months))) then again it is necessary to pump chemical explosion ....

            Below I answered Romn there in detail. And slate burned from time immemorial. only this is a dead end. Water rises in price with terrible force. It is necessary to save it.
            1. Manul
              Manul 31 October 2013 00: 16
              0
              That is why we love Baikal so much)) And not only because of this. But seriously, science fiction writers who wrote about environmental disasters and were just dreamers for me ... With a shudder I understand more and more often that they would not mind, so that it turns out to be only fantasies. But the world stubbornly chooses the path of self-destruction .. More precisely, not the World, but the world "owners". We have nowhere to emigrate, if suddenly we are tired of our planet.
      3. 31231
        31231 30 October 2013 23: 40
        +1
        What is slate? This clay has no place to drill worse, it is thick and viscous, but it is almost everywhere, it’s stupid

        You would like an engineer to look at how many varieties of shales, and then wrote.
        Even the clay shales, you hope they are talking about, are no longer quite clay.
        Shale is drilled quite well. This I tell you, as a man engaged in drilling and blasting. Even the columns on them go well.
  7. Andrey57
    Andrey57 30 October 2013 08: 48
    +1
    Such a "bunch" of chemicals will poison everything around for more than one decade, and the problems with poisoned water among the Yankes, by and large, are just beginning. A classic example - what we fought for, we ran into it. They know how, however, to create problems for themselves. For Ukraine, a good reason to think before starting to persecute its own people.
  8. Dazdranagon
    Dazdranagon 30 October 2013 08: 49
    +6
    Most importantly - ours did not fall for! laughing
  9. shinobi
    shinobi 30 October 2013 08: 50
    18
    My dad used to say to me: The more annoying the advertisement, the more useless it is advertised. When the hype about shale gas went up, he smiled at his mustache and said: Again, Russian Ivan is awkward ... thought of, break off.
  10. makarov
    makarov 30 October 2013 08: 54
    -3
    horses, people, ... flies and cutlets mixed in a bunch.
  11. zart_arn
    zart_arn 30 October 2013 08: 55
    -5
    The vast majority of these ingredients, not the most, let's say, toxic, in large quantities fall into the ordinary sewer with wastewater. There we merge the filth much more poisonous. And we do this without hesitation around the ball. I am silent about industrial effluents. The article, in my opinion, is an ordering aimed at diverting attention from the problems I mentioned and the problems of depletion of hydrocarbon reserves.
    1. dzvero
      dzvero 30 October 2013 09: 52
      +3
      Indeed, more toxic waste also gets into the sewer. One of the problems with shale gas production is that the components of the discontinuous mixture fall directly into the aquifer of the drilling area. For many (if not all) residents of such an area, well water is the only available source. And the area is not small - hundreds or even thousands of square kilometers. It turns out that the scale of pollution is not comparable with ordinary sewage and even industrial wastewater. Perhaps there are pure ways of prey, but no one bothers with them. Probably unprofitable ...
      The technology is very dirty and I am glad that we have banned exploration and production in this way of shale gas.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Romn
        Romn 30 October 2013 10: 23
        +1
        dzvero
        During drilling, drilling takes place, after the annular space is cemented, then pipes are lowered, through which the gas is extracted and pumped for hydraulic fracturing and other substances.
        This liquid cannot get into the aquifer due to sealing means, and there are not a small amount of them, and they are not worth millions of millions at all, as many people think.
        The "mixture" for fracturing the formation is supplied when all wells are drilled and the deposit has been studied, the ingress of chemistry into the formation during hydraulic fracturing (and any, be it aquifer or just a leak) are isolated cases that happen to everyone!

        I have only one question for you, where did you get the information to answer !?

        Quote: One of the problems with shale gas production is that the components of the discontinuous mixture fall directly into the aquifer of the drilling area
        1. Bogranz
          Bogranz 30 October 2013 11: 10
          +3
          I have not yet encountered attempts to explain confused: based on your statement chemistry is pumped into the PLAST to break it, but at the same time, this same chemistry cannot get into the reservoir ... What nonsense? The whole point is that the "chemistry" is not pumped into the pipe, but into the formation for its rupture. the reservoir itself is not homogeneous, then the action of the liquid in it is different: somewhere it finds cracks, less resistance and spreads in the reservoir itself, in any case, not in the form of a regular geometric sphere ... And, logically speaking, the ingress of this liquid into the aquifer the layer is more than a reality."... This liquid cannot enter the aquifer due to the means of sealing, ..."Does it ever occur to you that, for example, these very means of sealing (I doubt that any technology can create a sealing shell for the fracturing area) at the same time will not allow gas from the area adjacent to the fracture to enter the pipe?
        2. Misantrop
          Misantrop 30 October 2013 11: 40
          +2
          Quote: Romn
          This fluid cannot get into the aquifer due to funds sealing
          A SEAL is done, and then a liquid is supplied. And for what, not for RIP by accident? And WHERE is this gap directed? Is it not in the direction of less resistance, i.e. to the surface?
          1. Romn
            Romn 30 October 2013 12: 35
            +1
            Bogranz
            You carefully read, there is a conversation about the drilling zone and the ingress of mixtures in this very zone that the aquifer will contaminate. You were carried away to the other side, did you see me talking about sealing the fracturing zone ??
            I also said one hundred fluid is pumped THROUGH the pipe, and not into it!
            Once again, my comment was addressed. Quote: One of the problems with shale gas production is that the components of the discontinuous mixture fall directly into the aquifer of the drilling area


            Misantrop
            Are you sure that the least resistance is necessary to the surface?)
            1. Misantrop
              Misantrop 30 October 2013 15: 05
              +4
              Quote: Romn
              Are you sure that the least resistance is necessary to the surface?)
              Other things being equal, yes. But in real life it can break anywhere in the direction of the weakest direction. To the surface, to the zones of karst voids, etc. Those. as a result, the weakest areas will become even weaker, and even MUCH dirtier in chemical terms. And about the seismic stability of this region and in general we will not remember, right? On the memory, where it is constantly shaking, it will be as a free bonus lol
          2. 528Obrp
            528Obrp 30 October 2013 12: 46
            +5
            Quote: Misantrop
            Is it not in the direction of less resistance, i.e. to the surface?

            The least resistance along the boundary of the reservoir (s). And how do the layers occur? How horrible! maybe almost vertically.
        3. 31231
          31231 30 October 2013 23: 49
          +3
          Quote: Romn
          dzvero
          During drilling, drilling takes place, after the annular space is cemented, then pipes are lowered, through which the gas is extracted and pumped for hydraulic fracturing and other substances.
          This liquid cannot get into the aquifer due to sealing means, and there are not a small amount of them, and they are not worth millions of millions at all, as many people think.

          You are writing another nonsense. You seal the neck of the "bottle" and break its main body.
          Although the underground waters along the shales are not strongly developed, the entire enclosing stratum everywhere cannot consist of shales. There may be limestone and sandstone. And even these can contain a lot of groundwater. And chemistry through the cracks will go into them.
          1. Romn
            Romn 31 October 2013 06: 32
            0
            31231
            Before you conclude nonsense or not, first get a little familiar with the technologies and principles of work. And only after that write at least some comment so as not to see real nonsense about the neck and body!
    2. Flooding
      Flooding 30 October 2013 12: 17
      +5
      Quote: zart_arn
      The vast majority of these ingredients, not the most, let's say, toxic, in large quantities fall into the ordinary sewer with wastewater. There we merge the filth much more poisonous.

      I do not like to minus, the hand itself reached out.
      Yes, we pour a lot of things into the toilet. But sewage effluents, as you can tell, are subject to some treatment before they go into the external environment. This should be obvious even to the student.
      How do you propose to clean the infected layer with an area of ​​many hectares and a depth of many meters? How to isolate groundwater?
      zart_arn, you are talking nonsense.
      Since we are all going away, so let’s go everywhere. So what?
    3. Mikhail3
      Mikhail3 30 October 2013 13: 07
      +4
      You are more than ever right. Let's continue with wise revelations. Cherry, plum, and many other seeds contain cyanides. It is quite clear that they blatantly lie to us about the so-called "harm" of potassium cyanide !! This is a clear order of chemical companies that do not want to share delicious food with us. We look forward to hearing from you a revealing video of how you devour it with spoons ...
  12. ed65b
    ed65b 30 October 2013 08: 55
    +6
    Our Gazpromman spoke on TV, calmly as a boa constrictor said that the slate was a bluff. We didn’t make a finger, and we can also count it. And shale was mined in the north during the USSR.
    1. Dimitri
      Dimitri 7 November 2013 07: 59
      0
      Are you confusing anything? In the USSR, shale has long been mined, not shale gas.
  13. Known who
    Known who 30 October 2013 09: 17
    0
    Everything seems to me not so bad. The Yankees are not fools to ruin their territory. It is reliably known that they import and preserve hydrocarbons and minerals with rare earth metals. Rather, in the article, the wish is presented as valid.
    It’s a pity that Khozland will have a testing ground for developing shale gas production technologies. The Yankees will definitely try to have fun there to ditch the black soil.
  14. Grbear
    Grbear 30 October 2013 09: 19
    +5
    Whatever the politicians say, the sure indicator is BP’s withdrawal from the shale market and its great desire to participate in our hydrocarbon business. Something like this.
  15. nazgul-ishe
    nazgul-ishe 30 October 2013 09: 20
    0
    As the USSR at one time lost the oil war, they now won back on gas. Just at what cost?
  16. kmike
    kmike 30 October 2013 09: 21
    +4
    I read the article and once again became convinced that our government is doing everything right by spending such a large sum on the country's defense. We may soon need the opportunity to protect our territories, rich in gas and oil, and not poisoned by the shale revolution.
  17. negeroi
    negeroi 30 October 2013 09: 23
    +5
    Shale gas is an expensive fact. Today, a fact is also disadvantageous. So if there is no technology that suits the green, this is complete nonsense. In the sense that, when did it stop someone else? It will be necessary, it will become profitable, they will be beaten for both green and blue .In addition, it will become cost-effective, if safe technologies are found or developed.

    All the rest is an artistic whistle, chatter, and speculation. Well, give a discount! Otherwise I’ll be joking with gases! Sukayte flap, as well as the Yankees and other Poles, no one forbids.
  18. morpogr
    morpogr 30 October 2013 09: 27
    +3
    With such zeal to ruin the nature in your country, it’s how you like to love money. So, in order not to lose money on this bubble, Americans sell technology to other countries and advertise that such production is the future, but they quietly close everything and sell it. I hope Ukraine does not have time poison your land and the shale bubble will burst earlier.
    1. Djozz
      Djozz 30 October 2013 11: 22
      0
      Money must be loved, disinterestedly!
  19. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 30 October 2013 09: 29
    +4
    The example of the "shale revolution" in the United States shows that modern international capitalism deeply does not care about the environment and the life of ordinary people. Profit at any cost. And then everyone solves his own problems ...
    1. alicante11
      alicante11 30 October 2013 15: 39
      0
      What does "modern" have to do with it? Capitalism ALWAYS didn't care. You will remember your favorite Western scenes. Railroad or oil workers hire "bad guys" to clear the land they need from farmers. and how they do it, the employers do not care at all.
  20. lotar
    lotar 30 October 2013 10: 01
    +2
    If we believe that our planet has a certain soul, we will all soon have a khan. At least I would be tired of being bugged by some kind of insects.
  21. Neighbor
    Neighbor 30 October 2013 10: 10
    +2
    In Ukraine, shales are located a little to the north in the black earth of Russia on Khopre, with similar consequences, they are going to open a mine for the extraction of nickel and related polymetals.
  22. ilyich
    ilyich 30 October 2013 10: 19
    +3
    Quote: zart_arn
    The vast majority of these ingredients, not the most, let's say, toxic, in large quantities fall into the ordinary sewer with wastewater. There we merge the filth much more poisonous. And we do this without hesitation around the ball. I am silent about industrial effluents. The article, in my opinion, is an ordering aimed at diverting attention from the problems I mentioned and the problems of depletion of hydrocarbon reserves.

    the difference is that the usual city runoff is biology and chemistry, which then pass through specialized treatment plants. rural settlements - there is no chemistry there, only biology and natural filtration. at the enterprises - their own cleaning. and then what? how can you physically collect the substance pumped underground and cleanse it? no way. if only to pump in the same absorbing chemistry.
    not only that - these are not permanent wells - but for a couple of years. who will build the cleaning there? even if they balance profitability now
  23. erased
    erased 30 October 2013 10: 26
    +4
    It is necessary to help the States to increase the production of shale gas! And all of them will rest there!
    It’s not good to talk about people like that, but the States have already got it!
  24. avg
    avg 30 October 2013 10: 57
    +3
    In Ukraine, the cunning-wise zapadents were forbidden to develop shales at home. And in the south and east, drill as much as you want, along with the Mos_kal_ electorate poison.
  25. Goldmitro
    Goldmitro 30 October 2013 11: 09
    +4
    <<< "Shale gas production is spreading around the world," says environmentalist Kevin Heatley. - People from Europe, Asia and even South Africa come here to Pennsylvania to exchange experience. They are told about the huge profits, but they are never shown thousands and thousands of acres of contaminated areas with poisoned water and air. >>>
    Our public, the authorities and, first of all, the environmental authorities need to carefully monitor so that Russia does not find its own business monkeys with purchased "experts" and the media who are also eager to quickly cut the dough on shale gas production, while spitting on the fact that the region of gas production will FOR THE CENTURY turn into a poisoned, lifeless space! According to reports, there have already been found such in Ukraine!
  26. Thirsty for wind
    Thirsty for wind 30 October 2013 11: 18
    0
    Naturally, amers need to shed their drilling equipment.
    Most likely in "all sorts" of Ukraine, Romania (whom it is easier to deceive or threaten) and will be floated.
    Apparently spawned, during the "revolution", apparently not visible.
  27. Irtysh
    Irtysh 30 October 2013 11: 24
    0
    American corporations will do everything possible to make oil and gas prices rise. For this, the Middle East is agitated. This will make it possible to profitably produce shale hydrocarbons. But this will increase environmental degradation, respectively, dramatically reduce the health of the population.

    If we were so bloodthirsty and unprincipled, then probably we would not do to the Americans what they do on their own.

    Our foreign policy bodies and the media can only focus the attention of the Americans on THESE problems and they will not be able to avoid the Orange Revolution. The main thing is to strengthen control over the "nuclear potential", if they still have it combat-ready.
  28. shark
    shark 30 October 2013 12: 10
    +2
    But it seems to me that the arrival of shale gas in Ukraine is not an accident. Americans are well aware that rapprochement and, as a result, the unification of Ukraine and Russia in the future is inevitable. And in order to cause problems to the Russians (and not small ones, this is a complete mopping up of entire regions), they drag shale fables to Ukrainians. And the Ukrainian authorities, in principle, to Ukraine it makes no difference.
  29. lewerlin53rus
    lewerlin53rus 30 October 2013 12: 25
    +1
    will further increase US global influence.

    At these words, American politicians are losing their minds and are ready to sacrifice everything, including their people
  30. SK12
    SK12 30 October 2013 13: 21
    0
    Quote: Romn
    The article does not correspond to reality, here the emphasis is on hydraulic fracturing, it can be done not by chemistry, but by ordinary water under high pressure, the rest of the chemistry is used correctly, and in America, I’m sure that they pay great attention to this, it won’t get anywhere, and this is most likely an isolated case. In any case, getting into formation water happens, but only in those cases when studies are poorly conducted and as a result of work, they are also performed incorrectly ...


    The article also discusses an increase in the concentration of methane and ethane in groundwater an order of magnitude higher than normal. Ethane is generally a dangerous drug. This no longer depends on the composition of the injected fluid. After all, the article clearly says that it was fun to set fire to water. How can a break be made so that gas does not get into groundwater?
  31. vkrav
    vkrav 30 October 2013 13: 46
    +3
    I don’t care, dear reaction! It seems that these businessmen have a spare planet around the corner ... This is some kind of pathology ...
  32. wax
    wax 30 October 2013 14: 17
    +1
    the impression that these businessmen have a spare planet around the corner ... This is some kind of pathology ...
    It is a pathology, but recorded in the genes of capitalism. This pathology was perfectly described by Marx. Since then, the situation has worsened.
    Today, money already serves not so much as a tool for sharing labor results, but as a tool that is absolutely indifferent to the means used to achieve "success", i.e. enrichment and power and, thereby, the freedom of some due to the infringement of the freedom of others. This race to a standstill, humiliating and senseless, hostile to the human mind, exhausts both the “winners” and the “defeated”, continuously generates military methods of struggle for resources and predates the habitat, making it unsuitable for Homo Sapiens. Mankind has come close to the limit of the progressive possibilities of the capitalist way of managing. The issue of the replacement of capitalism with a new economic formation arises on the agenda in full growth in order to avoid the "collapse" of civilization and the return, at best, to the dark ages.
  33. uizik
    uizik 30 October 2013 16: 49
    -2
    Just one comment from Ukraine! And then about cutlets and flies. It’s scary to admit that in case of shale gas production in Ukraine there will be only flies and cockroaches !?
    1. roial
      roial 30 October 2013 23: 05
      +1
      It’s scary to admit that in case of shale gas production in Ukraine there will be only flies and cockroaches !?


      You know, you can’t discuss something that you don’t understand at all, and discussing arguments of rather dubious origin is somehow not handy.

      I read skirmish 528Obrp and Romn. But even they have different opinions, so .....
  34. vlad.svargin
    vlad.svargin 30 October 2013 16: 59
    0
    The Russian Energy Ministry will propose to the government to start extracting oil and gas from shale. This was reported by Finmarket with reference to the materials for the government meeting prepared by the ministry ... The Ministry of Energy was supposed to present the plan at a meeting with the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev on November 22, but the event did not take place. (Lenta.Ru << The Ministry of Energy urged to start shale gas production in Russia >>. 22 November 2012)

    People, stop the "fools ... v-parrots"! I hope this article is read in our government.
  35. at least
    at least 30 October 2013 17: 38
    +1
    Yes, my friends, I've read a lot of comments with technological nuances ... I'm starting to feel like a real driller. But the other side of the question is interesting to me: where are all the green punks? Where are you!? Green people-and-and-and! The topic is many times more interesting than some kind of "Prirazlomnaya"! WORK IS A FOOL FIELD! Apparently the dog was here and rummaged: that's why the Greenpeaces work only for "GREENS."
  36. KSA
    KSA 30 October 2013 18: 28
    0
    Quote: Asgard
    I will tell you as a Mining Engineer about the "gas bubble")))))

    Unfortunately, I have to note that you are the same mining engineer as I am a GRU special forces veteran.
    Quote: Asgard
    In general, shale gas began to be produced first ... than natural gas. I studied at the UGA academy, we were told that in 1821, William Hart, somewhere on the territory of the "Big Apple" not in the state of New York, drilled a well and received gas, commercial the well did not become - since it quickly died, the gas ran out))))

    in general, natural gas began to be produced so 500 years ago, and as you know, it was by no means shale.
    By the way, I highly recommend reading any literature, and not copying the material directly from Wikipedia.
    By the way, what kind of academy is this? And it seems to have already come across that in one of your comments you did not act as an engineer, but as a regular military ...
    Quote: Asgard
    Shale wells received a second life in 2002, when they drilled the first HORIZONTAL WELL — this allowed to increase the gas collection area, but Merla’s well also didn’t work))) without justifying the headstock invested in drilling .....

    And the men didn’t know, generally horizontal wells, like deviated ones, began to be drilled in 1940. There are references in the literature that the first horizontal lines were drilled in 1936-1937, but personally I did not find confirmation. The first horizontal lines in the USSR, which did not cause controversy, were drilled in 1947 at the Krasnokamsk oil field. Just because of the lack of highly effective methods for increasing oil recovery, they did not always justify the costs and complexity of drilling. And then IT appeared, great at terrible hydraulic fracturing !!! am
    Quote: Asgard
    What is slate? This clay has no place to drill it worse, it is dense and viscous, but it is almost everywhere — that is, a stupidly drilled well — will always give gas !!!!! Hurray !!! ... but unprofitable, even at current prices ????

    Here is already insanity beyond common sense. If you believe it, then there is gas wherever there is clay, which, by the way, can be drilled easily and naturally. Now the question is, why does Yamal supply gas to Russia and Europe? Especially clay deposits?
  37. KSA
    KSA 30 October 2013 18: 29
    0
    Quote: Asgard
    The next milestone is hydraulic fracturing — water with chemistry is pumped into the well (this is a commercial secret, but Komrad will open it a little bit with a complex bouquet of acids, glycols, alcohols, chlorides and sodium and potassium carbonate, glutaraldehyde fights corrosion, guar gum increases the viscosity of the solution, and ammonium peroxodisulfate interferes with the breakdown of guar gum, - in general, you understood That still poison.

    But this is your tearing of the covers, it is the quoting of the first paragraph of the article, especially pleased. Let's spend a small educational program to understand how we are bred into simple emotions. So:
    Actually hydraulic fracturing, in the vernacular of hydraulic fracturing, was initially carried out using water and coarse river sand. Water is pumped by pressure into the oil-saturated formation at a pressure much higher than the formation. Since rocks have anisotropy of properties (physical and mechanical properties differ depending on the direction), cracking occurs, for fixing which sand is used. Acting as struts in cracks. Indeed, if we lower the pressure to a normal reservoir or lower (otherwise it is physically impossible to extract oil, it will not run into our well), the cracks will close.
    But as times change, appetites grow, on a concrete example of the respected Asgard, consider the composition of that terrible chemistry, which kills literally all life. Running a little in front I will say that what is described in the article is called a polysaccharide gel for hydraulic fracturing. There is nothing particularly terrible about him.
    So despite the fact that water is an affordable and cheap source of funds for hydraulic fracturing, its quality has ceased to meet the requirements of the present. Low load-bearing capacity (in the delivery of sand, it all tends to settle out of suspension), as well as an extremely low ability to improve the quality of cracks (after all, cracks can be expanded through the use of acids, all schools conducted experiments with "bubbling of calcite and hydrochloric acid") , and the sand itself turned out to be not the best fixer for the created fracturing. And then gels came to the rescue. The composition of the most common is briefly described in the article and in the comments.
  38. KSA
    KSA 30 October 2013 18: 30
    0
    And so the composition, I’ll immediately make a reservation that especially toxic substances and concentrated acids are not used, because you need permissions to work with them, as well as very high costs for their storage and transportation + difficult to use:
    alcohols - the term is too general, in nature, alcohols are very widespread. It is clear that not the "popular" alcohol is used during hydraulic fracturing, otherwise it will not reach the formation. Zero to moderate toxicity.
    Further, the terrible "chlorides and sodium and potassium carbotate" in translation into Russian - table and potassium salts, soda and potash. The concentration of salts does not exceed 2%, each of you consumes soda. the most toxic component here is potash. Or potassium carbonate.
    "glutaraldehyde fights corrosion" at all stages, from drilling to production itself. An immutable component. It is also used to disinfect water on an industrial scale - for example, in swimming pools, in factories. If you don't drink it in liters, then nothing will happen to you.
    guar gum, it is also a gel thickener, it is also a food additive E412. If you buy food in stores, then you consume it.
    ammonium peroxodisulfate is a food additive E923, it is an element of the fixer in the printing business (someone may remember the glorious times and the white powder of the fixer). It does not interfere as it is written by Asgard, but is actually the initiator of the formation of a gel from all this hodgepodge.
    PROPLANT, the common name for small ceramic / glass / expanded clay balls, is now used as a crack fixer. For fixing cracks.
    If acid is involved, then the solution is maximum 25%.
    The bottom line is that you eat half the chemistry every day.
    Now about the main problem, the damned gel does not want to be stable at reservoir temperatures (up to 100 degrees) and pressures (from 50 to 600 atmospheres). Its decay is not linear, but avalanche-like. In general, this chemistry does not live for long, most of it breaks up into elementary components during the first 2 weeks.
  39. KSA
    KSA 30 October 2013 18: 30
    0
    Quote: Asgard
    With such chemical additives, the well is able to function for up to a year, then EVERYTHING EVERYTHING EVERYTHING DIES ..

    if the well then dies, then it means hands from the ass. Then the hydraulic fracturing procedure is repeated. Just inflows will be proportionally smaller due to the selected oil and water flooding.
    Quote: Asgard
    But this chemistry dissolves in the gas and burns in your home !!!!!! This does not separate))) the soil is contaminated for many kilometers, Water in the sources = death !!!!

    but let’s, as a mining engineer, to a mining engineer, formulate a chemical reaction, how it all dissolves in a gas. And then an explanation of how we can separate the gases, but we cannot separate them from impurities, what kind of technical nonsense?
    Quote: Asgard
    Is this a shale revolution ?????

    Yes, the shale revolution has come true. It is a fact. Only it does not consist in the fact that someone there was able to extract gas from clay, but in the fact that horizontal and directional drilling methods have reached a qualitatively new level, and the oil recovery has also radically increased. In numbers, it sounds like this. If earlier the oil recovery factor (oil recovery coefficient) was 10-12% (yes, of all that it was this part of the reserves that was extracted), now it is on average 20-30%, and in some cases 50-80%. Twice as much oil from one field, without additional infrastructure, and a coordinated increase in the number of wells. This is a real concern for the environment.
    Quote: Asgard
    especially clay is frayed sandstone to the state of powder)))
    again with a finger to the sky, clay and sandstone is a primitive term that minimally characterizes a rock. There is no grinding at all.
    Quote: Asgard
    it’s just possible to make hydraulic fracturing with water, but then Gaza will not)))

    Thousands of times spent and received increased oil and gas inflows, but again you will not. What a fat trolling?
  40. Boris63
    Boris63 30 October 2013 18: 34
    0
    Let them "pump and tear", as I understand shale - a mineral of not deep bedding, and chemistry, most likely, not only for "breaking", but also for dissolving this mineral (so that there is more gas). Incl. voids near the surface (not of natural origin) are also not a gift, no one will fix them. In the same Donetsk, there were many failures in the mines 100 years ago, but there they were somehow reinforced.
  41. KSA
    KSA 30 October 2013 18: 52
    0
    Quote: Bograntz
    I have never met any attempts to explain it more confusingly: based on your statement, chemistry is pumped into the FORMAT to break it, but at the same time this very chemistry cannot get into the reservoir ... What nonsense? The whole point is that the "chemistry" is not pumped into the pipe, but into the formation for its rupture. the reservoir itself is not homogeneous, then the action of the liquid in it is different: somewhere it finds cracks, less resistance and spreads in the reservoir itself, in any case, not in the form of a regular geometric sphere ... And, logically speaking, the ingress of this liquid into the aquifer the reservoir is more than a reality. "... This liquid cannot enter the aquifer due to the means of sealing, ..." It does not occur to you that, for example, these very means of sealing (I doubt that any technology can allow create a sealing shell for the fracture area) simultaneously prevent gas from the area adjacent to the fracture to enter the pipe?

    Let's shed some light ... there is not a word in the article about the fact that it is possible to monitor hydraulic fracturing. Not in real time ... but with a delay of 5-10 minutes. Using the methods of geophysics, more specifically, microseismic. Cracking is "audible". The geological structure is known. So even if it is not possible to prevent fracture propagation into the adjacent aquifer, it is possible to minimize the amount of incoming reagents. It is not profitable for oilmen themselves, because through the same cracks, water will enter the oil-bearing layer, but we don't need it.
    To complete the picture, modern hydraulic fracturing is performed through holes in the casing, this avoids the destruction of the wellbore.
  42. KSA
    KSA 30 October 2013 18: 52
    0
    Quote: Flood
    Yes, we pour a lot of things into the toilet. But sewage effluents, as you can tell, are subject to some treatment before they go into the external environment. This should be obvious even to the student. How do you propose to clean the infected layer with an area of ​​many hectares and a depth of many meters? How to isolate groundwater?

    Don’t you think that groundwater is already isolated? Otherwise, what are they actually underground? The laws of diffusion still work for us, and liquids and gases always tend to the region of lower pressures. Probably something keeps them?
    You do not confuse water in water wells and oil. With depth, mineralization is growing very briskly. Say the water from the Jurassic strata of Western Siberia has a mineralization of 25-42 g / l, more only in the Dead Sea. And if such water hits the surface, it is already an environmental disaster of a regional scale.
    The same thing about chemistry filtration ... do you think a filter a kilometer or several km thick can reduce pollution? Or do we use some miraculous technologies when filtering water?
    Quote: ed65b
    Our Gazpromman spoke on TV, calmly as a boa constrictor said that the slate was a bluff. We are not made with a finger and can also be considered

    The only normal reaction. For some reason, articles about what shale gas is good / bad are forgotten by one MAAAALENKY nuance .. its production in the USA was subsidized by the budget. In different ways, from 120 to 200 bucks per thousand cubic meters. We sell gas in Europe, in the spot market, for $ 420. That is, subsidies comprise from one third to half the market price of gas, but all companies in the states report only losses, and stop doing this.
    The necessary political effect has been achieved, the Moor has done his job, the Moor can leave. And all sorts of Papuans still hope for "freedom from the gas occupation for her." All the iris, sailed, or we go to our former brothers, or to the cannibalistic geyrop, becomes a geycolony.
  43. KSA
    KSA 30 October 2013 19: 08
    0
    Quote: Boris63
    Let them "pump and tear", as I understand shale - a mineral of not deep bedding, and chemistry, most likely, not only for "breaking", but also for dissolving this mineral (so that there is more gas). Incl. voids near the surface (not of natural origin) are also not a gift, no one will fix them. In the same Donetsk, there were many failures in the mines 100 years ago, but there they were somehow reinforced.

    Slate is not a mineral, but a rock. More precisely, the generalized name of the rocks according to the texture-structural basis.
    Acid treatment in clay shales is practically not used, since one of the main components of quartz is there.
    The greatest effect of acid treatment is in carbonate rocks. Hydrochloric acid reacts very well with carbonates.
    Further, no titanic voids are formed when pumping oil and hydraulic fracturing. First of all, the oil in the reservoir rock is located in the intergranular space. Secondly, when pumping it is replaced by water. Even if it were not replaced, a decrease in the volume of the rock and its constituent minerals is possible only due to the destruction of the mineral grains composing the rock and the destruction of the crystal lattice of the minerals.
    For understanding ... take a cinder block ... this is your rock containing oil. In your particular cinder block, in surface conditions there is water, but it is in a film state in it, envelops the constituent grains of minerals. With a pressure of tens of atmospheres, your cinder block can hold more water. So it is with oil and gas. Cubic meters of rock contains a larger volume of hydrocarbons.
  44. tomich
    tomich 30 October 2013 19: 47
    0
    and in the taps of the inhabitants of our country the purest artesian water flows directly)) in each city its own "chemical smoke" poisons not only water, but also the entire environment. In America, at least this is known, but here it is simply hushed up.
  45. KSA
    KSA 30 October 2013 20: 04
    0
    Quote: tomich
    and in the taps of the inhabitants of our country the purest artesian water flows directly)) in each city its own "chemical smoke" poisons not only water, but also the entire environment. In America, at least this is known, but here it is simply hushed up.

    the video shows that water contains some kind of flammable gas ... and that’s it.
    Artesian water also does not mean cleanliness. Now almost any water is dirty ... and heavy metals have already been found in the liver of Arctic penguins. Although there is no mention of industry in their environment.
  46. KSA
    KSA 30 October 2013 20: 20
    0
    In general, resource extraction is a process + technology, without any damage to nature. Nuclear power plants in our country also do not explode every day ... but there is Chernobyl, Fukushima, three-small island ... companies in the shatath have not made the voice of their failures, even if they are catastrophic in nature.
    In this case, I think the process of developing a gas field was disrupted and gas began to flow into the near-surface horizons, from where water was withdrawn. The developer company is silent .. as if by itself. Ordinary human disgust.
  47. tomket
    tomket 30 October 2013 20: 40
    0
    let's start with the fact that methane will not practically dissolve in water this time, who taught chemistry at school and didn’t pick his nose should know 2. ground water flows at a maximum of 100 m, where it is pumped from, even on the roller it was clear that hydraulic fracturing was carried out at a depth of 2.5 - 3 km, no one explained how the groundwater will rise to the surface, methane is practically harmless to the body, from where it is not clear how wonderful diseases and horses are in lichens. The fact that they are pumped into the ground is practically no worse than that used in glass cleaners, with which the forum users abundantly irrigate the earth all year round, but for some reason they don’t wring their hands in powerless rage. In short, this is nonsense, by the way, probably paid by Gazprom.
  48. Nikolaitch
    Nikolaitch 30 October 2013 22: 00
    0
    Tomket, KSA, Tomich ...
    What do you want to convince us of, gentlemen?
    Eat it yourself, we have no fools. hi
    1. tomket
      tomket 30 October 2013 22: 22
      0
      we want to convince that in two years the Russian budget will be covered with a copper basin in the current situation. And instead of thinking about how not to get into the next asshole, we get reports on fire water from Texas. faces that benefit from such a crap carry Miller and his entourage. that’s all we want to convey.
  49. JonnyT
    JonnyT 30 October 2013 22: 13
    0
    let them develop my own shale gas and don’t get into our place ...... and there’s enough rubbish .... the technology is still not perfect .... people are like parasites of the planet ..... all because of wow capitalism .... I am a supporter of the theory of noospheric socialism in general against any barbaric extraction of resources, whether it be at least wood, even uranium
  50. 31231
    31231 30 October 2013 23: 05
    0
    Quote: Romn
    winkiller

    I have an education and practice directly in the oil fields, YES I completely agree that all this hysteria around the production of shale gas is directed against Russia, but correctly said, this is hysteria. This is the same production. Understand that, we live in the era of internal combustion engines and whoever can produce these very hydrocarbons. Most likely, Russia, after 100 years or more, will switch over to such production.
    And people who put cons, you are so kind as to motivate and justify them.


    Well, since you are educated, answer ?!
    1.To release gas and oil from shale pores and lenses is hydraulic fracturing enough? Or do you still need aggressive chemistry for "leaching"?
    2.Don't tell me how many years we have reserves of hydrocarbons produced by the usual method? Because you are looking ahead 100 years. And there already they may become irrelevant.
    3. I hope you heard about underground waters ?! Well, now tell us about the effect of aggressive chemistry injected for hydraulic fracturing and subsequent leaching of shale to these waters?