New DOE study on Hydraulic Fracturing doesn't Contaminate Aquifers

The National Energy Technology Laboratory in Pittsburgh just released a study on hydraulic fracturing and its impact or should I say, lack of impact, on drinking water aquifers.  The study indicates that after a year of monitoring eight Marcellus Shale wells, that drilling fluids did not migrate into aquifers.

The year long study included the seismic monitoring of eight wells with one injected with four different tracers at different stages of the hydraulic fracturing process.  The tracers were included in the drilling fluids that were over 8,000 feet below the surface at the gas well bore.    No tracers were detected at a monitoring zone at a depth of 5,000 feet.  They monitored a separate series of older gas wells that are about 3,000 feet above the Marcellus to see if the fracturing fluid migrated up to them, and none did.

This will go along way to support the industry, but additional analyses will continue, particularly for those much shallower wells.  I have read many of the studies and reports of hydraulic fracturing. Many of the facts are ignored by numerous groups, who are anti-petroleum industry.  Here is a list of subjects that should be discussed:

• Most potable aquifers are within less than 1,000 feet of the surface (typically less than 500 feet); most shale gas producers are below 5,000 feet.
• The deeper the aquifers, the more dissolved metals and minerals in the aquifer, making the cost of stripping these metals and minerals out of the water, too costly (at the moment).
• Shale has natural gas incorporated within its molecular lattice, but can only be released through hydraulic fracturing.
• Shale has natural gas incorporated within its molecular lattice if the total organic content (TOC) is high enough.  Not all shale produces natural gas.  Exxon tried hydraulic fracturing in a large acreage package in Poland and found nothing economic.  It has left the Polish shale play.
• Shale is formed from platy clay particles (produced by a process of weathering of granites, metamorphic rocks and the re-weathering of shales) that drop out of solution in quiet waters.  These platy particles align and begin to form shales as increased pressure and temperature from burial due to the creation of overlying sediments, squeeze the water out of the molecular lattice.  The point of all this is to think of shale as a series of asphalt shingle roofs stacked on top of each other.  The thicker the shale, the more layers of asphalt shingles.  This is what makes shale impervious and impermeable; making any kind of fluids penetrating the formation incredibly difficult. 
• Shale tends to become plastic-like with increased temperature and depth, up to the point that the both begin to metamorphose the molecular structure into slate (which is brittle).   
• There is never any discussion by the writers about the pressure used in hydraulic fracturing versus the overburden pressure that must be overcome. 

At the end of the day, there are thousands of feet of overlying sediments exerting a lithostatic pressure that exceeds the pressure employed in hydraulic fracturing.  Thereby limiting the propagation of fractures in the upward direction.

Green Homes

One of my passions is to come up with an inexpensive, recyclable, sustainable, off-the-grid, energy efficient house.  I believe that part of that passion has been identified.  I had heard about containers homes.  What most people conjure up are images of mobile homes.  But, that couldn’t be more incorrect.  There are some amazing homes that have been constructed from this ubiquitous, steel, seafaring container.  As an example, if you were to Google Benjamin Garcia Saxe’s $40,000 container home (I have provided both the photo and the link below), you may have a new appreciation for container homes.  I know that I did.  This is a 100 square meter home, or 1,076 square feet.  The house is light and airy, sturdy and easily and quickly constructed.  I contacted him about blueprints and material lists.  He responded to my email, saying that he was swamped with enquiries about the house and decided to make the blueprints and materials list affordable and available for $950. 

Because of my fascination, with these homes, my 14 year-old son, Edmund, constructed a container home for me out of Lego entitled, “Thinking outside of the box.”  I believe that he captured the essence of what is possible with this building material.  See the photos.

Why do I like these homes?

1. Containers cost $2,000-$3,000 per container (40 feet long, 8 feet wide, 8 feet high) at the port.  In my case, that is at the Port of Duluth, MN.
2. Containers can be arranged in any configuration in 2-D space or 3-D space.
3. Containers are rigid (aluminum or steel).
4. They can be easily, quickly and cheaply retro-fitted with wiring, floors, plumbing, etc. before transporting to their end location.
5. They are recyclable.
6. They are instant housing.

 What kind of home would some configuration of containers make?

1. Emergency shelters for hurricane, tornados, and storms of any kind.
2. Summer vacation residences – without the maintenance.
3. Winter vacation residences – without the maintenance.
4. Full-time residences.
5. Apartments.
6. Hotels.
7. Camps for military and businesses in remote locations.

These structures are indestructible and quick to assemble.  At the end of the day, they assemble like Legos.

If one were to add photovoltaic panels ($10k), a geothermal system ($20k), a garden roof-top (<$1k), a field leach system ($5k-$20k) and a cistern ($5k), one would be completely off the grid and dominantly self-sufficient.  To double the plan of the above home (2,152 square feet) and then add the above systems, brings the cost of the home to approximately $150k before land acquisition.   

Now the real thing.  Just click on the link for a larger picture.

http://www.homedsgn.com/2011/06/16/containers-of-hope-a-40000-home-by-benjamin-garcia-saxe/containers-of-hope-07/

containers-of-hope-07

Another source of container homes constructed around the world is:

"Container Atlas - A Practical Guide to Container Architecture," Slawik, Bergmann, Buchmeier, Tinney, Gestalten.

Transport Oil by Train or Pipeline - which is safer?

With years passing by on the Keystone XL pipeline approval, transportation of oil from North Dakota or Alberta has increased.  According to the Association of American Railroads, the U.S. rail traffic for week ending June 29, 2013, was 13,417 carloads of petroleum and petroleum products.  This was up 26.6% versus the same period of 2012.  On a year-to-date basis, the number of carloads of petroleum and petroleum products shipped was 355,933 (6 months), up 47.9% versus 2012.  This is a staggering increase in a single year.

https://www.aar.org/newsandevents/Freight-Rail-Traffic/Documents/2013-07-03-railtraffic.pdf

With the increase in barrels transported by rail, risks increase.  We have seen two accidents this year.  The first accident occurred in northwestern Minnesota on March 27, 2013.  A mile-long Canadian Pacific train from Alberta derailed, spilling 20,000 to 30,000 gallons (not barrels – or 475 to 715 barrels) of crude.  There were no injuries.

The second occurred early Saturday morning.  The Montreal Main & Atlantic Railway Inc., a unit of U.S. rail operator Rail World Inc., was transporting 72 oil-filled tanker cars from North Dakota.  Mysteriously, the tanker cars came loose and traveled 7 miles downhill before derailing in Lac-Megantic, Quebec.  There, about 5 of tanker cars exploded.  There are 13 confirmed deaths and up to 50 people still missing, according to the Associated Press.

This raises the question and debate again, should we build the Keystone XL pipeline or not?  The Keystone XL pipeline is designed to carry 830,000 barrels of oil per day.  A small tanker car holds 300 barrels and a large tanker car holds 600 barrels.  That represents 2,766 small tanker cars or 1,383 large tanker cars – every day, to move what the Keystone XL pipeline will move.  On a yearly basis, those numbers range from 1.010 million tanker cars to 0.505 million tanker cars.

According to the Department of Transportation, the number of miles of crude oil pipelines in the U.S. has declined from a peak of 177,224 miles in 1995 to 148, 622 miles in 2009 (latest statistics), or a 16% decrease.  During the same period, the number of intercity total ton-miles of crude oil and petroleum products increased from 601,100 million in 1995 to 629,900 in 2008, or 4.8% increase.

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_oil_pipeline_profile.html

The point here is, that while the number of miles of crude oil pipelines is down, even when including the Cushing connections, the number of tanker cars is up substantially and likely to go higher, if we don't approve the Keystone XL pipeline.  

In looking for data regarding the safety merits of both modes of transportation for crude oil and other petroleum products, I found a research report by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research published in June 2013.  The study goes into more depth, but it does show the incidents per billion ton-miles for each of the modes of transport.  I backtracked through the report to locate the sources of data, and I found it to be voluminous.  Clearly, there is an issue with disseminating this rich information to the public because of its complexity and volume.  This is unfortunate, as press reports, regardless of the media they report to, must be written on a tight timeline.  The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research report is only 10 pages in length and should be read by all reporters and anyone interested in these data. 

They concluded that pipelines are the safest modes of transportation.