Marcellus Shale

The article by Daniel J. Soeder and William M. Kappel presents a general overview of what the Marcellus Shale and its estimated productivity, and the potential and current problems associated with water usage. This natural gas resource extends from Southern New York to West Virginia, and Eastern Ohio. This fine-grained shale was estimated to produce 50 TCF (trillion cubic feet) of natural gas by Terry Engelder and Gary Lash, but the estimate was later increased to 363 TCF by the Chesapeake Energy Corporation. To obtain more from this resource, “higher permeability flow paths” need to be made, and is usually done through a process called “hydrofrac” or “stimulation”. Essentially, water creates pressure, which fractures the rock and allows the gas to flow more freely toward the well.
This process requires significant amounts of water and supplies. Not only is finding a reliable water supply source in important, but carefully, and effectively removing contaminants can be exceedingly difficult. The hdyrofrac-treatments pose threats to local communities, both to residential areas and to watersheds, cause erosion on roads, and disposing of the waste water properly. Various solutions and alternatives are being considered.

Viscosity-the resistance to flow
Proppant – “sized particles mixed with fracturing fluid to hold fractures open”

A vital aspect of this article is the question of water supply and disposal. “Many state agencies have been cautious about granting permits” (Soeder 5) because answers to the process of de-contaminating the water after fracturing hasn’t been taken care of yet. Any compromise to safe drinking water is grounds for serious questioning. I read in the New York Times in December, here is the link to the article http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/business/energy-environment/08water.html
that New York has already violated laws concerning water quality; the Marcellus Shale may only add to that current problem. The article stated that in hydrofrac fluid, chemical additives are less than 0.5 percent by volume (Soeder 4) and with the larger hydrofrac treatments, a 3 million gallon job could yield “15,000 gallons of chemicals in the waste” (Soeder 4).
Hmm...I’m not sure if I necessarily question the validity or reliability of the sources, but I did notice that Daniel Soeder cited himself from a paper he wrote in 1988, as well as P.E. Potter and a couple of other authors for the final report in 1982 for the U.S. Department of Energy. In Soeder’s paper in 1988, he cites the same final report from Potter, so I wonder if these are perhaps outdated in some way. Being unfamiliar with geology, I’m unsure how constant some information is year to year.

How big is the Barnett Shale in Fort Worth? I couldn’t quite find the size, but in this article it states that it takes “up to 3 million gallons” of water to hydrofrac, but in Robert Francis’ article, he states that Barnett used 248 million gallons.

What did the Chesepeake Energy Corporation do differently to provide an estimate so much higher than the two professors?

The ‘effectiveness of standard wastewater treatments on these fluids is not well understood” (5)…Not effective, or successful, makes sense to me, but curious how and why exactly aren’t they understood?