Alternative Energies
See other Alternative Energies Articles
Title: Steam Fracking in Cuba?
Source:
Havana Times
URL Source: http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=108891
Published: Jan 27, 2015
Author: Rogelio Manuel Diaz Moreno
Post Date: 2015-01-27 10:11:33 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 3758
Comments: 15
Graphic: wikipedia.org HAVANA TIMES — Not long ago, I wrote an article on the alarming possibility that someone in Cuba could decide to implement fracking techniques in Cuba. At the time, I had no idea how quickly these concerns would become more real. Hydraulic fracturing or “fracking”, as we know, is a technique developed to stimulate oil wells with declining productivity. Implemented chiefly in the United States, it consists in injecting a high-pressure mixture of water and other substances into the deep subsoil. This way, the oil that refuses to come out the easy way is forced out of the ground. Environmentalists have identified many problems that stem from this technique: it pollutes water reserves, consumes high quantities of this precious liquid and causes seismic movements by shifting plates. Its widespread use, true, has allowed for a temporary increase in the extraction of crude and the cheapening of oil barrels. Some countries whose economies are based chiefly on oil exports (such as Russia and Venezuela) have had a very tough time thanks to this drop in prices. The leaders of these countries have even accused the US of using this technique as a means of destabilizing their systems, and our press has gladly reproduced such views. As I wrote above, I had speculated about what would happen if a foreign investor approached CUPET, Cuba’s oil company, with a proposal to implement fracking methods in the country. Shortly afterwards, Cuban newspapers published an article that almost confirms my fears. As it turns out, they are now applying a technique in Boca de Jaruco which appears to be a close relative of fracking. The Boca de Jaruco deposit is one of the oldest in the country. The press explains that, recently, a team of Russian, Chinese and Cuban experts drilled new wells and injected high-pressure water vapor into them. Expert Juan Benito Hernandez Titan tells those interested in the matter that this method reduces the viscosity of the liquid fuel and the oil gushes out of its own (or they can extract it more easily, at least). Engineer Andrey Brebenov says that this is the ideal place for this technique. Maybe I’m completely ignorant when it comes to this, but it seems to me this is something very similar to fracking. The main difference is that they are injecting steam instead of pressurized water. Is that enough to avoid most of the inconveniences associated to fracking? Of course, I have no idea. What I imagine is that they’re not injecting a few liters of steam. It must be a fair quantity in cubic meters, and at extremely high pressures, for the technique to yield any results. What we are talking about, therefore, is a few tons of water. Is this not to the detriment of other people’s water needs? That high-pressure steam must be injected into the subsoil “several times a year,” according to the article. I wonder whether that isn’t as likely to cause an earthquake as a high-pressure water injection. Boca de Jaruco is located 25 miles east of the capital, Havana, which is considered “heritage of humanity” and is now one of the seven wonder cities of the world. If I were Eusebio Leal, I would be worried about a tremor that could well bring down two or three city blocks in the old town, caused by that steam fracking method. If I lived in any of those city blocks in Old Havana, I would be a hell of a lot more worried. Perhaps there is no such danger, but I would like for honest experts to clearly explain the characteristics of this process, so that I can make my own opinion about it, contrasting opinions from several sources, not only the government and foreign entrepreneurs interested in exploiting the deposit. The most ironic part is that, to produce all of that steam, they have to put the water in a cauldron and heat it up with a large fire, and the fire will likely be lit using oil. Burning oil above to get at the oil below, aren’t these engineers something?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Willie Green (#0)
Yes, yes you are.
Fracking has been going on for many decades, its the horizontal drilling tech which is new. You should educate yourself a little before forming opinions, and get both sides. Seems you just automatically believe the anti business agenda without much critical thinking.
As an engineer who has closely followed Energy issues for 40+ years, I am quite familiar with the various technologies available for producing energy, and evaluating their relative advantages and disadvantages.
"Some people march to a different drummer — and some people polka."
Sorry then, my comment was directed at the author of this article, who apparently doesn't understand the issues, yet that doesn't stop them from writing the hit piece. What are your personal thoughts about fracking?
While fracking has legitimate application in remote locations, I also think the industry deceptively minimizes the hazards in more populous regions. By "hazards" I'm refering to both increased geologic instability (earthquakes) as well as contamination of drinking water supplies.
"Some people march to a different drummer — and some people polka."
Please post the scientific evidence that supports your contentions.
KGS links frequent earthquakes to fracking process
"Some people march to a different drummer — and some people polka."
To be fair, their IS increased earthquakes due to fracking it seems. HOWEVER, when people think of earthquakes, they think of major events, not the smaller ground settling ones that occur with fracking. Saying 'Earthquake' gets people panicked, and if the emotions of the gullible can be manipulated, they will do so. The anti business left leaves no trick unused.
Thanks. Now for the water contamination claim?
This is a quote from your link: "When you hear about earthquakes in Kansas, the word "fracking" usually follows. While there hasn't been a proven link between the two, some of our state's earthquake experts believe the shaking is likely a result of part of the fracking process. More waste-water injections means more earthquakes, according the Kansas Geological Survey." Belief and evidence are two drastically different things. "Governor Sam Brownback's office put together a task force to study earthquakes, but last fall it said there was no link to injection wells." It seems that the Gov's task force didn't find any evidence either. Do either of you have other sources of evidence? As for the water contaimination claims as far as I recall even the EPA says that has not been shown to be true.
Water pollution from fracking confirmed in multiple states Drillers Silence Fracking Claims With Sealed Settlements "Some people march to a different drummer — and some people polka."
Hydraulic fracturing linked to earthquakes in Ohio - Seismological Society of America (PDF) So while there are scientific reasons for distinguishing between actual "fracking" and wastewater injection in disposal wells, you would not have the increased proliferation of disposal wells without fracking enabling the increased drilling activity to begin with.
"Some people march to a different drummer — and some people polka."
You kidding, right? Hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as “fracking,” does not appear to be linked to the increased rate of magnitude 3 and larger earthquakes." What part of that statement is ambiguous?
No, it's deceitful to claim fracking is the cause. It would be much more honest for those that oppose fracking to say what they really mean, namely, that we need to stop drilling for oil and natural gas not just fracking. Not to do that is what is really dishonest.
It would, so they won't.
"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts
Maybe I’m completely ignorant when it comes to this, .............................
#2. To: Willie Green (#0)
#3. To: Dead Culture Watch (#2)
#4. To: Willie Green (#3)
#5. To: Dead Culture Watch (#4)
What are your personal thoughts about fracking?
#6. To: Willie Green (#5)
While fracking has legitimate application in remote locations, I also think the industry deceptively minimizes the hazards in more populous regions. By "hazards" I'm refering to both increased geologic instability (earthquakes) as well as contamination of drinking water supplies.
#7. To: SOSO (#6)
#8. To: SOSO (#6)
(Edited)
#9. To: Willie Green (#7)
#10. To: Willie Green, Dead Culture Watch (#7)
KGS links frequent earthquakes to fracking process
#11. To: SOSO (#9)
Thanks. Now for the water contamination claim?
No Contamination
It is disingenuous and deceitful to define "fracking" so narrowly because fracking cannot be performed without the drilling and wastewater disposal that accompanies it.
“There has never been a case of groundwater contamination as a result of hydraulic fracturing,” Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, a trade group representing the oil and gas industry, said in an April 23 interview with Bloomberg Radio.
Such claims rest in part on viewing fracking in isolation from the drilling that precedes it and the disposal of wastewater that follows. Defined narrowly, fracking is the step in the middle in which water and chemicals are forced underground to break up rock and free gas and oil. Regulators in Pennsylvania, however, have linked gas and oil drilling with about 120 cases of water contamination from 2009 to 2012, according to documents obtained through a state right-to-know request. The documents don’t say if it was the fracking stage that was to blame, as opposed to faulty drilling or waste disposal.
#12. To: SOSO (#10)
Governor Sam Brownback's office put together a task force to study earthquakes, but last fall it said there was no link to injection wells."
It seems that the Gov's task force didn't find any evidence either. Preliminary Findings
A team of USGS scientists led by Bill Ellsworth analyzed changes in the rate of earthquake occurrence using large USGS databases of earthquakes recorded since 1970. The increase in seismicity has been found to coincide with the injection of wastewater in deep disposal wells in several locations, including Colorado, Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Ohio. Much of this wastewater is a byproduct of oil and gas production and is routinely disposed of by injection into wells specifically designed and approved for this purpose.
Hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as “fracking,” does not appear to be linked to the increased rate of magnitude 3 and larger earthquakes.
#13. To: Willie Green (#12)
So while there are scientific reasons for distinguishing between actual "fracking" and wastewater injection in disposal wells, you would not have the increased proliferation of disposal wells without fracking enabling the increased drilling activity to begin with.
#14. To: Willie Green (#11)
It is disingenuous and deceitful to define "fracking" so narrowly because fracking cannot be performed without the drilling and wastewater disposal that accompanies it.
#15. To: SOSO (#14)
It would be much more honest for those that oppose fracking to say what they really mean, namely, that we need to stop drilling for oil and natural gas not just fracking.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]