Technology Focus
Whoever thought the “drilling process” of “fracking” would be making headlines? In a tour of hydraulic-fracturing operations, ironically in a fossil-fuel-powered vehicle, Yoko Ono was trying to draw attention to the horrors of the process. Of course, no one on the tour actually lived there, owns property there, or has a degree in hydrology, geology, or petroleum engineering. I also found out, after 30 years in the industry, that I am a driller, because every article I read describes hydraulic fracturing as a drilling process. Nothing against my drilling brethren, but I have prided myself over the years in being a completion engineer; and fracturing is just one part of the completion process. Who knows, maybe a prominent mainstream-media editor will read this editorial and realize that they have stated it wrong. Maybe they will read the papers and realize that there is a lot of research and smart technical work that goes into developing these unconventional resources and that no one in the industry would design a fracture to contaminate our groundwater (if they even could).
It is sad but accurate that most people who are against hydraulic fracturing are speaking from emotion and fear. Recently, I went with a group of experts to Washington to speak to the Bureau of Land Management and the White House about the technical details of hydraulic fracturing and wellbore integrity. Except for a few within the bureau, most with whom we met and who will develop our energy policies do not understand hydraulic fracturing. They listened intently, told us they wanted to do the right thing for the country, and thanked us for coming to speak to them. But, just imagine how many people, both good and bad, come to talk to them about hydraulic fracturing. In a way, they are placed in the tough situation of “whom do I believe?”
The United States desperately needs a coherent energy policy. As part of a national energy policy, more regulatory oversight will inevitably come. The best scenario for the energy industry is open-minded regulatory development that relies on existing knowledge from the industry. In years past, the industry largely automatically opposed regulations; instead, the industry should be helping shape regulations and ensuring that regulations are developed in coordination with industry input. Suggestions for how this can be accomplished include commenting on notices of proposed rulemaking, inviting regulators to industry conferences, and providing industry experts to regulatory bodies on a fellowship basis. The consequences of not influencing fracturing regulations are that regulations that eventually result may be harsher than necessary, unduly burdensome, more costly, and ultimately result in less oil and gas reserves for our country.
Meanwhile, let us continue what we have accomplished. We are pulling the US nearer to energy independence, creating domestic jobs, and learning new techniques and practices. Let us stay open to new ideas and be safe while doing it.
Recommended additional reading at OnePetro: www.onepetro.org.
SPE 152621 Case History of the Fayetteville Shale Completions by J. Harpel, Southwestern Energy, et al.
SPE 152509 A New Approach for Numerical Modeling of Hydraulic-Fracturing Propagation in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs by R. Keshavarzi, Islamic Azad University, et al.
SPE 155779 Hydraulic-Fracturing Design and Well-Production Results in the Eagle Ford Shale: One Operator’s Perspective by Lucas W. Bazan, Bazan Consulting, et al.
SPE 162916 Comparison of Hydraulic-Fracturing Fluids in Multistage-Fracture-Stimulated Horizontal Wells in the Pembina Cardium Formation by Meghan Klein, Sproule Associates, et al.
