How much natural gas ( global warming Methane) is leaking from the fracking rock?

We don't even have federal clean water regulations in Canada for them to violate.

And I don't know of any provinces that have any more than general environmental impact regulations. IE, nothing specific about water.

Brian White wrote:

"Proved reserves -- which now stand at the equivalent of 12 years of gas consumption and 3.3 years of oil demand -- represent energy supplies that are extensively charted out and could be tapped under current market conditions. Total recoverable reserves, however, can be far higher."

It's something a few of us have been saying for several years now.  Oil sands are only feasible when prices are above $45 (though progression here probably has that number down to close to $35 now).  Gas hybrids (shalebed methanes for example) have reserves over 100* than our current oil reserves are estimated...as gas is worth  more and more money, we'll be finding it in new places.  Thats alberta only too...Sask and NWT are riddled with potential gas sites.  The idea of running out of gas reserves within any of our lifetime is absurd (short of infinate lifespans)...waiting for oil and gas reserves to 'run out' as an environmental policy is just silly.  It is true that the conventional oils are drying up, but peak oil is a bit of a myth, there is no peak as long as there is money to explore for more.

I posted this on another forum...but I can repeat myself ;)

The 500 milibar pressure region marks the halfway point in the atmosphere (half the atmosphere is below it, the other half is above it).  Over greenland, this mark traditionally sits in the 5km range as low preassure tends to dominate the cold arctic pole.  Recently, the warmer waters have been heating the atmosphere over the arctic pole...this is evidenced by the 500 millibar marker climbing to 5.8 KM over greenland of recent (biggest change since we've recorded these values in 1949).  The higher pressure region over the north pole is playing havoc with two of the most stable patterns in the atmosphere (NOA - North Atlantic Oscillation.  Vikings were aware of and made great use of it). 

Two rather large low preassure regions (one between alasak and russia and the other between iceland and greenland) are a standard part of this pattern.  The increased preassure in the arctic has displaced this pattern, pushing the low between iceland and greenland to the other side of iceland...the end result was one of the nastiest decembers in UK history and a pretty brutal European winter.  The recent snowstorms south of the border (and in Eastern Canada to a lesser degree) are another side effect of the arctic airmass warming.

May sound a bit odd...but the old saying "it's too cold to snow" is incredibly true...not enough warmth = not enough moisture in the air = no snow.  The North American continent is in the range of 3 degrees (celcius) beneath what would be considered 'optimal' snow conditions.  The increased high preassures in the arctic will push arctic cold fronts further south, while warmer wet airmasses (the pineapple express..which isn't just a type of weed apparently...or other 'atmoshperic rivers') are carrying greater volumes of water...the combined effect will be heavy heavy snowstorms for the US, and quite likely frosts in florida becoming more consistent (ironic that global warming actually freezes the largest group of peeps that deny the warming is happening).

Umm...NoDiff....the link you posted doesn't work for me.  And the quote is a bit on the alarmist side, I agree with the majority of our deaths occouring, but not extinction :P

Proponents of the so-called Green Energy Act should try to learn the conections between oil and gas companies, industrial wind turbines and a push to begin widespread fracking production in Ontario.

Just occured to me that I was running this thread together in my head with an earlier and more general one on fracking. But I couldn't find it. Can someone post the link?

Fracking In Quebec

Leaks found in shale gas wells: Que. report

31 were inspected 'and more than half have problems,' says envrionmental expert

Last Updated: Wednesday, January 5, 2011 | 3:53 PM ET

Quebec has already allowed gas exploration in low-lying regions along the St. Lawrence River, where there are deposits of the gas trapped in shale bedrock.

Extracting shale involves blasting water and chemicals under intense pressure into rock formations deep below the Earth's surface to liberate the gas, in a process called "hydraulic fracturing," or fracking.

NEWS: Quebec signals massive hydro-fracking to come

The Canadian Press reports today that, "The (Quebec) provincial government says it's moving cautiously toward allowing energy companies to explore the St. Lawrence River Valley." The Globe and Mail adds that, "Thousands of metres beneath Quebec's fertile and heavily populated St. Lawrence River valley, geologists believe up to 50 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves may be locked in hard shale. The rough preliminary estimate would place the field on a short list of the largest of its kind in Canada."

HYDRO-FRACKING

- "Exploration companies reach the gas through a recent innovation in drilling known as hydraulic fracturing, or 'fracking'. Thousands of litres of water, sand and chemicals are blasted into the rock to break it up and release the gas."

- The Montreal Gazette reports that, "There are big problems with this process, the most alarming one being the danger that underground aquifers can become contaminated. Further, it emits considerable greenhouse gases. And up to 40 per cent of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing make their way back to the earth's surface. There, they must be treated, and disposed of in some cases as hazardous waste."

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

 We also know that governments have been quietly encouraging and fast tracking regulations to allow for massive explotation.

Indeed. Read my two posts right above yours regarding hydro-fracking in Quebec - here's an excerpt from one of my two posts:

NEWS: Quebec signals massive hydro-fracking to come

The Canadian Press reports today that, "The (Quebec) provincial government says it's moving cautiously toward allowing energy companies to explore the St. Lawrence River Valley." The Globe and Mail adds that, "Thousands of metres beneath Quebec's fertile and heavily populated St. Lawrence River valley, geologists believe up to 50 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves may be locked in hard shale. The rough preliminary estimate would place the field on a short list of the largest of its kind in Canada."

Quote:

Environmentalists fret that development of the St Lawrence basin gas deposits would enlarge the province's carbon footprint.

Hate to critisize French environmentalists, but that really seems like a NIMBY arguement...as long as the gas we used is produced elsewhere and the carbon footprint isn't ours, we can feel morally superior, no? I wonder how different their opinions would be if the fracking was happening in the northwest territories and not contributing to their 'provinces footprint'

Though I agree in general...oil/gas for regulatory terms is generally thought of as semi-independant pools. Shalebed methanes deposits aren't independant and are interconnected...just like the groundwater supplies. The current problems in the US highlight this, using our current technology...fracking will effect groundwater supplies in a huge radius. I wonder if mercury and sulphur contaminents exist in the shalebed as it does in other gas formations, contaminating groundwater with mercury doesn't seem the best prospect. Technology needs to come along way before we can extract this safely, and who knows...maybe technology will make it so we no longer need these gas supplies. I really like the NY gov's comment of waiting until he has 'overwhleming evidence'

Quote:

Thousands of metres beneath Quebec's fertile and heavily populated St. Lawrence River valley, geologists believe up to 50 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves may be locked in hard shale. The rough preliminary estimate would place the field on a short list of the largest of its kind in Canada."

Shalebed gas formations are appearing to be quite common...I know it highlights here that it'll be top of a short list for volume, but that short list is so short simply because we haven't had the time to look elsewhere. If Fracking is going to move ahead, I don't see why we'd go under the ground of a heavily populated area that relies on the water that this fracking will very likely effect. If you want to do fracking testing and exploring, go elsewhere.

Good points Brian:

Brian White wrote:

Gas leaking out and up,  Gas leaking out and up will bring stuff with it. (It will have CO2 with it and CO2 desolves in water creating acid which will bring even more stuff up. Various metal ions, for instance, IN THE WATER.

My two chemical concerns is hydrogen sulphide (sulphur is semi natural in gas deposits...sour vs sweet gas is terms based on the gas's sulphur content) and mercury (see alot of it in coal).  Both of these two chemicals can and will seep into ground water and have effects far worse than co2 content.

Unrelated...but check google with a quick search on CO2 capture projects leaking CO2.  Acidic soda water bubbling to the surface is what happens when it leaks

Quote:

Now when gas leaks up, how will it do it? Through fractures in the rock, as a gas? or desolved in water?  I think if they get detectable leaks at the surface, it is  a microscopic view of how big the leak actually is.   Because as it comes up from 2 km or so, it is spreading out all the time.

 I'd really concentrate on this point Brian as you've hit the primary concern on the head...if all the other points equaled 1, this would be the equivelent of 10.  And there is very little if any research done on large amounts of natural gas leaking through groundwaters.

Quote:

Chemicals leaking up with the gas.  There is oil there too, and it and whatever crap they pump down will leak up. 

Water leaking down. What goes up must be replaced by something.  My guess is that there will be a sinking of the water table as it fills the void left by the gas.

For what it's worth...'unrecoverable' ground water is most frequently used to fill back up these holes, especially with fresh water use being a major concern in current oil operations.  That's not to say they don't put chemicals down there to frack in the first place, but the water they refill the hole with isn't too much of a concern in comparrison.  Nor can I see a major concern with the water table lowering, but I can't rule it out.

Quote:

Earth tremmors.  I worked seasonally in the Netherlands and they had earth tremmors around Alkmaar  while I was there.  (Due to gas wells in the area).  So I don't know how big the tremmors get but that is another risk.

I'd ignore this one too.  In Alberta we average some 500ish mini quakes per day that are caused by something similiar, very rarely will they ever register more than a 1 on the richter scale and even rarer that a person will notice it (maybe it drives dogs crazy?).   Not to take away from the amount of energy in these little miniquakes...there's alot...just when we're talking about this much land it's pretty negligable....earthquakes exist on an inconceivable power scale after all.

Quote:

Thats just a few of the risks I can think of.   I know some of you will have investments in exploration so your critical thinking heads are turned off right now.  "Commercial quantities".  Why the hell is it always about doing everything as quickly and as cheaply as possible?

 I would really focus on the risks with contamination/when the gas leaks up more than any other risk.  Gas is never pure (even 'sweet' has it's impurities) and the close relation between this fracking and the ground water has the furthest reaching implications...and when we finally can detect a leak, it's already far spread.

Quote:

Anyone know how much tidal power is produced now?  How come if we are so advanced we are so fucken stupid?

We're not advanced except that in we insist we are, and our stupidity is the only renewable resource this planet has to offer apparently ;)

Policywonk wrote:

I don't know about leaks from the rock itself, but more natural gas production is bound to cause more fugitive methane emissions from pipelines and other infrastructure.

How so? Pipeline and facility infrastructure is designed and built to very high standards. Every weld is x-rayed, ever joint both low pressure tested before lowering in and high pressure tested after completion. Computerised 'pigs' (small vehicles sent through the pipe) record both interior corrosion and pipe wall thickness among other tests.

Fugitive methane emissions are much more likely from sub-surface 'nodule' eruptions in the oceans than from pipeline infrastructure.

Brian White wrote:

My brother had to put a special membrane under his house because he lives in a high radon area.  I guess radon will come up with the natural gas? Its a nobel gas so it doesn't react with anything. It has a half life of only 4 days but turns into lead when it decays.

Because of the 4 day think, I guess the main danger is it coming up in the natural gas, and of it turning to lead in water that leaches up.

Yeah, that 'special membrane' is the same 6mil plastic vapour barrier that is required in frame housing. Other than the potential 'danger' from radon, the National Building Code and its regulating provincial codes require this same vapour barrier under foundations for moisture control.

Radon come up with natural gas? Do you have an ysupporting evidence? How many people have been killed by radon in the past?

Roscoe -

Quote:

The provincially designated  'Drinking Water Officer' has absolute authority to shut down substandard wells, community water systems and municipal infrastructure as well as industry sources of potable water.

Does the designated 'drinking water officer' have any ability to address the industry that's potentially causing the 'substandard wells', or just the absolute authority to shut it down after it's been polluted?

And I beleive Kens is right with Fracking knowledge...it's still relatively knew and barely past what would be considered 'proto-type' in quite a few manners. Not to say the expertise/knowledge isn't available...it just hasn't had the practical experience to really reach a point where we can say we really know what we're doing. When Fracking costs come down 25% or so from initial implementation, then ya...I'd think we'd be able to say we know a decent amount on it atleast.

Under legislation, the Drinking Water Officer, a euphemism for a government department, receives weekly reports containing daily water analysis tests and weekly systemic tests from all regulated facilities  that determine the response.

Private wells that supply only one family unit arissued a permit but are not necessarily controlled. The well owner can have the water tested but mostly nothing happens until an issue surfaces. This is prevalent in unregulated wells that existed prior to the regulations.

The provincial Water Board, in BC at least, controls water licenses to utilise public water resources. Regulation is evolving quite quickly due to not just fracking but also a myriad of other water use demands and public awareness of the issue.

Google it for more information. Since Walkerton, water regulation is very proactive.

Brian White wrote:

So, how do you fracture rock?   You basically explode it, don't you?

How do you know that the rock above is impervious? How do you know an earthquake will not cause a crack or 2  in it?  We had one in Ireland that shook the house even though Ireland doesn't get earthquakes. My mum thought a helicopter was landing on the house. Thats how big it was.

And since then they had them in England, also not an earthquake Zone.  I do concider that "every shale deposit is different" but the problem is that you guys don't.

It is money money money and fuck the risk because we are not taking them. It is the poor fuckers who will be living there in 15 or 50 years who are risking their lives and might have to be evacuated. Now that "salt water  is dense, stuck in tiny pores in the rock and safely trapped underground and cannot move quickly. But once the rock is fracked, it is a different story. Because then it is a giant lake of salt water and the gas desolved in it make it lighter and it will rise. Thousands of times quicker than it could before.   Any comments on that?

Roscoe wrote:

Brian, first of all, consider that every shale gas deposit is different. In geological structure, depth, and distance to the surface water (potable) aquifer.

The concerns with lighting one's tap water on fire in Pennsylvania existed long before the discovery of shale gas (Marcellus field). Pennsylvania's large amounts of lignite coal deposits are responsible for coal gas, not shale gas at shallow depth.

In the western sedimentary basin, the shale gas generally lies in a ~30 m band 3,000 to 3,200 meters below surface. The potable surface water aquifer is considered to be ~300 meters deep. In shale gas formations, the intervening ~3,000 meters consists of impervious shale/basalts. Shale well are at the least, surface cased through the surface water interface and cemented in so that there is no cross contamination between potable surface water and the deep SALT water aquifer/shale gas formations.

'Salt' water is a generic description of the deep, non-potable water that has various minerals dissolved in it.

I don't think any furthur explanation of the fracking process will do anything to lessen the emotional attachment you obviously have for uninformed hyperbole.

Try understanding the dangers posed by climate change on methane nodules beneath the seas. One eruption will make all your doomsday scenarios pale by comparison. We must move forward with technical solutions for rampant emissions Luddite revisionism will simply create a dynamic where survival of the fittest rules the day while less fortunate members of the global community starve.

I agree that the issue needs much more study to find solutions but I don't agree that uninformed hyperbole is of any benefit in understanding the issue.

Roscoe wrote:

Google it for more information. Since Walkerton, water regulation is very proactive.

That's utter horse manure.  I live not all that far from Walkerton.  About 2 years after Walkerton- Brockton, the municipality that includes Walkerton, was on the cusp of approving a massive pig barn until community activists got involved.  That massive 8,000 sow building was going to be built just upstream from the water supply of another community.

Water regulations are NOT made proactive, they were made to look proactive, entirely different things.   Fracking is a much different animal than other gas extraction.  Trying to compare the two is a waste of time.  

It was no accident that in the wake of Walkerton the Ontario government brought in the Nutrient Management Act which actually made it easier to put up massive hog barns on sensitive lands by passing local municipal controls.   They pretended it was about water, when in reality it was about big business and sweetheart deals.   It is no accident that governments are using the same strategy in removing local control to rush through these kinds of energy projects under the cover of being 'green'

Well fracking is a nickname for fracturing.  So it is not an explosion, it is more like extreme pressure and concusive attack by the water.

You will have a hard time finding a list of the chemicals as they are considered proprietary.  You should be able to find what others have found by testing the water though.  Here's a start

2,2-Dibromo-3-Nitrilopropionamide
Bio Clear 1000/Bio Clear 2000/ Bio-Clear 200/BioRid20L/ EC6116A

2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one
X-Cide 207

5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one
X-Cide 207

Acetic Acid
Fe-1A Acidizing Composition/ Packer Inhibitor

Acetic Anhydride
Fe-1A Acidizing Composition

Acetylene
GT&S Inc./ Airco

Alcohol Ethoxylated
C12-16 NE-200

Alkyl benzene sulfonic acid
Tetrolite AW0007/ FR-46

Ammonia (aqueous)
FAW-5

Ammonium Bifluoride
ABF 37%

Ammonium Persulfate
AP Break

Ammonium Bisulfite
Techni-Hib 604/ Fe OXCLEAR/ Packer Inhibitor

Ammonium chloride
Salt Inhibitor

Ammonium Salt (alkylpolyether sulfate)
Tetrolite AW0007

Amorphous silica
TerraProp Plus/ Bituminous Coal Fly Ash ASTM C618

Benzoic Acid
Benzoic Acid

Boric Acid
BC-140/ Unilink 8.5

Boric Oxide
XLW-32

Calcium Chloride
Dowflake

Calcium Oxide
Bituminous Coal Fly Ash ASTM C618

carboxymethylhydroxypropyl guar blend
Unigel CMPHG

Choline Chloride
Clay Treat-2C

Cinnamaldehyde
ENVIROHIB 2001

Citric Acid
Ferrotrol 300L/ IC-100L

Complex polyamine salt
Clay Master-5C

Crystalline Silica: Cristobalite
 

Crystalline Silica: Quartz
Silica Sand/ / Atlas PRC/ Best Sand/ Bituminous Coal Fly Ash ASTM C618

Cupric chloride dihydrate
Ferrotrol 280L

Cured resin
LiteProp 125

Cyclohexanes
CS-2

Dazomet
ICI-3240

Diethylene Glycol
Scaletrol 720/ Scaletrol 7208

d-Limonene

MA-844W

Enzyme
GBL-8X

EO-C7-9-iso-, C8 rich-alcohols
NE-940/ NE-90

EO-C9-11-iso-, C10-rich alcohols
NE-940/ NE-90

Ethoxylated Alcohol
FRW-14/ SAS-2/ Flomax 50/ WFR-3B

Ethyl Acetate
Castle Thrust

Ethyl Alcohol
FAW-5/ Castle Shop Solv/ Dallas Morris

Ethylbenzene
NDL-100/ PARANOX/ Uniflo II

Ethylbenzene
NDL-100/ PARANOX/ Uniflo II

Ethylene Glycol
ENVIROHIB 2001/ ICA-2/ LEB 10X/ Scaletrol
720/ Sceletrol 7208/ CC 300/ Clachek A/ Clachek
LP/ Ironsta II B/ NCL-100/ BC 140/ NCL-100/
Flomax 50/ NCL/ Scalehib 100/ Unihib O/ Unilink 8.5

Formic Acid
ENVIROHIB 2001

Gluconic Acid
Interstate ICA-2

Glutaraldehyde
Alpha 114/Alpha 125/ ICI-150

Glycerol
Bio Sealers

Glycol Ethers
ENVIROHIB 2001/AMPHOAM 75/ PARANOX/ Uniflo II/ Unifoam/ WNE-342LN

Guar Gum
PROGUM 19 GUAR PRODUCT/ Unigel 19XL/ Benchmark Polymer 3400/ WGA-15/ Unigel 5F

Hydrochloric Acid
Hydrochloric Acid (HCL)/ TETRAClean 542/ Muriatic Acid

Hydrochloric Acid 3% - 35%
Hydrochloric Acid 3% - 35%

Isopropanol
AFS 30 Blend/ FAC-1W/ FAC-3W/ MA-844W/ NE-23/ NE-940/ Flomax 50/ Tetrolite AW0007/
FMW25 Foamer/ CS-2

Isopropyl Alcohol
NFS-102/ WFT-9511/ LT-32/ AR-1/ Flomax 50/ NDL-100/ Unibac/ Uniflo II/ Uniflo/ Unihib O/
WNE-342LN

Methanol

AFS 30 Blend/ NE-200/ Activator Superset-W/ CI-14/ FAW-5/ GasFlo/ Inflo-250W/ LT-32/ NE-940/
XLW-32/ Tetrolite AW0007/ FMW25 Foamer/ 40 HTL Corrosion Inhibitor/ NE 100/ HAI-OS Acid
Inhibitor/ Unibac/ NE-90/ Packer Inhibitor

Methyl Alcohol
Clearbreak 400/ Super Surf/ Castle Shop Solv

Methyl Salicylate
Bio Sealers

n-butanol
AirFoam 311

Nitrilotriacetamide
Salt Inhibitor

Phenolic Resin
Atlas PRC

Polyethylene Glycol
NE-940/ EC6116A/ NE-90

Polyethylene Glycol Mixture
Bio Clear 2000/ Bio-Clear 200

Polyoxylalkylene sulfate
FMW25 Foamer

Polysaccharide Blend
GW-3LDF

Potassium Carbonate
BF-7L

Potassium Chloride
Dowflake

Potassium Hydroxide
B-9, pH Increase Buffer/ BXL-2

Propargyl Alcohol
CI-14/ HAI-OS Acid Inhibitor

Propylene Glycol
SAS-2/ WFR-3B

Silica
S-8C, Sand, 100 mesh/ Montmorillnonite clay

Sodium Bicarbonate
K-34

Sodium Bromide
BioRid 20L

Sodium Hydroxide
Caustic Soda/ ICI-3240/ BioRid B-71

Sodium Persulphate
High Perm SW-LB

Sodium Xylene Sulfonate
FAC-2/ FAC-3W

Sulfuric Acid
Sulfuric Acid

Surfactants
AFS-30/ GasFlo/ Inflo-250W

Talc
Adomite Aqua

Tetrakis(hydroxymethyl)phosphonium sulfate
Magnacide 575 Microbiocide

Tetramethyl ammonium Chloride
Clay Treat-3C

Trimethyloctadecylammonium chloride
FAC-1W/ FAC-3W

Fracking isn't a new process. Well have been stimulated by the use of hydrochloric acid to eat at the fissures in the rock and the use of liquid nitrogen to freeze and crack the rock among other techniques.

This new interest if fracking has to do with the tremendous horsepower used and the huge amounts of water consumed. Frac rigs now commonly train up 40,000 horsepower and have a large number of tankers hauling water. Its an expensive business and employs a lot of people.

From my post #35:

 I agree that the issue needs much more study to find solutions but I don't agree that uninformed hyperbole is of any benefit in understanding the issue.

 Ken, I don't know where you get the idea that I said "the process is safe to drinking water". All I've offered is a layman's understanding of the fracturing processes.

 'Drinking water', from the perspective of the water that comes from a regulated authority such as a municipality or community water system is safe in BC. Other provinces may or may not have the same stringent standards, I can only assume so due to federal legislation and regulation. Surface water, or the 'drinking water aquifer' is a much wider subject under the authority of the provincial Water Board.

Kindly provide a quote from my posts that you consider shows my opinion on the matter.

I think I'll try to have a meeting with the area drinking water officer and ask her for info. Also, I know there is a surface water study going on in an area of high drilling and fracking that may be underway.

I live in one of those 'elsewhere' places. The project here is not going to production in the very near future, and probably will not be one of the first to go forward in Canada. But it is all ready.

I'm not into being a guinea pig. That said, I cannot see either Nova Scotia or New Brunswick declining permits for production... not until things go really bad somehwere else first. So 'elsewhere' it probably will be.

I think part of the problem with regulation of fracking is that whatever regulations could possibly be brought to bear, it is up to the state and provincial governments. Who are the most exposed to pressure for going ahead... both pressure from the industry, and the disinclination to stand in the way of the jobs, least of all when the work tends to be in low opportunity regions. The locals dont get many of those jobs- but crumbs are counted.

Searosia wrote:

Roscoe -

Quote:

Fracking isn't a new process. Well have been stimulated by the use of hydrochloric acid to eat at the fissures in the rock and the use of liquid nitrogen to freeze and crack the rock among other techniques.

 

Not sure if I can agree with ya here...hydrochloric acid has been used in alot of wells across varying projects, trying to claim hydrolic fracturuing isn't new because of some past use of hydrochloric acid doesn't seem very genuine. I eat veggies, so hydroponics on the moon isn't new either, right? ;)

I'm not sure you can agree with yourownself. In my quote I mention different fracking techniques only. You are the one conflating these different techniques with 'hydraulic fracturing'.

The concerns with hydraulic fracturing relate to the chemicals used, the amount of water used and the extensiveness of the frac due to the huge amount of power used in the process.

Quote:

This new interest if fracking has to do with the tremendous horsepower used and the huge amounts of water consumed.

Quote:

  For me it has alot more to do with generally unregulated Fracking in NewYork and other American states has had a substantial (12%?) rate of leaks an other issues...the results of these leaks are unknown/untested. Second portion is attempting to do fracking in a heavily populated area, and in an area thats upstream to alot of people as well. Between 1) unknown 2) region chosen....I have a problem supporting fracking. Move this project elsewhere and give the tech a few years to develop...seems the better plan for the time being.

I can't speak to issues in New York or elsewhere. In my area, the extent of the shale gas plays encompass roughly 50% uninhabited bush and 50% farmland of varying degrees of usefulness from marginal scrub to fertile grain growing. At present, the water use by industry is of some concern as we have literally thousands of wells.

Industry is partnering with public facilities to create usable water from treated sewage and such but the demand for water is huge. We have lots of water but this may not always be the case.