Marcellus Shale

Lehigh Valley Marcellus Shale Events: A Study in Contrasts

Lou MickleyLou Mickley
Northern Wayne Property Owners Association
Delaware River Basin resident

Over the past week, Northampton County, Pennsylvania has played host to several events focusing on Marcellus Shale development in the state. As a citizen who seeks to educate myself as much as I can about this opportunity I decided to attend Shale Gas Exposed where Tony Ingraffea spoke, a few days later I attended a presentation by former Department of Environmental Protection Secretary, John Hanger.  It was a study in contrasts to say the least.

Marcellus Shale Formation in Pennsylvania

Before I give you a rundown of what happened at those events, let me first share a little information about natural gas and the Lehigh Valley, seen in yellow on the map.

The Lehigh Valley is located in the Delaware River Basin, so it is currently under DRBC’s de facto moratorium on natural gas development. Once the DRBC votes on their regulations, the area still is not in the heart of Marcellus Shale production. If you look at the map, you can see the green representing the Marcellus Shale formation actually stops just outside the Lehigh Valley with the economically viable shale 40-50 miles to the north

What the Lehigh Valley is rich in, while not the Marcellus Shale, is consumption of natural gas. In 2011, UGI reported record numbers of households in Lehigh and Northampton Counties converting to natural gas.

 In Lehigh and Northampton counties, 78,536 homes had natural gas as the primary heat source in 2010, making it the No. 1 heat source in the Valley, according to U.S. Census estimates. Oil was a close second as the primary fuel used to heat 77,668 homes, and electric was third with 74,405 homes.

So while we may not have development in our backyards, what happens in those of our neighbors to the north and west will have an impact on our region.  I also have friends with Lehigh Valley based businesses (insurance, fabrication, welding) that are currently growing their businesses by taking advantage of the increased business environment brought to the state from natural gas production.

We Don’t Want You to Produce It, But Love Those Lower Heating Bills

The first event I attended was Shale Gas Exposed – a conference sponsored by the Sierra Club and Berks Gas Truth. This conference, held  in Bethlehem, was targeted at individuals opposed to natural gas development, so naturally it began with a screening of Gasland.

Friday Night at the Movies

I’ve now seen Gasland three times, and to be honest, it’s getting a little old. Many of the claims in the film include old data, technology, processes, and frankly are not applicable in the current state of development.  It has also been thoroughly debunked by Energy In Depth and America’s Natural Gas Association (ANGA), where you can learn how claims such “Cheney pushed through the Energy Policy Act of 2005” are entirely false. In actuality, the Act was supported by nearly three-quarters of the U.S. Senate, including then-Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. In the U.S. House of Representatives vote count, 75 Democrats joined 200 Republicans in supporting the final bill.

For most, the most theatrical part of the movie is the lighting of a kitchen faucet on fire due to methane.  Josh Fox didn’t mention that has occurred in Colorado (and in Pennsylvania)  long before natural gas development and Gasland. And, when his lie was exposed on video, he worked overtime to get it taken off the web but it’s still there for all to see!

Another comment in the movie that hit me was “What took a million years for mother nature to create can be gone in a few hours with heavy equipment.”  I agree and believe I am a steward of my Pennsylvania land.  I suppose, though, the guy in the movie who made this statement never saw a shopping mall, highway, housing development, or wind/solar farm being put in either, something we are all too familiar with in the Lehigh Valley.

After the movie showing there was an attempt to have a Skype call with Josh Fox (who was in Dimock based on the day’s EPA ruling, probably chomping at the bit to get more content for Gasland 2).   The Skype video call had all kinds of technical challenges and, overall, did not work out well.  After the call, some thought they had seen “the expert”.  I felt I was listening to a “story teller”.

There was also a small session focusing on concerns for abandoned oil and gas wells and efforts to locate and tag them via GPS. I applaud the efforts to find 100+ years of wells, but the group apparently believed it would be cheaper for companies to lose the bond than plug the well.  Recent legislation in Pennsylvania has just upped the amount of the cap bond, though, and at this phase of development there is plenty of time–perhaps 30-50 years– to raise it even further before companies begin considering abandoning their wells.

Saturday Brings Out the “Experts”

Dr. Tony  Ingraffea from Cornell (who grew up in Easton, PA) spoke and delivered pretty much the same speech as he always does essentially directing his attack on “unconventional” development to appear as an expert on rock fracturing (which he is) but, also, on anything and everything having to do with natural gas (which he is not).

Ingraffea admitted hydraulic fracturing isn’t a new technology but argued that, since 2006, a combination of directional drilling, high fracturing fluid volumes, slickwater and multiple wells per pad had created a new danger.  His premise for this assertion was there hasn’t been sufficient time to determine long term impacts.  He didn’t stop there of course, predictably he launched into still other aspects of the industry (e.g., emissions reporting by DEP) that are clearly far beyond his expertise as a geologist.  Noticeable by all the entities that debunked his earlier methane emissions study including DOE, Carnegie Mellon and many others.  Tony also took cheap shots at Pennsylvania government and natural gas companies by saying  they will “drill everywhere because they can.”  He showed a well map from inside the perimeter of Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) airport property and implied our region would develop the same way.

Ingraffea argued that the number of casings installed by operators didn’t matter because there is still leakage between the outer-most casing and the surrounding rock due to imperfect cementing processes.  He cited statistics from offshore wells to assert “all wells leak over time,” which wasn’t very convincing.  He also claimed failure rates were not getting any better and recklessly extrapolated to suggest there would ultimately be as many as 6,000 “failed” wells leaking in Pennsylvania.  His analysis, of course, assumed there would never be any repairs, or ongoing technology innovation, which is a bit out-of-touch.  Then he went on to mention Schlumberger has just released a new cement component, FUTUR that will bond with any leaking gases to self -heal leaks.  This guy was all over the map

The professor then proceeded to launch into a broadside attack on natural gas development that ventured far outside his areas of expertise. He depicted a 9-well pad, and somewhere out west, a 16-well pad with all kinds of equipment scattered about and asserted  all kinds of impacts to the area from this development, as if it was permanent not temporary.  It’s a very subtle form of demagoguery that sells well with his followers.  He also asserted natural gas was not so clean due to the CO2 impacts but a reader of this blog will know his work with Robert Howarth on this issue has been widely discredited.

Overall, Ingraffea’s presentation and the entire event were less than impressive.  Their basic pitch was that government is in collusion with the natural gas industry, as if there couldn’t be any legitimate position but their own. As an illustration, a Sierra Club leader said “I’ve seen where they cut out 100 yard wide swath through the forest to lay connector pipes.”  He had obviously never seen what one looks like after the pipe is buried and the vegetation quickly grows back, supporting incredible amounts of wildlife as reported in this Ithaca Journal piece.  He likewise must not have seen fire breaks or electric power lines being run either.   Ingraffea, incredibly, stated natural gas is not safe and the only way to reduce methane in atmosphere is to stop using it altogether, as if that were possible or wouldn’t result in worse impacts. Ironically, as he ended his presentation, he proposed no immediate energy alternatives.

The Other Side of the Table

A few days later I had the opportunity to attend a session called The Truth, and Nothing but the Truth, about America’s Energy Choices and Marcellus Shale Gas,  event at nearby Moravian College.  John Hanger, former Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection under the Rendell administration, spoke at the event.  He gave essentially the same speech as he did here and talked about different energy options.  He’s a big wind supporter, but said ALL forms of energy  have impact issues.  He identified various environmental issues associated with natural gas including water supply concerns (withdrawals, handling waste water, contaminants), operational issues that can occur (spills, leaks, fire responses) and truck traffic (congestion, road damage, unsafe trucks) among others. He then discussed the regulatory approach to these issues and how they had been addressed.  He commented on DEP programs to regulate  water withdrawals (2008), waste water disposal (2010), operational standards (2011), mandatory disclosure of fluids, the buffers from streams,  cementing standards and enforcement, and increased permit fees to cover some of the plugging issues.  He stated Pennsylvania has the toughest inspections and enforcement regime in the nation.  He also noted there are 9.48 billion gallons of water extracted per day in the state and natural gas development only uses, 1.9 million gallons/day or less than 1% of the total extraction, making the water extraction volume argument a complete non-issue.

Hanger said there were three remaining issues (air emissions, methane leakage and methane migration) and all are being addressed.  He observed EPA had proposed new air emissions standards, there were conflicting opinions on methane leakage from Cornell University and the methane migration issue had resulted in similar confusion with Duke going one way and Penn State another. He also noted low natural gas prices were creating $500/year  in heating savings for Pennsylvania residents making the median income of $40,000 net and that was real money and a tangible benefit.  He said natural gas prevented broad energy shock in 2011 and tempered the economic recession.  He argued we will never have zero risk from any energy source.   He answered many tough (and ridiculous) questions from the anti-natural gas crowd and pointed out wind and solar will not provide baseline power sources since there are days they don’t produce, and before large scale use, in many cases, more power lines will need to be run through the countryside and communities to transport electric from renewable sources to local consumers.

All in all, it was quite a study in contrasts.  Ingraffea is a showman who starts off by demonstrating his expertise in rock fracturing and then softly but steadily leads off into the political world, making a whole series of essentially NIMBY arguments as if he were the expert on them all.  Hanger, who comes from the political world in some respect, did just the opposite.  He was quick to say what he didn’t know and argue for the science over the political.  His pitch, basically, was to leave the ideological spin out of it and deal with the facts by making reasonable assessments of risk and acting accordingly.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter!

  • Marcellus Shale Events in Lehigh Valley Offer A study In Contrasts - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
    Posted at 10:14 pm, March 28, 2012 Reply

    […] Marcellus Shale Events in Lehigh Valley Offer A study In Contrasts Lou Mickley reports on two Lehigh Valley events that contrasts differing perspectives on Marcellus Shale development: Lehigh Valley Marcellus Shale Events: A Study in Contrasts | Energy In Depth – Northeast Marce… […]

  • Victor Furman
    Posted at 2:25 am, March 29, 2012 Reply

    Nice Job Lou:

    Awhile back I had caught Ingraffea in the hallway of a school in Horseheads NY, I asked him how he thought there would be well drilling in the state of NY as like what he described to the audience earlier mentioning to him that our geology is not flat like Oklahoma & Texas making it impossible to put 40 wells in every square mile… He agreed I was right with that thought. I then asked him what his motive was for speaking out against an industry in which he taught many students to ready for, He said he didn’t expect this area to be drilled and he lives here. I then asked him if the Park Foundation paid him to present he said Yes. This to me reflects that once again money is the motivation something the pro-drill crowd is accused of but rarely denies. Tony is a member of the 1/4 acre club and would make more money being against drilling then for it with his credentials supplementing his retirement income. He lives on Mitchell Street in Ithaca and he uses steam produced by natural gas to heat his home.

  • Dean Marshall
    Posted at 1:10 pm, March 29, 2012 Reply

    1.9 million gals./day of water use? Hangar lied! SRBC just approved 3 million gal/day withdrawal for one site alone near Berwick, Pa!

    • Bryant La Tourette
      Posted at 9:09 pm, March 29, 2012 Reply

      Wow 3 million gals/day……..OH Snap that’s a lot of money for my bud who has the withdrawal site! Man you talk about a ROI! It is $30,000 dollars for a 3 year withdrawal permit. At 3 million gallons a day and .o1 a gallon the payback is done in a day! Now you tell me where in PA other than a royalty and lease you can make that kind of money! This might be an opportunity for drug dealers to stop dealing! Amazing!

    • Steve Rupert
      Posted at 3:36 pm, April 02, 2012 Reply

      Approved UP to 3 million gal per day. They don’t take that every day for 365 days per year. Check your facts before you accuse someone of lying. And all the withdrawls are calulated to be sure there is no harm to any of the aquatic life of downstream uses. How little you understand the process. You must also believe everything Ingraffea says too. He’s an expert in how cement fractures in construction, not in hydraulic fracturing. BIG DIFFERENCE.

      • tony ingraffea
        Posted at 10:04 am, May 08, 2012 Reply

        Hi Steve,

        Just for the record on my credentials in hydraulic fracturing:

        Background, Publications, and Projects Related to
        Hydraulic Fracturing and Gas Pipeline Safety
        American Rock Mechanics Association/Foundation
        • Founding Member
        • Member of the Board, 1999-2003
        International Society for Rock Mechanics
        Society of Petroleum Engineers

        Bold Italics indicates student or post-doctoral fellow of Prof. Ingraffea
        Bold indicates O&G industry scientist/engineer

        National Research Council/U.S. National Committee for Rock Mechanics 1978 Award for Outstanding Research in Rock Mechanics at the Doctoral Level

        National Research Council/U. S. National Committee for Rock Mechanics 1991 Award for Applied Research for the paper, “Simulation of Hydraulic Fracture Propagation in Poroelastic Rock with Application to Stress Measurement Techniques”, co-authored by TJ Boone, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 28, 1, 1-14, 1991.

        International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics 1994 Significant Paper Award: One of Five Significant Papers in the category of Computational/Analytical Applications in the past 20 years, “A Numerical Procedure for Simulation of Hydraulically-driven Fracture Propagation in Poroelastic Media”, co-authored with TJ Boone, Int. J. Num. Analyt. Meth. in Geomech., 14, 1, 1990.

        Principal Author of American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice: API 1102 – Steel Pipelines Crossing Railroads and Highways

        1. Ingraffea AR, Heuze FE. Finite Element Models for Rock Fracture Mechanics. Int. J. Num. Analyt. Meth. Geomech., 4, 1980, 25 – 43.
        2. Ingraffea AR, Gunsallus KL, Beech JF, Nelson PP. A Short – Rod Based System for Fracture Toughness Testing of Rock. ASTM STP 855: Chevron – Notched Specimens: Testing and Stress Analysis, 1984, 152 – 166.
        3. Boone TJ, Wawrzynek P, Ingraffea AR. Simulation of the Fracture Process in Rock with Application to Hydro-fracturing. Int. J. Rock Mech. Mining Sciences, 23, 3, 1986, 255 – 265.
        4. Boone TJ, Wawrzynek P, Ingraffea, AR. Finite Element Modeling of Fracture Propagation in Orthotropic Materials. Eng. Fract. Mech., 26, 2, 1987, 185 – 201.
        5. Ingraffea AR, Barry A. Analytical Study of Transmission, Distribution Lines under Railroads. Pipe Line Industry, October 1989, 34 – 39.
        6. Boone TJ, Ingraffea AR. A Numerical Procedure for Simulation of Hydraulically – Driven Fracture Propagation in Poroelastic Media. Int. J. Num. Analyt. Meth. Geomech., 14, 1990, 27-47.
        7. Boone TJ, Ingraffea AR, Roegiers J – C. Visualization of Hydraulically- Driven Fracture Propagation in Poroelastic Media Using a Super – Workstation. J. Petroleum Tech, June 1989, 574 – 580.
        8. Heuze F, Shaffer RJ, Ingraffea AR, Nilson RH. Propagation of Fluid-driven fractures in Jointed Rock. Part 1 – Development and Validation of Methods of Analysis. Int. J. Rock Mech. Mining Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 27, 4, 243 – 254, 1990.
        9. Boone TJ, Ingraffea AR, Roegiers JC. Simulation of Hydraulic Fracture Propagation in Poroelastic Rock with Application to Stress Measurement Techniques. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 28, 1, 1-14, 1991.
        10. Sousa J, Carter B, Ingraffea AR. Numerical Simulation of 3D Hydraulic Fracture Using Newtonian and Power-Law Fluids. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 30, 7, 1265-1271, 1993.
        11. Shah KR, Carter BJ, Ingraffea AR. Hydraulic Fracturing Simulation in Parallel Computing Environment. Int. J. Rock Mech. & Min. Sci., 34, 3-4, Paper 282, 1997.
        12. Hwang CG, Wawrzynek, PA, Ingraffea AR. On the virtual crack extension method for calculating the derivatives of energy release rates for a 3D planar crack of arbitrary shape under mode-I loading. Eng. Fract. Mech., 68:925-947, 2001.
        13. Hwang CG, Ingraffea AR. Shape prediction and stability analysis of Mode-I planar cracks. Eng. Fract. Mech., 71:1751-1777, 2004.
        14. Hwang CG, Ingraffea AR. Virtual crack extension method for calculating the second order derivatives of energy release rates for multiply cracked systems. Eng. Fract. Mech., 74:1468-1487, 2007.

        1. Ingraffea A R. Numerical Modelling of Fracture Propagation. Chapter 4 in Rock Fracture Mechanics, H. P. Rossmanith, editor, CISM Courses and lectures No. 275, International Center for Mechanical Sciences, Udine, Italy, Springer – Verlag, Wien – New York, 1983, pp. 151 – 208.
        2. Ingraffea A R. Fracture Propagation in Rock. Chapter 12 in Mechanics of Geomaterials, Z. P. Bazant, editor, John Wiley & Sons, Limited, 1985.
        3. Ingraffea A R. Theory of Crack Initiation and Propagation in Rock. Chapter 3 in Rock Fracture Mechanics, B. Atkinson, editor, Academic Press, Inc., 1987.
        4. Ingraffea A R, Boone T J, Swenson D V. Computer Simulation of Fracture Processes. Chapter 22 in Comprehensive Rock Engineering, J. Hudson, Editor-in-Chief, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1993.
        5. Carter B J, Desroches J, Ingraffea A R, Wawrzynek P A. Simulating Fully 3D Hydraulic Fracturing. In Modeling in Geomechanics, Ed. Zaman, Booker, and Gioda, Wiley Publishers, pp 525-557, 2000.

        1. Ingraffea, A. R., Heuze, F., Ko, H. – Y., “Fracture Propagation in Rock: Laboratory Tests and Finite Element Analysis,” Proc. 17th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Snowbird, Utah, 1976, 5C4 – 1, 5C4 – 6.
        2. Ingraffea, AR., Heuze, F, Gerstle, WH., “An Analysis of Discrete Fracture Propagation in Rock Loaded in Compression,” Proc. 18th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Keystone, Colorado, 1977, 2A4-1, 2A4-7.
        3. Ingraffea, AR., “On Discrete Fracture Propagation in Rock Loaded in Compression,” Proc. of the First International Conference on Numerical Methods in Fracture Mechanics, A. R. Luxmoore and D.R.J. Owen, eds., Swansea, 1978, 235 – 248.
        4. Ingraffea, AR., “The Strength – Ratio Effect in the Fracture of Rock Structures,” Proc. 20th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Austin, Texas, 1979, 153 – 169.
        5. Ingraffea, AR., Saouma, V., Blandford, G., Chappell, J., “Crack Propagation in Rock and Concrete Structures”, Proc. International Symposium on Absorbed Specific Energy, C. Sih, E. Sgoboly, and H. Gillemot, Eds., Budapest, Septem¬ber, 1980, 207 – 221.
        6. Ingraffea, A. R., Ko, H. – Y., “Determination of Fracture Parameters for Rock”, Proc. of First USA – Greece Symposium on Mixed Mode Crack Propagation, National Technical University, Athens, Greece, August 18 – 22, 1980, G. C. Sih and P. S. Theocaris, Eds., Sijthoff & Noordhoff, Alphen aan den Rijn, the Nether¬lands, 1981, 349 – 365.
        7. Shaffer, R., Thorpe, R., Ingraffea, A. R., Heuze, F., “Numerical and Physical Studies of Fluid – Driven Fracture Propagation in Jointed Rock,” Proc. of the 25th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Evanston, Illinois, June, 1984, 113 – 126.
        8. Ingraffea, AR., Wawrzynek, PA., “Modeling of the Fracture Process Zone in Rock,” Rock Masses: Modeling of Underground Openings, Probability of Slope Failure, Fracture of Intact Rock, C. H. Dowding, Ed., ASCE, publisher, 1985, 151 – 157.
        9. Shaffer, R. J., Ingraffea, A. R., Heuze, F. E., “An Improved Model for Fluid – Driven Cracks in Jointed Rock,” Proc. of the 26th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Rapid City, South Dakota, June, 1985.
        10. Heuze, F. E., Shaffer, R. J., Ingraffea, A. R., “A Coupled Model for Fluid Driven Fractures,” Coupled Processes Associated with Nuclear Waste Repositories. Ching – Fu Tsang, Ed., Academic Press, 1987, 655 – 662.
        11. Shaffer, R., Heuze, F., Thorpe, R., Ingraffea, A. R., Nilson, R., “Models of Quasi – Static and Dynamic Fluid – Driven Fracturing in Jointed Rocks,” Proc. of the 6th Int. Congress on Rock Mech., Montreal, Canada, G. Herget and S. Vongpaisal, eds, A.A. Balkema/Rotterdam, 1987.
        12. Thiercelin, M., Roegiers, JC., Boone, T.J., Ingraffea, AR.,” An Investigation of the Material Parameters that Govern Behavior of Fractures Approaching Rock Interfaces,” Proc. of the 6th Intl. Congress on Rock Mech. Mon¬treal, Canada, G. Herget and S. Vongpaisal, Eds., A.A. Balkema/Rotterdam 1987, 263 – 269.
        13. Wawrzynek, P., Boone, T., and Ingraffea, AR., “Efficient Techniques for Modeling the Fracture Process Zone in Rock and Concrete,” Proc. of the Fourth lnternational Conference on Numerical Methods in Fracture Mechanics, March 23-27, 1987, San Antonio, Texas, A. R. Luxmoore, D. R. J. Owen, Y. S. Rajapakse, and M. F. Kanninen, Eds., 473 – 482.
        14. Shaffer, R. J., Heuze, F. E., Thorpe, R. K. Ingraffea, A. R. and Nilson, R. H., “Models of Quasi-Static and Dynamic Fluid- Driven Fracturing in Jointed Rocks,” Proc. of the Fourth International Conference on Numerical Methods in Fracture Me¬chanics, March 23-27, 1987, San Antonio, Texas, A. R. Luxmoore, D. R. J. Owen, Y. S. Rajapakse, and M. F. Kanninen, Eds, 505 – 518.
        15. Boone, TJ. and lngraffea, AR.. “Simulation of the Fracture Process at Rock lnterfaces,” Proc. of the Fourth International Conference on Numerical Methods in Fracture Mechanics, March 23 – 27, 1987, San Antonio, Texas, A. R. Luxmoore, D. R. J. Owen, Y. P. S. Rajapakse, and M. F. Kanninen, Eds, 519 – 531.
        16. Ingraffea, AR., Boone, TJ, “Simulation of Hydraulic Fracture Propagation in Poroelastic Rock,” Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, G. Swoboda, editor, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1988, 95 – 105.
        17. Boone, TJ, Ingraffea, AR., “Simulation of Fracture Propagation in Poroelastic Materials with Application to the Measurement of Fracture Parameters,” Fracture Toughness and Fracture Energy: Test Methods for Concrete and Rock, Mihashi, H., Takahashi, H., Wittman, F., Eds., A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1989, 325 – 344.
        18. Boone TJ, Ingraffea, AR., “An Investigation of Poroelastic Effects Related to Hydraulic Fracture Propagation in Rock and Stress Measurement Techniques,” Proc. of the 30th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics. A. W. Khair, Ed., A. A. Balkema, Publisher, Rotterdam, 1989, 73- 80.
        19. Sousa JL., Martha LF, Wawrzynek PA. and Ingraffea, AR., “Simulation of Non – Planar Crack Propagation in Three – Dimensional Structures in Concrete and Rock,” Fracture of Concrete and Rock: Recent Developments, S. P., Shah, S.E. Swartz, B. Barr, Eds., Elsevier Science Publishing, New York, N.Y., 1989, 254 – 264.
        20. Morales H, Brady B, Ingraffea AR, “Three-Dimensional Analysis and Visualization of the Wellbore and the Fracturing Process in Inclined Wells”, Paper SPE25889, Society of Petroleum Engineers Joint Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting and Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, CO, April 12-14, 1993.
        21. Carter B, Wawrzynek P, Ingraffea, AR, “Hydraulic Fracture from the Interface of a Cased Wellbore”, Rock Mechanics: Models and Measurements Challenges from Industry, Proceedings of the First North American Rock Mechanics Symposium, P. Nelson, S. Laubach, Eds., A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 185-192, 1994.
        22. Carter B, Ingraffea AR, “Effects of Casing and Interface Behavior on Hydraulic Fracture”, Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, H. Siriwardane and M. Zaman, Eds., A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 2, 1561-1566, 1994.
        23. Carter BJ, Ingraffea, AR., and Engelder, T., 2001, Natural hydraulic fracturing in bedded sediments: International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics: Annual Meeting, Tuscon Arizona. p. 1-10.
        24. TD O’Rourke, KB Burnham, BM New, HE. Stewart, AR. Ingraffea, “Practice and Performance Record for Pipelines at Railroad and Highway Crossings”, Pipeline Crossings, J. P. Castronovo, Ed., ASCE, New York, 248-262, 1991.
        25. TD O’Rourke, HE Stewart, AR Ingraffea, S El Gharbawy, “Influence of Soil-Pipeline Stiffness on Bending Stresses from Surface Loading”, Pipeline Crossings, J. P. Castronovo, Ed., ASCE, New York, 406-417, 1991.

        1. “An Investigation into Mixed – Mode Fracture Propagation in Rock,” National Science Foundation Research Initiation Grant ENG78 – 05402, 4/78 – 3/80, $25,000, Principal Investigator.
        2. “Laboratory Testing of the Crack – at – an – Interface Problem,” Sandia National Laboratories Contract No. 13 – 5038, 5/79 – 5/80, $42,000, Principal Investigator.
        3. “Research in Fracture Mechanics”, Exxon Education Foundation, 9/89-9/92, $30,000, Principal Investigator.
        4. “Numerical Investigations into Crack Propagation in Rock,” National Science Foundation Grant CEE – 8316730, 6/1/84 – 5/30/86, $150,000. Principal Investigator
        5. “Influence of Perforations Upon Subsequent Hydraulic Fracturing,” Digital Equipment Corp. and Dowell Schlumberger, 1/88 – 12/96, $448,000. Principal Investigator.
        6. “Computational Simulation of Hydrofracturing”, NSF CISE Postdoctoral Associate Award for Dr. K. Shah. 11/95-10/97, $46,200. Principal Investigator.
        7. “Evaluation of Cased and Uncased Gas Distribution and Transmission Piping Under Railroads and Highways”, Gas Research Institute, 11/86 – 1/94, $ 3,602,035. Co-Principal Investigator. T. D. O’Rourke and H. Stewart, Co-Principal Investigators.
        8. “An IGERT Training Program In Sustainable Energy Recovery From The Earth-Education At The Intersection Of Geosciences And Engineering”. July 2010-June 2015, National Science Foundation, $1,137,047. Co-Principal Investigator. Prof. Jeff Tester, Principal Investigator, Profs. Terry Jordan, Paulette Clancy, Co-PI’s.

        • Tom
          Posted at 6:12 pm, May 08, 2012 Reply

          Gee, Tony, you didn’t have to publish a book! I would have stipulated to your qualifications on rock fracturing, just not on the truck traffic and all the other non-rock stuff on which you opine. Best wishes!

          • tony ingraffea
            Posted at 2:45 pm, May 11, 2012

            Hi Tom

            My response was specifically directed to Steve, who had written:

            “He’s an expert in how cement fractures in construction, not in hydraulic fracturing. BIG DIFFERENCE.”

            On issue at a time.



Post A Comment